The objectives of the audit were to determine whether each key indicator met the following criteria: (1) data collection and storage processes were complete and accurate, (2) data validation and verification processes were complete and accurate, and (3) data limitations provided by the agency were complete and accurate. We did not assess whether the key indicators were the best measures for DOJ.

We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. We included such tests as were necessary to accomplish the audit objectives. The audit generally covered FY 2006 data. However, in some instances when FY 2006 data was not available we included FY 2005 data. Our audit included 21 of the 28 key indicators listed in the FY 2006 PAR. The remaining seven key indicators were excluded because they were either discontinued or long‑term measures that were still in process at the time of our audit.

Audit work was conducted at JMD and the following 17 DOJ components that were responsible for reporting on the 21 key indicators included in our audit.

• Antitrust Division
• Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program
• Civil Division
• Civil Rights Division
• Criminal Division
• Drug Enforcement Administration
• Environment and Natural Resources Division
• Executive Office for Immigration Review
• Executive Office for United States Attorneys
• Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Federal Bureau of Prisons
• Federal Prison Industries, Inc.
• Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
• Office of Justice Programs
• Tax Division
• United States Marshals Service
• United States Trustee Program

We obtained information on: laws, guidance, and regulations pertinent to our audit; the key indicator reporting and submission process; particular areas of concern to JMD; updates; and other key indicator information.

At each of the 17 components, we interviewed staff to:

• understand the procedures and rationale used to collect and store the key indicator data,

• identify the controls in place to ensure that key indicator data is complete and accurate,

• understand any processes used to validate and verify the key indicator data, and

• assess whether all data limitations were reported.

Additionally, we reviewed policies, procedures, and other documentation related to data collection, storage, validation, verification, and limitations. We reviewed and compared the FY 2006 PAR and the 2008 Budget and Performance Summary. We also compared the key indicators reported in the FY 2006 PAR with each component’s supporting documentation to verify performance reported in the FY 2006 PAR and the 2008 Budget and Performance Summary and to identify any necessary enhancements for future reporting.

We also conducted audit work at the following Denver field offices: the FBI, DEA, USMS, and BOP. We reviewed the data collection, storage, validation, and verification processes at these agencies.

To achieve the audit’s objectives, we relied on the computer‑processed data contained in the computer systems collecting and storing the key indicator data for those included within the scope of our audit. We did not establish the reliability of this data because this was not within the scope of our audit objectives.