WASHINGTON – Sen. Chuck Grassley, Chairman of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control, announced today that he has sent a letter to John Walters, the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), questioning the administration of the Drug Free Communities grant program.
Grassley and Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, the Co-Chairman of the Drug Caucus, sent the letter after learning that more than 60 coalitions nationwide were de-funded and 88 were placed on probation for apparently arbitrary reasons. Grassley and Biden also asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate ONDCP’s grant award process.
"Drug Free Communities Grants have been very effective in helping communities organize to stop drug abuse and it’s troubling that some of these programs are being penalized for seemingly arbitrary reasons," Grassley said. "I hope ONDCP will reconsider its approach and give all the grant recipients a full and fair review."
The Drug Free Communities Grant Program awards grants to community coalitions for amounts up to $100,000 through a competitive grant award process. The focus of the program is on community coalitions that have 5-year strategic plans aimed at reducing substance abuse among youth, and over time, among adults, and coalitions that have provided an equal match for the funds that they seek. These community coalitions are to collaborate with other entities in the community including government agencies to coordinate and strengthen efforts to reduce substance abuse.
Iowa currently has 23 coalitions receiving Drug Free Community grants, 11 new programs received awards this year and 12 received continued funding. Two Iowa programs were de-funded.
"People are being destroyed by drug use throughout Iowa and across the country," Grassley said. "It’s critically important that effective programs continue to receive funds so they can continue to expand their efforts to address the substance abuse, crime, and violence facing young people."
Grassley first sponsored the Drug Free Communities Act in 1997. He took the lead to see that the legislation was reauthorized in 2001.
A copy of the letter Grassley and Biden sent to ONDCP is pasted below. The letter sent to the GAO is attached at the bottom of the letter.
October 18, 2005
The Honorable John Walters
Director
Office of National Drug Control Policy
750 17th St. NW
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Director Walters:
As two of the principle co-sponsors of the Drug Free Communities Act (the Act) we are writing to express our grave concern over how the Fiscal Year 2005 Drug Free Communities (DFC) grantee selection process was conducted by your office. Not only were at least 63 community anti-drug coalitions de-funded without any prior notice, but an additional 88 coalitions were placed on probation for reasons neither specified by nor intended by the Act. We are asking the Government Accountability Office to conduct a thorough review of the process of awarding grants for Fiscal Year 2005. We anticipate your full cooperation as this process moves forward.
Our findings thus far indicate the actions taken by your office were not fair, impartial or in accordance with the Act. We are shocked and dismayed that the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) would de-fund more than 60 coalitions and place 88 more on probation based on arbitrary reasons and without a transparent, fair process. While we have no complaint about ONDCP de-funding inadequate or unworthy programs, we have a real concern that a great number of hard working coalitions with impressive track records of results and solid peer review scores were de-funded in the process this year.
When ONDCP decided to shift the management of the DFC program from the Department of Justice to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) last year, there were repeated assurances to Capitol Hill and to DFC grantees that this would be a seamless transition. Instead, the transfer was wrought with confusion and many of the grantees were left with no conflicting guidance from ONDCP. The fact that more than 60 coalitions were de-funded without ever being notified that their grants were in jeopardy is extremely troublesome. Many of these coalitions had received recent site visits and were given positive evaluations just months, weeks, and in some cases, days prior to learning that they would no longer be funded. If these coalitions were not in compliance with the grant requirements, they should have been told this in their reviews and given time to come into compliance.
It is unclear how the grant review panel evaluated the applications. It seems that the process relied more on qualitative and subjective data than it did on the peer review scores that have guided the decision making process in past years. Further, it seems that the review panel placed extraordinary emphasis on ONDCP’s new mandate that no coalition spend more than 20 percent of its budget on direct services and, in fact, placed 88 coalitions on probation for violating this policy. Nowhere in the Act does it specify that coalitions are only permitted to use 20 percent of their DFC funds on direct services. We feel that this is an arbitrary rule that ONDCP decided to impose this year with the ultimate objective of reducing the number of grantees eligible for continuation funds.
Because we are the principle Senate co-sponsors of the DFC program and members of the Committee which has oversight over your office, we are concerned about the grant making process and feel that it is our obligation to understand exactly how the decisions were made. Accordingly, please provide us with the following information:
1. All peer review scores for the entire competition including: (1) those that applied for new grants, and were either awarded or denied funding; (2) those that applied for continuation grants (who were within their first five years of funding) and were either funded or de-funded; and (3) those continuation grantees placed on high-risk status.
2. All criteria used in addition to or in lieu of the peer review scores, to determine whether or not to fund new grantees.
3. All criteria used in addition to or in lieu of the peer review scores to determine whether or not to fund continuation grants.
4. All criteria used in addition to or in lieu of the peer review scores, to put continuation grantees on high-risk status.
5. Copies of all the specific data sheets and analysis for all continuation applicants that were funded or de-funded, indicating the specific reasons for the decision to fund or not to fund them.
6. Copies of all prior notices sent to de-funded coalitions, indicating they were out of compliance with one or more the requirements of the program preceding their funding termination.
7. A copy of any written notice to existing grantees of the newly imposed requirement that a maximum of 20 percent of the grant funds could be used for direct services.
8. The definition of "direct services" that was provided to the applicants.
9. Any written correspondence with Congress notifying them of the new 20 percent cap on direct services and that the application of this new requirement would be used to deny funding to new applicants, and to place continuations on high risk status with only 30 days to come into compliance.
10. The exact review criteria used by all reviewers, including peer reviewers and the panel that reviewed the continuations.
11. The names, titles, employment status and specific qualifications in community-based prevention or anti-drug coalitions of the panel that reviewed the continuations after they had already been peer reviewed.
12. The basis on which the decision was made to hold the continuation grantees to different criteria for funding than the new applicants.
13. The exact process used to determine which new applicants and continuations were over the 20 percent limit set for direct services.
14. The exact criteria used in the screening and grant review process to determine which continuations and new applicants were over the 20 percent limit.
15. The names and qualifications of the review team that determined which coalitions were within the 20 percent limit on direct services and which were not.
We look forward to receiving your responses to these important questions by October 28, 2005. We thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley
Joseph R. Biden, Jr.