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,
[email protected].

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
[email protected] or Mr. Mortin at [email protected]. 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: [email protected]

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

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

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