Back to TOC

Text Box: VIII


Ensure Professionalism, Excellence, Accountability and Integrity in the Management and Conduct of Department of Justice Programs



Promote integrity and professionalism to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice

8.1A Ensure Departmental Integrity

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: Investigations Closed [OIG]


Data Definition: Cases that are substantiated are considered to be those resulting in criminal or civil action, or referral to management for administrative action.

Data Collection and Storage: The OIG uses the Investigations Data Management System (IDMS) to collect data and track progress. IDMS consists of eight computer-based and four paper-based systems through which the Investigations Division records and monitors the status of allegations and the progress of investigations.

Data Validation and Verification: The Investigation Division is responsible for maintaining IDMS and ensuring accuracy and reliability through a semi-annual review of the information collected during that period.

Data Limitations: The IDMS lacks central indexing, which hampers data collection and analysis as the multiple systems require duplicate data entry and information is not cross referenced between systems. This can result in inaccurate or incomplete analysis. IDMS is will be upgraded to eliminate these deficiencies in FY 2003.


In order for its programs and activities to be effective, all Department personnel, contractors, and grantees must conduct themselves in accordance with the highest standards of integrity, accountability, and efficiency. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was established to detect and prevent misconduct and mismanagement on the part of the Department’s personnel and programs. OIG investigates alleged violations of criminal and civil laws, regulations, and ethical standards arising from the conduct of the Department’s employees in their numerous and diverse activities. OIG provides leadership and assists management in promoting integrity, economy, efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department and in its financial, contractual, and grant relationships with others using the coordinated efforts of OIG’s investigative, audit, and inspection resources.


Performance Measure: Investigations Closed
            FY 2002 Target:
            600 Investigations Closed
            FY 2002 Actual:
            614 Investigations Closed;
            181 Closed Cases Substantiated
            Discussion: The OIG exceeded its target, as a result of its focus in this area.  










8.1B Provide Professional Oversight

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: Investigations of Alleged Professional Miscounduct by DOJ Attorneys [OPR]D

Data Collection and Storage: OPR uses the Bibliographic Retrieval System database system to preserve information on allegations received, and matters in which inquiries or full investigations are conducted. Initial data are entered by OPR management analysts based on their analysis of incoming matters. Entries regarding OPR’s findings and conclusions in a matter are made based on information provided by OPR attorneys assigned to the matter.

Data Validation and Verification: The data are verified by senior OPR attorneys. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time.


The Department, through its Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), will continue to ensure that Department attorneys meet and maintain the high ethical standards expected of the nation’s principal law enforcement agency. Specifically, OPR reviews and investigates allegations of professional misconduct by Department attorneys, investigators or law enforcement personnel where the allegations relate to the exercise of an attorney’s authority to investigate, litigate, or provide legal advice. Through the performance of OPR, the Department seeks to ensure that Department attorneys, and investigative and law enforcement personnel working with the attorneys, comply with obligations and standards imposed by law, applicable rules of professional conduct, or Department regulations or policy, and that instances of failure to comply with those standards are identified and attorneys appropriately disciplined.


Performance Measure: Investigations of Alleged Professional Misconduct by DOJ Attorneys [OPR]
            FY 2002 Target: 80 Investigations
            FY 2002 Actual: 76 Investigations; 23 instances of             Professional Misconduct Found
            Discussion: Despite fluctuations in the level of attorney and non-attorney staffing, OPR was able to achieve 95% of target for FY 2002 performance. 





Strengthen internal financial systems and promote the effecient and effective use of resources to ensure public trust and confidence

8.2A Obtain a Department-wide Unqualified Audit Opinion and Resolve Financial Management Weaknesses

Full discussion of this topic has been moved to the new PMA section on Financial Management.


8.2B Achieve Procurement Reform

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: % of Eligible Service Contract Dollars Using Performance Based Contracting [JMD] D

Chart: % of Synopsis and Solications for Contracts $25,000+ Posted Online [JMD]D

Data Collection and Storage: Data is collected from the Federal Data Procurement System and FEDBizOpps.

Data Validation and Verification: Data is verified through year-end reviews of the Federal Data Procurement System and FEDBizOpps.

Data Limitations: None known at this time.


DOJ has been participating in two Government-wide procurement initiatives.  The first is to encourage the use of performance-based contracts.  DOJ will continue to promote the use of performance-based service contracts, where solicitations are structured around the purpose of the work to be performed, rather than the manner in which it is to be performed.  Department leadership will encourage contracts that are designed to ensure that: contractors are given freedom to determine how to meet the Government’s performance objectives; appropriate performance quality levels are achieved; and payment is made only for services that meet these levels. As a result, the Government should experience fewer cost overruns, schedule delays, and performance problems. The second, the Central Contractor Registration database is an online database serving as the Government-wide single point of vendor registration.  It is the single validated source data on vendors doing business with the Government.  The Central Contractor Registration database will be established during FY 2003.


Performance Measure: Percent of Eligible Service Contract Dollars Using Performance-Based Contracting [JMD]
            FY 2002 Target:  20 %
            FY 2002 Actual:  24.5%
            Discussion: DOJ provided information   about performance-based contracts to Bureau procurement organizations as well as direct assistance in ongoing procurements. As a result, program and procurement personnel were better able to identify and target the types of contracts most amenable to performance based contract techniques and to craft appropriate contract vehicles for these relative complex types.

Performance Measure: Percent of Synopsis and Solicitations for Contracts $25,000+ Posted Online
            FY 2002 Target:  100 %
            FY 2002 Actual:  100 %
            Discussion: DOJ completed its integration with the governmentwide point-of-entry,  This provides the public with electronic access to synopses of proposed contract actions, solicitations, and associated information for Government business opportunities that are greater than $25,000.

8.2C Conduct A-76 Program Competitions and Accurate FAIR Act Inventories

Full discussion of this topic has been moved to the new PMA section on Competive Sourcing.

8.2D Budget and Performance Integration

Full discussion of this topic has been moved to the new PMA section on Integrating Budget and Performance.



Development and maintain grant management accountability mechanisms to ensure proper dispensation and monitoring of funds

8.3A Achieve Effective Grant Management


Background/Program Objectives:

In an effort to reduce duplication, improve customer service, and strengthen grant oversight, OJP submitted its two-part plan for internal reorganization to the Hill for review and approval.  Within the plan, OJP will be consolidating the functions of several support offices that will result in improved responsiveness, assistance and accountability to all customers; elimination of duplicative efforts and overlaps within OJP Bureaus; development of measurable grant and program outcomes; and enhanced communication, cooperation, coordination, and efficiency.  The Department has been moving toward implementation of an automated Grants Management System since FY 1999. When fully operational, the Department will be able to fully administer all grants through a centralized, paperless system and to electronically process and track grants from application to closeout.   This will allow grantees to receive and submit applications, receive awards electronically, reduce the paperwork required by grantees, and standardize the process within program offices.  In addition, GMS will assist in setting priorities for program monitoring and facilitate timely program and financial reports from grantees.

Each year, OJP develops a risk-based monitoring plan that considers inherent programmatic and recipient risks, including the amount of funding at risk, known problems, special requests, and a random sample of active awards. OJP currently initiates financial monitoring (covering both OJP and COPS grant programs) and has achieved a reputation for having few reportable problems.  When rare instances of waste, fraud, or abuse are reported, OJP quickly responds with direct technical assistance to the recipients to correct serious problems or to the investigators in bringing about appropriate criminal prosecutions.  Financial monitoring provides our financial auditors assurance with regard to safeguarding agency assets and the accuracy of recipient-reported expenditures and related expenditure accrual, one of the largest components of our audited financial statements. Following financial review, OJP’s staff provides technical assistance on the recommendations made until all recommendations have been implemented.  Once it has been determined that the grantee has sufficiently addressed all issues, the review is officially closed in writing.

The COPS monitoring program has several elements, which assess how grantees are using federal funds, determine to what extent grantees are implementing community policing, and identify potential compliance issues.  COPS develops and then shares its site visit monitoring plan with the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), which also selects a number of COPS grantees for review.  Site visits yield detailed documentation of how COPS funds are being used, allow COPS to observe the implementation of COPS grants, and reveal the level to which individual jurisdictions have adopted the community policing philosophy in field activities.  The agency complements site visits with office-based grant reviews, which begin with an internal review of grant documentation followed by direct contact with the grantee and the collection of additional and/or supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with grant requirements. The COPS Office has centralized its compliance resolution process and developed the Issue Resolution Module, a COPS-wide automated system that allows for the identification and status tracking of specific grantee issues.

Chart: Number of Financial Reviews Conducted [OJP]D

Data Collection and Storage: Data will be collected from reports from the Grants Management System and specific program offices.

Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated based on reports prepared by the Office of the Comptroller.

Data Limitations: The system is being implemented and updated to support program enhancements. Out-year targets are based on the current fiscal year’s implementation success.

Chart: % of Grants Administered Through a Centralized Paperless System [OJP]D

Data Collection and Storage: On-site data will be collected during on-site financial monitoring reviews.  Internal review of files will be gathered from information provided by the grantee and information collected by grant and financial managers.

Data Validation and Verification: Data will be validated through site visits reports, telephone calls, and other data collection instruments.

Data Limitations: OC will not perform formal reviews on all OJP grantees.  OC currently reviews between 7-10 percent of the total OJP grant universe.  Since the number of grants subject to financial monitoring is based on the resources available for financial monitoring, increased coverage could be increased in future years with additional resources.


Performance Measure:  Number of Financial Reviews Conducted [OJP]
            FY 2002 Target:  990
            FY 2002 Actual:  1,020
            Discussion: OJP exceeded the target conducting a combination of 456 on-site reviews and 564 in-house financial reviews.

Performance Measure:  Percent of Grants Administered Through a Centralized Paperless System (OJP Bureau and Program Offices)
            FY 2002 Target:  80%
            FY 2002 Actual:  84%
            Discussion: OJP exceeded the target by 4% administering 12,714 awards through a centralized paperless system.  Of the 12,714, a total of 11,756 (4%), were processed through an automated Grants Management System. OJP achieved this goal by requiring that program office solicitations be posted and managed through the system.

Improve the integrity and security of computer systems and make more effective use of information technology(IT)

8.4A Ensure IT Investments are Cost Effective and Meet Programmatic and Customer Needs

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: DOJ IT Investments Managed Through the Approved ITIM Process [IMSS]D

Data Collection and Storage: Performance data for this indicator will be drawn from the A -11 Exhibit 300 B which is submitted to OMB annually as part of the budget.

Data Validation and Verification: Component and departmental managers reviews data.

Data Limitations: Potential comparability issues across components.


Under the direction of the DOJ Chief Information Officer (CIO), the Department provides leadership and policy direction to IT programs in over 30 component organizations with widely divergent missions and funding. Cost-effective maintenance of current technology and timely adoption of new technology across the Department increasingly require coordinated management of technical, budgetary, and programmatic issues that impact IT investment. 

The Department has established a formal IT investment management (ITIM) policy and process to ensure that investment decisions are aligned with the strategic goals of the Department, are well-planned and justified, fit within the Department’s overall IT strategy and enterprise architecture, and are managed effectively throughout the lifecycle.


Performance Measure: DOJ IT Investments Managed Through the Approved ITIM (IT Management Investment) Process [IMSS]
            FY 2002 Target:  50%
            FY 2002 Actual:  89%
            Discussion:  In FY 2002, 17 of 19 components received approval from the Chief Information Officer on their initial ITIM process and implementation schedules.  These components meet the required criteria to ensure all information technology related projects are aligned with the strategic goals of the Department.  The ITIM is designed to ensure disciplined management of IT investments and the involvement of Department and component leadership in the assessment of cost, risk, and return for all proposed expenditures on IT.


8.4B Ensure IT Security

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: % of Information Systems Certified and Accredited by the ComponentD

Data Collection and Storage: Data for this indicator are based on project oversight statistics. The data is maintained and updated in a central database.

Data Validation and Verification: Project oversight statistics are based on component self-reporting. An outside contractor will ensure the certification results through independent verification and validation.

Data Limitations: DOJ is revalidating the universe of systems to ensure comprehensive coverage of the certifications and accreditation project. Consequently, the FY 1999 percent reported on the accompanying chart may be based on an overlapping, but slightly different universe of systems.


To identify IT system vulnerabilities throughout the Department, the CIO’s staff launched an intensive certification and accreditation initiative in 2000 involving all components.  The Department developed the Security Management and Report Tracking (SMART) database to track security weaknesses and planned corrective actions identified through the certification and accreditation process and in other security reviews, such as IG audits and penetration tests.  The Department has continued to update, upgrade and fine-tune the system.  In addition, a major effort has been made to enter data for all systems not previously identified in earlier system assessments, update existing information on component systems and input the results of various types of system and program reviews. This program is central to assuring the public’s trust that information and IT systems in the Department are adequately protected against unauthorized access and use.






Performance Measure: Percent of Information Systems Certified and Accredited by the Component
            FY 2002 Target:  90% (212 of 235)
            FY 2002 Actual:  80% (209 of 275)
            Discussion:   The Department employed several methods to conduct a more comprehensive and detailed review of its IT security program.   To meet the Government Information Security Reform Act (GISRA) requirements for annual system reviews and to identify vulnerabilities for correction, Department components conducted self-assessments on over 168 systems in addition to new certifications and accreditations.   The Department’ s original goal was based on the number of systems previously identified.  However, in the past year, additional systems have been identified and new ones developed.  As a result, even though the absolute number of systems reviewed increased, the percentage fell short of our target.  

In the past year, the Department has made significant progress in meeting its objectives and implementing the requirements of the Security Act.  These accomplishments include:

- Appointment of a CIO with a specific mandate from the Attorney General to provide Department-wide leadership in the IT arena, including security;
- Development of an Information Technology Strategic Plan that sets forth a vision and specific initiatives for enhancing information security;
- Continued implementation and refinement of a Department system for tracking all IT security weaknesses and corrective actions;
- Full integration of security into other IT management processes, such as capital planning;
- Initiation of a project to define requirements for a Department-wide public key infrastructure program;
- Initiation of a project to define requirements for a Department-wide security architecture.

Also, the CIO increased information technology security program oversight reporting within the FBI.  The FBI is reporting progress on a monthly basis to the CIO and the Department’s Security Officer.

Chart: Measure Refined: % of Information Systems with a Tested Contingency Plan [IMSS]D

Data Definition: Mission Critical Systems are operational systems identified on the Department's Minimum Essential Infrastructure (MEI) list supported by the President's Decision Directive (PDD) 63; Critical Infrastructure Protection Program. Major Systems are operational systems identified on the Department's budget Exhibit 53. All IT Systems are operational systems meeting either of the definitions above and included in the Department's IT investment portfolio.

Data Collection and Storage: Data is collected and stored as part of the testing protocols.

Data Validation and Verification: Component technical and management staff reviews data before it is finalized.

Data Limitations: Potential comparability issues across years.


Performance Measure: MEASURE REFINED: Percent of Information Systems with a Tested Contingency Plan formerly: % of Major Systems with a Tested Contingency Plan
            FY 2002 Target:  40%
            FY 2002 Actual:  34%
            Discussion:  The Department fell short of its percentage target even though the absolute number of major systems with tested contingency plans increased.  This measure is being revised to include the contingency planning activities for all systems throughout the Department. 












8.4C Expand Electronic Access and Dissemenation of Department Information

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: % of Information Collections Under the PRA converted to Electronic Format [IMSS] D

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected and stored centrally and consolidated annually for this report.

Data Validation and Verification: Data are reviewed at the component and department level.

Data Limitations: As this tracking requirement is new,  there may be initial data limitations, as well as potential comparability issues across components.


The essence of the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA) is to provide citizens, businesses, and governmental agencies the option of conducting business with the Federal Government through electronic means.  Implicit within GPEA is transforming business processes to make them faster, more efficient, and more citizen-centric—key objectives of the “Expanded Electronic Government” initiatives in the President’s Management Agenda.  Aggressive implementation of “e government” initiatives is a priority of the Department’s IT Strategic Plan.  The Department submitted the FY 2003 – FY 2004 eGovernment Implementation Plan to Office of Management and Budget in October 2002.


Performance Measure: Percent of Information Collections Under the PRA Converted to Electronic Format
            FY 2002 Target: 32%
            FY 2002 Actual: 21%
            Discussion: The percentage figure reported for FY 2002 Actual is predicated on the more stringent requirement of a fully electronic option.  According to OMB, a fully electronic option for a PRA collection is one that has no compulsory paper-based reporting requirements, signatures, correspondence, or dissemination to or with the respondents.  GPEA demands only that an electronic option be available, e.g., fillable and/or downloadable forms accessible on the Web.  Because of the large number of INS forms available on the Internet, the performance measure for FY 2002 Actual would increase to 47% if this definition were invoked.  These two figures clearly bracket the FY 2002 Target.



Strengthen human resource recruitment, and retention and performance to ensure a workforce that is skilled, diverse and committed to excellence

8.5A Increase Hiring and Retention in Key Positions

Background/Program Objectives:

Chart: Measure Discontinued: Border Patrol Agents On-Board [INS]D

Data Collection and Storage: Data is collected by the National Payroll Center in a centralized processing center where INS employee payroll is processed.

Data Validation and Verification: To measure the number of agents on-board, INS produces a monthly INS training report categorized by pay periods during the FY. The total number of agents on-board are aggregated each pay period and reported by the Office of Human Resources and Budget. The data is reconciled each pay period through payroll data at the National Payroll Center to ensure consistency.

Data Limitations: None known at this time.


We have given priority attention to the recruitment of Border Patrol Agents and have been quite successful. INS will continue improvements in this area through the implementation of the following five initiatives: (1) increase the Internet recruiting system that involves twelve different sites; (2) establish overseas testing involving military bases around the world; (3) develop the capacity to conduct walk-in testing or mobile testing; (4) revise the compressed testing process to allow on-site drug testing; and (5) initiate an integrity interview and full field investigation prior to the oral board. Valuable staff hours and resources will be saved by utilizing the Internet and walk-in testing.


Performance Measure: MEASURE DISCONTINUED: Border Patrol Agents On-Board (NOTE: This indicator is being discontinued - the program has been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security)
            FY 2002 Target: 10,377/10,551
            FY 2002 Actual: 10,052
            Discussion: During the fiscal year, as a result of Counterterrorism funding enhancements, the target was raised to 10,551.  At the end of FY 2002, INS had 10,052 Border Patrol Agents on board.  INS did not meet its hiring goal for one reason – a significant increase in losses, particularly to other Federal Agencies.  In FY 2001, the loss rate for Border Patrol Agents was 10.3%.  In FY 2002, it ballooned to 18.3% with the increase primarily occurring after January 2002.  This corresponded with the creation of the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) and the Sky Marshall Program.  In FY 2001, INS lost 145 agents to other federal agencies.  In FY 2002, that number increased to 806 representing an increase of 556% over FY 2001.  INS missed its goal by 499 agents whereas the difference between losses in FY 2001 vs. FY 2002 was 661.  During FY 2002, INS attracted over 93,000 applications for Border Patrol positions.  This was due to a highly successful national multi-million dollar advertising campaign with radio, newspaper, Internet, and other print ads.



8.5B Streamline Organizations within the Department of Justice by Delayering Management Levels

Full discussion of this topic has been moved to the new PMA section on Competive Sourcing.

Back to TOC