U.S. Attorneys
Performance-Based Initiatives are Evolving Gao ID: GAO-04-422 May 28, 2004Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices represent the United States in criminal and civil matters across the nation. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires federal agencies, including DOJ, to set goals and objectives, measure performance, and report their accomplishments in order to move toward a performance-based environment. Integral to achieving these goals and objectives is strategic human capital management--the marshalling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government performance and achieve accountability. This report describes (1) how DOJ's strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses for monitoring the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices.
DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals and objectives applicable to its components, including U.S. Attorneys. Released in February 2004, DOJ's fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission showed the two strategic goals and seven strategic objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys. DOJ has developed performance measures for U.S. Attorneys' activities, and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is exploring ways to measure performance in individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. Performance measures covering U.S. Attorneys continue to evolve. DOJ's fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission included an outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably resolved--that is intended to show how U.S. Attorneys contribute to DOJ's overall mission. According to DOJ budget officials, these measures will be revised as DOJ gains more experience with performance-based budgeting. EOUSA is also developing performance initiatives, for example, implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun violence, which includes developing related performance measures. DOJ is undertaking initiatives to provide better tools for monitoring the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has redesigned its internal evaluation program and begun implementing a new process for collecting and analyzing information to assess each U.S. Attorneys Office's progress toward addressing DOJ's priorities and meeting performance expectations. According to DOJ officials, these tools will continue to evolve. DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate performance-based strategic human capital management into day-to-day operations, including those of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Among other things, EOUSA is exploring how to integrate DOJ strategic goals and objectives with individual performance expectations.
GAO-04-422, U.S. Attorneys: Performance-Based Initiatives are Evolving
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-422
entitled 'US Attorneys: Performance-Based Initiatives are Evolving'
which was released on June 18, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
May 2004:
U.S. ATTORNEYS:
Performance-Based Initiatives Are Evolving:
GAO-04-422:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-422, a report to congressional requesters
Why GAO Did This Study:
Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices
represent the United States in criminal and civil matters across the
nation. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993
requires federal agencies, including DOJ, to set goals and objectives,
measure performance, and report their accomplishments in order to move
toward a performance-based environment. Integral to achieving these
goals and objectives is strategic human capital management--the
marshalling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to
maximize government performance and achieve accountability.
This report describes (1) how DOJ‘s strategic goals and objectives
apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ‘s plans and efforts to develop
performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes
DOJ uses for monitoring the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and
(4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital management for
U.S. Attorneys Offices.
DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments.
What GAO Found:
DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals and objectives
applicable to its components, including U.S. Attorneys. Released in
February 2004, DOJ‘s fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission
showed the two strategic goals and seven strategic objectives
applicable to U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ‘s Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S.
Attorneys:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
DOJ has developed performance measures for U.S. Attorneys‘ activities,
and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is
exploring ways to measure performance in individual U.S. Attorneys
Offices. Performance measures covering U.S. Attorneys continue to
evolve. DOJ‘s fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission included
an outcome measure”percentage of cases favorably resolved”that is
intended to show how U.S. Attorneys contribute to DOJ‘s overall
mission. According to DOJ budget officials, these measures will be
revised as DOJ gains more experience with performance-based budgeting.
EOUSA is also developing performance initiatives, for example,
implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun violence, which includes
developing related performance measures.
DOJ is undertaking initiatives to provide better tools for monitoring
the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has redesigned its
internal evaluation program and begun implementing a new process for
collecting and analyzing information to assess each U.S. Attorneys
Office‘s progress toward addressing DOJ‘s priorities and meeting
performance expectations. According to DOJ officials, these tools will
continue to evolve.
DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate performance-based strategic
human capital management into day-to-day operations, including those
of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Among other things, EOUSA is exploring how
to integrate DOJ strategic goals and objectives with individual
performance expectations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-04-422
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones,
202-512-8777, Jonesp@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Results:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of
U.S Attorneys Offices:
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
Affecting DOJ and Its Components:
The Government Performance and Results Act:
The Performance and Budget Initiative:
Strategic Human Capital Management:
Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives
Applicable to U.S. Attorneys:
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving:
Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
Attorneys Offices Is Evolving:
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
Strategic Human Capital Management:
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
Attorneys about Various Management Issues:
Performance Goals and Measures:
Monitoring Cases and Matters:
Performance Evaluation:
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing:
Administrative Support:
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management:
Tables:
Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual
Performance Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 2004,
and Associated Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002,
2003, and 2004:
Table 2: DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That
Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, Appropriated, and
Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005:
Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys' Activities in DOJ's
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan:
Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for
Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, and White-Collar
Crime Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related
Activities and Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases:
Table 5: DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives:
Figures:
Figure 1: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for
U.S. Attorneys:
Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts:
Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output Goals and
Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal Structure:
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:
Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:
Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:
Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:
Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:
Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:
Abbreviations:
ATAC: Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council:
ATTF: Anti-terrorism Task Force:
ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives:
DEA: Drug Enforcement Agency:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DSES: District Self Evaluation Survey:
EARS: Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations:
EOUSA: Executive Office for United States Attorneys:
FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigation:
FTE: Full-time equivalent:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act:
JMD: Justice Management Division:
JTTF: Joint Terrorism Task Force:
MPS: Management and Planning Staff:
OIG: Office of Inspector General:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
PMA: President's Management Agenda:
PSN: Project Safe Neighborhoods:
United States General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
May 28, 2004:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.:
Chairman:
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.:
Ranking Member:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Chris Cannon:
Chairman:
The Honorable Melvin L. Watt:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:
Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
With the advent of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of
1993, federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), were
to move toward performance-based management. GPRA requires agencies to,
among other things, set goals, measure performance, and report on their
accomplishments in their annual performance plans and annual
performance reports. As a result of GPRA, DOJ has established a number
of goals broadly intended to show how DOJ will carry out its law
enforcement and administration of justice responsibilities. Within DOJ,
the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices represent the United States in civil and
criminal matters across the nation and its territories. U.S. Attorneys
Offices localize the national criminal justice presence, while serving
the different communities in which each is located. As the nation's
principal litigators, U.S. Attorneys' performance is critical to DOJ
achieving its goals and objectives under GPRA. Integral to achieving
these goals and objectives is strategic human capital management--the
marshaling, managing, and maintaining of the human capital needed to
maximize government performance and ensure accountability. In this
environment of increasing accountability and in light of the
responsibilities of the U.S. Attorneys, it is important for Members of
Congress to be able to understand how DOJ's strategic goals and
objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, what DOJ is doing to develop
performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, the tools DOJ uses
to monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and what
initiatives DOJ has undertaken to foster strategic human capital
management in U.S. Attorneys Offices.
This report is the third in a series of reports responding to your
request that we examine various aspects of the management of U.S.
Attorneys Offices.[Footnote 1] In this report, we describe (1) how DOJ
strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ's plans
and efforts to develop performance measures that apply to U.S.
Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of
U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic
human capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices.
To address our objectives, we performed work at DOJ, including the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Justice
Management Division (JMD), and 10 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, selected
primarily on the basis of geographic dispersion and office size. At
these locations, we interviewed officials and obtained documents on
strategic management and performance measurement issues, human capital
management, and basic operational issues in the context of laws,
regulations, and available guidance issued by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), DOJ, and
our best practices work. Our work at the 10 U.S. Attorneys Offices is
not generalizable to the universe of U.S Attorneys Offices. We also
surveyed 768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from across the 94
U.S. Attorneys Offices using a Web-based survey instrument. The survey
was designed to obtain supervisors' views on various aspects of
management and human capital issues affecting the offices in which they
worked. The survey represents the views of the 532 Supervisory
Assistant U.S. Attorneys who responded to our Web survey in early 2003.
We did our work between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I discusses
our scope and methodology in greater detail.
Background:
U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government
in criminal and civil proceedings. U.S. Attorneys investigate and
prosecute a wide range of criminal activities--including international
and domestic terrorism, corporate fraud, public corruption, violent
crime, and drug trafficking--and handle the majority of criminal cases
prosecuted by DOJ. They also initiate civil actions to protect the
interests of the United States, represent and defend the interests of
the government in lawsuits filed against the government, and collect
debts owed the federal government that are administratively
uncollectible. EOUSA provides the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices with
general executive assistance and direction, policy development,
administrative management direction and oversight, operational
support, and coordination with other components of the department and
other federal agencies.[Footnote 2] In fiscal year 2003, the budget for
U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5 billion to support approximately 5,000
attorneys and a similar number of support staff. (More detailed
information on the history, operations, and structure of U.S. Attorneys
Offices can be found in app. II.)
U.S. Attorneys are not required to engage in strategic planning or
performance planning under GPRA, but according to EOUSA's Director,
U.S. Attorneys are required to contribute information to their parent
agency, DOJ, so that DOJ can fulfill its GPRA requirements. GPRA's main
documents are strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. Together, these documents create a recurring cycle
of planning, program execution, and reporting, thereby providing
federal agencies the basis to manage for results. OMB Circular A-11
lays out guidelines for agencies to follow when implementing GPRA.
According to Circular A-11, strategic plans provide the framework for
implementing GPRA and set out an agency's course of action and
accomplishment over the long term. Strategic plans are to include,
among other things, strategic or general goals that are statements of
aim or purpose defined in a manner that allows a future assessment to
be made on whether the goal was or is being achieved.
Complementing strategic plans are annual performance plans that set
forth performance goals.[Footnote 3] According to Circular A-11,
performance goals define targeted levels of performance against which
actual achievements can be compared and can either be outcome goals--
which describe the intended result, effect, or consequence that will
occur from carrying out a program or activity--or output goals--which
describe the level of activity or effort that will be produced over a
period of time or by a specified date. A performance measure is a
particular value or characteristic used to measure output or outcome.
To complete the cycle, annual performance reports provide information
on actual performance compared to the projected performance levels or
targets, defined by annual performance goals. (More detailed
information on GPRA, Circular A-11, and governmentwide management and
performance initiatives can be found in app. III.)
Results:
As required by GPRA, DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals
and objectives that apply to the activities of its components,
including the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ's Strategic Plan for
2001 through 2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan presented 8
strategic goals and 38 strategic objectives--6 of these strategic goals
and 12 of the strategic objectives involved the use of U.S. Attorneys'
resources. For fiscal years 2003 through 2008, DOJ has drafted, but had
not yet released as of March 2004, a new departmentwide strategic plan
that DOJ officials told us would consolidate many of the strategic
goals and objectives in the previous strategic plan. DOJ's Fiscal Year
2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional Submission showed
2 strategic goals and 7 strategic objectives that will apply to U.S.
Attorneys' activities. For example, the budget submission includes a
strategic goal--prevent terrorism and promote the nation's security--
and one of the strategic objectives for that goal is to prevent,
disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur. (App. IV
provides a more detailed discussion of how DOJ strategic goals and
objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys' activities.)
Figure 1: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for
U.S. Attorneys:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
DOJ has developed performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys'
activities, and EOUSA is exploring ways to measure performance in
individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance
Plan included performance measures applicable to U.S. Attorneys, which
focused on selected areas, such as antiterrorism, civil litigation, and
witness assistance, but did not cover activities related to violent
crime, drugs, and other areas, such as fraud and corruption.
Performance measures covering U.S. Attorneys' activities continued to
evolve and, in its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission,
DOJ included an outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably
resolved--that is intended to show how U.S. Attorneys contribute to
DOJ's overall mission. According to DOJ officials, the performance
measures for U.S. Attorneys and the format for presenting these
measures will continue to evolve and will be revised as DOJ gains more
experience with performance-based budgeting. In the meantime, EOUSA and
individual U.S. Attorneys Offices have also been developing ways to
measure performance in U.S. Attorneys Offices. For example, EOUSA has
begun the process to engage a contractor to design performance measures
that will link U.S. Attorneys Office activities to the overall U.S.
Attorneys' budget; EOUSA has funded one district's efforts to develop
its own strategic plan to help it measure districtwide performance; and
EOUSA and individual U.S. Attorneys' Offices are implementing a DOJ
initiative to curb gun violence, which includes developing related
performance measures. (App. V provides a more detailed discussion on
DOJ's and EOUSA's efforts to establish performance measures of U.S.
Attorney activities.)
DOJ is making revisions to an ongoing internal evaluation program and
developing a performance reporting process that are intended to provide
DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys better tools for monitoring the
performance of U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Specifically:
* EOUSA has redesigned its ongoing internal evaluation program for U.S.
Attorneys Offices to focus more attention on "critical areas of
management and performance," such as strategic planning, senior
management operations, and DOJ's priority programs (e.g.,
antiterrorism, violent crimes and drugs, and civil rights
prosecutions). As of February 2004, EOUSA had not completed all
elements of the redesign, but our review of guidance issued by EOUSA as
part of this redesign showed attention to results oriented management,
including strategic planning and performance management. EOUSA
officials also told us that they had made additional changes to the
guidance and would continue to do so during the remainder of fiscal
year 2004.
* EOUSA has begun to implement a process for collecting from U.S.
Attorneys Offices information "based on qualitative and quantitative
measures," regarding their efforts to meet DOJ's performance and
management expectations. As EOUSA gains more experience, this process
and the information being required from each U.S. Attorney's Office
continues to evolve. We compared EOUSA's original template for
collecting 2002 information and its revised draft template for
collecting 2003 information. Our analysis showed that the latest draft
guidelines were more specific and targeted than the earlier version.
EOUSA officials told us that it may be difficult to develop a
quantitative measure, because the factors affecting how each U.S.
Attorney's Office could best meet an objective vary according to local
situations.
(App. VI provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ's efforts to
monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices.)
As part of its efforts to move toward performance-based management,
generally, DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate strategic human
capital management into the day-to-day operations of EOUSA and U.S.
Attorneys Offices. Specifically, in September 2002, DOJ published its
Human Capital Strategic Plan. The plan applied to personnel in DOJ's
components, such as the U.S. Attorneys, and was linked to its overall
Strategic Plan. Subsequently, however, DOJ's Inspector General and OMB
identified human capital challenges facing DOJ, for example, DOJ's
ability to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees
in many areas of operation. DOJ's Director of Personnel told us that
DOJ is currently taking steps to move forward with its human capital
efforts, including, for example, developing a new employee appraisal
system. In addition to DOJ's departmentwide efforts, EOUSA is
considering its own human capital initiatives, including hiring an
experienced manager to lead EOUSA's human capital management effort.
EOUSA is also working with U.S. Attorneys to develop new management
training that is expected to include course work on individual
performance management and organizational strategic planning. EOUSA is
also working with the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Middle District of
Tennessee to develop the prototype for a new appraisal format that is
to link individual performance with organizational goals and
objectives. (App. VII provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ's and
EOUSA's efforts to integrate strategic human capital management into
day-to-day operations.)
Concluding Observations:
U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government
and localize the national criminal justice presence in communities
across the country. The performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is
critical to DOJ achieving its strategic goals and objectives. DOJ,
EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys have taken or are considering various steps
that are designed to move U.S. Attorneys Offices toward a more results
oriented, performance-based environment consistent with GPRA and
governmentwide efforts to strategically manage human capital. However,
many initiatives are not yet complete and some are in the early
planning stages. DOJ's, EOUSA's, and U.S. Attorneys' efforts thus far
appear to be steps in the right direction. However, these initiatives
will continue to evolve and they bear watching to help ensure that DOJ,
EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys take advantage of their momentum and build on
the progress already made.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
On May 3, 2004, we requested comments on a draft of this report from
the Attorney General. On May 19, 2004, DOJ officials informed us that
the agency had no comments on the report. DOJ provided technical
comments that we have incorporated where appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 21 days
after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to other interested congressional committees and to the Attorney
General. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In
addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions, please contact me or John F. Mortin,
Assistant Director, at (202) 512-8777. You may also contact me by e-
mail at jonespl@gao.gov or Mr. Mortin at mortinj@gao.gov. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix IX.
Signed by:
Paul L. Jones, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Our objectives in this report were to describe (1) how Department of
Justice (DOJ) strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys,
(2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance measures that apply
to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses to monitor the
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move
toward strategic human capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices.
We performed our work at DOJ, including the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the Justice Management Division (JMD) in
Washington, D.C. We also performed work at 10 selected U.S. Attorneys
Offices--the districts of Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, and South
Carolina; the Southern District of Indiana; the Western District of
Washington; the Central District of California; the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania; the Western District of Texas; and the Eastern District
of Virginia. We selected the 10 offices primarily to achieve geographic
dispersion and a mix of office sizes.[Footnote 4] In making our final
selections, we focused on districts where a U.S. Attorney had been
appointed. At each of the 10 offices, we met with the U.S. Attorney and
his or her key managers and using a standardized data collection
instrument, we discussed issues and collected documents pertaining to
strategic and performance planning, performance measurement, and goal
setting; office and staff accountability; and human capital, including
the allocation of human capital resources and recruiting and retention
for attorneys and support staff. Our work at the 10 selected offices is
not generalizable to the universe of U.S. Attorneys Offices. In
addition, we obtained and reviewed reports and Web-based material on
the overall management of DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys Offices; and
laws and regulations governing DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorney
operations. Furthermore, we obtained and reviewed relevant laws,
regulations, and reports pertaining to the implementation of the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, performance and
budget integration, and human capital strategic management.
To describe (1) how DOJ strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S.
Attorneys and (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance
measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, we reviewed DOJ's Strategic Plan
for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan,
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan. We also examined the U.S. Attorney's
congressional budget submission for fiscal year 2004, submitted to
Congress in February 2003, and its fiscal year 2005 congressional
budget submission, submitted in February 2004, as part of the
President's budget. We reviewed these documents in the context of GPRA
and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, which provides
guidance on (1) agency strategic and performance planning and reporting
related to GPRA and (2) developing a performance-based budget under the
President's performance and budget initiative. We also interviewed
officials at DOJ, including JMD, EOUSA, and the 10 selected U.S.
Attorneys Offices and obtained available documents on DOJ's and EOUSA's
efforts to (1) develop performance measures for U.S. Attorneys and
their offices and (2) link performance measures for U.S. Attorneys'
performance to the U.S. Attorney's budget. In addition, we reviewed our
past reports that addressed strategic and performance planning,
including measuring performance, at DOJ and at other agencies
throughout the federal government. Furthermore, we examined reports by
DOJ's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the top management
challenges facing DOJ for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 pertaining
to performance measurement and strategic planning and reviewed
available OMB documents on federal agency efforts to implement the
performance and budget initiative under the President's Management
Agenda (PMA).
To describe the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S.
Attorneys Offices, we interviewed officials at EOUSA and the 10
selected offices and obtained and reviewed available documentation on
the strategies, policies, procedures, and practices used to assess the
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and plans to develop new or
revise existing performance assessment initiatives. We then discussed
our examination of these documents with EOUSA officials to further gain
an understanding of their efforts.
To describe DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital
management for U.S. Attorneys Offices, we reviewed our reports, and OMB
and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines on strategic human
capital management.[Footnote 5] We also interviewed officials at JMD,
EOUSA, and the 10 selected U.S. Attorneys Offices and obtained and
analyzed documentation on their efforts to develop policies,
procedures, and practices for adopting and implementing DOJ's and
EOUSA's human capital strategies. In addition, we obtained and analyzed
management challenge reports issued by DOJ's OIG and examined OMB
budget documents and reports that discussed DOJ's progress implementing
its human capital initiative. Furthermore, we discussed OIG and OMB
comments about DOJ's efforts with its Director of Personnel.
To supplement our efforts on performance management and human capital
issues, we also designed and implemented a Web-based survey of the
universe of 768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in each of the 94
U.S. Attorneys Offices covering various topics related to the
management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. We developed the survey to obtain
the supervisors perceptions of key management topics pertaining to
performance goals and measurement and aspects of U.S. Attorney's human
capital framework, particularly workforce planning and training and
staff development. To implement our survey, we obtained a list of the
universe of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from EOUSA and worked
with EOUSA officials to ensure that the list accurately reflected all
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in supervisory positions as of January 2003.
To ensure that we obtained the highest response rate possible, we made
the Web-based survey available to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
from January 8, 2003, through February 28, 2003, and sent reminders via
e-mail and telephone calls to supervisors. While the overall response
rate was relatively high (70 percent overall), not all supervisors who
completed the surveys provided responses to all the appropriate
questions. We did not independently verify the accuracy or completeness
of responses provided from the survey. Moreover, the responses
presented in this report reflect the views of Supervisory Assistant
U.S. Attorneys in early 2003, at the time the survey was conducted.
Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For
example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in
the sources of information that are available to respondents, or in how
the data are entered into a database or were analyzed, can introduce
unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps in the
development of the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data
analysis to minimize these nonsampling errors. For example, social
science survey specialists designed the questionnaire in collaboration
with our staff with subject matter expertise. Then, the draft
questionnaire was pretested with a number of Supervisory U.S. Attorneys
to ensure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, and easy to
comprehend. When the data were analyzed, a second, independent analyst
checked all computer programs. Since this was a Web-based survey,
respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic
questionnaire. This eliminates the need to have the data keyed into a
database, thus removing an additional source of error.
Our work was performed between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of
U.S Attorneys Offices:
U.S. Attorneys, the principal litigators for the federal government in
criminal and civil proceedings are, by statute, under supervisory
control of the Attorney General. Since the earliest days of the
nation's history, U.S. Attorneys have prosecuted cases in the federal
judicial districts. The Judiciary Act of 1789 directed the President to
appoint an attorney for each federal judicial district to prosecute all
crimes and offenses against the United States and all civil actions in
which the United States was concerned.[Footnote 6] At that time, U.S.
Attorneys prosecuted only crimes specifically mentioned in the
Constitution, such as piracy, treason, and counterfeiting. Today, under
Title 28 U.S.C. 547, U.S. Attorneys prosecute criminal cases brought by
the federal government; prosecute and defend civil cases in which the
United States is a party; and collect debts owed the federal government
that are administratively uncollectible.
Following the passage of the Judiciary Act, U.S. Attorneys functioned
until 1820 without supervision by any executive agency. At that time,
Congress paved the way for some central oversight of U.S. Attorneys by
giving the President power to designate an officer within the
Department of the Treasury to oversee U.S. Attorneys' activities.
Authority over U.S. Attorneys then shifted to the Attorney General in
1870 when the Department of Justice (DOJ) was established. Since then,
U.S. Attorneys have served at the direction of the Attorney General. As
the head of DOJ, the Attorney General is to supervise all litigation to
which the United States is a party and direct all U.S. Attorneys and
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the discharge of their duties. While DOJ
participates in the appointment process for each U.S. Attorney by
recommending to the President the names of qualified nominees, each is
a presidential appointee, confirmed by the Senate, and serves as the
chief federal law enforcement official in their communities. As such,
they serve to "localize" the national government's criminal justice's
presence. Consequently, although the Attorney General supervises U.S.
Attorneys, they also serve the different and diverse communities to
which they are appointed. According to the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys (EOUSA), a degree of tension will always exist between
the local and national mandates of U.S. Attorneys.[Footnote 7]
EOUSA was established in 1953 in the Office of the Deputy Attorney
General. Among other things, EOUSA provides general executive
assistance to the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices and is responsible for
preparing the U.S. Attorneys congressional budget submission and
providing oversight and operational support. EOUSA also facilitates
coordination between U.S. Attorneys Offices and other federal agencies
and other DOJ components,[Footnote 8] including:
* litigating divisions---such as the Civil Division, Criminal Division,
the Civil Rights Division, and the Antitrust Division--which, along
with U.S. Attorneys, enforce federal criminal and civil laws, including
civil rights, tax, antitrust, environmental, and civil justice
statutes;
* investigative agencies--including the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)--which prevent and
deter crime and arrest criminal suspects;[Footnote 9] and:
* the Justice Management Division (JMD) which, among other things,
provides (1) assistance to senior DOJ managers, on various
organizational, management, and administrative issues and (2) direct
support to DOJ offices, boards, and divisions on such things as
personnel, accounting, and budget matters.
According to DOJ's fiscal year 2004 budget submission for U.S.
Attorneys, U.S. Attorneys Offices handle about 95 percent of the
criminal cases prosecuted by DOJ. U.S. Attorneys receive most of their
criminal referrals, or "matters," from federal investigative agencies
or become aware of criminal activities in the course of investigating
or prosecuting other cases. In addition, they receive criminal matters
from state and local investigative agencies or, occasionally, from
citizens. Once a matter is received, the U.S. Attorney's Office decides
the appropriateness of bringing criminal charges and, if deemed
appropriate, initiates prosecutions. Except for misdemeanor offenses
and instances in which an alleged offender waives the right to a grand
jury indictment, the U.S. Attorney presents evidence against an alleged
offender to a grand jury. If the grand jury decides to return an
indictment, the U.S. Attorney presents the criminal charges in open
court during criminal arraignment. In its fiscal year 2005
congressional budget submission, DOJ reported that during fiscal year
2003, U.S. Attorneys Offices received 102,563 criminal matters. The
offices reviewed and declined to bring charges on a total of 39,172
criminal matters during the year and filed 59,998 criminal cases
against 81,624 defendants in U.S. District Court.
U.S. Attorneys also initiate civil actions--called affirmative
litigation--to assert and protect the interests of the United States
and defend the interests of the government in lawsuits filed against
the United States--referred to as defensive litigation. DOJ reported in
its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission that of all the
civil cases pending as of the end of fiscal year 2003, 74 percent were
defensive litigation. DOJ also stated that civil matters and cases
represented a significant portion of U.S. Attorneys Offices' workload,
reporting in its 2005 congressional budget submission that by the end
of fiscal year 2003, pending civil cases represented 64 percent of the
176,587 pending criminal and civil cases in U.S. Attorneys Offices.
The fiscal year 2004 appropriation for U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5
billion to support approximately 5,000 attorneys and a similar number
of support staff. Almost all these attorneys and staff worked in the 94
federal judicial districts throughout the 50 states, the District of
Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the
Virgin Islands.[Footnote 10]
Figure 2 shows the boundaries of each of the 94 U.S. Attorney
Districts.
Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Key to U.S. Attorney Districts:
AK - District of Alaska;
ALM - Middle District of Alabama;
ALN - Northern District of Alabama;
ALS - Southern District of Alabama;
ARE --Eastern District of Arkansas;
ARW - Western District of Arkansas;
AZ - District of Arizona;
CAC - Central District of California;
CAE - Eastern District of California;
CAN - Northern District of California;
CAS - Southern District of California;
CO --District of Colorado;
CT - District of Connecticut;
DC - District of Columbia;
DE - District of Delaware;
FLM - Middle District of Florida;
FLN - Northern District of Florida;
FLS - Southern District of Florida;
GAM - Middle District of Georgia;
GAN - Northern District of Georgia;
GAS - Southern District of Georgia;
GU--District of Guam;
HI --District of Hawaii;
IAN - Northern District of Iowa;
IAS --Southern District of Iowa;
ID - District of Idaho;
ILC - Central District of Illinois;
ILN - Northern District of Illinois;
ILS - Southern District of Illinois;
INN - Northern District of Indiana;
INS - Southern District of Indiana;
KS - District of Kansas;
KYE - Eastern District of Kentucky;
KYW - Western District of Kentucky;
LAE--Eastern District of Louisiana;
LAM - Middle District of Louisiana;
LAW - Western District of Louisiana;
MA - District of Massachusetts;
MD - District of Maryland;
ME - District of Maine;
MIE - Eastern District of Michigan;
MIW - Western District of Michigan;
MN - District of Minnesota;
MOE - Eastern District of Missouri;
MOW - Western District of Missouri;
MSN - Northern District of Mississippi;
MSS - Southern District of Mississippi;
MT - District of Montana;
NCE - Eastern District of North Carolina;
NCM - Middle District of North Carolina;
NCW - Western District of North Carolina;
ND - District of North Dakota;
NE - District of Nebraska;
NH - District of New Hampshire;
NJ - District of New Jersey;
NM - District of New Mexico;
NMI - District of the Northern Marianas Islands;
NV - District of Nevada;
NYE - Eastern District of New York;
NYN - Northern District of New York;
NYS - Southern District of New York;
NYW - Western District of New York;
OHN - Northern District of Ohio;
OHS - Southern District of Ohio;
OKE - Eastern District of Oklahoma;
OKN - Northern District of Oklahoma;
OKW - Western District of Oklahoma;
OR - District of Oregon;
PAE - Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
PAM - Middle District of Pennsylvania;
PAW - Western District of Pennsylvania;
PR - District of Puerto Rico;
RI - District of Rhode Island;
SC - District of South Carolina;
SD - District of South Dakota;
TNE - Eastern District of Tennessee;
TNM - Middle District of Tennessee;
TNW - Western District of Tennessee;
TXE - Eastern District of Texas;
TXN - Northern District of Texas;
TXS - Southern District of Texas;
TXW - Western District of Texas;
UT - District of Utah;
VAE - Eastern District of Virginia;
VAW - Western District of Virginia;
VI - District of the Virgin Islands;
VT - District of Vermont;
WAE - Eastern District of Washington;
WAW - Western District of Washington;
WIE - Eastern District of Wisconsin;
WIW - Western District of Wisconsin;
WVN - Northern District of West Virginia;
WVS - Southern District of West Virginia;
WY - District of Wyoming.
Source: U.S. Attorneys Web page.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
Affecting DOJ and Its Components:
Since the mid-1990s, the federal government has implemented various
initiatives to improve the management and performance of federal
agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its components.
The Government Performance and Results Act:
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993[Footnote 11]
seeks to improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of
federal programs by mandating that agencies set goals for program
performance and measure results. Under GPRA, agencies are required to
develop strategic plans that identify their long-range goals and
objectives; annual performance plans that set forth annual goals and
indicators of performance; and annual performance reports that describe
the actual levels of performance achieved compared to the annual goal.
These plans and reports are designed to define a course to improve the
performance of government programs and operations and are intended to
show what is being accomplished with the money that is being spent.
GPRA plans and reports are developed for use by:
* agency officials and staff in leading, managing, and carrying out
federal programs and activities;
* the President and Congress when forming programmatic and policy
decisions and for oversight; and:
* the public for information on the purpose and effectiveness of
programs and activities and the resources spent in conducting them.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 provides guidelines
for agencies to follow when developing GPRA plans and reports.
According to the July 2002 A-11 Circular,[Footnote 12] strategic plans
are to include general goals, which define how an agency is to carry
out its mission over time. These general goals are to be expressed to
allow for a future assessment of whether the goal was or is being
achieved. Strategic plans can also include strategic objectives--
statements of aim or purpose, which are not directly measurable, but
can be used to group general goals.
Annual performance plans are to contain performance goals, performance
objectives, and performance measures or indicators that target levels
of performance. Annual performance goals are to be expressed as
tangible, measurable objectives against which achievement can be
compared. Performance goals are to be either (1) outcome goals, which
describe intended results, effects, or consequences that were expected
to occur from carrying out a program or activity or (2) output goals,
which measure what an agency is to produce. Agencies are instructed by
OMB Circular A-11 that performance goals and indicators typically are
to have a numerical target level or other measurable value, which
facilitates the future assessment of whether the goals and indicators
were actually achieved.
Finally, annual performance reports are to provide information on
agencies' actual performance and their progress in achieving the goals
and objectives in the strategic plan and annual performance plan.
Actual performance is to be compared to the projected performance
levels or targets in the annual performance plan. Where target levels
are not achieved, the agency is to explain why and describe the steps
to be taken to accomplish goals in the future. According to Circular A-
11, agencies may combine performance reports with performance plans.
Under GPRA and OMB Circular A-11, only agencies, such as DOJ, and not
components of agencies, such as U.S. Attorneys, are required to prepare
strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports. However,
strategic plans are to focus on those programs and activities, like
those of U.S. Attorneys, that help agencies carry out their mission,
and annual performance plans are to link agencies daily operations to
the broad goals and objectives in the strategic plans.
The Performance and Budget Initiative:
Related to GPRA is the Performance and Budget Initiative. In the summer
of 2001, the President announced that agencies would be required to
integrate their budgets with performance information to provide a
greater focus on performance and increase the value and use of program
performance information in resource and management decisions.[Footnote
13] Beginning with the budget for fiscal year 2005, OMB requires
agencies to prepare a performance budget in lieu of the performance
plan. According to the latest OMB Circular A-11, dated July 2003, the
performance budget is supposed to satisfy all statutory requirements
for the annual performance plan required by GPRA.
Under the July 2003 OMB Circular A-11, strategic goals are to be paired
with related long-term performance goals (outcomes) and annual
performance goals (mainly outputs); target levels of performance are to
be set for performance goals. According to the Circular, resources and
organizational efforts should be directly linked to outputs, and the
resources and outputs should be summed to outcomes. Figure 3 uses a
pyramid, developed by OMB, to illustrate the relationship between
strategic, outcome, and output goals and resources under OMB's fully
integrated goal structure.
Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output Goals and
Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal Structure:
[See PDF for image]
[A] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
OMB has also begun to link performance and the budget process under its
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Using PART, OMB has been rating
programs in four areas--program design, strategic planning, program
management, and program results--and intends to use the results of
these assessments during the budget review process to diagnose how
programs can be improved and to inform budget and management
decisions.[Footnote 14] According to OMB Circular A-11, PART
assessments will span all executive branch programs over the next
several years. In addition, OMB has established a quarterly rating
system to grade agency (1) progress and (2) status in meeting the
President's Management Agenda (PMA). Budget and performance integration
is one of the five initiatives in PMA, which uses a score card to
reflect progress: a score of red indicates that the initiative is in
serious jeopardy; a score of yellow indicates that there is slippage in
the implementation schedule requiring adjustments by the agency to
achieve the initiative on a timely basis; and a score of green
indicates that implementation is proceeding according to plans. For
OMB's status score, red indicates that the agency's efforts has any of
a number of serious flaws; yellow indicates that the agency has met
some, but not all of the criteria or standards for success; and green
indicates that the agency meets all of the standards for success.
Strategic Human Capital Management:
Related to the government's overall effort to improve the management
and performance of federal agencies is strategic human capital
management. In January 2001, we designated strategic human capital
management as a governmentwide high-risk area.[Footnote 15] In January
2003, we reported that the basic problem, which continues today, has
been the long-standing lack of a consistent approach to marshaling,
managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize
government performance and ensure accountability.[Footnote 16] In our
January 2003 report, we stated that two principles are central to human
capital management:
* People are assets whose value can be enhanced through investment. As
with any investment, the goal is to maximize value while managing risk.
* An organization's human capital approaches should be designed,
implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the
organization achieve and pursue its mission.
We also said that agencies face challenges in four key areas:
* Leadership: Top leadership in the agencies must provide the committed
and inspired attention needed to address human capital and related
organizational transformation issues.
* Strategic human capital planning: Agencies human capital planning
efforts need to be more fully and demonstrably integrated with mission
and critical program goals.
* Acquiring, developing, and retaining talent: Additional efforts are
needed to improve recruiting, hiring, professional development, and
retention strategies to ensure that agencies have the needed talent.
* Results oriented organizational cultures: Agencies continue to lack
organizational cultures that promote high performance and
accountability and empower and include employees in setting and
accomplishing programmatic goals.
Various GAO products on strategic human capital management are listed
at the end of this report.
Strategic human capital management has also been designated as one of
the five governmentwide initiatives under PMA. The Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) is leading the federal government's strategic
management of human capital initiative. Among other things, OPM is
responsible for developing tools and providing support to help agencies
succeed in their human capital transformation efforts. Similar to the
performance and budget integration initiative, OMB has been grading
agency progress and status on strategic human capital management using
a red, green, and yellow scoring system.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives
Applicable to U.S. Attorneys:
As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of
1993, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed departmentwide
strategic goals and objectives that apply to the activities of its
components, including U.S. Attorneys. DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal
Years 2001 through 2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan
identified 6 of 8 strategic goals, and 12 of 38 long-term strategic
objectives that applied to the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ has
drafted a new departmentwide strategic plan for fiscal years 2003
through 2008 that is expected to consolidate many of the strategic
goals and objectives in the previous strategic plan it will replace.
DOJ's fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, which,
according to DOJ, corresponds to its new strategic plan,[Footnote 17]
showed that 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic objectives are to apply
to U.S. Attorneys' activities.
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 Strategic Plan Included
Strategic Goals and Objectives That Applied to U.S. Attorneys'
Activities:
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8
strategic goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ's Fiscal
Year 2004 Performance Plan listed 38 annual performance goals that were
identical to DOJ's 38 long-term strategic objectives. These strategic
objectives/annual performance goals were presented in the context of
DOJ budget activities and, among other things, showed the resources--
Full-time equivalents (FTEs) and dollars--by component organization,
needed to address them.[Footnote 18] For example, DOJ's Fiscal Year
2004 Performance Plan showed that to address DOJ's annual performance
goal 2.1--reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent
crime, especially as it stems from the illegal use of guns or from
organized criminal enterprises--DOJ expected that it would use 12,624
FTEs from various components, including the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI), the Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorneys, at a
cost of about $1.9 billion during fiscal year 2004. U.S. Attorneys were
expected to contribute 1,751 FTEs and $238 million toward this effort.
The plan identified U.S. Attorneys as key players engaged in addressing
various strategic objectives/annual performance goals. DOJ's Fiscal
Year 2004 Performance Plan, showed that 6 of 8 annual strategic goals
and 12 of 38 strategic objectives/annual performance goals involved the
use of U.S. Attorneys' resources in meeting DOJ's mission. Table 1
shows the 6 DOJ strategic goals and the 12 strategic objectives/annual
performance goals that, according to DOJ's fiscal year 2004 Performance
Plan, involved the use of U.S. Attorney resources.
Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual
Performance Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 2004,
and Associated Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002,
2003, and 2004:
Dollars in millions.
DOJ strategic goal[A]: 1. Protect America against the threat of terrorism.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 1.1 Prevent
terrorism--Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before
they occur; 1.2 Investigate terrorist acts--Develop and implement the
full range of resources available to investigate terrorist incidents,
bringing their perpetrators to justice;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 15;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $2;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 55;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $7;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 55;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $7.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 1.3 Prosecute
terrorist acts--Vigorously prosecute those who have committed, or
intend to commit, terrorist acts against the United States;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 281;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $63;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 463;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $61;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 463;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $61.
DOJ strategic goal[A]: 2. Enforce federal criminal laws.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 2.1 Violent Crime--
Reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime,
especially as it stems from illegal use of guns or from organized
criminal enterprise;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 1,661;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $219;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 1,720;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $228;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 1,751;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $238.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 2.2 Drugs--Reduce
the threat, trafficking, and related violence of illegal drugs by
identifying, disrupting, and dismantling drug trafficking
organizations;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 2,725;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $359;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 2,869;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $380;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 2,916;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $395.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 2.4 White-collar
crime--Combat white-collar crime and economic crime, especially
cybercrime;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 2,644;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $348;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 2,798;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $370;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 2,844;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $384.
DOJ strategic goal[A]: 3. Prevent and reduce crime and violence by
assisting state, tribal, local, and community-based programs.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 3.1 Law
enforcement--Improve the crime fighting and criminal justice
administration capabilities of state, tribal, and local governments;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 20;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $3;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 22;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $3;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 22;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $3.
DOJ strategic goal[A]: 4. Protect the rights and interests of the
American people by legal representation, enforcement of federal laws,
and defense of U.S. interests.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 4.1 Civil rights--
Uphold the civil rights of all Americans, reduce racial
discrimination, and promote reconciliation through vigorous
enforcement of civil rights laws;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 18;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $2;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 19;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $3;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 19;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $3.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 4.2 Environment--
Promote the stewardship of America's environment and natural resources
through the enforcement and defense of environmental laws and programs;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 62;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $8;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 67;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $9;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 67;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $9.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 4.5 Civil laws--
Effectively represent the interests of the United States in all civil
matters for which DOJ has jurisdiction;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 2,418;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $306;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 2,610;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $346;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 2,656;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $358.
DOJ strategic goal[A]: 5. Fairly and effectively administer the
immigration and naturalization laws of the United States.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 5.1. Enforcement--
Secure America's borders, especially to reduce the incidence of alien
smuggling;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 435;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $47;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 470;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $62;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 470;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $62.
DOJ strategic goal[A]: 7. Protect the federal judiciary and provide
critical support to the federal justice system to ensure it operates
effectively.
DOJ strategic objective/annual performance goal[A]: 7.2 Victims rights-
-Protect the rights of crime victims and assist them in moving through
the processes of the federal justice system;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 258;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $31;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 279;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $37;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 279;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $37.
Total;
Fiscal year 2002: FTE[B]: 10,537;
Fiscal year 2002: Actual dollars: $1,388;
Fiscal year 2003: FTE[B]: 11,372;
Fiscal year 2003: Requested dollars: $1,506;
Fiscal year 2004: FTE[B]: 11,542;
Fiscal year 2004: Requested dollars: $1,557.
Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report &
Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004
Performance Plan.
[A] DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8
strategic goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ's Fiscal
Year 2004 Performance Plan discussed 38 annual performance goals that
were identical to DOJ's 38 long-term strategic objectives.
[B] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of table]
JMD officials told us that DOJ's strategic plan is produced using what
they described as a "top down" approach to strategic planning. Under
this approach, DOJ's Strategic Plan Executive Working Group, composed
of officials from the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy
Attorney General, and the Associate Attorney General, and other DOJ
offices, identifies strategic goals and objectives. JMD's Management
and Planning Staff (MPS) solicits components, including EOUSA, for
background, strategies, and other input supporting the goals and
objectives that affect their organizations, and develops a draft
strategic plan. The draft plan is reviewed by the Executive Working
Group and presented to DOJ's Strategic Management Council, which
represents DOJ's key components, for concurrence before the Attorney
General approves it. In February 2004, JMD officials told us that EOUSA
was currently providing JMD input toward the development of DOJ's
fiscal years 2003 through 2008 strategic plan.
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Congressional Budget Submission Includes Revised
Strategic Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. Attorneys Activities:
JMD officials said that EOUSA had recently provided JMD input toward
the development of DOJ's Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 Strategic Plan,
which had not been issued as of March 2004. However, JMD officials said
that the new strategic goals and objectives applicable to U.S.
Attorneys were published in the Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget
United States Attorneys Congressional Submission, which is organized to
better conform with OMB Circular A-11 regarding performance and budget
integration.
JMD officials told us that the new strategic plan would substantively
be similar to DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006
and they had consolidated strategic goals and objectives resulting in
fewer goals and objectives than in the previous plan. In fact, the
fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, published in February
2004, shows that U.S. Attorneys will play a role in 2 strategic goals
and 7 strategic objectives, as compared with 6 goals and 12 objectives
in the previous plan.[Footnote 19] Specifically, during fiscal year
2005, U.S. Attorneys are expected to need about $70.6 million and 534
FTEs toward achieving DOJ's new strategic goal I--Prevent Terrorism and
Promote the Nation's Security. Also, during fiscal year 2005, U.S.
Attorneys are expected to need $1,476.9 billion and 11,156 FTEs toward
achieving DOJ's new strategic goal II--Enforce Federal Laws and
Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People. Like the
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, the Fiscal Year 2005 Performance
Budget United States Attorneys Congressional Submission provided a
breakdown of budgetary resources (FTEs and dollars) by strategic
objective. Table 2 shows the 2 strategic goals and 7 objectives in
which U.S. Attorneys play a role, as discussed in DOJ's Fiscal Year
2005 Performance Budget United States Attorneys Congressional
Submission, and the associated budgetary resources for Fiscal Years
2003, 2004, and 2005.
Table 2: DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That
Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, Appropriated, and
Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005:
Dollars in millions.
DOJ strategic goal: 1. Prevent terrorism and promote the nation's
security.
DOJ strategic objective: 1.1 Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist
operations before they occur;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 53;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $7;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 53;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $7;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 53;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $7.
DOJ strategic objective: 1.2 Investigate and prosecute those who have
committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts in the United States;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 448;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $61;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 448;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $59;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 481;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $64.
DOJ strategic goal: 2. Enforce federal laws and represent the rights
and interests of the American people.
DOJ strategic objective: 2.1 Reduce the threat, incidence, and
prevalence of violent crime, including crimes against children;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 3,219;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $435;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 3,453;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $456;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 3,473;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $459.
DOJ strategic objective: 2.2 Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and
related violence of illegal drugs;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 2,398;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $324;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 2,464;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $326;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 2,551;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $337.
DOJ strategic objective: 2.3 Combat white-collar, economic crime, and
cybercrime;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 2,622;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $354;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 2,697;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $356;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 2,701;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $357.
DOJ strategic objective: 2.4 Uphold the civil and Constitutional rights
of all Americans, and protect vulnerable members of society;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 19;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $3;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 19;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $2;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 19;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $2.
DOJ strategic objective: 2.5 Enforce federal statutes, uphold the rule
of law, and vigorously represent the interests of the United States in
all matters for which the Department has jurisdiction;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 2,295;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $323;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 2,406;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $318;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 2,421;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $320.
Totals[B];
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: FTE[A]: 11,054;
Fiscal year 2003 actual obligations: Dollars: $1,506;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: FTE[A]: 11,540;
Fiscal year 2004 appropriations with rescissions: Dollars: $1,525;
Fiscal year 2005 request: FTE[A]: 11,699;
Fiscal year 2005 request: Dollars: $1,548.
Source: DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget for U.S. Attorneys,
Congressional Submission:
[A] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[B] Totals may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving:
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) performance measures for U.S.
Attorneys are evolving. U.S. Attorneys performance measures included in
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan focused on selected areas, such
as antiterrorism, but did not cover activities, such as violent crime
and drugs. Responding to a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
initiative requiring agencies to develop performance-based budgets, DOJ
included an outcome-oriented performance measure--percentage of cases
favorably resolved--in its U.S. Attorneys' fiscal year 2005
congressional budget submission. According to DOJ officials, the
performance measures for U.S. Attorneys and the format for presenting
them will continue to evolve and will be revised, as DOJ gains more
experience with performance-based budgeting. In addition to DOJ's
efforts, the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and
some U.S. Attorneys Offices have also undertaken initiatives directed
toward measuring U.S. Attorneys' performance.
U.S. Attorney Performance Measures in Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan
Were Focused on Some U.S. Attorney Activities:
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan contained performance measures
for some U.S. Attorneys activities, but the measures did not capture
the full scope of U.S. Attorneys responsibilities. Our analysis of
DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan showed that it contained 88
performance measures that applied across DOJ's components, although
most applied to the activities of DOJ components other than U.S.
Attorneys, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Office of Justice
Programs. Specifically, our review of the plan showed that 3 of the 88
performance measures applied exclusively to the activities of U.S.
Attorneys; another 5 measures applied to U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ
litigating components. Activities covered by the relevant performance
measures included antiterrorism, criminal and civil environmental
crime, civil litigation, witness assistance, and alternative dispute
resolution. Other areas including violent crime, drugs, and some white-
collar crime such as fraud and public corruption, did not have related
performance measures for U.S. Attorneys. Table 3 shows the performance
measures that applied to the activities of U.S. Attorneys by strategic
goal and strategic objective/annual performance goal for fiscal year
2004.
Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys' Activities in DOJ's
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan:
Strategic goal: Strategic goal I--Protect America against the threat of
terrorism:
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Develop and implement the
full range of resources available to investigate terrorist incidents,
bringing their perpetrators to justice and vigorously prosecute those
who have committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts against the
United States;
Performance measure: Terrorist-related convictions;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: N/A[A].
Strategic goal: Strategic goal II--Enforce federal criminal laws:
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Combat white-collar crime
and economic crime, especially cybercrime;
Performance measure: Percent of criminal environmental and wildlife
cases successfully litigated;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Environment and
Natural Resources Division;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 80%.
Strategic goal: Strategic goal IV--Protect the rights and interests of
the American people by legal representation.
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Promote the stewardship of
America's environment and natural resources through the enforcement and
defense of environmental laws and programs;
Performance measure: Percent of civil environmental cases successfully
resolved;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Environment and
Natural Resources Division;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 80% affirmative;
75% defensive.
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Effectively represent the
interests of the United States in all civil matters for which the DOJ
has jurisdiction;
Performance measure: Percent of favorable resolutions in civil cases;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 80%.
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Effectively represent the
interests of the United States in all civil matters for which the DOJ
has jurisdiction;
Performance measure: Percent of favorable resolutions in civil
immigration cases;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 85%.
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Effectively represent the
interests of the United States in all civil matters for which the DOJ
has jurisdiction;
Performance measure: Percentage of cases resolved using alternative
dispute resolution;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys and the Civil Division, the
Civil Rights Division, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and
the Tax Division;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 65%.
Strategic goal: Strategic goal VII--Protect the federal judiciary and
provide critical support to the federal justice system to ensure it
operates effectively.
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Protect the rights of
crime victims and assist them in moving through the processes of the
federal justice system;
Performance measure: Victims receiving assistance;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 100%.
Strategic objective/annual performance goal: Protect the rights of
crime victims and assist them in moving through the processes of the
federal justice system;
Performance measure: Witnesses receiving emergency assistance;
Responsible DOJ components: U.S. Attorneys;
Fiscal year 2004 performance target: 100%.
Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic
Plan and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2003 Final
Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan.
[A] According to DOJ, targeted levels of performance were not projected
for this indicator. JMD officials said that there are a few measures in
the performance plan that are included for lack of better or more
informative measures.
[End of table]
According to JMD officials, DOJ's annual performance plan, which was
prepared by JMD's Budget Staff, included "the highest level" or most
outcome-oriented performance measures related to DOJ's strategic goals
and objectives. They said that DOJ components, including EOUSA for U.S.
Attorneys, developed most proposed measures and DOJ Budget Staff
selected from the proposed measures those that were to be included in
the performance plan. Officials said that in winnowing down the
potential measures, Budget Staff considered whether the measure was
outcome oriented; represented a large amount of DOJ resources; and was
of such importance that it warranted inclusion, even if it represented
a small program. They said they also considered the quality and
validity of data to be used to measure performance.
JMD officials told us that U.S. Attorneys followed the same general
approach in developing their performance measures as other DOJ
components. However, EOUSA and JMD officials pointed out that U.S.
Attorneys have a unique role in the law enforcement process. They said
that U.S. Attorneys prosecute cases investigated by federal law
enforcement agencies within DOJ, including FBI and ATF, and those from
many other departments, such as Customs and Border Protection in the
Department of Homeland Security, the Postal Inspection Service, and the
Internal Revenue Service. They also pointed out that U.S. Attorneys
work with federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations to
establish strategies for dealing with particular crimes confronting
local jurisdictions.
EOUSA and JMD officials also explained that, while it can be argued
that the U.S. Attorneys have considerable influence over local crime
efforts, it can also be argued that the investigating components have
considerable influence over particular types of crime investigated, and
each (the U.S. Attorneys and investigating components) is dependent
upon the other for success. They added that, given the complexity of
the U.S. Attorney's role in the law enforcement process, it would be
difficult to develop measures that capture all U.S. Attorney
activities. These officials further stated that U.S. Attorney
performance outcomes are, therefore, often reflected in the outcomes
associated with other DOJ components, such as FBI, and, by the
litigating components within the department that have policy-level
responsibility for particular areas of the law, such as the Criminal
Section of the Civil Rights Division in human trafficking cases.
DOJ Has Begun to Revise U.S. Attorney Performance Measures in Line with
New Performance Budget Format:
As part of its effort to implement OMB guidelines on performance and
budget integration, DOJ has been revising U.S. Attorney performance
measures. According to OMB's July 2003 Circular A-11, a performance
budget consists of a performance oriented framework, within which, at a
minimum, resources were to be aligned at the program level, and
agencies were encouraged to align resources at the performance goal
level. In addition, agencies were to include a comparison of (1) total
program benefits and total program costs, using quantitative, objective
data to the maximum extent possible, as well as qualitative or
judgmental material and (2) the marginal benefits and the marginal
costs associated with the additional funds or reduced funding proposed.
To address these new requirements, DOJ redesigned the performance and
resources tables included in its fiscal year 2004 and 2005
congressional budget submissions.
DOJ's Redesigned Performance and Resources Tables for its Fiscal Year
2004 Congressional Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys:
For its fiscal year 2004 congressional budget submission for U.S.
Attorneys, DOJ used a revised format to present its performance and
resources tables. Following this format, DOJ grouped the 12 strategic
objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys from the Fiscal Year 2001
through 2006 Strategic Plan into 5 program activities[Footnote 20]--
antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crimes, white-collar crime,
civil litigation, and training. The 5 program activities and their
corresponding strategic objectives were placed under three groups
called decision units--criminal, civil, and legal education. The
criminal decision unit covered 3 program activities--antiterrorism,
violent and trafficking crime, and white-collar crime; the civil
decision unit covered 1 program activity--civil litigation; and the
legal education decision unit covered 1 program activity--training. For
each of the 5 program activities, DOJ showed the number of U.S.
Attorney FTEs and related budgetary resources used during fiscal year
2002, projected to be used for fiscal year 2003, and requested for
fiscal year 2004. Under the criminal decision unit, DOJ also showed
actual and projected data, categorized by DOJ as performance measures,
for activities involving defendants (i.e., prosecuted and guilty) for
various types of crime, including terrorism, violent crime, white-
collar crime, and other crimes. For the civil decision unit, DOJ showed
the number of affirmative and civil defense cases filed and the number
and percentage of favorable judgments. For the legal education decision
unit, DOJ showed the number of DOJ and non-DOJ students trained. The
performance and resources tables in the fiscal year 2004 budget
submission for U.S. Attorneys provided placeholders, but no
information, for outcome measures associated with the 3 decision units.
Figures 4, 5, and 6 reprint the performance and resources tables for
each of the three decision units in the fiscal year 2004 congressional
budget submission for U.S. Attorneys.
Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget
Submission for U.S. Attorneys:
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget
Submission for U.S. Attorneys:
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget
Submission for U.S. Attorneys.
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget
Submission for U.S. Attorneys:
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
According to JMD officials, the tables presented in the 2004
congressional budget submission were based on a template used for all
DOJ component agencies. One JMD official, responsible for preparing
DOJ's congressional budget submission for its component agencies,
including U.S. Attorneys, told us that DOJ had developed the format and
aligned selected strategic objectives for each DOJ component in order
to comply with OMB Circular A-11 budget and performance integration
requirements. The JMD official further explained that in order to
develop the tables and help it categorize the major program activities
and the key performance measures that applied to each component, JMD
officials worked with component agencies, for example, EOUSA in the
case of U.S. Attorneys.
DOJ's Performance and Resources Tables in Fiscal Year 2005
Congressional Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys Continued to Evolve:
For its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission for U.S.
Attorneys, DOJ used the new performance and resources table format and
included more performance information, in keeping with OMB's directive
that agencies present their fiscal year 2005 budgets as their annual
performance plans. As in its fiscal year 2004 submission for U.S.
Attorneys, DOJ grouped the applicable strategic goals and objectives
under the 3 decision units--criminal, civil, and legal education. As
discussed earlier, DOJ identified 7 strategic objectives for U.S.
Attorneys (replacing the 12 used in the fiscal year 2004 budget) that
are to be published in DOJ's new strategic plan. DOJ also reduced the
number of program activities from 5 to 4. Specifically, the criminal
decision unit had 2 program activities--1 for antiterrorism and 1 new
program activity that combined violent crime, drug trafficking, and
white-collar crime; the civil decision unit had 1 program activity---
civil litigation; and the legal education unit had 1 program activity-
-training. DOJ reported U.S. Attorney FTEs and related budgetary
resources used during fiscal year 2003, projected to be used for fiscal
year 2004, and requested for fiscal year 2005 for each program
activity.
As in DOJ's 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys, its fiscal year
2005 submission included data for each decision unit, grouped under the
heading performance measures, for example, defendant-related activity
for the criminal decision unit. In addition, the fiscal year 2005
submission presented an outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably
resolved--with data for the criminal and civil decision units. For the
criminal decision unit, it showed that U.S. Attorneys had achieved a
favorable resolution in 91.7 percent of criminal cases during fiscal
year 2003 and expected to achieve a favorable resolution in 91.6
percent of criminal cases-its target--during fiscal years 2004 and
2005. Under the civil decision unit, DOJ reported that U.S. Attorneys
had achieved a favorable resolution for 85.6 percent of civil cases
during fiscal year 2003 and was expecting to achieve a favorable
resolution in its target of 85.6 percent of civil cases in fiscal years
2004 and 2005. No outcome measure was included for the legal education
decision unit. Figures 7, 8, and 9 reprint the performance and resource
tables for U.S. Attorneys from the fiscal year 2005 congressional
budget submission.
Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
Attorneys--Criminal Decision Unit:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Budget Submission:
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
Attorneys--Civil Decision Unit:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Budget Submission:
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
Attorneys--Legal Education Decision Unit:
[See PDF for image]
Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Budget Submission:
Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE)
employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of figure]
In a February 2004 meeting on the U.S. Attorneys' fiscal year 2005
congressional budget submissions, JMD and EOUSA budget officials
explained to us changes in DOJ's 2005 budget tables for U.S. Attorneys.
The officials said that the 2005 submission did not include some of the
goals and measures that appeared in the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance
Plan, such as U.S. Attorney measures related to victim assistance,
because DOJ had streamlined its goals and objectives, focusing on
primary mission areas, in accordance with OMB instructions. They added
that DOJ would like all of its litigating units to focus on their
contributions to DOJ's overall mission.
These officials said that DOJ's outcome measure--percentage of cases
favorably resolved--included in the U.S. Attorneys' budget submission
was designed to apply to all of DOJ's litigating units. However, the
officials also noted that the fiscal year 2005 budget table for a
component does not always present an outcome measure for an activity in
which it is involved. For example, the officials pointed out that the
U.S. Attorney budget table does not present an outcome measure for
terrorism even though U.S. Attorneys are involved in DOJ antiterrorism
efforts; rather the outcome for terrorism is included in the FBI
performance table. They said that in future years DOJ will attempt to
cross-reference the performance of one component with another in those
instances where outcomes were linked; for example, future budget tables
for U.S. Attorneys would likely include a cross-reference showing that
their efforts contributed to the FBI's antiterrorist outcome.
With regard to the legal education decision unit, JMD and EOUSA
officials told us that DOJ considered not including it as a decision
unit for U.S. Attorneys, because other components view training as a
support function and do not include it as a budget decision unit.
However, DOJ decided to include it as a decision unit for U.S.
Attorneys because of the importance of legal education to DOJ's
success. However, they did not include an outcome measure because they
consider legal education to be a support function.
Unclear What DOJ Is Measuring in Its Fiscal Year 2005 U.S. Attorney
Performance and Resources Tables:
As mentioned earlier, one of the President's goals for requiring
agencies to integrate their budgets with performance information was to
increase the value and use of program performance information in
resource and management decisions. Although DOJ has taken steps to
integrate budget and performance information in its fiscal year 2005
budget submission, it is not always clear what DOJ is trying to measure
in the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney performance and resources tables.
Specifically, when analyzing the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney
congressional budget submission, we observed that for one of the two
program activities under the criminal decision unit, DOJ used data on
defendants--"total defendants terminated"[Footnote 21] and guilty--to
show year-to-year changes in the level of U.S. Attorney activity.
Categorized as performance measures, these data showed numbers for the
total "defendants terminated" and defendants found guilty in fiscal
years 2003, 2004, and 2005. Excerpted from the fiscal year 2005 U.S.
Attorney congressional budget submission, table 4 shows how DOJ
presented the defendant-related data for the program activity--violent
crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar crime.
Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for
Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, and White-Collar
Crime Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related
Activities and Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases:
Dollars in thousands.
Program activity[A] --violent crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar
crime;
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): FTE[B]: 8,208;
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $1,089,087;
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): FTE[B]: 8,583;
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $1,114,848;
Requested (total 2005 request): FTE[B]: 8,694;
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $1,126,523.
Performance measures: Total defendants terminated;
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $75,189;
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $78,718;
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $79,733.
Performance measures: Total defendants guilty;
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $68,960;
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $72,105;
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $73,075.
Outcome: Percentage of cases favorably resolved;
Planned (fiscal year 2003 actual): Dollars: $91.7%;
Projected (2004 appropriation with recissions): Dollars: $91.6%;
Requested (total 2005 request): Dollars: $91.6%.
Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys
Congressional Budget Submission.
[A] Program activity in this table refers to program activities as
related DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives.
[B] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[End of table]
We observed that for the program activity violent crime, drug
trafficking, and white-collar crimes, DOJ calculated its outcome
measure--percentage of cases favorably resolved--using data on
defendants. However, DOJ failed to explain that the number of cases can
differ from the number of defendants, because an individual case can
have multiple defendants. Specifically, our analysis of the tables
showed that, for each of the 3 years covered by the congressional
budget submission, DOJ used the number of defendants guilty divided by
defendants terminated--the rate of conviction[Footnote 22]---to
calculate the percentage of cases actually or expected to be favorably
resolved. For example, for fiscal year 2003, total defendants guilty
(68,960) divided by total defendants terminated (75,189) equals 91.7
percent, the same percentage as that reported for cases favorably
resolved. For fiscal year 2005, total defendants guilty (73,075)
divided by total defendants terminated (79,733) equaled 91.6 percent,
the same number reported as the expected percentage of cases favorably
resolved for that fiscal year.
JMD and EOUSA budget officials confirmed that for the U.S. Attorneys'
criminal decision unit program activities, the target percentage for
the outcome measure--percentage of cases favorably resolved--was based
on historical data on defendants (the conviction rate) but that a
precise relationship did not necessarily exist between defendants and
cases. For example, they said that in cases with multiple defendants,
the case outcome would still be categorized as favorable when some, but
not all, defendants were convicted. These officials also said that, in
the future, JMD and EOUSA would likely consider using a less precise
percentage for the U.S. Attorney's outcome measure in order to avoid
confusion about the relationship between cases and defendants.
The JMD and EOUSA officials emphasized that the outcome measure--
percentage of cases favorably resolved--was used to enable all DOJ's
litigating components to use a single outcome measure. They further
explained that while all the litigating units were using a single
outcome measure, the data currently used by each component were not
standardized and, therefore, each component might have used different
data to establish its performance targets. For example, while U.S.
Attorneys used conviction data for its violent crime, drug trafficking,
and white-collar crime program activity to determine percentage of
cases favorably resolved, on the civil side, they used data on
settlements and judgments in favor of the United States to determine
the percentage of cases favorably resolved.
We also asked these officials whether the fiscal year 2004 and 2005
data on total defendants terminated and guilty, as presented in the
tables, were performance targets. They said that these data were not
targets to be achieved, but were presented in this format only for
budgetary purposes to indicate actual or expected activity based on
budgetary increases requested. They said that in future budgets DOJ
would clarify that data on defendants were not to be considered as
targets. They further indicated that in the future the congressional
budget submission presentation would likely be changed and "cleaned up"
as DOJ gained more experience.
EOUSA is Considering Other Ways to Measure Results of U.S. Attorneys
Offices' Activities:
EOUSA is considering other ways to address performance measurement
issues and establish results oriented performance measures for U.S.
Attorneys Offices. According to EOUSA officials, these efforts are
intended to bring EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys in line with DOJ's overall
efforts to integrate performance and the budget and advance performance
measurement within DOJ. EOUSA's initiatives are summarized as follows:
* Performance Measurement for Budget and Performance Integration: EOUSA
has taken initial steps to develop performance measures that can link
the activities of U.S. Attorneys offices to the budget. Specifically,
as of September 2003, EOUSA had begun the process for engaging a
contractor to provide technical assistance in developing performance
measures for U.S. Attorneys Offices and their activities. EOUSA's
statement of work, dated April 2003, called for the development of
performance measures for individual U.S. Attorneys Offices and an
overall national "roll-up" measure, based on the individual measures,
for use by EOUSA as input to DOJ's Performance Plan and Report.
According to EOUSA, this initiative should assist in the development of
an overall plan to enhance performance and accountability in U.S
Attorneys Offices and also help EOUSA develop measures that are linked
to DOJ's overall ongoing efforts to measure performance. In February
2004, the EOUSA Deputy Director told us that EOUSA may not have the
resources to award the contract in fiscal year 2004.
* Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in U.S. Attorney
Districts: According to EOUSA, some U.S. Attorneys Offices have
developed, or are developing, strategic plans, and EOUSA is considering
how one office's efforts to do strategic planning and performance
measurement might be used in other districts. Specifically, EOUSA,
working with the Western District of Washington, has begun to examine
how strategic planning and associated performance measures developed by
that district could be applied to other U.S. Attorneys Offices. During
the latter part of 2002, the U.S. Attorneys Office, with funding from
EOUSA, hired a strategic planning consultant to assist the Western
District of Washington in piloting a community strategy
process.[Footnote 23] As of May 2003, the District had completed a
strategic plan, which included strategic goals and strategies, but it
had not developed specific indicators and targets in support of the
strategy. In addition, information provided by EOUSA in September and
November 2003 also indicated that two other districts--the Western
District of Michigan and the Eastern District of Kentucky--had, in
recent years, developed strategic plans containing strategic goals and
objectives. According to EOUSA officials, the Western District of
Washington was awaiting funds from EOUSA in order to continue the
district's strategic planning effort, but EOUSA may not have the funds
to support the effort and the district may have to provide its own
funding.
* Project Safe Neighborhoods: U.S. Attorneys Offices are also working
with local communities to develop performance measures related to
reducing gun crime through a multiyear DOJ commitment, called Project
Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). PSN requires each U.S. Attorneys Office to
support, promote, and implement a comprehensive gun violence reduction
program within each local district. It includes establishing a
communitywide strategic plan to combat gun violence and awarding
research grants in each district to measure the impact of PSN in
reducing gun violence. DOJ is currently, working with the Michigan
State University to examine how data gathered in each district can be
used to measure performance in combating gun crime.
* EOUSA's Strategic Planning And Performance Measurement: EOUSA has
also developed its own strategic plan, which establishes 5 strategic
goals and articulates strategies and activities for accomplishing those
goals. Among other things, the plan calls for the development of
performance measures for some goals. For example, one of EOUSA's
strategic goals (strategic goal 4) was to satisfy the current emerging
budgetary and financial management needs of EOUSA and the U.S.
Attorneys Offices. Under this goal, EOUSA budget staff responsible for
working with other DOJ components on budget and performance measurement
issues were to implement a performance measures pilot project to
develop outcome-based measures for three top-priority areas--
counterterrorism, gun crimes, and corporate fraud.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
Attorneys Offices Is Evolving:
The Department of Justice's (DOJ) approach to monitoring the
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is evolving. In November 2001,
the Deputy Attorney General announced a plan to improve DOJ's ability
to assess U.S. Attorneys' efforts to address the Attorney General's
priorities and meet management and performance expectations. One aspect
of the plan was the enhancement of U.S. Attorneys long-standing
internal evaluation program, Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations--
called EARS evaluations---to increase its effectiveness as a management
tool.[Footnote 24] A second component of the plan was to communicate to
U.S. Attorneys the information necessary to support DOJ's priorities
and implement sound management. A third and related aspect of the plan
was the introduction of a new process for collecting and analyzing
information to assess each U.S. Attorneys' Office progress toward
addressing priorities and meeting the performance expectations of the
Attorney General. At the time of our review, DOJ had implemented some,
but not all, of its planned steps to enhance its ability to assess the
performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and these efforts continue to
evolve.
EOUSA Has Begun to Change Internal Reviews to Emphasize Performance and
Management Issues, but Changes Are Not Complete:
In response to the Deputy Attorney General's management plan, the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) has begun to make
changes to its internal evaluation program--otherwise known as EARS
reviews--that are intended to enhance DOJ's ability to assess the
performance and management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. These changes
focus on such topics as strategic planning, senior management
operations, relations with law enforcement and the judiciary, case and
personnel management, and DOJ's priority programs (e.g., antiterrorism,
violent crimes and drugs, and civil rights prosecutions). During our
review, EOUSA had not yet completed making all of the changes announced
by the Deputy Attorney General.
Under 28 C.F.R. Part 0.22, EOUSA is to evaluate the performance of the
U.S. Attorneys Offices, make appropriate reports, and take corrective
actions if necessary. EOUSA's EARS staff is responsible for the ongoing
evaluation program. According to EOUSA, the EARS program is an internal
review program designed, among other things, to examine management
controls and prevent waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation
in federal programs, as required under the Federal Managers Financial
Integrity Act.[Footnote 25] EARS evaluations are conducted in each of
the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices every 3 years by teams of experienced
Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and administrative and financial litigation
personnel from other U.S. Attorneys Offices.
In a November 2001 memorandum that outlined DOJ's plans to enhance its
ability to assess the performance of U.S. Attorney's Offices, the
Deputy Attorney General noted that EARS evaluations had effectively
diagnosed the strengths and weaknesses of each office, but they had
been underutilized as a management tool. He stated that he, therefore,
would direct EOUSA to redesign EARS to, among other things,
* focus more attention on "critical areas of management and
performance;"
* institute a "red flag" system for identifying and reacting to
particularly vexing issues identified during evaluations whereby senior
EOUSA officials and/or Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are experts in
specific areas would provide quick assistance and support to the
district under evaluation; and:
* establish management consulting as a primary responsibility of the
EARS staff who, up to that time, had been primarily occupied with
evaluations and their follow-up and had little time to provide advice
and assistance to U.S. Attorneys.
As of February 2004, EOUSA had not, however, completed its redesign of
the EARS evaluation program. Consequently, we were unable to fully
assess how the redesign is likely to affect EOUSA's ability to evaluate
the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Key elements of the
redesigned EARS have not been implemented. For example, as of February
2004, EOUSA had not put into operation the "red flag" program for its
legal evaluations. As part of the management consulting program called
for by the Deputy Attorney General, EOUSA officials said that some
"road shows" had been developed to provide specialized on-site training
sessions on various management issues for individual U.S. Attorneys
Offices and some informal consulting with offices was taking place, but
EOUSA was still working on more refined management training for
supervisory U.S. Attorneys.
Furthermore, according to EOUSA officials, using the new evaluation
guidelines, EARS staff had completed the fiscal year 2003 evaluation
cycle begun in October 2002 for some, but not all, of the U.S.
Attorneys Offices to be reviewed in 2003 and had begun some reviews for
the fiscal year 2004 offices. However, as of February 2004, the final
reports for the completed reviews were not available. For the fiscal
year 2003 reviews, EOUSA used an updated manual to train evaluators
that includes the changes made to the evaluation program thus far. Our
comparison of this newly revised training manual with the old manual
showed that the EARS guidance has been revised to provide greater focus
on assessing steps each office is taking in regard to results oriented
management, such as strategic planning and performance measurement. For
example, one of EOUSA's key changes involved a redesign of the EARS
pre-evaluation survey, which, according to EOUSA, is to be completed by
each district a few weeks before that district's evaluation is to
begin. Specifically, in January 2003, EOUSA replaced the EARS "District
Self Evaluation Survey" (DSES)--first used in 1997--with its new "USAO
Management Survey." Our comparison of the two surveys showed that both
were designed to prompt each district targeted for evaluation to
describe various aspects of its operations. However, the new Management
Survey was also designed to prompt each district to provide more
descriptive information on various matters, including senior management
efforts to plan, develop budgets, and establish policies and
procedures. In addition, the Management Survey also prompts districts
to provide descriptive information not covered in the DSES, including
information on strategic planning and what the district is doing to
measure its performance and results in its litigation of criminal or
civil cases.
Our comparison of DSES and the Management Survey also showed that both
prompted districts to provide information on their management structure
and prompted them to discuss the background, duties, and
responsibilities of district managers, such as the First Assistant U.S.
Attorney and other executive-level Supervisory Assistant U.S.
Attorneys. However, in contrast to the DSES, the Management Survey also
prompts the district to, among other things, describe how:
* the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team sets long-term goals
and objectives, translates those into resources, budgets, and programs;
and monitors and measures performance and productivity and:
* the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team motivates the U.S.
Attorneys Office attorney and support staff to effectively implement
the U.S. Attorneys Office's long-term goals and objectives, budgets and
programs, and policies and procedures, and to develop and sustain high
levels of performance.
Whereas DSES contained a section asking districts to list and discuss
their priorities, the new management survey asks districts to describe
the crime problem that influences the U.S. Attorneys Office's response
to DOJ's strategic goals and objectives and the district priorities.
Furthermore, under the new survey, districts are asked to respond to
particular questions about strategic plans and district priorities and
efforts to measure results related to those initiatives. Specifically,
the Management Survey asks the district to, among other things,
describe,
* how the U.S. Attorneys Office has addressed DOJ's strategic plan;
* any other prosecutorial, civil, or outreach priorities in the
district and how the U.S. Attorneys Office is addressing them;
* any specific target or performance standards used by the U.S.
Attorneys Office to measure its initiatives, any performance goals or
indicators that have been established to reflect results rather than
workload or processes, and any criteria in place to measure the
performance and results in the U.S. Attorney's Office litigation of
criminal cases or civil cases; and:
* how performance standards for criminal and civil litigation are used
to review the Office's overall civil and criminal caseload, set
priorities and goals, and evaluate Assistant U.S. Attorney performance.
We also noted that, consistent with the Management Survey, EARS
guidance for conducting evaluations has been revised to now include a
section entitled "Strategic Plan and District Priorities."
Specifically, under the new EARS guidelines, evaluators are asked to
interview key U.S. Attorney managers about various aspects of U.S.
Attorney operations, including strategic planning and priority issues.
To illustrate, the Interview Guide for the First Assistant U.S.
Attorney and Other Executive Level Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
includes a section entitled "Strategic Plan and District Priorities"
that asks officials to respond to or discuss the following:
* Discuss the district's priorities and any unique factors affecting
the district.
* Do you feel that there should be any changes to the quality or
quantity or priority of the cases handled by the U.S. Attorney's
Office?
* Are there any special programs or initiatives that are affecting the
workload or allocation of resources in the U.S. Attorney's Office? Are
there any issues relating to any special programs or initiatives?
In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that they had made some
additional changes to the manual during fiscal year 2003 and that this
process was continuing in fiscal year 2004. In addition, officials said
that in order to link EARS with strategic planning, they would have to
look at the needs of U.S. Attorneys Offices and available resources.
DOJ's Strategic Plan Used as a Framework for Communicating Priorities
and Expectations to U.S. Attorneys Offices:
Another component of the Deputy Attorney General's management plan
emphasized DOJ's commitment to communicate the Attorney General's
priorities and expectations to U.S. Attorneys and their management
teams. DOJ used its Strategic Plan as a framework for communicating
DOJ's goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys Offices. However, in
February 2004, because recent and pending changes to DOJ's strategic
and performance planning, DOJ officials said that they may have to
develop other vehicles to use in their discussions with U.S. Attorneys
Offices about their respective plans, strategies, and targets.
According to the September 24, 2003, letter we received from EOUSA's
Director, the Attorney General established DOJ's priorities through the
fiscal year 2001 through 2006 strategic plan and, as discussed earlier,
U.S. Attorneys have a direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of
the 8 established goals. In addition, through meetings, conferences, e-
mails, and other media, the Attorney General has articulated four
national priorities for U.S. Attorneys that are directly linked to
DOJ's strategic plan--antiterrorism under DOJ strategic goal I;
reduction in gun violence under strategic goal II; reduction of the
supply and demand for illegal drugs under strategic goal II and III;
and enforcement of civil rights under strategic goal IV.
In his letter to us, EOUSA's Director confirmed that U.S. Attorneys
have a direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of the 8 strategic
goals and said that the Attorney General had taken several
opportunities to communicate DOJ's strategic goals and objectives to
U.S. Attorney's Offices. In November 2001, for example, EOUSA
transmitted to U.S. Attorneys Offices a memorandum from the Attorney
General to all of DOJ concerning the restructuring of DOJ to better
meet the threat of terrorism. The memorandum also discussed the
issuance of DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006.
Also, in December 2002, EOUSA's Director issued a memorandum to all
U.S. Attorneys, First Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and all Administrative
Officers notifying them of how they could access DOJ's Strategic Plan
on DOJ's Web site.
In addition to DOJ's performance goals and measures, EOUSA's Director
told us that individual U.S. Attorneys Offices may establish
performance goals and measures in each office, which could vary
considerably from district to district and even within a district. He
said that a district that has different branch offices could have goals
that vary from branch to branch. However, the Director said that
because many districts do not formalize strategic and performance
plans--and are not required to--it was difficult to provide examples.
Further, he added that this is not to say that U.S. Attorneys do not
set priorities within their offices, devote resources to those
priorities, and expect certain results.
Because of recent and pending changes to strategic and performance
planning in DOJ, we asked JMD and EOUSA officials how EOUSA would
communicate DOJ's strategic goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys.
They told us that they may have to develop new vehicles for these
discussions, although they also noted that the performance measures for
U.S. Attorneys would still be in the DOJ Strategic Plan and the DOJ
congressional budget submission.
DOJ Has Communicated Its Goals and Objectives to Supervisory U.S.
Attorneys:
Our survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in January and
February 2003 indicated that DOJ had communicated its national
performance goals to them. Specifically, nearly 90 percent (469 of 526)
of the respondents to our survey indicated that they had received
information about performance goals from DOJ through at least one of a
variety of ways, including hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings,
and the Internet.
In addition, responses to our survey also indicated that, as of early
2003, some U.S. Attorneys Offices had established and communicated
local goals and measures to their supervisory staff. Specifically, 77
percent (363 of the 470) of the Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
who responded to this question said that their districts had
established district level performance goals and measures. Furthermore,
about 83 percent of these supervisors (297 of 360 respondents) stated
that the cases handled by their unit to a very great or great extent
realistically reflected the district level performance goals and
measures established by the U.S. Attorneys Office.[Footnote 26]
Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory
Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors'
responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.
DOJ Has Initiated, but Not Fully Implemented, a New Process to Assess
U.S. Attorneys Offices Performance:
DOJ has also begun to implement a new process for collecting and
analyzing information about U.S. Attorneys Offices efforts to meet
DOJ's priorities and expectations. We were unable to fully examine
DOJ's efforts to assess performance using its new process because DOJ
had not fully implemented the process. In addition, the information
requested from U.S. Attorneys Offices continues to evolve.
According to the Deputy Attorney General's November 2001 announcement,
to provide DOJ with the means of assessing the progress of each U.S.
Attorney's office to meet the Attorney General's objectives, DOJ would:
* require that each U.S. Attorneys Office submit a performance report
that contains "qualitative and quantitative measures" detailing, among
other things, its progress on the prosecutive priorities of the
administration during calendar year 2002 and:
* assess each office as of January 1, 2003, based on the performance
reports, caseload data from the centralized case management system;
reports of consultations with investigating agency field offices and
the judiciary; and the most significant finding from recent EARS
evaluations.
In September 2002, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum to
U.S. Attorneys Offices instructing them on how to prepare the
performance reports he had discussed in his November 2001 memorandum.
The September 2002 memorandum discussed strategic goals and objectives
related to the Attorney General's four top prosecutive priorities--
antiterrorism, gun violence reduction, drugs, and civil rights and
identified an additional priority--corporate fraud--to which U.S.
Attorneys had been asked to pay particular attention.
For each of the five priorities, the memorandum asked each office to
respond to a question or a series of questions that were primarily
focused on discussing the steps each Office had taken to accomplish
DOJ's prosecutorial goals and objectives. For example, regarding
antiterrorism, the Deputy Attorney General stated that DOJ's objectives
were to:
"Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur;
develop and implement the full range of resources available to
investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their perpetrators to
justice; vigorously prosecute those who have committed, or intend to
commit, terrorist acts in the United States."
The memorandum asked each U.S. Attorneys Office to describe the
district's plan for accomplishing the three antiterrorism objectives,
what had been done to apply these objectives in the district, what had
been accomplished, and what obstacles remained. In addition, each
office was asked to consider, among other things:
* What is the current status of your district's Anti-Terrorism Task
Force (ATTF)?[Footnote 27]
* If you have a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)[Footnote 28] in your
district, how is it coordinating with the ATTF and what is your
office's involvement in JTTF?
* What steps have been taken to improve information sharing?
* Have antiterrorism cases been developed in your district? Describe.
The Deputy Attorney General's memorandum asked each district to provide
information for each of the three other priorities, as well as for
corporate fraud. In addition, the Deputy Attorney General asked U.S.
Attorneys Offices to:
* identify any other priorities in their district and discuss why and
how these priorities were established; the objectives selected to
accomplish these priorities; the steps taken to implement the
objectives; any outcomes realized; and any obstacles that remain; and:
* assess the Office's strengths and weaknesses by answering questions
about a variety of topics, including the quality of work; productivity;
morale; and partnerships with others, including the "bench" and local
investigative agencies.
In April 2003, we reviewed the reports and EOUSA summaries of the
reports for each of the 10 Offices we had visited and, in particular,
examined whether the 10 Offices had begun to use quantifiable results-
oriented measures as a way of developing their performance reports. Our
analysis showed that each report was informative about what the 10 U.S.
Attorney's Offices were doing to address the Attorney General's
priorities, district priorities, and management issues, but--as
requested by DOJ--the 10 U.S. Attorneys Offices generally used
anecdotal information about their successes on particular cases to
demonstrate results rather than quantifiable measures that would
indicate their progress in achieving the Attorney General's and
district priorities.
For example, all of the 10 Offices discussed their efforts regarding
the Attorney General's antiterrorism priorities, including their
involvement in ATTFs; efforts to share information among local, state,
and federal task force members; and some of the obstacles they faced in
meeting antiterrorism objectives. Likewise, the 10 reports discussed
efforts related to drugs, civil rights, Project Safe Neighborhoods
(PSN), and corporate fraud. Some provided case examples to show their
efforts in these areas and discussed some of the barriers they faced in
carrying out the Attorney General's priorities. Regarding the latter, 3
of the 10 reports noted that they were hampered in their ability to
deal with corporate fraud cases because FBI resources had been shifted
to counter-terrorism activities, and one of these districts reported
that the lack of FBI resources hampered its efforts in the area of
civil rights.
In addition, the 10 Offices generally discussed their local priorities
and what they were doing in those areas. For example, 1 report
discussed 13 areas--ranging from cybercrime to environmental crime to
health care fraud--that the Office was pursuing; discussed the reasons
the district was pursuing them; and described some cases related to
those areas. Another Office described its efforts in four areas---
public corruption, illegal immigration, violent crime, and white-collar
fraud--while still another discussed its efforts in regard to three
priorities--mortgage fraud, health care fraud, and crimes against
children. Finally, each of the 10 reports discussed a variety of
management issues, including district efforts to reorganize, manage
information technology and case data, review cases and hold staff
accountable, enhance productivity, recruit candidates, train staff, and
garner feedback from client agencies and the judiciary.
EOUSA provided worksheets that showed, among other things, the
scorecard criteria they planned to use to assess the reports on each of
the four priorities, and three other areas--corporate fraud,
management, and "intangibles." EOUSA officials were to make their
assessments based on a 5-point scale--tailored to each of the four
priorities and the three other areas--with a score of "5" reserved for
reports sections that "went beyond the guidelines" and a "one" reserved
for "recites the question, little else," or in the case of
"intangibles," "report contains no meaningful information." EOUSA's
guidance did not instruct officials to examine whether districts had
developed performance measures. However, EOUSA suggested that officials
evaluate the reports based on a variety of topics, including any
information on caseload statistics being a good gauge of office
productivity as well as anything that could be a potential best
practice.
Although, according to the November 2001 memorandum, the performance
reporting process was intended to assess performance-based on
qualitative and quantitative measures, EOUSA's Director, in his
September 24, 2003, letter to us, indicated that the objective of the
process was to provide a management tool for districts. He said it was
not designed to "have them in the business of forecasting and setting
expectations and predictions for prosecutions like a corporation would
forecast sales and productivity of goods and services." The Director
went on to state that:
"Because of the numerous variables outside of the control of the USAOs
and because our organization's success should not be measured by pure
numbers of prosecutions, our goals are more qualitative, such as making
a difference in the community and coordinating efforts among multiple
law enforcement agencies."
However, EOUSA's Director also said that throughout the performance
reporting process and analysis of reports, EOUSA has developed many
ideas for improving the process and ensuring it provides the
information it needs, while not overburdening districts. He said there
are plans to make the performance reporting guide more user friendly
and to provide additional information not captured the first time.
According to EOUSA, as of February 2004, the new template for the 2003
performance reports was still under review, and EOUSA expected that, in
the coming weeks, the new template would be sent out to the U.S.
Attorney districts for completion. We compared the draft template EOUSA
plans to use to collect 2003 performance information with the 2002
version of the template and found that the latest iteration identified
the same priorities as the previous template. In addition, for some
priorities, for example, corporate fraud/white-collar crime, EOUSA
added new, more specific, and targeted questions, including some
requiring quantifiable responses. However, EOUSA told us that it may be
difficult to develop a quantitative measure because the factors
affecting the development of performance measures vary from office to
office, depending on the local situation. For example, the type and
character of cases prosecuted may vary among U.S. Attorneys, depending
on differences in state laws and whether or not cases can be prosecuted
by the state. Officials also said that they are in the process of
creating links between the performance reports and EARS so that EARS
evaluators can benefit from the information in the performance reports,
as these reports are part of the pre-evaluation materials that EARS
evaluators use.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
Strategic Human Capital Management:
The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys (EOUSA) have begun to take steps intended to integrate
performance-based strategic human capital management into the day-to-
day operations of EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. For example, DOJ
has developed a Human Capital Strategic Plan that includes personnel in
U.S. Attorneys Offices and is linked to DOJ's Strategic Plan. However,
DOJ faces additional human capital challenges, such as attracting,
training, and retaining sufficiently qualified employees in many areas
of its operation. DOJ officials told us they were continuing to address
these challenges. In addition to DOJ's efforts, EOUSA has taken
preliminary steps to develop its own Human Capital Strategic Plan that
is to be linked to the DOJ Strategic Plan and is exploring other
actions to enhance its human capital management.
DOJ's Human Capital Initiatives Include U.S. Attorneys Offices:
In September 2002, DOJ published a Human Capital Strategic Plan that
covered all of DOJ, including EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices.
According to DOJ, the goals of the Human Capital Strategic Plan, which
was to support DOJ's Strategic Plan, were to (1) identify and document
DOJ's human capital accomplishments and (2) design and implement a plan
to eliminate gaps in DOJ's human capital management. DOJ stated that,
among other things, the plan was designed to describe the framework DOJ
was developing to meet its unique human capital needs and cover DOJ
personnel in law enforcement, legal, and administrative occupational
categories. [Footnote 29] Regarding the legal field, DOJ's Human
Capital Strategic Plan stated that DOJ had over 7,500 attorneys and
more than 1,300 paralegal specialists across the United States, and the
largest portion of these were affiliated with U.S. Attorneys in each of
the 94 districts.[Footnote 30]
In its plan, DOJ reported that it had already experienced significant
success in managing its human capital. According to DOJ's plan, among
other things, DOJ (1) was viewed by applicants as having highly
desirable job opportunities, especially as agents with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) or as Assistant U.S. Attorneys, (2) had well-established,
excellent training programs for new law enforcement and legal job
entrants; (3) had projected low annual retirement rates--the actual
retirement rate for 2001 was one-third less than projected; (4) had
tested and implemented an electronic training strategy, in addition to
several components having tested and implemented electronic hiring
systems; and (5) had an extensive data bank on job competencies needed
for all its occupations.[Footnote 31]
DOJ also reported that, based on guidance provided by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), GAO,
and the National Academy of Public Administration, and consistent with
the administration's Human Capital Initiative, it had identified 4
goals and related objectives that would help it eliminate gaps in human
capital management. Table 5 shows DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals
and Objectives.
Table 5: DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives:
DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 1 --Design an effective
organization and workforce that aligns with the overall DOJ mission and
Strategic Plan;
DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Ensure the human capital objectives
align with the DOJ Strategic Plans and Annual Performance Plans.
DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Monitor and report on organizational
reforms in DOJ components.
DOJ human capital objectives: 3. Redirect DOJ resources to primary
missions (e.g., counterterrorism, drug enforcement, and detention/
incarceration) and shift resources to the "front lines."
DOJ human capital objectives: 4. Expand the use of contractors to
perform commercial activities where it improves efficiency and economy.
DOJ human capital objectives: 5. Develop a workforce analysis and
planning model to be applied across DOJ.
DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 2 --Reduce skill gaps
through recruitment, training, and succession planning;
DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Develop and implement a DOJ-wide
recruitment strategy.
DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Implement continuous process
improvement for recruitment and hiring activities and ensure that the
hiring process is streamlined as possible.
DOJ human capital objectives: 3. Ensure that hiring is automated across
DOJ to the greatest extent possible.
DOJ human capital objectives: 4. Analyze the background investigation
process, and modify as needed.
DOJ human capital objectives: 5. Conduct a study of flexible/
alternative pay programs at DOJ and other federal organizations.
DOJ human capital objectives: 6. Document and continue to build on
DOJ's workforce development strategy and address any training gaps or
issues identified.
DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 3 --Develop an
organizational culture focused on performance and results;
DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Develop a performance management model
at the DOJ level that "cascades" strategic goals to front-line
employees, and design an implementation strategy that includes
communication and training.
DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Advance the state of information
sharing and communication at DOJ, and identify and adopt new methods to
automate the HR processes to improve access.
DOJ human capital objectives: 3. Strengthen the values of worklife
programs and assess how directly they are linked to attrition reduction
and mission accomplishment.
DOJ human capital goal: Human capital goal 4 --Strengthen human
capital leadership at DOJ;
DOJ human capital objectives: 1. Identify, document, and improve the
nature, content, and level of DOJ employee participation in leadership
development programs, including the extent of such programs at the
component level.
DOJ human capital objectives: 2. Restructure management of DOJ's
Senior Executive Service corps.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan,
September 2002.
[End of table]
Since publishing its Human Capital Strategic Plan, DOJ's Office of
Inspector General (OIG) and OMB have identified DOJ's management of its
human capital as a challenge facing DOJ. For example, in November 2002
and November 2003, the OIG listed human capital as one of the top 10
challenges facing DOJ and, among other things, discussed DOJ's ability
to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees in many
areas of operation. In addition, as part of its analysis of agency
progress toward implementing the human capital initiative outlined in
the President's Management Agenda, OMB gave DOJ a score of green for
progress--meaning that DOJ's implementation of the human capital
initiative was proceeding according to plans. DOJ received this score,
because, among other things, it had drafted a human capital
implementation plan that outlined action items along with target dates
and responsible staff to support each of the plan's objectives.
However, DOJ received a red for status--indicating that, according to
OMB's criteria, agency efforts to meet OMB's standards regarding human
capital planning had any number of serious flaws. In May 2004, DOJ
officials stated that DOJ had been receiving a red score because DOJ
has been implementing its human capital improvement efforts, but has
not completed implementation to the point of achieving results across
the board.
DOJ recognizes that it faces challenges and, according to DOJ's
Director of Personnel, is working to address these issues as it
continues to move forward. In October 2003, the Director told us that
DOJ was making progress on its human capital initiative and identified
a number of steps that DOJ was taking. Specifically, she said that, in
September 2003, DOJ awarded a contract to do workforce analysis and
planning and in October, the contractor met with component Human
Resources Directors to walk them through how it plans to implement the
project. In addition, since the issuance of DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002
Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan,
Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, DOJ has begun to develop a new, more
detailed, implementation plan that will enable DOJ to more closely
track its progress toward implementation. Moreover, she noted that DOJ
is also in the early stages of developing a scorecard to measure
performance for key human capital indicators. However, she indicated
that DOJ is struggling with measuring impact.
DOJ's Personnel Director also identified employee-related human capital
initiatives. Specifically, she said that DOJ has been working on a new
employee performance appraisal system for General Schedule and Senior
Executive Service Employees that will be designed to link individual
employee performance management to objectives, measures, and results.
In addition, DOJ has established a Business Case Committee to study
what options are available to DOJ for improving human capital
management outside of the pay and personnel rules under Title 5 of the
United States Code and, according to DOJ officials, similar to human
capital reform efforts underway at Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) and the Department of Defense (DOD).[Footnote 32] The Personnel
Director said that the Committee was created because of concern that
DOJ may lose some of its best people if DHS and DOD are able to develop
personnel systems that give them greater flexibility to recruit and
retain employees at higher rates of pay, similar to what DOJ
experienced during the creation of the Transportation Security
Administration.
According to the Director, EOUSA has been heavily involved in some of
the efforts DOJ is taking to implement its human capital initiative
departmentwide. Specifically, she said that EOUSA has participated
fully in DOJ's policy development process to modify the DOJ employee
performance appraisal system and has played a role on DOJ's Business
Case Committee.
EOUSA Is Considering Its Own Human Capital Initiatives:
EOUSA is also considering ways that it can initiate strategic human
capital planning across U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has recently
hired a human capital manager to do strategic human capital planning
and, among other things, explore ways to link individual performance to
organizational performance and examine whether U.S. Attorneys Offices
have the appropriate number of staff, with the appropriate skills, to
meet strategic goals and objectives. In addition, EOUSA is taking other
steps, including exploring ways to better link pay and performance to
help U.S. Attorneys Offices retain high performing staff.
EOUSA Has Developed Plans to Implement a Human Capital Initiative:
Recognizing the need to develop its own human capital initiative, in
his September 24, 2003, letter to us, the Director of EOUSA told us
that EOUSA had recently hired an experienced manager to lead EOUSA's
human capital initiative. The Director said that the decision to hire
the human capital manager was based on an EOUSA "white paper" that
concluded that a human capital initiative position would free up staff
resources and provide strategic vision and planning. EOUSA's white
paper stated that the human capital manager would report directly to
EOUSA's Chief Operating Officer and work with all EOUSA components and
U.S. Attorneys Offices in effecting the implementation of EOUSA's human
capital initiative. According to EOUSA, the human capital manager
would:
* enable EOUSA to begin collecting data related to human capital
management, which according to EOUSA, had been the subject of many "GAO
meetings with EOUSA concerning the human capital management objectives
of both the Administration and the Hill;":
* assist in restructuring and suggesting creative approaches to human
resource management--for instance, analyzing whether the organization
could effectively employ buyouts;
* serve as the organization's liaison with other organizations, such as
GAO, OPM, and DOJ at large in matters related to human capital; and:
* free up resources in EOUSA's Personnel Policy Division to focus on,
among other things, U.S. Attorney District staffing issues, rather than
Human Capital Policy, reporting, and liaison.
EOUSA also stated in its white paper that it needs to develop a human
capital strategic plan that is linked to DOJ's Strategic Plan.
According to the paper, the component plan must be used to set
organizational goals, develop employee performance standards, and
facilitate performance-related personnel decisions. In so doing, the
white paper indicated that EOUSA needed to be able to track at least
one performance element in each employee's performance work plan--
designed to document employee performance expectations and appraisals-
-back to a DOJ or component strategic goal. The white paper discussed
three options for making this linkage, including one that would require
that all EOUSA employee performance work plans have one performance
element called "Annual Goals and Initiatives" that could be linked to
one or more goals of the EOUSA strategic plan.
In addition, EOUSA's white paper discussed what EOUSA called strategic
"people planning" whereby EOUSA would consider whether it had the right
number of staff with the right skills to meet strategic goals this
year, and for the next several years. The paper also stated that EOUSA
should consider how the strategic goals of EOUSA's "people"
organizations address strategic issues; whether those goals relate to
EOUSA's efforts to meet its strategic goals and initiatives for the
next several years; and the extent to which strategic goals reflect
coordinated analysis of EOUSA's workforce relative to its mission. The
white paper listed two options for implementing its people-planning
initiative. First, EOUSA offices associated with personnel and
management issues could coordinate their objectives for consistency.
Second, these and other offices could "closely link short and long-
range planning activities to strategic goals and objectives." EOUSA's
white paper did not specify how EOUSA planned to analyze whether U.S.
Attorneys Offices had the right number of staff, with the right skills,
to meet their strategic goals over the next year or over the next
several years. In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that EOUSA had
not begun to fully implement its human capital restructuring effort
because the human capital manager has been focusing on formulating a
buyout initiative for EOUSA's legal assistants, legal secretaries,
among others.[Footnote 33]
EOUSA Has Taken Other Steps to Address Strategic Human Capital
Management:
In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA's Director described other
steps EOUSA has begun to take to address human capital issues. For
example, the Director said that EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys are working to
develop new management training that is expected to include course work
on individual performance management and organizational strategic
planning. Also, EOUSA's Director told us that EOUSA's personnel staff
is working with the Middle District of Tennessee to develop the
prototype for a new appraisal format that is to enhance linkage between
performance and identified goals and objectives. EOUSA said that, under
this initiative, the U.S. Attorney has articulated his goals and
objectives, and his attorney management staff has begun to refine their
performance elements and standards to clearly identify and communicate
to their employees management's expectations to accomplish those
objectives. In the meantime, EOUSA's Director said EOUSA staff has
shared with the district a proposal for a new appraisal form that would
assist them in reconstructing their performance management system.
EOUSA's Director said that the results of this effort would be a pilot
for revising U.S. Attorney performance management, in connection with
DOJ's overall effort to integrate goals and objectives into employee's
expectations and appraisal, discussed earlier.
In addition, EOUSA's Director said that EOUSA is working with an
internal DOJ advisory subcommittee to examine possible changes to the
U.S. Attorney pay system, with a view toward restructuring pay and
performance systems and linking pay to performance. According to EOUSA,
this effort, which is in the very early deliberative stages, arises out
of concerns that (1) the existing pay scale for Supervisory Assistant
and Assistant U.S. Attorneys are out of date and too low to compete
with the private sector in many districts and (2) the current
performance rating system does not give U.S. Attorneys enough
flexibility to provide larger pay increases to distinguish more
precisely among varying levels of performance. Regarding the latter,
the subcommittee is exploring whether a change in the existing
performance rating system could give U.S. Attorneys greater leverage to
retain talented, experienced attorneys in light of "increasing demands
on all U.S. Attorneys Offices."
In our survey of over 750 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys during
January and February 2003, we addressed the question of whether
retaining experienced attorneys may be an issue facing EOUSA and U.S.
Attorneys in the future. Our survey results showed that about 68
percent of respondents who had supervised a unit for at least 2 years
indicated that there had been attrition among Assistant U.S. Attorneys
they had supervised during that time period. About 53 percent of
respondents said they had either too few or far too few Assistant U.S.
Attorneys working in their unit, given the workload over the last 6
months of 2002. When asked the extent to which they anticipated a
shortage of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next 3 years as a result of
increased unit workload, about 64 percent of responding supervisors
answered to at least a moderate extent. Approximately 35 percent
answered this way when asked if attrition would cause the shortage.
Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory
Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors'
responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
Attorneys about Various Management Issues:
Using a Web-based questionnaire, we surveyed all Supervisory Assistant
U.S. Attorneys in all 94 federal judicial districts between January 8,
2003, and February 28, 2003. We sent this survey to 768 supervisors and
received 532 responses--an approximate 70 percent response rate. The
results of our survey are applicable only to the supervisors who
responded and are not generalizable to all U.S. Attorney Office
supervisors nationwide. Accordingly, the response results for
individual questions are applicable only to the supervisors who had
opinions and provided answers. We developed a series of questions to
obtain supervisors' views on various topics, including performance
goals and measures; supervisory monitoring of cases and matters handled
by Assistant U.S. Attorneys; individual performance evaluations;
Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing and attrition; administrative
(nonattorney) staff support; and training.[Footnote 34]
Please note that in the following discussion of survey results, we
always refer to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who had an opinion
and responded to a particular question. For any question, the survey
respondent has the option of answering the question, indicating "No
basis to judge," or not answering the question at all. In other cases,
a respondent may be instructed to skip one or more questions depending
on how they answered a prior question. Because of this, the actual
number of respondents fluctuates slightly for each question. In most
cases, relatively small numbers of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
Attorneys' responses were excluded from the analysis of specific
questions.
The following highlights supervisors' responses to questions covering
key issues addressed in our survey. To view our survey and supervisors'
responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.
Performance Goals and Measures:
The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
responded to various questions about DOJ performance goals and district
goals and measures.[Footnote 35]
* National performance goals--Nearly 90 percent of the respondents
indicated that they received information about the national performance
goals from DOJ through at least one of a variety of ways, which
included hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings, the Internet, as
well as other means. Only about 10 percent said the goals had not been
communicated to their unit.
* District performance goals and measures--About 77 percent of the 470
supervisors answering the question indicated that their U.S. Attorneys
Office had established district level performance goals and measures,
while about 23 percent said that their offices did not establish these
goals and measures.
* Approximately 83 percent of those who said their U.S. Attorneys
Office had established district level performance goals and measures
answered to a very great or great extent that the cases handled by
their unit realistically reflected the district level performance goals
and measures established by the U.S. Attorneys Office.
* About 87 percent of respondents did not feel changes were needed in
establishing district level strategic objectives, performance goals,
and performance measures in their U.S. Attorneys Office.
Monitoring Cases and Matters:
The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
responded to questions about how they monitored the progress of cases
and matters assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their units.
* Progress--The majority of supervisors who responded said that they
use a variety of ways to monitor the progress of cases or matters
assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. For example,
over 87 percent of respondents indicated that they used periodic case
reviews, nearly 84 percent use periodic meetings with staff, about 60
percent used biannual reviews and approximately 50 percent used
quarterly reviews, to a very great or great extent. About 40 percent of
respondents said that they use to a very great or great extent existing
management information systems--such as LIONS, the U.S. Attorney case
management system--to monitor case progress.
* Approach to monitoring progress--The majority of supervisors who
responded said that they use a variety of ways to monitor time spent on
a specific case or matter assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in
their unit. For example, about 80 percent said that they used
individual meetings to cover a specific case or matter; about 70
percent said they used periodic reviews, as needed; about 41 percent
used quarterly reviews; and nearly 40 percent used biannual reviews, to
a very great or great extent.
* Frequency of reviews--Respondents also said that these various
reviews were either much more than adequate, more than adequate, or
adequate to review time spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S.
Attorneys in their unit. For example, about 93 percent of respondents
indicated that periodic case/matter reviews, as the need arises, were
at least adequate to review time spent on a case or matter;
approximately 83 percent said that quarterly reviews were at least
adequate; and about 80 percent said that biannual reviews were at least
adequate for this purpose.
* Importance of monitoring time spent--About 47 percent of respondents
said that it was either very important or important to review the
amount of time being spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S.
Attorneys in their unit with an additional 37 percent saying that it
was moderately important.
Performance Evaluation:
The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
responded to various questions about evaluating the performance of the
Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they supervise.
Usefulness of appraisals--About 53 percent of respondents answered that
performance appraisals were either very useful or useful in recognizing
outstanding performance and about 38 percent indicated that performance
appraisals were either very useful or useful in identifying performance
that needs improvement for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit.
* Appraisal form and critical job factors--Only 24 percent of
respondents answered to a very great or great extent when asked whether
the performance appraisal form provides a true assessment of critical
job factors while about 27 percent of respondents responded to some,
little, or no extent when asked this question. About 48 percent
answered to a moderate extent.
* Performance counseling--When asked the extent to which they believed
they could provide candid, constructive job performance counseling,
approximately 65 percent of supervisors who responded indicated to a
very great or great extent. Adding the response "to a moderate extent"
brings the total to almost 97 percent.
* Training on performance counseling--Finally, nearly 80 percent of
responding supervisors answered very great, great, or moderate extent
when asked whether they had been provided with adequate supervisory
training to provide effective job performance counseling.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing:
The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
responded to various questions about Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing
and attrition.
* Extent of attrition--About 68 percent of respondents who had
supervised a unit for at least 2 years indicated that there has been
attrition among the Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they have supervised
over that time period. In addition, about 68 percent of supervisors
responding said that they were not aware of any practices in place in
their office or unit to help retain Assistant U.S. Attorneys currently
employed. Of the 139 supervisors who indicated that retention practices
were in place, nearly 86 percent said that those practices were either
very or somewhat effective.
* Staff shortages--Given the unit workload over the last 6 months of
2002, about 45 percent of respondents said that their unit had about
the right number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. However, approximately 53
percent of respondents said they have either too few or far too few
Assistant U.S. Attorneys working in their unit.
* When asked the extent to which they anticipated a shortage of
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next 3 years as a result of increased
unit workload, about 64 percent of responding supervisors answered to a
very great, great, or moderate extent. Approximately 35 percent
answered this way when asked if attrition would cause the shortage and
about 26 percent answered this way when lack of attorneys with
specialized skills or expertise was specified as the potential cause.
* Of the respondents who indicated that they anticipated shortages of
U.S. Attorneys in their unit over the next 3 years, about 38 percent
said that their units are or are planning to increase hiring as a
strategy to counter shortages, while about 21 percent indicated that
specialized training was a strategy that was planned or in place to
counter the anticipated shortage.
* Experience and expertise--When asked whether they believed that their
units have the right mix of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in terms of
experience and expertise for the types of cases handled, about 76
percent of the supervisors responding answered either very great or
great extent for experience and approximately 73 percent answered this
way for expertise.
Administrative Support:
The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
responded to various questions about the workload and skills of the
administrative staff--paralegals and legal assistant and secretaries--
that supported their units.
Paralegals:
* Workload--In terms of their ability to deal with the current
workload, over 62 percent of supervisors who responded said that the
number of paralegal specialist staff is less than or much less than
adequate, while nearly 38 percent say the number of paralegal
specialist staff is either adequate, more than adequate, or much more
than adequate. Only about 5 percent indicated that the number of
paralegals was in any way more than adequate.
* Skill level--Nearly 83 percent of responding supervisors said the
skill levels of the paralegal specialist staff currently working with
their unit are either adequate, more than adequate, or much more than
adequate.
* Feasibility of assuming other duties--Nearly 60 percent of responding
supervisors answered either definitely or probably yes when asked
whether it would be feasible for existing or newly hired paralegal
specialists to assume some of the legal duties currently performed by
Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. About 40 percent of supervisors
with an opinion indicated that they would definitely not or probably
not be able to assume these duties.[Footnote 36]
Legal Assistants and Secretaries:
* Workload--When asked whether the number of support staff currently
working with their unit was adequate in terms of dealing with the
current workload, nearly 50 percent of responding supervisors answered
either less than or much less than adequate. Slightly over 50 percent
of responding supervisors answered either adequate, more than adequate,
or much more than adequate. Of those who said that they had less than
adequate support staff available to do the work, approximately 34
percent responded that this adversely affected casework either to a
very great or great extent. Adding answers of moderate extent to this
total raises it to over 83 percent.
* Skill level--Nearly 87 percent of responding supervisors said that
the support staff currently working with their unit had skill levels
that were adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate.
Only 13 percent of supervisors responded that the skill level of
support staff was less than or much less than adequate. Of those
responding that the skill level of support staff was less than
adequate, nearly 84 percent said that this adversely affected their
casework to a very great, great, or moderate extent.
Assistant U.S. Attorneys Training:
The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
responded to various questions about training and training
opportunities provided by DOJ through the National Advocacy Center, an
institute for legal education training operated by EOUSA.
* Assessment of training needs--About 88 percent of respondents said
that either they or someone else in their unit assessed the training
needs of all of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys whom they supervised.
* Training frequency--Approximately 96 percent of respondents who have
been supervisors for at least 2 years said that they or the Assistant
U.S. Attorneys whom they supervised had taken courses sponsored by the
National Advocacy Center within the past 2 years.
* About 79 percent of supervisors reported that, over a 2-year period,
they had personally taken one to two courses; nearly 13 percent said
they took three to four courses; and 5 percent said that they did not
take any courses. (The percentages do not add up to 100 percent because
some specified another alternative not listed here.)
* Almost all (99 percent) responded that at least one of the Assistant
U.S. Attorneys who they supervised had taken a course at the National
Advocacy Center within the past 2 years; about 69 percent of
respondents said that their staff have also taken courses provided
through the Justice Television Network programming; and nearly 36
percent said that staff had taken courses presented by videoconference.
To a much lesser extent (ranging from about 8 percent to 12 percent),
courses were presented at their offices by a Center instructor, or
self-administered as a computer-based course or using printed
materials.
* Training for New Assistant U.S. Attorneys--Almost 32 percent of
respondents said that new Assistant U.S. Attorneys should take one to
two courses during their first 2 years in the unit, 54 percent said
they should take three to four courses, and about 10 percent said they
should take more than four courses. (The percentages do not add up to
100 percent because some specified another alternative not listed
here.)
* Course content--Approximately 55 percent of respondents said that the
content of the courses offered over the past 2 years by the Center was
highly relevant to the work the Assistant U.S. Attorneys performed in
their unit while nearly 43 percent said that it was generally relevant.
* Information about training opportunities--Supervisors were kept
informed of training opportunities presented by the Center in a variety
of ways. Approximately 48 percent of responding supervisors said that
they received information about training opportunities from a Web site;
about 62 percent received electronic information from the Center; and
approximately 44 percent received information through hard copy or
electronic format from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys.
Additionally, about 85 percent said they received information
electronically from their U.S. Attorney's Office.
* Reason for not taking National Advocacy Center courses--The
Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys were also asked about reasons for
not taking courses offered by the Center. Their responses are as
follows:
* The ongoing caseload is too heavy to take time for training courses-
-approximately 44 percent of those responding answered to a very great
or great extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to
close to 79 percent.
* Reluctant to take time away from casework for training--approximately
36 percent of those responding answered to a very great or great
extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to 70 percent.
* Travel time to training location is excessive--approximately 47
percent of those responding answered to a very great or great extent.
Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to about 68 percent.
[End of section]
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John F. Mortin, (202) 512-8777.
Staff Acknowledgments:
Barbara A. Stolz, Richard R. Griswold, Carla D. Brown, Susan S. Mak,
Daniel R. Garcia, Grace Coleman, Shari Caporale, Stuart M. Kaufman,
David Alexander, Elsie Picyk, and Maria Romero.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management:
A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management (Exposure Draft),
GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002).
Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel
Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2004).
Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries'
Succession Planning and Management Initiatives, GAO-03-914
(Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2003).
Human Capital: Selected Agency Actions to Integrate Human Capital
Approaches to Attain Mission Results, GAO-03-446 (Washington, D.C.:
April 11, 2003).
Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39
(Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2003).
Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G (Washington, D.C.: July
2003).
Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in
Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: December 6,
2002).
Human Capital: Practices that Empowered and Involved Employees,
GAO-01-1070 (Washington, D.C. September 14, 2001).
Results Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual
Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.:
March 14, 2003).
FOOTNOTES
[1] See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology:
Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys Needs to Institutionalize Key IT
Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751 (Washington, D.C.: July 2003) and
U.S. Attorneys: Controls Over Grant-Related Activities Should Be
Enhanced, GAO-03-733 (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).
[2] There are 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices and 93 U.S. Attorneys---the
same U.S. Attorney serves the District of Guam and the District of the
Northern Mariana Islands.
[3] According to OMB Circular A-11 dated July 2003, beginning with the
budget for fiscal year 2005, agencies are to prepare a performance
budget in lieu of the annual performance plan for their budget
submission to OMB and Congress. The Circular stated that the
performance budget should satisfy all statutory requirements for the
annual performance plan.
[4] EOUSA defines an extra-large office as having 100 or more
attorneys; a large office as having 44 to 99 attorneys; a medium office
as having 25 to 43 attorneys; and a small office as having less than 25
attorneys.
[5] See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update,
GAO-01-262 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001); High-Risk Series:
Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2003); and Human Capital: A Self Assessment Checklist for
Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: September 2000).
[6] 1 Stat. 73, 92-93. The Judiciary Act also provided for the
appointment of the Attorney General to represent the United States in
litigation before the Supreme Court and to furnish legal advice to the
President and department heads.
[7] Redeployment of United States Attorneys' Personnel, (N.D.), A
Report by the Executive Office for United States Attorneys as Requested
by Senate Report 105-235 Regarding FY 1999 Appropriations for the
Department of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related
Agencies.
[8] The 40 component organizations are the Office of the Attorney
General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the
Associate Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General, the
Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Legal Counsel, the
Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review,
the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Office of Legislative
Affairs, the Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, the Office
of Information and Privacy, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of
Dispute Resolution, the Justice Management Division, the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the Civil
Division, the Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the
Environment and Natural Resources Division, the Tax Division, the
Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the
FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service, Interpol - U.S. National Central
Bureau, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Office of the
Pardon Attorney, the U.S. Parole Commission, the Executive Office for
U.S. Trustees, the Community Relations Service, the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission of the United States, the Office of Justice
Programs, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the
National Drug Intelligence Center, the Professional Responsibility
Advisory Office, the Office of Federal Detention Trustee, and the
Office of Violence Against Women. According to a JMD official, DOJ
treats EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys as one component.
[9] The U.S. Attorneys also litigate cases for investigative agencies
outside of DOJ, for example, the Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection in the Department of Homeland Security.
[10] The 94 U.S. Attorney Offices and their branch locations comprise
over 240 sites.
[11] Pub. L. No. 103-62.
[12] OMB Circular A-11 was revised during our review; therefore, we
indicate the date of the Circular for the provisions cited.
[13] The President announced his strategy--called the President's
Management Agenda (PMA)--for improving the management and performance
of the federal government. Under PMA, the President identified five
crosscutting management initiatives that are linked and support each
other; budget and performance integration, strategic human capital
management, improved financial performance, expanded electronic
government, and competitive sourcing.
[14] OMB is using PART to assess the effectiveness of programs--defined
as the list of agency programs and activities that appear in Program
and Financing Schedules of the Budget Appendix. PART supports the
assessment of four aspects of a program--does the program perform a
clear federal role; has an agency set valid long-term and annual goals
for the program; is the program well-managed; and is the program
achieving the results set forth in the agency's GPRA plans?
[15] See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update,
GAO-01-263 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).
[16] See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic
Human Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).
[17] At the time of our review, DOJ's new strategic plan had not been
released.
[18] Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of
FTE employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing
the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total
number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number
of compensable days in the fiscal year.
[19] At the time of our review, DOJ had not published its Strategic
Plan for Fiscal Year 2003 through 2008 and, as a result, we did not
have a comprehensive list of DOJ's strategic goals and objectives
applicable to other DOJ components.
[20] In the fiscal year 2004, U.S. Attorney Congressional Budget
Submission, DOJ uses the term program activity to cover 5 specific
areas--antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crimes, white-collar
crime, civil litigation, and training. According to a JMD official, a
program activity is the thematic area reflecting the basic types of
work performed by U.S. Attorneys. However, OMB Circular A--11 states
that program activity is defined as the list of programs and activities
appearing in the Program and Financing schedules of the Budget
Appendix. In the DOJ Budget Appendix for Fiscal Year 2004, U.S.
Attorneys program activities are defined as Direct Program: U.S.
Attorneys, and Reimbursable Programs.
[21] According to EOUSA officials, DOJ uses the term "defendants
terminated" in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission to mean the total
number of defendants for which some type of closure was reachedóthey
were guilty, acquitted, or the proceedings involving particular
defendants were dismissed, or otherwise terminated. They said that
their terminology has always been ědefendants terminatedî and that
terminology is consistent with that used by the Administrative Office
of the United States Courts.
[22] According to DOJ officials, the rate of conviction or conviction
rate is those defendants who pleaded guilty or were found guilty via
trial as a percentage of all defendants terminated.
[23] According to EOUSA officials, the Western District of Washington's
strategic planning effort was initially funded by EOUSA in July 2002 in
response to the district's one-time request to hire a management
consultant.
[24] The evaluation program, which was initiated in 1969, was designed
to evaluate each district's compliance with federal regulations and
provide information to DOJ on performance, management, and various
priorities and objectives. Among other things, the evaluations assessed
compliance with DOJ priorities, policies, and programs; reviewed
staffing and workload; and determined whether U.S. Attorneys Offices
were meeting the internal control requirements of the Federal Managers
Financial Integrity Act. In 1984, EOUSA established the Evaluation and
Review Staff (EARS) as a component to coordinate the evaluation
program. EARS evaluations are coordinated by its staff in Washington,
D.C., and conducted in each of the 94 districts approximately every 3
years by teams of Assistant U.S. Attorneys and staff from around the
country.
[25] 31 U.S.C. 3512.
[26] In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA's Director said that many
districts do not formalize strategic and performance plans (and are not
required to); thus it was difficult to provide specific examples of
district-level performance goals and measures. The Director further
stated that, in some cases, respondents could have misconstrued the
survey question regarding district level performance goals and measures
to include "performance workplan" goals, which are goals established
between a supervisor and employee as part of an individual's annual
performance assessment.
[27] The Attorney General issued a directive that included a provision
directing each U.S. Attorneys Office to establish an ATTF to serve as a
standing organizational structure for a coordinated state and federal
response to terrorism within each U.S. Attorney's District. The ATTF
has a three fold objective: prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist
operations before they occur; develop and implement the full range of
resources available to investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their
perpetrators to justice; and vigorously prosecute those who have
committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts in the United States. In
a September 2003 memorandum, the Attorney General changed the name of
these task forces to Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), leaving
its current membership intact.
[28] The JTTF program was established by DOJ to bring teams of state
and local law enforcement officers, Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) agents, and other federal agents and personnel together to
investigate and prevent acts of terrorism. Since September 11, 2001,
the FBI had expanded its JTTF initiative from 35 JTTFs to 84 JTTFs
nationwide.
[29] According to DOJ, individuals in the legal field made up the
second largest category of personnel in DOJ. The largest category was
law enforcement personnel--when the plan was prepared, DOJ reported
that it had over 20,000 criminal investigators; nearly 15,000
correctional officers; and nearly 10,000 agents and 10,000 inspectors
in the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Individuals in
more than 150 job classifications administrative, technical, and
clerical functions made up the third largest category of other/
administrative occupations in DOJ. These included individuals in budget
and finance, human resources, security, information technology, and
miscellaneous clerical and technical positions. In March 2003, INS was
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security and the Bureau of
Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was transferred from the Department of the
Treasury to DOJ.
[30] In May 2004, DOJ officials said that DOJ had more than 8,000
attorneys.
[31] U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, September
2002 and DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003
Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan.
[32] Title 5 laws (or requirements) refer to those personnel management
laws, procedures, and associated functions generally applicable to
federal employees. Most federal personnel laws governing topics such as
classification, appointment, pay and benefits, and adverse action are
contained in Title 5. Title 5 also contains laws unrelated to federal
personnel issues, such as the Administrative Procedures Act and the
Freedom of Information Act, that are also applicable to federal
agencies.
[33] According to U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Workforce:
Payroll and Human Capital Changes During Downsizing, GAO/GGD-99-57
(Washington, D.C.: August 1999), a buyout refers to paid separation
incentives used by federal agencies since 1993 to induce employees to
voluntarily leave federal service.
[34] In this report, information on U.S. Attorneys' information
technology needs is limited to LIONS and ALCATRAZ systems in terms of
case progress and attorney performance. For a more complete discussion
of this topic, please refer to U.S. General Accounting Office,
Information Technology: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Needs to
Institutionalize Key IT Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751
(Washington, D.C.: July 2003).
[35] For purposes of this report, we refer to national level
performance goals and measures as those by which federal agencies are
to measure performance under the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). We asked supervisors to identify whether DOJ
communicated its strategic goals and objectives and if, at the district
level, long-range goals and objectives were articulated to U.S.
Attorneys Offices' staff.
[36] Supervisors indicated that paralegal tasks encompass assisting at
trial; assisting with the client, agency, witness, or victim; providing
automation systems and computerized support; filing papers with the
court; drafting correspondence, pleadings; analyzing documents;
providing document summaries; and doing general factual and legal
research. To a lesser extent, paralegals may do deposition summaries,
prepare for or attend depositions, conduct investigations, and maintain
the law library.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
