PROTECTING THE PUBLIC: 

Audit Survey of ATF’s 

Planning and Expenditures for the Integrated 

Violence Reduction Strategy 

OIG-02-021 December 14, 2001

Office of Inspector General

******* 

The Department of the Treasury 
Contents 

ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 1

Audit Survey Report ...................................................................................... 2 

 Results in Brief.............................................................................................. 3 

 Background................................................................................................... 3 

 Results of Survey .......................................................................................... 5 

 IVRS Funding Was Dedicated to Firearms Programs ...................................... 5 

 

 IVRS Did Not Require Extensive Additional Planning and Did Not Have its Own 

Performance Measures .............................................................................. 6 

 

Appendices 

 Appendix 1: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology......................................... 9 

 Appendix 2: Major Contributors To This Report .......................................... 11 

 Appendix 3: Report Distribution................................................................ 12 

Abbreviations

 ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

 AVCAP Armed Violent Criminal Apprehension Program 

 FTE Full Time Equivalent 

 FY Fiscal Year 

 IVRS Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy 

 NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check System 

 OIG Office of Inspector General 

 U.S. United States 

 
OIG Audit Survey 

Report

The Department of the Treasury 

Office of Inspector General 

ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 2

 December 14, 2001 

 Bradley A. Buckles 

 Director 

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is responsible 

for enforcing the Federal firearms laws. The Integrated Violence 

Reduction Strategy (IVRS) is an ATF initiative aimed at reducing 

gun-related crime and violence through a comprehensive approach 

towards enforcement of firearms laws. While IVRS is a national 

strategy, ATF recognizes that different communities have different 

law enforcement concerns. Accordingly, IVRS integrates several 

core concepts that are adapted and applied to address the specific 

law enforcement needs of a community. 

We initiated an audit survey of IVRS in accordance with the OIG 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Annual Plan and because IVRS appeared to 

be a major new ATF initiative. The purpose of an audit survey is to 

determine whether a more detailed audit of a program or activity is 

warranted. The specific objectives of this survey were to 

determine if ATF has (1) dedicated the appropriated funds and fulltime equivalents (FTE) to the program and (2) adequately planned 

IVRS to meet the objectives of the program. We performed survey 

fieldwork from June to December 2001 at ATF Headquarters in 

Washington, D.C. and at the Chicago field division. We 

interviewed ATF officials and evaluated records and procedures. 

The scope of this review covered October 1, 1999 through 

June 30, 2001. See Appendix 1 for a more detailed description of 

the survey objectives, scope, and methodology. 
ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 3

Results in Brief

During the 2 years of our audit period, ATF received an increase in 

funding of $62.2 million and 305 FTEs for IVRS. IVRS is not a 

new initiative, but instead the strategy is a way to add emphasis to 

existing ATF programs that target violent crime. Because all ATF 

firearms programs support IVRS, the appropriated funds could be 

spent in many different ATF program areas. For FY 2000, ATF 

dedicated the appropriated IVRS funds and FTEs to four existing 

firearms programs. If spending continued at the levels we saw as 

of June 2001, FY 2001 expenditures in these four programs should 

also meet IVRS targets. 

Because IVRS was not a new initiative, extensive additional 

planning was not required on ATF’s part to meet the strategy’s 

objectives. ATF’s ability to meet its IVRS objectives is dependent 

upon the success of the individual programs and activities that 

make up the strategy. Although ATF acknowledged that it does 

not have outcome-based measures to evaluate its performance, the 

total number of IVRS-related outputs increased anywhere from 13 

to 99 percent in FY 2000, according to unaudited data in ATF 

reports. 

Based on the information developed during our survey, we do not 

plan to conduct any further audit work on IVRS at this time. 

Therefore, we are not making any recommendations in this report. 

Background 

IVRS sets forth a three-part plan to reduce gun violence by 

coordinating and integrating ATF’s firearms enforcement efforts. 

IVRS incorporates efforts at the Federal, State, and local levels to 

accomplish the following: 

• Remove violent firearms offenders from communities, 

including those who illegally use, possess, or attempt to 

acquire firearms. 
ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 4

• Deny firearms access to criminals and others who cannot 

legally possess them through regulation of the firearms 

industry and investigation of illegal traffickers of firearms. 

• Prevent violence and firearms crimes through community 

outreach. 

In March 2000, the ATF Director explained IVRS to the Senate 

Appropriations Subcommittee on Treasury and General Government 

this way: 

IVRS is a national enforcement strategy that 

integrates several core concepts which are adapted 

and applied in varying formulas to address the specific 

law enforcement needs of a community. For example, 

Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, and Project 

Ceasefire in Boston Massachusetts, are two different, 

yet equally successful examples of IVRS . . .. One of 

the purposes of the Integrated Violence Reduction 

Strategy is to allow U.S. Attorneys and ATF managers 

to collectively identify their unique crime problems and 

formulate appropriate actions to address them. 

Through the Violent Crime Coordinator, Armed Violent 

Criminal Apprehension (formerly Achilles) Programs, 

as well as through the Firearms Trafficking Program, 

ATF investigates and facilitates the prosecution of 

firearms violators. These programs are components of 

the Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy. 

As described above, many of ATF’s firearms programs support 

IVRS. For example, the Armed Violent Criminal Apprehension 

Program (AVCAP) seeks to identify, investigate, and recommend 

prosecution of a wide range of firearms offenders. The National 

Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which enforces 

the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, is also a part of IVRS. 

Other key components of the strategy include illegal firearms 

trafficking enforcement, regulation of the firearms industry, the 

National Integrated Ballistic Information Network, Youth Crime Gun 

Interdiction Initiative, crime gun tracing and analysis, and the Gang 

Resistance Education and Training program. 
ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 5

ATF received increases in funding of $12.6 million and 56 FTEs in 

FY 2000 and $49.6 million and 249 FTEs in FY 2001 to expand 

IVRS. These increases build upon the Bureau’s base resources of 

$400 million and 2,650 FTEs already devoted to IVRS-related 

programs. 

ATF is required to provide the House Appropriations Committee 

with a detailed report describing the correlation between the 

substantial increase in funding for the IVRS initiative and the 

impact such funding has had on the number and effectiveness of 

investigations and interdiction efforts. The report must also 

describe specific activities and the level of obligations and FTEs 

devoted to each major IVRS component.1

 The first such report 

was issued in May 2001. ATF planned to report future 

accomplishments quarterly, comparing them to the baselines 

established in the May 2001 report. The first quarterly report was 

completed in September 2001. 

 

Results of Survey

We had originally believed that IVRS was one of ATF’s most recent 

initiatives to fight violent crime, newly created in 2000. We 

learned that IVRS is not a new initiative, but is instead a way for 

ATF to add emphasis to those existing programs that target violent 

crime. In fact, IVRS was preceded by ATF’s Integrated Violence 

Impact Strategy (IVIS), which began in about 1994. Existing ATF 

projects and initiatives evolved into the current strategy. 

IVRS Funding Was Dedicated to Firearms Programs 

We concluded that the funding and FTEs allocated to IVRS in FY 

2000 were used for IVRS programs. If spending continued at 

the levels we saw as of June 2001, funding and FTEs used for 

IVRS in FY 2001 should also meet IVRS targets. In FY 2000 

and 2001, ATF received an additional $62.2 million and 305 

FTEs for IVRS. The funds appropriated for IVRS could be spent 

 

1

 This requirement is from H.R. 106-756. 
ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 6

in many different ATF program areas, since IVRS covers all ATF 

firearms programs. ATF has increased spending in four violent 

gun crime areas as a result of IVRS: (1) AVCAP, (2) NICS, 

(3) illegal firearms trafficking enforcement, and (4) regulation of 

the firearms industry. 

ATF has also increased staffing for IVRS programs. Since 

October 1999, ATF has increased total FTEs by 318. The 

number of special agents who actually work cases increased by 

13 percent, while the number of inspectors increased by 18 

percent. Increases in obligations and FTEs for the IVRS program 

exceed those specifically appropriated for this program. 

It is important for field offices to be adequately staffed to handle all 

of the programs that ATF and the other Federal, State, and local 

officials determine are necessary to address the local crime 

problems. While some of our other audit work, such as our review 

of ATF’s NICS program, has indicated that some field offices may 

not have sufficient staff to maintain the needed workload, ATF has 

agreed to evaluate its staffing and workload in response to the 

NICS report recommendations.2

 We also found that ATF has 

increased its staffing levels in several field offices where there 

appeared to be shortages. Once these staff members are on-board 

and fully trained, and ATF has completed its evaluation of staffing 

and workload, it will be important for ATF to ensure these actions 

have fully addressed our concerns. 

IVRS Did Not Require Extensive Additional Planning and 

Did Not Have its Own Performance Measures

Because IVRS was not a new initiative, extensive additional 

planning was not required on ATF’s part. IVRS planning at the 

national level involved reviewing existing programs the field 

divisions were implementing to determine what initiatives were 

already in place. These programs were then packaged together as 

the IVRS initiative. 

 

2

 PROTECTING THE PUBLIC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Could Improve its National Instant Criminal 

Background Check System Program, OIG-02-004, November 1, 2001. 
ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 7

ATF did not have specific performance measures for IVRS. 

Whether IVRS meets its objectives depends upon the individual 

programs that each ATF field division implements and whether 

those programs are successful at reducing violent crime. ATF 

officials acknowledged that they have not established outcomebased performance goals to determine whether they are meeting 

the IVRS objectives, because it is difficult to determine a causal 

relationship between ATF efforts and reduction in crime. Based on 

ATF reports, however, the total number of outputs for violent 

crime related program areas (such as cases, defendants, arrests, 

convictions, and indictments) increased anywhere from 13 to 99 

percent, from 1999 to 2000.3 See Chart 1 below. 

Chart 1: ATF Performance Measures 

Specifically, for four programs where ATF increased spending as a 

result of the IVRS appropriations, outputs have increased for three: 

AVCAP, NICS, and illegal firearms trafficking enforcement. While 

the number of inspections for the fourth area, regulation of the 

 

3

 We did not verify the accuracy of the information contained in ATF’s reports. 

Comparison of Firearms Violence Related Actions by ATF

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

1999 4268 5594 2845 1360 1635

2000 5911 7160 3206 2664 3256

Cases Defendants Arrests Convictions Indictments
ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 8

firearms industry, decreased by about 50 percent between 1999 

and 2000, the scope of the inspections increased. 

We have previously reported that ATF had not developed performance measures for 

IVRS-related programs. For example, in August 2000, we reported that ATF did not 

have specific performance measures that showed the actual impact on crime rates for 

youths in cities as a result of participating in the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 

Initiative.4

 Also, in February 2001, we reported that ATF was not able to demonstrate 

the effectiveness of its firearms compliance inspection activities because it had not 

developed performance measures for these activities.5 In both cases, ATF officials 

agreed with our recommendations to develop such measures. Until specific 

performance measures are in place, it will be difficult for ATF to determine whether 

IVRS programs, and in turn the strategy itself, are meeting ATF’s objectives. 

* * * * * * 

We appreciate the cooperation we received from ATF officials 

during this audit survey. If you wish to discuss this report, you 

may contact me at (312) 886-6300, ext. 118. Major contributors 

to this report are listed in Appendix 2. 

Roberta N. Rickey 

Regional Inspector General for Audit 

 

4 Final Report on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ Implementation of the Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 

Initiative, OIG-00-119, August 21, 2000. 5 PROTECTING THE PUBLIC: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms’ Compliance Inspections Effectively 

Targeted Firearms Violators, OIG-01-038, February 8, 2001. 
Appendix 1 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 9

We conducted this audit survey in accordance with the OIG FY 

2001 Annual Plan and because we believed that IVRS was a new 

initiative started in FY 2000 that had potential to grow into a large 

program very quickly. We wanted to evaluate whether ATF was 

meeting the objectives of IVRS early in the program. 

The objectives of this review were to determine if ATF has: 

• dedicated the appropriated funds and FTEs to the program, 

and 

• adequately planned IVRS to meet the objectives of the 

program. 

Our review generally covered IVRS activities from October 1999 

through June 2001. To accomplish our objectives, we conducted 

work at ATF's Headquarters in Washington, D.C., where we 

interviewed officials and other employees from the Offices of 

Firearms, Explosives, and Arson; Management/Chief Financial 

Officer; Field Operations; and Inspections. We also interviewed 

officials in the ATF Chicago Field Division about their IVRS 

activities. In addition, we interviewed members of the Chicago 

Police Department; the Cook County, Illinois State’s Attorney’s 

Office; and the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Illinois, 

concerning their involvement with ATF’s IVRS program and the 

Chicago Field Division. 

We reviewed policies, procedures, and strategies related to how 

IVRS was planned and carried out and how appropriated funds 

were used. We also compared ATF statistics from 1999 to 2000, 

to determine how outputs had changed since IVRS appropriations 

were received. Finally, we analyzed IVRS obligations for FYs 2000 

and 2001 and compared staffing for FYs 1999, 2000, and 2001. 

We did not conduct a comprehensive review of all the specific 

programs and projects that encompass IVRS to determine whether 

individual programs were being implemented effectively. For 
Appendix 1 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 10

example, we did not gather additional information on IVRS 

programs that we had recently audited, nor did we obtain data 

about programs that we planned to audit in the near future. 

Programs already covered included NICS, Compliance Inspections 

of Federal Firearms Licensees, Youth Crime Gun Interdiction 

Initiative, Achilles Program, and Violent Offenders Program. 

Programs we planned to review in the future included Firearms 

Tracing and Online LEAD. 

We conducted our survey between June 2001 and December 2001 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. 
Appendix 2 

Major Contributors To This Report 

ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 11

Chicago Regional Office 

Roberta N. Rickey, Regional Inspector General for Audit 

Janice A. Miller, Audit Manager 

Aldon Hedman, Auditor-in-Charge 

Larry Fugate, Auditor 

Kathleen Hyland, Auditor
Appendix 3 

Report Distribution 

ATF’s Planning and Expenditures for IVRS (OIG-02-021) Page 12

The Department of the Treasury 

Office of the Under Secretary of the Treasury for Enforcement 

Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for 

Management, Chief Financial Officer 

Office of Organization Improvement 

Office of Strategic Planning & Evaluations 

Office of Budget 

Management Control Branch 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms 

Director 

Assistant Director, Field Operations 

Assistant Director, Firearms, Explosives & Arson 

Assistant Director, Management/Chief Financial Officer 

Assistant Director, Inspection 

Assistant Director, Liaison & Public Information 

Assistant Director, Training & Professional Development 

Chief, Strategic Planning Office 

Office of Management and Budget 

 Treasury Bureau Chief 

 OIG Budget Examiner