NCJ Number
192732
Date Published
October 2001
Length
40 pages
Annotation
This report presents the methodology and findings of a study that examined how well the Federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) monitors its grants to ensure that grantees properly implement the programs that the grants support.
Abstract
OJJDP has specific program monitoring and documentation requirements for its discretionary grants. These monitoring requirements include such activities by the grant manager as making quarterly telephone calls, on-site and off-site grant monitoring visits, and reviewing interim and final products. In addition, all discretionary grantees are required to submit categorical assistance progress reports that summarize project activities and quarterly financial status reports for review by grant managers. This study reviewed OJJDP's official grant files and grant managers' files for the most recent award for a representative sample of grants active in all of fiscal years 1999 and 2000. Findings show there was no documentation that the requirement for telephone contacts was met in 96 percent of the demonstration grants and in any of the training and technical assistance grants. Further, there was no documentation that the requirement for site visits was met in 88 percent of the demonstration grants and 90 percent of the training and technical assistance grants. In 56 percent of the 89 demonstration grant files and 80 percent of the 45 training and technical assistance grant files reviewed, the progress reports did not cover the entire grant period. In 65 percent of the 89 demonstration grant files and 60 percent of the 45 training and technical assistance grant files reviewed, the financial status reports did not cover the entire grant period. OJJDP was not found to systematically monitor grant managers' compliance with its monitoring requirements for guidance or assess the effectiveness of grant monitoring practices. Overall, the study concluded that OJJDP's discretionary grant monitoring was not effective. The Acting Assistant Attorney General agreed with the study findings, but noted that the associated cost of monitoring had not been commensurate with OJJDP's available budgetary resources; nor had the study adequately considered OJJDP's recent efforts to improve grant monitoring practices and establish uniform policies. Recommendations for executive action are offered. 2 figures and appended description of the grant award process and comments from the Department of Justice