Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to the Table of Contents

Office of Justice Programs
Fiscal Year 2000

Report No. 01-22
August 2001
Office of the Inspector General

Management's Discussion and Analysis


The Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Justice Programs (OJP) was established by the Justice Assistance Act of 1984 and reauthorized in 1988 to provide federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims. OJP strives to make the nation's criminal and juvenile justice systems more responsive to the needs of state, local and tribal governments and their citizens. OJP partners with federal, state, and local agencies, and national and community-based organizations to develop, operate, and evaluate a wide range of criminal and juvenile justice programs. These partnerships also provide resources to more effectively fight crime and improve the quality of life and sense of safety in communities across the nation. OJP's programs and activities provide resources, such as grants, technical assistance and training, for justice system improvements, infrastructure support, training and technical assistance, capacity building, and information exchange on "what works" and "best practices."

To provide federal leadership in developing the nations's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims.


  • To identify critical crime, delinquency, and justice issues; and to define, and promote the understanding of such.

  • To develop, support, and evaluate promising and innovative strategies for ensuring safe and just communities and assisting victims of crime.

  • To build partnerships that strengthen Federal, State and local government and community capacities.

  • To ensure a fair workplace that maximizes each employee's contribution to the overall mission and goals of OJP.
On February 25, 2000, Attorney General Reno approved the reorganization of OJP. As a result, during FY 2000 OJP initiated the implementation of its new organizational structure, which will consolidate many functions of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and OJP's six program offices into subject-matter Program Offices and establish the Office of State and Local Information Transfer and the Office of Grants Management/State Desks.

Not included in the reorganization were the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

OJP also has six offices that provide agency-wide support services including: the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, the Office of General Counsel, the Office of Administration, the Office for Civil Rights, the Office of Strategic Planning, Budget, and Management Services, and the Office of the Comptroller. In addition, the American Indian and Alaskan Native Affairs Desk improves outreach to federally recognized Indian tribes.

Of special note, although the reorganization re-engineers many internal administrative functions and activities, it does not change OJP's fundamental mission of providing federal leadership in developing the nation's capacity to prevent and control crime, administer justice, and assist crime victims.

2000 Funding

Since enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-322) (Crime Act), OJP's annual budget, which includes funding for the Public Safety Officers' Death Benefits Program and the Crime Victims Fund (CVF), has grown from $1.3 billion in FY 1995 to $4.3 billion (including $985 million for the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC)) in FY 2000. This unprecedented growth is largely the result of public and political enthusiasm for OJP's mission and program activities.

2000 Appropriations and CVF Collections (in millions); JA: $307.6; CVF: $985; S&L: $1,564.4; W&S: $33.5; PSOB: $32.5; JJ: $287.1; VCRTF: $1,194.5

OJP's Historical Funding 1995-2000; Appropriations (in billions); CVF 1995-$0.19, 1996-$.23, 1997-$.53, 1998-$.36, 1999-$.32, 2000-$.99; Direct Approps 1995-$1.10, 1996-$2.50, 1997-$2.70, 1998-$3.30, 1999-$3.40, 2000-$3.40

OJP's FY 2000 appropriated funds were provided under the Department of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act (Public Law 106-113), which was signed on November 29, 1999. These appropriated funds are organized into six accounts: Justice Assistance, Juvenile Justice, State and Local Law Enforcement, Violent Crime Reduction Programs, Weed and Seed, and Public Safety Officers Benefits. Additionally, OJP manages the Crime Victims Fund, which unlike the appropriation accounts, is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures from defendants convicted of Federal crimes. These funds are not available for obligation during the year of collection; rather, funds accumulate and the total is available for obligation in the following year; and for expenditure during the next three years. In FY 2000, actual collections available totaled over $985 million, however, Congress placed a "cap" on the fund and limited the obligations of FY 2000 collections to $500 million.

Year 2000 (Y2K) Compliance

The roll over to Year 2000 was a success during the weekend of December 31, 1999, to January 2, 2000. No problems were encountered and all Mission Critical Systems were tested on January 1, 2000. Systems were monitored up to and past the next roll over date of February 29, 2000 (Leap Year date). Assurances are being made that any modifications to the Mission Critical or any non-mission critical system are kept Y2K compliant.

OJP invested a total of $655,270 during FY 2000 for Y2K compliance activities.

Significant 2000 Program Highlights

Fiscal Year 2000 represents an exciting milestone for OJP. Not only is it the end of a decade of unsurpassed growth under the current Administration, it is also the beginning of a new phase in OJP history. In large part, the program activities authorized under the bi-partisan 1994 Crime Act have afforded OJP the opportunity to partner with state, local and tribal governments to implement comprehensive approaches to aggressively address a diverse set of crime problems. These problems include, but are not limited to: drug abuse and treatment, the incarceration of violent offenders, violence against women, and providing law enforcement with cutting edge technology resources and support services.


Since 1995, over $12 billion has been appropriated for OJP's Crime Act programs. This infusion of federal resources has helped our nation's communities better identify, prevent, and control crime.Crime Act Resources (in millions) approximate Appropriations 1995:600; 1996:1600; 1997:1800; 1998:2300; 1999:2250; 2000:2600 Across the country crime rates are declining -- the 1999 National Crime Victimization Survey states that every major type of personal and property crime (burglary, motor vehicle theft, and household theft) measured by the survey decreased between 1993 and 1999. Furthermore, 1999 violent crime (rape, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault) continued a consistent downward trend that began in 1994. Although the direct relationship between OJP's Crime Act resources and the declining crime rates remains unclear, rigorous, external evaluation of our programs reveal that these resources are making a difference in improving public safety and the quality of life for our citizens.

With regard to future funding for the Crime Act programs, FY 2000 is significant in that it represents the final year of authorization. This is not to say that program funding permanently terminates at the close of FY 2000. Rather, it means absent the reauthorization of the Crime Act, future program funding will be tied to the annual appropriations process, which is not altogether unique and poses no adverse impact to OJP.


Understanding and evaluating the impact of OJP programs is important to OJP leadership. Since the enactment of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), OJP has made substantial efforts to improve our performance measurement activities as required by law. Although OJP has developed program-level performance indicators, our performance measurement activities do not yet fully capture the impact of our programs nationally. Groups such as the General Accounting Office (GAO), Congressional Oversite Committees, and the Heritage Foundation have recommended that OJP re-focus existing performance indicators and outcome measures to more fully address result-oriented performance and accountability, reflect overall agency mission, and validate and verify data. In FY 2000, OJP took major steps to re-examine the quality of our performance measurement activities starting with the establishment of a Management Staff in the Office of Strategic Planning, Budget, and Management Services. This staff works across OJP to implement the requirements of GPRA, the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), and the National Partnership for Reinventing Government (NPR). Additionally, this staff is charged with coordinating OJP's input to the DOJ Strategic Plan and Performance Plan.

To improve the identification and documentation of performance indicators, in FY 2000, the Management Staff reached out to OJP managers and staff through a series of meetings and performance measurement-related briefings. This outreach effort resulted in (1) establishing buy-in from OJP leadership on the importance of performance measurement and (2) facilitating collective brainstorming among staff to develop more meaningful, results-oriented measures and indicators. In addition, OJP enlisted outside resources, such as GAO, for their insight and experience in helping to re-tool internal performance measurement activities.

OJP acknowledges that perfecting performance measurement activities is a long-term endeavor. However, the advances we have made during FY 2000 provide the structure from which we can continue to improve and better address our deficiencies. In FY 2001, the Management Staff will continue working with OJP management and staff to develop common strategies at a macro level to better address performance and accountability across the organization. The goal is to develop performance indicators that improve OJP's ability to gauge performance and progress toward our stated mission, highlight successes, pinpoint benchmarks, and make timely program and operational adjustments.


In relationship to the Attorney General's strategic planning and performance reporting activities, all OJP programs are identified under Core Function II: Prevent and Reduce Crime and Violence by Assisting State, Local, Tribal, and Community-Based Programs. Within the text of Core Function II, OJP program activities fall into one of five program areas: law enforcement, juvenile justice, substance abuse, victims, and communities. These program areas mirror those used in the development and presentation of OJP's Statement of Net Cost. Below are select FY 2000 OJP performance measurements.


As mentioned above, FY 2000 was also the beginning of a new phase in OJP history. In 1999, Congress directed OJP and the Justice Department to develop a plan for a new organizational structure. The goal of the restructuring was to develop an organization responsive to the principles of good government and sound management. In March 1999, the Justice Department submitted a plan to Congress for creating a centralized organizational structure that clarified lines of authority and eliminated functional duplication and overlap. In the FY 2000 Conference Report accompanying the Departments of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriation Act (Public Law 106-113), Congress endorsed the principles in the March 1999 plan and requested OJP to submit a formal reorganization proposal by February 1, 2000. Congress specifically directed that OJP consider (1) the creation of a "one-stop" information center; (2) the establishment of "state desks" for geographically-based grant administration; and (3) the administration of grants by subject area.

On February 28, 2000, the Department submitted a detailed OJP restructuring proposal and organizational chart to Congress. The proposed structure focused on improving services to the field by providing customers faster, higher quality service, in a more integrated and comprehensive manner. Among other things, the proposal established two new offices: the Office of State and Local Information Transfer (OSLIT) and the Office of Grant Management/State Desks (OGM/SD). As proposed, OSLIT will serve as a central information center for receiving inquiries and disseminating OJP information regarding technical assistance, training, publications, and grants. OSLIT is also the vehicle for triaging customer questions/concerns and connecting the customers to the appropriate OJP office or offices. The OGM/SD will ensure geographically-based grant administration through "state desks," which will provide a single point of contact and continuous liaison with regard to grants administered in a given state. Additionally, OGM/SD will keep abreast of the grant activities and trends in the state, provide grant support and administration services, assist Program Offices with grant monitoring, and serve as the point of contact for coordination and communication among OJP components.

Another key element of the proposed reorganization was the establishment of subject matter Program Offices to better address program policy and direction issues, model program implementation, pre-award activities related to discretionary and formula grants, training, technical assistance, publications, and other support activities as well as to develop "lessons learned" and "best practices."

On February 25, 2000, Attorney General Reno officially approved OJP's reorganization and directed OJP to take the necessary steps to begin implementation. OJP leadership, in collaboration with line-staff and middle and upper management, have conducted a variety of planning meetings and focus groups. It is expected that OJP's implementation plan will continue to evolve over the next several months.

OJP Organization Chart

(Not Available Electronically)

Limitations of the Financial Statements

The financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of operations of the entity, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515 (b). While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in accordance with the formats prescribed by the Office of Management and Budget, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records.

The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S. Government, a sovereign entity, that liabilities not covered by budgetary resources cannot be liquidated without the enactment of an appropriation, and that the payment of all liabilities other than from contracts can be abrogated by the sovereign entity.