Recovery Act JAG Funds Are Awarded in Different Ways and Recipients Report Using Their Awards to Support Law Enforcement and Corrections Activities among Other Things

Recipients of Recovery Act JAG funding receive their money in one of two  ways—either as a direct payment from BJA or as a pass-through from an  SAA—and they reported using their funds primarily for law enforcement  and corrections. According to state officials from our sample states, more  than half of the funding that localities received as pass-through awards  from their SAAs was obligated specifically for law enforcement and  corrections support, while about a quarter of the funds that recipients of  direct awards received was dedicated exclusively to law enforcement. Regardless of the source, officials in states and localities reported using  Recovery Act JAG funds to preserve jobs and activities that without  Recovery Act JAG funds would have been cut or eliminated; however,  expenditure rates across states in our sample showed considerable  variation. As of June 30, 2010, the SAAs  and the directly funded localities in our sample expended over $270.7  million or about 26.4 percent of the total amount awarded. State Administering Agencies Cited Challenges Meeting Quarterly Recovery Act Reporting Time Frames

A majority of the SAA officials we interviewed said that workload demand  and personnel shortages made meeting Recovery Act mandated deadlines  within the prescribed reporting period difficult. States Reported Sharing Information and Promising Practices in a Variety of Ways and DOJ Encouraged This through a Number of Programs

All of the SAAs we contacted (14 of 14) reported that they generally shared  Recovery Act JAG information, promising practices, or lessons learned  with other states and localities using a variety of techniques. By including key attributes of successful performance  measurement systems into its performance measure revisions, DOJ could  facilitate accountability, be better positioned to monitor and assess  results, and subsequently improve its grants management. For example, our analysis found that 1 of DOJ’s measures  associated with evaluating personnel activities is the “percent of  departments that report desired efficiency.” However, for this measure,  DOJ’s guidance based on the definition provided in the performance  measure lacks key data elements that would make the measure more  clear—namely, which departments should be included in the measure or  how states and localities should interpret “desired efficiency.”
In addition, officials we interviewed from 9 of the 14 SAAs in our sample  stated that DOJ’s Recovery Act JAG performance measures were unclear. As a result, the  Texas state data collection tool revised the performance measure for  better context and asked for the “the number of other forms of training  conducted during the reporting period and paid with ARRA JAG funds.”
Other state officials from Michigan and Georgia cited challenges in  understanding what is being asked by the 13 measures listed under the  activity type, “state and local initiatives.” In particular, one of these  states noted confusion and lack of clarity related to the measure,  “number of defined groups receiving services,” since in many instances  their initiatives were associated with equipment purchases, and it  would be difficult to determine who and how many benefited from a  new computer system or the acquisition of new ammunition, for  example. DOJ officials acknowledged that they have not verified the accuracy of  states’ and localities’ self-reported performance data. In addition, by establishing a  mechanism to verify accuracy of self-reported data, DOJ can better ensure  reliability of information that is reported. By addressing attributes  consistent with promising performance measurement practices as it works  to revise its performance measures, DOJ could be better positioned to  determine whether Recovery Act JAG recipients’ programs are used to  support all seven JAG program purposes and are meeting DOJ and  Recovery Act program goals. Recommendations

Recognizing that DOJ is already engaged in efforts to refine its Recovery  Act JAG performance measures in the PMT, we recommend that the  Acting Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance take the following two  actions to better monitor Recovery Act JAG program performance and  demonstrate results through use of this instrument:  in revising the department’s Recovery Act JAG performance measures  consider, as appropriate, key attributes of successful performance  measurement systems, such as clarity, reliability, linkage, objectivity,  and measurable targets; and    develop a mechanism to validate the integrity of Recovery Act JAG  recipients’ self-reported performance data. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

This report addresses the following four questions: (1) How are Recovery  Act Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds awarded and how have  recipients in selected states and localities used their awards? (2) What  challenges, if any, have Recovery Act JAG recipients reported in  complying with Recovery Act reporting requirements? (3) To what extent  do states share promising practices related to the use and management of  Recovery Act JAG funds, and how, if at all, does the Department of Justice  (DOJ) encourage information sharing? To identify the extent to which DOJ’s performance measurement approach  is consistent with promising practices to assess progress, we interviewed  representatives from the 14 SAAs and 62 localities and asked them about  their experience with the Performance Measurement Tool (PMT).
Why GAO Did This Study

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) awarded nearly $2 billion in 4-year Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) funds to state and local governments for criminal justice activities. As requested, GAO examined: (1) how Recovery Act JAG funds are awarded and how recipients in selected states and localities used their awards; (2) challenges, if any, selected recipients reported in complying with Recovery Act reporting requirements; (3) the extent to which states shared promising practices related to use and management of funds, and how, if at all, DOJ encouraged information sharing; and (4) the extent to which DOJ's JAG Recovery Act performance measures were consistent with promising practices. GAO analyzed recipient spending and performance data submitted as of June 30, 2010; interviewed officials in a nonprobability sample of 14 states and 62 localities selected based on the amount of their awards, planned activities, and their reported project status; assessed 19 JAG performance measures against a set of key attributes; and interviewed agency officials.

What GAO Found

Recipients of Recovery Act JAG funding in the 14 states GAO reviewed received more than $1 billion either through direct allocations from DOJ or through an indirect "pass-through" of funds that states originally received from the department. These recipients reported using their funds for a variety of purposes, though predominantly for law enforcement and corrections, which included equipment purchases or the hiring or retaining of personnel. More than half of the funding that state administering agencies (SAA) passed-through to localities was reported to be specifically for law enforcement and corrections activities, while localities receiving direct awards more often reported planning to use their funds for multiple types of criminal justice activities. Officials in all 14 states and 19 percent of localities in GAO's sample (12 of 62) said that without Recovery Act JAG funding, support for certain ongoing local law enforcement programs or activities would have been eliminated or cut. Overall, about $270 million or 26 percent of Recovery Act JAG funds had been reported as expended as of June 30, 2010, but the expenditure rates of funds awarded through SAAs showed considerable variation, ranging from 5 to 41 percent of SAA's total awards. State officials cited challenges in meeting quarterly Recovery Act reporting time frames. Officials from the majority of states in GAO's sample said that workload demands and personnel shortages made meeting Recovery Act deadlines within the prescribed reporting period difficult; however, all states reported that they were able to do so. States reported sharing information and promising practices related to JAG activities in a variety of ways and DOJ encouraged this sharing through a number of programs. More than half of state agencies in GAO's sample generally reported sharing promising practices or lessons learned on topics, such as grant management and administration, with other states and localities through participating in law enforcement and government association conferences, DOJ training, and Web postings, among other methods. DOJ established new performance measures to assess the Recovery Act JAG program and is working to refine them; however, these measures lack key attributes of successful performance assessment systems that GAO has previously identified, such as clarity, reliability, a linkage to strategic or programmatic goals, and objectivity and measurability of targets. Including such attributes could facilitate accountability and management's ability to meaningfully assess and monitor Recovery Act JAG's results. DOJ officials acknowledge that weaknesses exist and they plan to improve their performance measures. For example, the department already took initial steps to incorporate feedback from some states with regard to clarifying the definitions of some performance measures; however, its assessment tool lacks a process to verify the accuracy of the data that recipients self-report to gauge their progress. By including attributes consistent with promising practices in its performance measures, DOJ could be better positioned to determine whether Recovery Act JAG recipients' programs are meeting DOJ and Recovery Act goals. In addition, by establishing a mechanism to verify the accuracy of recipient reports, DOJ can better ensure the reliability of the information that recipients provide.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOJ (1) continue to revise Recovery Act JAG performance measures and consider, as appropriate, including key attributes of successful performance measurement systems, and (2) develop a mechanism to validate the integrity of self-reported performance data. DOJ concurred with these recommendations.