	Juvenile Justice: Selected Issues Relating to OJJDP’s Reauthorization

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our review of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). We will also discuss how the OJJDP process for outside peer review of discretionary grant applications compares to the processes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The Assistant Attorney General and the OJJDP Administrator said that they believed communication and coordination between OJP and its component offices had improved. OJJDP Awarded 162 New Discretionary Grants for Fiscal Years 1993 Through 1995

For fiscal years 1993 through 1995, OJJDP data showed that it awarded 162 new discretionary grants. Funded projects covered a variety of program areas. OJJDP’s Process for Implementing Its Discretionary Grant Program

OJJDP manages its discretionary grants by setting goals and priorities for the programs and publicizing available grant programs. It is to consider review comments from peer reviewers and other program offices. The official noted that funding grants in this manner results in additional paperwork. These panels generally met about three times a year. In our review to determine how research results were communicated, we reviewed the following five grants, which were completed in fiscal year 1995: (1) Program of Research on the Causes and Correlates of Juvenile Delinquency—a longitudinal research study conducted in three states; (2) Funding Support for Specific Program Development for a State Clearinghouse for Missing Children—a training and technical assistance grant; (3) County-wide Youth Gang Prevention Project—Malheur County—a demonstration project; (4) National Juvenile Hate Crime Study—a research grant; and (5) American Bar Association Symposium on International Child Abduction—a training and technical assistance grant.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed its review of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), focusing on issues related to its management and grant administration.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) communication and coordination between the Office of Justice Programs and its components has improved, but components' independent statutory authority may impede future coordination efforts; (2) OJJDP onsite monitoring of formula grants was generally timely, but it may change its procedures to increase the frequency of site visits; (3) in fiscal years (FY) 1993 through 1995, OJJDP awarded 162 new discretionary grants that covered a variety of program areas; (4) these discretionary grants ranged from $3.1 million for a 3-year project to $31,448 for an 18-month project; (5) to implement its discretionary grant program, OJJDP sets program goals and priorities, publicizes available grant programs and solicits grant applications, evaluates applications through initial and peer reviews, and awards and monitors grants; (6) OJJDP awarded most grants in FY 1993 through 1995 competitively; (7) the OJJDP peer review process generally resembles the National Institutes of Health's and the National Science Foundation's processes except in panel size and structure and in how reviewers are appointed; (8) OJJDP had monitoring plans for most grants, but little monitoring actually occurred; and (9) OJJDP makes the results of its grants available through a contractor database and other electronic forms.