Since 1999, Congress has expressed an interest in the organizational structure of the Department of Justice's (DOJ's) Office of Justice Programs (OJP). The 109th Congress is considering legislation (H.R. 3402) that would restructure OJP and create a new Office of Audit, Assessment and Management to more closely monitor grantee compliance with grant programs, among other things. On September 28, 2005, the House passed an amended H.R. 3402. OJP is the main agency within DOJ that awards grants to states, local, and tribal governments, as well as nonprofit organizations to help develop the country's capacity to prevent and control crime, improve criminal justice systems, increase knowledge about crime, and assist victims of crime. Since the 1990s, both the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and DOJ's Office of Inspector General (OIG) have reported on issues facing OJP with respect to managing and conducting sufficient evaluations of its grant programs. At issue is whether the current organizational structure of OJP is capable of properly managing its grant programs and monitoring grantee compliance with program requirements. The Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, FY2006-FY2009 (H.R. 3402; H.Rept. 109-233), would authorize appropriations for DOJ for FY2006 through FY2009. The bill would also codify the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program and the Community Capacity Development Office (CCDO). Furthermore, the bill would reauthorize and restructure grant programs under the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) office as well as grant programs under the Violence Against Women Office (VAWO). One of the more controversial provisions in the bill would seek to make DOJ grant programs more efficient by creating an Office of Audit, Assessment and Management. DOJ currently has two components that are tasked with monitoring the effectiveness and efficiency of its grant programs: grant managers and OIG. OJP grant managers, who are located in each of its bureaus and program offices, are charged with monitoring the grants made by their office; the OIG is charged with promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness within the department. The congressional proposal seeks to address reported shortcomings at OJP; however, several questions are raised with respect to the proposal. For example, while the bill would not restructure audit and performance measure activities under OJP's National Institute of Justice (NIJ) or the OIG, how would a newly created audit and performance office compliment the oversight functions of NIJ and OIG? Moreover, what would the role of OJP's grant managers be under the newly created office? This report will be updated as legislation warrants.