An Overview and Funding History of Select Department of Justice (DOJ) Grant Programs

^Pr^ep^ar^{ed f}^o^r^M^e^m^b^ers^an^d^Com^mⁱ^t^t^ees^of^C^ong^r^e^ss

The Department of Justice (DOJ) was created in June 1870, with the Attorney General as its head.
Since its establishment, DOJ has expanded to include 40 agencies. The Office of Justice
Programs (OJP), the Community Oriented Policing Services Office (COPS), and the Office of
Violence Against Women, provide grant funds to state, local, and tribal governments for crime
prevention and intervention programs as well as funding for criminal justice system improvement
programs. This report discusses several DOJ grant programs administered through OJP and
COPS, including the Weed and Seed, the Drug Court Discretionary Grant program, the Prisoner
Re-entry Initiative, the President’s DNA Initiative, the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
program, the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing program, the Paul Coverdell Grant
program, assistance to Indian tribes (Indian Country Prison grants, Tribal Courts Grant program,
Indian Country Alcohol and Crime Demonstration program), and Tribal Law Enforcement
Assistance.
In recent years, Congress has questioned the effectiveness of many DOJ grant programs. As
Congress continues to cut appropriations for many discretionary grant programs, there may be
greater scrutiny of these programs. This report discusses this issue as well as issues concerning
the effective management and accounting of DOJ grant programs. This report will be updated as
warranted.

Department of Justice......................................................................................................................1
Office of Justice Programs..............................................................................................................1
Bureau of Justice Assistance.....................................................................................................2
National Institute of Justice.......................................................................................................2
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention............................................................2
Bureau of Justice Statistics........................................................................................................3
Office for Victims of Crime......................................................................................................3
Community Capacity Development Office (Weed and Seed Program)....................................3
Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering and Tracking
(SMART) Office....................................................................................................................4
Community Oriented Policing Services Office...............................................................................4
Select DOJ Grant Programs.............................................................................................................4
Weed and Seed..........................................................................................................................5
Drug Courts...............................................................................................................................6
Prisoner Re-entry Initiative.......................................................................................................7
The President’s DNA Initiative.................................................................................................8
Capacity Enhancement........................................................................................................9
Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction..................................................................10
Forensic Casework DNA Backlog Reduction...................................................................10
Solving Cold Cases With DNA..........................................................................................11
Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program...........................................................................11
Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing Program.....................................................12
Paul Coverdell Grant Program................................................................................................13
Assistance to Indian Tribes.....................................................................................................15
Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program..............................................................15
Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program.................................................................16
Tribal Court Assistance Program......................................................................................16
Tribal Resources Grant Program.............................................................................................17
Select Issues..................................................................................................................................18
Program Effectiveness.............................................................................................................18
Effective Program Management and Accounting...................................................................18
Table 1. Funding for the Weed and Seed Program, FY2004-FY2008.............................................5
Table 2. Funding for the Drug Court Program, FY2004-FY2008...................................................6
Table 3. Funding for the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative, FY2004-FY2008........................................7
Table 4. Funding for the President’s DNA Initiative, FY2004-FY2008..........................................8
Table 5. Funding for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, FY2004-FY2008............11
Table 6. Funding for the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing Program,
FY2004-FY2008 ........................................................................................................................ 13
Table 7. Funding for Coverdell Grants, FY2004-FY2008............................................................14

Table 8. Funding for Assistance to Indian Tribes, FY2004-FY2008.............................................15
Table 9. Funding for the TRGP, FY2004-FY2008........................................................................17
Appendix. A List of Related CRS Reports....................................................................................20
Author Contact Information..........................................................................................................20

The Department of Justice (DOJ) was created in June 1870, with the Attorney General as its head. ¹
Since its establishment, DOJ has expanded to include 40 agencies. The United States Attorneys
Office prosecutes offenders and represents the federal government in court. The major
investigative agencies—the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)—
prevent and deter crime and arrest offenders. The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) provides
protection to the federal judiciary, apprehends fugitives, and detains people in federal custody.
The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) provides confinement and supervision for convicted federal
offenders. The litigating divisions in DOJ (the criminal division, the civil division, the anti-trust
division, the tax division, and the civil right division) enforce federal criminal and civil laws. The
Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, and
the Office of Violence Against Women (OVW), provide grant funds to state, local, and tribal
governments for crime prevention and intervention programs as well as funding for criminal
justice system improvement programs. This report focuses on select DOJ grant programs ²
administered through OJP and COPS.

In 1984, Congress created OJP by passing the Justice Assistance Act of 1984.³ The Assistant ⁴
Attorney General (AAG) oversees OJP, which has approximately 700 employees. OJP is the
main agency within DOJ that awards grants to states, local governments, and nonprofit
organizations to help develop the country’s capacity to prevent and control crime, improve states’ ⁵
criminal justice systems, increase knowledge about crime, and assist victims of crime.
OJP is overseen and managed by the AAG. The AAG coordinates the efforts of OJP’s five bureaus
and two program offices to ensure that OJP’s mission is met. OJP’s five bureaus are the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), and the Office of
Victims of Crime (OVC). OJP’s two program offices are the Community Capacity Development
Office (CCDO), and the Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and
Tracking (SMART) Office.

¹^A^c^o^m^p^le^te^{DOJ org}^a^niz^a^tiona^{l c}^h^a^r^{t c}^aⁿ^be^f^o^uⁿ^d^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.usdoj.g^ov^/^j^m^d^/^m^ps/^m^a^nua^l/a^g^.^htm^#org^c^ha^rt.
²^For^a^dis^c^us^sⁱ^oⁿ^of^O^V^W^g^r^aⁿ^{t p}^r^og^r^a^m^s^{, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁰⁸^71,^Violeⁿ^c^e^Ag^ains^{t W}^o^m^eⁿ^Ac^t:^Hⁱ^s^t^or^y^an^d
^Fe^de^{ral Fu}^ndⁱⁿ^g^,^by^G^a^r^rⁱ^ne^P^.^L^a^ney^.
³^T^itle^{II, §6}^03(a⁾^of^P.L^.^98-⁴⁷^3,⁹⁸^Sta^t^.²⁰^77.
⁴^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^the^Iⁿ^s^p^e^c^t^or^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^Se^mⁱ^ann^ial^Re^por^t^to^C^o^ngr^e^s^s^Apr^il¹^,²⁰⁰⁴^-^S^e^p^te^m^b^e^r
^{30, 20}⁰⁴^{, T}^h^e^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^J^u^s^tic^e^P^r^og^ram^s^{, p. 1}⁸^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.us^doj.g^ov^/oig^/s^e^mⁱ^a^nnua^l/⁰⁴¹^1/^fⁱ^na^l.pdf^.
⁵^Offⁱ^{ce o}^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce P}^r^o^g^rams,^A^b^out^OJP^,^at^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www^.^o^j^p^.^u^s^d^o^j^.^gov/^a^bout.^h^tm^.

The BJA provides leadership and assistance in support of local criminal justice strategies intended
to achieve safer communities. BJA’s purpose is to provide “funding, training, and technical
assistance to state and local governments, Indian tribes, and public and private organizations to ⁷
combat violent and drug-related crime and help improve the criminal justice system.” BJA
awards formula grants to state and local governments (including U.S. territories and the District
of Columbia) through its Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program. BJA also administers a variety
of discretionary grant programs as well as payment and benefit programs such as the Bulletproof ⁸
Vest Partnership Program and the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program. BJA also makes a ⁹
variety of competitive awards through open solicitations for applications.

The NIJ is the research, evaluation, and development agency for the DOJ.¹¹ The mission of NIJ is
to “advance scientific research, development, and evaluation to enhance the administration of ¹²
justice and public safety.” Major NIJ programs include
• social science research and evaluation;
• technology development;
• forensic laboratory capacity development;
• technology assistance for state and local public safety agencies; and
• dissemination of information through publications, websites, and conferences.
NIJ sponsors research and development and technology assistance by awarding grants to external
organizations. NIJ also conducts internal evaluations of programs, policies, and technologies for
the DOJ. NIJ indicates that it actively solicits the views of criminal justice professionals and
researchers in its efforts to develop knowledge and tools that can inform policy and practice.

The OJJDP awards grants to states and localities to help them improve their juvenile justice
system. OJJDP awards formula grants to states, U.S. territories, and the District of Columbia
through the Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) program and through its Title V grant
program. OJJDP also makes awards through open solicitations. In addition, OJJDP sponsors
innovative research, demonstration, evaluation, statistics, technical assistance, and training

⁶^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§³⁷^41.
⁷^Fr^om^O^J^P^’^s^G^r^aⁿ^{t Ma}^na^g^e^r^’^s^Ma^nua^{l, Se}^c^tⁱ^on^2.^1.1^.^1.
⁸^Offⁱ^{ce o}^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce P}^r^o^g^rams,^Of^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce P}^r^og^ra^{ms R}^e^sou^r^{ce Gu}ⁱ^d^e,^Fⁱ^sca^l²⁰⁰⁵^E^dⁱ^tⁱ^oⁿ^,^p.^1,^at
^http:^//w^w^w^.ojp.us^doj^.g^ov^/oc^o^m^/^doc^s^/^O^J^P^R^e^s^o^u^r^c^e^G^uide^05.p^d^f^.
⁹^Se^e^htt^p^://w^w^w^.ojp.us^d^o^j^.g^ov^/^B^J^A^/^g^ra^nt/inde^x^.^htm^l^f^o^{r a}^lis^{t of}^th^e^prog^ra^m^s^BJ^A^f^unds^.
¹⁰^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§³⁷^22.
¹¹^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^A^bou^t^N^I^J^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^w^w^.ojp.us^d^o^j^.g^ov^/nij/^a^bout^.htm^.
¹²^Ibid^.
¹³^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§⁵⁶^11.

programs to promote delinquency prevention and response to juvenile violence and ¹⁴
delinquency.

The BJS collects, analyzes, publishes, and disseminates data on crime, criminal offenders, victims ¹⁶
of crime, and the operation of the criminal justice system at all levels of government. The data is
made available to federal, state, and local governments, as well as the public, to assist in
combating crime and to help ensure the improved administration of justice throughout the
country. BJS also provides technical assistance to state, local, and tribal governments to help
them develop their criminal justice statistical capabilities. While BJS does administer grant
programs, like the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP), the administration ¹⁷
of grants is not the primary function of the office.

The OVC provides federal funds for victim compensation and assistance programs across the
country. OVC also provides training for professionals who work with victims, develops and
disseminates publications, supports projects to enhance victims’ rights and services, and educates ¹⁹
the public about victim issues. Funds for OVC programs come from the Crime Victims Fund ²⁰
established by the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA). The Crime Victims Fund is authorized to ²¹
accept donations from private entities, bequests, or private gifts by the USA-PATRIOT Act.
OVC uses discretionary funds to fund training and technical assistance and demonstration
initiatives to enhance the knowledge, skills, and abilities of victim service providers.
The CCDO is responsible for overseeing and managing the Weed and Seed Program. Until 2004,
CCDO was known as the Executive Office of Weed and Seed. CCDO was created in March of

2004 to work with local communities to develop programs that deter crime and promote ²²

neighborhood revitalization. CCDO’s current mission is to develop, evaluate, and implement
policies to serve as models for community capacity development efforts, providing counseling for
federal, state, and local governments and the private sector on a variety of justice-related

¹⁴^O^J^P^’^s^G^r^aⁿ^{t Ma}^na^g^e^r^’^s^Ma^nua^l,^Se^c^t^{. 2.}^1.1^.^1.
¹⁵^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§³⁷^32.
¹⁶^Bure^a^u^of^Justic^e^Sta^tistic^s,^Ab^o^u^{t t}^h^e^Bure^a^u^o^f^J^u^stic^e^S^t^atistic^s^,^a^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ojp.usd^oj.g^ov^/^b^js/a^bou^tbjs.^h^tm^.
¹⁷^Se^e^htt^p^://w^w^w^.ojp.us^d^o^j^.g^ov^/^b^js^/a^bou^tbjs^.^h^tm^f^o^{r a}^lis^{t of}^prog^ra^m^s^tha^t^BJ^{S pr}^ov^ide^s^f^undi^ng^f^o^r.
¹⁸⁴²^U^.^S^.^C^.^§1⁰⁶⁰⁵^.
¹⁹^Offⁱ^ce^f^o^{r V}ⁱ^ctⁱ^m^{s o}^f^Cri^m^e,^F^a^ct^S^h^eet^{: Wha}^tⁱ^s^t^h^e^Offic^e^f^o^{r Vic}^{tims of Crime}^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ojp.usdoj^.g^ov^/ov^c^/
^pub^lic^a^tio^ns^/^f^a^c^t^s^h^ts^/w^ha^t_is^_ov^c/f^s^_0003⁰⁷^.htm^l#1.
²⁰^P^.^L^.^98-⁴⁷^{3, a}^s^a^m^e^nde^d.
²¹^Se^e^P.L^.¹⁰^7-⁵⁶^.
²²^D^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^Of^fⁱ^c^e^of^J^u^s^tic^e^P^r^og^r^a^m^s^{, “}^O^f^f^ice^of^J^u^s^tic^e^P^r^og^r^a^m^s^A^nnouc^e^s^N^e^w^Of^fⁱ^c^e^{to H}^e^lp
^Com^m^unitie^{s P}^r^e^v^eⁿ^{t Crim}^e^,^P^r^o^m^ote^Re^v^ita^liz^a^tion,”^pre^{ss re}^le^a^s^e^,^Ma^rc^{h 1}⁸^,²⁰^04,^a^t^ht^tp:/^/www^.^o^jp.^u^sd^oj.g^ov^/
^pr^e^s^s^r^e^l^e^a^s^es^/O^J^P⁰⁴⁰^11.^htm^.

community issues.²³ OJP is in the process of creating an Office of Weed and Seed Strategies
within CCDO, as required by the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice ²⁴
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162). CCDO also hosts OJP’s American Indian and
Alaska Native Affairs Desk, which was created to enhance access to information about funding
opportunities for federally recognized tribes, the availability of training and technical assistance,
and other information.

The SMART Office was authorized by section 146 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (Adam Walsh Act, P.L. 109-248). The SMART Office administers the
standards for the sex offender registration and notification program set forth in Title I of the
Adam Walsh Act. The SMART Office provides technical assistance to state, tribal, and local
governments, and to public and private organizations involved in activities related to sex offender
registration and notification. The SMART Office also administers grant programs related to the
registration, notification, tracking and monitoring of sex offenders.

The COPS program was created by Title I of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement ²⁶
Act of 1994 (the ‘94 Crime Act). The mission of the COPS program is to advance community
policing in all jurisdictions across the United States. The COPS program awards grants to state,
local, and tribal law enforcement agencies throughout the United States so they can hire and train
law enforcement officers to participate in community policing, purchase and deploy new crime-²⁷
fighting technologies, and develop and test new and innovative policing strategies.

This section discusses the following DOJ grant programs: Weed and Seed, the Drug Court
Discretionary Grant program, the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative, the President’s DNA Initiative, the
Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant program, the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing
program, the Paul Coverdell Grant program, assistance to Indian tribes (Indian Country Prison
grants, Tribal Courts Grant program, Indian Country Alcohol and Crime Demonstration program),
and Tribal Law Enforcement Assistance. This report does not discuss any other discretionary
grant programs administered by OJP and COPS, nor does it discuss the Justice Assistance Grant

²³^Co^mm^uⁿⁱ^t^y^Cap^aci^t^y^D^e^vel^o^p^m^en^t^Offⁱ^ce,^{CCDO FAQs}^{, a}^t^http^:/^/w^w^w^.ojp.us^d^oj.g^ov^/^c^c^do/a^b^o^u^t/^f^a^q.htm^l^.
²⁴^T^e^le^phone^c^o^nv^e^r^s^a^{tion w}^{ith S}^u^m^m^e^r^L^a^r^s^{on, O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^J^u^s^tic^e^P^r^og^r^a^m^s^{, O}^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^C^o^m^m^unic^a^tions^{, o}ⁿ^A^p^r^{il 2}⁸^,
²⁰⁰^6.
²⁵^Se^x^O^f^f^e^nde^r^Se^nteⁿ^cⁱ^ng^{, M}^onit^o^rⁱ^ng^{, A}^ppr^e^h^eⁿ^di^ng^{, R}^e^gⁱ^s^t^e^r^ing^a^{nd T}^r^a^c^k^ing^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Abou^{t SM}^A^R^T^{, a}^t
^http:^//www^.ojp.us^doj^.g^ov^/sm^a^rt/a^bou^t.h^t^m^.
²⁶^P^.^L^.¹⁰^3-³²²^;⁴²^U^.^S^.^C^.^§3⁷⁹^6d^d(^d)^.
²⁷^D^O^J^C^O^P^S^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^“A^{bout C}^o^m^m^unit^y^O^r^ie^nte^d^P^o^lic^ing^Se^r^v^ic^e^s^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^”^a^t^http:/^/w^w^w^.c^ops^.us^d^oj.g^ov^/
^D^e^f^a^ult.a^s^p?^I^t^e^m⁼^35.

Program (JAG), any grant program administered by the Office on Violence Against Women
(OVW), any grant program administered by the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC), or OJP and
COPS grant programs that have traditionally received funding through earmarks. See the
Appendix for a list of CRS products that have a more extensive discussion of some of these other
grant programs.
The Weed and Seed program was recently authorized by Section 1121 of the Violence Against
Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162). Section 1121
established an Office of Weed and Seed Strategies within the Office of Justice Programs to
oversee and manage the Weed and Seed program. Despite the fact that the program was just
recently authorized, the Weed and Seed program has been receiving funding since FY1993 ²⁸
through appropriations actions. As shown in Table 1, over the past five fiscal years funding for
the Weed and Seed program has fluctuated. The Weed and Seed program received approximately
$58 million in funding in FY2004. In FY2005, funding for the program increased to$62 million,
an increase in funding of 6% compared with FY2004. In FY2006, funding for the program
decreased to$50 million, a decrease in funding of 19% compared with FY2005. In FY2007,
funding for the program was almost exactly what it was in FY2006. In FY2008, funding for the
program decreased 35% compared with FY2007.
Table 1. Funding for the Weed and Seed Program, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}⁰⁶^FY20^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^$58,5^{42 $62,0}^{00 $50,0}⁰⁰^$49,3^{61 $32,1}⁰⁰
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; FY20}⁰⁷^approp^{riations provided by Depa}^{rtment of}
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY200}^{8 a}^pprop^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 110-}
^161.
The Weed and Seed program provides funding to Weed and Seed Communities (WSCs) to help
them implement their Weed and Seed strategy. The Weed and Seed strategy is overseen by a
steering committee that includes residents from the community and decision-makers with the
authority, responsibility, and control of existing resources that the community will draw upon to ²⁹
implement its strategy. The Weed and Seed strategy aims to prevent, control, and reduce violent
crime, drug abuse, and gang activity through the use of (1) law enforcement; (2) community ³⁰
policing; (3) prevention, intervention, and treatment; and (4) neighborhood restoration. The four
elements of the Weed and Seed strategy are implemented in the community through “weeding”

²⁸^Se^e^Com^m^e^r^c^e^,^Justic^e^,^a^{nd Sta}^t^e^,^the^Ju^dicⁱ^a^r^y^,^a^nd^Re^la^te^{d A}^g^eⁿ^cⁱ^e^s^A^ppropria^ti^ons^{bill f}^o^r^FY1⁹⁹³⁽^P^.L^{. 1}^02-
³⁹⁵⁾^.
²⁹^T^h^{e st}^eeriⁿ^{g co}^mmi^t^t^ee^m^u^stⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e^rep^r^esen^t^a^tⁱ^v^{es f}^r^o^m^ci^t^y^go^v^e^rn^m^eⁿ^t^,^co^mm^uⁿⁱ^t^y^resi^d^eⁿ^t^s,^t^h^{e U.}^S^.
^A^t^t^o^rn^e^y^{’s O}^f^fⁱ^ce,^l^o^cal^l^a^w^en^f^o^rce^m^en^t^,^p^r^o^s^ecu^t^o^rs,^an^{d t}^h^{e DE}^A^.^T^h^{e st}^e^e^riⁿ^g^co^mmi^t^t^{ee can}^al^soⁱⁿ^cl^u^d^e^m^e^m^b^ers
^f^r^o^m^nonpr^of^{it or}^g^a^niz^a^tio^ns^{, f}^o^u^nda^ti^ons^/c^or^por^a^tⁱ^ons^,^f^a^ith-^b^a^s^e^d^or^g^a^niz^a^tions^,^s^o^cⁱ^a^l^s^e^r^v^ic^e^s^a^g^encⁱ^e^s^{, pla}ⁿ^ning
^c^o^m^mⁱ^s^sⁱ^ons^{, c}^o^m^m^unity^c^o^r^r^e^c^tⁱ^ons^,^pa^r^o^le^/^p^r^o^ba^tio^ns^of^fⁱ^c^e^s^{, the jud}ⁱ^cⁱ^a^r^y^,^the^s^c^hool^boa^r^d^{, m}^e^nta^l^he^a^lth
^or^g^a^niz^a^tions^{, e}^m^ploy^m^e^{nt a}^g^eⁿ^cie^s^{, ho}^us^ing^or^g^a^niz^a^tⁱ^ons^{, a}^{nd r}^e^m^e^dia^l^e^duc^a^tio^{n g}^r^ou^ps^.
³⁰^Co^mm^uⁿⁱ^t^y^Cap^aci^t^y^D^e^vel^o^p^m^en^t^Offⁱ^ce,^{CCDO FY08 W}^e^e^d^aⁿ^d^Se^e^d^C^o^mmuⁿ^itie^{s Com}^p^e^titiv^e^{Program G}^u^ide
^and^Ap^plic^a^tio^{n Kit}^{, p}^.⁶^,^a^t^h^ttp:^/^/^www^.ojp.usd^oj.g^ov^/^c^c^do/w^s^/^f^y⁰^8w^s-c^o^m^p^e^titiv^e^-^e^x^te^nde^d.p^d^f^.

and “seeding” activities.³¹ The weeding and seeding activities must complement each other, and
they should be part of an overall strategy that will reduce crime, increase public safety, and ³²
improve the neighborhood. The Weed and Seed strategy should focus on integrating the
weeding and seeding activities developed and implemented by the steering committee into
existing public and private organizations in the community.
In FY2007, CCDO changed the way it funds WSCs. WSCs have to submit a notice of intent to ³³
CCDO stating that they intend to apply for Weed and Seed funding. After the notice of intent is
submitted, the site has one year to form a steering committee and develop a strategy. If a site is
selected for funding after submitting their application, the site will receive up to $1 million in
funding for the five-year grant period. The funding per year is not uniform. The funding follows a ³⁴
bell curve design, with increasing and decreasing funding levels over the five-year grant period.
Also, funding for the five years is not guaranteed. Continued funding is contingent upon the site ³⁵
meeting established Weed and Seed performance measures as approved by CCDO.
OJP’s Drug Court program was established by Title V of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). As shown in Table 2, funding for the Drug Court
program decreased each fiscal year between FY2005 and FY2007. Funding for the program in
FY2004 was $38.5 million. Funding for the program increased to $40 million in FY2005, a 4%
increase over FY2004. However, funding for the program decreased to$10 million in FY2006, a
75% decrease from FY2005. The Drug Court program received approximately the same amount
of funding in FY2007 as it did in FY2006. In FY2008, funding for the Drug Court program
increased 54% ($15.2 million) compared to FY2007.
Table 2. Funding for the Drug Court Program, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}⁰⁶^FY20^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^$38,5^{00 $40,0}^{00 $10,0}⁰⁰^$9,87²^$15,2⁰⁰
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; FY20}⁰⁷^approp^{riations provided by Depa}^{rtment of}
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY200}^{8 a}^pprop^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 110-}
^161.

³¹^“^W^e^e^d^ing^”^a^c^tⁱ^v^itie^{s f}^o^c^u^{s on c}^rⁱ^m^e^c^ontrol^inv^o^lv^ing^tra^d^itio^na^{l l}^a^w^eⁿ^f^o^rc^e^m^eⁿ^{t ta}^c^tic^{s, c}^o^rre^c^tio^ns-re^la^te^{d e}^x^-
^of^fe^nde^{r supe}^rv^ision^a^c^tiv^itie^{s, a}ⁿ^{d c}^o^m^m^unity^polic^ing^.^“^S^e^e^dⁱⁿ^g^”^a^c^tiv^itie^{s f}^o^c^u^{s on c}^o^m^m^unity^re^v^ita^liz^a^tion
^inv^o^lv^ing^pr^e^v^eⁿ^tio^n,^inte^r^v^eⁿ^ti^oⁿ^{, a}ⁿ^{d tr}^e^a^t^m^e^{nt s}^e^r^v^ic^es^a^{nd ne}^ig^hbo^r^h^oo^{d r}^e^s^t^or^a^tⁱ^on.^I^bⁱ^d^.
³²^Ibid^.
³³^T^h^{e n}^o^tⁱ^{ce o}^fⁱⁿ^t^eⁿ^tⁱⁿ^dⁱ^cat^{es t}^h^a^t^t^h^{e Uni}^t^e^d^S^t^at^{es A}^t^t^o^rn^ey^f^o^{r t}^h^{e d}ⁱ^st^ri^ct^sup^p^o^r^t^s^t^h^{e d}^e^si^gn^atⁱ^{on o}^f^t^h^{e si}^t^e^f^o^r
^W^e^e^d^a^{nd Se}^e^d^f^undi^ng^{, de}^s^c^rⁱ^be^s^the^c^oⁿ^d^iti^ons^tha^t^w^a^r^r^a^{nt c}^ons^ide^r^a^tion^,^aⁿ^{d i}ⁿ^c^l^ude^s^pr^o^pos^e^d^s^t^r^e^e^t^bo^unda^rⁱ^e^s
^en^co^m^p^assiⁿ^g^t^h^{e p}^r^o^p^o^s^ed^f^o^cu^s^area,^al^oⁿ^g^wⁱ^t^h^{a m}^a^p^o^f^t^h^{e are}^a^.
³⁴^{For e}^x^a^m^ple^,^if^a^s^ite^re^ce^iv^e^d^{$1 m}^{illion in}^f^undi^ng^f^o^{r the}^fⁱ^v^e^-^y^ea^{r g}^r^aⁿ^{t pe}^riod^{, t}^h^e^s^ite^w^{ould g}^e^t^$1^75,⁰⁰^{0 i}ⁿ
^f^unding^t^h^e^fⁱ^r^s^t^y^e^a^r^{, $250}^,0⁰⁰ⁱⁿ^the^s^e^c^o^{nd y}^e^a^r^{, $27}^5,0⁰⁰ⁱⁿ^th^e^thir^d^y^e^a^r^{, $20}^0,⁰⁰^{0 i}ⁿ^t^h^e^f^our^t^h^y^e^a^r^{, a}^nd
^$10^0,⁰⁰^{0 i}ⁿ^t^h^e^fⁱ^na^{l y}^e^a^r^.
³⁵^F^o^{r a l}ⁱ^st^o^f^t^h^e^p^e^rf^o^r^man^ce^m^e^a^s^u^r^{es t}^h^at^W^S^{Cs are req}^uⁱ^red^t^o^c^o^l^l^ect^d^a^t^a^on^and^sub^mⁱ^t^t^o^CCD^O,^see
^C^o^m^m^unity^C^a^pacⁱ^t^y^D^e^ve^lopm^{ent O}^f^fⁱ^ce^,^FY08^W^e^e^d^an^{d Se}^e^d^C^o^m^m^unitⁱ^e^s^C^o^m^p^e^tit^iv^e^Pr^ogr^am^G^u^ide^an^d
^Applic^ati^{on K}ⁱ^t^,^pp.¹⁴^-1^{5, a}^t^http^://www^.ojp.usd^oj.g^ov^/^c^c^do/^ws/^f^y^08w^s-c^o^m^p^e^titiv^e^-^e^x^te^nde^d.pdf^.

Drug courts are designed to help reduce recidivism and substance abuse among nonviolent
offenders and increase an offender’s likelihood of successful rehabilitation through early,
continuous, and intense judicially supervised treatment, mandatory periodic drug testing, ³⁶
community supervision, and appropriate sanctions and other habilitation services. According to
BJA, a drug court can be a specially designed court calendar or docket as well as a specialized ³⁷
court program. Drug courts funded by BJA are required by law to only include nonviolent ³⁸
offenders.

The Prisoner Re-entry Initiative was authorized by Section 2421 of the 21^st Century Department ^st
of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273). The 21 Century Department of
Justice Appropriations Authorization Act authorized appropriations for the initiative for FY2003-⁴⁰
FY2005. However, the initiative has received funding since FY2001. Historically, funding for
the initiative has been appropriated under the COPS appropriation, but the funds have been
transferred to OJP, where they are administered by BJA. As shown in Table 3, funding for the
Prisoner Re-entry Initiative $5 million in FY2004. In FY2005, funding for the initiative increased
to$10 million, a 100% increase in funding over FY2004 funding. In FY2006, funding decreased
to $5 million, a 50% decrease in funding compared with FY2005. Funding for the initiative
increased to approximately $15 million in FY2007, a 197% increase in funding compared to the
previous fiscal year. Funding for the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative decreased in FY2008 to $11.75
million, a decrease of 21% compared to FY2007.
Table 3. Funding for the Prisoner Re-entry Initiative, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in t}^{housands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}⁰⁶^FY20^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^$5,00^{0 $10,0}^{00 $5,00}⁰^$14,8⁷⁹^$11,7⁵⁰
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; FY20}⁰⁷^approp^{riations provided by Depa}^{rtment of}
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY200}^{8 a}^pprop^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 110-}
^161.
The Re-entry Initiative is a collaborative effort between OJP, the Department of Education, the
Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, ⁴¹
and the Department of Labor. The Prisoner Re-entry Initiative provides funding to states and
federally recognized tribes to develop, implement, enhance, and evaluate re-entry strategies. The
strategy targets individuals 18 or older that have not been convicted of a violent or sex-related
offense and assists them with returning to their communities after having been incarcerated for a

³⁶^Bu^reau^o^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce A}^ssi^st^an^ce,^{Adult Dru}^g^Co^{urt Disc}^re^tion^a^ry^Grant^Progr^{am FY}²⁰⁰⁸^Com^p^e^titiv^e^Grant
^Aⁿ^no^un^cemen^t^{, a}^t^h^ttp:^//w^w^w^.ojp^.us^d^oj.g^ov^/^B^JA^/^g^r^a^nt/08D^r^u^g^C^ou^r^t^s^S^ol.^pdf^{, p.}^2.
³⁷^Ibid^.
³⁸⁴²^U^.^S^.^C^.^§3⁷⁹^7u^.
³⁹^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^a^{tion o}ⁿ^pr^is^one^r^r^e^-^e^ntr^y^s^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³⁴²^87,^Of^fe^nde^{r Re}^eⁿ^try^:^C^o^rre^c^tion^a^{l S}^t^atistⁱ^c^s^,
^Re^inte^grat^io^{n in}^to^the^Comm^unity^{, an}^{d Re}^cⁱ^dⁱ^vⁱ^sm^{, by}^Bla^s^N^uñe^z^-^N^e^to.
⁴⁰^S^{ee H.}^R.⁵⁵⁴⁸^,^{as i}ⁿ^t^r^od^u^cedⁱⁿ^t^h^{e 1}⁰⁶^th^C^ong^r^e^s^s^,^w^h^ic^{h w}^a^s^eⁿ^ac^te^{d int}^o^la^w^by^P^.^L^.¹⁰^6-⁵⁵³^.
⁴¹^Bu^reau^o^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce A}^ssi^st^an^ce,^Progr^am^s^:^Re^-^e^ntr^y^Iⁿ^iti^ativ^e^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ojp.usdo^j^.g^ov^/BJA^/^g^ra^nt/re^eⁿ^try^.^ht^m^l^.

significant amount of time. The Prisoner Re-entry Initiative attempts to create a re-entry program
model that begins in the correctional institution and continues through an offender’s transition
and stabilization in the community. Programs provide each offender with an individual re-entry
plan, which is carried out in three phases. Programs in phase one begin while the offender is still
incarcerated and help prepare the offender to re-enter society. Programs in phase one might
include education, substance abuse and mental health treatment, job training, mentoring, and risk ⁴²
assessment. Programs in phase two work with the offender prior to, and immediately after,
release from a correctional institution. Programs in phase two might include education,
monitoring, mentoring, life-skills training, assessment, job-skills development, and substance ⁴³
abuse and mental health treatment. Programs in phase three connect people who have left the
supervision of the justice system with a network of social services agencies and community-based ⁴⁴
organizations so they can continue to receive support and ongoing services.

On March 11, 2003, President Bush announced his DNA Initiative, “Advancing Justice Through
DNA Technology,” which provides “funds, training, and assistance to ensure that DNA
technology reaches its full potential to solve crimes, protect the innocent, and identify missing ⁴⁶
persons.” The President proposed to provide $1 billion in funding over five years for the DNA ⁴⁷
Initiative. The DNA initiative has received approximately $100 million in funding each fiscal
year since FY2004, as shown in Table 4. Funding for the initiative in FY2004 was $100 million,
but it increased to $110 million in FY2005, a 10% increase compared with FY2004 funding. In
FY2006, funding for the initiative decreased to approximately $108.5 million. In FY2007,
funding for the initiative increased to approximately $112 million, a 3% increase in funding
compared with FY2006. In FY2008, Congress did not appropriate funds for the President’s DNA
Initiative.
Table 4. Funding for the President’s DNA Initiative, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}^{06 FY20}⁰⁷^FY20⁰⁸
^$10^0,00^{0 $11}^0,00^{0 $10}^8,53^{1 $11}^2,14⁵^—-
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; and FY2}⁰⁰⁷^ap^{propriations p}^{rovided by}^Department^of
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office.}
The President’s DNA initiative has the following goals:

⁴²^Ibid^.
⁴³^Ibid^.
⁴⁴^Ibid^.
⁴⁵^Moreⁱⁿ^f^o^rm^a^{tion a}^bou^{t the}^Pre^s^ideⁿ^{t’s DNA}^Initia^tiv^e^c^aⁿ^be^f^oun^{d a}^t^h^ttps://w^ww^.dna^.g^ov^{. Se}^e^a^l^{so, CRS Re}^port
^R^L³²²⁴^7,^DNA^T^e^stⁱⁿ^{g f}^o^r^L^a^w^Eⁿ^f^o^rcemen^t^:^L^e^gⁱ^sl^a^tⁱ^{ve Issu}^{es f}^o^{r Con}^g^r^ess^{, by}^N^a^thaⁿ^J^a^m^e^s^.
⁴⁶^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^P^r^esi^d^en^t^’^{s DNA}^Iⁿⁱ^tⁱ^a^tⁱ^{ve a}^s^Aⁿⁿ^o^uⁿ^ced^oⁿ^Ma^{rch 11}^,²⁰⁰²^:^E^xecu^tⁱ^{ve S}^u^mma^ry^{, a}^t
^http:^//www^.dna^.g^ov^/inf^o^/e^_sum^m^a^r^y^.
⁴⁷^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^Ab^o^u^{t t}^h^e^Init^iativ^e^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.dna^.g^ov^/inf^o^/.

• Eliminate the current backlog of unanalyzed DNA samples from the most violent
offenses (murders, rapes, and kidnappings) and the current backlog of DNA
samples collected from convicted offenders;
• Improve crime labs’ capacity to analyze DNA samples in a timely manner;
• Stimulate research and develop new DNA technologies and advances in all areas
of forensic sciences;
• Develop training for, and provide assistance to, a wide variety of criminal justice
professionals about the collection and use of DNA evidence;
• Provide access to DNA testing of crime scene evidence that has not been tested at
the time of the trial;
• Ensure that DNA testing technology is used to its full potential in missing
persons cases and identifying human remains; and
• Using DNA technology to protect the innocent.
The funding appropriated by Congress for the DNA Initiative is used to achieve these goals.
Appropriated funds are administered and awarded by NIJ. DNA Initiative grant funds are
awarded to state and local governments in four program areas: capacity enhancement, convicted
offender DNA backlog reduction, forensic casework DNA backlog reduction, and solving cold ⁴⁸
cases with DNA. Each program area is discussed below.
NIJ awards grant to state and local governments with existing crime laboratories that conduct
DNA analysis that either (1) are accredited by a nonprofit professional organization that is
actively involved in forensic science and is nationally recognized in the forensic science
community; (2) undergo external audits, not less than once every two years, that demonstrate
compliance with the DNA Quality Assurance Standards established by the FBI; or (3) will
undergo external audits to seek to demonstrate compliance with the DNA Quality Assurance
Standards established by the FBI by the end of the award period with the intent of seeking
accreditation within two years of the date that the grant is awarded. Capacity enhancement grant
funds can be used for
• purchasing, upgrading, or replacing laboratory equipment or computer software
for forensic DNA analysis;
• purchasing convicted offender-related evidence collection kits, laboratory
supplies for validation studies, and other expenses directly attributable to the
validation of new DNA analysis technologies;

⁴⁸^Iⁿ²⁰^04,^C^ong^r^e^s^s^pa^s^s^e^{d, a}ⁿ^{d t}^h^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^{t s}ⁱ^gⁿ^e^d^int^o^la^w^,^the^J^u^s^tic^e^f^o^r^A^{ll A}^c^{t o}^f²⁰⁰^{4 (}^P^.L^{. 10}^8-⁴⁰⁵⁾^.
^A^c^c^o^rding^to^{Jill Me}^l^d^oⁿ^{, Of}^fⁱ^c^e^of^Justic^e^P^r^og^ra^m^s^{, Off}ⁱ^c^e^of^Budg^e^t^a^{nd Ma}^na^g^e^m^e^{nt Se}^rv^ic^e^s^{, e}^v^eⁿ^tho^u^g^h^t^h^e
^Ju^stⁱ^{ce f}^o^{r A}^l^l^A^c^t^au^t^h^o^rⁱ^zed^gran^t^p^r^o^g^ram^s^,^o^r^exp^aⁿ^d^e^d^exi^s^tⁱⁿ^{g p}^r^o^g^ram^s^,^t^o^acco^m^p^lⁱ^s^h^man^y^o^f^t^h^{e go}^al^s
^outli^ne^d^{in t}^h^e^P^r^e^s^ideⁿ^t’s^D^N^A^Initia^tiv^e^,^f^undi^ng^f^o^{r the}^D^N^A^Initia^tiv^e^is^{not m}^a^de^purs^u^aⁿ^{t t}^o^t^h^e^J^u^s^tic^e^f^o^{r A}^ll
^A^c^t.^T^h^e^only^f^unding^u^nde^{r t}^h^e^D^N^A^initia^tiv^e^tha^t^w^a^s^m^a^de^pur^s^u^aⁿ^{t t}^o^the^J^u^s^tic^e^f^o^{r A}^{ll A}^c^{t w}^a^s^{$4 m}^illio^{n i}ⁿ
^FY²⁰^{06 f}^o^r^t^h^e^Kⁱ^r^k^B^l^o^ods^w^o^r^t^h^Pos^t^-^c^onv^ic^tio^{n D}^N^A^T^e^s^ting^G^r^aⁿ^{t pr}^og^r^a^m^.^For^m^o^r^e^inf^o^r^m^ation^oⁿ^the^J^u^s^tic^e
^f^o^r^A^ll^A^c^{t, s}^e^e^C^R^S^R^e^por^{t R}^L³²²⁴^7,^DNA^T^e^stⁱⁿ^g^f^o^{r L}^a^{w E}ⁿ^f^o^r^cemen^t^:^L^e^gⁱ^sl^a^tⁱ^{ve Issu}^{es f}^o^{r Con}^g^r^ess^{, by}^N^a^thaⁿ
^Ja^m^e^s.

• renovations to laboratory facilities that improve the efficiency or effectiveness of
forensic DNA laboratory analysis;
• assisting state or local governments with crime laboratories that currently
conduct DNA analysis with the process of gaining accreditation;
• paying for appropriate internal or external training, continuing education, or
applicable graduate-level coursework that is directly related to the program; and
• hiring new full- or part-time employees who directly engage in handling,
screening, or analyzing forensic evidence that may contain DNA, and for ⁴⁹
validating new methodologies.
NIJ awards grants to state governments so the state can accelerate its analysis of convicted
offender DNA samples. All offender profiles generated with NIJ funds must be included in the ⁵⁰
Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). States can use the funds to pay for sending the
convicted offender DNA samples to private labs for analysis (outsourcing), or the states can pay
to have the convicted offender samples analyzed in their own labs (in-house). If the state chooses
to analyze the convicted offender DNA samples in-house, the funds can only be used to pay for
supplies directly attributable to the analysis of convicted offender DNA samples (including
quality assurance samples), paying for overtime for in-house laboratory staff that are directly
involved in the handling and analyzing of convicted offender DNA samples (including quality
assurance samples), and administrative expenses directly related to the project (only 3% of the ⁵¹
total award can be used on administrative expenses).
NIJ awards grants to state and local governments that have crime laboratories that conduct DNA
analysis that are either (1) accredited by a nonprofit professional organization that is actively
involved in forensic science and is nationally recognized in the forensic science community; or
(2) undergo external audits, not less than once every two years, that demonstrate compliance with
the DNA Quality Assurance Standards established by the FBI. Forensic Casework DNA Backlog
Reduction grants are used to analyze backlogged forensic DNA casework samples from sexual
assaults, murders, and kidnappings. The analysis can be done either by a government-owned lab
or an accredited fee-for-service lab. Funds can also be used to conduct post-conviction DNA
testing pursuant to a court order. All eligible forensic DNA profiles obtained with program ⁵²
funding must be included in CODIS. Forensic Casework DNA Backlog Reduction funds can be
used for

⁴⁹^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^D^N^{A La}^bor^ator^y^C^a^pac^ity^En^ha^nc^e^m^eⁿ^{t Pr}^ogr^am^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.ojp.usdoj^.g^ov^/nij/
^t^o^pⁱ^cs/^f^o^r^en^si^cs/^dⁿ^a^/^cap^aci^t^y^/^w^el^co^m^e^.^h^t^m^l^.
⁵⁰^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^C^oⁿ^v^ic^te^{d O}^ffe^nde^r^D^N^{A B}^a^c^k^l^og^Re^duc^ti^{on Pr}^ogr^am^{, a}^t^http:^//www^.ojp.us^doj^.g^ov^/nij/
^topic^s^/^f^or^eⁿ^sⁱ^c^s^/^dna^/^c^onv^ic^te^d/^w^e^lc^om^e^.^ht^m^l^.
⁵¹^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^C^oⁿ^v^ic^te^{d O}^ffe^nde^r^D^N^{A B}^a^c^k^l^og^Re^duc^ti^{on Pr}^ogr^am^:^In^-^h^o^u^{se An}^a^l^y^s^is^{, a}^t
^http:^//www^.ojp.us^doj^.g^ov^/nij/^topⁱ^c^s^/f^oreⁿ^sic^s^/^dna^/^c^onv^ic^te^d/^inho^us^e^.^htm^#^e^lig^ibility^.
⁵²^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^For^e^ns^ic^C^a^s^e^w^o^r^k^D^N^{A Bac}^k^l^o^g^Re^duc^ti^{on Pr}^ogr^am^{, a}^t^http:^//www^.ojp.us^doj^.g^ov^/nij/
^topic^s^/^f^or^eⁿ^sⁱ^c^s^/^dna^/^c^a^s^ew^or^k^/^w^e^lc^om^e^.^ht^m^l^.

• purchasing laboratory supplies for conducting forensic DNA analyses and for
other expenses directly attributable to forensic DNA analyses;
• paying overtime for laboratory staff directly engaged in the handling, screening,
or analyzing of forensic evidence that might contain DNA;
• hiring consultants or temporary contract staff to assist in the handling, screening,
or analyzing of forensic evidence that might contain DNA, or to contract with
accredited fee-for-service vendors to conduct DNA analyses; and
• hiring full- or part-time laboratory staff that will be directly involved in the ⁵³
handling, screening, or analyzing of forensic evidence that might contain DNA.
NIJ awards grants to state and local governments to support law enforcement agencies trying to
search, evaluate, select, and conduct DNA analysis on violent crime “cold cases” that have the
potential to be solved through DNA testing. All eligible DNA profiles developed with program ⁵⁴
funds must be included in CODIS. Applicants for grants submit a proposal to NIJ detailing how
they would select and test DNA evidence from cold cases. Grant funds for this program can be
used to pay for
• personnel and necessary contractors or consultants;
• travel related to the investigation of cold cases;
• purchasing laboratory supplies for conducting forensic DNA analyses; and
• DNA analysis, conducted by an accredited or certified laboratory.
In FY2008, Congress appropriated $147.4 million for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant
program instead of appropriating funding for the President’s DNA Initiative.
Table 5. Funding for the Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Grant Program, FY2004-
FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}⁰⁵^FY20^{06 FY20}⁰⁷^FY20⁰⁸
^{— —}^{— —}^$14^7,39¹
^Source:^{P.L. 110-}¹⁶^1.
The program was originally authorized by the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act of 2000
(P.L. 106-546, codified at 42 U.S.C. §14135). The program was amended by Title II of the Justice
for All Act (P.L. 108-405), which expanded the scope of the program and named the program

⁵³^Ibid^.
⁵⁴^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^S^o^li^c^itatio^n:^Solvⁱ^{ng C}^o^l^d^Case^{s wit}^h^DNA^{, p.}^4,^a^t^ht^tp:/^/www^.nc^j^rs.gov^/pdf^f^ile^s1/nij/
^s^l⁰⁰⁰⁶⁷^1.^pdf^.

“The Debbie Smith DNA Backlog Elimination Grant Program.” Under current law, grants
awarded to states and local governments under this program can be used for the following
purposes:
• Carry out DNA analyses of samples collected under applicable legal authority for
inclusion in the national DNA database.
• Carry out DNA analyses of samples from crime scenes, including samples from
rape kits, samples from other sexual assault evidence, and samples taken in cases
without an identified suspect for inclusion in the national DNA database.
• Increase the capacity of laboratories owned by states or units of local government
to carry out DNA analyses of collected samples.
• Collect DNA samples from individuals who are required to submit samples under
applicable legal authority.
• Ensure that DNA testing and analysis of samples from crimes, including sexual
assault and other serious violent crimes, are carried out in a timely manner.
Under current law, the Attorney General is required to use a formula to distribute grant funds.
Current law requires that the formula used by the Attorney General distribute funds among
eligible states and units of local government in a way that maximizes the effective utilization of
DNA technology for crime fighting purposes and fairly allocates grants among state and units of
local government to address jurisdictions in which significant backlogs exist. The formula used
by the Attorney General must consider
• the number of offender and casework samples awaiting DNA analysis in a
jurisdiction;
• the population in the jurisdiction; and
• the number of Part I violent crimes⁵⁵ in the jurisdiction.
Each state is to receive a minimum allocation of not less than 0.50% of the total amount
appropriated, except that the United States Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands shall each be allocated 0.125% of the total appropriation.
Since FY2006, Congress appropriated funding for the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA
Testing program. In FY2006 and FY2007, funding for the program was included in the funding
for the President’s DNA Initiative. As shown in Table 6, Congress has appropriated
approximately the same amount of funding each fiscal year since FY2006.

⁵⁵^P^a^rt^{I vi}^o^l^ent^cri^m^{es i}ⁿ^cl^u^d^e^ho^mi^ci^d^e^/ⁿ^onⁿ^e^glⁱ^g^en^t^m^aⁿ^s^l^a^u^g^h^t^er,^rap^e^,^ro^bb^ery^,^an^d^aggrav^at^ed^ass^a^u^l^t^.

Table 6. Funding for the Kirk Bloodsworth Post-conviction DNA Testing Program,
FY2004-FY2008
^{(funding in thousands of doll}^ar^s)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}⁰⁶^FY20^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^{— —}^$4,00^{0 $3,99}⁸^$4,88¹
^Source:^FY20^{06 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^9-27^{2; FY2}⁰⁰⁷^ap^{propriations p}^{rovided by}^Department^of
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY200}^{8 a}^pprop^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 110-}
^161.
The Kirk Bloodsworth DNA Post-conviction DNA Testing program was authorized by the Justice
for All Act (P.L. 108-405). The Justice for All Act authorized the Attorney General to make grants
to states to help defray the costs of post-conviction DNA testing programs. In order for a state to
be eligible to receive a grant under this program, the state must demonstrate that it provides post-
conviction DNA testing of specified evidence
• under a state statute enacted before, or extended or renewed after, October 30,
2004, to persons convicted after trial and under a sentence of imprisonment or
death for a felony offense, in a manner that ensures a reasonable process for
resolving claims of actual innocence; or
• under a state statute enacted after October 30, 2004, or under a state rule,
regulation, or practice, to persons under a sentence of imprisonment or death for
a felony offense, in a manner comparable to 18 U.S.C. §3600(a) (provided that
the statute, rule, regulation, or practice may make post-conviction DNA testing
available in cases in which DNA testing is not required), and if the results of such
testing exclude the applicant, permits the applicant to apply for post-conviction
relief, notwithstanding any provision of law that would otherwise bar such
application as untimely.
The state must also demonstrate that it preserves biological evidence secured in relation to the
investigation or prosecution of an offense
• under a state statute or rule, regulation, or practice, enacted or adopted before, or
extended or renewed after, October 30, 2004, in a manner that ensures that
reasonable measures are taken by all jurisdictions within the state to preserve
such evidence; or
• under a state statute or rule, regulation, or practice, enacted or adopted after
October 30, 2004, in a manner comparable to section 18 U.S.C. §3600(a), if all
jurisdictions in the state comply with the requirement and such jurisdictions
preserve such evidence for longer than the period of time required for the
preservation of biological evidence in federal cases under 18 U.S.C. §3600A.
The Paul Coverdell Grant program (hereafter referred to as “Coverdell grants”) was authorized by
Section 2(c) of the Paul Coverdell National Forensic Sciences Improvement Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-561). As shown in Table 7, funding for Coverdell grants has generally increased since
FY2004. In FY2004, Congress appropriated $10 million for Coverdell grants. In FY2005,
Congress appropriated $15 million for Coverdell grants, a 50% increase over FY2004. Congress

increased funding for Coverdell grants to$18.5 million in FY2006, a 23% increase over FY2005.
Congress appropriated approximately the same amount for Coverdell grants in FY2007 as it
appropriated in FY2006. In FY2008, appropriated funding for Coverdell grants increased to $18.8
million.
Table 7. Funding for Coverdell Grants, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}⁰⁶^FY20^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^$10,0^{00 $15,0}^{00 $18,5}⁰⁰^$18,2^{64 $18,8}⁰⁰
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; FY20}⁰⁷^approp^{riations provided by Depa}^{rtment of}
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY200}^{8 a}^pprop^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 110-}
^161.
Coverdell grants are awarded to state and local governments to help improve the timeliness and ⁵⁶
quality of forensic sciences in state and local forensic laboratories. Of the total funding
appropriated by Congress each fiscal year for Coverdell grants, 75% is awarded to eligible states ⁵⁷
using a formula based on the state’s percentage of the total U.S. population. Each state receives ⁵⁸
a minimum allocation of not less than 0.6% of the total funds available. The remaining funds
are awarded on a competitive basis. Both eligible state and local governments can apply for
competitive awards. In order for a state or local government to be eligible to receive Coverdell
grant funds, the state or local government must submit a certification that (1) the state or local
government has developed a plan for forensic science laboratories under a program intended to
improve the quality and timeliness of forensic science or medical examiner services in the state,
including such services provided by the laboratories operated by the state and those operated by
units of local government within the state; (2) any forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s
office, or coroner’s office in the state, including any laboratory operated by a unit of local
government within the state, that receives any portion of the grant funds uses generally accepted
laboratory practices and procedures, established by accrediting organizations or appropriate
certifying bodies; (3) the amount of the grant used for the costs of any new facility constructed as
part of a program to improve the quality and timeliness of forensic science or medical examiner
services will not exceed certain limitations set forth in the Coverdell law (chapter 46, subchapter
XV, 42 U.S.C.); and (4) a government entity exists and an appropriate process is in place to
conduct independent external investigations into allegations of serious negligence or misconduct
substantially affecting the integrity of forensic results committed by employees or contractors of
any forensic laboratory system, medical examiner’s office, coroner’s office, law enforcement
storage facility, or medical facility in the state that will receive a portion of the grant funds.
Coverdell grant funds must be used by state and local governments for one or more of the
following three purposes:
• To carry out a program intended to improve the quality and timeliness of forensic
science or medical examiner services in the state, including such services

⁵⁶^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^Pa^u^l^C^o^v^e^r^de^{ll F}^o^r^e^ns^ic^Sc^ie^nc^e^I^m^p^r^ov^e^m^eⁿ^{t G}^r^ants^Pr^ogr^am^,^p.^3,^a^t
^http:^//www^.nc^j^rs.g^ov^/pdf^f^ile^s1/ⁿⁱ^j/sl00⁰⁷⁴⁵^.^p^d^f^.
⁵⁷^Se^e^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§³⁷^97l.
⁵⁸^Se^e^{42 U}^.^S.C^.^§³⁷^97l(³⁾^.

provided by the laboratories operated by the state and those operated by local
governments in the state;
• To help eliminate the backlog of forensic science evidence, including firearms
examination, latent prints, toxicology, controlled substances, forensic pathology,
questionable documents, and trace evidence; and
• To train, assist, and employ forensic laboratory personnel, as needed, to eliminate ⁵⁹
such a backlog.
Since FY2004, Congress has appropriated funding for assistance to Indian tribes, which provides
funding for three different programs: Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands, Indian Alcohol and
Substance Abuse, and Tribal Courts Assistance. Assistance to Indian tribes has increased almost
every fiscal year since FY2004. Assistance to Indian tribes in FY2004 was $15 million (see Table

8). Assistance to Indian tribes increased in FY2005 to $18 million, an increase in funding of 20%

compared with FY2004. Assistance for Indian tribes increased again in FY2005 to $22 million, an
increase of 22% compared with FY2004. Congress appropriated approximately the same amount
in FY2007 for Assistance to Indian tribes as it appropriated in FY2006. Congress increased
appropriated funding for Assistance to Indian Tribes to $22.4 million.
Table 8. Funding for Assistance to Indian Tribes, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}⁰⁵^FY20^{06 FY20}^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^{Correctional Facil}^{ities on Tribal Lands}^$2,00⁰^$5,00⁰^$9,00⁰^$8,88⁵^$8,63⁰
^Tribal^Courts^$8,00^{0 $8,00}⁰^$8,00^{0 $7,89}^{8 $8,63}⁰
^{Indian Alcohol and Substa}^{nce Ab}^use^$5,00⁰^$5,00⁰^$5,00⁰^$4,93⁶^$5,18⁰
^{Total Assistance to Indian Tribes}^$15,0⁰⁰^$18,0⁰⁰^$22,0⁰⁰^$21,7¹⁹^$22,4⁴⁰
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; FY20}⁰⁷^approp^{riations provided by Depa}^{rtment of}
^{Justice, Office of J}^{ustice Program}^{s, Congressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY200}^{8 a}^pprop^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 110-}
^161.
The Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands program was authorized by Section 20109 of the
Omnibus Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134). The
Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands program has provided grants to 23 Native American and
Alaska Native tribes to assist them with the planning and construction of correctional facilities for

⁵⁹^Na^tiona^{l I}ⁿ^stit^ute^of^Justic^e^,^Pa^u^l^C^o^v^e^r^de^{ll F}^o^r^e^ns^ic^Sc^ie^nc^e^I^m^p^r^ov^e^m^eⁿ^{t G}^r^ants^Pr^ogr^am^,^p.^8,^a^t
^http:^//www^.nc^j^rs.g^ov^/pdf^f^ile^s1/ⁿⁱ^j/sl00⁰⁷⁴⁵^.^p^d^f^.

people convicted under and subject to tribal law.⁶⁰ Grantees must demonstrate the ability to fully ⁶¹
support, maintain, and operate a correctional facility constructed with grant funds.
The Indian Alcohol and Substance Abuse program competitively awards grants to Native
American and Alaskan Native tribes to plan and implement system-wide strategies for decreasing ⁶²
crime associated with alcohol and substance abuse by tribal members. Tribes use grant funds to
• develop a project advisory team;
• identify, apprehend, and prosecute those who illegally transport, distribute, and
use alcohol and controlled substances;
• prevent and reduce the number of alcohol and substance abuse-related crimes,
traffic fatalities, and injuries;
• develop and enhance collaborations with federal, state, tribal, and local criminal
justice agencies;
• integrate tribal and non-tribal services for offenders and their families; and
• make available culturally appropriate treatment and other services.⁶³
Grant funds can be used to develop new, or improve existing programs that prevent, interdict, and
treat alcohol or substance abuse. A tribe’s strategy for decreasing crime associated with alcohol
and substance abuse should include collaboration between law enforcement, the courts, treatment
providers, and the community.
The Tribal Court Assistance program was authorized by the Indian Tribal Justice Technical and
Legal Assistance Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-559). Tribal Court Assistance program awards grants to
support the development, implementation, enhancement and continuing operation of tribal court ⁶⁴
systems. There are three categories of grants awarded under the Tribal Court Assistance
program:
• Planning and Implementing an Intertribal Court System for Smaller Service
Populations: These grants are awarded to consortia of tribal governments, each of
which serves a population of less than 1,000, to plan, develop, and implement a
tribal court system where one does not exist. Grants in this category focus on
smaller tribes that are contiguous to or near other tribal governments, for which

⁶⁰^Bu^reau^o^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce A}^ssi^st^an^ce,^Cor^r^e^c^{tional F}^a^c^ilitie^s^on^Tr^ib^{al L}^a^nds^Pr^ogr^am^,^a^t^ht^tp:/^/www^.ojp.u^sdoj.g^ov^/^B^J^A^/
^g^r^aⁿ^t/triba^l^_c^or^re^c^tion.^htm^l^.
⁶¹^C^o^r^r^e^c^tions^P^r^og^r^a^m^Of^fⁱ^c^e^,^Cor^r^e^c^tional^Fac^ilit^ie^s^on^Tr^ib^al^Laⁿ^d^s^:^FY²⁰^{01 Pr}^ogr^am^G^uⁱ^d^aⁿ^c^e^a^{nd A}^p^p^lic^ati^oⁿ
^Kit^,^p.^1,^{at http}^:^//p^erm^aⁿ^eⁿ^t^.^acce^ss.^gp^o^.^go^v/lp^s98⁹⁰^/^lp^s9⁸⁹⁰^/^www.^o^j^p.^u^s^do^j.^go^v/^cp^o^/^gran^ts2⁰⁰¹^/^trib^al0¹^.^p^d^f^.
⁶²^Bu^reau^o^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce A}^ssi^st^an^ce,^Iⁿ^dⁱ^{an Alc}^o^h^o^{l an}^{d Su}^bs^ta^nc^e^Abus^e^Pr^ogr^am^:^Fac^t^She^e^t^{, p. 1,}^a^t
^http:^//www^.ojp.us^doj^.g^ov^/BJA^/^g^ra^nt/^I^A^S^A^P^Brie^f^.^pdf^.
⁶³^Ibid^.
⁶⁴^Bu^reau^o^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce A}^ssi^st^an^ce,^Tr^{ibal C}^our^t^As^sⁱ^s^t^aⁿ^c^e^Pr^ogr^am⁽^T^C^AP)^,^at^ht^t^p^:/^/^www^.^o^j^p^.^u^s^d^o^j^.^gov/^B^J^A^/^gr^an^t^/
^triba^l^.h^tm^l.

the creation of an inter-tribal court is economically and administratively feasible.
Grant funds are used to facilitate the development and initial implementation of
an inter-tribal court system that is designed to meet the needs of the consortia.
• Planning and Implementing a Single-Tribe Court System: These grants are
awarded to tribal governments that serve more than 1,000 people. Grant funds are
used for the development and initial implementation of a tribal court system that
meets the tribe’s needs. Funds awarded under this category would establish a
tribal court for a tribe that does not currently have one.
• Enhancing or Continuing the Operation of Tribal Courts: These grants are
awarded to any tribe, regardless of size, so that the tribe can enhance or continue
the operation of an existing tribal court. Funds awarded under this category can
be used to: establish a core structure for the tribal court; improve case
management; train court personnel; develop a tribal code; acquire additional
equipment and software; enhance prosecution and indigent defense; support
probation diversion and alternative sentencing programs; access services,
focusing on juvenile services and multi-disciplinary protocols for victims of child ⁶⁵
physical and sexual abuse; and structure inter-tribal or tribal appellate systems.
The Tribal Resources Grant Program (TRGP) was authorized by Title I of the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322). As shown in Table 9, funding for the
program decreased each fiscal year between FY2004 and FY2006. In FY2004, Congress
appropriated $25 million for TRGP. In FY2005, $20 million was appropriated for TRGP, a 20%
decrease in funding compared with FY2004. In FY2006,$15 million was appropriated for the
program, a 25% decrease in funding compared with FY2005. Funding for TRGP increased to
$15.8 million in FY2007, a 5% increase in funding compared with FY2006. In FY2008, Congress
appropriated approximately $15 million for TRGP, a 5% decrease compared to FY2007.
Table 9. Funding for the TRGP, FY2004-FY2008
^{(in thousands of doll}^ars)
^FY20^{04 FY20}^{05 FY20}⁰⁶^FY20^{07 FY20}⁰⁸
^$25,0^{00 $20,0}^{00 $15,0}⁰⁰^$15,8^{08 $15,0}⁴⁰
^Source:^FY20^{04 a}^p^p^ropriations^{taken from}^{H.Rept. 10}^8-40^{1; FY2}⁰⁰⁵^ap^{propriations take}^{n from}^H^{.Rept. 108-}
^{792; FY2}⁰⁰^{6 a}^ppro^{priations take}^{n from H.Rept.}¹⁰^9-27^{2; FY20}⁰⁷^approp^{riations provided by U.S. Department}
^{of Justice, Office of Commu}^nity^{Oriented Policing Services, Cong}^{ressional Affairs Office; a}^{nd FY20}⁰⁸
^approp^{riations taken f}^{rom P.L. 11}^0-16^1.
TRGP is administered by the COPS Office and provides funding to help tribes meet their law ⁶⁶
enforcement needs. Grants are awarded to federally recognized Native American and Alaskan
Native tribes with established police departments. Tribes that receive policing services from the
Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law enforcement can receive TRGP funding to supplement their

⁶⁵^Ibid^.
⁶⁶^Com^m^unity^Orie^nte^d^Polic^ing^Se^rv^ic^e^s^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Tr^{ibal Re}^s^our^c^e^s^G^r^{ant Pr}^ogr^am⁽^T^RG^P)^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.c^ops^.us^d^oj.g^ov^/^D^ef^a^u^lt.a^s^p?^I^t^e^m⁼^1428.

existing policing services. TRGP funding can be used by tribes to hire additional officers;⁶⁷
provide law enforcement training; and purchase uniforms, basic-issue equipment, emerging ⁶⁸
technologies, and police vehicles.

For years, some have questioned the effectiveness of DOJ grant programs and have called for
program evaluations. The Administration responded by requiring federal agencies to submit ⁶⁹
strategic and annual performance plans and report on program performance. As a result, DOJ
now requires grantees to collect and report output and outcome measurement data.
In addition to collecting output and outcome measures, DOJ has also conducted evaluations of
some of its programs. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessed six evaluations of ⁷⁰
five drug courts and found mixed results. NIJ funded a national evaluation of eight Weed and ⁷¹
Seed sites in the United States. As Congress continues to make critical decisions on the amount
and type of anti-crime assistance funding for state, local and tribal governments, the effectiveness
of these programs is likely to continue to be an issue.
Since 2000, DOJ OIG has identified grant management as one of DOJ’s top ten management ⁷²
challenges. DOJ OIG lists grant management as a management challenge because (1) OIG
reviews continue to find that many grantees do not submit financial and progress reports; (2)
numerous deficiencies continue to be found in the COPS Office’s monitoring of grantee
activities; (3) audits found that grants were not regularly awarded in a timely manner and grantees
were slow to spend funds; and (4) more than 375 audits of COPS grants have resulted in

⁶⁷^FY²⁰⁰⁶^T^R^G^P^f^unding^c^aⁿⁿ^o^t^b^e^us^e^d^to^hir^e^a^d^diti^ona^l^of^fⁱ^c^e^r^s^.
⁶⁸^Com^m^unity^Orie^nte^d^Polic^ing^Se^rv^ic^e^s^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^Tr^{ibal Re}^s^our^c^e^s^G^r^{ant Pr}^ogr^am⁽^T^RG^P)^{, a}^t
^http:^//w^w^w^.c^ops^.us^d^oj.g^ov^/^D^ef^a^u^lt.a^s^p?^I^t^e^m⁼^1428.
⁶⁹^Se^e^the^G^o^v^e^rⁿ^m^e^{nt P}^e^r^f^or^m^a^nce^a^{nd R}^e^s^u^lts^A^c^{t of}¹⁹⁹^3,^P.L^.¹^03-^62.
⁷⁰^T^h^{e GAO co}ⁿ^c^lu^d^e^{d th}^at^d^r^u^g^cou^r^{ts m}^a^y^h^a^v^e^so^m^e^b^eⁿ^e^fⁱ^{cial e}^ffects,^b^u^t^t^h^{e G}^{AO n}^o^t^{es th}^{at f}ⁱ^rm^coⁿ^c^lu^si^oⁿ^s
^co^u^l^{d no}^t^b^e^d^r^awⁿ^b^ecau^{se o}^f^t^h^{e st}^u^d^y^d^e^si^gn^{s an}^d^t^h^{e sh}^o^r^t^tⁱ^m^e^l^a^p^s^{e b}^e^t^w^een^t^r^eat^m^eⁿ^t^an^d^m^e^a^s^u^r^emen^t^o^f
^outc^o^m^e^s^.^Tw^{o of}^the^e^v^a^l^ua^tions^a^s^s^e^s^s^e^{d b}^y^the^G^A^O^s^how^e^d^le^s^s^r^e^cⁱ^divⁱ^sm^by^dr^ug^c^our^{t de}^f^e^nd^aⁿ^ts^{. H}^o^w^e^v^e^r^,
^thre^e^ot^he^{r e}^v^a^l^ua^{tions sh}^ow^e^dⁿ^o^sigⁿ^if^ic^aⁿ^{t dif}^f^e^re^nc^e^sⁱⁿ^re^cⁱ^di^vⁱ^s^m^.^A^dditio^na^lly^{, tw}^{o e}^v^a^l^ua^{tions of}^the^sa^m^e^drug
^c^{ourt s}^h^ow^e^d^c^ontra^s^ting^re^cⁱ^divⁱ^s^m^re^s^u^lts^{. G}^o^v^e^rn^m^e^{nt A}^c^c^ounta^b^ility^O^f^fⁱ^ce^,^D^r^{ug C}^o^ur^ts^:^Iⁿ^f^o^r^m^atio^{n o}ⁿ^N^e^w
^Appr^o^a^c^h^e^s^t^o^A^ddr^e^s^s^D^r^ug-^r^e^la^te^{d C}^r^im^e^{, G}^A^O^/^G^G^D^-^95-^159B^R^,^Ma^y^1995.
⁷¹^T^h^{e eval}^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^f^o^uⁿ^d^t^h^at^si^{x t}^a^rget^{areas (so}^m^{e si}^t^e^{s h}^a^d^m^o^{re t}^h^an^oⁿ^e^t^a^rget^{area) sa}^w^{a d}^ecre^a^seⁱⁿ^t^h^{e nu}^m^b^{er o}^f
^Unⁱ^f^o^r^m^Cri^m^{e Rep}^o^r^t^(UCR)^P^a^rt^{I vi}^o^l^en^t^cri^m^es^f^r^o^m^t^h^{e year p}^rⁱ^o^{r t}^o^w^eed^an^d^seedⁱ^m^p^l^emen^t^a^tⁱ^o^{n t}^o^t^w^o^years
^af^t^e^{r i}^m^p^l^e^m^en^t^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^.^Ho^w^e^ver,^t^h^{ree areas sa}^w^anⁱⁿ^{crease i}ⁿ^t^h^eⁿ^u^m^b^e^{r o}^f^{UCR P}^a^rt^I^vi^o^l^en^t^cri^m^es.^T^h^{e ev}^al^u^a^tⁱ^oⁿ
^f^{ound t}^h^a^t^s^ite^s^a^p^pe^a^r^e^d^to^ha^v^e^g^r^e^a^t^e^r^s^u^c^c^e^s^s^if^they^c^onc^eⁿ^tr^a^t^e^d^theⁱ^r^e^f^f^o^r^t^s^{on s}^m^a^lle^r^popu^la^{tion g}^r^o^ups^,
^e^s^pe^cⁱ^a^l^l^y^if^they^w^e^r^e^aw^a^r^de^{d othe}^r^p^ublic^a^nd^pr^iv^a^t^e^f^unds^{. N}^a^tⁱ^ona^{l I}ⁿ^s^tit^ute^of^J^u^s^tic^e^,^N^a^tⁱ^o^nal^Ev^alu^a^ti^on^of
^W^e^e^d^and^Se^e^d^:^Re^s^e^ar^c^hⁱⁿ^Br^ie^f^{, J}^une¹⁹⁹⁹^{, a}^t^http^://w^w^w^.nc^j^r^s^.g^ov^/pdf^f^ile^s¹^/¹⁷⁵⁶^85.^pdf^.
⁷²^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^the^Iⁿ^s^p^e^c^t^or^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^To^p^Te^{n M}^aⁿ^age^m^e^{nt C}^h^a^lle^nge^sⁱⁿ^t^h^e^D^e^par^tm^eⁿ^t^of
^J^u^stic^e^{, a}^t^htt^p^://w^ww^.usdoj.g^ov^/oig^/c^ha^lle^ng^e^s^/inde^x^.^htm^.

significant dollar-related findings.⁷³ A series of reports from GAO and DOJ OIG raise concerns
about whether OJP and COPS grants are being monitored effectively.
A 2003 OIG audit of OJP and COPS grant programs found (1) a structural overlap between the
COPS Office and OJP; (2) an overlap in grant programs between the COPS Office and OJP; (3) a
lack of on-line grant application processing in the COPS Office; (4) an overlap in OJP’s ⁷⁴
organization structure; and (5) inefficiencies in OJP’s automated grant management systems. A
2004 report found that the Weed and Seed grant program experienced continued problems with
effective grant monitoring, including problems with grantees not submitting progress reports in a
timely manner, grant managers not documenting site visits, not ensuring that policy regarding the
documentation of significant qualification and funding decisions was followed, and outcome ⁷⁵
performance measures to track progress towards program outcomes were not developed. A 2005
report found that NIJ did not enforce the independent external investigation certification ⁷⁶
requirement as imposed by the Justice for All Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-405). Another 2005 report
found that OJP, COPS, and OVW were not effectively monitoring grants awarded to tribal ⁷⁷
governments. According to DOJ’s Inspector General, OJP, COPS, and OVW did not ensure that
tribal grantees submitted the reports necessary to assess grant implementation and achievement of ⁷⁸
grant objectives and did not effectively monitor utilization of grant funds.
Congress attempted to address some of these issues when it passed the Violence Against Women
and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162). The act created an Office
of Audit, Assessment, and Management in OJP. The Office of Audit, Assessment, and
Management is responsible for ensuring that OJP grants are subjected to performance audits and
that grants are in compliance with DOJ standards. The act also codified CCDO and assigned it the
responsibility of providing training to actual and prospective grantees about the requirements for
DOJ grant programs.

⁷³^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^the^Iⁿ^s^p^e^c^t^or^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^Admⁱ^nis^t^r^a^ti^on^{of D}^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^{of J}^u^s^t^ic^e^G^r^ants
^Aw^ar^de^d^{to N}^a^tiv^e^Am^e^r^ic^an^an^d^Alas^k^a^N^a^tiv^e^Tr^ib^{al G}^o^v^e^r^nm^eⁿ^ts^{, re}^port^num^be^{r 0}⁵^-1^{8, Ma}^rc^h²⁰^05,^p.^iii.
⁷⁴^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^the^Iⁿ^s^p^e^c^t^or^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^Stre^a^m^linin^g^{of A}^d^ministr^a^tiv^e^Ac^tiv^iti^e^s^and^Fe^de^ral
^Fⁱⁿ^aⁿ^cⁱ^a^l^A^ssi^st^an^{ce F}^uⁿ^c^tⁱ^oⁿ^sⁱⁿ^t^h^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce of}^Ju^stⁱ^{ce P}^r^og^ra^{ms an}^d^t^h^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Co^mmunⁱ^t^y^Ori^e^nt^ed^P^o^lⁱ^ciⁿ^g
^S^e^rvi^ces^,^A^{udit R}^e^p^o^r^t^03-^27,^A^u^g^u^s^t²⁰^03,^p^p^{. v}^-^xⁱ^.
⁷⁵^G^o^v^e^rn^m^e^nt^A^c^c^ounta^b^ility^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^,^G^r^ants^M^aⁿ^age^m^e^nt:^D^e^s^pⁱ^t^e^Effor^t^s^t^o^I^m^pr^ov^e^W^e^e^d^and^Se^e^d^Pr^o^g^r^a^m
^M^ana^ge^m^e^{nt, C}^h^alleⁿ^g^e^s^Re^m^aⁱⁿ^{, G}^A^O^-^04-⁴²^{5, Ma}^r^c^h²⁰⁰⁴^.
⁷⁶^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^the^Iⁿ^s^p^e^c^t^or^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^R^evi^{ew o}^f^t^h^{e Of}^fⁱ^{ce o}^f^Ju^stⁱ^{ce P}^r^og^{rams’ F}^o^ren^sⁱ^c
^Sc^ie^nc^e^I^m^pr^ov^e^m^eⁿ^{t G}^r^an^{t Pr}^o^g^r^am^{, r}^e^por^{t n}^u^m^b^e^r^I^-²⁰⁰^6-⁰⁰²^,^D^e^c^e^m^b^e^r^2005.
⁷⁷^U^.^{S. D}^e^pa^r^t^m^e^{nt of}^J^u^s^tic^e^,^O^f^fⁱ^c^e^of^the^Iⁿ^s^p^e^c^t^or^G^e^ne^r^a^l,^Admⁱ^nis^t^r^a^ti^on^{of D}^e^p^a^r^t^m^e^nt^{of J}^u^s^t^ic^e^G^r^ants
^Aw^ar^de^d^{to N}^a^tiv^e^Am^e^r^ic^an^an^d^Alas^k^a^N^a^tiv^e^Tr^ib^{al G}^o^v^e^r^nm^eⁿ^ts^{, r}^e^por^t^num^be^r⁰⁵^-¹^{8, Ma}^r^c^h²⁰^05.
⁷⁸^Ibid^.

CRS Report RS22070, Juvenile Justice: Overview of Legislative History and Funding Trends, by
Blas Nuñez-Neto.
CRS Report RL33947, Juvenile Justice: Legislative History and Current Legislative Issues, by
Blas Nuñez-Neto.
CRS Report RL32579, Victims of Crime Compensation and Assistance: Background and
Funding, by Celinda Franco.
CRS Report RL32247, DNA Testing for Law Enforcement: Legislative Issues for Congress, by
Nathan James.
CRS Report RS22416, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program: Legislative
and Funding History, by Nathan James.
CRS Report RL33308, Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS): Background, Legislation,
and Issues, by Nathan James.
CRS Report RL33431, Immigration: Frequently Asked Questions on the State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program (SCAAP), by Karma Ester.
CRS Report RL30871, Violence Against Women Act: History and Federal Funding, by Garrine P.
Laney.
^Nath^aⁿ^J^a^m^e^s
^An^al^y^s^{t i}ⁿ^Crⁱ^m^{e P}^o^lic^y
ⁿ^j^a^m^es@^c^rs^.l^oc.g^ov^{, 7}^-⁰²⁶⁴