    US Attorneys: Performance-Based Initiatives are Evolving
    (28-MAY-04, GAO-04-422).

    Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 94 U.S. Attorneys
    Offices represent the United States in criminal and civil matters
    across the nation. The Government Performance and Results Act
    (GPRA) of 1993 requires federal agencies, including DOJ, to set
    goals and objectives, measure performance, and report their
    accomplishments in order to move toward a performance-based
    environment. Integral to achieving these goals and objectives is
    strategic human capital management--the marshalling, managing,
    and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government
    performance and achieve accountability. This report describes (1)
    how DOJ's strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys,
    (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance measures that
    apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses for
    monitoring the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ
    efforts to move toward strategic human capital management for
    U.S. Attorneys Offices.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-422
        ACCNO:   A10265
      TITLE:     US Attorneys: Performance-Based Initiatives are Evolving
         DATE:   05/28/2004
      SUBJECT:   Lawyers
    	     Monitoring
    	     Performance measures
    	     Personnel evaluation
    	     Personnel management
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Human capital

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-04-422

    United States General Accounting Office

    GAO

                           Report to Congressional Requesters

    May 2004

    U.S. ATTORNEYS

                       Performance-Based Initiatives Are Evolving

    GAO-04-422

    Highlights of GAO-04-422, a report to congressional requesters

    Within the Department of Justice (DOJ), the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices
    represent the United States in criminal and civil matters across the
    nation. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 requires
    federal agencies, including DOJ, to set goals and objectives, measure
    performance, and report their accomplishments in order to move toward a
    performance-based environment. Integral to achieving these goals and
    objectives is strategic human capital management--the marshalling,
    managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government
    performance and achieve accountability.

    This report describes (1) how DOJ's strategic goals and objectives apply
    to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance
    measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses for
    monitoring the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts
    to move toward strategic human capital management for U.S. Attorneys
    Offices.

    DOJ reviewed a draft of this report and had no comments.

    www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-04-422

    To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
    the link above. For more information, contact Paul L. Jones, 202-512-8777,
    Jonesp@gao.gov.

    May 2004

    U.S. ATTORNEYS

    Performance-Based Initiatives Are Evolving

    DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals and objectives
    applicable to its components, including U.S. Attorneys. Released in
    February 2004, DOJ's fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission
    showed the two strategic goals and seven strategic objectives applicable
    to U.S. Attorneys.

    DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S. Attorneys

    Source: GAO analysis of DOJ fiscal year 2005 budget submission for U.S.
    Attorneys.

    DOJ has developed performance measures for U.S. Attorneys' activities, and
    the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is exploring ways
    to measure performance in individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. Performance
    measures covering U.S. Attorneys continue to evolve. DOJ's fiscal year
    2005 congressional budget submission included an outcome measure-
    percentage of cases favorably resolved-that is intended to show how U.S.
    Attorneys contribute to DOJ's overall mission. According to DOJ budget
    officials, these measures will be revised as DOJ gains more experience
    with performance-based budgeting. EOUSA is also developing performance
    initiatives, for example, implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun
    violence, which includes developing related performance measures.

    DOJ is undertaking initiatives to provide better tools for monitoring the
    performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has redesigned its internal
    evaluation program and begun implementing a new process for collecting and
    analyzing information to assess each U.S. Attorneys Office's progress
    toward addressing DOJ's priorities and meeting performance expectations.
    According to DOJ officials, these tools will continue to evolve.

    DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate performance-based strategic
    human capital management into day-to-day operations, including those of
    U.S. Attorneys Offices. Among other things, EOUSA is exploring how to
    integrate DOJ strategic goals and objectives with individual performance
    expectations.

                                                 1.1 Prevent, disrupt, and defeat
                                           terrorist operations before they occur
                Goal 1 - Prevent          1.2 Investigate and prosecute those who
                terrorism and promote the    have committed, or intend to commit,
                nation's security             terrorist acts in the United States

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Background 2
    Results 4
    Concluding Observations 7
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 7

    Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Appendix IIInformation on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

    Appendix III Governmentwide Management and Performance

    Initiatives Affecting DOJ and Its Components 19

    The Government Performance and Results Act 19
    The Performance and Budget Initiative 20
    Strategic Human Capital Management 23

    Appendix IVDOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives Applicable
    to U.S. Attorneys

    Appendix VPerformance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Appendix VIDOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of
    U.S. Attorneys Offices Is Evolving 49

    Appendix VIIDOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to
    Move Toward Strategic Human Capital Management 60

    Appendix VIIISummary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys about Various Management Issues

    Performance Goals and Measures Monitoring Cases and Matters Performance
    Evaluation Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing Administrative Support 68

    69 69 70 71 72

    Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 75

    GAO Contact 75 Staff Acknowledgments 75

    Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management

    Tables

    Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual Performance
    Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 2004, and Associated
    Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004

    Table 2: DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That
    Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, Appropriated, and
    Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005

    Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys' Activities in DOJ's
    Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan

    Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for
    Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, and White-Collar Crime
    Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related Activities
    and Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases

    Table 5: DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives

                                           26

                                         29 31

                                         44 62

    Figures

    Figure 1: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S.
    Attorneys 5 Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts 17

    Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output
    Goals and Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal
    Structure 22

    Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for
    U.S Attorneys-Criminal Decision Unit 35
    Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for
    U.S Attorneys-Civil Decision Unit 37
    Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for
    U.S Attorneys-Legal Education Decision Unit 38
    Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Criminal Decision Unit 40
    Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Civil Decision Unit 41
    Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Legal Education Decision Unit 42

    Abbreviations

    ATAC Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council
    ATTF Anti-terrorism Task Force
    ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
    DEA Drug Enforcement Agency
    DHS Department of Homeland Security
    DOD Department of Defense
    DOJ Department of Justice
    DSES District Self Evaluation Survey
    EARS Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations
    EOUSA Executive Office for United States Attorneys
    FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
    FTE Full-time equivalent
    GPRA Government Performance and Results Act
    JMD Justice Management Division
    JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force
    MPS Management and Planning Staff
    OIG Office of Inspector General
    OMB Office of Management and Budget
    OPM Office of Personnel Management
    PART Program Assessment Rating Tool
    PMA President's Management Agenda
    PSN Project Safe Neighborhoods

    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. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548

    May 28, 2004

    The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
    Chairman
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
    Ranking Member
    Committee on the Judiciary
    House of Representatives

    The Honorable Chris Cannon
    Chairman
    The Honorable Melvin L. Watt
    Ranking Minority Member
    Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law
    Committee on the Judiciary
    House of Representatives

    With the advent of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)
    of 1993, federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), were
    to move toward performance-based management. GPRA requires agencies
    to, among other things, set goals, measure performance, and report on
    their accomplishments in their annual performance plans and annual
    performance reports. As a result of GPRA, DOJ has established a number
    of goals broadly intended to show how DOJ will carry out its law
    enforcement and administration of justice responsibilities. Within DOJ,
    the
    94 U.S. Attorneys Offices represent the United States in civil and
    criminal
    matters across the nation and its territories. U.S. Attorneys Offices
    localize
    the national criminal justice presence, while serving the different
    communities in which each is located. As the nation's principal
    litigators,
    U.S. Attorneys' performance is critical to DOJ achieving its goals and
    objectives under GPRA. Integral to achieving these goals and objectives is
    strategic human capital management-the marshaling, managing, and
    maintaining of the human capital needed to maximize government
    performance and ensure accountability. In this environment of increasing
    accountability and in light of the responsibilities of the U.S. Attorneys,
    it is
    important for Members of Congress to be able to understand how DOJ's
    strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, what DOJ is doing
    to develop performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, the tools
    DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and what
    initiatives DOJ has undertaken to foster strategic human capital
    management in U.S. Attorneys Offices.

    This report is the third in a series of reports responding to your request
    that we examine various aspects of the management of U.S. Attorneys
    Offices.1 In this report, we describe (1) how DOJ strategic goals and
    objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop
    performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ
    uses to monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ
    efforts to move toward strategic human capital management for U.S.
    Attorneys Offices.

    To address our objectives, we performed work at DOJ, including the
    Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Justice
    Management Division (JMD), and 10 U.S. Attorneys' Offices, selected
    primarily on the basis of geographic dispersion and office size. At these
    locations, we interviewed officials and obtained documents on strategic
    management and performance measurement issues, human capital management,
    and basic operational issues in the context of laws, regulations, and
    available guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
    the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), DOJ, and our best practices
    work. Our work at the 10 U.S. Attorneys Offices is not generalizable to
    the universe of U.S Attorneys Offices. We also surveyed 768 Supervisory
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys from across the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices using a
    Web-based survey instrument. The survey was designed to obtain
    supervisors' views on various aspects of management and human capital
    issues affecting the offices in which they worked. The survey represents
    the views of the 532 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who responded to
    our Web survey in early 2003.

    We did our work between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I discusses our
    scope and methodology in greater detail.

    U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government in
    criminal and civil proceedings. U.S. Attorneys investigate and prosecute a
    wide range of criminal activities-including international and domestic
    terrorism, corporate fraud, public corruption, violent crime, and drug
    trafficking-and handle the majority of criminal cases prosecuted by DOJ.

    1See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Executive
    Office for U. S. Attorneys Needs to Institutionalize Key IT Management
    Disciplines, GAO-03-751 (Washington, D.C.: July 2003) and U.S. Attorneys:
    Controls Over Grant-Related Activities Should Be Enhanced, GAO-03-733
    (Washington, D.C.: June 2003).

      Background

    They also initiate civil actions to protect the interests of the United
    States, represent and defend the interests of the government in lawsuits
    filed against the government, and collect debts owed the federal
    government that are administratively uncollectible. EOUSA provides the 94
    U.S. Attorneys Offices with general executive assistance and direction,
    policy development, administrative management direction and oversight,
    operational support, and coordination with other components of the
    department and other federal agencies.2 In fiscal year 2003, the budget
    for U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5 billion to support approximately 5,000
    attorneys and a similar number of support staff. (More detailed
    information on the history, operations, and structure of U.S. Attorneys
    Offices can be found in app. II.)

    U.S. Attorneys are not required to engage in strategic planning or
    performance planning under GPRA, but according to EOUSA's Director, U.S.
    Attorneys are required to contribute information to their parent agency,
    DOJ, so that DOJ can fulfill its GPRA requirements. GPRA's main documents
    are strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance
    reports. Together, these documents create a recurring cycle of planning,
    program execution, and reporting, thereby providing federal agencies the
    basis to manage for results. OMB Circular A-11 lays out guidelines for
    agencies to follow when implementing GPRA. According to Circular A-11,
    strategic plans provide the framework for implementing GPRA and set out an
    agency's course of action and accomplishment over the long term. Strategic
    plans are to include, among other things, strategic or general goals that
    are statements of aim or purpose defined in a manner that allows a future
    assessment to be made on whether the goal was or is being achieved.

    Complementing strategic plans are annual performance plans that set forth
    performance goals.3 According to Circular A-11, performance goals define
    targeted levels of performance against which actual achievements can be
    compared and can either be outcome goals-which describe the intended
    result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out a

    2There are 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices and 93 U.S. Attorneys--the same U.S.
    Attorney serves the District of Guam and the District of the Northern
    Mariana Islands.

    3According to OMB Circular A-11 dated July 2003, beginning with the budget
    for fiscal year 2005, agencies are to prepare a performance budget in lieu
    of the annual performance plan for their budget submission to OMB and
    Congress. The Circular stated that the performance budget should satisfy
    all statutory requirements for the annual performance plan.

      Results

    program or activity-or output goals-which describe the level of activity
    or effort that will be produced over a period of time or by a specified
    date. A performance measure is a particular value or characteristic used
    to measure output or outcome. To complete the cycle, annual performance
    reports provide information on actual performance compared to the
    projected performance levels or targets, defined by annual performance
    goals. (More detailed information on GPRA, Circular A-11, and
    governmentwide management and performance initiatives can be found in app.
    III.)

    As required by GPRA, DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals
    and objectives that apply to the activities of its components, including
    the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ's Strategic Plan for 2001 through
    2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan presented 8 strategic goals and
    38 strategic objectives-6 of these strategic goals and 12 of the strategic
    objectives involved the use of U.S. Attorneys' resources. For fiscal years
    2003 through 2008, DOJ has drafted, but had not yet released as of March
    2004, a new departmentwide strategic plan that DOJ officials told us would
    consolidate many of the strategic goals and objectives in the previous
    strategic plan. DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys
    Congressional Submission showed 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic
    objectives that will apply to U.S. Attorneys' activities. For example, the
    budget submission includes a strategic goal-prevent terrorism and promote
    the nation's security-and one of the strategic objectives for that goal is
    to prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur.
    (App. IV provides a more detailed discussion of how DOJ strategic goals
    and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys' activities.)

        Figure 1: DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S.
                                       Attorneys

                                                 1.1 Prevent, disrupt, and defeat
               Goal 1 - Prevent            terrorist operations before they occur
               terrorism and promote the  1.2 Investigate and prosecute those who
               nation's security             have committed, or intend to commit,
                                              terrorist acts in the United States

    Source: GAO analysis of DOJ fiscal year 2005 budget submission for U.S.
    Attorneys.

    DOJ has developed performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys'
    activities, and EOUSA is exploring ways to measure performance in
    individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan
    included performance measures applicable to U.S. Attorneys, which focused
    on selected areas, such as antiterrorism, civil litigation, and witness
    assistance, but did not cover activities related to violent crime, drugs,
    and other areas, such as fraud and corruption. Performance measures
    covering U.S. Attorneys' activities continued to evolve and, in its fiscal
    year 2005 congressional budget submission, DOJ included an outcome
    measure-percentage of cases favorably resolved-that is intended to show
    how U.S. Attorneys contribute to DOJ's overall mission. According to DOJ
    officials, the performance measures for U.S. Attorneys and the format for
    presenting these measures will continue to evolve and will be revised as
    DOJ gains more experience with performance-based budgeting. In the
    meantime, EOUSA and individual U.S. Attorneys Offices have also been
    developing ways to measure performance in U.S. Attorneys Offices. For
    example, EOUSA has begun the process to engage a contractor to design
    performance measures that will link U.S. Attorneys Office activities to
    the overall U.S. Attorneys' budget; EOUSA has funded one district's
    efforts to develop its own strategic plan to help it measure districtwide
    performance; and EOUSA and individual U.S. Attorneys' Offices are
    implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun violence, which includes
    developing related performance measures. (App. V provides a more detailed
    discussion on DOJ's and EOUSA's efforts to establish performance measures
    of U.S. Attorney activities.)

    DOJ is making revisions to an ongoing internal evaluation program and
    developing a performance reporting process that are intended to provide
    DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys better tools for monitoring the performance
    of U.S. Attorneys' Offices. Specifically:

    o  	EOUSA has redesigned its ongoing internal evaluation program for U.S.
    Attorneys Offices to focus more attention on "critical areas of management
    and performance," such as strategic planning, senior management
    operations, and DOJ's priority programs (e.g., antiterrorism, violent
    crimes and drugs, and civil rights prosecutions). As of February 2004,
    EOUSA had not completed all elements of the redesign, but our review of
    guidance issued by EOUSA as part of this redesign showed attention to
    results oriented management, including strategic planning and performance
    management. EOUSA officials also told us that they had made additional
    changes to the guidance and would continue to do so during the remainder
    of fiscal year 2004.

    o  	EOUSA has begun to implement a process for collecting from U.S.
    Attorneys Offices information "based on qualitative and quantitative
    measures," regarding their efforts to meet DOJ's performance and
    management expectations. As EOUSA gains more experience, this process and
    the information being required from each U.S. Attorney's Office continues
    to evolve. We compared EOUSA's original template for collecting 2002
    information and its revised draft template for collecting 2003
    information. Our analysis showed that the latest draft guidelines were
    more specific and targeted than the earlier version. EOUSA officials told
    us that it may be difficult to develop a quantitative measure, because the
    factors affecting how each U.S. Attorney's Office could best meet an
    objective vary according to local situations.

    (App. VI provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ's efforts to monitor
    the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices.)

    As part of its efforts to move toward performance-based management,
    generally, DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate strategic human
    capital management into the day-to-day operations of EOUSA and U.S.
    Attorneys Offices. Specifically, in September 2002, DOJ published its
    Human Capital Strategic Plan. The plan applied to personnel in DOJ's
    components, such as the U.S. Attorneys, and was linked to its overall
    Strategic Plan. Subsequently, however, DOJ's Inspector General and OMB
    identified human capital challenges facing DOJ, for example, DOJ's ability
    to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees in many
    areas of operation. DOJ's Director of Personnel told us that DOJ is
    currently taking steps to move forward with its human capital efforts,
    including, for

    Concluding Observations

    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

    example, developing a new employee appraisal system. In addition to DOJ's
    departmentwide efforts, EOUSA is considering its own human capital
    initiatives, including hiring an experienced manager to lead EOUSA's human
    capital management effort. EOUSA is also working with U.S. Attorneys to
    develop new management training that is expected to include course work on
    individual performance management and organizational strategic planning.
    EOUSA is also working with the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Middle
    District of Tennessee to develop the prototype for a new appraisal format
    that is to link individual performance with organizational goals and
    objectives. (App. VII provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ's and
    EOUSA's efforts to integrate strategic human capital management into
    day-to-day operations.)

    U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government and
    localize the national criminal justice presence in communities across the
    country. The performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is critical to DOJ
    achieving its strategic goals and objectives. DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S.
    Attorneys have taken or are considering various steps that are designed to
    move U.S. Attorneys Offices toward a more results oriented,
    performancebased environment consistent with GPRA and governmentwide
    efforts to strategically manage human capital. However, many initiatives
    are not yet complete and some are in the early planning stages. DOJ's,
    EOUSA's, and U.S. Attorneys' efforts thus far appear to be steps in the
    right direction. However, these initiatives will continue to evolve and
    they bear watching to help ensure that DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys take
    advantage of their momentum and build on the progress already made.

    On May 3, 2004, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the
    Attorney General. On May 19, 2004, DOJ officials informed us that the
    agency had no comments on the report. DOJ provided technical comments that
    we have incorporated where appropriate.

    As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 21 days
    after its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
    other interested congressional committees and to the Attorney General. We
    will also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
    report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at
    http://www.gao.gov.

    If you have any questions, please contact me or John F. Mortin, Assistant
    Director, at (202) 512-8777. You may also contact me by e-mail at
    jonespl@gao.gov or Mr. Mortin at mortinj@gao.gov. Key contributors to
    this report are listed in appendix IX.

    Paul L. Jones, Director
    Homeland Security and Justice Issues

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    Our objectives in this report were to describe (1) how Department of
    Justice (DOJ) strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2)
    DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance measures that apply to U.S.
    Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human
    capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices.

    We performed our work at DOJ, including the Executive Office for United
    States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the Justice Management Division (JMD) in
    Washington, D.C. We also performed work at 10 selected U.S. Attorneys
    Offices-the districts of Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Carolina;
    the Southern District of Indiana; the Western District of Washington; the
    Central District of California; the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the
    Western District of Texas; and the Eastern District of Virginia. We
    selected the 10 offices primarily to achieve geographic dispersion and a
    mix of office sizes.1 In making our final selections, we focused on
    districts where a U.S. Attorney had been appointed. At each of the 10
    offices, we met with the U.S. Attorney and his or her key managers and
    using a standardized data collection instrument, we discussed issues and
    collected documents pertaining to strategic and performance planning,
    performance measurement, and goal setting; office and staff
    accountability; and human capital, including the allocation of human
    capital resources and recruiting and retention for attorneys and support
    staff. Our work at the 10 selected offices is not generalizable to the
    universe of U.S. Attorneys Offices. In addition, we obtained and reviewed
    reports and Web-based material on the overall management of DOJ, EOUSA,
    and U.S. Attorneys Offices; and laws and regulations governing DOJ, EOUSA,
    and U.S. Attorney operations. Furthermore, we obtained and reviewed
    relevant laws, regulations, and reports pertaining to the implementation
    of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, performance
    and budget integration, and human capital strategic management.

    To describe (1) how DOJ strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S.
    Attorneys and (2) DOJ's plans and efforts to develop performance measures
    that apply to U.S. Attorneys, we reviewed DOJ's Strategic Plan for fiscal
    years 2001 through 2006 and DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report &
    Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year

    1EOUSA defines an extra-large office as having 100 or more attorneys; a
    large office as having 44 to 99 attorneys; a medium office as having 25 to
    43 attorneys; and a small office as having less than 25 attorneys.

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    2004 Performance Plan. We also examined the U.S. Attorney's congressional
    budget submission for fiscal year 2004, submitted to Congress in February
    2003, and its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, submitted
    in February 2004, as part of the President's budget. We reviewed these
    documents in the context of GPRA and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    Circular A-11, which provides guidance on (1) agency strategic and
    performance planning and reporting related to GPRA and (2) developing a
    performance-based budget under the President's performance and budget
    initiative. We also interviewed officials at DOJ, including JMD, EOUSA,
    and the 10 selected U.S. Attorneys Offices and obtained available
    documents on DOJ's and EOUSA's efforts to (1) develop performance measures
    for U.S. Attorneys and their offices and (2) link performance measures for
    U.S. Attorneys' performance to the U.S. Attorney's budget. In addition, we
    reviewed our past reports that addressed strategic and performance
    planning, including measuring performance, at DOJ and at other agencies
    throughout the federal government. Furthermore, we examined reports by
    DOJ's Office of Inspector General (OIG) on the top management challenges
    facing DOJ for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 pertaining to performance
    measurement and strategic planning and reviewed available OMB documents on
    federal agency efforts to implement the performance and budget initiative
    under the President's Management Agenda (PMA).

    To describe the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices, we interviewed officials at EOUSA and the 10 selected
    offices and obtained and reviewed available documentation on the
    strategies, policies, procedures, and practices used to assess the
    performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and plans to develop new or revise
    existing performance assessment initiatives. We then discussed our
    examination of these documents with EOUSA officials to further gain an
    understanding of their efforts.

    To describe DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital management
    for U.S. Attorneys Offices, we reviewed our reports, and OMB and Office of
    Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines on strategic human capital
    management.2 We also interviewed officials at JMD, EOUSA, and the 10
    selected U.S. Attorneys Offices and obtained and

    2See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update, GAO-01-262
    (Washington, D.C.: January 2001); High-Risk Series: Strategic Human
    Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003); and Human
    Capital: A Self Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G
    (Washington, D.C.: September 2000).

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    analyzed documentation on their efforts to develop policies, procedures,
    and practices for adopting and implementing DOJ's and EOUSA's human
    capital strategies. In addition, we obtained and analyzed management
    challenge reports issued by DOJ's OIG and examined OMB budget documents
    and reports that discussed DOJ's progress implementing its human capital
    initiative. Furthermore, we discussed OIG and OMB comments about DOJ's
    efforts with its Director of Personnel.

    To supplement our efforts on performance management and human capital
    issues, we also designed and implemented a Web-based survey of the
    universe of 768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in each of the 94
    U.S. Attorneys Offices covering various topics related to the management
    of U.S. Attorneys Offices. We developed the survey to obtain the
    supervisors perceptions of key management topics pertaining to performance
    goals and measurement and aspects of U.S. Attorney's human capital
    framework, particularly workforce planning and training and staff
    development. To implement our survey, we obtained a list of the universe
    of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from EOUSA and worked with EOUSA
    officials to ensure that the list accurately reflected all Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys in supervisory positions as of January 2003. To ensure that we
    obtained the highest response rate possible, we made the Web-based survey
    available to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from January 8, 2003,
    through February 28, 2003, and sent reminders via e-mail and telephone
    calls to supervisors. While the overall response rate was relatively high
    (70 percent overall), not all supervisors who completed the surveys
    provided responses to all the appropriate questions. We did not
    independently verify the accuracy or completeness of responses provided
    from the survey. Moreover, the responses presented in this report reflect
    the views of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in early 2003, at the
    time the survey was conducted.

    Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors.
    However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce
    errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example,
    difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources
    of information that are available to respondents, or in how the data are
    entered into a database or were analyzed, can introduce unwanted
    variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of
    the questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize
    these nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists
    designed the questionnaire in collaboration with our staff with subject
    matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a
    number of Supervisory U.S. Attorneys to ensure that the questions were

    Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

    relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. When the data were
    analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer programs.
    Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their answers
    directly into the electronic questionnaire. This eliminates the need to
    have the data keyed into a database, thus removing an additional source of
    error.

    Our work was performed between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance
    with generally accepted government auditing standards.

    Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

    U.S. Attorneys, the principal litigators for the federal government in
    criminal and civil proceedings are, by statute, under supervisory control
    of the Attorney General. Since the earliest days of the nation's history,
    U.S. Attorneys have prosecuted cases in the federal judicial districts.
    The Judiciary Act of 1789 directed the President to appoint an attorney
    for each federal judicial district to prosecute all crimes and offenses
    against the United States and all civil actions in which the United States
    was concerned.1 At that time, U.S. Attorneys prosecuted only crimes
    specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as piracy, treason, and
    counterfeiting. Today, under Title 28 U.S.C. 547, U.S. Attorneys prosecute
    criminal cases brought by the federal government; prosecute and defend
    civil cases in which the United States is a party; and collect debts owed
    the federal government that are administratively uncollectible.

    Following the passage of the Judiciary Act, U.S. Attorneys functioned
    until 1820 without supervision by any executive agency. At that time,
    Congress paved the way for some central oversight of U.S. Attorneys by
    giving the President power to designate an officer within the Department
    of the Treasury to oversee U.S. Attorneys' activities. Authority over U.S.
    Attorneys then shifted to the Attorney General in 1870 when the Department
    of Justice (DOJ) was established. Since then, U.S. Attorneys have served
    at the direction of the Attorney General. As the head of DOJ, the Attorney
    General is to supervise all litigation to which the United States is a
    party and direct all U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the
    discharge of their duties. While DOJ participates in the appointment
    process for each U.S. Attorney by recommending to the President the names
    of qualified nominees, each is a presidential appointee, confirmed by the
    Senate, and serves as the chief federal law enforcement official in their
    communities. As such, they serve to "localize" the national government's
    criminal justice's presence. Consequently, although the Attorney General
    supervises U.S. Attorneys, they also serve the different and diverse
    communities to which they are appointed. According to the Executive Office
    for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), a degree of tension

    11 Stat. 73, 92-93. The Judiciary Act also provided for the appointment of
    the Attorney General to represent the United States in litigation before
    the Supreme Court and to furnish legal advice to the President and
    department heads.

    Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

    will always exist between the local and national mandates of U.S.
    Attorneys.2

    EOUSA was established in 1953 in the Office of the Deputy Attorney
    General. Among other things, EOUSA provides general executive assistance
    to the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices and is responsible for preparing the U.S.
    Attorneys congressional budget submission and providing oversight and
    operational support. EOUSA also facilitates coordination between U.S.
    Attorneys Offices and other federal agencies and other DOJ components,3
    including

    o  	litigating divisions--such as the Civil Division, Criminal Division,
    the Civil Rights Division, and the Antitrust Division-which, along with
    U.S. Attorneys, enforce federal criminal and civil laws, including civil
    rights, tax, antitrust, environmental, and civil justice statutes;

    o  	investigative agencies-including the Federal Bureau of Investigation
    (FBI); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and the Bureau of
    Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)-which prevent and deter
    crime and arrest criminal suspects;4 and

    2Redeployment of United States Attorneys' Personnel, (N.D.), A Report by
    the Executive Office for United States Attorneys as Requested by Senate
    Report 105-235 Regarding FY 1999 Appropriations for the Department of
    Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies.

    3The 40 component organizations are the Office of the Attorney General,
    the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate
    Attorney General, the Office of the Solicitor General, the Office of the
    Inspector General, the Office of Legal Counsel, the Office of Legal
    Policy, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, the Office of
    Professional Responsibility, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office
    of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, the Office of Information and
    Privacy, the Office of Public Affairs, the Office of Dispute Resolution,
    the Justice Management Division, the Executive Office for United States
    Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the Civil Division, the Civil Rights
    Division, the Criminal Division, the Environment and Natural Resources
    Division, the Tax Division, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Drug
    Enforcement Administration, the FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service,
    Interpol - U.S. National Central Bureau, the Executive Office for
    Immigration Review, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, the U.S. Parole
    Commission, the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, the Community
    Relations Service, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United
    States, the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Community Oriented
    Policing Services, the National Drug Intelligence Center, the Professional
    Responsibility Advisory Office, the Office of Federal Detention Trustee,
    and the Office of Violence Against Women. According to a JMD official, DOJ
    treats EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys as one component.

    4The U.S. Attorneys also litigate cases for investigative agencies outside
    of DOJ, for example, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in the
    Department of Homeland Security.

    Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

    o  	the Justice Management Division (JMD) which, among other things,
    provides (1) assistance to senior DOJ managers, on various organizational,
    management, and administrative issues and (2) direct support to DOJ
    offices, boards, and divisions on such things as personnel, accounting,
    and budget matters.

    According to DOJ's fiscal year 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys,
    U.S. Attorneys Offices handle about 95 percent of the criminal cases
    prosecuted by DOJ. U.S. Attorneys receive most of their criminal
    referrals, or "matters," from federal investigative agencies or become
    aware of criminal activities in the course of investigating or prosecuting
    other cases. In addition, they receive criminal matters from state and
    local investigative agencies or, occasionally, from citizens. Once a
    matter is received, the U.S. Attorney's Office decides the appropriateness
    of bringing criminal charges and, if deemed appropriate, initiates
    prosecutions. Except for misdemeanor offenses and instances in which an
    alleged offender waives the right to a grand jury indictment, the U.S.
    Attorney presents evidence against an alleged offender to a grand jury. If
    the grand jury decides to return an indictment, the U.S. Attorney presents
    the criminal charges in open court during criminal arraignment. In its
    fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, DOJ reported that during
    fiscal year 2003, U.S. Attorneys Offices received 102,563 criminal
    matters. The offices reviewed and declined to bring charges on a total of
    39,172 criminal matters during the year and filed 59,998 criminal cases
    against 81,624 defendants in U.S. District Court.

    U.S. Attorneys also initiate civil actions-called affirmative
    litigation-to assert and protect the interests of the United States and
    defend the interests of the government in lawsuits filed against the
    United States- referred to as defensive litigation. DOJ reported in its
    fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission that of all the civil
    cases pending as of the end of fiscal year 2003, 74 percent were defensive
    litigation. DOJ also stated that civil matters and cases represented a
    significant portion of U.S. Attorneys Offices' workload, reporting in its
    2005 congressional budget submission that by the end of fiscal year 2003,
    pending civil cases represented 64 percent of the 176,587 pending criminal
    and civil cases in U.S. Attorneys Offices.

    The fiscal year 2004 appropriation for U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5
    billion to support approximately 5,000 attorneys and a similar number of
    support staff. Almost all these attorneys and staff worked in the 94
    federal judicial districts throughout the 50 states, the District of

    Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

    Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin
    Islands.5

    Figure 2 shows the boundaries of each of the 94 U.S. Attorney Districts.

    5The 94 U.S. Attorney Offices and their branch locations comprise over 240
    sites.

    Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

                         Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts

    Appendix II: Information on the History, Operations, and Structure of U.S
    Attorneys Offices

                             Key to U.S. Attorney Districts

           ALN - Northern      KYE - Eastern District of  OKE - Eastern District
        District of Alabama            Kentucky           of Oklahoma
    ALM - Middle District   KYW - Western District of  OKN - Northern District
             of Alabama                Kentucky           of Oklahoma
           ALS - Southern       LAE-Eastern District of   OKW - Western District
        District of Alabama            Louisiana          of Oklahoma
          AK - District of     LAM - Middle District of   OR - District of Oregon
               Alaska                  Louisiana
          AZ - District of     LAW - Western District of   PAE - Eastern District
              Arizona                  Louisiana                  of Pennsylvania
    ARE - Eastern District   ME - District of Maine    PAM - Middle District
            of Arkansas                                   of Pennsylvania
    ARW - Western District  MD - District of Maryland   PAW - Western District
            of Arkansas                                           of Pennsylvania
    CAC - Central District      MA - District of       PR - District of Puerto
           of California             Massachusetts                 Rico
    CAE - Eastern District  MIE - Eastern District of  RI - District of Rhode
           of California               Michigan                   Island
           CAN - Northern      MIW - Western District of  SC - District of South
    District of California          Michigan                  Carolina
           CAS - Southern     MN - District of Minnesota  SD - District of South
    District of California                                     Dakota
          CO - District of    MSN - Northern District of  TNE - Eastern District
              Colorado                Mississippi         of Tennessee
          CT - District of    MSS - Southern District of  TNM - Middle District
            Connecticut               Mississippi         of Tennessee
          DC - District of     MOE - Eastern District of  TNW - Western District
              Columbia                 Missouri           of Tennessee
          DE - District of     MOW - Western District of  TXE - Eastern District
              Delaware                 Missouri                  of Texas
    FLM - Middle District   MT - District of Montana   TXN - Northern District
             of Florida                                          of Texas
           FLN - Northern      NE - District of Nebraska  TXS - Southern District
        District of Florida                                      of Texas
           FLS - Southern       NV - District of Nevada   TXW - Western District
        District of Florida                                      of Texas
    GAM - Middle District     NH - District of New      UT - District of Utah
             of Georgia                Hampshire
           GAN - Northern     NJ - District of New Jersey    VT - District of
        District of Georgia                                       Vermont
           GAS - Southern     NM - District of New Mexico  VI - District of the
        District of Georgia                                   Virgin Islands
        GU-District of Guam   NMI - District of the       VAE - Eastern District
                              Northern Marianas Islands         of Virginia
          HI - District of     NYE - Eastern District of  VAW - Western District
               Hawaii                  New York           of Virginia
    ID - District of Idaho NYN - Northern District of  WAE - Eastern District
                                       New York           of Washington
    ILC - Central District NYS - Southern District of   WAW - Western District
            of Illinois                New York                     of Washington
           ILN - Northern      NYW - Western District of  WVN - Northern District
        District of Illinois           New York                  of West Virginia
           ILS - Southern      NCE - Eastern District of  WVS - Southern District
        District of Illinois        North Carolina               of West Virginia
           INN - Northern      NCM - Middle District of   WIE - Eastern District
        District of Indiana         North Carolina        of Wisconsin
           INS - Southern      NCW - Western District of  WIW - Western District
        District of Indiana         North Carolina        of Wisconsin
           IAN - Northern       ND - District of North       WY - District of
          District of Iowa              Dakota                    Wyoming
           IAS - Southern     OHN - Northern District of
          District of Iowa               Ohio
          KS - District of    OHS - Southern District of
               Kansas                    Ohio
    Source: U.S. Attorneys
             Web page.

    Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives Affecting
    DOJ and Its Components

      The Government Performance and Results Act

    Since the mid-1990s, the federal government has implemented various
    initiatives to improve the management and performance of federal agencies,
    including the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its components.

    The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 19931 seeks to
    improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of federal
    programs by mandating that agencies set goals for program performance and
    measure results. Under GPRA, agencies are required to develop strategic
    plans that identify their long-range goals and objectives; annual
    performance plans that set forth annual goals and indicators of
    performance; and annual performance reports that describe the actual
    levels of performance achieved compared to the annual goal. These plans
    and reports are designed to define a course to improve the performance of
    government programs and operations and are intended to show what is being
    accomplished with the money that is being spent. GPRA plans and reports
    are developed for use by

    o  	agency officials and staff in leading, managing, and carrying out
    federal programs and activities;

    o  	the President and Congress when forming programmatic and policy
    decisions and for oversight; and

    o  	the public for information on the purpose and effectiveness of
    programs and activities and the resources spent in conducting them.

    Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 provides guidelines
    for agencies to follow when developing GPRA plans and reports. According
    to the July 2002 A-11 Circular,2 strategic plans are to include general
    goals, which define how an agency is to carry out its mission over time.
    These general goals are to be expressed to allow for a future assessment
    of whether the goal was or is being achieved. Strategic plans can also
    include strategic objectives-statements of aim or purpose, which are not
    directly measurable, but can be used to group general goals.

    1Pub. L. No. 103-62.

    2OMB Circular A-11 was revised during our review; therefore, we indicate
    the date of the Circular for the provisions cited.

    Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
    Affecting DOJ and Its Components

    Annual performance plans are to contain performance goals, performance
    objectives, and performance measures or indicators that target levels of
    performance. Annual performance goals are to be expressed as tangible,
    measurable objectives against which achievement can be compared.
    Performance goals are to be either (1) outcome goals, which describe
    intended results, effects, or consequences that were expected to occur
    from carrying out a program or activity or (2) output goals, which measure
    what an agency is to produce. Agencies are instructed by OMB Circular A-11
    that performance goals and indicators typically are to have a numerical
    target level or other measurable value, which facilitates the future
    assessment of whether the goals and indicators were actually achieved.

    Finally, annual performance reports are to provide information on
    agencies' actual performance and their progress in achieving the goals and
    objectives in the strategic plan and annual performance plan. Actual
    performance is to be compared to the projected performance levels or
    targets in the annual performance plan. Where target levels are not
    achieved, the agency is to explain why and describe the steps to be taken
    to accomplish goals in the future. According to Circular A-11, agencies
    may combine performance reports with performance plans.

    Under GPRA and OMB Circular A-11, only agencies, such as DOJ, and not
    components of agencies, such as U.S. Attorneys, are required to prepare
    strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports. However,
    strategic plans are to focus on those programs and activities, like those
    of U.S. Attorneys, that help agencies carry out their mission, and annual
    performance plans are to link agencies daily operations to the broad goals
    and objectives in the strategic plans.

    Related to GPRA is the Performance and Budget Initiative. In the summer of
    2001, the President announced that agencies would be required to integrate
    their budgets with performance information to provide a greater focus on
    performance and increase the value and use of program performance
    information in resource and management decisions.3

      The Performance and Budget Initiative

    3The President announced his strategy-called the President's Management
    Agenda (PMA)-for improving the management and performance of the federal
    government. Under PMA, the President identified five crosscutting
    management initiatives that are linked and support each other; budget and
    performance integration, strategic human capital management, improved
    financial performance, expanded electronic government, and competitive
    sourcing.

    Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
    Affecting DOJ and Its Components

    Beginning with the budget for fiscal year 2005, OMB requires agencies to
    prepare a performance budget in lieu of the performance plan. According to
    the latest OMB Circular A-11, dated July 2003, the performance budget is
    supposed to satisfy all statutory requirements for the annual performance
    plan required by GPRA.

    Under the July 2003 OMB Circular A-11, strategic goals are to be paired
    with related long-term performance goals (outcomes) and annual performance
    goals (mainly outputs); target levels of performance are to be set for
    performance goals. According to the Circular, resources and organizational
    efforts should be directly linked to outputs, and the resources and
    outputs should be summed to outcomes. Figure 3 uses a pyramid, developed
    by OMB, to illustrate the relationship between strategic, outcome, and
    output goals and resources under OMB's fully integrated goal structure.

    Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
    Affecting DOJ and Its Components

    Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output Goals and
    Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal Structure

    Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11,
    Part 6, june 2002.

    a Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
    prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

    OMB has also begun to link performance and the budget process under its
    Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Using PART, OMB has been rating
    programs in four areas-program design, strategic planning, program
    management, and program results-and intends to use the results of these
    assessments during the budget review process to diagnose how programs can
    be improved and to inform budget and management

    Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
    Affecting DOJ and Its Components

      Strategic Human Capital Management

    decisions.4 According to OMB Circular A-11, PART assessments will span all
    executive branch programs over the next several years. In addition, OMB
    has established a quarterly rating system to grade agency (1) progress and
    (2) status in meeting the President's Management Agenda (PMA). Budget and
    performance integration is one of the five initiatives in PMA, which uses
    a score card to reflect progress: a score of red indicates that the
    initiative is in serious jeopardy; a score of yellow indicates that there
    is slippage in the implementation schedule requiring adjustments by the
    agency to achieve the initiative on a timely basis; and a score of green
    indicates that implementation is proceeding according to plans. For OMB's
    status score, red indicates that the agency's efforts has any of a number
    of serious flaws; yellow indicates that the agency has met some, but not
    all of the criteria or standards for success; and green indicates that the
    agency meets all of the standards for success.

    Related to the government's overall effort to improve the management and
    performance of federal agencies is strategic human capital management. In
    January 2001, we designated strategic human capital management as a
    governmentwide high-risk area.5 In January 2003, we reported that the
    basic problem, which continues today, has been the long-standing lack of a
    consistent approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining the human
    capital needed to maximize government performance and ensure
    accountability.6 In our January 2003 report, we stated that two principles
    are central to human capital management:

    o  	People are assets whose value can be enhanced through investment. As
    with any investment, the goal is to maximize value while managing risk.

    o  	An organization's human capital approaches should be designed,
    implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the
    organization achieve and pursue its mission.

    4OMB is using PART to assess the effectiveness of programs-defined as the
    list of agency programs and activities that appear in Program and
    Financing Schedules of the Budget Appendix. PART supports the assessment
    of four aspects of a program-does the program perform a clear federal
    role; has an agency set valid long-term and annual goals for the program;
    is the program well-managed; and is the program achieving the results set
    forth in the agency's GPRA plans?

    5See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update, GAO-01-263
    (Washington, D.C.: January 2001).

    6See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human
    Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

    Appendix III: Governmentwide Management and Performance Initiatives
    Affecting DOJ and Its Components

    We also said that agencies face challenges in four key areas:

    o  	Leadership: Top leadership in the agencies must provide the committed
    and inspired attention needed to address human capital and related
    organizational transformation issues.

    o  	Strategic human capital planning: Agencies human capital planning
    efforts need to be more fully and demonstrably integrated with mission and
    critical program goals.

    o  	Acquiring, developing, and retaining talent: Additional efforts are
    needed to improve recruiting, hiring, professional development, and
    retention strategies to ensure that agencies have the needed talent.

    o  	Results oriented organizational cultures: Agencies continue to lack
    organizational cultures that promote high performance and accountability
    and empower and include employees in setting and accomplishing
    programmatic goals.

    Various GAO products on strategic human capital management are listed at
    the end of this report.

    Strategic human capital management has also been designated as one of the
    five governmentwide initiatives under PMA. The Office of Personnel
    Management (OPM) is leading the federal government's strategic management
    of human capital initiative. Among other things, OPM is responsible for
    developing tools and providing support to help agencies succeed in their
    human capital transformation efforts. Similar to the performance and
    budget integration initiative, OMB has been grading agency progress and
    status on strategic human capital management using a red, green, and
    yellow scoring system.

    Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives Applicable to
    U.S. Attorneys

    As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993,
    the Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed departmentwide strategic
    goals and objectives that apply to the activities of its components,
    including U.S. Attorneys. DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001
    through 2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan identified 6 of 8
    strategic goals, and 12 of 38 long-term strategic objectives that applied
    to the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ has drafted a new departmentwide
    strategic plan for fiscal years 2003 through 2008 that is expected to
    consolidate many of the strategic goals and objectives in the previous
    strategic plan it will replace. DOJ's fiscal year 2005 congressional
    budget submission, which, according to DOJ, corresponds to its new
    strategic plan,1 showed that 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic objectives
    are to apply to U.S. Attorneys' activities.

      DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through Fiscal Year 2006 Strategic Plan Included
      Strategic Goals and Objectives That Applied to U.S. Attorneys' Activities

    DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8 strategic
    goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004
    Performance Plan listed 38 annual performance goals that were identical to
    DOJ's 38 long-term strategic objectives. These strategic objectives/annual
    performance goals were presented in the context of DOJ budget activities
    and, among other things, showed the resources-Fulltime equivalents (FTEs)
    and dollars-by component organization, needed to address them.2 For
    example, DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan showed that to address
    DOJ's annual performance goal 2.1-reduce the threat, incidence, and
    prevalence of violent crime, especially as it stems from the illegal use
    of guns or from organized criminal enterprises-DOJ expected that it would
    use 12,624 FTEs from various components, including the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI), the Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorneys, at a cost
    of about $1.9 billion during fiscal year 2004. U.S. Attorneys were
    expected to contribute 1,751 FTEs and $238 million toward this effort.

    The plan identified U.S. Attorneys as key players engaged in addressing
    various strategic objectives/annual performance goals. DOJ's Fiscal Year

    1At the time of our review, DOJ's new strategic plan had not been
    released.

    2Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
    prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

    Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives
    Applicable to U.S. Attorneys

    2004 Performance Plan, showed that 6 of 8 annual strategic goals and 12 of
    38 strategic objectives/annual performance goals involved the use of U.S.
    Attorneys' resources in meeting DOJ's mission. Table 1 shows the 6 DOJ
    strategic goals and the 12 strategic objectives/annual performance goals
    that, according to DOJ's fiscal year 2004 Performance Plan, involved the
    use of U.S. Attorney resources.

    Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual Performance
    Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 2004, and Associated
    Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004

                                  Dollars in millions

    DOJ stategic DOJ strategic
                    objective/annual
          goala        performance goala    Fiscal year Fiscal year  Fiscal year
                                               2002         2003     2004
                                                 Actual    Requested    Requested
                                                   FTEb FTEb dollars FTEb dollars
                                                dollars

    1. Protect America against the threat of terrorism

    1.1 Prevent terrorism-Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations
    before they occur

                                   15 $2 55 $7 55 $7

    1.2 Investigate terrorist acts-Develop and implement the full range of
    resources available to investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their
    perpetrators to justice

          1.3 Prosecute terrorist acts-Vigorously  281    63    463    61     463
              prosecute those who have committed,
              or intend to commit, terrorist acts
                        against the United States

    2. Enforce federal criminal laws

              2.1 Violent Crime-Reduce the threat, 1,661  219  1,720   228  1,751
              incidence, and prevalence of violent
        crime, especially as it stems from illegal
            use of guns or from organized criminal
                                        enterprise

                        2.2 Drugs-Reduce the threat, 2,725  359  2,869  380 2,916
        trafficking, and related violence of illegal
               drugs by identifying, disrupting, and
                        dismantling drug trafficking
                                       organizations

    2.4 White-collar crime-Combat white-2,644 348 2,798 370 2,844 384
    collar crime and economic crime,
    especially cybercrime

    3. Prevent and reduce crime and violence by assisting state, tribal,
    local, and community-based programs

                 3.1 Law enforcement-Improve the  20    3    22    3    22      3
             crime fighting and criminal justice
           administration capabilities of state,
                   tribal, and local governments

    Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives
    Applicable to U.S. Attorneys

                                  Dollars in millions

    DOJ stategic DOJ strategic objective/annual
    goala performance goala Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004

                                          FTEb

    Actual dollars FTEb

    Requested dollars FTEb

    Requested dollars 4. Protect the rights and interests of the American
    people by legal representation, enforcement of federal laws, and defense
    of U.S. interests

           4.1 Civil rights-Uphold the civil rights   18     2    19    3      19
                    of all Americans, reduce racial
                        discrimination, and promote
                    reconciliation through vigorous
                   enforcement of civil rights laws

                     4.2 Environment-Promote the   62     8     67     9       67
            stewardship of America's environment
               and natural resources through the
                      enforcement and defense of
                 environmental laws and programs

    4.5 Civil laws-Effectively represent the 2,418 306 2,610 346 2,656
    interests of the United States in all civil
    matters for which DOJ has jurisdiction

    5. Fairly and effectively administer the immigration and naturalization
    laws of the United States

    5.1. Enforcement-Secure America's 435 47 470 62 470
    borders, especially to reduce the
    incidence of alien smuggling

    7. Protect the federal judiciary and provide critical support to the
    federal justice system to ensure it operates effectively

          7.2 Victims rights-Protect the rights of  258    31    279    37    279
           crime victims and assist them in moving
              through the processes of the federal
                                    justice system

                    Total 10,537 $1,388 11,372 $1,506 11,542 $1,557

    Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal
    Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance
    Plan.

    aDOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8 strategic
    goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004
    Performance Plan discussed 38 annual performance goals that were identical
    to DOJ's 38 long-term strategic objectives.

    bFull-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
    prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

    JMD officials told us that DOJ's strategic plan is produced using what
    they described as a "top down" approach to strategic planning. Under this
    approach, DOJ's Strategic Plan Executive Working Group, composed of
    officials from the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
    General, and the Associate Attorney General, and other DOJ offices,
    identifies strategic goals and objectives. JMD's Management and Planning
    Staff (MPS) solicits components, including EOUSA, for background,

    Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives
    Applicable to U.S. Attorneys

    strategies, and other input supporting the goals and objectives that
    affect their organizations, and develops a draft strategic plan. The draft
    plan is reviewed by the Executive Working Group and presented to DOJ's
    Strategic Management Council, which represents DOJ's key components, for
    concurrence before the Attorney General approves it. In February 2004, JMD
    officials told us that EOUSA was currently providing JMD input toward the
    development of DOJ's fiscal years 2003 through 2008 strategic plan.

      DOJ's Fiscal Year 2005 Congressional Budget Submission Includes Revised
      Strategic Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. Attorneys Activities

    JMD officials said that EOUSA had recently provided JMD input toward the
    development of DOJ's Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 Strategic Plan, which
    had not been issued as of March 2004. However, JMD officials said that the
    new strategic goals and objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys were
    published in the Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget United States
    Attorneys Congressional Submission, which is organized to better conform
    with OMB Circular A-11 regarding performance and budget integration.

    JMD officials told us that the new strategic plan would substantively be
    similar to DOJ's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006 and
    they had consolidated strategic goals and objectives resulting in fewer
    goals and objectives than in the previous plan. In fact, the fiscal year
    2005 congressional budget submission, published in February 2004, shows
    that U.S. Attorneys will play a role in 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic
    objectives, as compared with 6 goals and 12 objectives in the previous
    plan.3 Specifically, during fiscal year 2005, U.S. Attorneys are expected
    to need about $70.6 million and 534 FTEs toward achieving DOJ's new
    strategic goal I-Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security.
    Also, during fiscal year 2005, U.S. Attorneys are expected to need
    $1,476.9 billion and 11,156 FTEs toward achieving DOJ's new strategic goal
    II-Enforce Federal Laws and Represent the Rights and Interests of the
    American People. Like the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, the Fiscal
    Year 2005 Performance Budget United States Attorneys Congressional
    Submission provided a breakdown of budgetary resources (FTEs and dollars)
    by strategic objective. Table 2 shows the 2 strategic goals and 7
    objectives in which U.S. Attorneys play a role, as discussed in DOJ's
    Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget United States Attorneys

    3At the time of our review, DOJ had not published its Strategic Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2003 through 2008 and, as a result, we did not have a
    comprehensive list of DOJ's strategic goals and objectives applicable to
    other DOJ components.

    Appendix IV: DOJ's Departmentwide Strategic Goals and Objectives
    Applicable to U.S. Attorneys

    Congressional Submission, and the associated budgetary resources for
    Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005.

    Table 2: DOJ's Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That
    Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, Appropriated, and
    Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005

                                  Dollars in millions

                                                       Fiscal year 2004
    DOJ strategic                      Fiscal year   appropriations   Fiscal
                                              2003           with       year 2005
           goal         DOJ strategic        actual      rescissions     request
                          objective       obligations
                                                                             FTEa
                                          FTEa Dollars     FTEa Dollars   Dollars

    1. Prevent terrorism and promote the nation's security

    1.1 Prevent, disrupt, and defeat 53 $7 53 $7 53 $7 terrorist operations
    before they occur

            1.2 Investigate and prosecute those   448    61    448    59      481
               who have committed, or intend to
           commit, terrorist acts in the United
                                         States

    2. Enforce federal laws and represent the rights and interests of the
    American people

            2.1 Reduce the threat, incidence,  3,219   435   3,453   456    3,473
             and prevalence of violent crime,
            including crimes against children
          2.2 Reduce the threat, trafficking,  2,398   324   2,464   326    2,551
         use, and related violence of illegal
                                        drugs
            2.3 Combat white-collar, economic  2,622   354   2,697   356    2,701
                        crime, and cybercrime

                     2.4 Uphold the civil and   19      3      19      2       19
                 Constitutional rights of all
            Americans, and protect vulnerable
                           members of society

          2.5 Enforce federal statutes, uphold  2,295   323   2,406   318   2,421
               the rule of law, and vigorously
         represent the interests of the United
           States in all matters for which the
                   Department has jurisdiction

                   Totalsb 11,054 $1,506 11,540 $1,525 11,699 $1,548

    Source: DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget for U.S. Attorneys,
    Congressional Submission

    aFull-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
    prepare budget estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

    bTotals may not add due to rounding.

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    The Department of Justice's (DOJ) performance measures for U.S. Attorneys
    are evolving. U.S. Attorneys performance measures included in DOJ's Fiscal
    Year 2004 Performance Plan focused on selected areas, such as
    antiterrorism, but did not cover activities, such as violent crime and
    drugs. Responding to a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    initiative requiring agencies to develop performance-based budgets, DOJ
    included an outcome-oriented performance measure-percentage of cases
    favorably resolved-in its U.S. Attorneys' fiscal year 2005 congressional
    budget submission. According to DOJ officials, the performance measures
    for U.S. Attorneys and the format for presenting them will continue to
    evolve and will be revised, as DOJ gains more experience with
    performance-based budgeting. In addition to DOJ's efforts, the Executive
    Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and some U.S. Attorneys Offices
    have also undertaken initiatives directed toward measuring U.S. Attorneys'
    performance.

      U.S. Attorney Performance Measures in Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Were
      Focused on Some U.S. Attorney Activities

    DOJ's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan contained performance measures for
    some U.S. Attorneys activities, but the measures did not capture the full
    scope of U.S. Attorneys responsibilities. Our analysis of DOJ's Fiscal
    Year 2004 Performance Plan showed that it contained 88 performance
    measures that applied across DOJ's components, although most applied to
    the activities of DOJ components other than U.S. Attorneys, including the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug Enforcement Administration
    (DEA), and the Office of Justice Programs. Specifically, our review of the
    plan showed that 3 of the 88 performance measures applied exclusively to
    the activities of U.S. Attorneys; another 5 measures applied to U.S.
    Attorneys and other DOJ litigating components. Activities covered by the
    relevant performance measures included antiterrorism, criminal and civil
    environmental crime, civil litigation, witness assistance, and alternative
    dispute resolution. Other areas including violent crime, drugs, and some
    white-collar crime such as fraud and public corruption, did not have
    related performance measures for U.S. Attorneys. Table 3 shows the
    performance measures that applied to the activities of U.S. Attorneys by
    strategic goal and strategic objective/annual performance goal for fiscal
    year 2004.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys' Activities in DOJ's
    Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan

    Strategic objective/annual Responsible DOJ Fiscal year 2004 Strategic goal
    performance goal Performance measure components performance target

            Strategic goal I-Protect America against the threat of terrorism

    Develop and implement the full Terrorist-related convictions U.S.
    Attorneys N/Aa
    range of resources available to
    investigate terrorist incidents,
    bringing their perpetrators to
    justice and vigorously
    prosecute those who have
    committed, or intend to commit,
    terrorist acts against the United
    States

                    Strategic goal II-Enforce federal criminal laws

    Combat white-collar crime and Percent of criminal U.S. Attorneys and 80%
    economic crime, especially environmental and wildlife the Environment and
    cybercrime cases successfully litigated Natural Resources

    Division

    Strategic goal IV-Protect the rights and interests of the American people
    by legal representation

                 Promote the    Percent of civil U.S. Attorneys  80% affirmative;
              stewardship of                           and                    75%
    America's environment environmental cases the Environment        defensive
                         and                                 and
           natural resources        successfully     Natural
                 through the            resolved    Resources
             enforcement and                            Division
                  defense of
          environmental laws
                         and
                    programs

          Effectively represent the   Percent of favorable  U.S. Attorneys 80%
                                                            and
           interests of the United    resolutions in civil    the Civil
                  States in                   cases            Division
         all civil matters for which
                     the
             DOJ has jurisdiction
                                      Percent of favorable  U.S. Attorneys 85%
                                                            and
                                      resolutions in civil    the Civil
                                                               Division
                                        immigration cases

    Percentage of cases U.S. Attorneys and 65% resolved using alternative the
    Civil Division, the dispute resolution Civil Rights Division,

    Environment and Natural Resources Division, and the Tax Division Strategic
    goal VII-Protect the federal judiciary and provide critical support to the
    federal justice system to ensure it operates effectively Witnesses
    receiving U.S. Attorneys 100% emergency assistance

           Protect the rights of   Victims receiving        U.S. Attorneys 100%
                   crime           assistance
          victims and assist them
                    in
            moving through the
                 processes
          of the federal justice
                  system.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ's Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan
    and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2003 Final
    Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan.

    aAccording to DOJ, targeted levels of performance were not projected for
    this indicator. JMD officials said that there are a few measures in the
    performance plan that are included for lack of better or more informative
    measures.

    According to JMD officials, DOJ's annual performance plan, which was
    prepared by JMD's Budget Staff, included "the highest level" or most
    outcome-oriented performance measures related to DOJ's strategic goals and
    objectives. They said that DOJ components, including EOUSA for U.S.
    Attorneys, developed most proposed measures and DOJ Budget Staff selected
    from the proposed measures those that were to be included in the
    performance plan. Officials said that in winnowing down the potential
    measures, Budget Staff considered whether the measure was outcome
    oriented; represented a large amount of DOJ resources; and was of such
    importance that it warranted inclusion, even if it represented a small
    program. They said they also considered the quality and validity of data
    to be used to measure performance.

    JMD officials told us that U.S. Attorneys followed the same general
    approach in developing their performance measures as other DOJ components.
    However, EOUSA and JMD officials pointed out that U.S. Attorneys have a
    unique role in the law enforcement process. They said that U.S. Attorneys
    prosecute cases investigated by federal law enforcement agencies within
    DOJ, including FBI and ATF, and those from many other departments, such as
    Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland Security, the
    Postal Inspection Service, and the Internal Revenue Service. They also
    pointed out that U.S. Attorneys work with federal, state, and local law
    enforcement organizations to establish strategies for dealing with
    particular crimes confronting local jurisdictions.

    EOUSA and JMD officials also explained that, while it can be argued that
    the U.S. Attorneys have considerable influence over local crime efforts,
    it can also be argued that the investigating components have considerable
    influence over particular types of crime investigated, and each (the U.S.
    Attorneys and investigating components) is dependent upon the other for
    success. They added that, given the complexity of the U.S. Attorney's role
    in the law enforcement process, it would be difficult to develop measures
    that capture all U.S. Attorney activities. These officials further stated
    that U.S. Attorney performance outcomes are, therefore, often reflected in
    the outcomes associated with other DOJ components, such as FBI, and, by
    the litigating components within the department that have policy-level

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    responsibility for particular areas of the law, such as the Criminal
    Section of the Civil Rights Division in human trafficking cases.

      DOJ Has Begun to Revise U.S. Attorney Performance Measures in Line with New
      Performance Budget Format

    DOJ's Redesigned Performance and Resources Tables for its Fiscal Year 2004
    Congressional Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys

    As part of its effort to implement OMB guidelines on performance and
    budget integration, DOJ has been revising U.S. Attorney performance
    measures. According to OMB's July 2003 Circular A-11, a performance budget
    consists of a performance oriented framework, within which, at a minimum,
    resources were to be aligned at the program level, and agencies were
    encouraged to align resources at the performance goal level. In addition,
    agencies were to include a comparison of (1) total program benefits and
    total program costs, using quantitative, objective data to the maximum
    extent possible, as well as qualitative or judgmental material and (2) the
    marginal benefits and the marginal costs associated with the additional
    funds or reduced funding proposed. To address these new requirements, DOJ
    redesigned the performance and resources tables included in its fiscal
    year 2004 and 2005 congressional budget submissions.

    For its fiscal year 2004 congressional budget submission for U.S.
    Attorneys, DOJ used a revised format to present its performance and
    resources tables. Following this format, DOJ grouped the 12 strategic
    objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys from the Fiscal Year 2001 through
    2006 Strategic Plan into 5 program activities1-antiterrorism, violent and
    trafficking crimes, white-collar crime, civil litigation, and training.
    The 5 program activities and their corresponding strategic objectives were
    placed under three groups called decision units-criminal, civil, and legal
    education. The criminal decision unit covered 3 program activities-
    antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crime, and white-collar crime; the
    civil decision unit covered 1 program activity-civil litigation; and the
    legal education decision unit covered 1 program activity-training. For
    each of the 5 program activities, DOJ showed the number of U.S. Attorney
    FTEs and related budgetary resources used during fiscal year 2002,
    projected to be used for fiscal year 2003, and requested for fiscal year
    2004. Under the criminal decision unit, DOJ also showed actual and
    projected data,

    1In the fiscal year 2004, U.S. Attorney Congressional Budget Submission,
    DOJ uses the term program activity to cover 5 specific
    areas-antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crimes, white-collar crime,
    civil litigation, and training. According to a JMD official, a program
    activity is the thematic area reflecting the basic types of work performed
    by U.S. Attorneys. However, OMB Circular A-11 states that program activity
    is defined as the list of programs and activities appearing in the Program
    and Financing schedules of the Budget Appendix. In the DOJ Budget Appendix
    for Fiscal Year 2004, U.S. Attorneys program activities are defined as
    Direct Program: U.S. Attorneys, and Reimbursable Programs.

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    categorized by DOJ as performance measures, for activities involving
    defendants (i.e., prosecuted and guilty) for various types of crime,
    including terrorism, violent crime, white-collar crime, and other crimes.
    For the civil decision unit, DOJ showed the number of affirmative and
    civil defense cases filed and the number and percentage of favorable
    judgments. For the legal education decision unit, DOJ showed the number of
    DOJ and non-DOJ students trained. The performance and resources tables in
    the fiscal year 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys provided
    placeholders, but no information, for outcome measures associated with the
    3 decision units.

    Figures 4, 5, and 6 reprint the performance and resources tables for each
    of the three decision units in the fiscal year 2004 congressional budget
    submission for U.S. Attorneys.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Criminal Decision Unit

    Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission
    for U.S. Attorneys

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission
    for U.S. Attorneys

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Civil Decision Unit

    Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission
    for U.S. Attorneys.

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Legal Education Decision Unit

    Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission
    for U.S. Attorneys

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

    According to JMD officials, the tables presented in the 2004 congressional
    budget submission were based on a template used for all DOJ component
    agencies. One JMD official, responsible for preparing DOJ's congressional
    budget submission for its component agencies, including U.S. Attorneys,
    told us that DOJ had developed the format and aligned selected strategic
    objectives for each DOJ component in order to comply with OMB Circular
    A-11 budget and performance integration requirements. The JMD official
    further explained that in order to develop the tables and help it
    categorize the major program activities and the key performance measures
    that applied to each component, JMD officials worked with component
    agencies, for example, EOUSA in the case of U.S. Attorneys.

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    DOJ's Performance and Resources Tables in Fiscal Year 2005 Congressional
    Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys Continued to Evolve

    For its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission for U.S.
    Attorneys, DOJ used the new performance and resources table format and
    included more performance information, in keeping with OMB's directive
    that agencies present their fiscal year 2005 budgets as their annual
    performance plans. As in its fiscal year 2004 submission for U.S.
    Attorneys, DOJ grouped the applicable strategic goals and objectives under
    the 3 decision units-criminal, civil, and legal education. As discussed
    earlier, DOJ identified 7 strategic objectives for U.S. Attorneys
    (replacing the 12 used in the fiscal year 2004 budget) that are to be
    published in DOJ's new strategic plan. DOJ also reduced the number of
    program activities from 5 to 4. Specifically, the criminal decision unit
    had 2 program activities-1 for antiterrorism and 1 new program activity
    that combined violent crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar crime; the
    civil decision unit had 1 program activity--civil litigation; and the
    legal education unit had 1 program activity-training. DOJ reported U.S.
    Attorney FTEs and related budgetary resources used during fiscal year
    2003, projected to be used for fiscal year 2004, and requested for fiscal
    year 2005 for each program activity.

    As in DOJ's 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys, its fiscal year
    2005 submission included data for each decision unit, grouped under the
    heading performance measures, for example, defendant-related activity for
    the criminal decision unit. In addition, the fiscal year 2005 submission
    presented an outcome measure-percentage of cases favorably resolved- with
    data for the criminal and civil decision units. For the criminal decision
    unit, it showed that U.S. Attorneys had achieved a favorable resolution in
    91.7 percent of criminal cases during fiscal year 2003 and expected to
    achieve a favorable resolution in 91.6 percent of criminal cases-its
    target-during fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Under the civil decision unit,
    DOJ reported that U.S. Attorneys had achieved a favorable resolution for
    85.6 percent of civil cases during fiscal year 2003 and was expecting to
    achieve a favorable resolution in its target of 85.6 percent of civil
    cases in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. No outcome measure was included for
    the legal education decision unit. Figures 7, 8, and 9 reprint the
    performance and resource tables for U.S. Attorneys from the fiscal year
    2005 congressional budget submission.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Criminal Decision Unit

    Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional
    Budget Submission

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Civil Decision Unit

    Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional
    Budget Submission

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

            Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S
    Attorneys-Legal Education Decision Unit

    Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional
    Budget Submission

    Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates
    relating to personnel resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE)
    employment and states that FTE employment is calculated by dividing the
    total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number
    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of
    compensable days in the fiscal year.

    In a February 2004 meeting on the U.S. Attorneys' fiscal year 2005
    congressional budget submissions, JMD and EOUSA budget officials explained
    to us changes in DOJ's 2005 budget tables for U.S. Attorneys. The
    officials said that the 2005 submission did not include some of the

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    goals and measures that appeared in the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan,
    such as U.S. Attorney measures related to victim assistance, because DOJ
    had streamlined its goals and objectives, focusing on primary mission
    areas, in accordance with OMB instructions. They added that DOJ would like
    all of its litigating units to focus on their contributions to DOJ's
    overall mission.

    These officials said that DOJ's outcome measure-percentage of cases
    favorably resolved-included in the U.S. Attorneys' budget submission was
    designed to apply to all of DOJ's litigating units. However, the officials
    also noted that the fiscal year 2005 budget table for a component does not
    always present an outcome measure for an activity in which it is involved.
    For example, the officials pointed out that the U.S. Attorney budget table
    does not present an outcome measure for terrorism even though U.S.
    Attorneys are involved in DOJ antiterrorism efforts; rather the outcome
    for terrorism is included in the FBI performance table. They said that in
    future years DOJ will attempt to cross-reference the performance of one
    component with another in those instances where outcomes were linked; for
    example, future budget tables for U.S. Attorneys would likely include a
    cross-reference showing that their efforts contributed to the FBI's
    antiterrorist outcome.

    With regard to the legal education decision unit, JMD and EOUSA officials
    told us that DOJ considered not including it as a decision unit for U.S.
    Attorneys, because other components view training as a support function
    and do not include it as a budget decision unit. However, DOJ decided to
    include it as a decision unit for U.S. Attorneys because of the importance
    of legal education to DOJ's success. However, they did not include an
    outcome measure because they consider legal education to be a support
    function.

      Unclear What DOJ Is Measuring in Its Fiscal Year 2005 U.S. Attorney
      Performance and Resources Tables

    As mentioned earlier, one of the President's goals for requiring agencies
    to integrate their budgets with performance information was to increase
    the value and use of program performance information in resource and
    management decisions. Although DOJ has taken steps to integrate budget and
    performance information in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission, it is
    not always clear what DOJ is trying to measure in the fiscal year 2005
    U.S. Attorney performance and resources tables.

    Specifically, when analyzing the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney
    congressional budget submission, we observed that for one of the two
    program activities under the criminal decision unit, DOJ used data on

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    defendants-"total defendants terminated"2 and guilty-to show year-toyear
    changes in the level of U.S. Attorney activity. Categorized as performance
    measures, these data showed numbers for the total "defendants terminated"
    and defendants found guilty in fiscal years 2003, 2004, and 2005.
    Excerpted from the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney congressional budget
    submission, table 4 shows how DOJ presented the defendant-related data for
    the program activity-violent crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar
    crime.

    Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for
    Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, and White-Collar Crime
    Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related Activities
    and Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases

                                  Dollars in thousands

    Program activitya
            -violent
          crime, drug     Planned (fiscal       Projected (2004      Requested
        trafficking, and  year 2003              appropriation       (total 2005
    white-collar crime      actual)          with recissions)       request)
                               FTEb Dollars             FTEb Dollars FTEb Dollars
                                                                            8,694
                           8,208 $1,089,087         8,583 $1,114,848   $1,126,523

                                  Performance measures

                    Total defendants terminated 75,189 78,718 79,733

                      Total defendants guilty 68,960 72,105 73,075

    Outcome

    Percentage of cases
    favorably resolved 91.7% 91.6% 91.6%

    Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional
    Budget Submission.

    aProgram activity in this table refers to program activities as related
    DOJ's Strategic Goals and

    Objectives.

    bFull-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to
    prepare budget estimates

    relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE employment and states that
    FTE employment is

    calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be
    worked) by the total number

    of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of
    compensable hours can be 2,080,

    2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal
    year.

    We observed that for the program activity violent crime, drug trafficking,
    and white-collar crimes, DOJ calculated its outcome measure-percentage of
    cases favorably resolved-using data on defendants. However, DOJ

    2According to EOUSA officials, DOJ uses the term "defendants terminated"
    in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission to mean the total number of
    defendants for which some type of closure was reached-they were guilty,
    acquitted, or the proceedings involving particular defendants were
    dismissed, or otherwise terminated. They said that their terminology has
    always been "defendants terminated" and that terminology is consistent
    with that used by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    failed to explain that the number of cases can differ from the number of
    defendants, because an individual case can have multiple defendants.
    Specifically, our analysis of the tables showed that, for each of the 3
    years covered by the congressional budget submission, DOJ used the number
    of defendants guilty divided by defendants terminated--the rate of
    conviction3--to calculate the percentage of cases actually or expected to
    be favorably resolved. For example, for fiscal year 2003, total defendants
    guilty (68,960) divided by total defendants terminated (75,189) equals
    91.7 percent, the same percentage as that reported for cases favorably
    resolved. For fiscal year 2005, total defendants guilty (73,075) divided
    by total defendants terminated (79,733) equaled 91.6 percent, the same
    number reported as the expected percentage of cases favorably resolved for
    that fiscal year.

    JMD and EOUSA budget officials confirmed that for the U.S. Attorneys'
    criminal decision unit program activities, the target percentage for the
    outcome measure-percentage of cases favorably resolved-was based on
    historical data on defendants (the conviction rate) but that a precise
    relationship did not necessarily exist between defendants and cases. For
    example, they said that in cases with multiple defendants, the case
    outcome would still be categorized as favorable when some, but not all,
    defendants were convicted. These officials also said that, in the future,
    JMD and EOUSA would likely consider using a less precise percentage for
    the U.S. Attorney's outcome measure in order to avoid confusion about the
    relationship between cases and defendants.

    The JMD and EOUSA officials emphasized that the outcome measure-
    percentage of cases favorably resolved-was used to enable all DOJ's
    litigating components to use a single outcome measure. They further
    explained that while all the litigating units were using a single outcome
    measure, the data currently used by each component were not standardized
    and, therefore, each component might have used different data to establish
    its performance targets. For example, while U.S. Attorneys used conviction
    data for its violent crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar crime
    program activity to determine percentage of cases favorably resolved, on
    the civil side, they used data on settlements and

    3According to DOJ officials, the rate of conviction or conviction rate is
    those defendants who pleaded guilty or were found guilty via trial as a
    percentage of all defendants terminated.

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    judgments in favor of the United States to determine the percentage of
    cases favorably resolved.

    We also asked these officials whether the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 data
    on total defendants terminated and guilty, as presented in the tables,
    were performance targets. They said that these data were not targets to be
    achieved, but were presented in this format only for budgetary purposes to
    indicate actual or expected activity based on budgetary increases
    requested. They said that in future budgets DOJ would clarify that data on
    defendants were not to be considered as targets. They further indicated
    that in the future the congressional budget submission presentation would
    likely be changed and "cleaned up" as DOJ gained more experience.

      EOUSA is Considering Other Ways to Measure Results of U.S. Attorneys Offices'
      Activities

    EOUSA is considering other ways to address performance measurement issues
    and establish results oriented performance measures for U.S. Attorneys
    Offices. According to EOUSA officials, these efforts are intended to bring
    EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys in line with DOJ's overall efforts to integrate
    performance and the budget and advance performance measurement within DOJ.
    EOUSA's initiatives are summarized as follows:

    o  	Performance Measurement for Budget and Performance Integration: EOUSA
    has taken initial steps to develop performance measures that can link the
    activities of U.S. Attorneys offices to the budget. Specifically, as of
    September 2003, EOUSA had begun the process for engaging a contractor to
    provide technical assistance in developing performance measures for U.S.
    Attorneys Offices and their activities. EOUSA's statement of work, dated
    April 2003, called for the development of performance measures for
    individual U.S. Attorneys Offices and an overall national "roll-up"
    measure, based on the individual measures, for use by EOUSA as input to
    DOJ's Performance Plan and Report. According to EOUSA, this initiative
    should assist in the development of an overall plan to enhance performance
    and accountability in U.S Attorneys Offices and also help EOUSA develop
    measures that are linked to DOJ's overall ongoing efforts to measure
    performance. In February 2004, the EOUSA Deputy Director told us that
    EOUSA may not have the resources to award the contract in fiscal year
    2004.

    o  	Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in U.S. Attorney
    Districts: According to EOUSA, some U.S. Attorneys Offices have developed,
    or are developing, strategic plans, and EOUSA is considering how one
    office's efforts to do strategic planning and

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    performance measurement might be used in other districts.

    Specifically, EOUSA, working with the Western District of Washington,

    has begun to examine how strategic planning and associated

    performance measures developed by that district could be applied to

    other U.S. Attorneys Offices. During the latter part of 2002, the U.S.

    Attorneys Office, with funding from EOUSA, hired a strategic planning

    consultant to assist the Western District of Washington in piloting a

    community strategy process.4 As of May 2003, the District had

    completed a strategic plan, which included strategic goals and

    strategies, but it had not developed specific indicators and targets in

    support of the strategy. In addition, information provided by EOUSA in

    September and November 2003 also indicated that two other districts-

    the Western District of Michigan and the Eastern District of

    Kentucky-had, in recent years, developed strategic plans containing

    strategic goals and objectives. According to EOUSA officials, the

    Western District of Washington was awaiting funds from EOUSA in

    order to continue the district's strategic planning effort, but EOUSA

    may not have the funds to support the effort and the district may have

    to provide its own funding.

    o  	Project Safe Neighborhoods: U.S. Attorneys Offices are also working
    with local communities to develop performance measures related to reducing
    gun crime through a multiyear DOJ commitment, called Project Safe
    Neighborhoods (PSN). PSN requires each U.S. Attorneys Office to support,
    promote, and implement a comprehensive gun violence reduction program
    within each local district. It includes establishing a communitywide
    strategic plan to combat gun violence and awarding research grants in each
    district to measure the impact of PSN in reducing gun violence. DOJ is
    currently, working with the Michigan State University to examine how data
    gathered in each district can be used to measure performance in combating
    gun crime.

    o  	EOUSA's Strategic Planning And Performance Measurement: EOUSA has also
    developed its own strategic plan, which establishes 5 strategic goals and
    articulates strategies and activities for accomplishing those goals. Among
    other things, the plan calls for the development of performance measures
    for some goals. For example, one of EOUSA's strategic goals (strategic
    goal 4) was to satisfy the current emerging budgetary and financial
    management needs of EOUSA and the U.S.

    4According to EOUSA officials, the Western District of Washington's
    strategic planning effort was initially funded by EOUSA in July 2002 in
    response to the district's one-time request to hire a management
    consultant.

    Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are Evolving

    Attorneys Offices. Under this goal, EOUSA budget staff responsible for
    working with other DOJ components on budget and performance measurement
    issues were to implement a performance measures pilot project to develop
    outcome-based measures for three top-priority areas-counterterrorism, gun
    crimes, and corporate fraud.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S. Attorneys
    Offices Is Evolving

    The Department of Justice's (DOJ) approach to monitoring the performance
    of U.S. Attorneys Offices is evolving. In November 2001, the Deputy
    Attorney General announced a plan to improve DOJ's ability to assess U.S.
    Attorneys' efforts to address the Attorney General's priorities and meet
    management and performance expectations. One aspect of the plan was the
    enhancement of U.S. Attorneys long-standing internal evaluation program,
    Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations-called EARS evaluations--to
    increase its effectiveness as a management tool.1 A second component of
    the plan was to communicate to U.S. Attorneys the information necessary to
    support DOJ's priorities and implement sound management. A third and
    related aspect of the plan was the introduction of a new process for
    collecting and analyzing information to assess each U.S. Attorneys' Office
    progress toward addressing priorities and meeting the performance
    expectations of the Attorney General. At the time of our review, DOJ had
    implemented some, but not all, of its planned steps to enhance its ability
    to assess the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and these efforts
    continue to evolve.

      EOUSA Has Begun to Change Internal Reviews to Emphasize Performance and
      Management Issues, but Changes Are Not Complete

    In response to the Deputy Attorney General's management plan, the
    Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) has begun to make
    changes to its internal evaluation program-otherwise known as EARS
    reviews-that are intended to enhance DOJ's ability to assess the
    performance and management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. These changes focus
    on such topics as strategic planning, senior management operations,
    relations with law enforcement and the judiciary, case and personnel
    management, and DOJ's priority programs (e.g., antiterrorism, violent
    crimes and drugs, and civil rights prosecutions). During our review, EOUSA
    had not yet completed making all of the changes announced by the Deputy
    Attorney General.

    1The evaluation program, which was initiated in 1969, was designed to
    evaluate each district's compliance with federal regulations and provide
    information to DOJ on performance, management, and various priorities and
    objectives. Among other things, the evaluations assessed compliance with
    DOJ priorities, policies, and programs; reviewed staffing and workload;
    and determined whether U.S. Attorneys Offices were meeting the internal
    control requirements of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. In
    1984, EOUSA established the Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS) as a
    component to coordinate the evaluation program. EARS evaluations are
    coordinated by its staff in Washington, D.C., and conducted in each of the
    94 districts approximately every 3 years by teams of Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys and staff from around the country.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    Under 28 C.F.R. Part 0.22, EOUSA is to evaluate the performance of the
    U.S. Attorneys Offices, make appropriate reports, and take corrective
    actions if necessary. EOUSA's EARS staff is responsible for the ongoing
    evaluation program. According to EOUSA, the EARS program is an internal
    review program designed, among other things, to examine management
    controls and prevent waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation in
    federal programs, as required under the Federal Managers Financial
    Integrity Act.2 EARS evaluations are conducted in each of the 94 U.S.
    Attorneys Offices every 3 years by teams of experienced Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys, and administrative and financial litigation personnel from
    other U.S. Attorneys Offices.

    In a November 2001 memorandum that outlined DOJ's plans to enhance its
    ability to assess the performance of U.S. Attorney's Offices, the Deputy
    Attorney General noted that EARS evaluations had effectively diagnosed the
    strengths and weaknesses of each office, but they had been underutilized
    as a management tool. He stated that he, therefore, would direct EOUSA to
    redesign EARS to, among other things,

    o  	focus more attention on "critical areas of management and
    performance;"

    o  	institute a "red flag" system for identifying and reacting to
    particularly vexing issues identified during evaluations whereby senior
    EOUSA officials and/or Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are experts in
    specific areas would provide quick assistance and support to the district
    under evaluation; and

    o  	establish management consulting as a primary responsibility of the
    EARS staff who, up to that time, had been primarily occupied with
    evaluations and their follow-up and had little time to provide advice and
    assistance to U.S. Attorneys.

    As of February 2004, EOUSA had not, however, completed its redesign of the
    EARS evaluation program. Consequently, we were unable to fully assess how
    the redesign is likely to affect EOUSA's ability to evaluate the
    performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Key elements of the redesigned EARS
    have not been implemented. For example, as of February 2004, EOUSA had not
    put into operation the "red flag" program for its legal

    231 U.S.C. 3512.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    evaluations. As part of the management consulting program called for by
    the Deputy Attorney General, EOUSA officials said that some "road shows"
    had been developed to provide specialized on-site training sessions on
    various management issues for individual U.S. Attorneys Offices and some
    informal consulting with offices was taking place, but EOUSA was still
    working on more refined management training for supervisory U.S.
    Attorneys.

    Furthermore, according to EOUSA officials, using the new evaluation
    guidelines, EARS staff had completed the fiscal year 2003 evaluation cycle
    begun in October 2002 for some, but not all, of the U.S. Attorneys Offices
    to be reviewed in 2003 and had begun some reviews for the fiscal year 2004
    offices. However, as of February 2004, the final reports for the completed
    reviews were not available. For the fiscal year 2003 reviews, EOUSA used
    an updated manual to train evaluators that includes the changes made to
    the evaluation program thus far. Our comparison of this newly revised
    training manual with the old manual showed that the EARS guidance has been
    revised to provide greater focus on assessing steps each office is taking
    in regard to results oriented management, such as strategic planning and
    performance measurement. For example, one of EOUSA's key changes involved
    a redesign of the EARS pre-evaluation survey, which, according to EOUSA,
    is to be completed by each district a few weeks before that district's
    evaluation is to begin. Specifically, in January 2003, EOUSA replaced the
    EARS "District Self Evaluation Survey" (DSES)-first used in 1997-with its
    new "USAO Management Survey." Our comparison of the two surveys showed
    that both were designed to prompt each district targeted for evaluation to
    describe various aspects of its operations. However, the new Management
    Survey was also designed to prompt each district to provide more
    descriptive information on various matters, including senior management
    efforts to plan, develop budgets, and establish policies and procedures.
    In addition, the Management Survey also prompts districts to provide
    descriptive information not covered in the DSES, including information on
    strategic planning and what the district is doing to measure its
    performance and results in its litigation of criminal or civil cases.

    Our comparison of DSES and the Management Survey also showed that both
    prompted districts to provide information on their management structure
    and prompted them to discuss the background, duties, and responsibilities
    of district managers, such as the First Assistant U.S. Attorney and other
    executive-level Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys. However, in contrast
    to the DSES, the Management Survey also prompts the district to, among
    other things, describe how

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    o  	the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team sets long-term goals
    and objectives, translates those into resources, budgets, and programs;
    and monitors and measures performance and productivity and

    o  	the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team motivates the U.S.
    Attorneys Office attorney and support staff to effectively implement the
    U.S. Attorneys Office's long-term goals and objectives, budgets and
    programs, and policies and procedures, and to develop and sustain high
    levels of performance.

    Whereas DSES contained a section asking districts to list and discuss
    their priorities, the new management survey asks districts to describe the
    crime problem that influences the U.S. Attorneys Office's response to
    DOJ's strategic goals and objectives and the district priorities.
    Furthermore, under the new survey, districts are asked to respond to
    particular questions about strategic plans and district priorities and
    efforts to measure results related to those initiatives. Specifically, the
    Management Survey asks the district to, among other things, describe,

    o  how the U.S. Attorneys Office has addressed DOJ's strategic plan;

    o  	any other prosecutorial, civil, or outreach priorities in the district
    and how the U.S. Attorneys Office is addressing them;

    o  	any specific target or performance standards used by the U.S.
    Attorneys Office to measure its initiatives, any performance goals or
    indicators that have been established to reflect results rather than
    workload or processes, and any criteria in place to measure the
    performance and results in the U.S. Attorney's Office litigation of
    criminal cases or civil cases; and

    o  	how performance standards for criminal and civil litigation are used
    to review the Office's overall civil and criminal caseload, set priorities
    and goals, and evaluate Assistant U.S. Attorney performance.

    We also noted that, consistent with the Management Survey, EARS guidance
    for conducting evaluations has been revised to now include a section
    entitled "Strategic Plan and District Priorities." Specifically, under the
    new EARS guidelines, evaluators are asked to interview key U.S. Attorney
    managers about various aspects of U.S. Attorney operations, including
    strategic planning and priority issues. To illustrate, the Interview Guide
    for the First Assistant U.S. Attorney and Other Executive Level
    Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys includes a section entitled

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    "Strategic Plan and District Priorities" that asks officials to respond to
    or discuss the following:

    o  	Discuss the district's priorities and any unique factors affecting the
    district.

    o  	Do you feel that there should be any changes to the quality or
    quantity or priority of the cases handled by the U.S. Attorney's Office?

    o  	Are there any special programs or initiatives that are affecting the
    workload or allocation of resources in the U.S. Attorney's Office? Are
    there any issues relating to any special programs or initiatives?

    In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that they had made some
    additional changes to the manual during fiscal year 2003 and that this
    process was continuing in fiscal year 2004. In addition, officials said
    that in order to link EARS with strategic planning, they would have to
    look at the needs of U.S. Attorneys Offices and available resources.

      DOJ's Strategic Plan Used as a Framework for Communicating Priorities and
      Expectations to U.S. Attorneys Offices

    Another component of the Deputy Attorney General's management plan
    emphasized DOJ's commitment to communicate the Attorney General's
    priorities and expectations to U.S. Attorneys and their management teams.
    DOJ used its Strategic Plan as a framework for communicating DOJ's goals
    and objectives to U.S. Attorneys Offices. However, in February 2004,
    because recent and pending changes to DOJ's strategic and performance
    planning, DOJ officials said that they may have to develop other vehicles
    to use in their discussions with U.S. Attorneys Offices about their
    respective plans, strategies, and targets.

    According to the September 24, 2003, letter we received from EOUSA's
    Director, the Attorney General established DOJ's priorities through the
    fiscal year 2001 through 2006 strategic plan and, as discussed earlier,
    U.S. Attorneys have a direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of the
    8 established goals. In addition, through meetings, conferences, e-mails,
    and other media, the Attorney General has articulated four national
    priorities for U.S. Attorneys that are directly linked to DOJ's strategic
    plan-antiterrorism under DOJ strategic goal I; reduction in gun violence
    under strategic goal II; reduction of the supply and demand for illegal
    drugs under strategic goal II and III; and enforcement of civil rights
    under strategic goal IV.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    DOJ Has Communicated Its Goals and Objectives to Supervisory U.S.
    Attorneys

    In his letter to us, EOUSA's Director confirmed that U.S. Attorneys have a
    direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of the 8 strategic goals and
    said that the Attorney General had taken several opportunities to
    communicate DOJ's strategic goals and objectives to U.S. Attorney's
    Offices. In November 2001, for example, EOUSA transmitted to U.S.
    Attorneys Offices a memorandum from the Attorney General to all of DOJ
    concerning the restructuring of DOJ to better meet the threat of
    terrorism. The memorandum also discussed the issuance of DOJ's Strategic
    Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006. Also, in December 2002, EOUSA's
    Director issued a memorandum to all U.S. Attorneys, First Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys, and all Administrative Officers notifying them of how they
    could access DOJ's Strategic Plan on DOJ's Web site.

    In addition to DOJ's performance goals and measures, EOUSA's Director told
    us that individual U.S. Attorneys Offices may establish performance goals
    and measures in each office, which could vary considerably from district
    to district and even within a district. He said that a district that has
    different branch offices could have goals that vary from branch to branch.
    However, the Director said that because many districts do not formalize
    strategic and performance plans-and are not required to-it was difficult
    to provide examples. Further, he added that this is not to say that U.S.
    Attorneys do not set priorities within their offices, devote resources to
    those priorities, and expect certain results.

    Because of recent and pending changes to strategic and performance
    planning in DOJ, we asked JMD and EOUSA officials how EOUSA would
    communicate DOJ's strategic goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys. They
    told us that they may have to develop new vehicles for these discussions,
    although they also noted that the performance measures for U.S. Attorneys
    would still be in the DOJ Strategic Plan and the DOJ congressional budget
    submission.

    Our survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in January and February
    2003 indicated that DOJ had communicated its national performance goals to
    them. Specifically, nearly 90 percent (469 of 526) of the respondents to
    our survey indicated that they had received information about performance
    goals from DOJ through at least one of a variety of ways, including
    hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings, and the Internet.

    In addition, responses to our survey also indicated that, as of early
    2003, some U.S. Attorneys Offices had established and communicated local
    goals and measures to their supervisory staff. Specifically, 77 percent

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    (363 of the 470) of the Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who responded
    to this question said that their districts had established district level
    performance goals and measures. Furthermore, about 83 percent of these
    supervisors (297 of 360 respondents) stated that the cases handled by
    their unit to a very great or great extent realistically reflected the
    district level performance goals and measures established by the U.S.
    Attorneys Office.3

    Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors' responses,
    go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.

      DOJ Has Initiated, but Not Fully Implemented, a New Process to Assess U.S.
      Attorneys Offices Performance

    DOJ has also begun to implement a new process for collecting and analyzing
    information about U.S. Attorneys Offices efforts to meet DOJ's priorities
    and expectations. We were unable to fully examine DOJ's efforts to assess
    performance using its new process because DOJ had not fully implemented
    the process. In addition, the information requested from U.S. Attorneys
    Offices continues to evolve.

    According to the Deputy Attorney General's November 2001 announcement, to
    provide DOJ with the means of assessing the progress of each U.S.
    Attorney's office to meet the Attorney General's objectives, DOJ would

    o  	require that each U.S. Attorneys Office submit a performance report
    that contains "qualitative and quantitative measures" detailing, among
    other things, its progress on the prosecutive priorities of the
    administration during calendar year 2002 and

    o  	assess each office as of January 1, 2003, based on the performance
    reports, caseload data from the centralized case management system;
    reports of consultations with investigating agency field offices and the
    judiciary; and the most significant finding from recent EARS evaluations.

    3In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA's Director said that many
    districts do not formalize strategic and performance plans (and are not
    required to); thus it was difficult to provide specific examples of
    district-level performance goals and measures. The Director further stated
    that, in some cases, respondents could have misconstrued the survey
    question regarding district level performance goals and measures to
    include "performance workplan" goals, which are goals established between
    a supervisor and employee as part of an individual's annual performance
    assessment.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    In September 2002, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum to U.S.
    Attorneys Offices instructing them on how to prepare the performance
    reports he had discussed in his November 2001 memorandum. The September
    2002 memorandum discussed strategic goals and objectives related to the
    Attorney General's four top prosecutive priorities-antiterrorism, gun
    violence reduction, drugs, and civil rights and identified an additional
    priority-corporate fraud-to which U.S. Attorneys had been asked to pay
    particular attention.

    For each of the five priorities, the memorandum asked each office to
    respond to a question or a series of questions that were primarily focused
    on discussing the steps each Office had taken to accomplish DOJ's
    prosecutorial goals and objectives. For example, regarding antiterrorism,
    the Deputy Attorney General stated that DOJ's objectives were to

    "Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur;
    develop and implement the full range of resources available to investigate
    terrorist incidents, bringing their perpetrators to justice; vigorously
    prosecute those who have committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts in
    the United States."

    The memorandum asked each U.S. Attorneys Office to describe the district's
    plan for accomplishing the three antiterrorism objectives, what had been
    done to apply these objectives in the district, what had been
    accomplished, and what obstacles remained. In addition, each office was
    asked to consider, among other things:

    o  	What is the current status of your district's Anti-Terrorism Task
    Force (ATTF)?4

    o  If you have a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)5 in your district, how

    is it coordinating with the ATTF and what is your office's involvement in
    JTTF?

    4The Attorney General issued a directive that included a provision
    directing each U.S. Attorneys Office to establish an ATTF to serve as a
    standing organizational structure for a coordinated state and federal
    response to terrorism within each U.S. Attorney's District. The ATTF has a
    three fold objective: prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations
    before they occur; develop and implement the full range of resources
    available to investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their perpetrators
    to justice; and vigorously prosecute those who have committed, or intend
    to commit, terrorist acts in the United States. In a September 2003
    memorandum, the Attorney General changed the name of these task forces to
    Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), leaving its current membership
    intact.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    o  What steps have been taken to improve information sharing?

    o  Have antiterrorism cases been developed in your district? Describe.

    The Deputy Attorney General's memorandum asked each district to provide
    information for each of the three other priorities, as well as for
    corporate fraud. In addition, the Deputy Attorney General asked U.S.
    Attorneys Offices to

    o  	identify any other priorities in their district and discuss why and
    how these priorities were established; the objectives selected to
    accomplish these priorities; the steps taken to implement the objectives;
    any outcomes realized; and any obstacles that remain; and

    o  	assess the Office's strengths and weaknesses by answering questions
    about a variety of topics, including the quality of work; productivity;
    morale; and partnerships with others, including the "bench" and local
    investigative agencies.

    In April 2003, we reviewed the reports and EOUSA summaries of the reports
    for each of the 10 Offices we had visited and, in particular, examined
    whether the 10 Offices had begun to use quantifiable resultsoriented
    measures as a way of developing their performance reports. Our analysis
    showed that each report was informative about what the 10 U.S. Attorney's
    Offices were doing to address the Attorney General's priorities, district
    priorities, and management issues, but-as requested by DOJ-the 10 U.S.
    Attorneys Offices generally used anecdotal information about their
    successes on particular cases to demonstrate results rather than
    quantifiable measures that would indicate their progress in achieving the
    Attorney General's and district priorities.

    For example, all of the 10 Offices discussed their efforts regarding the
    Attorney General's antiterrorism priorities, including their involvement
    in ATTFs; efforts to share information among local, state, and federal
    task force members; and some of the obstacles they faced in meeting
    antiterrorism objectives. Likewise, the 10 reports discussed efforts
    related to drugs, civil rights, Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), and
    corporate

    5The JTTF program was established by DOJ to bring teams of state and local
    law enforcement officers, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents,
    and other federal agents and personnel together to investigate and prevent
    acts of terrorism. Since September 11, 2001, the FBI had expanded its JTTF
    initiative from 35 JTTFs to 84 JTTFs nationwide.

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    fraud. Some provided case examples to show their efforts in these areas
    and discussed some of the barriers they faced in carrying out the Attorney
    General's priorities. Regarding the latter, 3 of the 10 reports noted that
    they were hampered in their ability to deal with corporate fraud cases
    because FBI resources had been shifted to counter-terrorism activities,
    and one of these districts reported that the lack of FBI resources
    hampered its efforts in the area of civil rights.

    In addition, the 10 Offices generally discussed their local priorities and
    what they were doing in those areas. For example, 1 report discussed 13
    areas-ranging from cybercrime to environmental crime to health care
    fraud-that the Office was pursuing; discussed the reasons the district was
    pursuing them; and described some cases related to those areas. Another
    Office described its efforts in four areas--public corruption, illegal
    immigration, violent crime, and white-collar fraud-while still another
    discussed its efforts in regard to three priorities-mortgage fraud, health
    care fraud, and crimes against children. Finally, each of the 10 reports
    discussed a variety of management issues, including district efforts to
    reorganize, manage information technology and case data, review cases and
    hold staff accountable, enhance productivity, recruit candidates, train
    staff, and garner feedback from client agencies and the judiciary.

    EOUSA provided worksheets that showed, among other things, the scorecard
    criteria they planned to use to assess the reports on each of the four
    priorities, and three other areas-corporate fraud, management, and
    "intangibles." EOUSA officials were to make their assessments based on a
    5-point scale-tailored to each of the four priorities and the three other
    areas-with a score of "5" reserved for reports sections that "went beyond
    the guidelines" and a "one" reserved for "recites the question, little
    else," or in the case of "intangibles," "report contains no meaningful
    information." EOUSA's guidance did not instruct officials to examine
    whether districts had developed performance measures. However, EOUSA
    suggested that officials evaluate the reports based on a variety of
    topics, including any information on caseload statistics being a good
    gauge of office productivity as well as anything that could be a potential
    best practice.

    Although, according to the November 2001 memorandum, the performance
    reporting process was intended to assess performance-based on qualitative
    and quantitative measures, EOUSA's Director, in his September 24, 2003,
    letter to us, indicated that the objective of the process was to provide a
    management tool for districts. He said it was not designed to "have them
    in the business of forecasting and setting

    Appendix VI: DOJ's Approach to Monitoring the Performance of U.S.
    Attorneys Offices Is Evolving

    expectations and predictions for prosecutions like a corporation would
    forecast sales and productivity of goods and services." The Director went
    on to state that:

    "Because of the numerous variables outside of the control of the USAOs and
    because our organization's success should not be measured by pure numbers
    of prosecutions, our goals are more qualitative, such as making a
    difference in the community and coordinating efforts among multiple law
    enforcement agencies."

    However, EOUSA's Director also said that throughout the performance
    reporting process and analysis of reports, EOUSA has developed many ideas
    for improving the process and ensuring it provides the information it
    needs, while not overburdening districts. He said there are plans to make
    the performance reporting guide more user friendly and to provide
    additional information not captured the first time.

    According to EOUSA, as of February 2004, the new template for the 2003
    performance reports was still under review, and EOUSA expected that, in
    the coming weeks, the new template would be sent out to the U.S. Attorney
    districts for completion. We compared the draft template EOUSA plans to
    use to collect 2003 performance information with the 2002 version of the
    template and found that the latest iteration identified the same
    priorities as the previous template. In addition, for some priorities, for
    example, corporate fraud/white-collar crime, EOUSA added new, more
    specific, and targeted questions, including some requiring quantifiable
    responses. However, EOUSA told us that it may be difficult to develop a
    quantitative measure because the factors affecting the development of
    performance measures vary from office to office, depending on the local
    situation. For example, the type and character of cases prosecuted may
    vary among U.S. Attorneys, depending on differences in state laws and
    whether or not cases can be prosecuted by the state. Officials also said
    that they are in the process of creating links between the performance
    reports and EARS so that EARS evaluators can benefit from the information
    in the performance reports, as these reports are part of the
    pre-evaluation materials that EARS evaluators use.

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward Strategic
    Human Capital Management

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for United States
    Attorneys (EOUSA) have begun to take steps intended to integrate
    performance-based strategic human capital management into the day-today
    operations of EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. For example, DOJ has
    developed a Human Capital Strategic Plan that includes personnel in U.S.
    Attorneys Offices and is linked to DOJ's Strategic Plan. However, DOJ
    faces additional human capital challenges, such as attracting, training,
    and retaining sufficiently qualified employees in many areas of its
    operation. DOJ officials told us they were continuing to address these
    challenges. In addition to DOJ's efforts, EOUSA has taken preliminary
    steps to develop its own Human Capital Strategic Plan that is to be linked
    to the DOJ Strategic Plan and is exploring other actions to enhance its
    human capital management.

      DOJ's Human Capital Initiatives Include U.S. Attorneys Offices

    In September 2002, DOJ published a Human Capital Strategic Plan that
    covered all of DOJ, including EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. According
    to DOJ, the goals of the Human Capital Strategic Plan, which was to
    support DOJ's Strategic Plan, were to (1) identify and document DOJ's
    human capital accomplishments and (2) design and implement a plan to
    eliminate gaps in DOJ's human capital management. DOJ stated that, among
    other things, the plan was designed to describe the framework DOJ was
    developing to meet its unique human capital needs and cover DOJ personnel
    in law enforcement, legal, and administrative occupational categories. 1
    Regarding the legal field, DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Plan stated that
    DOJ had over 7,500 attorneys and more than 1,300 paralegal specialists
    across the United States, and the largest portion of these were affiliated
    with U.S. Attorneys in each of the 94 districts.2

    1According to DOJ, individuals in the legal field made up the second
    largest category of personnel in DOJ. The largest category was law
    enforcement personnel-when the plan was prepared, DOJ reported that it had
    over 20,000 criminal investigators; nearly 15,000 correctional officers;
    and nearly 10,000 agents and 10,000 inspectors in the Immigration and
    Naturalization Service (INS). Individuals in more than 150 job
    classifications administrative, technical, and clerical functions made up
    the third largest category of other/administrative occupations in DOJ.
    These included individuals in budget and finance, human resources,
    security, information technology, and miscellaneous clerical and technical
    positions. In March 2003, INS was transferred to the Department of
    Homeland Security and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was
    transferred from the Department of the Treasury to DOJ.

    2 In May 2004, DOJ officials said that DOJ had more than 8,000 attorneys.

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
    Strategic Human Capital Management

    In its plan, DOJ reported that it had already experienced significant
    success in managing its human capital. According to DOJ's plan, among
    other things, DOJ (1) was viewed by applicants as having highly desirable
    job opportunities, especially as agents with the Federal Bureau of
    Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or as
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys, (2) had well-established, excellent training
    programs for new law enforcement and legal job entrants; (3) had projected
    low annual retirement rates-the actual retirement rate for 2001 was
    one-third less than projected; (4) had tested and implemented an
    electronic training strategy, in addition to several components having
    tested and implemented electronic hiring systems; and (5) had an extensive
    data bank on job competencies needed for all its occupations.3

    DOJ also reported that, based on guidance provided by the Office of
    Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), GAO,
    and the National Academy of Public Administration, and consistent with the
    administration's Human Capital Initiative, it had identified 4 goals and
    related objectives that would help it eliminate gaps in human capital
    management. Table 5 shows DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and
    Objectives.

    3U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, September 2002
    and DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised
    Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan.

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward Strategic
                                Human Capital Management

    Table 5: DOJ's Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives

                  DOJ human capital goal DOJ human capital objectives

    Human capital goal 1 -Design an 1. Ensure the human capital objectives
    align with the DOJ Strategic Plans and Annual
    effective organization and workforce Performance Plans.
    that aligns with the overall DOJ mission
    and Strategic Plan

    2. Monitor and report on organizational reforms in DOJ components.

    3. Redirect DOJ resources to primary missions (e.g., counterterrorism,
    drug enforcement, and detention/incarceration) and shift resources to the
    "front lines."

    4. Expand the use of contractors to perform commercial activities where it
    improves efficiency and economy.

    5. Develop a workforce analysis and planning model to be applied across
    DOJ.

    Human capital goal 2 -Reduce skill 1. Develop and implement a DOJ-wide
    recruitment strategy.
    gaps through recruitment, training, and
    succession planning

    2. Implement continuous process improvement for recruitment and hiring
    activities and ensure that the hiring process is streamlined as possible.

    3. Ensure that hiring is automated across DOJ to the greatest extent
    possible.

    4. Analyze the background investigation process, and modify as needed.

    5. Conduct a study of flexible/alternative pay programs at DOJ and other
    federal organizations.

    6. Document and continue to build on DOJ's workforce development strategy
    and address any training gaps or issues identified.

    Human capital goal 3 -Develop an 1. Develop a performance management model
    at the DOJ level that "cascades" strategic organizational culture focused
    on goals to front-line employees, and design an implementation strategy
    that includes performance and results communication and training.

    2. Advance the state of information sharing and communication at DOJ, and
    identify and adopt new methods to automate the HR processes to improve
    access.

    3. Strengthen the values of worklife programs and assess how directly they
    are linked to attrition reduction and mission accomplishment.

    Human capital goal 4 -Strengthen 1. Identify, document, and improve the
    nature, content, and level of DOJ employee

    human capital leadership at DOJ 	participation in leadership development
    programs, including the extent of such programs at the component level.

    2. Restructure management of DOJ's Senior Executive Service corps.

    Source: U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, September
    2002.

    Since publishing its Human Capital Strategic Plan, DOJ's Office of
    Inspector General (OIG) and OMB have identified DOJ's management of its
    human capital as a challenge facing DOJ. For example, in November 2002 and
    November 2003, the OIG listed human capital as one of the top 10
    challenges facing DOJ and, among other things, discussed DOJ's ability to
    attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees in many areas
    of operation. In addition, as part of its analysis of agency progress
    toward

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
    Strategic Human Capital Management

    implementing the human capital initiative outlined in the President's
    Management Agenda, OMB gave DOJ a score of green for progress- meaning
    that DOJ's implementation of the human capital initiative was proceeding
    according to plans. DOJ received this score, because, among other things,
    it had drafted a human capital implementation plan that outlined action
    items along with target dates and responsible staff to support each of the
    plan's objectives. However, DOJ received a red for status-indicating that,
    according to OMB's criteria, agency efforts to meet OMB's standards
    regarding human capital planning had any number of serious flaws. In May
    2004, DOJ officials stated that DOJ had been receiving a red score because
    DOJ has been implementing its human capital improvement efforts, but has
    not completed implementation to the point of achieving results across the
    board.

    DOJ recognizes that it faces challenges and, according to DOJ's Director
    of Personnel, is working to address these issues as it continues to move
    forward. In October 2003, the Director told us that DOJ was making
    progress on its human capital initiative and identified a number of steps
    that DOJ was taking. Specifically, she said that, in September 2003, DOJ
    awarded a contract to do workforce analysis and planning and in October,
    the contractor met with component Human Resources Directors to walk them
    through how it plans to implement the project. In addition, since the
    issuance of DOJ's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003
    Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, DOJ has
    begun to develop a new, more detailed, implementation plan that will
    enable DOJ to more closely track its progress toward implementation.
    Moreover, she noted that DOJ is also in the early stages of developing a
    scorecard to measure performance for key human capital indicators.
    However, she indicated that DOJ is struggling with measuring impact.

    DOJ's Personnel Director also identified employee-related human capital
    initiatives. Specifically, she said that DOJ has been working on a new
    employee performance appraisal system for General Schedule and Senior
    Executive Service Employees that will be designed to link individual
    employee performance management to objectives, measures, and results. In
    addition, DOJ has established a Business Case Committee to study what
    options are available to DOJ for improving human capital management
    outside of the pay and personnel rules under Title 5 of the United States
    Code and, according to DOJ officials, similar to human capital reform
    efforts underway at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
    Strategic Human Capital Management

    Department of Defense (DOD).4 The Personnel Director said that the
    Committee was created because of concern that DOJ may lose some of its
    best people if DHS and DOD are able to develop personnel systems that give
    them greater flexibility to recruit and retain employees at higher rates
    of pay, similar to what DOJ experienced during the creation of the
    Transportation Security Administration.

    According to the Director, EOUSA has been heavily involved in some of the
    efforts DOJ is taking to implement its human capital initiative
    departmentwide. Specifically, she said that EOUSA has participated fully
    in DOJ's policy development process to modify the DOJ employee performance
    appraisal system and has played a role on DOJ's Business Case Committee.

      EOUSA Is Considering Its Own Human Capital Initiatives

    EOUSA Has Developed Plans to Implement a Human Capital Initiative

    EOUSA is also considering ways that it can initiate strategic human
    capital planning across U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has recently hired a
    human capital manager to do strategic human capital planning and, among
    other things, explore ways to link individual performance to
    organizational performance and examine whether U.S. Attorneys Offices have
    the appropriate number of staff, with the appropriate skills, to meet
    strategic goals and objectives. In addition, EOUSA is taking other steps,
    including exploring ways to better link pay and performance to help U.S.
    Attorneys Offices retain high performing staff.

    Recognizing the need to develop its own human capital initiative, in his
    September 24, 2003, letter to us, the Director of EOUSA told us that EOUSA
    had recently hired an experienced manager to lead EOUSA's human capital
    initiative. The Director said that the decision to hire the human capital
    manager was based on an EOUSA "white paper" that concluded that a human
    capital initiative position would free up staff resources and provide
    strategic vision and planning. EOUSA's white paper stated that the human
    capital manager would report directly to EOUSA's Chief Operating Officer
    and work with all EOUSA components and U.S.

    4Title 5 laws (or requirements) refer to those personnel management laws,
    procedures, and associated functions generally applicable to federal
    employees. Most federal personnel laws governing topics such as
    classification, appointment, pay and benefits, and adverse action are
    contained in Title 5. Title 5 also contains laws unrelated to federal
    personnel issues, such as the Administrative Procedures Act and the
    Freedom of Information Act, that are also applicable to federal agencies.

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
    Strategic Human Capital Management

    Attorneys Offices in effecting the implementation of EOUSA's human capital
    initiative. According to EOUSA, the human capital manager would

    o  	enable EOUSA to begin collecting data related to human capital
    management, which according to EOUSA, had been the subject of many "GAO
    meetings with EOUSA concerning the human capital management objectives of
    both the Administration and the Hill;"

    o  	assist in restructuring and suggesting creative approaches to human
    resource management-for instance, analyzing whether the organization could
    effectively employ buyouts;

    o  	serve as the organization's liaison with other organizations, such as
    GAO, OPM, and DOJ at large in matters related to human capital; and

    o  	free up resources in EOUSA's Personnel Policy Division to focus on,
    among other things, U.S. Attorney District staffing issues, rather than
    Human Capital Policy, reporting, and liaison.

    EOUSA also stated in its white paper that it needs to develop a human
    capital strategic plan that is linked to DOJ's Strategic Plan. According
    to the paper, the component plan must be used to set organizational goals,
    develop employee performance standards, and facilitate performancerelated
    personnel decisions. In so doing, the white paper indicated that EOUSA
    needed to be able to track at least one performance element in each
    employee's performance work plan-designed to document employee performance
    expectations and appraisals-back to a DOJ or component strategic goal. The
    white paper discussed three options for making this linkage, including one
    that would require that all EOUSA employee performance work plans have one
    performance element called "Annual Goals and Initiatives" that could be
    linked to one or more goals of the EOUSA strategic plan.

    In addition, EOUSA's white paper discussed what EOUSA called strategic
    "people planning" whereby EOUSA would consider whether it had the right
    number of staff with the right skills to meet strategic goals this year,
    and for the next several years. The paper also stated that EOUSA should
    consider how the strategic goals of EOUSA's "people" organizations address
    strategic issues; whether those goals relate to EOUSA's efforts to meet
    its strategic goals and initiatives for the next several years; and the
    extent to which strategic goals reflect coordinated analysis of EOUSA's
    workforce relative to its mission. The white paper listed two options for
    implementing its people-planning initiative. First, EOUSA offices

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
    Strategic Human Capital Management

    EOUSA Has Taken Other Steps to Address Strategic Human Capital Management

    associated with personnel and management issues could coordinate their
    objectives for consistency. Second, these and other offices could "closely
    link short and long-range planning activities to strategic goals and
    objectives." EOUSA's white paper did not specify how EOUSA planned to
    analyze whether U.S. Attorneys Offices had the right number of staff, with
    the right skills, to meet their strategic goals over the next year or over
    the next several years. In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that
    EOUSA had not begun to fully implement its human capital restructuring
    effort because the human capital manager has been focusing on formulating
    a buyout initiative for EOUSA's legal assistants, legal secretaries, among
    others.5

    In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA's Director described other steps
    EOUSA has begun to take to address human capital issues. For example, the
    Director said that EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys are working to develop new
    management training that is expected to include course work on individual
    performance management and organizational strategic planning. Also,
    EOUSA's Director told us that EOUSA's personnel staff is working with the
    Middle District of Tennessee to develop the prototype for a new appraisal
    format that is to enhance linkage between performance and identified goals
    and objectives. EOUSA said that, under this initiative, the U.S. Attorney
    has articulated his goals and objectives, and his attorney management
    staff has begun to refine their performance elements and standards to
    clearly identify and communicate to their employees management's
    expectations to accomplish those objectives. In the meantime, EOUSA's
    Director said EOUSA staff has shared with the district a proposal for a
    new appraisal form that would assist them in reconstructing their
    performance management system. EOUSA's Director said that the results of
    this effort would be a pilot for revising U.S. Attorney performance
    management, in connection with DOJ's overall effort to integrate goals and
    objectives into employee's expectations and appraisal, discussed earlier.

    In addition, EOUSA's Director said that EOUSA is working with an internal
    DOJ advisory subcommittee to examine possible changes to the U.S. Attorney
    pay system, with a view toward restructuring pay and performance systems
    and linking pay to performance. According to

    5According to U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Workforce: Payroll
    and Human Capital Changes During Downsizing, GAO/GGD-99-57 (Washington,
    D.C.: August 1999), a buyout refers to paid separation incentives used by
    federal agencies since 1993 to induce employees to voluntarily leave
    federal service.

    Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to Move Toward
    Strategic Human Capital Management

    EOUSA, this effort, which is in the very early deliberative stages, arises
    out of concerns that (1) the existing pay scale for Supervisory Assistant
    and Assistant U.S. Attorneys are out of date and too low to compete with
    the private sector in many districts and (2) the current performance
    rating system does not give U.S. Attorneys enough flexibility to provide
    larger pay increases to distinguish more precisely among varying levels of
    performance. Regarding the latter, the subcommittee is exploring whether a
    change in the existing performance rating system could give U.S. Attorneys
    greater leverage to retain talented, experienced attorneys in light of
    "increasing demands on all U.S. Attorneys Offices."

    In our survey of over 750 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys during
    January and February 2003, we addressed the question of whether retaining
    experienced attorneys may be an issue facing EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys in
    the future. Our survey results showed that about 68 percent of respondents
    who had supervised a unit for at least 2 years indicated that there had
    been attrition among Assistant U.S. Attorneys they had supervised during
    that time period. About 53 percent of respondents said they had either too
    few or far too few Assistant U.S. Attorneys working in their unit, given
    the workload over the last 6 months of 2002. When asked the extent to
    which they anticipated a shortage of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next
    3 years as a result of increased unit workload, about 64 percent of
    responding supervisors answered to at least a moderate extent.
    Approximately 35 percent answered this way when asked if attrition would
    cause the shortage.

    Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors' responses,
    go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.

    Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
    about Various Management Issues

    Using a Web-based questionnaire, we surveyed all Supervisory Assistant
    U.S. Attorneys in all 94 federal judicial districts between January 8,
    2003, and February 28, 2003. We sent this survey to 768 supervisors and
    received 532 responses- an approximate 70 percent response rate. The
    results of our survey are applicable only to the supervisors who responded
    and are not generalizable to all U.S. Attorney Office supervisors
    nationwide. Accordingly, the response results for individual questions are
    applicable only to the supervisors who had opinions and provided answers.
    We developed a series of questions to obtain supervisors' views on various
    topics, including performance goals and measures; supervisory monitoring
    of cases and matters handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys; individual
    performance evaluations; Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing and attrition;
    administrative (nonattorney) staff support; and training.1

    Please note that in the following discussion of survey results, we always
    refer to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who had an opinion and
    responded to a particular question. For any question, the survey
    respondent has the option of answering the question, indicating "No basis
    to judge," or not answering the question at all. In other cases, a
    respondent may be instructed to skip one or more questions depending on
    how they answered a prior question. Because of this, the actual number of
    respondents fluctuates slightly for each question. In most cases,
    relatively small numbers of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys'
    responses were excluded from the analysis of specific questions.

    The following highlights supervisors' responses to questions covering key
    issues addressed in our survey. To view our survey and supervisors'
    responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.

    1In this report, information on U.S. Attorneys' information technology
    needs is limited to LIONS and ALCATRAZ systems in terms of case progress
    and attorney performance. For a more complete discussion of this topic,
    please refer to U.S. General Accounting Office,

    Information Technology: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Needs to
    Institutionalize Key IT Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751 (Washington,
    D.C.: July 2003).

     Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
                            about Various Management Issues

      Performance Goals and Measures

    o

    o

      Monitoring Cases and Matters

    The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
    responded to various questions about DOJ performance goals and district
    goals and measures.2

    National performance goals-Nearly 90 percent of the respondents indicated
    that they received information about the national performance goals from
    DOJ through at least one of a variety of ways, which included hardcopy,
    e-mails, oral and video briefings, the Internet, as well as other means.
    Only about 10 percent said the goals had not been communicated to their
    unit. District performance goals and measures-About 77 percent of the 470
    supervisors answering the question indicated that their U.S. Attorneys
    Office had established district level performance goals and measures,
    while about 23 percent said that their offices did not establish these
    goals and measures.

    o  	Approximately 83 percent of those who said their U.S. Attorneys Office
    had established district level performance goals and measures answered to
    a very great or great extent that the cases handled by their unit
    realistically reflected the district level performance goals and measures
    established by the U.S. Attorneys Office.

    o  	About 87 percent of respondents did not feel changes were needed in
    establishing district level strategic objectives, performance goals, and
    performance measures in their U.S. Attorneys Office.

    The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
    responded to questions about how they monitored the progress of cases and
    matters assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their units.

    o  	Progress-The majority of supervisors who responded said that they use
    a variety of ways to monitor the progress of cases or matters assigned to
    the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. For example, over 87 percent
    of respondents indicated that they used periodic case reviews, nearly 84
    percent use periodic meetings with staff, about 60 percent used biannual
    reviews and approximately 50 percent used quarterly reviews, to a very
    great or great extent. About 40 percent of respondents said that they

    2For purposes of this report, we refer to national level performance goals
    and measures as those by which federal agencies are to measure performance
    under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). We
    asked supervisors to identify whether DOJ communicated its strategic goals
    and objectives and if, at the district level, long-range goals and
    objectives were articulated to U.S. Attorneys Offices' staff.

    Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys about Various Management Issues

    use to a very great or great extent existing management information
    systems-such as LIONS, the U.S. Attorney case management system-to monitor
    case progress.

    o  	Approach to monitoring progress-The majority of supervisors who
    responded said that they use a variety of ways to monitor time spent on a
    specific case or matter assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their
    unit. For example, about 80 percent said that they used individual
    meetings to cover a specific case or matter; about 70 percent said they
    used periodic reviews, as needed; about 41 percent used quarterly reviews;
    and nearly 40 percent used biannual reviews, to a very great or great
    extent.

    o  	Frequency of reviews-Respondents also said that these various reviews
    were either much more than adequate, more than adequate, or adequate to
    review time spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their
    unit. For example, about 93 percent of respondents indicated that periodic
    case/matter reviews, as the need arises, were at least adequate to review
    time spent on a case or matter; approximately 83 percent said that
    quarterly reviews were at least adequate; and about 80 percent said that
    biannual reviews were at least adequate for this purpose.

    o  	Importance of monitoring time spent-About 47 percent of respondents
    said that it was either very important or important to review the amount
    of time being spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S. Attorneys in
    their unit with an additional 37 percent saying that it was moderately
    important.

    Performance The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys responded to various questions about evaluating the performance
    of the Evaluation Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they supervise.

    Usefulness of appraisals-About 53 percent of respondents answered that
    performance appraisals were either very useful or useful in recognizing
    outstanding performance and about 38 percent indicated that performance
    appraisals were either very useful or useful in identifying performance
    that needs improvement for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit.

    o  	Appraisal form and critical job factors-Only 24 percent of respondents
    answered to a very great or great extent when asked whether the
    performance appraisal form provides a true assessment of critical job
    factors while about 27 percent of respondents responded to some, little,
    or no extent when asked this question. About 48 percent answered to a
    moderate extent.

    o  	Performance counseling-When asked the extent to which they believed
    they could provide candid, constructive job performance counseling,
    approximately 65 percent of supervisors who responded

     Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
                            about Various Management Issues

      Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing

    indicated to a very great or great extent. Adding the response "to a
    moderate extent" brings the total to almost 97 percent.

    o  	Training on performance counseling-Finally, nearly 80 percent of
    responding supervisors answered very great, great, or moderate extent when
    asked whether they had been provided with adequate supervisory training to
    provide effective job performance counseling.

    The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
    responded to various questions about Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing and
    attrition.

    o  	Extent of attrition-About 68 percent of respondents who had supervised
    a unit for at least 2 years indicated that there has been attrition among
    the Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they have supervised over that time
    period. In addition, about 68 percent of supervisors responding said that
    they were not aware of any practices in place in their office or unit to
    help retain Assistant U.S. Attorneys currently employed. Of the 139
    supervisors who indicated that retention practices were in place, nearly
    86 percent said that those practices were either very or somewhat
    effective.

    o  	Staff shortages-Given the unit workload over the last 6 months of
    2002, about 45 percent of respondents said that their unit had about the
    right number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. However, approximately 53
    percent of respondents said they have either too few or far too few
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys working in their unit.

    o  	When asked the extent to which they anticipated a shortage of
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next 3 years as a result of increased unit
    workload, about 64 percent of responding supervisors answered to a very
    great, great, or moderate extent. Approximately 35 percent answered this
    way when asked if attrition would cause the shortage and about 26 percent
    answered this way when lack of attorneys with specialized skills or
    expertise was specified as the potential cause.

    o  	Of the respondents who indicated that they anticipated shortages of
    U.S. Attorneys in their unit over the next 3 years, about 38 percent said
    that their units are or are planning to increase hiring as a strategy to
    counter shortages, while about 21 percent indicated that specialized
    training was a strategy that was planned or in place to counter the
    anticipated shortage.

    o  	Experience and expertise-When asked whether they believed that their
    units have the right mix of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in terms of
    experience and expertise for the types of cases handled, about 76 percent
    of the supervisors responding answered either very great or great extent
    for experience and approximately 73 percent answered this way for
    expertise.

    Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys about Various Management Issues

    Administrative 	The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys responded to various questions about the workload and skills of
    the

    Support 	administrative staff-paralegals and legal assistant and
    secretaries-that supported their units.

    Paralegals  o  	Workload-In terms of their ability to deal with the
    current workload, over 62 percent of supervisors who responded said that
    the number of paralegal specialist staff is less than or much less than
    adequate, while nearly 38 percent say the number of paralegal specialist
    staff is either adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate.
    Only about 5 percent indicated that the number of paralegals was in any
    way more than adequate.

    o  	Skill level-Nearly 83 percent of responding supervisors said the skill
    levels of the paralegal specialist staff currently working with their unit
    are either adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate.

    o  	Feasibility of assuming other duties-Nearly 60 percent of responding
    supervisors answered either definitely or probably yes when asked whether
    it would be feasible for existing or newly hired paralegal specialists to
    assume some of the legal duties currently performed by Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys in their unit. About 40 percent of supervisors with an opinion
    indicated that they would definitely not or probably not be able to assume
    these duties.3

        Legal Assistants and Secretaries

    o  	Workload-When asked whether the number of support staff currently
    working with their unit was adequate in terms of dealing with the current
    workload, nearly 50 percent of responding supervisors answered either less
    than or much less than adequate. Slightly over 50 percent of responding
    supervisors answered either adequate, more than adequate, or much more
    than adequate. Of those who said that they had less than adequate support
    staff available to do the work, approximately 34 percent responded that
    this adversely affected casework either to a very great or great extent.
    Adding answers of moderate extent to this total raises it to over 83
    percent.

    o  	Skill level-Nearly 87 percent of responding supervisors said that the
    support staff currently working with their unit had skill levels that were

    3Supervisors indicated that paralegal tasks encompass assisting at trial;
    assisting with the client, agency, witness, or victim; providing
    automation systems and computerized support; filing papers with the court;
    drafting correspondence, pleadings; analyzing documents; providing
    document summaries; and doing general factual and legal research. To a
    lesser extent, paralegals may do deposition summaries, prepare for or
    attend depositions, conduct investigations, and maintain the law library.

     Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
                            about Various Management Issues

    adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate. Only 13 percent
    of supervisors responded that the skill level of support staff was less
    than or much less than adequate. Of those responding that the skill level
    of support staff was less than adequate, nearly 84 percent said that this
    adversely affected their casework to a very great, great, or moderate
    extent.

        Assistant U.S. Attorneys Training

    The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys
    responded to various questions about training and training opportunities
    provided by DOJ through the National Advocacy Center, an institute for
    legal education training operated by EOUSA.

    o  	Assessment of training needs-About 88 percent of respondents said that
    either they or someone else in their unit assessed the training needs of
    all of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys whom they supervised.

    o  	Training frequency-Approximately 96 percent of respondents who have
    been supervisors for at least 2 years said that they or the Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys whom they supervised had taken courses sponsored by the National
    Advocacy Center within the past 2 years.

    o  	About 79 percent of supervisors reported that, over a 2-year period,
    they had personally taken one to two courses; nearly 13 percent said they
    took three to four courses; and 5 percent said that they did not take any
    courses. (The percentages do not add up to 100 percent because some
    specified another alternative not listed here.)

    o  	Almost all (99 percent) responded that at least one of the Assistant
    U.S. Attorneys who they supervised had taken a course at the National
    Advocacy Center within the past 2 years; about 69 percent of respondents
    said that their staff have also taken courses provided through the Justice
    Television Network programming; and nearly 36 percent said that staff had
    taken courses presented by videoconference. To a much lesser extent
    (ranging from about 8 percent to 12 percent), courses were presented at
    their offices by a Center instructor, or self-administered as a
    computer-based course or using printed materials.

    o  	Training for New Assistant U.S. Attorneys-Almost 32 percent of
    respondents said that new Assistant U.S. Attorneys should take one to two
    courses during their first 2 years in the unit, 54 percent said they
    should take three to four courses, and about 10 percent said they should
    take more than four courses. (The percentages do not add up to 100 percent
    because some specified another alternative not listed here.)

    o  	Course content-Approximately 55 percent of respondents said that the
    content of the courses offered over the past 2 years by the Center was

    Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO's Survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S.
    Attorneys about Various Management Issues

    highly relevant to the work the Assistant U.S. Attorneys performed in
    their

    unit while nearly 43 percent said that it was generally relevant.  o
    Information about training opportunities- Supervisors were kept informed
    of training opportunities presented by the Center in a variety of ways.
    Approximately 48 percent of responding supervisors said that they received
    information about training opportunities from a Web site; about 62 percent
    received electronic information from the Center; and approximately 44
    percent received information through hard copy or electronic format from
    the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. Additionally, about 85 percent
    said they received information electronically from their U.S. Attorney's
    Office.

    o  	Reason for not taking National Advocacy Center courses-The Supervisory
    Assistant U.S. Attorneys were also asked about reasons for not taking
    courses offered by the Center. Their responses are as follows:

    o  	The ongoing caseload is too heavy to take time for training courses-
    approximately 44 percent of those responding answered to a very great or
    great extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to close to
    79 percent.

    o  	Reluctant to take time away from casework for training- approximately
    36 percent of those responding answered to a very great or great extent.
    Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to 70 percent.

    o  	Travel time to training location is excessive-approximately 47 percent
    of those responding answered to a very great or great extent. Adding
    moderate extent increases the percentage to about 68 percent.

    Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact John F. Mortin, (202) 512-8777.

    Staff 	Barbara A. Stolz, Richard R. Griswold, Carla D. Brown, Susan S.
    Mak, Daniel R. Garcia, Grace Coleman, Shari Caporale, Stuart M. Kaufman,

    Acknowledgments David Alexander, Elsie Picyk, and Maria Romero.

    Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management

    A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management (Exposure Draft),
    GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002).

    Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected Personnel
    Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: January 23, 2004).

    Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries' Succession
    Planning and Management Initiatives, GAO-03-914 (Washington, D.C.:
    September 15, 2003).

    Human Capital: Selected Agency Actions to Integrate Human Capital
    Approaches to Attain Mission Results, GAO-03-446 (Washington, D.C.: April
    11, 2003).

    Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39
    (Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2003).

    Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
    Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G (Washington, D.C.: July
    2003).

    Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in
    Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2002).

    Human Capital: Practices that Empowered and Involved Employees,
    GAO-01-1070 (Washington, D.C. September 14, 2001).

    Results Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance
    and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2003).

      GAO's Mission

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    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 e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
    heading.

    Order by Mail or Phone 	The first copy of each printed report is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
    Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
    percent. Orders should be sent to:

    U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
    20548

    To order by Phone: 	Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
    512-6061

    To Report Fraud,	Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

      Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

    Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
    512-7470

    Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

    Public Affairs 	U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D.C. 20548
    *** End of document. ***