Crime Technology: Federal Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement
(Letter Report, 06/07/1999, GAO/GGD-99-101).
Crime technology assistance provided by the Departments of Justice and
the Treasury as well as the Office of National Drug Control Policy to
state and local law enforcement between 1996 and 1998 totaled an
estimated $1.2 billion. This figure is conservative because--given that
these federal agencies are not required to, and do not, specifically
track crime technology assistance separately in their accounting
systems--GAO included only amounts that could be identified or
reasonably estimated by agency officials or GAO. The primary type of
crime technology assistance that GAO identified as going to state and
local law enforcement--$1 billion, or about 85 percent of the estimated
$1.2 billion total--was grants, all of which were administered by
Justice. Support service and systems was estimated to be the second
largest category of crime technology assistance provided to state and
local law enforcement agencies. Regarding in-kind transfers, GAO found
that only the Office of National Drug Control Policy had an established,
relevant program.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: GGD-99-101
TITLE: Crime Technology: Federal Assistance to State and Local
Law Enforcement
DATE: 06/07/1999
SUBJECT: Federal/state relations
Law enforcement information systems
Technology transfer
Grants to states
Law enforcement agencies
Federal aid for criminal justice
Grants to local governments
IDENTIFIER: DOJ State Identification Systems Grant Program
Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Program
Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grant
Byrne Formula Grant
DOJ National Criminal History Improvement Program
DOJ National Sex Offender Registry
DOJ Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
FBI Combined DNA Index System
DOJ Regional Information Sharing System
FBI Law-Enforcement On-Line System
ATF Arson/Explosives Incident System
ATF Accelerant Detection Analysis
ATF Firearms Tracing System
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO Report
to The Honorable Mike DeWine, U.S. Senate June 1999 CRIME
TECHNOLOGY Federal Assistance to State and Local Law Enforcement
GAO/GGD-99-101 United States General Accounting Office
General Government Division Washington, D.C. 20548 B-280998 June
7, 1999 The Honorable Mike DeWine United States Senate Dear
Senator DeWine: This report responds to your request for
information about crime technology assistance1 provided by the
federal government to state and local law enforcement agencies.
Specifically, for fiscal years 1996 through 1998, you requested
that we identify the types and amounts of such assistance provided
by the Department of Justice, the Department of the Treasury, and
the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Also, as
agreed with you, we categorized the assistance into three types:
(1) direct funding or grants; (2) access to support services and
systems, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI)
National Crime Information Center; and (3) in-kind (no cost)
transfers of equipment or other assets. Identifiable crime
technology assistance provided by Justice, Treasury, Results in
Brief and ONDCP to state and local law
enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998 totaled
an estimated $1.2 billion, as table 1 shows. This total is
conservative because-given that these federal agencies are not
required to, and do not specifically track crime technology
assistance separately in their accounting systems-we included only
amounts that could be identified or reasonably estimated by agency
officials or us. As noted in table 1, this estimate was
particularly conservative regarding multipurpose grants, such as
Byrne Formula Grants and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, which
by design can be used for a variety of purposes. Further, as also
noted in table 1, regarding applicable support services and
systems, we did not include personnel costs. 1 In developing the
information in this report, we defined "crime technology
assistance" to include federal programs and funding to support a
broad array of activities, ranging from upgrading criminal history
records to establishing or improving fingerprint and ballistic
identification systems (see app. I). Page 1 B-280998 Table 1:
Estimated Federal Funding for Dollars in millions Crime
Technology Assistance, Fiscal Type of Assistance
Amount Years 1996 Through 1998 Direct single-
purpose grants: Justice
$ 255.1 Direct multipurpose grants: Justicea
746.3 Support services and systems: Justiceb
146.6 Support services and systems: Treasuryb
15.9 Technology transfers: ONDCP
13.0 Total
$1,176.9 aFunding estimates for some purpose areas in the Byrne
Formula Grants Program are for 10 states (the largest recipients);
and, funding estimates for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants
Program are based on data voluntarily provided to Justice by
substantially less than all grantees for only 2 fiscal years-i.e.,
about 60 percent of the 1996 grantees and about 10 percent of the
1997 grantees. bFor most services and systems, federal agency
officials made estimates by prorating operating costs (excluding
personnel costs) based on the number of queries or other usage
measures. Source: Summary of data presented in appendixes II
through V. The large majority of identified crime technology
assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies-$1.0
billion or about 85 percent of the estimated $1.2 billion total
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998-was grants, all of which
were administered by Justice. The three largest crime technology
assistance grants during the 3 fiscal years were the (1) Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services' Making Officer Redeployment
Effective grants ($466.1 million), (2) Bureau of Justice
Assistance's Byrne Formula Grants ($188.0 million), and (3) the
Bureau of Justice Statistics' National Criminal History
Improvement Program ($147.2 million). As table 1 shows, support
services and systems was estimated to be the second largest
category of crime technology assistance provided to state and
local law enforcement agencies. In this category, Justice was the
major provider, with an estimated $146.6 million in assistance
compared to Treasury's $15.9 million. Regarding in-kind transfers,
responses from the three agencies we reviewed indicated that only
ONDCP had an established, relevant program. ONDCP's technology
transfer program totaled an estimated $13.0 million in assistance
during fiscal year 1998, the first year of the program's
existence. Although states and localities have traditionally held
the major Background responsibility
for preventing and controlling crime in the United States, a
significant aspect of the federal government's role has been its
provision of financial and other assistance to state and local law
enforcement agencies. Grants are the largest funding source of
crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement
agencies. Page 2 B-280998 Of the three agencies we reviewed, only
Justice provided grants for crime technology purposes. These
grants fall into one of two categories: single- purpose and
multipurpose. Single-purpose grants were clearly or completely for
crime technology assistance. For example, the purpose of the State
Identification Systems Grant Program, which was authorized by the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-
132), is to enable states to develop computerized identification
systems that are compatible and integrated with certain FBI
databases. Multipurpose grants can be used by state and local law
enforcement agencies for a number of purposes including, but not
limited to, crime technology. For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act
of 1986 (P.L. 99-570) established formula and discretionary grants
to state and local law enforcement agencies for addressing crime
related to illegal drugs and other purposes. The Anti-Drug Abuse
Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) expanded the grant programs and named
them the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement
Assistance Programs. Byrne programs are to be used to improve
criminal justice systems, to enhance anti-drug programs, and for
other purposes. More recently, the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 (P.L. 103-322) authorized $30.2 billion
for law enforcement and crime prevention measures. In addition to
authorizing additional funding for Byrne programs through fiscal
year 2000, the 1994 Act established what is known as the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services within Justice and authorized
$8.8 billion in related funding. Also, the Omnibus Consolidated
Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134) provided
funding for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, which
provides funding to state and local governments to reduce crime
and improve public safety. Nongrant federal assistance-such as
providing state and local law enforcement with access to support
services and systems-may be specifically authorized by
legislation. For example, use of the Treasury Department's Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center by units of state and local
government is authorized by P.L. 90-351, as amended. There is no
formal or standardized definition of "crime technology Scope and
assistance" used throughout the federal government. Therefore, for
Methodology purposes of this review, we developed a working
definition and discussed it with Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP
officials, who indicated that the definition was appropriate.
Also, because there is no overall requirement for agency
accounting systems to track crime technology assistance, we Page 3
B-280998 largely relied upon agency estimates. We did not fully or
independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the funding
data provided by agency officials. However, to help ensure data
quality, among other steps, we (1) obtained information on and
reviewed the processes used by agency officials to calculate the
estimated amounts of crime technology assistance and (2) compared
agency responses to primary source documents and attempted to
reconcile any differences with agency officials. Also, as
mentioned above, the funding totals presented in this report are
conservative, especially regarding multipurpose grants. That is,
because agency accounting systems did not specifically track crime
technology assistance, we included only amounts that could be
reasonably estimated by agency officials or by our reviews of
agency information. Appendix I presents more details about our
objectives, scope, and methodology. We requested comments on a
draft of this report from the Attorney General, the Secretary of
the Treasury, and the Director of ONDCP. Justice's, Treasury's,
and ONDCP's oral and written comments are discussed near the end
of this letter. We performed our work from August 1998 to April
1999 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. As table 1 shows, for the three federal agencies we
reviewed, single- Grant Programs Were purpose grants ($255.1
million) and multipurpose grants ($746.3 million) the Major Type
of were the major type of crime technology assistance
provided to state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal
years 1996 through 1998. Federal Assistance We identified 13
relevant single-purpose grant programs. Of these, one program-the
National Criminal History Improvement Program- represented about
58 percent of the $255.1 million total. This program, funded at
about $147.2 million for fiscal years 1996 through 1998, wholly
involved crime technology assistance in that its purpose is to
help states upgrade the quality and completeness of criminal
history records and to increase compatibility with and access to
FBI criminal information databases. The other 12 single-purpose
grant programs represented about 42 percent ($107.9 million) of
the $255.1 million total and included programs such as a DNA
Laboratory Improvement Program and the National Sex Offender
Registry. We identified 10 multipurpose grant programs that had
some purposes involving crime technology assistance to state and
local law enforcement agencies. Of these 10, the following 2
programs accounted for about 88 percent of the estimated $746.3
million total: Page 4 B-280998 * Making Officer Redeployment
Effective Grants ($466.1 million): This program, administered by
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, allows law
enforcement agencies to purchase equipment and technology to help
expand the time available for community policing by current law
enforcement officers. * Byrne Formula Grant Program ($188.0
million): Three purpose areas in this program-purpose areas 15(a),
15(b), and 25-specifically involved crime technology assistance to
state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996
through 1998. Purpose area 15(a) is for improving drug-control
technology; purpose area 15(b) is for criminal justice information
systems (including a 5-percent set-aside for improving criminal
justice records); and purpose area 25 is for developing DNA
analysis capabilities. The other eight multipurpose grant programs
represented 12 percent ($92.2 million) of the estimated $746.3
million total funding through multipurpose grants for crime
technology assistance. Among many other uses, grant recipients
used these funds to develop (1) information management systems for
drug court programs and (2) integrated computer systems for
tracking domestic violence cases. Appendix II provides more
details about Justice's single-purpose and multipurpose grants
that provided crime technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. The
second largest category of estimated crime technology assistance,
as Justice and Treasury table 1 shows, was access to support
services and systems provided by Provided Access to Justice
and Treasury. Of these two agencies, Justice was the more
significant provider, with an estimated $146.6 million in
assistance to state Support Services and and local law
enforcement agencies, or about 90 percent of the $162.5 Systems
million total during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. For these 3
fiscal years, about 62 percent of Justice's $146.6 million in
assistance was attributable to 4 of the 21 relevant support
services or systems we identified: * Regional Information Sharing
Systems ($50.3 million): Funded by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, six regional criminal intelligence centers provide
state and local law enforcement with access to an Intelligence
Database Pointer, a National Gang Database, a secure intranet, and
other support services. Page 5 B-280998 * Combined DNA Index
System ($16.7 million): The FBI's index system contains DNA
records of persons convicted of crimes. State and local crime
laboratories can use the system to store and match DNA records. *
Law Enforcement On-Line ($12.6 million): Managed by the FBI, this
intranet links the law enforcement community throughout the United
States and supports broad, immediate dissemination of information.
* National Crime Information Center ($11.1 million): Managed by
the FBI, this is the nation's most extensive criminal justice
information system. The system's largest file, the Interstate
Identification Index, provides access to millions of criminal
history information records in state systems. Justice's other 17
support services and systems represented 38 percent ($55.9
million) of the agency's $146.6 million total assistance in this
category. Two examples are (1) the Drug Enforcement
Administration's National Drug Pointer Index, which has an
automated response capability to determine if a case suspect is
under active investigation by a participating law enforcement
agency and (2) the National Institute of Justice's National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers, which offer
technology and information assistance to law enforcement and
corrections agencies by introducing promising technologies and
providing technology training. Appendix III presents more detailed
information about Justice's support services and systems that
provided crime technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
Treasury's support services and systems provided $15.9 million of
assistance during this period, as table 1 shows. This assistance
involved a total of 29 support services and systems. Of these, 14
were provided by one Treasury component-the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), which accounted for $13.4 million (84
percent) of Treasury's $15.9 million total assistance in this
category. Further, as indicated next, 3 of ATF's 14 services and
systems accounted for about two-thirds of the ATF's support to
state and local law enforcement: * Arson/Explosives Incident
System ($3.5 million): State and local agencies are able to query
the system for information about component parts, stolen
explosives, and device placement. * Accelerant Detection Analysis
($2.7 million): This service involves the laboratory analysis of
fire debris to detect and identify flammable liquids potentially
used as accelerants in an incendiary fire. Page 6 B-280998 *
Firearms Tracing System ($2.5 million): The National Tracing
Center traces firearms (from the manufacturer to the retail
purchaser) for law enforcement agencies. Treasury's other 15
relevant support services and systems accounted for the remaining
16 percent ($2.5 million) of the $15.9 million total assistance.
Two examples are (1) the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network's
Project Gateway, which helps state and local law enforcement
agencies combat money laundering and other financial crimes and
(2) the Secret Service's Questioned Document Branch, which
maintains a forensic information system for analyzing handwriting
samples. Appendix IV presents more detailed information about
Treasury's support services and systems that provided crime
technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies
during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Based on information from
Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP officials, we In-Kind Transfer
specifically identified only one established, relevant in-kind
transfer Programs program-i.e., an ONDCP technology
transfer program that began in fiscal year 1998. According to
ONDCP officials, the program involved 18 projects or systems that
fit our definition of crime technology assistance, but only 15 of
these were transferred to state and local law enforcement agencies
in fiscal year 1998. For that year, as table 1 shows, federal
funding for the transferred projects or systems totaled $13
million. Examples of transferred technologies include (1) a vapor
tracer device for detecting and identifying small quantities of
narcotics and explosives and (2) a secure, miniaturized
multichannel audio device for inconspicuous use during covert
operations. Appendix V provides further details about ONDCP's
technology transfer program. Justice and Treasury officials told
us that their agencies routinely make excess equipment available
to other governmental and nongovernmental users through the
General Services Administration. However, the officials said they
had no readily available information regarding how much of the
excessed equipment was crime technology related and was
subsequently received by state and local law enforcement agencies.
Similarly, General Services Administration officials told us that
their agency's accounting systems could not provide this type of
information. Treasury officials noted that there have been a few
isolated or nonroutine instances of direct transfers, as when the
Secret Service directly excessed Page 7 B-280998 some used
automated data processing and communications equipment2 to state
and local law enforcement agencies in 1998. We did not include
these isolated or nonroutine transfers in the funding amounts
presented in this report. Officials from Justice's Office of
Justice Programs and Office of Audit Agency Comments and Liaison
met with us on May 13, 1999, and provided the following comments
Our Evaluation on a draft of this report: * In
their written comments, Office of Justice Programs officials
provided several technical comments and clarifications, mostly
centered on funding amounts for certain National Institute of
Justice programs presented in table II.1 in appendix II. As
appropriate, we made adjustments to table II.1 and also added some
clarifying language to our scope and methodology (app. I). * The
Director, Office of Audit Liaison, told us that the draft report
had been reviewed by officials in other relevant Justice
components (including INTERPOLU.S. National Central Bureau and the
Marshals Service) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, and that these officials had no comments. Also, in
written comments, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI,
and the Immigration and Naturalization Service suggested technical
comments and clarifications, which have been incorporated in this
report where appropriate. Treasury officials met with us on May
12, 1999, and provided oral comments. More specifically: * ATF,
Customs Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network officials expressed agreement
with the information presented in the report. * Secret Service
officials had technical comments and clarifications, which have
been incorporated in this report where appropriate. * A Treasury
Office of Finance and Administration official indicated that,
although not in attendance at the May 12 meeting, IRS officials
had reviewed the draft report and had no comments. 2 Secret
Service officials told us that the original acquisition costs of
this equipment totaled about $535,000 but that no depreciated
values have been calculated or assigned regarding the transfer.
Page 8 B-280998 On May 13, 1999, the Director of ONDCP's
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center met with us and expressed
agreement with the information presented in the report. To provide
additional perspective, he suggested that appendix V reflect the
fact that, as of December 1998, the 15 relevant ONDCP projects or
systems involved a total of 202 recipient state and local law
enforcement agencies. We added this information to the appendix.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution
until 30 days after the date of this letter. We are sending copies
of this report to Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman, and Senator
Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member, Senate Committee on the
Judiciary; Representative Henry J. Hyde, Chairman, and
Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority Member, House
Committee on the Judiciary; The Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney
General; The Honorable Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the Treasury;
The Honorable Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of ONDCP; and The
Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget.
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. The
major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If
you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-8777. Sincerely yours, Richard M. Stana
Associate Director Administration of Justice Issues Page 9
Contents 1 Letter 14 Appendix I Objectives
14 Objectives, Scope, and Definition of "Crime Technology
Assistance" 14 Overview of
Scope and Methodology 14
Methodology Scope and Methodology Regarding
Grant Programs 16 Scope and Methodology
Regarding Support Services and 20 Systems Scope
and Methodology Regarding In-Kind Transfers
22 Data Accuracy and Reliability
23 24 Appendix II Overview of Department of
Justice Grant Programs 24 Crime Technology
Descriptions of Justice Grant Programs
28 Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice 34
Appendix III Overview of Department of Justice
Support Services and 34 Crime Technology
Systems Descriptions of Justice's Support Services and Systems
36 Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice 41 Appendix IV Overview of
Department of the Treasury Support 41
Crime Technology Services and Systems Descriptions
of Treasury's Support Services and Systems 42
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury Page 10
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Contents 48 Appendix V
Mission of ONDCP's Counterdrug Technology
48 Crime Technology Assessment Center Overview of
Technology Transfer Pilot Program 48
Assistance (In-Kind Descriptions of Applicable Systems
49 Transfers) Provided by the Office of National Drug Control
Policy 52 Appendix VI Major Contributors to This Report Table 1:
Estimated Federal Funding for Crime
1 Tables Technology Assistance, Fiscal Years
1996 Through 1998 Table II.1: Estimated Obligations of Department
of 25 Justice Single-Purpose Grants for
Crime Technology Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement
Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998 Table II.2: Estimated
Obligations of Department of 28 Justice
Multipurpose Grants With Crime Technology as a Permissible Use
Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years
1996 Through 1998 Table III.1: Estimated Obligations of Department
of 35 Justice Support Services and Systems
Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years
1996 Through 1998 Table IV.1: Estimated Obligations of Department
of the 41 Treasury Support Services and Systems
Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years
1996 Through 1998 Table V.1: ONDCP Crime Technology Assistance
48 Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal
Year 1998 Page 11 GAO/GGD-
99-101 Crime Technology Contents Abbreviations ATF Bureau
of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms CODIS Combined DNA Index
System CTAC Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center DEA
Drug Enforcement Administration FBI Federal Bureau of
Investigation INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization IRS
Internal Revenue Service MORE Making Officer Redeployment
Effective ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy STOP
Services Training Officers Prosecutors Page 12
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime
Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology Senator
Mike DeWine requested that we identify crime technology Objectives
assistance provided by the federal government to state and local
law enforcement agencies. Specifically, for fiscal years 1996
through 1998, Senator DeWine requested that we identify the types
and amounts of such assistance provided by the Departments of
Justice and the Treasury and the Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP). As agreed with the requester, we categorized the
assistance into three types: (1) direct funding or grants; (2)
access to support services and systems, such as automated criminal
history records and forensics laboratories; and (3) in- kind (no-
cost) transfers of equipment or other assets. Initially, we
conducted a literature search to determine whether there was
Definition of "Crime a commonly accepted definition of
"crime technology assistance." Since Technology
our search did not yield a definition, we developed our own by
reviewing (1) a then pending bill (S. 2022), which has since been
enacted into law,1 Assistance" related to
crime technology assistance introduced by Senator DeWine during
the second session of the 105th Congress, and its legislative
history; (2) his request letter to us and subsequent discussions
with his staff; (3) the General Services Administration's Catalog
of Federal Domestic Assistance, a reference source of federal
assistance programs, including crime control programs; and (4)
Congressional Research Service reports on federal crime control
assistance. Accordingly, our definition of crime technology
assistance was the following: "Any technology-related assistance
provided to state and local law enforcement agencies, including
those of Indian tribes, for establishing and/or improving (1)
criminal justice history and/or information systems and
specialized support services or (2) the availability of and
capabilities to access such services and systems related to
identification, information, communications, and forensics." We
discussed this definition with Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP
officials, who indicated that the definition was appropriate and
would be helpful in their efforts to compile the requested
information. To determine the types and amounts of crime
technology-related Overview of Scope and assistance for fiscal
years 1996 to 1998, we reviewed (1) excerpts from the Methodology
Budget of the United States Government, Appendices and Analytical
Perspectives for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, (2) agencies'
fiscal year budget requests, (3) appropriations acts, and (4)
budget execution reports provided by the Office of Management and
Budget. Also, as noted above, we reviewed the General Services
Administration's Catalog of Federal 1 P.L. 105-251 (October 9,
1998). Page 14
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology Domestic Assistance (annual editions for 1996 through
1998) and Congressional Research Service reports on federal crime
control assistance. We contacted the Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP
components most likely to provide crime technology-related
assistance. Within Justice, we contacted * the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA); * the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI); * the Immigration and Naturalization Service; * the
INTERPOL - U.S. National Central Bureau; * the U.S. Marshals
Service; * the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services;
and * the Office of Justice Programs and its components (i.e.,
the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, the Drug Courts Program Office, the National Institute
of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, and the Violence Against Women Grants Office). Within
Treasury, we contacted * the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms (ATF); * the Customs Service; * the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center; * the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; * the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and * the Secret
Service. Page 15 GAO/GGD-
99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology Within ONDCP, we contacted the Director of the
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center. From Justice, Treasury,
and ONDCP, we obtained and reviewed relevant program descriptions
and related explanatory materials, such as catalogs and program
plans. Specifically, we reviewed (1) descriptions of grant
programs and support services and systems and (2) corresponding
funding data prepared by agency officials for this review.
Generally, in this report, our references to state and local law
enforcement agencies may include recipients of federal assistance
in (1) the 50 states; (2) the District of Columbia; (3) the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and (4) where applicable, the U.S.
territories of American Samoa and Guam, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. During our
review of grant programs, we identified many crime technology
Scope and projects that were funded by federal
grants distributed to entities other Methodology than
state and local law enforcement agencies. These recipients
included federal agencies, private firms, colleges and
universities, and others. Regarding Grant Specifically,
under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, 1 Programs
percent of authorized appropriations ($20 million per year) was
for law enforcement technologies. According to a National
Institute of Justice official, this 1-percent set-aside supported
153 projects during fiscal years 1996 through 1998; and, of this
total, 145 projects involved grant funding in which state or local
law enforcement agencies did not participate in the specific
project at all. Therefore, we did not include grant funding for
these 145 projects in the data tables presented in appendix II.
However, the other eight projects directly involved state or local
law enforcement agencies. For these eight projects, we included
grant funding (a total of $2,325,600) in table II.1. We determined
that, of the three agencies we reviewed, only Justice provided
direct grant funding to state and local law enforcement agencies
for crime technology assistance. Within Justice, the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services and the Office of Justice
Programs administered the majority of grant programs that included
crime technology assistance. We divided crime technology
assistance grants into two categories--single-purpose grants and
multipurpose grants. We defined single-purpose grants as those
that clearly or completely fell Single-Purpose Grants within
the definition of crime technology assistance. For single-purpose
Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-101
Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
grants, Justice was able to identify applicable grants and
specifically quantify funding amounts (see table II.1 in app. II).
As table II.1 shows, the National Institute of Justice is one of
Justice's components that provided crime technology assistance.
The Institute's role includes allocating funds for certain
research and development projects that may directly or indirectly
involve crime technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement agencies. For purposes of our review and table II.1,
we included the Institute's research and development project costs
for only those projects wherein the Institute was able to identify
that a state or local law enforcement agency was directly involved
or partnered with private firms, companies, universities, or
federal agencies. In commenting on a draft of this report,
National Institute of Justice officials noted that: * Such
partnerships are difficult to identify and quantify unless the
state or local agency is a subgrantee, which is something that is
not electronically tracked by the Office of Justice Programs or
the National Institute of Justice. * Also, there are inherent
difficulties in using research and development project costs to
quantify direct benefits to state and local law enforcement
agencies. For instance, partnering arrangements can result in a
diffusion of funds among various entities, in contrast to grants
made directly to a state or local law enforcement agency. Also,
direct benefits may not be immediately realized given that
research and development efforts may involve extended time frames
and/or may not result in practical implementation. In further
commenting on a draft of this report, National Institute of
Justice officials emphasized that, in providing funding input for
table II.1, they focused on crime technology assistance that
involved information systems or information-sharing systems. The
officials noted that the Institute is involved in other crime
technology-related projects--such as concealed weapons detection
systems and less-than-lethal technologies-- that were not included
in the funding figures provided to us. We defined multipurpose
grants as those that could be used for two or Multipurpose Grants
more purposes, including crime technology assistance. Since
Justice did not have a system to track crime technology
assistance, it was unable to determine the exact amount of crime
technology assistance provided to state and local law enforcement
agencies through multipurpose grants. Page 17
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology However, in many cases, Justice officials were able to
estimate the portions or amounts of multipurpose grants that
involved technology assistance, as indicated in following sections
and reflected in table II.2 in appendix II. Byrne Formula Grants
Byrne Formula Grants may be used for a total of 26 purpose areas,
8 of which could involve crime technology. According to the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, three of these eight purpose areas clearly
consisted of crime technology-related activities: * Purpose area
15(a) was for improving drug-control technology. * Purpose area
15(b) was for improving criminal justice information systems. *
Purpose area 25 was for developing DNA analysis capabilities.
However, for the other five potentially relevant purpose areas,
Justice was unable to estimate the amounts of crime technology
assistance provided by the Byrne Formula Grants.2 Therefore,
regarding these 5 purpose areas, we conducted a file review of
Byrne Formula Grants to determine the amount of crime technology
assistance provided to the 10 states that received the most Byrne
Formula Grants funds during fiscal year 1998. The 10 states
(California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New
York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas) received nearly half of all
Byrne Formula Grants funds during fiscal year 1998. Our findings
concerning these 10 states are not statistically projectable to
the total universe of recipients. Local Law Enforcement Block
According to the Office of Justice Programs, one of seven purpose
areas of Grants Program the Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants Program involves crime technology
assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. This
purpose area is entitled "equipment and technology" and includes
both traditional law enforcement equipment (such as guns, vests,
and batons) and crime technology. During fiscal years 1996 through
1998, the Office of Justice Programs obligated approximately $628
million for equipment and technology. Since the Office of Justice
Programs did not specifically track how funding was allocated in
the equipment and technology purpose area, it was unable to
determine how much of the approximately $628 million 2 The 5
potentially relevant purpose areas are numbers 6, 7, 9, 10, and
26. Purpose area 6 is for improving the investigations of white-
collar crime; purpose area 7 is for improving the operational
effectiveness of law enforcement; purpose area 9 is for enhancing
financial investigative capabilities; purpose area 10 is for
improving the operational effectiveness of the courts; and purpose
area 26 is for developing antiterrorism training and procuring
equipment. Page 18
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology obligated for fiscal years 1996 through 1998 was for
traditional law enforcement equipment and how much was for crime
technology. Although the Office of Justice Programs does not
specifically track crime technology assistance provided through
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, it asked grantees
to complete reports describing how grantees expended equipment and
technology funds. Grantees completing the reports classified their
equipment and technology expenditures into 10 subcategories, 5 of
which were most likely to include expenditures for crime
technology,3 according to the Office of Justice Programs. However,
since completion of the expenditure reports was not mandatory, at
the time of our review the Office of Justice Programs had received
these reports from only 60 percent of the 1996 grantees, about 10
percent of the 1997 grantees, and none of the 1998 grantees. The
grantee expenditure reports showed that approximately $63 million
was obligated for equipment and technology during fiscal years
1996 and 1997; and, of this amount, about $33 million (or 52
percent) was for the 5 crime technology- related categories. Drug
Courts Program Office This office awarded three categories of
grants under the Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program: planning,
implementation, and enhancement. According to the Drug Courts
Program Office, based on experience to date, "enhancement" grants
is the category most likely to involve crime technology,
especially grants for management information systems. The Office
of Justice Programs conducted a word search for "crime technology"
of Drug Court Discretionary Grants. The word search identified six
Drug Court grants that involved crime technology. Office of
Justice Programs staff examined the six grants to determine how
much funding the grantees planned to allocate specifically for
crime technology purposes. Funding for these programs, three in
fiscal year 1997 and three in fiscal year 1998, is depicted in
table II.2 in appendix II. Office of Community Oriented The
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services had four programs
Policing Services that included funding for crime
technology assistance: (1) Making Officer Redeployment Effective
(MORE), (2) Advancing Community Policing, (3) Problem-Solving
Partnerships, and (4) Community Policing to Combat Domestic
Violence. Under MORE, grant funds could be used for hiring 3 The
Office of Justice Programs described the five relevant
subcategories as: (1) communications equipment, (2)
lab/forensic/drug-testing equipment, (3) systems hardware, (4)
software, and (5) systems improvements. Page 19
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology civilian personnel or obtaining crime technology.
However, for purposes of our review, agency officials specifically
excluded personnel funding and identified the funding obligated
for crime technology during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
Violence Against Women Grants This Justice office
administered two multipurpose grant programs that Office
could involve funding for crime technology: (1) Formula Grants for
Law Enforcement and Prosecution, also known as the STOP program,
and (2) Discretionary Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies. The
Office of Justice Programs conducted a word search for "crime
technology" that identified 4 STOP grants and 62 Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
The Office of Justice Programs reviewed these grants to determine
how much grantees planned to specifically allocate for crime
technology purposes. For applicable support services and systems
in Justice and Treasury, we Scope and
asked responsible officials to provide us with funding data
regarding usage Methodology related to
meeting the needs of state and local law enforcement agencies.
That is, for criminal history databases, forensics laboratories,
and other Regarding Support crime technology-
related services and systems, we wanted to know what Services and
Systems portions of the federal operating costs were
used to support state and local law enforcement. In response,
Justice and Treasury officials provided us with estimates for each
applicable service and system. (See apps. III and IV.) Table III.1
in appendix III presents the 21 relevant Justice support services
Justice: 21 Support Services and systems that we identified. For
15 of these services and systems--that and Systems
is, those provided by DEA, FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and the INTERPOL-U.S. National Central Bureau--Justice
officials told us that in most cases they calculated funding
estimates by prorating total operating costs (excluding federal
salaries and other personnel costs) between federal and
state/local law enforcement agencies based on the number of
queries or other usage measures. Justice's other six relevant
support services and systems are under three components--the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
and the National Institute of Justice--that are not directly
involved in conducting criminal investigations. According to
Justice officials, these services and systems were established
explicitly to benefit state and local law enforcement agencies. As
such, the officials said that Page 20
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology the funding figures provided to us represent total,
nonprorated operating costs (excluding personnel costs), even
though federal law enforcement agencies can be participants, as is
the case with the Regional Information Sharing Systems program.
Table IV.1 in appendix IV presents the 29 relevant Treasury
support Treasury: 29 Support services and systems that we
identified. Personnel costs were not included Services and Systems
in any of the funding figures provided us by the Treasury
Department agencies. ATF provided 14 of the 29 support services
and systems to state and local law enforcement. For 10 of these 14
support services and systems, ATF prorated the obligated costs of
crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement
agencies. For the remaining four ATF support services and systems,
obligated costs were not prorated because all of these costs
supported state and local law enforcement. The Customs Service
provided one relevant support service and system, the Treasury
Enforcement Communications System, to state and local law
enforcement agencies. Customs prorated its expenditures based on
the number of state and local law enforcement transactions
relative to the total number of system transactions for each
fiscal year from 1996 through 1998. The Federal Law Enforcement
Training Center provided 2 of Treasury's 29 support services and
systems to state and local law enforcement agencies. The Center
calculated the actual costs of the two training programs provided.
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network provided one support
service and system--the Gateway System--to state and local law
enforcement agencies. Since the Gateway system was designed to
help state and local law enforcement agencies pursue criminal
investigations, all obligations during fiscal years 1996 through
1998 applied to state and local law enforcement. IRS' National
Forensic Laboratory supports criminal investigations related to
tax and financial statutes. However, the laboratory has few
resources to support state and local law enforcement and does so
only under exceptional circumstances. Although no precise records
existed regarding assistance to state and local law enforcement
agencies, an IRS official estimated that during fiscal years 1996
through 1998, the laboratory incurred annual costs of less than
$1,000. Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-
101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
The Secret Service provided 10 of Treasury's 29 support services
and systems. The Secret Service prorated costs for eight of its
support services and systems and provided us full or actual costs
for the other two (Identification Branch Training and Operation
Safe Kids). Also, it should be noted that the support services and
systems listed in Other Federal Support Not appendixes III
and IV do not include certain multiagency intelligence Included in
Funding Tables organizations, such as the El Paso
Intelligence Center, which was established to collect, process,
and disseminate intelligence information concerning illicit drug
and currency movement, alien smuggling, weapons trafficking, and
related activity. The Center's 15 federal members include various
Justice (e.g., DEA and FBI), Treasury (e.g., Customs Service and
IRS), and Department of Transportation (e.g., Coast Guard and the
Federal Aviation Administration) components; the Departments of
the Interior and State; and liaison agencies such as the Central
Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense. In addition,
all 50 states are associate members. The Center accepts queries
from federal and state member agencies. For their respective
organizations, we asked officials at Justice, Treasury, Scope and
and ONDCP to identify any in-kind transfer programs that provided
crime Methodology technology assistance to
state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996
through 1998. Responses from the three agencies Regarding In-Kind
indicated that only ONDCP had an established, relevant in-kind
transfer Transfers program (see app. V).
Justice and Treasury officials told us that their agencies
generally do not directly transfer excess equipment--whether for
crime technology or any other purpose--to state and local law
enforcement agencies. However, Treasury officials noted that
there have been a few isolated or nonroutine instances whereby
some equipment has been given directly to a state or local law
enforcement agency. For example, the officials noted that, during
fiscal year 1998: * The Secret Service directly excessed about
$535,000 worth of automated data processing and communications
equipment (based on original acquisition cost) to state and local
law enforcement agencies. * The Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network directly excessed 186 pieces of computer equipment to
state and local law enforcement agencies. The original
acquisition cost of this equipment was about $367,000. * The
Secret Service directly excessed two polygraph instruments
(original acquisition costs totaled about $8,900); one instrument
was given to the St. Joseph (MO) Police Department and the other
to the Chicago (IL) Police Department. Page 22
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology Also, Justice and Treasury officials told us their
agencies routinely make excess equipment available to other users
through the General Services Administration, which is to make
dispositions in the following priority order: (1) distribution to
other federal agencies, (2) donation to state and local agencies,
(3) sale to the general public, and (4) donation to nonprofit
organizations through a state agency for surplus property. The
Justice and Treasury officials said they had no readily available
information regarding how much of the excessed equipment was crime
technology related and was subsequently received by state and
local law enforcement agencies. Similarly, General Services
Administration officials told us that their accounting systems
could not provide this type of information. Generally, we relied
on funding information that agency officials provided Data
Accuracy and to us. Since agency accounting systems typically
did not track crime Reliability technology assistance,
agency officials used a number of methods to estimate crime
technology assistance. For example, the Office of Justice Programs
had its program managers calculate how much crime technology
assistance was in the multipurpose grant programs. We did not
fully or independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the
funding data provided by agency officials. However, to help ensure
the overall quality of the funding data, we * compared agency
responses to primary source documents and attempted to reconcile
any differences with agency officials, * obtained information on
and reviewed the processes used by agency officials to calculate
the estimated amounts of crime technology assistance, and *
compiled the program and funding information we obtained into
matrices and asked agency officials to verify the accuracy of this
information. Finally, we note that the funding figures presented
in this report are conservative, particularly regarding
multipurpose grants, such as Byrne Formula Grants and Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants, because we included only amounts that
could be reasonably estimated by agency officials or by our
reviews of agency information. Page 23
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice This
appendix presents information about the types and amounts of crime
Overview of technology-related grants provided
by the Department of Justice to state Department of Justice and
local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996
through1998. Generally, as reflected in the following two
sections, we categorized Grant Programs
applicable grants as being either single-purpose or multipurpose:
* Single-purpose grants are clearly for crime technology
purposes--which can include any number of a wide array of
activities under the definition of "crime technology assistance"
provided in appendix I. * Multipurpose grants, distributed funds
that could be used by state and local law enforcement agencies for
a variety of purposes including, but not limited to, crime
technology assistance. Justice officials provided us with
estimates of the funding amounts related to crime technology
assistance. The last section in this appendix provides brief
descriptions of applicable grant programs. Table II.1 shows the
types and amounts of grants provided by Justice Single-Purpose
Grant components to state and local law enforcement to
be used expressly for Programs crime
technology-related purposes during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.
Grants for these purposes totaled about $255.1 million for the 3-
year period. Page 24
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice Table
II.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of Justice Single-
Purpose Grants for Crime Technology Provided to State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998 Dollars
in thousands Component and program
1996 1997 1998
Total Bureau of Justice Assistance Drugfire
$2,166.9 $1,954.6 $945.3
$5,066.8 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program:
0 2,103.2 9,843.8
11,947.0 Technical assistance and training allocation National
White Collar Crime Center
1.3 30.1 74.8
106.2 State Identification Systems Grants Program
0 8,300.0 9,908.0
18,208.0 Subtotal
$2,168.2 $12,387.9 $20,771.9
$35,328.0 Bureau of Justice Statistics National Criminal History
Improvement Program 48,895.0
48,048.0 50,230.0 147,173.0
National Sex Offender Registry
0 0 24,255.0
24,255.0 State Justice Statistics Program for Statistical
1,920.0 1,779.0 1,939.0
5,638.0 Analysis Centers Subtotal
$50,815.0 $49,827.0 $76,424.0
$177,066.0 National Institute of Justice Counterterrorism
Technology Program 0
1,127.0 1,506.0 2,633.0 Crime
Act 1-Percent Set-Aside (funded by Local
159.6 1,096.8 1,069.2
2,325.6 Law Enforcement Block Grants Program) Forensic DNA
Laboratory Improvement Programa 8,750.0
2,952.0 12,281.0 23,983.0 Science
and Technology Programs (funds from the 3,331.7
0 0 3,331.7 Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services) Southwest Border States
Anti-Drug Information 0
588.0 5,821.5 6,409.5 Systemb
Subtotal
$12,241.3 $5,763.8 $20,677.7
$38,682.8 Office of Justice Programs Improved Training and
Technical Automation 4,062.2
0 0 4,062.2 Grants Justice
total $69,286.7
$67,978.7 $117,873.6 $255,139.0 aThe
DNA Laboratory Improvement Program is a joint program with the
FBI. bFiscal year 1998 funding was based on a reimbursement from
the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Source: GAO
summary of data provided by Justice components. Table II.2 shows
estimates of the funding amounts involving crime Multipurpose
Grant technology assistance in
multipurpose grants for fiscal years 1996 through Programs
1998. As shown, the funding totaled about $746.3 million for the 3
years. However, for some of the grant programs, including the
Byrne Formula Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants Program, the amounts shown in the table do not represent
all of the applicable funding Page 25
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice
involving crime technology. Rather, as indicated below, the
amounts are only a partial accounting. Byrne Formula Grants:
State and local law enforcement agencies can use Byrne Formula
Grant Complete Data for Some funds for a total of 26
purpose areas. Sample uses include demand- Purpose Areas and Data
for 10 reduction education programs and improving corrections
systems. Eight of States for Other Purpose Areas the 26 purpose
areas could involve crime technology. According to the Bureau of
Justice Assistance, three of these eight purpose areas clearly
consist of crime technology-related activities (see app. I for
more information). The Bureau of Justice Assistance provided us
with funding amounts for these 3 purpose areas for all recipients,
which totaled about $183.0 million for the 3 fiscal years, as
presented in table II.2. However, because its accounting systems
do not specifically track crime technology assistance as a
separate category, the Bureau of Justice Assistance was unable to
provide us with an estimate for the other five purpose areas.
Thus, for these five purpose areas, we reviewed grant files at the
Bureau of Justice Assistance. Due to time constraints, we limited
our review to the 10 states that received the largest amounts of
Byrne Formula Grant funding in fiscal year 1998. Collectively,
these 10 states received 48 percent of total Byrne Formula Grant
funding in fiscal year 1998. For these 10 states, we reviewed
grants files for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998. The relevant
funding for these five purpose areas (about $5.0 million total for
the 3 years) is also included in table II.2. An analysis of grant
files for the other 40 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.
territories would likely result in a higher funding total. Local
Law Enforcement Block As shown in table II.2, the funding
figures for the Local Law Enforcement Grants Program: Partial Data
Block Grants Program totaled about $32.7 million and are based on
data from Grantees for Only 2 Years from about 60 percent of
fiscal year 1996 grantees and about 10 percent of fiscal year 1997
grantees. No data were available for fiscal year 1998. As
indicated below, a more thorough accounting would likely result in
a higher funding total for this grant program. According to the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, only one purpose area of the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grants Program involves crime technology
assistance--that is, the purpose area called "equipment and
technology." However, by the Bureau's definition, the "equipment"
portion of this purpose area does not constitute crime technology
assistance. Nonetheless, in response to our request, a Bureau of
Justice Assistance official said that the Bureau's accounting
systems could not differentiate this portion of the purpose area
from the "technology" portion. Alternatively, the official
provided us with the following information: Page 26
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice * The
equipment and technology purpose area has 10 subcategories. Of
these, five subcategories--i.e., those pertaining to systems
improvements (data linkage, criminal history records, etc.)--are
most likely to include expenditures related to crime technology. *
For these five subcategories, actual expenditure data have been
reported by some grantees for fiscal years 1996 and 1997.
Specifically, based on reports from about 60 percent of fiscal
year 1996 grantees, actual expenditures by these grantees for the
five subcategories totaled about $28.9 million in 1996. Based on
reports from about 10 percent of fiscal year 1997 grantees, actual
expenditures by these grantees for the five subcategories totaled
about $3.7 million. There has been no reporting by fiscal year
1998 grantees. Thus, for the five subcategories, the reported
actual expenditures at the time of our review totaled about $32.7
million, as reflected in table II.2. From these same 1996 and 1997
grantees, the total expenditures reported for all 10 subcategories
at the time of our review was about $63.4 million. The reported
actual expenditures for the five crime technology-related
subcategories ($32.7 million) represent about 50 percent of the
total reported actual expenditures for the "equipment and
technology" purpose area ($63.4 million). During fiscal years 1996
to 1998, funds obligated for this purpose area totaled about $628
million. However, the 50-percent figure cannot be used to
statistically project how much of this total involved crime
technology assistance during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Page
27 GAO/GGD-99-101
Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology Assistance (Grants)
Provided by the Department of Justice Table II.2: Estimated
Obligations of Department of Justice Multipurpose Grants With
Crime Technology as a Permissible Use Provided to State and Local
Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998 Dollars
in thousands Component and program
1996 1997 1998
Total Bureau of Justice Assistance Byrne Discretionary Grants
$3,667.0 $1,313.0 $5,485.0
$10,465.0 Byrne Formula Grants Purpose areas 15(a), 15(b), and 25a
60,536.0 62,196.0 60,273.0
183,005.0 Purpose areas 6,7,9,10, and 26b
337.5 3,033.8 1,585.6
4,956.9 Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Programc
28,936.8 3,745.1 Not estimated
32,681.9 Subtotal
$93,477.3 $70,287.9 $67,343.6
$231,108.8 Drug Courts Program Office Drug Court Discretionary
Grant Programd 0
190.6 726.3 916.9 Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services Advancing Community
Policing Grants 0
12,997.6 0 12,997.6
Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence
7,640.8 0 N/A
7,640.8 Grants Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grants
126,937.1 115,581.7 223,532.6
466,051.4 Problem-Solving Partnerships
0 20,571.7 0
20,571.7 Subtotal
$134,577.9 $149,151.0 $223,532.6
$507,261.5 Violence Against Women Grants Office Grants to
Encourage Arrest Policiesd 5.7
5,953.0 974.0 6,932.7 STOP
Violence Against Women Formula Grantsd 14.0
0 104.4 118.4 Subtotal
$19.7 $5,953.0 $1,078.4
$7,051.1 Justice total
$228,074.9 $225,582.5 $292,680.9
$746,338.3 a The amounts shown represent funding for three purpose
areas: Purpose area 15(a) is for improving drug-control
technology; purpose area 15(b) is for criminal justice information
systems (including a 5- percent set-aside for improving criminal
justice records); and purpose area 25 is for developing DNA
analysis capabilities. b The figures shown are based on our review
of grant files for 10 states that received the largest amount of
Byrne Formula Grant funding. Funding for these 10 states
represented approximately 48 percent of total Byrne funding for
fiscal year 1998. c The figures shown represent actual
expenditures reported by 60 percent of the 1996 grantees and 10
percent of the 1997 grantees. At the time of our review, 1998
grantees had not reported. d The figures shown are not
obligations. Rather, they are planning amounts submitted by
grantees during the application process. The Office of Justice
Programs ascertained these amounts by (1) electronically
conducting a word search (using the term "crime technology") of
applicable grant programs and (2) manually reviewing those files
identified by the word search. Source: GAO summary of data
provided by Justice components. Brief descriptions of Justice's
single-purpose and multipurpose grant Descriptions of Justice
programs are given next. Grant Programs Page 28
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice
Following are brief descriptions of the Justice single-purpose
grants listed Single-Purpose Grants in table II.1. The
grant programs are grouped by the applicable Justice component.
Bureau of Justice Assistance The Bureau of Justice Assistance
provided the following grants for crime technology assistance to
state and local law enforcement agencies. * Drugfire: This
program consists of a "reimbursable agreement" from the FBI under
which the Bureau of Justice Assistance administers grants to state
and local law enforcement to purchase Drugfire software,
equipment, and training. Drugfire is a database system providing
the ability to exchange and compare images of fired ammunition
casings and bullets. The database is capable of connecting
shootings based on a comparison and matching of firearms-related
evidence. * Local Law Enforcement Block Grants - Technical
Assistance and Training Allocation: This allocation supports
investigative personnel in using surveillance equipment and
information systems applications. The program also provides for
technology training. * National White Collar Crime Center: The
Center provides limited "case funding" assistance to states and
localities to track and investigate white- collar crimes. The
focus is on improving information-sharing capabilities in
multijurisdictional investigations. * State Identification
Systems Grants Program: These are formula grants to states to
develop computerized identification systems integrated with FBI's
national identification databases. The FBI reimburses the Bureau
of Justice Assistance to administer programs to integrate state
systems with the national DNA database (CODIS), the National Crime
Information Center, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint
Identification System. Bureau of Justice Statistics The
Bureau of Justice Statistics provided the following grants for
crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement
agencies. * National Criminal History Improvement Program: This
program helps states upgrade the quality and completeness of
criminal records and provides increased compatibility with and
access to national crime information databases. A priority is to
ensure that state criminal history records are complete and ready
for access through the National Instant Criminal Background Check
System. * National Sex Offender Registry: This is a component of
the National Criminal History Improvement Program but is
separately funded. States use funds to identify, collect, and
disseminate information on sexual Page 29
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice
offenders within their jurisdictions. Funds are also available to
enhance state access to the FBI's sex offender database. * State
Justice Statistics Program for Statistical Analysis Centers: This
program is designed to provide financial support to supplement
state funding of a central state criminal justice statistics
capability to carry out data collection and research that can
benefit both the state and the nation. Grants are awarded to state
statistics centers for data collection and analysis relating to
identifiable themes, including technology-based research focusing
on the analysis and use of machine-readable criminal history
record data for tracking case-processing decisions, evaluation of
record systems management, or studies related to the use of
records to limit or control firearms acquisition by ineligible
individuals. National Institute of Justice The National
Institute of Justice provided the following grants for crime
technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies.
* Counterterrorism Technology Program: This program assists state
and local law enforcement by developing technologies to combat
terrorism and improve public safety. The funding amounts
presented in table II.1 are for a project (the "InfoTech" project)
to develop a technology to allow law enforcement agencies to share
information using their existing systems and networks. * Crime
Act 1-Percent Set-Aside: Under the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants Program, 1 percent ($20 million) per year--of the $2
billion annual authorizations for fiscal years 1996 through 1998--
were set aside for use by the National Institute of Justice for
new law enforcement technologies. According to National Institute
of Justice officials, this 1-percent set-aside supported 153
projects during the 3 fiscal years; and, of this total, 8 projects
directly benefited state or local law enforcement agencies.1
Funding for these eight projects (about $2,325,600) is reflected
in table II.1. * Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program:
This program is for improving the quality and availability of DNA
analysis for law enforcement identification, such as by expanding
on-line capabilities with the national DNA database. * Science
and Technology Programs: This broad grant category supports
research, development, and evaluation of approaches, techniques,
and systems to improve the criminal justice system. Funded by a
transfer of funds from the Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, state and local law enforcement grantees test and
implement crime-fighting technologies that serve a community
policing function. 1 Regarding the other 145 projects, as
mentioned in appendix I, grant recipients were federal agencies,
private firms, colleges and universities, and others. Page 30
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice *
Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System: These grants
can be used to construct or improve state databases, build
interface capabilities with the overall information system, and
help procure hardware and consulting services. Office of Justice
Programs Improved Training and Technical Automation Grants:
This is a general technology assistance program focusing on
communications and information integration. Grant purposes include
improving communications systems, establishing or improving
ballistics identification programs, increasing access to automated
fingerprint identification systems, and improving computerized
collection of criminal records. This program transferred funds for
the FBI's Law Enforcement On-Line program in fiscal year 1996,
which are reflected in table III.1. Following are brief
descriptions of Justice's multipurpose grants listed in
Multipurpose Grants table II.2. Multipurpose grants
have numerous criminal justice purposes established by law. State
and local law enforcement can use the respective funds for a
number of activities, including crime technology. The grant
programs are grouped by the applicable Justice component. Bureau
of Justice Assistance * Byrne Discretionary Grants: These
grants are authorized to be awarded to state and local law
enforcement, as well as private entities, for crime control and
violence prevention activities. The grant program focuses
specifically on education and training for criminal justice
personnel, technical assistance, multijurisdictional projects
(e.g., state records integration), and program demonstrations.
Grants also support research and development projects. * Byrne
Formula Grants: States receive federal funds to improve the
functioning of criminal justice systems. Amounts are based on a
set percentage (0.25) per state, with the remaining funds
allocated based on state population. Eligible uses of funds are
categorized by 26 program purpose areas. Of these, eight contain
or could encompass crime technology assistance. Three of these
purpose areas--criminal justice information systems, drug-control
technology, and DNA analysis--are singularly allocated for crime
technology assistance. Included in the criminal justice
information systems purpose area is the 5 percent of Byrne funds
that states must allocate toward improving criminal justice
records. In the remaining five purpose areas, a portion of funds
could potentially be spent on crime technology. * Local Law
Enforcement Block Grants Program: General purpose law enforcement
grants are distributed directly to localities. The amounts are
determined by the number of violent crimes reported in the
jurisdiction. The program has seven broad purpose areas. Of those,
one contains a Page 31
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice specific
funding stream for procuring equipment and technology. Funds
cannot be used to purchase or lease tanks, fixed-wing aircraft, or
other large items without direct law enforcement uses. Drug Courts
Program Office Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program:
This program provides financial and technical assistance to states
and localities to develop and implement drug treatment courts that
use a mix of treatment, testing, incentives, and sanctions to
remove nonviolent offenders from the cycle of substance abuse and
crime. Grant recipients can use funds to support the development
of information management systems and accompanying software. Data
sharing among drug courts is a primary focus. Office of Community
Oriented * Advancing Community Policing: These grants assist
state and local law Policing Services enforcement
in further developing community policing infrastructures. Grants
can be used to purchase technology and equipment, statistical and
crime-mapping software, and training services. Also, grants can be
used to help law enforcement agencies overcome organizational
obstacles and to establish demonstration centers that model
current community policing methods. * Community Policing to
Combat Domestic Violence: These grants fund innovative community
policing efforts to curb domestic violence by developing
partnerships between law enforcement agencies and community
organizations. * Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grants:
This program serves a broad purpose of increasing the deployment
of law enforcement officers devoted to community policing by
expanding available officer time without hiring new officers.
Grants can be used to purchase equipment and technology to free up
community policing resources. Grants fund up to 75 percent of the
cost of equipment and technology, with a 25-percent local match. *
Problem-Solving Partnerships: These grants fund problem-solving
partnerships between police agencies and community organizations
to address persistent crime problems, such as drug dealing and
other public disorder problems. Grants can be used for technology
training and procurement of equipment. Violence Against Women
Grants Office * Grants to Encourage Arrest
Policies: This grant program encourages states and localities to
increase law enforcement attention to domestic abuse. Grants can
support development of integrated computer tracking systems as
well as provide training for police to improve tracking of
domestic violence cases. Page 32
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix II Crime Technology
Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice * STOP
Violence Against Women Formula Grants: These formula grants are
for creating a "coordinated, integrated" strategy involving all
elements of the criminal justice system to respond to violent
crimes against women. Broad program purposes include training for
law enforcement and developing and implementing "services" to
effectively address violent crimes against women. Page 33
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice Department of Justice components provided
crime technology assistance Overview of in
the form of access to and use of specialized support services and
Department of Justice systems. Table III.1 shows the specific
types of assistance provided by the Bureau of Justice Assistance,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, DEA, FBI, the Support Services and
Immigration and Naturalization Service, the INTERPOL-U.S. National
Systems Central Bureau, and the National
Institute of Justice. As shown, regarding support services and
systems, Justice's crime technology assistance to state and local
law enforcement agencies for fiscal years 1996 to 1998 totaled
about $146.6 million. Marshals Service officials told us that
their organization did not have support services and systems that
provided crime technology assistance to state and local law
enforcement. The last section of this appendix provides brief
descriptions of the support services and systems presented in
table III.1. Page 34
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice Table III.1: Estimated Obligations of
Department of Justice Support Services and Systems Provided to
State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996
Through 1998 Dollars in thousands Justice component
Assistance
1996 1997 1998 Total Bureau of
Justice Assistance National Cybercrime Training
Partnership $ 0 $
0 $ 3,278.0 $ 3,278.0 National White Collar Crime Center
864.3 1,822.1 2,400.6 5,087.0 Regional
Information Sharing Systemsa
13,610.6 13,407.8 23,295.0 50,313.4 Subtotal
$14,474.9 $15,229.9 $28,973.6 $58,678.4 Bureau
of Justice Statistics National Incident-Based
Reporting System 0
0 955.4 955.4 Forensic laboratory analysis for
District of Columbia DEA Metropolitan Police
94.6 103.3 110.8 308.7 National Drug
Pointer Index
0 45.0 35.5 80.5 Training
647.1 1,580.7 1,215.2 3,443.0 Subtotal
$741.7 $1729.0 $1,361.5 $3,832.2 FBI
Combined DNA Index System
5,334.8 5,247.9 6,144.1 16,726.8 Computer
Analysis Response Team
694.8 1,180.0 1,387.3 3,262.1 Criminal
Justice Information Services Wide Area Networkb
0 0 153.7 153.7 Express
0 0 20.8 20.8 Fingerprint
Identification Programb
422.2 3,236.3 3,001.2 6,659.7
Identification Automated Systemb
401.6 644.0 1,042.4 2,088.0 Law
Enforcement On-Line
4,932.8 200.0 7,500.0 12,632.8 National
Crime Information Centerb
3,631.0 3,664.3 3,783.0 11,078.3 National
Integrated Ballistics Information Network
1,476.3 1,424.4 2,712.5 5,613.2 Trainingc
407.5 569.3 628.5 1,605.3 Subtotal
$17,301.0 $16,166.2 $26,373.5 $59,840.7 INS
Law Enforcement Support Center
1,177.2 583.6 1,656.1 3,416.9 INTERPOL -
U.S. National Central Bureau State Liaison
Program
654.0 583.0 773.0 2,010.0 National
Institute of Justice National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Centers
2,598.4 3,954.5 4,747.5 11,300.4 Southwest
Border States Anti-Drug Information Systemd
0 2,705.6 3,840.2 6,545.8 Subtotal
$ 2,598.4 $ 6,660.1 $ 8,587.7 $17,846.2 Total
$36,947.2 $40,951.8 $68,680.8 $146,579.8 aThe
figures shown do not include program income (user fees)--about
$3.2 million in total--collected by the six centers during fiscal
years 1996 through 1998. bThe amounts shown are actual
expenditures. Page 35
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice c Training consists of Forensic Services
training (in obligations) and Criminal Justice Information
Services training (in expenditures). d Fiscal year 1997 funding
was based on an earmark from the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grants Program. Fiscal year 1998 funding was based on an earmark
on grant funds administered by the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services. Source: GAO summary of data provided by Justice
components. Following are brief descriptions of Justice's crime
technology assistance Descriptions of programs listed in
table III.1. The descriptions are based on information Justice's
Support that the Justice components provided to us. The
services and systems are grouped by the component providing them.
Services and Systems * National Cybercrime Training Partnership:
To address the changing role of Bureau of Justice
computers and the Internet in the commission of crimes, the
National Assistance Cybercrime Training Partnership
supports all levels of law enforcement with "cyber-tools,
research, and development." The Partnership is developing a
nationwide communications network to serve law enforcement by
providing secure "interconnectivity" over the Internet. Also, the
Partnership focuses on training by (1) developing a cadre of
instructors capable of training law enforcement and (2)
distributing nontraditional modes of curricula, such as CD-ROMs,
among other things. In addition, the Partnership plans to serve as
a clearinghouse for information and experts available to law
enforcement. * National White Collar Crime Center: Headquartered
in Richmond, VA, the center maintains a national support system
for state and local law enforcement to facilitate
multijurisdictional investigations of white-collar and economic
crimes. The center operates a training and research institute that
serves as a national resource for fighting economic crime. *
Regional Information Sharing Systems: Six regional criminal
intelligence centers focus on multijurisdictional criminal
activities. Each center operates in a mutually exclusive
geographic area, a division designed to more effectively support
investigation and prosecution of regional crimes. State and local
law enforcement support services and systems include an
Intelligence Pointer Database, a National Gang Database (under
development), and a secure intranet. All six centers are
electronically connected, and state and local members (about 87
percent of total membership as of December 31, 1997) are provided
with access to the secure intranet, which facilitates secure E-
mail transmissions and access to other databases. The centers also
sponsor technical training Page 36
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice conferences. Member jurisdictions can be
assessed a nominal annual fee that varies by center. National
Incident-Based Reporting System: This system represents the Bureau
of Justice Statistics next generation of crime data from
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. Designed to
replace the Uniform Crime Reporting Program initiated by the FBI
in 1930, the development of the National Incident-Based Reporting
System represents a joint effort of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics and the FBI to encourage the presentation of higher
quality data on a wider variety of crimes. The Bureau of Justice
Statistics has played a significant role in fostering
participation and developing techniques to assist jurisdictions in
conforming to program requirements. Also, the Bureau of Justice
Statistics funds the operation of a dedicated website and the
formulation of model analytic strategies. DEA provided the
following crime technology assistance to state and local Drug
Enforcement law enforcement agencies.
Administration * Forensic laboratory analysis, District of
Columbia Metropolitan Police: One of eight forensic laboratories
located throughout the United States, the DEA's Mid-Atlantic
Laboratory provides forensic support to the District of Columbia
Metropolitan Police. * National Drug Pointer Index: This system
provides participating law enforcement agencies with an automated
response capability to determine if a case suspect is under active
investigation by any other participating agency. If a match
occurs, the system provides point-of-contact information for each
identified record. Simultaneously, the system notifies each record
owner that point-of-contact information has been released to the
entry maker for that particular target. If the search finds no
matching records, a negative response is returned. * Training:
DEA provided three training courses that were applicable to our
definition of crime technology assistance. The Clandestine
Laboratory Unit and the Specialized Training Unit both provided
training on topics such as how to use technological devices to
assess risks presented by chemicals found in laboratories. DEA
also provided briefings to state and local law enforcement
personnel on the National Drug Pointer Index and its benefits.
Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-
101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology Assistance
(Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department of
Justice The FBI Laboratory, which is one of the largest and most
comprehensive Federal Bureau of forensic laboratories in the
world, and the FBI's Criminal Justice Investigation
Information Services Division provided various support services
and systems to state and local law enforcement agencies. *
Combined DNA Index System: An index containing DNA records from
persons convicted of crimes. State and local crime laboratories
are able to store and match DNA records. * Computer Analysis
Response Team: Technical assistance regarding computer technology
and computer forensics is provided to federal as well as state and
local law enforcement agencies. * Criminal Justice Information
Wide Area Network: This network supports the electronic capture,
submission, processing, matching, storage, and retrieval of both
criminal and civil fingerprints received by the FBI for use in the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System
environment. * Express: An explosives reference database, Express
provides and correlates information from bombing crime scenes and
undetonated explosive devices. * Fingerprint Identification
Program: An identification process that scans fingerprint cards
and captures fingerprint features for classification and selects
candidates for future manual comparison. * Identification
Automated System: A system containing the criminal history records
of persons arrested for the first time and reported to the FBI
since July 1974, as well as selected manual records that have been
converted to the automated system. * Law Enforcement On-Line: As
the intranet for the U.S. law enforcement community, Law
Enforcement On-Line links all levels of law enforcement throughout
the United States and supports broad, immediate dissemination of
information. Learning programs through electronic sources are also
delivered to local, state, and federal law enforcement through
this intranet. * National Crime Information Center: This is the
nation's most extensive computerized criminal justice information
system. It consists of a central computer at FBI headquarters,
dedicated telecommunications lines, and a coordinated network of
federal and state criminal justice information Page 38
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice systems. The center provides users with
access to files on wanted persons, stolen vehicles, and missing
persons. The system's largest file, the Interstate Identification
Index, provides access to millions of criminal history information
records contained in state systems. * National Integrated
Ballistics Information Network: A joint effort between the FBI and
the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, this national
database computer system allows laboratories across the country to
exchange and compare images of fired ammunition casings. The
images of microscopic marks that result after a gun is fired are
stored in this database. * Training: The FBI Laboratory and the
Criminal Justice Information Services Division's
Education/Training Services Unit provide training to the law
enforcement community. Forensic laboratory training includes a
variety of topics such as management of forensic and technical
services; identification and comparison of latent fingerprints;
explosives detection; postblast bombing investigations; and
responding to and resolving the scientific, forensic, and
technical elements of incidents involving chemical, biological,
and nuclear materials. The Criminal Justice Information Services
Division provides training on, among other things, the National
Crime Information Center, Uniform Crime Reports, and the
Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System. The Law
Enforcement Support Center is accessible 24 hours a day to the
Immigration and criminal justice community. The center
provides state and local law Naturalization Service
enforcement agencies with the ability to exchange information on
the immigration status of foreign-born suspects under arrest or
investigation. Information requests are submitted through the
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. Upon receipt
of an inquiry, the center searches INS and other criminal
databases and transmits the findings to the requester. Also, the
center provides an important source of information to each state
conducting firearms purchaser inquiries stemming from the Brady
Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act). State firearms points
of contact may query the center on prospective gun purchasers and
receive a "proceed" or "deny" recommendation using the
disqualifying criteria mandated by the Brady Act. Page 39
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix III Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of Justice INTERPOL- U.S. National Central Bureau is a
resource for state and local INTERPOL U.S. National law
enforcement agencies to conduct international investigations. The
Central Bureau bureau is electronically
connected through a secure network to the national police agencies
of 177 INTERPOL member countries and the INTERPOL General
Secretariat (headquarters) in Lyons, France. Also, the bureau
communicates with state offices that have liaisons responsible for
contacting foreign police. Coordination between the liaison
offices and member countries is maintained through the National
Law Enforcement Telecommunications System. * National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers: The five National
Institute of Justice regional centers and one national center
identify and evaluate available technologies to determine law
enforcement suitability, facilitate public/private partnerships to
develop new technologies, and provide technology and information
assistance to law enforcement and corrections agencies by
introducing promising new technologies and providing technology
training. According to a National Institute of Justice official,
while the centers do not directly transfer crime technology, they
serve as (1) brokers between crime technology manufacturers and
state and local jurisdictions and (2) an information resource for
law enforcement agencies. * Southwest Border States Anti-Drug
Information System: A secure law enforcement information sharing
system that connects intelligence databases of four southwest
border states (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas); the
three Regional Information Sharing Systems centers in that area;
and the El Paso Intelligence Center. This system provides for
secure E-mail transmissions and includes a preestablished query
system. The system allows all participants to query the databases
of all other participants and is composed of an administrative web
server that offers key electronic services, such as providing
agency contact information and system usage statistics. Page 40
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury Department of the Treasury components
provided crime technology Overview of
assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies in the form
of Department of the access to, and use
of, specialized support services and systems, such as computerized
databases and forensics laboratories. Treasury components Treasury
Support also provided training on the
use of technology-related equipment to state Services and Systems
and local law enforcement agencies. Table IV.1 shows the specific
types of crime technology assistance provided by the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; the Customs Service; the Federal
Law Enforcement Training Center; the Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network; IRS; and the Secret Service. As shown, Treasury's crime
technology assistance for fiscal years 1996 to 1998 totaled about
$15.9 million. The last section in this appendix provides brief
descriptions of applicable support services and systems. Table
IV.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of the Treasury Support
Services and Systems Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement
Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998 Dollars in thousands
Treasury component Assistance
1996 1997 1998
Total Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
Accelerant Detection Analysis $ 816.0
$639.0 $1,292.0 $2,747.0 Advanced Serial
Case Management 46.0 37.0
58.0 141.0 Arson CD-ROM
0 0 375.0 375.0
Arson/Explosives Incident System 97.0
2,614.0 835.0 3,546.0 Consolidated
Gang Database 4.0
0 0 4.0 Dipole Study
150.0 150.0 150.0
450.0 Electronic Facial Identification Technique
15.0 15.0 15.0
45.0 Explosive Forensics 163.0
127.0 258.0 548.0 Federal Firearms
License System 9.0 0
9.0 18.0 Firearms Tracing System
768.0 507.0 1,216.0
2,491.0 Integrated Ballistics Identification System
0 499.0 902.0 1,401.0
National (Arson and Explosives) Repository
0 243.0 243.0 486.0
National Response Team 250.0
250.0 250.0 750.0 Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative
0 255.0 150.0 405.0
Subtotal
$2,318.0 $5,336.0 $5,753.0
$13,407.0 Customs Service Treasury Enforcement
Communications System 1.2
1.6 1.7 4.5 Federal Law
Enforcement Advanced Airborne Counterdrug Training Center
Operations Training Program 07 . 6
07 . 6 Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training Program
30.7 46.0 76.8
153.5 Page 41
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury Treasury component
Assistance 1996
1997 1998 Total Subtotal
$30.7 $53.6 $76.8 $161.1
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Project Gateway 472.7
621.6 518.3 1,612.6 Internal Revenue
Service National Forensic Laboratory
negligiblea negligiblea negligiblea
negligiblea Secret Service Audio/Image
Enhancement 1.2
1.3 2.8 5.3 Automated Fingerprint
Identification System
5.9 5.8 4.5 16.2
Cellular Tracking Project 0
0 65.0 65.0 Computer Forensic Support
0 40.0 220.0 260.0
Electronic Crimes Branch Support 60.0
30.0 20.0 110.0 Encryption
0 0 70.0 70.0
Identification Branch Training 21.8
33.3 9.1 64.2 "Operation Safe Kids"
0 15.4 5.1 20.5
Polygraph examinations 6.4
8.5 7.0 21.9 Questioned Document
Branch 33.1 23.3
27.0 83.4 Subtotal
$128.4 $157.6 $430.5 $716.5
Total
$2,951.0 $6,170.4 $6,780.3 $15,901.7
aAccording to an IRS official, the cost of providing laboratory
assistance was less than $1,000 per year. Source: GAO summary of
data provided by Treasury components. Following are brief
descriptions of the Treasury's crime technology Descriptions of
assistance programs listed in table IV.1. The descriptions are
based on Treasury's Support information
that the Treasury components provided to us. The services and
systems are grouped by the component providing them. Services and
Systems ATF provided the following types of crime technology
assistance to state Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and local law
enforcement agencies: and Firearms * Accelerant Detection
Analysis: The laboratory analysis of fire debris to detect and
identify flammable liquids potentially used as accelerants in an
incendiary fire. ATF has offered on-site training in fire debris
analysis to analysts from state and local laboratories and is
currently assisting in fire debris analysis training provided by
the National Fire Safety Training Center. * Advanced Serial Case
Management: A case management and lead-tracking database designed
to accept large volumes of data. The database analyzes information
to assist investigators in identifying trends, patterns, and
investigative leads for major federal or state incidents. Page 42
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury * Arson CD-ROM: An interactive
training tool, the CD-ROM/virtual reality training program is
designed to elevate the overall investigative competency levels of
all fire investigators in the United States and establish a
consistent standard for fire investigation. * Arson/Explosives
Incident System: A clearinghouse for data collected from several
agencies. The system produces statistical and investigative data
that can be used real-time by arson and bomb investigators. State
and local agencies can query the system for things such as
component parts, stolen explosives, and device placement. *
Consolidated Gang Database: A database to track various types of
information about outlaw motorcycle gangs, street and ethnic
gangs, and antigovernment groups involved in criminal activity.
Data are compiled from ATF investigative reports and state and
local law enforcement agencies. * Dipole Study: The Dipole Study
is intended to assist state, local, and federal explosives
investigators and building designers. For courtroom presentation
purposes, the study produced a software package that will allow
investigators to support their theory of an explosion and explain
blast damage and fragmentary damage. * Electronic Facial
Identification Technique: A specialized software program that
allows operators to create composite sketches of suspected
perpetrators or unidentified persons who surface as suspects or
potential witnesses during an investigation. * Explosive
Forensics: Examination of debris collected at the scene of an
explosion or of suspected explosive material obtained from
recovery or undercover purchase. * Federal Firearms License
System: The primary objective of this system is to produce a
relational database of firearms and explosives licensing
information. This system allows users to search for licensing
information. On a semiannual basis, information is provided to
state and local police departments identifying the federal
firearms licensees in their geographical area of responsibility. *
Firearms Tracing System: The National Tracing Center traces
firearms for federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement
agencies. The firearms are traced from the manufacturer to the
retail purchaser. * Integrated Ballistics Identification System:
A system that allows firearms technicians to digitize and
automatically correlate and compare bullet and shell casing
signatures. The equipment quickly provides investigators with
leads to solve greater numbers of crimes. * National (Arson and
Explosives) Repository: A database, the repository contains
information regarding arson incidents and the actual and suspected
criminal misuse of explosives throughout the United States. Page
43 GAO/GGD-99-101
Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology Assistance (Support
Services and Systems) Provided by the Department of the Treasury
The information will be available for statistical analysis and
research, investigative leads, and intelligence. * National
Response Team: The National Response Team was established to
assist state and local police and fire departments in
investigating large- scale fires and explosions. * Youth Crime
Gun Interdiction Initiative: This initiative is a focused
component of the federal effort to combat firearms trafficking.
Working with state and local law enforcement agencies, the tracing
of crime guns provides leads to interdict the trafficking of
firearms to youths and juveniles. Among other things, this
initiative makes ATF's firearms trace capabilities and data more
accessible to state and local law enforcement agencies. The
Treasury Enforcement Communications System has three programs
Customs Service that provide crime technology-related
assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies: *
Diplomatic Licensing and Registration Program: Users may query
vehicle registration and drivers license information for persons
and vehicles licensed by the Department of State. * Aircraft
Registration and Tracking: Users may query information about
aircraft registered with the Federal Aviation Administration. *
Bank Secrecy Act Program: Provides information to state agencies
responsible for enforcing state money laundering statutes. The
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides two training
Federal Law Enforcement programs involving use of crime
technology-related equipment: Training Center * Advanced Airborne
Counterdrug Operations Training Program: This program provides
students with the opportunity to use technical equipment in
darkness. * Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training Program:
This program teaches students how to use equipment such as global
positioning hand-held devices and thermal imaging systems. Page 44
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury Project Gateway: Established to
facilitate the exchange of Bank Secrecy Financial Crimes
Act information with state and local law enforcement agencies.4
Gateway Enforcement Network incorporates custom-designed
software to provide designated state coordinators with rapid and
direct on-line electronic access to Bank Secrecy Act records,
including suspicious activity reports. National Forensic
Laboratory: The laboratory primarily supports IRS Internal Revenue
criminal investigations involving violations of federal tax law
and related Service financial crimes. According
to IRS officials, a limited or negligible amount of support (less
than $1,000 per year) is provided to state and local law
enforcement. However, when provided, forensic support or
assistance may include (1) document and handwriting analyses, (2)
polygraph examinations, and (3) audio/video surveillance tape
enhancements. The Secret Service provided the following types of
crime technology Secret Service assistance to state and
local law enforcement agencies: * Audio/Image Enhancement: Audio
enhancements include 911 calls, telephone answering machine
recordings, court recordings, and gunfire analysis. Image
enhancements include images obtained from surveillance cameras
that recorded robberies of stores, banks, and ATMs, as well as
devices that recorded homicides in a variety of locations. *
Automated Fingerprint Identification System: This hybrid network
of state and local digitized fingerprint databases provides in
excess of 20 million fingerprint records to be searched by the
Secret Service's Identification Branch. * Cellular Tracking
Project: Equipment is used to track cellular telephones. The
system is capable of identifying the suspect's location. This
system is made available to federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies upon request and, according to Secret Service
officials, has proven to be very successful in cases where state
and local law enforcement officials have requested this Secret
Service equipment and expertise in murder, carjacking, and
kidnapping cases. * Computer Forensic Support: Forensic
examination of electronic evidence is provided through the
Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program. Special agents, among
other things, assist state and local law enforcement 4 Enacted in
1970, the Bank Secrecy Act requires, among other things, financial
institutions to maintain records and report certain domestic
currency transactions and cross-border transportation of currency.
One purpose of such records and reports was to create a paper
trail for investigators' use in tracing illicit funds. Page 45
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury agencies in the examination of
computers, computer systems, electronic communication systems,
telecommunication systems and devices, electronic organizers,
scanners, and other devices manufactured to intercept or duplicate
telecommunications services. * Electronic Crimes Branch Support:
This branch supports law enforcement investigations involving
computers, computer systems intrusions, electronic communication
systems, and telecommunication systems and devices. Among the
branch's duties are the oversight of all telecommunications and
computer fraud cases; establishment and operation of a forensic
laboratory to process electronically stored data and
telecommunications devices; and coordination of training
initiatives for field office investigators, state and local
police, and industry representatives. * Encryption: Assistance is
provided to state and local law enforcement agencies in decoding
encrypted computer files. * Identification Branch Training: This
branch provides training to state and local law enforcement
agencies on appropriate methods for operating computerized
fingerprinting systems. * Operation Safe Kids: This program is
sponsored by the Secret Service at the request of state and local
law enforcement agencies. Operation Safe Kids uses digital cameras
and fingerprint scanning technology to provide parents with a
printed document that contains a photograph and thumbprints of
their child. * Polygraph examinations: The Secret Service's
Polygraph Branch conducts polygraph examinations regarding
criminal activities ranging from embezzlement to child molestation
and homicide. * Questioned Document Branch: Four branch sections
(document examination, instrumental analysis, document
authentication, and automated recognition) provide forensic
science support. The branch maintains three databases that can
support state and local law enforcement: 1. The Forensic
Information System for Handwriting is a software system where
known and unknown writing samples are scanned, digitized, and
subjected to mathematical algorithms against authors maintained in
the database. Page 46
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix IV Crime Technology
Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the
Department of the Treasury 2. The Watermark Collection database
contains over 23,000 watermarks enabling the identification of
partial as well as complete watermarks. This database is updated
several times a year as the paper industry submits new and updated
watermarks. 3. The Ink Collection database contains over 7,500
inks dating back to the 1920s. Chemical analysis of these inks
allows for differentiation and identification of the first date a
particular entry could have been made based on the first
commercial availability date of the writing ink. This database is
updated yearly through submissions from the ink industry. Page 47
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix V Crime Technology
Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National
Drug Control Policy ONDCP's Counterdrug Technology Assessment
Center (CTAC) was Mission of ONDCP's
established to serve as the central counterdrug enforcement
research and Counterdrug
development organization of the U.S. government. CTAC was
established by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 1991 (P.L. 101- Technology
510), which amended the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and placed
CTAC Assessment Center under the
operating authority of the Director of ONDCP and required that
CTAC be headed by a Chief Scientist of Counterdrug Technology. 1
CTAC's mission is to advance technologies that support the
national drug control goals by improving the effectiveness of law
enforcement, drug interdiction, and substance abuse treatment
research. As part of its mission, CTAC is to identify and define
the scientific and technological needs of federal, state, and
local drug enforcement agencies. According to ONDCP officials, in
fiscal year 1998, CTAC implemented the Technology Transfer Pilot
Program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies.
According to ONDCP officials, for fiscal year 1998, the Technology
Overview of Transfer Pilot
Program involved 18 projects or systems that fit our Technology
Transfer definition of crime technology
assistance. However, only 15 of these projects or systems were
transferred or provided to state and local law Pilot Program
enforcement agencies. According to the CTAC Director, as of
December 1998, these 15 projects or systems involved a total of
202 recipient state and local law enforcement agencies. As table
V.1 shows, the fiscal year 1998 obligations for these 15 projects
or systems totaled $13 million. Table V.1: ONDCP Crime Technology
Assistance Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies,
Fiscal Year 1998 Dollars in thousands Systems Provided Under the
Technology Transfer Pilot Program
Obligations Air-Ground Surveillance Management System
$ 1,500.0 Body Worn
550.0 Borderline with VoiceBox System
1,750.0 Data Locator System
250.0 Drugwipe
150.0 GLADYSa
350.0 Mini-Buster Contraband Detector
1,300.0 Money Laundering Software
250.0 Signcutter
$250.0 Small Look
850.0 Tactical Speech Collection and Analysis System
150.0 Thermal Imagers
1,500.0 Vapor Tracer
1,800.0 Video Stabilization System
200.0 1Drug Control: Planned Actions Should Clarify Counterdrug
Technology Assessment Center's Impact (GAO/GGD-98-28, Feb. 3,
1998). Page 48
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix V Crime Technology
Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National
Drug Control Policy Systems Provided Under the Technology Transfer
Pilot Program
Obligations Wireless Interoperability System
1,400.0 Total
$13,000.0 a According to an ONDCP official, GLADYS is not an
acronym; rather, the system's title is based upon a fictional
person's name. Source: GAO summary of data provided by ONDCP. The
Technology Transfer Pilot Program matched CTAC-sponsored systems
with state or local law enforcement agency requirements and
arranged for the transfer of those systems. In order to
participate in the program, state and local law enforcement
agencies submitted letters and a completed ONDCP questionnaire.
When awarded, the recipients received a technical team, training,
and technical assistance that was directly related to the
technology product. The U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground at
Fort Huachuca, AZ, assisted CTAC by managing the Technology
Transfer Pilot Program and providing engineering expertise in
communications and electronics. The following are descriptions of
the 15 CTAC crime technology assistance Descriptions of
systems (see table V.1) that were transferred to state and local
law Applicable Systems enforcement agencies
in fiscal year 1998. * Air-Ground Surveillance Management System:
This technology provides the ability to track and locate both
field units (friendly assets) and suspects (targets) using a
variety of remote sensors. Tracking and other information is
graphically displayed and archived on a moving map display at the
base station. * Body Worn: A miniaturized audio device (body
wire). The secure multichannel transmitter, with voice privacy and
low probability of detection capabilities, can be worn
inconspicuously during covert operations. * Borderline With
Voicebox System: A telephone intercept monitoring and recording
system. The system digitally records telephone conversations,
faxes, and computer data, plus any short notes typed by the
monitor/operator. The recordings are then available for review and
transcription and use in investigations. * Data Locator System: A
software package that provides secure exchange of electronic mail,
database input and extraction, and police intelligence analysis
information over a standard internet connection. * Drugwipe: A
surface residue test kit that identifies trace amounts of
cannabis, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines. Evidence of
narcotic materials is identified by color change. Page 49
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix V Crime Technology
Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National
Drug Control Policy * GLADYS: A computer-based system that uses
telephone company billing records to analyze cellular phone
traffic. * Mini-Buster Contraband Detector: A portable contraband
detection kit. A "Buster"detector indicates differences in density
encountered when moved across a surface. The kit includes an
ultrasonic range finder that measures distances up to 90 feet
within 1-inch accuracy for detection of false walls or bulkheads.
The flexible fiber optic scope contains a portable light source
for remote viewing inside inaccessible spaces such as fuel tanks.
* Money Laundering Software: A software package used to detect
suspicious financial transactions. The software identifies
underlying patterns and trends associated with money laundering,
including suspicious financial transactions within complex data
sources, such as state and bank activities involving money
transfers and currency exchanges. * Signcutter: A system that
tracks and locates vehicles using a tracking unit based on Global
Positioning System technology. The unit may be used to track law
enforcement vehicles or covertly track a "suspect" vehicle. *
Small Look: A miniaturized video surveillance system consisting of
a miniature, solid-state electronic camera system. It captures,
processes, and stores hundreds of digital picture images in
nonvolatile memory. * Tactical Speech Collection and Analysis
System: A voice identification system that can store up to 25
voice samples on the system's hard drive. * Thermal Imagers: An
infrared imaging surveillance system that provides night vision
capabilities. Real-time video pictures are generated in all
lighting conditions when the unit senses heat. * Vapor Tracer: A
hand-held detection system, this device is capable of detecting
and identifying extremely small quantities of narcotics and
explosives. This system works by drawing a sample of vapor into
the detector where it is heated, ionized, and identified. * Video
Stabilization System: A surveillance video enhancement system.
The system is used to eliminate jitter and camera motion,
typically associated with surveillance video. * Wireless
Interoperability System: A computer-based interagency radio
communications switching system. Computer-aided switching
technology is used to connect numerous law enforcement agencies to
a central radio system console for the purpose of improving
interagency communications during counternarcotic investigations.
Although available in fiscal year 1998, three other crime
technology-related systems sponsored by ONDCP were not transferred
to state and local law enforcement agencies: Page 50
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix V Crime Technology
Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National
Drug Control Policy * Secure Messaging and Investigative
Information Transmission System: A system using a secure web
server to upload, search, and distribute images using wireless
transmission between field and police headquarters. * Suspect
Pointer Index Network: A relational database application to be
used for the entry, retention, and analysis of multimedia data,
such as images and text, supporting counterdrug operations,
general case investigations, and crime analysis requirements. *
Tactical Video Communication System: An analog communication
system for transmitting live video and audio from a forward area
back to a command post. Page 51
GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology Appendix VI Major Contributors to
This Report Danny R. Burton, Assistant Director General Government
Mark A. Tremba, Evaluator-in-Charge Division, Washington, Seto
J. Bagdoyan, Senior Evaluator Chan My J. Battcher, Evaluator D.C.
Andrew B. Hoffman, Evaluator David P. Alexander, Senior Social
Science Analyst Denise M. Fantone, Assistant Director Accounting
and Information Management Division, Washington, D.C. Jan B.
Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel Office of the General
Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Senior Attorney Counsel, Washington, D.C.
Page 52 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime
Technology Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report
and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or
money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Order by mail: U.S. General Accounting
Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700
4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting
Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202)
512-6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-
2537. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in the
body to: [email protected] or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page
at: http://www.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office
Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 Postage & Fees Paid GAO
Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested (182062)
*** End of document. ***