The budget proposes total expenditures of $463 million for support of the DOJ in the budget year. This amount is $8.3 million, or 1.8 percent, less than estimated current-year expenditures. The requested amount includes $246 million from the General Fund (a decrease of $8.8 million, or 3.4 percent), $79.3 million from special funds, $32.5 million from federal funds, and $105 million from reimbursements.
The decrease is due to a reduction of $20 million for state-mandated local programs that are displayed in the DOJ budget, although the DOJ has no administrative responsibilities for these programs. If the state-mandated local programs were not displayed in the DOJ budget, the requested amount would actually reflect an increase of $11.6 million, or 2.7 percent.
The DOJ is requesting $774,000 from the General Fund and 18 two-year limited-term positions (including eight attorneys) to defend the state and, in particular, the state Reclamation Board and the Department of Water Resources, in anticipation of litigation arising from the January 1997 floods. Generally, litigation would not begin until after claims are filed with and reviewed by the Board of Control. The board is still in the process of reviewing claims.
The DOJ anticipates that the state is most likely to be sued in areas where "project" levees failed. "Project" levees are levees which were originally constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on easements acquired by the state. Once constructed, the levees were turned over to reclamation districts for operation and maintenance. The state's legal responsibility for the levees is unresolved.
Potential State Liability From January 1997 Floods. The 1997 floods created extensive property damage in a number of counties. Preliminary damage reports estimated that property damage totaled $1.5 billion to $2 billion. Given the extent of damage from the floods and the uncertainty of the state's responsibility for the project levees, the DOJ is estimating that a number of lawsuits will be filed against the state and state agencies. In order for property owners to pursue claims against the state, generally they must first file claims with the Board of Control within six months of property damage.
The DOJ reports that there are 287 claims filed at the Board of Control involving approximately 600 claimants. The Board of Control is in the process of reviewing an additional 50 claims on behalf of an unknown number of claimants. The DOJ indicates that two lawsuits filed by a large number of plaintiffs have already arisen as a result of the breach of the Feather River levee in Yuba County. The DOJ advises that other complaints may be filed shortly.
Issues From 1986 Flood Litigation Still Pending. Two cases stemming from the 1986 floods are still being decided in the appellate courts. The cases, Akins v. State, et al. and the Consolidated Yuba County Linda action are both constitutional questions involving inverse condemnation actions and issues of public entity liability for floods. The outcomes of these two cases affect not only the liability of the state in these cases, but also the potential liability of the state for claims surrounding the 1997 floods, as well as any future floods. Rulings in favor of the state in Akins and Consolidated Yuba County Linda could limit the state's liability in such inverse condemnation suits, while adverse rulings could significantly expand the state's potential for liability in such cases.
Other Uncertainties. There are also uncertainties involving the number of additional lawsuits that may be filed and how much workload the cases will require. Because the review process at the Board of Control is still underway, it is not clear how many lawsuits will ultimately be filed. The number of Board of Control claims that have been filed to date was not as great as the DOJ had anticipated last year. This could indicate that there may be less litigation that will be filed against the state than was originally anticipated. Additionally, the DOJ notes that the two pending cases concerning the 1997 floods have been drafted to emphasize theories of recovery based on standard tort law rather than on constitutional inverse condemnation theories. While the outcomes of these standard tort cases will not depend upon the constitutional issues being litigated in the 1986 actions, these types of cases may be less complicated to defend.
Analyst's Recommendation. It appears that, if the number of lawsuits materializes and the size of the suits is as great as DOJ anticipates, the state's financial exposure could be significant. However, it appears that there is substantial uncertainty about the number and complexity of the cases, especially until the two cases from the 1986 litigation are resolved. Because of these uncertainties, we recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language limiting the use of the flood litigation funds so that it can be sure that these funds are spent for that purpose.
Specifically, we recommend the following budget bill language:
Of the amount appropriated in this item, $774,000 is for defense of the state in cases arising from the 1997 floods. Any funds not used for this purpose shall revert to the General Fund.
The budget proposes a total of $18 million in federal funds for 1998-99 to implement the California Methamphetamine Strategy (CALMS) for the enforcement of laws dealing with the illegal manufacture of methamphetamine. This is an increase of $3.9 million from current-year funding for this program. Since 1996-97, expenditures for methamphetamine enforcement activities will have increased 250 percent. For 1998-99, DOJ plans to add 138 new positions, including nine supervisors and 73 special agents.
Background. The illegal use of methamphetamine in California is growing at a significant rate. Unlike many other illicit drugs which are imported into the state, most illegal methamphetamine is manufactured in California clandestine labs. In 1994, 533 of the 809 clandestine labs seized nationwide were in California. So much illegal methamphetamine is manufactured in California that the federal Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has identified the state as "source country" for the drug.
The manufacture of methamphetamine requires a number of specific chemicals, known as precursors. Some of these precursor chemicals are part of the finished drug--such as ephedrine--others are needed for the production or "cooking" process, such as freon. Most of these ingredients are available from legitimate dealers or are smuggled in from Mexico. Both the apparatus used in the manufacture of methamphetamine as well as the by-products of the process are very toxic and are usually abandoned after the drug has been made.
The DOJ's Current Methamphetamine Program. In California, the DOJ is the lead agency assisting local law enforcement in seizing clandestine labs. The DOJ's special agents assigned to the Clandestine Lab Enforcement Program (CLEP) were responsible for seizing more than 850 labs in 1997. The department's Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement (BNE) is responsible for state-level narcotics enforcement and has 80 special agents and supervisors whose primary responsibility is methamphetamine enforcement. This is approximately 25 percent of BNE's total number of special agents and supervisors.
Clandestine Lab Clean Up. In addition to the costs associated with BNE's methamphetamine enforcement activities, the toxicity of illegal labs requires costly, specialized clean up. The Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) assumed responsibility for the clean-up of toxic wastes at clandestine labs in 1994-95. Initially, the DTSC's expenditures for clean ups was $3 million. In the current year, clean up costs have increased to $8 million from the General Fund. The department is requesting an additional $800,000, or a 10 percent increase, for 1998-99.
New Federal Funding for Methamphetamine Enforcement. The federal 1998 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Bill appropriated $18.2 million specifically to California's BNE for methamphetamine enforcement. The appropriations bill specified that funds were in support of "additional law enforcement officers, intelligence gathering and forensic capabilities, training and community outreach programs."
Although the funds are specifically appropriated to BNE in the federal bill, California will still be required to apply for this grant, although no specific requirements for the award of the grant had been finalized at the time this analysis was prepared. It is not known whether these funds will be ongoing or are one-time only.
The DOJ's Plan for the Federal Funds. The DOJ plans to significantly increase its enforcement efforts with the new federal money. While it will continue CLEP, its new activities will emphasize other types of enforcement. The DOJ's proposal for using the new federal funds assumes multiyear funding of CALMS. The proposal includes expenditures in five areas:
In addition to new staff, DOJ intends to use the federal money to purchase a variety of new equipment, including four aircraft and equipment for field investigations that will allow chemical and latent fingerprint analyses at crime scenes. Finally, some of the federal funds will be used for overtime and the costs of storing toxic evidence.
Concerns About the CALMS Proposal. The DOJ proposal meets the criteria established in the federal appropriations bill. Additionally, the plan appears to deal with several areas of methamphetamine enforcement that have not been previously addressed. However, at the time this analysis was prepared, the federal office that will review the DOJ grant proposal had not established grant criteria or established when funding will be available. Consequently, at this time we do not know whether any part of the DOJ proposal will have to be revised to meet federal concerns.
The heavy emphasis on hiring special agents raises questions for the Legislature. If federal funding for this program is not continued next year, the state would be liable for the costs of the new agents or will have to terminate much of the proposed CALMS program. Further, in addition to the costs for the special agents, there are significant administrative costs associated with selecting and hiring agents because the agents receive extensive, and expensive, training through DOJ academies. While the federal CALMS funding would defray these costs if it becomes a multiyear program, there would not be sufficient funding to pay for new special agents if new monies are not appropriated for federal fiscal year 1999 (FFY 99). If no new funds are appropriated, DOJ will have only the remaining funds from its FFY 98 allocation ($3.9 million) in the budget year.
The DOJ informs us that it intends to begin its selection process for new agents in the current year. However, it will not hire new agents or begin academies for CALMS special agents before the budget year. Generally, DOJ trains new agents in academies with 25 agent trainees in each class. According to DOJ, it will not begin the second academy for new agents until after federal budget deliberations are concluded for FFY 99, thus allowing DOJ to forgo hiring more agents and running other academies if funding is not appropriated for another year. In this circumstance, the agents already hired would fill other DOJ departmental vacancies, instead of adding the new methamphetamine enforcement teams. If funding is included in next year's federal budget (FFY 99), DOJ would proceed with hiring, under the belief that the state is reasonably assured that funding will be multiyear.
Finally, there is no proposal for increased funds for toxics clean up that might result from increased enforcement activities. The proposed increase in DOJ's methamphetamine enforcement budget is bound to have an impact on toxic clean up activities, even if the DOJ proposes new enforcement strategies that do not emphasize targeting clandestine labs. The DOJ informs us that the DEA received an appropriation of $2 million to aid states in the costs of toxic clean up. This money would pay for between 50 and 100 percent of the costs of labs seized by task forces with federal participation. Although California may expect to receive the bulk of these funds, this sum may not defray much of the potential new state clean up costs.
Analyst's Recommendation. Given the uncertainties concerning continued federal funding outlined above, we withhold recommendation on the DOJ's proposed use of $18 million in federal funds for methamphetamine enforcement activities, pending review of DOJ plans for the program if continued federal funding is not provided. The DOJ should inform the Legislature, prior to budget hearings, of its plans for: (1) hiring staff, especially new special agents; (2) how it will integrate the new program with existing methamphetamine enforcement activities; (3) its contingency plans for the new program in the event funds are one-time only, limited to just two more years, or if the program is ongoing; and (4) how it plans to address increased state costs resulting from toxic clean up of clandestine labs. Furthermore, the DOJ should report on the status of its grant request for these federal funds, the mechanism for fund disbursement, and a schedule of when funds will be available.
We further recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language that establishes funding limits on the new California Witness Protection Program and requires the Bureau of State Audits to annually audit claims to ensure strict accountability for program funds.
The budget proposes $5 million from the Restitution Fund to support the California Witness Protection Program in the DOJ's Bureau of Investigation (BI). The program was created by Chapter 507, Statutes of 1997 (AB 856, Herztberg). The goal of the program is to protect witnesses and their families, friends, or associates who are endangered due to ongoing or anticipated testimony, whether or not formal legal proceedings have been filed. Witnesses testifying in gang, organized crime, or narcotics trafficking cases are to be given highest priority for protection. Chapter 507 contained an appropriation of $3 million for the current year. The BI will reimburse district attorneys' offices on a case-by-case basis for the costs of protection; temporary, semi-permanent, or permanent relocation of witnesses; and other expenses.
Program Criteria. The bill provides that district attorneys are responsible for the determination of who is eligible for the program and what are allowable expenses. Witnesses must agree to testify and comply with all orders of the court in order to qualify under this program. Under program criteria, convicted felons, parolees, probationers, and illegal aliens would also be eligible for a variety of different expenses. While the program requires that emphasis be given to witnesses in gang, organized crime, and narcotics cases, district attorneys can also receive funds for any other case where the district attorney determines that there is "a high degree of risk to the witness."
The program will pay for armed protection of witnesses, physical relocation of the witness and his or her family, living expenses, new identity documents, and the transportation and storage of personal items. Figure 29 (see next page) shows the amounts of costs that would be reimbursed under this program.
To be reimbursed, the district attorney is required to simply submit a letter claiming reimbursement and certify that expenses are allowable. In contrast, most other local assistance programs have audit requirements to ensure that funds are properly spent and funds accounted for. This program has no audit requirement.
Based on the allowable expense schedule, the costs of temporary relocation would range from $3,300 to $6,380 for 29 days, not including those expenses that would be reimbursed on a case-by-case basis. For semi-permanent and permanent relocations, the allowable cost would range from a low of $1,450 for 30 days to $5,325 for a maximum allowable amount for three months. The costs would be higher when the costs of protection, moving, storage, or other costs are added. Based on these allowable amounts, the $3 million appropriation in Chapter 507 should fund protection of between 450 and 2,000 witnesses. The budget request would fund a total of 850 to 3,400 witnesses.
Concerns About the Request. We have several concerns with the program. First, it is unclear how much money will be needed to support the program in the budget year. Given that this is a new program, there are no historical data to rely upon in estimating the number of persons who will use the program in 1998-99. Given these uncertainties, we know of no reason that the Legislature should appropriate more than $3 million for the program in 1998-99--the same amount contained in Chapter 507 for the current year.
|Allowable Expenditures Under the DOJ
California Witness Protection Program
|Program Expense||Allowable Amounts
(30 days or less)
(at witness' residence)
|Semi-permanent relocation (30 days or more)||
(not to exceed three months)
|New identity (witness,
friends, and associates)
|Moving or storage of
|aRange in costs based on number of family or friends included in the household.|
Second, we believe that the program does not have sufficient safeguards. For example, there are almost no limits on the total amounts of claims that can be made by district attorneys. As we indicated earlier, a district attorney need only submit a letter claiming reimbursement. No auditing of the claims is required. Thus, there are limited safeguards in place to ensure that program funds are being accounted for properly, and that the funds are used for the program's intended purpose.
Finally, Chapter 507 provides the program with an open-ended funding source. This is because Chapter 507 provides that any balances in the Restitution Fund not needed to support the Victims of Crime Program (a program that compensates victims for their losses), along with a prudent reserve, shall be available for the witness protection program. The Governor's budget estimates that the fund will have a surplus of about $22.8 million in the budget year.
Analyst's Recommendation. For these reasons we recommend that the Legislature take three actions. First, we recommend that the total funding be reduced to the same level as the current year, for a savings of $2 million. (Reduce Item 0820-101-0214 by $2 million.)
Second, because of the high degree of uncertainty regarding expenditures for the program in the budget year, we recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language specifying that moneys not spent for the program in 1998-99 shall revert to the Restitution Fund. Specifically, we recommend the proposed budget bill language be modified as follows (Item 0820-101-0214):
The funds appropriated in Schedule (a) are for allocation in support of the California Witness Protection Program, pursuant to Chapter 507, Statutes of 1997. Any funds not expended for this specific purpose shall revert to the Restitution Fund.
Third, in order to ensure oversight and accountability for claims under the program, we recommend that the Legislature direct the Bureau of State Audits to audit the claims annually and to make recommendations to ensure there are appropriate safeguards. Specifically, we recommend the following budget bill language (Item 0820-001-0214):
The Bureau of State Audits shall audit each claim submitted for payment under the California
Witness Protection Program. The claim audits shall ensure that all criteria for program eligibility
are met and shall report to the Legislature by January 1, 1999, and annually thereafter, on the
results of its audits. The bureau shall also recommend changes to criteria for the program in
order to ensure accountability as part of its annual report to the Legislature.
Background. The laws of the Republic of Mexico allow for the prosecution in Mexico of Mexican citizens who commit violent crimes in the United States and flee to Mexico. Mexican law allows for the prosecution of any of its citizens providing that the individual can be located in Mexico, it can be proved that the individual has not been tried in the United States, and the crime for which the individual is being prosecuted is also a crime in Mexico. Consequently, when a Mexican national commits an offense in California, flees to Mexico, and his or her location in Mexico is known, California law enforcement representatives can go directly to the Mexican Federal Prosecutor and file a complaint. Based on these complaints, Mexican authorities will apprehend, prosecute, and if convicted, incarcerate the individual in a Mexican prison. Although Mexican law allows for prosecution of all major crimes, the law has been used almost exclusively for homicides.
Since 1975, the DOJ has authorized special agents to enter Mexico and file foreign prosecution cases for state and local law enforcement agencies. The program, known as the Foreign Prosecution Program, currently operates out of the DOJ's San Diego field office. Since 1981, 39 fugitives from California have been apprehended, tried, and convicted in Mexico. The cases came from more than 25 different law enforcement agencies. All of the cases involved homicide, except for a 1996 case involving a serious sexual offense.
In addition to the DOJ program, the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and the Los Angeles Police Department also have full-time staff assigned to foreign prosecution efforts.
The DOJ Plans to Expand Its Program. As part of its 1998-99 budget, the DOJ is requesting $321,000 from the General Fund to expand the Foreign Prosecution Program. (This proposal is identical to a proposal made last year that was deleted from the 1997-98 Budget Bill at the time of the Public Employees' Retirement System [PERS] repayment.) Currently, two agents are assigned to the program full-time. These agents investigate an average of 30 cases a year, the majority of which are referred to the program by local law enforcement agencies throughout the state. The DOJ request is to add two more agents and a full-time document translator to the program. The DOJ estimates that it can more than double the number of cases it investigates and also increase the number of complaints it files in Mexico. The DOJ has informed us that it will also use the new personnel to seek similar foreign prosecutions for citizens of other countries where the native countries allow it.
We recommend that the Legislature approve the request. All of the costs of prosecution (except for filing the complaint with Mexican authorities) and incarceration of felons are borne by Mexico. In addition, the average sentence for those convicted under the current program has been 25 years, thus saving the state potential incarceration costs. In those instances where a suspect has fled to Mexico, and does not return, use of the program is the only way that the offender can be brought to justice.
Legislation Needed to Designate DOJ as the Lead for State. While there is no need for legislation to implement this program, we believe that legislation is needed to ensure the most effective use of foreign prosecution. The legislation we are recommending should contain two features.
First, the DOJ should be designated as the lead agency for all foreign prosecutions thereby ensuring that Mexican and other international authorities have a single point of contact for prosecutions. Using the DOJ as the lead state agency for these prosecutions would enhance coordination efforts between the Mexican government and California law enforcement agencies.
Second, the legislation should require that the DOJ provide information and guidance on the scope and uses of foreign prosecution to California prosecutors and law enforcement agencies. By providing such instruction, local law enforcement agencies will be able to more effectively use the program.
Background. Local law enforcement agencies commit significant resources to solving homicides. Investigators work with both physical evidence obtained from the crime scene and exhaust all witness "leads." When the physical evidence and leads have been fully investigated, but the homicide remains unsolved, the case is placed in an inactive status and evidence collected is stored indefinitely. The DOJ reports that there are more than 8,000 unsolved homicides in California. Inactive homicide cases are known as "old and cold" cases. Currently, the DOJ will aid local law enforcement agencies with active cases, by providing crime scene analysis, forensic laboratory tests, and other investigation requests.
In recent years, there have been a number of technological advances in forensic science. For example, latent fingerprints that had previously been unusable can now be made visible with new laser-assisted techniques. In addition, the DOJ's DNA database now contains a large number of records for known sex offenders. Consequently, old serological evidence can now be tested for DNA and matched against known offenders. Finally, the DOJ has developed an automated system for the examination and identification of recovered firearm evidence. All of these techniques and databases have only been available in the past two years. Consequently, the new techniques could be applied to the unsolved homicide cases in order to develop new leads and possibly solve the cases.
The DOJ Proposal. The DOJ is requesting $266,000 from the General Fund to form a two-year pilot team of forensic specialists that would identify and reopen "old and cold" homicides; applying the new forensic techniques to stored physical evidence. (This proposal is identical to a proposal from last year that was deleted by the Legislature in order to generate additional funds to make the PERS repayment.) The team would consist of a special agent, a senior criminalist, and a latent fingerprint analyst. The team would select inactive homicide cases from various law enforcement agencies in Northern California.
The DOJ does not currently investigate these homicides. As a result, it does not have data on the number of cases that will be examined and investigated. In addition, the DOJ has informed us that since this is a new program, it has not yet developed a system for tracking and reporting the results of its proposed pilot program.
Analyst's Recommendation. We recommend approval of this proposal because of the DOJ's statewide jurisdiction and because it is responsible for maintaining the state-level databases that will be used for examining inactive cases. However, because the DOJ does not have data on the number of cases that will be investigated and has not developed a system for tracking the progress of the pilot project, we recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language limiting the use of these funds. In that way, the Legislature can ensure that the funds are used for these investigations.
Specifically, we recommend the adoption of the following budget bill language:
Of the funds appropriated in this item, $266,000 is available for the Northern California pilot program for investigating inactive homicide cases. Any funds not used for this purpose shall revert to the General Fund.
We also recommend that the Legislature adopt the following supplemental report language reporting on the number of cases investigated, the results of the investigations, which law enforcement agencies received services, and the cost of conducting each investigation:
The Department of Justice shall submit a report to the Joint Legislative Budget Committee and the Legislature's fiscal committees by December 31, 1999, on the unsolved homicide pilot. The report should include the following information: (1) the number of cases selected for review; (2) the number of cases reopened and investigated; (3) the results of the investigations; (4) the original law enforcement agency responsible for the investigated cases; and (5) the costs of each investigation.
The budget requests $2.4 million from the General Fund for equipment replacement for the DOJ's criminalistic laboratories ($1.1 million) and for replacement of vehicles used in the Division of Law Enforcement ($1.3 million). The request proposes to build these expenditures into the DOJ's baseline budget to fund additional equipment and vehicle purchases in future years.
Our review indicates that both proposals for equipment and vehicle replacement are justified. The DOJ advises that the laboratory equipment, which is used for forensic testing of crime scene evidence, controlled substances, and blood alcohol samples, has outlived its useful life and is either inoperable or requires extensive and expensive repairs. In addition, the DOJ advises that the vehicles requested for replacement, which are used by special agents and staff in investigations, narcotics enforcement, and forensic services, have exceeded 100,000 miles in usage.
Equipment Replacement Should Not Be Included in Base Budget.Although we believe that the request is justified, adding the additional funding to the department's baseline budget would mean that the DOJ would have the same level of funding to use for equipment and vehicle replacement each year. We do not believe that major equipment purchases such as those proposed should be included in the baseline. Instead, equipment purchases should be "zero-based" and justified each year. Justifying major equipment purchases each year has always been standard budget practice and, we believe, provides the Legislature with a better opportunity to perform oversight of the DOJ's annual budget.
For the past two years, the DOJ has made similar requests and they have been approved. However, these requests were not placed in the base budget. For lab equipment, the Legislature approved funding for two years. The Division of Law Enforcement vehicle purchases were approved in both years; however, during last year's final budget negotiations, the augmentation was eliminated. This highlights the fact that the Legislature should have the flexibility of reviewing these requests annually to ensure that limited General Fund dollars go to the state's highest priorities. For these reasons, we recommend that the Legislature direct the DOJ and the Department of Finance not to add the funding for equipment and vehicle replacement to the DOJ's baseline budget.
This could be accomplished by adopting the following supplemental report language:
It is the intent of the Legislature that the Department of Justice's baseline budget not include an increase for laboratory equipment and vehicle replacement. Equipment replacement shall be justified in the annual budget process.
The DNA identification method, also known as "genetic fingerprinting," uses specimens left at a crime scene to identify an offender. The DOJ operates a DNA laboratory in Berkeley for the examination of DNA samples; the laboratory also serves as a repository of DNA records of convicted sex offenders and other violent criminals. In addition, the laboratory is responsible for storing samples of DNA evidence obtained from unsolved crimes.
The DOJ is charged with the responsibility of providing law enforcement agencies with complete files of information on habitual sexual offenders. Consequently, the laboratory's highest priority is the DNA analysis of samples from sexual offenders who are released from the California Department of Corrections (CDC). By maintaining a data bank with DNA profiles of these convicted sex offenders, DOJ can greatly increase the likelihood of apprehending and convicting offenders if they commit a new crime. Chapter 6x, Statutes of 1994 (SB 12x, Thompson), appropriated almost $2 million for a data bank containing DNA samples from convicted sex offenders and other violent offenders, as well as DNA profiles of evidence obtained from unsolved sex crimes.
The DNA Backlogs for Sex Offenders Have Been Reduced. In last year's Analysis, we reported that the DNA laboratory has had a continuing backlog of samples awaiting analysis. The funds provided in Chapter 6x were used to automate the system for DNA tests. As a result of this automation, the DOJ was able to reduce its backlog of samples and complete analysis of 41,000 offenders. All of these samples are now part of a searchable DNA database that allows the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies to use samples from new crimes and identify suspects from the database, in a manner similar to identifying offenders from latent fingerprints.
Backlogs Persist in Processing Other Violent Offender Samples. In addition to processing the DNA of certain sex offenders, the DOJ is responsible for analyzing and placing DNA profiles of other violent offenders into its DNA database. Based on data provided by the DOJ in January 1998, there remains a backlog of over 55,000 of these samples to be analyzed. The DOJ does not have a plan for reducing this backlog.
Analyst's Recommendation. We recommend that the DOJ submit a plan to the fiscal committees
prior to budget hearings on what redirections or augmentations, and possible funding sources,
would be required to reduce backlogs in analyzing DNA samples of other violent offenders.
Further, the plan should identify an acceptable backlog level for this testing program.
The Division of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) is implementing new legislation (Chapter 588, Statutes of 1997 [AB 1610, Ortiz] and Chapter 589, Statutes of 1997 [AB 1612, Alby]) that requires that all school employees and applicants must undergo criminal background checks. The DOJ estimates that the new legislation will add over 239,000 new fingerprints which must be checked. While the persons being fingerprinted would pay for the costs through fees, the increased demand on the system could slow down DOJ responses. Recognizing this potential, the Legislature also appropriated funds to purchase and place live scan electronic fingerprint terminals at 100 locations throughout the state to facilitate all of the new requests for fingerprints.
The budget requests $4 million from the Fingerprint Fees Account to pay for the processing of the new volume of fingerprints. The request appears justified, however, the DOJ is still in the process of identifying where the new live scan devices will be located. The DOJ informed us that these locations will be identified shortly and installation will begin in March 1998. The DOJ estimates that installation will not be complete for four to six months. Consequently, we have not been able to review the DOJ's plans for implementation or its plans for where the terminals will be located.
Analyst's Recommendation. We withhold recommendation on this request, pending receipt and review of DOJ's plan for installation of the new live scan terminals.
Under current law, the DOJ is required to maintain a number of criminal justice information systems for law enforcement agencies. The DOJ's CJIS processes a variety of documents from local law enforcement agencies, the courts, and the CDC. The CJIS receives, examines, and stores fingerprints in one of the largest automated fingerprint systems in the world, larger than that of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The CJIS fingerprint system (CAL-ID) stores fingerprint data on all those convicted of a crime in California. The system is used for criminal investigations and for establishing whether arrestees, CDC inmates, or applicants for jobs (such as teachers and child care workers) have criminal records.
In addition, CJIS maintains the state's criminal history systems, including the automated files that record arrests and dispositions. The arrest file lists the specific offenses for which an individual has been arrested; the disposition file lists all offenses for which an individual has been convicted (or any other court disposition).
In our Analysis of the 1995-96 Budget Bill, we reported that the DOJ had backlogs of up to one year in recording disposition data. In last year's Analysis, we pointed out that the backlog had been reduced.
Conviction File Backlogs for Felonies and Firearms Crimes Eliminated. As we reported last year, the DOJ had taken a series of steps to reduce the inventory of backlogged documents. The DOJ indicated that its goal was to ensure that the backlog of criminal conviction histories for individuals convicted of felonies or crimes where a firearm was used be reduced to 30 days. As of January 1998, there is no backlog for these records.
The CJIS reports that the total number of other types of documents awaiting processing, such as misdemeanor convictions and records of no conviction, was about 152,000 documents in January 1998. In contrast, at this time last year, there were almost 825,000 documents awaiting processing.
Backlog of CDC Fingerprints Eliminated. The CJIS reports that it has eliminated its backlog of CDC inmate fingerprints, but notes that over 20,000 records need to be returned to CDC as a consequence of problems with the records. Last year, the backlog for inmate fingerprint record checks was 18 months. There were 200,000 CDC inmate fingerprint documents awaiting processing as of December 1996.
The budget proposes total expenditures for this office of $177 million in 1998-99, including $36.6 million from the General Fund. The total budget is about $13.2 million, or about 6.9 percent, less than estimated current-year expenditures. The General Fund budget is essentially the same as the current year. The decrease in the total budget is due primarily to net reductions in federal grant programs.
Background. The National Defense Authorization Act permits local law enforcement agencies to procure excess federal military property (generally equipment and bulk fuel) at no cost. On May 24, 1996, the Governor identified the OCJP as the state agency responsible for administering the program. Currently, a criminal justice specialist and a management services technician provide staff support for the program, at an annual cost of approximately $110,000 from the General Fund. In addition to its own staff, the OCJP indicates that National Guard staff also assist this program.
According to the OCJP, the program has facilitated the transfer of $37 million of equipment to 268 local law enforcement agencies within California.
Budget Proposal. The budget proposes an augmentation of $144,000 from the General Fund and two additional positions, thereby doubling OCJP's staff and expenditures for this program. The office indicates that the increase is necessary because changes in federal law will allow the number of eligible local law enforcement agencies in California to grow from 268 to 644. The belief is that there will be a corresponding increase in workload.
Limited Value Added by Office's Program. The OCJP has not provided any documentation showing that the additional eligible agencies will use the program and thereby increase the OCJP workload. Furthermore, based on our review of the existing program, we conclude that OCJP's role is relatively limited. Specifically, the agency seeking the surplus property must do virtually all of the work to identify whether and where excess equipment is available. Once located, the local law enforcement agency, working with local Defense Reutilization Marketing Offices, obtains the necessary forms and prepares all of the paperwork. The OCJP is merely a "pass-through" organization. The OCJP simply reviews the local law enforcement agency justification letter, forwards the documents to the Defense Logistics Agency, and records the federal action.
Analyst's Recommendation. Because OCJP has not shown that the addition of newly eligible local law enforcement agencies will add to current program workload, we recommend denial of OCJP's budget request.
Background. The OCJP administers grants totaling over $175 million, including more than
$113 million in federal monies. The grants go to local law enforcement agencies, district
attorneys, rape and domestic violence crisis centers, local victim/witness programs, and a variety
of community-based organizations. These grants pay for services, salaries, and operating
Compliance Review Versus Evaluation. Each OCJP grant generally requires that the grantee provide data on the use of funds and requires financial audits. The OCJP grant specialist who awards the grant is also responsible for monitoring compliance with grant requirements. Auditors review financial expenditures. These types of reviews and audits measure an agency's compliance with grant requirements and regulations. The purpose of the financial audits is to ensure that grant funds are used for allowable expenses, but rarely do such audits determine whether the program being funded was effective.
As opposed to compliance reviews, a program evaluation is designed to determine (1) if grant objectives were achieved, (2) whether each of the elements of a grantee's program did or did not work, (3) whether funds expended were done so efficiently and obtained the best value, (4) whether the grantees succeeded in addressing the problem the grant was intended to solve, and (5) whether any of the lessons learned in the implementation of the grantee's program should be shared with other agencies facing similar problems.
Federal and State Emphasis on Program Evaluation. Federal grants to OCJP generally allow up to 5 percent of the total grant amount to be used for administrative expenses, including monitoring, evaluations, and audits. California has never used all of the amounts available for administrative expenses, preferring instead to increase grants to local agencies. While this policy does provide more funding to local agencies, it deprives federal, state, and local agencies from knowing whether grant funds were being used effectively and that lessons learned were being shared. The federal government, in its annual appropriations process and in directives from the federal Department of Justice, continues to emphasize the importance of evaluation of criminal justice programs. A recent major National Institute of Justice review of criminal justice programs noted the need for greater program evaluation, and recommended that 10 percent of every federal grant be set aside for evaluation.
The Legislature has also highlighted the need of determining which programs work and which do not. Almost every new prevention or criminal justice pilot program enacted in the last two years has required an evaluation component. With a proper evaluation, the state can be assured that funds are effectively used and that programs whose effectiveness is proven can be replicated statewide.
Little Program Evaluation From OCJP. The OCJP established a monitoring and program
evaluation branch in 1996, with six positions and an annual operating budget of $305,000.
We requested information on the branch's activities and the status of its evaluations. Since its establishment, the branch has contracted with academic institutions to produce feasibility studies on developing process measures for several federal grants. Currently, OCJP has $2 million in ongoing consultant contracts to primarily fund studies on whether measures can be developed to assess OCJP programs.
The work products produced so far, at a cost of over $958,500, have been research surveys and "concept proposals" for "outcome and impact evaluations." In addition, the OCJP informs us that it has conducted some training.
Thus, after significant expenditures, the OCJP has not evaluated any grantee programs nor does it seem to have any plans to do so in the near future. In response to our questions about its future evaluation work-plan, the branch informed us that its projects are "essentially process-focused and involve substantial research, planning, conceptualization, consultation and resource development. As a result, production of final products is not the primary focus of branch activities."
Conclusion. We recognize the importance of program evaluations in order to determine which programs work and which do not. Additionally, the importance of evaluation has been stressed at both the federal and state levels. The OCJP evaluation branch, however, is not evaluating grant programs and does not appear to be moving toward completing any reviews. This is not the result of insufficient resources, since the federal government allows a portion of its grant funds to be spent on evaluations.
Consequently, we recommend deletion of $305,000 proposed to support the monitoring and program evaluation branch. Our recommendation will not put in jeopardy any federal funds. In addition, ongoing contracts will not be affected because the branch is merely monitoring the contracts; the monitoring of contracts can be absorbed in OCJP's grant administration program.
Judiciary and Criminal Justice
|Reforming California's Adult Parole System|
|1. Caseloads Growing Steadily. Annual releases of parolees to state supervision, and the parole caseload, have grown significantly and have resulted in a greater workload for parole agents.||D-18|
|2. Many Parolees Returning to Prison. The number of parolees returning to prison is rising and aggravating already severe overcrowding in correctional facilities.||D-20|
|3. Board of Prison Terms' Policies Driving Up Return Rates. The parole board is increasing return-to-custody rates of parolees back to prison more frequently and for longer periods of time.||D-22|
|4. Substance Abuse Fueling Parolee Returns. An epidemic of substance abuse is prompting the return to custody of many parolees, yet few of them are receiving treatment or other program assistance to control their addiction.||D-24|
|5. Fiscal Impact of the Present Parole System. The present parole policies have been costly to the state.||D-26|
|6. New Parolee Classification System. Recommend that a new parole supervision strategy be based, if possible, on revised classification system now under development.||D-28|
|7. More Punishment Options Needed. Recommend that sanctions for parole violators be restructured to allow alternative forms of punishment for lesser violations by parolees posing little risk to public safety.||D-30|
|8. Interim Budget Actions. Recommend modifications to CDC parole division budget to begin implementing our recommended approach to reform the parole system.||D-33|
|The Increasing Role of the Federal Government
In California Law Enforcement
|9. Changing Federal Role. Recently, the federal government has become much more involved in law enforcement because of the additional funding provided to state and local law enforcement programs and increased resources and program changes made to federal law enforcement agencies.||D-34|
|10. Legislature Should Hold Hearings. Recommend that the Legislature hold hearings and request that federal law enforcement officials present information on how California will be affected by changing federal law enforcement priorities and increased federal presence in California. Also recommend that Legislature review proposed state-funded program increases in context of new federal funds, consider linkages with federal priorities, and monitor proposed federal juvenile justice reforms.||D-34|
|The Backlog of Death Penalty Appeals: An Update|
|11. Legislature Adopted Strategy to Reduce Backlog of Death Penalty Appeals. The Legislature took steps in 1997 to reduce the backlog of death penalty appeals, including expanding the role of the Office of the State Public Defender (OSPD), creating the California Habeas Resource Center (CHRC), and increasing hourly rates for private attorneys.||D-43|
|12. Continuing Oversight Needed. Recommend that OSPD report at budget hearings on the development of attorney training programs and the implementation of automated case management systems and attorney workload standards. Additionally, we recommend that CHRC, as part of its annual report to the Legislature, provide the same information.||D-48|
|California's Litigation Against the Tobacco Companies|
|13. California Sues the Tobacco Companies. The state sued the major tobacco companies in June 1997, seeking billions of dollars in damages for medical care for tobacco-related illness and violations of state law. It may be months or years before the case is resolved.||D-51|
|Youth and Adult Correctional Agency|
|14. Consolidate Internal Affairs Operations.Recommend legislation be enacted to centralize investigations of correctional employee misconduct with the Office of Inspector General and shift $6.2 million and 92.4 positions to the office from the Departments of Corrections and the Youth Authority.||D-60|
|Department of Corrections|
|Inmate and Parole Population Management Issues|
|15. Inmate and Parole Population Trends. The Governor's budget assumes that the prison population will increase significantly during the next five years at a rate that would have a significant impact on state expenditures.||D-68|
|16. Budget Adjustments for Caseload Growth.Withhold recommendation on the request of the California Department of Corrections (CDC) for $116 million to fund inmate and parole population increases, pending review of the revised budget proposal and population projections to be included in the May Revision.||D-72|
|17. 1998-99 Inmate Housing Plan. Reduce Item 5240-001-0001 by $9.3 Million. Withhold recommendation on the CDC plan for housing the projected increase in the prison population because of continued uncertainties about the inmate population projection, and recommend reduction reflecting a delay in contract beds and duplicate budgeting for some women inmates.||D-73|
|18. Population Forecast Has Implications for the Long Term. The administration has proposed to add new community correctional facility beds, four new prisons, and additional cells on the grounds of existing prisons to address the significant shortage of prison space facing the state beginning in the year 2000. We believe there is merit in adding some space to the||D-75|
|prison system but recommend that expansion of prison capacity be balanced with policy changes that reduce the inmate population growth rate.|
|Substance Abuse Treatment Issues|
|19. Civil Addict Program Expansion. Recommend legislation to encourage increase in the number of offenders participating in the program by restoring credits that reduce their time in prison and ensuring that more eligible offenders are identified.||D-76|
|20. Redirect Drug Interdiction Funds. Recommend denial of flawed plan to spend $1.1 million on experimental drug interdiction effort and redirection of the funds to expand proven in-prison drug treatment programs.||D-79|
|Correctional Program Issues|
|21. Inmate Academic and Work Programs. Reduce Item 5240-001-0001 by $500,000 and Establish New Item 5240-011-0678 in the Same Amount. Recommend broadening proposed review of inmate academic and work programs and funding study with surplus cash held by the Prison Industry Authority.||D-80|
|22. Funding for Administration and Other Operations.Reduce Item 5240-001-0001 by $11.7 Million. Withhold recommendation on $75.8 million for leased jail beds, local assistance, cadet training, buses, classification workload, and various administrative functions. Recommend reductions related to a pending labor agreement and auditing work.||D-82|
|23. Reforming the Parole System. Augment Item 5240-001-0001 by $1.5 Million. Recommend augmentation and redirection of $1.3 million proposed to process parole violation workload, to expand Preventing Parolee Failure program.||D-85|
|24. Reports Due to Legislature. Several reports by the CDC on significant correctional policy issues are due or scheduled for release later in the budget process.||D-86|
|25. Contract Medical Budget Adjustment Not Needed. Reduce Item 5240-001-0001 by $809,000.Recommend reduction because augmentation is not needed.||D-87|
|26. Mentally Ill Population Higher Than Expected.New prevalence data show that more inmates are seriously mentally ill than had been assumed in developing mental health delivery system. Almost twice as many inmates need Enhanced Outpatient Services than was expected in department's original plan.||D-88|
|Board of Corrections|
|27. Community Law Enforcement and Recovery Demonstration Project. Reduce Item 5430-102-0001 by $12.8 Million. Recommend reduction because expansion of project has not been justified.||D-90|
|Department of the Youth Authority|
|28. Ward Population Continues to Decline. The Youth Authority's institutional population decreased significantly again in the current year and it is projected to continue to decrease over the next several years until June 2001, and then increase slightly, changing from 8,315 wards at the end of the budget year to 8,520 wards in 2001-02. Also, Youth Authority parole populations are expected to decline in the budget year to about 5,625 parolees, and continuing to decrease to about 5,425 parolees by the end of 2001-02.||D-94|
|29. Ward and Parolee Population Projections Will Be Updated in May. Withhold recommendation on a $11 million decrease from the General Fund based on projected ward and parolee population changes, pending receipt and analysis of the revised budget proposal and population projections to be contained in the May Revision.||D-99|
|30. Fees Have Changed How Counties Use the Youth Authority. Legislation to increase the fees that counties pay to the state for commitment of juvenile offenders to the Youth Authority took effect January 1, 1997. Initial data, based on the first year of fees, show a significant decrease in new Youth Authority commitments, especially in those categories of wards for whom counties must pay higher fees.||D-99|
|31. Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Funds for Probation Departments to Increase. The budget will augment the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families subsidy for county probation department by $26 million to address increasing caseloads. These funds appear to offset any increased county costs of fees and allow for the creation of appropriate placements for offenders that previously would have been sent to the Youth Authority.||D-101|
|32. Supervising Parolees in the Community.Decreases in Youth Authority new commitments, changes in the types of wards committed, and ward length of stay in institutions will result in significant parole population decreases in future years. The Youth Authority should begin considering new models for handling decreasing caseloads.||D-103|
|33. Rehabilitation Programs. A report on Youth Authority program needs is due March 1, 1998. The report will show what rehabilitative programs are needed as the Youth Authority population changes. Recommend department report on results of assessment.||D-105|
|34. Continued Oversight Needed for Tattoo Removal Program. Recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language to limit the use of funds for tattoo removal because data on the costs or success of the program is limited.||D-105|
|35. Internal Affairs Positions Should Be Consolidated in Inspector General's Office.Recommend denial of the budget request for $274,000 from the General Fund to add four additional internal affairs investigators and that the Legislature consolidate internal affairs investigations in the Youth and Adult Correctional Agency.||D-107|
|Youthful Offender Parole Board|
|36. Changes in Youthful Offender Parole Board Workload to Be Updated in May. Withhold recommendation on budget request, pending new Department of the Youth Authority population projections in May.||D-108|
|Trial Court Funding|
|37. Trial Court Funding Restructuring. The new trial court funding restructuring measure will result in major new fiscal responsibility for the state, and significant fiscal relief to local governments.||D-114|
|38. Continuing Challenges of Governance and Accountability. Due to potentially significant cost increases for the Trial Court Funding Program in the future, it will be important for the Legislature to continue to monitor issues of governance and accountability.||D-114|
|39. Task Forces Created to Study Personnel and Facilities Issues. Two task forces are required to study the important issues of court personnel governance and responsibility for court facilities. While the final reports for these task forces will not be submitted to the Legislature for several years, the task forces will begin their work in the current year.||D-115|
|40. Council Is Changing Budget Development Process.The Judicial Council is proposing changes in the budget development process designed to retain local management of the trial courts while increasing accountability and focusing on outcomes.||D-116|
|41. Budget Proposes $50 Million for Growth.Recommend that the Legislature adopt supplemental report language directing the Judicial Council to report on how these funds are allocated among the trial courts.||D-118|
|42. Budget Proposes $50 Million for New Judicial Improvement Fund. Recommend that the Judicial Council report prior to budget hearings on the development of criteria for allocating monies from the fund, including information on the types of programs that will be funded.||D-119|
|43. Three Strikes Relief Teams Were Supposed to Be Limited Term. Reduce Item 0450-101-0932 by $3.5 Million and Item 0450-111-0001 by the Same Amount. Recommend a General Fund reduction of $3.5 million to eliminate funding for relief teams which will expire at the end of the current year.||D-120|
|44. New Trial Court Judgeships. Recommend the enactment of budget bill language ensuring that any funds not used for the new judgeships be reverted to the General Fund.||D-121|
|45. Trial Court Coordination Efforts Continue. The Judicial Council has made positive steps toward furthering the coordination of judicial and administrative resources in the trial courts. Given the state's new financial responsibility for trial courts and the potential savings resulting from coordination, we believe that it will be important for the council and the Legislature to continue to monitor implementation of the coordination requirements.||D-123|
|46. Uncertainties About Court-Appointed Counsel Program for Capital Cases. Withhold recommendation on $1.4 million from the General Fund for the Court-Appointed Counsel Program in the Supreme Court, pending receipt and review of updated caseload projections at the time of the May Revision.||D-125|
|47. Appellate Project Increase Not Justified.Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $498,000.Recommend a General Fund reduction for the Supreme Court Appellate Project because the proposed increase lacks justification.||D-126|
|48. Attorneys to Review Public Utilities Commission Matters Overbudgeted. Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $472,000. Recommend reduction of five attorney positions requested for review of Public Utilities Commission matters because the request is overbudgeted on a workload basis.||D-127|
|49. Temporary Law Clerks Program Should Be Limited Term. Proposal is meritorious, but should be limited to two years in order to evaluate its effectiveness. In addition, because of the high cost of the proposal in the second year, the Judicial Council should reevaluate the second-year component and submit an amended proposal to the Legislature prior to budget hearings.||D-128|
|50. Conference Center Support Unit Should Be Funded From Savings. Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $132,000. Recommend reduction requested for expanded conference center in the new Civic Center location because proposal can be funded from savings.||D-129|
|51. Trial Court Coordination Assistance Grant and Management System Requests Are Not Appropriate. Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $430,000. Recommend reduction because these programs should be funded through the allocation of funds from the Trial Court Funding budget item.||D-130|
|52. Current Budget Display Understates Assistance to the Trial Courts. Recommend that, prior to budget hearings, the Judicial Council report to the Legislature on the amount of local assistance to the trial courts in the Judicial budget item. Further recommend that the Legislature transfer local assistance funding located in the Judicial budget into the budget item for Trial Court Funding.||D-131|
|53. Personnel Services Issues. Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $887,000. Recommend reduction for personnel services in order to better reflect the hiring practices of the Judicial Council. In addition, recommend that prior to budget hearings, the Judicial Council prepare a staffing plan regarding positions for the Administrative Office of the Courts, which identifies vacant positions, and propose to fill or eliminate those vacant positions.||D-132|
|54. Appellate Court Security Was Supposed to Be Limited Term. Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $692,000.Recommend reduction to eliminate the augmented appellate court security program which will expire at the end of the current year.||D-134|
|55. Rent Request Overbudgeted. Reduce Item 0250-001-0001 by $6.5 Million. Recommend reduction requested because the funds will not be needed in the budget year.||D-135|
|Department of Justice|
|56. Uncertainties Surrounding 1997 Flood Litigation. Recommend budget bill language to ensure that funds are used for specified purposes.||D-136|
|Division of Law Enforcement|
|57. Effort to Combat Methamphetamine Depends on Federal Actions. Withhold recommendation on request for $18 million for implementation of the California Methamphetamine Strategy pending receipt of a report, prior to budget hearings, on how the Department of Justice (DOJ) will adjust for any change in federal funding, the status of its grant request for these federal funds, the mechanism for fund disbursement, and a schedule of when funds will be available.||D-138|
|58. New Witness Protection Program Needs Strict Accountability. Reduce Item 0820-101-0214 by $2 Million. Recommend amount requested for new program be reduced to the current-year level. Further recommend that the Legislature adopt budget bill language that establishes funding limits on program and requiring the Bureau of State Audits to annually audit claims to ensure strict accountability for program funds.||D-142|
|59. Legislation Needed for Foreign Prosecution Program. Recommend the enactment of legislation to (1) designate DOJ as the lead agency for all interactions with foreign governments and (2) direct the department to inform all local law enforcement agencies and district attorneys of the program and how the department might aid in prosecutions.||D-146|
|60. Oversight Needed for Unsolved Homicide Investigations Program. Recommend adoption of budget bill language specifying that the funds appropriated for the pilot project be used only for that purpose. Further recommend adoption of supplemental report language directing the department to report on the costs and results of the pilot program.||D-147|
|61. Equipment and Vehicle Replacement Should Not Be Included in Base Budget. Recommend approval of $2.4 million requested for laboratory equipment and vehicle replacement, but recommend that the Legislature direct the Departments of Justice and Finance not to include the amount in the baseline budget.||D-149|
|62. Backlog of Sex Offender DNA Tests Reduced, But Backlog Persists in Violent Offenders Tests.The DOJ has significantly reduced its backlogs in its sex offender DNA testing, but still has a substantial backlog of violent offender samples awaiting analysis. Recommend that the department submit a plan prior to budget hearings on what augmentations or redirections would be needed to reduce violent offender DNA backlogs, as well the department's view on an acceptable ongoing backlog.||D-150|
|Division of Criminal Justice Information Services|
|63. Live Scan Fingerprinting for School Employees Still Being Implemented. Withhold recommendation on $4 million from the Fingerprint Fees Account for placement of 100 live scan electronic fingerprint terminals statewide, pending finalization of the plan for placing the new machines.||D-152|
|64. Criminal History Backlogs Reduced. The DOJ has virtually eliminated its backlogs of criminal history disposition files for felonies and convictions, and inmate fingerprints. The only remaining backlog remains for misdemeanor dispositions and records of no conviction.||D-152|
|Office of Criminal Justice Planning|
|65. Augmentation for Surplus Military Equipment Program Not Justified. Reduce Item 8100-001-0001 by $144,000. Recommend reduction because request is not justified on a workload basis.||D-154|
|66. Eliminate Program Evaluation Branch. Reduce Item 8100-001-0001 by $305,000. Recommend elimination of Monitoring and Program Evaluation Branch, because the branch has not, and has no plans, to evaluate the effectiveness of Office of Criminal Justice Planning programs.||D-155|