DNA Evidence: DOJ Should Improve Performance Measurement and Properly Design Controls for Nationwide Grant Program
Fast Facts
State and local crime labs analyze DNA evidence from crime scenes to help bring criminals to justice. At the end of 2017, these labs had about 169,000 backlogged requests for DNA analysis.
While labs are doing more work, requests have increased in part because scientific advancements have made DNA analysis more useful.
Also, thousands of sexual assault kits haven't even been submitted to crime labs for DNA analysis. We looked at why these kits stay in storage and recent efforts to get them submitted.
We recommended that the Department of Justice improve its management of a grant program intended to help labs process DNA requests.
Crime scene evidence in storage
Crime scene evidence in bags and boxes on shelves.
Highlights
What GAO Found
GAO found that the reported number of backlogged requests for crime scene DNA analysis at state and local government labs has increased by 85 percent from 2011 through 2017, the most recent full year for which grantee data were available (from about 91,000 to about 169,000). This growth has occurred despite labs' collectively processing more requests over time, as shown below.
Requests for Crime Scene DNA Analysis, Requests Completed, and Backlogged Requests at State and Local Government Labs (2011-2017)
a“DNA requests” means requests for biology screening and/or DNA testing such that if a request requires one or both, it is counted once.
bSome requests may be closed by administrative means rather than through analysis, such as when a suspect pleads guilty before the evidence is analyzed or when the victim has not consented to participate in the criminal justice process. These requests are included in the number of requests received but are not included in the number of requests completed.
cThe National Institute of Justice (NIJ) defines a “backlogged” request for crime scene DNA analysis as a request that has not been closed by the issuance of a report to the submitting agency within 30 days of receipt in the lab.
GAO found that the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)—the primary grant-making arm of the Department of Justice—has not consistently documented program-wide goals for its DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction grant program (CEBR). For example, it has documented different meanings of “capacity enhancement.” Additionally, CEBR performance measures do not fully reflect selected attributes of successful performance measures, such as having measurable targets. These issues hinder OJP's ability to assess program results.
GAO found that OJP has designed controls to achieve its objectives related to compliance with selected requirements for transparency in grantee procurement that apply to both OJP and CEBR grantees. However, OJP has not properly designed all controls related to selected requirements for conflicts of interest and lobbying. While OJP has designed a control to review confidential financial disclosure reports submitted by OJP employees who administer CEBR grants, OJP does not have the required documentation designating which officials are authorized to certify these reports. Similarly, OJP has designed controls to obtain required lobbying certification and disclosure forms from grantees, but OJP has not taken steps to ensure that grantees collect and forward to OJP, as appropriate, these forms from subgrantees and contractors, as required.
Why GAO Did This Study
Many state and local government crime labs continue to have backlogs of requests for crime scene DNA analysis, which may include sexual assault kits, despite DOJ awarding nearly $1 billion since 2004 through the CEBR grant program to enhance lab capacity and reduce backlogs. Additionally, questions have been raised about potential improper connections among those who profit from CEBR grants—such as private labs and DNA equipment vendors—and those who advocate for CEBR funding.
This report examines, among other things, (1) what is known about the amount of backlogged DNA evidence at state and local government labs; (2) the extent to which OJP measures CEBR grant performance; and (3) the extent to which OJP has designed controls to identify conflicts of interest related to CEBR grants. GAO reviewed CEBR grantee data on DNA evidence backlogs from 2011-2017 (the most recent years of comparable data). GAO reviewed documentation on CEBR performance and controls related to conflicts of interest, transparency in grantee procurement, and lobbying. GAO also reviewed relevant reports and studies, and interviewed officials from DOJ.
Recommendations
GAO is making four recommendations. OJP should (1) consistently document CEBR goals, (2) revise CEBR performance measures, (3) document its designation of confidential financial disclosure certifiers, and (4) clarify guidance for lobbying requirements for CEBR grantees. DOJ concurred with all four recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Office of Justice Programs | The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should consistently document CEBR program-wide goals to clarify intended program results. (Recommendation 1) |
In March 2019, we reported on the Office of Justice Program's (OJP) DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction (CEBR) grant program (GAO-19-216). The program aims to help states and localities increase lab capacity and reduce the amount of DNA evidence awaiting analysis at labs. In our review, we found that CEBR program goals were not consistently documented. For example, a stated goal of improving the quality of DNA testing was included in two of four CEBR program documents we reviewed, and the goal of increasing the efficiency of testing was only stated in one of these documents. As such, we recommended that the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP consistently document CEBR program-wide goals to clarify intended program results. In July 2021, OJP provided the CEBR logic model, which is a document that establishes links between grant-funded activities, performance measures, and goals. The logic model is also designed to consistently communicate goals to its CEBR grantee population, according to OJP. For example, OJP incorporated language from this logic model into permitted activities, performance measures, and goals listed in the fiscal year 2021 CEBR grant solicitation. OJP officials said they conducted a webinar for its CEBR grantee population communicating the details of the logic model in February 2021, and ultimately shared the logic model with grantees in July 2021. OJP officials also said they provided grantees with a user-guide to help link CEBR-funded activities to performance measures and program goals. These actions should help ensure that CEBRs goals are consistently documented and can help clarify intended program results to stakeholders. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|
| Office of Justice Programs | The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should ensure that performance measures for each CEBR program-wide goal fully reflect appropriate attributes of successful performance measures. (Recommendation 2) |
In our review, we found that the CEBR program's six program-wide performance measures did not fully reflect the five selected attributes of successful performance measures we evaluated them against. For example, we found that five of the six measures do not have associated targets (numerical goals). As such, we recommended that the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP ensure that performance measures for each CEBR program-wide goal fully reflect appropriate attributes of successful performance measures. In October 2020, OJP updated its CEBR performance measures, which were incorporated into the fiscal year 2021 CEBR grant solicitation. As part of this process, OJP developed a logic model for the CEBR program to establish a clear link between grant-funded activities, performance measures, and goals. OJP reported that it reviewed its performance measures against this logic model to ensure that they are meaningful and reflect appropriate attributes. Specifically, OJP reported that it first established quantifiable CEBR program objectives and then evaluated each CEBR performance measure against these objectives to confirm its linkage to the program's goals, objectives, and activities. Based on these actions, we determined that CEBR performance measures more fully reflected appropriate attributes of successful performance measures. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|
| Office of Justice Programs | The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should document which employee positions have been delegated certification (final signature) authority for confidential financial disclosure reports and specify required levels of review and approval. (Recommendation 3) |
During the course of our review, we found that OJP had not properly designed a control to achieve compliance with federal requirements for confidential financial disclosure. Specifically, OJP had designed a process to collect and review annual confidential financial disclosure reports submitted by OJP employees that administer CEBR grants. However, OJP did not have documentation designating which officials are authorized to certify these reports (i.e., provide final signature). Consequently, we recommended that the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP document which employee positions have been delegated certification authority for confidential financial disclosure reports and specify required levels of review and approval. In response, OJP provided a July 2021 memo that, according to OJP, had been sent to its components by the Acting Assistant Attorney General. The memo stated that supervisors are to collect, review, and sign reports and that these supervisors must have first-hand knowledge of employees' assignments. It also specified which individuals will serve as the Final Reviewing Officials. This action clarifies which individuals have been delegated authority to certify reports as Final Reviewing Official and specify required levels of review and approval. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|
| Office of Justice Programs | The Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP should (1) clarify its guidance to grantees to specify what their requirements are under 28 C.F.R. pt. 69 with regard to obtaining lobbying certification documents, and obtaining and forwarding to OJP lobbying disclosure forms, from tiers beneath them; and (2) design a control to follow-up with grantees to help ensure they are meeting these requirements. (Recommendation 4) |
In our review, we found that OJP had designed some controls to obtain required lobbying certification and disclosure forms from grantees. However, OJP had not taken steps to ensure that grantees collect and forward to OJP these forms from sub-grantees and contractors, as required. As such, we recommended that the Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for OJP clarify its guidance to grantees to specify regulatory requirements with regard to obtaining lobbying certification documents and design a control to follow-up with grantees to help ensure they are meeting these requirements. In February 2022, to address the first part of this recommendation, OJP distributed an e-mail to funding recipients with open, active awards reminding them of their lobbying certification and disclosure requirements, instructions on how and when recipients are required to submit lobbying disclosure forms, and other instructions for disclosure form collection. In addition, in July 2022, OJP developed a standard operating procedure to distribute such information to grantees and select OJP staff annually. To address the second part of this recommendation, OJP revised its programmatic monitoring checklist to include five new questions specific to lobbying certification and disclosure requirements and notified OJP staff of these new questions. Based on these actions, we determined that OJP has clarified its guidance and more fully designed controls related to compliance with federal lobbying requirements in the administration of CEBR grants. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|