Detailed Information on the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Assessment

Reviewing whether any form of reimbursement should continue for inmates whose nationality is unknown or cannot otherwise be verified.

Requiring States and localities to report claimed nationality, beginning in 2004, as part of the application process for reimbursement to help screen potential ineligible costs.

Conducting a program evaluation for a sampling of states to examine the accuracy of cost data submitted and the uses of these reimbursements.

Recommending that the program be terminated because it has no criminal justice goals and cannot demonstrate results.

Measure: Ratio of verified eligible inmate payments to unknown inmate payments (for a given year).

Explanation:Cost of verified eligigle inmate payments to total SCAAP payments for a given year.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The statute, program guidelines, and application system support the identification and payment of certain costs for the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens. The statute directs the Attorney General, on written request of the head of a State or locality incarcerating undocumented criminal aliens, to provide compensation from funds appropriated for the purpose.

Evidence: The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) is governed by the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.. 1252, Section 242 as Amended and Title II, Subtitle C, Section 20301, Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, Public Law 103-322. In general terms, if a chief executive officer of a State or a political subdivision exercises authority over the incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens and submits a written request to the U.S. Attorney General, the Attorney General may provide compensation to that jurisdiction for those incarceration costs.

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

Explanation: Some undocumented aliens are incarcerated for criminal offenses. To the extent that these expenses are ones that localities would not undertake if the Federal government took such aliens into custody, then SCAAP may be understood to address a specific interest on the part of many States and communities. However, there is no requirement that program funds be used to pay for the costs of incarceration. In fact, funds may be used for any purpose and often simply enhance State/local revenue--possibly at the expense of correctional facilities. As such, the program funds do not address the specific problem or need.

Evidence: In FY 2002, over 650 SCAAP applicant jurisdictions submitted data about possible undocumented criminal aliens in their systems totaling more than 310,000. Of those, about 30% were determined by INS to meet all eligibility criteria. Interviews with program managers. FY 2003 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Guidelines, Updated June 2003.

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

Explanation: There are no other known programs designed to provide compensation for incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens.

Evidence: According to BJA, jurisdictions routinely testify to the fact that SCAAP is the only program available to meet some of their incarceration costs for this special population. Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: A major flaw in the program design is that it permits States/jurisdictions to use the SCAAP payments for any purpose, not just incarceration of criminal aliens--nor necessarily any criminal justice purpose. For many jurisdictions, this means that correctional facilities never benefit from the funding, nor do local police or prosecutors. Further, by not tying payments to any specific uses, it becomes impossible to monitor use of funds and program outcomes. Verification issues surrounding criminal aliens inhibit the design of the program, as well as an accurate accounting for actual State/local costs that are eligible for reimbursement. States/localities often do not know with certainty the citizenship and/or immigration status of inmates. On the other hand, States/localities are only required to verify foreign birth--not to query inmates about nationality or citizenship. Therefore, when in doubt, jurisdictions have an incentive to submit costs for inmates of questionable nationality. The program requires verification of the status of inmates by the Dept. of Homeland Security's Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services (BCIS). Typically, these checks return about 50% of inmates as "unknowns," meaning that the citizenship and immigration status of the inmate is unknown, and 20% as "ineligible." Because neither States/localities nor the Federal government know the true status of the unknowns, DOJ reimburses a smaller share of these costs. Reimbursement of these costs exposes the Federal government to potential overpayments.

Evidence: The INS vetting process has only been able to identify, on average, about 30% of the submitted aliens as verified, with another 50% in the unknown category and the remaining 20% as definitely ineligible. Interviews with program managers. In its review of SCAAP, the OIG has found that many jurisdictions show insufficient attention to the quality of the inmate data submitted. Some of the names submitted are found ineligible because they are naturalized U.S. citizens or lawfully in the U.S.. (BJA does not require jurisdictions to ask the inmate for--and document--his/her nationality.) However, many of the "unknowns" also are U.S. citizens or lawfully in the U.S., as well. INS databases used for screening have problems with completeness and accuracy. Interview with OIG staff. Office of Justice Programs State Criminal Alien Assistance Grant Program , Report No. 00-13, May 2000 Office of the Inspector General

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Funding is allocated proportionally among the jurisdictions reporting significant costs eligible for reimbursement, based on applications. However, some jurisdictions have reported inmate/cost data inaccurately in the past, which distorts funding decisions, and inadequate controls are in place to ensure accurate inmate/cost data reporting. Once funding decisions are made, the payments go directly to the jurisdiction of record and may be used by that jurisdiction for any lawful purpose--not just covering the cost of criminal alien incarcerations. Therefore, the funding often does not reach the correctional facilities housing the criminal aliens.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. Interview with OIG staff.

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: DOJ has not developed performance measures for the program. One example of a possible outcome measure for the program would be "Percentage of State/local costs for incarcerating criminal aliens compensated by the program." Note that in order for the measure to be valid, DOJ cannot simply restate the costs as identified by the States, but will need to develop a better verification scheme (whether based on a sampling or total costs) for evaluating whether those costs are valid and based on actual eligible criminal alien incarcerees.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures/goals for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

Are independent and quality 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: Justice has not contracted for independent evaluation of the program. While the OIG has not conducted a comprehensive review of the program, evaluations in 1997, 2000, and 2002 have raised issues questioning the effectiveness of the program.

Evidence: Memorandum Audit Report, Report No. 97-16, Office of the Inspector General Office of Justice Programs State Criminal Alien Assistance Grant Program , Report No. 00-13, May 2000 Office of the Inspector General Immigration and Naturalization Service Institutional Removal Program, Report No. 02-41 , September 2002, Office of the Inspector General

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: DOJ has not developed performance measures/goals for the program. The Administration has not requested funding for the program in either the FY 2003 or 2004 Budgets. However, the Congress provided funding in FY 2003.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. President's FY 2003 Budget. President's FY 2004 Budget.

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

Explanation: DOJ has no plans to correct the program's strategic planning deficiencies because the Administration has proposed eliminating the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. President's FY 2003 Budget. President's FY 2004 Budget.

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: Although DOJ does not collect performance information for the program, BJA does partner with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the verifications of the names submitted by the state and local applicants for funds.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. FY 2003 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Guidelines, Updated June 2003.

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Justice does not monitor performance for the program. BJA uses the online Grants Management System to flag records that appear to be in error. Jurisdictions are required to attest that the data submitted by in applying for funds is accurate to prevent overpayment and insure correct payment. However, requiring an affirmation of accuracy does not ensure accuracy. Applicants are not required to expend the SCAAP funds received in any particular manner. Applicants generally use the funds to reimburse the state or local treasury. The only routine and/or comprehensive audits are conducted under the general rules of the Single Audit Act by local auditors. These are infrequent compliance audits and look primarily at the jurisdiction's adherence to specific program requirements, which are limited to the information submitted at the time of the award.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. FY 2003 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Guidelines, Updated June 2003. OIG staff believe that the affirmation of accuracy required from jurisdictions applying for funding is an insufficient accuracy check and that BJA should capture additional information, including the inmate's stated nationality and information about the eligible crimes for which the inmate is being held. Interview with OIG staff.

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

Explanation: Each year, the full appropriation is committed and provided to applying jurisdictions in a timely manner. There are no unobligated balances carried over from year to year. BJA does not collect information on obligations or uses of funds once they are transferred to States/local jurisdictions. The funds are not transferred to correctional facilities for use in covering the costs of incarcerated criminal aliens.

Evidence: The program allocation formula is designed to allocate all dollars, based upon application totals. FY 2003 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Guidelines, Updated June 2003. Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: (1) SCAAP, along with other OJP grant programs, is currently undergoing activity-based costing as part of the government-wide competitive sourcing effort. The grant management function has been identified for possible competitive sourcing by the Department. (2) SCAAP relies on the recently established Grants Management System (GMS), a web-based application that permits access to data on grants management workflow and processing and eases the exchange of information among staff by creating an online repository of relevant information for each grant. Applicants transmit data and request payment through this internet-based system. GMS was developed in 2000 and continues to be refined with SCAAP-specific functionality improvements in 2003, including improved error reporting for applicants uploading progam data. (3) Justice provides assistance to grantees through the Grants Management System help desk, which is staffed by contractors.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. FY 2003 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Guidelines, Updated June 2003. The OJP Management Plan, April 2003 provides additional information on recent and planned improvement efforts focusing on the efficient management of OJP resources, top-to-bottom accountability, and the standardization and streamlining of its processes and automated systems. IT improvement processes are outlined in the OJP Business Case Analysis Process Policy Statement, April 1, 2003.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The effectiveness of the collaboration is unclear. BJA does collaborate with the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement to verify inmate data before making payment to applicants. However, Immigration has devoted only limited staffing and resources to alien verification.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. FY 2003 State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Guidelines, Updated June 2003. Interview with OIG staff.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Program managers submit all awards in a timely manner so that obligations are recorded prior to the end of the fiscal year. Program managers coordinate with the Office of the Comptroller on administrative and fiscal monitoring. The Office of the Comptroller certifies awards; monitors OJP operations to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse; ensures accurate accounting and timely payments, and prepares OJP's financial statements for audit. Comptroller-based financial reviews of official grant files are conducted to ensure that the grantee organization has complied with OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. The audits of the OJP Annual Financial Statement for fiscal years 1998-2001 resulted in an unqualified ("clean") audit opinion with no material weaknesses. The audit of FY 2002 is currently being conducted.

Evidence: KPMG's Independent Auditors' Report in OJP Financial Statements states: "In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of OJP as of September 30, 2001 amd 2000, and its net costs, changes in net position, budgetary resources, and reconciliation of net costs to budgetary obligations, for the years then ended, in conformity with accounting prinicples generally accepted in teh United States."

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

Explanation: BJA has taken a number of steps to make improvements in the processing of applications through the electronic filing system, to provide better instructions to grantees, and to provide technical assistance associated with grant applications. However, no goals or measures have been set for the program, and data verification remains problematic. Further, payments made for inmates of "unknown" status create a risk of overpayment to recipients for incarcerations ineligible for reimbursement.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. The INS vetting process has only been able to identify, on average, about 30% of the submitted aliens as verified, with another 50% in the unknown category and the remaining 20% as definitely ineligible.

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

Explanation: BJA does not monitor grantee activitiees on a post-award basis, as the funds may be used for any lawful purpose by the jurisdictions applying for reimbursement. BJA monitors and controls the process by which jurisdictions applying for funding and submit inmate data. In order for the program to meet its statutory mandate to provide for reimbursement for eligible costs, BJA needs to have a means to verify submitted cost data through regular audit or other means. It is not clear that BJA has this capability. Alternatively, State/local jurisdictions could be held to a higher standard for data submitted by requiring the submission of additional data with applications (e.g., inmate's stated nationality and information about the charges for which inmates are incarcerated).

Evidence: Interviews with program managers. Interview with OIG staff.

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: BJA does not collect grantee performance data for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures/goals for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures/goals for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: DOJ has not developed performance measures/goals for the program.

Evidence: Interviews with program managers.

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

Explanation: There are no comparable Federal, State, local or private sector programs.

Evidence: There are no other known programs designed to provide compensation for incarceration of undocumented criminal aliens.

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

Explanation: Justice has not contracted for independent evaluation of the program. While the OIG has not conducted a comprehensive review of the program, evaluations conducted in 1997, 2000, and 2002 have raised questions about the accuracy/quality of inmate data and reimbursements. For example, in 2000, the OIG found overpayments made to a number of States--in part because of inadequate State screening of inmate listings before submission to OJP. The OIG also recommended changes to DOJ's methodology for compensating States/localities for inmates of "unknown" status.

Evidence: Memorandum Audit Report, Report No. 97-16, Office of the Inspector General Office of Justice Programs State Criminal Alien Assistance Grant Program , Report No. 00-13, May 2000 Office of the Inspector General Immigration and Naturalization Service Institutional Removal Program, Report No. 02-41 , September 2002, Office of the Inspector General