U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

FY 2013 OJP and COPS Office Programmatic and Financial Monitoring Levels

NCJ Number
250098
Date Published
July 2014
Length
44 pages
Annotation
This report by the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) - which provides oversight of DOJ's grant administration - discusses the grant monitoring process; FY 2013 improvements to monitoring priorities and procedures; and the FY 2013 monitoring statistics for DOJ's Office of Justice Programs (OJP), DOJ's Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), and OJP's Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO).
Abstract
In FY 2013, OJP and the COPS Office followed their established monitoring processes in assessing their open, active grants by setting monitoring priorities, forming fiscal year monitoring plans, and conducting monitoring activities. Also, in an effort to continuously improve monitoring standards and procedures, OAAM responded to issues identified throughout the year by launching several major technical projects and continuing to refine its risk-assessment process. This further improved the monitoring oversight of OJP and the COPS Office programs. At the beginning of FY2013, OJP had 11,451 open, active grants totaling $8.5 billion, and the COPS Office had 3,335 open, active grants totaling $2.3 billion. OAAM used the Grant Assessment tool (GAT) to produce risk scores and monitoring priority levels for OJP's open, active grants. These priorities were used by OJP program offices to make monitoring decisions and develop their fiscal year monitoring plans. The COPS Office followed a similar risk assessment process to develop its fiscal year monitoring plan. FY 2013 monitoring statistics are reported for overall in-depth programmatic monitoring, financial monitoring, and focused programmatic monitoring. Appendices contain data on FY 2013 risk criteria breakdown, number of grants receiving points by risk indicator, and the magnitude of risk criteria by total points. 22 figures and 17 tables