Homeland Security: Justice Department's Project to Interview	 
Aliens after September 11, 2001 (11-APR-03, GAO-03-459).	 
                                                                 
As one response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the	 
Department of Justice (DOJ) initiated a project to interview	 
aliens whose characteristics were similar to those responsible	 
for the attacks. The purpose was to determine what knowledge the 
aliens might have of terrorists and terrorist activities. GAO was
asked to (1) determine	the criteria DOJ used in compiling the	 
list of aliens to be questioned, (2) whether law enforcement	 
complied with DOJ guidance for the project,  (3) the interview	 
project's status, and  (4) what information resulted from it.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-459 					        
    ACCNO:   A06632						        
  TITLE:     Homeland Security: Justice Department's Project to       
Interview Aliens after September 11, 2001			 
     DATE:   04/11/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Aliens						 
	     Counterterrorism					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Immigration information systems			 
	     Law enforcement					 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Terrorism						 
	     National preparedness				 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-459

Report to Congressional Committees

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2003 HOMELAND SECURITY

Justice Department*s Project to Interview Aliens after September 11, 2001

GAO- 03- 459

Between September 11 and November 9, 2001, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS) compiled a list of aliens whose
characteristics were similar to those of the hijackers. DOJ searched its
databases for aliens

that fit certain characteristics relating to type of visa, gender, age,
date of entry into the United States, and country that issued the
passport, and identified 7,602 names for interview.

According to law enforcement officials, attorneys for interviewees, and
immigration advocates in six U. S. Attorney districts, law enforcement
officers who conducted the interviews adhered to DOJ guidelines for the
project. The guidelines stressed that the project*s objective was
information gathering, not criminal investigation, and that participation
was to be voluntary. Attorneys for interviewees and immigration advocates
agreed that the law enforcement officers adhered to project guidelines,
but expressed the view that interviewed aliens did not perceive the
interviews to be truly voluntary. They noted that although aliens were not
coerced to participate in the interviews, they worried about
repercussions, such as future INS denials for visa extensions or permanent
residency, if they refused to be interviewed.

Firm and complete information on the project*s status is unavailable. As
of March 2003, law enforcement officers had interviewed 3,216 aliens*
about 42 percent of the names on the list (see figure). However, the list
contained problems such as duplicate names and data entry errors, making
it difficult to determine how many interviews remained to be completed.

DOJ asserted that the project netted intelligence information and had a
disruptive effect on terrorists. But the results are difficult to measure,
and DOJ has not fully analyzed all the data obtained from the interviews
or how effectively the project was implemented.

Interviews Completed and Not Completed, as of March 2003, from INS*s List
of 7,602 Names 4,386

Interviews completed for 42% of names on interview list

3,216

Interviews not completed for 58% of names on interview list. Reasons
include one or more of the following:

- not yet contacted - left the country - could not be located - moved to
another district - refused to be interviewed - data problems

(e. g., duplicate names, data entry errors) Source: GAO*s analysis of
Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys* interview project data.

As one response to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the Department of
Justice (DOJ) initiated a project to interview

aliens whose characteristics were similar to those responsible for the
attacks. The purpose was to determine what knowledge the aliens might have
of terrorists and terrorist activities. GAO was asked to determine  the
criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of aliens to

be questioned,  whether law enforcement complied with DOJ guidance for
the project,

 the interview project*s status, and  what information resulted

from it. Because there are indications that the government*s antiterrorism
efforts will continue to rely, in part, on conducting interview projects
with aliens who reside in this

country, GAO recommends that the Attorney General initiate a formal review
of the project and report on lessons learned. In commenting on a draft of
this report, DOJ was silent on GAO*s findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. DOJ provided technical comments, which GAO evaluated and
incorporated, as appropriate. DOJ also expressed two specific concerns
about the presentation of information that GAO responded to in the report.

www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 459. To view the full report,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Richard M. Stana at (202) 512- 8777 or stanar@ gao.
gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 459, a report to

Congressional Requesters

April 2003

HOMELAND SECURITY

Justice Department*s Project to Interview Aliens after September 11, 2001

Page i GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project Letter 1 Scope and Methodology 2
Background 3 Results in Brief 4 Demographic and Visa Information Used in
Compiling the List of

Nonimmigrant Aliens to Be Questioned 7 Interviewers Complied with DOJ
Guidance; Project Implemented Differently by Districts 8 Complete
Information Lacking on Status 12 Project Results Not Analyzed and Hard to
Measure 15 Conclusions 17 Recommendations for Executive Action 18 Agency
Comments and Our Evaluation 18 Appendix I List of Questions Used in
Interviews 21

Appendix II Notification Letter Sent in the Eastern District of Michigan
28

Appendix III March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District, First
and Second Phases of Interviews Combined 29

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments 32 GAO Contacts 32
Acknowledgments 32 Table

Table 1: Branches of Law Enforcement Participating in Project, by District
12 Contents

Page ii GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project Abbreviations

ATTF Anti- Terrorism Task Force DOJ Department of Justice EOUSA Executive
Office for U. S. Attorneys FBI Federal Bureau of Investigations FTTTF
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force INS Immigration and Naturalization
Service

This is a work of the U. S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. It may contain
copyrighted graphics, images or other materials. Permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary should you wish to reproduce copyrighted
materials separately from GAO*s product.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

April 11, 2003 The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Minority Member
Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives

The Honorable Russell D. Feingold Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on
the Constitution Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate

In response to the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center
and the Pentagon, the U. S. government moved on several fronts in an
effort to thwart future terrorist attacks. For example, Congress passed
the USA PATRIOT Act, 1 which, among other things, expanded the
government*s authority to conduct surveillance on suspected terrorists and
increased the ability of law enforcement and intelligence agencies to
share information. Congress also enacted legislation to form a new
executive department, the Department of Homeland Security, 2 to enable the
government to address the terrorist threat in a more coordinated

manner. The Department of Defense imprisoned enemy combatants at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to interrogate them for information that might help
prevent future attacks and catch other suspects. The Department of Justice
(DOJ) detained aliens in this country whom they suspected of having
knowledge of or involvement in terrorist activities. DOJ also initiated a
project to interview about 7,600 nonimmigrant aliens 3 *about 4,800 in the
first phase of interviews and about 2,800 in the second phase* whose
characteristics were similar to those of the September 11 hijackers to try
to determine, among other things, what knowledge they had of terrorists
and planned terrorist activities.

1 P. L. 107- 56 (2001). 2 Homeland Security Act of 2002, P. L. 107- 296
(2002). 3 Nonimmigrants are foreign nationals, such as students, tourists,
and certain types of workers, who enter the United States on temporary
visas.

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

Page 2 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

In response to your request for information on the interview project, 4
this report addresses the following objectives:

 the specific criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of nonimmigrant
aliens to be questioned;  whether law enforcement officers who conducted
interviews complied

with DOJ guidance on procedures for questioning aliens, including
instructions, if any, on ensuring that the questioning was voluntary; 
the status of the interview project; and  what information resulted from
the interview project.

To determine the specific criteria DOJ used in compiling the list of
nonimmigrant aliens to be questioned, we reviewed available documentation
and interviewed officials from DOJ, including the Director of the
Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys (EOUSA), and the Director of the
Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF).

To determine whether law enforcement complied with the guidance, we
reviewed the guidance that DOJ provided to the interviewing agencies on
procedures for conducting the questioning. Specifically, we reviewed the

Attorney General*s directive on the project and the Deputy Attorney
General*s November 9, 2001, memorandum providing guidance, and the list of
interview questions that EOUSA provided to the U. S. Attorney district
offices. In addition, we interviewed officials from EOUSA, including the
Director of EOUSA, as well as law enforcement officials, immigration
rights advocates, and attorneys for interviewed aliens. Specifically, we
interviewed 10 U. S. Attorneys and/ or Assistant U. S. Attorneys; 47
federal, state, and local law enforcement officials who conducted the
interviews; 8 attorneys who represented aliens that had been interviewed;
and 22 immigration rights advocates. We conducted these interviews during
visits to the following six U. S. Attorney districts: 5  Eastern Michigan
(Detroit, Michigan);  Northern Texas (Dallas, Texas);

 Central California (Los Angeles, California);  Southern New York (New
York City, New York); 4 You have also raised issues regarding other
antiterrorism measures implemented after

September 11. We will be issuing reports to address your request for
information on them. 5 In addition to the U. S. Attorney districts visited
where we met with 22 immigration rights advocates interviewed, we also
went to Houston, Texas, and met with 8 immigration rights advocates. Scope
and

Methodology

Page 3 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

 Eastern New York (Long Island, New York); and  New Jersey (Newark, New
Jersey).

To determine the status of the interview project and what information
resulted from it, we interviewed DOJ officials, including the Director of
EOUSA and the General Counsel of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), reviewed a February 2002 status report on the project*s results,
and reviewed statistics on project status that DOJ had compiled as of
March 14, 2003. We also interviewed federal law enforcement officials from
the FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Internal
Revenue Service, and U. S. Postal Service. In addition, we met with state
and local

law enforcement officials from the Michigan State Police; West Bloomfield
Township, Michigan Police; Farmington Hills, Michigan Police; and the
Suffolk County, New York Police. We did not interview state and local law
enforcement officials in the other four U. S. Attorney districts because
they did not have an active involvement in the project. In addition, we
interviewed attorneys for interviewed aliens, and immigration rights
advocates in the six U. S. Attorney districts we visited.

We visited the Eastern Michigan and Northern Texas districts because over
20 percent of the interviews in the first phase of the project were
conducted in these two districts. We visited the Central California and
the New York area districts for geographic dispersion. In total, the six
U. S. Attorney district offices we visited accounted for slightly over 27
percent of the interviews during the project*s first phase. The
information that we collected from the six districts pertains only to
those districts and cannot be generalized to all of the districts involved
in the interview project. We did not attend any interviews or talk with
any alien who was questioned as part of the interview project. According
to the attorneys and immigration

rights advocates with whom we spoke, these individuals did not feel
comfortable meeting with us because we are government officials. We
obtained data on the status of the interview project from EOUSA, although
limitations in EOUSA*s data, which we note in the report, precluded us

from providing a firm and complete accounting of the project*s status. We
conducted our review from April 2002 to March 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Pursuant to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Attorney
General directed EOUSA to oversee an interview project that was intended
to gather information on potential terrorism and help prevent any future
terrorist attacks. In a November 9, 2001, memorandum to U. S. Background

Page 4 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Attorneys, the Attorney General provided the directive for the project and
the Deputy Attorney General provided guidelines for the project. EOUSA
later distributed the list of questions to be asked, which were based on
the Deputy Attorney General*s guidelines. The subjects of the interviews
were certain nonimmigrant aliens, who were to be considered potential
sources of information about terrorists or terrorist activities, rather
than suspects, and their participation in the interview project was to be
voluntary.

Several federal law enforcement entities contributed to the development
and implementation of the interview project. These included FTTTF, INS,
EOUSA, U. S. Attorney offices, Anti- Terrorism Task Force (ATTF) 6
members, the FBI, and the Justice Management Division. The FTTTF

developed the criteria for determining which nonimmigrant aliens should be
interviewed. INS generated a list of prospective interview subjects and
their addresses, and the address information was refined through a search
of public databases. EOUSA implemented the project through its 94 U. S.

Attorney district offices, which were to coordinate the interviews with
ATTF members in each U. S. Attorney district. The Attorney General*s
memorandum on the project stated that ATTFs would be used for this project
because *federal resources have their limits . . . and . . . there are
many more people to be interviewed than there are federal agents to

conduct the interviews.* The U. S. Attorneys were responsible for
assigning the interviews to the various participating ATTF members,
providing the written guidance issued by the Attorney General, collecting
the reports of the interviews, and coordinating any follow- up
investigations with FBI Special Agents- inCharge. ATTF members were
responsible for conducting the interviews in accordance with the guidance,
drafting and submitting a written report of each interview, and
participating in follow- up investigations, as they deemed appropriate.

Demographic and visa information on the perpetrators of the September 11
attacks formed the criteria for compiling the list of nonimmigrant aliens

6 ATTFs operate under the direction of the U. S. Attorneys and are
comprised of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials. They are
charged with implementing and coordinating the DOJ*s antiterrorism plan,
serving as a conduit for disseminating information about terrorists
between federal and local agencies, and providing a standing
organizational structure for a coordinated response to a terrorist
incident in the district. ATTFs were established by the Attorney General
shortly after September 11. Results in Brief

Page 5 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

to be questioned. To identify individuals whose characteristics were
similar to those of the perpetrators, FTTTF sought to identify from INS
records the names and current addresses of aliens that (1) had certain
types of visas and (2) fit certain characteristics relating to gender,
age, date of entry into the United States, and country that issued
passport. Due to concerns about the reliability of INS*s address
information, 7 FTTTF supplemented INS*s address information with public
source data. The FTTTF used similar criteria in the two phases of
interviews except that the aliens* age range, the range of their dates of
entry into the country, and the number of countries covered were expanded
for the second phase.

The law enforcement officers who conducted the interviews adhered to DOJ*s
guidance, according to the law enforcement officials, attorneys for
interviewees, and immigration advocates with whom we spoke. The attorneys
and advocates told us that interviews were conducted in a respectful and
professional manner, and interviewees were not coerced to participate.
They noted, however, that the interviewed aliens did not perceive the
interviews to be truly voluntary because they worried about repercussions,
such as future INS denials for visa extensions or permanent residency, if
they refused. Further, although there was consensus on the voluntary
nature of the interviews, more than half of the law enforcement officers
we spoke with expressed concerns about the quality of the questions asked
and the value of the responses obtained in the interview project.

Because of data limitations, EOUSA cannot provide firm and complete
information on the current status of the interview project. EOUSA*s data
indicated that, as of March 2003, 3,216 nonimmigrant aliens had been
interviewed during the two phases of the interview project. This is about
42 percent of 7,602 names sent to U. S. Attorney offices for interviewing.
However, the list contained such problems as duplicate names and data
entry errors, which limited EOUSA*s ability to determine exactly how many
unique individuals (1) the list represented, (2) had left the country, (3)
could not be located, and (4) had moved to another district. Because of
these problems, it is not possible to determine how many interviews

remain to be completed. Although the interview project was to end in May 7
In our recent report, U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security:
INS Cannot Locate Many Aliens Because It Lacks Reliable Address
Information, GAO- 03- 188 (Washington D. C.: November 21, 2002), we
reported that INS alien address information

could not be relied on to locate many aliens of interest to the United
States, and recommended specific measures to improve INS*s program for
gathering the information.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

2002, it was still ongoing in January 2003 and DOJ expected that it will
be completed by March 1, 2003.

Information resulting from the interview project had not been analyzed as
of March 2003; and the extent to which the interview project may have
helped the government combat terrorism is hard to measure. According to
DOJ officials, there are no specific plans to analyze the project data.
DOJ

has asserted that the project netted intelligence information and had a
disruptive effect on terrorists. EOUSA*s February 2002 status report to
the Attorney General stated that the interview project resulted in useful
leads, but it did not provide specific examples, citing the sensitivity of
the leads.

The report also stated that *fewer than* 20 interviewees were arrested,
mostly due to immigration violations. The second phase of interviews,
which was to have been completed in May 2002, was still ongoing in January
2003. Law enforcement representatives with whom we spoke expressed
differing views on how the interview project affected community relations.
Some said that the interview project was helpful in building ties to the
community while others stated that it had a negative effect on relations
between the Arab community and law enforcement personnel.

DOJ has not conducted an assessment of the interview project and as of
January 2003, had no specific plans to do so, although EOUSA officials
told us they thought such an assessment would be valuable. We recognize
that DOJ acted quickly after the September 11 attacks to try to develop
leads that could help deter another attack. National security, as opposed
to interview project methodology and oversight, was rightfully paramount
in importance. Because there are indications that the government*s
antiterrorism efforts will continue to rely, in part, on conducting
interview projects with aliens who reside in this country, this report
contains a

recommendation to the Attorney General to initiate a review of the
interview project that would address lessons learned. In commenting on a
draft of this report, DOJ was silent on our findings, conclusions, and
recommendation. DOJ provided technical comments, which we evaluated and
incorporated, as appropriate. DOJ also expressed two concerns* one
relating to the objective of the interview project and the other relating
to our presentation of data* which we respond to in the Agency Comments
and Evaluation section of the report.

Page 7 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Selected characteristics of the perpetrators of the September 11 attacks
formed the criteria for compiling the list of nonimmigrant aliens to be
questioned. To identify individuals whose characteristics were similar to
those of the perpetrators, FTTTF obtained a dataset of 336, 330 records on
nonimmigrant aliens who had entered the United States or were issued a

visa between January 1, 1999, and September 5, 2001. Because travelers
could have entered, departed, and reentered the country several times, the
dataset could have contained multiple records for a single alien. Of the
336, 300 names that FTTTF received for the first phase of the interview
project, it selected 5,146 names with public source addresses who

 entered the United States after January 1, 2000;  claimed citizenship
from any of 15 countries in which intelligence

indicated that there was an al Qaeda terrorist presence or activity; and 
were males born between January 1968 and December 1983;

According to DOJ*s February 2002 status report, FTTTF*s rationale in
selecting these characteristics was that their demographic similarity to
the terrorists would make them more likely to reside in the same
communities or be members of the same social groups and, therefore, more
likely to be aware of suspicious activity.

INS obtained the name and address information from its Nonimmigrant
Information System, an automated database that contains address and
identity information on nonimmigrant aliens who were inspected upon their
entry into the United States. Because FTTTF considered INS*s address
information to be of questionable reliability, it consulted public source
databases and supplemented INS*s information to attempt to provide the
most current address information for these aliens to the U. S. Attorneys.
8 The individuals selected for interview were identified as having a U. S.
street address listed in commercially available public source

records. In March 2002, the Attorney General stated that the interview
project produced valuable sources of information and started a second
phase of interviews. Using criteria similar to those in the first phase of
the project, FTTTF compiled a list of 3,189 names of nonimmigrant aliens
for the

second phase. The change in criteria included broadening the age range, 8
GAO- 03- 188. Demographic and Visa

Information Used in Compiling the List of Nonimmigrant Aliens to Be
Questioned

Page 8 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

date of entry, and number of countries of citizenship of the nonimmigrant
aliens to those who

 were males born between January 1955 and December 1984;  entered the
United States between January 1 and February 27, 2002;

and  claimed citizenship from any of 26 countries in which intelligence

indicated that there was an al Qaeda terrorist presence or activity. FTTTF
sent 8,335 nonimmigrant alien names to districts for interviewing during
the two phases of the interview project. After eliminating some, but not
all of the duplicate names, the districts had 7,602 names on their
interview lists as of March 14, 2003.

The interview guidelines, including the questions that law enforcement
officers were to ask the nonimmigrant aliens, were distributed to 94 U. S.
Attorney districts. 9 The guidelines stated the interviews were to be
voluntary, and both law enforcement officers and nonimmigrant aliens*
representatives with whom we spoke confirmed that the interviewers
followed the guidelines for obtaining voluntary participation. There was
some variation among districts about how the interview project was
implemented.

In all the districts we visited, officials from the U. S. Attorney offices
told us they stressed that the questioning would be voluntary, and they
distributed the guidance to the federal, state, and local law enforcement
officials who would be conducting the interviews. The law enforcement
officials we met with also stated that they followed the guidelines for
obtaining voluntary participation.

In the three districts we visited where we were told that immigration
rights advocates and attorneys sat in on interviews, we were told that
interviews were conducted in a respectful and professional manner, and
that the

interviewees were not coerced to participate. However, they also reported
that aliens told them that they did not feel the interviews were truly

9 EOUSA distributed the guidance to all 94 U. S. Attorney districts even
though not every district was given a list of nonimmigrant aliens to
interview. EOUSA wanted all districts to be aware of the project and its
guidelines in case they were asked to conduct interviews at a later point
in time. Interviewers

Complied with DOJ Guidance; Project Implemented Differently by Districts

Interviewers Complied with DOJ*s Guidelines for Obtaining Voluntary
Participation

Page 9 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

voluntary. This was because the aliens feared there could be repercussions
to them for declining to participate. For example, interviewees were
reportedly afraid that future requests for visa extensions or permanent
residency would be denied if they did not agree to be interviewed. Some
aliens also reported to their attorneys and advocates that they felt they
were being singled out because of their ethnicity or religious beliefs.

The Deputy Attorney General provided EOUSA with guidance that consisted of
a two- page Attorney General*s directive on the interview project and an
eight- page memorandum describing the topics that the interview was to
cover and interviewing tips. EOUSA distributed these guidelines, as well
as a list of interview questions based on the topics listed in the
guidance, to its 94 district offices. EOUSA held a telephone conference
with all U. S. Attorney district offices on November 9, 2001, to review
the guidelines and reinforce the fact that the interviews were to be
voluntary. The guidelines stated the following:

 The objective of the project was information gathering.  The persons to
be interviewed were not suspected of involvement in

criminal activity; therefore, the interviews would be consensual, and
every interview subject was free to decline answering questions.  While
the primary purpose of the interviews was not to ascertain the

legality of the individuals* immigration status, the federal
responsibility to enforce the immigration laws was an important one.  The
persons to be interviewed would not be asked about their religious

beliefs or practices.  Investigators should feel free to ask about any
topic that would elicit

information that could reasonably assist in the effort to learn about
those who support, commit, or associate with persons who commit terrorism.

The interview topics included personal information about the alien, such
as birthplace and country of citizenship; address and phone numbers,
including those of family members and close associates; employment and
sources of income; and education, including professional licenses or
scientific expertise. Other topics covered the alien*s foreign travel,
involvement in armed conflicts, reaction to terrorism, knowledge of
terrorism or the financing of terrorism, and knowledge of any criminal
activity. (See app. I for the complete list of interview questions.) Of
the 33 questions on the interview form, 21 were in a *yes/ no* format. The
following are examples of questions asked: DOJ Provided Guidance

Package and Questionnaire to Interviewing Agencies

Page 10 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

 *Has the person ever visited Afghanistan? Yes or no. If yes, when and
for what reason?*  *Does the person know anyone capable [of] or willing
to carry out acts

of terrorism? Yes or No. If yes, please explain.*  *Does the person have
any knowledge of involvement in advocating,

planning, supporting, or committing terrorist activities? Yes or No. If
yes, please explain.* and  *Is the person aware of any persons or groups
in his homeland who

might be planning or advocating terrorist acts against the U. S.? Yes or
No. If yes, please explain.*

More than half of the law enforcement officers we interviewed raised
concerns about the quality of the questions or the value of the responses.
For example, they noted that the questions were redundant, did not produce
complete answers, had limited value, and elicited responses that aliens
thought would help them avoid attracting further attention from law
enforcement.

During our visits to U. S. Attorney districts, we learned of several
differences in how the districts implemented the interview project. For
example, there were differences among districts in training for the
interviews, procedures for contacting interviewees, and agencies involved
in conducting the interviews. In all of the districts we visited, law

enforcement officials told us they received no formal complaints regarding
the project. In all six districts we visited, we were told that the
interview guidelines

were provided to the interviewers and that the voluntary nature of the
interviews was stressed. Three districts (Eastern District of Michigan,
Northern District of Texas, and New Jersey) held mandatory training
sessions on how law enforcement officers were to conduct the interviews,
and three districts did not. Each district that offered mandatory training
required attendance by all personnel who were to conduct the interviews.
These districts also offered additional training. For example, one of
these districts conducted a session on how to identify fraudulent
immigration documents, and the other two districts conducted sessions on
Middle Eastern cultural awareness. At one district where mandatory
training was held, law enforcement officials told us that the U. S.
Attorney in that district instructed them not to deviate from the
questions on the interview instrument. In this district, the interview
data may be more limited because from a methodological standpoint, open-
ended questions in which respondents are asked to express and explain
their perceptions and Project Implementation

Varied by District Some Districts Held Mandatory Training Sessions, While
Others Did Not

Page 11 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

experiences are more likely to elicit information of a substantive nature.
The three districts that did not have mandatory training sessions still
provided training to some, but not all, interviewers. For example,
officials from the U. S. Attorneys office in the Central District of
California stated that supervisors received training.

The districts we visited used different methods for notifying aliens about
the interview project. In five of the districts we visited, the district
let the law enforcement agent conducting the interview decide whether to
contact the person by phone or by visiting their residence without prior
notification. In general, agents told us that they used the contact method
they thought would have the most success in producing an interview.

Two of the 94 districts* the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern
District of Michigan* sent letters to aliens notifying them of the
interview project. Officials in the U. S. Attorneys office in the Eastern
District of

Michigan told us they sent a letter that described the project and
provided time for the aliens to find counsel, if desired, and prepare for
the interview. The letter explained the purpose of the project and stated
that participation in the project was voluntary. After receiving the
letter, aliens

could either call to schedule the interview time and place or decline to
be interviewed. We were told that agents would only conduct unannounced
visits to aliens* residences if they did not respond to the letter. Almost
all

of the attorneys and immigration rights advocates we interviewed in the
Eastern District of Michigan thought this approach was optimal for the
project. The main criticism expressed about the Eastern District of
Michigan*s letter was that there was no mention in the letter that a
person could bring an attorney to the interview. (See app. II for a copy
of the

letter.) The involvement of INS, FBI, and local law enforcement agencies
in the interview project varied across districts. Table 1 shows which
agencies were and were not involved in conducting interviews in the six
districts we visited. Different Methods Were Used

to Contact Interviewees Federal and Local Law Enforcement Involvement
Varied in the Project

Page 12 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Table 1: Branches of Law Enforcement Participating in Project, by District
District Agencies involved Agencies generally not

involved Reason cited for generally not involving agency

Eastern Michigan  FBI

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

 Drug Enforcement Administration

 Internal Revenue Service

 U. S. Postal Service

 U. S. Secret Service

 State and local law enforcement

 INS Afraid INS would intimidate people who agreed to be interviewed.

Northern Texas  FBI a  INS

 Local law enforcement Notified when in its jurisdiction, but it did not
participate often. Central California  FBI a  INS

 Local law enforcement Afraid INS would intimidate people who agreed to
be interviewed.

Notified when in its jurisdiction, but it did not participate often.
Southern New York

 INS

 Local law enforcement

 FBI FBI*s local resources stretched too thin due to the September 11
investigation. Eastern New York  Local law enforcement

 U. S. Attorney Criminal Investigators

 INS

 FBI b INS was understaffed. FBI*s local resources stretched too thin

due to the September 11 investigation. New Jersey  FBI a  Local law
enforcement

 INS Afraid INS would intimidate people who agreed to be interviewed.
Source: GAO analyses based on site visits.

a Lead interviewing agency. b Not involved in first phase of interviews,
but involved in second phase.

As shown in table 1, the FBI served as the lead interviewing agency in
three districts, and as a participating agency in one district. Four
districts opted not to have INS agents conduct any interviews because they
felt it would intimidate the interviewees or was understaffed. Local law
enforcement was generally involved in conducting interviews in four
districts, and minimally involved in two districts. According to DOJ*s
February 2002 status report, local police departments in a handful of
jurisdictions refused to conduct interviews, citing concerns about racial
profiling and local laws or regulations that restricted their
participation in the enforcement of federal immigration laws.

It is not possible to provide complete information on the current status
of the interview project because of limitations in EOUSA*s data.

On February 26, 2002, DOJ reported some aggregate information on the first
phase of interviews. Out of 4,793 potential interviews, DOJ reported that
Complete Information

Lacking on Status

Page 13 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

 4,112 individuals were in the country, and 681 had left the country; 
2,261 interviews were conducted;  1,097 individuals* about 27 percent of
the 4,112 individuals who

remained in the country* were not located;  785 individuals had relocated
to another district; and  small percentage of individuals declined to be
interviewed. 10 DOJ reported that fewer than 20 people were arrested, 11
mostly on

immigration violations charges. Most of these arrests occurred when people
who had agreed to be interviewed were found to have immigration
violations. Three individuals were arrested on criminal charges* none of

them appeared to have any connection to terrorism. Since February 2002,
EOUSA did not collect data on the status of the first phase of interviews.
Therefore, of the 4,112 individuals who were determined to be in the
country, we do not know how many were interviewed in addition to the 2,261
who had already been interviewed as of February 2002. For example, EOUSA
did not have follow- up data on the

status of the interviews of the 785 individuals who relocated to another
district. In these instances, the ATTF in the district to which the
individual had moved was tasked with completing the interview. EOUSA also
did not have data on the total number of aliens who declined to be
interviewed, although it reported that 8 out of 313 individuals in the
Eastern District of Michigan, 1 out of 69 individuals in Oregon, and 1 out
of 59 individuals in Minnesota refused to be interviewed. EOUSA*s data
indicated that, as of March 2003, 3,216 nonimmigrant aliens had been
interviewed during the two phases of the interview project. This is about
42 percent of 7,602 names sent to U. S. Attorney offices for

interviewing. However, according to EOUSA officials, the following data
problems make it difficult to determine the status of the project:

 The names of aliens to be interviewed were not *scrubbed for duplicates*
before being sent to the U. S. Attorney offices.  Arabic names consist of
four distinct parts, while American databases

were traditionally designed to accommodate three- part names. 10 Except
for reporting on a few districts, DOJ did not report the number of people
who declined to be interviewed. 11 DOJ did not report the exact number of
people arrested.

Page 14 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

 Variations in the spelling of traditional Arabic names and in the Arabic
vs. American format for recording birth dates may have resulted in data
entry errors.

These data problems limited EOUSA*s ability to determine exactly how many
unique individuals (1) the list represented, (2) had left the country, (3)
could not be located, and (4) had moved to another district. Because there
were duplicate names on the interview list, however, we can deduce that
the number of individuals who were to be interviewed was fewer than 7,602,
and the interview completion rate may have been higher than 42 percent.
Problems with the data also mean that EOUSA has not been able to determine
how many interviews remain to be completed. (See app. III for data on the
number of intended interview subjects and the number of people interviewed
by district.)

As of January 2003, EOUSA*s senior officials responsible for the project
did not know the extent to which the interviews had been completed. Out of
94 U. S. Attorney districts, 26 districts had not conducted any interviews
as part of the second phase of the project. The second phase was to begin
in March 2002 and end in May 2002. EOUSA officials provided us the

following information about the 26 districts that had not conducted any
interviews during the second phase:  Four districts did not receive any
names for the first or second phase.

 Six districts did not receive any new names for the second phase. 
Seven districts determined that the individuals they were to interview

for the second phase had left the country, transferred to another
district, or could not be located.  One district reported that all of the
names provided for the second

phase were duplicates from the first phase.  EOUSA had no information on
why the remaining 8 districts had not

conducted any interviews during the second phase. EOUSA officials told us
that the interview project was a priority for DOJ because the directive to
undertake the project came from the Attorney General. They noted, however,
that they were asking law enforcement agents to interview people who were
not under investigation. Therefore, at the field level, investigative
needs may have shifted the priority assigned to conducting the interviews.
Nonetheless, officials at EOUSA told us that the

interview project was ongoing, and they expected it to be completed by
March 1, 2003.

Page 15 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

EOUSA officials told us that they have not done an assessment of the
interview project to determine *lessons learned* in the event that a
similar effort should be undertaken in the future. As of January 2003,
EOUSA officials said they had no specific plans to conduct an assessment
of their interview project. In response to our inquiries about what
improvements, if any, could be made if such a project were undertaken
again, they noted that information on project status could be more
complete and reliable if

several steps are taken when preparing for the project. For example, they
said that it would be helpful to eliminate duplicate names from the
interview list before disseminating the list to U. S. Attorney offices.
They also said that a technical specialist should be involved in designing
the project to ensure that the database can be readily updated. This would
eliminate the need for EOUSA to query the districts individually to
ascertain the status of the project. In addition, they noted that data
consistency could be improved if districts were given guidance on how to
interpret and report information (for example, what evidence would be
needed to conclude that an individual had left the country). Finally, they
stated that it might be useful to obtain feedback from federal, state, and
local law enforcement on the interview instrument that was used in the
project to ascertain what improvements could be made.

The data gathered from the interview project had not been analyzed as of
March 2003, according to senior EOUSA officials. These data have been
maintained by the Justice Management Division in a centralized database.
According to DOJ officials, there are no specific plans to analyze the

project data. Further, it is difficult to measure the value and results of
investigative leads obtained from the interview project. Law enforcement
representatives with whom we spoke expressed differing views on how the
interview project affected community relations.

EOUSA instructed the districts to forward to them any potential leads
developed from the interviews. How and to what extent the interview
project* including investigative leads and the increased presence of law
enforcement in communities* helped the government combat terrorism is hard
to measure. DOJ has asserted that the project netted intelligence
information and had a disruptive effect on terrorists. DOJ also stated
that the interview project strengthened relationships between law
enforcement

and Arab communities. Some law enforcement officials and representatives
for aliens held the opposite view.

In its February 26, 2002, report to the Attorney General, DOJ officials
stated that the project was helpful in disrupting potential terrorist
Project Results Not

Analyzed and Hard to Measure

Page 16 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

activities. According to DOJ*s report, *These contacts, combined with the
widespread media attention the project received, ensured that potential
terrorists sheltering themselves within our communities were aware that
law enforcement was on the job in their neighborhoods.* 12 The report also
stated that the project led to meaningful investigative leads* for
example, to persons manufacturing fraudulent documents* though it did not
specify how many or where because DOJ considered the information too
sensitive to divulge. None of the law enforcement officials with whom we
spoke could provide examples of investigative leads that resulted from the
project. However, nine of the officials offered the opinion that if the
interviews provided just one lead that helped prevent a terrorist attack,
the project would have been worthwhile.

Law enforcement officials differed on whether the interview project was
helpful in building ties to the community. DOJ stated in its report that
the project contributed to community building by forging stronger ties
between the law enforcement and Arab communities. Law enforcement
officials who conducted interviews in 4 of the 6 districts visited
expressed similar views to us. They said that the project gave them an
opportunity to present a friendly law enforcement presence, obtain
information (including on potential hate crimes directed against the
interviewees), and leave a business card so the interviewee could contact
them at a later time, if necessary. They also noted that the interviewed
aliens were generally cooperative and appeared willing to help. Nine of
the 47 law enforcement

officials with whom we spoke reported that aliens offered to work as
linguists to help them with their investigation. In contrast, federal law
enforcement officials at the Central California and Eastern New York
districts we visited expressed the view that the interview project had a
negative effect on relations between the Arab community and law
enforcement personnel.

In the 3 districts we visited where we were told that immigration rights
advocates and attorneys sat in on interviews, they expressed the view that
the project had a chilling effect on relations between the Arab community

and law enforcement, even though the interviewers were professional and
unthreatening. Attorneys and advocates told us that interviewed aliens
told them they felt they were being singled out and investigated because
of their ethnicity or religious beliefs. Moreover, as noted earlier,
aliens reportedly feared repercussions from INS if they did not agree to
the

12 Final Report of Interview Project, DOJ, EOUSA (February 26, 2002).

Page 17 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

interview. According to the attorneys, this may have been the reason many
of the interviewees offered their linguistic services in support of the
government*s efforts to combat terrorism.

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, quickly set in motion a
number of government measures intended to combat terrorism. One of these
was a project designed to gather information on terrorists and terrorist
activities from selected nonimmigrant aliens who were to voluntarily agree
to participate in interviews with law enforcement agents. Our review found
that the project*s intent of obtaining aliens* voluntary compliance with
the interview project was met. However, the results of the project* in
terms of how many, what types, and the value of investigative leads
obtained from the interviews* are unknown because DOJ considers the
information too sensitive to divulge. Views about the impact of the
project on community relations were mixed, with some law enforcement
officials indicating that the project helped build ties between law
enforcement and the Arab community, while others indicated that the
project had a negative effect on such relations. Further, 9 months after
the interview project was scheduled to end, it was still ongoing. DOJ did
not know what the status of the project was, and it had no specific plans
for conducting a comprehensive assessment of lessons learned from the
project. This makes oversight of the project difficult, and it does not
capitalize on experience so that future interview projects could be
implemented more efficiently and effectively.

We recognize that in initiating the interview project after the September
11 attacks, DOJ acted quickly in an effort to develop leads that could
help deter another attack. National security, as opposed to interview
project

methodology and oversight, was rightfully paramount in importance. It is
also the case that national security concerns may impel the government to
conduct additional interview projects (for example, interviews with Iraqi
nationals residing in the United States) such as the one discussed in this
report. We believe that lessons that can assist similar future efforts can
be gleaned from DOJ*s experience conducting the two- phased interview
project discussed in this report. In undertaking the interview project,
DOJ encountered a host of issues that may provide useful input to
implementing an interview project in the future. For example, EOUSA
officials told us that the status of the interview project could have been
tracked more smoothly if there had been more up- front planning in certain
areas, such as eliminating duplicate names from lists and setting up a

mechanism for tracking case status. However, DOJ has not conducted a
systematic, comprehensive assessment of the interview project to obtain
Conclusions

Page 18 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

feedback on what worked well and what could have been improved in
implementing it. In discussions with EOUSA officials, they agreed that
such an assessment would be valuable.

Because there are indications that the government*s antiterrorism efforts
will continue to rely, in part, on conducting interview projects with
aliens who reside in this country, we believe that the interview project
affords an opportunity to build a knowledge base that could assist future
efforts to

collect interview data and monitor project status. Accordingly, we
recommend that the Attorney General, upon completion of the interview
project, initiate a formal review of the project and report on the lessons
learned. The issues that such a review might address include methods for
identifying and locating aliens, constructing effective interview
questions, designing a database for maintaining the data collected,
issuing guidance on interview methods and inputting data into the
database, conducting the interviews, obtaining state and local support for
the project, overseeing project status, and analyzing the data. The review
should include input from participating law enforcement officials on what
aspects of the project were effective and how the objectives of the
project might have been better or more efficiently met.

Our draft report was reviewed by representatives of the Office of the
Deputy Attorney General, Executive Office for United States Attorneys,
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Immigration and Naturalization
Service, now part of the Department of Homeland Security. DOJ provided us
with written comments that were primarily technical in nature, and we
incorporated them into the report as appropriate. DOJ was silent on our
findings, conclusions, and recommendation.

DOJ made two substantive points concerning our draft report. In its first
point, DOJ took issue with our focus on data limitations and EOUSA*s
resulting inability to have firm and complete information on the status of
the interview project. DOJ stated that the project*s primary purpose was
not to measure the number of persons interviewed, but to deter and disrupt
potential terrorist activities, gather intelligence, and facilitate
community outreach. DOJ noted that none of these purposes can be measured
meaningfully by raw data on the number of persons interviewed. We agree
with DOJ and made this point ourselves in the report. We state in the
Results in Brief and Conclusions sections that interview project
methodology and oversight are not of paramount concern when national
security is at stake. Nevertheless, we believe that timely, quality data
(for Recommendation for

Executive Action Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

Page 19 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

example, eliminating duplicate names from interview lists, maintaining
current data on how many interviews were completed, and clearly tracking
how many interviews could not be completed and why) serve an important
function in terms of efficient project management and effective project
oversight. Capitalizing on the lessons learned from how this interview
project was designed and implemented can help future similar projects
avoid potential pitfalls. That the government may have continuing interest
in conducting interview projects with foreign nationals is evidenced by
the FBI*s current effort to conduct voluntary interviews with Iraqis to
gather intelligence information to help with the war effort.

In its second point, DOJ took issue with how we present EOUSA data in two
instances in the report. In one instance, DOJ stated that our graphical
presentation of data on the Highlights page of the report does not provide
an accurate picture of the project*s accomplishments because it implies
that interviews could have been completed with more effort. DOJ noted
specifically that the chart does not account for a large number of aliens
who had left the country and, therefore, could not have been interviewed.
We did not present data on the number of potential interviewees who had
left the country because our interviews with EOUSA officials had

indicated the data were not reliable. For example, there may have been
duplicate entries on the list of individuals who were thought to have left
the country, or an individual may have been classified both as *unable to
locate* and *left the United States.* Because of limitations in the data,
it was not possible to determine how many distinct individuals the number
reported as having left the country represented. The chart on the
Highlights page is intended as a summary of the most reliable information
available on project status. In presenting the information, we attach no
value judgment regarding DOJ*s performance.

In the second instance, DOJ stated that the table in appendix III does not
provide a complete and accurate representation of the project because we
present less than half of the data provided by EOUSA. In appendix III, we

present information, by judicial district, on the number of names sent to
the district for interview, and the number of interviews conducted. We
limit the information to these three variables because our discussions
with EOUSA officials suggested that the data are reliable. We do not
present other numbers provided by EOUSA* specifically, on people referred
to another district, transferred out of a district, left the United
States, and unable to locate* because our discussions with EOUSA officials
indicated that the data are not reliable for a variety of reasons. For
example, in addition to the types of problems cited above, some districts
may have double counted individuals who were referred into their district
and then

Page 20 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

transferred out of the district. We added a footnote to the table in
appendix III that makes explicit what additional information EOUSA
provided us, and why we decided not to present it.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of
this report earlier, we plan no further distribution of it until 30 days
from the date of this report. We will then send copies of the report to
the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; the Chairman of the House Committee on the Judiciary; the
Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration,
Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims,
House Committee on the Judiciary; the Attorney General; the Director of
the FBI; the Director of the Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force; the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget; the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, the Under Secretary for Border and
Transportation Security, the Director of the

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Director of the
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security;
and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others
upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO*s Web site at http:// www. gao. gov. If you or your staffs have any
questions about this report, please contact

Evi Rezmovic or me at (202) 512- 8777. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.

Richard M. Stana Director, Homeland Security

and Justice

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 21 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 22 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 23 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 24 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 25 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 26 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix I: List of Questions Used in Interviews Page 27 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ
Interview Project

Appendix II: Notification Letter Sent in the Eastern District of Michigan
Page 28 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Appendix II: Notification Letter Sent in the Eastern District of Michigan

Appendix III: March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District, First
and Second Phases of Interviews Combined

Page 29 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Judicial district Number of names assigned to districts Number of
interviews

conducted

Alabama- Middle 1 1 Alabama- Northern 25 14 Alabama- Southern 7 4 Alaska 8
1 Arizona 109 54 Arkansas- Eastern 27 14 Arkansas- Western 18 12
California- Central 259 110 California- Eastern 39 18 California- Northern
126 63 California- Southern 42 16 Colorado 178 82 Connecticut 103 70
Delaware 15 9 District of Columbia 66 21 Florida- Middle 423 128 Florida-
Northern 55 26 Florida- Southern 248 109 Georgia- Middle 4 2 Georgia-
Northern 202 42 Georgia- Southern 6 3 Guam/ Northern Mariana b 6 4 Hawaii
18 4 Idaho 4 0 Illinois- Central 55 29 Illinois- Northern 482 99 Illinois-
Southern 10 6 Indiana- Northern 53 37 Indiana- Southern 39 19 Iowa-
Northern 18 8 Iowa- Southern 141 69 Kansas 69 52 Kentucky- Eastern 25 14
Kentucky- Western 19 14 Louisiana- Eastern 60 26 Louisiana- Middle 24 12
Louisiana- Western 28 9 Maine 8 3 Maryland 157 53 Massachusetts 117 77
Michigan- Eastern 555 330 Michigan- Western 106 60

Appendix III: March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District, First
and Second Phases of Interviews Combined

Appendix III: March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District, First
and Second Phases of Interviews Combined

Page 30 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Judicial district Number of names assigned to districts Number of
interviews

conducted

Minnesota 188 77 Mississippi- Northern 6 3 Mississippi- Southern 7 5
Missouri- Eastern 53 32 Missouri- Western 66 44 Montana 5 4 Nebraska 16 11
Nevada 17 6 New Hampshire 15 8 New Jersey 220 106 New Mexico 28 20 New
York- Eastern 246 65 New York- Northern 39 21 New York- Southern 134 49
New York- Western 46 7 North Carolina- Eastern 12 6 North Carolina- Middle
12 3 North Carolina- Western 25 11 North Dakota 6 4 Ohio- Northern 32 28
Ohio- Southern 51 20 Oklahoma- Eastern 0 0 Oklahoma- Northern 57 49
Oklahoma- Western 41 16 Oregon 209 83 Pennsylvania- Eastern 65 18
Pennsylvania- Middle 13 10 Pennsylvania- Western 35 21 Puerto Rico 0 0
Rhode Island 5 4 South Carolina 50 22 South Dakota 1 0 Tennessee- Eastern
15 5 Tennessee- Middle 17 6 Tennessee- Western 16 6 Texas- Eastern 89 45
Texas- Northern 364 196 Texas- Southern 660 148 Texas- Western 265 111
Utah 6 4 Vermont 5 2 Virgin Islands 0 0 Virginia- Eastern 212 83

Appendix III: March 2003 Data on the Interview Project, by District, First
and Second Phases of Interviews Combined

Page 31 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Judicial district Number of names assigned to districts Number of
interviews

conducted

Virginia- Western 6 8 Washington- Eastern 21 14 Washington- Western 97 30
West Virginia- Northern 16 11 West Virginia- Southern 10 9 Wisconsin-
Eastern 59 24 Wisconsin- Western 89 37 Wyoming 0 0

Total 7,602 a 3,216

Source: Executive Office for U. S. Attorneys. Note: EOUSA also provided us
the following data: number of people referred to a district, number of
people transferred out of a district, number of people who left the United
States, and number of people law enforcement was unable to locate. We are
not presenting these data because EOUSA officials told us that the data
were unreliable for a variety of reasons. One reason cited was lack of
criteria for the categories. For example, if there was testimonial
evidence that a person left the country, one district might classify that
as "unable to locate" while another district might classify that as "left
the United States." Additionally, some districts might have double-
counted people in certain categories, such as people who might have
transferred in and out of a district. Finally, except for number of
interviews conducted, the other categories may have contained duplicate
entries. a FTTTF sent 8,335 nonimmigrant alien names to districts for
interviewing during the two phases of the

interview project. After eliminating some of the duplicate names, the
districts* lists of names totaled 7,602 as of March 14, 2003. There
remains a degree of inaccuracy even in this number because, among other
things, it contains duplicate names that were not always detected, as well
as data entry errors. b Guam/ Northern Mariana consists of two districts
that are under one U. S. Attorney.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments

Page 32 GAO- 03- 459 DOJ Interview Project

Richard M. Stana (202) 512- 8777 Evi L. Rezmovic (202) 512- 8777

In addition to the above, Cheryl Dorfman, Sam Van Wagner, Mark Macauley,
Keith Wandtke, David Alexander, Ann Finley, Jan Montgomery, and Amy
Rosewarne made key contributions to this report. Appendix IV: GAO Contacts
and

Acknowledgments GAO Contacts Acknowledgments

(440122)

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***