U.S. Department of Justice
Office of the Attorney General

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Fiscal Year 1999
Annual Accountability Report
March 31, 2000

This report is on the DOJ web site at www.usdoj.gov.

FOREWORD

This Annual Accountability Report highlights the diverse activities and major accomplishments of the Department of Justice (the Department) in fiscal year 1999, reflecting the continued dedication and expertise of our employees and their commitment to the principles of justice and fair treatment for all Americans. This is the second year that the Department has consolidated statutory reporting requirements in an accountability report. This year's report also includes our first statement of performance in compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act.

In closing the twentieth century, the Department of Justice proudly reports that crime has continued its steady decline for the seventh straight year in a row. Preventive and responsive law enforcement programs; investments in crime-fighting technologies; and greater cross-boundary cooperation at the federal, state, and local levels have made America a safer and more secure society.

We helped create safer streets and communities in FY 1999. The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services brought the ranks of funded community police officers to 103,720, exceeding the President's goal to fund 100,000 cops by the year 2000. A new, automated FBI fingerprint system was put in place to allow law enforcement agencies to transmit fingerprint information electronically, replacing a manual card system and drastically reducing the response time for criminal cases. Tribal communities received 189 grants to improve law enforcement infrastructure and community policing in Indian Country.

We also renewed our commitment to protect the country's borders and national security. We established a Five-Year Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan, and the INS continued to strengthen border enforcement while also improving its naturalization process. Strengthened interagency and international cooperation in the war against drugs brought about several aggressive high-impact campaigns targeting illegal supply networks. At the same time, the Department supported more community-based approaches to reducing demand and use on America's streets.

Also, this year, I am pleased to provide reasonable assurance that our management control and financial systems, taken as a whole, met the objectives of Sections 2 and 4 of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act. While we still have a number of material challenges to resolve, the Department is steadily improving in this area.

As we begin the twenty-first century, we expect our history of achievement to provide a strong basis for the Department to effectively deal with the challenges ahead.

Respectfully submitted,
Janet Reno

Table of Contents

• Introduction
• DOJ Organizational Chart
• Results in Brief
• Part I: Program Performance
  • Chapter I – Core Function I
    Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses
    • 1.1 Reduce violent crime
    • 1.2 Reduce the availability and abuse of illegal drugs
    • 1.3 Reduce espionage and terrorism
    • 1.4 Reduce white-collar crime, including public corruption and fraud
    • 1.5 Coordinate and integrate Department law enforcement activities
  • Chapter II – Core Function II
    Assistance to Tribal, State, and Local Governments
    • 2.1 Improve the crime-fighting and criminal/juvenile justice system capabilities of tribal, state, and local governments
    • 2.2 Strengthen and improve community police services
    • 2.3 Support innovative, community-based strategies aimed at reducing crime, delinquency, and violence
    • 2.4 Uphold the rights of and improve services to America’s crime victims
    • 2.5 Reduce the incidence of violence against women
  • Chapter III – Core Function III
    Legal Representation, Enforcement of Federal Laws, and Defense of U.S. Interests
    • 3.1 Protect the civil rights of all Americans
    • 3.2 Safeguard America’s environment and natural resources
    • 3.3 Promote competition in the U.S. economy
    • 3.4 Promote the fair, correct, and uniform enforcement of Federal tax laws and the collection of tax debts
    • 3.5 Represent the United States in all civil matters for which the Department has jurisdiction
  • Chapter IV - Core Function IV
    Immigration
    • 4.1 Enhance the integrity and integration of data and data systems operated by the INS
    • 4.2 Deliver services to the public in a timely, consistent, fair, and high-quality manner
    • 4.3 Secure the land border, ports-of-entry, and coasts of the United States against illegal migration
    • 4.4 Facilitate lawful travel and commerce across the borders of the United States
    • 4.5 Maximize deterrence to unlawful migration and enforce immigration laws
    • 4.6 Expedite the adjudication of immigration cases
    • 4.7 Improve the development and implementation of immigration-related policies and practices
  • Chapter V – Core Function V
    Detention and Incarceration
    • 5.1 Provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of persons who are detained
    • 5.2 Ensure that sufficient prison capacity exists
    • 5.3 Maintain and operate the Federal prison system in a safe, secure, humane, and efficient manner
    • 5.4 Provide productive work, education, medical, and other programs to meet inmate needs and facilitate their successful reintegration into society
  • Chapter VI – Core Function VI
    Protection of the Federal Judiciary and Improvement of the Justice System
    • 6.1 Protect the Federal judiciary and ensure the safe and secure operation of the Federal court system
    • 6.2 Promote the participation of victims and witnesses throughout each stage of criminal and juvenile justice proceedings
    • 6.3 Protect and preserve the integrity of the bankruptcy system
  • Chapter VII – Core Function VII
    Management
    • 7.1 Strengthen oversight and integrity programs, ensure consistent accountability, and emphasize core mission responsibilities
    • 7.2 Meet or exceed the expectations of customers
    • 7.3 Achieve excellence in management practices
    • 7.4 Make effective use of information technology
    • 7.5 Ensure a motivated and diverse work force that is well-trained and empowered to do its job
• Part II: Financial Performance
  • Chapter VIII – Audit Report
    Consolidated Audited Financial Statement
    • Commentary and Summary
    • Management’s Overview
    • Independent Accountants’ Reports
      • Report of Independent Accountants
      • Report of Independent Accountants on Internal Controls
      • Report of Independent Accountants on Compliance with Laws and Regulations
    • Annual Financial Statement
      • Consolidated Balance Sheet
      • Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
      • Consolidated Statement of Changes In Net Position
      • Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources
      • Combined Statement of Financing
      • Combined Statement of Custodial Activity
      • Notes to the Principal Financial Statements
    • Supplemental Financial and Management’s Information
      • Consolidated Stewardship Information
      • Consolidated Deferred Maintenance
      • Consolidated Intra-governmental Assets
      • Consolidated Intra-governmental Liabilities
      • Consolidated Intra-governmental Earned Revenue and Related Cost
      • Consolidating Balance Sheet
      • Consolidating Statement of Net Cost
      • Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position
      • Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources
      • Combining Statement of Financing
    • Appendix
      • Audit Division Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report
  • Appendices
    • Appendix A: Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms
    • Appendix B: Criminal Caseload Statistical Reports on Intellectual Property Crimes
    • Appendix C: Index of Justice Component Web Sites
    • Appendix D: Component and Bureau Missions
    • Appendix E: Data Sources and Validation figures
  • Figures
    • 1 7 Year Drop in Crime
    • 2 Major Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted
    • 3 Brady Law Background Check Results
    • 4 FY 1999 Office of Justice Programs Awards
    • 5 Community Oriented Policing Services: Officers Funded by Fiscal Year
    • 6 Criminal Aliens Removed from the United States
    • 7 Average Daily Detention Population in Custody
    • 8 Bureau of Prisons Inmate Population
    • 9 Prison Overcrowding
    • 10 DEA FY 1999 Methamphetamine Lab Seizures
    • 11 Counterterrorism Funding to State and Local Governments FY 1999
    • 12 INS Customer Service
    • 13 Total Number of New Citizens and Total Number of Naturalization Applications Completed
    • 14 JPATS Large Aircraft Routes
    • 15 JPATS Movements of Prisoners in FY 1999

Introduction

Overview of the Department of Justice

This report provides the President, the Congress, and the American people an accounting of the programmatic and financial performance of the Department of Justice (the Department) during fiscal year (FY) 1999.¹ It gives a succinct report on what we have achieved and where we need to improve. It is submitted as a consolidated response to various statutory reporting requirements, including those of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (P.L.103-62), the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) of 1982 (P.L. 97-255), the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (P.L.103-356), and the Anticounterfeiting Consumer Protection Act.

Mission: To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to provide Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, to administer and enforce the Nation’s immigration laws fairly and effectively, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

To carry out the Department’s mission, the Attorney General directs the activities of more than 123,000 attorneys, investigators, Border Patrol agents, deputy marshals, correctional officers, and other employees. Although headquartered in Washington, DC, most of the Department’s work takes place outside Washington. As a result, the majority of our employees work in any one of more than 2,700 Justice installations around the country and in one of more than 120 foreign cities.

The Department’s organizational chart, which follows, shows the component organizations that carry out most of the Department’s day-to-day work. The major components ("bureaus") include the U.S. Attorneys (USAs), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the United States Marshals Service (USMS), the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP). Among the offices, boards, and divisions, there are the legal divisions (Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax), the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Office, and the Justice Management Division. Appendix D contains individual mission statements for the components.

For FY 1999, the Department received an appropriated and fee-funded budget totaling approximately $21 billion (P.L. 105-277, 106-31, 106-51), a 4.9-percent increase over the FY 1998 budget. Most of this increase went toward funding additional immigration and detention and incarceration initiatives.

Part I of this report summarizes 1999 program results. In accordance with GPRA, it reports the actual levels of performance achieved compared to specific targets identified in our 1999 Summary Performance Plan.² Where appropriate, this report also provides other descriptive information in order to give a richer and more complete picture of the activities and results achieved during the year. In compliance with FMFIA, it identifies major management challenges and describes our progress toward their resolution.

Part I is organized according to the seven Core Functions set forth in the Department’s Strategic Plan.³ The Strategic Plan provides the overarching framework for the Department’s performance planning and reporting activities. Within each Core Function, the report is further subdivided according to our long-term Strategic Goals and specific 1999 Performance Goals. Actual results for 1999, as well as for 1997 and 1998, are provided in tabular form, with data sources included. (More detailed data source and data reliability information is provided in Appendix E.) Where we did not meet planned levels of performance, an explanation is provided. The first part of the document also includes a discussion of summary findings of FY 1999 program evaluations.

This is the first year of performance reporting under GPRA. Preparing the report has helped focus our attention on improvements needed in the scope, utility, and clarity of our goals and indicators in a number of areas. Some of these improvements have already been incorporated in our Summary Performance Plan for FY 2001; others will be implemented over time.

The task of developing measurable goals and valid and useful indicators is a challenging one. In the law enforcement arena, it is complicated by the inherent difficulty of measuring the preventive and deterrent effects of our work. It is also complicated by the risks associated with setting targets that may unwittingly and adversely skew performance. Our "bottom line" is justice. It is not achieving particular numbers of arrests, indictments, convictions, or asset seizures. Therefore, in accordance with departmental policy, no targets were set for these activities in our 1999 or subsequent performance plans; however, actual 1999 figures are provided in this report⁴.

Part II of the report describes the Department’s financial performance during 1999. It includes the Department’s 1999 consolidated financial statement, the report of the independent auditors, and the summary and commentary prepared by the Department’s Inspector General.

Five appendices include (A) a glossary of abbreviations and acronyms used in this report, (B) a summary of criminal caseload statistical reports on intellectual property crimes, (C) a list of Justice component web sites, (D) the mission statements of individual Justice components, and (E) data source and data validation information to support performance indicators.

This report is on the Department’s web site at www.usdoj.gov.

Organizational Chart

d

Results in Brief

• In 1999, serious crime continued its downward trend, due in part to the collaborative efforts of the Department of Justice and other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies (see Figure 1).
  

  Figure 1
  Seven Year Drop in Crime

  d

  
  
• In one of the most complex and successful multi-agency and multijurisdictional investigations ever, the Department substantially diminished the ability of the Amado Carillo Fuentes organization to move cocaine and other drugs into and around the United States. Termed Operation "Impunity," the investigation netted the arrests of three cell heads operating in the United States and 90 of their subordinates. It disabled all facets of the Fuentes organization, headquartered in Juarez, Mexico, including its drug and money transportation systems and the local U.S. distribution groups (see Figure 2).
  
  
• A joint U.S.-Colombian investigation, Operation "Millennium," disrupted a consortium of trafficking networks responsible for shipping vast quantities of cocaine from Colombia through Mexico and into the United States. Among those arrested by the Colombian government was drug kingpin Alejandro Bernal-Madrigal, believed by law enforcement officials to be one of the most significant international drug traffickers and money launderers presently operating (see Figure 2).
  

  Figure 2
  Major Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted

  d

  
  
• The FBI continued its successful assault on organized crime, reducing membership in La Cosa Nostra by about 18 percent and dismantling four Asian and three Russian criminal enterprises.
  
  
• In 1999, USAs continued to prosecute the most violent criminal offenders under the Anti-Violent Crime Initiative and through the enhanced criminal provisions of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994. They filed a total of 7,392 violent criminal cases against 9,175 offenders during 1999, a 7-percent increase over the number of cases filed in 1998.
  
  
• The FBI launched the Innocent Images National Initiative to address on-line child pornography and child sexual exploitation, the most significant and fastest growing crime problem involving children. The FBI also found and safely returned home 90 children who had been abducted.
  
  
• FBI Safe Streets Task Forces (SSTFs) and DEA Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs) continued to help local communities deal with drug-related violence. In 1999, there were 170 SSTFs and 53 new MET deployments.



• The OCDETF program continued its focus on targeting drug trafficking organizations, including foreign-based organizations or those with connections to them. These organizations are responsible for the importation of most of the illegal narcotics sold in the United States. In FY 1999, based on data submitted for the first 6 months of the fiscal year, 30 percent of OCDETF investigations targeted Mexican drug trafficking organizations or organizations connected to them; 11.2 percent targeted Colombian drug trafficking or related organizations; and 8.9 percent targeted Caribbean-based organizations or related groups.
  
  
• The FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System denied firearm purchases to more than 60,000 people, who were disqualified for having criminal histories, dishonorable discharges, or restraining orders (see Figure 3). Since the Brady Law went into effect in 1994, an estimated 470,000 persons have been denied firearms, based on checks conducted at the Federal or state level.
  

  Figure 3
  Brady Law Background Check Results

  d

  
  
• OJP awarded about $4.3 billion to jurisdictions in all 50 states and U.S. territories. Funds supported state and local programs; the Crime Victims Fund; juvenile justice programs; research, evaluation, and demonstration activities; Weed and Seed programs; criminal justice statistical activity; and the Public Safety Officers Benefits program (see Figure 4).
  

  Figure 4
  FY 1999 Office of Justice Programs Awards

  d

  
  
• The Department began the process of establishing a new National Domestic Preparedness Office in the FBI to coordinate the Nation’s planning and preparation for responding to terrorist attacks, including the possible use of weapons of mass destruction.
  
  
• The FBI successfully transitioned from its old manual fingerprint card system to a new Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. The new system allows law enforcement agencies to transmit fingerprint information electronically and drastically reduces average response time for criminal cases—from days to 2 hours. The FBI also successfully implemented its new National Criminal Identification Center.
  
  
• A new Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative was launched—a joint undertaking of the Departments of Justice, Education, and Health and Human Services—to provide funding to help communities prevent school violence and promote healthy child development. The Departments of Justice and Education also joined forces with the Department of Energy to produce a guidebook for local school and law enforcement officials on The Appropriate and Effective Use of Security Technologies in U.S. Schools.
  
  
• In one of the most significant antitrust cases ever, the Department’s Antitrust Division obtained after-trial findings from the court supporting our claims against Microsoft Corporation.



• The Department met the President’s goal of funding an additional 100,000 community police officers to help protect America’s communities (see Figure 5).
  

  Figure 5
  Community Oriented Policing Services

  d

  
  
• The Department won the largest environmental case ever under the Clean Air Act, resulting in a record fine of $83.4 million and a settlement that will prevent 75 million tons of nitrous oxide (NOx) air pollution over the next 27 years and reduce by one-third the total NOx emissions from diesel engines by 2003.
  
  
• The Department filed a civil lawsuit against the largest cigarette companies in an effort to recover billions of dollars spent by the Federal Government each year on smoking-related health care costs.
  
  
• The Antitrust Division, through its international cartel enforcement program, brought in historic, record criminal fines totaling more than $1.1 billion, including a $500 million fine against one of the largest vitamin manufacturers in the world.
  
  
• INS cut the average processing time from 28 months to 12 months and completed more than 1.2 million applications for naturalization, including 872,000 persons sworn in as new naturalized U.S. citizens.
  
  
• INS' Operation "Seek and Keep," a year-long multiagency investigation, resulted in the dismantling of the most complex alien smuggling ring ever encountered by Federal authorities. This illegal, dangerous, and exploitive activity grossed an estimated $220 million over 3 years. Eighteen alien smugglers have accepted guilty pleas and are now out of business.
  
  
• The INS deported 62,838 criminal aliens. Since 1995, the number of criminal aliens deported each year has increased by an average of 19 percent (see Figure 6).
  

  Figure 6
  Criminal Aliens Removed from the United States

  d

  
  
• The Department successfully surmounted its biggest computer issue ever—Y2K preparation—and experienced no incidents related to the New Millennium.
  
  
• The Department made significant progress in improving its financial management. In 1999, independent auditors gave unqualified opinions on 9 out of 10 of our reporting entities. INS received a qualified opinion.
  
  
• In 1999, the Department’s law enforcement efforts resulted in more than $610 million being forfeited from criminals and criminal activity, undermining the economic motivation and the financial base of criminal organizations and activities. This money was deposited into the Asset Forfeiture Fund, and the Department distributed some of those assets to state and local law enforcement agencies participating in the underlying criminal investigations. In this way, criminals, not taxpayers, help foot the bill for law enforcement.



• The Department continued to experience increases in numbers of persons detained, with an average daily population of 32,119 in USMS custody—an 11.9-percent increase over FY1998 —and 16,563 in INS custody—a 12-percent increase over FY 1998 (see Figure 7).
  

  Figure 7
  Average Daily Detention Population in Custody

  d

  
  
• The Federal prison population also continued to grow. At the end of 1999, there were 133,047 persons (not including 642 INS prisoners in Eloy) in BOP custody, an increase of 10,731 since 1997. The overcrowding rate systemwide rose from 22 percent in FY 1997 to 31 percent in FY 1999. In medium security institutions, it climbed from 37 percent in FY 1997 to 51 percent in FY 1999. While the high-security inmate population continued to climb, the overcrowding rate dropped slightly—from 52 percent in 1997 to 50 percent in FY 1999—as new penitentiaries came into use (see Figures 8 and 9)
  

  Figure 8
  Bureau of Prisons Inmate Population*

  d

  Figure 9
  Prison Overcrowding

  d

Part One

Program Performance

Core Function I: Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses

The U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) and its component organizations work together with Federal, state, local, and even international agencies to enforce this Nation’s criminal laws. These partnerships have made possible comprehensive strategies to address formidable societal problems. The five Strategic Goals under
this Core Function target (1) violent crime, including organized crime and drug- and gang-related violence; (2) drug trafficking and related crime; (3) espionage and terrorism; (4) white collar crime, including public corruption and fraud, and (5) coordination of law enforcement activities.

Strategic Goal 1.1
Reduce violent crime, including organized crime and drug- and gang-related violence.

Violent crime reduction continues to be a priority of the Administration. While final 1999 data are not yet available, preliminary Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data indicate that violent crime rates continued their 7-year declining trend. The first 6 months of 1999 saw a 10-percent decrease in serious crime (all violent and property crime), compared to the same time period last year. Some specific preliminary results include: a 13-percent decrease in the murder rate, a 10-percent decrease in the robbery rate, an 8-percent decrease in the forcible rape rate, and a 7-percent decrease in the aggravated assault rate. The number of Federal bank robbery violations nationwide also declined.

Bank Robberies on the Decline

The number of Federal bank robbery violations nationwide declined 20 percent from FY 1997 through FY 1999—from 8,064 to 6,420 violations. Hidden by this downward trend, however, is the recent re-emergence of the serial bank robber, who travels across state lines and commits robberies throughout the United States. Analysis of information being captured in the FBI’s Bank Robbery Statistical Application will identify serial bank robbers and bank robbery trends and patterns, as well as areas of the country where bank robberies are on the rise. In FY 1999, the FBI solved 3,113 bank robberies, roughly half (48.5 percent) of the violations.

This Strategic Goal includes five FY 1999 Performance Goals, which address traditional and nontraditional organized crime, gang-related violence, crimes against children, and crime in Indian Country.

Performance Goal 1.1.1
Organized Crime - La Cosa Nostra (LCN)

DOJ will work to restore open and free economic competition in industries influenced by organized crime. DOJ will do this by continuing to reduce the active LCN membership.

Organized crime can include violations relating to gambling, extortion, and the infiltration of legitimate businesses. The FBI, U.S. Attorneys, and the Criminal Division continued to work cooperatively in 1999 to dismantle traditional organized crime groups, such as the La Cosa Nostra, and to ensure that a new generation of criminals does not emerge. The FBI has especially focused on labor racketeering and on the two largest and most powerful families—the Gambino and Genovese.

The FBI’s long-term campaign, Operation “Button Down,” designed to eliminate the LCN as a significant crime factor in the United States, continued to get results in 1999. FBI investigative efforts, along with aggressive prosecution by the U.S. Attorneys, have made significant inroads in reducing LCN’s membership and influence, with the Department incarcerating 18.4 percent more LCN members in 1999. For example, the Department successfully prosecuted members and bosses of the Luchese LCN, Colombo LCN, and Youngstown faction of the Pittsburgh LCN families.

Three Youngstown LCN Members Convicted on RICO-Murder Charges

In the northern district of Ohio, a jury found three defendants guilty on March 12, 1999, in a Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)-murder case involving organized crime. The three associates of the Pittsburgh LCN family were convicted of substantive RICO charges. The court sentenced each defendant to life in prison without the possibility of parole. All three were found guilty of participating in the murder of a reputed Youngstown gambling figure and in the attempted murder of a Mahoning County prosecutor, and of conducting an illegal gambling business. Two of the three defendants were also convicted of engaging in violent crime in aid of racketeering.

Performance Goal 1.1.1 / Organized Crime

*The Department has revised this indicator in the FY 2001 Summary Performance Plan to read, “percent of LCN members incarcerated.”
Data Source: ISRAA**

**This and all other data source information is described in Appendix E.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The Department’s actual accomplishment of 18.4 percent fell short of the planned target of 20 percent by only 1.6 percent, a slight deviation. The reported reduction rate of 18.4 percent of LCN members is a conservative performance figure that does not take into account the number of LCN members who, while not yet incarcerated, are in the criminal justice process. The shortfall does not compromise the program or its related activities.

Performance Goal 1.1.2
Organized Crime—Non-Traditional and Emerging Groups

Nationally, DOJ will place priority on identifying high-impact investigative targets and allocating appropriate resources to deal with the problem. DOJ will identify, disrupt, and dismantle emerging organized criminal enterprises, including Asian groups and Russian groups.

Efforts to counter emerging threats such as Russian, Eastern European, Asian, and other organized crime groups continued in 1999 through a commitment of resources for enforcement efforts and international liaison. According to the FBI, Russian criminal enterprises represent a significant criminal force internationally. Through a worldwide network headquartered in the Russian Federation, these organizations have amassed great wealth, political influence, and economic power. They continue to exert much control over Russia’s emerging financial and market structures and seek to establish themselves in the United States through involvement with traditional organized crime activities, such as extortion, murder, prostitution, and drugs. The FBI’s goal is to mitigate and counter their efforts to establish a criminal foothold in this country by gathering intelligence and conducting investigations to help disrupt and dismantle identified criminal enterprises. In 1999, the FBI’s efforts led to 86 arrests, 66 indictments, and 42 convictions. More critically, FBI efforts led to the disruption of five and the dismantlement of three Russian organizations.

FBI enforcement efforts were also crucial to disrupting and dismantling Asian Criminal Enterprises (ACEs). Many domestically based ACEs have linkages to international Asian syndicates, which use both global financial resources and extensive membership alliances to establish and influence U.S.-based ACEs. The FBI’s goal is to identify, target, and dismantle the 12 most significant ACEs operating in the United States. It made much progress toward this goal in 1999 with the benefit of extensive intelligence, achieving 400 arrests, 280 indictments, and 271 convictions. These enforcement efforts were crucial to disrupting 14 and dismantling 4 Asian criminal organizations, the majority of which were connected to international Asian syndicates. A noteworthy example of a Eurasian Organized Crime (EOC) investigation is Operation “Red Hook”.

Operation “Red Hook”

On December 9, 1998, the FBI’s New York Division concluded Operation “Red Hook,” an undercover operation that led to the arrests of nine individuals on a 43-count Federal indictment for engaging in a long-term $2.7-million money laundering scheme. Agents arrested two of the individuals at an undercover meeting where they delivered $910,000 in cashier checks and money orders as their part in a reverse money laundering deal. Three of the arrests occurred in the Boston Division. In addition, FBI agents executed 6 search warrants and seized 64 bank accounts, 3 residences, and other assets totaling approximately $2 million. To date, this operation has identified 47 subjects who criminally facilitated reverse money laundering transactions, 64 bank accounts used to launder money considered to be proceeds of drug transactions, and 41 businesses associated with these bank accounts.

Performance Goal 1.1.2 / Organized Crime - Non-Traditional and Emerging Groups

Data Source: ISRAA.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The Department’s actual accomplishments in dismantling three Russian criminal enterprises and four Asian enterprises fell short of planned targets of four and eight, respectively. The difference between actual and planned levels of performance results from the timing and complexity of carrying out case investigations and prosecutions. Because dismantlement data are captured only after the sentencing phase of the legal process, the delay between a suspect’s arrest and the final sentencing phase accounts for much of the variance in planned versus actual accomplishment. Given that performance target levels were approximately specified, the shortfall reflects no problems or issues with performance and poses no negative consequences to the program and its related activities.

Performance Goal 1.1.3
Gang-Related and Other Violence

DOJ will target and respond to particular local crime problems involving violence and gang activity, including drug-related crimes. To achieve this, DOJ will strive to reduce the level of violent crime by taking violent criminals and gangs off our streets through cooperative enforcement efforts with state and local law enforcement in programs such as FBI’s Safe Streets Task Forces (SSTFs) and the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA’s) Mobile Enforcement Teams (METs). We will do this to continue our efforts to reduce the population of existing gangs identified as being the most dangerous.

With a continuing focus on gang violence, gun violence, and juvenile crime in 1999, the Department developed new initiatives that resulted in a cohesive, coordinated effort to reduce violent crime in our Nation’s communities. To build on reductions in crime achieved over the last 7 years, the President, on March 20, 1999, issued a Directive to the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury. In response, Attorney General Reno and Treasury Secretary Rubin developed the Integrated Firearms Violence Reduction Strategy, incorporating proven measures and innovative approaches being used throughout the country under the Attorney General’s Anti-Violent Crime Initiative (1994). Virtually all the U.S. Attorneys and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) special agents in charge worked together on this initiative to identify the most threatening gun violence problems in their jurisdictions. They then developed locally coordinated gun violence reduction plans at each judicial district level that describe the problem of firearms violence in the district, summarized the legal tools and firearms-related information resources available there, and described the strategies already in place and those the district intends to pursue. In addition to helping ensure locally coordinated gun violence reduction plans, the Department in FY 1999:

• Continued to assist—with the help of prosecutors working with the National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC)—Federal, state, and local gang investigators and the National Alliance of Gang Investigators Association, a group representing 12,000 investigators across the country dedicated to promoting and coordinating anti-gang strategies.
  

• Continued a partnership with the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to target violent crime in public housing in 13 cities, and with the Department of Treasury (Treasury) to expand the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative to a total of 27 cities.
  
  
• Won a major victory in the war against violent crime in Holloway v. United States, which more broadly defined the legal requirement for malicious intent by carjackers.

Carjacking Statute Revised

In Holloway v. United States, the Supreme Court held that the phrase "with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm" in the Federal carjacking statute does not require the Government to prove that the defendant had an unconditional intent to kill or harm in all events. It merely requires proof that the defendant intended to kill or harm to effect a carjacking. If the defendant had the proscribed state of mind when demanding or taking control over the car "by force and violence or by intimidation," then that satisfies the statute’s intent requirement.

But the violent crime problem cannot be addressed by Federal resources alone, nor can it be solved only by state or local resources. As of September 30, 1999, 785 FBI agents in 52 FBI field offices worked in concert with more than 1,100 other Federal, state, and local law enforcement officers on 170 Safe Streets Task Forces. Forty-five of the SSTFs focused their efforts exclusively on violent gangs.

National Gang Strategy

During FY 1999, Safe Streets Task Force efforts helped to dismantle 32 gang sets or subsets as well as disrupt 66 gang operations. Two major successes in this area include the Grape Street Crips and the Logan Heights street gangs in San Diego, California.

• For the Grape Street investigation, the FBI used undercover operatives and electronic surveillance, culminating in 73 Federal arrest warrants and five Federal search warrants.
  
  
• The investigation of the Logan Heights street gang in San Diego yielded Federal indictments of 12 individuals, including a leader of the Arellano-Felix drug trafficking organization (aka the “Tijuana Cartel”), who was subsequently placed on the “Ten Most Wanted” list.

All approaches to curbing violent crime in this country call for a focus on teamwork and cross-boundary cooperation. Working in concert with other agencies, DEA’s program in FY 1999 initiated 53 new and completed 48 deployments with state and local law enforcement agencies. Overwhelmingly positive responses from the law enforcement community and the public have demonstrated the value of the MET program. The more tangible measures of MET’s operational effectiveness include: visible reduction of drug use and sales, stability of the target area, community reaction and involvement, and positive assessments by requesting agencies. In areas where DEA has deployed METs, assaults are down by 10 percent, homicides by 14 percent, and robberies by 15 percent. In Coconino County, Arizona, the Phoenix MET worked with the Northern Arizona Street Crimes Task Force to target these organizations. During a 9-month deployment in FY 1999, the Phoenix MET infiltrated these organizations, known for extreme violence and for supplying street-level dealers with large quantities of methamphetamine. The MET resulted in seizures of 7 operational and 3 dismantled methamphetamine labs; seizures of drugs, weapons, vehicles, and cash; and 86 arrests, including those of two primary targets: Jose Francisco Colimas and Ricardo “Duke” Castillo.

The Department is encouraging communities to use information-driven, problem-solving, and multi-agency action to reduce specific crime problems. Under the leadership of the U.S. Attorneys, five pilot sites (Indianapolis, Memphis, New Haven, Portland, and Winston-Salem) are in their second year of a 2-year project called Strategic Approaches to Community Safety Initiative. An important part of the project is to build collaborative partnerships that involve criminal justice agencies, community-based organizations, and researchers. For example, the Portland, Oregon, pilot linked its project to a standing committee—the city’s 35-member Public Safety Coordinating Council. The personal and professional relationships already established through the Council helped to formalize and institutionalize collaboration among frontline professionals who deal with crime and street realities every day. Team members target youth offenders to disengage them from gang affiliations and to help them transition from incarceration back into the community.

Efforts by U.S. Attorneys continued to dismantle the operations of violent gangs in 1999, securing convictions for murder, drug, and racketeering offenses. All in all, the U.S. Attorneys removed 6,536 violent criminals from the streets. Guided by its national gang strategy and with the combined efforts of SSTFs and local law enforcement, the FBI achieved a 13-percent reduction in dangerous gangs targeted, exceeding its 10-percent reduction goal.

Almighty Latin King Nation ‘Dethroned’

In a second round of prosecutions against leaders and members of the Almighty Latin King Nation in Bridgeport, New Haven, and Norwalk, Connecticut, several high-ranking gang members were sentenced on racketeering and related charges. The former president of the New Haven Chapter received five concurrent life sentences for a variety of crimes, including murder, RICO, and drug offenses. The former executive crown vice president got 33 years in prison for a drive-by shooting and other crimes. Another defendant received a 30-year sentence for his role in the largest Latin Kings’ heroin operation and for being an accessory to murder. A fourth got a 20-year term for planning and executing acts of violence and retaliation. Thirty-nine Latin Kings have been convicted since March 1997.

Performance Goal 1.1.3 / Gang-Related and Other Violence

Data Source: (1) LIONS. (2) ISRAA.

Performance Goal 1.1.4
Crimes Against Children

DOJ will focus on an improved overall response capability in child abduction cases, including the use of multidisciplinary teams of law enforcement and other professionals, so that the FBI is promptly notified of such incidents and can promptly deploy investigative assistance. DOJ will also increase efforts against those who commit sexual exploitation offenses against children, including those who traffic in child pornography.

The Department’s accomplishments in FY 1999 resulted from stepped-up efforts to reduce crimes against America’s children, with special attention given to Internet crimes. The Department improved investigations and prosecutions in child pornography through training law enforcement and facilitating cooperation between domestic and international law enforcement agencies. For example, the Department participated in the Global Conference on Combating Child Pornography on the Internet, held in Vienna, Austria, in September 1999. The conference—co-sponsored by the United States, the European Union, and Austria—brought the on-line computer industry together with law enforcement, government agency representatives, the judiciary, academia, and nongovernmental organizations to protect children on-line.

On-line child pornography and child sexual exploitation is this country’s biggest and fastest growing crime problem involving children, reflected by a 1,225-percent increase in the number of these cases initiated by the FBI from FY 1996–99. To counter this problem, the FBI launched the Innocent Images National Initiative, which expanded to 10 operatives as of September 1999. During FY 1999, this effort led to the arrest of 195 individuals and the conviction/pre-trial diversion of 106 individuals.

Innocent Images Success

Undercover agents began an on-line relationship with Joseph M. Klein, a Broadway musical director alleged to have had a sexual relationship with a juvenile attending summer stock theater. Agents arrested Klein on January 28, 1999, after he traveled from New York to Maryland to meet with a 13-year-old boy—actually an agent from the on-line relationship. A search of Klein’s Manhattan residence uncovered more than 5,000 pornographic images of children as young as 5 years old engaged in various sexual acts or poses. This material identified 45 potential child victims and numerous subjects who were trading in child pornography or attempting to entice children on-line into illicit sexual conduct. Klein pled guilty to two counts.

Performance Goal 1.1.4 / Crimes Against Children

*FY 1998 data have been updated, based on accomplishments entered since these data were last reported. These additional arrests, convictions, etc., actually occurred in 1998 but were only recently entered into ISRAA.
Data Source: ISRAA.

Performance Goal 1.1.5
Indian Country Crimes

DOJ will work with tribal authorities to combat and reduce the incidence of violent crime on Indian reservations, especially that related to gang activity, through the use of Safe Trails Task Forces (STTFs) and the identification of particular enforcement priorities. NOTE: This Performance Goal was originally Performance Goal 1.5.3.

Unfortunately, Indian Country has not shared in the national drop in violent crime. In fact, violent crime has risen in some Indian communities. The homicide rate in Indian Country remains three times the national average, crimes against children continue to pervade, and gangs and drug trafficking are major problems. In 1999, Congress appropriated $109 million for the President’s Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative.

For its part, the FBI has 32 field offices with some degree of Indian Country investigative responsibility through its SSTFs and STTFs. As of September 1999, 10 STTFs with 145 FBI agent positions in Arizona, Utah, Wyoming, and South Dakota exclusively or primarily worked Indian Country matters. During FY 1999, the FBI either trained or provided funding to train more than 300 law enforcement personnel from 44 tribes, BIA and other Federal agencies, FBI field offices, and state and local police departments on topics applicable to Indian Country investigations. During 1999, FBI efforts led to Federal charges against 387 individuals and indictments against 329.

Performance Goal 1.1.5 / Indian Country Crimes.

Data Source: MAR and LIONS.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The shortfall of 60 cases for this target is considered a slight deviation. Given that performance target levels were approximately specified, the shortfall reflects no problems or issues with performance; neither does it pose any negative consequences to the program and its related activities. The long-term trend shows rising case load, reflecting greater Federal support for investigating violent crime on Indian lands.

Strategic Goal 1.2
Reduce the availability and abuse of illegal drugs through
traditional and innovative enforcement efforts.

Today, 6.4 percent of Americans use illegal drugs, down more than 50 percent from 17.5 percent of the population in 1979.⁶ While the drop in percentage of users is encouraging, it belies the depth of the problem in the United States. In fact, 39 percent of teenagers surveyed in 1998 responded that drugs were the biggest problem facing people their age today.⁷ Indeed, drugs are a major factor in the commission of violent crimes, as well as a burden on the Nation’s health care system. We must remain vigilant in the fight to keep drugs out of our communities and, most importantly, away from our children.

In carrying out its counterdrug goal, the Department seeks to stem the flow of illegal drugs into the United States, especially at the southwest border; disrupt and dismantle the major drug trafficking organizations; and reduce the domestic production of illegal substances. It emphasizes the use of coordinated interagency approaches, such as those of the Special Operations Division (SOD) and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs). It also emphasizes cooperative efforts with foreign governments and continuing efforts to improve the collection, analysis, and dissemination of drug-related intelligence. This Strategic Goal’s six FY 1999 Performance Goals specifically address protecting the U.S. borders from illegal drugs, disrupting and dismantling major drug trafficking criminal enterprises, using enforcement strategies to reduce illegal drug production, working with foreign governments to aid international drug law enforcement, strengthening investigative intelligence programs to support drug investigations and prosecutions, and reducing the demand for drugs.

Performance Goal 1.2.1
Protecting U.S. Borders from the Drug Threat

DOJ will improve its land border defense against drugs through the deployment of new personnel and advanced technology.

Virtually all of the cocaine and heroin—and much of the marijuana and methamphetamine—sold and consumed in the United States is produced abroad. Therefore, a primary aim is to strengthen counterdrug border defenses. In the last several years, Department and other law enforcement entities have increased their resources at or near the borders. As part of this enhanced enforcement effort, the INS Border Patrol plays a pivotal role in intercepting illegal substances before they come into the country. The U.S. Customs Service (USCS) and DEA also work to prevent the spread of illegal drugs into the United States.

In FY 1999, the Department’s seizures of illegal drugs exceeded FY 1998 seizures in almost all categories. Continued heightened presence along the southwest border and improved interdepartmental coordination efforts contributed to FY 1999 success. In FY 1999, along the southwest border, Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Border Patrol agents seized approximately 1.2 million pounds of all drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and heroin), compared to .9 million pounds seized in FY 1998—an increase of 35 percent. Drug cases at the ports-of-entry are transferred to USCS—INS’ sister agency in the Federal inspection process for disposition. Along the border between ports-of-entry, such cases are handed over to the DEA. In FY 1999, DEA prevented nearly 90 kilograms of heroin and 535 kilograms of methamphetamine, from crossing the border.

Performance Goal 1.2.1 / Protecting U.S. Borders from the Drug Threat.

Data Source: STRIDE.

Performance Goal 1.2.2
Attack on Major Drug Trafficking Criminal Enterprises

DOJ will continue its efforts to disrupt and dismantle the command and control operations of major drug trafficking criminal enterprises responsible for the supply of illicit drugs in the United States. DOJ will continue many focused initiatives and efforts that target major traffickers, including: the Southwest Border Initiative, the Caribbean Initiative, the Source Country Initiative, the Anti-Heroin Strategy, the National Methamphetamine Strategy, and OCDETF cases.

The Department’s primary drug enforcement goal is to disrupt and dismantle major drug operations, both domestic and foreign, through an integrated, multifaceted approach. A key element of the Department’s cooperative approach in combating drug trafficking is the Special Operations Division, a multi-agency coordinating entity composed of agents, analysts, and prosecutors from DEA, FBI, USCS, the Criminal Division, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). SOD coordinates and supports regional and national investigations and prosecutions against the most significant drug trafficking organizations threatening the United States, particularly major transnational organizations. SOD, a model for law enforcement cooperation, generates information that is shared by all. It performs across investigative agency and district jurisdictional boundaries, providing field offices with actionable tips and leads. As a result of SOD activity in 1999, DEA, FBI, and USCS field offices reported 1,392 arrests and more than $51 million in seized assets against some of the highest level trafficking organizations in the world.

Also instrumental in the war on drugs is the OCDETF program, which combines the resources and expertise of Federal, state, and local law enforcement agents and Federal prosecutors in conducting concentrated long-term operations to mount intensive and coordinated campaigns against international and domestic drug trafficking organizations. Drug cases filed during FY 1999 (including both OCDETF and non-OCDETF drug cases) made up 33 percent of all criminal cases filed by U.S. Attorneys’ offices. OCDETF has been a critical player in dismantling national and transnational drug operations.

Two successful OCDETF prosecutions of major drug trafficking and money laundering organizations in FY 1999 were as follows:

• On April 26, 1999, Juan Bautista Alomia-Torres was sentenced to life in prison following a jury conviction in the western district of North Carolina. He was prosecuted for his role as the leader of a Colombian drug organization known as "The Line" that smuggled 300–400 kilograms of cocaine into Charlotte, North Carolina, from 1989 to 1997. The organization used ports in Charleston, Wilmington, Houston, New York, Tampa, New Orleans, and Baltimore to import cocaine. It employed a fleet of vehicles rigged with hidden compartments to transport drugs and money. Six co-defendants were sentenced and are serving terms ranging from 4 to 13 years. Three others await sentencing, and four are fugitives.
  
  
• On June 18, 1999, Eli Tisona, a former Israeli "jet-setter," was sentenced to 235 months in prison and fined $50,000 for conspiracy and money laundering. In one of the Nation's largest drug money laundering cases, Tisona was convicted on 146 counts of disguising more than $45 million in Colombian drug cash profits through a family jewelry business. Among the charges were filing false bank statements and making illegal overseas wire transfers. Tisona owned a fish farm in the Colombian drug capital of Cali and was considered one of Israel's biggest mobsters. His daughter, Kineret Kashti, her husband, Yehuda, and a third co-defendant were charged in the same case, but they jumped bond and fled to Israel in December 1997.

The 2,000-mile border with Mexico has been particularly plagued by transnational drug trafficking, violent crime, and contraband smuggling. By successfully prosecuting major drug trafficking cases along the southwest border, the Department targets the hierarchy and infrastructure of the major cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, and marijuana trafficking organizations there. The OCDETF program, SOD, and the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) program continued to work closely to combat the most significant drug trafficking organizations threatening this and other areas of the United States.

Three multijurisdictional, multi-agency investigations tying U.S. drug trafficking here to the highest levels of the international cocaine trade were Operations “Impunity,” “Millennium,” and “Southwest Express:”

• Operation “Impunity” dismantled an entire trafficking organization through identifying and arresting major cell heads operating inside the United States. Their arrests and those of 90 subordinates disabled all facets of their organization. As a result, 12,434 kilograms of cocaine and more than 2.4 tons of marijuana were seized, along with $19 million in U.S. currency and another $7 million in assets.
  
  
• Operation “Millennium” targeted major cocaine suppliers shipping vast quantities of cocaine from Colombia through Mexico into the United States. One targeted drug kingpin had been smuggling 30 tons or 500 million dosage units of cocaine into the United States every month. U.S. law enforcement authorities seized more than 13,000 kilograms of cocaine during the last 2 weeks of August alone.
  
  
• Operation “Southwest Express,” an OCDETF and HIDTA operation coordinated through SOD, was designed to dismantle a U.S. transportation and distribution network thought to be supplied by the Sotelo-Lopez drug trafficking organization based in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. The operation brought a national and strategic perspective to halting drug trafficking activities ranging from street-level distribution to major transportation cells. Drugs were moved by railway, tractor trailer, and other vehicles, often concealed in bundles of used clothing. Federal prosecutors from 10 U.S. Attorneys’ offices and 5 Federal law enforcement agencies, in cooperation with more than 20 state and local agencies, brought drug and money laundering charges against 100 people.

Performance Goal 1.2.2 / Attack on Major Drug Trafficking Criminal Enterprises.

*DEA discontinued this indicator in FY 1999 and plans to replace it with the “Number and percentage of Major Drug Trafficking Organizations disrupted or dismantled as a result of DEA enforcement activity.” All data will be supported by information stored in an automated system in DEA’s Headquarters Operations Division. A recent GAO report, Drug Control: DEA’s Strategies and Operations in the 1990s (GCD-99-108), published July 21, 1999, cited that although DEA’s strategic goals and objectives and its enhanced programs and initiatives are consistent with the National Drug Control Strategy, DEA has not developed measurable performance targets for its programs and initiatives consistent with those adopted for the national strategy. In particular, the report cites the need for more meaningful measures to be developed for disrupting and dismantling drug trafficking organizations. It asks DEA to work with the Office of National Drug Control Policy in developing such measures, and DEA is taking steps to do so over the next few years. A copy of the report may be obtained from GAO.
**This indicator is revised because the data being reported in FY 1999 are EOUSA/LIONS data. Previously, data relating to OCDETF performance were reported by OCDETF/MIS. Therefore, data reported by EOUSA/LIONS categorize indictments/information (OCDETF/MIS category) as "cases filed." Defendants indicted (OCDETF/MIS category) are categorized as "defendants filed." In addition, EOUSA/LIONS data for drug cases classified under the Government Regulatory/Money Laundering categories do not designate OCDETF/non-OCDETF cases, and the data being reported do not include Government Regulatory/Money Laundering drug cases.
Data Source: (1) NA. (2) LIONS.

Performance Goal 1.2.3
Reducing the Production of Illegal Drugs through Enforcement Efforts

DOJ will continue to reduce significantly the production and quantity of illegal drugs, including methamphetamine and marijuana, in the United States. Through the National Methamphetamine Strategy and multi-agency coordinated efforts with other enforcement agencies, DEA will increase the number of clandestine laboratories seized and the prosecutions of rogue chemical companies that supply the precursors to methamphetamine manufacturers.

The Department’s FY 1999 accomplishments in removing illegal drugs—including heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, and other dangerous drugs—were significant. DEA reports 64 million marijuana plants eradicated through its eradication and suppression program during the first three-quarters of the calendar year. Quantities of drugs removed through other enforcement efforts were significantly higher than in 1998.

Efforts related to methamphetamine production and trafficking and the diversion of controlled substances were particularly effective, leading to greater numbers of arrests and clandestine laboratory seizures in FY 1999 (see Figure 10). DEA initiated nearly 2,900 methamphetamine investigations during the first three quarters of FY 1999. It also seized more than 2,000 clandestine laboratories and arrested close to 7,900 individuals involved in the manufacture, trafficking, or distribution of methamphetamine.

Figure 10
Drug Enforcement Administration
FY 1999 Methamphetamine Lab Seizures

d

Source: Drug Enforcement Administration

Notwithstanding its impressive accomplishments in 1999, the Department will maintain its stance of vigilantly enforcing drug trafficking laws across this country—as there is much work yet to do. The proliferation of synthetic drugs, for instance, has made the pivotal role of DEA’s Office of Diversion Control (OD) program—to prevent, detect, and investigate the diversion of controlled substances while also meeting legitimate needs—more keenly recognized than ever. The program’s success in diversion activities like Operation “Purple” has also brought it more recognition.

Operation Purple

Operation “Purple” is an international operation conducted with cooperation from the seven major potassium permanganate-producing countries, significant exporting/trans-shipment countries, and major cocaine-producing countries of the Andean region. It tracks all shipments of the chemical weighing 100 kilograms or more. During 7 months of operation, investigative efforts have far exceeded initial expectations, having a major impact on the trafficker’s ability to obtain the chemical to process cocaine. Of 187 shipments tracked worldwide, 24 were seized or halted during transit, accounting for 1.7 million kilograms of potassium permanganate, which could have been used to process up to 17 million kilograms of cocaine.

Performance Goal 1.2.3 / Reducing the Production of Illegal Drugs through Enforcement Efforts

*The DCE/SP program is administered on a calendar, not fiscal year, so the 1999 actual data reflect only three-quarters of the calendar year (CY), from 1/1/99 through 9/30/99. Data for the remaining 3 months of CY 1999 have not yet been compiled.
Data Source: (1) DEA’s State and Local Section monthly statistical reports from state and local law enforcement agencies. (2) STRIDE. (3) DEA Field Division Investigative Reports provided to OD. (4) NCLD.

Performance Goal 1.2.4
International Drug Law Enforcement

DOJ will continue to actively cooperate with foreign governments and enlist their support through technical assistance and training to investigate and prosecute major drug traffickers and their organizations, which threaten U.S. interests.

The support and cooperation of foreign governments is vital to efforts against drug trafficking. To help enlist their support, the Department provides counterdrug training and technical assistance to foreign investigators, prosecutors, judges, and legislators. DEA, for example, conducted 20 schools, training 974 foreign law enforcement officers. The Criminal Division, through its International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance program and Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, also provided significant amounts of training for foreign counterparts. As part of this cooperative approach, the Department shared forfeited assets from drug proceeds with other countries.

Largest Shared Forfeited Assets Ever

On December 18, 1998, the Attorney General and the Swiss Ambassador to the United States signed a Memorandum of Understanding authorizing the transfer of approximately $89 million in forfeited drug proceeds to the Government of Switzerland. These funds represent 50 percent of the approximate $178 million forfeited in the 1995 prosecution of Sheila Arana de Nasser in the southern district of Florida. This forfeiture marks the largest single forfeited assets amount shared with a foreign country.

Performance Goal 1.2.4 International Drug Law Enforcement

Data Source: DEA’s Office of Training.

Performance Goal 1.2.5
Comprehensive Investigative Intelligence Program to Effectively Support Investigations and Prosecutions

DOJ will strengthen its various investigative intelligence programs to expand and foster the collection, analysis, and dissemination of drug-related intelligence to Federal agencies about major national and international drug trafficking organizations.

As stated, interagency cooperation is key to successful drug law enforcement, particularly given the sophisticated, multijurisdictional nature of drug trafficking operations controlled largely by foreign-based criminal organizations. To strengthen its various investigative efforts in this area, the Department must be able to gather and integrate information from all available sources. SOD, NDIC, and the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), together with others, collaborate in collecting drug intelligence information:

• SOD supports ongoing investigations by producing detailed and comprehensive data analyses of the activities of major drug trafficking organizations. It then converts collected information to usable leads that are passed on to domestic field divisions and foreign country offices. SOD supports investigative and enforcement activities directed against major traffickers on a regional, national, or international level.
  
  
• NDIC has also greatly improved information sharing, particularly across Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. NDIC provides strategic analyses of current trends and activities in the counterdrug community. These products are distributed to law enforcement officials throughout the country.
  
  
• EPIC continued to assist international and domestic drug trafficking investigations by providing query access to more than 100 million member agency computer records. State and local law enforcement is a primary contributor to and user of EPIC, and all 50 states are associate members. EPIC can run inquiries on persons, vehicles, aircraft, vessels, businesses, addresses, and telephone numbers. It can also post a variety of alerts and lookouts in the national and worldwide lookout systems of member agencies.

In FY 1999, approximately 194,000 queries and entries were made to EPIC’s drug databases, while 160 intelligence analysts received training. Substantial progress in training DEA intelligence analysts will greatly improve the Department’s use of intelligence data to support case investigations of major traffickers. Training of analysts will also strengthen investigations by making better use of DEA’s automated information system capabilities.

Performance Goal 1.2.5 / Comprehensive Investigative Intelligence Program to Effectively Support Investigations and Prosecutions

Data Source: (1) EPIC. (2) DEA’s Office of Training.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) The Department’s 1999 actual accomplishment of 193,829 queries fell short of the planned target of 201,696 queries, a slight deviation. The shortfall does not reflect a performance problem or issue and poses no negative consequences to the program or its related activities.

Performance Goal 1.2.6
Reduction of Demand

DOJ will intensify its demand reduction efforts through educational outreach to communities, schools, employers, and the public. For example, we will continue our use of the Internet to publicize our anti-drug abuse message, and will pursue more interagency and public/private partnership opportunities, including mentoring and other early intervention strategies. DOJ will place a stronger emphasis on the value of education, treatment availability, and volunteerism in drug prevention.

In FY 1999, DEA’s Demand Reduction Strategy focused on the following four main objectives: raising public awareness, providing support for parents, educating school-aged children, and establishing drug-free work environments. In each of DEA’s 22 field divisions, one special agent serving as the demand reduction coordinator provides leadership and support to local agencies and organizations as they develop drug prevention and education programs. DEA Headquarters also coordinates a number of programs, including the MET II Initiative. In FY 1999, DEA reported that more than 786,000 people and 800 organizations received information on prevention programs.

DEA: The MET II Initiative

The MET II Initiative, started in 1999, helps communities hosting METs develop and implement drug and crime prevention plans to prevent reintroduction of criminal activity. In FY 1999, DEA, along with the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the National Crime Prevention Council, hosted three regional 2-day pilot training seminars for community leaders from 40 MET cities in 23 states. Community leaders learned of strategic drug and crime prevention planning models to help them assess their communities’ needs and potential resource partners, apply a disciplined problem-solving process to their challenges, and evaluate their success.

Performance Goal 1.2.6 / Reduction of Demand

Data Source: DEA’s Office of Congressional and Public Affairs.

Strategic Goal 1.3
Reduce espionage and terrorism when directed at U.S. citizens or institutions.

—Sponsored by foreign or domestic groups in the United States and abroad.

This Strategic Goal focuses on national security issues, specifically espionage and terrorism. The FBI’s Foreign Counterintelligence (FCI) program helped protect our national security in FY 1999 by achieving several significant successes.

Counterintelligence Results In FY 1999

• The FBI arrested David Sheldon Boone, a retired Army Sergeant, on October 10, 1998, and charged him with three counts of espionage. He was sentenced to 24 years and 3 months for working as an agent of the KGB from 1988 to 1991.
  
  
• The FBI identified Theresa Marie Squillacote, Kurt Alan Stand, and James Michael Clark as Americans providing information to a former East German intelligence service. They were sentenced to a total of 52 years for violating U.S. criminal espionage statutes.
  
  
• On July 13, 1999, Hsu Kai-Lo pled guilty to attempted theft of trade secrets for trying to purchase Taxol, an ovarian cancer drug treatment, for the Yuen Foong Paper Company. Taxol is the proprietary economic property of the Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

To deal effectively with international and domestic terrorism, the Department focused efforts on both prevention and response, submitting to Congress on December 31, 1998, a Five-Year Counterterrorism and Technology Crime Plan. The plan offers a baseline strategy for coordinating national policy and operational capabilities to combat terrorism in the United States and against American interests overseas. It contains concrete proposals covering a broad range of topics, including prevention, deterrence, and response to terrorist attacks. It also identifies the Nation’s present capacity to respond to terrorism, discusses national preparedness goals for dealing with terrorism, and sets forth specific proposals to achieve these objectives.

Four FY 1999 Performance Goals address the Department’s role in preventing terrorist acts, investigating and prosecuting terrorist acts, improving response capabilities to these acts, and protecting our critical infrastructure.

Performance Goal 1.3.1
Preventing Terrorist Acts

DOJ, working with other Federal agencies such as the Departments of Treasury and State, will improve the Nation’s capability to prevent terrorist acts within the United States and abroad by: improving information gathering and analysis capabilities to evaluate threats and provide early detection of potential terrorist acts; investigating the fundraising activities of terrorist organizations; and planning, coordinating, and conducting training exercises.

The goal of the FBI’s Counterterrorism (CT) program is to prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur. The FBI’s strategy requires a state-of-the-art capacity to address terrorist threats by successfully identifying, neutralizing, and penetrating targeted domestic and international terrorist organizations. Several significant achievements were credited to the CT program in FY 1999.

Countering Terrorism with Conviction In FY 1999:

• Seventeen individuals were indicted in connection with embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, nine of them in custody in the United States and London.
  
  
• On June 7, 1999, Usama Bin Ladin was added to the FBI's “Ten Most Wanted” list, with a reward of $5 million dollars offered by the State Department for information leading to his arrest.
  
  
• In October 1998, several self-proclaimed members of “The New Order”were sentenced after being charged with conspiracy and/or illegal weapons charges. They were conspiring to commit terrorist violence against several prominent targets.
  
  
• Several members of the North American Militia, based in Michigan, were convicted of weapons violations and other criminal charges relating to their plot to bomb Federal buildings, destroy major road intersections, and kill Federal agents and suspected informants.

The Department also continued to play a leading role in the U.S. effort to disrupt terrorist financing, a major part of prevention. In FY 1999, working with the Department of State, we participated in the Organization of American States’ (OAS’) Second Inter-American Specialized Conference on Terrorism in Argentina. The conference produced a new Inter-American Committee for Combating Terrorism and endorsed numerous measures designed to impede the financing of terrorist organizations.

Timely, detailed information is crucial to the effective prevention of and response to terrorist incidents. FBI field offices are working to enhance dissemination of pertinent intelligence information to other U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) and law enforcement entities. FBI’s International Terrorism Operations Section (ITOS) is aggressively pursuing efforts to expand its intelligence base and continues to assess each office’s capabilities relative to international terrorism threats regionally, nationally, and globally. Additionally, the Department has set specific international terrorism program priorities, articulated recommended reporting procedures, and enhanced efforts to improve the flow of information within the FBI, the USIC, and appropriate foreign services.

Performance Goal 1.3.1 / Preventing Terrorist Acts.

*An official “terrorist incident prevented” is a documented instance in which a violent act by a known or suspected terrorist group or individual with the means and a proven propensity for violence is successfully interdicted through investigative activity. A specific objective of the Counterterrorism program is to discover any planned terrorist activity by any terrorist organization and interdict the planned intention before it is executed. Data Source: FBI’s Counterterrorism Division.

Performance Goal 1.3.2
Investigating and Prosecuting Terrorist Acts

DOJ will continue its high rate of success in the investigation and prosecution of terrorist acts and conspiracies. We will respond aggressively to all terrorist acts directed against American nationals and interests at home and overseas through the use of well-trained special response capabilities and joint terrorism task forces.

In FY 1999, the Department’s enforcement efforts with regard to terrorist acts especially emphasized cases involving Iraq, Iran, and Libya. These three countries pose a continuing threat in terms of nuclear and conventional weapons procurement, chemical and biological weapons use, and efforts to circumvent controls to prevent weapons proliferation. An example of foreign terrorism enforcement in FY 1999 includes the case of a New Jersey aircraft parts broker who pled guilty to 10 felony counts of conspiracy to sell air-to-air and surface-to-air missile parts to Iran. As part of a Government plea agreement, he will serve 57-71 months and pay approximately $2.6 million in fines and forfeitures.

The single most important factor in the FBI’s effective response to acts of terrorism abroad is the willingness of foreign governments to allow FBI personnel on the scene and to facilitate their investigation once they arrive. Toward this end, the FBI established that it must take proactive steps to improve the probability of receiving timely access to and assistance at potential crime scenes. It has identified foreign security and intelligence services whose assistance may be required in the future, and continues to cultivate friendly, mutually supportive relationships with them.

Performance Goal 1.3.2 Investigating and Prosecuting Terrorist Acts

*Federal, state, and local figures.
Data Source: (1) MAR. (2) ISRAA.

Performance Goal 1.3.3
Improving Response Capabilities to Terrorist Acts

DOJ will establish or expand upon partnerships with state, local, and international entities to enhance domestic and international responsiveness to terrorist acts. The FBI will continue its lead responsibility for effectively managing the response to domestic terrorist incidents.

Because the Department has responsibility to help strengthen our Nation’s response to terrorist episodes, we are working to establish or expand partnerships with state, local, and international entities to better respond to domestic terrorist acts, cyber-attacks, and other threats. To coordinate the Nation’s ability to respond to attacks, including those using weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the Department has established within the FBI a National Domestic Preparedness Office (NDPO). This office is responsible for coordinating and facilitating planning, training, and equipment needed to ensure a robust crisis and consequences management infrastructure.

To ensure effective command and control of a WMD incident, personnel from the FBI’s CT program continue to work closely with applicable Federal, state, and local agencies to establish the role these agencies will play in WMD incidents. The FBI has also bolstered its rapid deployment capabilities by creating a laboratory response system and by enhancing the capabilities of special agent bomb technicians, Evidence Response Teams, Hostage Rescue Teams, and Special Weapons and Tactics Teams.

To establish a framework for responding to terrorist and other critical incidents in their jurisdictions, U.S. Attorneys will develop and refine their Crisis Management Plans. These plans will provide cross-walks to FBI Crisis Response Plans as well as to similarly focused state, local, and regional emergency response plans. By the close of FY 1999, U.S. Attorneys in 20 districts had submitted Crisis Response Plans, an increase of 8 over last year—and twice the targeted number.

Performance Goal 1.3.3 Improving Response Capabilities to Terrorist Acts

Data Source: Criminal Division, Terrorism and Violent Crimes Section.

Performance Goal 1.3.4
Protection of Critical Infrastructure

DOJ will further its capabilities to coordinate and respond to cyber and physical threats to the Nation’s critical infrastructure, including interagency cooperation with the DOD and other responsible Federal agencies. We will identify and eliminate key infrastructure vulnerabilities, provide 24/7 watch and warning capabilities, and improve investigations and protection through training and disseminating information and tools.

Attacks on the Nation’s computer infrastructure are a rising threat. The Department is making progress in disrupting and defeating critical infrastructure threats through the work of the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC). In FY 1999, the FBI continued to bring this program up to full capacity, developing procedures and mechanisms to pass both sanitized and unsanitized warning information about cyber attacks to appropriate Federal agencies and the private sector. In FY 1999, the FBI investigated 1,756 (pending and opened) computer intrusions, achieving significant successes in the war on cyber-crime.

Preemptive Strikes in the Cybercrime War In FY 1999

• Within hours of learning about the Melissa virus, the NIPC coordinated with key cyber response components of DOD and the Computer Emergency Response Team at Carnegie-Mellon University to send out warning messages, which helped to mitigate damage. Information provided by America Online, and a follow-up investigation with the FBI’s Newark Field Office, led to the arrest of David L. Smith on April 1, 1999. In December, Mr. Smith pled guilty to affecting 1 million computer systems. He is awaiting sentencing.
  
  
• In September 1999, two members of the "Phonemasters"— an international group of criminals who penetrated the computer systems of MCI, Sprint, AT&T, Equifax, and the FBI's National Crime Information Center— were sentenced on charges of theft, possession of unauthorized access devices, and unauthorized access to a Federal interest computer.

Through the key asset program, FBI field agents identify potential key assets in their jurisdictions and consult with the owners about their operations and impact on the localities’ critical infrastructure. As each key asset is identified, it is entered into a database from which maps are created that help determine overlapping or secondary key assets that are interlinked.

Performance Goal 1.3.4 Protection of Critical Infrastructure

*Total “key assets identified” indicates the number of assets within the United States that would have a devastating impact were their operations disrupted. Growth in the number of key assets identified—from 400 at the conclusion of FY 1998 to 2,745 at the end of FY 1999—is the result of NIPC's modification of criteria used by field offices to identify and report these assets. Before this modification, only key assets of national significance were reported. The new guidance allows users to identify and report key assets that are significant on a state and regional level, as well as to identify and characterize true interdependencies between key assets—certain to cause their number on a national level to fluctuate.
Data Source: (1) MAR/ACS. (2) NIPC’s Key Asset Database.

Strategic Goal 1.4
Reduce white collar crime, including public corruption and fraud.

The Department’s approach to reducing white collar crime is based on the need for a strong deterrent capability to prevent criminals from defrauding and thereby weakening the Nation’s industries and institutions. A pervasive problem, white collar crime originates from many different sources and assumes many different forms. Targets of white collar criminals range from public officials open to corruption to computers storing proprietary information to elderly people vulnerable to telemarketing and retirement schemes. This Strategic Goal includes four FY 1999 Performance Goals, which address public corruption; health care fraud; high technology/computer crime; and financial institutions, telemarketing, and other fraud.

Performance Goal 1.4.1
Public Corruption

DOJ will combat corruption through the investigation of alleged wrongdoing by officials and employees at all levels of government, and will take appropriate prosecutorial action.

Because the investigation of public corruption is often beyond the ability or willingness of state and local law enforcement, the Department, through the FBI, becomes the primary crime-fighting agency in this area. It combats corruption through investigating alleged wrongdoing by officials and employees at all levels of government, prosecuting when appropriate. The Department’s strategy focuses on suspicious Federal, state, and local activities involving corrupt members of the legislature, judiciary, and law enforcement. For example in FY 1999:

• A scheme to steal over $200,000 from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) through the use of unlawful gratuities and bogus invoices resulted in the convictions of a senior FHWA official, a subordinate FHWA employee, and an FHWA contractor. The defendants pled guilty to multiple corruption charges.
  
  
• Former DEA employee David S. Bowman was indicted on numerous counts of mail fraud, theft of government funds, and money laundering for embezzling more than $6 million from DEA. The Department obtained summary judgment in a civil forfeiture action against the real and personal property purchased by the Bowman family with Government funds. The family forfeited all of the property sought and, in May 1999, the United States obtained an $18-million judgment against family members.

Other aspects of the Department’s public corruption program concentrated on corruption in major metropolitan cities with a history of such behavior and on emerging law enforcement and judicial corruption in areas of entrenched drug activity, particularly along the U.S. southwest border. FY 1999 accomplishments in terms of investigations and reports and related recoveries and restitutions reflect our continued success in combating abuses of the public trust by government officials.

Performance Goal 1.4.1 / Public Corruption

*These figures are included in convictions and pretrial diversions and will not be reported separately in future reports.
Data Source: ISRAA.

Performance Goal 1.4.2
Health Care Fraud

DOJ will work with other Federal agencies to confront the increase in health care fraud by continuing to successfully prosecute and obtain judgments and settlements against providers, carriers, and fiscal intermediaries that defraud Medicare, Medicaid, and other Federal health care programs.

The Department’s health care fraud investigations in FY 1999 targeted excessive fraudulent billings to health care insurance programs, notably Medicare, with great success. FBI efforts to address health care fraud led to hundreds of indictments, convictions, and arrests on various Federal and state charges. But the greatest impact of health care fraud investigations concerns their ability to create positive change by restraining further fraud and enhancing internal accountability mechanisms in large-scale health organizations.

Health Care Fraud Convictions Net Millions

In FY 1999, the FBI’s ongoing Columbia/HCA investigation secured the conviction of two former executives and a pretrial diversion agreement with another defendant. A negotiated settlement with health care provider Beverly Enterprises is pending. Meanwhile, the Department won a $61 million criminal plea and civil settlement with Olsten Corporation and its subsidiary, Kimberly Home Health Care, Inc. The case resulted from kickbacks and false claims to Medicare.

FBI investigations of clinical laboratory billings, home health agencies, durable medical equipment, and ambulance services uncovered massive fraud and abuse in FY 1999—to the tune of $1.16 billion in Medicare savings through goods and services targeted for fraudulent billing. This accomplishment exceeds the FY 1999 target by approximately $746 million.

Education is another effective approach. In the largest nationwide campaign in history to educate senior citizens about health care fraud, the Department joined with the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) and the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to increase seniors’ awareness of this issue. U.S. Attorneys’ offices and their campaign partners provided information to thousands of senior citizens around the country on what to do if they suspect Medicare fraud. The Department will continue education and outreach efforts to this population in the coming year.

Performance Goal 1.4.2 / Health Care Fraud

*Data are current as of June 1999 and will not be complete until FY 2001. The FBI no longer depends on the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA). HCFA has changed computer systems and reports various lags in its data reporting.
Data Source: HCFA.

Performance Goal 1.4.3
High Technology/“Computer Crime”

DOJ will continue its recent efforts to further develop its capacity to respond to cyber-attacks, computer thefts, and intrusions affecting consumers, businesses, and government. We will continue to increase the number of state and local computer crime task forces and increase the capability of the FBI and DEA to acquire, examine, and present computer evidence, so that we can keep pace with and successfully investigate and prosecute the new breed of high-tech criminals.

In monetary terms, the annual loss to citizens and businesses from intellectual property (IP) theft is conservatively estimated to be in the billions of dollars—not surprising considering the nature of today’s businesses and the huge profits they generate. Recent statistics reveal that combined U.S. copyright industries and related businesses account for more than $433 billion, or about 5.7 percent of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Growth in this area over the last 20 years has allowed copyright industry products to surpass agricultural products as the single largest export sector in the Nation’s economy. In fact, America’s three biggest software companies are now worth more than all of the companies in our steel, automotive, aerospace, chemical, and plastics industries combined.

To help stem the tide of IP theft, the U.S. Attorneys in FY 1999 filed 97 new IP cases charging 132 defendants with criminal IP violations; 121 individuals were convicted, an increase of nearly 30 percent over the previous year's figure (see Appendix B, which contains information provided in response to the statutory mandate that this report contain Department statistics on IP prosecutions). In FY 1999, the Department achieved its first criminal copyright conviction under the No Electronic Theft (NET) Act for unlawful distribution of software on the Internet.

NET Act Snares First Conviction

In July 1999, a 22-year-old senior at the University of Oregon pled guilty to illegally posting computer software programs, musical recordings, entertainment software programs, and digitally recorded movies on his Internet web site, allowing the general public to download and copy them. He was convicted under the 1997 NET Act, enacted to punish Internet copyright piracy. The University of Oregon brought the case to law enforcement officials after it noted a particularly large volume of bandwidth traffic being generated from a web site on its server. An investigation by the FBI and Oregon State Police confirmed that thousands of pirated products were available for downloading from the site.

As part of efforts to combat the growing challenge of copyright piracy and trademark counterfeiting, both domestically and internationally, the Attorney General approved the Intellectual Property Enforcement Initiative in August 1999. The Initiative recognizes the explosive growth of the Internet as the primary impetus for increased IP thefts and seeks to counter with increased IP prosecutions. To focus efforts, the Initiative will concentrate on seven districts identified as having the most serious piracy and counterfeiting problems. These districts’ efforts will create a “template” for other districts to follow, until the Initiative becomes nationwide. The Department has encouraged all districts to bring meritorious IP cases and, if necessary, to seek the support and assistance of the Criminal Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section.

To enhance coordination of Internet-related investigations, the FBI recently implemented the Internet Fraud Complaint Center (IFCC), co-sponsored by the FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center. The IFCC is designed as a central repository for Internet fraud complaints. It will identify, track, and facilitate the prosecution of fraudulent schemes on the Internet on a global level by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating complaints to the appropriate law enforcement agencies. The FBI’s White Collar Crime program is developing a new case management system that will track, among other things, the nature of frauds being investigated and the extent to which they involve the use of computers and the Internet. This system will enable future reporting on the success of computer-intensive FBI investigations.

The Department’s accomplishments in FY 1999 in training agents and prosecutors to conduct advanced computer fraud investigations were exceptional—with numbers three times greater than the target—and reflect a strong resolve to stop computer crimes.

Performance Goal 1.4.3 / High Technology/“Computer Crime”

*This is an NIPC performance measure and will be reported under Performance Goal 1.3.4 in future reports.
**Correction to clerical error in FY 1999 Summary Performance Plan.
***Records have been updated.
****In FY 1999, the performance indicators were consolidated for this performance goal to more accurately reflect Department achievements specific to curtailing and reducing computer crime. As a result, the data for number of IT state and local task forces are no longer available. This measure will be discontinued and not reflected in the FY 2001 Summary Performance Plan.
Data Source: FBI in-service records and ISRAA.

Performance Goal 1.4.4
Financial Institutions, Telemarketing, and Other Fraud

DOJ will continue to identify and target fraud schemes, such as financial institution fraud and telemarketing fraud directed against the elderly.

The advent of on-line banking and e-commerce has enlarged opportunities for financial institution fraud, including industry-wide threats posed by organized criminal groups engaged in a variety of illegal schemes. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to fraud schemes and are frequent targets of telemarketers.

Financial institution fraud still accounts for nearly 40 percent of FBI’s white collar crime, with approximately 60 percent of crimes reported by financial institutions now involving external fraud. The Department’s efforts to address financial institution fraud in FY 1999 led to the indictment of 4,605 individuals, the conviction of 6,662, and the arrest of 1,607 on various Federal and state charges.

Performance Goal 1.4.4 / Financial Institutions, Telemarketing, and Other Fraud

Data Source: (1) ISRAA. (2) FBI’s Suspicious Activity Reports.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(2) FBI’s investigative efforts identified more crime than originally anticipated.

Strategic Goal 1.5
Coordinate and integrate Department law enforcement activities.

Criminal conduct extends beyond borders—of cities, of states, and of countries—making cooperation and coordination vital to the success of law enforcement efforts. In addition to identifying how all parts of the system can interact more effectively both at national and local levels, the Department continues to promote the ability of foreign counterparts to aid law enforcement efforts. This Strategic Goal addresses two major Performance Goals aimed at ensuring cooperation with overseas and domestic partners.

Performance Goal 1.5.1
International Cooperation

DOJ, in conjunction with states, will continue to enlist the active cooperation of foreign governments in our law enforcement efforts. We will maintain our overseas presence in areas of critical concern (FBI, DEA, CRM); develop bilateral and multilateral agreements (CRM, FBI); provide training and technical assistance to our foreign counterparts, including assistance in money laundering and asset forfeiture law (CRM); and increase our use of INTERPOL in assisting efforts against international crime, including locating fugitives abroad.

International cooperation is important to the Department of Justice, which is why we have continued a strategy of modernizing the legal framework to more easily accommodate international law enforcement. Through support for U.S. policies and priorities, the Department made it easier for foreign counterparts to investigate offenses effectively, prosecute them competently, and adjudicate them fairly. We continued to enter into new extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties (MLATs) with other countries and took on more than 18,000 INTERPOL (International Criminal Police Organization) cases, exceeding the target by nearly 1,000 cases. The U.S. National Central Bureau facilitates international law enforcement cooperation as the United States’ representative with INTERPOL on behalf of the Attorney General.

Performance Goal 1.5.1 / International Cooperation

Data Source: (1) and (2) CRM electronic case management tracking systems and manual systems to report workload statistics. (3) Envoy.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1), (2) The Department’s actual accomplishments in new extradition treaties and new MLATs, 4 and 8 respectively, fell short of the planned targets of 10 new treaties in each category. The Department attempts to provide a best estimate of the number of treaties that will be entered into force during a given fiscal year, with an understanding that many factors can delay that action. One complicating factor is the number of entities—including representatives of foreign governments, the Departments of Justice and State, the White House, and the U.S. Senate—involved in the effort to enter a treaty into force. Actual numbers do not indicate a performance problem or issue, as the shortfall poses no negative consequences to the program or its related activities.

Performance Goal 1.5.2
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force⁸

DOJ will continue to strengthen the centralized management and coordination of OCDETF activities in order to promote a coordinated drug enforcement effort. Particular emphasis will be placed on coordinating activities among the following entities: OCDETF regions, all Federal drug and drug-related law enforcement agencies, and the U.S.Attorneys’ offices, as well as the state and local drug law enforcement and prosecution agencies.

The OCDETF program joins Federal, state, and local law enforcement, in coordination with U.S. Attorneys, in a comprehensive attack against drug trafficking organizations. The program bridges gaps in enforcement between uniquely Federal efforts and those successfully undertaken by state and local authorities. The OCDETF program’s role is clearly drawn as one that targets the highest level traffickers and organizations. The program coordinates the collaborative efforts of nine Federal law enforcement agencies working in conjunction with state, tribal, and local agencies.

Infused with participating agencies’ commitment to work together to fight drug-related crime, the OCDETF program has seen significant expansion in recent years. In FY 1999, following a record-breaking year in which it more than doubled the number of investigations begun during the previous 2 years combined, OCDETF realized a further 9-percent increase in the number of new investigations. Further, during FY 1999, more than 800 state/local/county agencies participated in the program, and nearly 8,300 state/local/county officers supported OCDETF investigations.

Performance Goal 1.5.2 / Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force

*This indicator represents the number of indictments and informations in which each agency participated, either in an investigation or prosecution, with percentages for frequency of participation by each agency. More than one agency is involved in all cases. The USMS and the U.S. Attorneys are assumed to be involved in all cases. These measures will not be included in future reports. The OCDETF Executive Office will only provide this information as a backdrop to new performance measures developed from an OCDETF performance report, to be filed in each investigation closed for FY 2000 onward. These reports will say whether the targeted organization was disrupted or dismantled; if the investigation/prosecution did not result in disruption or dismantlement, the report will detail the circumstances preventing this result. This information is not currently available.
Data Source: OCDETF MIS

Core Function II: Assistance to Tribal, State, and Local Governments

One of the most important roles of the Department of Justice is to provide leadership and support to tribal, state, and local efforts to prevent and control crime. Five Strategic Goals directly related to this key mission are: (1) improving the crime fighting and criminal/juvenile justice system capabilities of tribal, state, and local government; (2) strengthening community policing; (3) supporting community-based strategies to reduce crime, delinquency, and violence; (4) improving services to crime victims; and (5) reducing violence against women.

Strategic Goal 2.1
Improve the crime-fighting and criminal/juvenile justice system capabilities of tribal, state, and local governments.

In helping tribal, state, and local governments improve their capacity to prevent and control crime, the Department focuses on efforts to increase understanding of crime and justice issues, to share critical research and statistical information, and to provide needed financial and technical support. FY 1999 Performance Goals specifically addressed research and evaluation activities, financial assistance provided under the Byrne formula grant program, efforts to improve the criminal and juvenile justice systems in Indian Country, assistance in improving state and local preparedness against domestic terrorism, assistance in dealing with white collar crime, and provision of technical support services, such as fingerprint identification and background checks.

Performance Goal 2.1.1
Research and Evaluation

DOJ will expand and improve its research and statistical gathering efforts in order to advance knowledge of, and provide timely and useful information to, state and local governments on major research and evaluation findings about crime and crime control efforts.

In 1999, the Department’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP) made a concerted effort to make its research and statistical products more useful, accessible, and readily available over the Internet. For example, when police officers doing community policing wanted to survey community residents about police performance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) made available on its web site the Crime Victimization Survey, an innovative desktop survey software package that replicates questions asked of thousands of households by the National Crime Victimization Survey. Police, local governments, and researchers used this new instrument to measure citizen attitudes toward crime, neighborhoods, and local policing services. This cutting-edge software is a major step toward empowering communities to examine crime and its consequences for victims. Other automated tools made available include the 1999 Census of Jails Questionnaires, the Survey of Inmates in Local Jails, and the Police Public Contact Survey. BJS also published an array of data collections and reports in 1999 that addressed such topics as school crime and safety, mental health of inmates and probationers, state sex offender registries, and presale handgun checks.

The Department’s research and development arm, the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), engaged in a wide variety of research efforts covering all aspects of crime and the criminal justice system. NIJ is charged with developing knowledge that will reduce crime, enhance public safety, and improve the administration of justice. In FY 1999, NIJ research publications addressed such pressing social issues as appropriate use of security technologies in U.S. schools; post-conviction DNA testing; an update on HIV/AIDS, sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis in correctional facilities; and the latest on drug use among adult and juvenile arrestees. All in all, BJS and NIJ provided more than 2 million research, evaluation, and statistical reports to requesters.

Performance Goal 2.1.1 / Research and Evaluation

Data Source: JUSTNET, NACJD, and BJS’ Criminal Justice Statistics Online.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The deviation between the targeted and actual number of requests was slight and can be attributed to technical difficulties with the Web tracking software, which resulted in an undercounting of reports and files downloaded. This issue will be resolved by mid-2000.

Performance Goal 2.1.2
Integration of Technology

DOJ will expand efforts to promote integration of technology among state and local criminal justice agencies. Efforts will focus on promoting planning efforts among state and local governments to ensure that law enforcement radio systems will be compatible with digital narrowband radio systems used by Federal law enforcement organizations—Deleted. This Performance Goal was not funded.

Performance Goal 2.1.3
Violent Crime Prevention

DOJ will continue to emphasize both enforcement and prevention strategies to counter youth violence through targeted programs that provide funding and specialized assistance to states and localities.

The Department encourages states and local entities to adopt promising programs with proven successes, promoting replication of best practices through information dissemination (publications and conferences), training, and financial and technical assistance. Under the Byrne Formula Grant program in 1999, BJA funded 18 grant projects to replicate promising program models to help states develop multi-year plans and improve operations. The Byrne projects had several significant achievements in 1999.

Select Byrne Project Achievements—1999

• Boys and Girls Clubs expanded to serve 3 million youth in 2,260 clubs nationwide, including clubs for military families and Native American communities.
  
  
• "National Night Out" in 1999 involved more than 32 million people in more than 10,000 communities.
  
  
• Model court systems were developed for mentally impaired offenders.
  
  
• Law enforcement agencies received training to deal with cybercrime issues.
  
  
• Alaska Native villages received technical assistance to conduct community analysis and community problem solving through the Alaska Native Technical Assistance and Resource Center.

Performance Goal 2.1.3 / Byrne Grants to Support Drug Control and Violent Crime Prevention

*OJP has determined that this measurement cannot be validated. OJP anticipates developing a new indicator for the next budget cycle that will more effectively and accurately measure performance.
Data Source: OJP internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) BJA’s awarding of 18 grant projects to replicate promising program models in FY 1999 fell 2 short of its target. Because the performance goal was set at an approximate target level and the deviation is slight, overall program performance was not compromised.

Performance Goal 2.1.4
Indian Country

DOJ will focus on criminal and juvenile justice system improvements in Indian Country.

As part of the President’s Indian Country Law Enforcement Initiative, the Department provided financial assistance to support law enforcement improvements in tribal communities. Under the Tribal Resources Grant Program, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) awarded $25 million to 137 different tribal agencies. These grants funded additional law enforcement officers, training, and equipment. Under the Construction of Correctional Facilities in American Indian and Alaska Native Communities Grant Program, OJP provided more than $24 million to support the construction of detention facilities in Indian Country. Under the Tribal Courts Program, OJP anticipates awarding about 70 grants by mid-2000. A key part of the President’s Initiative is to make the most of Indian Country resources by sharing information and coordinating efforts .

CIRCLE Surrounds Public Safety

Included in the overall initiative to improve law enforcement in Indian Country is the CIRCLE (Comprehensive Indian Resources for Community and Law Enforcement) program, which evaluates the most effective ways to address public safety. CIRCLE also promotes intertribal exchange of ideas and experiences and fosters coordination among tribes for more efficient use of resources. OJP awarded more than $16 million to three tribes to serve as CIRCLE demonstration sites: the Pueblo of Zuni in Arizona, the Northern Cheyenne Nation in Montana, and the Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota.

Performance Goal 2.1.4 / Indian Country

*Grants were awarded in FY 1999 for the construction of detention facilities. These grants are for a 2-year period. We are projecting that 68 detention beds will be constructed by the end of FY 2000.
Data Source: (1) CMS. (2) OJP internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target.

(1) While the target of 200 grants to tribes was not met, the shortfall of 11 grants is considered a slight deviation that does not affect overall program performance. Eleven additional applicants had outstanding compliance issues on previous COPS grants that could not be resolved but that will not adversely affect long-term implementation of the Indian Country Initiative.

Performance Goal 2.1.5
Improve Domestic Preparedness

DOJ will provide training and grants for the procurement of equipment to improve the Nation’s capacity to respond to terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction.

Federal leadership in counterterrorism training and equipment acquisition helps prepare state and local public safety agencies to respond to the increasing threat of chemical and biological attacks related to domestic terrorism. In 1999, dollars aimed at improving counterterrorism efforts went to several entities (see Figure 11). OJP’s Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness (OSLDPS) made great strides in providing comprehensive training programs for first responders through technical assistance and a basic-level equipment program for states and localities. A unique approach is the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP), Fort McClellan, Alabama, which allows OSLDPS to offer advanced-level counterterrorism courses to the full spectrum of first responder personnel, including firefighters, emergency medical personnel, Hazardous Material (HAZMAT) units, and law enforcement officials. The CDP is one of five members of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, which brings a unique set of assets to OJP’s domestic preparedness initiative .

Consortium Formed to Fight Domestic Terrorism

The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium provides an established body of expertise as well as the ability to deliver specialized training to the emergency response community. Consortium members, excluding the CDP, are as follows: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology (National Energetic Materials Research and Testing Center), Louisiana State University (National Center for Bio-Medical Research and Training), Texas A&M University (National Emergency Response and Rescue Training Center), and U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site (National Exercise, Test, and Training Center). In 1999, 1,672 first responders were trained at these four consortium sites. More than 40 percent of these were law enforcement officers and trainers.

Figure 11
Counterterrorism Funding to State and Local Governments FY 1999

Source: Office of Justice Programs

Performance Goal 2.1.5 / Improve Domestic Preparedness

*More than 700 law enforcement officers were trained. The rest were firefighters, emergency medical personnel, and HAZMAT units.
Data Source: OJP internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) The deviation between the targeted and actual number of training sessions conducted was slight and did not affect overall program performance.
(2) Previously, this indicator included training by other consortium members. This year’s figure reflects only CDP training.
(3) All of the 1999 equipment grants have not yet been awarded because of program development delays. OJP anticipates awarding the remaining 70 equipment grants by June 2000.

Performance Goal 2.1.6
New Technologies and Unusual Crime Problems

Support improved criminal and juvenile justice capabilities at the state and local levels by providing high-quality training, research, evaluation, and assistance with new technologies, and, if requested, direct operational support for resolving unusual crime problems.

The development of new technologies, such as the FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS), supports the Department’s mission of providing support and assistance to the Nation’s law enforcement community and other organizations through high-quality communications, computing, and data storage and retrieval technologies. A significant accomplishment in 1999 was the FBI’s successful transition from the old manual fingerprint card system to IAFIS, which processes electronic fingerprint data received directly from the submitting agency and from the FBI's Card Scanning Service. IAFIS has reduced processing time from days to 2 hours for criminal and 24 hours for civil, providing law enforcement and other users with timely information on an individual's criminal history status.

Performance Goal 2.1.6(a) / New Technologies and Unusual Crime Problems

*In the 1999 Summary Performance Plan, this indicator was intended to measure response times under the new IAFIS system. However, IAFIS came on-line at the end of July 1999 and was operational for only 2 months during the fiscal year (August and September). As a result, this indicator has been adjusted to reflect planned and actual response time overall. Response times under IAFIS will be reported in FY 2000.
Data Source: (1) IDAS.

The Department also supports state and local efforts to prevent, investigate, and prosecute white collar crimes. In 1999, OJP resources trained 1,301 criminal justice and regulatory personnel in computer crime, exceeding the target of 1,200. BJA’s National White Collar Crime Center funded 24 multistate investigations, exceeding the 1999 target of 22.

Performance Goal 2.1.6(b) / New Technologies and Unusual Crime Problems

Data Source: (2) and (3) OJP internal files.

Performance Goal 2.1.7
National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS)

DOJ will use the NICS to assist state and local law enforcement in performing criminal background checks of prospective firearms purchasers, as provided by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.

Successfully initiated in November 1998, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System identifies individuals legally prohibited from purchasing firearms, such as people with criminal histories and those served with dishonorable discharges or restraining orders. In FY 1999, FBI NICS checks denied firearm purchases to 62,189 individuals having a disqualifying record. As of October 1, 1999, all states participate in NICS.

To improve the quality, timeliness, and immediate accessibility of criminal history and related records, the National Criminal History Improvement Program (NCHIP) helps states meet Federal and state requirements through funding and technical assistance. Established in 1995, NCHIP also provides funds and technical assistance to support the interface between states and national record systems, including the FBI’s NICS, the National Sex Offender Registry (NSOR), and the National Protective Order File, which facilitates compliance with Federal full faith and credit requirements. In 1999, BJS awarded a total of nearly $43 million under the NCHIP program to all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Performance Goal 2.1.7 / National Instant Criminal Background Check System

*This includes people who were disqualified for having criminal histories, dishonorable discharges, or restraining orders.
Data Source: (1) NICS. (2) OJP internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) The planned target number of 133,566 persons with criminal records prevented from purchasing firearms assumed the FBI would conduct NICS checks for all states and territories. However, it presently performs these checks for only 27 states and territories and long gun purchases for only 11 states, which explains the significant target shortfall. (The remaining states/territories use the NICS system as well as their own proprietary databases to determine whom to deny the privilege of purchasing a firearm. States must give 30 days notice before choosing to perform these checks on their own.) The FBI is adjusting outyear targets accordingly.

Strategic Goal 2.2
Strengthen and improve community police services.

In 1999, the COPS Office awarded nearly $900 million in grants for 18,167 additional officers on the streets, bringing the ranks of community policing officers funded since 1994 to 103,720 officers. The COPS Office, therefore, fulfilled a key element of its mission in FY 1999—funding its 100,000th community policing officer 1 year ahead of schedule. As of April 1999, more than 55,000 COPS-funded law enforcement officers were on the Nation’s streets.

The COPS Office worked to ensure that officers hired under its grant programs were properly trained and retained beyond the term of the initial Federal grant, so that quality officers remain on the streets. It also provided technology capabilities to local police departments. This Strategic Goal includes one Performance Goal that addresses several aspects of community policing.

Performance Goal 2.2.1
Community Policing

DOJ, through the COPS program, will advance the implementation of community policing

Working in partnership with OJP and the Departments of Health and Human Services and Education, COPS awarded grants under the presidential-sponsored Safe Schools, Healthy Students Initiative. It developed two grant programs—School-Based Partnerships and Cops-In-Schools—to address school-related crime and school violence. The School-Based Partnerships program provides funds to local law enforcement agencies, schools, and community-based organizations that together use the problem-solving techniques of community policing to address crime in and around schools. The Cops-In-Schools program provides funding for law enforcement agencies to permanently place school resource officers in local schools. In FY 1999, COPS awarded $196 million through the two programs and funded 1,550 school resource officers.

Training and technical assistance remains critical to helping grantees strengthen and improve community policing. In FY 1999, the Regional Community Policing Institutes (RCPIs) and Community Policing Consortium, both funded by the COPS Office, trained approximately 50,000 citizens and officers on such community policing topics as problem-solving partnerships, organizational change management, strategic implementation, rural community policing and technology, and special populations. In addition, the RCPIs offered specialized courses in cultural diversity, violence prevention, Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and crime mapping, and collaboration with corrections. In FY 1999, the COPS Office asked the RCPIs to develop plans to continue community policing absent Federal funding.

Performance Goal 2.2.1 / Community Policing

*In the FY 2001 Summary Performance Plan, these indicators are deleted and replaced by (1) the number of officers funded and (2) the number of officers on the street.
Data Source: COPS Management System.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) The goal of distributing 12,000 packages of materials was not achieved because the final production and distribution of a racial profiling training tape was delayed to ensure that it included relevant information generated from the Attorney General’s conference (June 1999) on police integrity.

(2) A key factor in not meeting this 1999 target was the withdrawal of some 800 agencies as a result of aggressive program management by the COPS Office. COPS continued to contact agencies that had previously been awarded grants but had not taken action to accept the award or to hire officers. For a variety of reasons, some agencies felt it was preferable to withdraw from the program. Also, throughout the year, COPS found that the majority of applications were from agencies that had already received COPS grants. Consequently, even though the number of grants awarded and officers funded was largely as projected, this circumstance did not translate into new agencies receiving grants. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the $75,000 maximum per officer may discourage some new agencies with higher salary and benefit costs from applying.

Strategic Goal 2.3
Support innovative, community-based strategies aimed at reducing crime, delinquency, and violence in our communities.

Through a focus on problem-solving, strong community linkages, and community-based alternatives to crime and justice, the Department is committed to making America’s communities safer and better places to live. In 1999, the Department continued to assist state and local governments with community-based initiatives and local strategies that give citizens a real opportunity to solve problems. Strategies to fight crime and reduce racial and ethnic tensions embraced the concept of community justice in an effort to build community capacity, reduce violence, and prevent crime, focusing on bringing together the community’s leadership and citizens to make neighborhoods safer. Through the efficient and effective operations of drug courts and community-based programs such as Weed and Seed, the Department fostered community cooperation and provided innovative alternatives to crime and delinquency. This Strategic Goal includes three Performance Goals that address responding to racial and ethnic tensions in communities, community-based approaches to crime and justice, and drug courts.

Performance Goal 2.3.1
Responding to Racial and Ethnic Tensions in Communities

DOJ will play a more active role in assisting communities to respond to and resolve racial and ethnic tension. Through the Community Relations Service (CRS), DOJ will provide conflict resolution services, conflict prevention and resolution training, and technical assistance to communities.

Through CRS, the Department continues to provide specialized Federal conflict resolution and violence prevention services to state and local officials to help resolve and prevent racial and ethnic conflict, violence, and civil disorder. CRS helps local officials and residents tailor locally defined resolutions when conflict and violence threaten communities. It is the only Federal agency dedicated to preventing and resolving racial and ethnic tensions, incidents, and civil disorders. In FY 1999, CRS assisted state and local governments, private and public organizations, and community groups in resolving conflicts, preventing violence, and restoring community racial stability.

Performance Goal 2.3.1 / Responding to Racial and Ethnic Tensions in Communities

Data Source: CRSIS.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) The actual number of cases ameliorated through mediation and/or conciliation services fell short of the target by 18 cases, a slight deviation. This shortfall did not adversely affect the overall program or its related activities.

Performance Goal 2.3.2
Community-Based Approaches to Crime and Justice

DOJ will continue to encourage community-based approaches to crime and justice at the state and local level.

The Department’s flagship neighborhood program is Weed and Seed, a community-based, multidisciplinary approach to combating crime. Weed and Seed supports law enforcement initiatives to "weed out" drug dealing, gang activity, and violent offenders in a particular area. Seeding activities range from prevention activities located in Safe Havens to physical improvements and economic development. Many positive community changes have occurred as part of the Weed and Seed program.

Weed and Seed Secures Shelter for Domestic Violence Victims

In the Eastern District of California, as part of the Weed and Seed initiative, a residential home and real property forfeited in a February 1999 Federal drug case, was transferred to a social service agency that will operate the property as a shelter for women and children victims of domestic violence.

In 1999, Abt Associates, under a grant from NIJ, completed a national evaluation of Weed and Seed that found the program to be a strong stimulant to community coalition building.⁹ It also found varying effectiveness of "weeding and seeding" activities across the eight sites it studied, noting significant favorable effects of Weed and Seed on key outcome measures for some sites and time periods. Although the evidence is modest in terms of its statistical significance, the indicators consistently point in favorable directions. With assistance from NIJ, the Executive Office of Weed and Seed (EOWS) will enhance its data collection and performance assessment capacity so that existing sites can better evaluate the effectiveness of their Weed and Seed strategies.

On the down side, the evaluation noted the limited and tenuous role that many local prosecutors play in the weeding process. A number of local prosecutors reported they simply lack the funding and personnel to conduct enhanced prosecutions generated by more aggressive policing activities. Recognizing the value of Weed and Seed, U.S. Attorneys have stepped up their involvement with Weed and Seed sites in their districts. At the end of FY 1999, 81 districts had used the U.S. Attorneys’ Weed and Seed fund to help develop, train, and sponsor community activities associated with the programs in their districts. More than $3 million has been allocated to the fund since 1996, and more than $2.7 million has been expended. OJP representatives and U.S. Attorneys on the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee met during 1999 to discuss how to further the U.S. Attorneys’ role in community efforts such as Weed and Seed.

Performance Goal 2.3.2 / Community-Based Approaches to Crime and Justice

*The previous 1997 actual of 74% was a clerical error.
**Data for this indicator are based on customer surveys, the results of which will not be available until FY 2000. EOWS is working with NIJ to design a new program element that will provide credible ethnographic documentation of local Weed and Seed experience, which will lead to improvements in performance measurements. At the same time, during 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) prepared a report discussing ways the program can improve progress measurement of Weed and Seed sites. As a result, EOWS proposes to (1) help sites improve their capacity to do small-scale evaluations by providing technical assistance and (2) look at 22 different variables, such as household income, truancy rates, new business startups, home ownership, unemployment, out-of-wedlock births, and other measures to get a better sense of the impact Weed and Seed has had at its 200 sites.
Data Source: EOWS.

Performance Goal 2.3.3
Drug Courts

DOJ will expand its Drug Courts Initiative. We expect an increase in the number of drug courts participants who will not commit other crimes while participating in the program.

Drug courts are another effective strategy for reducing drug-related crime. By combining supervision with sanctions, drug testing, treatment, and an array of other services, drug courts encourage nonviolent, drug-abusing offenders to stop the cycle of drug use and crime. In addition, drug courts save money by reducing the use of jail space and probation services, as well as the number of drug-addicted babies born to addict mothers. Drug courts achieved several notable outcomes in FY 1999 .

Drug Courts— Noteworthy Outcomes

Nationwide, for all drug courts:¹⁰

• More than 140,000 offenders enrolled in drug courts to get the supervision and treatment they need to stop abusing drugs and committing crimes.
  
  
• More than 4,500 parents have become current in their child support payments after participating in a drug court program.
  
  
• More than 850 drug-free babies were reported born to drug court participants in the 415 operational drug courts in the United States. Had these mothers continued to use drugs and given birth to drug-addicted infants, by the time these children turned 18, costs related to hospital care, foster care, and special education could reach $750,000.

While many courts and treatment providers like the drug court concept, they have little experience with the rethinking and effort required to carry out this approach to managing offenders. Additionally, court administrators and judges have trouble knowing which questions to ask about program impact, as noted in the recent U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) report on drug courts.¹¹ These issues can best be addressed through training and technical assistance designed to promote and support best practices in developing, implementing, evaluating, and institutionalizing drug courts.

Another issue is that drug courts have generated only limited research and evaluation, both locally and nationally. To address this problem, the Drug Court Program Office (DCPO) and NIJ are conducting research on treatment in drug courts to see whether what appears to be working day to day is actually working over the long term. In 1997, NIJ awarded Drug Court Evaluation Program I grants to study four drug courts—Las Vegas, Nevada; Portland, Oregon; Kansas City, Missouri; and Pensacola, Florida. The purpose was to examine "process" issues, such as the operational features of the courts and the dynamics of program development. In 1999, NIJ awarded Drug Court Evaluation Program II grants to evaluate the 16 drug courts receiving 1995-96 implementation grants from DCPO.

This phase will look more closely at program outcomes. From 1995 through 1999, OJP funded more than 250 drug courts—60 percent of the 415 operational drug courts in the United States. For the first time, all 50 states have a funded drug court, and more than 200 drug courts are in the planning stage.

Performance Goal 2.3.3 / Drug Courts

Data Source: (1) Drug Court Clearinghouse survey of grantees. (2) Drug Court Clearinghouse survey of all operational drug courts.

Strategic Goal 2.4
Uphold the rights of and improve services to America’s crime victims.

One of the key principles of community justice is to protect the rights of all Americans by making the justice system more responsive and fair, stressing victims’ rights and the prevention of crime. Accordingly, this Strategic Goal includes two Performance Goals that address Crime Victims Fund (CVF) programs and crime victimization and prevention programs.

Performance Goal 2.4.1
Crime Victims Fund Programs

DOJ will continue full implementation of programs supported through the Crime Victims’ Fund, as well as other initiatives designed to ensure the safety of, and assistance to, all victims and witnesses.

In 1999, the Department’s focus on victim services in the correctional field continued to emphasize development and replication of promising practices through support for long-term demonstration projects and promotion of promising victim services programs already in place. Overall, correctional agencies adopted 10 promising practices related to victim/witness assistance, meeting the 1999 target for this indicator.

Performance Goal 2.4.1 / Crime Victims Fund Programs

*This indicator has been discontinued and will not appear in subsequent reports.
**Information for these indicators is from the National Evaluation of Victims of Crime Act Compensation and Assistance Program, The Urban Institute.
Data Source: Grantee progress reports.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

An evaluation by the Urban Institute shows that 84 percent of states developed long-range funding strategies for victims’ programs in 1999, and 84 percent implemented needs assessments to identify gaps in victim services. Although these results fell slightly short of 1999 targets, overall program and activity performance was not affected. In fact, since 1997, overall progress by states in implementing these two major reforms has been dramatic and is due largely to Federal leadership and training and to technical assistance programs sponsored by OJP.

Performance Goal 2.4.2
Child Victimization and Prevention Programs

DOJ will expand child victimization prevention programs, such as the Missing Children’s Program and the Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program.

The Missing and Exploited Children’s program of OJP’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) strives to reduce crimes against children, particularly kidnapping and sexual exploitation, and to improve the criminal justice, social services, and treatment systems responsible for dealing with these crimes. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), each year in America approximately 900,000 children are reported missing. To report a missing child and to get help in their search, families and law enforcement agencies use the NCMEC hotline, which operates around the clock in the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Many missing children are runaways, while others are taken by noncustodial parents and often used as pawns in custody battles; some wander away and are unable to find their way home, and others are victims of child predators. In 1999, approximately 47,400 law enforcement and other personnel received training in missing and exploited children’s issues, well above the 1999 target of 40,000 trainees.

The Department also surpassed goals for all indicators under the CASA program in 1999. The CASA program is a national program that supports volunteer advocates who represent abused and neglected children’s interests in court. In 1999, CASA served 906 jurisdictions across the United States. This number reflects a significant increase from the 810 jurisdictions served in 1998. CASA programs are now established in jurisdictions where 72 percent of the U.S. population resides. Similarly, the number of children served increased by more than 10,000 in 1999. These two program outcomes, along with a greater number of state and local CASA programs, demonstrate CASA’s significant national impact.

Performance Goal 2.4.2 / Child Victimization and Prevention Programs

*The FY 1999 Summary Performance Plan mistakenly referred to the Missing Children’s program in this indicator.
Data Source: (1) Fox Valley Technical College. (2) NCMEC, per MCI-WorldCom reports. (3) and (4) Results of CASA programs survey for that year.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(2) NCMEC received 125,169 hotline calls in FY 1999, 10 percent fewer than the goal. This shortfall stems from the fact that the number of hotline calls depends on uncontrollable external factors, such as citizen and law enforcement reports and requests for technical assistance.

Strategic Goal 2.5
Reduce the incidence of violence against women.

Domestic violence is a continuing threat to the fabric of America’s families. And the statistics are staggering. Of women who reported being raped or physically assaulted since the age of 18, three-quarters were victimized by a current or former husband, cohabitating partner, date, or boyfriend.¹² Forty percent of girls age 14 to 17 report knowing someone their age who has been hit or beaten by a boyfriend,¹³ and husbands or boyfriends were identified as the murderers of 32 percent of female victims slain in 1998.¹⁴ Sadly, children are present in nearly half of reported incidents of domestic violence. These statistics and the devastation that domestic violence brings to families call for continued vigilance in pursuing the assailants and bringing them to justice.

In this vein, the U.S. Attorneys’ offices continued their aggressive training and education efforts in 1999, focusing on Federal domestic violence laws, such as the 1994 Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) . Districts hosted district- specific and multidistrict conferences to ensure the availability of Federal domestic violence laws as a tool. These efforts have resulted in more than 200 indictments and 140 convictions to date. The partnership between Federal, state, local, and tribal components remains a critical element in the effort to stem this nationwide crime problem.

Prison Term for Batterer Crossing State Lines

In the District of Idaho, a defendant became the first Idahoan sentenced for interstate travel to commit domestic violence under the 1994 Violence Against Women Act. The defendant was sentenced to 2 years and 6 months in prison, 3 years of supervised release, and a $2,000 fine after he pled guilty to charges of battering his domestic partner and burglary with intent to commit assault with a deadly weapon. The defendant was charged under VAWA because he crossed Indian Country boundaries with the intent to commit battery.

This Strategic Goal includes just one Performance Goal addressing the formidable problem of family violence in this Nation.

Performance Goal 2.5.1
Family Violence

DOJ will continue to develop and expand programs and services that target the reduction of the incidence and consequences of family violence, including domestic violence and child victimization.

OJP’s Violence Against Women Office (VAWO) helps communities improve their response to violence against women— domestic violence, stalking, and domestic assault. Under the STOP (Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors) formula grant program, funds are provided to state governments for use by governmental and nonprofit agencies to improve victim services and to develop and strengthen law enforcement strategies. A recent report by the Urban Institute found that STOP monies have a positive impact on the experience of women victims of violence in the criminal and other service systems. It also found that these monies foster cohesion and collaboration among service providers. According to subgrantees interviewed by the Urban Institute evaluators, victims are now safer, better supported, and better treated. VAWO also provides discretionary STOP funds to help tribal governments. The Northern Cheyenne Special Prosecutors Unit illustrates the work they are doing . In 1999, a total of 137 states, localities, and Indian tribal governments introduced coordinated justice approaches addressing violent crimes against women.

Tribal Governments Make Strides in Curbing Domestic Violence

The Northern Cheyenne Special Prosecutors Unit has a 90-percent conviction rate and is responsible for sharp declines in domestic violence incidents among a population of 6,000 people. The success of this unit can be attributed in part to the following:

• Revision of the Tribal Code, fundamental to increasing prosecutions.
  
  
• Training of personnel to properly handle domestic violence cases.
  
  
• Adoption of a pro-prosecution policy, which is also changing social tolerance of domestic violence.
  
  
• Coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the U.S. Attorney’s office, crucial to the successful transfer of cases.

In FY 1999, OJP/VAWO grant programs addressed family violence issues by encouraging coordinated community responses and by reaching out to underserved populations. For example:

• The Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies program encourages jurisdictions to implement mandatory or proarrest policies as part of a coordinated community response to domestic violence. In 1999, 52 new grantees received funding, leading to several outstanding projects with notable success at the local level.
  
  
• The Rural Domestic Violence and Child Victimization Enforcement grant program funds projects to improve and increase services available to women and children and to encourage community involvement in responding to domestic violence and mistreatment of children. In 1999, 68 new jurisdictions received funding to provide services to previously underserved populations in rural communities.

Rural Victim Assistance Program Targets Ethnic Communities

Missoula County, Montana, supports a victim assistance satellite program in isolated Seeley Lake, educating the public and providing legal advocacy, crisis counseling, and transportation to victims of domestic violence. In 1999, Missoula expanded its rural program by reaching out to people in the Hmong and Russian communities, using this same grassroots model. The project team is translating and developing materials, teaching domestic violence classes, talking with community members and elders, and providing direct services to battered women and their children.

Also in 1999, 28 new jurisdictions received funding to implement new polices and procedures on sex offender management. VAWO is developing a comprehensive training curriculum for managing sex offenders in communities and is providing technical assistance to two tribal resource sites: the Navajo Nation in Arizona and the Yankton-Sioux Tribe in South Dakota, which are now providing services to other tribes.

Performance Goal 2.5.1 / Family Violence

*This indicator has been discontinued and will not appear in subsequent reports.
Data Source: VAWO internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(2) and (4) Grant programs created by VAWA require that changes be made and institutionalized throughout local and state criminal justice systems (e.g., creation of special units within police departments, enhanced victims’ services, domestic violence courts, and new information systems to gather cumulative data on the impact of VAWA). These changes cannot be accomplished in 1 or even 2 year’s time. Most jurisdictions requested continuation funds for 2 and 3 years running to let them sustain and enhance the systemic change that the grant programs require.

Core Function III: Legal Representation, Enforcement of Federal Laws, and Defense of U.S. Interests

The Department of Justice serves as the largest "law office" in the world. Working together, Department components ensure that the Federal Government "speaks with one voice" with respect to the law. In 1999, we continued efforts aimed at accomplishing the five Strategic Goals under this Core Function: (1) protecting the civil rights of all Americans, (2) safeguarding America’s environment and natural resources, (3) promoting competition in the U.S. economy, (4) promoting fair and uniform enforcement of Federal tax laws, and (5) representing the United States in all civil matters for which the Department has jurisdiction.

Strategic Goal 3.1
Protect the civil rights of all Americans.

The civil rights laws of the United States prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability, age, familial status, and citizenship status in employment, education, public accommodations, housing, lending, programs receiving Federal financial assistance, and in other areas. The Department of Justice serves as the Federal Government’s chief guardian of these rights, which the President affirmed in his statement on "Law Day," April 30, 1999 .

Law Day Proclamation

On April 30, 1999, the President signed Proclamation 7191–Law Day, U.S.A., 1999, in which he stated, "America’s trust in the rule of law and our continuing quest for equality under the law have defined our history for more than 200 years. Now, as we look forward to a new century, we must renew our commitment to the spirit of our Constitution and the strong foundation of civil rights laws that guarantee both our freedom and our security.

We must reaffirm our goal of building an America where all people have an equal opportunity to reach their full potential and where no American is denied his or her rights because of race, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, or disability. By doing so, we will fulfill our founders’ vision of a Nation where all citizens share equally in the blessings and protections of the law."

Criminal civil rights prosecutions are brought against official misconduct, including excessive use of force (such as brutality by law enforcement officers), criminal violations of the Fair Housing Act (such as cross burnings), hate crimes based on race or religion, and church arsons. Besides prosecuting criminal civil rights violations, the Civil Rights Division, working with the U.S. Attorneys' offices, uses noncriminal civil rights laws and litigation tools to ensure the civil rights of all Americans. This Strategic Goal includes three Performance Goals that address hate crimes, pattern or practice civil rights violations, and protection of voting rights.

Performance Goal 3.1.1
Hate Crimes

DOJ will continue to develop increased attention to hate crime cases, with the Civil Rights Division (CRT), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Attorneys, the Office of Justice Prevention/Bureau of Justice Statistics (OJP/BJS), and the Community Relations Service (CRS) working to implement a coordinated plan to improve the Federal response to hate crimes. DOJ officials will work closely with other Federal law enforcement entities including the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), state and local prosecutors, law enforcement, and community groups, to effectuate a comprehensive approach to hate crime enforcement. Efforts will be undertaken to further the development of procedures to (1) expand education and training in the area of hate crimes; (2) improve the quality and accuracy of hate crime statistics; (3) improve the geographic coverage of hate crime statistics; and (4) implement procedures that will result in reliable hate crime trend data.

In response to growing concern about hate crimes, the Department continued vigorous efforts to investigate and prosecute hate crime incidents. For example, it is conducting an intensive investigation into the August 10, 1999, fatal shooting of an Asian-American postal worker in Los Angeles and the shooting into a Jewish community center there that injured five people. Several Justice components continued to play a critical role in the Hate Crimes Initiative, which established community- based hate crime working groups and training initiatives through U.S. Attorney’s offices around the country. These working groups—the centerpiece of the Department’s hate crimes strategy—developed enforcement strategies, shared best practices, and educated the public about hate crimes.

In addition, the Department worked to combat arson and the desecration of our Nation’s houses of worship resulting from racial and ethnic biases. Through the efforts of the National Church Arson Task Force (NCATF)—created in 1996 by the President and the Attorney General—church fires in this country are on the decline. The 35-percent rate of arrest in NCATF arson cases is more than double the 16-percent rate nationwide.

In FY 1999, hate crime investigations were up by about 33 percent, to 615, exceeding the target number by 116 investigations. Hate crime prosecutions were up about 83 percent from 1998, slightly exceeding the target number.

Performance Goal 3.1.1 / Hate Crimes

Data Source: EOUSA, FBI, and CRT case management systems and manual records.

Performance Goal 3.1.2
Pattern or Practice Civil Rights Violations

DOJ will devote increased attention to pattern or practice violations in civil rights cases, including fair housing, fair lending, employment discrimination, disability, and police misconduct matters.

Pattern or practice civil rights violations cases involved important matters of alleged discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or other reasons, and required extensive use of litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches. Specific areas addressed police misconduct, rights for people with disabilities, fair housing rights, employment and education, rights for persons in institutions, and worker exploitation. Efforts in these various categories are summarized in the paragraphs below.

Police Misconduct. The Department continued to prosecute law enforcement officials who used their positions to deprive people of constitutional rights, such as the right to be free from unwarranted assaults, illegal arrests and searches, and deprivation of property without due process of law. The Department also authorized civil lawsuits against:

• The City of Columbus, Ohio, to remedy police misconduct there. Additionally, the Department monitored compliance with two consent decrees to remedy misconduct in police departments in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Steubenville, Ohio.
  
  
• The New Jersey State Police for racial profiling in traffic stops on the New Jersey Turnpike. The Department entered discussions to resolve the matter.

Clinic Access. Pursuant to its authority under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act, the Department continued to protect the rights of patients and health care providers against threats of force and physical obstruction of reproductive health facilities. Following the shooting of Dr. Barnett Slepian in New York, the Attorney General in November 1998 announced a National Task Force on Violence against Health Care Providers. The task force has participated in investigations and prosecutions of FACE violations, including the investigation of the killing of Dr. Slepian.

Rights for Persons with Disabilities. The Department continued its comprehensive program under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to open up the mainstream of American life to people with disabilities. This effort includes ensuring that students with disabilities receive services to allow them to benefit from special education and that unjustified institutionalization of individuals with disabilities is prohibited. The Department also struck an agreement with Greyhound Lines, Inc., to improve the availability and quality of bus service for persons with disabilities. In addition to paying nearly $20,000 in damages, Greyhound agreed that on 48 hours notice, it will make reasonable efforts to provide an accessible bus between any of its approximately 2,600 points of service.

Decisions Open Up Mainstream of Life for People with Disabilities

In Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Garrett F., the Supreme Court agreed with the Solicitor General’s position as a "friend of the court" that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires a school district to provide a student who is paralyzed from the neck down and breathes with the use of an electric ventilator with the services needed to benefit from special education. In Olmstead v. L.C., the Supreme Court, agreeing with the Solicitor General, held that a state violates the ADA if it institutionalizes people with disabilities without first seeing whether they could get the services they need in a community setting. The Court held that states must place persons with mental disabilities in community settings when such placement can be reasonably accommodated.

Fair Housing and Lending Rights. In 1999, the Department continued to make fair housing and lending enforcement a high priority. Of 41 new cases filed to enforce the Fair Housing Act, 17 were resolved through consent decrees or settlement agreements. Settlements were reached in 26 cases filed in previous years. Nine of the recent case filings seek to enforce the Act’s requirement that new multifamily housing units be built with accessible features for persons with disabilities.

Employment and Education. In 1999, the Department continued to investigate and pursue cases alleging both individual and patterns or practices of employment discrimination. For example, in United States v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that the employer could not use a physical performance test that effectively excluded women from becoming police officers, without demonstrating that the pass point on the test represented the minimum qualifications required for successful job performance.

The Department also enforced laws designed to ensure that public schools do not discriminate against students on the basis of race, gender, disabilities, and other factors. Highlights from 1999 include the U.S. Supreme Court’s agreeing with the Department’s argument that an educational institution may be held liable for damages under Title IX if it responds with deliberate indifference to known acts of student-on-student harassment in its programs or activities. The United States also continued to monitor the assimilation of women at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in United States v. Virginia and at the Citadel in United States and Mellette v. Jones. The Department successfully defended against VMI’s efforts to have the case dismissed, arguing the need for further monitoring.

School Board Can Be Held Liable for Bullies

In Davis v. Monroe County Board of Education, the Supreme Court, agreeing with the Solicitor General’s position, held that an individual victimized by severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive student-on-student harassment could bring a private action against a school board for damages. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 would govern the action, where the school board had actual knowledge of the harassment and reacted with deliberate indifference.

Rights for Persons in Institutions. In 1999, the Department continued efforts to secure basic constitutional rights for persons in institutions. For example, the Department settled two major sexual misconduct suits against Arizona and Michigan. Under the agreements, the two states will take a broad range of measures to minimize sexual misconduct and unlawful invasion of privacy by corrections staff against inmates at five Arizona women’s prisons and two Michigan women’s prisons. In addition, to continue efforts to protect the rights of incarcerated juveniles, the Department filed suit against Louisiana over conditions at four secure juvenile facilities and continued to monitor compliance with settlement agreements covering all the secure juvenile correctional facilities in Georgia, Kentucky, and Puerto Rico.

Worker Exploitation. In FY 1999, the Department continued efforts to combat worker exploitation through active participation on the interagency Worker Exploitation Task Force, co-chaired by the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights and designed to let investigators and prosecutors share information and coordinate enforcement efforts. In December 1998, the Attorney General announced the creation of Regional Worker Exploitation Task Forces by the Departments of Labor and Justice, and in January 1999, the U.S. Attorneys designated representatives from their offices to participate on them.

While the total of 76 cases fell slightly short of the target of 80 cases for FY 1999, increases in total number of pattern or practice cases was up 3 percent from last year.

Performance Goal 3.1.2 / Pattern or Practice Civil Rights Violations

Data Source: CRT case management systems and manual records.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

These cases involved important matters of alleged discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, or other reasons, and required extensive use of such time-consuming approaches as ADR, pretrial preparation, and extended litigation. In addition, in pursuing certain cases related to the accessibility requirements of the Fair Housing Act, CRT has had to rely on outside experts to review blueprints. The planned hiring of an in-house architect should help expedite the conclusions of these investigations and the filing or resolution of these cases.

Performance Goal 3.1.3
Protection of Voting Rights

DOJ will devote increased attention to the enforcement of the Voting Rights Act and the review of electoral redistricting plans within the statutory 60-day requirement.

In FY 1999, the Department continued efforts under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to ensure that minorities are not denied a fair opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect candidates of their choice. Examples of 1999 accomplishments include successfully defending a single-member district electoral system drawn in consideration of voters’ race (among other factors) by the City of Cocoa, Florida. This was an important, precedent-setting case, in which CRT served as a friend of the court. Targets both for reviewing such redistricting plans and for successfully litigating complex voting cases were met at 100 percent in 1999.

Performance Goal 3.1.3 / Protection of Voting Rights

Data Source: STAPS.

Strategic Goal 3.2
Safeguard America’s environment and natural resources.

Environmental enforcement and protection is a high priority of this Administration. In 1999, the Department continued to safeguard America’s environment and natural resources and to enhance the health of all Americans by vigorously pursuing violators of environmental laws. The Environmental and Natural Resources Division (ENRD), U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and the FBI joined forces with state and local governments, as well as with other Federal agencies—most notably the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)—to strengthen civil and criminal enforcement efforts. We also worked with the Department of the Interior (DOI) and various Indian tribes to defend and preserve public lands, natural resources, and tribal sovereignty. Along with prosecuting landmark cases, the Department provided extensive training for agents and prosecutors, including tribal prosecutors. This Strategic Goal addresses the Department’s enforcement of natural resources laws.

Performance Goal 3.2.1
Enforcement of Natural Resource Laws

DOJ attorneys and investigators will continue efforts to ensure the vigorous pursuit of violators of environmental laws, thereby enhancing the health of all Americans. DOJ will increase efforts to enforce Federal agency regulations implemented to effectuate the goals of the Administration's Clean Water Action Plan and the defense of the Federal Government’s use, transportation, and storage of hazardous materials. In addition, DOJ will cooperatively participate in activities and lead toward the effective protection of tribal sovereignty, lands, and natural resources.

Successful enforcement of environmental laws in FY 1999 resulted in $3.2 billion in fines, penalties, restitutions, and injunctive relief that will undo past harm and prevent future damage to the environment. This is a 54-percent increase over FY 1998. In FY 1999, the Department actively pursued environmental violators and penalties and engaged in protection activities at sites all across the country. Brief summaries of these efforts follow.

Prosecuting Violators of Environmental Laws. During 1999, the Department worked extensively with other Federal agencies, state and local governments, and international entities to strengthen prosecution of environmental crimes, such as preventing the pollution of oceans and inland waters by ships . Other highlights include the following:

• Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) smuggling. CFCs, used in automobile air conditioners, destroy the protective ozone layer in the atmosphere. Following a ban on their importation in 1996, a black market in illegally imported CFCs developed in the United States. As of September 1999, the Department secured more than 80 convictions in CFC smuggling cases, resulting in more than 51 years of incarceration, $50 million in fines, and $30 million in restitutions.
  
  
• Oil drilling operations. The U.S. subsidiary of the third largest oil company in the world admitted that it failed to report the release of hazardous substances into the environment on the north slope of Alaska. As part of its probation, the company agreed to implement, at a cost of $15 million, a nationwide environmental management system at all of its U.S. facilities engaged in oil exploration, drilling, and production.
  
  
• Wildlife protection. The world’s threatened coral reefs are the "tropical rain forests" of the oceans; trafficking in protected corals harms other species dependent upon them. In FY 1999, the Department obtained the first convictions in this country for illegal importation of protected corals and continued to crack down on international reptile smuggling.

Department Secures Record Fine Against Cruise Ship

The Department obtained the largest criminal fine ever in a vessel pollution case when one of the world’s largest cruise ship lines pled guilty to 21 felony counts in six districts for illegally dumping waste oil and chemicals and for making false statements to the U.S. Coast Guard. The company agreed to pay $18 million in criminal fines, in addition to $8 million in fines paid the previous year. Along with the record penalty, the cruise ship line agreed to operate for the next 5 years under a court-supervised environmental compliance plan.

Conducting Civil Enforcement. In 1999, the Department obtained extensive injunctive relief and had a record-setting year in recovering monies for hazardous waste site cleanup. Through enforcement of pollution laws, responsible parties and not the public bear the burden of paying for environmental cleanups across the country. One area of focus was to improve the Nation’s water quality—part of efforts to carry out the Administration’s Clean Water Action Plan. The Department reached settlements with the Cities of Atlanta and Baltimore requiring them to repair aging municipal sewer and water systems and to pay civil penalties of $3.2 million and $1 million, respectively. The Department also brought action against a Missouri animal feeding operation for polluting water through discharge and runoff of wastes from 1 million animals.

The Department is also working closely with EPA, among other agencies, on the Mississippi River Basin Initiative—a comprehensive Federal effort to keep pollution out of the river and restore it and surrounding communities to their historical grandeur.

Other major civil enforcement successes included the following in 1999:

• A settlement involving seven heavy-duty diesel engine manufacturers that will prevent 75 million tons of nitrous oxide (NOx) air pollution over the next 27 years, reduce by one-third the total NOx emissions from diesel engines by 2003, and provide for an $83.4 million civil penalty— the largest Clean Air Act penalty ever.
  
  
• The largest civil penalty ever under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—$11.8 million—-for violations involving mismanagement of dangerous phosphorus wastes in ponds on an Idaho Indian reservation. The defendant agreed to build a $40-million waste treatment plant and to participate in more than a dozen supplemental environmental projects to improve air quality in the Pocatello area.

Preserving Natural Resources and Public Lands. The Department was instrumental in protecting important ecosystems and public lands in the United States in 1999, working with Federal agencies such as DOI and local governments. Responsibilities in this area included acquiring land—either by direct purchase or through condemnation proceedings— for purposes of preserving environmentally sensitive areas. In FY 1999, the Department:

• Reached an agreement with the State of California to permanently protect the worlds largest remaining privately held old growth redwood grove in the "Headwaters" area of Northern California.
  
  
• Assisted with the purchase of 50,000 acres of an Everglades sugar plantation and is assisting in land acquisition to expand Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. This action will substantially help to restore the Everglades.
  
  
• Helped to protect crucial wintering habitat for bald eagles in California.

Defending Environmental Programs. Another important aspect of the Department’s work in the environmental arena is the defense of Federal programs in lawsuits involving environmental issues. Money saved by the Government in favorable outcomes from defensive litigation amounted to approximately $2.4 billion—a 60-percent increase over FY 1998. For example, in FY 1999, the Department:

• Overcame challenges to flood control projects in the lower Mississippi River Valley and in the Los Angeles Basin, protecting these areas from catastrophic flooding.
  
  
• Defended Government programs for safe disposal of the Nation’s stockpile of chemical weapons and radioactive wastes.
  
  
• Protected the American people’s right to know about toxic releases in their neighborhoods by defeating a challenge to EPA’s effort to expand the number of facilities required to report such releases.

Promoting Partnerships with Indian Tribes. The Department also continued to protect and defend Indian hunting and fishing rights in several cases, including where the Supreme Court upheld the treaty rights of the Mille Lacs Band of Chippewa Indians to hunt, fish, and gather wild rice on off-reservation lands in Minnesota. In other cases, the Department:

• Successfully defended the Jicarilla Apache Tribe’s water rights settlement from litigation challenges by a coalition of non-Indian water users of the San Juan River in New Mexico.
  
  
• Collected more than $1 million for the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes for damage to their lands in Montana from forest fires.
  
  
• Resolved two of the remaining five Indian Claims Commission (ICC) cases originally filed in the 1950s, one with the Minnesota Band of Chippewas and the other with the Menominee Tribe. These cases grew out of a law directing the U.S. Government to sell the tribes’ lands and other assets to establish and manage a fund for tribal purposes. Although these actions resulted in numerous claims for compensation by many different Indian tribes, only three ICC cases remain.

Performance Goal 3.2.1 / Enforcement of Natural Resource Laws

*Actual numbers for 1997 and 1998 were adjusted to reflect corrections in the counting of cases between ENRD and USAs. These numbers were adjusted to include Superfund dollars, for consistency with other GPRA indicators.
**This indicator was discontinued during 1999 because it was too subjective and not statistically valid. It has been replaced by a new performance indicator, "Amount of money saved by the Government in ENRD defensive environmental cases," which will be reported on in future reports.
Data Source: ENRD CMS.

Strategic Goal 3.3
Promote competition in the U.S. economy through enforcement of, improvements to, and education about antitrust laws and principles.

The Antitrust Division saves U.S. consumers and businesses billions of dollars annually by enforcing Federal civil and criminal antitrust laws that promote and maintain competitive markets. In FY 1999, the Department intensified its focus on detecting and prosecuting criminal antitrust conspiracies and on reviewing increasingly complex merger transactions for competitive issues. The Department successfully challenged anticompetitive practices in 1999 and expanded cooperative efforts with international enforcement authorities. This Strategic Goal’s specific Performance Goal addresses the many aspects of promoting competition.

Performance Goal 3.3.1
Promotion of Competition

DOJ will review the growing number of increasingly complex and international merger transactions for potential competitive issues, successfully challenge anticompetitive practices in the civil nonmerger area, intensify the focus on detecting and successfully prosecuting massive criminal antitrust conspiracies, expand cooperative efforts with international enforcement authorities, and increase the dollar value of savings to the consumer from its enforcement actions.

Merger enforcement is extremely important to promoting competition, particularly given the present economic expansion and the increasing number of mergers taking place—especially strategic and transnational mergers. Between FY 1995 and FY 1999, the number of pre-merger filings rose 65 percent to 4,642 filings, and the value of U.S. merger activity rose 257 percent, to $1.79 trillion. The 97-percent success rate for merger transactions challenged exceeded the target number. This unparalleled trend of merger transactions is expected to continue.

The success rate in civil nonmerger matters was 100 percent in FY 1999. The Antitrust Division also pursued major investigations and trials involving alleged anticompetitive practices in various sectors. These included high technology (Microsoft), financial services (Visa-MasterCard), transportation (American Airlines), and health care (Dentsply and Federation of Physicians and Dentists). The current level of civil nonmerger investigation and litigation is unprecedented in the last 20 years.

Responding to increasing economic globalization, the Department's criminal enforcement strategy also targeted the growing number of international cartels affecting American consumers and businesses. Between FY 1991 and FY 1999, the percentage of foreign corporate defendants has grown from roughly 1 percent to 50 percent. In FY 1999, the Antitrust Division obtained more than $1 billion in criminal antitrust fines associated with international cartels, a significant increase over prior years and a new record. Indeed, the Antitrust Division secured more criminal fines than in the entire 109-year history of Sherman Act enforcement, including the largest fine ever obtained by the Department—a $500 million fine paid by one defendant for its part in a vitamin conspiracy.

Performance Goal 3.3.1 / Promotion of Competition

*The dollar amount of U.S. commerce affected in criminal matters is estimated by the Antitrust Division based on the best available information from investigative and public sources. It serves as a proxy for the potential effect of anticompetitive behavior. Suspect conspiracies usually are more extensive, sometimes far more extensive, than are formally charged in an indictment; therefore, the dollar amount of commerce affected is likely to be significantly understated. These values are estimates for the specific fiscal year and reflect only U.S. commerce. Previously reported data (for 1997 actual, 1998 actual, and 1999 planned) included estimates of the dollar amount of commerce affected over the duration of the conspiracy and included global commerce. ATR changed its methodology for estimating the dollar amount of commerce affected in criminal matters to be consistent with calculations for dollar amount of commerce affected in merger and civil nonmerger matters. The “NA” for 1997 actual and 1999 planned stems from this change, as we lack revised data for 1997.
Data Source: MTS and ATR staff.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(4) The decline in Antitrust Division requests for assistance in FY 1999 was due in part to an increase in the use of its Corporate Leniency program. Instituted in 1993, this program accords leniency to corporations reporting their illegal antitrust activities directly to the Division at an early stage, if certain conditions are met. The majority of international matters had one or more conspirators use this program in FY 1999, with the practical effect of reducing the number of Division requests for assistance from foreign government authorities—as the Division was able to work closely and cooperatively with many of the identified conspirators.

Strategic Goal 3.4
Promote the fair, correct, and uniform enforcement of Federal tax laws and the collection of tax debts.

In 1999, Department attorneys emphasized promoting compliance with U.S. and foreign tax laws, guided by the principles of fair and uniform treatment for all categories of taxpayers. Through heightened cooperation with U.S. Attorneys and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Department furthered efforts to fairly pursue civil and criminal tax violators, focusing especially on illegal tax protests aimed at undermining compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and at evading payment of Federal income taxes. The Tax Division’s 1999 accomplishments include successfully prosecuting criminal tax cases ranging from large corporations to individuals who attempt to defraud the United States. Specifically, this Strategic Goal includes two Performance Goals that address fair and uniform enforcement of tax laws and international tax compliance.

Performance Goal 3.4.1
Fair and Uniform Enforcement of Tax Laws

DOJ will further efforts to fairly pursue civil and criminal violators of our tax laws, focusing particularly on illegal tax protest efforts to undermine compliance with the IRS code and evade or avoid Federal income taxes.

Members of the Tax Division, the U.S. Attorneys’ offices, and the IRS work closely to achieve joint goals and objectives. Various crosscutting initiatives (e.g., Tax Gap Project, Illegal Tax Protest Initiative, International Compliance Initiative, Abusive Trust Initiative, and Workforce Restructuring) focus on mutually desired outcomes and results by promoting the deterrence of tax fraud, encouraging voluntary payment of taxes, collecting tax debts, and managing these programs efficiently and effectively.

With the recent IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA98), radical adjustments have been made to the functions of the IRS, the Tax Division’s principal client agency. The Tax Division has been applying significant resources to interpret RRA98’s numerous new provisions, whose full effect is not yet known. It is working with the IRS to arrive at consistent and fair positions and to train litigation staff to handle court cases involving these provisions. The IRS’ much publicized shift in resources away from audit and collection to new legislation and customer service has reduced the number of case receipts in the Tax Division, but the cases received have been larger and more complex. This circumstance partly accounts for the fewer number of successfully resolved cases in 1999, compared to the year before; however, successfully resolved taxpayer appeals are up.

Performance Goal 3.4.1 / Fair and Uniform Enforcement of Tax Laws

*The Tax Division previously reported 564 successfully resolved civil cases, but changed this number to “NA” because it lacks statistics for 1997. The earlier version indicated that the 564 cases were U.S. Attorney cases for this period.
**This performance indicator has been discontinued. The 82-percent figure shown is an IRS statistic that the Tax Division can neither corroborate nor defend. Missing a way to statistically identify the Division’s impact on the rate of voluntary compliance makes this indicator unmeaningful.
Data Source: Manual methods for recording and retrieving performance data and Tax Doc.

Performance Goal 3.4.2
International Tax Compliance

DOJ attorneys will place special emphasis on promoting compliance with U.S. And foreign tax laws through appropriate litigation in the Nation’s trial and appellate courts.

The use of tax haven countries as well as other offshore countries to evade U.S. taxes has been a long-standing concern. And the problem is intensifying. Some of the growth stems from the decreased attractiveness of more traditional domestic tax shelters occasioned by 1986 tax law changes. Also, use of the Internet and other electronic technology makes the promotion and use of foreign trusts and other offshore schemes easier to accomplish and more popular—as well as more difficult to detect. The common thread in all these schemes is use of tax haven countries that impose little or no tax, offer strict bank secrecy laws not covered by treaty provisions, and refuse to extradite fugitives charged with tax crimes.

In 1999, the Tax Division was able to exceed requests for litigation and investigation advice by 11 percent for international tax compliance. Joint criminal enforcement and civil litigation efforts helped the Tax Division successfully meet its goal.

Performance Goal 3.4.2 / International Tax Compliance

Data Source: Manual methods for recording and retrieving performance data and Tax Doc.

Strategic Goal 3.5
Represent the United States in all civil matters for which the Department has jurisdiction.

The Civil Division represents the United States in any civil or criminal matter within its scope of responsibility—protecting the public fisc, ensuring legal consistency by the Federal Government, preserving the intent of Congress, and advancing the credibility of the Government before the courts. Civil cases have a major impact on the regulated community and advance client agencies’ goals for program integrity, thereby protecting the public’s interest and finances. An example is the Civil Division’s success in several appeals affirming the Government’s role as official overseer of competition in local telephone service. U.S. Attorneys also represent the United States, both as defendant and plaintiff in civil matters. The Affirmative Civil Enforcement (ACE) program allows the U.S. Attorneys to actively fight fraud, waste, and abuse inflicted upon the United States, including health care fraud, defense, or other procurement fraud, financial institution fraud, and Government program or grant fraud.

This Strategic Goal includes three Performance Goals that address protecting the public fisc, civil enforcement, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR).

Performance Goal 3.5.1
Protecting the Public Fisc

DOJ will protect the public fisc by recovering money owed to the Government and by defeating unmeritorious monetary claims against the Government in civil cases. DOJ will successfully resolve challenges to congressional enactments, Federal programs, and policy initiatives.

When it comes to litigation and collection of civil debts owed to other Federal agencies, the Department of Justice serves as the Federal Government’s "collector of last resort." We also enforce collection of fines and restitutions imposed by the U.S. courts in criminal cases. In FY 1999, recovery of both criminal and civil debts was nearly $1.5 billion—making this the sixth consecutive year of exceeding a billion dollars in cash collections. This amount is the third highest cash collection figure recorded by the Department for a fiscal year.

In FY 1999, the Civil Division worked to ensure payment only of meritorious claims and to achieve maximum monetary recoveries: nearly $7 billion in unwarranted claims were defeated in 1999, with nearly $529 million secured in judgments and settlements stemming from the Government's claims. For instance, the Civil Division continued to protect the public fisc in the massive Winstar litigation. This lawsuit was spawned by the Financial Institutions Reform and Recovery Enforcement Act (FIRREA), enacted to address the savings and loan crisis. Four trials were completed in 1999: Glendale ($909 million awarded out of $2.1 billion sought), Calfed ($23 million awarded out of $1.5 billion sought), La Salle ($5 million awarded out of $1.2 billion sought), and Suess (damages not yet determined). Additionally, the Department reached two highly favorable settlements in that Maco and Vermont Federal were held to $1 million, a fraction of the almost $300 million in claimed damages. In total, the Department collected approximately $1.4 billion from affirmative civil actions and prevailed in 93 percent of defensive civil monetary cases.

Performance Goal 3.5.1 / Protecting the Public Fisc

Data Source: (1) JMD internal files. (2) CASES.

Performance Goal 3.5.2
Civil Enforcement

DOJ efforts will focus on (1) continuing to combat health care fraud against federally funded programs in concert with Federal and state law enforcement programs; (2) aggressively pursuing fraud against financial institutions and pension funds; and (3) continuing to combat terrorism, seeking to remove criminal aliens and enforcing the Nation’s immigration laws by defending administrative decisions and INS programs and policies.

In 1999 alone, the Civil Division represented the Government’s interests in 28,000 cases challenging the laws and policies of the United States. It helped recover millions of taxpayer dollars lost through fraud, such as health care fraud and fraud against financial institutions. The Division also defended administrative decisions related to immigration and filed suit against nine tobacco companies.

In defending immigration laws and policies and administrative judgments regarding alien removal, the Civil Division upholds the intent of Congress and secures the combined efforts of immigration agencies. Two significant decisions were obtained in 1999: The Supreme Court unanimously sustained the Attorney General's denial of asylum to violent criminals in Aguirre-Aguirre, and also upheld the Attorney General's rejection of a selective prosecution defense raised by alien supporters of a foreign terrorist organization in American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The Department obtained favorable resolutions in 90 percent of civil immigration cases in 1999.

The Department was successful in all its civil health care fraud cases in 1999, attaining favorable settlements in 100 percent of cases. In the first courtroom test of the ongoing investigation of Columbia/HCA, the largest health care fraud case ever undertaken by the Government, two Columbia executives were found guilty of six criminal counts of defrauding Medicare and other federally funded health insurance programs. They now face up to 5 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each count. The Civil Division also obtained a $51-million civil settlement and more than $10 million in criminal fines from Olsten Corporation and a subsidiary, Kimberly Home Health Care. These actions resolved allegations related to sales of home health agencies to Columbia/HCA and subsequent management arrangements. As part of the settlement, Olsten agreed to cooperate fully in the Government's continuing investigation. Total favorable resolutions in all civil cases totaled 82 percent.

Performance Goal 3.5.2 / Civil Enforcement

Data Source: (1) and (3) CIV: CASES. USAs: LIONS. (2) CASES.

Performance Goal 3.5.3
Alternative Dispute Resolution

DOJ attorneys will increase efforts to employ ADR, including mediation, negotiation, and other litigation-streamlining techniques in appropriate civil cases.

During FY 1999, the Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR) continued its vigorous promotion of dispute resolution in the Department by training more than 400 Department attorneys in effective dispute resolution advocacy; providing advice and guidance to Department attorneys on the use of these processes; maintaining an outreach program with businesses, professional communities, and the courts about using dispute resolution; and working with client agencies to get buy-in for using dispute resolution processes to settle litigation involving them. In addition, ODR assisted the Attorney General in her role as chair of the Interagency ADR Working Group, a presidentially established organization of more than 60 Federal agencies. It was formed to create dispute resolution programs throughout the Federal Government to address issues related to workplace disputes, contract and procurement disputes, monetary claims against the Government, and civil enforcement programs.

Performance Goal 3.5.3 / Alternative Dispute Resolution

*1999 figures were not available by publication time. We will report these figures next year.
Data Source: Component reporting to ODR.

Core Function IV: Immigration

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) administers the Nation’s immigration laws. In FY 1999, INS continued its steady progress toward achieving ambitious enforcement and service delivery goals, even in the face of unprecedented growth and significantly expanded workload responsibilities. In the past 5 years, its budget more than doubled, reaching an appropriated and fee-funded budget totaling approximately $3.9 billion in FY 1999 (P.L. 105-277, 106-31), as the overall workforce increased to more than 28,000. Administering the Nation’s laws depends on the coordinated efforts of several Department components, including the INS, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Civil Division, and the U.S. Attorneys’ offices. Through the work of these agencies, the Department accomplished its Strategic Goals of (1) increasing data availability and accuracy through automated technologies, (2) improving service delivery to the public, (3) securing U.S. borders against illegal migration, (4) facilitating lawful travel and commerce, (5) deterring unlawful migration, (6) expediting the removal of illegal aliens, and (7) expanding community outreach initiatives.

Management Challenge
INS Organizational and Management Issues

In 1997, the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) identified a number of long-standing management problems at INS. INS has taken steps to address these problems, including analyzing roles, responsibilities, and communication among its component offices. Based on this analysis, and in conjunction with the INS restructuring initiative, plans are under way to clarify and realign the current organizational structure to create clear lines of authority and accountability at all levels. INS has updated and electronically promulgated its Administrative Manual to serve as an easily accessible, central repository of administrative policy. INS is also in the process of rewriting all of its field manuals containing policies and procedures on how to implement immigration laws. These updated manuals are being distributed electronically to serve as an accessible, central repository of field guidance.

Strategic Goal 4.1
Enhance the integrity and integration of data and data systems operated by the INS in order to establish fully integrated data systems supporting the enforcement and service functions of the INS; enhance the sharing of relevant data with other Federal agencies; and support INS management and decision-making processes.

INS continues to reinvent its organizational and management processes to knit together the agency’s major functions and interrelationships. It continues to reengineer its data systems to better handle records and information, to improve Decisionmaking, and to share relevant data with other Federal and state agencies. Through modernized financial management systems and state-of-the-art identification technologies and other automated processes, INS is improving performance in many functional areas. It has better control of resources and is getting information to the public in a more timely manner. It is also expediting the arrival of legal entrants while better detecting and deterring illegal ones. The Performance Goals under this Strategic Goal reflect these priorities as they address data and systems integrity and data systems usage in INS.

Performance Goal 4.1.1
Data and Systems Integrity

INS will continue efforts to improve the accuracy and timely availability of data used to provide information to the public and to ensure that immigration- related benefits and enforcement actions are based on correct and complete information. Specifically, INS will increase the integrity of mission-critical data in its key information systems, will increase the effective use of automation in the processing of benefits applications and Service actions; will provide automated data processing (ADP) technical training and assistance to users; and will modernize and increase the integrity of alien file (A-file) records and information.

INS is working toward full implementation and deployment of a new financial management system that will replace a 20-year-old system unable to meet current needs. The new financial management system will provide INS with proper funds control and accountability over financial resources and processes. In FY 1999, INS began to build interfaces to legacy systems that the Federal Financial Management System (FFMS) will eventually replace, enabling the agency to collect all financial data for control and reporting purposes. In FY 1999, INS achieved its goal of receiving a qualified audit opinion, certified by an independent accounting firm.

During FY 1999, INS continued to deploy enabling technologies to support its enforcement and service missions. The agency’s technology infrastructure project has now reached more than 800 sites, 97 percent of the total sites to be addressed. The infrastructure project provides a full suite of office automation capabilities and electronic mail services to more than 30,000 INS employees and support contractors. This infrastructure provides common automation tools and consistent platforms on which to introduce new enforcement and benefits systems.

Performance Goal 4.1.1 / Data and Systems Integrity

*This measure has been revised to “Number of hardware/software training incidents” for future reports, because training is more accurately tracked as training “interventions” or “incidents,” as one employee may receive more than one training incident.
**These figures have been changed to correct errors in the FY 1999 Summary Performance Plan.
Data Source: (1) Independent auditor’s report. (2) and (3) INS Office of Information Resources Management project reports and training data.

Management Challenge
Management of Automation Programs

INS has had difficulty with timely and accurate information about its information technology (IT) activities, especially significant given its sizable capital commitment to IT. However, INS has made substantial progress since the 1998 report. For instance, it has established an IT Investment Review Board (IRB) to oversee the selection, evaluation, and control of its IT investments, as well as an Executive Steering Committee to review and prioritize proposed investments. Automated systems are used to track contract funding and project expenditures, and program area portfolio managers are responsible for managing systems within a business-aligned portfolio. Senior management and the IRB approve the IT annual budget, which is managed by INS’ IT organization. An operational assessment of IT business practices is complete, and those the existing IT organization can support are being implemented (e.g., multi-year project plans and consistent reporting of cost, schedule, and performance by project). INS has formed a user group to evaluate project management requirements and is defining project manager training requirements (expected to be consistent with DOJ guidance). Standard operating procedures for these improvements should be completed by September 2000.

Performance Goal 4.1.2
Data Systems Deployment and Usage

INS will maintain major data systems that support immigration-related enforcement and benefits functions (ENFORCE, CLAIMS, and IDENT); strive for high usage rates of these systems by INS enforcement employees; and increase the impacts resulting from increased deployment and use.

In FY 1999, INS continued to bring systems on-line to speed up processing time, improve the quality of case adjudications, and make data more readily available. These systems include ENFORCE, IDENT, and CLAIMS, all of which saw increased deployment and use in FY 1999:

• Deployment of the ENFORCE system, which provides initial processing information on apprehended individuals, now includes full coverage of Border Patrol sectors on the southwest border. INS upgraded ENFORCE software at all southwest border sites, where it was used to process 91 percent of all cases.
  
  
• The IDENT system can identify individuals through biometric information. Where it was available, IDENT was integrated into daily operations so that by the end of FY 1999, 84 percent of apprehensions were entered into the IDENT system.
  
  
• CLAIMS 4.0, an automated system that supports application processing for immigration benefits, provides increased uniformity and process consistency, which allow better case tracking and resolution. As CLAIMS 4.0 is deployed, it will complement INS’ other reengineering and backlog reduction efforts. During FY 1999, INS deployed the CLAIMS 4.0 naturalization case module to 27 additional sites—for a total of 38 out of a targeted 60 sites. The sites receiving systems installations represented 54 percent of all new naturalization cases being processed.

Performance Goal 4.1.2 / Data Systems Deployment and Usage

Data Source: (1) Contractor listings. (2) Combined data from INS ENFORCE/IDENT, CLAIMS transaction databases, and PAS.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) and (2) For FY 1999, deviation from planned performance targets for IDENT and CLAIMS was slight. For CLAIMS deployments, the original target was reduced so funds could be redirected to aid other naturalization backlog efforts. There was no effect on overall activity or performance.

Management Challenge
Delivery Bonds

Either an eligible alien, or someone acting on his or her behalf, may post a delivery bond to secure release from detention. The bond obligor agrees, upon receipt of a timely demand, to surrender the alien at a specified time, date, and place. Failure to fulfill this obligation results in a "breach" of the bond and a forfeiture of the penal amount. Collection of these moneys is relatively simple for cash and Treasury bonds, as the Government holds full collateral and a power of attorney to execute on that collateral. For years, however, INS has had difficulty collecting amounts due for breaches of surety bonds. Multiple reasons account for this difficulty, but INS itself is responsible for a significant percentage of them. To address this problem, INS has conducted training in its largest district offices to ensure that detention and deportation officers know how to handle breached bonds. INS’ largest district offices have designated bond control specialists (and a backup) to resolve breach problems early in the process. INS has established better communication with the Surety Bond Branch of the Department of the Treasury, which regulates surety companies, and has redesigned and implemented a new bond contract for clarity and conformity to the new laws. Finally, with improvements to the new financial management system, INS will be able to track bonds and automatically bill companies when bonds are breached.

Strategic Goal 4.2
Deliver services to the public in a timely, consistent, fair, and high-quality manner.

In its dealings with the public, INS is mindful that every application it touches can determine a person’s future. To increase its overall effectiveness and to provide better service to its varied customers, INS has directed efforts toward improving district office processes and productivity. Through reengineering major processes, training and empowering field staff to improve service delivery, and continuing to set and achieve customer service goals, INS will continue to bring positive changes to the areas of public information, worksite verification, inspections, and naturalization. This Strategic Goal looks at two Performance Goals dealing with reengineering immigration services and providing services to Federal, state, and local governments.

Performance Goal 4.2.1
Reengineering Immigration Services

DOJ will support INS’ continuing reengineering efforts aimed at improving program integrity and delivering benefits services that are timely, consistent, fair, and of high quality, especially in the area of naturalization case-work, by improving current processing times for these services to 6 months.

INS continued reengineering efforts to improve the way services are delivered to customers (see Figure 12). In FY 1999, 872,000 people were sworn in as new, naturalized U.S. citizens (see figure 13). INS met its target of a 12-month average for processing naturalization cases, down from 27 months in FY 1998, while maintaining rigorous quality control procedures for 99 percent of cases. In FY 1999, INS met its goals for:

• Completing 1.2 million naturalization cases and reducing case processing time to 12 months.
  
  
• Responding to customer requests for forms within 5 days.
  
  
• Implementing additional naturalization quality procedures, along with appropriate oversight provisions, to further ensure integrity.

By year’s end, INS completed a nationwide review of A-file records, and established, built out, and staffed a new National Records Center. Historical A-files from archive centers around the Nation were also centralized into a facility adjacent to the new INS National Record Center. Improvements in accessibility of A-file information, both from hardcopy files and from more timely, updated, and complete automated files, will significantly support the benefits application process and the timely provision of information to INS customers.

Figure 12
INS Customer Service

Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service

Figure 13
Total Number of New Citizens and Total Number of Naturalization Applications Completed

Source: Immigration and Naturalization Service.

Performance Goal 4.2.1 / Reengineering Immigration Services

*Projected processing times are computed based on the current level of pending applications and the average level of completions during the last 3 months. Because projected processing times are computed based on past completion levels and do not consider the effect of planned improvements, this measure may not correlate to waiting times actually experienced by applicants in the future. In FY 1999, average processing time was reduced by 15 months while INS completed more than 1.2 million cases. New high-level quality controls were met in over 99 percent of the cases worked.
Data Source: (1) G-22.3 and .3 Report of Field Operations, Examinations Activity Report, PAS, and IDMS. (2) INS telephone system data.

Management Challenge
Monitoring Alien Overstays

Nonimmigrants required to depart the United States upon the expiration of their authorized period of stay but fail to do so are termed "overstayers." Since 1983, INS has collected information on numbers of nonimmigrant arrivals and departures and matched up individual records to estimate the number of over-stayers. Despite a system redesign in 1996, INS is still not able to produce reliable overstay estimates. It has implemented an automated Arrival Departure Information System, which is a database specifically designed as a repository for automated arrival/departure records, to augment the data collection component of the existing manual process. Initial indications show the automated system to be more reliable. It will help to alleviate data entry errors and should enhance collection of complete records. When the automated system is fully deployed, INS anticipates that the collection of reliable, complete arrival and departure data will become increasingly possible. Although the system will be fully capable of providing reliable data, INS will still rely heavily on the cooperation and participation of the airlines. Without their commitment to ensuring accurate arrival data at check-in and to collecting and promptly providing departure records, INS cannot ensure data integrity. Also, this system will only provide data on individuals who arrive and depart by air; those who arrive or depart by either land or sea will not have complete records. Additional improvements in coordinating with the State Department’s visa issuance process are still needed to fully address the alien overstay problem.

Performance Goal 4.2.2
Service to Federal, State, and Local Governments

Consistent with DOJ’s efforts to provide high-quality services to its customers, INS will improve the effectiveness and timeliness of its alien status verification services for other Federal, state, and local governments, and for employers, and will maintain the number of verification pilot projects mandated by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 at 5,500 employers, while improving response time for the verification of employment authorizations.

INS is the sole repository of status information on aliens and is called upon to provide status verification for aliens seeking benefits or employment. In FY 1999, INS responded to congressional requirements to pilot verification support for employers. It also continued to meet goals for timely processing and enhanced services for government entities needing information to determine eligibility for their benefit programs (see Figure 12). In FY 1999, INS achieved average response times of 3 days for status verification and 1 day for benefits and employment authorization.

In response to a mandate in the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, INS initiated a Citizen Attestation pilot program in Arizona, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Virginia. The intent is to test the viability of a status verification program in which job applicants attest to their U.S. citizenship.

Performance Goal 4.2.2 / Service to Federal, State, and Local Governments

Data Source: (1) ASVI. (2) Pilot Tracking System database.

Strategic Goal 4.3
Secure the land borders, ports-of-entry (POEs), and coasts of the United States against illegal migration through effective use of technology and personnel resources focused on enhancing the deterrence to entry and apprehending and removing those who attempt to enter illegally.

Enforcement activities between the POEs are fully integrated with those taking place in the ports themselves. This approach supports the Nation’s economy and safeguards potential entry points against criminals and contraband. At the same time, INS has been able to dramatically reduce wait times for those trying to cross the border legally. This Strategic Goal includes two Performance Goals that address INS efforts to control the border and efforts to hamper border and international smuggling.

Performance Goal 4.3.1
Controlling the Border

DOJ will continue supporting and implementing the INS’ Border Patrol Strategic Plan. Specifically, INS will maintain control in areas where deterrence strategies have been successfully implemented and increase its flexibility to respond to new areas of concern. It will also increase the level of operational effectiveness within identified zones of the southwest border with regard to illegal alien border crossing and drug interdiction.

The Department’s multiyear immigration enforcement strategy treats the entire 2,000-mile southwest border as a single, seamless entity. Several multiyear INS operations enhance border enforcement efforts. These include Operation "Gatekeeper" in San Diego, California; Operation "Hold the Line" in El Paso, Texas; Operation "Rio Grande" in McAllen, Texas; and Operation "Safeguard" in Tucson, Arizona. The initial phases of these operations typically result in increased apprehensions, reflecting the use of more agents and enhanced technology. Then as an operation takes hold over an area and causes a deterrent effect, the numbers of apprehensions decline. This effect has occurred in a major portion of the San Diego Sector, as well as in Nogales, Arizona, and at El Paso and Brownsville, Texas. To illustrate, from FY 1993 to FY 1999, apprehensions, as a percent of all of the southwest border, went from 44 percent to 12 percent in the San Diego Sector, and from 24 percent to 7 percent in El Paso. Total apprehensions along the southwest border exceeded 1.5 million in FY 1999, a small increase over FY 1998.

Also apprehended were vast quantities of drugs. In FY 1999, along the southwest border, Border Patrol agents seized nearly 1.2 million pounds of all drugs (marijuana, cocaine, and heroin), compared to approximately 880,000 pounds seized in FY 1998— an increase of 35 percent. Further, in keeping with the INS Border Safety Initiative intended to prevent loss of life in the high-risk crossing corridors, Border Patrol rescuers saved more than 1,000 people in 200 rescue incidents. Data compiled from the last 2 years revealed a 12-percent decrease in migrant deaths. Finally, continuing the hiring program begun in FY 1994, INS increased its on-board strength by 369 Border Patrol agents in FY 1999.

Performance Goal 4.3.1 / Controlling the Border

*INS is reviewing and analyzing the data.
Data Source: Manual reports from INS sectors.

Performance Goal 4.3.2
Hampering Border and International Smuggling

DOJ will continue to strengthen INS’ capability to apprehend and deter persons attempting illegal entry by hampering the efforts of alien smugglers and drug carriers.

To prevent illegal entry by malafide travelers, INS uses the assistance of overseas offices, which help identify illegal migrants before they arrive in the United States. The detection of fraudulent documents by INS employees, airline personnel, and foreign immigration officers is an important deterrent. In 1999, INS intercepted more than 9,100 malafide travelers and offshore migrants on their way to the United States, exceeding the target by 11 percent. INS also assisted 119 offshore prosecutions through fraudulent document detection and profiling training, exceeding the 1999 target by 12 percent.

Performance Goal 4.3.2 / Hampering Border and International Smuggling

*This indicator has been reworded to clarify its meaning.
**Correction of clerical error in FY 1997 report.
Data Source: (1) and (2) G-23.34 Report of Field Operations, Foreign Office Report, PAS, and IDMS.

Strategic Goal 4.4
Facilitate lawful travel and commerce across the borders of the United States.

Over the last year, INS helped to facilitate traffic through increased use of prescreening approaches for passenger and vehicle traffic and through automated information and other technologies. INS also continued to improve customer service at land borders and international airports through strengthening partnerships with other Federal agencies to create a seamless inspections process.

Performance Goal 4.4.1
Facilitation of Port Traffic

DOJ, in cooperation with other Federal agencies servicing POEs, will reduce waiting times at airports and land POEs. The targets are to clear 72 percent of commercial air flights through primary inspection in 30 minutes or less and, 80 percent of the time that land border POEs are open, to have wait times not exceed 20 minutes.

AND¹⁵

Performance Goal 4.4.2
Port Automation

DOJ will also support INS efforts to increase its use of automated facilitation technologies (e.g., INSPASS, dedicated commuter/SENTRI lanes).

INS has adopted a balanced, integrated enforcement approach that combines the complementary efforts of several agencies to expedite the identification, apprehension, and removal of illegal aliens, while facilitating the entry of legal crossers. Through cooperative approaches to passenger inspections, aided by new technologies and automated processes, legitimate travelers— such as commuters and business people—enter the country without protracted waits. Security is not compromised, however, because the new systems, designed to ease the burden for low-risk entrants, also identify and intercept illegal ones. Two major INS programs—one for airports and one for land borders—continued to improve the U.S. inspections process in FY 1999 and called on the cooperative efforts of INS, the U.S. Customs Service (USCS), the State Department, and the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) at both air and land POEs—without compromising safety.

In FY 1999, INS worked jointly with the State Department to share visa and application information to better identify fraudulent information and improve the visa issuance process in general. At the airports, advanced biographical information was obtained on international air passengers through the use of a technology called Advance Passenger Information Systems (APIS). APIs, a joint project involving INS, USCS, and APHIS, greatly expedites passenger processing. In fact, this technology enables most international air passengers to clear the primary inspection process in 30 minutes or less, while also allowing for improvements in enforcement and regulatory processes.

At land POEs, Dedicated Commuter Lanes (DCLs) yielded impressive results. Conducted jointly with USCS, the DCL concept provides expedited entry for pre-approved, frequent border travelers/commuters, who apply to cross the border in a special "quick-check" DCL lane. These travelers have passed rigorous background checks that qualify them for expedited entry and minimal inspection.

Introduction of the Secure Electronic Network for Travelers Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) system has further expedited entry through the DCLs. In FY 1999, INS installed SENTRI at the El Paso, Texas, POE, which means SENTRI is now operating at two ports. Additionally, in FY 1999, a modification of the SENTRI system automated DCLs at two sites on the U.S.-Canada border, with nearly 5 percent of vehicles inspected there using these systems.

Another system facilitating expedited entry for pre-approved, enrolled travelers is the INS Passenger Accelerated Service System, or INSPASS. This system uses biometric technology that reads digitized images of human identifiers, such as fingerprints and hand geometry, to reliably distinguish legitimate crossers from "imposters." Pre-enrolled INSPASS travelers can enter the country in seconds simply by inserting a card into an ATM-type machine at airports and other POEs. By expediting the entry of legitimate crossers, technologies like INSPASS and SENTRI free up inspections personnel to focus on high-risk entrants. INSPASS was expanded during FY 1999 and is now operating at eight sites.

Performance Goal 4.4.1 / Facilitation of Port Traffic

Data Source: (1) and (2) Manual reports from INS POE offices.

Performance Goal 4.4.2 / Port Automation

Data Source: G-22.1 Report of Field Operations, Inspections Activity Report, PAS, and IDMS.

Strategic Goal 4.5
Maximize deterrence to unlawful migration and enforce immigration laws within the interior of the United States through effective and coordinated use of resources to reduce the incentives of unauthorized employment and assistance; remove deportable/inadmissible aliens expeditiously; address interior smuggling and benefit and document fraud; and increase intergovernmental cooperation and the integration of activities among law enforcement entities at all levels of government.

In FY 1999, INS developed an interior enforcement strategy designed to systematically combat illegal immigration inside the United States. This strategy concentrates resources on investigations of cases having the broadest impact on the criminal networks and the infrastructure supporting alien smuggling, fraud, or illegal employment. Although INS has stepped up efforts in recent years, more work needs to be done to enforce immigration laws—not only to prevent illegal immigration, but also to deal with the ramifications of illegal immigrants throughout the justice system. In 1999, 178,168 undocumented immigrants, a third of whom have criminal records, were expelled from the United States. This number reflects a 3-percent increase over 1998, during which 172,515 deportations occurred. Of these totals, 76,656 and 89,267 were expedited removals in FY 1998 and FY 1999, respectively. To develop unified strategies for the interior enforcement of Federal immigration laws, the Attorney General in July 1999 asked the U.S. Attorneys to coordinate with INS regional and/or district directors to address how to accomplish the following:

• Identify and remove criminal aliens and minimize recidivism.
  
  
• Deter, dismantle, and diminish smuggling or trafficking of aliens.
  
  
• Respond to community reports and complaints about illegal immigration and build partnerships to solve local problems.
  
  
• Minimize immigration benefit fraud and other document abuse.
  
  
• Block and remove employers’ access to undocumented workers.

Mexican Citizen Sentenced in Smuggling Case

In the Eastern District of California, a Mexican citizen legally residing in Fresno was sentenced to more than 5 years in prison for his role in smuggling illegal aliens into the United States. He pled guilty in October 1998 to heading a smuggling ring that, between August 1996 and January 1998, brought more than 100 illegal aliens into the country. The defendants charged each alien a fee of $1,200-$1,400 and hid them inside the dashboard and floor-boards of passenger vans. The aliens passed undetected through the San Ysidro Port-of-Entry and continued on to destinations in other parts of California and the western United States.

The strategy seeks to increase internal coordination among the various INS enforcement disciplines and forge closer ties with other Federal agencies and state and local law enforcement.

Performance Goal 4.5.1
Removals

DOJ will increase the number of removals from the United States above the number of removals projected in previous years.

INS continued to emphasize removing deportable aliens from the United States without protracted litigation, achieving 178,168 final order removals in FY 1999. This achievement exceeded the goal by approximately 48 percent. The performance results for indicator 4.5.1(2) do not include expedited removals, which came to 76,656 and 89,267 in FYs 1998 and 1999, respectively. The success of INS removal efforts largely resulted from the expedited removals program, which comprised 50 percent of final order removals for the year.

Sustained commitment by INS yielded 62,838 removals of criminal aliens in 1999. Removals were carried out in part through INS’ expanded cooperation with other law enforcement agencies. The most important of these initiatives is the Institutional Removal Program (IRP)¹⁶ implemented in FY 1998 and designed to identify and process deportable inmates before their release from Federal, state, and local institutions. This program should result in removal of greater numbers of deportable criminal alien inmates in the future. In FY 1999, the IRP led to the removal of 19,730 alien inmates, 17 percent above the goal. In addition, INS removed more than 4,000 criminal alien inmates on a "fast track." These are aliens who received a removal order within 1 day of release. The GAO continues to show keen interest in the removal of criminal aliens, reporting on INS’ efforts in this area in two studies: Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continue to Need Improvement (GGD-99-3, October 16, 1998) and Criminal Aliens: INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Imprisoned Aliens Continue to Need Improvement (T-GGD-99-47).

Performance Goal 4.5.1 / Removals

Data Source: DACS.

Management Challenge
Efforts to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens

INS has been criticized for weaknesses in its Institutional Removal Program, also known as the Institutional Hearing Program. The purpose of the IRP is to identify and remove criminal aliens by means of administrative or hearing processes before their release from custody. To address these concerns, INS implemented new policy guidance clarifying the roles and responsibilities of special agents working in the IRP, developed a staffing model to target where to concentrate resources, and established better controls over how aggravated felons are tracked, to more quickly identify and deport them while they are in prison. INS is also addressing immigration agent attrition to ensure adequate staffing for the IRP, and will incorporate the IRP process into the main automated enforcement case tracking system ENFORCE. These improvements will be completed by September 2000.

Performance Goal 4.5.2
Worksite Enforcement

DOJ will assist employers with compliance in sanctions law while improving the detection of illegal presence and fraud. INS will increase the use of intelligence information, leads, and estimates to develop better cases.

The GAO, in a report titled Illegal Aliens: Significant Obstacles to Reducing Unauthorized Alien Employment Exist (GGD-00-33), dated April 2, 1999, observed INS to be moving in the right direction in its employer sanctions efforts, despite facing significant obstacles. The Worksite Enforcement program completed its transition to a policy focusing on systemic, organized, and multiple violation activity, rather than on individual alien cases. INS presented for prosecution 182 criminal cases against serious violators in 1999.

Performance Goal 4.5.2 / Worksite Enforcement

Data Source: (1) LYNX. (2) Manual reports from INS field offices.

Performance Goal 4.5.3
Interior Anti-Smuggling

DOJ will continue the implementation of the National Anti-Smuggling Strategy, and will begin to monitor the shifts in "vertical" smuggling corridors. INS will continue enforcement activity coordinated with intelligence, border, and overseas initiatives to prevent, identify, disrupt, and dismantle smuggling, terrorist, and organized crime and related overseas document fraud organizations.

In FY 1999, INS increased its anti-smuggling activities and its program against benefit and document fraud by presenting criminal cases for prosecution and increasing the use of forfeiture. Smuggling operations give illegal aliens the chance to find employment in U.S. industries, which takes employment opportunity from legitimate job seekers. In FY 1999, these efforts continued. A total of 7 major interregional smuggling cases and 1,967 principals were presented for prosecution. Operations such as "Over the Rainbow" targeted illegal smuggling with notable success.

Operation Over the Rainbow II

This alien smuggling investigation crippled a criminal syndicate responsible for smuggling as many as 150 Chinese nationals per month into the United States across the northern U.S. border. It is estimated that these criminals, who charged a fee of $47,000 per person, had the ability to earn up to $169 million over 2 years. The investigation revealed that the aliens were smuggled into Canada using fraudulent documents. They were then transported to New York City through an Indian reservation that straddles the U.S.-Canadian border. The criminal alien smugglers were indicted and charged.

Performance Goal 4.5.3 / Interior Anti-smuggling

Data Source: G-23.19.1 Report of Field Operations. Investigations Activity/Case Management Report, PAS, manual reports from INS field offices, and CATS.

Strategic Goal 4.6
Expedite the adjudication of immigration cases while ensuring due process and fair treatment for all parties.

The Executive Office for Immigration Review is responsible for interpreting immigration laws and conducting administrative hearings and appellate reviews on a wide variety of immigration issues. It also ensures fairness, competence, and efficiency in decisions on the status of individual aliens in the United States. The Department seeks to expedite adjudication of immigration cases while preserving the system’s fairness. This Strategic Goal’s one Performance Goal addresses various aspects of the Department’s immigration review process.

Performance Goal 4.6.1
Immigration Review

Immigration Judges will complete 95 percent of expedited asylum, IHP, and detained cases within target timeframes. These timeframes are: (1) asylum cases within 180 days of filing by aliens with the DOJ; (2) IHP cases prior to aliens’ release from incarceration; and (3) detained cases within 30 days of filing with the Immigration Court.

In FY 1999, total EOIR adjudications included 245,916 cases completed by immigration judges and 22,827 appeals completed by the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA). Precedent-setting decisions include the following:

• An alien remains convicted for immigration purposes even where the conviction has been expunged, dismissed, vacated, or otherwise removed under a state rehabilitative statute.
  
  
• A conviction for committing serious nonpolitical crimes in his or her home country can bar a refugee from obtaining withholding of removal.

Operation "Fineprint"

In November 1998, more than 2 million fake identification documents were seized in Los Angeles in the largest document seizure in INS history. The seized documents, with an estimated street value in Los Angeles of $800 million, were headed for distribution points around the country.

In addition, BIA published an interim decision addressing whether victims of domestic violence are eligible for asylum by claiming persecution under the statutory category of "membership in a particular social group."

Immigration Courts completed 65,891 asylum cases, including 25,398 expedited cases under EOIR's priority case processing initiative—88 percent within the mandated 180-day time limit. INS met its goal of processing 75 percent of new asylum reform cases within 60 days while exceeding the goal to process expedited removal cases within 14 days. Both averaged over 84 percent. Further, in response to the crisis in Kosovo, INS committed a team of asylum officers to process Kosovars on-site for possible refugee status and eventual resettlement in the United States. Along with processing more than 18,000 Kosovars on-site, INS processed an additional 14,000 at Fort Dix, New Jersey. In response to the interdiction at sea of several boatloads of Chinese off Tinian Island in the Northern Mariana Islands, INS pre-screened several hundred potential asylum-seekers. It also processed more than 76,000 applications for temporary protected status from Nicaraguan and Honduran victims of Hurricane Mitch.

Under the IHP—a coordinated effort by EOIR, INS, BOP, and state departments of corrections to conduct removal hearings for aliens incarcerated for criminal offenses—immigration judges completed nearly 12,800 criminal alien cases, 91 percent before the alien's release. IHP has 76 hearing locations in 63 state, 10 Federal, and 3 municipal institutions. Of these, 15 facilities (11 BOP-operated and 4 contractor-operated) functioned as IHP hearing and release sites in FY 1999. An additional 14 facilities (12 BOP-operated and 2 contractor-operated) functioned solely as IHP release sites.

Performance Goal 4.6.1 / Immigration Review

Data Source: ANSIR.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The actual percentage of asylum, IHP, and detained cases completed within target time frames fell a few points short of FY 1999 targets, a slight deviation that did not affect overall program integrity.

Strategic Goal 4.7
Improve the development and implementation of immigration-related policies and practices by incorporating input from a broad range of internal and external contacts.

During FY 1999, INS concentrated on reaching out to stakeholders in the communities it serves by expanding community relations efforts. In continuing to seek ways to improve high-quality dialogue and information exchanges with stakeholders, INS conducted educational and feedback meetings on immigration issues, customer service, and proposed regulations and procedures. It held more than 4,300 meetings with community groups in 1999, tripling the numbers of meetings held in 1998. Also, community relations officers nationwide acknowledged nearly 100 percent of complaints received within 30 days. In addition, 98 percent of all district offices and Border Patrol sectors developed community relations plans.

Core Function V: Detention and Incarceration

The Department is responsible for both detaining and incarcerating persons in Federal custody. Detention is the temporary holding of individuals accused of Federal crimes or those awaiting sentencing or deportation. Incarceration is the long-term confinement of convicted and sentenced offenders. In recent years, more aggressive law enforcement, combined with mandatory detention and sentencing requirements, has spurred a rising demand for detention and incarceration space.

The detention and incarceration Core Function includes four Strategic Goals that seek to (1) provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of detained persons; (2) ensure that sufficient prison capacity exists; (3) maintain and operate Federal prisons in a safe, secure, and humane manner; and (4) provide productive work, educational, and other programs to meet inmate needs and to help reintegrate former inmates into society.

Strategic Goal 5.1
Provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of persons who are detained while awaiting trial or sentencing, a hearing on their immigration status, or deportation.

The Department’s primary detention responsibilities go toward maintaining secure, safe, and humane facilities for persons placed in its custody. Persons awaiting trial on Federal charges are the primary responsibility of the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), which does not operate any detention centers, but rather obtains the beds it needs from state and local jails and from the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and private contract facilities. Likewise, the INS detains persons charged with violating immigration law or entering the country illegally, or those who are awaiting deportation. It houses its detainees in its own detention facilities (Service Processing Centers), contract facilities, state and local jails, and BOP facilities.

This Strategic Goal includes two Performance Goals that address detention and the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS)—the entity responsible for air and ground movements of all persons in Federal custody.

Performance Goal 5.1.1
Detention

DOJ will work cooperatively with the private sector and state and local governments to establish and maintain adequate capacity to detain persons in Federal custody in cost-effective, safe, secure, and humane facilities, while awaiting trial, a hearing, or deportation.

1. Specifically, we will obtain sufficient detention space for an estimated average daily population of 28,466 persons in the custody of the USMS. The BOP will continue to support USMS requirements by housing a significant number of Federal pretrial detainees in BOP facilities. The remainder will be housed in non-Federal facilities (e.g., state and local jails, private facilities).
   
   
2. We will also maintain detention space of 14,249 beds for persons in the custody of INS in FY 1999.

Both the USMS and INS experienced growth in their detention populations in FY 1999. At fiscal year’s end, the USMS had custody of more than 32,000 prisoners housed in approximately 1,000 state, local, private, and Federal detention facilities throughout the country. The USMS also used several alternatives to detention, such as home confinement/electronic monitoring and halfway house placement. INS had an average daily population of 16,563 for its bedspace capacity in 1999.

At the close of FY 1999, BOP allocated approximately 11,650 beds for USMS use, with approximately 11,280 occupied by USMS detainees. BOP facilities also housed about 1,000 INS detainees, including Mariel Cubans. In FY 1999, INS began implementation of the mandatory custody provisions of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). Mandatory detainees occupied 96 percent of available INS detention space in FY 1999. Criminal aliens occupied 71 percent of available detention space, compared to 62 percent at the end of FY 1998.

In addition to providing detention space for Federal prisoners, the Department has a primary concern for the overall quality of its detention facilities. In FY 1999, 10 Federal institutions were accredited by the American Correctional Association (ACA), bringing to 80 the total number of ACA-accredited institutions. The annual target was 18. INS, which improved the overall quality of its detention facilities in 1999, obtained accreditation for four facilities.

To address a major concern over inmate health care costs, the USMS in FY 1999 completed its managed care medical network in the New York City area, saving $4.5 million. The USMS was also able to save approximately $2.4 million in prisoner medical costs by reviewing medical claims referred from other USMS field offices throughout the Nation. Additionally, the USMS developed and implemented two national health care policies to (1) define “medically necessary care” for individuals in its custody and (2) address issues regarding pregnant female prisoners.

Performance Goal 5.1.1 / Detention

*BOP figures include all BOP facilities.
Data Source: (1) USMS: PTS. INS: DACS and manual reports by the Detention and Deportation program.
(2) BOP: Internal records of the Administration Division and operational memoranda in BOPDOCS.
(3) USMS: Incident Reports. BOP: Executive staff module from SENTRY and individual divisional databases.
(4) USMS: PTS and STARS. Inmate Per Capita Costs Report. (5) BOP and INS independent accreditation
reports.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(3) The USMS anticipated having zero accidents and injury investigations for 1999, as every performance plan’s goal is to eliminate all accidents and injuries. However, for 1999, the USMS had five injury investigations. This is not a significant increase over 1998 or 1997, considering that more than 32,000 prisoners were in USMS custody every day. As the Federal detainee population increases, injuries are expected to increase; however, the USMS’ goal will remain the same.

(5) Six institutions were unable to complete the accreditation process by the close of FY 1999. Five of the six have since had successful audits and either received their accreditations in January 2000 or will receive accreditation in August 2000; ACA awards accreditations only twice a year at ACA conferences. Planned FY 1999 figures were based on the use of an average time frame of 12 months for an institution to achieve accreditation (from purchase order issuance to successful accreditation panel hearing). These five institutions took an average of 12 months to complete a successful ACA audit (due to variables such as multiple institution missions, security levels, operational priorities, changes in personnel, varying interpretations of standards, completion of construction projects, etc.). This extended period resulted in successful panel hearings in January 2000. Although institutes are not required to achieve accreditation in 12 months, they are still encouraged to adopt the 12-month time frame as a goal; however, adhering to the time frame does not take precedence over an institution’s being able to demonstrate ACA compliance at audit time. Regarding the sixth—FTC Oklahoma City—a decision has been made to halt the accreditation process at this time, as there are no ACA auditing standards that "fit" this unique institution (airlift/transportation hub). A determination will be made later whether to move forward with this accreditation. Two INS facilities originally scheduled for accreditation in FY 1999 will not have their hearings until January 2000.

Management Challenge
Shortage of Detention Space

Space to detain the Federal jail population has been a material issue since 1989. Detention space needs to be in or close to Federal court cities, as detainees are highly involved in the court process. If they are housed too far away, deputy marshals spend excessive amounts of time (and money) transporting them back and forth for court. (The Department notes, along with the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) and others, that INS also has an issue with detention space. However, programmatically, it is not the same issue, as most of the INS need is not near Federal courts.) The USMS projects that this issue will continue until at least November 2000. Meanwhile, it will establish a team to manage the private jail contract, expand a 5- year contract authority for jail service contracts, and establish detention management positions in all contract jails with more than 200 USMS prisoners.

Performance Goal 5.1.2
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System

DOJ will improve the operating efficiency of JPATS by acquiring needed aircraft and providing on-site aircraft maintenance at the hangar in Oklahoma City to reduce aircraft down times and flight delays and prevent unnecessary maintenance costs. Also, access to the Automated Prisoner Scheduling System (APSS) will be provided to INS and BOP, as well as enhancements to the system.

In FY 1999, JPATS added more aircraft and increased overseas flights for INS repatriations, adding airlift stops to reduce ground movements and expedite transit time (see Figures 14 and 15). Use of JPATS helped the INS manage a detention population requiring longer stays and more removal coordination. JPATS performed more than 140,000 total air movements of prisoners, inmates, and aliens in 1999. Of these, approximately 51,600 were USMS prisoners, 60,100 were INS aliens, 25,700 were BOP prisoners, and 2,800 were nonfederal/military prisoners. The number of air movements increased by 4 percent in FY 1999, and the number of prisoners and detainees moved exceeded the 1999 target by approximately 700 more than planned. The USMS is able to accurately predict JPATS workload because before the start of each fiscal year, INS, BOP, and USMS provide written estimates of air movements to the JPATS Advisory Committee. These estimates help determine the cost-per-seat charged. In FY 1999, the per-movement cost of prisoner transport was $448. And in 1999, JPATS planes were generally available and ready for duty, with unscheduled maintenance problems taking planes out of commission only 13 percent of the time—well below the 20-percent target. Acquisition of a new leased aircraft improved performance by increasing available service hours.

Figure 14
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transport System (JPATS) Large Aircraft Routes

d

Source: U.S. Marshals Service

Figure 15
Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) Movements of Prisoners in FY1999

Source: U.S. Marshals Service

JPATS also performed or coordinated more than 89,300 ground movements. Of these, approximately 58,000 were USMS prisoners, 76 were INS aliens, nearly 30,500 were BOP prisoners, and 747 were nonfederal or military prisoners. Ground movements have decreased 3 percent since 1995, owing to the cost efficiencies and increased use of air transportation.

Performance Goal 5.1.2 / Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System

*JPATS was unable to determine the percentage of seats filled in flights transporting prisoners. Future planning documents will not include this performance measure, because it cannot be accurately tracked. While USMS systems track prisoners and their movements through the system, they do not track JPATS aircraft and whether seats are filled during every segment of a prisoner movement. Maintaining this statistic would require a labor-intensive effort.
**USMS did not determine user satisfaction with JPATS in 1999. The JPATS Advisory Committee, which meets quarterly and includes representatives from the USMS, BOP, and INS, was unable in 1999 to decide on user satisfaction criteria. It is yet undetermined whether this performance measure will remain in future planning documents.
Data Source: (1) STARS and APSS. (2) Not currently collected, but will be, starting in FY 2000, when APSS is fully operational. (3) Mission Capable Status Report. (4) Incident reports. (5) Management and Budget Division. (6) APSS. (7) Surveys of the JPATS Advisory Committee.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(4) The USMS anticipated having zero accidents and injury investigations for 1999, as every performance plan’s goal is to have no accidents or injuries. However, for 1999, the USMS had five injury investigations. This is not a significant increase over 1998 or 1997, considering that more than 32,000 prisoners were in USMS custody each day. As the Federal detainee population increases, injuries are expected to increase; however, the USMS’ goal will remain the same.

Strategic Goal 5.2
Ensure that sufficient prison capacity exists so that violent and other serious criminal offenders are imprisoned to the fullest extent of the law.

To try and keep pace with a burgeoning inmate population and reduce overcrowding, BOP each year expands bedspace capacity through construction projects and facility activations, while also exploring alternatives to traditional confinement. This Strategic Goal includes four Performance Goals that address prisoner bedspace capacity activation, prison construction, contract confinement, and the National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization Act.)

Performance Goal 5.2.1
Prisoner Bedspace Capacity Activations

DOJ will support BOP’s efforts to reduce the systemwide overcrowding rate to 29 percent with the addition of over 3,600 new beds.

In FY 1999, BOP incarcerated more than 133,000 inmates in 94 BOP-operated institutions, 2 privately managed prisons, a variety of contract facilities, and home confinement. The Department supported BOP’s efforts to reduce systemwide overcrowding through several bedspace activations. These included FMC Devens, Massachusetts; FCI Beaumont, Texas; FCI Edgefield, South Carolina; and a camp at FCI Forrest City, Arkansas.

Performance Goal 5.2.1 / Prisoner Bedspace Capacity Activations

Data Source: SENTRY.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) and (2) BOP missed 1999 planned targets by a small amount. These slight deviations reflect no problems or issues with performance and pose no negative consequences to the program or its related activities.

Management Challenge
Overcrowding in Federal Prisons

As of September 30, 1999, BOP’s overcrowding rate increased to 31 percent over rated capacity—from 5 percent last year— with prison overcrowding likely to continue as a material weakness. BOP continues to rely on funding to build and acquire additional facilities to help it manage its growing inmate population and reduce the overcrowding rate. As of September 30, 1999, BOP’s institution- based population was 117,295—9,088 more inmates than were housed at the end of FY 1998. The total BOP population (including contract facilities) increased by 11,373 during FY 1999, breaking last year’s record for the largest 1-year increase ever experienced by BOP. The Department projects continued growth in the prison population, which should reach 160,118 by September 30, 2004. Through new facilities construction and expansion projects at existing institutions, the Department’s Long Range Capacity Plan projects a rated capacity of 112,148 beds by September 30, 2004, at which time overcrowding is projected to be 45 percent over rated capacity. These projections were revised during FY 1999, based on analysis of data provided by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Driving the growth are increases in drug and immigration cases.

Performance Goal 5.2.2
Prison Construction

DOJ will continue to support BOP’s construction program to build additional facilities needed to assume the District of Columbia (DC) inmate population and to reduce the overcrowding levels at existing facilities.

Funding for construction of new prisons is aimed at reducing overcrowding at existing facilities and providing adequate space for transfer of the DC inmate population. In FY 1999, BOP continued to increase Federal prison space by constructing and activating new facilities and by exploring opportunities for renovating and expanding existing ones. BOP uses population forecast modeling to help plan for future construction and contracting requirements. It met its target in 1999, with 19 new facilities under design or construction in many different states: New York, North Carolina, Arkansas, Hawaii, Texas, Pennsylvania, Louisiana, Virginia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Florida, West Virginia, South Carolina, and California.

Performance Goal 5.2.2 / Prison Construction

Data Source: Internal construction and facilities reports.

Performance Goal 5.2.3
Contract Confinement

To help ensure sufficient capacity to imprison violent offenders to the fullest extent of the law, DOJ will increase the percentage of its population in other-than-BOP facilities. These include halfway houses, contract facilities, and home confinement.

Use of secure and community-based alternatives to traditional confinement helps BOP address the prison overcrowding problem by placing nonviolent Federal prisoners in other-than-BOP facilities. In 1999, such alternatives included home confinement, community corrections centers, private facilities, local jails, and juvenile facilities. Additionally, BOP continued to pursue intergovernmental agreements to set up property transfers, joint use contracts, and other cooperative arrangements. At the close of FY 1999, 15,752 inmates were confined in alternative confinement programs as follows:

• 1,328 in home confinement;
  
  
• 5,798 in community corrections centers (CCCs);
  
  
• 3,080 in privatized facilities;
  
  
• 678 in jails/short-term detention;
  
  
• 256 in juvenile facilities; and
  
  
• 4,612 in state and local facilities by intergovernmental agreement.

The total number of offenders in CCCs and home confinement grew from 6,765 at the end of FY 1998 to 7,126 at the end of FY 1999—an increase of 5.3 percent.

Performance Goal 5.2.3 / Contract Confinement

*This figure does not include 642 INS inmates housed by BOP in Eloy.
Data Source: SENTRY.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

BOP fell short of the 1999 planned target by a small amount. This slight deviation reflects no problems or issues with performance and poses no negative consequences to the program or its related activities.

Performance Goal 5.2.4
National Capital Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act of 1997

DOJ will continue implementation of the Revitalization Act, which transfers responsibility to BOP for housing felons sentenced under the DC Code and to the U.S. Parole Commission (USPC) for conducting parole hearings for these felons. In 1999, BOP will contract to house 1,100 DC adult sentenced felons. Construction will continue toward completion of Federal Correctional Institutions to absorb DC-sentenced felons into the Federal Prison System. USPC will conduct about 450 hearings per month.

The Department and BOP—committed to housing and maintaining felons transferred from the DC Department of Corrections under the Revitalization Act—have undertaken expansion activities to accommodate this population. The Revitalization Act requires that 2,000 DC inmates be housed in contract facilities by 2001 and that others be transferred to BOP as soon as practical. Closure of DC’s Lorton Reformatory by December 31, 2001, remains on track.

Since passage of the Revitalization Act in 1997, BOP has accepted 1,861 DC-sentenced felons. To help accommodate the influx, BOP has seven facilities under development in six states— Kentucky, Florida, Virginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina—that will provide housing for this population. USPC is responsible for conducting parole hearings for these prisoners.

Performance Goal 5.2.4 / National Capital Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act of 1997

Data Source: (1) SENTRY. (2) Internal documents originated by the BOP Administration Division. (3) DRAM.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) In FY 1999, BOP housed 1,022 DC-sentenced felons, a slight deviation from the goal number that did not affect overall activity or performance.

(3) A shortfall of 223 planned versus actual hearings per month is attributable to two major factors. First, many hearings were postponed because of inadequate case files and documentation. Second, estimates of the parole-eligible population under the jurisdiction of the DC Department of Corrections have not been reliable or consistent. Earlier estimates for this population exceeded 7,000; current estimates are much lower, but their accuracy is uncertain. The nature of the offenses committed by this population and the lack of documentation have made this caseload much more labor-intensive than the Federal caseload. Therefore, the shortfall in the estimate does not lessen the impact of the workload on USPC staff. Future estimates of planned productivity will be adjusted downward based on 1999 actual performance.

Strategic Goal 5.3
Maintain and operate the Federal Prison System in a safe, secure, humane, and efficient manner.

To ensure integrity throughout the Federal Prison System, the Department has embraced a strategy of properly training and equipping BOP staff and ensuring compliance with all applicable environmental, health, and safety standards for its institutions. To get feedback on its operations, BOP conducted in 1999 almost 500 program reviews (internal audits) of its institution, regional, and central office disciplines. Numerous institution and staff surveys sought to assess overall staff and inmate morale, communication, professionalism, and degree of community relations, along with general perceptions of institution operations, safety, executive leadership, and inmate supervision. Additionally, the Department continued to see to the humane and secure treatment of inmates, including those on death row.

Special Unit to Humanely House Death Row Inmates

On July 14, 1999, the Special Confinement Unit at USP Terre Haute opened. Its mission is to provide humane, safe, and secure confinement of male offenders sentenced to death by the Federal courts. The renovated housing unit includes 50 single cells, an industrial workshop, indoor and outdoor recreation areas, a property room, a food preparation area, attorney and family visiting rooms, and a videoconferencing area.

On the negative side, armed and unarmed inmate-on-inmate assaults totaled 1,317, while armed and unarmed inmate-on-staff assaults totaled 959. In FY 1999, there were 5 homicides, 8 suicides, 1 inside escape, and 115 walkaways.

This Strategic Goal includes only one Performance Goal—that addressing modernization and repair.

Performance Goal 5.3.1
Modernization and Repair

DOJ will support BOP’s Modernization and Repair (M&R) program to maintain BOP facilities to provide a safe and secure environment. BOP will continue its special survey program of 15 facilities, which are over 50 years old and have not undergone major renovations and improvements, to develop detailed long-range master plans for these facilities.

Record overcrowding has taken its toll on Federal prisons, particularly on older facilities designed for a much smaller inmate population. BOP’s M&R Program undertakes essential rehabilitation and renovation or replacement projects to ensure that prison structures, utilities systems, and other plant facilities remain in good repair. Failure to maintain structures not only erodes capital investment and multiplies future repair costs, but can also cause direct and/or indirect security problems. In 1999, BOP continued to repair and renovate facilities as required; identify any hazardous waste on prison property; and comply with fire, life safety, and electric codes, as well as water-works standards. BOP completed 680 M&R projects in 1999, 66 percent over its target of 410. In future years, BOP plans to complete approximately 450 M&R projects each year, and has been working diligently to complete those more than 3 years old. Additionally in 1999, BOP met its goal of completing four special 50+ surveys—long-range master plans for facilities more than 50 years old.

Performance Goal 5.3.1 / Modernization and Repair

Data Source: Internal construction and facilities reports.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(3) In FY 1999, BOP completed 98 percent of Life Safety discrepancies, a slight deviation from the goal number that did not affect overall activity or performance. In 1999, one institution project, FCI Sandstone, Minnesota, was not completed as planned, but will be completed in 2000.

Strategic Goal 5.4
Provide productive work, education, medical, and other programs to meet inmate needs and facilitate their successful reintegration into society, consistent with community expectations and standards.

BOP’s correctional programs seek to balance punishment, deterrence, incapacitation, and opportunities to prepare the offender for successful reintegration into society. In FY 1999, BOP continued to expand and improve the quality of prison work and education programs to alleviate inmate idleness and help inmates develop marketable skills. All medically fit inmates had access to general education and skills-based training, psychological services, and religious and fitness activities. Inmates also took part in such productive activities as adult education and parenting classes. Federal Prison Industries (FPI) employed roughly 17 percent of inmates housed in low-, medium-, and high-security institutions. BOP also provided residential drug treatment programs to all eligible inmates, and continued to provide necessary quality health care to inmates and detainees while controlling costs. This Strategic Goal’s one Performance Goal addresses the many aspects of inmate services.

Performance Goal 5.4.1
Inmate Services

DOJ will support BOP’s efforts to provide services and programs to address inmate needs that contribute to their successful reintegration into society. These efforts will include the following:

• Providing adequate medical care.
  
  
• Offering appropriate dietary requirements.
  
  
• Ensuring that all medically fit inmates required to work do so.
  
  
• Delivering residential drug treatment to 100 percent of eligible inmates.
  
  
• Providing general education and skills-based training.
  
  
• Affording inmates the opportunity to participate in other productive activities such as "special needs" programs, worship services, adult education, parenting classes, etc.

BOP employs Public Health Services doctors to provide quality health care, including essential medical, dental, and psychiatric care, to its inmate population. In FY 1999, 1.25 million medical encounters occurred between inmate patients and BOP or contract health care professionals. In seven locations, BOP used teleconferencing to render health care services.

BOP also provided inmates with a range of services and programs to address their needs and contribute to their successful reintegration into society. On average, 36 percent of inmates enrolled in one or more education programs in FY 1999. These included occupational training programs, for which enrollment topped 16,100. Also, nearly 21,000 inmates worked for FPI, which activated two new factories in FY 1999—FCI Beaumont and FCI Edgefield—and established 600 new inmate jobs.

More than 10,800 inmates participated in residential drug treatment programs, and approximately 6,500 inmates completed nonresidential drug treatment programs. An interim report from an ongoing evaluation of BOP’s residential drug treatment program confirmed the importance of treatment in reducing recidivism and future drug use. The evaluation, conducted with funding and assistance from the National Institute of Drug Abuse, revealed that offenders who completed the program and were released for 6 months were less likely to be rearrested or detected for drug use than were similar inmates who did not participate in the program.¹⁷

Performance Goal 5.4.1 / Inmate Services

Data Source: (1) SENTRY. (2) SENTRY and internal budget formulation documents. (3) SENTRY.

Core Function VI: Protection of the Federal Judiciary and Improvement of the Justice System

The Department of Justice has the significant task of ensuring the effective, efficient, and secure operation of the Federal justice system. It fulfills this important role by working to achieve the three Strategic Goals under this Core Function: (1) protect the Federal judiciary and ensure the safe operation of the Federal court system, (2) promote the participation of victims and witnesses in justice proceedings at all levels, and (3) protect and preserve the integrity of the bankruptcy system.

Strategic Goal 6.1
Protect the Federal judiciary and ensure the safe and secure operation of the Federal court system.

Within the Department, the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) has the primary mission of ensuring that all Federal court proceedings take place free from intimidation or the threat of violence, and that no judges, court participants, or witnesses are victims of assaults stemming from their involvement in Federal court proceedings. Toward this end, the USMS continued to provide high levels of security, using investigative and telecommunications technologies to identify and investigate threats and prevent and eliminate assaults on judicial personnel, witnesses, and victims. The USMS also closed thousands of fugitive cases this year, including a significant number of major cases. This Strategic Goal includes four Performance Goals that address protection of participants in Federal court proceedings, asset forfeiture, fugitive apprehension, and automated data processing and telecommunications.

Performance Goal 6.1.1
Protect Judicial Proceedings Participants

DOJ will continue to deter and respond to threats to the safety of Federal judges, other court personnel, and witnesses and participants in Federal judicial proceedings. Our primary goal is to ensure that no judge, other court participant, or witness is the victim of an assault stemming from his or her involvement in a Federal court proceeding. Specifically, in FY 1999:

1. We will effectively identify, assess, and respond to threats against court personnel and property.
2. We will enhance the physical security of new and renovated Federal courthouses.
3. We will provide for the long-term protection of Federal witnesses and their family members.

In 1999, Deputy U.S. Marshals provided protective services in the form of personnel and additional security measures for 156 trials. Court security personnel provided state-of-the-art protective techniques and equipment for all phases of court proceedings inside Federal courthouses in all 94 Federal judicial districts and in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Their work ensured quick and safe responses in emergency situations as well as unobtrusive surveillance and protection during routine operations. In 1999, 72 percent of Federal criminal court proceedings met USMS security requirements, exceeding the 1998 actual and meeting the 1999 goal.

In recent years, a dramatic increase has occurred in the number of threats against members of the judiciary, U.S. Attorneys, and other court officers. Court security inspectors assess explicit threats against the judiciary and determine their danger level. In FY 1999, the USMS assessed 345 threats and assaults made against judges and other court personnel, frequently resulting in round-the-clock protective details. The USMS also evaluated 702 inappropriate communications to the judiciary.

Protection of Federal officials and witnesses is a high priority with the Department, reflected in the USMS' goal of ensuring zero threats and assaults against all participants in the witness protection program—a goal it achieved in FY 1999.

Also in FY 1999, 18 courthouses received enhanced physical security through renovations designed to bring them up to USMS security standards. The USMS oversees each aspect of courthouse construction projects, from design through completion, to ensure the safety of Federal judges, court personnel, and the public.

Performance Goal 6.1.1 / Protect Judicial Proceedings Participants

*In FY 1999, the USMS also evaluated 702 inappropriate communications to the judiciary.
**For FY 2000, the USMS is amending this performance indicator and will no longer provide programmatic data related to the witness protection program; instead, for security reasons, the USMS will report separately on the number of threats and assaults against members of the judiciary.
***This modified number more accurately reflects 1999 security renovation activities in USMS-controlled space in U.S. Courthouses and Federal buildings. In future plans, the indicator will read, “Additional courthouses and Federal buildings being renovated to meet USMS security standards.”
Data Source: Surveys, the USMS Form 550, Judicial Security Division weekly activity reports, and Investigative Services Division incident reports.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(2) The amount of inappropriate communications and threats received by the USMS cannot be predicted. An estimated annual increase of 3 percent was used for 1999 planning purposes. The 1999 actual amount was 16 percent less.

Performance Goal 6.1.2
Asset Forfeiture

DOJ will increase accountability of the asset forfeiture program. The USMS will increase efforts to improve the timeliness of property disposal, the effectiveness and cost efficiency of program support and oversight functions, and the training of personnel responsible for the operation of the Asset Forfeiture Program.

The Department's goal with the sale of real property is to achieve 85 percent of its appraised value. In FY 1999, the USMS achieved this goal on two out of every three sales, which, given program dynamics, is a commendable achievement. A number of mitigating factors can help to explain why some properties sold for less than the 85-percent goal (see "Explanation For Not Meeting Target" below). For better homes in "normal" residential locations, the Department used Fannie Mae for disposition, achieving an average of 95 percent of the appraised value on roughly 50 homes in FY 1999.

To help state and local agencies or their designated not-for-profit organizations, the USMS used a special 1-year authority to transfer low-value property to these entities, as did other Justice components involved in drug prosecutions. In FY 1999, the USMS transferred seven real properties to community organizations for housing and educational centers—examples of how this special authority can be implemented efficiently and confer positive benefits on the community.

Performance Goal 6.1.2 / Asset Forfeiture

*1998 actuals were adjusted in this year’s report because the Seized Assets Management System (SAMS) was being converted to the Consolidated Assets Tracking System (CATS) around the time 1998 performance numbers were required; information pulled at the time was to be confirmed later when the data conversion was complete. Unfortunately, the GPRA tables went out before the conversion was complete, and information pulled from the new CATS system showed a change in 1998 actual numbers.
Data Source: CATS.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) Market forces helped prevent USMS from meeting its goal to sell properties at 85 percent or more of their value. Also, many properties were seized in less than desirable neighborhoods (e.g., inner cites and poor school systems), which drove down the return. Another mitigating factor was the goal to sell properties in less than 1 year, which sometimes compelled acceptance of a lower price in order to move the property. Often, too, title problems narrowed purchasers to those able to close with cash only, thus driving down prices. Admittedly, some appraisals came back reflecting a value if certain repairs were done, rather than "as is," which is often how the properties are sold. In the face of inflated appraisals, a mini–cost-benefit analysis helps to determine whether spending another $300- $400 on another appraisal is worthwhile, or if accepting a lower price based on best information available is more prudent. Finally, while the national real estate market was fairly strong, pockets remained soft. Because pockets existed in both strong and weak markets, the USMS had to take lower prices where the market was weak. For the 152 properties that did not sell for 85 percent of appraised value, one of the above reasons was likely a factor. The USMS will continue to set the bar high, knowing that a certain segment of its portfolio will preclude achieving this goal.

(2) While the actual percentage of real property disposed within 1 year fell short of the target, the deviation was slight and did not adversely affect the program or its related activities.

Performance Goal 6.1.3
Fugitive Apprehension

DOJ will continue to identify and target for apprehension the most violent fugitives that are charged with serious Federal criminal offenses. In support of this goal, the USMS will close 80 percent of its felony warrants (Class I warrants) within 1 year.

In FY 1999, the USMS opened approximately 25,000 fugitive cases and closed approximately 25,200—more than 40 percent of these by physical arrest. This is the first time that the USMS closed more cases than it opened. Increased closures were due to three factors: (1) use of automated information databases that provided financial information on wanted persons, (2) upgraded electronic surveillance equipment that led to increased arrests, and (3) a 1-year concentrated effort to reduce the warrant backlog to meet the Attorney General's violent crime initiative. Three Class I warrants were for USMS "Most Wanted Fugitive" cases, and 219 closed cases were major cases, a significant increase over the 132 major cases closed in FY 1998. These closures included the arrests of suspected railway serial killer Rafael Resendez-Ramirez and cop killer Jeffrey McGee.

Performance Goal 6.1.3 / Fugitive Apprehension

Data Source: WIN.

Performance Goal 6.1.4
Automated Data Processing and Telecommunications

DOJ will integrate and connect all major computer systems in the USMS. In addition, the USMS will increase its ability to manage personnel and financial resources and detainee information, and improve safeguards against unauthorized access or use of the systems by investing in the ADP infrastructure.

Even absent requested funding for computer security in FY 1999, the USMS contracted for commercial database services for all its districts, providing the agency with several resources for locating fugitives. The USMS also began implementing 50 Automated Booking Stations (ABS) in district offices. Two pilot district offices successfully submitted fingerprints electronically to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI's) Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS). Electronic submission and response of fingerprint information is dramatically reducing the time it takes to confirm a detainee's identity, owing to the rapid response available from the IAFIS system. The USMS plans on using IAFIS-related submissions as an indicator on future performance reports relating to the ABS.

Performance Goal 6.1.4 / Automated Data Processing and Telecommunications

Data Source: (1) Comparison of MAPS and manual system. (2) Comparison of ABS and manual system. (3) Comparison of APSS and manual system. (4) JFMIP evaluation report. (5) Biannual briefing report to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) Lack of funding prevented the USMS from acquiring the resume module of the human resources system. No further progress has been made on this indicator and, until funding is secured, the USMS will remove it from future reports.

(5) One reason that FY 1999 planned targets were unmet for the number of USMS systems meeting Department security requirements is that the requested enhancement for computer security funds was not a part of the final appropriation.

Strategic Goal 6.2
Promote the participation of victims and witnesses throughout each stage of criminal and juvenile justice proceedings at the Federal, state, and local levels and in Indian Country.

The cooperation of victims and witnesses is essential to the prosecution of Federal cases. Victims and witnesses, however, are often traumatized by the criminal event that brings them into the criminal justice process, are apprehensive about appearing as witnesses, or are in need of emergency or other assistance. In FY 1999, the Department continued to carry out the Federal Government's mandate to uphold the rights of innocent victims of crime, respect their dignity and privacy, and treat them with fairness. The Department seeks to raise the awareness of both victims for their rights and offenders for the impact their crimes have on victims and communities. Services available to victims and witnesses continue to expand, as the Department continues to create processes to increase victim participation in proceedings and to make its procedures more "victim-friendly." This Strategic Goal's one Performance Goal addresses the issues associated with victims and witnesses.

Performance Goal 6.2.1
Victims and Witnesses

DOJ will promote increased participation of victims and witnesses through-out each stage of a judicial proceeding. At the Federal level, we will train Federal law enforcement officers and prosecutors in victim-witness responsibilities. We will also further develop and deploy a nationwide automated victim notification system. We will take steps to ensure full compliance with the Attorney General's Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance.

Recognizing the concerns and needs of victims and witnesses and responding appropriately is a high Department priority. In FY 1999, the Department continued to promote the increased participation of victims and witnesses throughout each stage of a judicial proceeding. U.S. Attorneys met their goal for complying with notification requirements in 1999, and victim-witness coordinators in U.S. Attorneys' offices played a pivotal role in making sure victims and witnesses got the support they needed. Quarterly sessions with the FBI's Community Specialists for Outreach and Victim-Witness Unit provided victim-witness coordinators with information on upcoming events, training, and conferences. These sessions enhanced the relationship between the FBI and U.S. Attorneys' offices and strengthened Federal victim and witness assistance and community outreach initiatives. The Department will continue efforts to ensure full compliance with the Attorney General's Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, which centers on enhancing assistance given to victims and witnesses and promoting their increased participation in prosecuting criminals.

Performance Goal 6.2.1 / Victims and Witnesses

*The former 1999 planned figure of 88% was a clerical error in the FY 1999 Summary Performance Plan.
**FY 1999 actuals will not be available until the 2nd quarter of FY 2000.
***These two indicators are being revised and consolidated, beginning with the FY 2001 plan. The new indicator will measure the percentage of positive responses to client surveys.
Data Source: (1) EOUSA survey of Law Enforcement Coordinating Committees’ points of contact.

Strategic Goal 6.3
Protect and preserve the integrity of the bankruptcy system, maximize the dollar return to creditors, and monitor the cost of bankruptcy administration.

To reduce bankruptcy fraud throughout the Nation, the Attorney General's Council on White Collar Crime endorsed the Department's Bankruptcy Fraud Training and Identification program. A major goal of the program was met in February 1999, when the National Bankruptcy Training Institute opened its doors in Columbia, South Carolina, thereby providing a permanent site for a comprehensive employee training program as well as a national center for bankruptcy scholarship. The Institute will foster the professional development of program personnel and the integrity of the bankruptcy system. Bankruptcy fraud convictions in 1999 included a $60-million criminal penalty paid by Sears Roebuck—the largest ever paid in a bankruptcy fraud case. This Strategic Goal includes only one major Performance Goal, which addresses the bankruptcy caseload.

Performance Goal 6.3.1
Bankruptcy Caseload

DOJ will emphasize the timely administration of bankruptcy cases and will meet projected increases in all chapter filings while maintaining or reducing existing chapter 7 and chapter 11 case backlogs. The U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) will also increase the number of civil enforcement actions filed in response to misconduct and fraud, and increase contacts with Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to assist in reducing such fraud.

Coordination among law enforcement agencies led to successful targeting of bankruptcy system abuse in FY 1999. The National Bankruptcy Fraud Working Group, a multiagency forum created in 1999 to address enforcement problems and interagency coordination, reflected this cooperative approach. With representatives from a dozen agencies, the working group's job is to coordinate investigations and develop a national response to bankruptcy fraud issues, as well as assist districts in establishing local bankruptcy fraud task forces.

The U.S. Trustees report that criminal referrals far exceeded 1999 targets. Two reasons were the completion and implementation of the new criminal referral database and the issuance of new criminal referral reporting guidelines. Completion of the database allowed field offices to report all criminal referrals made during the year in a much more timely manner. The reporting guidelines expanded types of criminal referrals that should be reported. Consequently, the new criminal referrals database reflects a much greater number than originally anticipated— 1,291 instead of 604.

Performance Goal 6.3.1 / Bankruptcy Caseload

*The 1998 actual figure for the distribution of funds to creditors was revised to reflect the final figure. The original figure was submitted to the Department’s Budget Staff on March 2, 1999, even though a few final accounts on closed cases from panel trustees were outstanding. The 1998 actual figure for number of civil enforcement actions and criminal referrals was revised as a result of implementing the new criminal referral database. Because criminal referrals are currently self-reported by the program’s field offices and no specific guidelines were issued as to when they had to be reported, a number of FY 1998 referrals were not reported until later in FY 1999. Consequently, those referrals were picked up by the new criminal referral database. The new 1998 actual figure includes the FY 1998 criminal referrals received in FY 1999, after the program submitted final edits to the Department’s FY 2000 Summary Performance Plan on March 3, 1999.
**Actual chapter 7 disbursements are tracked only by calendar year at this time. The program was revising its database system in hopes of providing disbursement data by FY 1999; however, budgetary constraints suspended all work on the new database system in FY 1999. Actual figures for calendar year 1999 should be available in March. Chapter 12 disbursements are tracked by calendar year as well. The data come from the annual reports submitted by the standing trustees at the end of each calendar year. These are not received by the Executive Office until the beginning of April. Actual chapter 13 disbursements are tracked by fiscal year. However, actual figures are pulled from the standing trustees’ annual reports and are not available to the Executive Office until after the reports have been audited. The audited reports are typically received at the end of March. Outyear figures cannot be accurately projected since the USTP has no reliable method of calculating the disbursements of future bankruptcy cases.
***Starting with the FY 2001 budget submission, the USTP will no longer estimate the number of criminal referrals and civil enforcement actions for future years. This decision mitigates against the perception of “bounty hunting” and prevents other unintended and possibly adverse consequences.
Data Source: (1) ACMS. (2) Chapter 7 panel trustees’ final accounts and chapters 12 and 13 standing trustees’ annual reports. (3) USTP’s criminal referral database.

Core Function VII: Management

Achievement of Performance Goals greatly depends on how well the Department manages and conducts its programs. This section of the report describes progress in meeting Department-level Performance Goals in the area of management. These goals cut across component boundaries and are fundamental to the accomplishment of overall mission. They include five Strategic Goals to (1) ensure the integrity of Department programs and personnel; (2) meet the needs of customers; (3) implement effective management practices, especially in accounting for public funds; (4) make wise and effective use of investments in information technology (IT); and (5) ensure continuance of a highly skilled, motivated, and diverse workforce.

Strategic Goal 7.1
Strengthen oversight and integrity programs, ensure consistent accountability, and emphasize core mission responsibilities.

Integrity is basic to the Department’s ability to achieve its mission and retain the trust and confidence of the American people. To help ensure integrity, two Department components play a lead role in investigating allegations of misconduct. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) investigates allegations of bribery, fraud, abuse, civil rights violations, and violations of other laws and procedures that govern Department employees, contractors, and grantees. The Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigates allegations of misconduct against Department prosecutors and civil litigators in handling litigation, particularly in cases involving judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct.

Performance Goal 7.1.1
Oversight and Integrity

DOJ, through its independent Office of the Inspector General and Office of Professional Responsibility, will continue to ensure integrity in DOJ programs and operations, including those related to the conduct of litigation and other representation activities. The OIG will focus its resources on increasing joint agency task force and working group activity by 20 percent (over FY 1997 actuals), affording the opportunity to determine criminal activity, reduce employee misconduct, and protect the civil rights of individuals while maximizing resource use efficiency.

OPR will continue to focus its resources on allegations that the Department’s prosecutors and civil litigators engaged in misconduct in handling litigation, particularly allegations involving judicial findings of prosecutorial misconduct.

During FY 1999, the OIG received a total of 8,196 complaints. It opened 642 investigations, closed 751, and made 157 arrests involving 61 Department employees, 75 civilians, 15 Department contract personnel, and 6 grantees. Convictions resulted in 86 individuals receiving sentences up to life in prison and approximately $4.6 million in fines, recoveries, orders of restitution, and forfeiture actions. OIG investigations led to 65 employees and 17 contract employees receiving disciplinary action, including 37 who were fired. In addition, 53 employees, including 3 contractors, resigned either during or following these investigations. Because of insufficient staffing, the OIG was able to open only a small percentage of investigations into the credible allegations it received in 1999. As a result, in many instances, the OIG referred less serious allegations to components within the Department for appropriate action. In more important referred cases, the OIG reviewed the component findings and the disciplinary action taken.

In 1999, the OIG gave priority attention to investigations involving allegations of fraud, bribery, rights violations, drug offenses, and sexual misconduct. Overall, it opened 293 investigations in these priority areas, below the anticipated number of 415. OPR opened 88 investigations, slightly below its targeted level of 100.

The OIG participated with several other agencies and state and local law enforcement in joint task forces and working groups investigating allegations of drug-related public corruption and official misconduct. Task force efforts resulted in dramatically improved interagency cooperation and information sharing. They uncovered schemes to sell phony documents to undocumented immigrants and thwarted a plot to allow illegal aliens and drugs into the country in exchange for money. In 1999, the OIG exceeded its target of increasing the level of task force and working group activities by 20 percent over the 1997 base.

Immigration Inspector Takes Money for ‘Looking Other Way’

In the Southern District of California, an Immigration and Naturalization Service immigration inspector assigned to the San Ysidro Port-of-Entry was arrested on Federal racketeering charges, alien smuggling, and importation of controlled substances. An 18-month investigation by the San Diego Border Corruption Task Force found that the immigration inspector used his official position to permit illegal entry of vehicles and people into the United States from Mexico in exchange for about $350,000. He allowed 23 aliens into the country without proper inspection, along with several loads of marijuana. All were later intercepted. The immigration inspector is the first alleged smuggler of immigrants to be charged under Federal racketeering laws.

Performance Goal 7.1.1 / Oversight and Integrity

Data Source: (1) IDMS. (2) OPR case tracking system. (3) and (4) OIG internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

(1) The OIG met its goal for priority investigations in an "open" and "closed" status in all areas except Rights Violations and Drug Violations. In the area of Drug Violations, OIG’s failure to meet its targets stems from its July 1998 revision of the offense codes that comprise each priority investigation category. The result is a shift in how some existing as well as new cases are classified and tracked. Many cases that would have been categorized and tracked as drug cases are now reflected in the Bribery category. As Drug Violation cases decreased, Bribery cases in FY 1999 were 18 percent over OIG’s target number. In the area of Rights Violations, a June 1999 internal policy change required OIG to open a case only where the initial allegation appeared prosecutable. This OIG policy change resulted largely from insufficient staffing, which, in turn, caused fewer Rights Violations cases to be opened. With no additional positions approved for FYs 2000 and 2001, OIG does not anticipate any increase in the number of Rights Violations cases in an "open" or "closed" status.

(2) The deviation between targeted and actual numbers of OPR investigations was slight and had no impact on overall performance.

Strategic Goal 7.2
Meet or exceed the expectations of our customers.

Providing prompt, reliable, and courteous service to customers— the American people—is an important departmental goal. In 1999, Justice components worked on such "customer-friendly" initiatives as making it easier to apply for grants, speeding up the time it takes to get answers to requests for information, and improving the quality and quantity of information electronically available at the Department’s web site. Three 1999 Performance Goals address customer service. The first deals with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Privacy Act (PA). The next two deal with the Department’s efforts to further customer service by ensuring that it is a recognized dimension of measuring component-level activities.

Performance Goal 7.2.1
Freedom of Information and Privacy Act

DOJ will achieve substantial gains in responding to FOIA/PA requests, providing more timely responses to requests from the public. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) will achieve reductions in the backlog of FOIA requests from FY 1998 totals.

To meet the requirements of the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996 (E-FOIA), the Department identified, indexed, and published on the Internet a list of 160 major information systems, both automated and manual. These systems contain extensive data on Department programs and activities and represent a potential resource for persons seeking information. The list is accessible through components’ web sites (see Appendix D). In addition, the FBI continued to make significant progress in reducing its backlog of FOIA requests. Since 1997, the FBI has cut its backlog in half.

Performance Goal 7.2.1 / Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIA)

*This indicator has been discontinued and will not appear in subsequent reports.
Data Source: FBI Request Tracking System.

Performance Goals 7.2.2 and 7.2.3
Customer Service and Providing Information to Stakeholders

DOJ will continue to emphasize a customer focus in its service and benefits programs and will provide information to the public and to stakeholders in an open, timely, and complete manner, as appropriate. This will require all affected components to update and report on the status of published standards; expand the number of programs and activities that have customer service standards and that report on customer satisfaction; and undertake more aggressive efforts to integrate published standards into component performance plans.

Specific customer service standards have been adopted in 20 program areas. In addition, each of the Department’s major bureaus has included measures related to customer service in annual performance planning activities. For example, INS has set standards to ensure the timely processing of requests for forms or the verification of immigration status. It has also focused on better serving its customers traveling through U.S. ports-of-entry.

Performance Goal 7.2.2 and 7.2.3 / Customer Service and Providing Information to Stakeholders

*1998 remains the most current time period for which data are available. It is probable that there was no change in 1999 from the 1998 actual of 20.
Data Source: JMD internal files.

Strategic Goal 7.3
Achieve excellence in management practices.

This Strategic Goal includes three 1999 Performance Goals. The first deals with the Department’s efforts to be a "learning organization" in which opportunities for innovation are encouraged. The second concerns the critical area of financial management and reflects the Department’s strong commitment to significantly improve its financial management systems and capabilities. The third performance goal addresses planning and evaluation activities, including the Department’s efforts to instill performance- based management and to closely monitor the resolution of management issues.

Performance Goal 7.3.1
Reinvention Laboratories

DOJ will continue to foster innovation and improvement through its Justice Performance Review Program.

To encourage innovation and continuous improvement in management practices, the Justice Management Division (JMD) sponsors a reinvention laboratory program designed to test promising approaches to doing business more effectively and efficiently. In 1999, eight labs were under way. Among the labs making substantial progress were the following:

• Secure Electronic Network for Travelers’ Rapid Inspection (SENTRI) Lab. In California, SENTRI piloted the world’s first system to prescreen low-risk frequent border crossers and inspect them using state-of-the-art technology that does not compromise border security. SENTRI II installed three of its high-tech inspection lanes at El Paso, Texas, where the lab designed and opened the first border port-of- entry dedicated exclusively to automated inspections. Today, system participants cross from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, into El Paso, Texas, in about 1 minute—more than 90 percent faster than at traditional ports separating the two cities.
  
  
• Electronic Document Exchange (EDE) Lab. The EDE lab, organized to review existing and proposed technologies and policies governing electronic exchange of litigation documents between the Federal Executive Branch and the U.S. Courts, completed data gathering at pilot projects across the Nation in preparation for cost-benefit analyses of the competing systems. The lab began design of an EDE web site that allows users of the DOJ Intranet (DOJNET) to link with the five Federal bankruptcy district courts participating in the project and obtain the court rules for electronic filing.
  
  
• U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) Accreditation Lab. On September 12, 1997, the Attorney General approved the USMS Accreditation Lab as the vehicle for undertaking a multiyear effort to obtain accreditation by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).This lab is the first project of its kind that aspires to accredit an entire Federal law enforcement agency. As of the end of FY 1999, the USMS established proof of compliance for 315 (99 percent) of the CALEA standards.

In April 1999, the Deputy Attorney General approved three new reinvention laboratories on asset forfeiture professional development, environmental compliance, and establishment of a law enforcement linguist clearinghouse.

Performance Goal 7.3.1 / Reinvention Laboratories

*This indicator has been discontinued and will not appear in subsequent reports.
Data Source: JMD internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The deviation between targeted and actual number of reinvention labs was slight and had no impact on overall program performance.

Performance Goal 7.3.2
Financial Management

DOJ will continue to strengthen and improve its financial management practices. Specifically, we will:

1. Demonstrate continued progress toward achieving unqualified audit opinions on financial statements required by the Government Management Reform Act.
   
   
2. Continue to support the efforts of the components to develop integrated financial management systems, which provide accurate, reliable, and timely financial information.

The Department continued its progress in 1999 toward upgrading, consolidating, and integrating financial management systems. Every component has major accounting system enhancement or replacement projects either planned or under way that will improve accounting functions and financial information reporting capabilities. For example:

• JMD is implementing a series of enhancements to streamline its Financial Management Information System (FMIS) and enhance reporting. The FMIS is used by Department offices, boards, and divisions, along with the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), whose migration to the FMIS will be complete in 2000.
  
  
• Several components implemented commercial off-the-shelf systems last year. For the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Financial System (FFS) replaced an antiquated system developed in the 1970s. INS continued implementing its new off-the-shelf financial management system as well, which by the end of FY 2001 will replace a 21-year-old custom-developed system.The new system and other corrective actions to fully implement accrual-based standards will resolve long-standing weaknesses in accounting disclosed during audits. During FY 2000, Federal Prison Industries (FPI), Inc., will replace its management control system with the Millennium system, a financial management schedule system.

As a measure of the improvements the Department is making in financial management, in 1999 all Justice reporting entities received unqualified audit opinions on their financial statements, with the one exception of the INS. (See Chapter VIII for a detailed analysis.)

Performance Goal 7.3.2 / Financial Management

*Prior to 1999, Federal Prison Industries was included in the Bureau of Prisons’ statement. In 1999, FPI prepared a separate statement. Therefore, the total number of financial statements increased from 9 to 10.
**Two of these financial statements received unqualified opinions only on their balance sheets and disclaimers of opinions on their remaining financial statements.
Data Source: Letter of opinion from independent auditors.

Management Challenge
Financial Management

Despite significant progress, the Department continues to carefully monitor the correction of reportable conditions and significant material issues in all its components’ accounting systems. A material nonconformance under Section 4 of the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) exists in the INS regarding its need to implement policies and procedures to ensure that all accrual transactions are recorded in line with Federal accounting standards. INS plans to fully implement its accounting systems and enforce full adherence to Federal accounting standards. It had anticipated completion of these corrective actions by the start of FY 1999; however, it has extended its deadline to September 2001 to permit additional business analysis, procedure development, training, and field testing before implementation. Therefore, this issue will remain open and under departmental monitoring until September 2001.

While the Department is providing reasonable assurance that its financial systems meet Section 4 objectives, it is important to recognize that components are actively pursuing major improvements to their financial systems. The financial statement audits cite weaknesses in accounting and reporting practices for multiple components, with system access and control weaknesses cited for most components on the FY 1999 reports. While the weaknesses do not rise to the level of a material nonconformance under FMFIA, completing needed financial system and control improvements is a Department priority, closely monitored by senior management.

Performance Goal 7.3.3
Planning and Evaluation

DOJ will develop a new Departmentwide strategic plan. We will also continue to develop and implement a performance measurement process and system. In addition, we will conduct evaluations of selected high-priority DOJ programs. DOJ will utilize multidisciplinary, collaborative, information-driven problem solving to increase public safety in any given community.

In 1999, the Department continued to implement the performance- based management concepts and requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act and related statutes. It initiated the process of revising the Strategic Plan and worked on improving and refining Performance Goals and indicators.

The Department aggressively monitors the resolution of management issues that have been reported by Justice managers as material weaknesses and/or identified in external reviews conducted by the OIG or the U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO). In FY 1999, seven issues previously identified as "material weaknesses" were closed. These include:

• The Year Y2K Computing Challenge
• The FBI’s Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
• The FBI’s NCIC 2000
• Monitoring Private Trustees
• INS’ Workforce Analysis Model
• INS’ Control Over Naturalization Certificates
• INS’ Internal Controls in Naturalization

Nine issues continue to be tracked as Department-level management challenges. These challenges are described in other sections of this report, but are listed here for ease of reference:

• INS’ Delivery Bonds
• INS’ Management of Automation Programs
• INS’ Monitoring of Alien Overstays
• INS Organizational and Management Issues
• INS’ Efforts to Identify and Remove Criminal Aliens
• Shortage of Detention Space
• Prison Overcrowding
• Financial Management
• Computer Security

The Department’s Justice Management Division completed eight studies addressing management and organizational issues, including the 1999 Report to Congress on Status of Efforts to Correct Problems in the Naturalization Process.

Performance Goal 7.3.3 / Planning and Evaluation

*This indicator has been discontinued and will not appear in subsequent reports.
Data Source: JMD internal files.

Strategic Goal 7.4
Make effective use of information technology.

The smart use of advanced IT is pivotal to the Department’s mission performance. In FY 1999, the Department emphasized rigorous and systematic review of major technology investment proposals, development of an integrated information technology architecture (ITA), and continued improvement in the area of computer security. This management approach provides a framework for achieving secure, interoperable systems in FY 2000 and beyond. Additionally, the Department has continued to invest in crosscutting infrastructure initiatives to improve program capabilities through controlled migration to an interoperable computer and communications environment.

Performance Goal 7.4.1
Capital Planning

DOJ will continue to improve and expand its capital planning process by considering expanding its use of the Information Technology Investment Board (ITIB) investment criteria to the evaluation of proposed investments in information systems that are not currently subject to the ITIB review process.

In FY 1999, eight projects were brought through the IT investment process and submitted to the Department’s ITIB by the chief information officer (CIO). These projects represented a cross-section of program and technical issues in the areas of law enforcement and border control, as well as architecture and infrastructure. The ITIB provided input to the FY 2001 budget process in the form of recommendations to the Attorney General. In addition, the Board imposed conditions on approval, directing the CIO to monitor compliance.

Performance Goal 7.4.1 / Capital Planning

Data Source: JMD internal files.

Explanation For Not Meeting Target

The deviation between targeted and actual numbers of projects brought before the ITIB was slight and did not affect overall performance.

Performance Goal 7.4.2
Architecture and Infrastructure

DOJ will continue to implement its Departmentwide ITA in order to enable components to enhance operational capabilities and lower costs through controlled migration to a secure, interoperable computer and communications environment.

Throughout FY 1999, the Department continued to emphasize the urgency of building and maintaining interoperable systems as a foundation for improved business processes, information sharing, and service to the public. The ITA Technical Reference Model was published in the 2nd quarter of FY 1999 and widely disseminated to component organizations and vendors over the following months. The Reference Model establishes a guiding framework and standards profile for infrastructure development, giving programs and vendors a "blueprint" for the secure exchange of information within the Department and between its external organizations. Most importantly, it provides a technical foundation for taking advantage of IT advances to increase the effectiveness of the Department and its components.

Performance Goal 7.4.3
Computer Security

In FY 1999, DOJ will enhance the authentication capabilities of the Department to increase the secure use of electronic messaging and document exchange in support of law enforcement and litigation personnel.

Public and employee trust in the security of information in our custody is basic to current operations and is a minimum requirement for future systems. In developing a capability for the secure exchange of documents and the use of "digital signatures," the Department is enabling attorneys and law enforcement personnel to do their jobs in ways unimaginable only 5 years ago. This technology will allow the Department to go from a paper-driven organization to one more focused on information content. In addition, when mature and fully tested, this capability will enable components to exploit the benefits of new e-commerce applications. The Secure Encrypted Title III (SET III) prototype, initiated in FY 1999, is the first phase of this multiyear effort. SET III is currently processing daily workload between DEA and FBI in a secure, automated process that allows them to exchange encrypted information about planned or ongoing wiretaps over a secure dedicated line.

Two other important security initiatives begun in FY 1999 are penetration testing and system certification. The penetration testing program is an aggressive effort to identify and eliminate potential weaknesses in our systems before an intrusion. The Department initiated Phase II penetration testing of component systems and implemented Departmentwide procedures for reporting and handling computer intrusions and viruses.

At the same time, it took important steps to reassess the overall departmental approach to helping components accomplish timely certification and accreditation of component systems. This program planning resulted in an internal expectation to complete certification of mission-critical systems in the bureaus in FY 2000 and certification of all systems no later than December 2000. In FY 2000, the program will be restructured and revitalized to support these goals, to which the Department formalized its commitment in the FY 2001 Summary Performance Plan.

Performance Goal 7.4.3 / Computer Security

Data Source: JMD internal files.

Management Challenge
Computer Security

The security of the Department's various computer systems is of critical importance. It is also an issue that requires constant vigilance in the wake of rapidly changing technology. The Department has established a certification program to ensure that proper security and planning activities occur throughout all system life cycles and that all sensitive, unclassified systems comply with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-130 and other policies. The Department’s CIO has directed that all Department systems be reviewed and certified no later than December 2000.

Performance Goal 7.4.4
Year 2000

DOJ will be compliant with Y2K requirements for its mission-critical systems.

In FY 1999, components undertook a major effort to renovate and replace software, upgrade computer and communications hardware, and replace or upgrade noninformation systems. Dramatic gains assured that mission-critical systems would operate without interruption on January 1, 2000. The rate of compliance rose from 33 percent at the start of FY 1999 to 97 percent a year later. In addition to being Y2K compliant, 99 percent of systems had completed contingency plans. To ensure the reliability of Y2K system certifications, the CIO mandated independent verification and validation studies by an outside contractor. To further demonstrate the Department’s full commitment to an uneventful rollover on January 1, 2000, the Attorney General joined the CIO in a meeting at the end of FY 1999 with Y2K senior officials and working group members to review progress and discuss remaining activities, including the rollover to Year 2000. All mission critical systems were fully Y2K compliant by mid-December, and the transition to the new year occurred without incident.

Strategic Goal 7.5
Ensure a motivated and diverse workforce that is well-trained and empowered to do its job.

The Department recognizes that to be a high performing organization, it must hire and keep good people and give them the training, tools, and support they need to do their jobs effectively. Under the Attorney General’s direction, a law enforcement review was initiated in 1999 that included an examination of three specific workforce-related issues:

• Recruitment and retention, to examine the state of law enforcement-related hiring, attrition, retention, and diversity.
  
  
• Work environment, to examine creation of the best possible work environment for Department employees.
  
  
• Training, to develop a plan for determining how best to enhance training opportunities for the law enforcement community.

As a result of this review, specific actions are being designed to make it easier to attract high-caliber job candidates, expand flexible work options, and share training ideas and resources. Although the Department did not include a specific workforce-related Performance Goal in its 1999 or 2000 plans, it has done so in its FY 2001 plan.

LARP Attracts Diverse Applicants

To help ensure diversity, the Department established a four-member team to spearhead a 3-year pilot program known as the Lateral Attorney Recruitment Program (LARP)—responsible for developing new and expansive approaches to recruiting lateral attorneys for the Department. This highly proactive approach allows the Department to attract a high-caliber and diverse pool of applicants with the skills and experience needed to meet ever-growing challenges. The LARP team used information about trends in recruitment, law school demographics, and curriculum to form its strategic plan. In 1999, the LARP team implemented faster processing of attorney vacancy announcements, developed wider contact networks and outreach customized to individual announcements, and began a nationwide promotional strategy.

Part II: Financial Statement

Audit Report

Annual Financial Statement

Fiscal Year 1999

Office of the Inspector General

Commentary and Summary

The U.S. Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General, is charged with protecting society against criminals and subversion; upholding the civil rights of all Americans; ensuring healthy competition of business in our free enterprise system; safeguarding the consumer; enforcing environmental, drug, immigration, and naturalization laws; and representing the American people in all legal matters involving the U.S. Government. The Department also plays a significant role in protecting citizens through its efforts for effective law enforcement, crime prevention, crime detection, and prosecution and rehabilitation of offenders. In FY 1999, the Department had approximately $20 billion in funding.

This audit report contains the Annual Financial Statement of the Department of Justice for the fiscal year ended September 30, 1999. PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP performed the consolidated Department audit and issued a qualified opinion on the FY 1999 consolidated balance sheet and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position, and the related combined statements of budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity. A qualified opinion means that the financial statements are presented fairly in all material respects, except for matters identified in the audit report. The qualifications in this report resulted from the auditors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service being unable to substantiate two significant account balances – deferred revenue and intragovernmental accounts payable.

Weaknesses in computer security are a major concern for the Department. This issue was elevated from a reportable condition in FY 1998 to a material weakness in the FY 1999 Report on Internal Controls and it affects almost every Department component. In addition, in the Report on Compliance with Laws and Regulations, the auditors identified five Department components that were not compliant with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 that specifically addresses the adequacy of Federal financial management systems.

The auditors identified two other material weaknesses in the consolidated Report on Internal Controls. Eight of ten Department components did not have policies and procedures in place or were not following them to ensure that all transactions were recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and other Federal financial accounting and reporting requirements. This finding included problems with the accounting and reporting of liabilities, property, inventories, and deferred revenue. The other material weakness arose because six out of ten Department components did not have effective financial statement preparation processes to ensure financial statements are completed timely and in conformance with all requirements of the Federal government and Department policies. The auditors also identified one reportable condition on the need for improvement in components’ controls over their fund balance with Treasury.

The following table depicts the audit results for the Department consolidated audit as well as for the ten individual component audits for FY 1999.

Fiscal Year 1999 Audit Results

Management’s Overview

Unaudited

Departmental Reporting Entity

This report presents the FY 1999 consolidated financial statements for the Department of Justice. Under Title IV of the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994, the Attorney General shall prepare and submit to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), audited financial statements for the preceding fiscal year, covering all accounts and associated activities of each office, bureau and activity of the Department. Under the direction of the Assistant Attorney General for Administration (AAGA), the Justice Management Division (JMD) prepares the Department’s consolidated financial statements. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is responsible for the audit of the statements. The Department’s FY 1999 audited financial statements are consolidated based upon the results of audits undertaken at each Department reporting entity identified below:

• Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund (AFF/SADF)
  
  
• Working Capital Fund (WCF)
  
  
• Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBD)
  • Attorney General
    Deputy Attorney General
    Associate Attorney General
    Solicitor General
    Legal Counsel
    Legislative Affairs
    Professional Responsibility
    Policy Development
    Public Affairs
    Pardon Attorney
    Inspector General
    Community Relations Service
    U.S. Attorneys
    Dispute Resolution
    INTERPOL
    Intelligence Policy and Review
    Executive Office for Immigration Review
    U.S. Trustees
    Community Oriented Policing Services
    Intergovernmental Affairs
    Information and Privacy
    National Drug Intelligence Center
    U.S. Parole Commission
    Foreign Claims Settlement Commission
    Antitrust Division
    Civil Division
    Civil Rights Division
    Tax Division
    Criminal Division
    Justice Management Division
    Environment and Natural Resources Division
    
    
• U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)
  
  
• Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
  
  
• Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
  
  
• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
  
  
• Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
  
  
• Bureau of Prisons (BOP)
  
  
• Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI)

Highlights of Performance Reporting

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) was enacted to improve the public’s confidence in the capability of the Federal Government through improvements in program effectiveness and accountability. To comply with GPRA, the Department prepared the Strategic Plan for 1997 - 2002, which sets forth the broad strategic direction for the Department. In this Plan, the Attorney General established the following CORE functions:

1. Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses.
2. Assistance to Tribal, State and Local Governments.
3. Legal Representation, Enforcement of Federal Laws and Defense of U.S. Interests.
4. Immigration.
5. Detention and Incarceration.
6. Protection of the Federal Judiciary and Improvement of the Justice System.
7. Management.

The Department issued the Annual Summary Performance Plan for FY 1999 and revised its internal processes to ensure that performance planning and budgeting are driven by and consistent with the Attorney General’s long term strategic goals. The FY 1999 performance plan and budget are linked to the CORE functions. This direct linkage between the Department’s strategic goals and the annual plans and budgets ensures a coordinated and clear focus on mission and results. In the coming years, the Department will continue to examine changes to the budget account structure in order to more readily accommodate the planning and requirements of GPRA.

In FY 1998, the Department participated as a pilot agency under the GMRA and issued the Accountability Report for FY 1998, encompassing the Attorney General’s annual report requirement, the Federal Managers’ Financial Improvement Act certification and material weaknesses and non-conformances, the Department’s consolidated audited financial statements and auditors’statement of opinion, and intellectual property/anti-counterfeiting data. In that report, the Department set the stage for linking planning and performance by organizing information according to the Strategic Plan’s CORE functions, goals and objectives.

The FY 1999 Accountability Report will continue to be based on input provided by all components. The FY 1999 report will be the vehicle for Departmental performance reporting under GPRA. Among other things, the performance data will focus on accomplishments and includes information on the Department’s organization, mission, goals and objectives, resources, performance measures and results, major Department-level strategic achievements and issues to be resolved, and management controls certifications.

The following narratives provide major highlights of the performance goals and the results these activities have produced.

• The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) fulfilled a key element of its mission in FY 1999: On May 12, 1999, COPS had funded 100,000 police officers, one year in advance of scheduled time. By September 30, 1999, COPS had funded 103,760 police officers. Grantees are in the process of putting those officers on the street. As of April 1999, over 55,000 COPS-funded law enforcement officers had been deployed.
  
  
• The success of the Environment and Natural Resources Division during FY 1999 in enforcing environmental laws resulted in over $596 million in fines, penalties and restitution awarded in civil environmental cases, a 54 percent increase over FY 1998.
  
  
• The INS has achieved considerable success in restoring integrity and safety to the Southwest border by implementing the strategy through well-laid-out multi-year operations such as Operation Gatekeeper in San Diego, Operation Hold the Line in El Paso, Operation Rio Grande in McAllen, and Operation Safeguard in Tucson. The initial phases of these operations typically result in an increase in apprehensions, reflecting the deployment of more agents and enhanced technology. As the deterrent effect takes hold, the number of apprehensions declines as the operation gains control over the area. Continued heightened presence along the southwest border also allowed the INS to seize larger amounts of marijuana entering the United States.
  
  
• The BOP total inmate population grew by more than 11,300 from FY 1998 to FY 1999, the largest one-year increase in the history of the agency. The population increase was due to enhanced law enforcement efforts with particular regard to drug crimes (in conjunction with mandatory sentences) and crimes along the southwest border. Despite the increase in population, there were no escapes from secure BOP institutions, there were no serious disturbances at any of the BOP’s 94 institutions, and no staff suffered serious injuries or loss of life in the line of duty during FY 1999.
  
  
• During FY 1999, a total of $643.5 million in cash and proceeds was deposited in the AFF. From current balances, $283.3 million was shared with foreign governments and state and local law enforcement agencies that participated in joint investigations with Federal agencies that led to asset seizures and forfeitures.

Overview of Financial Data. The Department received a qualified opinion on the FY 1999 financial statements, an improvement from the disclaimers of opinion issued on the statements for FYs 1996, 1997 and 1998. Fund Balance with Treasury, approximately $18.1 billion, continues to be the largest asset and comprises 70 percent of the total assets. Total liabilities are approximately $6 billion, of which $4.1 billion consist of liabilities covered by budgetary resources.

The charts below summarize, in thousands, the activity on the Statement of Changes in Net Position and Statement of Net Cost by presenting the resources provided to Department components in FY 1999 and how these resources were used. These charts are net of earned revenues of $4 billion.

Where it Comes From (000)

FY 1999 Financing Sources of the Department

Appropriations Used - (88.3%) $ 17,643,772*
Other Non-exchange Revenue - (8.3%) $ 1,655,972
Imputed Financing - (2.9%) $ 569,770
Net Transfers - (0.5%) $ 94,237

Total $ 19,963,751

* Net of rescissions and other of $109,630.

Where it Goes (000)

FY 1999 Costs of the Department CORE Functions

1. Investigation and Prosecution of Criminal Offenses - (27.3%) $ 5,182,677
2. Assistance to Tribal, State and Local Governments - (24.1%) $ 4,558,725
3. Legal Representation, Enforcement of Federal Laws and Defense of U.S. Interests - (7.9%) $ 1,495,609
4. Immigration - (12.3%) $ 2,331,658
5. Detention and Incarceration - (24.4%) $ 4,638,179
6. Protection of the Federal Judiciary and Improvement of the Justice System - (2.1%) $ 394,328
7. Management - (1.9%) $ 352,852

Total - $ 18,954,028

Share of DOJ Operations. The programs administered by Department components constitute a large share of the total revenues and expenses of the DOJ. The amounts represented in the following charts do not include intra-department eliminations of $1,535,230.

Costs by Reporting Entity (000)

FY 1999 Costs Before Intra-department Eliminations

AFF/SADF - (2.2%)$ 514,452
WCF - (3.7%) $ 858,088
OBD - (16.9%) $ 3,882,814
USMS - (5.7%) $ 1,311,575
OJP - (14.1%) $ 3,240,845
DEA - (6.1%) $ 1,402,341
FBI - (16.7%) $ 3,826,393
INS - (17.7%) $ 4,069,537
BOP - (14.4%) $ 3,310,440
FPI - (2.5%) $ 570,150

Total - $ 22,986,635

Earned Revenues by Reporting Entity (000)

FY 1999 Earned Revenues Before Intra-department Eliminations

AFF/SADF - (0.0%) $ 924
WCF - (16.1%) $ 650,282
OBD - (11.8%) $ 477,021
USMS - (3.1%) $ 125,155
OJP - (1.5%) $ 59,614
DEA - (6.0%) $ 240,282
FBI - (12.7%) $ 510,273
INS - (27.6%) $ 1,114,360
BOP - (6.8%) $ 275,729
FPI - (14.4%) $ 578,967

Total - $ 4,032,607

Year 2000 Issues

Department’s State of Readiness. The Chief Information Officer (CIO), who is also the Assistant Attorney General for Administration, uses an independent verification and validation (IV&V) contractor to help evaluate component Year 2000 progress, including the thoroughness of test plans, test execution, Year 2000 compliance and contingency planning. In addition, he and his staff meet with Department components to ensure that each component has a sound Year 2000 program by reviewing program status, identifying concerns and providing guidance for improvement. The Attorney General established a Department-wide goal for all mission critical systems, including non-computer systems, to become Year 2000 compliant by January 1999. As of September 15, 1999, the Department reported it had made significant progress in achieving this objective. Of the Department’s 216 mission critical systems, 211 (98%) were compliant, 4 were undergoing repairs and 2 were in the process of replacement. Of the 4 systems undergoing repair, 3 were renovated and validated. The Department anticipated 100% of its mission critical systems would be Year 2000 compliant and implemented by December 1999. A post Y2K rollover test as of January 2, 2000, found no significant problems.

Costs to Address Year 2000 Issues. As of September 15, 1999, the Department estimated that components would incur costs totaling $165 million to address Year 2000 compliance issues. Of this amount, $118 million was for mission critical information technology systems and is primarily (87%) from four organizations: Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) totaling $42.8 million, FBI totaling $25.6 million, DEA totaling $11.5 million, and INS totaling $22.9 million.

Contingency Plans. The Department concentrated on both system-level contingency plans as well as Business Continuity and Contingency Planning (BCCP). Department components are required to have contingency plans for each mission critical system. As of November 1, 1999, Department components had submitted 99% of the required contingency plans. The BOP utilized and augmented existing emergency plans to reflect Year Y2K which were favorably reviewed by the General Accounting Office. BCCPs are being developed by the DEA, the EOUSA, the Executive Office for United States Trustees, the FBI, the INS, the Justice Management Division Computer Services Staff, and the USMS.

The Department was at minimal risk as it approached Year 2000 with only six systems still to have compliant versions completely implemented. This factor along with the Department’s program of IV&V for information technology systems, contingency plan development and testing, BCCP development, and a formal configuration management process ensured that the Department would be well positioned for the rollover to January 1, 2000.

Limitations of the Financial Statements

The financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of operations of the Department, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. 3515(b). While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of the entity in accordance with the formats prescribed by OMB, the statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources which are prepared from the same books and records. The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S. Government, a sovereign entity. One implication of this is that liabilities cannot be liquidated without legislation that provides resources to do so.

Independent Accountants’ Reports

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1616 N. Fort Myer Dr.
Arlington VA 22209-3195
Telephone (703) 741 1000
Facsimile (703) 741 1616
Direct phone (202) 514-9113
Direct fax (202) 514-2114

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

United States Attorney General and
The Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) as of September 30, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position, and the related combined statements of budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity, for the year then ended. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Department’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We did not audit the financial statements of certain components of the Department, including the Working Capital Fund, the Office of Justice Programs, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., which statements reflect total combined assets of $20.3 billion and total combined net costs of $15.0 billion for the year ended September 30, 1999. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon have been furnished to us, and our opinion expressed herein, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for these components, is based solely on the reports of the other auditors.

Except as discussed in the following paragraph, we conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 98-08, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

The auditors of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) were unable to obtain sufficient evidential matter to form an opinion regarding the balances of deferred revenue ($507 million) and intragovernmental accounts payable ($197 million) at September 30, 1999, or the deferred revenue balance as of September 30, 1998. The INS’ deferred revenue and intragovernmental accounts payable balances represent 78.7% and 37.0%, respectively, of the Department’s September 30, 1999 combined balances.

In our opinion, based on our audit and the reports of other auditors, except for the effects of such adjustments, if any, as might have been determined to be necessary had other auditors been able to obtain sufficient evidential matter concerning the deferred revenue and intragovernmental accounts payable balances of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Department of Justice and its components, at September 30, 1999, and their net cost, changes in net position, budgetary resources, custodial activity and reconciliation of net cost to budgetary resources for the year then ended in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.

Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the Department’s consolidated and combined financial statements taken as a whole. The consolidating and combining information is presented for purposes of additional analysis of the Department’s consolidated and combined financial statements rather than to present the financial position, net costs, changes in net position, budgetary resources, and reconciliation of net cost to budgetary resources of the Department’s components. The consolidating and combining information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the Department’s consolidated and combined financial statements; and, in our opinion, except for the effects of other auditors not obtaining sufficient evidential matter concerning the deferred revenue and intragovernmental accounts payable balances of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the consolidating and combining information is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the Department’s consolidated and combined financial statements taken as a whole.

The information in the "Management’s Overview" and "Supplemental Financial and Management’s Information" is not a required part of the principal financial statements, but is supplementary information required by OMB Bulletin No. 97-01, Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements, as amended. This information has not been subjected to auditing procedures. Accordingly, other auditors and we expressed no opinion on this information.

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued reports dated February 21, 2000, on our consideration of the Department’s internal controls and on its compliance with laws and regulations.

February 21, 2000
Arlington, Virginia

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1616 N. Fort Myer Dr.
Arlington VA 22209-3195
Telephone (703) 741 1000
Facsimile (703) 741 1616
Direct phone (202) 514-9113
Direct fax (202) 514-2114

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON INTERNAL CONTROLS

United States Attorney General and
The Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) as of September 30, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position, and the related combined statements of budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity, for the year then ended, and have issued our report thereon dated February 21, 2000. Except as discussed in that report, we conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 98-08, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended.

We did not audit the financial statements of certain components of the Department, including the Working Capital Fund (WCF), the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), the Bureau of Prisons (BOP), and the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI), which statements reflect total combined assets of $20.3 billion and total combined net costs of $15.0 billion for the year ended September 30, 1999. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon have been furnished to us, and our report on the Department’s internal control herein, insofar as it relates to the internal controls specific to these components, is based solely on the reports of the other auditors.

Management of the Department is responsible for establishing and maintaining accounting systems and internal control. In fulfilling this responsibility, estimates and judgments are required to assess the expected benefits and related costs of internal control policies and procedures. The objectives of internal control are to provide management with reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that: (1) transactions are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of reliable financial statements and to maintain accountability over assets; (2) funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded from loss from unauthorized use or disposition; (3) transactions, including those related to obligations and costs, are executed in compliance with laws and regulations that could have a direct and material effect on the financial statements and other relevant laws and regulations; and (4) data that support reported performance measures are properly recorded and accounted for to permit preparation of reliable and complete performance information. Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, errors or fraud may nevertheless occur and not be detected. Also, projection of any evaluation of internal control to future periods is subject to the risk that procedures may become inadequate because of changes in conditions or that the effectiveness of the design and operation of policies and procedures may deteriorate.

In planning and performing our audit of the Department’s financial statements, we obtained an understanding of the design of significant internal controls and whether they had been placed in operation, tested certain controls and assessed control risk in order to determine our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the consolidated financial statements. Our purpose was not to provide an opinion on the Department’s internal controls. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

With respect to internal control relevant to data that support reported performance measures, we obtained an understanding of relevant internal control policies and procedures designed to achieve the above noted control objectives, and assessed risk related to management’s assertions that the data is complete and relates to events that have occurred. Our procedures were not designed to provide assurance on internal control over reported performance measures. Accordingly, we do not provide an opinion on such controls.

We noted, and the reports of other auditors identified, certain matters in the Department’s components’ internal control that are considered to be reportable conditions under standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and OMB Bulletin No. 98-08, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Reportable conditions involve matters coming to the auditors’ attention relating to significant deficiencies in the design or operation of the internal control that, in their judgment, could adversely affect the Department’s ability to meet the internal control objectives described above.

Certain reportable conditions were also considered to be material weaknesses. A material weakness in internal control is a reportable condition in which the design or operation of one or more of the internal control elements does not reduce to a relatively low level the risk that errors or fraud in amounts that would be material in relation to the financial statements being audited or material to a performance measure or aggregation of related performance measures may occur and not be detected within a timely period by employees in the normal course of performing their assigned functions.

Overview of Material Weaknesses and Reportable Conditions

Table 1 summarizes, by component, the 14 material weaknesses and 28 reportable conditions identified by components’ auditors. We analyzed the reportable conditions identified by the components’ auditors to determine their effect on the Department’s internal control over financial reporting and identified four Department-wide reportable conditions, the first three are also considered to be material weaknesses.

Table 1: Department-wide Material Weaknesses (M) and Reportable Conditions (R)

(OBD) - Offices, Boards and Divisions
(AFF) - Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund

Consideration of internal control would not necessarily disclose all matters that might be reportable conditions and, accordingly, would not necessarily disclose all reportable conditions that are also considered to be material weaknesses. The remainder of this report discusses these reportable conditions in greater detail. All four conditions were identified in our previous fiscal years report on internal controls. Because of the frequency with which these conditions were found within the ten components, we recommend Department-wide corrective actions.

The Department’s components did not have policies or procedures in place or were not following them to ensure
that financial transactions were recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.

Eight of ten components do not have policies and procedures in place or were not following them to ensure that transactions were recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Auditors reported deficiencies in components’ financial accounting and reporting in accordance with the following:

• Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government, Statements of Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 5. The auditors of the INS, the DEA, the BOP, the OJP, and the OBD reported the following weaknesses in the components’ accounting and reporting of obligations, accounts payable and related expenses, and accrued grant expenditures:
  
  
  1. Auditors’ of the INS, the DEA, the BOP, and the OBD reported that methodologies used to estimate the components’ accounts payable at September 30, 1999, were not performed correctly or were lacking adequate supporting documentation. The auditors’ of the DEA reported that quarterly certifications of open obligations were not performed properly, expenses were reported in the wrong fiscal year, and there was a lack of oversight on the payment of invoices.
     
     
  2. The auditors of the OJP reported that controls were not in place to ensure data integrity during the grant accrual process, and that the OJP was not able to produce accurate year-end grant accrual amounts in a timely manner because of incomplete data in the grant accounting system. We identified the following conditions during our audit of the OBD: (a) limitations in the grant accounting system that prevented the recordation of transactions greater than $100 million; (b) non-current data was used in the calculation of grant advances and accrued grant expenditures; and (c) other data integrity issues that caused the OBD’ account balances to be misstated.
     
     
• Accounting for Property, Plant and Equipment, (SFFAS No. 6). The auditors of the FBI, the DEA, the USM, and the OJP reported weaknesses in the components’ accounting, reporting and safeguarding of property and equipment, construction in progress, and leases and leasehold improvements. Auditors of the FBI and DEA reported that property reconciliations were not effective to detect differences between the property management system and the general ledger, increasing the risk that the components’ financial statements are misstated and that assets are not properly safeguarded from loss or unauthorized use. The USM’ auditors identified numerous errors and inconsistencies in the accounting of construction work-in-process, percentage of completion, accrued liabilities and depreciation for reimbursable work agreements with the General Services Administration. Finally, the auditors of the OJP reported that no policies or procedures exist to appropriately classify and record capital leases, or to adequately disclose lease information in the notes to the OJP’ financial statements.
  
  
• Accounting for Inventory and Related Property, SFFAS No. 3. We noted that seizing and custodial agencies did not take steps to ensure that corrections to the Consolidated Asset Tracking System inventory records were made in accordance with guidance provided by AFF’s management. Auditors of the DEA reported that a reliable system is not in place to accurately report in the DEA’s financial statements bulk drugs, seized property and funds held as evidence. The auditors of the FBI reported that financial reporting controls over the year-end compilation of evidence need to be strengthened and system deficiencies exist that affect the completeness of evidence acquisition and disposition summary reports. Other auditors reported that the USM and the DEA did not adequately report operating inventories of parts and supplies. The inventories relate mainly to materials held for maintenance of the DEA’s and USM’ fleet of aircraft.
  
  
• Accounting for Revenue and Other Financing Sources, SFFAS No. 7. Auditors of the INS were not able to obtain sufficient evidence to support the number of pending immigration and naturalization applications necessary to calculate deferred revenue; accordingly, the auditors qualified their opinion on the INS’ financial statements as a result of this condition. Other auditors reported that the USM did not have sufficient procedures to regularly reconcile amounts reported in the financial subsidiary ledger. We identified an error of $28 million in the OBD’ posting of year-end adjusting entries that was primarily caused by the lack of timely "billing" of reimbursable agreements; and we noted that approximately $135 million of the OBD’ receivables were unbilled, increasing the risk that invalid receivables will not be detected.

The weaknesses discussed above led to errors in financial statements prepared pursuant to the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) and budgetary reports submitted to the OMB and the Department of the Treasury. Although components’ efforts have led to some progress in correcting misstatements to their financial statements, the findings cited above indicate that the Department still faces significant risk of misstatement to its consolidated financial statements. Department-wide efforts and attention to these areas is necessary to ensure the Department’s consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatements.

Recommendation

We recommend the Chief Financial Officer:

1. Issue Department-wide policies that emphasize the accounting principles that should be followed by all components. The directives should be based on generally accepted accounting principles and other Federal accounting requirements. The Justice Management Division (JMD) should take the lead in identifying and resolving accounting issues to ensure that the components adhere to the Department’s stated policies. The JMD should work with the components’ senior financial managers to ensure they are made aware of all component-level accounting issues and their affect on the Department’s consolidated financial statements. We also recommend that the Department reaffirm its accounting policies in the financial statement working group meetings held by the Justice Management Division..

Management Response: Concur. JMD will communicate to senior component management the requirement to properly follow generally accepted accounting principles, federal accounting standards, and the need to resolve existing instances of noncompliance with these standards. JMD will further emphasize its accounting standards and policies through the financial statements working group. JMD will monitor component compliance with Department standards and policies through component corrective action plans.

Weaknesses exist in components’ financial management systems and improvements are needed in the general
controls at the Department’s data centers.

We and other auditors identified ten reportable conditions and three material weaknesses in nine of the components’ general and application controls over financial management systems. These weaknesses increase the risk that software programs and data processed on the Department’s systems are not adequately protected from unauthorized access. In some instances, the Department’s components had substantially completed implementation of new financial management systems, or modified existing systems, to improve transaction processing. Management may not have devoted sufficient attention to the development and implementation of adequate general controls during the systems’ implementation phase. For components that have not implemented new financial management systems, conditions identified by other auditors and us represent long-standing weaknesses that have not been adequately addressed by management. With respect to the components’ application systems and the FBI data processing center, other auditors and we identified the deficiencies summarized below:

• The INS’ financial management systems are not integrated and have significant control weaknesses that affect the accuracy and reliability of financial information and limit the ability of management to make effective financial management decisions. Auditors of the INS reported that improvements are needed in: (a) access controls over mainframe financial applications and the local area network; (b) segregation of duties surrounding the Financial Accounting Control System (FACS); (c) the firewall protecting external system connections; (d) security program management; (e) software development and change control; and (f) service continuity.
  
  
• Improvements are needed in the USM’ system risk assessments, contingency planning, and safeguards against unauthorized physical or logical access. Auditors reported that the USM had not implemented a draft risk assessment for headquarters’ computing, networking and telecommunication resources; and had not developed risk assessments at the district level or for all major applications (including the USM’ core financial management system). In addition, improvements are needed in safeguarding against unauthorized physical or logical access to USM’ systems.
  
  
• The DEA needs to strengthen its general controls over information systems and improvements are needed in service continuity plans. Auditors reported that the DEA’s entity-wide security program needs refining and controls that limit or detect access to computer resources need improvement. Finally, the DEA should refine the procedures for storage of network backup tapes.
  
  
• Security controls need to be strengthened over the OBD’ Financial Management Information System (FMIS). We noted that (a) inadequate segregation of duties provides weak security administration in FMIS; (b) change management methodologies for developing and implementing changes to the FMIS application need to be strengthened and formalized; and (c) security policies and procedures to guide security administration are informal and undocumented. The auditors of the AFF, the BOP, and the WCF also reported one or more of the conditions identified above because FMIS is the core financial management system for these components.
  
  
• The auditors of the OJP identified deficiencies in general controls over information resources. Auditors identified weak controls in procedures over access controls and noted that the OJP had not conducted or documented security control reviews for local area networks and financial management systems in the last four years. In addition, configuration management changes are informal as the OJP does not maintain libraries of source code or monitor the software developer’s configuration management procedures.
  
  
• The auditors of the FBI identified conditions that could compromise the agency’s ability to ensure security over sensitive programmatic or financial data, the reliability of its financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Weaknesses were identified in the FBI’s information systems general and application controls environment; including: (a) entity-wide security programs; (b) access controls; (c) service continuity; (d) the Financial Management System (FMS) application controls; and (e) change control processes.

As part of our audit of the Department’s fiscal year 1999 financial statements, we also tested the general controls environment surrounding the computer systems located at the Department’s data centers by performing an update of the general controls testing performed as part of our fiscal year 1998 engagement. Our work focused on the following general control areas: (a) entity-wide security program; (b) access controls (including mainframe system logical security and physical security); (c) segregation of duties for management and operations; (d) systems software controls and modifications; and (e) service continuity. A network security penetration study was also conducted using various penetration scenarios.

Because of the sensitivity of the information at the Department’s data centers, we issued a separate limited distribution report to the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that describes the conditions we identified and our recommendations for corrective actions. Auditors of the FBI performed similar procedures at the FBI’s data centers and also issued a separate limited distribution report to the OIG. We have summarized the reportable conditions identified at the Department’s data centers below:

• Program change management procedures have not been formalized. No formalized change control procedures for operating system software and program products exist. As a result, data center personnel used informal and undocumented procedures.
  
  
• The Department does not have a comprehensive Business Continuity Plan (BCP) to recover primary systems, processing applications, or key business processes. The Department has not developed a comprehensive BCP to recover its primary systems environment, critical data processing applications, or its key business processes, exposing the agency to a potential disruption of operations. The data centers have developed a plan to recover the operating system software and hardware components to provide a platform for their customers; however, this plan has not been comprehensively tested and data center customers have not developed supplementary plans for recovery of data and the contingency processes of key business applications.
  
  
• Entity-wide security policies and procedures are outdated and do not adequately address Department-wide security responsibilities or define authority. The Department’s written security policies are outdated and do not comprehensively specify the roles and responsibilities of the entity’s managers and the security administration function, nor do they adequately define the authority of the organization responsible for maintaining and administering system security. We and other auditors used the General Accounting Office’s, Federal Information System Controls Audit Manual (FISCAM), in our testing of the components’ financial management systems.

We also used the following in our testing of the Department’s data centers: (a) OMB Circular A-130, Appendix III, Automated Information Security Programs; (b) the Computer Security Act of 1987; (c) the Department’s Order No. 2640.2C, Telecommunications and Automated Information Systems Security, and Interim Dial-In/Dial-Out Telecommunications Security Policy dated March 24, 1997; and (d) the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s (NIST) Publications.

Recommendations

We recommend the Chief Financial Officer:

2. Require that components’ timely correct significant deficiencies in general and application controls over financial management systems. Attention should be focused on improvements in components’ (a) contingency planning, (b) risk assessments, (c) segregation of duties, (d) access controls and (e) safeguards against unauthorized physical or logical access.

Management Response: Concur. The Department is committed to the implementation of corrective actions that will provide adequate security controls and protect sensitive information. The components will continue to implement plans to provide for adequate contingency planning, risk assessments, segregation of duties, access controls, and install safeguards against unauthorized physical or logical access.

3. Implement the recommendations made in our limited distribution report on the Department’s data centers and in the limited distribution report on the FBI’s systems prepared by the FBI’s auditors. Both reports were issued directly to the Office of the Inspector General.

Management Response: Concur.

Financial statement preparation processes were not effective to ensure financial statements were completed
timely and in conformance with the requirements of the Government Management Reform Act, OMB Bulletin
No. 97-01, Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements, as amended, and the Department’s policies.

The Government Management Reform Act (GMRA) requires federal agencies to submit audited Department-wide financial statements to the OMB by March 1 of each year. To meet this deadline, the Assistant Attorney General for Administration and the Inspector General issued a joint memorandum to the ten components outlining when critical procedures had to be completed to ensure the Department would be able to prepare, review, and have audited, its consolidated financial statements. However, other auditors and we continue to identify weaknesses at six of the ten components that affect their ability to produce timely financial statements in accordance with GMRA and Department policies. Auditors identified the following:

• Auditors of the FBI, the DEA, and the USM reported material weaknesses in the components’ financial statement preparation process. Auditors observed technical and clerical errors, inconsistencies in the form and content of financial statements, late submissions, incomplete account reconciliations, and a lack of supervisory review. Auditors also noted that, in some cases, there were not sufficient resources in the Office of Finance dedicated to financial statement preparation, or that program managers did not adequately support the Office of Finance’s financial statement preparation process, resulting in incomplete statements that required adjustments and revisions.
  
  
• Auditors of the OJP, the INS and the OBD identified reportable conditions in the components’ financial reporting processes. Auditors of the OJP reported that financial statements were not completed by the Department’s deadlines, and that the core financial accounting system was not capable of producing external financial reports in accordance with the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program’s, Core Financial System Requirements. The INS’ auditors noted that financial statements and supporting documentation were not adequately reviewed before release, and that statements and related note disclosures were submitted three weeks after the Department’s deadlines. Finally, we reported that procedures were not in place to ensure adjustments to the OBD’ financial statements were properly performed.
  
  
• We identified that adjustments to the Department’s financial statements were required to ensure they complied, in all material respects, to OMB Bulletin No. 97-01, Form and Content of Agency Financial Statements; and in one instance, a component did not disclose information required by this bulletin. We identified that the Department’s components did not consistently report information in the form and content prescribed by the Department; accordingly, adjustments to the Department’s consolidated financial statements and disclosures were required to ensure they were consistent and complied with the OMB’s Form and Content requirements. Because of the untimely submission of components’ financial statements to the Department, many of the adjustments were not identified until after the Department’s deadline for completion of the consolidated financial statement audit. Untimely submissions and inconsistent reporting by components increase the risk that the Department’s consolidated financial statements will not be submitted within the deadlines prescribed in the GMRA.

For example, the BOP and the OJP had not adequately disclosed the amount of intragovernmental program costs in their components’ statements of net cost. Subsequent to identification of this error, management of the BOP performed additional analysis and was able to quantify the amount of intragovernmental program costs. The BOP’s auditors performed additional audit procedures and were able to satisfy themselves that the amount calculated by management fairly stated intragovernmental costs for the BOP; accordingly, the BOP’ financial statements were revised to properly disclose this information. The OJP did not quantify intragovernmental program costs and no adjustments were made to the OJP’ financial statements. The amounts of likely OJP intragovernmental program costs, net of elimination, are not material to the Department’s consolidated financial statements.

The Department’s Justice Management Division (JMD) held financial statement working group meetings that communicated the Department’s consolidated financial reporting requirements. The working group was established, in part, in response to our prior fiscal years Reports on Internal Controls recommending the Department implement a strategic plan for financial reporting that addresses: (a) reporting deadlines, (b) the need for consistent reporting among components, and (c) the need to involve senior financial and program managers in the financial statement preparation process. We believe the working group was a positive step to improve the financial reporting of the Department and encourage its continuance; however, we continue to identify a number of inconsistencies and errors that require adjustments to the consolidated financial statements. In general, the errors are caused by the components’ failure to report in the form and content of the Department’s consolidated statements and the lack of consistent accounting treatment among the components.

Recommendations

We recommend the Chief Financial Officer:

4. Require that components submit audited financial statements to the Justice Management Division (JMD) that are (a) timely, (b) consistent with the Department’s form and content guidance, and (c) adhere to Department-wide accounting policies to ensure consistent accounting treatment among components. The JMD should determine whether components’ statements are consistent with the Department’s form and content, and ensure that accounting transactions are recorded consistently across all components. The JMD should require components to "correct" financial statements submitted for consolidation that do not adhere to the Department’s requirements and resolve all accounting issues that affect more than one component. We also recommend that the JMD, in conjunction with the Office of the Inspector General, develop a working group that would recommend to the Assistant Attorney General for Administration: (a) form and content of the Department’s financial statements and note disclosures; (b) resolution of multi-component accounting issues; and (c) guidelines for the components on how to complete and submit financial statements in a Departmental format.

Management Response: Concur. JMD will continue to establish reporting timetables to enable the Department to fulfill its financial reporting requirements, and communicate the importance of those timetables to component senior management. JMD will issue clear guidance on standards for submission of financial statements for the Departmental consolidation, including requirements for consistency with applicable form and content standards. To further this effort, JMD will develop financial statement and footnote templates and work in conjunction with the Office of the Inspector General to ensure that formats are consistently used by all bureau components.

5. Require that program and administrative offices participate in the annual audit process and assist the components’ Offices of Finance’s efforts to produce annual financial statements. Components’ financial statements represent the operations and program activities of the entire components, not just the finance offices. We also recommend that program and administrative management participate in audit status meetings and attend some of the working group meetings presented by the Justice Management Division.

Management Response: Concur. JMD will communicate to component senior management the need to include key program and administrative managers in the financial audit process and component corrective action plans. Particular emphasis will be placed on the importance of program and administrative offices adhering to the proper business practices and internal controls which enable reliable financial reporting, and the need for key program managers to participate in audit planning and status activities throughout the audit.

Improvements are still needed in controls over fund balance with Treasury.

A fundamental accounting control is the reconciliation of the general ledger, from which financial statements are prepared, to subsidiary systems or records. Reconciliations are necessary to ensure that transactions are completely and accurately recorded and that reported balances are correct. A critical reconciliation for all Federal agencies is the reconciliation of the agencies’ fund balance with Treasury (cash) to the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s accounting records. Auditors’ of the DEA and the INS reported material weaknesses in controls over fund balance with Treasury. The auditors of the USM identified weaknesses in the reconciliation of fund balance with Treasury, and reported this as a subset of a material weakness on financial accounting processes. The auditors reported the following:

• The INS should continue to reduce reconciling items in its fund balance with Treasury accounts. The auditors of the INS identified that some of the issues affecting the INS’ ability to accurately record and report transactions in its general ledger result in consolidated net differences between INS’ general ledger and the balance reported by Treasury. As of September 30, 1999, the INS had identified a net unreconciled difference of approximately $7 million.
  
  
• The DEA should review and clear reconciling items monthly. Auditors reported that the DEA’s Treasury clearing account balances reached a high of $124 million during the year, but were reduced to $42 million as of September 30, 1999. Approximately 75% of the $124 million represented transactions that were processed through the Treasury’s On-Line Payment and Collection (OPAC) system. Documentation required to process an OPAC charge against the DEA’s funds was not timely received; as a result, the DEA was unable to classify and properly record the transaction timely.
  
  
• The USM did not prepare detailed reconciliations for the first nine months of the fiscal year. The USM’ auditors identified differences between the USM’ general ledger and Treasury’s records, mainly caused by OPAC charges from the prior fiscal year. The lack of adequate and timely reconciliations increases the risk of inappropriate payments to vendors and misstatements in obligation and expense account balances.

Recommendation

We recommend the Chief Financial Officer:

6. Require that the INS, the DEA, and the USM perform timely reconciliations necessary to safeguard fund balance with Treasury. Where possible, reconciling items should be identified to specific transactions and correcting adjustments posted timely. Additional attention should be paid to suspense and clearing accounts to ensure transactions posted to these accounts are timely identified and recorded in the proper general ledger account.

Management Response: Concur. JMD will work with component senior management to ensure components implement timely and effective corrective action plans to address the fund balance with Treasury reconciliation weaknesses, including weaknesses associated with clearing and suspense accounts. JMD will monitor the status of these corrective action efforts.

STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:

As required by Government Auditing Standards and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 98-08, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, we have reviewed the status of the Department’s corrective actions with respect to the findings and recommendations from our fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 reports on the Department’s internal controls. The analysis below provides our assessment of the progress the Department has made in correcting the reportable conditions identified in these reports. We also provide the Office of the Inspector General Report number and the fiscal year covered by the report where the condition was first identified, our recommendation for improvement and the status of the condition as of September 30, 1999:

1. The material weakness has been revised to state that accounting policies and procedures were not adequate to ensure financial transactions are recorded in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. This condition remains a material weakness.
2. The condition was a material weakness in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, a reportable condition in fiscal year 1998, and is now reported as a material weakness in fiscal year 1999.
3. For those conditions that remain for some of the components, they have been combined into the material weakness on compliance with generally accepted accounting principles.
4. A reportable condition in fiscal year 1998 and is now reported as a material weakness in fiscal year 1999.
5. First reported as a material weakness in fiscal year 1996, identified as a reportable condition in fiscal year 1998, and remains one in fiscal year 1999.

Component auditors identified a number of other reportable conditions that we believe are not material to the Department’s consolidated financial statements. A summarization of these conditions will be communicated to the Department’s management in a separate management letter.

This report is intended solely for the information of the Attorney General, the Office of the Inspector General, the OMB, and Congress. This report is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

February 21, 2000
Arlington, Virginia

Department of Justice
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
1616 N. Fort Myer Dr.
Arlington VA 22209-3195
Telephone (703) 741 1000
Facsimile (703) 741 1616
Direct phone (202) 514-9113
Direct fax (202) 514-2114

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS ON COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS AND REGULATIONS

United States Attorney General and
The Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of Justice

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of the U.S. Department of Justice (the Department) as of September 30, 1999, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position, and the related combined statements of budgetary resources, financing, and custodial activity, for the year then ended, and have issued our report thereon dated February 21, 2000. Except as discussed in that report, we conducted our audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin No. 98-08, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended.

We did not audit the financial statements of certain components of the Department, including the Working Capital Fund, the Office of Justice Programs, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Bureau of Prisons, and the Federal Prison Industries, Inc., which statements reflect total combined assets of $20.3 billion and total combined net costs of $15.0 billion for the year ended September 30, 1999. Those statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon have been furnished to us, and our report on the Department’s compliance with laws and regulations herein, insofar as it relates to these components, is based solely on the reports of the other auditors.

Compliance with laws and regulations applicable to the Department is the responsibility of management. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the Department’s financial statements are free of material misstatement, other auditors and we performed tests of the components’ compliance with certain provisions of applicable laws and regulations, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the determination of financial statement amounts and certain other laws and regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 98-08, as amended, including the requirements referred to in the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) of 1996. However, the objective of these tests was not to provide an opinion on the Department’s overall compliance with laws and regulations. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

The results of auditors’ tests of components’ compliance with laws and regulations disclosed no instances of noncompliance with laws and regulations that we believe are required to be reported under Government Auditing Standards and OMB Bulletin No. 98-08, as amended.

Under FFMIA, auditors are required to report whether components’ financial management systems substantially comply with the Federal financial management systems requirements, applicable accounting standards, and the United States Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. To meet this requirement, auditors performed tests of components’ compliance using the implementation guidance for the FFMIA included in OMB Bulletin No. 98-08, as amended.

Auditors of the U.S. Marshals Service, the Office of Justice Programs, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service reported that components’ financial management systems did not comply with the Federal system requirements of FFMIA; including: applicable provisions of OMB Circulars A-127, Financial Management Systems, and A-130, Management of Federal Information Resources; and certain requirements of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program.

All significant facts pertaining to the matters referred to above and recommended remedial actions are included in component auditors’ Reports on Internal Control. Auditors reported that these conditions are significant departures from the Federal financial management systems requirements of FFMIA. The Department should assign a high priority to the corrective actions consistent with the requirements of OMB Circular A-50 Revised, on audit follow-up.

This report is intended solely for the information of the Attorney General, the Office of the Inspector General, the OMB, and Congress. This report is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

February 21, 2000
Arlington, Virginia.

Annual Financial Statement

Consolidated Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 1999

ASSETS

Consolidated Balance Sheet
As of September 30, 1999

LIABILITIES

Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
For fiscal year ended September 30, 1999

PROGRAM COSTS

Consolidated Statement of Net Cost
For fiscal year ended September 30, 1999

PROGRAM COSTS

Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position
For fiscal year ended September 30, 1999