The No Suspect Casework DNA Backlog Reduction Program

Audit Report No. 05-02
November 2004
Office of the Inspector General


Appendix 5

Office of the Inspector General Audit Division
Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close Report


The OJP response to the draft audit report appears in Appendix IV. In its response, OJP generally agreed with all 19 of our recommendations and described the corrective actions it has taken or intends to take with regard to the recommendations. Prior to presenting the status of each recommendation and the actions necessary for closure, however, we address several statements that OJP made in its response.

First, the OJP response referenced the “President’s DNA Initiative” (DNA Initiative), announced in March 2003, and asserted that the grant program that we audited was discontinued in favor of the DNA Initiative. This statement is incorrect. The 2004 grant program closely follows the requirements of prior year Forensic Casework Backlog Reduction Programs and our findings and recommendations are relevant for the 2004 program as well. In addition, we believe it is misleading for OJP to state that the current Administration and Congress discontinued the Forensic Casework DNA Backlog Reduction Program in favor of the DNA Initiative. Under the DNA Initiative, the funding source for the Backlog Reduction Program has changed, but the program has not been discontinued. In fact, DNA backlog elimination is the most strongly funded purpose area contained in the DNA Initiative. In our judgment, the priority given to reducing and eliminating backlogs further emphasizes the significance of the OIG recommendations contained in this report. Overall, the only apparent change to the grant program resulting from the DNA initiative is the source of funding. Under the DNA Initiative, administrative and program requirements are substantially unchanged from prior years.

Second, OJP's response indicated that many of our audit recommendations were already addressed in the DNA Initiative. While the DNA Initiative contains broad provisions related to a variety of DNA-related programs, including eliminating backlogs, strengthening crime laboratory capacity, stimulating research and development, and providing training, the DNA Initiative does not stipulate how those programs are to be managed, which is the key to successful administration of any grant program. For this reason, the DNA Initiative itself does not resolve or close any of our audit findings or recommendations. For example, the DNA Initiative does not address our recommendations relating to the development and implementation of better performance measurements or increased monitoring and oversight of grant drawdowns. In addition, many of our recommendations pertain to the oversight of local grantee activities by the state grantees. The DNA Initiative does not provide any guidance in this area.

The OJP's response provided examples of changes made to the May 2004 solicitation that added special conditions to DNA grants awarded in September 2004, which addressed some of our audit findings. We agree that these changes, many of which were implemented in response to our audit work, are positive steps taken by OJP. For example, the solicitation allows for grants to be awarded directly to local laboratories, which should shorten the time that it takes to utilize this funding. This change directly addressed one of our audit recommendations.

In its response, OJP also stated that the provisions in the "Justice for All Act of 2004" should improve grantee performance. While this Act provides funding authorization for many DNA-related programs, we still believe that OJP's administration of any funds awarded under this Act are the most significant measure of whether grantee performance will improve. The Act itself does not direct monitoring of grantee activities.

In sum, while the new DNA Initiative and the Justice for All Act contain many provisions related to DNA grant programs, the overall monitoring, administration, and success of these and other DNA-related grant programs are dependent upon the quality of activities conducted by OJP. Our recommendations focus on OJP activities, and the passage of the DNA Initiative and the Justice for All Act emphasize the importance of implementing the changes we recommend in the way the DNA grants are administered.

The status of the individual recommendations is as follows:

  1. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP's revised procedures for monitoring grantee drawdowns.
  2. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that OJP is ensuring that Program-funded uploads are being performed on a timely basis.
  3. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive: 1) documentation that OJP has developed Program goals that support the achievement of the Program’s mission of increasing laboratory capacity, and 2) documentation that OJP has implemented an appropriate system to track those goals.
  4. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive: 1) documentation that OJP has developed and implemented performance measurements that allow the monitoring toward the achievement of the Program's mission of increasing laboratory capacity, and 2) documentation relating to the Grant Progress Assessment Program as it pertains to the oversight of those performance measurements.
  5. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive a copy of the implemented procedures for the review of drawdowns for current grants before awarding grantees additional funding.
  6. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive a copy of the implemented procedures for the de-obligation of funding for grantees that are not utilizing their grant funds in a timely manner.
  7. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that all laboratories participating in future programs must meet the same certification/accreditation requirements.
  8. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that future Solicitations emphasize that Program-funded profiles should be uploaded to NDIS.
  9. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the new awards funded in 2004 require that eligible grant-funded profiles be uploaded to NDIS.
  10. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the FDLE, Investigative and Forensic Science Services, Tallahassee, has implemented a policy to ensure that participating locations receive current contractor oversight documentation.
  11. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the FDLE, Jacksonville Regional Operations Center, has approved and implemented a comprehensive policy that contains current procedures in use for the outsourcing of no-suspect casework evidence.
  12. Closed.
  13. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the Fort Worth Police Department is maintaining records to substantiate their vendor's on-going compliance with the QAS.
  14. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the Houston Police Department has completed and documented an onsite visit to their contractor laboratory sufficient to meet the requirements of the QAS.
  15. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the Houston Police Department has approved and implemented a comprehensive policy that contains current procedures in use for the outsourcing of no-suspect casework evidence.
  16. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that Orchid Cellmark in Dallas, Texas, has implemented a policy for the cleaning of the pass-through that exists between the pre-amplification and post-amplification areas.
  17. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that the Nassau County Police Department has approved and implemented a comprehensive policy that contains current procedures for the outsourcing of no-suspect casework evidence.
  18. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation that Orchid Cellmark in Germantown, Maryland, has implemented a policy requiring that evidence, after being received and logged in by the receptionist, is immediately placed in a limited access or secure area while awaiting the attention of technical personnel.
  19. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when we receive evidence that $44,640 in questioned costs for the New York State DCJS has been remedied.