Detailed Information on the
Crime Victims' Programs Assessment

Including performance information in budget submissions.

Developing a comprehensive evaluation plan for the programs to obtain better information on their impact.

Working with the Congress to obtain authority to promote greater consistency among state crime victims' programs, ensuring that crime victims are treated similarly no matter where they live.

Measure: Ratio of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services to the total number of victimizations.

Explanation:This measure reflects the ratio of victims that receive Crime Victims Fund assistance services compared to the total number of victimizations for a given year. Calculation is based on the OVC derived figures for number of victims served by the states from the formula assistance grants and total victimization data that is obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This measure provides some indication of the extent assistance fund services reach total victims. Long-term target = baseline + .08 (increase distributed evenly over 10 year span so that current year target = last year target + .008).

Measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund compensation dollars awarded to total economic loss incurred by victims of crime.

Explanation:This measure reflects the ratio of dollars awarded from the Crime Victims Fund for compensation as compared to the total amount of economic loss incurred by victims. Calculation is based on Office of Justice Programs derived figures for dollars awarded and total victim economic loss data obtained from the Bureau of Justice Statistics. This measure provides some indication of the extent that the Crime Victims Fund contributes to reimburse economic loss. Target (2001 - 2003) = .0006 increase over the previous year (current year target = last year's target + .0006) Target (2004 - 2010) = .0009 increase over the previous year (current year target = last year's target + .0009) Note: Target scheme was adjusted in FY2004 for an ammendment to the Victims of Crime Act that increased compensation from 40% to 60%, increasing availability of funds for compensation awards.

Measure: The number of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services.

Explanation:This measure reflects the number of victims served by the states from the formula assistance grants. The Victims of Crime Act provides for both compensation and assistance grants. The annual figures shown in this measure signify the number of victims served by states from that portion of the fund awarded as assistance grants. While many factors determine overall annual figures, this measure provides a basic indication of growing demand for assistance grants and the extent of outreach efforts. Annual targets for 2001 - 2003 = 4% increase over previous year's target (current year target = last year's target x 1.04). Annual targets for 2004 - 2008 = 3% increase over previous year's target (current year target = last year's target x 1.03). Note: Target scheme was adjusted in FY2004 for an ammendment to the Victims of Crime Act that increased compensation from 40% to 60%, leaving less funds available for assistance grants.

Measure: Percentage of violent crime victims that received help from victim agencies.

Explanation:This measure reflects that portion of total victims of violent crime that receive help from any victim agency (government, private, or unknown). Tabulation is based on the year in which the incidence occurs regardless of when help is received. This measure provides an indication of the extent the Office of Justice Programs exerts a leadership role for both government and private victim agencies and of the growth of program outreach effectiveness within the scope of violent crime. Annual targets = .5% added to last year's target (current year target = last year target + .5%)

Measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund dollars awarded to program management and administrative (M&A) dollars spent.

Explanation:This measure reflects the ratio of dollars awarded from the Crime Victims Fund for all purposes as compared to the management and administrative (M&A) cost to maintain the fund each year. Calculation is based on figures determined by the Office of Justice Programs. This measure provides an indication of the extent that cost efficiencies are realized through increased dollars awarded (productivity) per unit of M&A cost. Annual targets are based on the midpoint ratios between projected current trends (4.34% annual growth in dollars awarded and 13.22% annual increase per FTE for M&A costs) and projected optimal trends (continued 4.34% annual growth in dollars awarded and with only a 3.0% annual increase per FTE for M&A to cover wage increases and inflation).

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Established in 1988 by an amendment to the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) of 1984, the primary purpose of the programs operated by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) is to provide funding to support both state crime victim compensation and assistance programs, and services for victims of federal crime.

Evidence: The purpose of for the crime victims programs is articulated in a number of documents, including: The Victims of Crime Act, 42 USC § 10601 et seq., as amended (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C112.txt); Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2003, p. 1(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2003/welcome.html); Office for Victims of Crime. 1998. New Directions from the Field: Victims' Rights and Services for the 21st Century, p. viii (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/new/directions/pdftxt/direct.pdf); OVC Fact Sheet. Victims of Crime Act Crime Victims Fund. 2005 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/vocacvf/fs000310.pdf).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Crime victims suffer a variety of economic losses, in addition to often needing help to overcome trauma and other effects of crime. Recognized by the President's Task Force on Victims of Crime following its establishment in 1982, the Task Force published recommendations for action, which became the basis for the establishment of the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) and passage of the Victims of Crime Act of 1984 (VOCA), which established the victims compensation and assistance programs administered by OVC. Since 1984, VOCA Assistance Administrators and compensation programs--partly funded with Federal assistance--have been established in all 50 states, DC, and the U.S. territories. Since then, a host of reports and studies have continued to highlight the needs of crime victims for assistance in the form of compensation for some of their economic losses, as well as a range of other services that are funded by OVC.

Evidence: Executive Order 12360??President's Task Force on Victims of Crime, April 23, 1982. Office of the Federal Register, Washington, D.C. (http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1982/42382a.htm); Victims of Crime Act, 42 USC § 10601 et seq., as amended (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C112.txt); A Retrospective of the 1982 President's Task Force on Victims of Crime: A Component of the Office for Victims of Crime Oral History Project, Melissa Hook and Anne Seymour, 2004. (http://www.nm-victimsrights.org/pdf/vrweek05/retrospective.pdf). Repairing the Harm: A New Vision for Crime Victim Compensation in America, National Center for Victims of Crime, 2004. (see especially pages 7-14 for a discussion on the needs of crime victims). (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=38573).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Office for Victims of Crime's (OVC's) Compensation Grant Program, which provides funds to the victims compensation programs in each state, supplements funding made available to crime victims by the states. However, the program does not supplant (or duplicate) funding made available by the states. OVC's Victims Assistance Grant Program, which provides funds to each of the states for victims assistance services, also bars supplanting state funds. Each year, this funding supports about 5,600 grants to community-based organizations that serve crime victims. Grants are made to domestic violence shelters, rape crisis centers, child abuse programs, and victim service units in law enforcement agencies, prosecutors' offices, hospitals, and social service agencies. These programs provide services that include crisis intervention, counseling, emergency shelter, criminal justice advocacy, and emergency transportation. States are required to give priority to programs serving victims of domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse. However, some of these programs also receive funding support from the Department of Justice's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW). An informal sampling based on OMB visits to OVW grantees in two states in 2004 and 2006 found that many of the programs also were the beneficiaries of VOCA funding through OVC. While the grantees appeared to be putting both sources of funding to good use, that grantees may have to compete for two separate funding streams in order to finance their operations may constitute an unnecessary duplication of effort. (OVC does participate in monthly coordination meetings with OVW to coordinate projects and initiatives related to the Violence Against Women Act, and to explore avenues for joint efforts among these DOJ agencies.)

Evidence: Victims of Crime Act Victim Compensation Grant Program, Final program guidelines, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice, May 16, 2001. (Discusses rules barring supplanting of state funding.) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/scad/guides/voca.pdf). Victims of Crime Act Victim Assistance Grant Program, Final Program Guidelines, Office of Justice Programs, Office for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice, October 1, 1996. (Discusses rules barring supplanting of state funding.) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/scad/guides/vaguide.htm). OVC Fact Sheet, State Crime Victim Compensation and Assistance Grant Programs, April 2004. (See discussion on Victims Assistance Grant program and its priorities.) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/compandassist/welcome.html). OMB site visits with two OVW grantees in South Dakota, August 2004. OMB site visits with several OVW grantees in New York City, Feb. 27 to Mar. 2, 2006.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: In FY 2004, 170,739 claims were approved at an average payout of slightly more than $2,400 by the state victims compensation programs, which are partly financed by the Office for Victims of Crime's (OVC's) Victims Compensation Program. However, claims paid show considerable variability in the level of compensation paid to victims and in the nature of the expenses compensated. For example, the maximum award ranges from $10,000 to $25,000, depending on the state. Also, while all programs provide coverage for medical costs, mental health counseling, funeral and burial costs, and lost wages or loss of support, the eligibility for other expenses depends on the individual state program. For example, some states now pay for relocation expenses for victims who are under threat of imminent physical danger or are experiencing crime-related emotional trauma. A few states place special emphasis on the relocation of domestic violence victims. With OVC providing approximately 35 percent of the financing for these programs, OVC is in a position of considerable leverage to foster greater harmonization and consistency across states to ensure that a crime victim is treated similarly no matter what state they happen to be living in. However, modifications to the authorizing statute would be necessary to bring about a greater harmonization of benefits.

Evidence: Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2005, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Dept. of Justice, NCJ 209117. (See discussion of average claims paid on page 6.) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2005/ReporttoNation05full.pdf). OVC Fact Sheet, State Crime Victim Compensation and Assistance Grant Programs, April 2004. (See discussion on Victims Compensation Program and range of benefits.) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/compandassist/welcome.html) Repairing the Harm: A New Vision for Crime Victim Compensation in America, National Center for Victims of Crime, 2004. (see pages 21-22 for a discussion of compensation program coverages). (http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/AGP.Net/Components/documentViewer/Download.aspxnz?DocumentID=38573).

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The Victims of Crime Act (VOCAT) sets out an explicit formula for the distribution of money from the Crime Victims Fund for the Crime Victims' Programs. Initial deposits into the Fund are used to assist Native American Indian tribes in handling child abuse cases (particularly child sexual abuse), to allow the United States Attorneys Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to improve services that benefit crime victims in the Federal criminal justice system, and for a Federal Victim Notification System. The remaining amount of the Fund to be distributed in a particular fiscal year is divided between grants to the states for crime victim compensation (47.5%), grants to the states for crime victim assistance (47.5%) and grants for demonstration projects, program evaluation, compliance efforts, and training and technical assistance (5%). (The latter 5% of funding is referred to as the "discretionary grants.") In addition to specifying these broad categories, VOCA further targets money from the Fund by requiring that federal funds go to compensate victims of criminal violence, including drunk driving and domestic violence, and specifies the allowable categories (e.g., medical expenses, loss of wages, funeral expenses). VOCA also requires that states certify that priority for funds from the assistance grants be given to victims of sexual assault, spousal abuse, or child abuse, as well as that funds are available for grants to programs that served previously underserved populations. However, the existing formulas under VOCA may not provide for the most effective targeting of resources. For example, while OVC's Victims Assistance Grants are allotted to the states on the basis of population, the formula does not ensure that resources are directed to states based on rates of serious crime. Doing so would help ensure that the ultimate benefits of the services financed flow to those areas experiencing the most serious crime.

Evidence: Victims of Crime Act, 42 USC § 10601 et seq., as amended (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C112.txt). Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2005, (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2005/welcome.html). OVC Fact Sheet, Victims of Crime Act Crime Victims Fund, 2005 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/vocacvf/fs000310.pdf). OVC Fact Sheet, State Crime Victim Compensation and Assistance Grant Programs, April 2004. (See discussion on Victims Assistance Program and formula.) (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/publications/factshts/compandassist/welcome.html)

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The Crime Victims' Programs use two long-term performance measures to gauge the extent to which program purpose and organizational strategic goals are being attained. Both measures are useful benchmarks for indicating the extent to which the programs are influencing victims' outcomes. The first measure is: Ratio of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services to the total number of victimizations. This measure reflects the ratio of victims that receive assistance services compared to the total number of victimizations for a given year, providing an indication of the extent assistance services reach all victims. The second measure is: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund compensation dollars awarded to total economic loss incurred by victims of crime. This measure reflects the ratio of dollars awarded from the Crime Victims Fund as compared to the total amount of economic loss incurred by victims, providing some indication of the extent to which the Crime Victims' Programs mitigate economic losses experienced by victims.

Evidence: Source for the first measure: Ratio of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services to the total number of victimizations, includes information collected, tabulated, and maintained by OVC and from table 1 of the BJS Crime Victimization in the United States - Statistical Tables webpage (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm). Source for the second measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund compensation dollars awarded to total economic loss incurred by victims of crime, includes information collected, tabulated, and maintained by OJP through its Office of Budget and Management Services and from table 82 of the BJS Crime Victimization in the United States - Statistical Tables webpage http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm).

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Crime Victims' Programs have reasonably ambitious targets and timeframes for improving victims' outcomes. Ensuring that a significant portion of crime victims receive the services financed by the Crime Victims Fund is reflected in the 2010 target of .201 for the first long-term measure: Ratio of victims that receive Crime Victims Fund assistance service to the total number of victimizations. The goal represents an increase of 66% over baseline in the percentage of victims served. Likewise, the 2010 target of .0133 for the second long-term measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund compensation dollars awarded to total economic loss incurred by victims of crime, represents a large increase (129% over baseline) in the extent to which the Crime Victims' Programs mitigate the economic losses experienced by crime victims.

Evidence: Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook. Long-term measures and targets are displayed in the Performance Measures section of this assessment.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Crime Victims' Programs employ two performance measures to monitor annual results. The first measure is: The number of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance fund services. The annual figures shown in this measure indicate the number of victims served by states from that portion of the Crime Victims Fund awarded as assistance grants. The measure provides an indicator of the numbers of victims receiving services funded from these grants. The second measure is: Percentage of violent crime victims that received help from victim agencies. This measure indicates the proportion of victims of violent crime that receive help from any victim agency (government or private). The measure indicates the extent to which the Crime Victims' Programs are reaching the most serious victims of crime.

Evidence: Data supporting the first measure: The number of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance fund services, is collected, tabulated, and maintained by the Office for Victims of Crime. Data supporting the second measure: Percentage of violent crime victims that received help from victim agencies, is provided by a special cross-tabulation of Victim's Survey data prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The Crime Victims' Programs have baselines and reasonably ambitious targets for their annual measures. The baseline for the first measure: The number of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services, was established with data collected during 2000. An ambitious 4% increase over the previous year's target (current year target = last year's target x 1.04) was established for the years 2001 to 2003. This target level of annual increase was reduced to 3% for subsequent years due to an ammendment to the Victims of Crime Act. Previously, each state had been awarded compensation funding equal to 40 percent of the state-funded compensation benefits it paid out during the preceding year. Effective in FY 2003, that funding level rose to 60 percent. The baseline for the second measure: Percentage of violent crime victims that received help from victim agencies, was established during 2001. An ambitious goal of increasing the annual target by about 6% each year assumes that the programs will continue to reach a greater proportion of crime victims each year.

Evidence: Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook. Long-term measures and targets are displayed in the Performance Measures section of this assessment.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: While all federal, state, and local partners are dedicated in concept to the initiatives of the Victims of Crime Act, support the overall purpose of the program, and adhere to statutory requirements regarding limitations and exclusions, an overall system of program goals linked to peformance measures has yet to be fully deployed and monitored for all state crime victim compensation and assistance formula grantees. Progress to date has been made primarily with performance measurement requirements for grantees from the discretionary portion of the Crime Victims Fund, which represents a small percentage of overall funding that is not subject to formula requirements.

Evidence: Examples of grant solicitations containing performance measures www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/pdftxt/FY06_UnderservedAwareness.pdf and www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/pdftxt/FY06TVA_DiscretGrant.pdf

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Evaluations of the Crime Victims' Program have not satisfied PART definitions of scope and quality in the past, nor have they been performed on a regular basis. The Offfice of Victims of Crime (OVC) will work with OMB to develop a plan for suitable evaluations. OVC has supported two related evaluations of victim assistance and compensation programs, in cooperation with the National Institute of Justice: First, researchers at Safe Horizon, the Vera Institute of Justice, and Westat, Inc., collaborated in their examination of victim needs and victim assistance to address whether programs are reaching the people they seek to serve and whether they provide the services victims need. The research team assessed services at two urban, two suburban, and two rural sites. The researchers also conducted focus groups, personal interviews, and an extensive telephone survey to obtain feedback directly from local victims about what needs they experienced, and if and how these were addressed. The second major evaluation of state victim assistance programs was conducted by the project team at the Urban Institute and the San Diego Association of Governments. The evaluation was designed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of state programs at delivering a seamless web of support to help victims in their struggle to recover from the financial, emotional, physical, and psychological effects of criminal victimization. The evaluators conducted a national survey of state assistance administrators and collected data from local programs in six states: California, Idaho, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, and Wisconsin. In each state, the evaluators interviewed state program administrators and staff, members of program oversight bodies, victim advocates, and victim service providers. In addition, the evaluators sought the clients' perspectives on policies and program functioning by conducting focus groups and telephone surveys with nearly 600 clients of 17 providers in the 6 states. The findings from this effort mirror those trends identified by Safe Horizon, the Vera Institute of Justice, and Westat. Until recently, Government Accounting Office audits and the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General findings served as primary sources of independent evaluations.

Evidence: Summaries of the results of the two major studies are contained in Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2003, pp. 21-23 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2003/welcome.html). See also: Office of Inspector General Reports (www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0608/final.pdf). GAO reports (GAO-03-1091, GAO-02-309, GAO-04-666, GAO-04-740, GAO-04-198) (www.gao.gov/aac.html). Example of NIJ evaluability assessment submitted electronically to OMB.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: To date, the funding available for the Crime Victims' Programs in any given year has been requested without specific reference to performance information. While budget submissions are generally well justified, there is no explicit linkage given in the OMB or the congressional budget submissions to the achievement of performance targets. Performance targets for these programs have not been included in recent OMB or congressional budget submissions. Making these linkages explicit in budget submissions is an area identified for improvement. The Office for Victims of Crime and the Department of Justice plan to remedy this situation in future budget requests.

Evidence: See for example DOJ's 2007 Congressional Budget Justification, and budget requests for prior years.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has instituted a performance measurement system in order to be able to better monitor the program activities funded and to set targets for these activities. An array of both long-term and annual performance measures is being used to monitor overall progress in attaining the Crime Victims' Programs' purposes and will provide the basis for further improvements through performance and budget integration. OVC also will work with the Office of Management and Budget to develop a plan for regular, independent evaluations of the Fund to evaluate its effectiveness.

Evidence: Discussions between OMB and OVC staff, May 2006; Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook; Long-term measures and targets are displayed in the Performance Measures section of this assessment.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Office for Victims' of Crime (OVC) collects performance information the Crime Victims' Programs, some of which derives from grantees. Additional information on grantee performance is obtained from the Office of Justice Programs Grant Management System, financial reports that track grant expenditures, site visits, desk monitoring, and telephone contacts. OVC collects some performance data addressing program impact on victims is gathered from the Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization in the United States -- Statistical Tables. This online data source presents detailed data on major variables measured by the National Crime Victimization Survey. OVC also gathers and disseminates performance information at regular meetings and conferences held by the state formula grantees, as well as occasional meetings organized for discretionary grantees.

Evidence: See the following for information collected from the grantees: Formula Grant Forms (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/forms.htm). VOCA Grant Guidelines (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/kits.htm); (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/scad/guidelns.htm). OJP Financial Guide (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/FinGuide). Bureau of Justice Statistics Criminal Victimization in the United States -- Statistical Tables (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Victims of Crime Act specifies several limitations and eligibility requirements for state crime victim compensation and assistance formula grants. The Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) also requires that no more than 5% of each state's compensation or assistance grant may be used for training and administration purposes. Required grantee performance also includes adherence to financial and management requirements set forth in the VOCA Grant Guidelines and the Office of Justice Programs Financial Guide, which incorporates provisions of Office of Management and Budget circulars and government-wide common rules applicable to grants and cooperative agreements. For example, future awards, fund drawdowns, and grant adjustments will be withheld if required progress reports are delinquent. For multi-year discretionary grants, continuation funding (i.e., funding in the second and third years of a three year grant) is dependent on several factors, including satisfactory progress regarding performance measures. Contracts contain Quality Assurance Surveillance Plans that grade the contractor's performance and cost control. Each contract has language that includes procedures for acceptance and rejection of products or services. In addition, on June 30, 2004, the Attorney General transmitted decisions on the Senior Executive Service Performance-based Pay System to the Office of Personnel Management and the Office of Management and Budget with the Human Capital report, including a generic work plan for all Departmental SES members, with accompanying Performance "contract" that must explicitly relate to the Department's, the President's, or the AG's defined goals. On December 10, 2004, the Department of Justice obtained approval for the SES and Government Service/Prevailing Rate performance orders. In addition, DOJ has completed the application package for OPM/OMB certification of the DOJ SES Performance Management and Compensation Plan. DOJ components implemented five-level performance plans for all SES. New SES and manager plans include cascading tasks/assignments that are linked to the DOJ Strategic Plan and the President's Management Agenda. By Dec 30, 2004, all DOJ components certified to the Attorney General that all SES and direct report performance work plans are in place. Finally, the Department has performance appraisals for more than 60% of the work force, that: link to agency mission, goals and outcomes in DOJ's Strategic Plan; hold employees accountable for results appropriate to their level of responsibility; effectively differentiate between various levels of performance; and provide consequences based on performance.

Evidence: Victims of Crime Act, 42 USC § 10601 et seq., as amended (http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C112.txt. Applications and Forms for Discretionary Grantees (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/forms.htm). Formula Grant Forms (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/kits.htm). VOCA Grant Guidelines (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/scad/guidelns.htm). OJP Financial Guide (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/FinGuide). Example of discretionary grant specifying continuation funding requirements (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/pdftxt/FY06TVA_DiscretGrant.pdf).

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: All Crime Victims' Program funds are obligated and committed within the fiscal year in which the funds are made available. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Office of the Comptroller, Contracts Office, and Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) -- which administers the Crime Victims' Fund -- monitor draw down and expenditure of awarded funds. Financial status reports from recipients are closely examined to ensure that funds: - are being spent as scheduled; - are dedicated to costs allowable by program objectives and the terms of the agreement; - meet OJP fiscal requirements; and - are in compliance with Federal cash management regulations and OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations, as appropriate. Office of the Comptroller on-site reviews determine whether: (1) grantees are properly accounting for the receipt and expenditure of Federal funds, and (2) expenditures are in compliance with Federal requirements and award special conditions. OVC program managers closely review financial reports and programmatic progress reports to ensure that funds are being spent for program purposes. OVC management rigorously assesses requests for no-cost extensions and changes to the budget.

Evidence: Formula Grant Forms (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/kits.htm). VOCA Grant Guidelines (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/scad/guidelns.htm). OJP Financial Guide (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/FinGuide). Spending: FY 2002 Available $618,100,000, Obligated $597,700,571.70. FY 2003 Available $617607907.39, Obligated $604,455,070.71. FY 2004 Available $671,312,500, Obligated $627,224,255.69. FY 2005 Available $672,408,776, Obligated $619,633,378.03. (Note: Funds remaining in the Emergency Reserve of the Crime Victims' Fund, which provides for $50 million that can be held in reserve for authorized emergencies, constitute the vast majority of the unobligated funds remaining at the end of each fiscal year.)

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has taken a number of steps designed to cut costs and increase efficiency. In concert with the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), OJP has been undertaking competitive sourcing activities intended to deliver government services that are market-based, results oriented, and citizen-centered in accordance with OMB Circular A-76 and the President's Management Agenda. Although OJP pursued the implementation of a Most Efficient Organization (MEO) for grants support services and received House approval, the Senate has disapproved the request. OJP still intends to capture many of the cost savings and efficiencies the MEO process would have enabled, including capturing savings of $5 million associated with a consolidation of the peer review process and implementing personnel savings initiatives. OJP will make what cost and efficiency changes are possible under the current organizational structure. OJP also has instituted a Business Process Improvements (BPI) initiative. The purpose of the BPI initiative is to streamline and simplify business flows throughout OJP. The BPI team has developed and implemented new policies on out-processing, time and attendance, and Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN). The BPI team is in the process of redesigning Solicitation, Application, Peer Review, Redbook, and Closeout processes in OJP. In FY 2006 OJP developed and deployed an automated GANs module in the OJP Grant Management System (GMS). GANs is an initiative that automates, standardizes and consolidates disparate manual paper-based processes across all OJP program offices. Twenty-seven separate GAN processes were consolidated to 13. A WEB interface has been extended to the grantees and Grant Managers allowing them to self generate a variety of GAN changes to their Grants (i.e., name change, point of contact change, period of performance changes). The GANs module provides automatic workflow routing and notification of a GAN activity, provides audit records of each transaction and automates the information update between GMS and the OJP financial management system, and provides mail enabled notification to the grantee and the grant manager as needed during the workflow. Improvements in accuracy also include pre-validation of change requests against current data to ensure the request can be processed before it can be submitted, as well as eliminating the human interface between the GMS and financial systems. Although the GANS module has only been operative since the beginning of April, 2006, preliminary results indicate large savings with GANs processing cycle time for "quick" turn items being reduced from at least two weeks to approximately a day and a half." A number of other IT initiatives also demonstrate the potential for improvements in efficiency, reliability, and accuracy for grants management. These include implementation of Grants.Gov and Grant Monitoring Office of the Comptroller (GMOC) module that will provide an audit capability for OC to monitor grantee programmatic progress reports and programmatic grant monitoring efforts by grant managers. Within OVC, improved efficiency also gauged using a performance measure, the Ratio of Crime Victims Fund dollars awarded to program management and administrative dollars (M&A) spent.

Evidence: The OJP MEO proposal was submitted to House/Senate Appropriations committees as a reprogramming request. Under Sec. 605 of the Title VI General Provisions of the 2006 Departments of State, Justice, and Commerce, and related agencies appropriation (Public Law 109-108), Justice must submit a reprogramming notice prior to implementing reorganization. Public Law 109-108 can be accessed here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h2862enr.txt.pdf. For additional information on OJP's Business Process Improvement (BPI), see BPI Steering Committee Charter; Grant Adjustments: Business Process Improvement Recommendations (October 7, 2004); Grant Closeouts: BPI Recommendations (Final Version, September 15, 2005); Functional Requirements Document: Grant Adjustments (Version 1.2, March 15, 2006). (Material submitted in hardcopy). Regarding Grants.Gov. implementation, in FY 2005, OJP initiated a grant application using the Grants.Gov system. It was piloted with one office and 4 program opportunities. In FY 2006, OJP extended this capability to all program offices that conduct competitive discretionary grant making. Applications will be solicited for 96 programs with an anticipated 5200 applications. OJP participation in the Grants.Gov initiative provides the public with one-stop shopping for grant opportunities across the entire base of 27 grant making agencies in the Federal Government using a standard form/format making the process more efficient and easier for applicants. In addition, Grant Monitoring Office of the Comptroller (GMOC) module is under design for GMS. It will provide an audit capability for the Office of the Comptroller (OC) to monitor grantee Programmatic Progress Reports and Programmatic grant monitoring efforts by the grant managers beyond what OC currently has with the SF-269 Financial Progress Reporting system. This automates a paper-based process and improves the reliability and accuracy of the OC monitoring efforts. This enhancement is currently in design and is expected to be deployed in late FY 2006. GMOC is a precursor capability required to implement the GMS Grants Closeout Module. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) Grants Manager's Manual (GMM) serves as the basic reference source for the administration of OJP grants (submitted in hardcopy). See the Grant Manager's Manual for a description of the GANs process.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) regularly coordinates with numerous federal and private agencies to share information regarding best practices, to participate in conferences and meetings on common issues, and to discuss policy issues to meet the needs of crime victims in a national, multidisciplinary effort. OVC's collaboration and coordination efforts help to ensure that initiatives are not duplicative and that they leverage existing resources to ensure cost effectiveness and quality. For example, OVC coordinated with other federal agencies and non-governmental organizations to examine mental health consequences and effective interventions for psychological trauma related to violent crime. In particular: (1) OVC worked closely with the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to commission a series of papers by national experts to address crime-related psychological trauma and to advance the understanding of the mental health needs of crime victims; (2) in 2002, OVC staff participated in the core planning committee for an OVC-funded joint federal initiative of the Departments of Defense, Justice, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs to convene a workshop of the world's experts on evidence-based early psychological intervention for victims and survivors of mass violence. OVC has also worked with numerous agencies to coordinate initiatives related to OVC's statutory mandate to address the needs of victims of domestic violence. In particular: (1) OVC worked with other federal agencies to highlight their work at the OVC-funded National Sexual Assault Response Team Training Conference, conducted biennially since 2001; (2) OVC participates in monthly meetings with the NIJ, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), and the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) to coordinate projects and initiatives related to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and to explore avenues for joint efforts among these DOJ agencies; (3) OVC participates in a working group, the Federal Network Addressing Violence Against Women, to encourage the dissemination and implementation of research results to inform the development of projects related to violence against women and to provide opportunities to discuss the practical implications of research for policy and practice. Participants include OVC, NIJ, OJJDP, and OVW within the Department of Justice, as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Office with the Department of Defense. The Network will conduct an Interagency Workshop on Violence Against Women Research Results on August 29, 2006 in Washington, DC. Finally, OVC and OVW have formed close collaborative ties. In addition to regular coordination meetings among OVC and OVW staff, OVC shares its program plan for discretionary funds with OVW to ensure that there is no overlap in the proposed initiatives. In addition, requests that come to OVC's Training and Technical Assistance Center are sent to OVW first for funding consideration. Although both offices provide grant funding to domestic violence and sexual assault services, the source of the funds and how they are used are quite different. Formula grants from the Crime Victims Fund, as administered by OVC, are made to the states to help fund the states' crime victim compensation and victim assistance programs. VAWA funds, administered by OVW, may be used for a broader range of purposes related to violence against women, such as prevention, intervention, and program administration. Although domestic violence and sexual assault are priority areas for OVC, money from the Fund is narrowly tailored to address compensation and assistance needs not addressed by VAWA. Moreover, the Fund serves all victims of crime, thus providing a broader range of coverage than VAWA and OVW.

Evidence: The series of papers on psychological trauma were published in a special edition of the Journal of Traumatic Stress in April 2003. A description of the special edition of the Journal of Traumatic Stress is available at www.springerlink.com/(fjsaaza3caudxq45eni3vc55)/app/home/issue.asp?referrer=parent&backto=journal,10,73;browsepublicationsresults,967,1564. The proceedings of the workshop on evidence-based early psychological intervention were published by the National Institute of Mental Health and are available on-line at: www.nimh.nih.gov/publicat. Submitted to OMB in hard copy is a 2005 National Sexual Assault Response Team Training Conference registration brochure that highlights the contributions of two keynote speakers: Diane Stuart, the Director of the Office on Violence Against Women and Brigadier General K.C. McClain, the Commander of the Joint Task Force for Sexual Assault Prevention and Response with the U.S. Department of Defense. The brochure also highlights the co-sponsors of the conference, including both state and national non-profit organizations. In addition to the Web links provided, submitted electronically to OMB are files containing a list of Interagency Agreements OVC has with other federal agencies, a description of the Memorandum of Understanding OVC is developing with the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a description of OVC's participation in a working group related to the National Response Plan, Emergency Support Function #6. For a comparison of the missions of OVC and OVW see the authorizing statutes of each: Victims of Crime Act, 42 USC § 10601 et seq., as amended (uscode.house.gov/download/pls/42C112.txt) and the Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-162; http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ162.109.pdf).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The Office for Victims of Crime is a component of the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). According to the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General's March 2006 report on OJP's 2005 Financial Statements, "In its FY 2005 Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, KPMG identified four reportable conditions, three of which were considered to be material weaknesses. All four reportable conditions are repeated from the restated FY 2004 report." Reported issues included: ?? Data validity, completeness, and calculation errors in grant data underlying the advance and payable amounts; ?? OJP still needs to improve its financial statement preparation process, specifically its posting of final adjusting journal entries; ?? The need for significant improvements to the de-obligation/closeout process for grant and non-grant undelivered orders; and ?? OJP's financial management systems were not in compliance with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 with regard to federal financial management systems requirements and applicable federal accounting standards. While OJP reports progress in resolving auditor concerns, the report on the 2006 financial statements will confirm whether sufficient progress has been made to close out these concerns. OJP has made progress in other areas. For example, in October 2005, OJP received an unqualified opinion for FYs 2005, 2004, and was able to reverse the disclaimer opinion previously given for FY 2004.

Evidence: See the Office of Justice Programs Annual Financial Statement, Fiscal Year 2005, Audit Report 06-17, March 2006, Office of the Inspector General. (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0617.htm). Also see the DOJ 2005 Performance and Accountability Report and the Independent Accountants' Report on Financial Statements (see http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2005/TableofContents.htm).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Office for Justice Programs (OJP) is working diligently to ensure completion of the FY 2006 financial audits with no repeat of the material weaknesses or financial management compliance issues noted previously by the auditors. With OJP's Office of the Comptroller, the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) has implemented new policies on grantee financial reporting. New automated financial reporting and tracking procedures will freeze grantee funds and prevent further grant draw downs if financial reporting is delinquent. OVC also has taken specific steps to respond to GAO findings on evaluation grant monitoring activities. OVC has initiated policies of front-end evaluability assessments to improve the likelihood of obtaining a rigorous outcome evaluation. OVC has recommitted itself to ensuring that all employees develop, and are held to individual development plans. In addition, employees and managers report deficiencies to the next supervisory level, allowing the chain of command structure to determine the relative importance of and appropriate responses for each deficiency.

Evidence: Discussions with OMB and DOJ financial management personnel indicate that OJP is well on its way to eliminating the weaknesses identified in the FY 2005 financial audit. Managers and employees identify deficiencies in management controls from the sources of information described above. (See, for example, the DOJ OIG report on the Tribal Victim Assistance Program, http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0608/final.pdf.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: Senior management in the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), which administers the Crime Victims' Fund, have a commitment to ensuring proper controls are in place for the use of federal funds. OVC adheres to the guidelines in OJP's Office of the Comptroller's Financial Guide 2005 that incorporates the provisions of OMB circulars and government-wide common rules applicable to grants and cooperative agreements. Application of these financial controls provides OVC staff with regular opportunities to obtain sufficient knowledge of grantee activities. In addition, both the Office of the Comptroller and the Office of the Chief Information Officer have developed policies and procedures that have addressed the remaining weaknesses identified during the FY 2005 audit. Status reports from OJP's Office of the Comptroller substantiate that all findings will be answered with corrective actions completed before the end of the year. Oversight practices include monitoring quarterly Financial Status Reports, Subgrant Award Reports, and conducting on-site monitoring visits. Site visits for state crime victim compensation and assistance formula grants are conducted once every 4 years. If there is a programmatic problem, OVC staff work with state officials to quickly resolve the issues. If there is a financial problem, OVC notifies the OJP Office of the Comptroller's Monitoring Division for further action. In addition, Victim Assistance grantees must comply with the organizational audit requirements of OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. Effective for the fiscal year ending after December 31, 2003, non-Federal entities that expend $500,000 or more in Federal funds (from all sources including pass-through subawards) in the organization fiscal year (12- month turnaround reporting period) must have a single organization-wide audit conducted in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A-133. Records must be available for review or audit by appropriate officials including the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and General Accounting Office.

Evidence: Office of Justice Programs Annual Financial Statement, Fiscal Year 2005, Audit Report 06-17, March 2006, Office of the Inspector General. (The report identifies grant monitoring as a problem requiring further attention.) (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0617.htm). Office of Justice Programs Annual Financial Statement, Fiscal Year 2004, Audit Report 06-17, March 2006, Office of the Inspector General. (The report identifies grant monitoring as a problem requiring further attention.) (http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/reports/OJP/a0617.htm). Applications and Forms for Discretionary Grantees (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/forms.htm); Formula Grant Forms (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/kits.htm); VOCA Grant Guidelines (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/scad/guidelns.htm); OJP Financial Guide (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/FinGuide); Example of discretionary grant specifying continuation funding requirements (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/pdftxt/FY06TVA_DiscretGrant.pdf); Submitted electronically to OMB are two files containing site visit reports. Office of the Comptroller, Status Report, FY2005 Financial Statement Audit, Notification of Findings and Recommendations, March 2, 2006

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) posts national and state by state performance reports on its web site for the compensation and victims assistance formula grant programs. Improvements can be made to the data reported on the web site to include all of the performance measures implemented by OVC for the Crime Victims' Programs. State crime victim compensation and assistance formula grantees must file certification forms and annual reports. The Office for Victims of Crime, which administers the Crime Victims' Fund, gathers this data and includes it in its biennial Report to the Nation, which also is published on OVC's web site. Additional information can be obtained by the public from the OVC Resource Center.

Evidence: VOCA Nationwide Performance Reports (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/vocareps.htm). State-by-State VOCA performance information (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/fund/state.htm). Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2005 (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2005/welcome.html). Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2003(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2003/welcome.html). Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2001 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2001/welcome.html). OVC Resource Center (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ovcres/welcome.html). Additional data on crime victimization and victims is provided by the Bureau of Justice Statistics at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm Data obtained from the National Crime Victimization Survey is made publically available online at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The trends displayed by both long-term performance goals indicate steady progress against long-term targets with results that also exceed annual targets. The brief upsurge in 2003-2004 results for the measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund compensation dollars awarded to total economic loss incurred by victims of crime, is explained by the changes to the formula by which the grant amount is calculated. Previously, each state had been awarded compensation funding equal to 40 percent of the state-funded compensation benefits it paid out during the preceding year. Effective in FY 2003, that funding level rose to 60 percent. This increase allowed states the option of awarding payment to a greater number of individuals or increasing the claim benefit. For the measure: Ratio of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services to the total number of victimizations, the Crime Victims' Programs have shown steady upward progress in performance that exceeds targets. Performance data for 2005, however, is still pending.

Evidence: Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook. Long-term measures and targets are displayed in the Performance Measures section of this assessment. Source for the first measure: Ratio of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services to the total number of victimizations, includes information collected, tabulated, and maintained by OVC and from table 1 of the BJS Crime Victimization in the United States - Statistical Tables webpage (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm). Source for the second measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund compensation dollars awarded to total economic loss incurred by victims of crime, includes information collected, tabulated, and maintained by OJP through its Office of Budget and Management Services and from table 82 of the BJS Crime Victimization in the United States - Statistical Tables webpage (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/sheets/cvsprshts.htm).

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The trends displayed by both annual performance goals show even progress with results exceeding annual targets. The temporary spike in data shown in 2004 for measure: The number of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance services, appears to have normalized with 2005 results. Consequently, the target scheme adjustment that lowered annual target increases 4% to 3% in 2004 due to an ammendment to VOCA that increased compensation from 40% to 60% (leaving less funds available for assistance grants), appears to be validated. For the measure: Percentage of violent crime victims that received help from victim agencies, the Crime Victims' Programs have shown steady upward progress in performance that exceeds targets. Performance data for 2005, however, is still pending.

Evidence: Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook. Long-term measures and targets are displayed in the Performance Measures section of this assessment. Data supporting the first measure: The number of victims that received Crime Victims Fund assistance fund services, is collected, tabulated, and maintained by the Office for Victims of Crime. Data supporting the second measure: Percentage of violent crime victims that received help from victim agencies, is provided by a special cross-tabulation of Victim's Survey data prepared by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: OJP and the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC) have have taken a number of other steps to improve the performance, management, and efficiency of OJP programs, including the Crime Victims' Programs. While several of these initiatives have demonstrated reduced processing times with increased responsiveness, the Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) initiative provides the best measured results to date. In FY 2006, OJP developed and deployed an automated GANs module in the OJP Grant Management System (GMS). GANs is an initiative that automates, standardizes and consolidates disparate manual paper-based processes across all OJP program offices. Twenty-seven separate GANs processes were consolidated to 13. A web interface has been extended to the grantees and Grant Managers allowing them to self generate a variety of GANs changes to their Grants (i.e., name change, point of contact change, period of performance changes). The GANs module provides automatic workflow routing and notification of a GAN activity, provides audit records of each transaction and automates the information update between GMS and the OJP financial management system, and provides mail enabled notification to the grantee and the grant manager as needed during the workflow. Improvements in accuracy also include pre-validation of change requests against current data to ensure the request can be processed before it can be submitted, as well as eliminating the human interface between the GMS and financial systems. Previously, the average time to process a paper GAN was 26 days. Of the one hundred paper GANs reviewed, the longest processing time took 205 days. The shortest processing time was completed within 2 days (these processing times include the two days it takes for the post office to deliver the paper GAN to the grantee). In contrast, the average time to process a GAN in the Grant Management System (GMS) is 7 days. As soon as the GAN is approved, GMS generates an email to the grantee, resulting in an instantaneous notification of approval. Automated processing of GANs means greater responsiveness with less staff time spent trying to manage, track, process, distribute, and followup GANs. In addition to OJP-wide productivity initiatives, OVC also monitors its own internal effeciency. Overall efficiency within OVC is gauged with a single efficiency measure: Ratio of Crime Victims Fund dollars awarded to program management and administrative dollars spent. OVC's assumption is that overall awards will increase while overall management and administrative costs can be reduced. A baseline has been established for this measure to be followed by a performance update in 2006.

Evidence: For additional information on OJP's Business Process Improvement (BPI), see BPI Steering Committee Charter; Grant Adjustments: Business Process Improvement Recommendations (October 7, 2004); Grant Closeouts: BPI Recommendations (Final Version, September 15, 2005); Functional Requirements Document: Grant Adjustments (Version 1.2, March 15, 2006). (Material submitted in hardcopy). Memorandum to Regina Schofield, Subject: Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) Achievements in Word document format describing intial benefits demonstrated by the new GAN module. The Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook shows details and data establishing the baseline for OVC's efficiency measure. Data for this measure is obtained from OJP's Office of Budget and Management Services.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The Crime Victims Programs supplement the efforts of the states to provide compensation and other services to victims of crime. Although the state and Federal programs have similar purposes, the Federal funding is used to significantly supplement the state efforts. Further, because funding for the programs is so closely linked, the results of the Federal programs are, in effect, the results obtained by the state programs. As a result, the performance of the states is not really separable from that of the Federal crime victims programs. However, other federal agencies address victim issues as a part of their mission. For example, like OVC, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) addresses victim issues related to domestic violence. While domestic violence is an emphasis of the Office for Victims of Crime's victim services grants, it is not their exclusive domain--whereas domestic violence is the exclusive focus of OVW. The Crime Victims' Programs compares well to OVW by attaining results exceeding annual targets and demonstrating that program long-term performance goals are on track to being achieved.

Evidence: National Crime Victims' Rights Week Resource Guide 2006 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/2006/welcome.html); Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2005 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2005/welcome.html); Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2003, p. 1; (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2003/welcome.html); Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2001 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2001/welcome.html). Crime Victims Fund Performance Measures Array Workbook. Long-term measures and targets are displayed in the Performance Measures section of this assessment.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Although the evaluations of the Crime Victims' Programs do not satisfy PART definitions of scope and quality, several focused studies and evaluations have provided results indicating that programs supported by the Office for Victims of Crime may be achieving results. In one major evaluation, researchers at Safe Horizon, the Vera Institute of Justice, and Westat, Inc., collaborated in their examination of victim needs and victim assistance to address whether programs are reaching the people they seek to serve and whether they provide the services victims need. The research team assessed services at two urban, two suburban, and two rural sites. The researchers also conducted focus groups, personal interviews, and an extensive telephone survey to obtain feedback directly from local victims about what needs they experienced, and if and how these were addressed. The second major evaluation of state victim assistance programs was conducted by the project team at the Urban Institute and the San Diego Association of Governments. The evaluation was designed to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of state programs at delivering a seamless web of support to help victims in their struggle to recover from the financial, emotional, physical, and psychological effects of criminal victimization. The evaluators conducted a national survey of state assistance administrators and collected data from local programs in six states. In each state, the evaluators interviewed state program administrators and staff, members of program oversight bodies, victim advocates, and VOCA-funded victim service providers. In addition, the evaluators sought the clients' perspectives on policies and program functioning by conducting focus groups and telephone surveys with nearly 600 clients of 17 VOCA-funded providers in the 6 states. The findings from this effort mirror those trends identified by Safe Horizon, the Vera Institute of Justice, and Westat.

Evidence: Results of the two major studies are contained in Office for Victims of Crime Report to the Nation 2003, pp. 21-23 (www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/welcovc/reporttonation2003/welcome.html).