We provided the draft report to OJP for review and requested written comments. OJP’s written response is included as Appendix IV of this report. OJP agreed with all of our recommendations and proposed corrective action appropriate to resolve the recommendations. However, OJP provided supplementary comments regarding certain information related to Recommendation 11. Before addressing the actions necessary to close the report recommendations, we first address OJP’s supplementary comments.

In its response to Recommendation 11, OJP provided a discussion regarding the difficulties it faces in trying to assess the reasonableness of the number of victims and cost of services estimated by the service providers. OJP stated that identification of trafficking victims is episodic in nature, and it is not possible to anticipate the number of victims who may be identified in a single case. OJP stated that it therefore has elected to pursue a strategy from the inception of trafficking grant programs to focus goals and objectives on building capacity to assist any victims identified and to ensure that these victims are provided comprehensive services. OJP further stated that the needs of a particular victim, and the subsequent costs, can differ tremendously from one victim to the next. OJP stated that the audited OVC service provider grantees have clearly met the overarching goal for the establishment and administration of this grant program.

We agree that OJP focused many of the goals of its service provider grants on building community capacity to assist identified victims. However, as shown in our report, five of the six service provider grants that we audited had one or more goals to provide services to a specific number of victims and these goals were usually not met. [or we could say “were not met in five of the six grants we examined.”] These results are summarized in the following table.

While an important goal of the grant program is to build capacity to serve victims, we believe it equally important to utilize that capacity to actually serve victims. As noted in the report, the OVC awarded more than $31 million to service providers under the human trafficking grant program. Spending millions of dollars to build capacity to serve victims and then not serving a significant numbers of victims is not an effective use of resources.

In its response, OJP also stated that it has concerns that Recommendation 11 appears to recommend that the OVC trafficking program specialists conduct independent cost assessments related to a “supermarket cart” of services including case management, legal assistance, medical services, mental health services, shelter, dental services, job training, transportation, and English-as-a-Second-Language in every geographical area covered by these grants. OJP stated that such an assessment would be a costly and ineffective approach to a grant program strategy that focuses on building overall community capacity to respond to human trafficking victims as opposed to developing stipends to cover services. OJP also stated that such a recommendation also runs counter to the whole premise of this and most other grant programs:  that a local community service provider knows far better than federal authorities what services and resources are available locally, including those that are low-cost or free.

OJP’s concern regarding Recommendation 11 misconstrues our recommendation. This recommendation, as are all our recommendations, is designed to correct the causes of specific deficiencies identified during the audit. In this instance, the audit found that among the service providers tested, a wide disparity existed in the amount of funds awarded per estimated victim to be served. While OVC officials generalized about the reasons such disparities could exist, the officials could not explain the specific reasons for the disparities because when making the awards the OVC did not analyze the grantee’s budget in relation to the estimated number of victims to be served. Therefore, the OVC could not demonstrate that the funds awarded were reasonable for the number of victims to be served. Consequently, we made a specific recommendation that OJP develop procedures to determine whether the award amounts are reasonable in relation to the anticipated number of victims to be assisted. Failure to provide reasonable assurance that funds awarded are commensurate with the number of victims to be served results in a costly and potentially ineffective program. As noted, the OVC has awarded more than $31 million to service providers, but very few victims have actually been served. Therefore, we believe it is essential that the OVC do more to ensure the awarded funds are reasonable in relation to the anticipated number of victims to be assisted.

The following is our analysis of OJP’s response to our specific recommendations.

Status of Recommendations:

1. Resolved. We recommended that OJP develop and implement procedures to ensure that the BJA task forces either report only actual trafficking victims identified, or report both actual and potential victims identified. OJP agreed and stated that it is in the process of revising its human trafficking performance measures for the BJA task forces. OJP also stated that by January 31, 2009, it will develop and implement procedures for monitoring and reporting the status of all victims identified by the BJA task forces. OJP plans to regularly update the status of trafficking incidents and potential victims to indicate whether or not the victims’ status is pending or confirmed. OJP stated that this regular update will allow the task forces to provide the most up-to-date and accurate information on the number of both potential and confirmed human trafficking victims. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s revised human trafficking performance measures and new procedures for monitoring and reporting the status of all victims identified by BJA task forces.

2. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure the BJA task forces either exclude domestic trafficking victims when reporting the number of victims identified under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act or separately identify the domestic and alien victims in the numbers reported. OJP agreed and stated that it is in the process of revising its human trafficking performance measures and will take appropriate steps to separately identify the domestic and alien victims in the numbers reported. Specifically, OJP stated that it plans to collect information on the residency status of all identified victims, categorizing them as either Foreign (Undocumented Alien, Qualified Alien), Domestic (U.S. Citizen, U.S. National, Permanent Resident), or Unknown. OJP stated that by January 31, 2009, it will develop and implement procedures to ensure that the BJA task forces collect information about whether a continued presence application or T-visa application has been filed for each victim. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s new procedures separately identifying the domestic and alien victims in the data reported by the BJA task forces.

3. Resolved. We recommended that OJP require the BJA task forces to maintain documentation to support the number of trafficking victims reported. OJP agreed and stated that it plans to emphasize the importance and need to maintain documentation to support the number of victims reported at the September 2008 human trafficking conference in Atlanta, Georgia. OJP also stated that BJA recently developed an “Immersion Program” among the funded task forces that allows the three top performing task forces to provide hands-on technical assistance and cross training to the other task forces. OJP stated that to ensure that the BJA task forces maintain documentation, a unique incident number will be assigned to each new case as it is reported to OJP, and any victim information included for that case would be linked to the unique incident number. As a result, documentation supporting the number of trafficking victims will be readily available and easily accessible for auditing and verification. The recommendation can be closed when we receive:

• the agenda or outline for the September 2008 human trafficking conference that shows maintenance of documentation to support the number of victims reported as a discussion item;
  
  
• OJP’s procedures or guidelines for the Immersion Program that show the importance and need for both accuracy in reporting and maintaining documentation to support victims reported will be reinforced during the task force technical assistance and training sessions; and
  
  
• OJP’s procedures that require a unique incident number to be assigned to each new trafficking case as it is reported to OJP, and that victim information included for that case be linked to the unique incident number.

4. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure the accuracy of the number of trafficking victims reported by the task forces for inclusion in the annual reports. OJP agreed and stated that as discussed under Recommendation 3, it plans to emphasize the importance and need to ensure accuracy of the number of victims reported at the September 2008 human trafficking conference in Atlanta, Georgia. OJP also stated that with the development of the Immersion Program, it believes the importance and need for both accuracy in reporting and maintaining documentation to support victims reported will be reinforced. OJP further stated that to ensure the accuracy of the number of trafficking victims reported by task forces for inclusion in the annual reports, by January 31, 2009, it will explore methods for implementing an ongoing system of random audits of the data provided by the task forces. The recommendation can be closed when we receive the documentation requested for Recommendation 3 and OJP’s procedures for performing random audits of the data provided by the task forces.

5. Resolved. We recommended that OJP consider whether the “trafficking victim saves” performance measure should be eliminated, and if not eliminated, whether it should establish procedures for taking prompt corrective action when task forces are not meeting the “trafficking victim saves” performance measure. OJP agreed and stated that it is in the process of revising its human trafficking performance measures and exploring options for collecting and reporting on such measures. OJP stated that by January 31, 2009, it will develop and implement procedures for monitoring and reporting on the status of all victims identified by the BJA task forces. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s revised human trafficking performance measures and new procedures for monitoring and reporting the status of all victims identified by BJA task forces.

6. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure that the OVC service providers separately identify new victims who are assisted during the semi-annual progress reporting period. OJP agreed and stated that by January 1, 2009, it will work with the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) Training and Technical Assistance Center, which developed OVC’s Trafficking Information Management System (TIMS), to modify the system to make data collection clearer and more streamlined. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s modifications to the TIMS and documentation on how those modifications will ensure that the OVC service providers separately identify new victims who are assisted during the semi-annual progress reporting period.

7. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure the OVC service providers do not report as assisted those potential victims who either disappear or were found to be ineligible before services are provided. OJP agreed and stated that it believes that service providers should only count as assisted those victims who actually receive some sort of
   OVC-funded service and who are determined to have been eligible to receive such services. OJP stated that by January 1, 2009, it will provide additional guidance to the service providers on the eligibility criteria for OVC-funded assistance for victims of human trafficking. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s additional guidance to the service providers regarding this issue.

8. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure that the OVC service providers verify whether victims who received T-visas have been certified by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as trafficking victims before they can receive services. OJP agreed and stated that by January 1, 2009, it will develop additional guidance for the OVC service providers on aiding certified victims and indicating that service providers that use grant funds to serve certified victims without prior authorization from OVC will be required to return the funds to the OJP. OJP also stated that, if allowable, the OVC will require grantees to provide the circumstances, including certification status and whether or not HHS was contacted to verify certification status of each newly reported trafficking victim. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s additional guidance to service providers regarding this issue.

9. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure the OVC service providers maintain sufficient documentation to support the trafficking victims reported as assisted in the semi-annual progress reports. OJP agreed and stated that in addition to the guidance specified in its response to Recommendation 8, by January 1, 2009, it will develop guidance requiring that OVC service providers to maintain written documentation to support all services provided to trafficking victims. The recommendation can be closed when we receive OJP’s additional guidance to service providers regarding this issue.

10. Resolved. We recommended that OJP ensure the accuracy of the number of trafficking victims reported by the service providers for inclusion in the annual reports. OJP agreed and stated that it is committed to ensuring that OVC service providers report data reflecting the accurate number of eligible trafficking victims assisted during a reporting period. OJP stated that to avoid confusion as to whom can be served with OVC grant funds, in March 2008 the OJP, the Vermont Service Center of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit within the Civil Rights Division of U.S. Department of Justice, issued written guidance to OVC service providers that specifically outlined eligibility for services funded by OVC trafficking grants. OJP also stated that by January 1, 2009, it will develop additional and specific guidance to the OVC service providers on aiding certified victims as well as requiring the OVC service providers to maintain written documentation to support all services provided to trafficking victims. The recommendation can be closed when we receive:

• the March 2008 guidance issued by the OJP, the Vermont Service Center of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and the Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit within the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice that outlined eligibility for services funded by OVC trafficking grants; and
  
  
• the additional guidance that OJP plans to issue to service providers by January 1, 2009, regarding this issue.

11. Resolved. We recommended that OJP establish procedures for use during the award process on future service provider agreements to determine whether the award amounts are reasonable in relation to the anticipated number of victims to be assisted. OJP agreed with this recommendation and stated that it is collecting information on costs associated with serving victims of human trafficking through the OVC Trafficking Information Management System. However, OJP stated that this data will not be useful until the information from several years, many different regions, and for many different types of human trafficking cases has been collected and appropriately analyzed. In the interim, OJP stated that for all the OVC trafficking awards that OJP makes during fiscal year (FY) 2008 and in future years, OVC trafficking program specialists will review all contracts or sub-grants that trafficking grantees fund for services or activities to ensure that costs are reasonable and strategically sound. Additionally, a programmatic hold special condition will be added in all award documents to ensure that the review is conducted before funds are available to the grantee, and the OVC will also include this review requirement in future solicitations.

The recommendation can be closed when we receive the procedures that OJP has established to:

• collect and analyze information on costs associated with serving victims of human trafficking,
  
  
• review all contracts or sub-grants that trafficking grantees fund for services or activities to ensure that costs are reasonable and sound, and
  
  
• ensure that a programmatic hold special condition is added in all award documents to ensure that the review is conducted before funds are made available to the grantee.

12. Resolved. We recommended that OJP provide additional training and oversight of service provider and task force grantees to ensure that they:

• develop and implement steps to accomplish the unmet grant goals, where practical;
  
  
• submit FSRs containing accurate financial data;
  
  
• submit progress reports in a timely manner;
  
  
• draw down only the amount of federal cash needed to pay for actual or anticipated costs within 10 days;
  
  
• maintain support for costs claimed as matching funds;
  
  
• claim only costs that are allowable and supported;
  
  
• properly calculate and claim indirect costs; and
  
  
• effectively monitor subrecipients.

OJP agreed and stated that it has consistently worked to improve grantee compliance and performance through training and technical assistance, as well as enhanced oversight activities in FYs 2007 and 2008. OJP listed the following assistance and oversight activities in its response.

• OJP transferred over $1 million in trafficking funding to support technical assistance and research and evaluation activities for both BJA and OVC trafficking grantees;
  
  
• OJP worked with the OVC’s Training and Technical Assistance Center to convene a working group of personnel from other federal agencies with anti-human trafficking responsibilities to identify:  (1) key areas of needed technical assistance for task forces and service providers, and (2) existing federal resources to address training and technical assistance needs of trafficking grantees;
  
  
• OJP provided grantees with training opportunities through the Office of the Chief Financial Officer’s regional Financial Management Training Seminars;
  
  
• OJP released several training tools to assist grantees with meeting post-award requirements, including a grant process oversight web page and on-line training modules;
  
  
• OJP issued guidelines for monitoring OJP grants and cooperative agreements in FY 2007, making it possible for OJP grant and program managers to monitor grants and cooperative agreements consistently across OJP bureaus and offices;
  
  
• OJP released the Grant Assessment Tool (GAT) in September 2007 to provide a common, organized framework and methodology for systematically and objectively assessing risks associated with grants and/or grantees; and
  
  
• OJP implemented the funding freeze functionality within its Grants Management System in FY 2007 to temporarily freeze payments to an award recipient due to late submission of a progress report.

We note that while OJP had begun these initiatives or actions prior to the OIG’s individual audits of service providers and task forces, the initiatives and actions did not prevent the deficiencies found during the OIG audits.

To further improve grantee compliance, OJP stated that it is also developing a standard Grant Monitoring Tool (GMT), which will be required for use beginning on October 1, 2008, that will require grant and program managers to review all grants against a set of standard review categories to determine administrative and financial compliance with grant management policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements, as well as to evaluate the programmatic progress and success of efforts funded through the grant. OJP also stated that its Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) will develop a more in-depth, on-line training course for OJP grantees that focuses on post-award grant management. In addition to the GMT, OJP stated that in FY 2008 it will issue an improved version of the GAT to act as both a monitoring decision tool, as well as a format for conducting thorough desk reviews. Finally, OJP stated that by January 31, 2009, the OAAM will schedule a follow-up review of BJA and OVC human trafficking-related grant recipients in order to ensure that issues identified in this report have been appropriately addressed, and long-term improvement measures have been implemented.

The recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation:

• showing that OJP’s Grant Management Tool requires grant and program managers to review all grants against a set of standard review categories to determine administrative and financial compliance with grant management policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements, as well as to evaluate the programmatic progress and success of efforts funded through the grant;
• showing that the OAAM developed a more in-depth, on-line training course for OJP grantees that focuses on post-award grant management;
  
  
• describing OJP’s improved version of the GAT; and
  
  
• showing the OAAM has scheduled a follow-up review of BJA and OVC human trafficking-related grant recipients and that the reviews will cover at a minimum, the eight deficiency areas included in this recommendation.

13. Resolved. We recommended that OJP establish an effective system for monitoring the OVC service providers to ensure that:  (1) performance data reported by the service providers is accurate, (2) service providers are meeting the performance goals, and (3) service providers track the amount of grant funds used to assist victims of human trafficking. OJP agreed and stated that its newly released GMT requires that grant and program managers monitor grants consistently across a set of core criteria. According to OJP, the GMT instructs grant and program managers to check that a grantee has an adequate method for collecting performance measurement data.

OJP also stated that the GMT now requires that grant and program managers assess grantee performance goals when conducting on-site monitoring, as well as through the GAT when conducting a desk review. Finally, OJP stated that by January 31, 2009, the OAAM will schedule a follow-up review of BJA and OVC human trafficking-related grant recipients in order to ensure that issues identified in this report have been appropriately addressed, and long-term improvement measures have been implemented.

The recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation:

• showing that OJP’s Grant Management Tool requires grant and program managers to review all grants against a set of standard review categories to determine administrative and financial compliance with grant management policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements, as well as to evaluate the programmatic progress and success of efforts funded through the grant;
• describing OJP’s improved version of the GAT; and
  
  
• showing the OAAM has schedule a follow-up review of BJA and OVC human trafficking-related grant recipients and that the reviews will cover at a minimum, the three deficiency areas included in this recommendation.

14. Resolved. We recommended that OJP establish an effective system for monitoring the BJA task forces to ensure that:  (1) performance data reported by the task forces is accurate, and (2) the task forces are meeting the performance goals. OJP agreed and reiterated that its newly released GMT requires that grant and program managers monitor grants consistently across a set of core criteria and also requires grant and program managers to review performance measures for face validity and analyze collection processes. In addition, OJP stated that it is in the process of revising its human trafficking task force performance measures and exploring options for better collecting and reporting on such measures. The recommendation can be closed when we receive documentation showing that OJP’s:

• Grant Management Tool requires grant and program managers to review all grants against a set of standard review categories to determine administrative and financial compliance with grant management policies, procedures, and regulatory requirements, as well as to evaluate the programmatic progress and success of efforts funded through the grant; and
  
  
• revised procedures for collecting and reporting performance data are adequate to ensure that performance data reported by the task forces is accurate, and the task forces are meeting the performance goals.

15. Resolved. We recommended that OJP issue additional guidance to all task force grantees regarding best practices to:

• maintain supporting documentation for performance measure data reported to the BJA,
  
  
• establish a mechanism to track the data to be reported for each performance measure, and
  
  
• verify the accuracy of performance data before submission to the BJA.

OJP agreed and stated that by January 31, 2009, it will develop additional, clearer guidance to all task force grantees regarding best practices in maintaining supporting documentation, tracking data to be reported, and verifying the accuracy of the data before reporting to the BJA. OJP also stated that as it revises its performance measures as discussed under Recommendation 1, it will also develop a User’s Guide that provides clear guidance on reporting data to the BJA. OJP further stated that the BJA also plans to provide onsite technical assistance and guidance to task force grantees in maintaining supporting documentation, tracking the data, and verifying the accuracy of the data.

The recommendation can be closed when we receive:

• OJP’s additional guidance to all task force grantees regarding best practices in maintaining supporting documentation, tracking data to be reported, and verifying the accuracy of the data before reporting to the BJA;
  
  
• OJP’s User’s Guide containing direction for task forces to report performance data to the BJA; and
  
  
• documentation of the onsite technical assistance and guidance provided by the BJA to the task forces for maintaining supporting documentation, tracking performance data, and verifying the accuracy of the data.