Back to TOC

Strategic Objective & Annual Goal 3.1: Law Enforcement
Improve the crime fighting and criminal justice administration capabilities of state, tribal, and local governments

Achieve Effective Grant Management

The Department has been moving toward implementation of an automated Grants Management System (GMS) since FY 1999. When fully operational, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) will be able to fully administer all grants through a centralized, paperless system and electronically process and track grants from application to closeout. This will allow grantees to receive and submit applications, receive awards electronically, reduce the paperwork required by grantees, and standardize the process within program offices. In addition, GMS will assist in setting priorities for program monitoring and facilitate timely program and financial reports from grantees.

Each year, OJP develops a risk-based monitoring plan that considers inherent programmatic and recipient risks, including the amount of funding at risk, known problems, special requests, and a random sample of active awards. OJP currently initiates financial monitoring (covering both OJP and COPS grant programs) and has achieved a reputation for having few reportable problems. When rare instances of waste, fraud, or abuse are reported, OJP quickly responds with direct technical assistance to the recipients to correct serious problems or to the investigators in bringing about appropriate criminal prosecutions. Financial monitoring provides our financial auditors assurance with regard to safeguarding agency assets and the accuracy of recipient-reported expenditures and related expenditure accrual, one of the largest components of our audited financial statements. Following financial review, OJP’s staff provides technical assistance on the recommendations made until all recommendations have been implemented. Once it has been determined that the grantee has sufficiently addressed all issues, the review is officially closed in writing.

The COPS monitoring program has several elements, which assess how grantees are using federal funds, determine to what extent grantees are implementing community policing, and identify potential compliance issues. COPS develops and then shares its monitoring plan with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which also selects a number of COPS grantees for review. Included in the monitoring plans are site visits that yield detailed documentation of how COPS funds are being used, allow COPS to observe the implementation of COPS grants, and reveal the level to which individual jurisdictions have adopted community policing field activities. Another aspect of COPS monitoring plan is office-based grant reviews, which begin with an internal review of grant documentation followed by direct contact with the grantee and the collection of additional and/or supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with grant requirements. The COPS Office has centralized its compliance resolution process and developed the Issue Resolution Module, a COPS-wide automated system that allows for the identification and status tracking of specific grantee issues.

Performance Measure: Number of Financial Reviews Conducted [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 990
• FY 2003 Actual: 1,004
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJP exceeded its target by 14. OJP achieved this goal by conducting a combination of on-site and in-house financial reviews. OJP issued timely site visit reports resulting in added efficiency and effectiveness with regard to program office receipt of feedback, grantee corrective actions, and OJP’s receipt of corrective action plans. All of these factors resulted in conducting 451 on-site financial reviews and 553 in-house financial reviews.

d

Data Collection and Storage: On-site data will be collected during on-site financial monitoring reviews. Internal review of files will be conducted from information provided by the grantee and information collected by grant and financial managers. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated through site visits reports, telephone calls, and other data collection instruments. Data Limitations: OJP will not perform formal reviews on all OJP grantees. OJP currently reviews between 7-10 percent of the total OJP grant universe. Since the number of grants subject to financial monitoring is based on the resources available for financial monitoring, increased coverage could be increased in future years with additional resources. (NOTE: Past data have been updated to reflect the most current and accurate data available.)

Performance Measure: Percent of Grants Administered Through a Centralized Paperless System (OJP Bureau and Program Offices) [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 84%
• FY 2003 Actual: 96%
• Discussion: In FY 2003, the target of 84% was exceeded due to fact that GMS is in use by all program offices in OJP. GMS is currently automated from solicitation through award. OJP is working to automate monitoring and grant close-out by 2006.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Data will be collected from reports from the Grants Management System and specific program offices. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated based on reports prepared by OJP’s Office of the Comptroller. Data Limitations: The system is being implemented and updated to support program enhancements. Out-year targets are based on the current fiscal year’s implementation success.

3.1A Improve Response Time to Crime

Interstate availability of complete computerized criminal records is increasingly vital for criminal investigation, prosecution, sentencing, correctional supervision and release, and community notification. This information is also necessary to conduct thorough background checks for those applying for licenses; firearm purchases; and work involving the safety and well being of children, the elderly, and the disabled. Interstate exchange of data is critical to ensure that states have access to records maintained by other jurisdictions. The Interstate Identification Index (III), administered by the FBI, provides interstate access to information about offenders at the state and federal level and facilitates this exchange. To ensure compatibility, all state-level record enhancements are required to conform to FBI standards for III participation.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Criminal History Improvement Program provides direct funding and technical assistance to states to improve the accuracy, utility, and interstate accessibility of the Nation’s criminal history and related records and build their infrastructure to connect to national record check systems both to supply information to and conduct requisite checks, including the FBI-operated National Instant Criminal Background Check System, the National Sex Offender Registry and the National Protection Order File.

Performance Measure: Records Available Through Interstate Identification Index (III) Compared to Total Criminal History Records (in millions) [OJP] (NOTE: FY 2001 data have been updated to correct a previous error.)

• FY 2003 Target:
  ­ Total Criminal History Records: 74.5 million
  ­ Total Records Available Through III: 46.1 million
• FY 2003 Actual: Data for this measure are collected from BJS’ survey of state criminal history information systems. Survey results reflecting FY 2003 actuals will not be available until December 2004.

3.1B Improve Crime Fighting Capabilities

The Office of Justice Program’s Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP), provides support to state and local labs to perform various types of forensic analysis, such as trace evidence analysis, fingerprint comparison, toxicology, firearm and tool mark analyses, and biological evidence analysis (which includes DNA testing). In FY 2004, it is anticipated that CLIP’s mission will be revised, under the Department’s new DNA Initiative, to become more DNA-focused in order to better address the country’s current analysis needs.

The Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction Program was created to reduce the backlog of convicted offender DNA samples awaiting analysis and entry into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database. Reducing the offender backlog and getting samples into the system is crucial to realizing the full objective of the national DNA database—to solve old crimes and prevent new ones from occurring. Funds are targeted toward the forensic analysis of all DNA samples identified as urgent priority samples (i.e., those from homicide and rape/sexual assault cases) within the current offender backlog. Comprising the backlog are samples collected from certain classes of offenders (typically violent criminals, but offenses such as burglary are now being increasingly included) as specified by state legislation. The size of the current convicted offender backlog is constantly growing, due to ongoing, expansive legislative changes in qualifying offenses. This expansion creates significant influxes of samples into labs often under-equipped. The Backlog Reduction Program is the Department’s attempt to alleviate this burden.

Through these laboratory improvement/assistance programs, OJP endeavors to support the FBI’s CODIS program and provide the second, critical half of a team effort to use DNA technology to solve and prevent crime.

FBI’s Combined DNA Index System began as a pilot project in 1990 serving 14 state and local laboratories. The DNA Identification Act of 1994 authorized the FBI to establish a national DNA database for law enforcement purposes. The Act authorizes the FBI to store the following types of DNA data from federal, state, and local law enforcement entities in its national index: DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes; analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes; analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human remains; and analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons. In 2000, the FBI was authorized to receive DNA profiles from federal convicted offenders and to store these profiles in a national Federal Convicted Offender index with the other four CODIS indexes.

FBI’s National DNA Index System (NDIS) became operational during October 1998 and represents the highest-level database in CODIS. NDIS allows participating federal and state laboratories to exchange DNA profiles and perform inter-state searches on a weekly basis. Plans are underway to redesign CODIS and NDIS to allow for immediate uploading and searching upon demand and scalability up to 50 million DNA profiles.

Performance Measure: Total Number of State and Local Crime Labs Developing New Forensic Capabilities [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 161
• FY 2003 Actual: 147
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJP missed its target of 161 crime labs with increased capacity for existing and/or implementation of new forensic capabilities by 14. This performance measure is a cumulative measure; therefore, to prevent double counting, FY 2003 Crime Laboratory Improvement Program award recipients that have previously received funding are not added to FY 2002 actuals. Although a series of new awards were made during the reporting period, the total number of crime labs funded only increased by one. Additionally, OJP had limited discretionary funding availability in FY 2003; the number and value of Congressionally-directed projects reduced amounts available to expand the number of laboratories receiving assistance.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Information is collected by the program manager and is maintained in local files. Data Validation and Verification: OJP validates and verifies performance measures for this program through information supplied from progress reports, on-site monitoring visits and telephone contacts between grantees and program managers. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

Performance Measure: State and Local DNA Analysis: Estimated Samples Collected, as Reported by the States; Annual Total of State Backlog Samples Analyzed (with OJP funding) [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target:
  ­ 300,000 Samples Collected
  ­ 300,000 State Backlog Samples Analyzed
• FY 2003 Actual:
  ­ 0 Samples Collected
  ­ 0 State Backlog Samples Analyzed
• Discussion: In FY 2003, the target of was missed due to awards and delivery orders not being made until August and September 2003. Delivery orders provide vendor laboratories the necessary authorization under the contract to begin sample analyses. Data will be available beginning in the first quarter of FY 2004. These data will become available as analyzed samples are returned from vendor laboratories and validated by states awaiting results.

d

Data Collection and Storage: OJP data are collected by NIJ directly from the grantee, which are stored by the Office of the Comptroller as official records. NIJ maintains courtesy copies of these records. Data Validation and Verification: OJP validates and verifies performance measures by progress reports submitted by grantees, onsite monitoring of grantee performance and by telephone contact. Data Limitations: Data are collected from September to September. Targets are based on receiving an anticipated number of collected samples from the states. If less/more collected samples are reported by the states, the actual number of samples analyzed will be affected.

Performance Measure: MEASURE REFINED: Total Number of Federal, State, and Local Investigations Aided by the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) [FBI] (formerly: Total Number of Federal, State and Local Investigations Aided by the National DNA Index System (NDIS) [FBI]) (NOTE: In an effort to report the most complete data available, this measure has been refined to report on investigations aided by CODIS which combines both NDIS and State DNA Index System (SDIS).)

• FY 2003 Target: 3,652 Investigations
• FY 2003 Actual: 4,202 Investigations
• Discussion: The FBI’s CODIS is an automated DNA information processing and telecommunications system that supports the Local DNA Index System (LDIS), SDIS, and the NDIS. NDIS is the highest level in the CODIS hierarchy, and enables the laboratories participating in the CODIS Program to exchange and compare DNA profiles on a national level. All DNA profiles originate at LDIS, then flow to SDIS and based on state laws some or all flow to NDIS.

d

Data Definition: Investigations Aided are defined as a case(s) that CODIS assisted through verified matches produced by CODIS. Data Collection and Storage: The data source is a spreadsheet maintained by the Forensic Science Systems Unit within the FBI Laboratory Division. Data are collected monthly from the state laboratory in each state. Data Validation and Verification: Before data are entered into the system they are reviewed and approved by an FBI Laboratory manager and verified again with the submitting state agencies. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

Performance Measure: MEASURE REFINED: Total Number of Forensic and Offender DNA Matches Identified From CODIS [FBI] (formerly: Annual # of NDIS Matches Identified) (NOTE: FBI’s reporting methodology has been improved and refined to include the total number of forensic and offender matches identified by local, state, and national index systems.)

• FY 2003 Target: 3,885 Matches
• FY 2003 Actual: 4,239 Matches
• Discussion: The Forensic and Offender matches are verified matches from the federal state, and local DNA databases. CODIS provides investigative leads in crimes of violence and property, including rape, homicide, and burglary, where biological evidence is recovered from the crime scene. A match made among forensic profiles can link crime scenes together; possibly identifying serial criminals, which aids in the prevention and reduction of violent crime. A match between a forensic and offender DNA profile provides investigators with the identity of the perpetrators(s). After CODIS identifies a potential match, qualified DNA analysts in the laboratories responsible for the matching profiles contact each other to verify or refute the match. The Offender and Forensic matches reported by this performance measure include matches not only from NDIS, but SDIS and LDIS as well. While data on Offender matches can be distinguished on the national and state level, data on Forensic matches cannot be distinguished.

d

Data Definition: CODIS Matches: NDIS, SDIS, or LDIS finds a DNA match, CODIS software generates a report that shows a match and/or “hit” has been made and then provides an offender or forensic profile based on the sample received. Data Collection and Storage: FBI data source is a spreadsheet maintained by the Forensic Science Systems Unit within the FBI Laboratory Division. Data are collected monthly from the state laboratories in each state. Data Validation and Verification: Before FBI data are entered into the system they are reviewed and approved by an FBI Laboratory manager and verified again with the submitting state agencies. Data Limitations: Not all analyzed backlog samples are immediately entered into NDIS, SDIS, & LDIS by their users.

3.1C Provide Support to Law Enforcement

In addition to technical support, the Department also provides critical law enforcement training. The FBI’s National Academy Program serves as the foundation for the FBI’s comprehensive training assistance to local, county, and state law enforcement. This program targets law enforcement managers, and its goal is to render training assistance regarding investigative, managerial, technical, and administrative aspects of law enforcement. In addition, the FBI Academy provides in-service training to local, county, and state law enforcement in many areas, such as forensic science. FBI staff located in field offices throughout the country also provide, upon request, education and training programs, thereby contributing to enhanced professionalism in American law enforcement.

Through OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance, the National White Collar Crime Center provides a national resource for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of multi-jurisdictional economic crimes. This includes a national training and research institute focusing on economic crime issues. One component, the National Cybercrime Training Partnership, serves as a centralized, operational focal point for assessment, design, and delivery of federal, state, and local training and technical assistance regarding computer crime investigation and prosecution.

Performance Measure: Law Enforcement and Regulatory Personnel Trained [FBI, OJP]

• FY 2003 Target:
  ­ Trained in the field (FBI): 70,000
  ­ Trained at FBI Academy: 3,304
  ­ Trained in Computer Crime (OJP): 2,080
• FY 2003 Actual:
  ­ Trained in the field (FBI): 88,357
  ­ Trained at FBI Academy: Data will be available in January 2004.
  ­ Trained in Computer Crime (OJP): 1,787
• Discussion: FBI Field training numbers are higher than originally expected for FY 2003, and are expected to rise in FY 2004. Starting in FY 2003, the FBI ran a new program in state and local law enforcement training in counterterrorism. In addition, FBI has started to place instructors in community policing institutes around the country. In FY 2003, 11 of the 32 institutes had FBI instructors teaching alongside state and local law enforcement instructors. By the end of FY 2004, all 32 are expected to have FBI instructors on-board.
  
  OJP’s results for FY 2003 were lower than the previously stated capacity of 2,080 for computer crime training, because local jurisdictions’ budgets have been adversely affected. Agencies who had training funds in their budget have been forced to delay or curtail sending their personnel to computer crime training because of the overriding need to divert funds to counterterrorism efforts.

d		d
Data Collection and Storage: The Quantico Student Information System (QSIS) is used to track the amount of training given to state and local law enforcement. The totals for FBI Academy include training at the National Academy as well as other training given to state and local law enforcement. The number trained in computer crime is collected by the grantee and is reported to BJA via semi-annual progress reports, which are stored in grant manager files and in official files maintained by the Office of the Comptroller. Data Validation and Verification: The Quantico Administrative Manager reviews the data for validity. BJA program managers monitor the National White Collar Crime Center’s data. Data Limitations: Attendance data are subject to review and change.

3.1D Expand Programs to Reduce Violence Against Women

OJP’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) administers a combination of two formula and nine discretionary grant programs that support the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-386). These programs are designed to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. OVW works with U.S. Attorneys to ensure enforcement of the federal criminal statutes contained in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; assists the Attorney General in formulating policy related to civil and criminal justice for women; and administers more than $367 million a year in grants to help states, tribes, and local communities transform the way in which criminal justice systems respond to crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. One notable program, the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Program provides opportunities for rural jurisdictions to draw upon their unique characteristics to develop and implement policies and services designed to enhance intervention and prevention of domestic violence and child victimization.

Performance Measure: Total # of Jurisdictions Providing Services in Rural Areas Previously Under-Served (cumulative) [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 383 Jurisdictions
• FY 2003 Actual: 173 Jurisdictions
• Discussion:In FY 2003, OVW missed its target to provide services in rural areas previously under-served. This was due to a change in office policy beginning in FY 2002. Prior to FY 2002, awa rds were made using an 18-month period. OVW’s new policy requires grants to be awarded for a 24-month period. Consequently, this made the award amounts per jurisdiction higher, but total number of jurisdictions served lower.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Data will be obtained through progress reports submitted by grantees, on-site monitoring and data stored in OVW program office files. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of progress reports submitted by grantees; telephone contact and on-site monitoring of grantee performance by grant program managers. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

Strategic Objective & Annual Goal 3.2: Juvenile Justice
Reduce youth crime and victimization through assistance that emphasizes both enforcement and prevention

3.2A Improve Juvenile Justice Systems

OJP’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program. The CASA program funds local programs to support court appointed special advocates in their efforts to assist overburdened court officials and social workers. This program not only serves as a safety net for abused and neglected children, but also as an essential ally in delinquency prevention. Research shows that abused and neglected children are at increased risk of repeating the same violent behavior they experience, and are therefore at increased risk of becoming delinquents and adult criminals.

Performance Measure: Number of Children Served by the CASA Program [OJP] (NOTE: In order to report the most meaningful and accurate data available, in FY 2004, OJP will begin reporting the number of children served through local subgrants, funded by OJP as well as children served by National CASA.)

• FY 2003 Target: 272,815
• FY 2003 Actual: 300,097
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJJDP exceeded its FY 2003 goal by over 10 percent through intense efforts to support local CASA programs in recruiting and training volunteer advocates. The number of children served in FY 2003 represents over half of all children in the foster care system.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Data will be obtained through progress reports submitted by grantees, on-site monitoring and data stored in internal files. FY 2004 will be the first year data will reflect number of children served with reference to those local CASA programs that received subgrant funds from national CASA. This will account for the reduction in the number of children served. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of progress reports submitted by grantees, telephone contact, and on-site monitoring of grantees’ performance by grant program managers. Data Limitations: National CASA provides information regarding the CASA program two times per year. Data reported from1998-2003 were not separated to distinguish children served by all CASA programs from those served by National CASA subgrants, funded by OJP. In FY 2004, OJP will begin reporting the number of children served through subgrants, funded by OJP, awarded through National CASA .

3.2B Support Early Intervention and Prevention Programs Focused on Youth Crimes

Among the intervention and prevention activities supported by OJJDP are juvenile mentoring programs that link at-risk youth with responsible adults to provide guidance, promote personal and social responsibility, discourage gang involvement, and encourage participation in community service activities.

OJJDP recently completed a Report to Congress on the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), including preliminary results indicating that JUMP shows promise as a prevention measure to reduce delinquency and give participating youth a better chance at success. Additionally, OJJDP continues to fund the National Mentoring Center, which provides training and technical assistance, dissemination of publications and bulletins, and conducts regional training to strengthen the ability of juvenile mentoring programs across the country.

Performance Measure: Number of Youth Enrolled in Juvinile Mentoring Programs (JUMP) Nationwide [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 20,000
• FY 2003 Actual: 20,120
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJJDP slightly exceeded its target due to the effectiveness of the training provided in support of the various JUMP program sites.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Information is obtained through the JUMP National Evaluator, which collects quarterly status reports from each grantee site. Data Validation and Verification: Grant monitors perform on-site monitoring visits overseeing grantee performance. Additionally, national program evaluations are performed by OJJDP. Data Limitations: Due to the fact that program start-up varies between fiscal years and youth enrollment varies, setting realistic targets is challenging. Chart includes data from competitively funded JUMP programs, and does not include data from earmarked programs.

3.2C Implement Child Victim Support

OJJDP administers the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program. This program coordinates activities under the Missing Children’s Assistance Act, including preventing abductions, investigating the exploitation of children, locating missing children and reuniting them with their families, and addressing the psychological impact of abduction on the child and the family. Program funds are used to enhance the efforts of state and local communities in their comprehensive response to missing and exploited children issues through direct assistance in planning and program development; developing and disseminating policies, procedures and programmatic information related to search teams, investigations, and crisis intervention activities; reunification of youth with their families; and issues related to victimization of families and youth involved in the missing and exploitation problem.

OJJDP’s Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force program is helping communities protect children from online victimization. Nearly 30 million children and youth go online each year to research homework assignments, play games, and meet friends. The electronic actions of the unwary and vulnerable can lead to stalking, theft, and other malicious or criminal actions. In the worst instances, children and teenagers can become victims of molestation by providing personal information. This initiative encourages state and local law enforcement agencies to develop and implement regional multijurisdictional, multi-agency task forces to prevent and respond to online crimes against children.

Performance Measure: Personnel Trained in Missing & Exploited Children Issues (cumulative) [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 58,668
• FY 2003 Actual: 67,789
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJJDP exceeded its target through the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and Fox Valley Technical College training programs, which offer multi-tiered training that prepares personnel who attend in the use of existing FBI and other federal resources to effectively assist law enforcement agencies that investigate missing and exploited children cases.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Data will be obtained through progress reports submitted by grantees, onsite monitoring and data stored in internal files. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of progress reports submitted by grantees, telephone contact, and onsite monitoring of grantees’ performance by grant program managers. Additionally, the Fox Valley Technical College has management information systems that have the capacity to verify and validate training components. Data Limitations: In FY 2001, the actual was over reported by 10,000. Consequently, back year data have been updated to reflect the most accurate data available.

Performance Measure: Forensic Examinations of Electronic Equipment and Investigations Conducted by Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target:
  ­ 1,550 forensic examinations
  ­ 2,200 Investigations
• FY 2003 Actual: 2,594 forensic examinations; 3,563 Investigations
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJJDP exceeded its projected targets.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Data will be obtained through monthly progress reporting forms submitted by grantees, onsite monitoring and data stored in internal files. Data Validation and Verification: Data are validated through a review conducted by program managers. Data Limitations: Data for FY 2000 cannot be collected; therefore data displayed is cumulative from FY 2001 forward.

Strategic Objective & Annual Goal 3.3: Drug Abuse
Break the cycle of drugs and violence by reducing the demand for and use and trafficking of illegal drugs

3.3A Monitor Substance Abuse by Arrestees and Criminal Offenders

The Office of Justice Programs works to prevent use and abuse of drugs and alcohol through a variety of demonstration, educational, and public outreach programs. Research shows that drug use and crime are closely linked. OJP funds a number of ongoing data collection programs used to monitor the drug/crime nexus, including: The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program and the National Crime Victimization Survey and Surveys of Jail Inmates, State Prisoners, Federal Prisoners, and Probationers.

OJP’s ADAM program is the only federally-funded drug use prevalence program to directly address the relationship between drug use and criminal behavior. It is also the only program to provide drug use estimates based on urinalysis results, which have proven to be the most reliable method of determining recent drug use. The ADAM program obtains voluntary, anonymous interviews and urine samples from arrestees at selected booking facilities throughout the United States.

Performance Measure: DISCONTINUED MEASURE: Total Number of ADAM Sites [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 45
• FY 2003 Actual: 35
• Discussion: After extensive collaboration between policy-level officials at the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of National Drug Control Policy during FY 2003, the ADAM program is being restructured to meet ONDCP’s goal of creating national estimates of drug use by arrestees.

d

Data Collection and Storage: ADAM site information is collected from active sites and stored in NIJ files. Data Validation and Verification: NIJ verifies performance measures through progress reports submitted by grantees, onsite monitoring of grantee performance by grant program managers, and telephone contact. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

3.3B Support Programs Providing Drug Testing, Treatment, and Graduated Sanctions

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics data published in May 2000, an estimated 417,000 local jail inmates (70% of all jail inmates) had been arrested for, or convicted of, a drug offense or had used drugs regularly. Thirty-six percent were under the influence of drugs at the time of the offense, and 16% said they committed their offenses to get money for drugs. These facts support the assertion that the demand for drug treatment services is tremendous. OJP has a long history of providing drug-related resources to its constituencies in an effort to break the cycle of drugs and violence by reducing the demand, use and trafficking of illegal drugs.

The drug court movement began as a community-level response to reduce crime and substance abuse among criminal justice offenders. This new approach integrated substance abuse treatment, sanctions, and incentives with case processing to place nonviolent drug-involved defendants in judicially supervised rehabilitation programs. The traditional system had rarely provided substance abuse treatment to defendants in any systematic way and, in many cases, provided little or no threat of sanctions to drug offenders. The OJP’s Drug Court Program was established in 1995 to provide financial and technical assistance to states, state courts, local courts, units of local government and Indian tribal governments to establish drug treatment courts. Drug courts employ the coercive power of the judicial system to subject non-violent offenders to an integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives and sanctions to break the cycle of substance abuse and crime. This community-level movement is supported through drug court grants and targeted technical assistance and training.

OJP’s Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) for State Prisoners Program is a formula grant program that assists states and units of local government in developing and implementing these programs within state and local correctional and detention facilities in which prisoners are incarcerated for a period of time sufficient to permit substance abuse treatment (6 - 12 months).

Performance Measure: Total Number of New Drug Courts (cumulative) [OJP]

• FY 2003 Target: 492
• FY 2003 Actual: 527
• Discussion: In FY 2003, OJP exceeded its target through the implementation of 85 new drug courts. OJP funds drug courts that have been through the OJP-funded training entitled Drug Court Planning Initiative and those that have not.

d

Data Collection and Storage: Grant program managers obtain Data from reports submitted by grantees, telephone contact, and on-site monitoring of grantees’ performance. Additionally, the OJP Drug Court Clearinghouse and Technical Assistance Project provides data to measure performance. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of the data by Drug Courts monitors surveying grantees and reviewing data. Data Limitations: New drug courts data are supported by evaluative measures.

Performance Measure: Number of Offenders Treated for Substance Abuse Annually (RSAT) [OJP] (NOTE: This measure has been refined to reflect offenders treated annually.)

• FY 2003 Target: 40,000
• FY 2003 Actual: 25,251
• Discussion: In FY 2003, the target of 40,000 was missed because nine states did not submit Individual Progress Reports (annual performance reports) providing the number of offenders treated for substance abuse. Additionally, under the guidelines of the program, states are required to provide a match of federal dollars for each state dollar spent, not to exceed 25%, on the RSAT program. Many states have fallen into budget crises, which made it difficult to reach the 25% requirement. As a result, states only funded a limited number of RSAT programs. In addition, to date, only 64% of RSAT program dollars have been disbursed. Finally, 10% of funding was made optional to states for aftercare. In their applications for funding, 39 states identified that they would exercise this option, thus leaving fewer RSAT dollars to use to treat offenders for substance abuse while incarcerated.

d

Data Definition: OJP is currently refining the definition of treated to indicate only those offenders that have completed the substance abuse treatment program during the reporting period, rather than those offenders that have started treatment, but have not completed the program. When the refinement is finalized, there will most likely be a drop in the number of offenders treated. Data Collection and Storage: Grant program managers obtain data from reports submitted by grantees, telephone contact, and onsite monitoring of grantees’ performance. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of the data by the BJA that monitors surveys grantees. Data Limitations: This is self-reported and data are not verified through evaluative measures. Due to the lag in data reported, there is a year lag in the reported data.

Strategic Objective & Annual Goal 3.4: Victims Of Crime
Uphold the rights of and improve services to America’s crime victims

3.4A Provide Victim Services

OJP’s Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) is dedicated to serving our nation’s victims, including those in traditionally underserved populations. OVC, in carrying out its mission, (1) enacts and enforces consistent, fundamental rights for crime victims in federal, state, juvenile, military, and tribal justice systems; (2) provides comprehensive quality services for all victims; (3) integrates crime victims’ issues into all levels of the country to increase public awareness; (4) provides comprehensive quality training for service providers who work with crime victims; (5) develops a National Crime Victims Agenda to provide a guide for long term action; (6) serves in an international leadership role in promoting effective and sensitive victim services and rights around the world; and (7) ensures a central role for crime victims in the country’s response to violence and victimization.

Additionally, millions of Americans call upon religious leaders for spiritual guidance, support and information in times of personal crisis. Many faith-based crime assistance programs across the country receive Victim of Crime Act (VOCA) funding to provide needed counseling, criminal justice support, referrals, and other critical services to America’s crime victims.

Performance Measure: Under Development

• Discussion: OVC is working with National Association of Victims of Crime Act Assistance Administrators in a joint project to prepare and distribute a Subgrant Monitoring Protocol for use by state VOCA victim assistance administrators and staff. The protocol will include suggested policies and procedures for states to adequately and thoroughly conduct various types of monitoring activities, including ongoing desk reviews and on-site visits. The protocol will include sample written policies, forms, and reports. Upon implementation, this monitoring protocol will permit OVC grantees to fully account for awards made to faith-based.

Strategic Objective & Annual Goal 3.5: Community Service
Support innovative, cooperative, and community-based programs aimed at reducing crime and violence in our communities

3.5A Support Community Policing Initiatives

The COPS Office was established to assist law enforcement agencies in enhancing public safety through the implementation of community policing strategies. COPS supports the advancement of community policing strategies by providing training to enhance law enforcement officers’ problem-solving and community interaction skills; encouraging law enforcement and community members to develop innovative initiatives to prevent crime; substantially increasing the number of law enforcement officers directly interacting with community members; and supporting the development of new technologies to shift law enforcement’s focus to preventing, rather than reacting to, crime and disorder within their communities.

Since 1994, the COPS Office has directly served the needs of state, local and tribal law enforcement through the development of innovative programs that respond to law enforcement and community priorities and emerging needs. COPS programs have provided funding to over 13,000 of the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies to implement innovative and effective community policing strategies producing a crucial community policing infrastructure across the nation. Approximately 86% of the nation’s population is served by law enforcement agencies practicing community policing.

Under the COPS Office grant programs (the Universal Hiring Program, Making Officer Redeployment Effective, COPS in Schools, and Indian programs), awards are based on a jurisdiction’s public safety needs and its ability to sustain the financial commitment to deploy additional community policing officers beyond the life of the grant. The number of officers that are ultimately deployed can decrease from the initial award estimate based on many factors including: the success of a jurisdictions’ officer recruitment efforts; the actual availability of local matching funds (which can vary from initial estimates based on funding appropriated by local governments); a change in a project’s scope; and the number of officers that successfully complete academy training.

Performance Measure: MEASURE REFINED: New Police Officers Funded and Hired [COPS] (formerly “New Officers Funded and On the Street”)

• FY 2003 Target:
  ­ 115,945 Funded
  ­ 92,500 Hired
• FY 2003Actual: As of September 30, 2003, COPS funded 118,527 new police officers and as of April 28, 2003, 94,702 of the funded officers had been hired (cumulative since FY 1994).
• Discussion: In FY 2003, the COPS Office funded 2,878 additional officers (for a net increase of 2,582) across all its hiring programs, exceeding the cumulative goal of 115,945 for the year. By May 2003, an additional 6,674 officers had been hired, exceeding the cumulative goal of 92,500 for the year. Note that because of the impact of withdrawals and modifications, one cannot derive the cumulative number of officers funded/hired through FY 2003 by adding the number of officers funded/hired in FY 2003 to the previous year’s cumulative total. Withdrawals and modifications affect the cumulative number of officers funded/hired since the COPS program was established.

d

Data Definition: A new police officer is an additional officer hired using COPS funds or an officer redeployed to the street because of the time savings created by the effective use of COPS-funded technology, hiring a civilian with COPS funds, or the use of COPS-funded overtime. This officer is over and above the number of officer positions that a grantee would otherwise fund or redeploy in absence of the COPS grant award. Data Collection and Storage: The COPS Management system tracks all individual grants. The COPS Count Survey collects data from police agencies on the number of COPS funded officers hired. Data Validation and Verification: Data review is conducted as part of the grants management function. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

3.5B Assist Communities in Resolution of Conflicts and Prevention of Violence Due to Ethnic and Racial Tension

The Department’s Community Relations Service (CRS) continued to improve and expand upon the delivery of conflict resolution and violence prevention services to state and local officials and community leaders in FY 2003. These services include: direct mediation and conciliation services; transfer of knowledge and expertise in the establishment of partnerships and formal agreements for locally-derived solutions; development of community trust and cooperation; improvement of local preparedness for addressing violence and civil disorders; and assistance in enhancing local capacity to resolve conflicts.

Performance Measure: Communities with Improved Conflict Resolution Capacity as a Result of CRS Assistance [CRS]

• FY 2003 Target: 740
• FY 2003 Actual: 1,176
• Discussion: CRS exceeded its targeted performance goal in FY 2003. This increase is a result of changes taking place in this country, which present a more complex set of dynamics. These dynamics stem from the growth of intolerance and distrust directed against Arab American, Sikh and Muslim people and those people who can be mistaken as such due to stereotyping and the increase in racial and ethnic divisions. Significant demographic changes and new immigration movements are also factored into the increase in hate incidents and increased attention on issues of community peace and stability.

d

Data Collection and Storage: CRS collects and maintains data in a case management system, CRSIS. CRSIS establishes standard criteria for recording and classifying casework. Data Validation and Verification: CRS regional directors review and approve case information entered into CRSIS by conciliators; the data is reviewed and verified by analysts and managers at CRS headquarters. Data Limitations: In FY 2002, CRS implemented an upgraded case management system. The new system is web-based and allows for easier access to data. CRS expects to further revise the current system to better manage data requirements and improve the accuracy of the data collection including the quality and type of CRS services, products, and outcomes. This in turn will permit better management, evaluation, and improvements in CRS program operations.

Back to TOC