Table 1  describes NIJ’s initiatives funded from fiscal years 2008 through 2012  through the DNA and forensic program appropriation that directly benefit  state and local government DNA-related efforts to reduce backlogs and  build capacity. NIJ Has Allocated Funding for Various DNA and Other Forensic Science Activities, and the Majority Goes Directly to Reducing the DNA Backlog

From fiscal years 2008 through 2012, Congress appropriated  approximately $691 million to NIJ to provide grant and other awards for  state and local governments to reduce the DNA backlog and increase  DNA lab capacity, as well as for other forensic science purposes. As a result, NIJ allocated funds for both its DNA backlog  initiatives and other forensic science initiatives based on NIJ’s mission  and annual budgeting priorities. NIJ  officials stated that funding from some of these initiatives may have  indirect or long-term benefits for reducing the DNA backlog. The  remainder of the funding, $38 million, went toward other activities, such  as management and administration. We further analyzed the 64 percent of appropriated funding that went  toward the DNA Backlog Reduction Program and other DNA backlog  initiatives over the 5-year period. NIJ Has a Process in Place to Determine DNA and Forensic Program Funding Priorities, but Decisions Are Not Clearly Documented

NIJ has a process in place for determining its annual priorities for the  allocation of DNA and forensic program appropriation funds; however, NIJ  does not clearly document this process. However, according to our review, these  documents do not consistently or adequately demonstrate NIJ’s rationale  for how funding priorities are determined. While these memos show the  final amounts NIJ decided to allocate to various initiatives, they do not  provide details on the justifications for how funding levels were  determined for each initiative. According to NIJ officials, the budget briefing slides for fiscal years 2008  through 2011 and the funding memos for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 are  the only documents the agency uses to show its rationale for prioritization  of the DNA and forensic program appropriation. However, without a clearly documented process that  demonstrates the rationale for how NIJ is prioritizing its DNA and forensic  program appropriation, there is limited transparency regarding how and  why the agency is allocating its funding. Verification of Data Reliability and Revision of Its Performance Measure Could Help NIJ Better Assess Performance of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program

NIJ has processes in place to assess progress of the DNA Backlog  Reduction Program, but does not have an approach to verify performance  data submitted by grantees so as to reduce error rates. NIJ Assesses Performance, but Verifying Performance Data Could Help NIJ Better Assess Results

NIJ assesses performance of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program by  requiring grantees to submit reports every 6 months outlining their  progress in, among other things, meeting the program goals and  objectives established in their initial applications for funding. The performance measure, reported as “percent of reduction in  DNA backlog casework,” is a projection of DNA casework that grantees  expect to complete as opposed to an actual tabulation of completed  cases. According to NIJ officials, the agency is unable to develop a performance  measure that reports actual cases completed (on the fiscal year basis  called for in OJP’s annual budget submission) under the DNA Backlog  Reduction Program because grantees have up to 3 years to complete  their work and the completed number of cases for the entire grant period  is not known until the grant period closes. In order to assist Congress and NIJ management and stakeholders to  better assess whether NIJ’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program is having a  measurable impact in reducing the DNA backlog, we recommend that the  Director of NIJ take the following two actions: develop a cost-effective approach to verify performance data  submitted by grantees to provide reasonable assurance that such  data are sufficiently reliable to report progress in reducing the DNA  backlog, and,  revise the “percent of reduction in DNA backlog casework”  performance measure to include casework actually completed as part  of the measure instead of casework that is projected. DOJ  agreed with all three of the recommendations and outlined steps to  address them.
Why GAO Did This Study

Since 2008, Congress has appropriated more than $100 million each year to the Department of Justice (DOJ) that may be used, among other things, to reduce DNA backlogs and enhance crime laboratory capacity. NIJ, within DOJ, is responsible for, among other things, providing awards for DNA analysis and forensic activities. NIJ's DNA Backlog Reduction Program was established to provide grants to state and local governments with the intent, in part, of reducing the backlog of DNA samples. The conference report accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012, mandated GAO to examine, among other things, DNA analysis funds. This report addresses (1) how NIJ has allocated its DNA and forensic program appropriation over the past 5 fiscal years, (2) the extent that NIJ has a process to determine its funding priorities for its DNA and forensic program appropriation, and (3) the extent that NIJ verifies data on grant results submitted by grantees and measures the outcomes of the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. GAO reviewed relevant appropriations, NIJ funding documentation, and data from fiscal years 2008 through 2012, and interviewed NIJ officials.

What GAO Found

The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) allocated funding for various DNA and other forensic science activities, with the majority of the available $691 million from fiscal years 2008 through 2012 going to state and local governments to reduce the DNA backlog. Specifically, over this 5-year period, 64 percent was allocated through initiatives that directly benefit state and local efforts to reduce DNA backlogs and build DNA analysis capacity. The largest initiative was NIJ's DNA Backlog Reduction Program, and other DNA backlog initiatives included DNA analysis of cold cases, among others. A smaller portion (31 percent) went to other forensic sciences initiatives, such as research and development and training, although NIJ officials stated that funding these initiatives may have long-term benefits for reducing the DNA backlog. The remainder of the funding went toward other activities, such as management and administration.
NIJ has a process in place to determine DNA and forensic program funding priorities, but its decisions regarding these priorities are not clearly documented. According to NIJ officials, the rationale for funding the DNA Backlog Reduction Program versus other initiatives is documented in briefing slides, but these documents do not show NIJ's rationale for how funding priorities are determined. For example, while the budget documents for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 show the final amounts NIJ decided to allocate to various initiatives, these documents do not provide details on the justifications for how funding levels were determined for each initiative. Without a clearly documented process that demonstrates the rationale for NIJ's annual funding priorities, there is limited transparency regarding how and why the agency is allocating its funding.
NIJ could verify data and revise its performance measure to better assess the DNA Backlog Reduction Program. NIJ assesses performance of this program by requiring grantees to submit reports every 6 months that, in part, outline their progress in meeting program goals and objectives. However, NIJ does not have an approach to verify the reliability of the data--testing data to ensure data quality--and as a result, faces continuing data errors. Verifying these data would help ensure that the data are reliable enough to show that the program is successfully meeting its goals. In addition, NIJ has a performance measure to assess the results of this program--percent of reduction in DNA backlog casework--but it is a projection of DNA casework that grantees expect to complete as opposed to an actual tabulation of completed cases. While measuring annual performance for multiyear grants can be challenging because the completed number of cases is not known until after the grant period closes, taking steps to analyze performance data on actual cases completed could help NIJ to better assess actual results.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that NIJ clearly document the rationale for annual funding priorities, develop a cost-effective approach to verify the reliability of grantee performance data, and revise its performance measure to reflect actual completed cases. DOJ agreed with GAO's recommendations and outlined steps to address them.