STRATEGIC GOAL THREE:

Prevent and Reduce Crime and Violence by Assisting State, Tribal, Local and Community–Based Programs

D Data Collection and Storage: Information is collected from Tribal Court files. Data Validation and Verification: BJA closely monitors grantees to validate and verify performance through progress reports submitted by grantees, onsite monitoring and telephone contact. Data Limitations: There has been some lag time between FY grant dollars available and the awarding of funds. The cumulative data displayed shows grants active within a particular FY and does not necessarily reflect the available funding within that FY.

Background/ Program Objectives:

OJP’s Tribal Court Program is one method used to reduce crime and improve the criminal justice systems and operations in Indian Country. Over the last decade, there has been unparalleled growth in Tribal courts due to a number of factors including the need to reduce the victimization of Indian people in tribal communities. This growth has increased the need for reliable means of settling disputes that arise in the ordinary course of business. For example, the need for tribal courts is spurred by incidents involving violent crime, substance abuse, and managing complex issues such as regulation of gaming, air and water pollution control, mining, banking, and toxic waste disposal.

Performance:

Performance Measure: DISCONTINUED MEASURE: Total Number of Tribal Court Grant Funded (cumulative) [OJP]  (NOTE: To ensure greater reporting accuracy in FY 2002, this measure no longer distinguishes between new, planning or enhanced tribal court grants.  This measure is being discontinued; we will transition to a new measure in FY 2003.)
            FY 2002 Target: 208 Tribal Courts
            FY 2002 Actual: 136 
            Discussion: In FY 2002, BJA incorrectly estimated the targeted number of awards to be made under this program.  First, fewer tribes applied for awards than had originally anticipated and second, BJA found it necessary to provide more technical assistance to applicants in preparing their grant narratives/budgets than originally forecasted. 

Background/ Program Objectives:

D Data Collection and Storage: Data are submitted to the FBI from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories.  BJS publishes these data in its biennial report, Survey of State Criminal History Information Systems, which describes the status of State criminal history records systems. Data Validation and Verification: State-level data are collected and maintained by the FBI. Data Limitations: Data are not collected annually.

Interstate availability of complete computerized criminal records is increasingly vital for criminal investigation; prosecution; sentencing; correctional supervision and release; and community notification. This information is also necessary to conduct thorough background checks for those applying for licenses; firearm purchases; and work involving the safety and well being of children, the elderly, and the disabled. Interstate exchange of data is critical to ensure that states have access to records maintained by other jurisdictions.  The Interstate Identification Index (III), administered by the FBI, provides interstate access to information about offenders at the state and federal level and facilitates this exchange. To ensure compatibility, all state-level record enhancements are required to conform to FBI standards for III participation.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) National Criminal History Improvement (NCHIP) provides direct funding and technical assistance to states to improve the accuracy, utility, and interstate accessibility of the Nation's criminal history and related records and build their infrastructure to connect to national record check systems both to supply information to and conduct requisite checks, including the FBI-operated National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR) and the National Protection Order File.

Performance:

Performance Measure:  Records Available Through Interstate Identification Index (III) Compared to Total Criminal History Records (in millions) [OJP] (Formally “Records (millions) Available Through Interstate Access Compared to Total Criminal History Records”)
            FY 2001 Target: Total Criminal History Records: 68.2 million; Total Records Available Through III: 41.4 million
            FY 2001 Actual: Total Criminal History Records: 63.2 million; Total Records Available Through III: 40.7 million
            FY 2002 Target: N/A – No FY 2002 target was set due to the fact that data for this program are collected and analyzed every two years.
            FY 2002 Actual: N/A
            Discussion:  By the end of 2001, the estimated number of records available for sharing through the III system was 40.7 million compared to the prior projection that 41.4 million would be available.  Additionally, 63.2 million of all criminal history records were III-accessible, the highest since record keeping began in 1993.  As of September 2002, records in 43 states are available to the FBI and other states through the III.  During 2001, the number of criminal records nationwide increased at the slowest rate since 1993, owing largely to the decrease in crime and the corresponding decrease in the number of persons arrested.  As a result, the number of III-accessible records also grew at a slower pace than originally forecasted. 

D Data Collection and Storage:  Data are collected by the program manager from the FBI’s annual survey of crime laboratories and is maintained in local files. Data Validation and Verification:  Before data is entered into the system they are reviewed and approved by an FBI Laboratory manager and verified again with the submitting state agencies.  Data Limitations:  None known at this time.

Background/Program Objectives:

The Office of Justice Program’s Crime Lab Improvement Program (CLIP), provides support to State and local labs to perform various types of forensic analysis, such as trace evidence analysis, fingerprint comparison, toxicology, firearm and tool mark analyses, and biological evidence analysis (which includes DNA testing). 

The Convicted Offender DNA Backlog Reduction Program was created to reduce the backlog of convicted offender DNA samples awaiting analysis and entry into the FBI’s Combined DNA Index System (CODIS) database.  Reducing the offender backlog and getting samples into the system is crucial to realizing the full objective of the national DNA database—to solve old crimes and prevent new ones from occurring.  Funds are targeted toward the forensic analysis of all DNA samples identified as urgent priority samples (i.e., those from homicide and rape/sexual assault cases) within the current offender backlog.  Comprising the backlog are samples collected from certain classes of offenders (typically violent criminals, but offenses such as burglary are now being increasingly included) as specified by state legislation.  The size of the current convicted offender backlog is constantly growing in size, due to ongoing, expansive legislative changes in qualifying offenses.  This expansion creates significant influxes of samples into labs often under-equipped.  The Backlog Reduction Program is the Department’s attempt to alleviate this burden.

Through these laboratory improvement/assistance programs, OJP endeavors to support the FBI’s CODIS program and provide the second, critical half of a team effort to use DNA technology to solve and prevent crime.   

D Data Collection and Storage: Information is collected by the program manager and is maintained in local files. Data Validation and Verification: NIJ validates and verifies performance measures for this program through information supplied from progress reports, on-site monitoring visits and telephone contacts between grantees and program managers. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

FBI’s Combined DNA Index System began as a pilot project in 1990 serving 14 state and local laboratories.  The DNA Identification Act of 1994 authorized the FBI to establish a national DNA database for law enforcement purposes.  The Act authorizes the FBI to store the following types of DNA data from federal, state, and local law enforcement entities in its national index: DNA identification records of persons convicted of crimes; analyses of DNA samples recovered from crime scenes; analyses of DNA samples recovered from unidentified human remains; and analyses of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from relatives of missing persons.  In 2000, the FBI was authorized to receive DNA profiles from federal convicted offenders and to store these profiles in a national Federal Convicted Offender index with the other four CODIS indexes.

FBI’s National DNA Index System (NDIS) became operational during October 1998 and represents the highest-level database in CODIS. NDIS allows participating federal and state laboratories to exchange DNA profiles and perform inter-state searches on a weekly basis.  Plans are underway to redesign CODIS and NDIS to allow for immediate uploading and searching upon demand and scalability up to 50 million DNA profiles. 

Performance:

Performance Measure: DISCONTINUED MEASURE:  State and Local DNA Analysis Backlog (based on percentage of the total number of samples collected)
            FY 2002 Target: 30%
            FY 2002 Actual: Data Not Available
            Discussion:  Data provided for this performance measure were the result of a one-time study, conducted by the FBI in FY 2001, that examined only selected data within state-level DNA backlog.  Therefore, data related to this measure were not collected during FY 2002 and will not be collected in this manner in coming fiscal years.  This measure will be discontinued and we will transition to Estimated Samples Collected; Annual Total of State Backlog Samples Analyzed; and Annual Number of NDIS Matches Identified.

D Data Collection and Storage:  OJP data are collected by NIJ directly from the grantee, which are stored by the Office of the Comptroller as official records.  NIJ maintains courtesy copies of these records.  Data Validation and Verification:  OJP validates and verifies performance measures by progress reports submitted by grantees, onsite monitoring of grantee performance and by telephone contact. Data Limitations:  Data are collected from September to September.  Targets are based on receiving an anticipated number of collected samples from the states.  If less/more collected samples are reported by the states, the actual number of samples analyzed will be affected.

Performance Measure: Total Number of State and Local Crime Labs Developing New Forensic Capabilities [OJP] (Formally “Total # of Crime Labs with New Forensic DNA Technology Capabilities”)
            FY 2002 Target: 147
            FY 2002 Actual: 146
            Discussion: In FY 2002, the target was missed by one crime lab due to delays in proposal receipt, which subsequently delayed approval and award processing.  Additionally, a total of 11 awards were made under the Crime Lab Improvement Program in FY 2002, however only two have been counted as additional improved laboratories under this measure due to its cumulative nature (the other 9 laboratories have previously received funding under CLIP and are reflected in prior year actuals).

Performance Measure:  NEW MEASURE: State and Local DNA Analysis:  Estimated Samples collected, as reported by the States; Annual Total of State Backlog Samples Analyzed (with OJP funding) [OJP]
            FY 2002 Target: 300,000 Samples Collected; 300,000 State Backlog Samples Analyzed
            FY 2002 Actual: 300,000 Samples Collected; N/A State Backlog Samples Analyzed
          Discussion: In FY 2002, grants were not awarded for OJP’s DNA Backlog Reduction Program because a new procurement method was being developed in order to accommodate a newly restructured Convicted Offender DNA Backlog program that now allows states access to GSA-facilitated competitive sourcing.  OJP is currently finalizing the statement of work that will be used to task the vendors chosen by the participating states.  Once this process is complete, OJP expects to be able to resume awarding funds for convicted offender sample analysis early in the 2nd quarter of FY 2003.  Therefore, actuals for FY 2002 and FY 2003 will be reported in December 2003.

D Data Collection and Storage:  The data source is a spreadsheet maintained by the Forensic Science Systems Unit within the FBI Laboratory Division. Data are collected monthly from the state laboratory in each state. Data Validation and Verification:  Before data are entered into the system they are reviewed and approved by an FBI Laboratory manager and verified again with the submitting state agencies.  Data Limitations:  None known at this time.

Performance Measure: Total Number of Federal, State and Local Investigations Aided by the National DNA Index System (NDIS) [FBI] (Formally “Total Number of Investigations Aided by the National DNA Database (CODIS)”)
            FY 2002 Target: 1,950 Investigations
            FY 2002 Actual:  2,873 Investigations
            Discussion:  In FY 2002, the target was exceeded.  Most state and local labs analyzed and submitted DNA profiles to NDIS far more rapidly than FBI estimated.  This increase was largely due to federal grant funding assisting the states in addressing more cases.  Upgrades in technology and the expansion of the wide-area network (WAN) allowed for much larger monthly uploads and searches than were possible last year.  The primary goals of the CODIS program are the prevention and reduction of violent crime.  CODIS produces investigative leads in crimes of violence and property, including rape, homicide, and burglary.  CODIS within the states, and NDIS at the national level, produce investigative leads in crimes of violence and property, including rape, homicide and burglary.  CODIS links DNA evidence obtained from crime scenes, thereby identifying serial criminals. 

D Data Definition:  NDIS Matches:  NDIS finds a DNA match, CODIS software on the state level generates a report that shows a match and/or “hit” has been made and then provides an offender or forensic profile based on the sample received. Data Collection and Storage: FBI data source is a spreadsheet maintained by the Forensic Science Systems Unit within the FBI Laboratory Division. Data are collected monthly from the state laboratories in each state. Data Validation and Verification: Before FBI data are entered into the system they are reviewed and approved by an FBI Laboratory manager and verified again with the submitting state agencies.  Data Limitations: Not all analyzed backlog samples are immediately entered into NDIS by the states.

NEW MEASURE: Annual Number of NDIS Matches Identified [FBI]
            FY 2002 Target: NDIS Matches  N/A
            FY 2002 Actual: NDIS Matches 2,738
            Discussion: In FY 2002, no target was set for total number of NDIS matches.  However, future targets will be based on historical trends of grant funding provided to state and local laboratories and the matches associated with increased grant money.  NDIS matches include federal, state and local matches.  NDIS matches also include matches made among DNA profiles not generated from federal grant money.

Background/Program Objectives:

D D Data Collection and Storage: The Quantico Student Information System is used to track the volume of criminal FBI training. The number trained in computer crime is collected by the grantee and is reported to BJA via semi-annual progress reports, which are stored in grant manager files and in official files maintained by the Office of the Comptroller.  Data Validation and Verification: The Quantico Administrative Manager reviews the data for validity. BJA program managers monitor the National White Collar Crime Center’s data. Data Limitations: Attendance data are subject to review and change.

In addition to technical support, the Department also provides critical law enforcement training.  The FBI’s National Academy Program serves as the foundation for the FBI's comprehensive training assistance to local, county, and state law enforcement. This program targets law enforcement managers and its goal is to render training assistance regarding investigative, managerial, technical, and administrative aspects of law enforcement.  In addition, the FBI Academy provides in-service training to local, county, and state law enforcement in many areas, such as forensic science.  FBI staff located in field offices throughout the country also provides, upon request, education and training programs, thereby contributing to enhanced professionalism in American law enforcement.

Through OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), the National White Collar Crime Center provides a national resource for the prevention, investigation, and prosecution of multi-jurisdictional economic crimes. This includes a national training and research institute focusing on economic crime issues. One component, The National Cybercrime Training Partnership, serves as a centralized, operational focal point for assessment, design and delivery of federal, state and local training and technical assistance regarding computer crime investigation and prosecution. 

Performance Measure: Law Enforcement and Regulatory Personnel Trained [FBI, OJP]
            FY 2002 Target:
Trained in the field (FBI): 100,000
Trained at FBI Academy: 5,130
Trained in Computer Crime (OJP): 1,900
            FY 2002 Actual:
Trained in the field (FBI):  82,337
Trained at FBI Academy: 3,665
Trained in Computer Crime (OJP):  1,830
            Discussion: In FY 2002, BJA did not meet its target related to computer crime training. Due to the events of September 11, 2001, there was a significant disruption in transporting participants to and from training sessions.  Therefore, the amount of law enforcement and regulatory personnel trained was slightly lower than anticipated.

Workyear reductions in the FBI’s resources had a significant impact on the FBI’s training program.  As funded staffing levels in the field were dramatically reduced FBI law enforcement training efforts were curtailed.  In addition, the events of September 11, 2001 impacted the assignment of resources to field training in FY 2002.  As the FBI hires new Special Agents, the Training Division must devote significant time and resources to new agent training, which impacts the Division’s ability to provide FBI Academy training.  Although the FBI’s field training efforts are primarily aimed towards state and local police officers, classes and in-services also include attendees from other federal agencies.

Background/Program Objectives:

D Data Collection and Storage: Data will be obtained through progress reports submitted by grantees, on-site monitoring and data stored in OVW program office files. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of progress reports submitted by grantees; telephone contact and on-site monitoring of grantee performance by grant program managers. Data Limitations: None known at this time.

OJP’s Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) administers a combination of two formula and nine discretionary grant programs that support the Violence Against Women Act of 2000 (P.L. 106‑386), which are designed to stop domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking.   OVW works with U.S. Attorneys to ensure enforcement of the federal criminal statutes contained in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994; assists the Attorney General in Formulating policy related to civil and criminal justice for women; and administers more than $367 million a year in grants to help states, tribes, and local communities transform the way in which criminal justice systems respond to crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. One notable program, the Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement Program provides opportunities for rural jurisdictions to draw upon their unique characteristics to develop and implement policies and services designed to enhance intervention and prevention of domestic violence and child victimization.

Performance:

Performance Measure: Jurisdictions Providing Services in Rural Areas Previously Under-Served (cumulative) [OJP]
            FY 2002 Target: 330 Jurisdictions
            FY 2002 Actual: 303 Jurisdictions
            Discussion: In FY 2002, OVW made 48 new awards but missed its target by 27.  In an attempt to prevent jurisdictions from experiencing a gap in funding cycles, in FY 2002, OVW started awarding 24-month grants instead of 18-month grants.  This resulted in larger monetary awards, and therefore OVW was unable to fund as many jurisdictions as originally anticipated. 

D Data Collection and Storage: Data will be obtained through progress reports submitted by grantees, on-site monitoring and data stored in internal files.  FY 2004 will be the first year data will reflect number of children served with reference to those local CASA programs that received subgrant funds from National CASA.  This will account for the reduction in the number of children served. Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated and verified through a review of progress reports submitted by grantees; telephone contact, and on-site monitoring of grantees’ performance by grant program managers. Data Limitations: National CASA provides information regarding the CASA program two times per year. The next national survey of local CASA programs will be available after 12/31/02.

Background/ Program Objectives:

OJP’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program.  The CASA program funds local programs to support court appointed special advocates in their efforts to assist overburdened court officials and social workers.  This program not only serves as a safety net for abused and neglected children, but also as an essential ally in delinquency prevention.  Research shows that abused and neglected children are at increased risk of repeating the same violent behavior they experience, and are therefore at increased risk of becoming delinquents and adult criminals.

Performance:

Performance Measure:  Number of Children Served by the CASA Program [OJP]
            FY 2002 Target: 253,000
            FY 2002 Actual: 264,869
            Discussion: During FY 2002, OJP exceeded its target regarding number of children served by the CASA program. 

Background/Program Objectives:

D Data Collection and Storage: Information is obtained through the JUMP National Evaluator, which collects quarterly status reports from each grantee site. Data Validation and Verification: Grant monitors perform on-site monitoring visits overseeing grantee performance.  Additionally, national program evaluations are performed by OJJDP. Data Limitations: Due to the fact that program start-up varies between fiscal years and youth enrollment varies, setting realistic targets is challenging.  Chart includes data from competitively funded JUMP programs, and does not include data from earmarked programs.

Among the intervention and prevention activities supported by OJJDP are juvenile mentoring programs that link at-risk youth with responsible adults to provide guidance, promote personal and social responsibility, discourage gang involvement, and encourage participation in community service activities. 

OJJDP recently completed a Report to Congress on the Juvenile Mentoring Program (JUMP), including preliminary results indicating that JUMP shows promise as a prevention measure to reduce delinquency and give participating youth a better chance at success.  Additionally, OJJDP continues to fund the National Mentoring Center, which provides training and technical assistance, dissemination of publications and bulletins, and conducts regional training to strengthen the ability of juvenile mentoring programs across the country.

Performance:

Performance Measure: Number of Youth Enrolled in JUMP Mentoring Programs Nationwide [OJP]
            FY 2002 Target: 18,500
            FY 2002 Actual: 18,644
            Discussion: In FY 2002, OJJDP exceeded its target by 144 youth in mentoring programs nationwide.  OJJDP achieved these goals by stressing the importance of data reporting and tightening of monitoring controls.