GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-277403 

July 11, 1997

The Honorable Richard K. Armey

Majority Leader

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Kasich

Chairman, Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman, Committee on Government

 Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Justice’s

February 1997 Draft Strategic Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the strategic plans submitted by

the cabinet departments and selected major agencies for consultation with

the Congress as required by the Government Performance and Results Act

of 1993 (the Results Act or GPRA). This letter is our response to that

request concerning the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Our overall objective was to review and evaluate the latest available

version of DOJ’s draft strategic plan. Specifically, we (1) assessed the plan’s

compliance with the Results Act requirements and its overall quality,

(2) determined if DOJ’s major statutory authorities were reflected,

(3) identified whether discussions about crosscutting functions and

interagency involvement were included, (4) determined if the plan

addressed major management problems, and (5) discussed DOJ’s capacity

to provide reliable information about performance.

We obtained the February 1997 DOJ draft plan provided to the House of

Representatives staff working with DOJ. This was the latest version

available at the time we did our work. Our overall assessment of DOJ’s

draft strategic plan was generally based on our knowledge of DOJ’s

operations and programs, our numerous reviews of DOJ and Justice-related

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

issues, recent work on DOJ’s fiscal year 1996 audit by an independent

public accountant, and other existing information available at the time of

our assessment. The criteria we used to determine whether DOJ’s draft

strategic plan complied with the requirements of the Results Act were the

Results Act and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on

developing the plans (Circular A-11, part 2). To make judgments about the

strengths and weaknesses of the plan and its elements, we used our

May 1997 guidance for congressional review of the plans

(GAO/GGD-10.1.16) as a tool. To determine whether the plan contained

information on interagency coordination and addressed management

problems, we relied on our general knowledge of DOJ’s operations and

programs and our previous reports.

As you requested, we coordinated our work on DOJ’s capacity to provide

reliable information with the DOJ Inspector General’s office. We also relied

on our June 1995 report in which we described DOJ’s initial efforts to

address the Results Act, including performance measures.1

 Because of

time constraints in doing this work, we did not review any supporting

documents related to the plan or interview DOJ officials about its

development and preparation.

We did our work between June 21 and July 10, 1997. On July 7, 1997, we

provided a draft of this letter to the Attorney General for her review and

comment. DOJ’s comments are discussed at relevant points in this letter

and in a section at the end.

Background The Department of Justice was created in June 1870 (see 28 U.S.C. 501,

503),2

 with the Attorney General as the head of the Department. DOJ

encompasses a wide array of core functions, whose responsibilities range

from assisting state and local governments in reducing juvenile

delinquency to working with foreign governments to fighting terrorism.

The Attorney General is responsible for provision of legal advice to the

President and department heads, representation of the executive branch in

court, investigation of federal crimes, and enforcement of federal laws.3

The Attorney General also supervises and directs the operation of the

1

Managing for Results: The Department of Justice’s Initial Efforts to Implement GPRA (GGD-95-167FS,

June 20, 1995).

2

The Judiciary Act of 1789 originally created the position of Attorney General and also directed the

President to appoint an attorney for each federal judicial district to represent the United States. 1 Stat.

73, 92-93.

3

See chapter 31 of title 28 of the U.S. Code.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

various components of DOJ, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI),4

 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),5 Immigration and

Naturalization Service (INS),6

 Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP),7 and the

Offices of U.S. Attorneys,8

 U.S. Marshals,9 and U.S. Trustees.10 Each of

these components has statutory authorities under which they operate

and/or which they enforce. In addition, the Attorney General has been

given numerous other statutory responsibilities over the years through

anticrime legislation and in the context of various appropriations acts.

The Results Act specifies that all agencies’ strategic plans should have six

critical components: (1) a comprehensive agency mission statement;

(2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major functions and

operations; (3) approaches (or strategies) to achieve the goals and

objectives and the various resources needed; (4) a description of the

relationship between the long-term goals/objectives and the annual

performance plans required by the Act; (5) an identification of key factors,

external to the agency and beyond its control, that could significantly

affect achievement of the strategic goals; and (6) a description of how

program evaluations were used to establish and revise strategic goals and

a schedule for future program evaluations.

4

The FBI was established in 1908 by the Attorney General, who directed that DOJ investigations be

handled by its own staff. General statutory provisions related to the FBI are contained in chapter 33 of

title 28 of the U.S. Code. The FBI is charged with investigating all violations of federal law except those

that have been assigned by legislative enactment or otherwise to another federal agency.

5

DEA was created in July 1973, by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1973 (5 U.S.C. app. 1), which merged

four separate drug law enforcement agencies. DEA is the lead agency in enforcing narcotics and

controlled substances laws, primarily contained in title 21 of the U.S. Code.

6

INS was created in March 1891 (see 8 U.S.C. 1551 note), and its purpose and responsibilities were

further specified by the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended (8 U.S.C. 1101 note), which

charges the Attorney General with the administration and enforcement of its provisions. The Attorney

General has delegated authority to the Commissioner of INS to carry out these provisions of

immigration law.

7

BOP is generally responsible for the operation of federal penal and correctional institutions. Its

general statutory provisions are contained in chapter 303 of title 18 of the U.S. Code.

8

The government is represented in each of the 94 judicial districts by a U.S. Attorney. The U.S.

Attorneys prosecute criminal offenses against the United States, represent the government in civil

actions in which the United States is concerned, and initiate proceedings for the collection of fines,

penalties, and forfeitures owed to the United States. General statutory provisions related to the U.S.

attorneys are contained in chapter 35 of title 28 of the U.S. Code.

9

The government is represented in each of the 94 judicial districts by a U.S. Marshal. The primary

mission of the U.S. Marshals Service is protection of the federal judiciary, protection of witnesses,

execution of warrants and court orders, management of seized assets, and custody and transportation

of unsentenced prisoners. General provisions related to the U.S. Marshal Service are contained in

chapter 37 of title 28 of the U.S. Code.

10The U.S. Trustees supervise the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees in the

Federal Bankruptcy Courts. General provisions related to the U.S. Trustees are contained in chapter 39

of title 28 of the U.S. Code.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

DOJ’s strategic plan is organized around what DOJ has identified as its seven

core functions: (1) investigation and prosecution of criminal offenses;

(2) assistance to state and local governments; (3) legal representation,

enforcement of federal laws, and defense of U.S. interests;

(4) immigration; (5) detention and incarceration; (6) administration and

improvement of the justice system; and (7) management.

It is important to recognize that we reviewed a draft of DOJ’s strategic plan

and that the final plan is not due to the Congress and OMB until

September 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act anticipated that several

planning cycles would be needed to perfect the process and that the final

plan would be continually refined as future planning cycles occur. Thus,

our comments reflect a snapshot status of the plan at a given point in time.

We recognize that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process and

that DOJ officials, with input from OMB and congressional staff, are

continuing to revise the draft.

Results in Brief Of the six elements required by the Act, three—the relationship between

long-term goals/objectives and the annual performance plans, the key

factors external to DOJ that could affect DOJ’s ability to meet its goals, and a

program evaluation component—were not specifically identified in the

draft plan. The remaining three elements—the mission statement, goals

and objectives, and strategies to achieve the goals and objectives—were

discussed. However, each of these elements had weaknesses, some more

significant than others.

The three elements discussed in DOJ’s plan generally contained some, but

not all, of the attributes that would be desirable to meet the purposes of

the Act and to be consistent with OMB guidance. For example,

• the mission statement includes six of the seven core functions of DOJ, but

it does not include DOJ’s detention and incarceration function;

• the goals and objectives are not consistently results oriented or expressed

in as measurable a form as they could be; and

• the strategies to achieve the goals and objectives do not explain the extent

to which DOJ programs and activities will contribute to the achievement of

the goals and how DOJ plans to assess progress in meeting the goals.

Further, the performance indicators are not always as outcome related as

they could be, nor do the strategies describe the processes and resources

needed to meet the goals and objectives of the plan, as required by the Act.

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

The draft plan makes no explicit mention of the other three required

elements. With regard to relating long-term goals/objectives to

performance plans, the plan provided no substantive comment. Instead,

DOJ stated that the draft plan provides a basis for its components to

develop more detailed annual plans and related program performance

information. The plan does not contain a section on key external factors. It

is important that factors that could significantly affect the achievement of

strategic goals be identified and that mitigation strategies be considered. A

program evaluation element was also missing, even though OMB guidance

states that the plan should, among other things, (1) describe how program

evaluations were used to prepare the plan and (2) outline the scope and

methodology, timetable, and key issues to be addressed in future

evaluations. Program evaluations are a critical source of information for

assessing progress toward achieving strategic goals as well as ensuring

their validity and reasonableness.

The draft plan appears to reflect consideration of most of DOJ’s major

statutory responsibilities. However, the plan does not contain specific

references to the underlying statutory bases for major functions and

operations, provide specifics of how any particular statutory responsibility

will be implemented, or provide linkages between the stated goals and

objectives and DOJ’s relevant statutory authorities that form the basis for

them. Including such linkages may facilitate a better understanding of the

diversity and complexity of DOJ’s overall mission and goals and objectives.

In addition, the draft plan could be more useful to DOJ, the Congress, and

other stakeholders if it provided a more explicit discussion of crosscutting

activities, major management challenges, and DOJ’s capacity to provide

reliable information to manage its programs or determine if it is achieving

its strategic goals. The draft plan is silent on crosscutting issues and does

not mention whether DOJ coordinated with related external law

enforcement stakeholders, such as the Customs Service and state and

local law enforcement agencies. Recognizing crosscutting issues and the

coordination required to address them is particularly important for DOJ

because as the federal government’s attorney, it helps the various federal

agencies enforce the law in federal courts. The draft plan does not

explicitly discuss how crosscutting issues might arise or affect the

successful accomplishment of DOJ’s goals and objectives.

The plan is also silent on the formidable management problems we and

others, including the DOJ Inspector General and the National Performance

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Review (NPR), have identified in recent years. Consideration of these

problems is important because they could affect DOJ’s ability to develop

and meet its goals. Also, we and others have identified problems with the

reliability and availability of data in DOJ’s program-related and financial

management systems. The draft plan does not mention how data

limitations may affect DOJ’s ability to manage its programs or to measure

performance. Consideration of these areas could give DOJ a better

framework for achieving the purposes of the Act and help stakeholders to

better understand DOJ’s operating constraints and environment.

Draft Plan Does Not

Achieve All the

Purposes of the Act,

and the Quality of

Individual Elements

Could Be Improved

DOJ’s strategic plan is incomplete and does not provide the Congress with

critical information for its consultations with DOJ. DOJ’s plan includes the

first two critical elements—mission statement and goals and

objectives—but the mission statement is not complete and the goals and

objectives are not consistently results oriented and expressed in as

measurable a form as they could be. While DOJ partially included a third

element—its strategies to achieve the goals and objectives—it does not

explain to what extent DOJ programs and activities will contribute to

achieving the goals and how DOJ plans to assess progress in meeting the

goals. Further, the strategies are not always outcome related, nor do they

describe the processes and resources needed to meet the goals and

objectives of the plan, as required by the Act. In addition, three other

elements have not been included in the plan—the relationship between

long-term goals/objectives and the annual performance plans, key external

factors, and the use of program evaluations to establish or revise strategic

goals.

Mission Statement DOJ’s plan contains a mission statement that is results oriented and

generally defines the basic purpose of DOJ with emphasis on its core

programs and activities. DOJ’s mission statement is as follows:

“Our mission at the United States Department of Justice is to enforce the law and defend

the interests of the U.S. according to the law, provide Federal leadership in preventing and

controlling crime, seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, administer

and enforce the Nation’s immigration laws fairly and effectively and ensure fair and

impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

DOJ’s mission statement covers six of the seven core functions that DOJ

identified but does not specify the detention and incarceration function,

which is one of DOJ’s largest budget items. Nevertheless, the plan

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

incorporates the detention and incarceration function in its goals and

objectives and strategies to achieve the goals and objectives.

In commenting on a draft of this letter, DOJ officials said that they do not

agree that the DOJ mission statement omits detention and incarceration or

that the major functions of DOJ need to be explicitly spelled out in a

mission statement. They believe this function is covered by the phrases

“seek just punishment. . .”, and “ensure fair and impartial administration of

justice. . .” While we agree that mission statements may vary in the extent

to which they specify particular activities, our view that it would be

helpful to include the detention and incarceration function in this case

arises from DOJ’s decision to specify all of the other major functions in its

mission statement. In our view, the omission of one of DOJ’s larger

functions makes the mission statement appear to be incomplete.

Goals and Objectives DOJ’s goals and objectives cover its major functions and operations and are

logically related to its mission. However, they are not consistently results

oriented and sometimes focus on activities and processes. For example,

one set of results-oriented goals involve reducing violent, organized, and

gang-related crime; drug-related crime; espionage and terrorism; and white

collar crime. DOJ’s goals in other areas are more process oriented, such as

representing the United States in all civil matters and promoting the

participation of victims and witnesses in legal proceedings.

Another weakness of the goals is that they are not always expressed in as

measurable a form as they could be. For example, two of DOJ’s goals in the

legal representation, enforcement of federal laws, and defense of U.S.

interests core function are to guarantee the civil rights of all Americans

and safeguard America’s environment and natural resources. It is not clear

how DOJ is able to measure its progress in achieving these goals.

Strategies to Achieve Goals

and Objectives

The Results Act and OMB Circular A-11 indicate that DOJ should describe

the processes that will be used to achieve its goals and objectives. Our

review of DOJ’s strategic plan, specifically the strategies and performance

indicators, showed where improvements could be made to better meet the

Act’s purposes and OMB Circular A-11 guidance.

Some of the strategies could be clarified to better explain how and to what

extent DOJ programs and activities will contribute to achieving the goals

and how DOJ plans to assess progress in meeting those goals. For example,

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

because DOJ has limited ability to control criminal activities, it is not clear

how DOJ will be able to determine the degree to which its programs and

activities have contributed to changes in violent crime, availability and

abuse of illegal drugs, espionage and terrorism, and white collar crime.

Similarly, in its immigration core function, DOJ has a goal to maximize

deterrents to unlawful migration by reducing the incentives of

unauthorized employment and entitlements. It is likewise unclear how DOJ

will be able to determine the effect of its efforts to deter unlawful

migration, compared to the effect of changes in the economic and political

conditions in countries from which illegal aliens originated. The plan does

not address either issue.

DOJ elected to include performance indicators in its strategic plan. While

we are supportive of the concept of using performance indicators to

measure outcomes, we noted that DOJ’s performance indicators are more

output than outcome related. For example, a strategy to achieve the goal

for ensuring border integrity is to increase the strength of the Border

Patrol. One of the performance indicators DOJ is proposing to measure

how well the strategy is working is the percentage of time that Border

Patrol agents devote to actual border control operations. While this may

indicate whether agents are spending more time controlling the border, it

is not clear how it will help DOJ assess how this practice affects its

progress in deterring unlawful migration.

Further, the plan’s strategies do not discuss the types of resources (e.g.,

human skills, capital, and information technology) that will be needed to

achieve the strategic and performance goals, including any significant

changes to be made in resource levels. Such information could be

beneficial to DOJ and Congress in establishing the goals, evaluating the

progress in achieving the goals, and making resource needs allocations

during the budget process.

In commenting on a draft of this letter, DOJ officials said that the additional

draft material provided to us includes estimates of resource needs. While

we did not review the supplemental information DOJ provided, we believe

the purposes of the Results Act would be better achieved if the strategic

plan included—as OMB guidance suggests—information on resource needs

linked to goals and objectives.

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Three Elements Not

Included in Draft Plan

The plan does not discuss (1) the relationship between long-term

goals/objectives and the annual performance goals, (2) key external

factors, and (3) use of program evaluations.

Under the Results Act, DOJ’s long-term strategic goals are to be linked to its

annual performance plans and the day-to-day activities of its managers and

staff. The intent for this linkage is to provide a basis for judging whether

an agency is making progress toward achieving its long-term goals.

However, the DOJ plan generally does not provide such linkages.

DOJ officials commented that the plan provides a basis for a linkage

between the long-range goals of the strategic plan and the annual

performance plans. They said that DOJ’s 1999 annual performance planning

and budget formulation activities are to be closely linked and both are to

be driven by the goals of the strategic plan. According to these officials,

this interrelationship is the cornerstone of DOJ’s Results Act

implementation approach. They also said that while the draft plan itself

does not describe these connections, the linkages are in fact “real” and

would become more apparent as the 1999 annual performance plan and

budget request are issued. Further, they said they would amend the plan to

more adequately explain this process.

The strategic plan also does not identify or discuss key factors external to

DOJ that could significantly affect it in achieving its strategic goals.

External factors can at times invalidate assumptions about DOJ’s ability to

achieve its strategic goals. For example, the purpose of the Act would be

more fully achieved if DOJ would discuss its alternative plan for achieving

its goals if it does not get the coordination with other federal agencies and

foreign governments. Another external factor that may significantly affect

DOJ accomplishing its strategic plan is that of having to respond to changes

in its statutory responsibilities, such as new immigration initiatives.

In commenting on a draft of the letter, DOJ officials strongly agreed that

external factors significantly affect DOJ’s work and that events and

conditions over which it has little or no control are likely to determine to a

significant degree its success in achieving its goals. In this regard, they

said they expect the next version of the plan to include such external

factors as emergencies and other unpredictable events (e.g., the Murrah

building bombing); changing statutory responsibilities; and the capacity

and effectiveness of their federal, state, and local law enforcement

partners.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Finally, the strategic plan does not include a program evaluation element.

Under the Act and OMB guidance, this element should describe program

evaluations that were used in preparing the strategic plan and outline the

general scope and methodology for future evaluations, key issues to be

addressed, and when such evaluations are to occur. Program evaluations

can be a potentially critical source of information for ensuring the validity

and reasonableness of goals and strategies, and for identifying factors

likely to affect performance.

DOJ officials commented that program evaluation can and should be linked

to strategic planning and that this is an area where DOJ needs to make

improvements. They said that the next version of the plan is to have a

much more extensive discussion of program evaluation, including a list of

anticipated future evaluations.

Draft Plan Generally

Reflects Most of DOJ’s

Major Statutory

Responsibilities

The February 1997 DOJ plan appears to reflect consideration of most of

DOJ’s major statutory responsibilities. The plan addresses these

responsibilities generally and does not contain specific references to the

underlying statutory bases for DOJ’s major functions and operations. It

cites three of the laws that DOJ is charged with enforcing or implementing:

the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, the Brady

Handgun Violence Prevention Act, and the Violence Against Women Act.

A listing that briefly summarizes DOJ’s responsibilities under the laws that

are reflected in various parts of the plan and the relevant DOJ components

that are responsible for implementing them could be useful in helping

stakeholders to better understand the diversity and complexity of DOJ’s

overall mission. It would also help to clarify the linkages between stated

goals and objectives and the underlying statutory authorities on which

they rest.

Consistent with your request, we did not attempt to identify whether all of

the statutory responsibilities of DOJ were reflected in the plan. Instead we

focused on whether the “major” ones were addressed, and we found that,

for the most part, they were. However, one area of statutory responsibility

that is not mentioned in the DOJ plan is the Attorney General’s authority to

regulate controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act (21

U.S.C. 801 et seq.). This authority has been delegated to DEA.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Draft Plan Could

Better Address

Crosscutting Program

Activities

Many law enforcement organizations—international and domestic (i.e.,

other federal, state, and local)—perform either similar or the same

activities as DOJ. The draft plan includes a goal to coordinate and integrate

law enforcement activities, wherever possible, and cooperate fully with

other federal agencies. However, the plan could better serve the purposes

of the Results Act by discussing how DOJ will coordinate with external

organizations’ activities and how inputs, outputs, and outcomes will be

measured and assessed. For example, the plan does not discuss

• how DOJ plans to work with the Departments of Defense and State, the

intelligence agencies, and foreign governments in fighting international

terrorism;

• how DOJ’s drug enforcement activities will relate to the Office of National

Drug Control Policy, which has governmentwide planning responsibilities

for drug control activities;

• how DOJ and the Department of the Treasury, which have similar

responsibilities concerning the seizure and forfeiture of assets used in

connection with illegal activities (e.g., money laundering) will coordinate

and integrate their operations; and

• how INS and the Customs Service, which both inspect arriving passengers

at ports of entry to determine if they are carrying contraband and are

authorized to enter the country, will coordinate their resources.11

Along these lines, certain program areas within DOJ have similar or

complementary functions that are not addressed in the strategic plan. For

example, both BOP and INS detain individuals, but the plan does not address

the interrelationship of their similar functions or prescribe comparable

measures for inputs and outcomes. As a second example, the plan could

do a better job of recognizing the linkage among DOJ’s investigative,

prosecutorial, and incarceration responsibilities.

11We discussed this issue in our report—Customs Service and INS: Dual Management Structure for

Border Inspections Should Be Ended (GAO/GGD-93-111, June 30, 1993).

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Draft Plan Does Not

Address Some Major

Management

Challenges

Over the years, our work and the work of others, including the DOJ

Inspector General and the NPR, addressed many management challenges

that DOJ faces in carrying out its mission. In addition, recent audits under

the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act), which the Government

Management Reform Act12 expanded, have revealed internal control and

accounting problems. Further, DOJ will face emerging management

challenges of implementing modern technology and resolving the need for

computer systems to be changed to accommodate dates beyond the year

1999—the “year 2000 problem.”

DOJ’s draft strategic plan is silent on these issues. Specifically, the plan

does not mention how DOJ has addressed the management problems that

have been identified over the years and the status of its efforts to address

them. These types of information could help DOJ and its stakeholders in at

least two ways. First, it could help in the processes of developing and

reviewing the selection of goals, strategies, and objectives. Second, major

management problems could impede DOJ’s efforts to achieve its goals and

objectives. Stakeholders could benefit from knowing what DOJ has done, is

doing, or plans to do to address such problems or, if DOJ has addressed

such problems in the past, thereby avoiding their reoccurrence.

Previously Identified

Challenges

In recent years, we13 and the NPR14 have identified the following challenges

faced by DOJ: (1) the coordination and structure of federal enforcement

agencies; (2) problems with INS’ enforcement, delivery of service, budget

development and execution, and control over a decentralized organization;

(3) the vulnerability of the asset forfeiture program within DOJ to waste,

12This legislation requires agencies to have their agencywide financial statements annually audited

beginning with the fiscal year 1996 financial statements. The first year financial audits of DOJ and its

components focused primarily on evaluating their control structures and environments and did not

include auditing of their statements of operation, which include the entities’ operating costs. The fiscal

year 1996 audit reports are expected to be issued before the September 30, 1997, submission date for

strategic plans.

13Justice Department: Improved Management Processes Would Enhance Justice’s Operations

(GAO/GGD-86-12, Mar. 14, 1986); Immigration Management: Strong Leadership and Management

Reforms Needed to Address Serious Problems (GAO/GGD-91-28, Jan. 23, 1991); Justice Issues

(GAO/OCG-89-13TR, Nov. 1988); Justice Issues (GAO/OCG-93-23TR, Dec. 1992); Asset Forfeiture

Programs (GAO/HR-93-17, Dec. 1992); Asset Forfeiture Programs (GAO/HR-95-7, Feb. 1995); Quick

Reference Guide (GAO/HR-97-2, Feb. 1997); and High-Risk Program: Information on Selected

High-Risk Areas (GAO/HR-97-30, May 16, 1997).

14From Red Tape to Results: Creating a Government That Works Better and Costs Less, report of the

NPR, Vice President Al Gore, Sept. 7, 1993. We provided our views on NPR’s

recommendations—Management Reform: GAO’s Comments on the National Performance Review’s

Recommendations (GAO/OCG-94-1, Dec. 3, 1993); and Management Reform: Implementation of the

National Performance Review’s Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec. 5, 1994).

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

fraud, abuse, and mismanagement; and (4) management of debt collection

efforts.

We believe these areas are significant enough to warrant some discussion

in the plan. In problem areas where DOJ has taken successful corrective

actions, such as law enforcement coordination, some discussion of how

DOJ addressed those problems and intends to prevent them from

resurfacing would be informative and useful. For other problems where

DOJ may have had less success, such as debt collection, the plan could

identify these problems and discuss how DOJ plans to resolve them. If not

adequately addressed, these management problems could have a negative

impact on DOJ’s ability to achieve goals and measure performance and thus

its ability to successfully implement the Results Act may be hampered.

Internal Control and

Accounting Problems

Work under way by us and others has identified internal control

weaknesses and problems with financial information reporting. DOJ is one

of the 24 federal agencies covered under the CFO Act. The audit work done

pursuant to this act, while not yet finalized, has revealed several

significant internal control weaknesses. For instance, significant problems

with DOJ’s ability to safeguard and account for physical assets generally

occurred because inventory systems, which were used to account for DOJ’s

assets and those in DOJ’s custody, were not updated in a timely manner and

in accordance with established policies and procedures. As a result, the

systems could not provide a complete and accurate inventory of assets.

This places DOJ at increased risk of loss or theft of assets that are in its

possession but are not accounted for in its inventory systems.

This audit work also found weaknesses in DOJ’s data processing

operations. As a result, the general controls cannot be relied upon to

provide reasonable assurance that financial data is reliable. Also, since

fiscal year 1996 was the first time that DOJ’s financial statements were

subject to audit and operating costs were not included as part of this audit,

it is unknown whether DOJ’s systems can produce the necessary cost

information regarding its programs and related outcomes. Such

information would be needed to relate the cost of various programs and

activities to their performance outputs and results.

Information Technology

Issues

In discussing the goals relating to its management core function, DOJ states

that it intends to make effective use of the best available management

practices, including current and new information technology, that will

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

improve program performance and overall efficiency. DOJ’s stated strategy

for accomplishing this goal is to integrate information technology

programs and initiatives with other planning and decisionmaking

processes, including those for human resources, budget, and financial

management.

In this regard, we identified two issues that the strategic plan does not

address. First, the plan does not discuss how DOJ intends to meet

requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 for implementing a

framework of modern technology management to improve performance

and meet strategic goals. This management framework would describe

DOJ’s approach for ensuring that (1) senior executives are involved in

information management decisions, (2) a qualified senior-level Chief

Information Officer is appointed, (3) appropriate agencywide technology

standards are established, (4) discipline over technology spending is

imposed through implementation of an information technology investment

strategy, and (5) performance measures are used to assess technology’s

contribution in achieving mission results.

Second, the plan does not discuss how DOJ will resolve the “year 2000

problem” as well as any significant information security weaknesses—two

issues that we have identified as high risk across government. Many of

DOJ’s critical systems dealing with the investigation, apprehension,

prosecution, and incarceration of criminals are date dependent and

exchange data with federal, state, and local government agencies. As a

result, these systems are at risk of unauthorized access and disclosure or

malicious use of sensitive data due to weaknesses in security and could

malfunction or produce incorrect information due to problems associated

with the year 2000.

Concerns About

Capacity to Provide

Reliable Performance

Information

To efficiently and effectively operate, manage, and oversee its diverse

array of law enforcement-related responsibilities, DOJ needs reliable data

on their results and those of other responsible organizations. These data

are needed so that DOJ can measure its progress and monitor, record,

account for, summarize, and analyze crime and crime-related data.

DOJ’s strategic plan contains little discussion about its capacity to provide

performance information for assessing its progress toward its goals and

objectives over the next 5 years. For example, under its discussion of the

immigration core function, DOJ’s plan states that it intends to establish and

maintain automated systems that provide reliable, timely, and accessible

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

employment and entitlement eligibility verification. However, there is no

discussion on its use of information management systems to positively

identify criminal aliens. Also, DOJ’s strategy over the legal representation,

enforcement of federal laws, and defense of U.S. interests core function

states that it intends to enhance financial litigation and debt collection

through automation improvements. The narrative under this function

appears to be limited to the collection of tax debts and does not discuss

DOJ’s efforts to alleviate the long-standing weaknesses in accounting for,

collecting, and reporting on monetary penalties imposed on federal

criminals.

Further, DOJ will need to rely on a variety of external data sources to

assess the impact of its plan. For example, those goals that are crime

related are primarily dependent on data from state and local law

enforcement agencies. Goals related to juvenile criminal activity will also

depend on program information that is generated by state and local

agencies. DOJ has little control over the completeness, accuracy,

timeliness, and reliability of these data.

Agency Comments On July 9, 1997, we met with DOJ officials, including the Director,

Management and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, who has

responsibility for DOJ’s strategic plan. DOJ officials agreed with a number of

our observations, noting that their strategic plan addresses three of the six

statutorily required elements. DOJ officials said that DOJ has started

working on the three other elements and expects to address each of these

elements in the next version of the plan.

The DOJ officials expressed the opinion that our draft letter did not fully or

fairly reflect the DOJ’s progress in developing the strategic plan and they

provided a description of their planning process and its achievements. As

noted in the introductory section of this letter, our scope was limited to a

review of the plan itself. Accordingly, we did not incorporate this

additional information in this letter.

DOJ officials said that notwithstanding the merits of our specific

suggestions, there is a risk of unintentionally undermining the plan’s

usefulness as a means for spurring public dialogue if it becomes a vehicle

for addressing other issues and concerns. Despite this reservation, they

agree that the plan could be enriched by greater attention to information

technology and other management-related topics not required by the

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Results Act. Therefore, they said that DOJ intends to address these topics in

their revised version.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days from its

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to the Ranking

Minority Members of your committees, and to the Chairman and Ranking

Minority Members of other committees that have jurisdiction over DOJ

activities, the Attorney General, and to the Director, OMB. We will send

copies to others on request.

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277403 

Please contact me at (202) 512-8777 if you or your staffs have any

questions concerning this letter. Major contributors to this letter are listed

in the enclosure.

Norman J. Rabkin, Director

 Administration of Justice Issues

Enclosure

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure 

Major Contributors to This Letter

General Government

Division

Richard M. Stana, Acting Associate Director

James M. Blume, Assistant Director

Samuel A. Caldrone, Assignment Manager

Mary B. Hall, Evaluator-in-Charge

Michael H. Little, Communications Analyst

Michelle Wiggins, Issue Area Assistant

Lessie M. Burke, Writer-Editor

Accounting and

Information

Management Division

Ronald B. Bageant, Assistant Director

John P. Finedore, Assistant Director

Deborah A. Taylor, Assistant Director

Anastasia P. Kaluzienski, Auditor

Brian C. Spencer, Technical Assistant Director

Office of the General

Counsel

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

(182039) Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-153R DOJ’s Draft Strategic Plan
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.

Orders 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

touchtone 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 an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100