This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-198
entitled 'Law Enforcement: Better Performance Measures Needed to Assess
Results of Justice's Office of Science and Technology' which was
released on December 09, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Honorable Jane Harman, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
November 2003:
Law Enforcement:
Better Performance Measures Needed to Assess Results of Justice's
Office of Science and Technology:
GAO-04-198:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-198, a report to the Honorable Jane Harman, House
of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The mission of the Office of Science & Technology (OST), within the
Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ), is to
improve the safety and effectiveness of technology used by federal,
state, and local law enforcement and other public safety agencies.
Through NIJ, OST funds programs in forensic sciences, crime
prevention, and standards and testing. To support these programs,
Congress increased funding for OST from $13.2 million in 1995 to
$204.2 million in 2003 (in constant 2002 dollars). GAO reviewed (1)
the growth in OST’s budgetary resources and the changes in OST’s
program responsibilities, (2) the types of products OST delivers and
the methods used for delivering them; and (3) how well OST’s efforts
to measure the success of its programs in achieving intended results
meet applicable requirements.
What GAO Found:
OST's budgetary resources grew significantly in recent years, along
with the range of its program responsibilities. From fiscal year 1995
through fiscal year 2003, OST received over $1 billion through
Department of Justice appropriations and the reimbursement of funds
from other federal agencies in exchange for OST’s agreement to
administer these agencies' projects. Of the over $1 billion that OST
received, approximately $749 million, or 72 percent, was either
directed to specific recipients or projects by public law, subject to
guidance in congressional committee reports, or directed through
reimbursable agreements. At the same time that spending expanded,
OST’s program responsibilities have changed—from primarily law
enforcement and corrections to broader public safety technology.
OST delivers three groups of products through various methods. The
three groups include (1) information dissemination and technical
assistance; (2) the application, evaluation, and demonstration of
existing and new technologies for field users; and (3) technology
research and development. According to OST, as of April 2003, it has
delivered 945 products since its inception. Furthermore, OST
identified an additional 500 products associated with ongoing awards.
OST makes its products available through a variety of methods, such as
posting information on its Web site and providing research prototypes
to field users for testing and evaluation.
OST has been unable to fully assess its performance in achieving its
goals as required by applicable criteria because it does not use
outcome measures to assess the extent to which it achieves the
intended results of its programs. OST’s current measures primarily
track outputs, the goods and services produced, or in some cases OST
uses intermediate measures, which is a step toward developing outcome
measures. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 provides
that federal agencies measure or assess the results of each program
activity. While developing outcome measures for the types of
activities undertaken by OST is difficult, we have previously reported
on various strategies that can be used to develop outcome measures,
or, at least intermediate measures, for similar types of activities.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Director of NIJ reassess the measures used to
evaluate OST’s progress toward achieving its goals and to better focus
on outcome measures to assess results where possible. In those cases
where measuring outcomes is, after careful consideration, deemed
infeasible, we recommend developing appropriate intermediate measures
that will help to discern program effectiveness.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-198.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click
on the link above. For more information, contact Laurie Ekstrand at
(202) 512-8777 or Ekstrandl@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
OST's Budgetary Resources Have Grown and Program Responsibilities Have
Changed:
OST Delivers Three Groups of Products Through Various Methods:
OST's Performance Measurement Efforts Do Not Fully Meet Requirements:
Conclusions:
Recommendation:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Bugetary Resources for OST's Programs in Current Year
Dollars:
Appendix III: OST's 10 Categories of Products:
Appendix IV: OST's Portfolio Areas:
Appendix V: OST's Operations:
Appendix VI: OST's Goals in its Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan and
GAO's Assessment:
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Flow of Budgetary Resources to OST's Programs:
Table 2: Budgetary Resources in Constant 2002 Dollars for OST's
Programs by NIJ Allocation, Fiscal Years 1995-2003:
Table 3: Budgetary Resources in Constant 2002 Dollars for OST's
Investigative and Forensic Sciences by NIJ Allocation, Fiscal Years
1995-2003:
Table 4: GAO's Assessment of the 42 Measures OST Developed for 11 of
Its Initiatives:
Table 5: OST's Outside Studies of Its Initiatives:
Table 6: Budgetary Resources in Current Dollars for OST's Programs by
NIJ Allocation, Fiscal Years 1995-2003:
Table 7: GAO's Groupings of OST's Categories of Products and Examples
of Each Category:
Table 8: Total Funds Awarded for the Operations, Maintenance, and
Technical Support of OST's 10 Technology Centers, Fiscal Years 1995-
2003:
Table 9: OST's Technology Centers, Their Affiliated Partners, and the
Amounts Awarded to Support the Centers:
Table 10: OST's Performance Goals, Initiatives, and Measures for Fiscal
Year 2004, and GAO's Assessment:
Figures:
Figure 1: OST's Budgetary Resources in Constant 2002 Dollars, Fiscal
Years 1995-2003:
Figure 2: GAO's Grouping of OST's 945 Delivered Products, as of April
2003:
Figure 3: OST's Organizational Structure:
Figure 4: OST's 10 Technology Centers and the Regions They Serve:
Figure 5: Stakeholders and Customers that Contribute to the Setting of
OST's priorities:
Abbreviations:
AAG: Assistant Attorney General:
CITA: Crime Identification Technology Act:
CLIP: Crime Lab Improvement Program:
CODIS: Combined DNA Index System:
COPS: Community-Oriented Policing Services:
DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid:
DOD: Department of Defense:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
LLEBG: Local Law Enforcement Block Grant:
NFSIA: Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act:
NIJ: National Institute of Justice:
NLECTC: National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers:
OJP: Office of Justice Programs:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OST: Office of Science and Technology:
R&D: research and development:
SSLEA: State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
November 14, 2003:
The Honorable Jane Harman:
House of Representatives:
Dear Ms. Harman:
To enhance public safety and bring criminals to justice, it is
important for law enforcement officials to benefit from the latest
advances in science and technology. The mission of the Office of
Science and Technology (OST), within the Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice (NIJ), is to improve the safety and
effectiveness of technology used by federal, state, and local law
enforcement, corrections, and other public safety agencies. OST awards
funds to research and develop more effective technology and improve
access to technology in a wide range of areas. For example, OST funds
programs in the areas of crime prevention technologies, investigative
and forensic sciences, and electronic crime. Examples of products
resulting from OST's programs include a guide on school safety, an
evaluation of police protective gear, a prototype for ground-
penetrating radar, and a report on gunshot residue detection and
interpretation. To support OST's programs, Congress has significantly
increased its funding, from $13.2 million in fiscal year 1995 to $204.2
million in fiscal year 2003 (in constant 2002 dollars).
In response to your interest about whether OST's programs are achieving
their intended results, we reviewed certain aspects of OST's
operations. Specifically, this report assesses (1) the growth in OST's
budgetary resources, from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 2003, and
changes in OST's program responsibilities; (2) what types of products
OST delivers and the methods used to deliver these products to public
safety agencies; and (3) how well OST's efforts to measure the success
of its programs in achieving intended results meet applicable
requirements.
To address our objectives, we collected and analyzed relevant data and
reports and interviewed OST officials and NIJ officials, including NIJ
executive staff and the Assistant NIJ Director for OST, division
chiefs, and managers. We also collected data and interviewed officials
at OST technology centers in Rockville, Maryland; and El Segundo and
San Diego, California. Appendix I contains detailed information on the
scope and methodology we used for this assessment. We conducted this
engagement in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
OST has grown in terms of both budgetary resources and the range of
programs it operates.[Footnote 1] From fiscal year 1995 through fiscal
year 2003, OST received over $1 billion through several Department of
Justice (Justice) appropriations accounts as well as the reimbursement
of funds from other federal agencies in exchange for OST's agreement to
administer these agencies' projects. Of the over $1 billion that OST
has received, approximately $749.7 million, or about 72 percent, was
either directed for specific recipients or projects by public law,
subject to guidance in congressional committee reports designating
specific recipients or projects, or directed from reimbursable
agreements with other federal agencies for OST to manage their
projects. At the same time that spending has expanded, OST's program
responsibilities have changed--from primarily law enforcement and
corrections technologies to broader public safety technologies,
including safe school initiatives.
OST delivers three groups of products through various methods. The
three groups include (1) information dissemination and technical
assistance; (2) the application, evaluation, and demonstration of
existing and new technologies for field users; and (3) technology
research and development (R&D). According to OST, as of April 2003, it
had delivered 945 products since its inception. Furthermore, OST
identified an additional 500 products associated with ongoing awards.
Depending on its research agenda, OST makes its products available
through a variety of methods, such as posting information on its Web
site and providing research prototypes to field users for testing and
evaluation. While OST does not directly commercialize the results of
its technology R&D, it does help link prototypes with potential
developers.
OST has been unable to fully assess its performance in achieving its
goals because it does not measure the extent to which it achieves the
intended outcomes of its programs. OST's current measures primarily
track outputs (goods and services produced). In some cases OST uses
intermediate measures--a step closer to developing outcome measures--
but has not taken this step toward better measurement in many cases
where it may be possible to do so. The Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) provides, among other things, that federal
agencies establish performance measures, including, the assessment of
relevant outputs and outcomes of each program activity. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance suggests that, to the extent
possible, federal agencies measure or assess the extent to which they
are achieving the intended outcomes of their programs. As part of
Justice's efforts to comply with GPRA, OST established goals and
developed output, and some intermediate, measures to track its
progress. While developing outcome measures for the types of activities
undertaken by OST is difficult, we have previously reported on various
strategies that can be used to develop outcome measures or at least
intermediate measures for activities that are similar to those in OST's
portfolio of programs.
So that OST does all that is possible to assess whether its programs
are achieving their intended results, we are recommending that the
Attorney General instruct the Director of NIJ to reassess OST's
performance measures to better focus on outcome measures. In commenting
on a draft of this report, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for
Justice's Office of Justice Programs (OJP) agreed with our
recommendation. The AAG made additional comments concerning the
challenge of developing outcome measures for R&D activities, OST's
overall performance record, and the amount of OST's funds that are
directed for specific recipients and projects. We respond to these
comments in the Agency Comments and Evaluation section of the report.
OJP also provided technical comments, which have been incorporated in
this report where appropriate.
Background:
The Office of Science and Technology (OST) was created in fiscal year
1995 following a long history of science and technology efforts within
the National Institute of Justice (NIJ).[Footnote 2] NIJ is a component
of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), a Justice agency that, among
other things, provides assistance to state, tribal, and local
governments. In establishing OST's objectives and allocating funds for
OST's programs, the NIJ Director considers the priorities of many
stakeholders, including the President, Congress, Justice, and state and
local law enforcement and public safety agencies.
OST Established in Statute by the Homeland Security Act of 2002:
In November 2002, Congress established OST and its mission and duties
in statute as part of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (the
Act).[Footnote 3] The Act specified OST's mission "to serve as the
national focal point for work on law enforcement technology; and to
carry out programs that, through the provision of equipment, training,
and technical assistance, improve the safety and effectiveness of law
enforcement technology and improve access to such technology by
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies." The Act defined
the term "law enforcement technology" to include "investigative and
forensic technologies, corrections technologies, and technologies that
support the judicial process."[Footnote 4] The Act also specified OST's
duties to include the following, among others:
* establishing and maintaining advisory groups to assess federal,
state, and local technology needs;
* establishing and maintaining performance standards, and testing,
evaluating, certifying, validating, and marketing products that conform
to those standards;
* carrying out research, development, testing, evaluation, and cost-
benefit analysis of certain technologies; and:
* developing and disseminating technical assistance and training
materials.
OST's Operations:
OST's operations have multiple levels of internal organization and
multiple kinds of external partners. (For a more detailed description
of OST's operations, see app. V.) OST's multiple levels of organization
include a Washington, D.C., office and a network of 10 technology
centers that provide technical assistance to OST's customers around the
country.[Footnote 5] To fulfill its mission, OST also collaborates with
entities such as the Departments of Defense and Energy and public and
private laboratories to take advantage of established technical
expertise and resources.
NIJ has three main types of awards for funding OST's programs: grants,
interagency agreements, and cooperative agreements.[Footnote 6]
* Grants are generally awarded annually by NIJ to state and local
agencies or private organizations for a specific product and amount.
* Interagency agreements are used by NIJ for creating partnerships with
federal agencies.
* Cooperative agreements are a type of NIJ grant to nonfederal entities
that prescribes a higher level of monitoring and federal involvement.
NIJ also uses memorandums of understanding (MOU) to coordinate programs
and projects between agencies. The MOUs specify the roles,
responsibilities, and funding amounts to be provided by participating
agencies. Through NIJ, OST can provide supplemental funding to
interagency and cooperative agreements that may be used to contract for
special projects.
OST awards are administered by managers at its Washington, D.C., office
who have final oversight and management responsibility. These managers
may delegate some responsibility to another federal R&D agency
receiving the award. In March 2003, 21 managers were responsible for
overseeing 336 active awards totaling $636 million.
Guidance has been established for measuring the performance of
government operations. To assist Justice to follow the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),[Footnote 7] OST establishes
goals and develops performance measures to track its progress. In
addition, in May 2002, the White House Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and Office of Science and Technology Policy issued a memorandum
setting forth R&D investment criteria that departments and agencies
should implement. The investment criteria require an explanation of why
the investment is important, how funds will be allocated to ensure
quality, and how well the investment is performing. According to the
memorandum, program managers must define appropriate outcome measures,
and milestones that can be used to track progress toward goals and
assess whether funding should be enhanced or redirected. The memorandum
encourages federal R&D agencies to make the processes they use to
satisfy GPRA consistent with these criteria.
OST's Budgetary Resources Have Grown and Program Responsibilities Have
Changed:
OST's budgetary resources have grown and the range of program
responsibilities has changed. Budgetary resources for OST increased
significantly, from $13.2 million in fiscal year 1995 to $204.2 million
in fiscal year 2003 (in constant 2002 dollars), totaling over $1
billion.[Footnote 8] This increase can be attributed to the
introduction of new allocations and large increases for existing ones.
The NIJ director decides how to allocate certain appropriated funds to
the various NIJ components, including OST. About $749.7 million, or 72
percent, of OST's total budgetary resources was either directed to
specific recipients or projects by public law, subject to congressional
committee report guidance designating specific recipients or projects,
or directed from the reimbursements from other Justice and federal
agencies in exchange for OST managing their projects. Corresponding
with the designation of spending for specific recipients and projects,
the range of OST's programs changed, from primarily law enforcement and
corrections to include broader public safety technology R&D, such as
for improving school safety and combating terrorism.
Budgetary Resources for OST's Programs:
OST's budgetary resources[Footnote 9] include both funding received via
Justice appropriations accounts as well as reimbursements from other
Justice and federal agencies. First, OST receives funding via three
appropriations accounts enacted in the appropriations law for the
Justice Department. From these appropriations accounts, OJP allocates
amounts to NIJ. The NIJ director suballocates part of the NIJ funds for
OST programs. In addition, OST receives reimbursements from other
Justice and federal agencies in exchange for OST's management of
specific projects of those agencies, such as ballistic imaging
evaluation for the FBI. Table 1 lists NIJ allocations from the Justice
appropriations accounts that go toward funding OST programs.
Table 1: Flow of Budgetary Resources to OST's Programs:
Justice appropriation accounts:
Justice Assistance; NIJ's allocations
to OST programs: NIJ Base: NIJ uses base funds for research,
development, demonstration, and dissemination activities.
NIJ's allocations to OST programs: Counterterrorism R&D:[A]
NIJ sponsors research, development, and evaluations and tools to help
criminal justice and public safety agencies deal with critical
incidents, including terrorist acts.
Justice appropriation accounts: State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance (SLLEA); NIJ's allocations to OST programs: Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG): NIJ allots its R&D portion of LLEBG
funds to OST to assist local units of government to identify, select,
develop, modernize, and purchase new technologies for law enforcement
use.
Justice appropriation accounts: Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS); NIJ's allocations to OST programs: Crime Identification
Technology Act (CITA): CITA activities include upgrading and
integrating national, state, and local criminal justice record,
identification systems, and funding multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency
communications systems, and improving forensic science capabilities,
including DNA analysis.
NIJ's allocations to OST programs: Safe
Schools Technology R&D: OST's Safe Schools Technology R&D program uses
three methods for improving school safety: needs assessments and
development of technical partners, technology R&D, and technical
assistance.
NIJ's allocations to OST programs:
Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP): CLIP activities include providing
equipment, supplies, training, and technical assistance to state and
local crime laboratories to establish or expand their capabilities and
capacities to perform various types of forensic analyses.
NIJ's allocations to OST programs: DNA
Backlog Reduction: This seeks to eliminate public crime laboratories'
backlogs of DNA evidence as soon as possible.
NIJ's allocations to OST programs: Paul
Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act (NFSIA): This
provides funding to state and local laboratories to improve the
quality, timeliness, and credibility of forensic science services for
criminal justice purposes.
NIJ's allocations to OST programs: Reimbursements of funds from other
Justice Department and federal agencies' accounts: Reimbursable
activities have included ballistic imaging evaluation from the FBI, a
study of communications interoperability (the ability to communicate
across different public safety agencies and jurisdictions)
requirements from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and
death investigator guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
Source: GAO analysis of OST data.
[A] In fiscal year 1999, OST's counterterrorism R&D programs received
funding through the Justice Department's Counterterrorism Fund
appropriation account.
[End of table]
OST's budgetary resources almost quadrupled from fiscal year 1995 to
1996, increased 70 percent from fiscal year 1999 to 2000, and increased
63 percent from fiscal year 2001 to 2002. While resources decreased 24
percent from fiscal year 2002 to 2003, OST's fiscal year 2003 level
still represents a 157 percent increase over the fiscal year 1999
level.
Figure 1: OST's Budgetary Resources in Constant 2002 Dollars, Fiscal
Years 1995-2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: Figures do not include funding for management and administration
expenses, such as salaries.
The $103.4 million increase from fiscal year 2001 to 2002 is largely
attributable to increases of $55.6 million in reimbursable agreements,
$24.3 million in DNA Backlog Reduction allocation, and $15.4 million in
the Crime Lab Improvement Program allocation.
The sharp decrease in OST's budgetary resources from fiscal years 2002
to 2003 is largely attributed to the elimination of counterterrorism
R&D allocation (from $45.3 million in fiscal year 2002), which moved to
the Department of Homeland Security, and a decrease of $26.2 million
from reimbursable agreements.
[End of figure]
Certain Allocations Contributed to the Increase in Budgetary Resources
since 1995:
Our analysis of OST's yearly budgetary resources from fiscal year 1995
to fiscal year 2003 showed that the overall increase can be attributed
to the introduction of new NIJ allocations and large increases for
existing ones. The NIJ allocations that contributed to the overall
increase in OST's budgetary resources are most notably the Crime Lab
Improvement Program, DNA Backlog Reduction, Safe Schools Technology
R&D, and Counterterrorism R&D allocations. Table 2 shows figures for
all years in constant 2002 dollars.
All dollar figures used in this narrative are in constant 2002 dollars,
except as noted otherwise.
Fiscal years 1995-1996: The $39.4 million (298 percent) increase from
$13.2 million to $52.6 million primarily came from two NIJ allocations
totaling $35.4 million.
* Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) initiated with $22.2
million.
* Reimbursement of funds increased by $13.2 million (471 percent) from
$2.8 million to $16.0 million.
Fiscal years 1999-2000: The $55.6 million (70 percent) increase from
$79.5 million to $135.1 million primarily came from three NIJ
allocations totaling $51.7 million.
* DNA Backlog Reduction initiated with $15.6 million.
* Safe Schools Technology R&D allocation initiated with $15.6
million.[Footnote 10]
* Counterterrorism R&D increased by $20.5 million (193 percent) from
$10.6 million to $31.1 million.
Fiscal years 2001-2002: The $103.4 million (63 percent) increase from
$164.6 million to $268.0 million primarily came from three NIJ
allocations totaling $95.3 million.
* Reimbursement of funds increased by $55.6 million (209 percent) from
$26.6 million to $82.2 million.
* DNA Backlog Reduction increased by $24.3 million (227 percent) from
$10.7 million to $35 million.
* Crime Lab Improvement Program increased by $15.4 million (79 percent)
from $19.6 million to $35 million.
To be consistent with the report narrative and to show trends, figures
in table 2 are in constant 2002 dollars. A table with the figures in
current dollars can be found in appendix II.
Table 2: Budgetary Resources in Constant 2002 Dollars for OST's
Programs by NIJ Allocation, Fiscal Years 1995-2003:
Dollars in millions:
NIJ allocations for OST programs: NIJ Base; 1995:
10.4; 1996: 13.3; 1997: 12.7; 1998: 14.8; 1999: 20.3; 2000: 19.1; 2001:
29.0; 2002: 27.1; 2003: 32.3; Total[A]: 179.1.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG); 1995: 0; 1996: 22.2; 1997: 21.7; 1998:
21.4; 1999: 21.2; 2000: 20.8; 2001: 20.2; 2002: 20.0; 2003: 19.6;
Total[A]: 167.1.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Crime
Identification Technology Act (CITA); 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998:
0; 1999: 0; 2000: 4.4; 2001: 4.3; 2002: 1.4; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 10.1.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Safe Schools
Technology Research and Development; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998:
0; 1999: 0; 2000: 15.6; 2001: 17.7; 2002: 17.0; 2003: 16.6; Total[A]:
66.9.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Crime Lab
Improvement Program (CLIP); 1995: 0; 1996: 1.1; 1997: 3.3; 1998: 13.4;
1999: 15.9; 2000: 15.6; 2001: 19.6; 2002: 35.0; 2003: 39.6; Total[A]:
143.4.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: DNA Backlog
Reduction[B]; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 15.6;
2001: 10.7; 2002: 35.0; 2003: 35.2; Total[A]: 96.5.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Paul Coverdell
National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act (NFSIA)[B]; 1995: 0; 1996:
0; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; 2002: 5.0; 2003: 4.9;
Total[A]: 9.9.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Counterterrorism
R&D; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 10.9; 1998: 12.9; 1999: 10.6; 2000: 31.1;
2001: 36.5; 2002: 45.3; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 147.2.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Reimbursements
from other Justice and federal agencies; 1995: 2.8; 1996: 16.0; 1997:
0; 1998: 8.9; 1999: 11.5; 2000: 13.0; 2001: 26.6; 2002: 82.2; 2003:
56.0; Total[A]: 217.1.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Total[A]; 1995:
13.2; 1996: 52.6; 1997: 48.6; 1998: 71.4; 1999: 79.5; 2000: 135.1;
2001: 164.6; 2002: 268.0; 2003: 204.2; Total[A]: 1037.1.
Source: GAO analysis of OST data.
[A] Totals might not add due to rounding.
[B] In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, DNA Backlog Reduction was funded as
DNA Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) Backlog Reduction. In fiscal
years 2002 and 2003, both the DNA Backlog Reduction and Coverdell NFSIA
allocations were funded within DNA CODIS Backlog Reduction.
[End of table]
OST had a $63.8 million (24 percent) decrease in total budgetary
resources from fiscal years 2002 to 2003, largely attributed to its not
receiving fiscal year 2003 Counterterrorism R&D resources, which
totaled $45.3 million in fiscal year 2002. According to OST, its
counterterrorism resources were transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness. There was also a
$26.2 million decrease in the reimbursement of funds from other
agencies. However, OST's fiscal year 2003 level still represents a 157
percent increase from fiscal year 1999.
Range of OST's Program Responsibilities Has Changed:
The range of OST's program responsibilities has changed over the years
from primarily law enforcement and corrections to include broader
public safety technology R&D. This has happened as more and more of
OST's budgetary resources were directed to be spent on specific
recipients and projects. Appropriated funds, for example, are sometimes
designated for specific recipients or projects in public law. In
addition, guidance on the spending of appropriated funds may be
provided through congressional committee reports. Of the more than $1
billion (in constant 2002 dollars) that OST programs received from
fiscal years 1995 to 2003, $532.6 million, or 51 percent, was
designated for specific recipients and projects in public law or
subject to guidance in committee reports designating specific
recipients or projects.[Footnote 11] Of the $532.6 million, $249.8
million was designated in public law for specific recipients or
projects while $282.8 million was specified in committee report
guidance for specific recipients or projects.[Footnote 12]
In addition to the $532.6 million designated in public law for specific
recipients or projects or subject to guidance in committee reports for
specific recipients or projects, another $217.1 million was
reimbursements from other Justice and federal agencies in exchange for
OST's management of specific projects of those agencies. Thus, the
total spending either directed for specific recipients and projects
through public law, subject to committee report guidance designating
specific recipients or projects, or received as reimbursements, amounts
to $749.7 million, or 72 percent, of OST's total budgetary resources.
The range of OST's program responsibilities has changed to include such
areas as school safety and counterterrorism. In fiscal year 1999, a
Safe Schools Initiative program was established pursuant to conference
committee report guidance[Footnote 13] with $10 million[Footnote 14]
directing NIJ to develop school safety technologies. In another
example, OST's counterterrorism R&D program, initially funded by public
law in fiscal year 1997,[Footnote 15] received $147.3 million through
fiscal year 2002, $96.6 million of which was specified in conference
report guidance for three recipients from fiscal years 2000 to
2002[Footnote 16]--Oklahoma City National Memorial Institute for the
Prevention of Terrorism ($37.8 million), Dartmouth College's Institute
for Security Technology Studies ($51.8 million), and the New York
University's Center for Catastrophe Preparedness and Response ($7
million).
OST's program responsibilities have also changed to expand the focus on
investigative and forensic sciences. Our review of OST's budgetary
resources for fiscal years 1995 through 2003 shows that budgetary
resources for investigative and forensic sciences equals at least
$342.1 million in constant fiscal year 2002 dollars,[Footnote 17] or
about one-third, of its $1 billion in budgetary resources, as shown in
table 3. The proportion of investigative and forensic sciences annual
funding to total OST funding rose from 6 percent ($800,000) in fiscal
year 1995 to 52 percent ($106.0 million) in fiscal year 2003.
Table 3: Budgetary Resources in Constant 2002 Dollars for OST's
Investigative and Forensic Sciences by NIJ Allocation, Fiscal Years
1995-2003:
Dollars in millions:
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: NIJ Base; 1995: 0.6; 1996: 0.6; 1997: 0.4; 1998:
1.5; 1999: 6.2; 2000: 5.6; 2001: 5.5; 2002: 5.0; 2003: 4.3; Total[A]:
29.6.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: LLEBG; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999:
0; 2000: 1.1; 2001: 0; 2002: 0; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 1.1.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: CITA; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999:
0; 2000: 0.8; 2001: 1.3; 2002: 0; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 2.0.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: Safe Schools Technology R&D; 1995: 0; 1996: 0;
1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; 2002: 0; 2003: 0;
Total[A]: 0.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: CLIP; 1995: 0; 1996: 1.1; 1997: 3.3; 1998: 13.4;
1999: 15.9; 2000: 15.6; 2001: 19.6; 2002: 35.0; 2003: 39.6; Total[A]:
143.4.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: DNA Backlog Reduction; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997:
0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 15.6; 2001: 10.7; 2002: 35.0; 2003: 35.2;
Total[A]: 96.5.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: Coverdell NFSIA; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0;
1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; 2002: 5.0; 2003: 4.9; Total[A]:
9.9.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: Counterterrorism R&D; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0;
1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; 2002: 0; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 0.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: Reimbursement of funds from other agencies;
1995: 0.2; 1996: 8.9; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 1.6; 2001: 1.1;
2002: 25.4; 2003: 22.0; Total[A]: 59.1.
NIJ allocation containing funds for investigative
and forensic sciences: Total[A]; 1995: 0.8; 1996: 10.5; 1997: 3.6;
1998: 14.9; 1999: 22.1; 2000: 40.2; 2001: 38.5; 2002: 105.4; 2003:
106.0; Total[A]: 342.1.
Source: GAO analysis of OST data.
[A] Totals might not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
OST Delivers Three Groups of Products Through Various Methods:
OST delivers many products, which we categorized into three groups, and
uses various methods to deliver them. These three groups are (1)
information dissemination and technical assistance; (2) the
application, evaluation, and demonstration of existing and new
technologies for field users; and (3) technology R&D. According to OST,
as of April 2003, it had delivered 945 products since its
inception.[Footnote 18] Furthermore, OST identified an additional 500
products expected from ongoing awards. Figure 2 shows our distribution
of OST's delivered products by group. We recognize, as OST officials
told us, that the groups overlap and there is not a clean division
between them. For example, while reports are associated with
information dissemination, they may also result from the technology R&D
group. OST has reviewed our classification of products and agrees that
it is generally accurate. Because classification of some products is
based on a judgment call, the proportions of products in each group
should be considered approximations.
OST's Range of Products:
The following examples, while not exhaustive, indicate the wide range
of OST's products.
* Reports on topics such as analysis of DNA typing data, linguistic
methods for determining document authorship, a pepper spray projectile
and disperser, and gunshot residue detection and interpretation.
* Prototypes of products including ground-penetrating radar, ballistics
matching using 3-dimensional images of bullets and cartridge cases, and
an optical recognition system to identify and track stolen vehicles.
* Evaluations of technology including prison telemedicine networks,
police vehicles, and protective gear.
* Guides on topics such as electronic crime scene investigation, use of
security technologies in schools, and antennas for radio
communications.
For a more detailed description of OST's products and further examples,
see appendix III.
Figure 2: GAO's Grouping of OST's 945 Delivered Products, as of April
2003:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: See appendix III, table 7 for examples of the products within
each group. Proportions should be considered approximations because
some products overlap categories.
[End of figure]
Information Dissemination and Technical Assistance:
Information dissemination and technical assistance represents about 63
percent of OST's delivered products. OST provides information to its
customers in a variety of ways. For example, OST provides guidance to
R&D laboratories on the needs of public safety practitioners. To public
safety practitioners, OST recommends certain public safety practices,
tools, and technologies. Through its Office of Law Enforcement
Standards, OST develops performance standards to ensure that
commercially available public safety equipment, such as handheld and
walk-through metal detectors, meets minimum performance requirements.
OST also helps its customers enhance their technical capacities by
providing them with training and technical assistance through its Crime
Lab Improvement Program (which also provides supplies and equipment),
DNA Backlog Reduction Program, and network of technology centers. OST
also uses the R&D expertise and experience of already established
laboratories and other R&D organizations to provide additional guidance
for managing specialized technology projects. Further, OST helps its
customers receive surplus federal equipment by acting as their liaison
to the equipment transfer program of the Department of Defense. For
example, equipment transferred ranges from armored vehicles to boots
and uniforms.
In addition, OST sponsors conferences, workshops, and forums that bring
together its customers, technologists, and policymakers. For example,
it sponsors the Mock Prison Riot, an annual event demonstrating
emerging technologies in riot training scenarios held at the former
West Virginia Penitentiary in Moundsville, West Virginia. This event
brings together corrections officers and vendors for technology
showcases and training exercises. Also, OST sponsors the Innovative
Technologies for Community Corrections Annual Conference, among others.
Application, Evaluation, and Demonstration of New and Existing
Technologies:
Another OST product group is the application, evaluation, and
demonstration of new and existing technologies, which represents about
20 percent of OST's delivered products. Some of OST's programs apply
existing technology solutions in new ways to assist public safety
operations. Examples of the application of new and existing
technologies include developing methods for the collection and analysis
of chemical trace evidence left from explosives and a handheld computer
device provided to bomb technicians in order to access bomb data at the
scene of incidents. In addition, OST tests commercially available
products through NIJ-certified laboratories to determine whether they
are in accordance with national performance standards. Examples of
products evaluated against standards include body armor, handcuffs, and
semiautomatic pistols. OST's evaluations also include conducting field
tests to compare different commercially available products of the same
type to allow users to select the product that best suits their needs.
OST also demonstrates technology resulting from R&D directly to its
customers through OST-sponsored events. For example, the Critical
Incident Response Technology Seminar, formerly known as the Operation
America, demonstrates live-fire simulation for bomb technicians. The
annual Mock Prison Riot demonstrates emerging technologies for use by
corrections officers and tactical team members.
Technology R&D:
About 17 percent of OST's delivered products were related to technology
R&D, which involves the development of prototype devices, among other
efforts.[Footnote 19] According to OST, R&D in its early stages
includes development of prototypes and demonstration that a principle
can be proven. Applied R&D, which also involves the development of
prototypes, includes technologies that are made available to public
safety agencies, generally through OST-assisted commercialization.
Examples of products resulting from OST's applied R&D range from a bomb
threat training simulator, facial recognition technology for internet-
based gang tracking, to a personal alarm and location monitoring system
for corrections officers.
According to OST, R&D in its early stages begins with testing
technology concepts, exploring solutions, and deciding whether
continued development is warranted. If OST decides to support product
development and if it has available funds, it awards funding to
develop, demonstrate, and evaluate an experimental prototype, which is
then further developed into an initial engineering prototype, and then
demonstrated and evaluated. If the prototype proves successful, OST
demonstrates a "near commercial" model to its customers for their
evaluation.
While OST does not directly commercialize the results of its technology
R&D, it does provide prototypes to local users for field-testing and
assists in linking prototypes with potential commercial developers. OST
officials believe it would be a conflict of interest and therefore
inappropriate for them to promote one vendor or technology over another
or try to dictate what equipment their customers should purchase. OST's
role in commercialization is to bring technologies and potential
manufacturers together so that the manufacturers can determine the
feasibility of commercializing the technologies.
OST's Methods for Delivering its Products:
OST delivers its products to its customers through a variety of
methods. (We recognize that products are sometimes delivery methods.
For example, a publication can be both a product resulting from
research and a method of information dissemination.) Besides
publications, OST's methods for delivering information and technical
assistance include mass mailings; downloadable material from its Web
site; panels, boards, and working groups; training, support, and
presentations; and programs to enhance the capacity of public safety
agencies.
OST also delivers its products related to application, evaluation, and
demonstration through various means. For example, private industry
provides new and existing technologies to OST; in turn, OST informs its
customers of the results of using these technologies in new ways. OST
publishes user guides and the test results of its evaluations of
commercially available equipment (both standards-based and comparison-
based). Seeking to further educate its customers, OST demonstrates new
technology at technology fairs, providing "hands on" opportunities to
use it.
For its R&D products, OST may test "near commercial" prototypes in
particular settings. For example, OST may install in a police agency a
prototype technology that facilitates communications among public
safety agencies and across jurisdictions. If the technology is
effective, the police agency may incorporate the technology directly
into its operations, before the technology has become a commercial
product.
OST's Performance Measurement Efforts Do Not Fully Meet Requirements:
OST's efforts to measure its performance results, including the
usefulness and effectiveness of its products, do not fully meet
applicable requirements. To help Justice comply with the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), OST establishes goals and
develops performance measures to track its progress. GPRA, which
mandates performance measurements by federal agencies, requires, among
other things, that each agency measure or assess relevant outputs and
outcomes of each program activity.[Footnote 20] According to GPRA, the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and GAO, outcomes assess actual
results as compared with the intended results or consequences that
occur from carrying out a program or activity. Outputs count the goods
and services produced by a program or organization. Intermediate
measures can be used to show progress to achieving intended results.
Subsequent OMB and committee report guidance on GPRA, and previous GAO
reports[Footnote 21] recognize that output measures can provide
important information in managing programs. However, committee report
guidance emphasizes using outcome measures to aid policy makers because
such measures are key to assessing intended results.
OST Performance Measures Do Not Measure Results:
The performance measures that OST has developed do not measure results.
According to the NIJ director, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) in
April 2002 issued a memorandum requiring NIJ, including OST, to develop
outcome measures for fiscal year 2004. In August 2002, the NIJ Director
responded by stating that OST had indeed developed outcome measures for
its programs. In its fiscal year 2004 performance plan,[Footnote 22]
OST established goals for 11 of its initiatives[Footnote 23] and
developed 42 measures for assessing the achievement of those goals.
However, based on our review of OST's performance plan, OMB guidance on
GPRA, and GAO definitions of outcome, output, and intermediate
measures, we determined that of the 42 measures, none were outcome-
oriented, 28 were output-oriented, and 14 were intermediate. See table
4 for GAO's determination of the measures and appendix VI for further
details of our results.
Table 4: GAO's Assessment of the 42 Measures OST Developed for 11 of
Its Initiatives:
OST's initiatives: 1. Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction Program;
Type of measure: Output: 0; Type of measure: Intermediate: 3; Type of
measure: Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 2. No Suspect DNA Backlog Reduction Program; Type of
measure: Output: 0; Type of measure: Intermediate: 1; Type of measure:
Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 3. Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants Program; Type of measure: Output: 0; Type of
measure: Intermediate: 1; Type of measure: Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 4. Critical Incident Response Technology Initiative;
Type of measure: Output: 4; Type of measure: Intermediate: 1; Type of
measure: Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 5. DNA Research & Development; Type of measure:
Output: 4; Type of measure: Intermediate: 0; Type of measure: Outcome:
0.
OST's initiatives: 6. Law Enforcement Technology Research and
Development; Type of measure: Output: 4; Type of measure: Intermediate:
1; Type of measure: Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 7. School Safety Technology; Type of measure:
Output: 3; Type of measure: Intermediate: 0; Type of measure: Outcome:
0.
OST's initiatives: 8. Crime Lab Improvement Program; Type of measure:
Output: 4; Type of measure: Intermediate: 6; Type of measure: Outcome:
0.
OST's initiatives: 9. Office for Law Enforcement Standards; Type of
measure: Output: 3; Type of measure: Intermediate: 0; Type of measure:
Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 10. Smart Gun; Type of measure: Output: 4; Type of
measure: Intermediate: 0; Type of measure: Outcome: 0.
OST's initiatives: 11. OST's network of regional centers (known as the
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center system);
Type of measure: Output: 2; Type of measure: Intermediate: 1; Type of
measure: Outcome: 0.
Source: GAO analysis of OST data.
[End of table]
According to Justice officials, R&D activities present measurement
challenges because outcomes are difficult or costly to measure. As the
NIJ Director pointed out, a May 2002, White House OMB and Office of
Science and Technology Policy memorandum concluded that agencies should
not have the same expectations for measuring the results of basic R&D
as they do for applied R&D.[Footnote 24] According to NIJ, relatively
little of OST's work is basic R&D. As shown earlier, most of OST's
products are related to information dissemination and technical
assistance and the application, evaluation, and demonstration of
existing and new technologies for field users.
We recognize that OST's task in relation to measuring the results of
even non-basic research is complex in part because of the wide array of
activities it sponsors, and because of inherently difficult measurement
challenges involved in assessing the types of programs it undertakes.
For example, programs that are intended to deter crime face measurement
issues in assessing the extent to which something (crime) does not
happen. Nevertheless, improvement in measurement of program results is
important to help OST ensure it is doing all that is possible to
achieve its goals. It is worth noting that an outcome measure in
relation to one OST program was discussed by the NIJ Director in a May
2002 statement to Congress. In this statement, the Director provided an
example of an outcome from the Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction
Program. The Director stated that as a direct result of the program,
approximately 400,000 convicted offender samples and almost 11,000
cases with no suspect were analyzed. According to the NIJ Director, as
of May 14, 2002, more than 900 "hits" had been made on the FBI's
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database as a direct result of the
program, that is, 900 cases previously unsolved had been reopened. This
information indicates how the program is achieving its intended results
in addressing unsolved cases. Although this example seems to be a
credible outcome measure, it is not included in OST's fiscal year 2004
performance plans.
Limitations in OST's Efforts to Measure Effectiveness of Information
Dissemination:
OST efforts to measure information dissemination effectiveness have
been limited. One of the purposes of GPRA is to improve federal program
effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on
results, service quality, and customer satisfaction. Surveys to gauge
customer satisfaction represent one step toward finding out whether
customers have received information and whether they deem it of value.
However, these surveys have limitations in determining the extent to
which the information has been acted upon and resulted in intended
improvements. Thus, surveys such as these are more likely to be
intermediate measures (Did information get transferred?) than outcome
measures (Did information get transferred, acted upon, and achieve a
result?).
In 1998, NIJ initiated an effort to report the results of surveys to
measure the satisfaction of participants at all conferences, workshops,
and seminar series.[Footnote 25] OST reported on the "grantee level of
satisfaction with NIJ conferences" for fiscal years 1998-2000. However,
in the fiscal years 2001-2004 GPRA performance plans, OST discontinued
tracking the surveys because OJP and NIJ had ceased tracking these data
as a performance measure.
In fiscal year 2001, OST attempted to evaluate the effectiveness and
value of its TECHbeat newsletter. The survey sample of 5,500 was taken
from a distribution of major readership groups on TECHbeat's mailing
list of 20,674. According to OST, the response rate for the survey was
too low to produce statistically valid results: only 124 completed or
substantially completed responses were collected. The surveyors also
experienced a very low return on follow-up phone queries. According to
the study, the primary reason for the exceedingly low response rate was
that so many individuals on the mailing list had either changed jobs or
were completely unfamiliar with TECHbeat. Given these results, OST is
trying to improve the management and distribution of TECHbeat.[Footnote
26]
In fiscal year 2001, OST attempted to launch another effort to measure
program results, service quality, and customer satisfaction, but
funding for the effort was not provided. OST requested funding for an
evaluation to measure the success of its outreach efforts, including
those by its technology centers. The evaluation was to determine
customer satisfaction with its strategies for outreach and
communication and with its products. Specifically, OST planned to
measure user satisfaction of the content, format, and delivery
mechanisms of its efforts, such as technology information and
assistance.
Most Studies of Other OST Initiatives Have Focused Primarily on
Process:
In fiscal years 1998 and 1999, OST funded eight outside studies of some
of its science and technology initiatives (see table 5).[Footnote 27]
Our review of these studies showed that seven of the eight studies
focused on management and organizational processes, and one was
outcome-oriented.[Footnote 28] Management and process evaluations can
be useful tools for examining how a program is operating and can offer
insights into best practices. They do not assess whether a program is
achieving its intended results.
Table 5: OST's Outside Studies of Its Initiatives:
Outside study topics: 1. National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Centers (NLECTC) Program[A]; Focus of study: Management,
oversight, structure, organization, and operations; Type of study:
Process; Date completed: October 1998.
Outside study topics: 2. Counterterrorism Technology Portfolio; Focus
of study: Organization, funding, program process; Type of study:
Process; Date completed: June 1999.
Outside study topics: 3. Investigative and Forensic Sciences Technology
Portfolio; Focus of study: Program and structure, management, policies,
procedures, lines of control, and funding; Type of study: Process; Date
completed: August 1999.
Outside study topics: 4. Less-Than-Lethal Technology Portfolio; Focus
of study: Management, processes, and organization; Type of study:
Process; Date completed: September 1999.
Outside study topics: 5. Southwest Border States Antidrug Information
System; Focus of study: Program efficacy, including awareness of the
program, and its value and usefulness or benefits to customers; Type of
study: Outcome; Date completed: October 1999.
Outside study topics: 6. Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Advisory Council Priorities and Technology Portfolio Interaction; Focus
of study: Management and coordination, processes, organizational
challenges; Type of study: Process; Date completed: February 2000.
Outside study topics: 7. Critical Incident Response and Management
Crime fighting Technology Program for State and Local First Responder
Teams; Focus of study: Options for planning, organization, mission,
management, budget, and recommendations; Type of study: Process; Date
completed: September 2000.
Outside study topics: 8. Standards Initiative; Focus of study:
Recommendations for the planning, organization, and management of the
proposed initiative expected to be a part of #7 above; Type of study:
Process; Date completed: September 2000.
Source: OST.
[A] In this report we refer to the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers as OST's network of technology centers.
[End of table]
Efforts Are Under Way to Address Performance Measurement of Technology
Centers:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires NIJ[Footnote 29] to transmit
to Congress by late November 2003 a report assessing the effectiveness
of OST's existing system of technology centers and to identify the
number of centers necessary to meet the technology needs of federal,
state, and local law enforcement in the United States. According to
NIJ, in response to the Homeland Security Act requirement, it has
initiated a study to assess the impact and effectiveness of the
technology center system and how it can be enhanced to meet the
evolving science and technology research and technology needs of the
state and local public safety community. NIJ also stated that the
report would address the functions that the technology center system
must provide to transfer NIJ's research and development results to
practice in the criminal justice system. NIJ and OST have failed to
provide us with information detailing the methodology of the study, so
we cannot comment on the likelihood that this study will produce the
information sought by Congress. Additionally, according to OJP, the
technology centers are in the process of developing outcome measures to
demonstrate the impact of their activities.
According to NIJ, OJP has implemented additional performance measures
developed in May 2003 that will apply to NIJ, including OST. However,
OJP said it would defer implementing the measures related to the
technology centers until the results of the technology center study are
known and NIJ has a chance to take action, if warranted.
Measuring Results Is Difficult but Feasible:
We acknowledge that measuring results using outcome measures is
difficult, and may be especially so in relation to some of the types of
activities undertaken by OST. Indeed, given the types and wide range of
program goals for OST efforts--solving old crimes, saving lives, and
reducing property loss--it may be the case that for some programs
intermediate measures represent the best feasible measure of results.
We note that approximately 63 percent of OST's products fall into the
category of information dissemination and technical assistance, aimed
at informing customers and ultimately encouraging adoption of research
results that lead to increased efficiency and effectiveness. There are
strategies available that have been used by other federal agencies to
take steps toward assessing the effectiveness of information
dissemination and technical assistance efforts. For example, a recent
GAO report[Footnote 30] outlines various strategies to assess media
campaigns and informational seminars, including immediate post workshop
surveys and follow-up surveys and the use of logic models to define
measures of a program's progress toward intended results and long-term
goals.
Conclusions:
Given the wide range of its products, OST has the potential to
significantly improve the technological capabilities of federal, state,
and local public safety agencies. However, the lack of information
about the results of program efforts, or the assessment of progress
toward goals, means that little is known about their effectiveness.
While developing outcome measurements in many research-related programs
is extremely difficult, there are various performance measurement
strategies that other federal programs have used for assessing
information dissemination, technical assistance and other R&D
activities that might be applied to OST's programs. It is important to
develop outcome measurements where feasible, or intermediate
measurements where appropriate, to assist Congress, OST and NIJ
management, and OST's customers to better assess whether investment in
OST's programs is paying off with improved law enforcement and public
safety technology.
Recommendation:
To help ensure that OST does all that is possible to measure its
progress in achieving goals through outcome-oriented measures, we
recommend that the Attorney General instruct the Director of NIJ to
reassess the measures OST uses to evaluate its progress toward
achieving its goals and to better focus on outcome measures to assess
results where possible. In those cases where measuring outcome is,
after careful consideration, deemed infeasible, we recommend developing
appropriate intermediate measures that will help to discern program
effectiveness.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a copy of a draft of this report to the Attorney General of
the United States for review and comment. In an October 30, 2003,
letter, the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for OJP commented on the
draft. Her comments are summarized below and presented in their
entirety in appendix VII. OJP also provided technical comments, which
have been incorporated into this report where appropriate.
In the AAG's written response, the Justice Department concurred with
our recommendation that NIJ reassess the measures OST uses to assess
program outcomes. In response to our recommendation, the AAG reported
that she has directed the NIJ Director, to reassess NIJ's performance
measures for OST and to refine them, where possible, in order to focus
them more toward measuring outcomes.
While the AAG agreed with our recommendation, she also made several
other comments. First, she commented that developing numerical outcome
measures like those urged by GAO is a particular challenge for R&D
activities. As stated in our report, we recognize that measuring
results using outcome measures is difficult and may be especially so in
relation to some of the types of activities undertaken by OST. Our
reference to a numerical measure is meant only as an example of how one
of OST's program activities can be linked to intended results. We
believe that further consideration of measures, both quantitative and
qualitative, could improve the assessment of results for R&D as well as
other OST programs. Our report also notes that relatively little of
OST's work is R&D. The majority of OST's products are in the category
of information dissemination and technical assistance.
Second, the AAG noted that GAO did not reach any conclusions in its
discussion of OST's growth in budgetary resources, changes in program
responsibilities, management of programs, and delivery of its products.
The AAG noted that Justice believed that OST's record is outstanding.
Neither OST nor we can determine whether OST's efforts in these areas
are successful or otherwise, given that OST has not developed measures
to assess their outcomes. Therefore, it is not possible to draw
conclusions.
Third, the AAG indicated that GAO did not discuss in detail that over
one-half of OST's funds were designated by Congress for specific
recipients and projects. She noted that GAO missed an opportunity to
inform the requester of the impact of Congress' recent decisions
regarding OST. We reported that 51 percent of OST's budgetary resources
were designated for specific recipients and projects in public law or
subject to guidance in committee reports.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 10 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of the report to
the Attorney General, appropriate congressional committees and other
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov. Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix VIII.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, contact
me on (202) 512-8777.
Sincerely yours,
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
Signed by Laurie E. Ekstrand:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To answer our objectives, we interviewed National Institute of Justice
(NIJ) and Office of Science and Technology (OST) officials and
collected documents at OST's office in Washington, D.C., and at three
of OST's technology centers--the National center in Rockville,
Maryland; West center in El Segundo, California; and Border Research
and Technology Center in San Diego, California. We selected the
Rockville center because of its proximity to Washington, D.C., and the
other two centers because of their locations and particular areas of
technology and technical concentrations. We also interviewed a small
group of OST's customers--federal, state, and local law enforcement,
and corrections and public safety officials--who were selected by
officials at the El Segundo and San Diego centers. In addition, we
analyzed information that is available on the National Institute of
Justice's public Web site.
To determine OST's budgetary resources and amounts from fiscal year
1995 to fiscal year 2003 and the changes in OST program
responsibilities, we reviewed NIJ and OST budget documents, interviewed
officials in OST's Technology Management and the OJP's Office of Budget
and Management Services, and reviewed pertinent appropriations laws and
committee reports covering that period. To determine the amount of OST
budgetary resources that were directed to specific recipients and
projects, we compared OST's budget documents that listed individual
recipients and projects with the public laws and reports. We defined
directed spending as spending for specific recipients and projects
designated in appropriations laws or subject to congressional committee
report guidance designating specific recipients or projects. We did not
determine the amount of reimbursable projects designated in public laws
or specified in committee reports because those projects were not
originally allocated to OST. Instead, we considered all the
reimbursable projects to be specific projects for which OST was
directed pursuant to its agreements with other agencies on spending its
reimbursable funds.
To determine the changes in OST's program responsibilities, we analyzed
the year-to-year changes in its budget and program scope. To determine
the amount of OST's budgetary resources used for investigative and
forensic sciences for fiscal years 1995-2003, we compared OST's
portfolio description and NIJ's definition of forensic sciences with
the individual budget program and project items listed in OST's budget
documents for each fiscal year. However, while we recognize that OST's
technology centers and their technical partners include investigative
and forensic sciences in their provision of technical assistance, we
did not attempt to determine the amount of center funds associated with
investigative and forensic sciences because the budget documents we
received from OST did not break out such amounts within the funding
awarded to the centers. Therefore, our determination that $342.1
million of OST's total funding supported investigative and forensic
sciences did not include such amounts.
To determine the amounts of funding awarded to the technology centers,
we analyzed databases on all of the products OST has produced through
April 2003 and the associated grants, interagency agreements, and
cooperative agreements and their amounts.
To determine the composition of OST's products and how OST delivers the
products to its customers, we analyzed OST documents and a database of
all the products associated with its past and ongoing awards, from
inception through April 2003, that were delivered or anticipated to be
delivered. While the database included the award amounts associated
with the products, it was not possible to reliably associate the award
amounts for each product or type of product because multiple types of
products could result from individual awards. We also conducted
interviews with the parties mentioned above.
For the budget and product data that OST provided us, we assessed the
reliability of these data by examining relevant fields for missing
data, conducting range checks to identify any potentially erroneous
outliers and inspecting a subset of selected data elements that were
common to two or more data sets. In addition, we independently verified
selected budget data back to appropriations legislation and Committee
reports. In conducting our analyses, we identified some potential data
errors or reliability problems. When this occurred, we contacted agency
officials to address and resolve these matters. However, we did not
verify the budget or product data back to source materials. Overall, we
determined that budget or product data provided to us is adequate for
the descriptive purposes it is used in this report.
We examined OST's efforts to measure performance by interviewing
officials on this matter at OJP, NIJ, and OST in the Washington, D.C.,
office along with officials and staff at the technology centers, and
current and previous Advisory Council officials. We also reviewed
related agency documents, such as the OJP mission statement and
performance plans; NIJ strategic planning documents and website pages,
annual performance plans and performance reports, and GPRA documents;
policies and procedures, Department of Justice memoranda, OST internal
planning and reporting documents, program descriptions and
documentation, and other related documents.
As part of our examination, we reviewed OST's fiscal year 1997 to 2004
goals and measures as presented in OST's GPRA performance
plans.[Footnote 31] We focused our review on OST's fiscal year 2004
performance plan and measures. As part of our review of these goals and
measures, we made a determination as to whether the performance measure
was output, outcome, or intermediate-oriented. To make this
determination about the types of performance measures contained in
OST's performance plans, we compared the measures used in the plans
with the requirements of GPRA, accompanying committee report, OMB's
guidance on performance measurement challenges (Circular A-11),
Justice's guidance to its components for preparing performance
measures, and previous GAO work on GPRA.[Footnote 32]
Also included in our examination of OST performance measurement efforts
were studies prepared by external parties under grants from OST that
reviewed selected OST initiatives such as portfolio areas, projects,
and programs. In response to our request for all of OST's efforts to
assess its programs, OST provided eight outside studies funded from
fiscal years 1998 to 1999. For example, the Pymatuning Group, Inc.,
conducted an "Assessment of the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) Program," which described the
operations of the OST's regional technology centers network. We
reviewed all eight of the outside studies for performance information
on the OST initiatives being examined in the report. We examined the
studies to determine whether they provided information that would be
considered consistent with an outcome-oriented evaluation as defined by
our criteria.[Footnote 33]
The scope of this review was limited to OST, and therefore we cannot
compare OST's efforts to measure the performance of its programs or the
amount of funding directed to specific recipients and projects with the
efforts and funding of any other federal R&D agencies. We performed our
audit work from September 2002 to September 2003 in Washington, D.C.,
and other cited locations in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Appendix II: Bugetary Resources for OST's Programs in Current Year
Dollars:
Table 6: Budgetary Resources in Current Dollars for OST's Programs by
NIJ Allocation, Fiscal Years 1995-2003:
Dollars in millions:
NIJ allocations for OST programs: NIJ Base; 1995:
9.2; 1996: 12.0; 1997: 11.7; 1998: 13.8; 1999: 19.2; 2000: 18.4; 2001:
28.6; 2002: 27.1; 2003: 32.8; Total[A]: 172.9.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Local Law
Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG); 1995: 0; 1996: 20.0; 1997: 20.0; 1998:
20.0; 1999: 20.0; 2000: 20.0; 2001: 20.0; 2002: 20.0; 2003: 19.9;
Total[A]: 159.8.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Crime
Identification Technology Act (CITA); 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998:
0; 1999: 0; 2000: 4.2; 2001: 4.2; 2002: 1.4; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 9.9.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Safe Schools
Technology Research and Development; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998:
0; 1999: 0; 2000: 15.0; 2001: 17.5; 2002: 17.0; 2003: 16.9; Total[A]:
66.4.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Crime Lab
Improvement Program (CLIP); 1995: 0; 1996: 1.0; 1997: 3.0; 1998: 12.5;
1999: 15.0; 2000: 15.0; 2001: 19.4; 2002: 35.0; 2003: 40.3; Total[A]:
141.1.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: DNA Backlog
Reduction[B]; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 15.0;
2001: 10.6; 2002: 35.0; 2003: 35.8; Total[A]: 96.3.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Paul Coverdell
National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act (NFSIA)[B]; 1995: 0; 1996:
0; 1997: 0; 1998: 0; 1999: 0; 2000: 0; 2001: 0; 2002: 5.0; 2003: 5.0;
Total[A]: 10.0.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Counterterrorism
R&D; 1995: 0; 1996: 0; 1997: 10.0; 1998: 12.0; 1999: 10.0; 2000: 30.0;
2001: 36.0; 2002: 45.3; 2003: 0; Total[A]: 143.3.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Reimbursements
from other Justice and federal agencies; 1995: 2.5; 1996: 14.5; 1997:
0; 1998: 8.3; 1999: 10.9; 2000: 12.5; 2001: 26.3; 2002: 82.2; 2003:
56.9; Total[A]: 214.1.
NIJ allocations for OST programs: Total[A]; 1995:
11.7; 1996: 47.5; 1997: 44.7; 1998: 66.6; 1999: 75.1; 2000: 130.2;
2001: 162.6; 2002: 268.0; 2003: 207.6; Total[A]: 1,013.8.
Source: GAO analysis of OST data.
[A] Totals might not add due to rounding:
[B] In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, DNA Backlog Reduction allocations
was funded as DNA CODIS Backlog Reduction. In fiscal years 2002 and
2003, both the DNA Backlog Reduction and Coverdell NFSIA allocations
were funded within DNA CODIS Backlog Reduction.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: OST's 10 Categories of Products:
While we divided OST's products into three groups for our reporting
purposes, OST divides them into 10 categories. (See table 7 for GAO's 3
groupings of OST's 10 categories.) In regrouping OST's 10 categories,
we recognized, as OST officials told us, that the 10 categories overlap
and there is not a clean division between them. We also recognized that
many of OST's products could also be considered a delivery method. For
example, publications, such as the TECHbeat newsletter, are OST
products that can also represent a method of delivery for OST
technology information. OST has reviewed our classification of products
and agrees that it is generally accurate.
Table 7: GAO's Groupings of OST's Categories of Products and Examples
of Each Category:
GAO's 3 groupings of OST's 10 categories: 1. Technology R&D;
OST's 10 categories: 1. Results of the early stages of technology R&D
include the development of prototypes and demonstration that a
principle or concept can be proven; Examples of products: Results of
investigating forensic techniques, studying potential less-than-lethal
incapacitation technologies, and researching advanced weapons
detection.
OST's 10 categories: 2. New applied technologies made available to
public safety agencies, generally through commercialization; Examples
of products: Improved bomb robots and electromagnetic concealed
weapons detection.
GAO's 3 groupings of OST's 10 categories: 2. Application, evaluation,
and demonstration of new and existing technologies for field users;
OST's 10 categories: 3. Existing technologies applied to new
situations; Examples of products: Communications interoperability (the
ability to communicate across different public safety agencies and
jurisdictions), handheld computer devices for bomb investigators, and
software tools to measure levels of school safety.
OST's 10 categories: 4. Product evaluations based on voluntary
national performance standards and comparisons with like products;
Examples of products: Ballistic and stab-resistant body armor,
handcuffs, semi-automatic pistols, walk-through metal detectors;
patrol vehicles, patrol vehicle tires, and replacement brake pads;
cut-, puncture-, and pathogen-resistant protective gloves.
OST's 10 categories: 5. Technology demonstrations; Examples of
products: Information dissemination and technical assistance: Annual
Mock Prison Riot meeting demonstrates emerging technologies for use in
hands-on riot training scenarios, and the annual Critical Incident
Response Technology seminar (formerly called Operation America), in
which bomb technicians practice live-fire simulations.
GAO's 3 groupings of OST's 10 categories: 3. Information dissemination
and technical assistance;
OST's 10 categories: 6. Information and guidance for public safety
practitioners and those in R&D; Examples of products: Needs
assessments of what public safety practitioners require, such as for
combating electronic crime and terrorism; funding requirements for
forensic science; investigative, selection, and application guides;
and technology and training for small agencies.
OST's 10 categories: 7. Standards to ensure that commercially
available public safety equipment meets minimum performance; Examples
of products: Ballistic resistance of personal body armor and handheld
and walk-through metal detectors.
OST's 10 categories: 8. Enhanced capacity that gives agencies access
to technologies and tools they otherwise might not have had funding
for or access to; Examples of products: Technology assistance
provided to OST's customers by its regional centers; Crime Lab
Improvement Program for establishing or expanding laboratories'
capacities for forensic analysis; the DNA Backlog Reduction Program
for helping to eliminate DNA backlog, leading to the resolution of
unsolved crimes.
OST's 10 categories: 9. Conferences, forums, and workshops that bring
together practioners, technologists, and policymakers to form
partnerships, communicate needs, and educate participants; Examples of
products: Technical working groups of experienced practitioners and
researchers working to improve investigation techniques and issue
procedural guides. Panels and councils of public safety leaders,
experts, and policymakers assisting OST and its regional centers in
setting development priorities, launching technologies, identifying
equipment problems, and enhancing understanding of technological
issues and advances. Commercialization planning workshops involving
developers and entrepreneurs interested in commercializing public
safety technologies.
OST's 10 categories: 10. Technical expertise and oversight of
technology projects provide additional oversight and guidance;
Examples of products: Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command
providing oversight, contracting, and administrative support for the
NIJ User Centric Information Technology Program and Critical Incident
Management System Testbed; the U.S Air Force Research Laboratory
providing oversight and administrative support to the NIJ Concealed
Weapons Detection and Personnel Location Technology Programs and
hosting the NIJ-sponsored National Cyberscience Laboratory.
[End of table]
Source: GAO analysis of OST data.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: OST's Portfolio Areas:
OST has organized its individual projects to develop, improve, and
implement technology for public safety agencies into nine portfolio
areas. As of April 2003, these portfolio areas included:
* critical incident technology, for first responders and investigators
protecting the public in the event of critical incidents such as
natural disasters, industrial accidents, or terrorist acts;
* communications interoperability[Footnote 34] and information
sharing, enhancing communication among public safety agencies through
wired links, wireless radios, and information networks, even when
disparate systems are involved;
* electronic crime, supporting computer forensic laboratories,
publishing guides for handling electronic evidence, and developing
computer forensic tools;
* investigative and forensic sciences, funding at the state and local
levels for DNA-typing of convicted offenders and use of DNA-typing in
the investigation of unsolved cases, and developing tools for forensic
casework;
* crime prevention technologies, including contraband detectors,
sensors and surveillance systems, and biometric technologies;
* protective systems technologies, including body armor; "smart"
handguns, which fire only upon recognition of, for example, a certain
handprint or password; puncture resistant gloves; better handcuffs;
better concealed weapon detection; and personnel tracking and location
technologies;
* less-than-lethal technologies, developing alternatives to lethal
force, including technologies involving electrical or chemical effects,
light barriers, vehicle stopping, and blunt trauma, and evaluating and
modeling the effects of these technologies;
* learning technologies, developing technology tools for agencies to
use in training their personnel, including use of the internet, CD-
ROMs, and video-based and interactive simulations; and:
* standards and testing, ensuring that the equipment public safety
agencies buy is safe, dependable, and effective.
[End of section]
Appendix V: OST's Operations:
As with other federal agencies, OST's operations involve multiple
levels of internal organization and multiple kinds of external
partners. OST's multiple levels of organization include a Washington,
D.C., office that manages its technology programs and a network of
technology centers around the country that provide technical assistance
to OST's regional customers. OST also collaborates with other R&D
entities, such as those in the Departments of Defense and Energy and
public and private laboratories, by forming technical partnerships in
order to leverage already established technical expertise and resources
to support their program efforts. Another aspect of OST's complex
operations is the need to determine OST's own priorities and the
priorities of its customers, which involves Washington and regional
center staff collaborating formally and informally with a myriad of
federal, state, and local officials, as well as with one another.
OST Has Multiple Levels of Organization:
OST's multiple levels of organization include a Washington, D.C.,
office and technology centers, as well as technical partnerships with
government, public and private R&D and public safety organizations. As
of September 2003, OST's Washington office consisted of 25 full-time-
equivalent Justice staff divided into three divisions and under the
Assistant NIJ Director for OST.[Footnote 35] Responsibility for
managing these programs is divided among the three divisions. (See
figure 3 for OST's organizational structure.):
Figure 3: OST's Organizational Structure:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
* Research and Technology Development Division manages electronic crime
(including cybercrime), critical incidents and counterterrorism,
communications interoperability and information sharing, crime
prevention, learning technology tools, less-than-lethal technologies,
standards development, school safety, and corrections technologies.
* Investigative and Forensic Sciences Division manages DNA-related R&D
and other investigative and forensic sciences, such as fingerprint
analysis, and includes the Crime Laboratory Improvement Program
projects, DNA Backlog Reduction projects, and DNA research and
development projects.
* Technology Assistance Division, through the technology center
network, provides training and technical advice to, and identifies
technologies for, OST's customers, and oversees OST's network of 10
technology centers (see figure 4). The technology centers are another
source of technical advice for OST's customers.
Figure 4: OST's 10 Technology Centers and the Regions They Serve:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
OST's Technology Centers:
OST's network of 10 technology centers provides technical assistance,
among other things, to OST's customers. From fiscal year 1995 to fiscal
year 2003 (as of July 2003), funding support for the centers totaled
$171.7 million. (See table 8 for funding by center.) The technology
centers comprise six regional centers and four specialty centers. While
the regional centers assist OST's customers by region--Northwest, West,
Rocky Mountain, Northeast, Southeast, and National--they are expected
to coordinate and collaborate among one another regardless of where the
resources and capabilities are located. Each of these 6 centers works
with a regional advisory council comprising state and local law
enforcement, corrections, and public safety representatives.
As described below, the four specialty centers provide specialized
expertise and services.
* The Office of Law Enforcement Standards tests commercially available
equipment and develops minimum performance standards for such
equipment.
* The Office of Law Enforcement Technology Commercialization, Inc.,
assists inventors and developers, among others, in commercializing
technologies.
* The Border Research and Technology Center aids in the development of
technologies for agencies concerned with law enforcement at the
northern and southern borders.
* The Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center aids rural and small-
community law enforcement and corrections agencies.
Table 8: Total Funds Awarded for the Operations, Maintenance, and
Technical Support of OST's 10 Technology Centers, Fiscal Years 1995-
2003:
Dollars in millions:
Regional centers: National, Rockville, Md; Total funding: 20.4.
Regional centers: Northeast, Rome, N.Y; Total funding: 11.7.
Regional centers: Southeast, North Charleston, S.C; Total funding:
23.5.
Regional centers: Northwest, Anchorage, Alaska; Total funding: 2.8.
Regional centers: Rocky Mountain, Denver, Colo; Total funding: 16.2.
Regional centers: West, El Segundo, Calif; Total funding: 12.7.
Regional centers: Specialty centers:
Regional centers: Border Research Technology Center, San Diego,
Calif; Total funding: 8.2.
Regional centers: Office of Law Enforcement Standards, Gaithersburg,
Md; Total funding: 53.6.
Regional centers: Office of Law Enforcement Technology
Commercialization, Wheeling, W.Va; Total funding: 19.6.
Regional centers: Rural Law Enforcement Technology Center,
Hazard, Ky; Total funding: 3.0.
Regional centers: Total funding; Total funding: $171.7.
Source: OST.
Notes: Figures are based on the current year values of each award.
According to OST documents, the first award year for the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards in support of OST efforts was 1994. All of the
centers had award years of 1995 or later.
[End of table]
OST's Technical Partnerships for Long-Term Support:
In addition to forming divisions and technology centers, OST has also
formed partnerships with governmental, public and private R&D
organizations, agencies, and working groups. According to OST
officials, an advantage of these partnerships is that OST can leverage
the expertise and resources of already established R&D facilities
without having to create their own. These partners have included:
* corporations, such as Georgia Tech Research Corporation and L-3
Communications, Analytics Corporation;
* state and local agencies, such as the Houston Police Department and
the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority;
* academic institutions, such as the University of Virginia and
Syracuse University;
* other federal government agencies, such as the Department of
Defense's Army Training and Doctrine Command, and the Department of
Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration; and:
* foreign government organizations, such as the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, the United Kingdom Police Scientific Development Branch, and
the government of Israel.
Each of OST's technology centers is affiliated with one or more of
OST's technical partners. These technical partners are awarded funding
in exchange for providing staff and facilities to the technology
centers. Table 9 lists OST's partners and their affiliations, and
funding they received to support the centers through June of fiscal
year 2003.
Table 9: OST's Technology Centers, Their Affiliated Partners, and the
Amounts Awarded to Support the Centers:
Dollars in millions:
Technology centers: National, Rockville, Md;
Affiliated OST partner: Aspen Systems Corporation, Rockville, Md;
Amount awarded to support center: 20.4.
Technology centers: Northeast, Rome, N.Y;
Affiliated OST partner: Air Force Research Laboratory, U.S. Air Force,
Rome, N.Y; Amount awarded to support center: 11.7.
Technology centers: Southeast, North Charleston,
S.C; Affiliated OST partner: South Carolina Research Authority, North
Charleston, S.C; Amount awarded to support center: 21.3.
Affiliated OST partner: Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Center, U.S. Navy, Columbia, S.C; Amount awarded to support
center: 0.6.
Affiliated OST partner: Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Tenn; Amount awarded
to support center: 0.3.
Affiliated OST partner: Savannah River Site, Department of Energy,
Aiken, S.C; Amount awarded to support center: 1.3.
Technology centers: Northwest, Anchorage, Alaska;
Affiliated OST partner: Chenega Technology Services Corporation, and
National Business Center, U.S. Department of Interior, Anchorage,
Alaska; Amount awarded to support center: 2.8.
Technology centers: Rocky Mountain, Denver, Colo;
Affiliated OST partner: University of Denver - Colorado Seminary,
Denver, Colo; Amount awarded to support center: 16.2.
Technology centers: West, El Segundo, Calif;
Affiliated OST partner: Aerospace Corporation, El Segundo, Calif;
Amount awarded to support center: 12.7.
Technology centers: Specialty centers:
Technology centers: Border Research Technology
Center, San Diego, Calif; Affiliated OST partner: Aerospace
Corporation, El Segundo, Calif; Amount awarded to support center: 1.4.
Affiliated OST partner: Space and Naval Warfare
Systems Center, U.S. Navy, San Diego, Calif; Amount awarded to support
center: 1.7.
Affiliated OST partner: Sandia National
Laboratories, U.S. Department of Energy, Albuquerque, N. Mex; Amount
awarded to support center: 5.1.
Affiliated OST partner: U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District
of California, Department of Justice, San Diego, Calif; Amount awarded
to support center: 0.0[A].
Technology centers: Office of Law Enforcement
Standards, Gaithersburg, Md; Affiliated OST partner: National
Institute of Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of Commerce,
Gaithersburg, Md; Amount awarded to support center: 53.6.
Technology centers: Office of Law Enforcement
Technology Commercialization, Wheeling, W.Va; Affiliated OST partner:
OLETC, Inc., Wheeling, W.Va; Amount awarded to support center: 2.8.
Affiliated OST partner: Wheeling Jesuit
University, Wheeling, W.Va; Amount awarded to support center: 14.0.
Affiliated OST partner: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Amount awarded to support center: 2.8.
Technology centers: Rural Law Enforcement
Technology Center, Hazard, Ky; Affiliated OST partner: Eastern
Kentucky University, Hazard, Ky; Amount awarded to support center:
3.0.
Technology centers: Total funding[B]; $171.7.
Source: OST.
Note: Figures are based on the current year values of each award. Award
amounts are for the operations, maintenance and technical support of
the centers.
[A] Actual amount is $25,000.
[B] Total might not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
OST Collaborates with Many Customers and Partners to Determine Program
Priorities:
To determine its program priorities, OST collaborates with its many
customers and partners. Staff at both OST's Washington, D.C., office
and its technology centers are involved in helping OST to set program
priorities. The staff report the results of their collaboration through
formal meetings, periodic reports, and informal communication. Input is
exchanged continually between OST's customers and staff and within its
multiple levels of organization. Using their input, the NIJ Director
determines OST's program priorities. (See figure 5 for the
stakeholders, partners, and customers that contribute to the setting of
OST's priorities.):
Figure 5: Stakeholders and Customers that Contribute to the Setting of
OST's Priorities:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
OST Collaborates with Government Agencies, Research and Professional
Communities, and Centers:
OST's three divisions collaborate with other U.S. government agencies,
the research and professional communities, and its technology centers
to solicit input for setting priorities. Also, the divisions work with
public safety practitioners at the state and local levels by, for
example, meeting with grantees and assessing their needs.
* The Investigative and Forensic Sciences Division collaborates with,
and receives input from, researchers, academia, and the forensic
laboratory community to help set program priorities. It also
collaborates with, for example, the FBI and the interagency Technical
Support Working Group.
* The Research and Technology Development Division receives input
through its collaboration with other federal agencies, such as the FBI,
Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Secret Service, and White House
Office of National Drug Control Policy. The division also participates
in interagency working groups, such as for school safety and the
Technical Support Working Group. Through these collaborations, OST can
develop and share technologies used by both its customers and other
agencies. For example, OST works with the Department of Defense to
conduct less-than-lethal weapons R&D for law enforcement.
* The Technology Assistance Division is primarily responsible for
receiving input from OST's technology centers. The centers solicit
input from customers through their outreach efforts, such as technical
assistance, e-mail exchanges, and telephone calls. The centers are also
required to use OST's web-based reporting system to record information
on their customers' requests for technical assistance. The centers are
also required to submit monthly reports on their activities and
finances.
Advisory Councils and Federal, State, and Local Public Safety Agencies
Collaborate with OST's Technology Centers:
OST's technology centers solicit input from the national and regional
advisory councils that OST created to determine and advocate for the
particular needs of its customers. Members of the national advisory
council are selected by the technology centers and represent federal,
state, and local public safety agencies, as well as international
criminal justice organizations. Among its duties, this national
advisory council identifies the present and future equipment and
technology needs of OST's customers and reviews the programs of the
technology centers. In addition, the national advisory council
recommends (1) ways to improve the technology centers' programs'
relevance to the needs of the centers' customers and (2) broad
priorities for the technology center network and OST that are
consistent with the needs of their customers.
Each technology center has a regional advisory council. The regional
advisory councils consist of a cross-section of law enforcement and
other public safety officials who represent the interests of state and
local officials. The regional advisory councils solicit input from the
state and local agencies serviced in their regions, advise and support
their respective center directors on their customers' problems and
needs, and advocate for resource support and improvements required by
their customers. Through this method of sharing information, OST can
better understand the needs of its customers. For example, OST's
regional councils can represent the unique needs of their customers
that the national advisory council or the technology centers might not
be aware of.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: OST's Goals in its Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan and
GAO's Assessment:
Table 10: OST's Performance Goals, Initiatives, and Measures for Fiscal
Year 2004, and GAO's Assessment:
OST's initiatives: 1. Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction Program;
Goals for initiatives: Reduce DNA backlog and support a functioning,
active system, which can solve old crimes and prevent new ones from
occurring; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 2. Number of
labs demonstrating improved access to external capabilities and
increased lab capabilities; Type of measure: Output: No; Type of
measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 3. Number of samples (1)
analyzed using the selected DNA markers that are required by the FBI's
national Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database, and (2) made
available for CODIS; Type of measure: Output: No; Type of
measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 4. Number of states that
have experienced an increase in the number of samples they have
contributed to the national database; Type of measure: Output:
No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome:
No.
OST's initiatives: 5. No Suspect DNA Backlog Reduction Program; Goals
for initiatives: Reduce DNA backlog and support a functioning, active
system, which can solve old crimes and prevent new ones from
occurring; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 6. Number of
DNA samples from cases where there is no known suspect; Type of
measure: Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 7. Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences
Improvement Grants Program; Goals for initiatives: Improve quality,
timeliness, and credibility of forensic science services; Measures for
assessing achievement of goals: 8. Number of forensic labs with
improved analytic and technological resources; Type of measure:
Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 9. Critical Incident Response Technology Initiative;
Goals for initiatives: Improve the ability of public safety responders,
including law enforcement and corrections officers, to deal with
critical incidents, save lives, and reduce property loss; Measures for
assessing achievement of goals: 10. Number of technology demonstrations
and test indicators that describe the goods and services produced;
Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No;
Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 11. Number of prototype
technologies developed; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure:
Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 12. Number of guides,
standards, and assessments in progress; Type of measure: Output: Yes;
Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome:
No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 13. Number of guides,
standards, and assessments completed; Type of measure: Output: Yes;
Type
of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 14. Number of technologies
introduced in law enforcement and corrections agencies; Type of
measure: Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 15. DNA Research & Development; Goals for
initiatives: Develop faster and more powerful tools and techniques for
the analysis of DNA evidence. These new tools and techniques will
result in more crimes prevented and solved and more perpetrators
brought to justice; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 16.
Number of projects researching new forensic DNA markers; Type of
measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 17. Number of development/
validation studies for forensic DNA techniques; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 18. Number of computer
programs developed for forensic DNA analysis; Type of measure: Output:
Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome:
No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 19. Number of prototypes
and tools for forensic DNA analysis; Type of measure: Output: Yes;
Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 20. Law Enforcement Technology Research and
Development; Goals for initiatives: Assist in applying technology to
reduce the vulnerability of critical infrastructure; detect weapons and
other contraband; improve technologies to locate and differentiate
between individuals in structures; leverage information technology to
enhance the responder community's ability to anticipate and deal with
critical incidents; identify and respond to terrorist attacks involving
chemical, biological, and other unconventional weapons; and develop
needed standards.[A]; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 21.
Number of technology demonstrations and tests; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 22. Number of prototype
technologies developed; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure:
Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 23. Number of guides,
standards, and assessments in progress; Type of measure: Output: Yes;
Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome:
No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 24. Number of guides,
standards, and assessments completed; Type of measure: Output: Yes;
Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 25. Number of technologies
introduced in law enforcement and corrections agencies; Type of
measure: Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 26. School Safety Technology; Goals for initiatives:
Assist school administrators and law enforcement in creating a safer
and more productive learning environment. Safe, effective, appropriate,
and affordable technologies can affect the perception and reality of
safe schools; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 27. Number
of technology demonstrations; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of
measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 28. Number of conferences
and forums; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure:
Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 29. Number of school
safety technology products; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of
measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 30. Crime Lab Improvement Program; Goals for
initiatives: Provide immediate results in solving more crimes, bringing
to justice more criminals, and improving administration of justice
through the presentation of strong, reliable forensic evidence at
trial; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 31. Number of
crime labs receiving specialized forensic services; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 32. Number of capacity-
building forensic R&D and validation projects funded; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 33. Number of forensic
technology training tools developed and distributed; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 34. Number of labs
providing continuing education or advanced training to crime analysts;
Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No;
Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 35. Number of crime labs
with increased capacity for implementation of new forensic capabilities
(including DNA analysis); Type of measure: Output: No; Type of
measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 36. Number of capacity-
building forensic R&D and validation projects completed and impacting
crime labs; Type of measure: Output: No; Type of measure:
Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 37. Number of labs
establishing new forensic capabilities; Type of measure: Output:
No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome:
No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 38. Number of labs
expanding current forensic capabilities; Type of measure: Output:
No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of measure: Outcome:
No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 39. Number of labs
experiencing a reduction in time needed for evidence analysis; Type of
measure: Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 40. Number of labs
experiencing a reduction in backlogged evidentiary sample analysis;
Type of measure: Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes;
Type of measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 41. Office for Law Enforcement Standards; Goals for
initiatives: Help the public safety community make informed decisions
about products being marketed for public safety personnel; Measures
for assessing achievement of goals: 42. Number of methods for examining
evidentiary materials developed; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of
measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 43. Number of standards
for equipment and operating procedures developed; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 44. Law enforcement
technology deliverables (standards, product performance evaluations,
product guides); Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure:
Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 45. Smart Gun; Goals for initiatives: Develop a
firearm that could save the lives of law enforcement officers and
members of the public that they encounter while performing their
duties; Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 46. Successful
demonstration of prototype recognition system for smart gun; Type of
measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 47. Failure mode analysis
for prototype recognition system for smart gun; Type of measure:
Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of measure:
Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 48. Incorporation and
demonstration of recognition system into firearm (where applicable);
Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No;
Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 49. Identification of
appropriate biometric solutions for recognition system (where
applicable); Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure:
Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
OST's initiatives: 50. OST's network of technology centers (known as
the National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center system);
Goals for initiatives: Help state and local law enforcement,
corrections, and public safety personnel do their jobs more safely and
efficiently, thereby leading to greater administrative efficiencies,
more crimes solved, and more lives saved; Measures for assessing
achievement of goals: 51. Number of technology information documents
distributed; Type of measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure:
Intermediate: No; Type of measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 52. Number of
practitioners trained through the Crime Mapping Program; Type of
measure: Output: Yes; Type of measure: Intermediate: No; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
Measures for assessing achievement of goals: 53. Savings to criminal
justice agencies through the DOD's Section 1033 Military Surplus
Program. Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 1997[B] authorizes DOD to transfer excess military property
to federal and state agencies to support law enforcement activities
including counterdrug and counterterrorism activities; Type of
measure: Output: No; Type of measure: Intermediate: Yes; Type of
measure: Outcome: No.
Source: OST.
[A] Because the goal for this initiative was not outcome-oriented
according to our criteria, we used the initiative's mission statement
as the goal.
[B] P.L. 104-201, 110 Stat. 2422 (1996).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the Department of Justice:
U.S. Department of Justice:
Office of Justice Programs:
Office of the Assistant Attorney General:
Washington, D. C. 20531:
Laurie E. Ekstrand:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues General Accounting
Office:
441 G Street, N.W. Mail Stop 2440A Washington, DC 20548:
OCT 30 2003:
Dear Ms. Ekstrand:
This letter responds to the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft
report entitled "LAW ENFORCEMENT: Better Performance Measures Needed to
Assess Results of Justice's Office of Science and Technology" (GAO-04-
198).
In the draft report, GAO recommended that the National Institute of
Justice (NIJ), Office of Science and Technology (OST), reassess the
measures that OST uses to evaluate its progress toward achieving its
goals and to better focus on outcome measures to assess results where
possible. In cases where measuring outcome is, after careful
consideration, deemed infeasible, GAO recommended that OST develop
appropriate intermediate measures that will help to discern program
effectiveness.
We agree with the GAO's recommendation. The NIJ is participating in
extensive planning processes to create and refine appropriate feasible
measures for OST. In response to the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA) and the President's Management Agenda, in Fiscal Year 2002,
the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) initiated several agency-wide
activities aimed at improving OJP's ability to more effectively
identify, collect, analyze, and report program performance. As part of
these processes, OJP developed the agency's first Strategic Plan;
restructured its budget to align programs, strategies, and goals with
funding to support performance-based budgeting;
clarified overarching goals, strategies, and measures for all major
program areas, including those areas with OST involvement; and:
developed internal operational performance measures to track, on a
quarterly basis, progress of those activities supportive of program
success.
We are now in the process of implementing an agency-wide plan to
collect and analyze the data necessary under the approved OJP
performance measures. This baseline data will inform OJP, NIJ, and OST
as to future performance goals that should be established to help
assess the relevance, quality, and performance of OST's activities.
As NIJ's mission statement notes, the ultimate outcome that it seeks is
"... to enhance the administration of justice and public safety" which
most closely falls under the part of the Department of Justice's
mission that states, ". . . to provide federal leadership in preventing
and controlling crime . . . ." With respect to measuring such outcomes,
the Department has stated, "Measuring law enforcement performance
presents unique challenges. Success for the Department is highlighted
when justice is served fairly and impartially and the public is
protected. In many areas, our efforts cannot be reduced to simplistic
numerical counts of activities such as convictions. Therefore, although
the Department provides retrospective data on a limited number of these
activities, it does not target levels of performance. The Department is
concerned that doing so would lead to unintended and potentially
adverse consequences. Additionally, it is extremely difficult to
isolate the effects of our work from other factors that affect outcomes
over which the Department of Justice has little or no control. Although
during the last 7 years the annual violent crime rate has decreased by
about 50 percent, the Department does not rely on this macro-level
indicator in measuring its performance. Many factors contribute to the
rise and fall of the crime rates, including federal, state, local, and
tribal law enforcement activities and sociological, economic, and other
factors.":
Developing numerical outcome measures like those urged by GAO is a
particular challenge for research and development (R&D) activities, as
acknowledged in this draft report. Joint guidance issued in May 2002 by
the Directors of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) acknowledges the view
that ultimate socially-desired outcomes, such as reduced crime, are not
appropriate outcome measures for support organizations like research
agencies, and that descriptions of performance should not be limited
only to quantitative measures. The May 2002 guidance outlined the
criteria to use in evaluating Federal R&D programs, which considers
the: 1) relevance of the R&D; 2) quality of the R&D; and 3) performance
of the R&D (i.e., research management).
In developing measures of the performance of its offices, including
OST, NIJ benchmarks its activities with those of other Federal R&D
agencies. All of the performance plans of Federal R&D agencies that NIJ
reviewed[NOTE 1] use output measures more frequently than outcome
measures to evaluate their performance. Further, OMB approved a
qualitative scale initially used by the National Science Foundation
that has since been implemented by other agencies, such as the
National Institutes of Health, an agency that reports its performance
utilizing descriptive criteria allowed under the "alternative form"
provisions of GPRA.
In the draft report, GAO described OST's budget resources and how
funding from multiple sources has grown from $13.2 million in FY 1995
to $204.2 million in FY 2003 (in constant 2002 dollars). In addition,
GAO described how program responsibilities have changed since OST was
created in 1995, growing broader and more complex with the inclusion of
investigative and forensic sciences, school safety, and
counterterrorism programs. Also, GAO described OST's nine research and
development focus areas ("portfolios") which, in addition to OST's
capacity building and technology assistance programs for the field,
are managed and administered by 25 Federal positions. Further, GAO
listed OST's principle products and characterized how nearly 1,000 OST
products have been delivered to a wide variety of different customers
using various dissemination methods.
We believe this record is an outstanding one and worthy of comment,
even praise, from the GAO. However, while squarely within the purpose
of the GAO study, GAO did not reach any conclusions about any of the
material just summarized. Additionally, the GAO noted that over half of
DST's funds were designated by Congress for specific recipients and
projects (i.e., "earmarks") outside of the agency's normal nationwide
peer-reviewed competitive process. This point, also falling within the
scope of the GAO review, was not discussed in any detail in the report,
which we view as a missed opportunity to inform the requestor of this
report as to the impact of Congress's recent decision making with
respect to OST.
In response to GAO's comments, I have directed the NIJ Director, Sarah
Hart, to work to reassess NIJ's performance measures for OST and to
refine them, where possible, in order to focus them more toward
measuring outcomes. The Office of Justice Programs appreciates the
opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Deborah J. Daniels:
Assistant Attorney General:
Signed by Deborah J. Daniels:
cc: Sarah V. Hart, Director: National Institute of Justice:
Cynthia J. Schwimer: Comptroller, OR:
LeToya A. Johnson: Audit Liaison, OR:
Vickie L. Sloan: Audit Liasion, DOJ:
OAAG Executive Secretariat: Control Number 20032121:
NOTES:
[1] The NIJ reviewed the performance goals and measures of 12 Federal
R&D agencies, including those within the Departments of Agriculture,
Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Transportation; the
Food and Drug Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and
the National Science Foundation.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Laurie Ekstrand (202) 512-8777 Weldon McPhail (202) 512-8644:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed
to this report: Samuel L. Hinojosa, Debra L. Picozzi, Katherine M.
Davis, Richard Hung, Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Denise M. Fantone, Kristeen
McLain, Elizabeth H. Curda, Rebecka Derr, Thomas M. Beall, and Leo M.
Barbour.
FOOTNOTES
[1] We are using "programs" to indicate the broad categories of OST's
individual projects. NIJ and OST have referred to these categories as
both portfolio areas and programs. Our use of the term "programs"
encompasses "portfolio areas" (see app. IV for OST's portfolio areas)
and the safe school technology, counterterrorism technology, and
correction technology programs. NIJ and OST delineations between the
various programs and various portfolio areas are flexible. For example,
some of the projects to develop metal detectors and personnel locator
devices would apply to both school safety technologies and corrections
technologies programs and therefore could be placed in different
portfolio areas.
[2] NIJ was established in statute by the Justice System Improvement
Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-157, 93 Stat. 1167 (1979)), which, among other
things, amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968
(P.L. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (1968)).
[3] P.L. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2159 (2002). These mission and duties
are not unlike what OST had been carrying out previously. The Act
codified the mission and duties in statute.
[4] According to NIJ, forensic science is the application of
established scientific techniques to the identification, collection,
and examination of evidence from crime scenes; the interpretation of
laboratory findings; and the presentation of reported findings in
judicial proceedings.
[5] These 10 technology centers are OST's National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC) system.
[6] We did not include contracts because NIJ uses them for the purchase
of goods and services rather than for awarding funds for carrying out
OST programs and projects.
[7] P.L.103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[8] Figures do not include funding for management and administration
expenses, salaries, and unobligated balances carried from one year to
the next.
[9] For the purposes of this report, we will refer to both the funds
OST receives via several Justice appropriations accounts as NIJ
allocations as well as the reimbursements it receives as OST's
budgetary resources.
[10] In fiscal year 1999, NIJ used the LLEBG allocation to meet
congressional guidance to spend $10 million on a new Safe School
Initiative. The following year NIJ's Safe Schools Technology R&D
funding was introduced with $15 million. The OST funding was not
reduced as a result of the $15 million increase for the Safe Schools
Technology R&D.
[11] We separated reimbursements from this total because they included
projects that were not originally allocated to OST, although those
projects also may have been specified in public law and committee
reports.
[12] Included in the $249.8 million was $143.5 million for the CLIP
project. Committee report guidance further designated $107.0 million of
that $143.5 million for specific recipients. Given that we have
included the $107.0 million in the amounts designated in public law for
specific recipients or projects, we excluded it from the committee
report guidance category to avoid double counting.
[13] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-825, at 1020-21 (1998).
[14] For this effort, NIJ initially allocated Local Law Enforcement
Block Grant funds to OST.
[15] P.L. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-13 (1996).
[16] H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 106-479, at 161 (1999); H.R. Conf. Rep. No.
106-1005, at 226 (2000); and H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-278, at 86-87
(2001).
[17] The total amount of budgetary resources for investigative and
forensic sciences is likely to be larger. However, because of the
limitations in detail in the budget documents we received from OST, we
could not determine the amount of funding for investigative and
forensic sciences within certain NIJ Base and LLEBG projects, such as
within OST's technology center network and unspecified NIJ-directed
projects.
[18] Because NIJ's science and technology efforts predate OST's
establishment in fiscal year 1995, some of the products listed as
delivered have award years prior to 1995. The earliest listed is 1983.
[19] While some of the products resulting from technology R&D are
similar to those of the application, demonstration, and evaluation of
new and existing technologies group, the primary distinction is that
the former includes the development of prototypes and the latter
generally does not.
[20] Performance measures are to be included in the agency performance
plan covering each program activity set forth in the budget of such
agency. Program activity, in this case, refers to projects and
activities that are listed in program and financing schedules of the
annual Budget of the United States Government.
[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: An Agenda to
Improve the Usefulness of Agencies' Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD/
AIMD-98-228 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 1998).
[22] Annual performance plans describe a department component's goals
and performance targets in support of the department's long-term
strategic goals and targets. In its fiscal year 2004 performance plan,
OST reported actual performance data for fiscal year 2002, enacted
plans for fiscal year 2003, and performance plans for fiscal year 2004.
[23] Initiatives in this sense encompass portfolio areas, programs, and
projects.
[24] According to the OMB document, Budget of the United States
Government (Analytical Perspectives) for fiscal year 2004, basic R&D is
defined as systematic study directed toward greater knowledge or
understanding of fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable
facts without specific applications toward processes or products in
mind. Applied R&D is defined as systematic study to gain knowledge or
understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized
and specific need may be met.
[25] The surveys were done to determine if participants were satisfied
with the conference as a vehicle of information dissemination.
[26] To address issues with the mailing lists, the technology centers
have shipped a larger portion of copies to agencies, in bulk, and to
individuals who have actively requested copies and supplied their
addresses; continued to purchase the most current version of the
National Directory of Law Enforcement Administrators, Correctional
Institutions and Related Agencies to update their mailing list; and
modified mailing labels to include the addressee and "..or Training
Officer" in case the addressee is no longer with that agency.
[27] Initiatives in this sense encompass portfolio areas, programs, and
projects.
[28] GPRA establishes two approaches for assessing an agency's
performance: annual measurement of program performance against goals
outlined in a performance plan and program evaluations to be conducted
by the agency as needed. Evaluations can play a critical role in
helping to address measurement and analysis challenges. Performance
measurement is the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program
accomplishments, particularly progress toward established goals.
Program evaluations are individual systematic studies conducted
periodically or on an ad hoc basis to assess how well a program is
working. See U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Measurement
and Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO/GGD-98-26
(Washington, D.C.: April 1998).
[29] The Homeland Security Act actually directs the "Director" of OST
to transmit the report. After reorganizing in early 2003, NIJ now calls
this position the assistant NIJ director for science and technology.
[30] U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Strategies for
Assessing How Information Dissemination Contributes to Agency Goals,
GAO-02-923 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 30, 2002)
[31] To determine the goal for each OST program included in the plan,
we used the stated public benefit statement provided in the plan,
except for the Law Enforcement Technology R&D program.
[32] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Agency Performance Plans:
Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers,
GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 26, 1999) for our guidance
concerning intermediate-oriented measures and Managing for Results:
Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans, GAO/
GGD-97-180 (Washington D.C.: Sept. 16, 1997).
[33] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Measurement and
Evaluation: Definitions and Relationships, GAO/GGD-98-26 (Washington,
D.C.: April 1998).
[34] Interoperability of communications is the ability to communicate
across different public safety agencies and jurisdictions.
[35] In addition, there were 2 federal detailees, 2 visiting
scientists, and 32 on-site contractors supporting OST.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548: