U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Stewards of the

AMERICAN DREAM

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

FY 2009

Performance &

Accountability Report
The Department of Justice, which has more than 112,000

employees and is often referred to as the largest law

office in the world, began in 1789 with a staff of two:

The Attorney General and a clerk. The Judiciary Act of

1789 created the Office of the Attorney General, providing for the appointment of “a person, learned in the law,

to act as attorney-general for the United States.” By 1870,

the duties of the Office of the Attorney General had

expanded so much that Congress adopted “An Act to

establish the Department of Justice” with the Attorney

General as its head. 

The Department of Justice serves to enforce the law and

defend the interests of the United States according to the

law; to ensure public safety against threats foreign and

domestic; to provide federal leadership in preventing and

controlling crime; to seek just punishment for those

guilty of unlawful behavior; and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans.

GOAL I: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s

Security

GOAL II: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and 

Represent the Rights and Interests of the 

American People

GOAL III: Ensure Fair and Efficient Administration of

Justice

The Department is headquartered in Washington, DC, at

the Robert F. Kennedy Building, occupying a city block

bounded by 9th and 10th Street and Pennsylvania and

Constitution Avenues, NW. The Department also has

field offices in all states and territories and maintains

offices in 85 countries worldwide.

HISTORY AND ENABLING LEGISLATION STRATEGIC GOALS

MISSION LOCATION

COMPONENT ORGANIZATIONS

Attorney General

Deputy Attorney General

Associate Attorney General

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)

Antitrust Division (ATR)

Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

Civil Division (CIV)

Civil Rights Division (CRT)

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)

Community Relations Service (CRS) 

Criminal Division (CRM)

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)

Environment & Natural Resources 

Division (ENRD)

Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees (EOUST)

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC)

Justice Management Division (JMD) 

National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC)

National Security Division (NSD)

Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR)

Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT)

Office of Information Policy (OIP)

Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison

Office of Legal Counsel (OLC)

Office of Legal Policy (OLP)

Office of Legislative Affairs (OLA)

Office of the Inspector General (OIG)

Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA)

Office of Justice Programs (OJP)

Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR)

Office of Public Affairs

Office of the Solicitor General (OSG)

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)

Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO)

Tax Division (TAX)

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

U.S. National Central Bureau-INTERPOL (USNCB) 

U.S. Parole Commission (USPC)
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

FY 2009

PERFORMANCE &

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

NOVEMBER 2009
Office of the Attorney General

Washington, D.C. 20530

November 9, 2009 

A MESSAGE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Every day the men and women of the Justice Department keep the country safe

and bring to justice those who would do us harm. In the past year, without letting our

guard down in the fight against global terrorism, the Department has refocused its

traditional missions and embraced its historic role in fighting crime, promoting and

upholding our most fundamental civil rights, preserving the environment, ensuring

fairness in the marketplace, cracking down on corporate and mortgage fraud and corrupt

public officials, and enhancing state, local, and tribal law enforcement efforts.

This year, new interagency partnerships have been established with the

Department of Homeland Security to address the growing issue of drug and weapons

smuggling along the Southwest Border, and with the Department of Health and Human

Services to combat Medicare fraud. To coordinate interagency efforts against violent

international organized crime organizations, the Department has created a new

International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center. In addition, the

Department won a record $2.3 billion health care fraud settlement, the largest in the

history of the Department of Justice, as well as a record federal recovery settlement of

$540 million for the Medicaid Program.

Also this year, the Department celebrated several important anniversaries.

September marked the 15th anniversary of the Violence Against Women Act, which was

signed into law on September 13, 1994. This critical legislation was created in

recognition of the severity of the crimes associated with domestic violence, sexual

assault, and stalking. The anniversary also marks 15 years since the creation of the

Department's Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), which administers financial

and technical assistance to communities around the country to facilitate the creation of

programs, policies, and practices aimed at preventing violence against women. The

Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) also celebrated its centennial

anniversary this year. Founded in 1909 as the Public Lands Division, ENRD has litigated

groundbreaking cases in the fields of public lands, natural resources, and environmental

and administrative law, and has acquired millions of acres for conservation and other

governmental purposes.

While the Department works to fulfill its vital missions of fighting terrorism,

fraud, and violent crime, it is committed to maintaining strong program and fiscal
management. Prepared pursuant to the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and guidance

in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-11, A-123, and A-136, the

FY 2009 Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report contains: our

performance report, as required by the Government Performance and Results Act; our

audited consolidated financial statements, as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act

and the Government Management Reform Act; and a statement of assurance regarding

our internal control and financial management systems, as required by the Federal

Managers' Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).

The Department again earned an unqualified audit opinion on our FY 2009

consolidated financial statements. For the third straight year, no material weaknesses

were identified at the consolidated level in the auditor's report on internal control. While

we continue as a Department to demonstrate noteworthy progress, we are committed to

pursuing actions to correct areas where we have deficiencies.

The Department conducted its annual assessment of the effectiveness of internal

controls to support effective and efficient programmatic operations and compliance with

applicable laws and regulations (FMFIA Section 2), and to determine whether financial

management systems conform to government-wide requirements (FMFIA Section 4).

Based on the results of this assessment, I provide qualified assurance that the Department

met the objectives of FMFIA. The assessment did not identify any system's

non-conformances required to be reported under FMFIA Section 4; however, the

assessment identified two material weaknesses required to be reported under FMFIA

Section 2 - one related to prison crowding and the other related to the Federal Bureau of

Investigation's past issues with the use of National Security Letters. In addition, I

provide reasonable assurance that the Department's internal control over financial

reporting met the objectives of OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A.

The financial and performance data presented in this report are complete and

reliable, providing timely and useful information on Department of Justice

accomplishments to the American taxpayers. The Department is pleased with this past

fiscal year's mission accomplishments, and we will continue to be resolute in our quest to

protect our citizens by addressing terrorism and crime and working to enforce our federal

laws with integrity.

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report i

U.S. Department of Justice – FY 2009 

Performance and Accountability Report 

Introduction iii 

Section I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Mission I-1 

Strategic Goals and Objectives I-1 

Organizational and Financial Structure I-3 

 Department of Justice Financial Structure I-5 

FY 2009 Resource Information I-6 

Analysis of Financial Statements I-9 

Data Reliability and Validity I-10 

Analysis of Performance Information I-11 

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance I-15 

 Management Assurances I-16 

 Summary of Material Weaknesses and Corrective Actions I-19 

Possible Effects of Existing, Currently Known Demands, Risks, Uncertainties, Events, 

Conditions, and Trends I-20 

Limitations of the Financial Statements I-21 

 

Section II: Performance Section – FY 2009 Performance Report 

 

Overview II-1 

Strategic Goal I II-3 

Strategic Goal II II-6 

Strategic Goal III II-33 

 

Section III: Financial Section 

 

Overview III-1 

A Message from the Chief Financial Officer III-3 

Office of the Inspector General Commentary and Summary on the Department’s 

FY 2009 Annual Financial Statements 

III-5 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements III-7 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting III-9 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters III-23 

Principal Financial Statements III-25 

 Consolidated Balance Sheets III-26 

 Consolidated Statements of Net Cost III-27 

 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position III-28 

 Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources III-30 

PAR

Table of Contents
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report ii 

 Combined Statements of Custodial Activity III-32 

 Notes to the Financial Statements III-33 

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements III-77 

 Consolidating Balance Sheets III-78 

 Consolidating Statements of Net Cost III-80 

 Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position III-82 

 Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources III-86 

 Combining Statements of Custodial Activity III-90 

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information III-93 

 Consolidated Stewardship Investments III-94 

 

Section IV: Management Section 

 

Overview IV-1 

Office of the Inspector General’s Top Management and Performance Challenges in the 

Department of Justice and Department of Justice Management’s Response IV-3 

FMFIA Corrective Action Plans IV-43 

 

Appendices 

 

(A) Office of the Inspector General Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to 

Close the Report A-1 

(B) Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details B-1 

(C) FY 2009 Financial Management Status Report C-1 

(D) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2009 D-1 

(E) Intellectual Property Report – FY 2009 E-1 

(F) Acronyms F-1 

(G) Department Component Websites G-1 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report iii

 Introduction 

This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for fiscal year (FY) 2009 provides financial and 

performance information, enabling the President, Congress, and the American public to assess the annual 

performance of the Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department). 

This report is prepared under the direction of the Department’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO). The financial 

statements contained within this report are prepared by the Department’s Justice Management Division, 

Finance Staff, and audited by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG). This report includes the 

Department’s financial statements for FY 2009 and for the preceding fiscal year (FY 2008) and reports on all 

accounts and associated activities of each office, bureau, and activity of the Department. The Department’s 

FY 2009 audited financial statements have been consolidated or combined based upon the results of audits 

undertaken in each of the nine Departmental financial reporting entities. 

The Department continues to enforce vigorously the broad spectrum of laws of the United States; notably, the 

fight against terrorism continues to be the first priority of the Department. In FY 2007, the then Attorney 

General announced the Department’s Strategic Plan for FYs 2007-2012 (available electronically on the 

Department’s website at http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/index.html). The Strategic Plan 

includes three strategic goals and related objectives, which are mentioned throughout this report. 

Message from the Attorney General: This report begins with a message from the Attorney General. In 

it, the Attorney General provides his assessment of the completeness and reliability of the performance and 

financial data, as required by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circulars A-11 and A-136. 

Section I – Management’s Discussion and Analysis: This section includes summary information 

about the mission and organization of the Department; resource information; an analysis of the Department’s 

financial statements; an analysis of performance information for the Department’s key performance measures; 

and assurances and information related to internal control and financial management systems conformance 

with government-wide requirements, as required by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) 

and OMB Circular A-123. 

Section II – FY 2009 Performance Report: This section provides the Department’s FY 2009 

Performance Report, which presents how the Department is working toward accomplishing its mission. The 

Performance Report provides a summary discussion of the Department’s three strategic goals. It also reports 

on key performance measures by detailing program objectives and FY 2009 target and actual performance, as 

well as whether target performance levels were or were not achieved. In addition, this section provides an 

update on the Department’s progress toward achieving the FY 2012 long-term outcome goals set forth in its 

FYs 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. 

Section III – Financial Section: This section begins with a message from the Department’s CFO and is 

followed by the OIG’s Commentary and Summary on the Department’s FY 2009 Annual Financial 

Statements. This section also includes the reports of the Independent Auditors and the Department’s 

consolidated financial statements and associated notes. 

PAR

This Report’s Purpose and Reporting Process

Organization of the Report
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report iv 

Section IV – Management Section: This section includes the OIG-identified Top Management and 

Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice Management’s response to 

those challenges, and the corrective action plans required by FMFIA for the internal control weaknesses. 

Appendices: (A) OIG Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the FY 2009 Annual Financial 

Statement Audit Report; (B) Improper Payments Information Act reporting details; (C) FY 2009 Financial 

Management Status Report; (D) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2009; (E) Intellectual 

Property Report; (F) Acronyms; and (G) Department Websites. 

This report is available at http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2009/TableofContents.htm. 

This report meets the following legislated reporting requirements: 

Compliance with Legislated Reporting Requirements

Inspector General (IG) Act of 1978 (Amended) – Requires information on management actions in 

response to Inspector General audits 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA) – Requires a report on agency 

internal controls that protect the integrity of federal programs and whether agency financial systems 

conform with related requirements 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) – Requires performance reporting 

against all established agency goals outlined in current strategic planning documents 

Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA) – Requires an audit of agency financial 

statements 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) – Requires an assessment of 

agency financial systems for adherence to government-wide requirements and standards 

Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 (RCA) – Authorizes the consolidation of certain financial and 

performance management reports of federal agencies in an annual Performance and Accountability 

Report 

Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA) – Requires reporting on agency efforts to 

identify and reduce improper payments 


Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-1

Management’s Discussion and 

Analysis (Unaudited)

Established July 1, 1870 (28 U.S.C. § 501 and 503), the Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department) is 

headed by the Attorney General of the United States. The Department was created to control federal law 

enforcement and all criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States has an interest. The 

structure of the Department has changed over the years, with the addition of a Deputy Attorney General, 

Assistant Attorneys General and the formation of Divisions and components; however, unchanged is the 

commitment and response to securing equal justice for all, enhancing respect for the rule of law, and making 

America a safer and more secure Nation. 

The mission of the Department of Justice, as reflected in its Strategic Plan for fiscal years (FY) 2007-2012, is 

as follows: 

To enforce the law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to 

ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic, to provide federal leadership in 

preventing and controlling crime, to seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful 

behavior, and to ensure fair and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. 

In carrying out the Department’s mission, we are guided by the following core values: 

Equal Justice Under the Law. Upholding the laws of the United States is the solemn responsibility 

entrusted to us by the American people. We enforce these laws fairly and uniformly to ensure that all 

Americans receive equal protection and justice under the law. 

Honesty and Integrity. We adhere to the highest standards of ethical behavior. 

Commitment to Excellence. We seek to provide the highest levels of service to the American people. 

We are effective and responsible stewards of the taxpayers’ dollars. 

Respect for the Worth and Dignity of Each Human Being. We treat each other and those we serve 

with fairness, dignity, and compassion. We value differences in people and ideas. We are committed to 

the well-being of our employees and to providing opportunities for individual growth and development. 

From our mission and core values stem the Department’s strategic and annual planning processes. The 

Department embraces the concepts of performance-based management. At the heart of these concepts is the 

understanding that improved performance is realized through greater focus on mission, agreement on goals 

and objectives, and timely reporting of results. In the Department, strategic planning is the first step in an 

iterative planning and implementation cycle. This cycle, which is the center of the Department’s efforts to 

implement performance-based management, involves setting long-term goals and objectives, translating these 

goals and objectives into budgets and program plans, implementing programs, monitoring performance, and 

evaluating results. In this cycle, the Department’s Strategic Plan provides the overarching framework for 

component and function-specific plans as well as annual performance plans, budgets, and reports. The 

Strategic Goals and Objectives

Mission

Section I
I-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Strategic Plan is available electronically on the Department’s website at: 

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/index.html. The Department expects to issue an updated 

Strategic Plan in 2010. 

The table below provides an overview of the Department’s strategic goals and objectives. 

Strategic Goal Strategic Objectives

I Prevent Terrorism and Promote the 

Nation’s Security 

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

1.2 Strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist 

incidents 

1.3 Prosecute those who have committed, or intend to commit, terrorist 

acts in the United States 

1.4 Combat espionage against the United States

II Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, 

and Represent the Rights and Interests 

of the American People 

2.1 Strengthen partnerships for safer communities, and enhance the 

Nation’s capacity to prevent, solve, and control crime 

2.2 Reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime 

2.3 Prevent, suppress, and intervene in crimes against children 

2.4 Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal 

drugs 

2.5 Combat public and corporate corruption, fraud, economic crime, 

and cybercrime 

2.6 Uphold the civil and Constitutional rights of all Americans 

 

2.7 Vigorously enforce and represent the interests of the United States 

in all matters over which the Department has jurisdiction 

2.8 Protect the integrity and ensure the effective operation of the 

Nation’s bankruptcy system 

III Ensure the Fair and Efficient 

Administration of Justice 

3.1 Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal 

proceedings, and ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for 

judicial proceedings or confinement 

3.2 Ensure the apprehension of fugitives from justice 

3.3 Provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of detained 

persons awaiting trial and/or sentencing and those in the custody of the 

Federal Prison System 

3.4 Provide services and programs to facilitate inmates’ successful 

reintegration into society, consistent with community expectations and 

standards 

3.5 Adjudicate all immigration cases promptly and impartially in 

accordance with due process 

3.6 Promote and strengthen innovative strategies in the administration 

of state and local justice systems 

3.7 Uphold the rights and improve services to America’s crime victims
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-3

Led by the Attorney General, the Department is comprised of more than forty separate component 

organizations. These include the U.S. Attorneys (USAs) who prosecute offenders and represent the United 

States government in court; the major investigative agencies – the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF), which deter and investigate crimes and arrest criminal suspects; the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS), 

which protects the federal judiciary, apprehends fugitives, and detains persons in federal custody; the Bureau 

of Prisons (BOP), which confines convicted offenders; and the National Security Division (NSD), which 

brings together national security, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and foreign intelligence surveillance 

operations under a single authority. 

The Department’s litigating divisions represent the rights and interests of the American people and enforce 

federal criminal and civil laws. The litigating divisions are comprised of the Antitrust (ATR), Civil (CIV), 

Civil Rights (CRT), Criminal (CRM), Environment and Natural Resources (ENRD), and Tax (TAX) divisions. 

The Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) 

provide leadership and assistance to state, local, and tribal governments. Other major Departmental 

components include the U.S. Trustees (UST), the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT), the Justice 

Management Division (JMD), the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), the Community 

Relations Service (CRS), the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), the National Drug Intelligence 

Center (NDIC), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), and several offices that advise the Attorney General 

on policy, law, legislation, Tribal justice matters, external affairs, and oversight. Headquartered in 

Washington, D.C., the Department conducts its work in offices located throughout the country and overseas. 

Organizational and Financial Structure
I-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-5

The Department’s financial reporting structure is comprised of the following nine principal components: 

• Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund (AFF/SADF) 

• Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

• Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

• Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

• Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) 

• Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

• Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs) 

• U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) 

Offices Boards

Office of the Attorney General Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

Office of the Deputy Attorney General U.S. Parole Commission

Office of the Associate Attorney General

Community Relations Service Divisions

Executive Office for Immigration Review Antitrust Division

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Civil Division

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees Civil Rights Division

National Drug Intelligence Center Criminal Division

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Environment and Natural Resources Division

Office of Dispute Resolution Justice Management Division

Office of Information Policy National Security Division

Office of Intelligence Policy and Review Tax Division

Office of Intergovernmental Affairs and Public Liaison

Office of Legal Counsel

Office of Legal Policy

Office of Legislative Affairs

Office of Professional Responsibility

Office of Public Affairs

Office of the Federal Detention Trustee

Office of the Inspector General

Office of the Pardon Attorney

Office of the Solicitor General

Office of Tribal Justice

Office on Violence Against Women

Professional Responsibility Advisory Office

U.S. Attorneys

U.S. National Central Bureau - INTERPOL

Department of Justice Financial Structure
I-6 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

The following pages provide summary-level resource and performance information regarding the 

Department’s operations for FY 2009. The charts on this page reflect employees on board as of 

September 30, 2009. 

Agents, 23%

Attorneys, 10%

Correctional 

Officers, 17%

Other, 50%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Employees

FY 2009 DOJ Employees On Board by Category

Agents, Attorneys, Correctional Officers, and Other*

*“Other” includes pay class categories such as general administrative, clerical, analyst, information technology specialist, security specialist, and 

legal services. 

29.36% (32,914)

19.95% (22,370)

4.37% (4,902)

0.62% (690)

8.53% (9,560)

32.63% (36,578)

4.52% (5,071)

0.02% (18)

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% Employees

FY 2009 DOJ Employees On Board by Component

112,103 Employees

AFF/SADF

OJP

USMS

ATF

DEA

OBDs

FBI

BOP (including FPI)

FY 2009 Resource Information
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-7

Table 1. Sources of DOJ Resources 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Table 2. How DOJ Resources Were Spent 

 (Dollars in Thousands) 

Source FY 2009 FY 2008 % Change

Earned Revenue: $3,314,595 $3,020,230 9.7% 

Budgetary Financing Sources: 

 Appropriations Received 30,452,903 24,080,707 26.5% 

 Appropriations Transferred In/Out 535,342 248,369 115.5% 

 Nonexchange Revenues 1,757,766 981,803 79.0% 

 Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash 

Equivalents 1,376,423 1,222,643 12.6% 

 Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement 89,948 180,900 -50.3% 

 Other Adjustments and Other Budgetary Financing 

Sources (331,068) (446,286) 25.8% 

Other Financing Sources: 

 Donations and Forfeitures of Property 68,213 65,854 3.6% 

 Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement 9,397 (926) 1114.8% 

 Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 703,700 636,444 10.6% 

Total $37,977,219 $29,989,738 26.6% 

Strategic Goal (SG) FY 2009 FY 2008 % Change

I Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s 

Security 

Gross Cost $4,525,551 $4,129,221 

Less: Earned Revenue 559,958 271,989 

Net Cost 3,965,593 3,857,232 2.8% 

II 

Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and 

Represent the Rights and Interests of the 

American People 

Gross Cost 14,878,016 13,940,154 

Less: Earned Revenue 1,389,584 1,239,832 

Net Cost 13,488,432 12,700,322 6.2% 

III Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of 

Justice 

Gross Cost 11,870,824 11,499,473 

Less: Earned Revenue 1,365,053 1,508,409 

Net Cost 10,505,771 9,991,064 5.2% 

Total Gross Cost 31,274,391 29,568,848 

Less: Total Earned Revenue 3,314,595 3,020,230 

Total Net Cost of Operations $27,959,796 $26,548,618 5.3% 
I-8 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

 

14%

48%

38%

0%

25%

50%

FY 2009 Percentage of Net Costs by Strategic Goal

SG I SG II SG III

$3,857 $3,966

$12,700 $13,488

$9,991 $10,506

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Comparison of Net Costs by Strategic Goal - FY 2008 and 2009

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2008 FY 2009

FY 2008 $3,857 $12,700 $9,991

FY 2009 $3,966 $13,488 $10,506

SG I SG II SG III
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-9

The Department’s financial statements, which are provided in Section III of this document, received an 

unqualified audit opinion for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. These statements were 

prepared from the accounting records of the Department in conformity with the accounting principles 

generally accepted in the United States and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-136, 

Financial Reporting Requirements. These principles are the standards prescribed by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). 

The following information highlights the Department’s financial position and results of operations in FY 2009. 

The complete set of financial statements, related notes, and the opinion of the Department’s auditors are 

provided in Section III of this document. 

Assets: The Department’s Consolidated Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2009, shows $36.6 billion in 

total assets, an increase of $7.3 billion over the previous year’s total assets of $29.3 billion. Fund Balance 

with U.S. Treasury (FBWT) was $20.9 billion, which represented 57 percent of total assets. This increase is 

predominantly due to American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) activity in FBWT and Advances 

and Prepayments. 

Liabilities: Total Department liabilities were $9.2 billion as of September 30, 2009, an increase of 

$581.0 million from the previous year’s total liabilities of $8.6 billion. 

Net Cost of Operations: The Consolidated Statement of Net Cost presents the Department’s gross and net 

cost by strategic goal. The net cost of the Department’s operations totaled $27.9 billion for the year ended 

September 30, 2009, an increase of $1.4 billion (5.3 percent) from the previous year’s net cost of operations of 

$26.5 billion. 

Brief descriptions of some of the major costs for each Strategic Goal are as follows: 

Strategic

Goal Description of Major Costs

I Includes resources dedicated to counterterrorism initiatives for ATF, Criminal 

Division, DEA, FBI, NSD, USAs, and USMS 

II Includes resources for the AFF, ATF, BOP, COPS, CRS, DEA, FBI, FCSC, 

Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF), ODR, OJP, 

OLC, OPA, OSG, OVW, USAs, USMS, U.S. National Central Bureau 

(USNCB), UST, and the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environment 

and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions 

III Includes resources for BOP, EOIR, Fees and Expenses of Witnesses, FPI, 

OJP, Justice Prisoner Alien Transportation System, USMS, U.S. Parole 

Commission, and services to America’s crime victims 

Management and administrative costs, including the costs for the Department’s leadership offices, JMD, 

Wireless Management Office, and others, are allocated to each strategic goal based on full-time equivalent 

(FTE) employment.1

 

1

 FTE employment means the total number of regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or holiday hours) worked by employees, divided by the 

number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year. Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and other approved leave categories are 

considered "hours worked" for purposes of defining FTE employment.

Analysis of Financial Statements
I-10 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Budgetary Resources: The Department’s FY 2009 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows 

$44.6 billion in total budgetary resources, an increase of $6.8 billion from the previous year’s total budgetary 

resources of $37.8 billion. This increase is predominantly due to the Department receiving approximately $4 

billion in ARRA appropriations. 

Net Outlays: The Department’s FY 2009 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows $28.1 billion 

in net outlays, an increase of $1.2 billion from the previous year’s total net outlays of $26.9 billion. 

The Department views data reliability and validity as critically important in the planning and assessment of its 

performance. As such, the Department makes every effort to constantly improve the completeness and 

reliability of its performance information by performing “data scrubs” (routine examination of current and 

historical data sets, as well as looking toward the future for trends) to ensure the data we rely on to make dayto-day management decisions are as accurate and reliable as possible and targets are ambitious enough given 

the resources provided. In an effort to communicate our data limitations and commitment to providing 

accurate data, this document includes a discussion of data validation, verification, and any identified data 

limitations for each performance measure presented. The Department ensures each reporting component 

providing data for this report meets the following criteria: 

At a minimum, performance data are considered reliable if transactions and other data that 

support reported performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and summarized to 

permit the preparation of performance information in accordance with criteria stated by 

management. Performance data need not be perfect to be reliable, particularly if the cost and 

effort to secure the best performance data possible will exceed the value of any data so 

obtained.

Data Reliability and Validity
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-11

According to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, an agency’s Strategic Plan must 

be updated and revised at least every three years and cover a period of not less than five years forward from 

the fiscal year in which it is submitted. In April 2007, the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan was approved by 

OMB and sent to Congress for review and approval. The final FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan was made 

available to the public in July 2007. The Department expects to issue an updated Strategic Plan in 2010. 

Presently, the Department’s FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan contains three goals. Additionally, the Department’s 

Plan includes 25 key performance measures addressing its highest priorities toward achieving these long-term 

outcome goals. The measures are included in the Department’s annual Budget and Performance Summary and 

reported on in this document. The Department’s full Performance Report for these measures, including an 

update on our progress toward meeting the FY 2012 long-term outcome goals, is included in Section II of this 

document. The Department strives to present the highest-level outcome-oriented measures available and fully 

report the accomplishments achieved during the reporting period. However, data for the 25 key measures are 

compiled less than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year and, occasionally, data for an entire year are not 

available at the time of publication. 

During FY 2009, Departmental leadership continued to display a clear commitment to performance 

management through the reliance on formal quarterly status reviews. Additionally, Departmental components 

have worked to improve the quality and timeliness of financial and performance information that inform 

quarterly status reporting and operating plans. 

For this report, 85 percent of the performance measures have actual data for FY 2009. In some cases, 

indicators are reported on a calendar year basis while others have a one-year lag time and thus are not included 

in this report. The Department achieved 61 percent of its key indicators in FY 2009, which is slightly lower 

than last year’s overall success. The Department continues to emphasize long-term and annual performance 

measure development, placement of key performance indicators on cascading employee work plans, and 

Department-wide quarterly status reporting. 

The Department will continue to examine its performance management system overall and implement 

improvements, where necessary. Additional improvement areas include continuing to improve the quality and 

utility of performance information, developing the capacity to use performance information through the use of 

technology and reliable data systems, and continuing to work with OMB and other federal agencies to develop 

mechanisms to target and measure efficiency of law enforcement and regulatory programs. 

In addition to monitoring its annual progress, the Department continues to monitor progress made toward 

achieving its FY 2012 long-term performance goals for each of the 25 key performance measures. As of the 

close of FY 2009, 85 percent of the Department’s long-term key measures are on-track for full achievement 

against FY 2012 targets. Three full years of performance remain until the Department reports against planned 

progress, and a number of mechanisms are in place to ensure that the current progress is maintained, including 

quarterly status reporting and performance-informed budget submissions that request the resources necessary 

for the Department to reach its goals. 

Analysis of Performance Information
I-12 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

The chart below and the table that follows summarize the Department’s achievement of its FY 2009 key 

performance measures. 

Note: The Department of Justice has 25 key performance measures. Some measures have more than one annual target; therefore, for 

purposes of illustrating the Department’s achievement rate in the chart above, a universe of 33 key performance measures instead of 25 

was used. 

[ ] Designates the reporting entity

FY 2009

Target

FY 2009

Actual

Target Achieved/

Not Achieved

Strategic Goal I:  Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s Security

Terrorist acts committed by foreign nationals against 

U.S. interests within U.S. borders [FBI]

Zero Zero Achieved 

Catastrophic acts of domestic terrorism [FBI] Zero Zero Achieved 

Strategic Goal II:  Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of

the American People

Number of organized criminal enterprises dismantled 

[FBI]

36 39 Achieved 

NEW MEASURE: Number of children depicted in 

child pornography rescued by the FBI [FBI] 1

150 118 Not Achieved2

1

This measure replaces the former measure: “Number of child pornography websites or web hosts shut down” due to an OMB-led program review in the 

Spring of 2008. 

2 The FBI has not met its target for this measure. While the FBI always makes every effort to identify/rescue victimized children, the FBI cannot directly 

control the number of children identified and/or rescued at any given time through investigative techniques, due to the reactive nature of this measure. 

Percentage of firearms investigations resulting in a 

referral for criminal prosecutions [ATF]

59% 59% Achieved 

DOJ's reduction in the supply of illegal drugs 

available for consumption in the U.S. [ADAG/Drugs]

Progress toward 

establishing 

baseline3

N/A TBD 

3

 Measuring the reduction in the illegal drug supply is a complex process reflective of a number of factors outside the control of drug enforcement. 

Moreover, the impact of enforcement efforts on the illegal drug supply and the estimated availability are currently not measurable in a single year. 

However, the Department is intent on achieving an interim goal of setting a baseline by the close of FY 2010. Once the baseline is set, the Department 

intends to achieve a 6 percent total reduction in the supply of illegal drugs available for consumption in the United States over the next two years. 

61%

24%

15%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Achievement of FY 2009 Key Performance Measures

Target Achieved Target Not Achieved Data Not Yet Available
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-13

[ ] Designates the reporting entity

FY 2009

Target

FY 2009

Actual

Target Achieved/

Not Achieved

Consolidated Priority Organizations Target (CPOT)-

linked drug trafficking organizations [DEA, FBI 

(Consolidated data - ADAG/Drugs)]

 

 Dismantled 137 143 Achieved 

 Disrupted 263 274 Achieved 

Number of high-impact Internet fraud targets 

neutralized [FBI]

12 13 Achieved 

Number of criminal enterprises engaging in whitecollar crimes dismantled [FBI]160 234 Achieved 

Percent of cases favorably resolved: [ENRD, ATR, 

CRM, USA, TAX, CIV, CRT (Consolidated data - 

JMD/Budget Staff)]

 

 Criminal Cases 90% 92% Achieved 

 Civil Cases 80% 83% Achieved 

Percent of assets/funds returned to creditors: [USTP] 

 Chapter 7 58% TBD4 TBD 

 Chapter 13 86% TBD4 TBD 

4

 Data lags one year due to the requirement to audit data submitted by U.S. Trustees prior to reporting. 

(FY 2008 target -- Chapter 7: 58%; FY 2008 actual -- Chapter 7: 60%) 

(FY 2008 target -- Chapter 13: 86%; FY 2008 actual -- Chapter 13: 84%) – Beginning in FY 2008, the percentage of assets returned to creditors for 

Chapter 13 bankruptcy filings was increased to 86% to reflect a more aggressive target. Detailed analysis revealed that the lower percentage of 

assets returned is primarily due to a decrease in total disbursements while administrative costs and debtor attorney fees increased as a percentage of 

total disbursements.

Homicides per site (funded under the Weed and Seed 

program) [OJP]

3.7 TBD5 TBD 

5

 Data are collected on a calendar year basis and reported with a one year lag. 

 (CY 2008 target – 3.9 homicides per site; CY 2008 actual – 3.5 homicides per site)

Percent reduction in DNA backlog (casework only) 

[OJP] 

26% 32.5% Achieved 

Percent of children recovered within 72 hours of an 

issuance of an AMBER alert [OJP]

75.0% 81.7% Achieved 

Strategic Goal III:  Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Number of participants in the Residential Substance 

Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program [OJP]

20,000 TBD6 TBD 

6

 Data are collected on a calendar year basis and reported with a one year lag. 

 (CY 2008 target -- 20,000; CY 2008 actual – 28,308)

Graduation rate of program participants in the Drug 

Courts Program (adult drug court participants only) 

[OJP]

69% 57.3% Not Achieved7

7 In FY 2009, only 79 percent of Drug Court grantees reported performance measure data. OJP is collecting the outstanding data from grantees that have 

not reported data, including graduation data. This process has been slowed due to efforts associated with the awarding of Recovery Act grants. OJP 

anticipates collecting all outstanding performance measure data from grantees by the end of first quarter FY 2010 and that those data will increase the 

percent of drug court graduates. 

Ensure judicial proceedings are not interrupted due to 

inadequate security [USMS] 

Zero 1 Not Achieved8

8

The USMS did not meet its FY 2009 target of zero interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate security. During the first quarter, one incident 

occurred causing the judge to suspend proceedings while the USMS personnel secured the courtroom. At no time during the incident was the judge or the 

public in danger.

Total primary fugitives apprehended or cleared 

[USMS]

 

 Number 33,000 31,119 Not Achieved9

 Percent 55% 49% Not Achieved9

9 USMS was unable to meet its FY 2009 target for total fugitives apprehended due to a shift of investigative full-time equivalents to violent fugitive 

apprehension, a reduction in misdemeanor cases received, and increased state and local fugitive apprehension efforts. 

Per day jail costs [OFDT] $68.73 $69.01 Not Achieved10

10 Target was not met due to slightly higher per diem rates than originally projected. 

Percent of system-wide crowding in federal prisons 

[BOP]

37% 37% Achieved 
I-14 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

[ ] Designates the reporting entity

FY 2009

Target

FY 2009

Actual

Target Achieved/

Not Achieved

Ensure zero escapes from secure BOP facilities 

[BOP]

Zero Zero Achieved 

Comparative recidivism for Federal Prison Industries 

(FPI) inmates versus non-FPI inmates [FPI / BOP 

provides data] 

 

Percentage less likely to recidivate: 

 3 years after release 15% 22% Achieved 

 6 years after release 10% 12% Achieved 

Rate of serious assaults In federal prisons (per 5,000 

Inmates) [BOP]

15/5,000 

Assaults/Inmates 

14/5,000 

Assaults/Inmates 

Achieved 

Inspection results—Percent of federal facilities with 

American Correctional Association (ACA) 

accreditations [BOP]

99% 99% Achieved 

Percent of Executive Office for Immigration Review 

(EOIR) priority cases completed within established 

timeframes [EOIR] 

 

 Asylum 90% 82% Not Achieved11

 Institutional Hearing Program 90% 90% Achieved

 Detained Cases 90% 88% Not Achieved11

 Detained Appeals 90% 96% Achieved 11 The dramatic increase in the detained caseload during FY 2009 was the primary reason for the immigration courts missing these two goals. The 

detained caseload has increased by 70 percent in the last five years and now comprises approximately half of the immigration court caseload. EOIR 

shifted immigration judge resources away from the non-detained dockets to meet this increasing demand. EOIR intends to closely examine all its priorities 

to ensure that the agency continues to complete its priority caseload in a timely manner.

Note: TBD – Data were not yet available as of the date of this document; however, the discussion below the 

measure indicates when data will be available.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-15

Internal Control Program in the Department of Justice 

The objective of the Department of Justice’s internal control program is to provide reasonable assurance that 

operations are effective, efficient, and comply with applicable laws and regulations; financial reporting is 

reliable; and assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, and unauthorized use. The Department identifies 

issues of concern through a strong network of oversight councils and internal review teams. These include the 

Department’s Senior Assessment Team, the JMD’s Internal Review and Evaluation Office and Quality Control 

and Compliance Group, and Departmental component internal review teams. The Department also considers 

reports by the OIG in its evaluation of internal control. 

The Department’s internal control continues to improve through the corrective actions implemented by senior 

management. The Department’s commitment to management excellence, accountability, and compliance with 

applicable laws and regulations is evidenced in our continuing actions to establish effective controls, make 

sound determinations on corrective actions, and verify and validate the results. This commitment is further 

evidenced by the many control improvements and actions taken by Departmental management in response to 

OMB initiatives and OIG recommendations. For example, during FY 2009, Departmental management 

developed an accountability framework for managing the $4 billion received under the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). The framework leverages and builds on existing 

accountability mechanisms within the Department, such as the annual internal control assessment for 

OMB Circular A-123 compliance, and reflects the coordinated efforts that are occurring among all 

Departmental offices and components with Recovery Act responsibilities to ensure effective achievement of 

the Act’s objectives. In addition, Departmental management continued in FY2009 to further strengthen and 

maximize the effectiveness of the Department’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting, which 

is required by Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123. Examples of such efforts include: 

• refining the framework and process for assessing internal control over financial reporting, 

• enhancing the oversight process to ensure prompt and proper implementation of corrective actions, 

• providing direct assistance to components with previously identified material weaknesses and 

reportable conditions, and 

• continuing to support and commit resources to Departmental component internal review programs. 

Details on additional actions taken by Departmental management to build and sustain a strong internal control 

program are included later in this section. 

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance
I-16 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (Integrity Act or FMFIA) provides the statutory basis for 

management’s responsibility for and assessment of internal accounting and administrative controls. Such controls 

include program, operational, and administrative areas, as well as accounting and financial management. The 

Integrity Act requires federal agencies to establish controls that reasonably ensure obligations and costs are in 

compliance with applicable law; funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized 

use, or misappropriation; and revenues and expenditures are properly recorded and accounted for to maintain 

accountability over the assets. The Integrity Act also requires agencies to annually assess and report on the internal 

controls that protect the integrity of federal programs (FMFIA § 2) and whether financial management systems 

conform to related requirements (FMFIA § 4). 

Guidance for implementing the Integrity Act is provided through OMB Circular A-123. In addition to requiring 

agencies to provide an assurance statement on the effectiveness of programmatic internal controls and conformance 

with financial systems requirements, the Circular requires agencies to provide an assurance statement on the 

effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. 

FMFIA Assurance Statement 

Department of Justice management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal controls and 

financial management systems that meet the objectives of FMFIA. In accordance with OMB Circular A-123, the 

Department conducted its annual assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls to support effective and 

efficient programmatic operations and compliance with applicable laws and regulations (FMFIA § 2) and whether 

financial management systems conform to government-wide requirements (FMFIA § 4). Based on the results of the 

assessment for the period ending September 30, 2009, I provide qualified assurance that the Department met the 

objectives of FMFIA. The assessment did not identify any systems non-conformances required to be reported under 

FMFIA § 4; however, the assessment identified two programmatic material weaknesses required to be reported 

under FMFIA § 2. These weaknesses involve the need to reduce the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) crowding rate, 

currently at 37 percent over the rated capacity, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) use of National 

Security Letters. Details of the exceptions are provided in the section Summary of Material Weaknesses and 

Corrective Actions. Other than the exceptions noted, the internal controls were operating effectively, and no other 

material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the controls. 

In accordance with Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123, the Department conducted its assessment of the 

effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which included the safeguarding of assets and compliance 

with applicable laws and regulations. Based on the results of this assessment for the period ending June 30, 2009, 

I provide reasonable assurance that the Department’s internal control over financial reporting was operating 

effectively, and no material weaknesses were found in the design or operation of the controls. 

The Department of Justice is committed to maintaining strong program and financial management as we continue 

our mission of fighting terrorism and protecting our communities from crime. We take our program and financial 

accountability seriously and are dedicated to ensuring that funds received are expended responsibly and in a 

transparent manner. We look forward in FY 2010 to building on our achievements to further improve internal 

control as we continue the important work of the Department.

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

November 9, 2009 

Management Assurances
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-17

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) was designed to improve federal 

financial and program managers’ accountability, provide better information for decision-making, and improve 

the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs. FFMIA requires agencies to have financial management 

systems that substantially comply with federal financial management systems requirements, applicable federal 

accounting standards, and the U.S. Standard General Ledger (USSGL) at the transaction level. Furthermore, 

the Act requires independent auditors to report on agency compliance with the three requirements in the 

financial statement audit report. The Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) states that to be 

substantially compliant with FFMIA, there are to be no significant deficiencies in information security 

policies, procedures, or practices. 

FFMIA Compliance Determination 

During FY 2009, the Department assessed its financial management systems for compliance with FFMIA and 

determined that, when taken as a whole, they substantially comply with FFMIA. This determination is based 

on the results of FISMA reviews and testing performed for OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A. Consideration 

was also given to issues identified during the Department’s financial statement audit. 

Summary of the Department’s Financial Statement Audit and Management Assurances 

The following two tables summarize the results of the Department’s financial statement audit and management 

assurances regarding the effectiveness of internal control over programmatic operations and financial reporting 

(FMFIA § 2), conformance with financial systems requirements (FMFIA § 4), and compliance with FFMIA. 

Table 3. Summary of Financial Statement Audit 

Financial Statement Audit Opinion and Material Weaknesses

Audit Opinion Unqualified 

Restatement No 

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated

Ending

Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 
I-18 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Table 4. Summary of Management Assurances 

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Programmatic Operations (FMFIA § 2)

Statement of Assurance Qualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed

Ending

Balance

Prison Crowding 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation Use of National 

Security Letters 

1 0 0 0 0 1 

Total Material Weaknesses 2 0 0 0 0 2 

Effectiveness of Internal Control over Financial Reporting (FMFIA § 2)

Statement of Assurance Unqualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed

Ending

Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Conformance with Financial Management Systems Requirements (FMFIA § 4)

Statement of Assurance Systems Conform

Non-conformances Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed

Ending

Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Non-conformances 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Compliance with Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA)

Overall Substantial Agency Auditor

Compliance Yes Yes 

Compliance with Specific Requirements 

Systems Requirements Yes 

Accounting Standards Yes 

USSGL at Transaction Level Yes 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-19

A summary of the two material weaknesses identified in the Department’s FY 2009 assessment of the 

effectiveness of internal control over programmatic operations (FMFIA § 2) follows, along with details 

regarding corrective actions. The associated Corrective Action Plans are available in Section IV of this 

document. 

As of September 30, 2009, the inmate population housed in BOP operated institutions exceeded the rated 

housing capacity by 37 percent. The BOP continues to accommodate the increasing federal inmate population 

by contracting with the private sector and state and local facilities for certain groups of low-security inmates, 

expanding existing institutions, and constructing new facilities. The continued use of these approaches 

maximizes the BOP’s ability to keep pace with the increasing inmate population, thereby ensuring safe and 

secure operations in facilities housing federal inmates. 

To address this material weakness, the BOP will continue to increase the total number of federal inmate beds 

to keep pace with the projected increases in the inmate population. A formal corrective action plan has been 

developed that includes utilizing contract facilities, expanding existing institutions, acquiring surplus 

properties for conversion to correctional facilities, and constructing new institutions as funding permits, as 

well as exploring alternative options of confinement for appropriate cases. The BOP plans to validate progress 

on construction projects at new and existing facilities through on-site inspections or by reviewing monthly 

construction progress reports. 

This weakness was first identified in 2006, and is estimated to be closed out by the end of FY 2012. 

In March 2007, the Department of Justice OIG reported that the FBI’s use of national security letters (NSL) 

had grown and shifted in focus since the enactment of the Patriot Act in October 2001. While the NSL 

remains a critical investigative tool, the OIG found significant weaknesses in the FBI’s administration of the 

program. For example, weaknesses were reported involving the completeness and accuracy of the electronic 

database used for tracking NSL usage, consistent retention of signed copies of NSLs, and the lack of clear 

guidance on applying Attorney General Guidelines requirements for the use of NSLs. An OIG follow-up 

report issued in March 2008 stated that the FBI and Department had made significant progress in 

implementing the recommendations in the initial OIG report. 

To address this material weakness, the FBI implemented all OIG recommendations, as well as additional 

corrective actions, and awaits OIG closure of the reports. Improvements include strengthening the controls 

and automated workflow governing the request, review, and approval of NSLs; field office monthly 

reconciliations of NSL usage; and the database used for tracking NSL usage. The FBI also issued additional 

guidance to field offices to assist in identifying possible violations related to NSL use.

This weakness was first identified in 2006. FBI validation was completed in FY 2009; the FBI is currently 

awaiting OIG closure of reports. 

Programmatic Material Weakness and Corrective Actions – Federal Bureau of Investigation

Use of National Security Letters

Programmatic Material Weakness and Corrective Actions – Prison Crowding

Summary of Material Weaknesses and Corrective Actions
I-20 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Department’s leadership is committed to ensuring its programs and activities will continue to be focused 

on meeting the dynamic demands of the changing legal, economic, and technological environments of the 

future. 

Technology 

• Advances in high-speed telecommunications, computers, and other technologies are creating new 

opportunities for criminals, new classes of crimes, and new challenges for law enforcement.

Economy

• Possible increases in consumer debt or shortage of commercial credit may affect personal and business 

bankruptcy filings. 

• The Department’s role in the federal financial recovery effort may increase through criminal and civil 

litigation. 

• The interconnected nature of the world’s economy is increasing opportunities for criminal activity, 

including money laundering, white-collar crime, and alien smuggling. 

Government

• Changes in the fiscal posture or policies of state and local governments could have significant effects 

on the capacity of state and local governments to remain effective law enforcement partners. 

Globalization 

• Issues of criminal and civil justice increasingly transcend national boundaries, require the cooperation 

of foreign governments, and involve treaty obligations, multinational environment and trade 

agreements, and other foreign policy concerns.

Social-Demographic

• The numbers of adolescents and young adults, now the most crime-prone segment of the population, 

are expected to grow rapidly over the next several years. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

• The Department received approximately $4.0 billion in funding under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, $2.0 million of which is for the Department’s Office of the Inspector 

General oversight activities related to Recovery Act funding. The Department is fully committed to 

ensuring that the funds received are expended responsibly and in a transparent manner to further job 

creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Act. The following table summarizes 

appropriations, obligations, and outlays by component, as of September 30, 2009: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Component Appropriation Amount Obligations Outlays

OJP $2,761,930 $2,749,201 $1,155,171

OVW $225,564 $214,847 $2,552 

COPS $1,002,506 $1,000,801 $556 

ATF $10,000 $4,244 $1,236 

DOJ Total* $4,000,000 $3,969,093 $1,159,515 

*Excludes $2 million in funding for OIG oversight. 

Possible Effects of Existing, Currently Known Demands, Risks, Uncertainties,

Events, Conditions, and Trends
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report I-21

Unpredictable 

• Overseas Contingency Operations require continual adjustments to new conditions. The Department 

is determined to proactively confront new challenges in its efforts to protect the Nation.

• Responses to unanticipated natural disasters and their aftermath require the Department to divert 

resources to deter, investigate, and prosecute disaster-related federal crimes, such as charity fraud, 

insurance fraud and other crimes.

• Changes in federal laws may affect responsibilities and workload. 

• Much of the litigation caseload is defensive. The Department has little control over the number, size, 

and complexity of the civil lawsuits it must defend. 

The principal financial statements have been prepared to report the financial position and results of operations 

of the Department of Justice, pursuant to the requirements of 31 U.S.C. § 3515(b). 

While the statements have been prepared from the books and records of the Department in accordance with 

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles for federal entities and the formats prescribed by the OMB, the 

statements are in addition to the financial reports used to monitor and control budgetary resources, which are 

prepared from the same books and records. 

The statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the United States 

Government, a sovereign entity. 

Limitations of the Financial Statements
I-22 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-1

Performance Section – 

FY 2009 Performance Report 

(Unaudited)

This section of the document presents to the President, the Congress, and the public a clear picture of how the 

Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department) is working toward accomplishing its mission. The 

Performance Report provides a summary discussion of the Department’s three strategic goals. It also reports 

on the 25 key performance measures for these goals by detailing program objectives and FY 2009 targets and 

actual performance, as well as whether targets were or were not achieved. Each key performance measure also 

includes information related to data collection and storage, data validation and verification, and data 

limitations. In addition, this section includes information regarding the Department’s progress toward 

achieving the FY 2012 long-term outcome goals set forth in its FYs 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. 

At the Department, performance planning and reporting is companion to the budget process. We recognize 

that performance information is vital to making resource allocation decisions and should be an integral part of 

the budget. Our budget and performance integration efforts have included a full budgetary restructuring of all 

of the Department’s accounts to better align strategic goals and objectives with resources. In addition, the 

Department provides detailed component-specific annual performance plans within individual budget 

submissions, which also serve as the Department's annual performance plan. 

In FY 2009, the Department continued to demonstrate clear management commitment to timely and accurate 

financial and budget information through the use of Department-wide quarterly status reporting. As the 

Department continues to develop its capacity to gather and use performance information, we will continue to 

communicate performance information. Quarterly status reporting has provided the Department the ability to 

identify problems early, take necessary corrective actions, develop more effective strategies, and allocate 

necessary resources. 

Measuring Departmental Impact 

Throughout FY 2009, the Department continued to improve its key performance measures and track the 

progress of our long-term performance goals. Our long-term performance goals reflect results, not just 

workload or processes. For example, we have focused law enforcement efforts on disrupting and dismantling 

targeted criminal groups, such as major drug trafficking organizations. In areas such as litigation, where 

results-oriented measurement is particularly difficult, we continue to reevaluate our long-term targets to ensure 

that we are being aggressive enough in our goals for case resolutions for all of our litigating divisions. 

Measuring law enforcement performance presents unique challenges. Success for the Department is 

highlighted when justice is served fairly and impartially and the public is protected. In many areas, our efforts 

cannot be reduced to numerical counts of activities. Additionally, trying to isolate the effects of our work from 

other factors that affect outcomes over which the Department has little or no control presents a formidable 

challenge. Many factors contribute to the rise and fall of crime rates, including federal, state, local, and tribal 

law enforcement activities and sociological, economic, and other factors. As a result, we have focused on 

more targeted measures of programmatic performance such as those described above. 

Section II

Overview
II-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Measure Refinement, Data Revisions, and Subsequent Year Reporting 

The FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report presents the highest-level outcome-oriented measures 

available and fully reports on the accomplishments achieved during the reporting period. Occasionally, 

however, data for an entire year are not available at the time of publication. Hence, the data reported in the 

Department’s FY 2008 Performance and Accountability Report that have since been revised/updated are 

reported as FY 2008 Revised Actual, where appropriate. Also, the Department is unable to report on a limited 

number of performance measures due to calendar year reporting or other limitations. In those instances, 

performance for those measures will be reported in the subsequent year’s Performance and Accountability 

Report. For performance that occurred in FY 2008, but due to calendar year reporting or other limitations was 

not available for reporting that year, FY 2008 data and discussion of results are reported for the first time in 

the pages that follow. 

In certain cases, performance measures can be discontinued and/or replaced with new measures. For this 

report, the changes are noted prior to the title of the measure, where appropriate, and designated as a 

“Discontinued” or “New” measure. 

As described in Section I, the Department has issued its Strategic Plan for FYs 2007-2012. The Department’s 

Strategic Plan key performance measures fully align to existing priorities and goals. The FY 2009 

Performance and Accountability Report highlights the key goals and performance measures reflected in the 

FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. The Report also provides details on the Department’s success in meeting its 

performance measure targets in FY 2009. Additional programmatic and performance information can be 

found in individual components’ budget submissions, specifically within the Performance and Resources 

Tables.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-3

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the 

Nation’s Security 

14% of the Department’s Net Costs support this Goal. 

Terrorism is the most significant national security threat that faces our Nation. The Department’s foremost 

focus is protecting the Homeland from future terrorist attacks. To ensure attainment of this goal, prevention is 

our highest priority. The Department has taken, and will continue to take assertive actions to prevent, disrupt, 

and defeat terrorist operations before they occur; investigate and prosecute those who commit or intend to 

commit terrorist acts; and strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter and respond to terrorist incidents. In order 

to have the information we need to keep our Nation safe, we are continuing to strengthen and expand our 

counterintelligence capabilities and to ensure that the people that intend to do us harm come to justice. 

Background/Program Objectives: The FBI is committed to stopping terrorism, from preventing intended 

attacks to investigating financiers of terrorist operations. All Counterterrorism (CT) investigations are 

managed at FBI Headquarters, employing a national strategy to create an inhospitable environment for 

terrorists. 

Under the leadership of the FBI Director, the FBI has aggressively implemented a comprehensive plan to 

fundamentally transform the FBI. The Director has overhauled the FBI’s CT operations, expanded its 

intelligence capabilities, modernized its business practices and technology, and improved coordination with its 

partners. The FBI is dedicated to disrupting terrorist plots before they are executed. 

Performance Measure: Terrorist Acts Committed by Foreign Nationals Against U.S. Interests (within U.S. 

Borders) 

FY 2009 Target: 0 

FY 2009 Actual: 0 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: No incidents of this kind occurred during FY 2009. One notable arrest of an 

international terrorism subject identified by the FBI occurred on July 27, 2009. Hysen Sherifi, a native of 

Kosovo, was arrested along with six other U.S. citizens. Sherifi and his co-conspirators have been charged 

with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, as well as conspiracy to murder, kidnap, maim, and 

injure persons abroad. Sherifi also faces a charge of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a crime of 

violence. 

On September 24, 2009, a superseding indictment was returned with additional charges against Sherifi and his 

co-conspirator, Daniel Patrick Boyd. Both have been charged with conspiring to murder U.S. military 

personnel. The superseding indictment alleges that in furtherance of this agreement, Boyd undertook 

reconnaissance of the Marine Corps Base located in Quantico, VA, and obtained maps of the base to plan an 

attack on Quantico. This is a case in which a U.S. citizen recruited and facilitated a foreign national to commit 

terrorist acts within the U.S. If convicted, Sherifi, Boyd, and the remaining defendants face a maximum 

sentence of life in prison. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: No terrorist acts committed by foreign nationals within U.S. borders

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

I 
II-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definition: Terrorist Acts, domestic or internationally-based, count separate incidents that involve the 

“unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the 

civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. 

Section 0.85). For the purposes of this measure, the FBI defines a terrorist act as an attack against a single 

target (e.g., a building or physical structure, an aircraft, etc.). Acts against single targets are counted as 

separate acts, even if they are coordinated to have simultaneous impact. For example, each of the September 

11, 2001 acts (North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC), South Tower of the WTC, the Pentagon, and 

the Pennsylvania crash site) could have occurred independently of each other and still have been a significant 

terrorist act in and of themselves. The FBI uses the term terrorist incident to describe the overall concerted 

terrorist attack. A terrorist incident may consist of multiple terrorist acts. The September 11, 2001 attacks, 

therefore, are counted as four terrorist acts and one terrorist incident.

Data Collection and Storage: The reported numbers were compiled through the expert knowledge of FBI CT 

senior management at headquarters. 

Data Validation and Verification: See above. 

Data Limitations: The decision to count or discount an incident as a terrorist act, according to the above 

definition, is subject to change based upon the latest available intelligence information and the opinion of 

program managers. In addition, acts of terrorism, by their nature, are impossible to reduce to uniform, reliable 

measures. A single defined act of terrorism could range from a small-scale explosion that causes property 

damage to the use of a weapon of mass destruction that causes thousands of deaths and massive property 

damage and has a profound effect on national morale. 

0 0

4

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Terrorist Acts Committed by Foreign Nationals Against U.S. Interests (within U.S. 

Borders)

Actual Target
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

FY99 FY01 FY03 FY05 FY07 FY09

Catastrophic Acts of 

Domestic Terrorism

Actual Target

Performance Measure: Catastrophic Acts of Domestic Terrorism 

FY 2009 Target: 0

FY 2009 Actual: 0 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: No incidents of this kind occurred during FY 2009. A notable case that 

occurred during the past year follows: 

Scott Monroe, Aaron Scorsone and Jonathan Plunkett pled guilty on April 15, 2009, to one count of an 

indictment charging them with an unlawful agreement to manufacture and sell explosive materials in violation 

of Title 18 USC, §§ 371, 842(a), and 844. Scorsone and Plunkett also pled to one count of conspiracy to 

unlawfully transfer firearms. The FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force and the New York State Police Bomb 

Disposal Unit seized 18 weapons, including rifles, shotguns, and gas guns, and over 80 homemade explosive 

devices, along with enough chemicals and materials to produce a significant number of additional explosives. 

Scorsone and Plunkett purchased various explosive devices from Monroe, and attempted to resell them to a 

confidential informant. In June 2009, Monroe received 5 years probation and 100 hours of community 

service. On July 22, 2009, Plunkett was sentenced to 27 months in prison, followed by 3 years supervised 

release. Scorsone is awaiting sentencing. 

Data Definition: See abo ve measure, “Terrorist Acts Committed by Foreign Nationals against U.S. Interests 

(within U.S. Borders).” For the p urposes of this pe rformance measure, a catastrophic domestic terrorist act is 

defined as an act resulting in significant loss of life an d/or significant property damage (e.g., the attack on the 

Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma on April 19, 1995). 

Data Collection and Storage, Validation and Verification, and Limitations: See measure above. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: No catastrophic acts of domestic terrorism

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
                          

   

                       

II STRATEGIC GOAL 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, 

and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People 

48% of the Department’s Net Costs support this Goal. 

The heart of the Department of Justice’s mission is to enforce federal laws and represent the rights and 

interests of the American people. Preventing and controlling crime is critical to ensuring the strength and 

vitality of the democratic principles, rule of law, and the administration of justice. The enforcement of federal 

laws keeps society safe by combating economic crime and reducing the threat, trafficking, and use of illegal 

drugs and related violence. The strengthening of partnerships between federal, state, local and tribal law 

enforcement will enhance our ability to prevent, solve and control crime. Through the enforcement of our 

laws, we protect the rights of the vulnerable by reducing the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, 

including crimes against children, and upholding the civil and constitutional rights of all Americans. The 

Justice Department enforces federal civil and criminal statutes, including those protecting rights, safeguarding 

the environment, preserving a competitive market structure, defending the public fisc against unwarranted 

claims, and preserving the integrity of the Nation’s bankruptcy system. In addition, the Department combats 

public and corporate corruption, fraud, economic crime and cybercrime. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Dismantle a cumulative total of 212 organized criminal enterprises

(FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: Investigative subprograms that focus on criminal enterprises involved in 

sustained racketeering activities and that are mainly comprised of ethnic groups with ties to Asia, Africa, 

Middle East, and Europe are consolidated into the Organized Criminal Enterprise Program. Organized 

criminal enterprise investigations, through the use of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization statute 

(RICO), target the entire entity responsible for the crime problem. With respect to groups involved in 

racketeering activities, the FBI focuses on: the La Cosa Nostra and Italian organized crime groups, 

Russian/Eastern European/Eurasian organized crime groups, Balkan/Albanian organized crime groups, Middle 

Eastern criminal enterprises, Asian criminal enterprises, and Nigerian/West African criminal enterprises. Each 

of these groups is engaged in myriad criminal activities. 

Performance Measure: Number of Organized Criminal Enterprises Dismantled 

FY 2008 Revised Actual: 38 (Previous Actual: 34) 

FY 2009 Target: 36 

FY 2009 Actual: 39 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The FBI's Organized Crime Program developed and implemented an 

enhanced collection and targeting strategy in FY 2009. Coupled with significant task force collaboration with 

local law enforcement, the strategy enabled the FBI to exceed the dismantlement goals. The FBI’s Detroit 

office investigated a Lebanese criminal enterprise engaged in falsifying identification documents, mortgage 

fraud, identity theft, and money laundering. Ring leader Alaa Koubayssi was arrested, and his subsequent 

cooperation led investigators to a wider-scale identity theft and mortgage fraud ring, responsible for millions 

of dollars in fraud. To date, there have been six federal indictments, three federal complaints, three federal 

informations, five federal convictions (defendant Somail Aoun is believed to be hiding in Lebanon), $1 million 

in federal restitution, and two asset forfeitures. This investigation led directly to opening a subsequent identity 

theft and mortgage fraud investigation of a Lebanese criminal enterprise operating in the Dearborn, Michigan 

area. 

Gangs/Criminal Enterprises 

The mission of the FBI’s Gangs/Criminal Enterprise Program is to disrupt and dismantle domestic cells (local, 

regional, national, and transnational) of criminal enterprises with ethnic ties to North, Central, and South 

II-6 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
America that pose the greatest threats to the economic and national security of the United States. This is 

accomplished through the FBI’s Violent Gang and Drug Programs, increased involvement in the Organized 

Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program, and support and leadership of High Intensity Drug Trafficking 

Area initiatives. In recent years, the FBI has concentrated anti-gang efforts in the Violent Gang Safe Streets 

Task Forces and the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) National Gang Task Force, supporting, coordinating, and 

facilitating investigations into local, state, national, and transnational criminal gangs. 

The National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) supports this mission by sharing and coordinating information 

with state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies. The NGIC analyzes gang information from a broad 

spectrum to identify migration patterns and current trends involving gangs. 

The Gang Targeting and Coordination Center (GangTECC) focuses on enhancing gang investigations of all 

federal agencies by acting as a deconfliction and case coordination center. It facilitates operations across 

agencies and promotes the dismantlement of national and transnational violent gangs. Tactical and strategic 

intelligence is shared between law enforcement agencies in conjunction with the NGIC. 

In FY 2005, this measure started to include, and set targets for, dismantlements for activities covered by the 

FBI’s Major Theft program. In FY 2008, program responsibility for Major Theft was moved from the 

Gang/Criminal Enterprise Program to the Violent Crime Program. Beginning with the FBI’s performance 

reports in FY 2009, the FBI has revised this measure and the data reported for previous years to reflect the 

number of dismantlements without Major Theft included. 

16 19 21 17 17 

29 

34 36 

43 38 39 36 

0 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Number of Organized Criminal Enterprises Dismantled 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: Dismantlement means destroying the targeted organization’s leadership, financial base, and 

supply network such that the organization is incapable of operating and/or reconstituting itself. 

Data Collection and Storage: The data source is the FBI's Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis 

Application (ISRAA) database that tracks accomplishments from inception to closure. 

Data Validation and Verification: Before data are entered into the system, they are reviewed and approved 

by an FBI field manager. The data are subsequently verified through the FBI's inspection process. Inspections 

of ISRAA data occur at least once a year at each FBI Field Office. Using statistical sampling methods, data 

are traced back to source documents contained in FBI files. 

Data Limitations: FBI field personnel are required to enter accomplishment data within 30 days of the 

accomplishment or a change in the status of an accomplishment, such as those resulting from appeals. Data 

for this report are compiled less than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year, and thus may not fully represent 

the accomplishments during the reporting period. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-7 
                              

                           

                               

           

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: The performance measure for this goal has been modified – see below.

The FY 2012 Outcome Goal now tracks the number of children depicted in child pornography

identified by FBI. Accordingly, the long‐term goal has been modified to target a cumulative total

of 793 children identified (FY 2007‐2012).

Background/Program Objectives: Facilitation of crimes against children through the use of a computer and 

the Internet is a national crime problem that is growing dramatically. The Innocent Images National Initiative 

(IINI), a component of the FBI's Cyber Crimes Program, is an intelligence-driven, proactive, multi-agency 

investigative initiative to combat the proliferation of child pornography and/or child sexual exploitation using 

online computers. The mission of the IINI is to: identify, investigate, and prosecute sexual predators who use 

the Internet and other online services to sexually exploit children; identify and rescue witting and unwitting 

child victims; and establish a law enforcement presence on the Internet as a deterrent to subjects who seek to 

exploit children. 

Performance Measure: NEW MEASURE: Number of children depicted in child pornography identified by 

the FBI 

FY 2009 Target: 150 

FY 2009 Actual: 118 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The FBI has not met its target for this measure. While the FBI always makes 

every effort to identify/rescue victimized children, the FBI cannot directly control the number of children 

identified and/or rescued at any given time through investigative techniques, due to the reactive nature of this 

measure. The FBI has, however, taken definitive action to negate the limitations through its continued 

collaboration with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC)/Child Victim 

Identification Program (CVIP) and successful initiatives such as the Innocent Images International Task Force 

and the Endangered Child Alert Program. 

37 

73 

187 

118 

150 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Number of Children Depicted in Child Pornography Identified by the FBI 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: These data record the number of children found in child pornography materials who have 

their identities determined as a result of FBI child pornography investigations. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected and stored in a database at the NCMEC. Subsequent 

analysis of these data is reported in communications stored in the FBI's Automated Case Support (ACS) 

system. 

II-8 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
Data Validation and Verification: Law enforcement personnel nationwide are required to submit data on 

child pornography materials and victims to the CVIP, managed by FBI Cyber Division (CyD) personnel 

assigned to the NCMEC. Submissions of child pornography material must include a law enforcement pointof-contact, who will be willing to testify as to the identification of the child in any investigation. As 

investigations identify specific children within submitted materials, they are listed in electronic 

communications (ECs) reported in the FBI's ACS system. 

Data Limitations: The FBI cannot directly control the number of children identified at any given time 

through investigative techniques and/or any other methodology, due to the reactive nature of this measure. 

The FBI always makes every effort to identify and rescue victimized children. Historical data for this measure 

had to be retrieved from a manual count of identified victims in ECs during the years reviewed. 

Performance Measure: DISCONTINUED MEASURE: Number of Child Pornography Websites or Web 

Hosts Shut Down 

FY 2009 Target: N/A 

FY 2009 Actual: N/A 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The Department is discontinuing this performance measure in its FYs 2007-

2012 Strategic Plan and in future performance reports. Per OMB program assessment review, a new measure 

has been developed and included in the Department’s FYs 2007-2012 Strategic Plan. 

18 

201 

2,638 

2,088 

906 

1,667 1,525 

0 

500 

1,000 

1,500 

2,000 

2,500 

3,000 

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 

Number of Child Pornography Websites or Web Hosts Shut Down 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: A website/web host gets shut down at the request of the FBI once an administrative 

subpoena is served to obtain information on who is responsible for the illicit content. Often the subpoena 

would be the factor that alerted the Internet Service Provider (ISP) of the illegal content. The reported 

websites/web hosts shut down by the FBI's staff assigned to the NCMEC account for approximately half of the 

FBI's reported totals. 

Data Collection and Storage: The data source is a database maintained by FBI personnel detailed to the 

NCMEC, as well as statistics derived by the FBI’s Cyber Division’s program personnel. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data are reviewed and approved by FBI Headquarters program personnel. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-9 
Data Limitations: Data for this report are compiled less than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year, and thus 

may not fully represent the accomplishments during the reporting period. Information based upon reporting of 

locates and convictions is necessary for compilation of some of these statistics. 

II-10 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
 

                         

            

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Increase the percentage of criminal investigations resulting in referrals

for prosecution to 62% (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: Violent firearms crime remains a significant and complex domestic 

problem, fueled by a variety of causes that vary from region to region. The common element, however, is the 

relationship between firearms violence and the unlawful diversion of firearms out of commerce into the hands 

of prohibited persons. Therefore, firearm investigations and prosecutions remain a highlighted area of 

emphasis for the Department. ATF’s unique statutory responsibilities and assets, including technology and 

information, are focused under the agency’s Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy (IVRS) to remove violent 

offenders, including gang members, from our communities; keep firearms from those who are prohibited by 

law from possessing them; discourage, prohibit, and interrupt illegal weapons transfers in accordance with the 

law; and prevent firearms violence through community outreach. 

The violence fueled by firearms trafficking is demonstrated on our Southwest Border. Our firearms trafficking 

strategy complements our continued focus on the deployment of resources to specific localities where there is 

a high incidence of gang and gun violence. Through firearms trafficking interdiction efforts, ATF decreases 

the availability of illicit firearms and recommends for prosecution those who illegally supply firearms to 

prohibited possessors. Violent gang members are often involved in firearms trafficking, both for potential 

profit and in furtherance of drug trafficking and other crimes. Recent trends have shown an increase in the 

number of firearms recovered in Mexico, and these firearms fuel the growing violence along the border, 

including the brutal murders of hundreds of law enforcement officers and government officials. ATF’s efforts 

to reduce violent firearms crime include: 

	 ATF’s Southwest Border initiative, Project Gunrunner, is a focused subset of ATF’s broader firearms 

trafficking initiative, addressing U.S.-based firearms trafficking that is fueling the violence along the 

Southwest Border and nationwide. Project Gunrunner attacks the prevalence of illegal firearms 

available in the Southwest Border region and stems the flow of firearms to criminal organizations in 

Mexico. Additionally, ATF enhances its efforts along the Southwest Border with an integrated violent 

crime and gang reduction program with initiatives like the Violent Crime Reduction Teams and 

Regional Area Gang Enforcement Teams. 

	 Partnering with law enforcement agencies and prosecutors at all levels to develop focused strategies to 

investigate, arrest, and prosecute violent offenders, persons prohibited from possessing firearms, 

domestic and international firearms traffickers, violent gangs, and others who attempt to illegally 

acquire or misuse firearms. 

	 Assisting the law enforcement community in identifying firearms trafficking trends and resolving 

violent crimes by providing automated firearms ballistics technology, tracing crime guns, and 

developing advanced firearms investigative techniques. 

	 Ensuring that only qualified applicants who meet the eligibility requirements of the law enter the 

regulated firearms industry by employing appropriate screening procedures prior to licensing. 

	 Inspecting firearms dealers to identify any illegal purchases or diversion of firearms to criminals and 

to ensure the accuracy of records used in tracing firearms. ATF ensures that firearms industry 

members comply with the Gun Control Act, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control 

Act. 

	 Keeping restricted firearms such as machineguns out of the hands of prohibited persons by performing 

criminal records checks on applicants. ATF maintains the accuracy and integrity of the National 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-11 
 

Firearms Registration and Transfer Record so that the location and ownership of restricted firearms are 

kept current. 

	 Ensuring that only firearms that are legally importable under ATF and State Department rules are 

imported into the United States and are properly marked and recorded by the importer for sale 

domestically. 

	 Collaborating with schools, law enforcement agencies, community organizations, and the firearms 

industry to implement educational programs which help reduce firearms violence. 

	 Informing the public and firearms industry about ATF policies, regulations, and product safety and 

security, so that they can better comply with the law. To do so, ATF uses a variety of communication 

methods such as the Internet, trade and community publications, seminars, and industry meetings. 

Performance Measure: Percentage of firearms investigations resulting in a referral for criminal prosecution. 

FY 2009 Target: 59% 

FY 2009 Actual: 59% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: ATF met its target goal of the percentage of investigations within the 

firearms programs area that resulted in a defendant being referred for criminal prosecution. Meeting this 

measure reflects the impact ATF has towards reducing firearms violence in targeted violent cities across 

America. ATF is the federal law enforcement agency with unique expertise and statutory authority to enforce 

Federal firearms laws and meeting this goal shows that ATF reduces firearms violence through investigations 

and their resulting law enforcement consequences (specifically the referral of criminals for prosecution). 

ATF has been at the forefront of efforts across the country to reduce violent crime involving firearms. ATF is 

the lead federal agency in these efforts, actively initiating investigations against violent offenders and firearms 

traffickers and providing key services to its law enforcement partners. The following case examples highlight 

ATF’s FY 2009 efforts: 

	 Houston, Texas: In April 2009, ATF successfully completed a firearm trafficking investigation into a 

group of four suspects led by Ernesto Garza of Monterey, Mexico. The investigation resulted in their 

conviction ranging up to 12 years in prison on federal firearms charges related to the trafficking 

operation. The suspects were sentenced after pleading guilty to conspiracy for illegally obtaining 

firearms through false statements and trafficking firearms into Mexico. Garza conspired to buy guns 

using straw purchasers and then smuggle the guns into Mexico. Because of his citizenship status, he 

was not entitled to buy guns in the United States. Garza paid people in the United States to buy the 

guns for him and then lie about who the guns were for. Garza trafficked in high-powered, highcapacity handguns and assault rifles such as the FN 57 caliber pistol and the FNH PS90 rifle. Garza 

was the organizer and leader in the conspiracy involving at least nine other individuals who were 

purchasing firearms on his behalf. At least 50 weapons were purchased as part of this ring and 

smuggled to Mexico. One of the FN 57 pistols was recovered in Mexico after being used in a running 

gun battle between alleged drug dealers and Mexican soldiers in Xoxocutla on May 7, 2008. Two 

Mexican soldiers were killed as a result of the incident. 

	 Savannah, Georgia: In May 2008, ATF opened an undercover storefront in Statesboro, Georgia. The 

operation came at the request of the Statesboro Police Chief following the success of another ATF 

storefront operation in Augusta, Georgia and the excessive criminal activity affecting this area of the 

city. 

ATF undercover agents opened a small retail tobacco store front across from the campus of Georgia 

Southern University. Undercover agents began making contacts with individuals involved in criminal 

activity in Statesboro and made it known that the retail store supplemented its legitimate business by 

II-12 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
 

 

 

 

trafficking firearms to New York and dealing in narcotics. The store front was operational for 

approximately 10 months and resulted in the Federal indictments of 60 defendants on 434 counts and 

State indictments of 35 defendants. The undercover agents purchased 96 firearms and seized 11 more 

firearms from the suspects during the operation. The undercover agents were also offered to purchase 

illegal drugs that included prescription drugs resulting in the seizure of $270,000 worth of narcotics 

purchased. In April 2009, State, local and federal agents executed arrest warrants pursuant to the 

indictments. The defendants in this investigation are currently being prosecuted through the 

appropriate judicial systems. Additional investigative efforts continue in furtherance of federal money 

laundering violations. 

	 Los Angeles, California: The Mongols Outlaw Motorcycle Gang recruited as many as 200 new 

members from various Los Angeles based street gangs, including the 18th Street, the Mexican Mafia, 

Lomas, and Varrio Nuevo. The Mongols and its street gang connections are responsible for a large 

amount of violent crime, illegal firearms and explosives trafficking, armed narcotics trafficking, 

assaults, extortion, homicides, victim and witness intimidation, theft of motorcycles, fraud schemes, 

and various other related crimes. The ATF Los Angeles Field Division has been collating and analyzing 

historical and current intelligence regarding the alleged criminal activities of the current members and 

associates of the Mongols in California, Nevada, Colorado, and Oklahoma. In the last 5 years, the 

Mongols have established themselves as the dominant motorcycle gang in California, and one of the 

most dominant street gangs. 

During this investigation, 87 members of the Mongols, including National and chapter officers, were 

indicted under RICO, Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering (VICAR), other Federal statutes related 

to murder, attempted murder, hate crimes, assaults, firearms violations, and narcotics violations. 

Twenty-seven suspects had been charged during the course of the investigation in both Federal and 

State court for firearms, narcotics, and assault charges. Those charged in State court were charged 

with the State gang allegation enhancement. On October 21, 2008, 134 local and 50 out of district 

Federal search warrants were executed in and beyond California. Search warrants were executed 

simultaneously in Oregon, Oklahoma, Montana, Nevada, Northern California, Colorado, and Florida 

on all Mongol presidents, sergeant at arms, and secretary/treasurers. Suspects in this investigation are 

currently being prosecuted in judicial courts throughout the country. 

55% 57% 57% 60% 59% 59% 

0% 

25% 

50% 

75% 

100% 

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Percentage of Firearms Investigations Resulting in a Referral for Criminal 

Prosecution 

Actual Target 

Data Definitions: This measure reflects the percentage of investigations within ATF’s firearms program area 

in which a defendant was referred for criminal prosecution. This measure is based on the premise that ATF is 

the Federal law enforcement agency with unique expertise and statutory authority to enforce Federal firearms 

laws, and that ATF reduces firearms violence through investigations and their resulting law enforcement 

consequences (specifically the referral for criminal prosecution and the ensuing incapacitation of criminals 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-13 
 

 

under these statutes).1 More effective enforcement of Federal firearms laws contributes to disrupting criminal 

activity, deterring violent crime, and safeguarding the legitimate firearms industry from exploitation by 

criminals. This measure allows ATF to gauge the impact of applying its Federal statutory authority and 

resources to a national strategy to fight violent crime in our communities – targeting those who commit the 

violence and those who facilitate their commission by supplying firearms through straw purchases, unlicensed 

dealing, theft from Federal firearms licensees and interstate carriers, and other illegal means. 

Data Collection and Storage: The data source is ATF’s National Field Office Case Information System 

(NFOCIS), which is ATF’s integrated and centralized data management solution allowing real time monitoring 

and oversight of all criminal enforcement activities in the field. 

Data Validation and Verification: There is an ongoing quality assurance and case management program in 

place within ATF which includes the required review and approval of case information by ATF field 

managers. The data are subsequently verified through ATF’s inspection process, performed internally by the 

Office of Professional Responsibility and Security Operations Directorate. The internal inspections occur on a 

four year cycle and are performed at each ATF field office and division. 

Data Limitations: ATF investigations are often complex and time consuming in nature, and often span 

multiple years from initiation through closure. The data used to calculate this percentage are based on the date 

investigations are closed, and are therefore likely to include investigations that have spanned previous time 

periods. This methodology is specifically used to eliminate counting of investigations multiple times. 

1

 “Although studies that focus exclusively on violent offenders is rare, empirical evidence about violent offending can be found in 

cross-sectional and longitudinal studies of general offending careers. The results from this research generally support the conclusion 

that incapacitation has nontrivial consequences for the control of violent crime.” Commission on Behavioral and Social Sciences and 

Education: Understanding and Preventing Violence, Volume 4: Consequences and Control (1994). 

II-14 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
                   

                

   

                               

                        

                        

                           

   

                           

                                

                         

             

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Develop meaningful baselines for the supply of drugs available for

consumption in the United States (FY 2007‐2009). Achieve a 6% reduction in the supply of illegal

drugs (FY 2010‐2012) available for consumption in the United States using the baseline

established by the close of FY 2010.

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: Drug seizures, eradication efforts, precursor chemical interdictions, cash 

and asset seizures, increased border/transportation security, international military operations, social and 

political forces, climatic changes, and even natural disasters all impact the drug supply at any given time. The 

Department’s strategy focuses on incapacitating entire drug networks by targeting their leaders for arrest and 

prosecution, by disgorging the profits that fund the continuing drug operations, and by eliminating the 

international supply sources. These efforts ultimately have a lasting impact upon the flow of drugs in the 

United States, although the results are not easily measurable in a single year. Accordingly, the Department 

reexamined its approach related to this goal and set realistic milestones in the Department’s FY 2007-2012 

Strategic Plan. For FYs 2007-2010, the Department will report progress toward establishing meaningful 

baselines for the supply of drugs available for consumption in the U.S. During FYs 2011-2012, the 

Department will focus on a targeted reduction in the supply of illegal drugs available for consumption. 

Performance Measure: DOJ’s Reduction in the Supply of Drugs Available for Consumption in The U.S. 

FY 2009 Target: Progress toward establishing baseline 

FY 2009 Actual: See Discussion of FY 2009 Results 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: Measuring reduction in the drug supply is a complex process reflective of a 

number of factors outside the control of drug enforcement. Moreover, the impact of enforcement efforts on 

drug supply and the estimated availability are currently not measurable in a single year. However, the 

Department is intent on achieving an interim goal of setting a baseline by the close of 2010. Once the baseline 

is set, the Department intends to achieve a 6 percent total reduction in the supply of illegal drugs available for 

consumption in the United States over the next two years. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Dismantle 810 Consolidated Priority Organization Target‐linked drug

trafficking organizations (FY 2007‐2012). Disrupt 1,260 CPOT‐linked drug trafficking organizations

(FY 2007‐2012).

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is not on target to achieve the long‐term goal of disrupting

1,260 CPOT‐linked drug trafficking organizations by FY 2012. However, the Department remains

committed to target, disrupt and dismantle these priority organizations in the future. The

Department is on target for achieving the long‐term goal of dismantling 810 CPOT‐linked drug

organizations (FY 2007‐2012).

Background/Program Objectives: The Department focuses its drug law enforcement efforts on reducing the 

availability of drugs by disrupting and dismantling the largest drug trafficking organizations and related money 

laundering networks operating internationally and domestically, including those on the Attorney General’s 

Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List. The first CPOT List was issued in September 2002 

and is reviewed and updated semi-annually. The List identifies the most significant international drug 

trafficking and money laundering organizations and those primarily responsible for the nation’s drug supply. 

The Attorney General has designated the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) Program 

as the centerpiece of DOJ’s drug supply reduction strategy. The Program coordinates multi-agency and multiDepartment of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-15 
 

 

jurisdictional investigations targeting the most serious drug trafficking threats. The OCDETF Program is 

responsible for coordinating the annual formulation of the CPOT list. The OCDETF Program functions 

through the efforts of the United States Attorneys; elements of the Department’s Criminal and Tax Divisions; 

the investigative, intelligence, and support staffs of the DEA, FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshals, U.S. Immigration 

and Customs Enforcement, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Internal Revenue Service. The OCDETF agencies 

also partner with numerous State and local law enforcement agencies. 

The goal of each OCDETF investigation is to determine connections among related investigations nationwide 

in order to identify and dismantle the entire structure of the drug trafficking organizations, from international 

supply and national transportation cells, to regional and local distribution networks. A major emphasis of the 

Department’s drug strategy is to disrupt the traffickers’ financial dealings and to dismantle the financial 

infrastructure that supports these organizations. The OCDETF Program has the greatest impact upon the flow 

of drugs through this country when it successfully incapacitates the entire drug network by targeting and 

prosecuting its leadership and seizing the profits that fund continued operations. 

Performance Measure: CPOT-Linked Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted and Dismantled 

Revised FY 2008 Actual: 

Disrupted: 299 

Dismantled: 104 

FY 2009 Target: 

Disrupted: 263 

Dismantled: 137 

FY 2009 Actual: 

Disrupted: 274 

Dismantled: 143 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The Department dismantled 143 CPOT-linked organizations in FY 2009, 

exceeding its target. This is a 38 percent increase over the 104 that were dismantled in FY 2008 and an 18 

percent increase over the 121 dismantled in FY 2005, the highest number reported prior to FY 2009. The 

Department disrupted 274 CPOT-linked organizations in FY 2009, also exceeding its target. The total of 417 

CPOT-linked organizations that were either dismantled or disrupted during FY 2009 is over 3 percent higher 

than the 403 dismantled or disrupted in FY 2008, also the highest number reported prior to FY 2009. 

The Department was able to meet the FY 2009 targets for disruptions and dismantlements of CPOT-linked 

organizations. To calculate these numbers, the Department aggregates both OCDETF and non-OCDETF 

disruptions and dismantlements. Although the Department was able to meet its overall targets in this area, 

resource reductions to the OCDETF Program in FY 2009 caused the OCDETF Program to fall short of its subtarget for disruptions of CPOT-linked organizations (OCDETF did meet its sub-target for dismantlements). 

Disruptions achieved by the law enforcement agencies in non-OCDETF cases allowed the Department to 

overcome the shortfall in OCDETF disruptions and meet the overall target. Despite the Department's ability to 

meet the overall target, the decline in OCDETF disruptions is a troubling sign, making it clear that as 

OCDETF resources are eliminated, Departmental components are incentivized to pursue stove-piped 

investigations of CPOT-level organizations, rather than conducting them in a coordinated fashion by means 

of the multi-agency, prosecutor-led OCDETF task forces that are the centerpiece of DOJ's strategy in 

combating the CPOTs. 

During FY 2009, in addition to making important gains against CPOT-linked organizations, the Department 

continued to achieve successes against the CPOTs themselves. Nine CPOT targets were dismantled in 

FY 2009, also the highest number ever during a fiscal year. Additionally, two CPOT targets were disrupted. 

Significant impact was made during the year against leaders of organizations such as the Autodefensas Unidas 

de Colombia/The United Self-Defense Groups of Colombia, the Norte Valle Cartel, and the Tijuana Cartel, a 

violent and feared Mexican organization. 

II-16 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
20 

62 36 

159 

121 

204 

93 

189 

86 

169 

104 

299 

137 

263 

143 

274 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Tgt. FY09 Act. 

CPOT-Linked Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted and Dismantled 

Dismantled Disrupted 

Data Definition: An organization is considered linked to a CPOT if credible evidence exists of a nexus 

between the primary investigative target and a CPOT target, verified associate, or component of the CPOT 

organization. Disrupted means impeding the normal and effective operation of the targeted organization, as 

indicated by changes in the organizational leadership and/or changes in methods of operation. Dismantled 

means destroying the organization's leadership, financial base and supply network such that the organization is 

incapable of reconstituting itself. 

Data Collection and Storage: For this measure, OCDETF reviews all of the cases worked by FBI and DEA. 

When there are cases that both agencies work, they are counted as one case in the consolidated numbers 

reported. This procedure is in place to prevent double counting in Department-level reports. 

Investigations may be linked to a CPOT organization at any time during the investigation. Once the link is 

verified, a specific code or other identifier is assigned to the investigation. Accordingly, data on this 

performance measure may lag behind actual identification of the link by the investigative agency. The 

investigation is tracked as “CPOT-linked” by the agency and within the OCDETF management information 

system. 

Data Validation and Verification: The CPOT List is updated semi-annually. Each OCDETF agency has an 

opportunity to nominate targets for addition to/deletion from the List. Nominations are considered by the 

CPOT Working Group (made up of mid-level managers from the participating agencies). Based upon the 

Working Group’s recommendations, the OCDETF Operations Chiefs decide which organizations will be 

added to/deleted from the CPOT List. 

Once a CPOT is added to the List, OCDETF investigations can be linked to that organization. The links are 

reviewed and confirmed by OCDETF field managers using the OCDETF Fusion Center, agency databases, 

and intelligence information. Field recommendations are reviewed by the OCDETF Executive Office. In 

instances where a link is not fully substantiated, the sponsoring agency is given the opportunity to follow up. 

Ultimately, the OCDETF Executive Office "un-links" any investigation for which sufficient justification has 

not been provided. When evaluating disruptions/dismantlements of CPOT-linked organizations, OCDETF 

verifies reported information with the investigating agency’s headquarters. 

Data Limitations: Investigations of CPOT-level organizations are complex and time-consuming, and the 

impact of disrupting/dismantling such a network may not be apparent immediately. In fact, data may lag 

behind enforcement activity. For example, a CPOT-linked organization may be disrupted in one FY and 

subsequently dismantled in a later year when law enforcement permanently destroys the organization’s ability 

to operate. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-17 
                            

   

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Neutralize a cumulative total of 78 high‐impact Internet fraud targets

(FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: Internet fraud is any scam that uses one or more components of the 

Internet to present fraudulent solicitations to prospective victims, conduct fraudulent transactions, or transmit 

the proceeds of fraud to financial institutions or others that are connected with the scheme. Identity theft and 

Internet auction fraud are problems that plague millions of U.S. victims, and the threat of illegitimate online 

pharmacies exposes the American public to unregulated and dangerous drugs. 

The FBI and National White-Collar Crime Center partnered in May 2000 to support the Internet Crime 

Complaint Center (IC3). For victims of Internet crime, IC3 provides a convenient way to alert authorities of a 

suspected violation. For law enforcement and regulatory agencies, IC3 offers a central repository for 

complaints related to Internet crime, uses the information to quantify patterns, and provides timely statistical 

data of current trends. In addition, the FBI uses synchronized, nation-wide takedowns (i.e., arrests, seizures, 

search warrants, and indictments) to target the most significant perpetrators of on-line schemes. 

Performance Measure: Number of High-Impact Internet Fraud Targets Neutralized 

FY 2009 Target: 12 

FY 2009 Actual: 13 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The FBI exceeded its target for this measure in FY 2009. Two notable cases 

of Internet fraud follow. 

A scam involving sales of undelivered vehicles for a combined loss of approximately $2.5 million originated 

in Romania, with many operatives working out of the Las Vegas area. After an investigation by the FBI’s Las 

Vegas office, four subjects have been convicted in relation to this crime, two in federal court and two in state 

court. 

Following an investigation by the FBI’s Milwaukee office, a woman pled guilty to four charges of wire fraud 

after it was discovered that she fraudulently convinced at least four different families that she was pregnant 

and wanted each family to adopt the unborn child. In each case, she later told the family the baby had died or 

the father would not agree to the adoption. 

5 

7 

10 9 

11 11 

13 12 

0 

5 

10 

15 

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Number of High-Impact Internet Fraud Targets Neutralized 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: Case data are reviewed by IC3 staff to determine if investigative targets meet certain criteria 

for being counted as “high impact: “Total loss amount greater than $100,000; Internal nexus; White Collar 

Crime-related fraud; Money Laundering Scheme, and Pharmaceutical Fraud; “Phishing” Attack/Identity Theft; 

II-18 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
High volume of victims. The IC3 evaluates and tracks the progress of investigations meeting these criteria 

throughout the year. 

Data Collection and Storage: The data source is a record system maintained by the IC3. The list of targets is 

updated each year. 

Data Validation and Verification: Targets are determined by subject matter expert teams at the IC3 and 

approved by the Unit Chief. IC3 staff maintains the list and determines when a target has been the subject of a 

take-down. 

Data Limitations: There are no requirements for the IC3 to receive feedback from FBI field offices or state 

and local law enforcement regarding neutralizations that were a result of IC3 case referrals. Due to this lack of 

feedback, the IC3 may underreport the number of neutralizations. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-19 
                           

       

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Dismantle a cumulative total of 745 criminal enterprises engaging in

white‐collar crime (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: Through the White-Collar Crime (WCC) Program, the FBI investigates 

criminals and criminal enterprises that seek illicit gains through fraud and guile. Illegal activities investigated 

include corporate, health care, securities and commodities, financial institution, mortgage, government 

(defense procurement and other areas), insurance, mass marketing, and bankruptcy fraud; environmental 

crimes; and money laundering. 

U.S. citizens and businesses lose billions of dollars each year to criminals engaged in non-violent fraudulent 

enterprises. The globalization of economic and financial systems, technological advances, declining corporate 

and individual ethics, and the sophistication of criminal organizations have resulted in annual increases in the 

number of illegal acts characterized by deceit, concealment, or violations of trust. These crimes contribute to a 

loss of confidence in financial institutions, public institutions, and industry. 

Performance Measure: Number of Criminal Enterprises Engaging in White-Collar Crimes Dismantled 

FY 2008 Revised Actual: 211 (Previous Actual: 194) 

FY 2009 Target: 160 

FY 2009 Actual: 234 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The FBI surpassed its target due to the redirection of investigative resources, 

supplemented by FY 2009 enhancements, to priority WCC matters in response to an increase in their threat 

level. 

On March 27, 2009, Lance Poulsen, former co-owner and CEO of National Century Financial Enterprises 

(NCFE), and Rebecca Parrett, former co-owner of NCFE, were sentenced for perpetrating a 

$2.34 billion investment scheme. In an investigation led by the FBI’s Cincinnati office, Poulsen and Parrett 

were charged with securities, mail, and wire fraud; money laundering, and conspiracy. They were convicted 

for lying about how investors’ funds would be used, diverting the funds, and hiding the shortfall by shuffling 

the money between subsidiaries' bank accounts. NCFE operated as a holding company buying accounts 

receivables from health care providers. As a result, this fraud led to bankruptcies of numerous health care 

providers. Parrett fled following her conviction and her current whereabouts are unknown, but her sentencing 

will proceed. 

As part of a related FBI investigation, Karl Demmler was also sentenced on March 27, 2009, for charges of 

witness tampering and obstruction of justice for his role in conspiring with Poulsen to influence the testimony 

of a former NCFE executive and witness. Demmler, on behalf of Poulsen, approached a previously-convicted 

subject in this case and offered to pay her to alter her testimony against Poulsen. 

II-20 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
48 59 49 73 

137 

163 

231 

277 

211 

234 

160 

0 

50 

100 

150 

200 

250 

300 

FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Number of Criminal Enterprises Engaging in White-Collar Crimes 

Dismantled 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: Dismantlement means destroying the organization’s leadership, financial base, and supply 

network such that the organization is incapable of operating and/or reconstituting itself. 

Data Collection and Storage: The data source is the FBI's Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis 

Application (ISRAA) database that tracks accomplishments from inception to closure. 

Data Validation and Verification: Before data are entered into the system, they are reviewed and approved 

by an FBI field manager. The data are subsequently verified through the FBI's inspection process. Inspections 

of ISRAA data occur at least once a year at each FBI Field Office. Using statistical sampling methods, data 

are traced back to source documents contained in FBI files. 

Data Limitations: FBI field personnel are required to enter accomplishment data within 30 days of the 

accomplishment or a change in the status of an accomplishment, such as those resulting from appeals. Data 

for this report are compiled less than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year, and thus may not fully represent 

the accomplishments during the reporting period. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-21 
 

                       

                       

                             

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Favorably resolve 90% of Criminal Cases (litigating divisions)

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Favorably resolve 80% of Civil Cases (litigating divisions)

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target for the achievement of this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: Representing the rights and interests of the American people is a top 

priority for the Department of Justice. Among the DOJ components sharing responsibilities to achieve this 

goal are the U.S. Attorneys, and the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environment and Natural 

Resources and Tax Divisions. 

There are 94 U.S. Attorney Offices located throughout the United States and its territories. Each U.S. 

Attorney serves as the chief federal law enforcement officer within his or her judicial district and, as such, is 

responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the federal government; the litigation and defense 

of civil cases in which the United States is a party; the handling of criminal and civil appellate cases before 

United States Courts of Appeal; and the collection of civil and criminal debts and restitutions owed the federal 

government which are administratively uncollectable. 

Additionally, the Department has litigators that specialize in the areas of: preserving a competitive market 

structure; defending the public fisc against unwarranted claims; protecting civil rights; enforcing federal civil 

and criminal statutes; safeguarding the environment; and administrating internal revenue laws. 

The Antitrust Division (ATR) promotes and protects the competitive process – and the American economy – 

through the enforcement of antitrust laws. These laws apply to virtually all industries and to every level of 

business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution and marketing. 

The Civil Division (CIV) defends challenges to Presidential actions; national security issues; benefit programs; 

energy policies; commercial issues such as bankruptcy, contract disputes, banking, insurance, patents, fraud, 

and debt collection; all manner of accident and liability claims; and criminal violations of the immigration and 

consumer protection laws. 

The Civil Rights Division (CRT) enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in education, 

employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and 

conducted programs. Additionally, CRT enforces criminal civil rights responsibilities for human trafficking 

and involuntary servitude statutes, acts of racial, ethnic or religious violence, “color of law” offenses by local 

and federal law enforcement officials, and conspiracies to interfere with federally protected rights. 

The Criminal Division (CRM) develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal criminal laws 

(except those specifically assigned to other divisions). The Division performs four key program activities to 

fulfill its mission: investigating and prosecuting significant criminal cases and matters; providing expert legal 

advice and training; providing critical law enforcement tools (i.e., Title III wiretaps); and forging global law 

enforcement partnerships. 

The Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) brings cases against those who violate the nation's 

civil and criminal pollution-control and wildlife protection laws. Additionally, the Division defends 

environmental challenges to government programs and activities and represents the U.S. in matters concerning 

the stewardship of the nation's natural resources and public lands. In addition, the Division litigates cases 

concerning Indian rights and claims. 

And finally, the Tax Division's (TAX) mission is to enforce the nation’s tax laws fully, fairly, and consistently, 

through both criminal and civil litigation, in order to promote voluntary compliance with the tax laws, 

maintain public confidence in the integrity of the tax system, and promote the sound development of the law. 

II-22 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
Performance Measure: Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

Revised FY 2008 Actual: 

Criminal: 92% (Previous Actual: 90%) 

Civil: 79% (Previous Actual: 80%) 

FY 2009 Target: 

Criminal Cases: 90% 

Civil Cases: 80 % 

FY 2009 Actual: 

Criminal Cases: 92% 

Civil Cases: 83% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The Department exceeded its target for this performance measure. The 

following are highlights of the accomplishments achieved by relevant components in FY 2009. 

The collaboration of the U.S. Attorney Offices (USAOs) with each of the FBI’s Mortgage Fraud Task Forces 

and Working Groups, the targeted mortgage fraud training provided at the National Advocacy Center, and the 

enhanced ability to track mortgage fraud prosecutions resulted in significant accomplishments. For example, 

in the District of New Jersey in June 2009, the former president and director of U.S. Mortgage Corporation, 

Michael McGrath, pleaded guilty to mail and wire fraud and money laundering charges in connection with a 

$139 million fraud scheme that bankrupted U.S. Mortgage Corporation and its subsidiary, CU National 

Mortgage Corporation, LLC. McGrath conspired to fraudulently sell loans belonging to various credit unions 

and use the proceeds to fund U.S. Mortgage’s operations and his personnel investments. The scheme started 

with the diversion of funds that should have been paid to various credit unions for mortgage loans they had 

made and authorized CU National to sell to Fannie Mae. McGrath withheld these funds to help U.S. Mortgage 

address cash flow problems caused by losing investments in mortgage-backed securities he had made on the 

company’s behalf. When U.S. Mortgage’s financial conditions deteriorated, he sold hundreds of loans to 

Fannie Mae without the knowledge and consent of the credit unions that owned the loans. To accomplish the 

fraudulent loans, he executed documents assigning the loans from the credit unions to U.S. Mortgage in which 

he pretended to be an officer of the credit unions in question. He also caused subordinates at U.S. Mortgage to 

execute documents purporting to assign the loans from U.S. Mortgage to Fannie Mae. The scheme netted 

$139 million. 

The USAOs in the Districts of Massachusetts, Pennsylvania Eastern and Kentucky Eastern reached a global 

criminal and civil resolution with the drug manufacturer, Pfizer, for a record sum of $2.3 billion. Of this sum, 

Pfizer will pay $1.0 billion to resolve civil allegations that the company illegally promoted the drugs Bextra, 

Geodon, Zyvox, and Lyrica for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration. It also will resolve 

allegations that Pfizer paid kickbacks in connection with its marketing of Aricept, Celebrex, Lipitor, Norvasc, 

Relpax, Viagra, Zithromax, Zoloft, and Zyrtec. Pfizer’s illegal conduct caused federal health care programs to 

pay hundreds of millions of dollars for drugs and uses that were not otherwise covered by those programs. 

Moreover, the off-label conduct as to some of these drugs raised significant patient safety concerns. Bextra 

was withdrawn from the market after studies confirmed an increased cardio-vascular risk in certain types of 

patients – uses for which Pfizer had marketed the drug. Bextra was approved by the Food and Drug 

Administration for the relief of pain associated with arthritis and primary dysmenorrhea (menstrual cramps). 

From 2002 through April 2005, Pfizer used false and misleading claims of safety and efficacy to promote 

Bextra for unapproved uses and for dosages above the approved level. The unapproved uses included the use 

of Bextra for acute pain and pre- and post-operative pain. The criminal fine will be $1.195 billion and there 

will be a criminal forfeiture of $105 million. 

The Criminal Division prosecuted and achieved favorable dispositions in FY 2009 in cases covering a wide 

range of complex case law. Examples of this work include the successful prosecution of Lloyds TSB Bank for 

falsifying wire transfers (resulting in a deferred prosecution agreement and forfeiture totaling $350 million); 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-23 
the sentencing of four MS-13 gang members to more than 90 years in prison (combined) for pleading guilty to 

racketeering charges; and the largest ever identity theft and hacking prosecution, involving the conviction of 

Albert Gonzalez and his accomplices for the theft of more than 40 million credit and debit card numbers, and 

the resulting identity thefts. 

The Antitrust Division assessed over $1 billion in criminal fines in FY 2009 against antitrust violators. The 

Division's investigations into the liquid crystal display panel and air transportation industries yielded 

significant fines which help to fund the Department's Crime Victims Fund. In addition, the Division launched 

an Economic Recovery Initiative to provide nationwide training and public outreach to ensure successful 

results from the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On the civil side, 

the Division was successful in protecting competition and U.S. consumers by challenging proposed mergers 

and agreements in areas as diverse as financial services, web advertising, beef packing, and real estate 

brokerages. 

The Civil Division exceeded its target by defeating billions of dollars in unmeritorious claims, in addition to 

the successful defense of suits filed against the government as a result of the government’s policies, laws, and 

involvement in commercial activities, domestic and foreign operations and entitlement programs, as well as 

law enforcement initiatives, military actions, and counterterrorism efforts. The Division also pursued 

affirmative litigation, bringing suits on behalf of the United States, which resulted in the return of over a 

billion dollars to the Treasury, Medicare, and other entitlement programs. 

The Civil Rights Division had a productive year enforcing the nation’s civil rights statutes. The Division had 

an overall civil enforcement success rate of 100% (excluding appeals) and a success rate of almost 90% in its 

criminal prosecutions, one of the highest conviction rates ever recorded for the Division. During fiscal year 

2009, the Criminal Section filed the third largest number of federal civil rights cases ever in a single year 

history of the Division (93 cases). The Employment Litigation Section also had a record year, filing 35 suits, 

the largest number of suits filed during any prior fiscal year. The Housing and Civil Enforcement Section also 

had a record year, filing 45 cases, including 24 pattern and practice cases, which is the highest number of cases 

filed since FY 2002. The Disability Rights Section achieved favorable results for persons with disabilities in 

325 cases and matters, including 51 formal settlement agreements, 67 informal resolutions of complaints, 205 

successful mediations, and two favorable court decisions. The Section also achieved a precedent-setting 

settlement agreement with the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, that will give people with mobility 

disabilities greater opportunity to vote in person at the City’s 1,200 polling places, rather than voting by 

alternative ballot because of inaccessible polling places. The Special Litigation Section maintained over 100 

active cases and pattern or practice investigations regarding more than 200 facilities. 

The Environment and Natural Resources Division made significant progress in addressing air pollution from 

oil refineries. Specifically, as a result of a Clean Air Act settlement achieved in U.S. v. BP Exploration & Oil 

Co., et al; No. 96-CV-095RL (N.D. Ind.), which resulted from the company’s non-compliance with a 2001 

consent decree, BP Products agreed to spend more than $161 million on pollution controls, enhanced 

maintenance and monitoring, and improved internal management practices to resolve violations at the 

company’s Texas City, Texas, refinery. This imposition was levied on top of a $12 million civil penalty 

payable to the U.S. Treasury. As a result of the injunctive relief achieved in this case, BP is required to 

upgrade pollution control equipment and manufacturing processes used to handle benzene and benzenecontaining wastes generated during petroleum refining operations and conduct in-depth audits to ensure 

compliance and minimize the amount of wastes generated at the refinery. It is estimated that these actions will 

reduce emissions of benzene and other volatile organic compounds by approximately 6,000 pounds annually. 

The settlement also requires that BP limit emissions of stratospheric ozone-depleting 

hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) from leaking cooling appliances. BP will eliminate approximately 51,000 

pounds of HCFCs by retrofitting industrial and commercial cooling appliances at Texas City to use non-ozonedepleting refrigerants. The company also agreed to improve its oversight and management of asbestoscontaining wastes generated during routine renovation and demolition activities at the Texas City refinery. 

Finally, as part of the settlement, the company will spend an additional $6 million to reduce air pollution from 

diesel vehicle emissions in Texas City and the surrounding area. BP will convert approximately 100 diesel 

II-24 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
municipal vehicles, including several dozen school buses, to operate on compressed or liquefied natural gas 

and will construct four refueling stations for the converted vehicles. As a result, emissions of particulate 

matter, nitrogen oxides and hydrocarbons from these vehicles will be substantially reduced. 

The Tax Division achieved unprecedented results in its efforts to obtain information about, and prosecute 

where appropriate, those U.S. taxpayers who elected to hide their income and assets offshore. In February 

2009, UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank, entered into a groundbreaking deferred prosecution agreement 

(DPA) admitting guilt on charges of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS. As part of 

the agreement, UBS agreed to immediately provide the United States with the identities of, and account 

information for, certain United States customers of UBS’ cross-border business. Also as part of the 

agreement, UBS will expeditiously exit the business of providing banking services to United States customers 

with undeclared accounts and will pay $780 million in fines, penalties, interest, and restitution. That 

agreement has so far led to the prosecution of five U.S. persons, two Swiss bankers and a Swiss lawyer, with 

many more prosecutions in the offing. 

Following immediately on the heels of the DPA, the Tax Division brought a civil John Doe summons action 

against UBS, seeking yet more U.S. taxpayer names. After approximately six months, the United States, UBS, 

and the Swiss government entered into an historic agreement that has put a large chink in the armor of Swiss 

bank secrecy. Under the settlement, the IRS is to receive account information of thousands of the most 

significant tax cheats among the U.S. taxpayers who maintain undeclared Swiss bank accounts – bank 

accounts having an aggregate deposit value of over $14 billion. 

0% 

25% 

50% 

75% 

100% 

Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

Criminal Civil 

Criminal 90% 91% 91% 91% 92% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 90% 92% 

Civil 88% 86% 86% 86% 87% 85% 84% 83% 83% 79% 80% 83% 

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Tgt. 

FY09 

Act. 

Data Definition: Cases favorably resolved include those cases that resulted in court judgments favorable to 

the government, as well as settlements. For merger cases, favorably resolved data includes: abandoned 

mergers, mergers “fixed,” or mergers with consent decrees. Non-merger cases favorably resolved also 

includes instances where practices changed after the investigation and complaints filed with consent decrees. 

The data set includes non-appellate cases closed during the fiscal year. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are currently captured within each component’s automated case 

management system and companion interface systems. Representatives from each component providing data 

for this measure were participating in a working group to build a litigation case management system (LCMS) 

to collect and manage case information, however, this group has been on a temporary hiatus since January 

2008. Until LCMS is implemented, the following information about this measure should be noted. Currently, 

cases worked on by more than one component are included in the totals from CRM, CRT, ENRD, and 

EOUSA. Also, the court’s disposition date is used for reporting purposes for ATR, CIV, CRM, CRT, and 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-25 
ENRD; however, EOUSA and TAX use the date it is entered into their current case management system. 

Additionally, CIV counts at the party level; CRM, ENRD, and EOUSA count cases at the defendant level; 

CRT and TAX count Civil and Criminal cases. Lastly, ATR includes Criminal, Civil Merger, and Civil NonMerger; ENRD includes affirmative, defensive, criminal, and condemnation cases in their totals. Once LCMS 

is fully implemented, all components will be using the same procedures for reporting. 

Data Validation and Verification: Each component implements their individual methodology for verifying 

data; however, in general, case listings and reports are reviewed by attorney managers for data completeness 

and accuracy on a routine basis. Batch data analysis and ad hoc reviews are also conducted. 

Data Limitations: Data quality suffers from the lack of a single DOJ case management system and a 

standardized methodology for capturing case related data. Due to the inherent variances in data collection and 

management, cases may refer to cases or individuals. In addition, due to reporting lags, case closures for any 

given year may be under or over-reported. To remedy these issues, the Department is developing a LCMS to 

standardize methodologies between the components and capture and store data in a single database. Further, 

Criminal Division data for FYs 1999 through 2002 are estimates. Actual data are not available due to 

technical and policy improvements that were not implemented until FY 2003. Lastly, EOUSA data does not 

include information for the month of September 2005 for the Eastern District of Louisiana due to Hurricane 

Katrina. 

II-26 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
                           

             

                             

         

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Return 58% of assets/funds to creditors in Chapter 7 cases

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Return 85% of assets/funds to creditors in Chapter 13 cases

FY 2008 Progress: Although the Department missed its Chapter 13 target, the Department is on

track to achieve both long‐term goals.

Background/Program Objectives: The U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) was established nationwide (except in 

North Carolina and Alabama) in 1986 to separate the administrative functions from the judicial responsibilities 

of the bankruptcy courts and to bring accountability to the bankruptcy system. The USTP acts as the 

“watchdog” of the bankruptcy system and ensures that parties comply with the law and that bankruptcy estate 

assets are properly handled. The USTP appoints Trustees who serve as fiduciaries for bankruptcy estates and 

administer cases filed under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. The U.S. Trustee regulates and monitors the activities 

of these private trustees and ensures their compliance with fiduciary standards. To promote the effectiveness 

of the bankruptcy system and maximize the return to creditors, the Department targets and reports the percent 

of assets/funds returned to creditors. 

Performance Measure: Percent of Assets/Funds Returned to Creditors for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 

FY 2008 Target: Chapter 7: 58% 

Chapter 13: 86% 

FY 2008 Actual: Chapter 7: 60% 

Chapter 13: 84% 

FY 2009 Target: Chapter 7: 58% 

Chapter 13: 86 % 

FY 2009 Actual: Data will not be available until FY 2010 because of the need to audit data submitted 

by private trustees prior to reporting. 

Discussion of FY 2008 Results: The USTP utilizes a comprehensive process that ensures that cases filed each 

year are effectively and efficiently moved through the bankruptcy system. This includes following up on 

deficiencies, monitoring case age and ensuring that old cases are closed promptly, ensuring that assets are 

identified and distributed in a timely manner and that action is initiated quickly when private trustees fail to 

comply with their obligations. In FY 2009, the USTP’s civil enforcement efforts resulted in almost 

$1.1 billion in potential additional returns to creditors. 

The USTP’s goal is to return to creditors the maximum amount possible, recognizing that certain legitimate 

expenses must be paid, and that returning 100 percent of assets will never be possible. Funds not distributed 

may include private trustee compensation, professional fees and costs associated with administering the 

bankruptcy case. These costs directly impact the amount of assets that are available to be returned. 

The USTP periodically reviews and reevaluates its performance targets and the Program’s efforts toward 

reaching them. Beginning in FY 2008, the percentage of assets returned to creditors for Chapter 13 

bankruptcy filings was increased to 86% to reflect a more aggressive target. The actual percentage of funds 

returned during FY 2008 was 84%. A detailed analysis revealed that the lower percentage of assets returned is 

primarily due to a decrease in total disbursements while administrative costs and debtor attorney fees increased 

as a percentage of total disbursements. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-27 
0% 

25% 

50% 

75% 

100%

 Percent of Assets/Funds 

Returned to Creditors for 

Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 

Chapter 7 Chapter 13 

Chapter 7 56% 57% 59% 57% 57% 58% 59% 63% 61% 58% 60% 58% TBD 

Chapter 13 87% 86% 86% 86% 85% 86% 86% 87% 86% 86% 84% 86% TBD 

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 

Tgt. 

FY08 

Act. 

FY09 

Tgt. 

FY09 

Act. 

Data Definition: Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings are those where assets that are not exempt from creditors 

are collected and liquidated (reduced to money). Chapter 7 percentages are calculated by dividing the 

disbursements to secured creditors, priority creditors, and unsecured creditors by the total disbursements for 

the fiscal year. In Chapter 13 cases, debtors repay all or a portion of their debts over a three to five year 

period. Chapter 13 percentages are based on the Chapter 13 audited annual reports by dividing the 

disbursements to creditors by the total Chapter 13 disbursements. 

Data Collection and Storage: The data are collected on an annual or semi-annual basis. For Chapter 7 cases, 

the USTP receives trustee distributions reports as part of the Final Account on each Chapter 7 case closed 

during the year. The Chapter 7 data are aggregated on a nationwide basis and reported twice a year in January 

and July. Chapter 13 data are gathered from the standing Chapter 13 trustees’ annual reports on a fiscal year 

basis. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data on these annual reports are self-reported by the trustees. However, 

each trustee must sign the reports certifying their accuracy. In Chapter 7 cases, independent auditors 

periodically review the annual reports, in addition to the USTP’s on-site field examinations. Additionally, 

USTP Field Office staff review the trustee distribution reports. The Field Office and Executive Office staff 

performs spot checks on the audited reports to ensure that the coding for the distributions is accurate. They 

also verify whether there have been any duplicate payments. Finally, the USTP conducts biannual 

performance reviews for all Chapter 7 trustees. In Chapter 13 cases, independent auditors must audit each 

report. This indirectly provides an incentive for trustees to accurately report data. In addition, the Executive 

Office staff reviews the combined distribution spreadsheet to ensure that the amounts stated coincide with 

what is reported in the audit reports. 

Data Limitations: Out-year performance cannot be accurately projected, as the USTP has no reliable method 

of calculating the disbursements of future bankruptcy cases. Additionally, data are not available until January 

(Chapter 7) and April (Chapter 13) following the close of the fiscal year because of the need to audit data 

submitted by private trustees prior to reporting. 

II-28 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
 

 

 

                                 

                     

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Reduce homicides at Weed and Seed Program sites from 4.4 (CY 2005) to

a maximum of 4.0 per Weed and Seed site by 2012

FY 2008 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: The Office of Justice Programs’ Community Capacity Development Office 

(CCDO) administers the Weed and Seed program. The Weed and Seed program strategy is to assist communities 

in establishing strategies that link federal, state, and local law enforcement and criminal justice efforts with 

private sector and community efforts. It assists communities in “weeding out” violent crime, gang activity, drug 

use, and drug trafficking in targeted neighborhoods and then “seeding” the targeted areas with programs that lead 

to social and economic rehabilitation and revitalization. In addition to the weeding and seeding aspects of the 

strategy, the Weed and Seed sites engage in community policing activities that foster proactive police-community 

engagement and problem solving. 

Performance Measure: Reduction in Number of Homicides per Site (funded under the Weed and Seed Program) 

CY 2008 Target: Reduction to 3.9 homicides per site 

CY 2008 Actual: Reduction to 3.5 homicides per site. 

CY 2009 Target: Reduction to 3.7 homicides per site 

CY 2009 Actual: Data for this measure are collected on a calendar year basis and will be available in 

September 2010. 

Discussion of Calendar Year (CY) 2008 Results: The target for CY 2008 was to reduce the average number of 

homicides per site to 3.9. In CY 2008 there was an average of 3.5 homicides per site, which is better than the target 

by 10.3 percent. The Weed and Seed program is successful because it develops a strategy tailored individually for 

each site to target all of the factors that affect a high crime area. The Weed and Seed program works to develop 

effective community/police cooperation to ensure that the resources and efforts of local police departments and 

community groups are used more effectively and efficiently. 

5.0 

3.7 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.5 

3.9 3.7 

0 

2 

4 

6 

CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09 

Number of Homicides 

per Site 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: Although sites may be affected by a range of criminal activities, such as drugs and 

vandalism, CCDO has selected homicide statistics as the indicator for the severity of a site’s crime problem. 

The number of homicides per site is an average calculated by summing the number of homicides reported for 

all of the sites and dividing by the number of sites reporting. 

Data Collection and Storage: Weed and Seed grantees report performance measure data on an annual basis 

via OJP’s Grants Management System (GMS). 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-29 
Data Validation and Verification: CCDO validates and verifies performance measure data through site 

visits and follow-up phone calls conducted by the Justice Research and Statistics Association and CCDO’s 

FBI Fellows. Additionally, homicide statistics reported by jurisdictions are verified against the Uniform 

Crime Report published annually by the FBI. 

Data Limitations: Data for this performance measure are only reported by calendar year because the same 

data are reported to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports each calendar year. The data are also not comparable 

across years because dissimilar sites are added and graduated each year and, due to the small number of sites 

overall, these changes can greatly affect performance data. 

II-30 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
 

 

 

                                

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Realize a 31% reduction in the Casework DNA backlog by FY 2012.

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: The DNA Backlog Reduction program, which is administered by the National 

Institute of Justice (NIJ), exists to increase the capacity of the nation’s public DNA laboratories and to reduce the 

number of backlogged casework DNA samples awaiting analysis and entry into the Combined DNA Index System 

(CODIS). CODIS is used to solve past crimes and prevent new crimes from occurring. Reducing the growth of the 

DNA sample backlog is crucial to the program’s success. In the past, funds awarded for analysis of backlogged 

forensic casework DNA samples were only available for the analysis of violent offense samples (i.e., murder/nonnegligent manslaughter and forcible rape); however, for FY 2008 and FY 2009, funds can be used for any criminal 

DNA case. 

Performance Measure: Percent Reduction in DNA Backlog 

FY 2009 Target: Casework: 26% 

FY 2009 Actual: Casework: 32.5% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: In FY 2009, NIJ reduced the DNA backlog by 32.5 percent, which exceeded its 

target of 26 percent. The target was exceeded due to a $14 million increase in funding for the program and a 

higher number of requests for casework assistance, compared with previous years. Additionally, accurate targets 

are difficult to set due to the uncertainty of program funding amounts during target setting. 

11% 

21% 

34% 37% 

45% 

32.5% 

26% 

0% 

17% 

35% 

52% 

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Percent Reduction in DNA Backlog 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: The objective of the DNA Backlog Reduction program is to accelerate the analysis of 

backlogged DNA casework samples in order to provide CODIS-compatible data for state and national DNA 

databases, so that law enforcement is provided with critical investigative information in a timely manner. The 

NIJ computes this measure by calculating the cumulative number of backlogged DNA cases federally-funded 

for analysis (31,525) and dividing it by the total number of backlogged DNA cases (97,102). 

Data Collection and Storage: Data for this measure are collected by the program manager and are 

maintained in office files. 

Data Validation and Verification: The number of cases funded for analysis in FY 2009 is computed from 

applications submitted by grantees to the FY 2009 DNA Backlog Reduction Program. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-31 
 

 

                                 

                             

                       

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Continue to ensure a 75% or greater recovery rate in the number of

children recovered within 72 hours of the issuance of an AMBER alert through FY 2012

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Background/Program Objectives: It is critical to post and resolve AMBER Alerts as soon as possible because 

research shows that abductors who murder children are most likely to do so within four hours following the 

abduction. OJP’s AMBER Alert Program, which is administered by the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency (OJJDP), supports training and technical assistance for state and regional AMBER Alert teams to 

encourage them to use the best practices. At the end of 2001, there were only four statewide AMBER Alert 

plans; now all 50 states and twelve Indian tribes have plans in place. The AMBER Alert program’s strategy 

focuses on: (1) strengthening the existing AMBER Alert system; (2) expanding the scope of the AMBER Alert 

program; and (3) enhancing communication and coordination. 

Performance Measure: Percent of Children Recovered within 72 Hours of an Issuance of an AMBER Alert 

FY 2009 Target: 75% 

FY 2009 Actual: 81.7% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The total recovery rate within 72 hours of the issuance of an AMBER Alert was 

81.7 percent for FY 2009. This result exceeds the target of 75 percent by 6.7 percent. This is attributable to 

better coordination and training; increased public awareness of the AMBER program; technological advances; 

and greater cooperation among law enforcement, transportation officials, and broadcasters. Additionally, in 

FY 2009, the AMBER Alert Program completed a number of activities. The following are actual results for the 

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC)-tracked accomplishments: 

o Number of participants provided AMBER Alert training: 2,002 

o Number of requestors provided technical assistance: 3,500 

85.3% 81.9% 81.7% 75% 

50.0% 

100.0% 

FY07 FY08 FY09 

Percent of Children Recovered within 72 Hours of an Issuance of an AMBER 

Alert 

Actual Target 

Data Definition: Recovery rate is determined by comparing the total number of AMBER Alerts cancelled 

within 72 hours of issuance because the subject child/children are recovered divided by the total number of 

children involved in AMBER Alerts issued multiplied by 100. The result is expressed as a percentage. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected by the NCMEC from law enforcement and the National 

Crime Information Center database. This database stores the child’s name and other critical data elements. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data for this measure are validated and verified through a review of 

progress reports submitted by grantees, telephone contact, and monitoring. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

II-32 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-33

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient 

Administration of Justice

38% of the Department’s Net Costs support this Goal. 

An integral role of the Department of Justice is to help in the administration of our federal justice system. To 

ensure the goal of the fair and efficient operation of our federal system, the Department must provide for a 

proper federal court proceeding by protecting judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings; 

ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement; and ensure the 

apprehension of fugitives from justice. The Department also provides safe, secure, and humane confinement 

of defendants awaiting trial or sentencing and those convicted and sentenced to prison. In order to improve 

our society and reduce the burden on our justice system, the Department provides services and programs to 

facilitate inmates’ successful reintegration into society, consistent with community expectations and standards. 

The Department strives to adjudicate all immigration cases promptly and impartially in accordance with due 

process. Additionally, the Department works to promote and strengthen innovative strategies in the 

administration of state and local justice systems and uphold the rights and improve services to victims of 

crime. 

Background/Program Objectives: Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program formula grant funds 

are used to implement four types of programs: 1) residential substance abuse treatment programs that provide 

individual and group treatment activities for offenders in residential facilities operated by state correctional agencies; 

2) jail-based substance abuse programs that provide individual and group treatment activities for offenders in jails 

and local correctional facilities; 3) post-release treatment components that provide treatment following inmates’ 

release from custody; and 4) aftercare components that require states to give preference to subgrant applicants that 

provide aftercare services to program participants. For all programs, at least 10 percent of the total state allocation is 

made available to local correctional and detention facilities for either residential substance abuse treatment programs 

or jail-based substance abuse treatment programs. 

Performance Measure: Number of Participants in RSAT 

2008 Target: 20,000 

2008 Actual: 28,308 

2009 Target: 20,000 

2009 Actual: Data for this measure is collected on a calendar year basis and will be available in 

September 2010 

Discussion of 2008 Results: There were 28,308 participants in the RSAT program for CY 2008, exceeding the 

target by 42 percent. There are many contributing factors that determine the amount of people who complete the 

RSAT program, including eligible offenders, available staff and treatment providers, security issues, and the state’s 

ability to provide the required 25 percent matching funds. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: 11,200 offenders remain arrest free 1 year following release

from aftercare (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2008 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

Note: FY 2012 Outcome Goal was revised to agree with the long‐term goal negotiated between

OMB and the Department.  In FY 2010, the Department  will publish a new Strategic Plan (2010‐

2015) which will include a new set of outcome goals and performance measures.  This goal and

the following performance measure will be replaced.

III 
II-34 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definitions: The number of RSAT Program participants is the count of program participants during the 

reporting period. The number of participants is collected from grantees. 

Data Collection and Storage: Program managers obtain data from reports submitted by grantees, telephone 

contacts, and on-site monitoring of grantee performance. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data are validated and verified through program managers’ desk reviews 

of grantee support documentation and on-site grant monitoring. 

Data Limitations: RSAT data are collected and reported by the grantee’s fiscal year, which differs between 

grantees (i.e., some grantees use the calendar year, some use the state fiscal year end date of June 30, and some 

use the federal fiscal year with an end date of September 30). Data is reported for a single consecutive 

12-month period. 

 

8,673 10,279 10,546

38,639

25,521

33,239 31,740

27,756 26,991 28,308

20,000 20,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Number of Participants in RSAT

Actual Target
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-35

Background/Program Objectives: OJP’s Drug Court Program is administered by the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The Drug Court 

Program was established in 1995 to provide financial and technical assistance to states, state courts, local 

courts, units of local government, and tribal governments in order to establish drug treatment courts. Drug 

courts employ an integrated mix of treatment, drug testing, incentives, and sanctions to break the cycle of 

substance abuse and crime. Since 1989, more than 1,000 jurisdictions have established or are planning to 

establish a drug court. Currently, every state either has a drug court or is planning a drug court. 

 

The need for drug treatment services is tremendous and OJP has a long history of providing resources to break 

the cycle of drugs and violence by reducing the demand, use, and trafficking of illegal drugs. Twenty-seven 

percent of the 6.1 million people who reported to the 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey that they had 

been a victim of violence believed that the perpetrator was using drugs, or drugs in combination with alcohol. 

Further, 54 percent of jail inmates were abusing or dependent on drugs, according to Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails. Correspondingly, 53 percent of state inmates, and 45 

percent of federal inmates abused or were dependent on drugs in the year before their admission to prison, 

according to the BJS 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. 

 

Performance Measure: Graduation Rate of Program Participants in the Drug Courts Program (Adult drug 

court participants only) (see Data Limitations) 

 2009 Target: 69.0% 

2009 Actual: 57.3% 

Discussion of 2009 Results: In FY 2009, only 79 percent of Drug Court grantees reported performance 

measure data while 21 percent did not. OJP is collecting the outstanding data from grantees that have not 

reported data, including graduation data. This process has been slowed due to efforts associated with the 

awarding of Recovery Act grants. OJP anticipates collecting all outstanding performance measure data from 

grantees by the end of first quarter FY 2010 and that those data will increase the percent of drug court 

graduates. 

Data Definitions: The graduation rate is calculated by dividing the number of graduates during the reporting 

period (numerator) by the total number of drug court participants that exit the drug court program during the 

reporting period due to graduating or failing to graduate as a result of noncompliance with program 

requirements (denominator). 

65.0% 63.2% 57.3%

69.0%

0%

70%

FY07 FY08 FY09

Graduation Rate of Program Participants in the Drug Courts Program

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal:  Increase the graduation rate of drug court participants from 21% (FY2005)

to 32% by FY 2012

2009 Progress: Although the Department missed its FY 2009 target, the Department is on track to

achieve this long‐term goal.
II-36 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Collection and Storage: Program managers obtain data from reports submitted by grantees, telephone 

contact, and on-site monitoring of grantee performance. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data are validated and verified through program managers’ desk reviews 

of grantee support documentation and on-site grant monitoring. 

Data Limitations: Graduation rates are not reported for years prior to FY 2007 because the formula for 

calculating the rate was changed that year to make it more accurate. Graduation rates from 2007 forward are 

calculated by dividing the number of drug court participants that graduate during the reporting period by the 

total number of drug court participants that exit the drug court program during the reporting period due to 

graduating or failing to graduate as a result of noncompliance with program requirements. Prior to FY 2007, 

the formula divided the number of graduates by the total number of drug court participants, regardless of 

eligibility for graduation and continued program participation and compliance; which resulted in lower 

graduation rates. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-37

Background/Program Objectives: The U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) maintains the integrity of the federal 

judicial process by: 1) ensuring that each federal judicial facility is physically safe and free from any intrusion 

intended to subvert court proceedings; 2) guaranteeing that all federal judges, prosecutors, government 

witnesses, jurors, and other participants are secure during court proceedings; and 3) maintaining the custody, 

protection and safety of prisoners brought to court for any type of criminal court proceeding. 

Performance Measure: Number of Judicial Proceedings Interrupted Due to Inadequate Security 

FY 2009 Target: 0 

FY 2009 Actual: 1

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The USMS did not meet its FY 2009 target of zero interrupted judicial 

proceedings due to inadequate security. During the first quarter, one incident occurred causing the judge to 

suspend proceedings while the USMS personnel secured the courtroom. At no time during the incident was 

the judge or the public in danger. 

The USMS is relying on the additional positions requested within its FY 2010 appropriation to increase 

staffing across operational and administrative areas and meet performance targets. 

Data Definition: An “interruption” occurs when a judge is removed as a result of a potentially dangerous 

incident and/or where proceedings are suspended until the USMS calls on additional deputies to guarantee the 

safety of the judge, witness, and other participants.

Data Collection and Storage: The USMS uses Weekly Activity Reports and Incident Reports collected at 

Headquarters as the data source. 

Data Validation and Verification: Before data are disseminated via reports, they are checked and verified by 

the program managers. These reports are collected manually. 

Data Limitations: This measure was not tracked or reported until FY 2003. 

1

0 0 0

2

1 1

0

0

1

2

3

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Number of Judicial Proceedings Interrupted Due to Inadequate Security

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Ensure that no judicial proceedings are interrupted due to inadequate

security

FY 2009 Progress: The Department missed its target due to one minor disruption to a court

proceeding.  Because the long‐term goal is to ensure that no judicial proceedings are interrupted,

there is no room for error.  However, the Department remains committed to ensuring that no

proceedings are interrupted in the future.
II-38 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The USMS has maintained its own "15 Most Wanted" fugitives list since 

1983. Additionally, the USMS sponsors interagency fugitive task forces throughout the United States, 

focusing its investigative efforts on fugitives wanted for crimes of violence and drug trafficking. 

On the international front, the USMS has become the primary American agency responsible for extraditing 

fugitives wanted in the United States from foreign countries. The USMS also apprehends fugitives within the 

United States who are wanted abroad. 

The USMS is responsible for assisting other law enforcement agencies with the location and apprehension of 

non-compliant sex offenders, as well as investigating and charging for violations of the Adam Walsh Child 

Protection and Safety Act of 2006. A non-compliant sex offender is a sex offender who has failed to comply 

with his or her sex offender registration requirements. 

The USMS provides investigative support such as telephone monitoring, electronic tracking, audio-video 

recording, and analytical expertise. The USMS maintains its own central law enforcement computer system, 

the Warrant Information Network (WIN), which is instrumental in maintaining its criminal investigative 

operations nationwide. 

The USMS is able to enhance fugitive investigative efforts through data exchanges with other agencies, such 

as the Social Security Administration, the DEA, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, 

the Department of State, and a variety of state and local task forces around the country. 

Performance Measure: Number and Percent of Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended

FY 2009 Target: 33,000 or 55% 

FY 2009 Actual: 31,119 or 49% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The USMS did not achieve its target of 33,000 primary Federal felony 

fugitives apprehended or cleared. The USMS was unable to meet its total fugitives and percent cleared targets 

due to: a shift of investigative full time equivalents to violent fugitive apprehension; a reduction in 

misdemeanor cases received; and increased state and local fugitive apprehension efforts. 

The USMS apprehended or cleared 31,119 primary federal felony fugitives in FY 2009. This resulted in 49 

percent of total primary federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared which is almost half of all warrants on 

hand or received during FY 2009. Among those arrested, 3,658 were for crimes of homicide, 3,871 were gang 

members, and 10,019 were sex offenders. In addition, the USMS extradited or deported 874 fugitives in 

FY 2009. 

While the USMS did not reach its 2009 Federal fugitive performance target, it has continued to increase the 

overall number of fugitives, including state and local, brought to justice. The seven operating Regional 

Fugitive Task Forces, in addition to the 75 district task forces, are directing their investigative efforts toward 

reducing the number of violent crimes. These crimes include terrorist activities, organized crime, drugs, and 

gang violence. The Regional Fugitive Task Forces and District Fugitive Task Forces combined led to the 

arrest of 90,806 state and local fugitive felons in FY 2009. In addition, through the coordination of federal, 

state, and local law enforcement agencies (led by the USMS) through Operation FALCON (Federal and Local 

Cops Organized Nationally) 35,190 arrests were made, nationwide and internationally. The USMS initiated 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Apprehend or clear 56% or 33,192 primary fugitives

FY 2009 Progress: The Department did not achieve its goal due to a shift of investigative full time

equivalents to violent fugitive apprehension, a reduction in misdemeanor cases received, and

increased state and local apprehension efforts.  USMS is relying on the requested program

increases in the FY 2010 budget to meet future performance targets.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-39

1,545 federal investigations into the failure of sex offenders to meet their registration requirements. In 

addition, in FY 2009, the USMS and the DOJ sponsored Operation Big Easy, an intensive 10-week fugitive 

sweep aimed at cleaning up the streets of New Orleans. Operation Big Easy was a partnership with six state 

and local law enforcement agencies in the New Orleans metro area, which resulted in the arrest of 432 

fugitives and the closure of 650 warrants. 

The USMS is relying on the additional positions requested within its FY 2010 appropriation to increase 

staffing across operational and administrative areas and meet performance targets. 

Data Definition: A primary federal felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS has primary 

apprehension responsibility. The USMS has primary jurisdiction to conduct and investigate fugitive matters 

involving escaped federal prisoners; probation, parole, bond default violators; warrants generated by the DEA 

referred for USMS investigation; warrants referred by other federal law enforcement agencies; warrants 

referred by state and local agencies through USMS led district and regional fugitive task forces; and certain 

other related felony cases. A fugitive is considered cleared or apprehended if the fugitive is arrested, has a 

detainer issued, or the warrant is dismissed. The percent cleared is calculated by dividing the number of 

Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended 

 

53% 50% 49%53% 54% 55% 55% 54% 55% 55%

49%

55%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Percent of Total Primary Fugitives

Actual Target

Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended 

 

19,879 20,490 21,522 25,054 27,278 29,140 30,434 30,192

33,437 34,393

31,119

33,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Number of Fugitives

Actual Target
II-40 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

cleared fugitives by the sum of received fugitives (fugitives who had a warrant issued during the fiscal year) 

and on-hand fugitives (fugitives who had an active warrant at the beginning of the fiscal year). 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are maintained in the WIN. WIN data are entered by Deputy U.S. 

Marshals (DUSMs). Upon receiving a warrant, DUSMs access the National Crime Information Center 

(NCIC) through WIN to look for previous criminal information. WIN data are stored centrally at USMS 

headquarters, are accessible to all 94 districts, and are updated as new information is collected. 

Data Validation and Verification: Warrant and fugitive data are verified by a random sampling of NCIC 

records generated by the FBI. The USMS coordinates with district offices to verify that warrants are validated 

against the signed paper records. The USMS then forwards the validated records back to NCIC. 

Data Limitations: These data are accessible to all 94 districts and are updated as new information is 

collected. There may be a lag in the reporting of data. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-41

Background/Program Objectives: The mandate of the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) is to 

manage resource allocations, exercise financial supervision of detention operations, and set government-wide 

detention policy. OFDT has overall management and responsibility for federal detention services relating to the 

detention of federal prisoners in the custodial jurisdiction of the USMS. 

Costs begin at the time a prisoner is brought into USMS custody and extend through termination of the criminal 

proceeding and/or commitment to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Detention bed space for federal detainees is 

acquired as effectively and efficiently as possible through: (1) federal detention facilities, where the government 

pays for construction and operation of the facility through the BOP; (2) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) 

with State and local jurisdictions who have excess prison/jail bed capacity and where a daily rate is paid for the 

use of the bed; and, (3) private jail facilities where a daily rate is paid. 

In recent years, DOJ has not been able to rely as much on IGAs and federal facilities to meet the surge in the 

detention population as State and local governments are increasingly using their facilities for their own detention 

requirements. With space unavailable in areas where more federal bed-space is needed, DOJ has increasingly 

turned to the private sector. 

Ensuring safe, secure, and humane confinement for federal detainees is critically important. To address the 

variance between federal; State and local government; and privately owned and managed facilities, the federal 

Performance-Based Detention Standards were developed. To ensure compliance, federal contract vehicles are 

written or modified to reflect federal Performance-Based Detention Standards with private contractor 

performance compensation based on their ability to demonstrate compliance. The comprehensive Quality 

Assurance Review Program provides various methodologies for assessing a facility’s operations to ensure that 

the safe, secure, and humane confinement criteria are met, as well as addressing Congress’ concerns for public 

safety as it relates to violent prisoners (e.g., Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act, also known as 

Jenna’s Act). 

Performance Measure: Per Day Jail Costs 

FY 2009 Target: $68.73

FY 2009 Actual: $69.01

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The actual Per Day Jail Costs for FY 2009 exceeded the target by less than 

half a percent. This was due to slightly higher per diem rates than originally projected. Adjustments to the 

FY 2010 projections have been made accordingly. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Hold the average per day jail cost for federal detention at or

below inflation.

FY 2009 Progress: The Department narrowly missed its goal in FY 2009 due to slightly higher per

diem rates than originally projected.  Adjustments to the FY 2010 projections have been made

accordingly.
II-42 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definition: Per Day Jail Cost is actual price paid (over a 12-month period) by the USMS to house 

federal prisoners in non-federal detention facilities. Average price paid is weighted by actual day usage at 

individual detention facilities. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data describing the actual price charged by State, local, and private detention 

facility operators is maintained by the USMS in their Prisoner Tracking System (PTS) and it is updated on an asneeded, case-by-case basis when rate changes are implemented. Rate information for specific facilities is 

maintained by USMS headquarters staff. For those private facilities where OFDT has a direct contract for bed 

space, the effective per diem is calculated using information obtained from OFDT’s Procurement Division. In 

conjunction with daily reports to OFDT of prisoners housed, OFDT compiles reports describing the price paid 

for non-federal detention space on a weekly and monthly basis. Data are reported on both district and national 

levels. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data reported to OFDT are validated and verified against monthly reports 

describing district-level jail utilization and housing costs prepared by the USMS. For direct contracts, contract 

terms are verified by OFDT Procurement staff. 

Data Limitations: The only limitation is ensuring that USMS district level input into PTS occurs in a timely 

and correct manner. 

 

$55.90 $56.53 $59.01 $60.07 $60.87 $61.87 $61.92 $62.73 $64.40 $67.47 $69.01 $68.73

$0.00

$25.00

$50.00

$75.00

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Per Day Jail Costs 

Actual Target
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-43

Background/Program Objectives: The BOP constantly monitors facility capacity, population growth, and 

prisoner crowding. As federal inmate population levels are projected to increase and continue to exceed the 

rated capacity of the BOP, every possible action is being taken to protect the community, while keeping 

institutional crowding at manageable proportions to ensure that federal inmates continue to serve their 

sentences in a safe and humane environment. 

Performance Measure: System-wide Crowding in Federal Prisons 

FY 2009 Target: 37% 

FY 2009 Actual: 37% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: During FY 2009, the total BOP inmate population increased by 7,091. 

Capacity was added as a result of the activation of two new housing units (Federal Correctional Institution 

(FCI) Safford, AZ and FCI Otisville, NY) and one new institution (FCI Pollock, LA). By using available 

contract beds, expanding existing institutions, and adding new capacity, BOP institution crowding remained on 

target for FY 2009. 

 

Data Definitions: The crowding levels are based on a mathematical ratio of the number of inmates divided 

by the rated capacity of the institutions at each of the specific security levels. The percent of crowding 

represents the rate of crowding that is over rated capacity. For example, if an institution had a number of 

inmates that equaled the rated capacity, this would represent 100% occupancy, which equals 0% crowding. 

Any occupancy above 100% represents a percentage of crowding. System-wide: represents all inmates in 

BOP facilities and all rated capacity, including secure and non-secure facilities, low, medium, and high 

security levels, as well as administrative maximum, detention, medical, holdover, and other special housing 

unit categories. Minimum security facilities: non-secure facilities that generally house non-violent, low risk 

offenders with shorter sentences. These facilities have limited or no perimeter security fences or armed posts. 

Low security facilities: double-fenced perimeters, mostly dormitory housing, and strong work/program 

components. Medium security facilities: strengthened perimeters, mostly cell-type housing, work and 

treatment programs and a higher staff-to-inmate ratio than low security facilities. High security facilities: also 

known as U.S. Penitentiaries, highly secure perimeters, multiple and single cell housing, highest staff-toinmate ratio, close control of inmate movement.

31% 32% 32% 33%

39% 41%

34% 36% 37% 36% 37% 37%

0%

25%

50%

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

System-wide Crowding in Federal Prisons 

Actual Target

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Reduce system‐wide crowding in federal prisons to 28% by 2012.

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-44 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are gathered from several computer systems. Inmate data are collected 

on the BOP on-line system (SENTRY). The BOP also utilizes a population forecast model to plan for future 

contracting and construction requirements to meet capacity needs. 

Data Validation and Verification: Subject matter experts review and analyze population and capacity levels 

daily, both overall and by security level. BOP institutions print a SENTRY report, which provides the count 

of inmates within every institution cell house. The report further subdivides the cell houses into counting 

groups, based on the layout of the institution. Using this report, institution staff conducts an official inmate 

count five times per day to confirm the inmate count within SENTRY. The BOP Capacity Planning 

Committee (CPC), comprised of top BOP officials, meets bi-monthly to review, verify, and update population 

projections and capacity needs for the BOP. Offender data are collected regularly from the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts by the BOP Office of Research and Evaluation in order to project population trends. 

The CPC reconciles bed space needs and crowding trends to ensure that adequate prison space is maintained, 

both in federal prisons and in contract care. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-45

Background/Program Objectives: The BOP significantly reduces the possibility of escape with long-term 

emphasis on security enhancements, physical plant improvements, enhanced training, and increased emphasis 

on staff supervision of inmates. In the event an escape does occur, the BOP will initiate immediate 

apprehension activities (escape posts, etc.) within the community, until the outside agency having jurisdiction 

assumes investigative and apprehension responsibilities.

Performance Measure: Escapes from Secure BOP Facilities 

FY 2009 Target: 0 

FY 2009 Actual: 0

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: During FY 2009, the BOP had no escapes from secure BOP facilities.

Data Definitions: All BOP institutions are assigned a security classification level based in part on the 

physical design of each facility. There are four security levels: minimum; low; medium; and high. 

Additionally, there is an administrative category for institutions that house a variety of specialized populations 

such as pre-trial, medical, mental health, sex offenders, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees. Low, medium, and high security levels and 

administrative institutions are defined as “secure,” based on increased security features and type of offenders 

designated. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data for this measure are taken from the Significant Incident Reports 

(recorded on BOP form 583) submitted by the institution where the incident occurred. The form is submitted 

to the BOP's Central Office where it is recorded in a log. Copies of the report are also sent to the respective 

regional office where the information is reviewed. The information from the log is transferred to, and 

maintained by, the Office of Research and Evaluation, which analyzes the data and makes it available through 

the Key Indicators Management Information System. 

Data Validation and Verification: The most senior managers in the agency conduct annual reviews of 

institution performance including escapes. Additionally, during Program Reviews (which are conducted at 

least every three years), annual operational reviews, and Institution Character Profiles (which are conducted 

every three years), reviews of escapes (including attempts) are conducted, along with other inmate misconduct.

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

1

0

4

0 0

2

0

1

0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Escapes from Secure BOP Facilities

Actual Target

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Ensure that there will be no escapes from secure Bureau of

Prison facilities

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-46 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: An objective of FPI is to reduce recidivism by providing job training and 

helping inmates develop a basic work ethic and marketable skills, thereby allowing them to become productive 

law-abiding citizens. The finding of the initial performance measurement in FY 2005 was consistent with an 

earlier well designed evaluation of the effects of the prison industries experience. Both evaluations found that 

inmates who had participated in FPI were less likely to recidivate after release from prison than similarly 

situated non-participants. This replication will assess group differences 3 years and 6 years after release for 

recidivism defined as return to federal prison for a new offense. The targets for inmates released in FY 2003-

2006 are: Inmates who participate in FPI will remain 15% less likely to recidivate at 3 years, and 10% less 

likely to recidivate at 6 years, after release from a secure facility, compared to similarly situated inmates who 

did not participate. 

Performance Measure: Comparative Recidivism for FPI Inmates vs. Non-FPI Inmates (Percentage less likely 

to recidivate) 

FY 2009 Target: 3 years; 15% 

6 years; 10% 

FY 2009 Actual: 3 years; 22% 

6 years; 12% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: FPI exceeded the FY 2009 targets of 15% less likely to recidivate at 3 years 

and 10% less likely to recidivate at 6 years with actual results of 22% and 12% respectively. In one important 

aspect, the analysis performed in FY 2009 differs from that of the one performed in FY 2008. In FY 2009 

recidivism rates were analyzed for inmates who had been released for up to 3 years whereas in the past the 

analysis included inmates who had been released for more than 3 years but less than 4 years. The 2009 

methodology allows for a more comprehensive assessment of the program effects. One effect, however, of 

analyzing this larger group is a diminished relative reduction in recidivism. This lesser relative reduction does 

not reflect a decline in program effectiveness; rather, it results from the inclusion of many inmates with low 

rates of recidivism (due to their short time in the community following release). A comparison between two 

groups of offenders with low rates of recidivism will necessarily yield a small relative reduction. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

 Comparitive Recidivism for FPI vs. Non-FPI Inmates 

(Percentage Less Likely to Recidivate)

3 Years Post Release 23% 39% 34% 15% 22%

6 Years Post Release 10% 23% 42% 10% 12%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 Tgt. FY09 Act.

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Comparative recidivism rates for Federal Prison Industry (FPI)

inmates: 15% 3 years following release, and 10% 6 years following release

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-47

Data Definition: Recidivism means a tendency to relapse into a previous mode of behavior, such as criminal 

activity resulting in arrest and incarceration. The definition of recidivism employed for this performance 

measure is return to BOP custody due to conviction for a new offense. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are gathered from the BOP's operational computer system (SENTRY), 

and is analyzed by the BOP's Office of Research and Evaluation. 

Data Validation and Verification: The data from the BOP SENTRY system is subject to verification and 

validation on a nearly daily basis; field staff modifies offenders' status on an on-going basis and update the 

files as appropriate. The BOP data undergoes a number of quality control procedures ensuring its accuracy. 

Data Limitations: Although non-citizens make up a large minority of the BOP population, they are excluded 

from analyses because many of them are deported following release from prison, and it is not known if they 

recidivate. Projected targets are based on an earlier study of recidivism by FPI participating inmates and their 

similarly situated non-participating counterparts. The results of this ongoing research may differ from earlier 

findings due to changes in the program, improved research methods, changes in the composition of the inmate 

population, and changes in the quality and comprehensiveness of data. 
II-48 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: Every reasonable precaution is taken to ensure that inmates are provided 

with a safe and secure environment in facilities according to their needs. While it is the objective of the DOJ 

and BOP to eliminate all assaults, the target reflects projections based on historical data and observed trends. 

This data represents the rate of adjudicated, serious assaults on inmates over a twelve-month period, per 5,000 

inmates. Due to the time required to adjudicate allegations of assault, there is a lag between the occurrence of 

the incident and reporting guilty findings. Accordingly, the figure reported represents guilty findings for 

incidents that occurred during the twelve month period ending the last month of the previous quarter. 

Performance Measure: Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons (per 5,000 Inmates) 

FY 2009 Target: 15 

FY 2009 Actual: 14

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: The FY 2009 target was met. The actual rate of serious assaults was 14 per 

5,000 inmates, lower than the target rate of 15 per 5,000 inmates for FY 2009. 

Data Definition: Reported assault rate is based on guilty findings of serious assaults. Serious assaults involve 

serious physical injury being atte mpted or carri ed out by an in mate. They include sexual assaults as well as 

armed assaults on the institution’s secure perimeter. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data is collected from the BOP’s operational computer system (SENTRY), 

specifically the Chronological Disciplinary Record (CDR) module, which records all disciplinary measures 

taken with respect to individual inmates. This data is maintained and stored in the BOP’s management 

information system (Key Indicators), which permits retrieval of data in an aggregated manner. The data 

represents guilty findings of serious assaults on inmates. 

Data Validation and Verification: The most senior managers in the agency conduct annual reviews of 

institution performance including assaults and other misconduct. Additionally, during Program Reviews 

(which are conducted at least every three years), annual operational reviews, and Institution Character Profiles 

(which are conducted every three years), reviews of assaults and other misconduct patterns are accomplished. 

13

15 14 15 14

10

13 14

12 12

14 15

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Rate of Serious Assaults in Federal Prisons 

 (per 5,000 Inmates)

Actual Target

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Limit the rate of serious assaults in federal prisons to 14 assaults

per 5,000 inmates

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-49

The SENTRY system is the BOP’s operational data system, whereas Key Indicators aggregates the Sentry data 

and provides an historical perspective. 

 

Data Limitations: The data represents the number of guilty findings for assaults over a twelve-month period 

per 5,000 inmates. Due to the time required to adjudicate allegations of assault, there is a lag between the 

occurrence of the assault and reporting of guilty findings. Due to accelerated reporting requirements (within 

15 days of quarter and fiscal year end) and to provide a more accurate assault rate, the BOP is using 12 months 

of completed/adjudicated CDR data for each quarter and end of fiscal year reporting, showing twelve-month 

periods ending the last month of the previous quarter. 

 
II-50 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The BOP has the highest regard for human rights and public safety. 

Therefore, it strives to maintain facilities that meet the accreditation standards of several professional 

organizations including the American Correctional Association (ACA). ACA auditors conduct on-site visits to 

BOP institutions during initial accreditation and re-accreditations. Institutions’ ACA accreditation must be 

renewed tri-annually. 

Performance Measure: Inspection Results—Percent of Federal Facilities with ACA Accreditations 

FY 2009 Target: 99% 

FY 2009 Actual: 99% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: One hundred thirteen of the BOP’s one hundred fourteen prisons eligible to 

participate in the reaccreditation program maintained their accreditation. FCI Lorretto, PA lost accreditation 

as a result of failing to meet the mandatory firearms standard. The BOP will seek to have this institution 

accredited again in FY 2010. 

Data Definitions: Initial ACA Accreditation is awarded when an institution demonstrates 100 percent 

compliance with mandatory ACA standards, and substantial compliance with nonmandatory ACA standards. 

The BOP’s policy requires all institutions to maintain ACA Accreditation. 

Data Collection and Storage: Once an audit is completed, an electronic report is received from ACA. These 

reports are maintained in GroupWise shared folders by institutions, and in WordPerfect files. 

Data Validation and Verification: On an annual basis, Program Review personnel develop a schedule for 

initial accreditation and re-accreditation of all eligible BOP facilities to ensure reviews are conducted on a 

regular and consistent basis. BOP policy requires institutions to initially be ACA accredited within two years 

of activation. Therefore, non-accredited institutions that have been activated for less than two years are 

excluded from calculations regarding this performance measure. 

 

Subject matter experts review report findings to verify accuracy and develop any necessary corrective 

measures. The ACA accreditation meeting minutes, identifying the institutions receiving accreditation and reaccreditation, are now on file and maintained by the BOP Accreditation Manager. 

80%

90% 95% 95% 90% 94% 99% 99% 100% 100% 99%99%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Inspection Results-Percent of Federal Facilities with ACA Accreditations 

Actual Target

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Achieve a 99% positive rate in inspection/accreditation results

for federal prison facilities (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2009 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report II-51

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

Background/Program Objectives: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) is an independent 

agency with jurisdiction over various immigration matters relating to the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS), aliens, and other parties. EOIR comprises three adjudicating components: the Board of Immigration 

Appeals (BIA), the Immigration Courts, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. EOIR’s 

mission is to be the best administrative tribunal possible, rendering timely, fair, and well-considered decisions 

in the cases brought before it. EOIR’s ability to achieve its mission is critical to the guarantee of justice and 

due process in immigration proceedings, and public confidence in the timeliness and quality of EOIR 

adjudications. Included in this context are the timely grants of relief from removal in meritorious cases, the 

expeditious removal of criminal and other inadmissible aliens, and the effective utilization of limited detention 

resources. To assure mission focus, EOIR has identified adjudication priorities and set specific time frames 

for most of its proceedings. These priorities include court cases involving criminal aliens, other detained 

aliens, and those seeking asylum as a form of relief from removal; and adjudicative time frames for all 

detained appeals filed with the BIA. These targets are related to percentages of cases actually completed.

Performance Measure: Percent of EOIR Priority Cases Completed Within Established Time Frames 

FY 2009 Target: 90% (all categories) 

FY 2009 Actual: 

Immigration Court Expedited Asylum Cases Completed Within 180 Days: 82% 

Immigration Court Institutional Hearing Program Cases Completed Prior 

to Release from Incarceration: 90% 

Immigration Court Detained Cases (Without Applications for Relief) Completed 

Within 30 Days: 88% 

Immigration Court Detained Appeals Completed Within 150 Days: 96% 

Discussion of FY 2009 Results: In FY 2009, EOIR met two of four targets. The Board was able to exceed 

its target through two techniques: strict time lines for each step within the adjudicatory process and effective 

management of human resources. The immigration courts were able to meet the goal of completing 90 percent 

of Institutional Hearing Program cases prior to the aliens’ release from incarceration by careful docket 

management in the locations that hear such cases. The dramatic increase in the detained caseload during 

FY 2009 was the primary reason for the immigration courts missing their other two goals. The detained 

caseload has increased by 70 percent in the past five years and now comprises approximately half of the 

immigration court caseload. Considering this dramatic increase, it is admirable that the courts came within 

two percent of meeting their goal of completing 90 percent of detained cases for individuals who did not file 

applications for relief within the short time frame of 30 days. EOIR shifted immigration judge resources away 

from the non-detained dockets to meet the increasing demand of the detained caseload. As a result, the 

priority shift to quickly completing detained cases severely impacted the courts’ ability to complete 90 percent 

of expedited asylum cases within 180 days. EOIR intends to closely examine all of its priorities to ensure that 

the agency continues to complete its priority caseload in a timely manner. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Complete 90% of Executive Office for Immigration Review

priority cases within established timeframes.

FY 2009 Progress: The Department missed two of its four FY 2009 targets, primarily due to the

dramatic increase in the detained caseload.  EOIR intends to closely examine all of its priorities to

ensure that the agency continues to complete its priority caseload in a timely manner.
II-52 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definition: The EOIR has defined its priority caseload as three types of immigration court cases 

(expedited asylum, Institutional Hearing Program, and detained without applications for relief) and one type of 

Board of Immigration Appeals case (detained appeals). Asylum regulations mandate that asylum applications 

be processed within 180 days. Consequently, expedited processing of asylum applications occurs when (1) an 

alien files “affirmatively” at a DHS Asylum Office and the application is referred to EOIR by DHS within 75 

days of the filing; or (2) an alien files an application “defensively” with EOIR. The Institutional Hearing 

Program (IHP) is a collaborative effort between EOIR, DHS and various federal, State, and local corrections 

agencies. The program permits immigration judges to hold removal hearings inside correctional institutions 

prior to the alien completing his or her criminal sentence. Detained aliens are those in the custody of DHS or 

other entities. The priority caseload includes those detained aliens who have not filed an application for relief, 

as well as those detained aliens who have filed an appeal of an immigration judge’s decision. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected from the Case Access System for EOIR or CASE, a 

nationwide case-tracking system at the trial and appellate levels. 

 

Data Validation and Verification: All data entered by courts nationwide are instantaneously transmitted and 

stored at EOIR headquarters, which allows for timely and complete data. Data are verified by on-line edits of 

data fields. Headquarters and field office staff have manuals that list the routine daily, weekly, and monthly 

reports that verify data. Data validation is also performed on a routine basis through data comparisons 

between EOIR and DHS databases. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

Percent of EOIR Priority Cases Completed Within Established Time Frames 

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asylum 88% 90% 91% 91% 91% 89% 92% 95% 90% 86% 90% 82%

IHP 90% 92% 89% 84% 86% 88% 89% 92% 86% 91% 90% 90%

Detained Cases 84% 85% 83% 84% 88% 88% 91% 92% 89% 90% 90% 88%

Detained Appeals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97% 96% 90% 96%

FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Tgt.

FY09 

Act.


Financial Section 

Overview

Section III 

While Section II of this Report provided performance data (required by GPRA), Section III provides financial 

information required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. This data outlines not only the costs of programs, 

but also the costs of achieving individual results by strategic goal. As required by OMB Circular A-136, the 

following section provides the Statements of Net Cost by major program for the Department of Justice, and it 

is aligned directly with the goals and objectives in the Department’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance 

Plan. 

Following the Chief Financial Officer’s message, the Office of the Inspector General’s Commentary and 

Summary, and our Report of Independent Auditors, are the following statements: 

Consolidated Balance Sheets – Presents resources owned or managed by the Department that are 

available to provide future economic benefits (assets); amounts owed by the Department that will 

require payments from those resources or future resources (liabilities) and residual amounts retained 

by the Department, comprising the difference (net position) as of September 30, 2009 and 2008. 

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost – Presents the net cost of Department operations for the fiscal 

years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. The Department’s net cost of operations includes the gross 

costs incurred by DOJ less any exchange revenue earned from Department activities. 

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position – Presents the change in the Department’s net 

position resulting from the net cost of operations, budgetary financing sources other than exchange 

revenues and other financing sources for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. 

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources – Presents the budgetary resources available to the 

Department, the status of those resources, and the outlay of budgetary resources for the fiscal years 

ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. 

Combined Statements of Custodial Activity – Presents the sources and disposition of non-exchange 

revenues collected or accrued by the Department on behalf of other recipient entities for the fiscal 

years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-1
III-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
A Message From the Chief Financial Officer 

November 9, 2009 

During the past year, the Department of Justice has made measurable progress in 

improving our financial management practices. Our financial managers recognize their 

commitment to financial stewardship directly supports critical mission programs while 

ensuring transparency and accountability throughout the Department’s programs. 

I am very pleased to report that the Department has earned an unqualified audit opinion 

on its FY 2009 consolidated financial statements. More importantly, for the third straight 

year, the auditor’s report on internal controls identified no material weaknesses at the 

consolidated level. For the fourth straight year, we had no Department-level material 

weaknesses in financial reporting. Overall, we were able to substantially reduce 

significant deficiencies across our components, yet another positive accomplishment. We 

will continue to aggressively correct the underlying causes of the remaining deficiencies 

in financial reporting and information systems controls. 

This year, new challenges were addressed with the implementation of the Unified 

Financial Management System (UFMS) in the Drug Enforcement Administration. This 

was an important milestone, as it has set the stage for additional component conversions 

over the next several years. In addition, the Bureau of Prisons implemented the 

procurement acquisition solution of UFMS, and the United States Marshals Service is 

soon to follow. Also, the Federal Bureau of Investigation began use of the UFMS 

contract writing tool. These efforts have helped provide a strong baseline for further 

implementations throughout the Department. 

Important to the American Taxpayers, the Department is committed to the accountability 

of four billion dollars associated with the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. Efforts continue to ensure that all monies were not only awarded but accounted for 

throughout the Office of Justice Programs, Office on Violence Against Women, the 

Community Oriented Policing Services and in the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives. The trends in financial management reporting involving transparency 

and accountability from this initiative are already being focused on other targeted 

financial management areas. 

We take our financial accountability seriously, and as demonstrated, we believe our 

positive results in FY 2009 demonstrate our commitment to sound agency performance 

results and providing taxpayer value. We look forward in FY 2010 to building on our 

achievements as we continue to support the important work of the Department, for our 

nation and our taxpayers. 

Lee Lofthus 

Chief Financial Officer 

 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-3
This page intentionally left blank. 

III-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT 

FISCAL YEAR 2009 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL 

COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY 

This audit report contains the Annual Financial Statement of the U.S. Department of Justice 

(Department) for the fiscal years (FY) ended September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008. Under the 

direction of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), KPMG LLP performed the Department’s audit. The 

audit resulted in an unqualified opinion on the FY 2009 financial statements. An unqualified opinion means 

that the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position and the results of the 

entity’s operations in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. For FY 2008, the 

Department also received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements. 

KPMG LLP also issued reports on internal control and on compliance and other matters. For 

FY 2009, the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting identified two 

significant deficiencies, both of which were repeat issues. Weaknesses in the general controls over the 

financial management system related to access controls and configuration management were reported at two of 

the Department’s nine reporting components as a significant deficiency. The Department’s other significant 

deficiency related to several serious but isolated financial reporting issues, including the U.S. Marshals 

Service’s funds management controls; the Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund’s seized and 

forfeited property reporting controls; the Office of Justice Programs’ recording of budgetary upward and 

downward adjustments; the Drug Enforcement Administration’s timely deobligation of funds; the Federal 

Prisons Industries’ inventory count controls; and the Offices, Boards and Divisions’ consideration of economic 

factors in funding analysis journal entries. The chart at the end of our discussion illustrates the FYs 2009 and 

2008 financial statement results for the Department and the nine reporting components. 

As reflected in the chart, the Department has continued to make progress in its financial management 

systems and has continued to address major weaknesses identified in the OIG’s previous annual financial 

statement audits. For example, at the component level the number of significant deficiencies decreased from 

14 in FY 2008 to 8 in FY 2009. The Department and its components deserve credit for these substantial 

improvements. 

Yet, it is important to note that the Department still does not have a unified financial management 

system to readily support ongoing accounting operations and preparation of financial statements. As discussed 

in past years, we believe the most important challenge facing the Department in its financial management is to 

successfully implement an integrated financial management system to replace the disparate and, in some cases, 

antiquated financial systems used by Department components. 

In the FY 2009 consolidated Report on Compliance and Other Matters, the auditors identified no 

instances of significant non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Although some instances of 

non-compliance were reported at some of the components, the consolidated auditors determined that none of 

the component level non-compliance issues caused the Department as a whole to be in significant noncompliance. 

 
III-6 Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

The OIG reviewed KPMG LLP’s reports and related documentation and made necessary inquiries of 

its representatives. Our review, as differentiated from an audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to express, and we do not express, an opinion on 

the Department’s financial statements, conclusions about the effectiveness of internal control, conclusions on 

whether the Department’s financial management systems substantially complied with the Federal Financial 

Management Improvement Act of 1996, or conclusions on compliance with laws and regulations. KPMG LLP 

is responsible for the attached auditors’ reports dated November 9, 2009, and the conclusions expressed in the 

reports. However, our review disclosed no instances where KPMG LLP did not comply, in all material 

respects, with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Comparison of FY 2009 and FY 2008 Audit Results 

Reporting 

Entity 

Auditors’ 

Opinion On 

Financial 

Statements 

Number of Material 

Weaknesses1

Number of Significant 

Deficiencies2 

Financial Information 

Systems Financial Information 

Systems

2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 2009 2008 

Consolidated DOJ U3 U 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 

OBDs U U 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

AFF/SADF U U 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 

FBI U U 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

DEA U U 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

OJP U U 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 

USMS U U 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 

BOP U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

FPI U U 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

ATF U U 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Component Totals 1 1 0 0 5 8 2 5 

Consolidated Department of Justice (Consolidated DOJ); Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs); Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized 

Asset Deposit Fund (AFF/SADF); Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP); U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Federal Prisons Industries, Inc. (FPI); Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

1 A material weakness is a significant deficiency (see below), or combination of deficiencies, that results in more than a reasonable 

possibility that a material misstatement of the financial statements will not be prevented or detected by the Department’s internal 

control on a timely basis. 

2 A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important 

enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a 

control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent or detect and 

correct misstatements on a timely basis. 

3 Unqualified opinion – An auditor’s report that states the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial 

position and results of operations of the reporting entity, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. 
KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-7

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. 

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

United States Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Department of Justice 

(Department) as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and 

changes in net position, and the combined statements of budgetary resources and custodial activity (hereinafter 

referred to as “consolidated financial statements”) for the years then ended. These consolidated financial 

statements are the responsibility of the Department’s management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion 

on these consolidated financial statements based on our audits. We did not audit the financial statements of 

the U.S. Marshals Service, which statements reflect total assets of $945.7 million and $878.5 million, and total 

net costs of $1.3 billion and $1.3 billion, as of and for the years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, 

respectively. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose report has been furnished to us, 

and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for the U.S. Marshals Service, is based solely on 

the report of the other auditors. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by 

the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 

No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Those standards and OMB 

Bulletin No. 07-04 require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether 

the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes consideration of 

internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are appropriate in the 

circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the Department’s 

internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An audit also includes 

examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the consolidated financial 

statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as 

evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits and the report 

of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion. 

In our opinion, based on our audits and the report of the other auditors, the consolidated financial statements 

referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the U.S. Department of Justice 

as of September 30, 2009 and 2008, and its net costs, changes in net position, budgetary resources, and 

custodial activity for the years then ended in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. 

As discussed in Note 26 to the consolidated financial statements, the Department changed its method of 

accounting for temporary rescissions of budgetary authority in fiscal year 2009. 

The information in the Management’s Discussion and Analysis and Required Supplementary Stewardship 

Information sections is not a required part of the consolidated financial statements, but is supplementary 

information required by U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. We and the other auditors have 

applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the 

KPMG LLP. KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is 

a member of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Page 2 

III-8 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

methods of measurement and presentation of this information. However, we and the other auditors did not 

audit this information and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the consolidated financial statements 

taken as a whole. The consolidating and combining information in the Consolidating and Combining 

Financial Statements section is presented for purposes of additional analysis of the consolidated financial 

statements rather than to present the financial position, net costs, changes in net position, budgetary resources, 

and custodial activity of the Department’s components individually. The consolidating and combining 

information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied by us and the other auditors in the audits of 

the consolidated financial statements and, in our opinion, based on our audit and the report of the other 

auditors, is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated financial statements taken as a 

whole. The information in the Introduction, Performance Section, Management Section, and Appendices is 

presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not required as part of the consolidated financial 

statements. This information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied by us and the other 

auditors in the audits of the consolidated financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our reports dated November 9, 2009, 

on our consideration of the Department’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its 

compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. 

The purpose of those reports is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting 

and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over 

financial reporting or on compliance. Those reports are an integral part of an audit performed in accordance 

with Government Auditing Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in assessing the results 

of our audits. 

November 9, 2009 
KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-9

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. 

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

United States Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Department of Justice (Department) as of 

September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position 

and the combined statements of budgetary resources and custodial activity (hereinafter referred to as the 

“consolidated financial statements”) for the years then ended, and have issued our report thereon dated 

November 9, 2009. We did not audit the financial statements of the U.S. Marshals Service as of and for the 

years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose 

report thereon has been furnished to us, and our report, insofar as it related to the amounts included for the 

U.S. Marshals Service, was based solely on the report of the other auditors. As discussed in Note 26 to the 

consolidated financial statements, the Department changed its method of accounting for temporary rescissions 

of budgetary authority in fiscal year 2009. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by 

the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 

No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Those standards and OMB 

Bulletin No. 07-04 require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about whether 

the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. 

As stated above, we did not audit the fiscal year 2009 financial statements of the U.S. Marshals Service. 

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon, including the other auditors’ 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, have been furnished to us. 

Accordingly, our report on the Department’s internal control over financial reporting, insofar as it relates to 

that component, is based solely on the report and findings of the other auditors. 

The Department’s management is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control. In 

planning and performing our fiscal year 2009 audit, we considered the Department’s internal control over 

financial reporting by obtaining an understanding of the Department’s internal control, determining whether 

internal controls had been placed in operation, assessing control risk, and performing tests of controls as a 

basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of expressing our opinion on the consolidated 

financial statements. To achieve this purpose, we did not test all internal controls relevant to operating 

objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982. The objective of our 

audit was not to express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Department’s internal control over financial 

reporting. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Department’s internal control 

over financial reporting. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 2 

III-10 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the 

preceding paragraph and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in the internal control over financial 

reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. 

A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or operation of a control does not allow management or 

employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct 

misstatements on a timely basis. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of deficiencies, in 

internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit attention by those 

charged with governance. A material weakness is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal 

control, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial 

statements will not be prevented, or detected and corrected on a timely basis. 

In our fiscal year 2009 audit, we did not, nor did the report of the other auditors, identify any deficiencies in 

internal control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above. 

However, we noted, and the report of the other auditors identified, deficiencies in internal control over 

financial reporting that we consider to be significant deficiencies and that are described in Exhibits I and II. 

Exhibit I is an overview of the significant deficiencies identified in the Department’s component auditors’ 

Independent Auditors’ Reports on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, and includes an explanation of 

how these component-level significant deficiencies are reported at the Department level. Exhibit II provides 

the details of the Department-wide significant deficiencies. Exhibit III presents the status of prior years’ 

findings and recommendations. 

The Department’s responses to the findings identified in our audit are presented in Exhibit II. We did not audit 

the Department’s responses, and accordingly, we express no opinion on them. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, OMB, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, and the U.S. Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other 

than these specified parties. 

November 9, 2009 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 3 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-11

EXHIBIT I 

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES 

The following table summarizes the eight significant deficiencies identified by the Department’s component 

auditors during fiscal year 2009. The component auditors also considered one of these significant deficiencies 

to be a material weakness. We analyzed the component-level material weakness and significant deficiencies to 

determine their effect on the Department’s internal control over financial reporting and concluded that they 

comprise two Department-wide significant deficiencies. 

Department Significant Deficiencies

Noted During Fiscal Year 2009 

D 

O 

J 

O 

B 

D 

S 

A 

F 

F 

F 

B 

I 

D 

E 

A 

O 

J 

P 

A 

T 

F 

U 

S 

M 

S 

(1) 

B 

O 

P 

F 

P 

I 

Improvements are needed in the Department’s 

component financial systems’ general controls. S S S 

Improvements are needed in the components’ 

internal controls to provide reasonable assurance 

that transactions are properly recorded, processed, 

and summarized to permit the preparation of 

financial statements in accordance with generally 

accepted accounting principles. 

S S S S S M S 

Total Material Weaknesses FY 2009 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Reported by Components’ Auditors FY 2008 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Total Significant Deficiencies FY 2009 7 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 

Reported by Components’ Auditors FY 2008 13 1 4 1 0 2 1 2 1 1 

Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs); Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund (AFF); Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Office of Justice Programs (OJP); Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF); United States Marshals Service (USMS); Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); 

and Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI). 

Legend:

 (1) USMS’s financial statements were audited by other auditors. 

M – Material weakness 

S – Significant deficiency 

In Exhibit II we discuss in detail the Department-wide significant deficiencies noted above. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 4

III-12 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

EXHIBIT II 

SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES 

IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED IN THE DEPARTMENT’S COMPONENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS’

GENERAL CONTROLS. 

While the Department has made significant progress in addressing previously reported information systems 

(IS) significant deficiencies, the component entities’ auditors continue to identify opportunities for 

improvement in the general controls designed and implemented to protect the integrity of IS data. Although 

the corrective actions taken by the Department and its component entities over the past year have resolved the 

significant deficiencies at three of the Department’s five component entities with prior year IS-related 

significant deficiencies, the component auditors continue to report significant deficiencies at two component 

entities. These two component entities comprise 24 percent and 27 percent of the Department’s total assets 

and total net cost of operations, respectively. 

In performing procedures on the components’ financial management information systems, we and the other 

auditors considered the Government Accountability Office’s Federal Information System Controls Audit 

Manual; the Department’s Order No. 2640.2F, Information Technology Security; OMB Circular No. A-130, 

Management of Federal Information Resources; and technical publications issued by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (NIST). 

In support of the Department's fiscal year 2009 consolidated financial statement audit, we performed a review 

of the DOJ IS general controls environment that provides general control support for several DOJ components’ 

financial applications. The Department's Operation Services Staff (OSS) has primary responsibility over the 

IS general controls environment and service delivery and support. 

The following table depicts the IS general control weaknesses identified by the auditors at two of the 

Department’s nine component entities for fiscal year 2009. Following the table, we present brief summaries of 

the specific conditions reported by the components’ auditors. 

General Control Weaknesses(1) 

U 

S 

M 

S 

B 

O 

P

Access Controls X X 

Configuration Management X X 

(1) This table summarizes the IS significant deficiencies reported in the component auditors’ Independent Auditors’ 

Reports on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. 

USMS – Improvements have been made; however, opportunities for further improvement continue to exist 

within the IS environment. Prior year issues remain open and new issues were identified during fiscal 

year 2009. Specifically, access controls and configuration management need to be strengthened. It should be 

noted that the configuration management significant deficiency was partly remediated prior to the end of the 

fiscal year. However, the significant deficiency was included in the component auditors’ Independent 

Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, in accordance with Government Auditing 

Standards. 

BOP – Improvements continue to be made; however, access controls and configuration management 

weaknesses continue to exist in controlling access to financially-significant systems. It should be noted that 

the access controls significant deficiency was remediated prior to the end of the fiscal year. However, the 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 5

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-13

significant deficiency was included in the component auditors’ Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal 

Control over Financial Reporting, in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. 

The conditions identified by the component auditors increase the risk of unauthorized access, unauthorized 

modifications, unauthorized disclosure of data, unintentional errors, and unnecessary downtime. 

Recommendation 

We recommend the Department: 

1. Require the components to submit and implement corrective action plans that address the weaknesses 

identified above. The corrective action plans should focus on correcting the deficiencies in access controls 

and configuration management discussed in the component auditors’ Independent Auditors’ Reports on 

Internal Control over Financial Reporting, to the extent that the significant deficiencies had not been 

remediated prior to the end of the fiscal year. The corrective action plans should also include a timeline 

that establishes when major events must be completed. The Department’s CIO should monitor the 

components’ efforts to correct deficiencies, hold them accountable for meeting the action plan timelines, 

and ensure the corrective actions are implemented adequately to address the noted deficiencies. (Updated)

Management Response: 

DOJ management concurs. The Department’s Chief Information Officer (CIO), working with the Chief 

Financial Officer and component program managers as well as their respective CIOs, have made 

substantial progress in eliminating prior year significant deficiencies in Assets Forfeiture Fund, the Office 

of Justice Programs and in Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI). For the remaining two components with 

significant deficiencies, Bureau of Prisons and the U.S. Marshals Service, the Department’s CIO will 

ensure that rigorous corrective action plans are developed to address the weaknesses identified. These 

plans will be validated and monitored quarterly by the Department’s CIO to ensure corrective actions are 

institutionalized and program improvements made. In addition, the Department’s CIO will ensure that all 

weaknesses identified in prior year audits are addressed and that enhancements in policies and 

standardization of practices are implemented to provide the best possible support for successful financial 

audits. The corrective action plans are a subset of the Department’s overall capital Plans of Actions and 

Milestones and are available to the Office of the Inspector General and reported to OMB in the 

Department’s quarterly Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) Reports. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 6

III-14 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

IMPROVEMENTS ARE NEEDED IN THE COMPONENTS’ INTERNAL CONTROLS TO PROVIDE REASONABLE 

ASSURANCE THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE PROPERLY RECORDED, PROCESSED, AND SUMMARIZED TO 

PERMIT THE PREPARATION OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY 

ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES. 

The Department and its component entities have made significant progress in addressing previously reported 

material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. However, several of the component entities’ auditors 

continue to report significant deficiencies in internal controls that inhibit the preparation of financial 

statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Further improvement is needed in the 

component entities’ internal controls designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are properly 

recorded, processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting principles. 

The following component entity-level significant deficiencies comprise the Department-wide significant 

deficiency. 

Funds Management Controls. The USMS does not have adequate financial and compliance controls to 

ensure that obligation transactions are executed and recorded in accordance with laws and regulations and the 

related undelivered orders and accounts payable balances are accurate and complete. The component auditors 

identified accounting errors and instances of noncompliance with accounting standards; OMB Circular No. 

A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, and the United States Standard General Ledger, 

as follows: 

Undelivered Orders (UDOs). As a result of their interim and year-end test work, the component auditors 

identified accounting errors related to the accuracy of undelivered orders balances. Included in the errors 

identified by the component auditors were (1) UDOs found to be invalid due to accounts payable accruals or 

deobligations not recorded after the period of performance had expired, (2) a UDO that was overstated due to 

the failure to establish an accounts payable upon receipt of the goods, (3) UDOs that were understated due to 

the failure to record an accrual at quarter-end, in addition to reimbursable agreements not fully obligated 

originally, (4) UDOs that were understated due to posting errors, and (5) UDOs that were understated due to 

errors made in calculating accruals based on intra-Departmental provider listings. As a result of these 

accounting errors, the USMS’s undelivered orders balance was misstated at quarter-end, as follows: a net 

likely understatement of $43 million as of June 30, 2009, and net likely overstatements of $46 million and 

$9 million as of March 31, 2009 and September 30, 2009, respectively. 

Delivered Orders – Obligations Unpaid (Accounts Payable). As a result of their interim and year-end testing 

of accounts payable, the component auditors identified accounting errors related to the USMS’s accounts 

payable accrual estimates. Included in the errors identified by the component auditors were accounts payable 

that were incorrect due to: errors made in calculating accrual amounts or by failing to accrue for services 

received before quarter-end, posting errors, and failure to record goods or services received. As a result of 

these accounting errors, the USMS’s accounts payable balance was misstated at quarter-end, as follows: net 

likely understatements of $3 million and $163 thousand, respectively, as of March 31, 2009 and June 30, 2009, 

and a net likely overstatement of $6 million as of September 30, 2009. 

Unauthorized Commitments. The component auditors noted that the USMS made unauthorized commitments 

during the fiscal year in connection with projects related to security system monitoring, court security officers, 

guard services, and prisoner medical services and prescriptions. These unauthorized commitments resulted in 

38 contract ratifications totaling $4 million. In addition, seven ratifications were in process pending receipt of 

additional documentation from the program offices. The Federal Acquisition Regulation prohibits agencies 

from entering into contracts unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of law, executive 

orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures have been satisfied. Unauthorized commitments could 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 7

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-15

result in Anti-Deficiency Act violations if sufficient funds are not available to cover the unauthorized 

commitments. 

Seized and Forfeited Property. The component auditors noted that the AFF’s internal controls are in need of 

improvement with respect to the: (1) status and valuation of seized and forfeited assets, and (2) deletion of 

property records from the asset tracking system, as described below. 

Internal Controls Related to Status and Valuation. In conducting interim and year-end tests of transactions 

recorded in the Consolidated Asset Tracking System (CATS), the component auditors identified various status 

and valuation errors, including: (1) seized property items that were either misclassified or improperly valued, 

(2) forfeited property items that were either misclassified or improperly valued, (3) seized cash not-on-deposit 

items that were either misclassified or improperly valued, and (4) forfeited property items recorded as “onhand” that should have been classified as “disposed of”. 

As a result of the status and valuation errors noted above, the seized property balances were overstated by net 

likely amounts of $21 million and $600 thousand as of June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009, respectively; 

the forfeited property balances were overstated by net likely amounts of $5 million and $871 thousand as of 

June 30, 2009 and September 30, 2009, respectively; and the seized cash not-on-deposit balance was 

overstated by a likely amount of $2 million as of June 30, 2009. 

Internal Controls Related to the Deletion of Records from CATS. In conducting tests related to the deletion of 

property records from CATS, the component auditors noted that 8 out of 80 records were not supported by 

evidence of authorization prior to their removal from CATS. If not properly authorized, such deletions could 

result in misstatements in the notes to the AFF’s financial statements. 

Budgetary Upward and Downward Adjustments. The component auditors noted that improvements were 

needed in OJP’s system and internal controls related to budgetary upward and downward adjustments. OJP’s 

Financial Management Information System 2 (FMIS2) is not configured to immediately record upward and 

downward adjustments when changes are made to prior year obligations. As a result, OJP developed a process 

to record its upward and downward adjustments at a program level. When performing tests of OJP’s 

“Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations Unpaid” line item on the Statement of Budgetary Resources, the 

component auditors identified recording errors that totaled approximately $71 million as of September 30, 

2009. Of the $71 million, $52 million was related to correcting transactions that were misclassified as upward 

and downward adjustments. The remaining $19 million was related to re-postings of grant activity from one 

program to another or from direct to reimbursable funding. The upward and downward adjustments for these 

items should have been eliminated. Additionally, these errors were not detected during supervisory review. 

As a result of these errors, “Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations Unpaid” and the “Obligations Incurred” line 

items on the FY 2009 Statement of Budgetary Resources were each initially overstated by approximately 

$71 million. OJP concurred and recorded an adjusting journal entry to correct $52 million of the 

overstatement and the remaining $19 million was recorded as an immaterial unadjusted audit difference. 

Deobligation of Funds. The component auditors noted that improvements were needed in the DEA’s 

financial management controls to ensure the timely deobligation of funds. The component auditors noted that 

the DEA’s obligated funds that were certified as valid open obligations during the DEA’s quarterly 

certification process included amounts that should have been deobligated because the funds were no longer 

needed. The component auditors’ interim and year-end test results follow: 

• During interim test work as of March 31, 2009, the component auditors selected a sample of 5 allowance 

holders (i.e., an individual responsible for the DEA’s administrative division of budgetary resources) from 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 8

III-16 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

a total population of 98 and identified 2 certifying officers who did not properly investigate all of the 

outstanding obligations on the report that they certified as being valid. 

• During interim test work as of June 30, 2009, the component auditors selected a sample of 203 undelivered 

orders totaling $191 million from a population of 33,803 undelivered orders totaling $561 million and 

noted: (1) certain items were not deobligated within a reasonable timeframe after the period of 

performance had expired, (2) certain items for which the obligation amount recorded in the general ledger 

was greater than the supporting documentation, and (3) certain items for which invalid expenses were 

charged against the obligation and the total expenses incurred against the obligation were not properly 

recorded. As a result of the exceptions noted, the reported balance of obligated funds was misstated at 

quarter-end by a likely amount of $27 million. 

• During the component auditors’ year-end test work as of September 30, 2009, improvements were noted in 

that the actual error rate was acceptable and the dollar amounts associated with the errors were 

inconsequential. 

The DEA’s policy related to reconciliation of obligations states, “The quarterly obligation certification is a 

certification of the DEA’s obligations and must be certified by the Allowance Manager. The certification is 

based on a quarterly reconciliation of the DEA’s obligations... The Allowance Approver is responsible for 

reviewing the reconciliation prior to the Allowance Manager’s certification.” 

The financial reporting and financial management effects of not deobligating funds that are no longer needed 

for the original purpose are that the reported balance of obligated funds and current or expired authority is 

misstated; inaccurate budgetary information could be submitted to the Department, OMB, or Congress; and, 

the existence of obligations in excess of required amounts or of invalid obligations can lead to underutilization of budgetary resources. 

Inventory Controls. The component auditors noted that the FPI’s internal controls over inventory are in need 

of improvement. When testing the inventory cycle count process and the annual work-in-process (WIP) 

inventory counts, the component auditors noted that the inventory cycle count process lacked proper 

segregation of duties, was incorrectly performed, and lacked adequate documentation to support the weekly 

cycle count. In addition, the WIP inventory count process lacked proper segregation of duties and was 

incorrectly performed. 

FPI policy states that inventory counts should be performed weekly (unless waived by the Controller) by 

qualified personnel who are not otherwise involved in inventory control or recordkeeping. Two-member 

teams are required to perform the physical inventory. Each member must count each item independently to 

ensure count integrity. Supervisory review of all inventory discrepancies and adjustments to the inventory 

records is required. 

As a result of the weaknesses noted, differences in the quantities of stock in raw materials, sub-assembly, work 

in process, and finished goods from the quantities and amounts recorded in the ledger may not be identified in 

the inventory count process and the general ledger may not be adjusted accurately for the inventory count 

results. 

Consideration of Economic Factors in Funding Analysis Journal Entries. The component auditors noted 

that improvements are needed in the OBDs’ financial reporting process to ensure that consideration is given to 

current economic factors that affect the funding analysis journal entry. As a result of the component auditors’ 

analysis of Cumulative Results of Operations in the OBDs’ September 30, 2009, certified financial statements, 

it was noted that JMD failed to update the Audited Financial Statements (AFS) funding analysis journal entry 

related to the mix of earmarked funding between appropriated and reimbursable sources, to reflect the 

significant reduction in reimbursable revenue received; thus the financial statements submitted for external 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 9

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-17

audit contained an error. Specifically, Unexpended Appropriations of Earmarked Funds was overstated, and 

Cumulative Results of Operations was understated, by $103 million. 

Government Accountability Office, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, states that: 

• Internal control should provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of the agency are being achieved 

in the following categories: 

- Effectiveness and efficiency of operations including the use of the entity’s resources. 

- Reliability of financial reporting, including reports on budget execution, financial statements, and 

other reports for internal and external use. 

- Compliance with applicable laws and regulations. 

• Because governmental, economic, industry, regulatory, and operating conditions continually change, 

mechanisms should be provided to identify and deal with any special risks prompted by such changes. 

• Accurate and Timely Recording of Transactions and Events: Transactions should be promptly recorded to 

maintain their relevance and value to management in controlling operations and making decisions. This 

applies to the entire process or life cycle of a transaction or event from the initiation and authorization 

through its final classification in summary records. In addition, control activities help to ensure that all 

transactions are completely and accurately recorded. 

The OBDs records journal entries as “on-top” adjustments within the AFS Microsoft Access database. The 

complexity of these journal entries is increased by both the number and different types of activities performed 

by the OBDs. OBDs management did not appropriately consider the current economic environment and the 

impact on the earmarked funding activity and related AFS journal entries. 

Summary

Certain components’ internal controls do not provide reasonable assurance that financial transactions are 

properly recorded, processed, summarized, and documented to permit the preparation of financial statements 

in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Improvements are still needed in the 

components’ day-to-day adherence to standardized financial reporting policies, as set forth in the Department’s 

Financial Statement Requirements and Preparation Guide, to provide for accuracy and consistency in the 

preparation of the component entities’ and the Department’s financial statements. 

Recommendations: 

We recommend the Department: 

2. Monitor the corrective actions taken by the USMS to improve the condition of its funds management 

controls, in response to the specific recommendations made in the component auditor’s Independent 

Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting issued in connection with the audit of the 

USMS’s financial statements as of and for the year ended September 30, 2009. (Updated)

Management Response: 

DOJ management concurs. The Justice Management Division will continue to work with the USMS to 

document and improve processes related to external reporting to include a reevaluation of their business 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 10

III-18 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

processes and financial activities associated with accounts payable and undelivered orders. In FY 2010, 

the USMS’ Office of Finance will continue to coordinate with relevant offices, external and internal, to 

ensure that advance reconciliations and analyses are performed at least quarterly and discrepancies 

resolved timely. The USMS’ Financial Services Division will continue to work with the Office of 

Compliance Review to provide continuous training and other information necessary so independent review 

of open obligations can routinely be conducted to identify risks and recommend corrective actions to 

ensure compliance with accounting standards and regulations. 

3. Assess the adequacy of the Department’s accounting, internal control, and financial reporting policies in 

the areas of: (1) seized and forfeited property, (2) budgetary upward and downward adjustments, 

(3) deobligation of funds, (4) inventory controls, and (5) consideration of economic factors in the funding 

analysis journal entry process. Based on the results of this assessment, determine the need to issue new 

guidance and/or reiterate to components the existing policies for those areas in which the components’ 

auditors identified significant deficiencies related to the recording of transactions and the preparation of 

financial statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Monitor the 

components’ adherence to the Department’s accounting and financial reporting policies and procedures 

throughout the year. (Updated)

Management Response: 

DOJ management concurs. AFF will continue to work closely with asset forfeiture components to 

strengthen data entry and period end closing procedures to ensure that property and accounting systems 

reflect accurate information. In addition, data quality control teams will be used to help validate and 

review the accuracy of the entries. OJP will strengthen its controls over the upward and downward review 

process. DEA, in conjunction with the implementation of a new financial management system, the 

Unified Financial Management System (UFMS), has taken and will continue actions to strengthen controls 

over fiscal and operational processes. FPI will develop an aggressive corrective action plan that is targeted 

to adhering to proper segregation of duties regarding inventory count duties for cycle counts coupled with 

the need to maintain complete files documenting the performance and results of inventory counts, along 

with established analytics. The Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs) will ensure that a review process is 

in place which factors in the effect of changes in the current economic environment on funds unique to the 

OBDs and the financial statements. 

4. Continue efforts to implement a Department-wide integrated financial management system that is in 

compliance with the United States Government Standard General Ledger, conforms to the financial 

management systems requirements established by the Financial Systems Integration Office (formerly the 

Joint Financial Management Improvement Program), and can accommodate the requirements of applicable 

Federal accounting standards. (Repeat)

Management Response: 

DOJ management concurs. The UFMS initiative is a keystone to the Department’s financial systems 

improvement planning for the future. UFMS is replacing the Department’s multiple core financial 

management and procurement system with an integrated Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solution, 

Momentum, provided by CGI, Federal Inc. Implementation of the UFMS will improve financial 

management and procurement operations through streamlining and standardizing business processes and 

procedures across all components. Progress in FY 2009 regarding the Department’s implementation of its 

UFMS included: implementation of DEA in January 2009, deployment of the contract writing tool at the 

FBI, and use of the front-end procurement module for the Bureau of Prisons. To date, there are over 2,000 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 11

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-19

system users, with plans to deploy ATF on UFMS beginning in FY 2011. JMD senior leadership meets on 

a regular basis to discuss and address the challenges associated with the implementation of the UFMS 

across the Department (excluding FPI). 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 12

III-20 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

EXHIBIT III 

STATUS OF PRIOR YEARS’ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

As required by Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and 

by OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended, we have 

reviewed the status of prior years’ findings and recommendations. The following table provides our 

assessment of the progress the DOJ has made in correcting the previously identified significant deficiencies. 

We also provide the Office of the Inspector General report number where the deficiency was identified, our 

recommendation for improvement, and the status of the recommendation as of the end of fiscal year 2009: 

Report Significant 

Deficiency Recommendation Status 

Annual 

Financial 

Statement 

Fiscal 

Year 

2007 

Report 

No. 08-01 

Improvements are 

needed in the 

components’ 

internal controls to 

provide reasonable 

assurance that 

transactions are 

properly recorded, 

processed, and 

summarized to 

permit the 

preparation of 

financial statements 

in accordance with 

generally accepted 

accounting 

principles 

Recommendation No. 5: Continue efforts to 

implement a Department-wide integrated financial 

management system that is in compliance with the 

United States Government Standard General 

Ledger, conforms to the financial management 

systems requirements established by the Financial 

Systems Integration Office (formerly the Joint 

Financial Management Improvement Program), 

and can accommodate the requirements of 

applicable Federal accounting standards.

In Process 

(FY 2009 

Recommendation 

No. 4) 

Annual 

Financial 

Statement 

Fiscal 

Year 2008 

Report 

No. 09-06 

Improvements are 

needed in the 

Department’s 

component financial 

management 

systems’ general 

and application 

controls 

Recommendation No. 1: Require the 

components to submit and implement corrective 

action plans that address the weaknesses identified 

above. The corrective action plans should focus 

on correcting deficiencies in access controls, 

application change controls, segregation of duties, 

and system software weaknesses discussed in the 

component auditors’ reports on internal control 

over financial reporting. The corrective action 

plans should also include a timeline that 

establishes when major events must be completed. 

The Department’s CIO should monitor the 

components’ efforts to correct deficiencies, hold 

them accountable for meeting the action plan 

timelines, and ensure the corrective actions are 

implemented adequately to address the noted 

deficiencies.

In Process 

(Updated by 

FY 2009 

Recommendation 

No. 1) 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 13

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-21

Recommendation No. 2: Monitor the corrective 

actions taken by the USMS to improve the 

condition of its funds management controls, in 

response to the specific recommendations made in 

the component auditor’s Independent Auditors’ 

Report on Internal Control issued in connection 

with the audit of the USMS’s financial statements 

as of and for the year ended September 30, 2008.

In Process 

(Updated by 

FY 2009 

Recommendation 

No. 2) 

 Improvements are 

needed in the 

components’ 

internal controls to 

provide reasonable 

assurance that 

transactions are 

properly recorded, 

processed, and 

summarized to 

permit the 

preparation of 

financial statements 

in accordance with 

generally accepted 

accounting 

principles 

Recommendation No. 3: Assess the adequacy 

and completeness of the Department’s accounting 

and financial reporting policies in the areas of: 

(a) accounts payable; (b) grant advances and 

obligations; (c) obligations and disbursements; 

(d) seized and forfeited property; (e) financial 

accounting and reporting and related quality 

assurance processes; and (f) preparation, review, 

and approval of journal entries. Based on the 

results of this assessment, determine the need to 

issue new guidance and/or reiterate to components 

the existing policies for those areas in which the 

components’ auditors identified significant 

deficiencies related to the recording of 

transactions and the preparation of financial 

statements in accordance with generally accepted 

accounting principles. Monitor the components’ 

adherence to the Department’s accounting and 

financial reporting policies and procedures 

throughout the year. 

In Process 

(Updated by 

FY 2009 

Recommendation 

No. 3) 
III-22 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-23

KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is the U.S. 

member firm of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters 

Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

United States Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

We have audited the consolidated balance sheets of the U.S. Department of Justice (Department) as of 

September 30, 2009 and 2008, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net position 

and the combined statements of budgetary resources and custodial activity (hereinafter referred to as the 

“consolidated financial statements”) for the years then ended, and have issued our report thereon dated 

November 9, 2009. We did not audit the financial statements of the U.S. Marshals Service as of and for the 

years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose 

report thereon has been furnished to us, and our report, insofar as it related to the amounts included for the 

U.S. Marshals Service, was based solely on the report of the other auditors. As discussed in Note 26 to the 

consolidated financial statements, the Department changed its method of accounting for temporary rescissions 

of budgetary authority in fiscal year 2009. 

We and the other auditors conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the 

United States of America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing 

Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Those 

standards and OMB Bulletin No. 07-04 require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable 

assurance about whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. 

As stated above, we did not audit the fiscal year 2009 financial statements of the U.S. Marshals Service. 

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose report thereon, including the other auditors’ 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters, has been furnished to us. Accordingly, our 

report on the Department’s compliance and other matters, insofar as it relates to that component, is based 

solely on the report and findings of the other auditors. 

The management of the Department is responsible for complying with laws, regulations, contracts, and grant 

agreements applicable to the Department. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether the 

Department’s fiscal year 2009 consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, we and the 

other auditors performed tests of the Department’s compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the 

determination of the consolidated financial statement amounts, and certain provisions of other laws and 

regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, including the provisions referred to in Section 803(a) of the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). We and the other auditors limited our 

tests of compliance to the provisions described in the preceding sentence, and we did not test compliance with 

all laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements applicable to the Department. However, providing an 

opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of our audit, and accordingly, we do not 

express such an opinion. 

KPMG LLP. KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership, is 

a member of KPMG International, a Swiss cooperative. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters 

Page 2 

III-24 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

The results of our and the other auditors’ tests of compliance described in the preceding paragraph of this 

report, exclusive of those referred to in FFMIA, disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters that 

are required to be reported herein under Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 07-04. 

The results of our and the other auditors’ tests of FFMIA disclosed no instances in which the Department’s 

financial management systems did not substantially comply with the (1) Federal financial management 

systems requirements, (2) applicable Federal accounting standards, and (3) United States Government 

Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. 

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, OMB, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, and the U.S. Congress, and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone 

other than these specified parties. 

November 9, 2009 
Principal Financial Statements and Related Notes

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-25
Dollars in Thousands 2009 2008

ASSETS (Note 2)

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury (Note 3) $ 20,857,015 $ 15,595,443

Investments, Net (Note 5) 3,842,785 3,311,304

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 326,410 358,577

Other Assets (Note 10) 130,988 118,762

Total Intragovernmental 25,157,198 19,384,086

Cash and Monetary Assets (Note 4) 229,794 182,209 

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 79,824 123,800 

Inventory and Related Property, Net (Note 7) 298,701 284,217 

Forfeited Property, Net (Note 8) 226,843 139,897 

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9) 9,215,026 8,758,540 

Advances and Prepayments 1,415,521 466,560 

Other Assets (Note 10) 4,738 4,921 

Total Assets $ 29,344,047 36,627,828 $ 

LIABILITIES (Note 11) 

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 309,072 $ 243,522

Accrued Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 236,258 226,553

Custodial Liabilities (Note 22) 136,106 186,206

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 545,205 742,080

Total Intragovernmental 1,226,641 1,398,361

Accounts Payable 2,253,013 2,140,129

Accrued Grant Liabilities 431,219 409,071

Actuarial Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 1,233,899 1,136,569

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 522,704 452,237

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 782,177 727,459

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 22,316 22,112

Deferred Revenue 498,308 356,881

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments (Note 14) 1,491,660 1,266,611

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 172,653 164,312

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 42,221 45,632

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities 343,835 321,671

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 175,865 174,513

Total Liabilities $ 8,615,558 9,196,511 $ 

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) $ 44,902 22,207 $ 

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 13,902,525 9,169,075

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) 5,631,023 4,052,221

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 7,875,562 7,462,291

Total Net Position $ 20,728,489 27,431,317 $ 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 29,344,047 36,627,828 $ 

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

III-26
Dollars in Thousands

Net Cost of

Intra- With the Intra- With the Operations

FY governmental Public Total governmental Public Total (Note 18)

Goal 1 2009 $ 3,392,193 1,133,358 $ 4,525,551 $ 533,229 $ 26,729 $ 559,958 $ 3,965,593 $ 

 2008 $ 3,045,378 1,083,843 $ 4,129,221 $ 244,861 $ 27,128 $ 271,989 $ 3,857,232 $ 

Goal 2 2009 11,395,987 3,482,029 14,878,016 769,559 620,025 1,389,584 13,488,432 

 2008 10,818,593 3,121,561 13,940,154 591,045 648,787 1,239,832 12,700,322 

Goal 3 2009 9,901,438 1,969,386 11,870,824 921,473 443,580 1,365,053 10,505,771 

 2008 9,521,501 1,977,972 11,499,473 1,052,718 455,691 1,508,409 9,991,064 

Total 2009 6,584,773 $ 24,689,618 $ 31,274,391 $ 2,224,261 $ 1,090,334 $ 3,314,595 $ 27,959,796 $ 

2008 6,183,376 $ 23,385,472 $ 29,568,848 $ 1,888,624 $ 1,131,606 $ 3,020,230 $ 26,548,618 $ 

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security 

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People 

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-27

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

Gross Costs Less: Earned Revenues
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 9,169,075 44,902 $ - $ 9,213,977 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 125,076 30,327,827 - 30,452,903

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out - 535,342 - 535,342

Other Adjustments - (231,068) - (231,068)

Appropriations Used (147,771) (25,898,651) - (26,046,422)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources 4,733,450 (22,695) - 4,710,755 

Unexpended Appropriations $ 13,902,525 22,207 $ - $ 13,924,732 $ 

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 7,462,291 4,052,221 $ - $ 11,514,512 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used 147,771 25,898,651 - 26,046,422

Nonexchange Revenues 1,756,595 1,171 - 1,757,766

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 1,376,423 - - 1,376,423

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 89,948 - 89,948

Other Budgetary Financing Sources - (100,000) - (100,000)

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 68,145 68 - 68,213

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (42,202) 51,599 - 9,397

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 10,573 721,476 (28,349) 703,700

Total Financing Sources 26,662,913 3,317,305 (28,349) 29,951,869 

Net Cost of Operations (26,249,642) (1,738,503) 28,349 (27,959,796) 

Net Change 413,271 1,578,802 - 1,992,073 

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 7,875,562 5,631,023 $ - $ 13,506,585 $ 

Net Position $ 21,778,087 5,653,230 $ - $ 27,431,317 $ 

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

2009

Dollars in Thousands

III-28 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 9,714,869 21,938 $ - $ 9,736,807 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 44,902 24,035,805 - 24,080,707

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out 4,061 244,308 - 248,369

Other Adjustments (10,260) (395,026) - (405,286)

Appropriations Used (15,739) (24,430,881) - (24,446,620)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources (545,794) 22,964 - (522,830) 

Unexpended Appropriations $ 9,169,075 44,902 $ - $ 9,213,977 $ 

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 6,951,339 3,619,453 $ - $ 10,570,792 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used 15,739 24,430,881 - 24,446,620

Nonexchange Revenues 980,604 1,199 - 981,803

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 1,222,643 - - 1,222,643

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 180,900 - 180,900

Other Budgetary Financing Sources - (41,000) - (41,000)

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 63,430 2,424 - 65,854

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (65,492) 64,566 - (926)

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 20,563 643,443 (27,562) 636,444

Total Financing Sources 25,282,413 2,237,487 (27,562) 27,492,338 

Net Cost of Operations (24,771,461) (1,804,719) 27,562 (26,548,618) 

Net Change 510,952 432,768 - 943,720 

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 7,462,291 4,052,221 $ - $ 11,514,512 $ 

Net Position $ 16,631,366 4,097,123 $ - $ 20,728,489 $ 

III-29

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Dollars in Thousands

2008

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands 2009 2008

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 3,935,392 3,549,862 $ 

Adjustment to Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1 - (20,000)

Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, as Adjusted 3,549,862 3,915,392

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 956,534 844,461

Budget Authority

Appropriations Received 34,394,369 26,963,178

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections

Earned

Collected 6,833,760 6,478,763

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 121,266 76,157

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received (245,721) (222,934)

Without Advance from Federal Sources (32,542) 78,724

Subtotal Budget Authority 41,071,132 33,373,888

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual 625,290 429,269

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law (1,295,083) (362,414)

Permanently not Available (331,080) (441,364)

Total Budgetary Resources (Note 20) $ 44,576,655 $ 37,759,232

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 27,919,589 34,077,757 $ 

Reimbursable 6,452,046 6,289,781 

Total Obligations Incurred (Note 20) 40,529,803 34,209,370 

Unobligated Balance - Available

Apportioned 2,646,548 2,303,952 

Exempt from Apportionment 101,425 147,934 

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 2,747,973 2,451,886 

Unobligated Balance not Available 1,298,879 1,097,976 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 44,576,655 $ 37,759,232

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

III-30 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands 2009 2008

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations $ 13,268,917 $ 12,924,950

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,829,346 1,674,463

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 11,439,571 11,250,487

Obligations Incurred 40,529,803 34,209,370

Less: Gross Outlays 35,195,818 33,020,941

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 956,534 844,461

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (88,725) (154,881)

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period

Unpaid Obligations 17,646,368 13,268,917

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,829,346 1,918,071 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 11,439,571 15,728,297 $ 

Net Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 35,195,818 $ 33,020,941

Less: Offsetting Collections 6,588,035 6,255,828

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Note 20) 539,325 (121,927)

Total Net Outlays (Note 20) $ 28,068,458 $ 26,887,040

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-31

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008
Dollars in Thousands 2009 2008

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 2,884,775 $ 2,758,710 $ 

Fees and Licenses 27,262 29,224 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil 44,979 21,956 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal 22,997 26,895 

Miscellaneous 2,469 357 

Total Cash Collections 2,837,292 2,982,332 

Accrual Adjustments 188 (222)

Total Custodial Revenue 2,837,070 2,982,520 

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture (92,073) (140,289)

U.S. Department of Commerce (771) (1,884)

U.S. Department of the Interior (25,059) (23,239)

U.S. Department of Justice (123,787) (294,666)

U.S. Department of Labor (528) (3,268)

U.S. Postal Service (4,435) (10,817)

U.S. Department of the Treasury (368,790) (249,287)

Office of Personnel Management (19,833) (7,432)

National Credit Union Administration (470) (7)

Federal Communications Commission (9,773) (4,114)

Social Security Administration (982) (650)

Smithsonian Institution (8) (9)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (28,710) (13,548)

General Services Administration (116,631) (1,516)

Securities and Exchange Commission (4) -

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (1,958) (14)

Railroad Retirement Board (335) (373)

Tennessee Valley Authority (4,207) (7,933)

Environmental Protection Agency (223,334) (440,033)

U.S. Department of Transportation (1,357) (36,213)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (17,169) (46,329)

Small Business Administration (5,332) (10,740)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1,367,320) (1,614,871)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2,957) (413)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (18,347) (8,467)

U.S. Department of Energy (4,065) (7,463)

U.S. Department of Education (18,003) (14,517)

Independent Agencies (54,916) (86,419)

U.S. Department of Defense (115,735) (113,023) 

Transferred to the Public (329,816) (339,229)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred 55,568 723,404

Refunds and Other Payments (918) (898)

Retained by the Reporting Entity (83,177) (80,101)

Net Custodial Activity (Note 22) $ - - $ 

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

III-32
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-33

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies 

A. Reporting Entity

 

The Department of Justice (Department) has a wide range of responsibilities which include: detecting, 

apprehending, prosecuting, and incarcerating criminal offenders; operating federal prison factories; 

upholding the civil rights of all Americans; enforcing laws to protect the environment; ensuring 

healthy competition of business in the United States’ free enterprise system; safeguarding the 

consumer from fraudulent activity; carrying out the immigration laws of the United States; and 

representing the American people in all legal matters involving the U.S. Government. Under the 

direction of the Attorney General, these responsibilities are discharged by the components of the 

Department. 

 

For purposes of these consolidated/combined financial statements, the following components comprise 

the Department=s reporting entity: 

 Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund (AFF/SADF) 

 Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs) 

 U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) 

 Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

 Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) 

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) (Public Law 111-5) was signed into 

law by President Obama on February 17, 2009. As one of its many elements, the Recovery Act 

provides the Department with funding for grants to assist state, local, and tribal law enforcement 

(including support for hiring), to combat violence against women, to fight internet crimes against 

children, to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system, to assist victims of crime, and to 

support youth mentoring. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-34 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

B. Basis of Presentation 

These financial statements have been prepared from the books and records of the Department in 

accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles issued by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and presentation guidelines in the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. These financial statements are 

different from the financial reports prepared pursuant to OMB directives which are used to monitor and 

control the use of the Department=s budgetary resources. The accompanying financial statements include 

the accounts of all funds under the Department=s control. To ensure that the Department financial 

statements are meaningful at the entity level and to enhance reporting consistency within the Department, 

Other Assets and Other Liabilities as defined by OMB Circular A-136 have been disaggregated on the 

balance sheet. These included Forfeited Property, Net; Advances and Prepayments; Accrued Grant 

Liabilities; Accrued Federal Employees’ Compensation Act Liabilities; Custodial Liabilities; Accrued 

Payroll and Benefits; Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities; Deferred Revenue; Seized 

Cash and Monetary Instruments; Contingent Liabilities; Capital Lease Liabilities; and Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act Liabilities. 

C. Basis of Consolidation 

The consolidated/combined financial statements of the Department include the accounts of the 

AFF/SADF, OBDs, USMS, OJP, DEA, FBI, ATF, BOP, and FPI. All significant proprietary

 intra-departmental transactions and balances have been eliminated in consolidation. The Statements of 

Budgetary Resources and Statements of Custodial Activity are combined statements for FYs 2009 and 

2008, and as such, intra-departmental transactions have not been eliminated. 

D. Basis of Accounting 

Transactions are recorded on the accrual and budgetary bases of accounting. Under the accrual basis, 

revenues are recorded when earned and expenses are recorded when incurred, regardless of when cash 

is exchanged. Under the budgetary basis, however, funds availability is recorded based upon legal 

considerations and constraints. As a result, certain line items on the proprietary financial statements 

may not equal similar line items on the budgetary financial statements. FPI is non-appropriated and 

self-sustaining. While FPI performs budgetary accounting in preparing its financial statements, FPI 

does not record budgetary information at the transaction level. 

Custodial activity reported on the Combined Statement of Custodial Activity is prepared on the 

modified cash basis. Civil and Criminal Debt Collections are recorded when the Department receives 

payment from debtors. Accrual adjustments are made related to collections of fees and licenses. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-35

D. Basis of Accounting (continued)

The financial statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S. 

Government, a sovereign entity. One implication of this is that liabilities cannot be liquidated without 

legislation that provides resources and legal authority to do so. 

 E. Non-Entity Assets

Non-entity assets are not available for use by the Department and consist primarily of restricted 

undisbursed civil and criminal debt collections, seized cash, accounts receivable, and other monetary 

assets.

 F. Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury and Cash 

Funds with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) represent primarily appropriated, revolving, and 

trust funds available to pay current liabilities and finance future authorized purchases. The Treasury, as 

directed by authorized certifying officers, processes cash receipts and disbursements. The Department does 

not, for the most part, maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Certain receipts, however, are 

processed by commercial banks for deposit into individual accounts maintained at the Treasury. The 

Department=s cash and other monetary assets consist of undeposited collections, imprest funds, cash used 

in undercover operations, cash held as evidence, and seized cash.

 G. Investments 

Investments are market-based Treasury securities issued by the Bureau of Public Debt. When securities 

are purchased, the investment is recorded at face value (the value at maturity). The Department=s intent is 

to hold investments to maturity, unless securities are needed to sustain operations. No provision is made 

for unrealized gains or losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to 

maturity. The market value of the investments is the current market value at the end of the reporting 

period. It is calculated by using the “End of Day” price listed in The FedInvest Price File which can be 

found on the Bureau of Public Debt website (http://www.fedinvest.gov/). Investments are reported on the 

Consolidated Balance Sheet at their net value, the face value plus or minus any unamortized premium or 

discount. Premiums and discounts are amortized over the life of the Treasury security. Amortization is 

based on the straight-line method over the term of the securities. 

The AFF, the U.S. Trustee System Fund, and the Federal Prison Commissary Fund are three earmarked 

funds that invest in Treasury securities. The Treasury does not set aside assets to pay future expenditures 

associated with earmarked funds. Instead, the cash generated from earmarked funds is used by the 

Treasury for general Government purposes. When these earmarked funds redeem their Treasury securities 

to make expenditures, the Treasury will finance the expenditures in the same manner that it finances all 

other expenditures. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-36 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

G. Investments (continued) 

Treasury securities are issued to the earmarked funds as evidence of earmarked receipts and provide 

the funds with the authority to draw upon the U.S. Treasury for future authorized expenditures. 

Treasury securities held by an earmarked fund are an asset of the fund and a liability of the Treasury, 

so they are eliminated in consolidation for the U.S. Government-wide financial statements. 

H. Accounts Receivable 

Net accounts receivable includes reimbursement and refund receivables due from federal agencies and 

others, less the allowance for doubtful accounts. Generally, most intragovernmental accounts 

receivable are considered fully collectible. The allowance for doubtful accounts for public receivables 

is estimated based on past collection experience and analysis of outstanding receivable balances at 

year end. 

I. Inventory and Related Property 

Inventory is maintained primarily for the manufacture of goods for sale to customers. This inventory 

is composed of three categories: Raw Materials, Work in Process, and Finished Goods. Raw material 

inventory value is based upon moving average costs, and the values of sub-assembly and finished 

goods inventories are based upon standard costs that are periodically adjusted to approximate actual 

costs that include material, labor and manufacturing overhead. 

An allowance for inventory valuation and obsolescence is recorded for anticipated inventory losses of 

contracts where the current estimated cost to manufacture the item exceeds the total sales price, as well 

as estimated losses for inventories that may not be utilized in the future. 

Additional inventories consist of new and rehabilitated office furniture, equipment and supplies used 

for the repair of airplanes, administrative supplies and materials, commissary sales to inmates (sundry 

items), metals, plastics, electronics, graphics, and optics. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-37

J. General Property, Plant and Equipment 

Real property, except for land, is capitalized when the cost of acquiring and/or improving the asset is 

$100 or more and the asset has a useful life of two or more years. Land is capitalized regardless of the 

acquisition cost. Real property is depreciated or amortized, based on historical cost, using the straightline method over the estimated useful life of the asset. 

Except for BOP and FPI, Department acquisitions of personal property, excluding internal use 

software, $25 and over are capitalized if the asset has an estimated useful life of two or more years. 

Personal property is depreciated, based on historical cost, using the straight-line method over the 

estimated useful life of the asset. BOP and FPI capitalize personal property acquisitions over $5. 

Internal use software is capitalized when developmental phase costs or enhancement costs are $500 or 

more and the asset has an estimated useful life of two or more years. Aircraft are capitalized when the 

initial cost of acquiring those assets is $100 or more. Internal use software and aircraft are 

depreciated, based on historical cost, using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of 

the asset. 

K. Advances and Prepayments 

 

Advances and prepayments, classified as assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, consist primarily

of funds disbursed to grantees in excess of total expenditures made by those grantees to third parties, 

funds advanced to state and local participants in the DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication and 

Suppression Program, and travel advances issued to federal employees for official travel. Travel 

advances are limited to meals and incidental expenses expected to be incurred by the employees 

during official travel. Payments in advance of the receipt of goods and services are recorded as 

prepaid charges at the time of payment and are recognized as expenses when the goods and services 

are received. 

L. Forfeited and Seized Property 

 

Forfeited property is property for which the title has passed to the U.S. Government. This property is 

recorded at the estimated fair market value at the time of forfeiture and is not adjusted for any 

subsequent increases and decreases in estimated fair market value. The value of the property is 

reduced by the estimated liens of record. 

 

Property is seized in consequence of a violation of public law. Seized property can include monetary 

instruments, real property, and tangible personal property of others in the actual or constructive 

possession of the custodial agency. Most non-cash property is held by the USMS from the point of 

seizure until its disposition. This property is recorded at the estimated fair market value at the time of 

seizure. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-38 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

M. Liabilities

Liabilities represent the monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the Department as the 

result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can be paid by the 

Department absent proper budget authority. Liabilities that are not funded by the current year 

appropriation are classified as liabilities not covered by budgetary resources in Note 11. 

On October 15, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2210 note (1990), providing for compassionate payments to individuals who contracted certain 

cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation released during aboveground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in 

underground uranium mines. The September 30, 2009 and 2008 estimated liabilities are based on 

historical data collected since the Program commenced operations in 1992, and management’s 

assumptions concerning receipt and approval of claims in the future. 

 

Key factors in determining liability are the number of claims filed, the number of claims approved, 

and estimates for these factors through FY 2022. These estimates are then discounted in accordance 

with the discount rates set by OMB. 

N. Accrued Grant Liabilities 

 

Disbursements of grant funds are recognized as expenses at the time of disbursement. However, some 

grant recipients incur expenditures prior to initiating a request for disbursement based on the nature of 

the expenditures. The OBDs and OJP accrue a liability for expenditures incurred by grantees prior to 

receiving grant funds for expenditures. The amount to be accrued is determined through an analysis of 

historic grant expenditures. These estimates are based on the most current information available at the 

time the financial statements are prepared. 

O. Contingencies and Commitments

The Department is involved in various legal actions, including administrative proceedings, lawsuits, 

and claims. A liability is generally recognized as an unfunded liability for those legal actions where 

unfavorable decisions are considered “probable” and an estimate for the liability can be made. 

Contingent liabilities that are considered “probable” or “reasonably possible” are disclosed in Note 16. 

Liabilities that are considered “remote” are not recognized in the financial statements or disclosed in 

the notes to the financial statements. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-39

P. Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual and compensatory leave is expensed with an offsetting liability as it is earned and the liability

is reduced as leave is taken. Each year, the balance in the accrued annual leave liability account is 

adjusted to reflect current pay rates. To the extent current or prior year appropriations are not 

available to fund annual and compensatory leave earned but not taken, funding will be obtained from 

future financing sources. Sick leave and other types of nonvested leave are expensed as taken. 

Q. Interest on Late Payments

Pursuant to the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. ' 3901-3907, the Department pays interest on 

payments for goods or services made to business concerns after the due date. The due date is 

generally 30 days after receipt of a proper invoice or acceptance of the goods or services, whichever is 

later. 

R. Retirement Plan

With few exceptions, employees hired before January 1, 1984 are covered by the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) and employees hired on or after that date are covered by the Federal 

Employees Retirement System (FERS). For employees covered by CSRS, the Department contributes 

7% of the employees= gross pay for regular and 7.5% for law enforcement officers’ retirement. For 

employees covered by FERS, the Department contributes 11.2% of employees= gross pay for regular 

and 24.9% for law enforcement officers’ retirement. All employees are eligible to contribute to the 

Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). For those employees covered by the FERS, a TSP account is 

automatically established to which the Department is required to contribute an additional 1% of gross 

pay and match employee contributions up to 4%. No contributions are made to the TSP accounts 

established by the CSRS employees. The Department does not report CSRS or FERS assets, 

accumulated plan benefits, or unfunded liabilities, if any, which may be applicable to its employees. 

Such reporting is the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Statement of 

Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal 

Government, requires employing agencies to recognize the cost of pensions and other retirement 

benefits during their employees= active years of service. Refer to Note 19, Imputed Financing from 

Costs Absorbed by Others, for additional details. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-40 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

S. Federal Employee Compensation Benefits 

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and medical cost protection to 

covered federal civilian employees injured on the job, employees who have incurred a work-related 

occupational disease, and beneficiaries of employees whose death is attributable to a job-related injury 

or occupational disease. The total FECA liability consists of an actuarial and an accrued portion as 

discussed below.

Actuarial Liability: The Department of Labor (DOL) calculates the liability of the federal government 

for future compensation benefits, which includes the expected liability for death, disability, medical, 

and other approved costs. The liability is determined using the paid-losses extrapolation method 

calculated over the next 37-year period. This method utilizes historical benefit payment patterns 

related to a specific incurred period to predict the ultimate payments related to that period. The 

projected annual benefit payments are discounted to present value. The resulting federal government 

liability is then distributed by agency. The Department portion of this liability includes the estimated 

future cost of death benefits, workers' compensation, medical, and miscellaneous cost for approved 

compensation cases for the Department employees. The Department liability is further allocated to 

component reporting entities on the basis of actual payments made to the FECA Special Benefits Fund 

(SBF) for the three prior years as compared to the total Department payments made over the same 

period. 

The FECA actuarial liability is recorded for reporting purposes only. This liability constitutes an 

extended future estimate of cost, which will not be obligated against budgetary resources until the 

fiscal year in which the cost is actually billed to the Department. The cost associated with this liability 

cannot be met by the Department without further appropriation action. 

Accrued Liability: The accrued FECA liability is the amount owed to the DOL for the benefits paid 

from the FECA SBF directly to Department employees. 

T. Intragovernmental Activity 

These transactions and/or balances result from business activities conducted between two different 

federal government entities. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-41

U. Revenues and Other Financing Sources 

The Department receives the majority of funding needed to support its programs through 

Congressional appropriations. The Department receives annual, multi-year, and no-year 

appropriations that may be used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital expenditures. 

Additional funding is obtained through exchange revenues, nonexchange revenues, and transfers-in.

Appropriations Used are recognized as budgetary financing sources at the time the related program or 

administrative expenses are incurred. Exchange revenues are recognized when earned, for example, 

when goods have been delivered or services rendered. Nonexchange revenues are resources that the 

government demands or receives, for example, forfeiture revenue and fines and penalties. 

The Department=s exchange revenue consists of the following activities: licensing fees to manufacture 

and distribute controlled substances; services rendered for legal activities; space management; data 

processing services; sale of merchandise and telephone services to inmates; sale of manufactured 

goods and services to other federal agencies; and other services. Fees are set by law and are 

periodically evaluated in accordance with OMB guidance. 

The Department=s nonexchange revenue consists of forfeiture income resulting from the sale of 

forfeited property, penalties in lieu of forfeiture, recovery of returned asset management cost, 

judgment collections, and other miscellaneous income. Other nonexchange revenue includes the OJP 

Crime Victims Fund receipts, ATF fees from firearms and ammunition industries, and AFF/SADF 

interest on investments with the Treasury. 

The Department=s deferred revenue includes fees received for processing various applications and 

licenses with DEA for which the process was not completed at the end of fiscal year or for licenses 

that are valid for multiple years. These monies are recorded as liabilities in the financial statements. 

Deferred revenue also includes forfeited property held for sale. When the property is sold, deferred 

revenue is reversed and forfeiture revenue in the amount of the gross proceeds of the sale is recorded. 

V. Earmarked Funds 

 

SFFAS No. 27, Identifying and Reporting Earmarked Funds, defines ‘earmarked funds’ as being 

financed by specifically identified revenues, often supplemented by other financing sources, which 

remain available over time. These specifically identified revenues and other financing sources are 

required by statute to be used for designated activities, benefits or purposes, and must be accounted for 

separately from the government’s general revenues. The three required criteria for an Earmarked Fund 

are: 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-42 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

V. Earmarked Funds (continued) 

1. A statute committing the federal government to use specifically identified revenues and other 

financing sources only for designated activities, benefits or purposes; 

2. Explicit authority for the earmarked fund to retain revenues and other financing sources not used 

in the current period for future use to finance the designated activities, benefits, or purposes; and 

3. A requirement to account for and report on the receipt, use, and retention of the revenues and other 

financing sources that distinguishes the earmarked fund from the Government’s general revenues. 

The following funds meet the definition of an earmarked fund: AFF, UST System Fund, Antitrust 

Division, Crime Victims Fund, Diversion Control Fee Account, and Federal Prison Commissary Fund. 

W. Tax Exempt Status 

As an agency of the federal government, the Department is exempt from all taxes imposed by any 

governing body whether it be a federal, state, commonwealth, local or foreign government. 

X. Use of Estimates 

The preparation of financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and 

assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of 

revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. 

Y. Reclassifications

The FY 2008 financial statements were reclassified to conform to the FY 2009 Departmental financial 

statement presentation requirements. The reclassifications had no material effect on total assets, 

liabilities, net position, change in net position or budgetary resources as previously reported. 

Z. Subsequent Events

Subsequent events and transactions occurring after September 30, 2009 through the date of the 

auditors’ opinion have been evaluated for potential recognition or disclosure in the financial 

statements. The date of the auditors’ opinion also represents the date that the financial statements were 

available to be issued. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 2. Non-Entity Assets 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 293,403 $ 532,327

Investments, Net 1,376,821 1,208,217

Total Intragovernmental 1,670,224 1,740,544

With the Public

Cash and Monetary Assets 205,908 148,410

Accounts Receivable, Net 15,053 15,003

Total With the Public 220,961 163,413

Total Non-Entity Assets 1,891,185 1,903,957

Total Entity Assets 34,736,643 27,440,090

Total Assets $ 36,627,828 $ 29,344,047

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-43
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 3. Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury 

The Fund Balances with U.S. Treasury represent the unexpended balances on the Department=s books for all 

the Department=s Treasury Symbols. 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Fund Balances

Trust Funds $ 96,440 $ 82,885

Special Funds 4,396,836 3,247,682

Revolving Funds 414,811 612,318

General Funds 15,886,777 11,595,325

Other Fund Types 62,151 57,233

Total Fund Balances with U.S. Treasury $ 20,857,015 $ 15,595,443

Status of Fund Balances

Unobligated Balance - Available $ 2,747,973 $ 2,451,886

Unobligated Balance - Unavailable 1,298,879 1,097,976

Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 15,728,297 11,439,571

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources 1,081,866 606,010

Total Status of Fund Balances $ 20,857,015 $ 15,595,443

Annual and multi-year budget authority expires at the end of its period of availability. During the first through 

the fifth expired years, the unobligated balance becomes unavailable and may be used to adjust obligations and 

disbursements that were recorded before the budgetary authority expired or to meet a legitimate or bona fide 

need arising in the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made. The unobligated balance for no-year 

budget authority may be used to incur obligations indefinitely for the purpose specified by the appropriation 

act. No-year budget authority unobligated balances are still subject to the annual apportionment and allotment 

process. 

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources primarily represent the net difference of 1) investments in 

short-term securities with budgetary resources, 2) resources temporarily not available pursuant to public law, 

3) custodial liabilities, and 4) miscellaneous receipts. 

III-44 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 4. Cash and Monetary Assets 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Cash

Undeposited Collections $ 10,022 $ 14,881

Imprest Funds 11,158 15,332

Seized Cash Deposited 135,002 91,144

Other Cash 7,691 7,625

Total Cash 163,873 128,982

Monetary Assets

Seized Monetary Instruments 65,921 53,227

Total Cash and Monetary Assets $ 229,794 $ 182,209

Note 5. Investments, Net 

Unamortized

 F ace Premium Interest Investments, Market

Value (Discount) Receivable Net Value

As of September 30, 2009

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 3,843,066 $ (476) $ 3,842,785 195 $ $ 3,843,218

As of September 30, 2008

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 3,317,153 $ (5,849) $ 3,311,304 - $ $ 3,313,091

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-45
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 6. Accounts Receivable, Net

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

 2009 2008

Intragovernmental 

Accounts Receivable $ 332,216 $ 359,468

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (5,806) (891)

Total Intragovernmental 326,410 358,577

With the Public

Accounts Receivable 94,791 146,123

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (14,967) (22,323)

Total With the Public 79,824 123,800

Total Accounts Receivable, Net $ 406,234 $ 482,377

The accounts receivable with the public primarily consists of OBDs U.S. Trustee Chapter 11 quarterly fees, 

FBI Non Federal User Fee Program, FBI National Name Check Program, court mandated restitution, and 

refunds due from the public. 

Note 7. Inventory and Related Property, Net 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Inventory

Raw Materials $ 148,399 $ 134,422

Work in Process 49,282 53,648

Finished Goods 55,939 56,259

Inventory Purchased for Resale 16,653 20,599

Excess, Obsolete, and Unserviceable 22,825 20,288

Inventory Allowance (12,213) (14,501)

Operating Materials and Supplies

Held for Current Use 17,816 13,502

Total Inventory and Related Property, Net $ 298,701 $ 284,217

III-46 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-47

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property 

Equitable Sharing Payments:

The statute governing the use of the AFF (28 U.S.C. '524(c)) permits the payment of equitable shares of 

forfeiture proceeds to participating foreign governments and state and local law enforcement agencies. The 

statute does not require such sharing and permits the Attorney General wide discretion in determining those 

transfers. Actual sharing is difficult to predict because many factors influence both the amount and timing of 

disbursement of equitable sharing payments, such as the length of time required to move an asset through the 

forfeiture process to disposition, the amount of net proceeds available for sharing, the elapse of time for 

Departmental approval of equitable sharing requests for cases with asset values exceeding $1 million, and 

appeal of forfeiture judgments. Because of uncertainties surrounding the timing and amount of any equitable 

sharing payment, an obligation and expense are recorded only when the actual disbursement of the equitable 

sharing payment is imminent. The anticipated equitable sharing allocation level for FY 2010 is $450 million.

Analysis of Change in Forfeited Property:

The number of items represents quantities calculated using many different units of measure. The adjustments 

for FYs 2009 and 2008 include property status and valuation changes received after, but properly credited to 

FYs 2008 and 2007, respectively. The valuation changes include updates and corrections to an asset’s value 

recorded in a prior year. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued) 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 80 143 - (133) 90 90 - 

Instruments Value 1,847 $ $ 49,642 - $ (31,809) $ 19,680 $ 19,680 - $ 

Real Number 478 451 - (433) 496 496 - 

Property Value 103,163 $ - $ 93,195 $ (91,453) $ 104,905 $ 103,417 (1,488) $ 

Personal Number 2,899 5,725 - (5,128) 3,496 3,496 - 

Property Value 41,532 $ (3,252) $ 123,799 $ (57,041) $ 105,038 $ 103,746 (1,292) $ 

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 22,607 11,377 - (12,044) 21,940 21,940 - 

Total Number 26,064 17,696 - (17,738) 26,022 26,022 - 

Value 146,542 $ (3,252) $ 266,636 $ (180,303) $ 229,623 $ (2,780) $ 226,843 $ 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 61 254 3 (238) 80 80 - 

Instruments Value 2,123 $ (660) $ 39,869 $ (39,485) $ 1,847 $ 1,847 - $ 

Real Number 411 391 1 (325) 478 478 - 

Property Value 90,709 $ $ 73,585 2,500 $ (63,631) $ 103,163 $ 98,523 (4,640) $ 

Personal Number 2,970 4,436 378 (4,885) 2,899 2,899 - 

Property Value 35,601 $ $ 94,075 488 $ (88,632) $ 41,532 (2,005) $ 39,527 $ 

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 19,650 8,939 - (5,982) 22,607 22,607 - 

Total Number 23,092 14,020 382 (11,430) 26,064 26,064 - 

Value 128,433 $ 2,328 $ 207,529 $ (191,748) $ 146,542 $ (6,645) $ 139,897 $ 

III-48 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-49

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued) 

Method of Disposition of Forfeited Property: 

During FYs 2009 and 2008, $104,883 and $93,916 of forfeited property were sold, $7,032 and $32,652 were 

destroyed or donated, $24,831 and $11,188 were returned to owners, and $43,557 and $53,992 were disposed 

of by other means, respectively. Other means of distribution include property transferred to other federal 

agencies for official use or equitable sharing or property distributed to a state or local agency. 

Analysis of Change in Seized Property: 

Property seized for any purpose other than forfeiture and held by the seizing agency or a custodial agency 

should be disclosed by the seizing agency. All property seized for forfeiture, including property with 

evidentiary value, will be reported by the AFF/SADF. The Department has established a reporting threshold 

of $1,000 (one thousand) or more for Personal Property seized for evidentiary purposes. 

A seizure is the act of taking possession of goods in consequence of a violation of public law. Seized property 

consists of seized cash, monetary instruments, real property and tangible personal property in the actual or 

constructive possession of the seizing and the custodial agencies. The Department, until judicially or 

administratively forfeited, does not legally own such property. Seized evidence includes cash, financial 

instruments, non-monetary valuables, firearms, and illegal drugs. The AFF/SADF reports property seized for 

forfeiture and the FBI, DEA, and ATF report property seized for evidence. 

During FY 2008, management determined that reporting Department-wide seized firearms is a preferred 

practice, although the seizure of firearms is considered inconsequential to FBI and DEA’s primary mission. 

The sensitive nature of these items led management to adopt this practice in fiscal year 2008 by recognizing a 

one-time adjustment for FBI and DEA to ensure Department-wide reporting. Beginning in FY 2009, the 

seizures and disposals of firearms will be reported for all components. 

The adjustments for FYs 2009 and 2008 include property status and valuation changes received after, but 

properly credited to FYs 2008 and 2007, respectively. The valuation changes include updates and corrections 

to an asset’s value recorded in a prior year. In addition, adjustments include FY 2008 non-valued seized 

property ending balances that were used to determine the FY 2009 beginning balances for non-valued seized 

property. 

The DEA, FBI, and ATF have custody of illegal drugs taken as evidence for legal proceedings. In accordance 

with Federal Financial Accounting and Auditing Technical Release No. 4, Reporting on Non-Valued Seized 

and Forfeited Property, the Department reports the total amount of seized drugs by quantity only, as illegal 

drugs have no value and are destroyed upon resolution of legal proceedings. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-50 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued) 

Analyzed drug evidence represents actual laboratory tested classification and weight in kilograms (KG). Since 

enforcing the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States is a primary mission of the DEA, 

the DEA reports all analyzed drug evidence regardless of seizure weight. However, the enforcement of these 

laws and regulations is incidental to the missions of the FBI and ATF and therefore they only report those 

individual seizures exceeding 1 KG in weight. 

“Adjustments” are primarily due to the validation of drug weights that occurs after the drugs have been 

analyzed. “Other Drugs” are illegal substances not including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, bulk drug evidence, 

and methamphetamine. “Bulk Drug Evidence” is comprised of controlled substances housed by the DEA in 

secured storage facilities of which only a sample is taken for laboratory analysis. The actual bulk drug weight 

may vary from seizure weight due to changes in moisture content over time. 

Unanalyzed drug evidence is qualitatively different from analyzed and bulk drug evidence because unanalyzed 

drug evidence includes the weight of packaging and drug categories are based on the determination of Special 

Agents instead of laboratory chemists. For these reasons, unanalyzed drug evidence is not reported by the 

Department. Seized drug evidence must be analyzed and confirmed through laboratory testing to be placed in 

one of the five categories of drug above. “Disposals” occur when evidence is either returned to the owner or 

destroyed in accordance with federal guidelines. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued) 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

 Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Forfeiture

Seized Cash Value 1,228,440 $ - $ 1,544,033 $ (1,321,214) $ 1,451,259 $ $ 1,388,576 (62,683) $ 

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 384 71 - (90) 365 - 365

Instruments Value 102,209 $ $ 50,116 - $ $ (27,747) $ 124,578 $ (8,272) $ 116,306

Real Number 199 - 190 (179) 210 - 210

Property Value 65,663 $ $ 61,426 - $ $ (60,911) $ (9,761) 66,178 $ $ 56,417

Personal Number 7,365 3 7,501 (7,440) 7,429 - 7,429

Property Value 144,304 $ $ 154,686 389 $ $ (140,499) $ (15,238) 158,880 $ 143,642 $ 

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 42,708 - 14,919 (18,058) 39,569 - 39,569 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

 Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Forfeiture

Seized Cash Value 1,265,908 $ 3,284 $ 1,032,772 $ (1,073,524) $ 1,228,440 $ $ 1,154,700 (73,740) $ 

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 304 36 190 (146) 384 - 384

Instruments Value 115,246 $ $ 24,528 (239) $ $ (37,326) $ 102,209 $ (6,455) $ 95,754

Real Number 203 254 - (258) 199 - 199

Property Value 77,042 $ $ 47,031 600 $ $ (59,010) $ (10,582) 65,663 $ 55,081 $ 

Personal Number 6,574 7,188 5 (6,402) 7,365 - 7,365

Property Value 163,624 $ 118$ 108,469 $ $ (127,907) $ (16,596) 144,304 $ 127,708 $ 

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 35,120 16,903 - (9,315) 42,708 - 42,708 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-51
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued) 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Evidence

Seized Monetary Value 38,171 $ (4,946) $ $ 35,375 $ (28,199) $ 40,401 -$ 40,401 $ 

Instruments

Personal Number 51,693 (50,625) 740 (323) 1,485$ - 1,485

Property Value 29,459 $ (18,475) $ 25,717 $ $ (8,758) $ 27,943 -$ 27,943 $ 

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 45,259 (269) 6,807 (7,919) 43,878$ 43,878 - 

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 393,021 58,114 540 (102,224) 349,451 349,451 - 

 Heroin KG 3,489 (81) 654 (490) 3,572 - 3,572

 Marijuana KG 21,017 (1,776) 5,359 (4,687) 19,913 19,913 - 

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 216,689 1,200,533 2,358 (1,195,644) 223,936 223,936 - 

 Methamphetamine KG 6,212 204 1,741 (1,366) 6,791 - 6,791

 Other Drugs KG 52,598 (370) 6,217 (11,265) 47,180 47,180 - 

 Total Drug Evidence KG 693,026 1,272,618 875 (1,315,676) 650,843 650,843 - 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Evidence

Seized Monetary Value 33,305 $ (3,927) $ $ 33,655 $ (24,862) $ 38,171 $ 38,171 - $ 

Instruments

Personal Number 58,193 (9,757) 16,750 (13,493) 51,693 51,693 - 

Property Value 26,034 $ 1,786 $ $ 12,129 $ (10,490) $ 29,459 $ 29,459 - $ 

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 15,814 28,994 6,012 (5,561) 45,259 45,259 - 

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 470,579 38,138 97 (115,793) 393,021 393,021 - 

 Heroin KG 3,345 (19) 738 (575) 3,489 - 3,489

 Marijuana KG 22,450 4,320 539 (6,292) 21,017 21,017 - 

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 196,341 824,464 5,891 (810,007) 216,689 216,689 - 

 Methamphetamine KG (262) 6,999 1,353 (1,878) 6,212 - 6,212

 Other Drugs KG 50,882 8,910 44 (7,238) 52,598 52,598 - 

 Total Drug Evidence KG 750,596 877,923 6,290 (941,783) 693,026 693,026 - 

III-52 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued) 

Method of Disposition of Seized Property: 

During FYs 2009 and 2008, $1,402,885 and $1,197,402 of seized property were forfeited, $136,939 and 

$92,606 were returned to parties with a bonafide interest, and $47,504 and $43,111 were disposed of by other 

means, respectively. Other means of disposition include seized property that is sold, converted to cash, or 

destroyed. 

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 

As of September 30, 2009

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 192,971 $ 192,971 - $ N/A

Improvements to Land 4,518 (251) 4,267 15 yrs

Construction in Progress 884,163 884,163 - N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 8,789,318 (3,374,721) 5,414,597 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 774,780 (358,344) 416,436 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 343,708 (102,815) 240,893 5-30 yrs

Boats 10,061 (4,709) 5,352 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 500,119 (311,073) 189,046 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,548,950 (982,552) 566,398 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 107,247 (54,366) 52,881 5-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 971,367 (509,398) 461,969 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 333,728 (151,195) 182,533 3-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 603,520 603,520 - N/A

Total $ 15,064,450 $ (5,849,424) $ 9,215,026

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2009 $ 252,302 $ 911,475 $ 1,163,777

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-53
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (continued) 

As of September 30, 2008

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 191,090 $ 191,090 - $ N/A

Construction in Progress 882,838 882,838 - N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 8,521,747 (3,087,493) 5,434,254 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 728,679 (323,457) 405,222 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 268,484 (88,848) 179,636 5-30 yrs

Boats 9,250 (4,097) 5,153 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 474,756 (283,562) 191,194 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,435,683 (921,869) 513,814 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 102,118 (49,083) 53,035 5-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 778,083 (431,048) 347,035 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 278,920 (115,281) 163,639 3-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 391,630 391,630 - N/A

Total $ 14,063,278 $ (5,304,738) $ 8,758,540

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2008 $ 181,226 $ 1,020,773 $ 1,201,999

Note 10. Other Assets 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Intragovernmental

Advances and Prepayments $ 130,878 $ 118,675

Other Intragovernmental Assets 110 87

 Total Intragovernmental 130,988 118,762

Other Assets With the Public 4,921 4,738

Total Other Assets $ 135,909 $ 123,500

Other Assets With the Public primarily consist of farm livestock held by the BOP. 

III-54 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 11. Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Intragovernmental

Accrued FECA Liabilities $ 234,173 $ 224,679

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 1,528 3,406

Other 46 -

Total Intragovernmental 235,747 228,085

With the Public

Actuarial FECA Liabilities 1,233,899 1,136,569

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 771,814 717,168

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 22,112 22,112

Deferred Revenue 269,840 215,330

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 172,653 164,312

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 36,956 42,735

RECA Liabilities 343,835 321,671

Other 14,282 8,375

Total With the Public 2,865,391 2,628,272

Total Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 3,101,138 2,856,357

Total Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources 6,095,373 5,759,201

Total Liabilities $ 9,196,511 $ 8,615,558

Generally, liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which Congressional action is 

needed before budgetary resources can be provided. However, some liabilities do not require appropriations 

and will be liquidated by the assets of the entities holding these liabilities. Such assets include civil and 

criminal debt collections, seized cash and monetary instruments, and revolving fund operations. 

Note 12. Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 

The BOP operates firing ranges on 64 of the sites where its institutions are located. Use of these firing ranges 

generates waste consisting primarily of lead shot and spent rounds from rifles, shotguns, pistols, and automatic 

weapons. At operational firing ranges, lead-containing bullets are fired and eventually fall to the ground at or 

near the range. In FYs 2009 and 2008, BOP management determined that an estimated cleanup liability of 

$22,112 should be recorded in both years. 

An extensive review of the current and past safety practices of FPI’s Recycling business segment revealed that 

cleanup of past lead and other contamination was recommended as the result of their glass breaking operation. 

Included in FPI’s Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2009 is $204 in Environmental and Disposal Liabilities. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-55
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 13. Leases 

Capital leases include a Federal Detention Center (25 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; an 

airplane hangar (20 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and other machinery and equipment that 

expire over future periods. 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

Capital Leases 2009 2008

Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease

Land and Buildings $ 100,352 $ 100,352

Machinery and Equipment 6,895 1,766

Accumulated Amortization (54,366) (49,083)

Total Assets Under Capital Lease (Note 9) $ 52,881 $ 53,035

The net capital lease liability not covered by budgetary resources primarily represents the capital lease of the 

Federal Detention Center for which the Department received Congressional authority to fund with annual 

appropriations. 

Future Capital Lease Payments Due

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2010 $ 10,086 $ 1,641 $ 11,727

2011 10,086 1,027 11,113

2012 9,073 877 9,950

2013 9,073 526 9,599

2014 9,073 - 9,073

 After 2014 161 - 161

Total Future Capital Lease Payments $ 47,552 $ 4,071 $ 51,623

Less: Imputed Interest (8,765) (637) (9,402)

FY 2009 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 38,787 $ 3,434 $ 42,221

FY 2008 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 45,392 $ 240 $ 45,632

2009 2008

Net Capital Lease Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 5,265 $ 2,897

Net Capital Lease Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 36,956 $ 42,735

III-56 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 13. Leases (continued) 

Operating leases have been established for multiple years. Many of the operating leases that expire over an 

extended period of time include an option to purchase the equipment at the current fair market value, or to 

renew the lease for additional periods. 

Operating Lease Expenses

Lease Type 2009 2008

Noncancelable Operating Leases $ 100,079 $ 98,874

Cancelable Operating Leases 1,500,363 1,524,156

Total Operating Lease Expenses $ 1,600,442 $ 1,623,030

Future Noncancelable Operating Lease Payments Due

 

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2010 11 $ 6,469 $ 19,691 $ 136,160

2011 17 5,160 6,268 181,428

2012 24 0,789 4,629 245,418

2013 27 5,924 4,617 280,541

2014 289,598 12 289,610

 After 2014 3,426,961 3,426,964 3 

Total Future Noncancelable Operating

Lease Payments $ 4,524,901 $ 35,220 $ 4,560,121

Note 14. Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 

The Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments represent liabilities for seized assets held by the Department 

pending disposition. 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Investments, Net $ 1,290,737 $ 1,122,240

Seized Cash Deposited 135,002 91,144

Seized Monetary Instruments 65,921 53,227

Total Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments $ 1,491,660 $ 1,266,611

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-57
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 15. Other Liabilities 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Intragovernmental 

 Employer Contributions and Payroll Taxes Payable $ 151,946 $ 127,944

Other Post-Employment Benefits Due and Payable 125 -

 Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 1,528 3,558

 Advances from Others 259,841 309,144

 Liability for Deposit Funds, Clearing

 Accounts and Undeposited Collections 31,773 15,153

 Other Liabilities 99,992 286,281

 Total Intragovernmental 545,205 742,080

With the Public

Other Accrued Liabilities 14,400 8,467

Advances from Others 8,591 7,406

Liability for Deposit Funds, Clearing

 Accounts and Undeposited Collections 46,438 46,236

Custodial Liabilities 104,446 108,965

Other Liabilities 1,990 3,439

Total With the Public 175,865 174,513

Total Other Liabilities $ 721,070 $ 916,593

Intragovernmental Other Liabilities primarily represent civil debt collections where the Treasury General Fund 

is designated as the recipient of either a portion of a collection or the entire amount of a collection. 

Other Accrued Liabilities with the Public consists of future funded utilities and judgment fund settlements. 

The majority of Liabilities are current with the exception of a portion that consists of capital leases and those 

liabilities related to future employee related expenses. 

III-58 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 16. Contingencies and Commitments 

The Department is party to various administrative proceedings, legal actions, and claims. The balance sheet 

includes an estimated liability for those legal actions where the management and Chief Counsel consider 

adverse decisions “probable” and the amounts are reasonably estimable. For those legal actions where the 

management and Chief Counsel consider adverse decisions “reasonably possible” and amounts are reasonably 

estimable information is disclosed below. However, there are cases where amounts have not been accrued or 

disclosed below because the amounts of the potential loss cannot be estimated or the likelihood of an 

unfavorable outcome is less than reasonably possible. 

Accrued

Liabilities Lower Upper

As of September 30, 2009

Probable $ 172,653 $ 172,653 $ 197,535

Reasonably Possible 173,765 200,307

As of September 30, 2008

Probable $ 164,312 $ 164,312 $ 184,595

Reasonably Possible 193,229 225,777

Estimated Range of Loss

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-59
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 17. Earmarked Funds 

Earmarked funds are financed by specifically identified revenues and are required by statute to be used for 

designated activities or purposes, and must be accounted for separately from the Government’s general 

revenues. See SFFAS 27, Identifying and Reporting Earmarked Funds, for the required criteria for an 

earmarked fund. 

As of September 30, 2009

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Balance Sheet

Assets

Fund Balance with U. S. Treasury $ 39,583 $ 9,018 $ 45,651 $ 4,203,542 $ 143,100 $ 76,756 $ 4,517,650

Investments, Net 2,072,999 129,065 - - - 2,202,064 - 

Other Assets 235,695 11,223 6,091 3,807 46,228 26,997 330,041

Total Assets $ 2,348,277 $ 149,306 $ 51,742 $ 4,207,349 $ 189,328 $ 103,753 $ 7,049,755

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 695,551 $ 13,222 $ 11,660 $ 36,329 $ 995 $ 19,165 $ 776,922

Other Liabilities 226,843 19,943 14,348 58,039 288,891 11,539 619,603

Total Liabilities $ 922,394 $ 33,165 $ 26,008 $ 94,368 $ 289,886 $ 30,704 $ 1,396,525

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ 22,207 - $ $ - $ - $ 22,207 - $ 

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,425,883 116,141 4,112,981 3,527 (100,558) 73,049 5,631,023

Total Net Position $ 1,425,883 $ 116,141 $ 25,734 $ 4,112,981 $ (100,558) $ 73,049 $ 5,653,230

Total Liabilities and Net Position 2,348,277 $ $ 149,306 $ 51,742 $ 4,207,349 $ 189,328 $ 103,753 $ 7,049,755

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Statement of Net Cost 

Gross Cost of Operations $ 1,001,512 $ 223,649 $ 159,370 $ 588,070 $ 217,450 $ 328,415 $ 2,518,466

Less: Exchange Revenues 6,723 231,498 42,208 179,933 - 319,601 779,963

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 994,789 $ $ (7,849) $ 117,162 $ 588,070 $ 37,517 $ 8,814 $ 1,738,503

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 1,007,809 $ 107,305 $ 17,330 $ 2,955,373 $ (69,174) $ 78,480 $ 4,097,123

Budgetary Financing Sources 1,387,107 125,075 234 1,745,678 - 3,258,094 - 

Other Financing Sources 25,756 753 491 6,133 - 3,383 36,516

 Total Financing Sources 1,412,863 125,566 987 1,745,678 6,133 3,383 3,294,610

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations (994,789) 7,849 (117,162) (588,070) (37,517) (8,814) (1,738,503)

Net Change 418,074 8,836 1,157,608 8,404 (31,384) (5,431) 1,556,107

Net Position End of Period $ 1,425,883 $ 116,141 $ 25,734 $ 4,112,981 $ (100,558) $ 73,049 $ 5,653,230

III-60 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued) 

As of September 30, 2008

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Balance Sheet

Assets

Fund Balance with U. S. Treasury $ 111,756 $ 6,304 $ 17,007 $ 3,015,259 $ 113,076 $ 72,291 $ 3,335,693

Investments, Net 1,635,344 115,043 - - - 1,750,387 - 

Other Assets 145,121 15,300 22,536 6,073 51,922 33,845 274,797

Total Assets $ 1,892,221 $ 136,647 $ 39,543 $ 3,021,332 $ 164,998 $ 106,136 $ 5,360,877

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 744,515 $ 11,023 $ 9,026 $ 3,351 $ 586 $ 16,713 $ 785,214

Other Liabilities 139,897 18,319 13,187 62,608 233,586 10,943 478,540

Total Liabilities $ 884,412 $ 29,342 $ 22,213 $ 65,959 $ 234,172 $ 27,656 $ 1,263,754

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ 44,902 - $ $ - $ - $ 44,902 - $ 

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,007,809 107,305 (27,572) 2,955,373 (69,174) 78,480 4,052,221

Total Net Position $ 1,007,809 $ 107,305 $ 17,330 $ 2,955,373 $ (69,174) $ 78,480 $ 4,097,123

Total Liabilities and Net Position 1,892,221 $ $ 136,647 $ 39,543 $ 3,021,332 $ 164,998 $ 106,136 $ 5,360,877

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Cost of Operations $ 1,033,894 $ 225,145 $ 161,841 $ 642,195 $ 216,644 $ 313,322 $ 2,593,041

Less: Exchange Revenues 3,178 171,783 102,939 191,356 - 319,066 788,322

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 1,030,716 $ $ 53,362 $ 58,902 $ 642,195 $ 25,288 $ (5,744) $ 1,804,719

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 734,213 $ 153,216 $ 32,812 $ 2,700,816 $ (49,352) $ 69,686 $ 3,641,391

Budgetary Financing Sources 1,306,333 162 38,703 896,752 - 2,241,950 - 

Other Financing Sources (2,021) 7,289 4,717 5,466 - 3,050 18,501

Total Financing Sources 1,304,312 7,451 43,420 896,752 5,466 3,050 2,260,451

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations (1,030,716) (53,362) (58,902) (642,195) (25,288) 5,744 (1,804,719)

Net Change 273,596 (45,911) (15,482) 254,557 (19,822) 8,794 455,732

Net Position End of Period $ 1,007,809 $ 107,305 $ 17,330 $ 2,955,373 $ (69,174) $ 78,480 $ 4,097,123

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-61
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-62 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued) 

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 established the AFF to receive the proceeds of forfeiture and 

to pay the costs associated with such forfeitures, including the costs of managing and disposing of property, 

satisfying valid liens, mortgages, and other innocent owner claims, and costs associated with accomplishing 

the legal forfeiture of the property. Authorities of the fund have been amended by various public laws enacted 

since 1984. Under current law, authority to use the fund for certain investigative expenses shall be specified in 

annual appropriation acts. Expenses necessary to seize, detain, inventory, safeguard, maintain, advertise or 

sell property under seizure are funded through a permanent, indefinite appropriation. In addition, beginning in 

FY 1993, other general expenses of managing and operating the Asset Forfeiture Program are paid from the 

permanent, indefinite portion of the fund. Once all expenses are covered, the balance is maintained to meet 

ongoing expenses of the program. Excess unobligated balances may also be allocated by the Attorney General 

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §524(c)(8)(E). 

United States Trustees supervise the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees in the Federal 

Bankruptcy Courts. The Bankruptcy Judges, UST, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public Law 

99–554) expanded the pilot trustee program to a 21 region, nationwide program encompassing 88 judicial 

districts. The UST System Fund collects user fees assessed against debtors, which offset the annual 

appropriation. 

The Antitrust Division administers and enforces antitrust and related statutes. This program primarily involves 

the investigation of suspected violations of the antitrust laws, the conduct of civil and criminal proceedings in 

the federal courts, and the maintenance of competitive conditions. The Antitrust Division collects filing fees 

for pre-merger notifications and retains these fees for expenditure in support of its programs. 

The Crime Victims Fund is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures from 

defendants convicted of federal crimes. This fund supports victim assistance and compensation programs 

around the country and advocates, through policy development, for the fair treatment of crime victims. The 

Office for Victims of Crime administers formula and discretionary grants for programs designed to benefit 

victims, provides training for diverse professionals who work with victims, develops projects to enhance 

victims' rights and services, and undertakes public education and awareness activities on behalf of crime 

victims. 

The Diversion Control Fee Account is established in the general fund of the Treasury as a separate account. 

Fees charged by the DEA under the Diversion Control Program are set at a level that ensures the recovery of 

the full costs of operating this program. The program’s purpose is to prevent, detect, and investigate the 

diversion of controlled substances from legitimate channels, while ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted 

supply of controlled substances required to meet legitimate needs. 

The Federal Prison Commissary Fund was created in the early 1930s to allow inmates a means to purchase 

additional products and services above the necessities provided by appropriated federal funds, e.g., personal 

grooming products, snacks, postage stamps, and telephone services. The Trust Fund is a self-sustaining trust 

revolving fund account that is funded through sales of goods and services to inmates. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 18. Net Cost of Operations by Suborganization 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

Gross Cost $ 340,620 - $ $ 5,138 $ 66,558 - $ 4,220,194 $ $ 8,321 $ - $ (115,280) - $ $ 4,525,551

Less: Earned Revenue 114,099 - - 536 - 560,603 - - (115,280) - 559,958

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 226,521 - 5,138 66,022 - 3,659,591 8,321 - - 3,965,593 - 

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost 1,001,512 5,265,364 1,919,976 4,129 2,672,648 3,819,673 1,153,318 6,987 (965,591) - 14,878,016

Less: Earned Revenue 865,107 6,723 116,353 - 592,747 718,689 55,556 - (965,591) - 1,389,584

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 994,789 4,400,257 1,803,623 4,129 2,079,901 3,100,984 1,097,762 6,987 - 13,488,432 - 

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost 2,156,636 - 2,792,695 1,024,312 - - 6,573,615 - 1,061,586 (1,738,020) 11,870,824

Less: Earned Revenue 198,914 - 1,471,465 58,795 - - 357,601 - (1,709,671) 987,949 1,365,053

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 1,957,722 - 1,321,230 965,517 - - 6,216,014 - 73,637 10,505,771 (28,349) 

 

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 994,789 $ 6,584,500 1,330,497$ 2,769,140$ 2,145,923$ 6,760,575$ 1,106,083$ $ 6,223,001 $ 73,637 $ 27,959,796 (28,349) $ 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

Gross Cost $ 373,938 - $ $ 5,361 $ 78,422 - $ 3,811,909 $ $ 7,388 $ - $ (147,797) - $ $ 4,129,221

Less: Earned Revenue 113,635 - - 216 - 305,935 - - (147,797) - 271,989

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 260,303 - 5,361 78,206 - 3,505,974 7,388 - - 3,857,232 - 

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost 1,033,894 5,130,556 1,960,019 4,718 2,435,187 3,247,183 1,123,903 4,722 (1,000,028) - 13,940,154

Less: Earned Revenue 814,369 3,178 126,467 - 574,956 675,521 45,369 - (1,000,028) - 1,239,832

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 1,030,716 4,316,187 1,833,552 4,718 1,860,231 2,571,662 1,078,534 4,722 - 12,700,322 - 

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost 2,067,363 - 2,677,142 1,084,454 - - 6,254,441 - 1,015,026 (1,598,953) 11,499,473

Less: Earned Revenue 204,917 - 1,404,981 131,855 - - 356,367 - (1,571,391) 981,680 1,508,409

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 1,862,446 - 1,272,161 952,599 - - 5,898,074 - 33,346 (27,562) 9,991,064

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 1,030,716 6,438,936$ $ 2,786 1,282,240 ,151$ 1,938 ,437$ 6,077 ,636$ 1,085 ,922$ 5,90 $ 3 2,796 $ 3,346 $ (27,562) $ 26,548,618

Intragovernmental costs and exchange revenue, as presented on the Consolidated Statements of Net Cost, 

represent transactions made between two reporting entities within the federal government. The classification 

of revenue or cost as “intragovernmental” is defined on a transaction-by-transaction basis. The purpose of this 

classification is to enable the federal government to prepare consolidated financial statements, not to match 

intragovernmental revenue with the costs incurred to produce intragovernmental revenue. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-63
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 19. Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Imputed Inter-Departmental Financing Sources are the unreimbursed (i.e., non-reimbursed and underreimbursed) portion of the full costs of goods and services received by the Department from a providing entity 

that is not part of the Department. In accordance with SFFAS No. 30, Inter-Entity Cost Implementation 

Amending SFFAS 4, Managerial Cost Accounting Standards and Concepts, the material Imputed InterDepartmental financing sources currently recognized by the Department include the actual cost of future 

benefits for the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHB), the Federal Employees’ Group Life 

Insurance Program (FEGLI), and the Federal Pension plans that are paid by other federal entities, and any unreimbursed payments made from the Treasury Judgment Fund on behalf of the Department. The Treasury 

Judgment Fund was established by the Congress and funded at 31 U.S.C. §1304 to pay in whole or in part the 

court judgments and settlement agreements negotiated by the Department on behalf of agencies, as well as 

certain types of administrative awards. Interpretation of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 

Interpretation No. 2, Accounting for Treasury Judgment Fund Transactions, requires agencies to recognize 

liabilities and expenses when unfavorable litigation outcomes are probable and the amount can be estimated 

and will be paid by the Treasury Judgment Fund. 

SFFAS No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government, requires that employing agencies 

recognize the cost of pensions and other retirement benefits during their employees’ active years of service. 

SFFAS No. 5 requires OPM to provide cost factors necessary to calculate cost. OPM actuaries calculate the 

value of pension benefits expected to be paid in the future, and then determine the total funds to be contributed 

by and for covered employees, such that the amount calculated would be sufficient to fund the projected 

pension benefits. For employees covered by Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), the cost factors are 

25.8% of basic pay for regular, 43.5% law enforcement officers, 20% regular offset, and 38.7% law 

enforcement officers offset. For employees covered by Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), the 

cost factors are 12.3% of basic pay for regular and 26.7% for law enforcement officers. 

The cost to be paid by other agencies is the total calculated future costs, less employee and employer 

contributions. In addition, other retirement benefits, which include health and life insurance that are paid by 

other federal entities, must also be disclosed. 

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Imputed Inter-Departmental Financing

U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund $ 40,448 $ 29,759

Health Insurance 540,484 478,215

Life Insurance 1,843 1,708

Pension 120,925 126,762

Total Imputed Inter-Departmental $ 703,700 $ 636,444

III-64 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 19. Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (continued)

Imputed Intra-Departmental Financing Sources as defined in SFFAS No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting 

Standards and Concepts, are the unreimbursed portion of the full costs of goods and services received by a 

Department component from a providing entity that is part of the Department. Recognition is required for 

those transactions determined to be material to the receiving entity. The determination of whether the cost is 

material requires considerable judgment based on the specific facts and circumstances of each type of good or 

service provided. SFFAS No. 4 also states that costs for broad and general support need not be recognized by 

the receiving entity, unless such services form a vital and integral part of the operations or output of the 

receiving entity. Cost are considered broad and general if they are provided to many, if not all, reporting 

components and not specifically related to the receiving entity’s output. The FPI imputed $28,349 and 

$27,562 for FYs 2009 and 2008, respectively of unreimbursed costs for BOP warehouse space used in the 

production of goods by the FPI and for managerial and operational services BOP provided to FPI. These 

imputed costs have been eliminated from the consolidated financial statements. 

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources 

Apportionment Categories of Obligations Incurred: 

Total

Direct Reimbursable Obligations 

 Obligations Obligations Incurred

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 32,327,966 $ 5,359,554 $ 37,687,520

Category B 1,749,791 66,542 1,816,333

Exempt from Apportionment 1,025,950 - 1,025,950

Total $ 34,077,757 $ 6,452,046 $ 40,529,803

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 26,182,998 $ 5,190,764 $ 31,373,762

Category B 1,736,591 69,475 1,806,066

Exempt from Apportionment 1,029,542 - 1,029,542

Total $ 27,919,589 $ 6,289,781 $ 34,209,370

Per OMB Circular A-11, Category A obligations represent resources apportioned for calendar quarters. 

Category B obligations represent resources apportioned for other time periods; for activities, projects, and 

objectives or for a combination thereof. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-65
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources (continued) 

Status of Undelivered Orders: 

Undelivered Orders (UDO) represents the amount of goods and/or services ordered, which have not been 

actually or constructively received. This amount includes any orders which may have been prepaid or 

advanced but for which delivery or performance has not yet occurred. 

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

UDO Obligations Unpaid $ 13,063,814 $ 9,109,542

UDO Obligations Prepaid/Advanced 1,799,409 1,073,615

Total UDO $ 14,863,223 $ 10,183,157

Permanent Indefinite Appropriations: 

A permanent indefinite appropriation is open-ended as to both its period of availability (amount of time the 

agency has to spend the funds) and its amount. Following are the Department’s permanent indefinite 

appropriations. 

 28 U.S.C. '524(c)(4) authorized the Attorney General to retain AFF receipts to pay operations 

expenses, equitable sharing to state and local law enforcement agencies who assist in forfeiture cases, 

and lien holders. 

 On October 5, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act ("RECA" or "the 

Act"), 42 U.S.C. §2210 note, providing for compassionate payments to individuals who contracted 

certain cancers and other serious diseases as a result of their exposure to radiation released during 

above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in 

underground uranium mines. Implementing regulations were issued by the Department of Justice and 

published in the Federal Register on April 10, 1992. These regulations established procedures to 

resolve claims in a reliable, objective, and non-adversarial manner, with little administrative cost to the 

United States or to the person filing the claim. Revisions to the regulations, published in the Federal 

Register on March 22, 1999, served to greater assist claimants in establishing entitlement to an award. 

On July 10, 2000, P.L. 106-245, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000 

("the 2000 Amendments") were passed. On November 2, 2002, the President signed the "21st Century 

Department of Justice Appropriation Authorization Act" (P.L. 107-273). Contained in the law were 

several provisions relating to RECA. While most of these amendments were "technical" in nature, 

some affected eligibility criteria and revised claims adjudication procedures. The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2005 provides a permanent indefinite appropriation for the OBDs’ Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act program beginning FY 2006. 

III-66 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-67

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources (continued) 

Permanent Indefinite Appropriations (continued): 

 Congress established the Federal Prison Commissary Fund (Trust Fund) in 1932 to allow inmates a 

means to purchase additional products and services above the necessities provided by appropriated 

federal funds. The BOP Trust Fund is now a self-sustaining revolving account that is funded through 

the sales of goods and services, rather than annual or no-year appropriations. 

Legal Arrangements Affecting Use of Unobligated Balances: 

Unobligated balances represent the cumulative amount of budget authority that is not obligated and that 

remains available for obligation under law, unless otherwise restricted. The use of unobligated balances is 

restricted based on annual legislation requirements and other enabling authorities. Funds are appropriated on 

an annual, multi-year, and no-year basis. Appropriated funds shall expire on the last day of availability and 

are no longer available for new obligations. Unobligated balances in unexpired fund symbols are available in 

the next fiscal year for new obligations unless some restrictions had been placed on those funds by law. 

Amounts in expired fund symbols are unavailable for new obligations, but may be used to adjust previously 

established obligations. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources (continued)

Statement of Budgetary Resources vs Budget of the United States Government: 

The reconciliation as of September 30, 2008 is presented below. The reconciliation as of September 30, 2009 

is not presented, because the submission of the Budget of the United States (Budget) for FY 2011, which 

presents the execution of the FY 2009 Budget, occurs after publication of these financial statements. The 

Department of Justice Budget Appendix can be found on the OMB website 

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget) and will be available in early February 2010. 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

(Dollars in Millions) Distributed

Budgetary Obligations Offsetting Net

Resources Incurred Receipts Outlays

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) $ 37,759 $ 34,209 $ (122) $ 26,887

Funds not Reported in the Budget

Expired Funds: OBDs, USMS, DEA, OJP, FBI, ATF & BOP (845) (244) - -

AFF/SADF Forfeiture Activity (37) - - -

USMS Court Security Funds (352) (345) - (325)

Distributed Offsetting Receipts - - 632 (631)

AFF/SADF/OBDs/DEA Special and Trust Fund Receipts - - - 513

Other (12) (1) 7 (5)

Budget of the United States $ 36,513 $ 33,619 $ 517 $ 26,439

Other differences represent financial statement adjustments, timing differences and other immaterial 

differences between amounts reported in the Department SBR and the Budget of the United States. 

III-68 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-69

Note 21. Allocation Transfers of Appropriation

During FY 2009 the Department transferred $17,000 from the Crime Victims Fund to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). For FY 2008, the OJP, as the parent, transferred the same amount to 

HHS. This funding is required by 42 U.S.C. §10603a {Sec. 14-4A} for Child Abuse Prevention and 

Treatment Grants. Amounts made available by section §10601(d)(2) of this title, for the purpose of this 

section, shall be obligated and expended by the Secretary of HHS for grants under section §5106c of this title. 

 The activity related to these transfers is included as part of these financial statements. 

The Department also allocated funds from BOP to the Public Health Service (PHS). PHS provides a portion 

of medical treatment for federal inmates. The money is designated and expended for current year obligation of 

PHS staff salaries, benefits, and applicable relocation expenses. The amounts BOP, as the parent, transferred 

to PHS totaled $82,000 and $72,000 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively, and 

the related activity is included as part of these financial statements. 

The Department receives allocation transfers of appropriation from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC). However, the AOUSC is not an Executive Branch entity and is not required to report annual 

financial statements. Although the USMS is the child in the allocation transfer, per OMB guidance, all activity 

relative to these allocation transfers is reported in these financial statements. The allocation transfers are used 

for costs associated with protective guard services - Court Security Officers (CSOs) at United States 

courthouses and other facilities housing federal court operations. These costs include their salaries (paid 

through contracts), equipment, and supplies. This transfer is performed on an annual basis. 

Note 22. Net Custodial Revenue Activity 

Custodial revenue activity represents those collections of non-exchange revenue on behalf of other recipient 

entities. These collections are not recorded as revenue by the Department but as activity on the Statement of 

Custodial Activity. The custodial liabilities presented on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and Note 15 

represent funds held by the Department that have yet to be disbursed to the appropriate Federal agency or 

individual. 

The primary source of DCM collections consists of civil litigated matters (i.e., student loan defaults, health 

care fraud, etc.). The DCM also processes certain payments on criminal debts as an accommodation for the 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and the Clerks of the U.S. District Courts. The BOP aggregates collections of inmate 

criminal debt by correction facility, and the DCM sorts the collections by judicial district and disburses 

payments to the respective Clerks of the U.S. Court. The DCM also accepts wire transfers or other payments 

on a criminal debt if a Clerk of the U.S. Court is unable or unwilling to do so. In addition, other negligible 

custodial collections occur for interest, fines and penalties. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-70 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Note 22. Net Custodial Revenue Activity (continued) 

The OBDs collect civil fines, penalties, and restitution payments that are incidental to its mission. By court 

order, the OBDs were given the investment authority and the settlement funds collected must be invested. The 

OBDs invest these funds with the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. As of September 30, 2009 and 2008, 

the custodial assets and liabilities recorded by the OBDs on the balance sheet are $238,242 and $294,021 

respectively. The OBDs custodial collections totaled $2,907,842 and $2,787,920 for the fiscal years ended 

September 30, 2009 and 2008. 

For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, DEA collected $59,961 and $36,936, respectively. 

DEA’s collections include $15 million of the total fees collected for the Diversion Control Program and civil 

monetary penalties related to violations of the Controlled Substances Act that were incidental to DEA’s 

mission. Since DEA has no statutory authority to use these excess funds, DEA transmits them to the Treasury 

General Fund. The DEA has a custodial liability for funds that have not yet been transmitted to the Treasury 

General Fund. The September 30, 2009 and 2008 balances for custodial liabilities were $2,310 and $1,150 

respectively. 

As an agent of the federal government and as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6301, ATF collects fees from firearms 

and explosives industries, as well as import, permit and license fees. In addition, Special Occupational Taxes 

are collected from certain firearms businesses. As ATF is unable to use these collections in its operations, 

ATF also has the authority to transfer these collections to the Treasury General Fund. The ATF custodial 

collections totaled $14,529 and $12,436 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, respectively. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 23. OMB Circular A-136 Consolidated Balance Sheet Presentation 

Dollars in Thousands 2009 2008

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 20,857,015 $ 15,595,443

Investments, Net 3,842,785 3,311,304

Accounts Receivable, Net 326,410 358,577

Other Assets 130,988 118,762

Total Intragovernmental 25,157,198 19,384,086

Cash and Other Monetary Assets 229,794 182,209

Accounts Receivable, Net 79,824 123,800

Inventory and Related Property, Net 298,701 284,217

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 9,215,026 8,758,540

Other Assets 1,647,285 611,195

Total Assets $ 36,627,828 $ 29,344,047

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 309,072 $ 243,522

Other Liabilities 917,569 1,154,839

Total Intragovernmental 1,226,641 1,398,361

Accounts Payable 2,253,013 2,140,129

Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits 1,233,899 1,136,569

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 22,316 22,112

Other Liabilities 4,460,642 3,918,387

Total Liabilities $ 9,196,511 $ 8,615,558

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ 22,207 $ 44,902

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 13,902,525 9,169,075

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 5,631,023 4,052,221

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 7,875,562 7,462,291

Total Net Position $ 27,431,317 $ 20,728,489

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 36,627,828 $ 29,344,047

U.S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-71
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 24. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of

Financing) 

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Obligations Incurred $ 40,529,803 $ 34,209,370

Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 7,633,297 7,255,171

Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 32,896,506 26,954,199

Less: Offsetting Receipts 539,325 (121,927)

Net Obligations 32,357,181 27,076,126

Other Resources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 68,213 65,854

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement 9,170 (3,860)

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (Note 19) 703,700 636,444

Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 781,083 698,438

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 33,138,264 27,774,564

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of

Operations

Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services

and Benefits Ordered but not Yet Provided (4,940,729) (306,294)

Resources That Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods (Note 25) (7,656) (31,122)

Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts That do not

Affect Net Cost of Operations (65,939) (627,115)

Resources That Finance the Acquisition of Assets (1,174,153) (1,282,348)

Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated Resources

That do not Affect Net Cost of Operations 29,514 38,635

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost

of Operations (6,158,963) (2,208,244)

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 26,979,301 $ 25,566,320

III-72 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 24. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of 

Financing) (continued) 

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008 2009 2008

Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not Require

or Generate Resources in the Current Period

Components of Net Cost of Operations That will Require or 

Generate Resources in Future Periods (Note 25) $ 267,978 $ 296,964

Components not Requiring or Generating Resources

Depreciation and Amortization 685,778 672,980

Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities 28,129 11,506

Other (1,390) 848

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That will not Require or

Generate Resources 712,517 685,334

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not

 Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period 980,495 982,298

Net Cost of Operations $ 27,959,796 $ 26,548,618

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-73
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Note 25. Explanation of Differences Between Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources and 

 Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods 

Liabilities that are not covered by realized budgetary resources and for which there is not certainty that 

budgetary authority will be realized, such as the enactment of an appropriation, are considered liabilities not 

covered by budgetary resources. These liabilities totaling $3,101,138 and $2,856,357 on September 30, 2009 

and 2008, respectively, are discussed in Note 11, Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources. Decreases 

in these liabilities result from current year budgetary resources that were used to fund expenses recognized in 

prior periods. Increases in these liabilities represent unfunded expenses that were recognized in the current 

period. These increases along with the change in the portion of exchange revenue receivables from the public, 

which are not considered budgetary resources until collected, represent components of current period net cost 

of operations that will require or generate budgetary resources in future periods. The changes in liabilities not 

covered by budgetary resources and receivables generating resources in future periods are comprised of the 

following: 

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

2009 2008

Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods

 Decrease in Contingent Liabilities (25,778) - 

 Decrease in Capital Lease Liabilities (5,779) (5,344)

Decrease in Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities (1,877) -

 Total Other (7,656) (31,122)

Total Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods $ (7,656) $ (31,122)

Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods

 Increase in Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities $ 54,646 $ 51,491

 (Increase)/Decrease in Exchange Revenue Receivable from the Public 3,877 (1,147)

 Other 

 Increase in Actuarial FECA Liabilities 97,330 90,090

Increase in Accrued FECA Liabilities 9,494 10,787

 Increase in Deferred Revenue 54,510 29,731

 Increase in Contingent Liabilities 8,341 -

Increase in RECA Liabilities 22,164 133,213

Increase in Other Unfunded Employee Related Liabilities - 1,815 

Increase in Other Liabilities 5,953 3,814

(Increase)/Decrease in Nonexchange Receivables from the Public 113 195

(Increase)/Decrease in Surcharge Revenue Receivable

from Other Federal Agencies 11,550 (23,025)

 Total Other 209,455 246,620

 Total Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or 

 Generating Resources in Future Periods $ 267,978 $ 296,964

III-74 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-75

Note 26. Change in Accounting Principle 

For FY 2009, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the 

Department changed its method of reporting temporary rescissions of budgetary authority by reporting a $285 

million rescission as unobligated balances not available in the status of budgetary resources section of AFF’s 

SBR. In prior years, rescissions were reported as temporarily not available pursuant to public law in the 

budgetary resources section of the SBR. The new method of accounting for rescissions was adopted based on 

guidance received from OMB to better align rescissions reported in the SBR with the amounts reported in the 

SF-132, Request for Apportionment/Reapportionment, and SF-133, Reports on Budget Execution and 

Budgetary Resources. 
FY 2009 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements 

Notes to the Financial Statements 

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted) 

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-76 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-77
AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI 

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury 39,583 $ 4,900,344 $ 497,604 $ 9,306,877 $ 783,421 $ 3,292,066 $ 257,432 $ 1,758,029 $ 21,659 $ 

Investments, Net 3,363,736 215,149 - - - - - - 263,900 Accounts Receivable, Net 4,021 334,297 188,213 10,372 72,897 137,156 18,612 3,765 46,798 Other Assets 2,757 199,351 3,025 49,746 55,295 57,512 20,694 347 - 

Total Intragovernmental 3,410,097 5,649,141 688,842 9,366,995 911,613 3,486,734 296,738 1,762,141 332,357 

Cash and Monetary Assets 160,522 46 - - 10,089 52,058 6,341 738 - Accounts Receivable, Net - 10,144 146 7,208 2,543 31,159 99 19,611 8,914 Inventory and Related Property, Net - 120 2,150 - 6,862 8,804 - 16,533 264,232 Forfeited Property, Net 226,843 - - - - - - - - 

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 2,071 183,139 254,273 13,781 387,325 1,814,851 196,681 6,239,221 123,684 

Advances and Prepayments 3 6,907 68 1,337,788 9,241 51,986 853 3,729 4,946 

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 3,721 1,016 

Total Assets $ 5,849,497 3,799,536 $ 945,663 $ 10,725,772 $ 1,327,673 $ 5,445,592 $ 500,712 $ 8,045,694 $ 735,149 $ LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable 67,523 $ 347,723 $ 35,165 $ 50,095 $ 65,505 $ 166,513 $ 18,366 $ 41,402 $ 4,982 $ 

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 8,973 15,222 136 25,594 32,785 19,751 132,154 1,643 

Custodial Liabilities - 133,796 - - 2,310 - - - - Other Liabilities - 178,149 20,878 230,852 21,888 87,513 8,332 62,659 194,192 

Total Intragovernmental 67,523 668,641 71,265 281,083 115,297 286,811 46,449 236,215 200,817 Accounts Payable 628,028 329,785 353,922 29,365 113,778 356,100 46,047 343,619 52,369 Accrued Grant Liabilities - 109,498 - 321,721 - - - - - Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 47,504 81,314 494 139,308 176,818 105,498 669,020 13,943 

Accrued Payroll and Benefits - 114,220 24,728 7,470 52,574 161,029 125,510 28,055 9,118 

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities - 178,265 38,931 5,625 93,474 244,863 48,600 162,056 10,363 

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - - - 22,112 204 

Deferred Revenue 226,843 - - - 269,840 - - 1,625 - 

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 1,451,259 - - - 575 37,390 2,436 - - 

Contingent Liabilities - - 18,250 - 16,995 128,978 3,500 4,930 - 

Capital Lease Liabilities - - 1,831 20 - - 3,241 36,956 173 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 343,835 - - - - - - - 

Other Liabilities - 104,446 - - 67 5,362 110 65,880 - 

Total Liabilities $ 2,373,653 $ 590,241 1,896,194 $ 645,778 $ 801,908 $ 1,397,351 $ 283,936 $ 1,667,923 $ 286,987 $ NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ 22,207 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 3,782,236 222,502 5,951,999 540,670 2,114,589 183,607 1,106,922 - 

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,425,883 119,668 - 4,112,981 (100,558) - - 73,049 - Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - 29,192 132,920 15,014 85,653 1,933,652 33,169 5,197,800 448,162 

Total Net Position $ 3,953,303 1,425,883 $ 355,422 $ 10,079,994 $ 525,765 $ 4,048,241 $ 216,776 $ 6,377,771 $ 448,162 $ Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 5,849,497 3,799,536 $ 945,663 $ 10,725,772 $ 1,327,673 $ 5,445,592 $ 500,712 $ 8,045,694 $ 735,149 $ 

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2009

III-78
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FP

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury 111,756 $ 3,793,821 $ 455,838 $ 6,203,049 $ 717,382 $ 2,546,941 $ 235,179 $ 1,511,486 $ 

$ 

Investments, Net 2,757,584 201,020 - - - - - - 

 

Accounts Receivable, Net 1,646 286,977 164,364 9,773 32,905 223,486 24,113 5,018 

 

Other Assets 848 414,301 1,667 29,761 17,670 75,872 27,136 1,172 

 

Total Intragovernmental 2,871,834 4,696,119 621,869 6,242,583 767,957 2,846,299 286,428 1,517,676 

 

Cash and Monetary Assets 106,200 - - 5 8,414 59,658 7,189 743 

 

Accounts Receivable, Net 6 29,350 357 10,667 2,573 43,699 212 28,564 

 

Inventory and Related Property, Net - 157 1,874 - 5,371 6,257 - 20,442 

 

Forfeited Property, Net 139,897 - - - - - - - 

 

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 2,724 156,353 254,164 12,995 368,795 1,453,524 182,945 6,195,389 

 

Advances and Prepayments - 6,376 88 393,959 7,629 46,698 185 3,639 

 

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 3,953 

 

Total Assets $ 4,888,355 3,120,661 $ 878,536 $ 6,660,209 $ 1,160,739 $ 4,456,135 $ 476,959 $ 7,770,406 $ 

$ 

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable 95,235 $ 297,906 $ 34,756 $ 23,648 $ 39,170 $ 126,049 $ 18,665 $ 27,919 $ 

$ 

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 9,439 15,007 67 25,503 32,866 19,536 122,646 

 

Custodial Liabilities - 185,056 - - 1,150 - - - 

 

Other Liabilities - 330,471 14,734 447,447 17,996 105,340 7,060 57,042 

 

Total Intragovernmental 95,235 822,872 64,497 471,162 83,819 264,255 45,261 207,607 

 

Accounts Payable 649,280 278,695 327,171 21,879 101,909 287,462 49,359 351,913 

 

Accrued Grant Liabilities - 104,070 - 305,001 - - - - 

 

Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 48,076 74,673 189 137,373 170,902 102,822 590,524 

 

Accrued Payroll and Benefits - 97,699 21,531 6,795 47,181 135,840 109,254 24,552 

 

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities - 165,144 36,334 4,918 88,089 223,956 44,896 153,831 

 

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - - - 22,112 

 

Deferred Revenue 139,897 - - - 215,330 - - 1,654 

 

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 1,228,440 - - - 489 33,898 3,784 - 

 

Contingent Liabilities - 8,000 17,000 - 11,120 120,770 3,500 3,922 

 

Capital Lease Liabilities - - 2,657 24 - - - 42,735 

 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 321,671 - - - - - - 

 

Other Liabilities - 108,965 - - 13 6,296 87 59,152 

Total Liabilities $ 2,112,852 $ 1,955,192 $ 543,863 $ 809,968 $ 685,323 $ 1,243,379 $ 274,261 $ 1,542,704 $ 

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ 44,902 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

$ 

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 2,669,214 191,625 2,881,349 475,267 1,884,207 167,668 899,745 

 

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,007,809 79,733 - 2,955,373 (69,174) - - 78,480 

 

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - 139,314 143,048 13,519 69,323 1,328,549 35,030 5,249,477 

 

Total Net Position $ 2,933,163 1,007,809 $ 334,673 $ 5,850,241 $ 475,416 $ 3,212,756 $ 202,698 $ 6,227,702 $ 

$ 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 4,888,355 3,120,661 $ 878,536 $ 6,660,209 $ 1,160,739 $ 4,456,135 $ 476,959 $ 7,770,406 $ 

$ 

III-79 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2008
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI 

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 86,405 $ 5,138 $ - $ 13,414 $ 1,143,681 $ - $ - $ Gross Cost - With the Public - 254,215 - - 53,144 3,076,513 8,321 - 

Subtotal Gross Costs - 340,620 5,138 - 66,558 4,220,194 8,321 - 

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 98,711 - - 501 549,297 - - 

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 15,388 - - 35 11,306 - - 

Subtotal Earned Revenues - 114,099 - - 536 560,603 - - 

Subtotal Net Cost (Revenues) of Operations $ 226,521 - $ 5,138 $ - $ 66,022 $ 3,659,591 $ 8,321 $ - $ 

$ 

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 1,840,475 291,499 $ 4,129 $ 119,310 $ 817,575 $ 1,035,139 $ 339,493 $ - $ 

$ 

Gross Cost - With the Public 710,013 3,424,889 - 1,800,666 1,855,073 2,784,534 813,825 6,987 

Subtotal Gross Costs 1,001,512 5,265,364 4,129 1,919,976 2,672,648 3,819,673 1,153,318 6,987 

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 6,723 556,405 - 116,353 409,000 591,269 55,400 - 

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 308,702 - - 183,747 127,420 156 - 

Subtotal Earned Revenues 6,723 865,107 - 116,353 592,747 718,689 55,556 - 

Subtotal Net Cost (Revenues) of Operations $ 4,400,257 994,789 $ 4,129 $ 1,803,623 $ 2,079,901 $ 3,100,984 $ 1,097,762 $ 6,987 $ 

$ 

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,478,170 $ 467,739 $ 105,707 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,398,657 $ 257

Gross Cost - With the Public - 678,466 2,324,956 918,605 - - - 5,174,958 804

Subtotal Gross Costs - 2,156,636 2,792,695 1,024,312 - - - 6,573,615 1,061

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 166,974 1,468,876 58,795 - - - 17,598 918

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 31,940 2,589 - - - - 340,003 69

Subtotal Earned Revenues - 198,914 1,471,465 58,795 - - - 357,601 987

Subtotal Net Cost (Revenues) of Operations $ 1,957,722 - $ 1,321,230 $ 965,517 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,216,014 $ 73

$ 

Total Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 6,584,500 994,789 $ 1,330,497 $ 2,769,140 $ 2,145,923 $ 6,760,575 $ 1,106,083 $ 6,223,001 $ 73

$ 

III-80 U. S. Department of Justice Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI 

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 99,676 $ 5,361 $ - $ 17,134 $ 1,109,469 $ - $ - $ - 

Gross Cost - With the Public - 274,262 - - 61,288 2,702,440 7,388 - - 

- 373,938 5,361 - 78,422 3,811,909 7,388 - - 

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 98,897 - - 216 293,545 - - - 

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 14,738 - - - 12,390 - - - 

- 113,635 - - 216 305,935 - - - 

$ - $ 260,303 $ 5,361 $ - $ 78,206 $ 3,505,974 $ 7,388 $ - $ - 

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 1,852,393 225,965 $ 4,718 $ 28,982 $ 749,679 $ 945,104 $ 314,748 $ - $ - $ 

Gross Cost - With the Public 807,929 3,278,163 - 1,931,037 1,685,508 2,302,079 809,155 4,722 - 

1,033,894 5,130,556 4,718 1,960,019 2,435,187 3,247,183 1,123,903 4,722 

- 

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 3,178 509,217 - 126,467 378,732 528,249 45,230 - 

- 

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 305,152 - - 196,224 147,272 139 - - 

3,178 814,369 - 126,467 574,956 675,521 45,369 - 

- 

$ 1,030,716 $ 4,316,187 $ 4,718 $ 1,833,552 $ 1,860,231 $ 2,571,662 $ 1,078,534 $ 4,722 $ - 

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,387,261 $ 481,886 $ 119,429 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,320,647 $ 267,702 

Gross Cost - With the Public - 680,102 2,195,256 965,025 - - - 4,933,794 747,324 

- 2,067,363 2,677,142 1,084,454 - - - 6,254,441 1,015,026 

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 173,918 1,401,586 131,855 - - - 15,724 901,026 

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 30,999 3,395 - - - - 340,643 80,654 

- 204,917 1,404,981 131,855 - - - 356,367 981,680 

$ - $ 1,862,446 $ 1,272,161 $ 952,599 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,898,074 $ 33,346 

Total Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 6,438,936 1,030,716 $ 1,282,240 $ 2,786,151 $ 1,938,437 $ 6,077,636 $ 1,085,922 $ 5,902,796 $ 33,346 $ 

Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-81

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI 

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ - $ 44,902 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

 All Other Funds - 2,669,214 191,625 2,881,349 475,267 1,884,207 167,668 899,745 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 125,076 - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - 7,787,138 964,000 5,036,600 1,959,084 7,336,191 1,068,215 6,176,599 

 

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

All Other Funds - (261,192) 354,616 283,817 158,467 (8,978) 16,647 (8,035) 

 

Other Adjustments 

All Other Funds - (109,426) - (121,642) - - - - 

 

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (147,771) - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - (6,303,498) (1,287,739) (2,128,125) (2,052,148) (7,096,831) (1,068,923) (5,961,387) 

 

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - (22,695) - - - - - - 

All Other Funds - 1,113,022 30,877 3,070,650 65,403 230,382 15,939 207,177 

 Net Change

Earmarked Funds - (22,695) - - - - - - 

All Other Funds - 1,113,022 30,877 3,070,650 65,403 230,382 15,939 207,177 

 Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds - 22,207 - - - - - - 

All Other Funds - 3,782,236 222,502 5,951,999 540,670 2,114,589 183,607 1,106,922 

 Total All Funds $ 3,804,443 - $ $ 222,502 $ 5,951,999 $ 540,670 $ 2,114,589 $ 183,607 $ 1,106,922 $ 

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-82 U. S. Department of Justice Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI 

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 1,007,809 $ 79,733 $ - $ 2,955,373 $ (69,174) $ - $ - $ 78,480 $ 

 All Other Funds - 139,314 143,048 13,519 69,323 1,328,549 35,030 5,249,477 484

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 1,007,809 79,733 - 2,955,373 (69,174) - - 78,480 

All Other Funds - 139,314 143,048 13,519 69,323 1,328,549 35,030 5,249,477 484

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 147,771 - - - - - - 

All Other Funds - 6,303,498 1,287,739 2,128,125 2,052,148 7,096,831 1,068,923 5,961,387 

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 10,684 233 - 1,745,678 - - - - 

All Other Funds - - - 1,171 - - - - 

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents 

Earmarked Funds 1,376,423 - - - - - - - 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 89,948 - - - - - - 

Other Budgetary Financing Sources

All Other Funds - (100,000) - - - - - - 

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 68,145 - - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 68 

 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (42,389) - - - 180 - - 7 

 

All Other Funds - (88,381) 335 49,215 12,143 61,342 2,173 14,766 

 

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds - 1,244 - - 5,953 - - 3,376 

 

All Other Funds - 160,000 32,295 4,054 60,445 207,505 33,126 186,289 37

 

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 1,412,863 149,248 - 1,745,678 6,133 - - 3,383 

All Other Funds - 6,365,065 1,320,369 2,182,565 2,124,736 7,365,678 1,104,222 6,162,510 37

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (994,789) (109,313) - (588,070) (37,517) - - (8,814) 

All Other Funds - (6,475,187) (1,330,497) (2,181,070) (2,108,406) (6,760,575) (1,106,083) (6,214,187) (73

Net Change

Earmarked Funds 418,074 39,935 - 1,157,608 (31,384) - - (5,431) 

All Other Funds - (110,122) (10,128) 1,495 16,330 605,103 (1,861) (51,677) (35

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds 1,425,883 119,668 - 4,112,981 (100,558) - - 73,049 

All Other Funds - 29,192 132,920 15,014 85,653 1,933,652 33,169 5,197,800 448

Total All Funds $ 1,425,883 $ 148,860 $ 132,920 $ 4,127,995 $ (14,905) $ 1,933,652 $ 33,169 $ 5,270,849 $ 448

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

U. S. Department of Justice

III-83 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ - $ 21,938 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

 All Other Funds - 3,241,246 215,147 3,049,478 437,415 1,647,372 170,656 953,555 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 44,902 - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - 6,097,796 895,144 1,769,767 1,887,430 6,763,811 1,011,597 5,610,260 

 

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

Earmarked Funds - 4,061 - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - (226,909) 332,914 241,204 15,302 (169,298) 16,825 34,270 

 

Other Adjustments 

Earmarked Funds - (10,260) - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - (283,128) - (110,598) - (1,300) - - 

 

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (15,739) - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - (6,159,791) (1,251,580) (2,068,502) (1,864,880) (6,356,378) (1,031,410) (5,698,340) 

 

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - 22,964 - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - (572,032) (23,522) (168,129) 37,852 236,835 (2,988) (53,810) 

 

 Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds - 44,902 - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - 2,669,214 191,625 2,881,349 475,267 1,884,207 167,668 899,745 

 

 Total All Funds $ 2,714,116 - $ $ 191,625 $ 2,881,349 $ 475,267 $ 1,884,207 $ 167,668 $ 899,745 $ 

III-84 U. S. Department of Justice Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 734,213 $ 164,090 $ - $ 2,700,816 $ (49,352) $ - $ - $ 69,686 $ 

 All Other Funds - 160,915 143,621 22,416 47,357 784,797 53,210 5,258,111 

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 734,213 164,090 - 2,700,816 (49,352) - - 69,686 

All Other Funds - 160,915 143,621 22,416 47,357 784,797 53,210 5,258,111 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 15,739 - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - 6,159,791 1,251,580 2,068,502 1,864,880 6,356,378 1,031,410 5,698,340 

 

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 83,690 162 - 896,752 - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - - - 1,199 - - - - 

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents

Earmarked Funds 1,222,643 - - - - - - - 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 180,900 - - - - - - 

Other Budgetary Financing Sources

All Other Funds - (41,000) - - - - - - 

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 63,430 - - - - - - - 

 

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 2,424 

 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (65,451) - - - (41) - - - 

 

All Other Funds - (119,226) 674 61,855 5,795 77,901 4,885 32,682 

 

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds - 12,006 - - 5,507 - - 3,050 

 

All Other Funds - 124,606 29,413 3,503 64,440 187,109 31,447 166,460 

 

Other Financing Sources

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 27,907 1,304,312 - 896,752 5,466 - - 3,050 

 

All Other Funds - 6,305,071 1,281,667 2,135,059 1,935,115 6,621,388 1,067,742 5,899,906 

 

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (1,030,716) (112,264) - (642,195) (25,288) - - 5,744 

All Other Funds - (6,326,672) (1,282,240) (2,143,956) (1,913,149) (6,077,636) (1,085,922) (5,908,540) 

Net Change

Earmarked Funds 273,596 (84,357) - 254,557 (19,822) - - 8,794 

All Other Funds - (21,601) (573) (8,897) 21,966 543,752 (18,180) (8,634) 

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds 79,733 1,007,809 - 2,955,373 (69,174) - - 78,480 

 

All Other Funds - 139,314 143,048 13,519 69,323 1,328,549 35,030 5,249,477 

 

Total All Funds $ 219,047 1,007,809 $ 143,048 $ 2,968,892 $ 149 $ 1,328,549 $ 35,030 $ 5,327,957 $ 

$ 

III-85

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 595,213 $ 651,099 $ 93,320 $ 460,054 $ 161,745 $ 1,076,486 $ 53,971 $ 

$ 

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 79,515 252,846 61,319 106,867 86,345 270,506 80,237 

 

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 1,669,860 8,203,630 964,000 6,782,278 2,193,596 7,336,191 1,068,215 6

 

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned

Collected 1,845,846 7,215 1,482,381 240,818 385,364 1,442,098 61,800 

 

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 2,376 142,149 22,610 599 39,199 (86,453) (5,500) 

 

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received 13,671 - 1,078 (216,745) (9) (26,471) - 

 

Without Advance from Federal Sources (681) 16,972 9,393 (12,506) 42,199 (121,340) 33,421 

 

Subtotal Budget Authority 1,678,770 10,222,268 2,479,462 6,794,444 2,660,349 8,544,025 1,157,936 6

 

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual - (171,244) 354,616 283,817 158,467 (8,978) 16,647 

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law - - - (1,295,083) - - - Permanently not Available - (209,438) - (121,642) - - - 

Total Budgetary Resources $ 10,745,531 2,353,498 $ 2,988,717 $ 6,228,457 $ 3,066,906 $ 9,882,039 $ 1,308,791 $ 6,

$ 

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 7,999,433 1,151,330 $ 1,375,617 $ 5,945,243 $ 2,304,512 $ 7,672,318 $ 1,132,564 $ 6

$ 

Reimbursable 2,092,114 6,723 1,537,439 58,924 438,515 1,149,687 94,032 

 

Total Obligations Incurred 1,158,053 10,091,547 2,913,056 6,004,167 2,743,027 8,822,005 1,226,596 6

 

Unobligated Balance - Available: 

Apportioned 450,832 539,014 51,934 225,179 313,155 737,212 44,648 

 

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - - 

 

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 539,014 450,832 51,934 225,179 313,155 737,212 44,648 

 

Unobligated Balance not Available 656,431 203,152 23,727 (889) 10,724 322,822 37,547 

 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 10,745,531 2,353,498 $ 2,988,717 $ 6,228,457 $ 3,066,906 $ 9,882,039 $ 1,308,791 $ 6,

$ 

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

III-86 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 

Unpaid Obligations 909,109 $ 3,271,864 $ 546,861 $ 3,927,350 $ 702,505 $ 2,262,951 $ 215,902 $ 1

$ 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 2,327 587,412 191,462 36,317 139,516 792,162 31,288 

 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 906,782 2,684,452 355,399 3,891,033 562,989 1,470,789 184,614 1

 

Obligations Incurred 10,091,547 1,158,053 2,913,056 6,004,167 2,743,027 8,822,005 1,226,596 6

 

Less: Gross Outlays 8,338,963 1,068,260 2,764,011 3,864,703 2,671,941 8,004,328 1,123,910 6

 

Obligated Balance Transferred, Net:

-

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 79,515 252,846 61,319 106,867 86,345 270,506 80,237 

 

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from 0

Federal Sources (159,121) (1,695) (32,003) 11,907 (81,399) 207,793 (27,921) 

 

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period:

Unpaid Obligations 919,387 4,771,602 634,587 5,959,947 687,246 2,810,122 238,351 1

 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,022 746,533 223,465 220,915 24,410 584,369 59,209 

 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 4,025,069 915,365 $ 411,122 $ 5,935,537 $ 466,331 $ 2,225,753 $ 179,142 $ 1

$ 

Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 8,338,963 1,068,260 $ 2,764,011 $ 3,864,703 $ 2,671,941 $ 8,004,328 $ 1,123,910 $ 6

$ 

Less: Offsetting Collections 7,215 1,859,517 1,483,459 24,071 385,354 1,415,627 61,800 

 

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 10,684 287,073 (520) 1,362 235,998 1,668 247 

 

Total Net Outlays $ 6,192,373 1,050,361 $ 1,281,072 $ 3,839,270 $ 2,050,589 $ 6,587,033 $ 1,061,863 $ 5,

$ 

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-87

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 899,325 428,878 $ 101,440 $ 650,068 $ 216,385 $ 1,127,650 $ 73,107 $ 273

$ 

Adjustment to Unobligated Balance, Brought Forward, October 1 - - - - - - - 

 

Unobligated Blance, Brought Forward, October 1, as Adjusted 428,878 899,325 101,440 650,068 216,385 1,127,650 73,107 273

 

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 40,051 248,702 62,869 145,759 72,085 210,019 58,819 6

 

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 1,530,423 6,377,090 895,144 2,666,519 2,108,334 6,763,811 1,011,597 5,610

 

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections: 

Earned

Collected 1,982,366 3,219 1,413,426 370,815 398,626 899,710 46,518 385

 

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources (11,963) (47,329) 26,161 3,566 (10,026) 130,657 1,321 2

 

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received 10,510 - (13,816) (256,220) (318) 16,716 - (1

 

Without Advance from Federal Sources (535) (44,278) (14,880) 13,126 18,184 106,643 464 

Subtotal Budget Authority 1,521,144 8,278,359 2,306,035 2,797,806 2,514,800 7,917,537 1,059,900 5,996

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual - (41,948) 332,914 241,204 15,302 (169,298) 16,825 34

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law (240,000) - - (122,414) - - - 

Permanently not Available - (329,466) - (110,598) - (1,300) - 

Total Budgetary Resources $ 1,750,073 $ 9,054,972 $ 2,803,258 $ 3,601,825 $ 2,818,572 $ 9,084,608 $ 1,208,651 $ 6,310

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 6,269,675 1,151,682 $ 1,260,224 $ 3,014,321 $ 2,249,663 $ 6,991,925 $ 1,101,579 $ 5,880

$ 

Reimbursable 2,134,198 3,178 1,449,714 127,450 407,164 1,016,197 53,101 69

 

Total Obligations Incurred 1,154,860 8,403,873 2,709,938 3,141,771 2,656,827 8,008,122 1,154,680 5,949

 

Unobligated Balance - Available: 

Apportioned 442,090 400,865 71,872 220,624 152,562 727,352 25,372 263

 

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - - 50

 

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 400,865 442,090 71,872 220,624 152,562 727,352 25,372 313

 

Unobligated Balance not Available 194,348 209,009 21,448 239,430 9,183 349,134 28,599 46

 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 1,750,073 $ 9,054,972 $ 2,803,258 $ 3,601,825 $ 2,818,572 $ 9,084,608 $ 1,208,651 $ 6,310

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

III-88
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 

Unpaid Obligations 1,051,329 $ 3,357,243 $ 540,136 $ 4,046,993 $ 541,717 $ 1,669,766 $ 219,716 $ 1,191

$ 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 14,824 679,019 180,181 19,625 131,358 554,862 29,503 10

 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 1,036,505 2,678,224 359,955 4,027,368 410,359 1,114,904 190,213 1,181

 

Obligations Incurred 8,403,873 1,154,860 2,709,938 3,141,771 2,656,827 8,008,122 1,154,680 5,949

 

Less: Gross Outlays 8,240,549 1,257,030 2,640,344 3,115,655 2,423,953 7,204,918 1,099,675 6,014

 

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actua 248,702 40,051 62,869 145,759 72,085 210,019 58,819 6

 

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from 

Federal Sources 12,498 (11,281) 91,607 (16,692) (8,158) (237,300) (1,785) (2

 

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period:

Unpaid Obligations 909,109 3,271,864 546,861 3,927,350 702,505 2,262,951 215,902 1,120

 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 2,327 587,412 191,462 36,317 139,516 792,162 31,288 12

 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 2,684,452 906,782 $ 355,399 $ 3,891,033 $ 562,989 $ 1,470,789 $ 184,614 $ 1,108

$ 

Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 8,240,549 1,257,030 $ 2,640,344 $ 3,115,655 $ 2,423,953 $ 7,204,918 $ 1,099,675 $ 6,014

$ 

Less: Offsetting Collections 3,219 1,992,875 1,399,610 114,596 398,308 916,426 46,518 384

 

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 83,690 (418,768) (3,805) - 221,908 1,171 (6,670) 

 

Total Net Outlays $ 6,666,442 1,170,121 $ 1,244,539 $ 3,001,059 $ 1,803,737 $ 6,287,321 $ 1,059,827 $ 5,629

$ 

III-89

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 $ 2,884,775 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

$ 

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 14,224 - 

 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 44,961 - 18 - 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal 22,959 - - - - - 38 - 

Miscellaneous - 108 - - - - 249 - 

 

Total Cash Collections $ 2,907,842 - $ - $ - $ 59,961 $ - $ 14,529 $ - $ 

$ 

Accrual Adjustments - - - - 211 - (23) - 

 

Total Custodial Revenue $ 2,907,842 - $ - $ - $ 60,172 $ - $ 14,506 $ - $ 

$ 

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (92,073) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce - (771) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior - (25,059) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Justice - (123,787) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Labor - (528) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Postal Service - (4,435) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (294,619) - - (59,961) - (14,210) - 

 

Office of Personnel Management - (19,833) - - - - - - 

 

National Credit Union Administration - (470) - - - - - - 

 

Federal Communications Commission - (9,773) - - - - - - 

 

Social Security Administration - (982) - - - - - - 

 

Smithsonian Institution - (8) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (28,710) - - - - - - 

 

General Services Administration - (116,631) - - - - - - 

 

Securities and Exchange Commission - (4) - - - - - - 

 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (1,958) - - - - - - 

 

Railroad Retirement Board - (335) - - - - - - 

 

Tennessee Valley Authority - (4,207) - - - - - - 

 

Environmental Protection Agency - (223,334) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Transportation - (1,357) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (17,169) - - - - - - 

Small Business Administration - (5,332) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (1,367,320) - - - - - - 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (2,957) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (18,347) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Energy - (4,065) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Education - (18,003) - - - - - - 

Independent Agencies - (54,916) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Defense - (113,023) - - - - - - 

Transferred to the Public - (329,816) - - - - - - 

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - 55,779 - - (211) - - - 

Refunds and Other Payments - (622) - - - - (296) - 

Retained by the Reporting Entity (83,177) - - - - - - - 

 

Net Custodial Activity $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

$ 

III-90 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report U. S. Department of Justice Combining Statement of Custodial Activity For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP 

Revenue ActivitySources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 $ 2,758,710 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

$ 

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 12,262 - 

 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 21,936 - 20 - 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal 26,851 - - - - - 44 - 

Miscellaneous - 2,359 - - - - 110 - 

 

Total Cash Collections $ 2,787,920 - $ - $ - $ 36,936 $ - $ 12,436 $ - $ 

$ 

Accrual Adjustments (19) - - - (203) - - - 

 

Total Custodial Revenue $ 2,787,901 - $ - $ - $ 36,733 $ - $ 12,436 $ - $ 

$ 

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (140,289) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Commerce - (1,884) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of the Interior - (23,239) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Justice - (294,666) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Labor - (3,268) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Postal Service - (10,817) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (200,173) - - (36,936) - (12,178) - 

 

Office of Personnel Management - (7,432) - - - - - - 

 

National Credit Union Administration - (7) - - - - - - 

 

Federal Communications Commission - (4,114) - - - - - - 

 

Social Security Administration - (650) - - - - - - 

 

Smithsonian Institution - (9) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (13,548) - - - - - - 

 

General Services Administration - (1,516) - - - - - - 

 

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (14) - - - - - - 

 

Railroad Retirement Board - (373) - - - - - - 

 

Tennessee Valley Authority - (7,933) - - - - - - 

 

Environmental Protection Agency - (440,033) - - - - - - 

 

U.S. Department of Transportation - (36,213) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (46,329) - - - - - - 

Small Business Administration - (10,740) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (1,614,871) - - - - - - 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (413) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (8,467) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Energy - (7,463) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Education - (14,517) - - - - - - 

Independent Agencies - (86,419) - - - - - - 

U.S. Department of Defense - (115,735) - - - - - - 

Transferred to the Public - (339,229) - - - - - - 

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - 723,201 - - 203 - - - 

Refunds and Other Payments - (640) - - - - (258) - 

Retained by the Reporting Entity (80,101) - - - - - - - 

 

Net Custodial Activity $ - - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

$ 

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2008

 Department of Justice ● FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-91
This page intentionally left blank. 

III-92 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
Required Supplementary Stewardship Information Unaudited

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-93
U. S. Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report III-94 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information 

Consolidated Stewardship Investments

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 

In Thousands 

The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In Sentencing (VOI/TIS) and the Correctional Grants 

for Tribal Programs are administered by OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The VOI/TIS 

and Correctional Grants for Tribal Land programs provide grants to all states as well as the District 

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and Tribes for the purposes of building or expanding correctional facilities and jails to increase 

secure confinement space for violent offenders. The facilities built or expanded with these funds 

constitute non-federal physical property. 

The Recovery Act Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program and the Correctional Facilities on 

Tribal Lands Program assist tribes in cost effectively constructing and renovating correctional 

facilities associated with the incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders subject 

to tribal jurisdiction. In addition, this funding allows tribes to explore community-based alternatives 

to help control and prevent jail overcrowding due to alcohol and other substance abuse. The Bureau 

of Justice Assistance administers both programs in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. 

VOI/TIS and Correctional Grants for Tribal Lands funds expended from FY 2005 through FY 2009 

are as follows: 

Dollars in Thousands 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 

Cooperative Agreement Program 

Administered by USMS $ 0 $1,140 $2,839 $2,521 $3,605

Discretionary Grants to Indian 

Tribes 14,320 5,094 11,334 4,007 16,723

Formula Grants to States 41,561 59,011 188,171 222,650 249,892

Total $55,881 $65,245 $202,344 $229,178 $270,220

 


Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-1

Management Section 

(Unaudited) 

Each year, the Department identifies existing and potential management challenges, weaknesses, and areas in 

need of improvement. Two primary sources used to identify these issues are the Department’s OIG-identified 

Top Management and Performance Challenges and the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) 

assessment process. The challenges identified by the Department’s OIG are from an auditor’s perspective and 

include areas of concern that bear significantly on how well the Department carries out its mission and meets 

its responsibilities as a steward of public funds. The FMFIA assessment process evaluates the effectiveness of 

internal controls to support effective and efficient programmatic operations and compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations (FMFIA § 2) and whether financial management systems conform to government-wide 

requirements (FMFIA § 4). 

Presented on the following pages are the OIG-identified Top Management and Performance Challenges in the 

Department, Department management’s response to those challenges, and the corrective action plans resulting 

from the FMFIA assessment. 

Section IV

Overview
IV-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-3

Top Management and Performance 

Challenges in the Department of Justice 

November 13, 2009 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FROM: GLENN A. FINE 

 INSPECTOR GENERAL 

SUBJECT: Top Management and Performance Challenges 

in the Department of Justice

Attached to this memorandum is the Office of the Inspector General’s 

(OIG) 2009 list of top management and performance challenges facing the 

Department of Justice (Department). We have prepared similar lists since 

1998. By statute, this list is required to be included in the Department’s 

annual Performance and Accountability Report. 

We hope that this document will assist Department managers in 

developing strategies to address the top management and performance 

challenges facing the Department. We look forward to continuing to work 

with the Department to address these important issues. 

Attachment 

OIG 
IV-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-5

Top Management and Performance Challenges 

in the Department of Justice – 2009 

1. Counterterrorism: Counterterrorism remains the highest priority of the Department of 

Justice (Department or DOJ). While recent terrorism arrests demonstrate the Department’s focus 

on and progress in its counterterrorism efforts, the Department in general and the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation (FBI) in particular still face significant challenges in fully performing this 

critical mission. 

For example, in May 2009 the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued an audit that 

examined the FBI’s practices for making nominations to the consolidated terrorist watchlist. The 

watchlist is used by frontline government screening personnel to determine how to respond when 

a known or suspected terrorist requests entry into the United States. The failure either to place 

appropriate individuals on the watchlist or to place them on the watchlist in a timely manner 

increases the risk that they are able to enter and move freely within the United States. However, 

the OIG audit concluded that the FBI did not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists 

to the consolidated terrorist watchlist in accordance with FBI policy and did not update or 

remove watchlist records as required. 

The deficiencies identified in this audit followed our findings in a March 2008 audit report that 

watchlist nominations from FBI field offices often were incomplete or contained inaccuracies, 

which caused delays in the nominations process. Although the FBI agreed with our March 2008 

recommendations and began taking corrective actions, our May 2009 audit report identified 

continued internal control weaknesses that contributed to incomplete and inaccurate watchlist 

records. In the May 2009 report, the OIG made 16 new recommendations to the FBI regarding 

nominations to, modifications of, and removal of identities from the consolidated terrorist 

watchlist, and the FBI agreed to implement all of these recommendations. 

In another follow-up review, the OIG examined the FBI’s Foreign Language Translation 

Program. The FBI’s ability to timely translate the large amount of foreign language materials it 

regularly collects is critical to national security. OIG audits in 2004 and 2005 found significant 

deficiencies in the FBI’s Foreign Language Translation Program. The OIG’s October 2009 audit 

found that many of these deficiencies have not been fully corrected. Specifically, we found that 

the FBI continued to have significant amounts of unreviewed foreign language materials in 

counterterrorism and counter intelligence, the FBI’s highest priority investigative areas. 

Moreover, the FBI still does not have an automated means for assessing the amount of material it 

collects for translation. In addition, while the FBI has improved its compliance with quality 

control requirements and begun requiring experienced linguists to have a formal quality control 

review performed once every four quarters, we identified numerous linguists who have not had 

the quality of their work reviewed for over 3 years. Moreover, the FBI continues to fall short in 

meeting its linguist hiring goals, resulting in a decrease in the number of linguists since 2005 at 

the same time there has been an increase in the amount of material for translation. The OIG 
IV-6 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

made 24 new recommendations to assist the FBI in improving the management of its Foreign 

Language Translation Program. 

As Attorney General Holder noted in his congressional testimony, communication and 

information sharing are critical to the Department’s counterterrorism strategy. However, in a 

recent audit the OIG found that the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (ATF) are not adequately coordinating their explosives-related operations. The OIG 

audit found that jurisdictional disputes occur between the FBI and ATF, delaying explosives 

investigations and resulting in a disjointed federal response to explosives incidents, some of 

which involve terrorist incidents. Despite an Attorney General memorandum in August 2004 

and a 2008 Memorandum of Understanding between the FBI and ATF, allocation of 

investigative authority between the two agencies is unclear, and disputes between the agencies 

have continued regarding lead agency authority for federal explosives investigations. 

The FBI’s development of an automated system to track terrorist threats and suspicious incidents 

was intended to disseminate immediate threat information to the FBI’s law enforcement and 

intelligence partners. An OIG November 2008 report examining the FBI’s Guardian Threat 

Tracking System (Guardian) revealed shortcomings in the accuracy, timeliness, and 

completeness of the information entered in Guardian. The deficiencies identified by this audit 

resulted in threat information not being made available to all Guardian users. The FBI has 

recently developed E-Guardian, a companion system to provide state and local law enforcement 

with the capability to share local terrorism incident information with the FBI and to receive 

nationwide unclassified terrorism incident information from the FBI. Following our review, the 

FBI officially launched E-Guardian in January 2009. 

In accord with the National Strategy for Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives in the United 

States, the OIG evaluated the FBI’s efforts to prepare for weapons of mass destruction (WMD) 

threats, including how the FBI ensures that WMD Coordinators in FBI field divisions identify 

WMD threats and attacks. Our audit found that although the FBI has established a WMD 

Coordinator position in each of its field divisions to serve as the point-person on WMD matters, 

the WMD Coordinators need to be more involved in the process used by each field office to 

identify and forecast WMD threats and vulnerabilities. We also recommended that the FBI 

enhance day-to-day coordination between WMD Coordinators and field office Intelligence 

Analysts. Additionally, we found that the FBI needs to develop qualification standards and 

training plans for field division personnel charged with preventing and detecting WMD threats. 

The OIG made 13 recommendations for the FBI to enhance the responsibilities and training of its 

WMD Coordinators and to help improve field division WMD-related efforts. 

The OIG is currently evaluating the FBI’s efforts to investigate national security cyber intrusion 

cases. We are assessing the efforts of the FBI National Cyber Investigative Task Force to 

address potential national security cyber intrusion threats. In addition, our audit is examining the 

FBI field offices’ capabilities to investigate national security cyber intrusion cases. 

Another recent OIG review determined that the Department had failed to appropriately perform 

its critical legal function during the early phases of a controversial intelligence gathering activity. 

In the weeks following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the President authorized the 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-7

National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct a classified program to detect and prevent further 

attacks in the United States. The program was reauthorized by the President every 45 days, with 

certain modifications. The activities carried out under these authorizations were referred to as 

the President’s Surveillance Program (PSP). In July 2009, the OIG completed a 407-page 

classified report that examined the Department’s controls over and use of information related to 

the PSP and the Department’s compliance with legal requirements governing the PSP. The OIG 

report focused in particular on the Department’s role in providing legal advice concerning the 

Program and on the FBI’s role as a consumer of information from the Program. In conjunction 

with four other Intelligence Community OIGs, we also issued a 40-page summary of the 

unclassified material from the OIG reports. 

In our review, we found that only one Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) attorney was read into the 

PSP during its first year and a half of operation. The OIG concluded that it was extraordinary 

and inappropriate that a single attorney was relied upon to conduct the initial legal assessment of 

the PSP, and that the lack of oversight and review of his work, as customarily is the practice of 

OLC, contributed to a legal analysis of the PSP that at a minimum was factually flawed. The 

OIG also concluded that the limited access to PSP information also undermined the 

Department’s ability to perform its critical legal function during the PSP’s early phase of 

operation. 

 

The OIG also sought as part of its review to assess the role of PSP-derived information and its 

value to the FBI’s overall counterterrorism efforts. Our interviews with FBI agents and analysts 

responsible for handling PSP information generally were supportive of the program as “one tool 

of many” in the FBI’s anti-terrorism efforts that “could help move cases forward,” although most 

PSP leads were determined not to have any connection to terrorism. The OIG concluded that 

although PSP-derived information had value in some counterterrorism investigations, it generally 

played a limited role in the FBI’s overall counterterrorism efforts. 

In sum, while the Department continues to make counterterrorism its top priority, recent OIG 

reviews have highlighted the continuing challenge for the Department in addressing this critical 

area. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

 The Department of Justice’s highest priority and most important responsibility is to 

protect our national security. To fulfill that responsibility effectively and efficiently, the 

Department’s leadership has identified several areas of potential improvement in this field, many 

of which were identified in the Inspector General’s recommendations. The Department has 

already begun implementation of these new procedures and policies where appropriate. 

 

 The Department leadership and the FBI are on track to resolve all 24 OIG report 

recommendations directed to the FBI. In fact, many of OIG’s recommendations are 

consistent with measures already taken by the Department as part of its overall strategic 

plan for improving the Departments overall management and efficiency. For instance, the 

FBI has successfully closed four of the seven recommendations in the OIG’s February 2008 

report and nine out of sixteen recommendations in the May 2009 report. Of particular 
IV-8 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

note, the Department and the FBI agree that the appropriate handling of watchlists is an 

important responsibility that must be addressed effectively and consistent with the law. As 

such, the FBI has reorganized the Terrorist Review and Examination Unit, which has 

oversight responsibility for watchlisting of FBI investigative subjects. To streamline the 

process and establish internal controls, the Unit was divided into teams to provide for more 

effective overall management. Similarly, a Metrics Team and Quality Assurance Team 

now formally identify watchlisting problems and ensure each issue is corrected in a timely 

manner. Compliance with watchlisting policy is now measured and reported on a monthly 

basis, which includes current trends and best practices observed across the FBI. The 

results continue to improve with compliance rates rising from 56 percent to 86 percent for 

timely case openings, and 64 percent to 89 percent for timely case closings. After a 

problem is identified, direct follow-up now ensures 100 percent of these issues are tracked 

and resolved. In addition, the FBI’s draft watchlisting policy is nearly complete; it 

incorporates clear guidance for watchlisting FBI investigative subjects, non-investigative 

subjects, and those identified via our foreign partners. Once the policy is approved, an 

additional seven recommendations will be ready for closure. This review is ongoing and 

requires examination of approximately 80,000 records with completion expected by the end 

of the 2009 calendar year.

The FBI is encouraged by the progress made in collecting material for timely 

counterterrorism translation. In fact, the OIG’s report on the FBI’s Foreign Language 

Translation Program documents the significant improvements the FBI has made in the 

past four years in this program. That said, we take the OIG’s concerns about this program 

very seriously, and it recognizes that much work is needed to improve the FBI’s foreign 

language translation programs. The Department is fully committed to undertaking this 

effort. With regard to counterintelligence collections, the Department and the FBI will 

continue to carefully prioritize and monitor the most important material. Overall, the 

Department is confident that its language translation capabilities, including recruiting, 

hiring, training, and retaining effective linguists, have substantially improved. 

 The FBI is also working to decrease its audio backlog. The FBI is currently 

procuring and testing a new system that will facilitate the centralized management of this 

data. This system will enable the FBI to gather accurate statistics on audio backlog, which 

may demonstrate that the backlog is significantly less than that reported in the OIG report. 

With respect to unreviewed electronic files, moreover, the FBI takes an analytic approach 

to handling these files and uses advanced technology to assist in the identification and 

prioritization of those electronic files that are most relevant to the FBI’s mission. To 

further improve upon this approach, the FBI is developing new technological and 

management tools that will reduce the volume of electronic files requiring review and 

translation. 

 In addition, the Department is working to resolve any residual challenges to 

coordination of explosives investigations. The Department agrees with OIG that this is an 

important concern. Indeed, the Department recognizes the critical importance of a wellcoordinated and effective response to explosives incidents. Equally important is the need to 

adequately train our personnel and ensure effective information sharing with all 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-9

appropriate components and law enforcement partners. The OIG Report documents the 

Department’s challenges concerning the most efficient application and balance of its 

explosives enforcement assets and responsibilities and offers some specific remedies to 

those challenges. The Department agrees with the recommendations that are reflected in 

the body of the Report and is currently taking steps to address each of those 

recommendations. While we may modify the ways in which we implement some of those 

recommendations in order to achieve the most successful and efficient resolution to the 

matters under review, the Department is committed to taking specific, effective, and 

measurable actions that address the concerns identified by OIG, including: coordinating 

efforts; determining roles and responsibilities during a federal response to an explosives 

incident (such as determining lead agency jurisdiction); and managing shared 

responsibilities such as information sharing, explosives training, research and technology 

development, outreach to the public and industry, and use of certain laboratory resources. 

 Furthermore, the Department remains committed to sharing terrorism information 

with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement partners. To that end, the FBI has 

created an unclassified version of its Guardian program called eGuardian. The eGuardian 

system will facilitate situational awareness with respect to potential terrorism threats and 

activity by providing law enforcement partners with a suspicious activity reporting (SAR) 

system accessible via Law Enforcement Online. Sharing information within the eGuardian 

network should eliminate the jurisdictional and bureaucratic impediments that otherwise 

delay communication and dissemination of information that could potentially affect the 

nation's security posture. Indeed, the eGuardian system will offer the United States law 

enforcement community a previously unrealized degree of connectivity with regard to the 

collection and dissemination of suspicious activity and threat reporting. The eGuardian 

system also will provide state and local users a uniform platform to cause actionable 

information with a potential terrorism nexus to be analyzed at the state Fusion Center level 

and reported to the Joint Terrorism Task Forces via the classified Guardian system. 

 Consistent with the OIG report entitled, “The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

Weapons of Mass Destruction Coordinator Program,” the FBI has made strides to 

professionalize and increase the competency of our WMD Coordinators and Intelligence 

Analysts through a formalized training curriculum and select performance requirements. 

These improvements build on the many strengths that the OIG report identified in this 

area. That said, the Department concurs with the thirteen recommendations in the OIG’s 

report, and are in the process of creating increased professional opportunities and 

development for WMD Coordinators and Intelligence Analysts who prioritize WMD 

threats and coordinate activities within their respective domains. Through collaboration 

with the FBI's Directorate of Intelligence, the WMD Directorate will implement procedures 

and practices to address intelligence exchange, performance, tracking, and training 

relevant to effective domain management. 

 Finally, the Department adheres to longstanding OLC practice requiring that legal 

questions are fully and appropriately examined by more than one OLC attorney and that 

all written legal advice is approved by at least two senior-level attorneys. All opinions and 

other signed memoranda containing legal advice are now written or approved by the head 
IV-10 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

of the Office and at least one Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Indeed, in almost all 

cases, such documents are reviewed by the head of the Office and at least two Deputy 

Assistant Attorneys General. Accordingly, OLC regularly insists that, wherever possible, 

the head of the Office and at least one Deputy Assistant Attorney General are cleared into 

compartmented national security programs about which OLC is asked to provide legal 

advice. 

2. Restoring Confidence in the Department of Justice: In the past several years, the 

Department of Justice has faced criticism for politicization in the hiring of career officials, 

dismissal of U.S. Attorneys, and alleged misconduct in several prosecutions. These issues 

involve a small number of the many important responsibilities the Department handles and also 

involve only a small percentage of the Department’s dedicated work force. Yet, these issues can 

affect confidence in the objectivity and non-partisanship of the Department of Justice as a whole 

and can undermine the confidence in the many critical decisions the Department makes. 

Consequently, restoring confidence in the Department is an important and ongoing challenge. 

In 2008, the OIG and the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) issued two 

joint reports which substantiated serious allegations of improper politicized hiring practices in 

the hiring processes for career attorney positions in the Department’s Honors Program and 

Summer Law Intern Program and in hiring for career positions by staff in the Office of the 

Attorney General. 

Another joint OIG/OPR report issued in 2008 concluded that partisan political considerations 

played a part in the Department’s removal of U.S. Attorneys in 2006. We concluded that the 

process used to select the U.S. Attorneys for removal was fundamentally flawed, and the 

oversight and implementation of the removal process by the Department’s most senior leaders 

was significantly lacking. The Department’s removal of the U.S. Attorneys and the controversy 

it created severely damaged the credibility of the Department and raised doubts about the 

integrity of Department prosecutorial decisions. 

In January 2009, the OIG and OPR issued another joint report which found that Bradley 

Schlozman, the former Acting Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for the Civil Rights Division, 

had hired lawyers for career positions in the Division and had made personnel decisions based on 

attorneys’ political or ideological affiliations. Our investigation concluded that in doing so 

Schlozman violated federal law (the Civil Service Reform Act) and Department policy, both of 

which prohibit discrimination in federal employment based on political affiliations. 

As noted in our 2008 analysis of the Department’s top management challenges, the Department 

has taken significant steps to correct problems we found in these four reviews. For example, the 

Department returned the responsibility for hiring career employees from politically appointed 

officials to career employees, and the Department provided training for these selecting officials. 

The Department also developed new briefing and training materials for Department political 

appointees that stresses that the process for hiring career employees must be merit based, and 

that ideological affiliations may not be used as a screening device for discriminating on the basis 

of political affiliations. In addition, the former Attorney General appointed a special counsel to 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-11

investigate whether any crime was committed related to removal of the U.S. Attorneys, and that 

investigation is ongoing. 

However, the Department has still not responded to the OIG’s recommendation that the 

Department clarify its policies regarding the use of political or ideological affiliations to select 

career attorney candidates for temporary details within the Department. The Department’s 

guidance on this issue is inconsistent, and we recommend that the Department clarify the 

circumstances under which political considerations may and may not be considered when 

assessing career candidates for details to various Department positions. 

While the Department has taken important steps on the issues of politicized hiring and firing that 

we identified in our reports, the Department is also faced with significant issues arising from 

several recent prosecutions, including the prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. In 

April, after a jury trial, the Department moved to dismiss the indictment charging Stevens with 

violating government ethics laws. According to the Department, it dismissed the indictment 

after trial because it concluded that certain information should have been provided to the defense 

for use at trial. The Department’s handling of this case created concern about the prosecutors’ 

adherence to professional standards of conduct. Federal judges in other districts also have 

questioned whether the Department is adequately adhering to professional standards of conduct 

and addressing concerns of prosecutorial misconduct. For example, judges in the District of 

Massachusetts, the Northern District of Alabama, and elsewhere have questioned the 

professional conduct of Department prosecutors. The judges expressed concerns primarily about 

prosecutors failing to disclose exculpatory or impeachment information to the defense and the 

manner in which prosecutors handled certain informants and witnesses. 

Other issues regarding the professional responsibility of the Department’s attorneys have also 

been reported on during the past year, including the OIG report about the President’s 

Surveillance Program, which is discussed in the previous management challenge. In another 

matter involving national security issues, allegations have arisen concerning the role Department 

attorneys played in providing legal advice relating to enhanced interrogation techniques. A 

report by OPR on this issue is pending. 

In response to these concerns about prosecutorial conduct, the Department has taken a variety of 

actions. For example, in August 2009 the Department created a working group to consider best 

practices for prosecutors in fulfilling their disclosure obligations. The Department also 

announced a new training program in which all United States Attorneys’ Offices have been 

directed to appoint a Discovery Trainer who will be required to attend a training conference, 

which will focus on discovery issues, including Brady-Giglio, Rule 16, Jencks, informants, and 

agent and attorney notes. The Discovery Trainers will then present mandatory training to all 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their districts by the end of the year. In addition, the Department 

plans to hire an official to oversee this training process, assess the need for additional 

improvements, and ensure continued implementation of the reforms. 

In short, we believe that restoring confidence in the professionalism of the Department is a 

continuing challenge. The Department needs to ensure that the diligence, hard work, and sound 

ethics of the overwhelming majority of Department employees are not undermined by the few 
IV-12 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

but highly visible incidents of potential misconduct. While the Department’s leadership, both at 

the end of the past Administration and during this Administration, has taken important steps to 

confront this challenge, it must remain focused on this critical issue. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

 As noted by the OIG, the Department already has taken substantial steps to restore 

confidence in the professionalism and integrity of its work. Attorney General Holder has 

repeatedly said that “we must restore the credibility of this Department, which has been so 

badly shaken by allegations of improper political interference.” The Department has 

maintained a singular focus on ensuring that its work is done without regard to political 

party or ideology. Indeed, the Attorney General explained on the day he was sworn into 

office, “We must fulfill our duties faithfully, and apply the law evenhandedly, without 

regard to politics, party or personal interest.” In short, the Department of Justice is fully 

committed to restoring confidence in its work and reputation by upholding its vital 

traditions of independence, non-partisanship, transparency, and fealty to the law. 

 To that end, the Department has re-established its commitment to non-partisan 

hiring and enforcement. For instance, as part of its continuing effort to address hiring 

concerns, the Department invited attorneys who applied to the Department’s Honors 

Program in 2006 (and may have been excluded for reasons of political affiliation) to apply 

again. Of the 167 attorneys who were offered this opportunity, 63 accepted interviews, 54 

actually interviewed (9 withdrew prior to or after interviewing), and 15 were hired. Two 

candidates declined offers of employment. In addition, the Department is working through 

the legal issues regarding implementation of a policy concerning the selection of career 

attorney candidates for temporary details to confidential, policy-determining, policymaking, or policy-advocating positions within the Department and expects to clarify the 

policy in the current fiscal year. 

 

 The Department has taken various measures to help ensure that its attorneys are 

aware of, and act in accordance with, their professional obligations. The Department 

remains committed to meeting the highest standards during discovery—as in every stage of 

litigation—in its criminal and civil cases alike. In addition to the prosecutorial working 

group noted by the OIG, a parallel working group is examining the Department’s civil 

discovery practices and capabilities. These working groups will clearly demonstrate that 

the goal of the United States Justice Department is not to keep count of convictions or civil 

judgments, but rather to be accountable for justice. 

The Department is devoting significant resources to build on the training programs 

already in place to ensure our attorneys are the best trained in the field. As noted by the 

OIG, we are developing a comprehensive discovery curriculum for prosecutors, and we 

plan to provide discovery training to federal prosecutors, paralegals, and law enforcement 

agents. The Department recently convened a three-day discovery and case management 

course at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina, to train the 

“discovery experts” from all 93 U.S. Attorneys offices and the Department’s litigating 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-13

components. Now that we have “trained the trainers,” they will go back to their respective 

offices and provide in-depth training for new and current prosecutors. 

Additionally, based on the Working Group’s recommendations, the Department has 

designated “discovery experts” in all 93 United States Attorney’s offices and in all the 

criminal litigating components of the Department. These discovery experts are senior 

members of their offices who have received additional training and will be an invaluable 

resource to their colleagues to address individual discovery issues and providing training to 

new prosecutors on an ongoing basis. 

The Department also is creating an Intranet site that will serve as a central 

repository for discovery materials, including recent court decisions, training materials, 

sample case management tools and other materials to help prosecutors comply with their 

obligations to the defense and the court. The Computer Forensics Working Group will be 

reconvened to address the problem of properly cataloging electronically stored information 

recovered as part of federal investigations as well as the adequacy of computer forensic 

resources that support federal criminal investigations. In addition to those improvements 

we have already begun to implement, we agree with the OIG in the importance of this 

mission, and will continue to dedicate the Department’s effort and resources to affirm the 

public’s confidence in Department’s integrity and professionalism. 

3. Recovery Act Funding and Oversight: In addition to the traditional challenge the 

Department faces each year in managing more than $3 billion in grant funds, the Department has 

received additional grant funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(Recovery Act). The Recovery Act, which provides $787 billion in total funding intended to 

provide a stimulus to the economy, includes $4 billion in Department grant funding to enhance 

state, local, and tribal law enforcement; to combat violence against women; and to fight Internet 

crimes against children. The distribution of Recovery Act Funding among the various 

Department grant programs is shown in the chart below. 

 
IV-14 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

RECOVERY ACT-FUNDED PROGRAMS 

Appropriations Title Department 

Component Total Funding Allocation to Component Programs and Purpose 

$2 billion – Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance 

Grant (JAG) Program funding for a broad range of 

activities to prevent and control crime and improve the 

criminal justice system. 

$225 million – Edward Byrne Competitive Grant 

Program funding to help communities address targeted 

needs. 

$225 million – Grant funding for 

construction/renovation of correctional facilities on 

tribal lands. 

$125 million – Grant funding for rural law enforcement 

activities related to preventing and combating drugrelated crime. 

$40 million – Grant funding for law enforcement 

activities along the southern border and in 

high-intensity drug trafficking areas (includes 

$10 million of pass-through funding for ATF). 

$50 million – Grant funding for initiatives related to 

Internet crimes against children. 

State and Local Law 

Enforcement 

Assistance, Recovery 

Act 

Office of Justice 

Programs (OJP) 

$2.765 billion 

$100 million – Grant funding for victim compensation 

and assistance. 

Community Oriented 

Policing Services, 

Recovery Act 

Office of Community 

Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS) 

$1 billion $1 billion – Grant funding for the COPS Hiring 

Recovery Program (CHRP) to hire and rehire additional 

career law enforcement officers. 

$175 million – Grant funding to support the work of 

state, local, and tribal governments and domestic 

violence and sexual assault coalitions. 

Violence Against 

Women Prevention 

and Prosecution, 

Recovery Act 

Office on Violence 

Against Women 

(OVW) 

$225 million 

$50 million – Transitional Housing Assistance Grant 

Program funding to provide victims of crimes against 

women with transitional housing services and to move 

such individuals into permanent housing. 

Salaries and 

Expenses, Office of 

Justice Programs, 

Recovery Act 

OJP $10 million $10 million – Administrative funding to OJP, further 

allocated as follows: 

OJP $7.0 million 

COPS $2.5 million 

OVW $ .5 million 

Salaries and 

Expenses, Recovery 

Act 

Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (ATF) 

(Funding 

received through 

OJP) 

$10 million – Funding to support Project Gunrunner for 

the Southwest Border Initiative to reduce cross-border 

drug and weapons trafficking and violence on the 

border. 

Office of the 

Inspector General, 

Recovery Act 

Office of the Inspector 

General (OIG) 

$2 million $2 million – Funding for oversight activities and 

functions related to Recovery Act funding. 

Totals Five Components $4.002 billion ($3.990 billion or 99.7 percent is for grants) 

Source: U.S. Department of Justice Draft Agency Plan for Management of Recovery Act Funds

The management and oversight of Recovery Act funds is a significant challenge for the 

Department because the Department must distribute this large amount of grant funding quickly, 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-15

monitor the use of these funds, and continue to manage its annual grant programs at the same 

time. For example, the Department’s Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program Justice Assistance 

Grant Program (JAG Program) received $2 billion in Recovery Act funds to be awarded to state 

and local governments to support a broad range of activities aimed at preventing and controlling 

crime and improving the criminal justice system. This money is approximately 4 to 18 times 

more than the annual funding that the Department awards through the JAG Program each year 

($496 million in fiscal year (FY) 2005, $202 million in FY 2006, $305 million in FY 2007, and 

$108 million in FY 2008). 

Yet, despite the significant influx of Recovery Act money that the Department must oversee, the 

number of grant administrators who award and oversee these grant programs has not 

significantly increased. Therefore, these same grant administrators who already were challenged 

to provide adequate oversight of annual JAG grant funds face additional challenges in overseeing 

the Recovery Act funding. 

The Department plans to monitor grant recipients through a combination of oversight methods, 

including on-site program and financial reviews, desk reviews of recipient reports, and analyses 

of single audit results. Effective monitoring by each of the Department’s three grant-making 

agencies is crucial to the early identification and correction of problems among the Recovery Act 

grant recipients. As discussed in more detail in the management challenge on grant 

management, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) has taken steps to improve its monitoring 

efforts by strengthening its Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM). The OIG 

will be assessing the effectiveness of these improvements as we audit the Department’s oversight 

of Recovery Act awards. 

In another example of the Recovery Act challenge, the Department’s Office of Community 

Oriented Policing Services (COPS) received an additional $1 billion in Recovery Act funds in 

2009 for the hiring of career law enforcement officers. This is approximately three times larger 

than the average annual appropriations for COPS grants over the past 5 years. In addition, the 

focus of COPS grants in recent years had shifted from hiring police officers to providing funds 

for law enforcement equipment and technology. The result is that COPS must now manage a 

$1 billion Recovery Act hiring program with staff that may need to be retrained and refocused in 

overseeing a significantly larger number of hiring grants. Yet, the COPS’ staff to administer its 

grant programs has declined from 214 in 1999 to 116 in October 2009. While COPS has 

recently increased its staffing in response to the Recovery Act challenges, as of September 2009 

only eight grant monitors were on board in the COPS Grant Monitoring Division. Consequently, 

we are concerned with COPS’ ability to provide effective grant management over thousands of 

grants with such a limited number of staff. 

To address the management challenges presented by the infusion of Recovery Act funding, the 

Department has taken important steps. These steps include: 

• OJP has implemented a High Risk Grantee Designation program to assess a grantee’s risk 

before awards are made and to strengthen its monitoring of these grantees. 
IV-16 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

• COPS created the 2009 COPS Hiring Recovery Program Grant Owner’s Manual to assist 

grantees with the administrative and financial matters associated with the grant. 

• COPS plans to offer free access to interactive online training courses and resources to 

help grantees manage their grants and implement their community policing plans under 

the Recovery Act. 

• The Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) held several pre-award conference calls 

with potential applicants to clarify Recovery Act solicitation requirements, and OVW is 

developing a monitoring plan for Recovery Act awards. 

At the same time, the OIG has taken proactive steps to help the Department in its oversight of 

Recovery Act money. For example, the OIG has provided Department officials and grant 

administrators with training on the grant management process in an effort to prevent fraud or 

misuse of the funds. Since enactment of the Recovery Act in February 2009, the OIG has trained 

over 800 Department grant officials in order to raise awareness of the specific fraud, waste, and 

misuse risks related to Recovery Act and other grant funding. 

The OIG also has reviewed draft documents prepared by the Department, including both preaward documents for grant applicants and post-award guidance for grant recipients, and provided 

advice to Department officials regarding these documents. We have also provided guidance to 

the Department regarding appropriate internal controls and best practices when awarding and 

overseeing Recovery Act funds. 

In addition, the OIG prepared a document, entitled Improving the Grant Management Process,

which contains recommendations and best practices that OIG auditors and investigators have 

identified which granting agencies should consider adopting to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in 

grants. We distributed this document to Department grant managers and posted it on our 

website, and we also provided it to other Departments involved in grant activities. 

The OIG also has initiated several reviews to examining DOJ’s management of Recovery Act 

funds. For example, we have ongoing audits on the the Byrne formula and competitive grant 

programs; OJP’s grants for correctional facilities on tribal lands; COPS Hiring Recovery 

Program; OVW’s Recovery Act programs; and ATF’s use of Recovery Act funds for Project 

Gunrunner, a national initiative to reduce firearms trafficking to Mexico. In our initial report on 

ATF’s Project Gunrunner, we concluded that some of ATF’s planned activities do not appear to 

represent the best use of Recovery Act resources to reduce firearms trafficking. 

In addition to our reviews of the Department’s management and oversight of Recovery Act 

funds, we also are auditing samples of individual grantees that received Recovery Act awards. 

Our audit work is being performed in phases, and we are providing grant administrators 

significant findings from our work as quickly as possible so that these issues can be promptly 

addressed. 

Special agents from the OIG Investigations Division field offices and auditors from our regional 

audit offices have reached out to state administering and oversight agencies regarding DOJ 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-17

Recovery Act funds. In these meetings, we discuss our work and encourage these officials to 

report to us any evidence of potential waste, fraud, or abuse in the use of Department funds. 

In sum, grant management has been a long-standing challenge for the Department, and this year 

even more so when the Department must award and oversee an extra $4 billion in grant funds 

under the Recovery Act. While the Department has taken positive steps on oversight of 

Recovery Act funds, it must continue to focus on the challenge of protecting these funds from 

fraud, waste, and abuse. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

The Department has taken several proactive steps to ensure sufficient monitoring of 

the Recovery Act grants and contracts. Having recognized the same management 

challenges identified by the IG, the Department has put into place substantial monitoring 

measures to ensure effective distribution of these grant funds. 

 For example, shortly after the Recovery Act was enacted, the Department directed 

our OJP bureaus and program offices, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, and the 

OAAM to conduct programmatic, financial, and administrative monitoring of Recovery 

Act grants and contracts from award through the close-out of program activity. The 

Department will conduct on-site programmatic monitoring of 30 percent of the Recovery 

Act grant funding during the life of the Recovery Act awards. To ensure that the 

30 percent threshold results in on-site monitoring for an adequate number of Recovery Act 

grants, we will also conduct on-site monitoring for at least 10 percent of the number of 

open awards by program until all Recovery Act grants are closed, with the exception of the 

Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program, which will be at five percent due to the large 

volume of awards. The Department has directed the OAAM to then assess the level, 

quality, and completeness of monitoring conducted by the OJP bureaus and program 

offices, as well as the COPS Office. 

 In addition, since the enactment of the Recovery Act, OJP has been working closely 

with the OIG. The Department has a risk management plan in place, which includes 

identifying and closely monitoring high-risk grantees. We have proactively engaged the 

OIG to consult on methods to prevent the risk of waste, fraud, and abuse in the grant 

application and award process. For the duration of the Recovery Act post-award period, 

OJP and Department leadership will continue to meet routinely with the OIG to discuss 

programmatic progress and implementation issues, as well as to discuss strategies for 

improving grant program management across the Department. 

 The Department also has engaged OAAM to conduct program assessments of 

Recovery Act grant programs to measure performance against intended outcomes and 

assess compliance with Recovery Act requirements and guidelines. Using existing 

processes and procedures, program assessments will be designed to examine measures 

implemented by program offices and/or grantees to aid in enhanced transparency and 

accountability (e.g., performance measures tracking, compliance with grant requirements). 

In FY 2010, OAAM will review two Recovery Act programs, the Bureau of Justice 

Assistance’s (BJA) Assistance to Rural Law Enforcement to Combat Crime and Drugs 
IV-18 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Program and State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Program for Combating 

Criminal Narcotics Activity Stemming from the Southern Border of the United States. 

These were selected after consultation with the DOJ OIG to avoid duplication of program 

reviews. 

 The Department leadership has also tasked the Antitrust Division to launch an 

“Economic Recovery Initiative” to assist federal, state, and local agencies receiving 

Recovery Act funds. This Initiative will help ensure that measures are in place to protect 

procurement and program funding processes from bid-rigging and other fraudulent 

conduct, as well as ensure that those who seek to corrupt the competitive bidding process 

are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. A principle aim of the Initiative is training 

government officials to prevent, detect, and report efforts by parties to unlawfully profit 

from stimulus awards before those awards are made and taxpayer money is wasted. 

 In addition, DOJ has implemented the following improvements to its grant 

management: The High Risk Grantee Designation program employed through OJP is 

being applied to grants awarded by both OJP and OVW. COPS is incorporating OJP’s 

High Risk Grantee Designation program into its grant process as well. All three grantmaking components have developed plans to implement the OIG’s suggestions for 

improving the grant management process contained in the February 2009 report entitled, 

“Improving the Grant Management Process." Moreover, Department leadership now 

requires periodic reports from the grant components to assess their progress in 

implementing the suggestions in the OIG’s report, and status reports on open OIG audits. 

 Finally, ATF has been able to expand Project Gunrunner through the financial 

support of the Recovery Act and other recent appropriations. ATF has taken a series of 

steps to identify new locations for Gunrunner teams. These include creating a new staffing 

structure, ensuring Spanish proficiency in more staff along the southwest border, and 

establishing program methodologies to evaluate the impact of these resources. ATF has 

considered the recommendations in OIG’s Interim Review of ATF’s Project Gunrunner 

and, for each one, has either created an action plan to address the noted deficiencies, or has 

studied the issue in light of the OIG’s concern and provided further justification for its 

approach. In one instance, ATF is still considering the best approach to address the OIG’s 

concern. Overall, however, these recommendations are consistent with the Department's 

planned improvements, which we intend to implement with these recent Recovery Act 

appropriations. 

4. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: Meeting the Department’s counterterrorism and law 

enforcement responsibilities presents a variety of substantial challenges, but the Department 

must protect individual civil rights and civil liberties while pursuing these responsibilities. 

The need for an appropriate balance was highlighted by our reviews of the FBI’s misuse of 

national security letters (NSL), which the OIG first reported on in March 2007. As a follow-up 

to our reviews of the FBI’s use of NSLs and Section 215 orders for business records, the OIG is 

completing a review of the FBI’s use of exigent letters and other improper requests to obtain 

telephone records. In our March 2007 NSL report, we discovered a practice by which the FBI 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-19

used over 700 exigent letters rather than NSLs to obtain telephone toll billing records. We 

determined that by issuing exigent letters, the FBI circumvented the NSL statutes and violated 

the Attorney General’s Guidelines and internal FBI policy. Our ongoing review is examining in 

greater detail the FBI’s use of exigent letters and is assessing accountability for the FBI’s 

improper use of these letters and other informal requests for telephone records. 

The Department and the FBI have taken steps to improve their use and oversight of intelligence 

authorities such as national security letters. In the OIG’s March 2008 follow-up report on NSLs, 

we found that the FBI and the Department had made significant progress in implementing the 

recommendations contained in our first report and in adopting additional corrective measures to 

address the serious problems in NSL usage and oversight we had identified. We also found that 

the FBI had devoted substantial time and resources to ensure that its field managers and agents 

understood the seriousness of the FBI’s shortcomings in its use of NSLs and their responsibility 

for correcting these deficiencies. 

Yet, while we found that the FBI and the Department have taken positive steps to address the 

issues that contributed to the serious misuse of NSL authorities, significant additional work 

remains to be done. First, it remains to be seen how effectively the FBI’s Office of Integrity and 

Compliance – established after issuance of the OIG’s March 2007 NSL report – will be able to 

detect and correct non-compliance with the rules governing the intrusive investigative techniques 

available to the FBI. In the coming year, the OIG will review the work of the FBI’s Office of 

Integrity and Compliance to determine the effectiveness of this new office. 

In addition, the Department has yet to issue final minimization procedures concerning the 

retention of NSL-derived information. A Department Working Group has developed 

recommendations for NSL minimization procedures, which are still being considered within the 

Department and have not yet been issued. We believe that the Department should promptly issue 

final minimization procedures for NSLs that address the collection of information through NSLs, 

how the FBI can upload NSL information into FBI databases, the dissemination of NSL 

information, the appropriate tagging and tracking of NSL-derived information in FBI databases 

and files, and the time period for retention of NSL-obtained information. At this point, more 

than 2 years have elapsed since our first report was issued recommending such procedures, and 

final guidance is needed and overdue. 

In addition, the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Reauthorization Act) required the 

Department to implement minimization procedures for business records obtained pursuant to 

Section 215 orders. The Reauthorization Act required that specific procedures be designed for 

Section 215 material that would minimize the retention and prohibit the dissemination of nonpublicly available information concerning United States persons consistent with national security 

interests. The Reauthorization Act required that these procedures be adopted by September 5, 

2006. 

However, there was disagreement between the Department and the FBI regarding the definitions 

and scope of minimization procedures in general, including the time period for retention of 

Section 215 records, and whether to include procedures for addressing information received in 

response to but beyond the scope of a Section 215 order. To meet the statutory deadline, the 
IV-20 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Department adopted sections of the Attorney General’s Guidelines for FBI National Security 

Investigations and Foreign Intelligence Collection of October 31, 2003 (Guidelines) as “interim” 

minimization procedures for business records. 

We concluded that these interim minimization procedures were deficient because the interim 

procedures were not specific to Section 215 records - in fact, compliance with the Guidelines 

was already a prerequisite to obtaining a Section 215 order. We therefore recommended again 

that the Department continue to work to develop appropriate standard minimization procedures 

for Section 215 records. According to the FBI, the Department has drafted new minimization 

procedures for business records. However, these procedures have not been issued. 

Other OIG reports issued during the past year raise additional concerns about the need to balance 

aggressive law enforcement with protection of civil rights and civil liberties. As noted in the 

counterterrorism challenge, the OIG examined the FBI’s management of the consolidated 

terrorist watchlist and raised a concern that while it is important to place names on the watchlist 

when appropriate, it is also important to remove names from the list when they no longer should 

be there. We found in our March 2008 audit that FBI case agents did not consistently update 

watchlist records when new information became known and that in many instances the FBI did 

not remove watchlist records when appropriate. In a follow-up audit issued in May 2009, the 

OIG similarly concluded that the internal controls over the processes used to nominate 

individuals to the terrorist watchlist are weak or nonexistent and that, similar to findings in our 

previous review, did not update or remove watchlist records as required. 

In sum, while its counterterrorism responsibilities are its highest priority, the Department faces 

the ongoing challenge of balancing individual civil rights and civil liberties as it seeks to protect 

our nation’s security. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

The Attorney General has repeatedly observed that "there simply is no tension 

between an effective fight against those who have sworn to do us harm, and a respect for 

the most honored civil liberties that have made us who we are.” Each day, this Department 

works to ensure vigilance in protecting our national security while doing so consistently 

with the rule of law, civil rights, and civil liberties. We cannot afford to relax our guard in 

the fight against terrorism and those who threaten our national security, but the 

Department of Justice is committed to doing so while upholding our fundamental 

individual rights and liberties. For example, as the Inspector General acknowledged, the 

Department has made significant progress in developing procedures for handling 

information derived from national security letters. The Department will finalize and 

announce these procedures after resolution of Patriot Act reauthorization legislation later 

this year, which could address this issue. In the meantime, however, the FBI has already 

adopted many of the new procedures. 

 For instance, the FBI’s Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC) has implemented 

(and is now overseeing) a program that facilitates the FBI’s ability to comply with both the 

letter and the spirit of all applicable laws, regulations, rules, and policies. OIC also has 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-21

implemented a process for identifying and addressing issues which warrant attention based 

on the applicable compliance risk. Once the OIG initiates the above-mentioned audit, the 

FBI will work with the OIG to make relevant personnel available for interviews and to 

provide relevant documents. 

 The Department will continue to work with the FBI to finalize the NSL Working 

Group’s recommendations. In addition to directly responding to the OIG’s 

recommendations, we have implemented an automated NSL creation system which will not 

permit an NSL to be created if required information and approvals are not input. The use 

of this system should mitigate many of the common errors discussed in the OIG’s previous 

reports on NSL usage. This system, along with changes to FBI policy and enhanced 

internal reviews of NSL usage, has helped to substantially address the issues raised by the 

OIG and will result in greater accountability in the future. 

 The Department also continues to work to finalize minimization procedures for 

business records. As that work continues apace, it is important to underscore that the FBI 

Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide addresses many of the issues raised by the 

OIG. 

5. Financial Crimes: While the Department has recognized the need to aggressively 

investigate and prosecute financial crimes, this challenge has been exacerbated recently. With 

the downturn in the economy, the Department is facing a significant increase in various types of 

economic crimes, including mortgage fraud, white collar crimes, health care fraud, and grant and 

procurement fraud. The Department’s challenge involves addressing these crimes with limited 

resources that are also focused on counterterrorism, violent crimes, and other pressing issues. 

While many types of financial crimes have been increasing in recent years, mortgage fraud has 

seen a dramatic spike, with the FBI reporting more than double the number of criminal mortgage 

fraud investigations over the past 3 years. Congress recently passed the Fraud Enforcement and 

Recovery Act of 2009, which authorizes a significant increase in the FBI’s mortgage and 

financial fraud investigative program. In addition, this Act gives the Department new authority 

to prosecute fraud occurring in private institutions that generated many of the subprime 

mortgages but were previously not covered under federal criminal bank fraud statutes. 

The Department also has seen significant growth in corporate fraud and misconduct in the 

securities and commodities markets at the institutional, corporate, and private investor levels. 

The FBI reports that it is currently investigating over 189 major corporate frauds, 18 of which 

have losses over $1 billion. The most recent high-profile case that exemplifies this trend is the 

investigation in which Bernard L. Madoff pled guilty in March 2009 to 11 felony charges of 

securities fraud and related charges and was sentenced in June 2009 to 150 years in prison. In 

addition to prosecuting white collar criminals, a major challenge for the Department will be to 

aggressively pursue the recovery of the remaining assets through asset forfeiture laws to restore 

funds to the victims of financial crime. 

The Department also recently announced its intention to combat health care fraud by joining with 

the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to create a taskforce called the Health 
IV-22 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team. Health care fraud has been a longstanding challenge for the federal government, with the FBI estimating that losses in the 

United States exceed $50 billion annually. As health care spending continues to increase, the 

FBI estimates that health care fraud will show a corresponding increase. 

The DOJ-HHS task force is intended to increase coordination, intelligence sharing, and training 

among HHS, DOJ, and other law enforcement agencies to address health care fraud. During the 

past year, the Department had one particularly notable success when it announced a $2.3 billion 

settlement with American pharmaceutical company, Pfizer Inc., to resolve criminal and civil 

liability arising from the illegal promotion of certain pharmaceutical products. 

At the same time, the Department continues to focus on procurement and grant fraud. In 2006, 

the Department created the National Procurement Fraud Task Force to promote the prevention, 

early detection, and prosecution of procurement fraud. This task force focuses on civil and 

criminal enforcement of defective pricing, product substitution, misuse of classified and 

procurement-sensitive information, false claims, grant fraud, labor mischarging, fraud involving 

foreign military sales, ethics and conflict of interest violations, and public corruption associated 

with procurement fraud. As described above, the need to prevent, detect, and deter procurement 

and grant fraud became even more acute during this past year with enactment of the Recovery 

Act. 

While the Department is investing increased resources in combating financial crime, one of its 

major challenges will be to ensure that its various components that address financial crimes – 

including the Criminal Division, the Civil Division, the Antitrust Division, the U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices, and the FBI – effectively share information and collaborate on the investigation and 

prosecution of these offenses. In addition, the Department also needs to ensure effective 

collaboration with other federal agencies, with state and local law enforcement partners, with 

private industry, and with consumers. 

In sum, deterring, investigating, and prosecuting financial crimes is a challenge that has grown 

significantly more complex. While the Department has undertaken initiatives to help address 

this problem, it must continue to focus its efforts on meeting this heightened challenge. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

 The Department is fully committed as one of its top priorities to aggressively 

investigate and prosecute financial crimes. To do this most effectively, the Department 

recognizes that it must coordinate its efforts internally and with its partner agencies across 

the federal, state, local, and tribal governments. As such, the Department’s leadership has 

formed working groups and task forces to coordinate its white collar enforcement efforts 

among DOJ components, with federal regulatory agencies, and with our state and local 

partners. For example, as the OIG notes, the Department is actively engaged in a 

partnership at the senior leadership level with the Department of Health and Human 

Services to combat health care fraud through the HEAT initiative. The HEAT initiative 

includes leadership from all of the relevant DOJ components (United States Attorney’s 

Offices, Criminal Division, Civil Division, and the FBI), as well as the Office of Inspector 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-23

General at HHS. This interagency effort is already paying dividends in terms of increased 

recoveries and indictments, information sharing, and coordinated use of resources. In 

particular, for the first time, the two agencies have submitted a joint budget request to the 

Office of Management and Budget for FY2011 that reflects the joint resource needs for the 

initiative. 

The Department has also developed a plan for coordination across the government 

in the area of financial fraud enforcement, including mortgage fraud, securities and 

commodities fraud, and fraud relating to the use of government economic recovery funds. 

The Department expects this interagency effort to yield similar dividends in coordination, 

intelligence sharing, training and enhanced enforcement. In the meantime, the Department 

has been actively engaged in outreach and coordination with our State and local partners 

on mortgage fraud matters and emerging mortgage rescue scams. The Attorney General 

recently joined Treasury Secretary Geithner, Housing and Urban Development Secretary 

Donovan, Federal Trade Commission Chairman Leibowitz and a group of State attorneys 

general to announce the creation of four State/Federal mortgage fraud working groups that 

will be focused on information-sharing, criminal enforcement, civil enforcement and civil 

rights enforcement in combating mortgage fraud, including foreclosure and rescue scams 

and lending discrimination. These working groups are each co-chaired by a State Attorney 

General and an Assistant Attorney General from the Department of Justice, and include 

high-level participants from Treasury, HUD, the FTC, the FBI and State banking 

authorities. These developments will both address concerns raised by the OIG, and better 

protect our citizens, assets, and financial system against criminal schemes and activity. 

6. Sharing of Intelligence and Law Enforcement Information: The need to effectively 

share law enforcement and intelligence information remains a high priority for the Department in 

meeting many of its critical missions. 

Over the past several years, the Department has made significant improvements in its sharing of 

information. For example, the FBI has improved the sharing of intelligence information with 

other members of the intelligence community and enhancing its role in joint operations and 

analytic centers. In addition, the National Security Division has played an important role in 

improving coordination between law enforcement and intelligence personnel within the 

Department. 

However, the Department faces continuing and substantial challenges in this area. For example, 

a September 2009 OIG report evaluated the United States National Central Bureau (USNCB), 

the U.S. representative to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL). 

INTERPOL assists in the exchange of information among law enforcement agencies in the 

United States and throughout the world to detect and deter international crime and terrorism 

through a network of 187 member countries. Our audit found that the USNCB has not made 

critical international criminal information, such as information regarding some international 

fugitives and habitual criminals, available to law enforcement agencies in the United States. In 

addition, the USNCB has not implemented processes to ensure that the INTERPOL information 

it makes available to U.S. law enforcement agencies is current, accurate, complete, and timely. 

The OIG made 27 recommendations to the Department to improve the sharing of INTERPOL 
IV-24 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

information among U.S. law enforcement agencies. The Department agreed with the 

recommendations and has begun taking actions to address them. 

 

Domestically, participation by the FBI and other Department components in state “fusion 

centers” is a key element of the National Strategy for Information Sharing (Strategy), which 

established a framework for information sharing among federal, state, and local government 

agencies. In addition, the Department operates or participates in several intelligence centers 

designed to ensure broad dissemination of critical law enforcement and intelligence information. 

In November 2009, the OIG issued a report that examined the operations of two such intelligence 

centers that are central to the Department’s sharing of law enforcement information in support of 

its anti-gang effort: the National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) and the National Gang 

Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center (GangTECC). In NGIC, intelligence analysts 

from the federal, state, and local law enforcement provide a centralized intelligence resource of 

information for law enforcement agencies conducting gang investigations. GangTECC is 

intended to serve as a central coordinating and deconfliction center for multi-jurisdictional gang 

investigations involving federal law enforcement agencies. 

However, our review found that NGIC and GangTECC have not been effective in meeting their 

fundamental mission of sharing information about gangs. For example, we found that, 3 years 

after its creation, NGIC still has not established a gang information database as directed by law. 

Such a database was mandated to ensure that law enforcement agencies nationwide had access to 

information about gangs. In addition, while GangTECC developed a list of high priority violent 

gangs, it did not disseminate this information widely in the law enforcement community. The 

OIG concluded that GangTECC has not established an effective program for coordinating gang 

investigations and prosecutions. 

In another ongoing review, the OIG is examining the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) 

El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), including its intelligence coordination role. EPIC has 

evolved from a drug intelligence center to an all-threats national tactical intelligence center that 

manages and provides information to a wide range of federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies. While EPIC’s focus is along the Southwest border, EPIC provides information and 

services to a growing number of users (over 19,000 as of June 2009) across the United States and 

abroad. 

 

Law enforcement agencies and the intelligence community increasingly rely upon common 

access to information systems within and across agencies. The capabilities of these systems and 

the ease of access to stored information are critical to the effectiveness of the information sharing 

systems. During the past year, the OIG assessed the status of various projects involving 

enhancement of information sharing systems within the Department and found their progress to 

be mixed. For example, our reviews of the FBI’s efforts to upgrade its information technology 

(IT) systems determined that the FBI is making progress in addressing deficiencies in its 

information sharing capabilities. However, the successful completion of the FBI’s Sentinel case 

management system remains a continuing challenge, with the most difficult phases of the project 

yet to come. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-25

In addition, as noted in the counterterrorism challenge, in November 2008 the OIG reported on 

its review of the FBI’s terrorist threat tracking system known as Guardian. Guardian provides 

the FBI with the ability to share investigative data about terrorist threats within the FBI, as well 

as with other government agencies to enhance analysis of the information, to better identify 

patterns and trends, and to inform development of proactive investigative activities. The OIG 

found that the Guardian system represents a significant improvement in how the FBI previously 

tracked and handled threat information. However, the Guardian system needs improvements to 

address shortcomings in the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of its information. The FBI 

generally requires that all threat information obtained from ongoing counterterrorism 

investigations be entered in Guardian. Our audit found that in almost half of the cases tested, 

threat information was not entered in Guardian, thereby preventing such information from being 

readily available to all Guardian users, including the FBI’s law enforcement and intelligence 

partners. The OIG made seven recommendations to improve the FBI’s tracking of terrorist 

threats and suspicious incidents. 

The OIG’s September 2009 audit of the FBI’s and ATF’s coordination of explosives 

investigations, also described in greater detail in the counterterrorism challenge, found that the 

ongoing lack of coordination between these two components has impeded information sharing on 

explosives investigations. In particular, the agencies have failed to develop a single-search 

explosive-incident database and do not participate widely in interagency task forces as required 

by the Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for Combating Terrorist Use of Explosives 

in the United States. 

In sum, while the Department has made progress on improving its ability to share a greater range 

of law enforcement and intelligence information, it continues to face a variety of operational, 

technical, and coordination challenges to fully address this critical need. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

 The Department is keenly aware that it cannot meet its many law enforcement and 

national security responsibilities without clear and direct communication of information 

and intelligence across components and agencies. Mindful of this, the Department has 

greatly improved its information-sharing capabilities in recent years, as the IG has noted. 

Building on those successes, the Department intends to take additional steps to improve 

these functions going forward. 

 For example, the Department, in coordination with the USNCB, is working to 

improve both the management and functioning of USNCB in order to achieve improved 

accessibility and utility of INTERPOL’s international information sharing systems. In the 

past, the USNCB entered foreign-issued green notices (i.e., INTERPOL bulletins alerting 

member countries to career criminals or habitual offenders such as child molesters and 

violent gang members) into TECS, a law enforcement database administered by the 

Department of Homeland Security. The USNCB is now exploring the possibility of 

entering these notices into the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) Sexual Offender 

and Gang Member Files, an FBI administered database with much wider accessibility 

within the U.S. law enforcement community, including state, local, and tribal police 
IV-26 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

authorities. Additionally, the USNCB is entering subjects of foreign countries’ fugitive 

“diffusion” messages into the NCIC Foreign Fugitive File when entry criteria are met. 

Both measures will greatly expand the availability of this information to U.S. law 

enforcement agencies, and will correspond with the OIG recommendations. 

 USNCB also reintroduced greater accountability and stricter oversight of its 

casework, with the aim of ensuring timely review and updating of INTERPOL case data. 

Accordingly, the USNCB’s Compliance Review Program was recently updated and reinstituted. Each USNCB Division now undergoes an annual self-inspection with 

compliance oversight and review. We have mandated additional supervisory review of 

outgoing work products and added staff to support the Compliance Program. USNCB is 

also implementing several data integrity and file review projects to ensure adherence to 

case management procedures. 

 Moreover, in order to ensure that the USNCB meets NCIC’s deadlines for entry, 

applicable NCIC entries are now made by the INTERPOL Operations and Command 

Center (IOCC) at case opening. This practice also ensures that information is available to 

U.S. law enforcement as soon as it is received. USNCB now monitors this practice to 

ensure periodic supervisory review and approval of the entries. We are currently 

exploring the possibility of establishing a 24-hour Notice Section to better manage the nearconstant intake of notices and diffusions from foreign countries, and to combat the 

recurring backlogs in this area. 

 USNCB also is studying the technical feasibility of providing all domestic law 

enforcement agencies with direct query access to INTERPOL data through a consolidated 

query of NCIC. Although a number of states currently have access to INTERPOL data 

through International Justice & Public Safety Network (Nlets) queries, a query of NCIC 

would exponentially expand the access to, and use of, INTERPOL data. In addition, the 

Department has engaged CJIS in discussions to expand INTERPOL member countries’ 

access to U.S. stolen motor vehicle data. Further, the Department is exploring the idea of 

retaining outside contractors to conduct comprehensive human capital and information 

technology studies. These studies will guide our effective planning for future systems and 

automation projects and determination of appropriate staffing levels across the agency. 

 The OIG Report also documents USNCB’s challenges in providing investigators and 

prosecutors with one integrated source for gang information and assistance. USNCB has 

started to address these challenges, which will enhance the overall effectiveness of the 

Department’s anti-gang intelligence and coordination centers, and increase their impact on 

the gang problem in this country. USNCB also has discussed with OIG staff organizational 

changes that might modify how the recommendations are implemented, in an effort achieve 

maximum effectiveness.

 As to the SENTINEL Program, the Department and FBI leadership are fully aware 

of the challenges it poses. Indeed, senior officials are diligently working to monitor 

SENTINEL’s implementation and ensure its success by way of: bi-weekly status updates 

for the FBI Director; weekly updates for the FBI Finance Division Officer by the 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-27

SENTINEL Program Manger (PM); monthly briefings for a joint meeting of DOJ, OMB, 

and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and quarterly briefings for DOJ’s 

Department Investment Review Board (DIRB), at which the DIRB certifies the activities 

and the progress of the SENTINEL Program. What is more, the DOJ OIG and the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) have conducted nine audits (in total) of the 

SENTINEL Program to date. The Department continues to address the findings of the 

reports and has incorporated these points into program policies and processes. In fact, 30 

of the 31 recommendations are now closed. The Department will, however, continue to 

work with the GAO and OIG to finalize implementation of the recommendations and other 

planned improvements. 

 The Department also employed an Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V) 

contractor to audit the SENTINEL Program. The IV&V contractor provides monthly 

reports to the Executive Assistant Director of the Information and Technology Branch 

within the office of the FBI Chief Information Officer and briefs the SENTINEL PM. 

Additionally, Congressional staff members of eight Congressional committees and/or 

subcommittees are briefed on this program, as requested. 

 Likewise, the SENTINEL Program Management Office (PMO) is actively managing 

risks through its Risk Review Board process and maintains a risk register which tracks 

progress of mitigation strategies. Accordingly, SENTINEL’s progress and its risks are 

transparent and monitored—both inside the FBI and outside to many of the oversight 

entities who conduct audits of the SENTINEL Program. 

 Finally, the Department continues to work with its prime contractor to ensure that 

the industry’s best practices are followed. We will incorporate the feedback from all of the 

oversight entities to ensure the program’s success. 

7. Grant Management: The OIG has identified grant management as a significant 

challenge for the Department since inception of this list, not only in terms of making timely 

awards of billions of dollars of grant funds but also in maintaining proper oversight over grantees 

to ensure the funds are used as intended. This challenge is particularly acute for the Department 

in 2009 because in addition to managing over $3 billion in grant funding from its regular fiscal 

year appropriation, the same grant administrators also must oversee disbursement and oversight 

of $4 billion in grants under the Recovery Act. The challenges the Department faces in ensuring 

the integrity of Recovery Act funds are described in a separate challenge, while this section 

focuses on the continuing challenge the Department faces in ensuring the overall efficiency and 

integrity of its grant programs.

Several OIG reviews completed during this past year demonstrate the significant difficulties the 

Department has faced in the past in ensuring proper management of its grant funds. For 

example, in September 2009 the OIG released a report that raised concerns about the fairness and 

openness of OJP’s National Institute of Justice’s (NIJ) practices for awarding tens of millions of 

dollars in grants and contracts in FY 2005 through FY 2007. Our audit, which was requested by 

Congress had found that the NIJ’s process for reviewing grant applications – including initial 

program office reviews, peer reviews, documentation of program office recommendations, and 
IV-28 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

documentation of NIJ Director selections – raised concerns about the fairness and openness of 

the competition process. 

In addition, we found that several NIJ staff involved in the grant award process had potential 

conflicts of interest with grantees receiving awards but nevertheless participated in the approval 

process for the grants in question. We also found that the NIJ did not adequately justify the solesource basis for some non-competitively awarded contracts and could not demonstrate that these 

contract awards were properly exempt from the competitive process required by government 

contracting regulations. The Department agreed with the nine recommendations we made in this 

report and has begun taking corrective actions to address each of the audit recommendations. 

 

In April 2009, the OIG released a report which also found significant deficiencies in how OJP’s 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded over $113 million in 

discretionary grants in FY 2007. Our review found that OJJDP allocated $74 million of the 

$113 million it awarded that year for non-competitive grants or “invitational awards” to 17 

organizations after officials from the Office of the Attorney General, the White House, and 

Congress contacted OJP to lobby for non-competitive awards to certain organizations. Yet, the 

OJP Director stated that she could not remember who specifically had contacted OJP to request 

funding for specific applicants, nor could OJP provide us with any documents showing that it 

made merit-based assessments for these invitational grants. Because OJP lacked such evidence, 

we could not determine if the awarding of these invitational grants without competition was 

appropriate and whether it was the best allocation of OJJDP funds. 

With respect to the competitive awards OJJDP made in FY 2007, we also found that OJJDP 

skipped several steps in its peer review process that are critical to ensuring that objective criteria 

are applied uniformly to all the applicants during the peer review process. In addition, our audit 

found that the OJJDP Director recommended, and the OJP Assistant Attorney General approved, 

awards to several organizations whose proposals received peer review scores that were lower 

than applications submitted by other organizations that did not receive award recommendations. 

We concluded that OJP and OJJDP decision makers should have justified and documented the 

rationale for award recommendations that deviated significantly from peer review results. 

In March 2009, the OIG examined the Department’s Convicted Offender DNA Backlog 

Reduction Program (Backlog Reduction Program), a grant program that provides funding to help 

states reduce the backlog of convicted offender DNA samples. We found that the Backlog 

Reduction Program has contributed to the decrease in the national backlog of convicted offender 

DNA samples awaiting analysis, although the overall nationwide backlog may continue to grow 

because of recent legislation that increases the number of offenses for which DNA samples of 

arrestees can be collected. However, we identified deficiencies in the Department’s handling of 

the program, such as a failure to provide adequate guidance to the state laboratories on collecting 

and reporting performance information. We also found significant delays in starting several 

Backlog Reduction Program awards, which caused over 180,000 convicted offender DNA 

samples to not be uploaded in a timely manner to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a 

national DNA-profile matching service maintained by the FBI. In addition, the Department 

continued to award funding to several state laboratories that had not utilized previous award 

funding. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-29

Recent OIG audits and investigations of grant recipients have also resulted in civil or criminal 

actions, reflecting the continuing need for close grant oversight by the Department. For 

example, the National Training and Information Center, a national organizing, policy, research 

and training center for grassroots community organizations, agreed in June 2009 to repay 

$550,000 to settle a lawsuit alleging that it improperly used Department grant money to lobby 

Congress regarding the award of future grants. In another OIG investigation, a tribal leader pled 

guilty to falsely stating that she had hired three police officers after receiving $225,000 in grant 

funding from the Department’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services when in fact 

she spent the money on personal items and did not hire any officers. 

Recognizing the important management challenge it faces, the Department has taken significant 

steps toward improving its grant management process during the past 18 months. In May 2008, 

the Associate Attorney General issued a memorandum directing the OJP Assistant Attorney 

General to document all discretionary funding recommendations and decisions. Under this 

policy, future award recommendations must contain a list of all applications received that 

includes the lowest scoring application funded as well as every application scoring higher, 

regardless of whether it was selected for funding, and a brief explanation of why a listed 

application was not recommended for funding. 

In addition, OJP has made progress in staffing its Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

(OAAM), a unit intended to improve internal controls and streamline and standardize grant 

management policies and procedures across OJP. OAAM also has worked more closely with the 

OIG during the past year to improve grant management processes, and it now meets with the 

OIG on a quarterly basis to discuss grant issues. OAAM also plans to strengthen its grant 

monitoring processes by ensuring it reviews a minimum of 10 percent of active awards, performs 

quality reviews of granting agencies’ site visit reports, and conducts program assessments of 

grant programs. OAAM also implemented the OJP High Risk Grantee Designation program to 

identify high-risk grantees in order to impose special conditions on and increase its monitoring of 

those grantees. 

The Department has taken other responsive measures during recent months in response to a 

document we issued entitled, “Improving the Grants Management Process.” Shortly after 

passage of the Recovery Act, the OIG surveyed its staff and reviewed prior audit reports to 

identify significant grants management issues. Based on this review, we drafted a document that 

provides 43 recommendations and examples of best practices that granting agencies should 

consider adopting to minimize opportunities for fraud, waste, and abuse in awarding and 

overseeing both Recovery Act and non-Recovery Act grant funds. The Department has taken 

positive steps in response to the recommendations in this report. For example, OJP stated that it 

will now apply program-specific audit recommendations by the OIG to all applicable programs, 

rather than to just the specific program the OIG audited. OJP is also conducting OJP-wide 

assessments to improve internal controls and identify opportunities for improvement. In 

addition, OJP is more aggressively identifying and working to mitigate risks among individual 

grantees by assessing each potential grantee’s risk during the grant-award process and imposing 

on high-risk grantees special conditions that provide a range of potential sanctions, including the 

withholding of funds. 
IV-30 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

We believe that through these recent actions and other planned improvements, the Department is 

demonstrating a commitment to improving the grant management process, and we have seen 

significant signs of improvement. However, considerable work remains before grant 

management of the billions of dollars awarded annually in Department grants is no longer 

considered a top Department challenge. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

The OIG is entirely correct that the Department of Justice is fully committed to 

ensuring that its grant programs are effectively managed and that the grants it distributes 

are adequately monitored and used by grantees as intended. Indeed, the values of 

transparency and oversight are vital to the Department’s approach to grant management. 

 Each day, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) works to ensure that its grantmaking decisions are transparent, and that it can be held accountable for its grant 

management performance. To that end, in FY 2009, OJP has posted all of its award 

decisions on the OJP website, including the type of award, the recipient, and the award 

amount. Similarly, OJP is dedicated to continuously improving its oversight and 

monitoring of grantees and grant programs. OJP has established common procedures and 

guidance to improve the quality and completeness of monitoring across OJP, as well as 

provided effective tools to its grants managers to properly document desk reviews and onsite monitoring, formally communicate with grantees through the system, and track the 

resolution of open issues. As part of its oversight responsibilities, moreover, the OJP 

OAAM will continue to evaluate the quality and level of monitoring of OJP grants and 

conduct OJP-wide assessments of program initiatives and operations to measure 

performance, enhance internal controls, and identify opportunities for improvement. 

 OJP also has embraced the OIG’s February 2009 report entitled “Improving the 

Grant Management Process” and implemented many of its recommendations. In 

particular, OJP has implemented those recommendations relating to grant program 

development, application, and award processes. At every possible opportunity, OJP is 

implementing corrective actions to respond to OIG grant-related and program-specific 

audit recommendations. 

 OJP and Department leadership have been working very closely with the OIG in 

addressing grantee issues identified by the OIG in grant audits conducted by the OIG and 

audits conducted in accordance with OMB Circular A-133, Audits of States, Local 

Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations. OJP has streamlined audit follow-up 

activities to ensure that outstanding audit recommendations are tracked and promptly 

addressed, which has lead to faster closure of a significant number of grant and single 

audit reports. OJP and Department leadership will continue to meet routinely with the 

OIG and will continue to work closely with grantees to ensure that issues identified by the 

OIG are timely resolved by either repaying unallowable grant expenditures, providing 

further support that substantiates the grantees’ expenditures, or developing appropriate 

procedures to ensure future compliance.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-31

 OJP has worked quickly to implement appropriate corrective actions in response to 

the OIG’s review of the Backlog Reduction Program. As of July 2009, based on the 

corrective actions implemented by NIJ, the OIG had closed 10 of the 11 report 

recommendations. NIJ anticipates fully implementing the remaining open 

recommendation by December 2009. 

8. Detention and Incarceration: The Department continues to face a significant challenge 

in safely and economically managing the federal inmate and detainee populations, particularly in 

light of the rise in the number of inmates and detainees and the increasing costs needed for this 

purpose.

The federal inmate population has dramatically increased over the past 30 years, rising from 

fewer than 25,000 inmates in the Federal Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) custody in 1980 to more than 

209,000 inmates in 2009. Approximately 83 percent of these inmates are confined in BOPoperated facilities, with the balance housed in privately managed or community-based facilities 

and local jails. The majority of growth in recent years has been in the numbers of medium and 

high security inmates who cannot be housed in contract facilities. They therefore must be 

housed either by adding beds to existing BOP institutions or by building new institutions. 

System-wide overcrowding continues to be a serious issue with BOP facilities at 37 percent 

above rated capacity as of April 2009. 

In addition to safety issues presented by overcrowding, the BOP also must address other threats 

to inmates’ safety, including sexual abuse in prisons. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003

requires the Department to promulgate national standards for the detection, prevention, 

reduction, and punishment of sexual abuse in detention facilities by June 2010. 

This year the OIG examined in-depth the Department’s efforts to prevent sexual abuse of federal 

inmates by correctional staff. Our September 2009 report found that allegations of criminal 

sexual abuse and non-criminal sexual misconduct at BOP institutions more than doubled from 

FY 2001 through FY 2008. BOP officials told us they believe this increase is due to the BOP’s 

efforts during this time period to educate and encourage staff and inmates to report abuse. 

However, our review found that while the Department’s progress in implementing staff sexual 

abuse prevention programs has improved since 2001, the Department needs to take additional 

steps to effectively deter, detect, investigate, and prosecute staff sexual abuse of federal 

prisoners. 

For example, we found that BOP officials at some prisons – in an effort to protect alleged inmate 

victims – automatically isolate and segregate the victims and subsequently transfer them to 

another federal prison without first considering less restrictive options for safeguarding them 

from further harm. Inmates often view such actions as punitive and may be reluctant to report 

their sexual abuse or cooperate with investigators if they are automatically isolated or moved to 

another institution. Additionally, BOP officials could not verify that alleged inmate victims had 

received appropriate victim services, such as psychological assessments and medical treatment. 

The OIG also identified improvements that should be made in staff training, inmate education, 

and oversight of the BOP’s program to reduce staff sexual abuse of inmates. 
IV-32 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

We also analyzed the prosecution of staff sexual abuse of inmates. Since 2006 when the law 

changed sexual abuse of inmates from misdemeanor to felony crimes, the percentage of cases 

accepted for prosecution by Department prosecutors has increased from 37 percent under the old 

law to 49 percent under the new law. We also found that the prosecutors who accepted these 

cases had a very high success rate, with all but 7 of the 90 prosecutions resolved during the 

period of our review resulting in convictions. However, some prosecutors continued to express a 

general reluctance to prosecute these cases. We concluded that training federal prosecutors on 

the detrimental impact of staff sexual abuse on inmates, other prison staff, and prison security 

would improve the Department’s effectiveness in prosecuting these cases. 

The OIG is also reviewing other aspects of the BOP’s efforts to handle its difficult mission of 

housing inmates in safe, secure, and cost-efficient facilities. One OIG review is currently 

examining the BOP’s strategies and procedures for hiring correctional officers. In another 

review, we are investigating allegations that the BOP failed to adequately address concerns that 

staff and inmates at several BOP institutions were exposed to unsafe levels of lead, cadmium, 

and other hazardous materials in computer recycling operations. 

With approximately one-third of BOP’s 115 institutions 50 years or older, the increasing prison 

population also exacerbates a challenge for the BOP in repairing failing infrastructure at these 

institutions. While the BOP prioritizes facilities that need the most attention, significant 

additional money is needed to address what can become, at its most serious, a safety and healthrelated issue. 

In addition to the BOP’s challenges, the Department must also provide adequate and economical 

housing for the increasing number of federal detainees taken into custody by the United States 

Marshals Service (USMS). Approximately 56,000 federal detainees awaiting trial or sentencing 

are housed each day by the USMS, primarily in jails under contract with the USMS. The 

Department’s Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) provides oversight of the USMS’s 

detention activities and manages the budget for housing USMS detainees, a budget which in 

FY 2009 totaled more than $1.2 billion. 

The USMS houses the majority of its federal detainees in space leased from state and local 

governments, with the remaining detainees housed in BOP facilities or in private correctional 

facilities. The USMS maintains contracts, known as Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA), with 

about 1,800 state and local facilities to house these detainees. Over the years we have found 

problems with the manner in which the per diem charges the Department pays for each detainee 

(also known as a jail-day rate) are determined and with the Department’s monitoring of the 

charges. We are initiating another audit of the Department’s process for identifying and 

negotiating fair and reasonable per diem rates. 

In sum, the Department’s detention and incarceration responsibilities continue to pose prisoner 

safety and financial challenges that have intensified in recent years due to rising federal prisoner 

and detainee populations. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-33

DOJ RESPONSE: 

 One of the Department of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to house 

federal prisoners and detainees safely and humanely. The Department remains committed 

to fulfilling this responsibility, despite the increasing prison and detainee populations and 

mounting resource challenges noted by the Inspector General. To that end, the 

Department’s FY 2010 and outyear budget requests are structured to address the BOP’s 

long-term capacity needs in the most cost effective manner possible. BOP will continue to 

structure budget requests to address capacity needs in the most cost effective manner 

possible. 

 Sexual abuse—including staff sexual abuse—must not be tolerated in federal 

prisons. Any allegations of abuse are treated as serious by the Department of Justice. 

Indeed, the Department has established a high-level working group to address the recent 

recommendations of the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission. This group will 

examine these recommendations and prepare a regulation adopting national standards for 

the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape, as required by the 

Prison Rape Elimination Act. The Department expects that the working group's review 

will lead to further improvements in BOP's efforts to combat staff sexual abuse. Even as 

this work is ongoing, however, BOP continues to have a zero tolerance policy for staff 

sexual abuse and takes extremely seriously any allegation of sexual abuse in its facilities. 

The Deputy Attorney General recently convened a meeting with BOP, EOUSA, and OIG to 

discuss the findings of OIG's September 2009 report on the Department's efforts to prevent 

staff sexual abuse of inmates. 

 As the OIG notes, moreover, the Department has increased its prosecutions of staff 

sexual abuse in recent years. EOUSA's Office of Legal Education has sponsored classroom 

training on Prosecution of Criminal Cases in Federal Prisons, including presentations on 

Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Abuse and Other Crimes Committed by BOP 

Employees. EOUSA is currently in the process of developing and providing additional 

training to AUSAs. 

 Furthermore, BOP agrees with the OIG that wardens should consider methods to 

protect victims short of isolation or segregation, although at times such steps may be 

necessary. In addition, the BOP is committed to ensuring that victims of sexual assault 

receive appropriate medical and psychological assessments and if necessary, treatment. In 

some cases, there may be a need for an alternative means of providing such services other 

than established protocol. Such alternate means are necessary to prevent wider 

dissemination of information to staff other than the warden and investigative staff, which 

might compromise the integrity of an ongoing investigation. 

 Finally, in November 2007, the OFDT implemented a new pricing model for the 

government to negotiate a fair and reasonable per diem rate and built a tool, called eIGA, 

to assist in collecting jail cost information and maintaining negotiation records. The eIGA 

model uses operating cost information gathered from detention facilities across the nation 

as an element in developing the core rate that officials apply as the government’s estimate 
IV-34 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

of services being offered by the local jail. Based on recommendations and input by the 

OIG and the Department, OFDT adjusted eIGA to collect additional cost information that 

is calculated as a separate cost-based rate that is also available during the negotiation 

process. 

9. Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and Security: Like 

other government organizations and private corporations, the Department faces an ongoing 

challenge managing the more than $2 billion it annually spends on information technology (IT) 

systems – and ensuring that its decisions in IT planning, development, and security maximize the 

impact of these expenditures. 

The Department has had mixed results in successfully meeting this challenge. Although the 

Department has made progress in planning for new IT systems, the Department still faces 

delayed implementation, deficient functionality, and cost overruns of some IT systems. In 

addition, while the Department has developed sound processes and procedures for identifying IT 

vulnerabilities, it has been slow to implement systems to address the vulnerabilities. 

The OIG continues to be concerned that the Department does not exercise direct control over IT 

projects among Department components. Historically, the Department’s components have 

resisted centralized control or oversight of major IT projects, and the Department’s Chief 

Information Officer (CIO) does not have direct operational control of Department components’ 

IT management. We believe the Department should enhance the CIO’s oversight of the 

development of high-risk IT systems throughout the Department. 

Several of our audits have identified continuing concerns about the development of critical 

Department IT systems. For example, a March 2009 OIG audit report examined progress toward 

developing a Department-wide Litigation Case Management System (LCMS). The LCMS 

project was intended to develop an IT infrastructure for storing case information, managing it 

centrally, and making it available to the approximately 14,500 authorized users in the 

Department’s seven litigating divisions. However, our audit found that the LCMS project, which 

the Department began in 2004, was more than 2 years behind schedule, approximately 

$20 million over budget, and at significant risk of not meeting the Department’s requirements for 

litigation case management. 

Our audit concluded that both the Department and its contractor shared responsibility for the 

significant delays and budget overruns in this project. We recommended that the Department 

reevaluate the viability of implementing the LCMS in litigating divisions other than the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys and United States Attorneys’ Offices, including an 

assessment of whether there is a commitment and adequate funding to continue development of 

the system. We also urged better oversight of this project to minimize or avoid further schedule 

and cost overruns. 

In August 2009, subsequent to the issuance of our report, we met with senior Department 

managers to discuss the Department’s response to our recommendations. The Department 

expressed a strong commitment to meeting the need for the LCMS and to fully implementing our 

recommendations. We agree with the need for such a system, and we believe that with adequate 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-35

funding, commitment from the litigating divisions, improved planning and development, and 

better controls, the Department can complete the LCMS system successfully. However, the 

Department must be vigilant in its oversight of this project and should carefully monitor its 

progress. 

Another example of the challenge the Department faces in this area is the FBI’s ongoing effort to 

upgrade its case management system, known as the Sentinel project. In March 2006, the FBI 

awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin to develop Sentinel in four phases. At that time, the FBI 

estimated that Sentinel would cost a total of $425 million and be completed by December 2009. 

In October 2009, the OIG completed its fifth report on the progress of Sentinel. Sentinel appears 

generally to be on track, but we identified several areas of concern. For example, we found that 

the newly delivered portions of Sentinel did not provide significant additional functionality to 

users as initially planned. We also determined that the FBI and Lockheed Martin agreed to delay 

the projected completion date until September 2010, 9 months later than originally planned. 

Moreover, the FBI and Lockheed Martin agreed that Lockheed Martin’s costs to complete 

Phase 2 of the project have increased by $18 million. We also raised concerns that an increase in 

turnover and unfilled staff vacancies on the Sentinel project management team left it without 

enough staff with the appropriate skill level. We made six new recommendations to assist the 

FBI in addressing these and other issues. 

 

As the Department develops new IT systems, it also must ensure the security of those systems 

and the information they contain. Specifically, the Department must balance the need to share 

intelligence and law enforcement information with the need to ensure that such information 

sharing meets appropriate security standards. 

We have found that the Department has made significant progress in the area of IT security and 

has developed sound processes and procedures for identifying IT vulnerabilities. A December 

2008 OIG audit found that the Department lacked effective methodologies for tracking the 

remediation of identified IT vulnerabilities. Our report made four recommendations to assist the 

Department in its efforts to address such vulnerabilities. Since the issuance of our report, the 

Department has established the Justice Security Operations Center (JSOC), which provides realtime monitoring of the Department’s networks to detect vulnerabilities and threats. The JSOC 

mitigates threats and vulnerabilities by blocking known threats from accessing the Department’s 

systems and creating real-time alerts to components for immediate remediation as issues arise. 

In addition, the Department has developed an inventory of all IT devices on the Department’s 

networks, updated annually, to ensure that monthly scans adequately cover the Department’s 

entire IT environment. 

Portable IT media pose significant IT security risks in the Department and across government. 

As an initial step in assessing the Department’s efforts to safeguard information stored on 

portable devices, the OIG reviewed the Civil Division’s laptop computer encryption program and 

practices. In a report issued in July 2009, we found that all the Civil Division’s laptops were 

encrypted and compliant with the Department’s requirements, but we identified a serious 

vulnerability in that a large percentage of the laptops used by Civil Division contractors to 

process data on behalf of the Civil Division were not encrypted. The Civil Division relies on 
IV-36 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

contractors for assistance in various aspects of sensitive litigation involving national security, 

banking, and insurance. We found that this information security lapse resulted from the Civil 

Division’s failure to provide its contractors with security instructions for protecting Department 

data. 

The OIG is now auditing the Criminal Division’s laptop computer security programs and 

practices. In addition, we are evaluating whether the Department has communicated to all 

components the national strategy to combat identity theft, and whether it has developed the 

infrastructure to implement its responsibilities under the strategy. 

In sum, if the Department is to build on the advances it has made in IT systems planning, 

implementation, and security, it must closely manage its IT projects to ensure the systems are 

cost-effective, well-run, secure, and able to achieve their objectives.

DOJ RESPONSE: 

 The Department is committed managing its Information Technology (IT) systems 

efficiently, cost-effectively, and securely. Indeed, the Department already has made 

significant progress in planning and implementing new IT systems, and its future projects 

and efforts will continue to build on that existing success. 

 To that end, while the Department CIO still does not have authority over the 

various components’ IT budgets, he does have insight into—and oversight of—their IT 

priorities through the annual budget process. During that process, each component’s CIO 

presents his IT priorities to the Department CIO, who then prioritizes all submissions to 

ensure overall compliance with the Department’s mission, the Attorney General’s 

priorities, and the Department’s strategic plan. In addition, all components must ensure 

that any new project—regardless of size— meets the requirements of the Department’s 

reference architecture and that the program uses sound program management 

methodology. Programs that have a total development and implementation cost in excess 

of $100 million require regular review by the Department’s Investment Review Board, 

which is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General. These reviews provide senior 

management with an in-depth view of the program, including its schedule, cost, and any 

potential issues. This process ensures that issues are surfaced and addressed before they 

can have a significant impact or become critical to the program’s overall success. 

 Consistent with its general effort to ensure effective IT management, the 

Department fully supports and places a high priority on the continued development of 

LCMS. The IG is correct to note that the senior Department management is strongly 

committed to implementing LCMS. The Department believes that the information 

processing services that will be delivered through the LCMS Program are paramount to 

the efficient and effective operation of DOJ and its litigating components. The OIG report 

raised constructive recommendations with which to improve the Program implementation. 

The Department has responded to all of the recommendations both verbally and in writing, 

and it will continue to work toward final closure. Most important, additional internal, 

management, and contract controls have been added to mitigate the risk of future cost and 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-37

schedule overruns. Likewise, a detailed implementation plan for deploying LCMS to the 

remaining litigating components will be developed 

 As the Inspector General notes, the SENTINEL Project remains on track. The OIG 

recently issued its fifth audit report on the progress of Sentinel in early November 2009. 

The Department has reviewed the report. To the extent that there are any areas of 

concern, the Department continues to closely monitor the Project so that it will be 

completed in the fall of 2010. 

 

 Phase 1 was successfully deployed throughout the FBI in June 2007. It provided a 

user-friendly, web-based interface to access information currently in the FBI’s Automated 

Case Support (ACS) system. Through this web-based interface users have easier access to 

investigative and administrative case information. Phase 1 also introduced Personal 

Workboxes which summarize a user’s cases and leads, and Squad Workboxes that enable 

supervisors to better manage their resources and assign leads with the click of a mouse. 

These capabilities placed more investigative and administrative case information at the 

employees’ fingertips and began moving employees away from a dependence on paperbased files. 

 Based on lessons learned from Phase 1, the PMO adopted an incremental 

development strategy to more rapidly develop and deploy capabilities to users in the 

remaining phases. This approach reduces the task of creating costly custom, throwaway 

code needed for ACS and SENTINEL to interact simultaneously while SENTINEL steadily 

assumes ACS services. As a result of the development of a strategic plan associated with 

the incremental development strategy at the beginning of Phase 2, the cap for the program 

was raised $26 million, increasing the budget to $451 million, and the overall program 

length was extended 6 months. The program had expended $282.2 million as of October 8, 

2009. The total program cost of $451 million is unchanged since the start of Phase 2. 

 Segments 1, 2, and 3 of Phase 2 were successfully delivered. Segment 4—the final 

Segment of Phase 2—is currently nearing completion. Segment 4 will provide three forms 

and a new electronic workflow tool with digital signature. It will also migrate 

administrative case data from the legacy system and introduce new case management 

functionality for administrative cases in SENTINEL. Phase 3 began in August 2009. 

SENTINEL is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 2010. 

 Finally, ensuring information technology security is of critical importance to the 

Department of Justice. Consistent with the priority that the Department places on IT 

security, it has devoted valuable resources and attention to ensuring that its IT systems as a 

protected as possible. For instance, as acknowledged by the IG, the Department has made 

significant progress in the area of IT security and has developed sound processes and 

procedures for identifying IT vulnerabilities. The Department will continue to build on 

this success going forward. To that end, the Civil Division is implementing the necessary 

actions to ensure that all non-Civil Division laptop computers used to process DOJ data are 

encrypted or require contactors to use encrypted Civil Division provided hardware. OIG’s 
IV-38 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

recommendation in this area has been implemented for contractors under the Mega-3 

contract. 

 Implementing this recommendation for contractors hired under an OBD-47 will 

require a comprehensive set of new procedures, including changes in contract language, 

technical support resources, additional hardware acquisition, additional personnel, and 

training. It is likely that some OBD-47 contractors will have the resources to comply with 

this requirement. For others who may lack the technical sophistication to comply with the 

requirement, the Civil Division is planning to provide some limited support or encrypted 

hardware. To implement this change, hardware must be identified, tested, procured, and 

deployed. The Division has identified the requirements for hardware, software, and 

additional personnel, and has begun crafting procedures and planning the procurement. 

Following procurement of the hardware and software, it will construct a training program 

for attorneys and other staff members acting as points of contact on OBD-47 contacts. The 

Division anticipates it will take 9 to 12 months to fully implement this recommendation. 

 The Division also is taking steps to ensure that all contract support providers are 

aware of security information procedures for handling DOJ data in accordance with DOJ 

policy. All Mega-3 contractors have been provided this information and are required to 

pass it through to sub-contractors. OBD-47 contractors will be part of the comprehensive 

program outlined in the paragraphs above. To ensure security awareness, the Civil 

Division will conduct periodic spot-checks of contract support providers. 

10. Financial Management and Systems: While financial management and systems has 

been identified as a top management challenge for the Department since 2003, the Department 

has made significant improvements in its financial reporting. At the same time, there has been 

an increasing demand for accountability and transparency throughout the federal government, 

and this need for accurate, near real-time financial information continues to present a significant 

management challenge for the Department. 

For FY 2009, the Department again earned an unqualified opinion and improved its financial 

reporting. For the third straight year, the financial statement audit did not identify any material 

weaknesses at the Department consolidated level. Additionally, Department components 

reduced component significant deficiencies from 14 in FY 2008 to 8 in FY 2009. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-39

Similar to past years, much of this success was achieved through heavy reliance on contractor 

assistance, manual processes, and protracted reconciliations done for quarterly and year-end 

statements. We remain concerned about the sustainability of these ad hoc and costly manual 

efforts. 

The decentralized structure of the Department also presents a major challenge to obtaining 

current, detailed, and accurate financial information about the Department as a whole because 

there is no one single source for the data. The Department currently uses six major accounting 

systems that are not integrated with each other. In some cases, the components’ outdated 

financial management systems are not integrated with all of their own subsidiary systems and 

therefore do not provide automated information necessary to support the need for timely and 

accurate financial information throughout the year. As a result, many financial tasks must be 

performed manually at interim periods and at year end. These costly and time-intensive efforts 

will continue to be necessary to produce financial statements and satisfy other financial 

requirements until automated, integrated systems are implemented that readily produce financial 

information throughout the year. 

The Department has placed great reliance on the implementation of the Unified Financial 

Management System (UFMS), which is intended to replace the six major accounting systems 

currently used throughout the Department. This unified system is expected to solve many of the 

Department’s financial management automation issues. The UFMS is intended to standardize 

and integrate financial processes and systems to more efficiently support accounting operations, 

facilitate preparation of financial statements, and streamline audit processes. It also will enable 

the Department to exercise real-time, centralized financial management oversight. We support 

the Department’s implementation of the UFMS and believe the system can help eliminate the 

weaknesses in the Department’s current disparate financial management systems. 
IV-40 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Yet, the Department’s efforts over the past several years to implement the UFMS have been 

subject to fits and starts, primarily because of problems obtaining sufficient funding for the 

project, staff turnover, and other competing priorities. Despite the fact the Department selected 

the vendor 5 years ago for the unified system and selected an integrator to implement the unified 

system 3 years ago, full implementation of the UFMS has occurred at only one component, the 

DEA. While successfully implementing the UFMS at the DEA is a significant achievement, the 

DEA’s legacy system was one of the most modern financial management systems within the 

Department. Thus, the central issue to this challenge remains largely unaddressed because the 

Department’s other components continue to use five major, unintegrated and, in some cases, 

antiquated financial accounting systems. 

Implementation of the UFMS is not projected to be completed in all Department components 

until FY 2013 at the earliest. Until that time, Department-wide accounting information will 

continue to be produced manually, a costly and time consuming process that undermines the 

Department’s ability to prepare financial statements that are timely and in accordance with 

generally accepted accounting principles, as well as the ability to provide detailed financial 

information for newly emerging requirements. 

However, the Department, by achieving another year of overall positive financial statement audit 

results, has made progress in its overall financial management. Nevertheless, we remain 

concerned that the Department has not yet been able to replace its legacy financial systems with 

a single integrated financial management system. Implementation of the UFMS is critical for the 

Department to meet the need for accurate, timely financial information. 

DOJ RESPONSE: 

We agree with the importance of modernizing the financial management 

infrastructure of the Department through the implementation of the Unified Financial 

Management System (UFMS). We are also committed to continuing to strengthen our 

financial operations, our internal controls, and our review and evaluation procedures. 

We are hopeful we are overcoming the concern that the UFMS project has moved only in 

fits and starts. In 2009, the Drug Enforcement Administration successfully migrated to 

UFMS, and, importantly, obtained an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements 

produced from UFMS. As expected, the DEA project was a large, complex, and difficult 

migration, but one which helps lay the foundation for the upcoming FY 2010/2011 

migration of ATF to UFMS. ATF set the stage for its full migration by implementing a 

Momentum upgrade during FY 2009. Additionally, other notable progress was made on 

UFMS during FY 2009: the BOP completely moved its procurement workforce and 

transactions onto the UFMS acquisitions module, a significant precursor to future use of 

UFMS; the FBI began headquarters use of the UFMS contract writing tool; and now 

USMS, with the close support and assistance of BOP, is beginning to plan a migration to 

the UFMS acquisition module. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-41

UFMS is an extremely complex project which needs to be carefully implemented 

over several years. Lessons learned from the DEA implementation will be used in the next 

component projects. We are already working to strengthen the hardware and application 

stability of UFMS based on our experience with DEA operations. Finally, major efforts 

were made in FY 2009, and are continuing in FY 2010, to secure funding for the next 

phases of the project. 

During FY 2009, the Department continued to emphasize the importance of 

improving component financial management operations and accountability. We 

successfully conducted a one day intensive fraud prevention seminar for financial 

managers from across the Department. The seminar put particular emphasis on preventing 

and detecting insider fraud threats faced by federal agencies. Two components this year, 

FBI and ATF, successfully completed their component-level financial audits without any 

material weaknesses or significant deficiencies, and a major reduction in significant 

deficiencies was made across the DOJ components. We were again pleased that the hard 

work of the DOJ financial management community achieved an unqualified opinion on the 

FY 2009 financial statements. We believe the emphasis placed in prior years on improving 

our operations can be seen from our audit results. 

Despite the FY 2009 accomplishments, the Department’s financial improvement 

work must continue. Financial management expertise and routine reliance on controls is 

uneven across the Department, and we agree we need to strengthen our operations in 

several components. To improve our reporting integrity and accountability, we plan to do 

management-directed testing of selected subsidiary systems in FY 2010. Finally, we will 

continue to push to strengthen our budget execution oversight, and better train our staff, 

and to improve the IT security controls over our financial systems and networks. 
IV-42 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-43

Corrective Action Plans 

FMFIA SECTION 2 – PROGRAMMATIC MATERIAL WEAKNESS – PRISON CROWDING 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Corrective Action Plan

Issue and Milestone Schedule 

Report Date 

September 30, 2009; 2009 Fiscal Year End 

Issue Title 

Prison Crowding 

Issue ID 

06BOP001 

Component Name 

Bureau of Prisons 

Issue Category 

 FMFIA, Section 2 Reportable Condition Material Weakness 

 FMFIA, Section 4 Non-conformance

 OMB A-123, Appendix A Reportable Condition Material Weakness 

Issue Category – SAT Concurrence or Recategorization 

Concur 

Issue Description 

The growth of the federal inmate population continues to exceed available capacity. As of September 30, 2009, the inmate 

population in BOP owned and operated institutions reached 172,423. Inmates were housed in a rated capacity of 125,778, 

resulting in an over crowding rate of 37 percent above rated capacity, an increase of 1 percent since FY 2008 fiscal year end. The 

BOP manages the housing of the inmate population by contracting with the private sector and using State and local facilities for 

certain groups of low-security inmates, expanding existing institutions (where infrastructure permits, programmatically 

appropriate, and cost effective to do so), and constructing new facilities. The continued use of these approaches maximizes the 

BOP’s ability to keep pace with the increasing inmate population, thereby ensuring safe and secure operations in facilities 

housing federal inmates. 

Through the acquisition of additional low-security contract bed space, expansion of existing institutions, and construction of new 

facilities, the BOP Long-Range Capacity Plan projects a rated capacity in BOP owned and operated institutions of 134,779 by 

September 30, 2014. If new construction plans are funded as proposed, the over crowding rate at that time is projected to be 

38 percent. Without the acquisition of the additional bed space and the BOP’s other mitigating actions, the projected over 

crowding rate would be 55 percent. 

Business Process Area (N/A for Section 2 and Section 4 issues) 

Not Applicable 

Date First Identified 

2006 

Original Target Completion Date 

09/30/2012 

Current Target Completion Date 

Dependent on funding 

Actual Completion 

Date

Issue Identified By 

Bureau of Prisons 

Source Document Title 

BOP Population Projections 

Description of Remediation 

Increase the number of federal inmate beds to keep pace with projected increases in the inmate population. Efforts to reach this 

goal include expanding existing institutions, acquiring surplus properties for conversion to correctional facilities, constructing 

new institutions, utilizing contract facilities, and exploring alternative options of confinement for appropriate cases. 

FMFIA
IV-44 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

Milestones Original Target Date Current Target Date Actual Completion 

Date

1. As of September 30, 2006, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 162,514 and was 

housed in a capacity of 119,510, resulting in an over crowding 

rate of 36 percent. 

09/30/2006 09/30/2006 

2. As of September 30, 2007, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 167,323 and was 

housed in a capacity of 122,189, resulting in an over crowding 

rate of 37 percent, an increase of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2007 09/30/2007 

3. As of September 30, 2008, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 165,964 and was 

housed in a capacity of 122,366, resulting in an over crowding 

rate of 36 percent, a decrease of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2008 09/30/2008 

4. As of September 30, 2009, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 172,423 and was 

housed in a capacity of 125,778, resulting in an over crowding 

rate of 37 percent, an increase of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2009 09/30/2009 

5. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 127,187 to be 

reached by the close of FY 2010. The over crowding rate is 

projected to be 38 percent at that time, an increase of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2010 

6. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 128,827 to be 

reached by the close of FY 2011. The over crowding rate is 

projected to be 38 percent at that time, the same rate as at the 

end of the previous year. 

09/30/2011 

7. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 131,171 to be 

reached by the close of FY 2012. The over crowding rate is 

projected to be 38 percent at that time, the same rate as at the 

end of the previous year. 

09/30/2012 

8. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 131,899 to be 

reached by the close of FY 2013. The over crowding rate is 

projected to be 39 percent at that time, an increase of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2013 

9. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 134,779 to be 

reached by the close of FY 2014. The over crowding rate is 

projected to be 38 percent at that time, a decrease of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2014 

Reason for Not Meeting Original Target Completion Date 

Funding for additional capacity has not kept pace with the increase in the federal inmate population. 

Status of Funding Available to Achieve Corrective Action 

The FY 2010 and out-year budget requests are structured to address the BOP’s long-term capacity needs in the most cost effective 

manner possible. The DOJ's proposed FY 2011 budget for BOP is under review at the Office of Management and Budget; as of 

year-end FY 2009, the BOP's Long-term Capacity Plan was partially funded through FY 2014. The BOP will continue to 

structure budget requests to address capacity needs in the most cost effective manner possible.

Planned Measures to Prevent Recurrence 

The BOP will continue to develop budget requests consistent with inmate population increases. 

Validation Indicator 

Results are measured as a new institution or expansion project is activated and resulting increases in rated capacity are 

established. A corresponding decrease in the over crowding rate will also be a tangible measurement of the results. Progress on 

construction projects at new and existing facilities will be validated via on-site inspections of each facility or by review of

monthly construction progress reports.

Organization Responsible for Corrective Action 

BOP Program Review Division
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report IV-45

FMFIA SECTION 2 – PROGRAMMATIC MATERIAL WEAKNESS – FEDERAL BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION USE OF NATIONAL SECURITY LETTERS 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Corrective Action Plan

Issue and Milestone Schedule 

Report Date 

September 30, 2009; 2009 Fiscal Year End 

Issue Title 

Federal Bureau of Investigation Use of National Security Letters 

Issue ID 

07FBI001 

Component Name 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation 

Issue Category 

 FMFIA, Section 2 Reportable Condition Material Weakness 

 FMFIA, Section 4 Non-conformance

 OMB A-123, Appendix A Reportable Condition Material Weakness 

Issue Category – SAT Concurrence or Recategorization 

Concur 

Issue Description 

In March 2007, the OIG reported that the FBI’s use of national security letters (NSL) had grown dramatically and shifted in focus 

since the enactment of the Patriot Act (October 2001). The OIG found that, although the NSL remains an indispensable 

investigative tool, the electronic database used for tracking NSL usage was incomplete and inaccurate and did not accurately 

reflect the status of investigative targets, which impacts the Department’s semiannual reports to Congress on NSL usage. The 

OIG also reported that the FBI did not consistently retain signed copies of NSLs or examine improper or illegal uses of NSLs. 

Further, the OIG reported that the FBI had not provided clear guidance on applying the Attorney General Guidelines requirements

for the use of NSLs. The OIG did not find indications of misuse of NSL authorities that constituted criminal misconduct; 

however, it found that the FBI used NSLs in violation of applicable NSL statutes, Attorney General Guidelines, and internal 

FBI policies. 

An OIG follow-up report issued in March 2008 stated that the FBI and Department had made significant progress in 

implementing the recommendations in the initial OIG report. Improvements include strengthening the controls and automated 

workflow governing the request, review, and approval of NSLs; field office monthly reconciliations of NSL usage; and the 

database used for tracking NSL usage. The FBI has implemented all OIG recommendations, as well as additional corrective 

actions, and awaits OIG closure of the reports. 

Business Process Area (N/A for Section 2 and Section 4 issues) 

Not Applicable 

Date First Identified 

2006 

Original Target Completion Date 

03/31/2008 

Current Target Completion Date 

FBI validation completed in FY 2009; 

awaiting OIG closure of reports 

Actual Completion 

Date

Issue Identified By 

OIG 

Source Document Title 

March 2007 OIG Report, 06-20 

Description of Remediation 

Actions to remediate the OIG-reported findings are summarized in the Milestones section below. In FY 2009, the FBI completed 

its validation to ensure the enhanced systems and controls implemented fully remediate the reported findings. 

Milestones Original Target Date Current Target Date Actual Completion 

Date

1. Require all personnel authorized to issue NSLs to create a 

control file to retain signed copies. 

03/31/2008 03/09/2007 

2. Improve the Office of the General Counsel (OGC) tracking 

database to ensure it captures accurate, timely, and complete 

NSL data. 

03/31/2008 04/10/2007 

3. Improve the OGC tracking database to include NSL requests 

for individuals who are not investigative subjects. 

03/31/2008 04/10/2007 
IV-46 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

Milestones (continued) Original Target Date Current Target Date Actual Completion 

Date

4. Issue additional guidance to field offices that will assist in 

identifying possible Intelligence Oversight Board violations 

related to NSL use. 

03/31/2008 06/01/2007 

5. Take steps to ensure the FBI does not improperly issue exigent 

letters. 

03/31/2008 03/01/2007 

6. Ensure that, where appropriate, the FBI makes requests for 

information in accordance with the requirements of NSL 

authorities. 

03/31/2008 06/01/2007 

7. Implement measures to ensure the OGC is consulted about 

activities undertaken by FBI Headquarters National Security 

Branch, including its operational support activities. 

03/31/2008 06/01/2007 

8. Ensure Chief Division Counsel and Assistant Division Counsel 

(field) provide close and independent reviews of requests to 

issue NSLs. 

03/31/2008 06/01/2007 

Reason for Not Meeting Original Target Completion Date 

Not Applicable. Actions addressing each OIG recommendation were completed by the original target completion date. 

Validation to ensure that actions taken fully remediate the OIG-reported findings was completed in FY 2009. 

Status of Funding Available to Achieve Corrective Action 

Funding was available to complete database enhancements and other remediation/analytical activities.

Planned Measures to Prevent Recurrence 

Ongoing oversight of the use of NSLs. 

Validation Indicator 

Reviews by the FBI’s OGC and Inspection Division and results of OIG follow-up work.

Organization Responsible for Corrective Action 

FBI Office of the General Counsel


Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report A-1

APPENDIX A 

The Department of Justice was provided a draft of the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over 

Financial Reporting, and its comments on the findings and recommendations were considered in preparing 

this Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report. Since the Department concurred with 

the recommendations, this report is being issued as resolved. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) will 

continue to review the actions taken during future financial statement audits in order to assess whether the 

findings have been adequately addressed and recommendations implemented. Depending on the 

recommendation, it will be closed either when the action requested is completed or subsequent audit testing 

verifies the adequacy of corrective actions. Repeat recommendations will be immediately closed upon report 

issuance, but will continue to be followed up in the prior reports where the recommendations were initially 

made. 

Recommendation Number: 

1. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when subsequent annual financial statement audit 

testing verifies that the components have submitted and implemented corrective action plans that focus 

on correcting the deficiencies in access controls and configuration management cited in the 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, to the extent that the 

significant deficiencies had not been remediated prior to the end of the fiscal year. The corrective 

action plans should also include a timeline that establishes when major events must be completed. 

The Department’s CIO should monitor the components’ efforts to correct deficiencies, hold them 

accountable for meeting the action plan timelines, and ensure the corrective actions are implemented 

adequately to address the noted deficiencies. 

2. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when subsequent annual financial statement audit 

testing verifies that the Department monitors the corrective actions taken by the USMS to improve the 

condition of its funds management controls, in response to the specific recommendations made in the 

component auditors’ Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

issued in connection with the audit of the USMS’s financial statements as of and for the year ended 

September 30, 2009. 

3. Resolved. This recommendation can be closed when subsequent annual financial statement audit 

testing verifies that the Department assesses the adequacy of its accounting, internal control, and 

financial reporting policies in the areas of: (1) seized and forfeited property, (2) budgetary upward and 

downward adjustments, (3) deobligation of funds, (4) inventory controls, and (5) consideration of 

economic factors in the funding analysis journal entry process. Based on the results of this 

assessment, the Department should determine the need to issue new guidance and/or reiterate to 

components the existing policies for those areas in which the components’ auditors identified 

significant deficiencies related to the recording of transactions and the preparation of financial 

statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The Department should 

monitor the components’ adherence to the Department’s accounting and financial reporting policies 

and procedures throughout the year. 

4. Closed. The status of corrective action related to this recommendation will be tracked through 

Recommendation No. 5 of the FY 2007 Annual Financial Statement Audit Report (OIG Report No. 

08-01). 

Office of the Inspector General

Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report
A-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report B-1

APPENDIX B 

Item I. Describe the risk assessment performed subsequent to the agency completing its full 

program inventory. List the risk-susceptible programs (i.e., programs that have a significant 

risk of improper payments based on OMB guidance thresholds) identified through the 

agency’s risk assessment. 

In accordance with the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) and OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, 

Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments, the Department assessed its 

programs and activities for susceptibility to significant improper payments. The Department has implemented 

a top-down approach that assesses risk from a Department-wide perspective, allowing management to focus on 

the most significant programs and activities in terms of risk and materiality. The approach promotes 

consistency across components and enhances internal control related to preventing, detecting, and recovering 

improper payments. In conjunction with implementing the top-down approach, the Department developed and 

disseminated guidance for conducting the required risk assessment, along with a risk assessment survey 

instrument for components to use in capturing information on ten risk factors, such as payment volume and 

process complexity. The instrument covered commercial payments, as well as intra-governmental payments, 

employee disbursements, and grant payments. 

Based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment for the period ending September 30, 2009, the 

Department concluded there were no programs with a significant risk of improper payments exceeding the 

OMB thresholds of 2.5 percent of program payments and $10 million. 

Item II. Describe the statistical sampling process conducted to estimate the improper 

payment rate for each program identified. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment, the Department concluded there 

were no programs susceptible to improper payments exceeding both 2.5 percent of program payments and 

$10 million. 

Item III. Describe the Corrective Action Plans for: 

A. Reducing the estimated rate and amount of improper payments for each type of root 

cause of error. This discussion must include the corrective actions most likely to 

significantly reduce future improper payments due to each type of error. If efforts are 

ongoing, it is appropriate to include that information in this section and highlight 

current efforts. 

The results of the Department-wide risk assessment demonstrated that, overall, the Department has 

sufficient internal control over disbursement processes, the dollar amount of improper payments is not 

material, and the risk of significant improper payments is low. Nonetheless, Departmental 

components have implemented procedures that include identifying the root causes of errors to ensure 

corrective actions will be appropriate to prevent recurrence of improper payments. For example, DEA 

developed and implemented the use of an electronic form on its Intranet, Notification of Erroneous 

Payment, that personnel at payment sites must complete for any improper payment identified. Data to 

be reported on the form include the underlying cause(s) of the improper payment and corrective 

actions planned to prevent recurrence. The FBI’s efforts to prevent and reduce improper payments 

also include identifying the causes of errors, i.e., its post-payment audit procedures specifically 

address the need to correct root causes of errors. Other examples of corrective actions and ongoing 

Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details
B-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

efforts to reduce future improper payments are described in Item V, Recovery Auditing Reporting, and 

Item VII, Agency Information Systems and Other Infrastructure. 

B. [Grant-making Agencies with Risk-susceptible Grant Programs] Discuss what the 

agency has accomplished in the area of funds stewardship past the primary recipient. 

Include the status of projects and results of any reviews. 

Not applicable. The Department-wide risk assessment concluded there were no risk-susceptible grant 

programs. 

Item IV. Program Improper Payment Reporting 

The table below is required for each reporting agency. Agencies must include the following 

information: 

i. all risk-susceptible programs must be listed in this chart whether or not an error 

measurement is being reported; 

ii. where no measurement is provided, the agency should indicate the date by which a 

measurement is expected; 

iii. if the Current Year (CY) is the baseline measurement year, indicate by either note or by 

N/A in the Prior Year (PY) column; 

iv. if any of the dollar amounts included in the estimate correspond to newly established 

measurement components in addition to previously established measurement 

components, separate the two amounts to the extent possible; 

v. include outlay estimates for CY+1, +2, and +3; and 

vi. agencies are expected to report on CY activity or, if not feasible, PY activity is 

acceptable. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment, the Department concluded there 

were no programs susceptible to improper payments exceeding both 2.5 percent of program payments and 

$10 million. 

Item V. Recovery Auditing Reporting 

A. Discuss your agency’s recovery auditing effort, if applicable, including any contract 

types excluded from review and the justification for doing so, actions taken to recover 

improper payments, and the business process changes and internal controls 

instituted and/or strengthened to prevent further occurrences. 

The Department’s recovery auditing program is part of its overall program of effective internal control 

over disbursements. The recovery auditing program includes preventive and detective controls to 

ensure payments are legal, proper, and correct. For example, the Department’s policies pertaining to 

the Recovery Auditing Act and IPIA provide a methodology for identifying improper payments; 

establish a system to monitor improper payments and their causes; and include controls and actions for 

preventing, detecting, and recovering improper payments. 

In addition to implementing the controls established by the Department, components have taken 

specific actions to enhance their disbursement processes and associated internal controls to prevent 

further occurrences of improper payments. For example, FPI assembled an accounts payable project 

team to implement end-to-end automation of the disbursement process, including document 

automation, reconciliation, voucher posting, and workflow approval. 

All of the Department’s components’ internal review activities include reviews of disbursements that 

test for improper payments. For example, for the Department’s Offices, Boards and Divisions, the 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report B-3

Justice Management Division’s Quality Control and Compliance Group conducts periodic reviews of 

financial internal controls that include tests for improper payments. 

B. Complete the table below. 

Summary of Recovery Program Activities

Current Year (FY 2009) and Prior Years (FYs 2004 through 2008)

Amount Subject

to Review for

FY 2009

Reporting

Actual Amount

Reviewed

FY 2009

Amount

Identified for

Recovery  

FY 2009

Amount

Recovered     

FY 2009

Amount

Identified for

Recovery

Prior Years

Amount

Recovered

Prior Years

Cumulative

Amount

Identified for

Recovery  

(FY 2009 +

Prior Years)

Cumulative

Amount

Recovered

(FY 2009 +

Prior Years)

$9,878,904,000 $9,878,904,000

(100 percent) $7,215,553 $6,536,361 $9,556,780 $8,519,583 $16,772,333 $15,055,944(90 percent)

As shown in the table, for the cumulative reporting period of FY 2004 through FY 2009, the Department has 

recovered approximately $15.1 million or 90 percent of the total amount of improper commercial payments 

identified for recovery, up from 89 percent at FY 2008 year end. 

Item VI. Describe the steps the agency has taken and plans to take to ensure agency 

managers are held accountable for reducing and recovering improper payments. 

The Assistant Attorney General for Administration has implemented IPIA and recovery auditing policies and 

controls throughout the Department that cover preventing, detecting, and recovering improper payments. As 

mentioned previously, the dollar amount of the Department’s improper payments is not material, and the risk 

of significant improper payments is low. Nonetheless, the Department holds managers accountable for 

reducing and recovering improper payments through performance ratings. In addition, the Department 

requires components to provide a report on recovery auditing activities so component progress on reducing 

and recovering improper payments can be monitored. Data required to be reported includes the amounts of 

total payments, total payments reviewed for improper payments, improper payments identified for recovery, 

improper payments recovered, and improper payments remaining to be recovered; the root causes of improper 

payments; and corrective actions taken or planned to resolve issues timely and effectively. 

In addition to the Department’s measures to hold managers accountable for reducing and recovering improper 

payments, some components have established additional accountability measures. For example, for internal 

reviews conducted by BOP’s Program Review Office, it is the responsibility of the Chief Executive Officer of 

each site reviewed to address each deficiency in the program review final report and provide an explanation of 

the corrective action taken to resolve the deficiencies. 

Item VII. Agency Information Systems and Other Infrastructure 

A. Describe whether the agency has the information systems and other infrastructure it 

needs to reduce improper payments to the levels the agency has targeted. 

Department-wide actions to reduce improper payments are accomplished through an aggressive 

strategy of re-engineering and standardizing business processes, concurrent with the Department’s 

implementation of an integrated financial management system, which is underway and scheduled to be 

implemented across Departmental components within the next five years. In addition to the 

Department’s actions to reduce improper payments, individual components have built controls into 

their financial systems that are designed to prevent improper payments and identify such payments so 

recovery actions can be initiated. For example, ATF’s financial system validates that the same invoice 

number has not been used previously by a vendor when a subsequent invoice from that vendor is being 

processed for payment. 
B-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report

B. If the agency does not have such systems and infrastructure, describe the resources 

the agency requested in its most recent budget submission to Congress to obtain the 

necessary information systems and infrastructure. 

Not applicable. The integrated financial management system, when fully implemented across the 

Department, will complement the Department’s current infrastructure and capabilities to reduce 

improper payments. 

Item VIII. Describe any statutory or regulatory barriers that may limit the agency’s corrective 

actions in reducing improper payments and actions taken by the agency to mitigate the 

barriers’ effects. 

The Department has not identified any statutory or regulatory barriers that limit its corrective actions in 

reducing improper payments. 

Item IX. Additional comments, if any, on overall agency efforts, specific programs, best 

practices, or common challenges identified as a result of IPIA implementation. 

The Department’s continued use of a top-down approach for IPIA compliance promotes consistency across 

components and enhances internal controls and activities designed to prevent, detect, and recover improper 

payments. As mentioned previously, use of a top-down approach allows the Department to focus on its most 

significant programs and activities in terms of risk and materiality. 

Additional Departmental IPIA efforts in FY 2009 included providing a workshop to reinforce requirements 

and promote consistency throughout the Department with regard to IPIA compliance. The workshop focused 

on conducting and documenting the required IPIA risk assessment and reporting the data needed for the 

Department’s annual Performance and Accountability Report.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report C-1

APPENDIX C 

This financial management status report describes the Department’s three most 

significant and overarching financial management initiatives – achieving a clean audit 

opinion, implementing a new Department-wide financial management system, and 

continually improving internal controls. The President’s emphasis on transparency 

emphasizes the significance of federal government performance and accountability to 

achieve successful results. The ultimate goal is accurate and timely financial information 

on a recurring basis. These initiatives support the Department’s overall goal to improve 

management and administration of the Department’s programs while also supporting 

mandates such as the CFO Act, the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA), the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA), and the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996. 

Reliable Financial Statements and Meeting Due Dates for Financial Statements. 

KPMG LLP, an independent public accounting firm under contract with the 

Department’s Office of the Inspector General, performed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 

consolidated Department audit. The Department earned an unqualified opinion on its 

audited consolidated financial statements for FY 2009. All nine of the Department’s 

components that produce financial statements received unqualified opinions, as well. 

The Department and components continued to demonstrate progress in remediating 

weaknesses identified by the independent auditors. The Department has consistently met 

the OMB due date for submission of the consolidated financial statements. Ensuring 

these deadlines are met required planning and coordination which included issuance of 

the annual Financial Statement Requirements and Preparation Guide (Guide). The Guide 

includes a detailed timeline of major events and interim milestones. This, along with 

components’ corrective actions quarterly status updates, adds to the foundation necessary 

to eliminate auditor-reported internal control material weaknesses. For FY 2010 and 

beyond, the Department expects to maintain its consistent status on its audited 

consolidated financial statements. 

Integrated Financial Management System. The Unified Financial Management 

System (UFMS) initiative is the keystone to the Department’s financial systems 

improvement planning for the future. UFMS is replacing the Department’s multiple core 

financial management and procurement systems with an integrated Commercial Off-TheShelf (COTS) solution, Momentum, provided by CGI Federal Inc. Implementation of the 

UFMS will improve financial management and procurement operations through 

streamlining and standardizing business processes and procedures across all components. 

The Department components identified for replacement of their current financial 

management and procurement systems include: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI); 

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); Federal 

FY 2009 Financial Management Status Report
C-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Office of Justice Program s (OJP); Offices, Boards and 

Divisions (OBDs); and Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). 

The most significant accomplishment of FY 2009 occurred in January, when the DEA 

financial, accounting and acquisition functions went live with UFMS. DEA joined the 

Asset Forfeiture Program as the second organization to adopt the Department’s system. 

This was a major milestone for the Department, as DEA was the first large law 

enforcement organization to deploy UFMS as the system of record. Today, 

approximately 2,000 users rely on the 28 standard business processes and 12 interfaces 

configured in UFMS 1.1. Other significant strides were made in FY 2009 to bring users 

onto the system and prepare the next components for implementation. In March 2009, 

the UFMS Contract Writing Tool was deployed to the FBI. This will better prepare FBI 

for migration to UFMS Acquisitions. In May 2009, Phase 1 of the UFMS 

implementation was completed for the ATF, which entailed the technical upgrade of 

Momentum. Phase 1 migrated ATF’s legacy financial system, Financial Resources 

Desktop System (FReD), to Momentum 6.1.5 (the same version as DEA UFMS). 

Concurrently, ATF adapted its business processes to the majority of UFMS standard 

processes. The Phase 1 upgrade primes ATF for transition to full UFMS functionality. 

In July 2009, UFMS Acquisitions was deployed to over 300 BOP users nationwide. The 

UFMS team is effectively managing production services for the newly implemented 

customers. Customer service continues to be a priority and performance against the 

objectives will continue to be measured and evaluated as new customers are 

implemented. 

Several implementation efforts are underway in FY 2010. These include the upgrade of 

UFMS to version 2.0. This upgrade will incorporate more than 100 types of 

enhancements, the most significant of which include improvements in reporting, 

interfaces, and system administration. In addition, the USMS is scheduled to implement 

Phase I, UFMS Acquisitions, in its Headquarters procurement offices as the first part of 

the ultimate vision of operating in a shared instance, and to better prepare USMS for full 

deployment of UFMS. USMS Acquisitions will share an instance in UFMS with BOP. 

Sharing instances in UFMS will result in significant cost savings across the Department 

by consolidating system administration functions and eliminating duplicative processes. 

In 2010, USMS planning will also commence, including requirements gathering and gap 

analysis for full implementation of UFMS. Also in FY 2010, requirements will be 

finalized for ATF’s implementation of UFMS to “go live” in the first quarter of FY 2011. 

Finally, the FBI will initiate Phase 2 gap analysis and requirements. Phase 2 includes 

defining requirements, reengineering business processes, configuring, testing, developing 

training materials and implementing the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS) and 

a few other small organizations. 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Remediation Plan and 

A-123 Compliance. During FY 2009, the Department continued efforts to resolve 

internal control weaknesses in critical areas by providing oversight and resources to 

individual components. Through ongoing review programs, components aggressively 

demonstrated their commitment to identify areas of concern and implement corrective 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report C-3

actions promptly. The Department also continued to demonstrate progress on its multiyear project to implement an integrated financial management system. This system will 

eventually provide a single source for timely and reliable financial data, and strengthen 

the Department’s overall control environment. The system will also facilitate the 

collection of information, increase transparency, and enhance decision-making by 

program managers. 

The Department continued its commitment to improving and strengthening controls 

through the annual OMB Circular A-123 assessment. Using a top-down risk-based 

approach, efforts were focused on significant areas where the risk of material errors in 

financial reporting could occur. An increased effort was also made to coordinate and 

leverage existing reviews and assessments of the controls over significant financial 

information systems. These actions, coupled with the Department’s corrective action 

plan process, have enabled the Department to monitor the components’ progress against 

corrective action plans more timely and, when necessary, provide additional resources to 

correct control weaknesses. 
C-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report D-1

APPENDIX D 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Review of the Department of Justice’s Use of LessLethal Weapons 

The OIG conducted this review to determine the extent to which the Department’s components are using lesslethal weapons, whether controls have been implemented to ensure the weapons are used appropriately and to 

assess the results of the acquisition and use of less-lethal weapons by Department components. The OIG 

learned that there was no Department policy specifically governing the use of less-lethal weapons by its law 

enforcement personnel, and State and local law enforcement serving on Department task forces. All of the 

components developed and implemented separate policies on their personnel’s use of less-lethal weapons. 

Additionally, the OIG learned that while reporting requirements existed within each departmental component 

on the use of less-lethal weapons, the components do not adequately compile and analyze the resulting reports 

or the benefits of use. It was further learned that the Department’s law enforcement components did not seek 

the assistance of the Civil Rights Division in the development of their less-lethal weapons policies. As a result 

of the review, the OIG made four recommendations to the Department, specifically that the Department: 1) 

coordinate and ensure the development of appropriate and consistent policies to address the use of less-lethal 

weapons by Department personnel and State and local law enforcement officers serving on task forces; 2) law 

enforcement components establish procedures to ensure State and local task force members’ knowledge of and 

adherence to the components’ respective less-lethal weapons policies; 3) law enforcement components analyze 

their use of less-lethal weapons, the benefits from such use, and assess emerging trends; and 4) law 

enforcement components develop protocols to ensure the dissemination of research and reviews conducted by 

the National Institute of Justice and the Civil Rights Division on the use of less-lethal weapons. 

OIG Interim Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

Project Gunrunner 

The objectives of the OIG audit were to determine the extent to which the planned expansion of Project 

Gunrunner would enhance ATF’s capacity to reduce firearms trafficking and violence along the Southwest 

Border. The OIG examined the planning, hiring, staffing and allocation of resources for the project, as well as 

ATF’s decisions on how its FY 2009 Project Gunrunner funding should be expended. Those decisions 

included the $10 million earmarked to respond to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act guidance and 

staffing the new Gunrunner teams. The OIG also analyzed whether ATF’s resources will be allocated in a 

manner that will achieve the greatest impact on firearms trafficking. 

Project Gunrunner is ATF’s national initiative to stem firearms trafficking to Mexico by organized criminal 

groups. It is intended to support the Department’s overall Southwest Border Initiative to combat Mexican 

drug cartels in the United States and to help Mexican law enforcement battle cartels in their own country. 

ATF’s objectives for Project Gunrunner include the following: 1) Investigating individuals responsible for 

illicit firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border; 2) Coordinating with U.S. and Mexican law 

enforcement along the border in firearms cases and violent crime; 3) Training U.S. and Mexican law 

enforcement officials to identify firearms traffickers; 4) Providing outreach education to gun dealers; and 5) 

Tracing all firearms to identify traffickers, trends, patterns and networks. 

The results of the OIG review found that certain aspects of ATF’s Project Gunrunner expansion plans should 

enhance its ability to combat firearms trafficking along the Southwest Border. However, some planned 

Gunrunner activities do not appear to represent the best use of resources to reduce firearms trafficking, and 

Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2009
D-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

some issues have yet to be addressed, such as staffing structure, Spanish proficiency, and program measures. 

While the OIG believes that four of the locations selected by ATF for new Gunrunner resources are sound, the 

other two locations are questionable and are unlikely to create the most significant reduction in firearms 

trafficking and related violent crimes. The staffing model planned for the new Gunrunner teams appears 

adequate, provided ATF defines the teams’ reporting and supervisory structures. In addition, the OIG found 

that ATF has insufficient numbers of personnel proficient in Spanish required to staff Project Gunrunner. The 

OIG also believes that ATF must develop better measures to assess the impact new Gunrunner teams have on 

firearms trafficking and related violent crimes along the Southwest Border. 

The OIG made seven recommendations, four of which ATF concurred. ATF has considered the OIG's 

recommendations and has created an action plan to address the noted deficiencies or provided further 

justification for its approach. 

OIG Review of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ Efforts 

The OIG examined ATF’s implementation of its Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion Program as a deterrent to 

illegal sales and smuggling of tobacco products. This review focused on ATF Headquarters’ oversight of the 

Alcohol and Tobacco Diversion Program and the field divisions’ implementation of the program as they 

conducted tobacco investigations. The OIG examined the roles of the following ATF entities in the program: 

1) Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement Branch (ATEB), 2) Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information 

(OSII), 3) Financial Investigative Services Division, 4) Asset Forfeiture and Seized Property Branch, and 5) 

ATF Field Divisions. 

ATF is charged with investigating the diversion of alcohol and tobacco products from the legal distribution 

system in an effort to evade payment of Federal and state excise taxes. This diversion can include several 

different types of criminal behavior, such as the smuggling of alcohol and tobacco products from low tax states 

to sell in a high tax states, smuggling across international borders, avoiding taxes by pretending to export 

products but illegally selling them in the United States, producing counterfeit products, selling products 

without tax stamps or with counterfeit stamps, and selling products illegally over the Internet. The results of 

the review by the OIG found that while ATF Field Divisions have conducted successful tobacco diversion 

investigations over the past several years, diversion investigations are not an ATF priority compared with 

ATF’s investigations of violent crime through its Firearms and Arson and Explosives Programs. Overall, ATF 

has not developed an adequate national program for diversion, and its diversion enforcement efforts are ad 

hoc. While it may be difficult for ATF to dedicate significant additional resources to diversion because of 

other competing priorities, the OIG believes that ATF, nevertheless, can improve its diversion program with 

existing resources. 

The OIG believes that ATF could accomplish incremental improvements in its management of the diversion 

mission even without an infusion of funding and an increased staffing level. The OIG made three 

recommendations, one of which ATF had disagreed. ATF’s goal is to determine the scope and complexity of 

the cases and determine if common issues or themes exist. ATF created a national strategic plan for tobacco 

diversion efforts and a 2010 budget initiative to request additional positions and funding for the Alcohol and 

Tobacco Enforcement Program, but stated the Office of Management and Budget rejected its requests for 

additional funds. ATF plans to appoint three points of contact within the Alcohol Tobacco Diversion Division 

(ATDD), one each for the eastern, central, and western field divisions. In the instance where ATF disagreed, 

ATF stated that the program was initiated when ATF was still with the Department of the Treasury and had 

regulatory authority over alcohol and tobacco. ATF has decided instead to assign points of contact at the 

ATDD in Headquarters to process tobacco intelligence information. The ATDD is currently identifying the 

personnel that will be assigned as points of contact within the division as well as the creation of the Standard 

Operating Procedures which will describe areas and responsibilities. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report D-3

OIG Audit of the United States National Central Bureau (USNCB) of INTERPOL

The OIG outlined four objectives for its audit of the USNCB: (1) evaluate the USNCB’s efforts to ensure 

sharing of INTERPOL information among federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies; (2) review 

the USNCB’s processes for the exchange of INTERPOL information to ensure that requests for assistance and 

information were handled in an appropriate, efficient, and timely manner; (3) review the USNCB’s controls 

over INTERPOL case information; and (4) examine the USNCB’s organizational role and strategic priorities 

to ensure that they are in line with DOJ priorities. 

The OIG made a total of 27 recommendations, 4 of which were specifically directed to the Department’s 

Office of the Deputy Attorney and concerned oversight and support of the USNCB. Many of the 

recommendations for the USNCB necessitate that it be more proactive and resourceful in accomplishing its 

goals. 

Many of the issues identified by the OIG were already of concern to the USNCB and were already under 

review and discussion. The USNCB believes that bringing attention to these issues is important and intends to 

make the most positive use of the report. Recent years have seen many new initiatives and programs in which 

the USNCB plays an important role. However the USNCB has often found itself hampered by resource 

limitations. The USNCB is working to formalize the agreements through which federal law enforcement 

agencies detail staff to the USNCB. This will ensure consistent coverage and term lengths that will allow the 

detailed staff members to provide more tangible benefits to both USNCB and their home agencies. 

Several of the OIG recommendations concern the USNCB’s efforts to reach out to state, local and federal law 

enforcement in publicizing its services and capabilities. The OIG found that despite the USNCB’s efforts, 

there was still a significant lack of awareness within the general U.S. law enforcement community. The 

USNCB has planned several initiatives to answer these recommendations. The USNCB is developing a formal 

outreach and training plan to raise awareness and encourage the use of INTERPOL services by federal, state 

and local law enforcement authorities. The USNCB is working to develop an INTERPOL training course that 

could be given at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center and at various other forums. The USNCB also 

plans to routinely review Federal agencies ‘Most Wanted’ websites and reach out to solicit red or blue notices 

on any ‘“most wanted”’ subjects that are not already the subject of one. The USNCB will also explore options 

to check foreign diffusion and notice information against U.S. law enforcement agencies’ internal databases. 

Other OIG’s findings and recommendations concerned the USNCB’s work processes and adherence to its own 

procedures. Increasing workloads and stagnant staffing levels have led to unfortunate lapses in case 

management practices. Similar to the IT assessments and development of an IT strategic plan, the USNCB will 

contract through the Office of Personnel Management to conduct a human capital assessment of USNCB 

staffing and develop a strategic plan to ensure the appropriate mix of permanent and detailed staff into the 

future. 
D-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
E-1 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

APPENDIX E 

The information in this section is provided pursuant to the statutory mandate in Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 2320(g), which requires a report of Department of Justice prosecutions of intellectual property 

(IP) crimes brought under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A and 2320 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

Prosecutions under other IP statutes are not included. This information has been provided by the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), which maintains criminal caseload information as reported by 

the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices. 

The pages that follow contain summary case information, segregated by statutory provision, and preceded by a 

brief description of each offense. Also included is a list of cases referred for prosecution by the Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Following the 

summary data is a district by district break out of the same data. 

The automated case management system used to collect data for the U.S. Attorneys' Offices does not break out 

copyright infringement cases according to the following categories: audiovisual (videos and films); audio 

(sound recordings); literary works (books and musical compositions); computer programs or video games. 

Also, the case management system does not separately identify copyright infringement cases where the 

infringer advertises the infringing work online or makes the infringing work available on the Internet for 

download, reproduction, performance or distribution by others. Thus, that information is not included. 

Similarly, data on fines, penalties, settlements or restitution are not included because that information cannot 

be extracted from the database according to particular statutes. 

Intellectual Property Report – FY 2009
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-2

Offense: knowingly trafficking in a counterfeit label affixed or designated to be affixed to a phono record or a copy of a 

motion picture or other audiovisual work. 

FY 2009 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 14 

Number of Defendants: 26 

Number of Cases Filed: 10 

Number of Defendants: 14 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 12 

Number of Defendants: 18 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 8 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 0 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 10 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 6 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 0 

13 to 24 Months: 0 

25 to 36 Months: 1 

37 to 60 Months: 0 

61 + Months: 1 

Total Dollar Value of All Criminal Fines Imposed: Not Available 

(fines can be assessed in lieu of or in addition to prison sentences) 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed 

defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may 

have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2318 where the lead charge, 

charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2318. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318* ‐ Trafficking in Counterfeit Labels for Phono Records

and Copies of Motion Pictures or Other Audiovisual Works.
E-3 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Offense: willful infringement of a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or through 

large-scale, unlawful reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, regardless of whether there was a profit motive. 

 FY 2009 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

 Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 79 

 Number of Defendants: 118 

 Number of Cases Filed: 58 

 Number of Defendants: 75 

 Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 85 

 Number of Defendants: 103 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

 Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 81 

 Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 2 

 Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 17 

 Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

 Other Terminated Defendants: 3 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

 No Imprisonment: 52 

 1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 16 

 13 to 24 Months: 9 

 25 to 36 Months: 3 

 37 to 60 Months: 3 

 61 + Months: 0 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against a 

defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was 

charged against the same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. 

Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or 

matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2319 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506* ‐ Criminal

Infringement of a Copyright.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-4

Offense: without the consent of the performer, knowingly and for the purposes of commercial advantage or private 

financial gain, fixing the sounds or sound and images of a live musical performance, reproducing copies of such a 

performance from an authorized fixation; transmitting the sounds or sounds and images to the public, or distributing, 

renting, selling, or trafficking (or attempting the preceding) in any copy of an authorized fixation. 

FY 2009 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 1 

Number of Defendants: 1 

Number of Cases Filed: 1 

Number of Defendants: 1 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 0 

Number of Defendants: 0 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 0 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 0 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 0 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 0 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 0 

13 to 24 Months: 0 

25 to 36 Months: 0 

37 to 60 Months: 0 

61 + Months: 0 

Total Dollar Value of All Criminal Fines Imposed: Not Available (fines can be assessed in lieu of or in addition to prison 

sentences.) 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed 

defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may 

have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, 

charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319A* ‐ Unauthorized Fixation of and Trafficking in Sound

Recordings and Music Videos of Live Musical Performances.
E-5 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Offense: intentionally trafficking or attempting to traffic in goods or services and knowingly using a counterfeit mark on 

or in connection with such goods or services. 

FY 2009 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 153 

Number of Defendants: 271 

Number of Cases Filed: 97 

Number of Defendants: 135 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 93 

 Number of Defendants: 126 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 82 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 3 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 37 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 1 

Other Terminated Defendants: 3 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 43 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 14 

13 to 24 Months: 10 

25 to 36 Months: 2 

37 to 60 Months: 10 

61 + Months: 6 

Total Dollar Value of All Criminal Fines Imposed: Not Available 

(fines can be assessed in lieu of or in addition to prison sentences) 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed 

defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may 

have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, 

charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320* ‐ Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services.
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-6

 All Districts - All Statutes

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 361 333 368 303 243 

Number of Defendants: 642 580 561 467 404 

Number of Cases Filed: 143 178 200 179 150 

Number of Defendants: 319 297 268 239 203 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 95 155 177 174 175 

Number of Defendants: 133 223 278 270 230 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 112 178 240 220 198 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 7 9 10 8 5 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 10 16 15 26 21 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 1 2 1 8 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 3 18 12 8 4 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 55 91 129 101 114 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 29 35 44 46 31 

13 to 24 Months: 18 22 33 39 27 

25 to 36 Months: 6 13 18 20 6 

37 to 60 Months: 7 17 11 19 17 

61 + Months: 4 9 15 3 8 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 OR TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE,

SECTION 506*
E-7 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 09

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 100 

Number of Defendants: 161 

Number of Cases Filed: 51 

Number of Defendants: 70 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 61 

Number of Defendants: 87 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 74 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 2 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 9 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 42 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 13 

13 to 24 Months: 7 

25 to 36 Months: 3 

37 to 60 Months: 8 

61+ Months: 3 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 

U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants 

where more than one of the statutes was charged against the same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information is based upon the overall 

outcome of the defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 

U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified 

statutes. This chart does not include data on the investigation and prosecution of other intellectual property crimes, such as economic espionage, 18 

U.S.C. 1831; theft of trade secrets, 18 U.S.C. 1832; signal piracy, 47 U.S.C. 553 and 605; and circumvention of copyright protection systems, 17 U.S.C. 

1201 to 1205. The data for Fiscal Year 2005 does not include month of September 2005 information for the Eastern District of Louisiana due to 

Hurricane Katrina. 

Statistics on Matters/Cases Originating with the United States Bureau of Customs & Border Protection

and Bureau of Immigrations & Customs Enforcement
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000011 00100

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 021200 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 020000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 021200 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 000000 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 233300 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 130000 00000

NEVADA 001200 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 110000 00000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 120015 40100

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 220000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000012 10100

OHIO NORTHERN 000000 00000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

E-8 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 001145 10400

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000022 10100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 001122 00200

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 231200 00000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 341111 10000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 110000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 14 26 10 14 12 18 8 0 10 0 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2318 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2318

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-9

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
PRISON SENTENCING

NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 300001

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 100000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-10 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*
PRISON SENTENCING

NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 100000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 100000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHER 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHER 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

Grand Total 600101

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2318 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2318

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-11

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 001144 20101

ALABAMA NORTHERN 220000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 111111 10000

ARIZONA 143611 10000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 665522 20000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 381511 10000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 022315 50000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 004455 50000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000022 20000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 220000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000011 01000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 182800 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 111122 20000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 111100 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 111124 20101

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 001111 10000

KANSAS 010022 20000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 111100 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000022 20000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 111156 60000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000011 00100

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000011 01000

MAINE 010000 00000

MARYLAND 111100 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 002200 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 220000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000056 20400

MINNESOTA 001111 10000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 010101 10000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 110000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 584433 30000

MISSOURI WESTERN 443300 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 112211 10000

NEVADA 251200 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 221111 00100

NEW MEXICO 220000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 250000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 110000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 220078 80000

NEW YORK WESTERN 021111 10000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 001100 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000022 10100

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000012 00200

OHIO NORTHERN 221111 10000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 662211 10000

OREGON 223300 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000011 10000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

E-12

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 1 2 2 214 18 150300

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 261122 10100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 110000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 111100 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 003344 30100

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000011 00100

TEXAS WESTERN 330024 40000

UTAH 110000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 110000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 7 10 1122 10001

VIRGINIA WESTERN 222301 10000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 110000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000011 10000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 79 118 58 75 85 103 81 2 17 0 3

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against a defendant.

 However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the same defendant.

 Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the outcome of the charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2319 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319.

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-13

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 200000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 100000

ARIZONA 100000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 110000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 010000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 302000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 410000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 011000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 100000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 020000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 200000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 100000

KANSAS 200000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 100100

LOUISIANA EASTERN 330000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 200000

MINNESOTA 100000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 001000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 201000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 010000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 00000 0

NEW MEXICO 00000 0

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 521000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000010

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 100000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 100000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000010

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 100000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-14

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS 

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 15 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 002010

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 021100

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 100000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 010000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 010000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 52 16 9 3 3 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against a defendant.

 However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the same defendant.

 Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the outcome of the charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2319 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319.

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-15

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 000000 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 000000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 000000 00000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 111100 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000 00000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

E-16

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 000000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000 00000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000 00000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 000000 00000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 111100 00000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2319A charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 

 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A.

E-17

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 000000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-18

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 000000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 000000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2319A charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 

 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A.

E-19

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000003 00003

ALABAMA NORTHERN 240011 00010

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 491100 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 120000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 14 18 13 15 12 14 11 0300

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 18 26 13 17 6 6 50100

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 6 13 3622 10100

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 001200 00000

COLORADO 021212 00200

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 131300 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 9 16 4 8 9 12 90300

FLORIDA NORTHERN 222222 20000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 232512 00200

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 221125 10400

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 001100 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 120000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 1 19 0000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000011 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 110000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

KANSAS 110000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 110000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 110034 40000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 331123 10200

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 341100 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 220000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 221122 10100

MICHIGAN WESTERN 352211 10000

MINNESOTA 240000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 271122 11000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 110011 01000

MISSOURI EASTERN 141111 10000

MISSOURI WESTERN 224433 30000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 111100 00000

NEVADA 572311 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 241100 00000

NEW JERSEY 143333 00300

NEW MEXICO 001200 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 5 11 4 10 4 5 40100

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 584519 40500

NEW YORK WESTERN 130013 10200

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 011200 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 120011 00100

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 494634 40000

OHIO SOUTHERN 110000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 011111 00100

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000011 10000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

E-20

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 122222 10100

PUERTO RICO 151500 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 363459 90000

SOUTH DAKOTA 010011 10000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 230000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 111122 10100

TEXAS EASTERN 120011 10000

TEXAS NORTHERN 330011 00100

TEXAS SOUTHERN 440022 11000

TEXAS WESTERN 894556 60000

UTAH 000011 10000

VERMONT 110000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 8 15 6656 40200

VIRGINIA WESTERN 011100 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 220000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 001100 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 120000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 153 271 97 135 93 126 82 3 37 1 3

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2320 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320.

E-21

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 314030

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 320000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 100000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 621000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 001010

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000100

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 130000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 100000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000001

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 100010

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000010

MISSOURI EASTERN 001000

MISSOURI WESTERN 200100

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 100000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 210010

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 201001

NEW YORK WESTERN 100000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 301000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000001

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-22

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 100000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 620001

SOUTH DAKOTA 100000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 100000

TEXAS EASTERN 100000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 100001

TEXAS WESTERN 310020

UTAH 100000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 021001

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 43 14 10 2 10 6

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2320 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320.

E-23

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES OVERALL DISPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000014 20110

ALABAMA NORTHERN 120011 00010

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 120000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 120000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 695723 30000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 684422 20000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 132311 10000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 001200 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 6 10 2466 60000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 222233 21000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 111312 00200

GEORGIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 111125 30200

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 120000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000011 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 110000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 112200 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 001100 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 220011 10000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 221111 10000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 001100 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 220000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 220000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 352211 00100

MINNESOTA 240000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 160022 11000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 110000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 130000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 111111 10000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 352200 00000

NEVADA 560000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 131100 00000

NEW JERSEY 021111 00100

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 173945 50000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 222207 70000

NEW YORK WESTERN 120013 30000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 120011 10000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 130011 10000

OHIO SOUTHERN 110000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 661100 00000

OREGON 001111 10000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

E-24 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
REFERRALS AND CASES OVERALL DISPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 121100 00000

PUERTO RICO 1 5 1 5 8 10 9 0 1 0 0

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 483459 90000

SOUTH DAKOTA 010011 10000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 120000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 111111 10000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 331122 10100

TEXAS SOUTHERN 330011 10000

TEXAS WESTERN 662268 80000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 6 12 3322 20000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 330000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 001100 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 120000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 100 161 51 70 61 87 74 2920

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-25

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 002000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 011010

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 020000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 100000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 321000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 101010

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 200010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000100

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 100000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 100010

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 100000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 310010

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 300112

NEW YORK WESTERN 300000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 010000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 001000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 100000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-26 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 900000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 620001

SOUTH DAKOTA 100000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 010000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000010

TEXAS SOUTHERN 100000

TEXAS WESTERN 330110

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 101000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 42 13 7383

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report E-27

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**
REFERRALS AND CASES OVERALL DISPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 001147 40111

ALABAMA NORTHERN 460011 00010

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

ALASKA 111111 10000

ARIZONA 143611 10000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 491100 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 120000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 20 24 18 20 14 16 16 0000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 21 33 13 19 6 6 60000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 6 13 4737 60100

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 001200 00000

COLORADO 021212 20000

CONNECTICUT 004455 50000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 131322 20000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 11 18 4 8 9 12 12 0000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 222233 21000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 232512 00200

GEORGIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 3 12 2 10 2 5 30200

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 112222 20000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 231100 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 2 20 1124 20101

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 110011 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 110000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 112211 10000

KANSAS 120022 20000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 111100 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 110022 20000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 221167 70000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000011 00100

LOUISIANA WESTERN 331134 21100

MAINE 010000 00000

MARYLAND 452200 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 222200 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 441122 10100

MICHIGAN WESTERN 352267 60100

MINNESOTA 241111 10000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 281223 21000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 220011 01000

MISSOURI EASTERN 6 12 5544 40000

MISSOURI WESTERN 674433 30000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 353311 10000

NEVADA 7 12 2311 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 241100 00000

NEW JERSEY 474444 10201

NEW MEXICO 221200 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 7 16 5 11 4 5 50000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 110000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 8 12 4 5 8 22 22 0000

NEW YORK WESTERN 151124 40000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 232300 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 120033 30000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000012 20000

OHIO NORTHERN 6 11 5745 50000

OHIO SOUTHERN 110000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 662211 10000

OREGON 234411 10000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000022 20000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

E-28

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES OVERALL DISPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 122222 10100

PUERTO RICO 2 7 3 7 14 18 15 0 3 0 0

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 5 12 4 5 7 11 10 0100

SOUTH DAKOTA 010011 10000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 340000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 111122 20000

TEXAS EASTERN 231111 10000

TEXAS NORTHERN 333344 30100

TEXAS SOUTHERN 440033 11100

TEXAS WESTERN 12 13 4 5 7 10 10 0000

UTAH 110011 10000

VERMONT 110000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 110000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 18 29 8889 70101

VIRGINIA WESTERN 233401 10000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 330000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 111100 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 120011 10000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 243 404 150 203 175 230 198 5 21 2 4

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

E-29

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 202000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 100000

ARIZONA 100000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 525040

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 330000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 402000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 101000

CONNECTICUT 410000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 011000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 921000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 101010

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 200010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 020000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 200000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000100

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 100000

KANSAS 200000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 100100

LOUISIANA EASTERN 340000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 300000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 100000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 301011

MINNESOTA 100000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 101010

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000010

MISSOURI EASTERN 202000

MISSOURI WESTERN 200100

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 010000

NEVADA 100000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 001000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 310010

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 11 23123

NEW YORK WESTERN 300010

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 120000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 200000

OHIO NORTHERN 401000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000010

OREGON 100000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 100001

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-30

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 100000

PUERTO RICO 15 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 620101

SOUTH DAKOTA 100000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 110000

TEXAS EASTERN 100000

TEXAS NORTHERN 002010

TEXAS SOUTHERN 100001

TEXAS WESTERN 331120

UTAH 100000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 222001

VIRGINIA WESTERN 010000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 010000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 114 31 27 6 17 8

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2009 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2009.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

E-31

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2009 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2009**

 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 
This page intentionally left blank.

E-32 Department of Justice · FY 2009 Perform
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report F-1

APPENDIX F 

AAG Assistant Attorney General 

AAGA Assistant Attorney General for Administration 

ACA American Correctional Association 

ACES Analytic Cadre Education Strategy 

ACS Automated Case Support 

ACTS Automated Case Tracking System 

ADAG Associate Deputy Attorney General 

ADC Assistant Division Counsel 

ADIC Assistant Director in Charge 

ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution 

AFF Assets Forfeiture Fund 

AFF/SADF Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund 

AFP Assets Forfeiture Program 

AMP Asset Management Plan 

ANSIR Automated Nationwide System for Immigration Review 

APB Advisory Policy Board 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ASU Analytical Support Unit 

ATEB Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement Branch 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

ATR Antitrust Division 

ATDD Alcohol Tobacco Diversion Division 

AUSA Assistant United States Attorneys 

AOUSC Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

BFS Budgetary Financing Sources 

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance 

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals 

BOP Bureau of Prisons 

BPR Bureau of Process Review 

CAP Cooperative Agreement Program 

CAU Communications Analysis Unit 

CBO Community-Based Organizations 

CBT Computer-Based Training 

CCIPS Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section 

CDC Chief Division Counsel 

C

B

A

Acronyms
F-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

CDP Candidate Development Program 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

CHIP Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property 

CHRP COPS Hiring Recovery Program (under Recovery Act)

CIA Central Intelligence Agency 

CID Criminal Investigation Division 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CIV Civil Division 

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services 

CODIS Combined DNA Index System 

COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf 

CPC Capacity Planning Committee 

CPOT Consolidated Priority Organization Target 

CRM Criminal Division 

CRS Community Relations Service 

CRT Civil Rights Division 

CSO Court Security Officer 

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System 

CT Counterterrorism 

CTD Counterterrorism Division 

CW Cooperating Witness 

CY Calendar Year/Current Year 

CyD Cyber Division 

DAG Deputy Attorney General 

DAOG Debt Accounting Operations Group 

DCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

DCM Debt Collection Management 

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration 

Department, The Department of Justice 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DI Directorate of Intelligence 

DIRB Department Investment Review Board 

DNI Director of National Intelligence 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

DRMS Department Rent Management System 

DUSM Deputy U.S. Marshal 

EA Enterprise Architecture 

EAMMF Enterprise Architecture Management Maturity Framework 

EAPMO Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office 

EC Electronic Communication 

ECPA Electronic Communications Privacy Act 

E

D
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report F-3

EFT Electronic Funds Transfer 

ENRD Environment and Natural Resources Division 

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

EOUSA Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

EOUST Executive Office for U.S. Trustees 

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center 

eTS eTravel System 

EVM Earned Value Management 

FAIR Act Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

FBCO Faith-Based and Community Organization 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FBI HQ FBI Headquarters 

FBO Faith-Based Organizations 

FCI Federal Correctional Institution 

FCP Financial Crimes Program 

FCRA Fair Credit Reporting Act 

FCSC Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

FEA Federal Enterprise Architecture 

FECA Federal Employees Compensation Act 

FEGLI Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program 

FEHB Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System 

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 

FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

FISAMS FISA Management System 

FISCAM Federal Information Systems Controls Audit Manual 

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act 

FLS Federal Licensing System 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

FMIS Financial Management Information System 

FOC Final Operating Capability 

FPI Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 

FReD Financial Resources Desktop System 

FRPC Federal Real Property Council 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FTTTF Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force 

FY Fiscal Year 

GAAP Generally Accepted Accounting Principles 

GangTECC National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GFIRST Government Forum of Incident Response and Security Teams 

G

F
F-4 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

GMRA Government Management Reform Act 

GMS Grants Management System 

GPEA Government Paperwork Elimination Act 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GS General Schedule 

HC Human Capital 

HCSP Human Capital Strategic Plan 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

I&I Integration and Implementation 

IA Intelligence Analyst 

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System 

IBC Intelligence Basic Course 

IC Intelligence Community 

IC3 Internet Crimes Complaint Center 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

ICS Intelligence Career Service 

IDENT DHS’ Automated Fingerprint Identification Database 

IEEPA International Emergency Economic Powers Act 

IG Inspector General 

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement 

IHP Institutional Hearing Program 

III Interstate Identification Index 

IINI Innocent Images National Initiative 

INSD Inspection Division 

Integrity Act Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

IOB Intelligence Oversight Board 

IOCC INTERPOL Operations and Command Center

IPIA Improper Payments Information Act 

IPPA Intellectual Property Protection Act of 2007 

IPR Intellectual Property Rights 

IREO Internal Review and Evaluation Office 

IRM Information Resource Management 

ISP Internet Service Provider 

ISRAA Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application 

IT Information Technology 

ITIM IT Investment Management 

IV&V Independent Verification and Validation 

IVRS Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy

IWN Integrated Wireless Network 

JABS Joint Automated Booking System 

J

I

H
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report F-5

JAG Justice Assistance Grant Program/Edward Byrne Memorial Grant Program 

JFMIP Joint Financial Management Improvement Program 

JMD Justice Management Division 

JRSA Justice Research and Statistics Association 

JSOC Justice Security Operations Center

JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force 

JVU Justice Virtual University 

JWP-CC Joint Wireless Programs Coordinating Council 

KG Weight in Kilograms 

LCMD Life Cycle Management Directive 

LCMS Litigation Case Management System

LCN La Cosa Nostra 

LEO Law Enforcement Online 

LMS Learning Management System 

LTTE Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam 

MOA Memorandum of Agreement 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

NAPA National Academy of Public Administration 

NCIC National Crime Information Center 

NCMEC National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

NCTC National Counterterrorism Center 

NCVS National Crime Victimization Survey 

NDIC National Drug Intelligence Center 

NDIU Nominations and Data Integrity Unit 

NFOCIS National Field Office Case Information System 

NGIC National Gang Intelligence Center

NIBIN National Integrated Ballistic Information Network 

NICS National Instant Criminal Background Check System 

NIJ National Institute of Justice 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Nlets International Justice & Public Safety Network

NSB National Security Branch 

NSD National Security Division 

NSL National Security Letter 

NSLB National Security Law Branch 

K

N

M

L
F-6 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

NYSE New York Stock Exchange 

NTP Nomination Tracking Processor 

OAAM Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

OAG Office of the Attorney General 

OBD Offices, Boards and Divisions 

OC Office of the Comptroller (OJP) 

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

ODAG Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

ODNI Office of the Director of National Intelligence 

ODR Office of Dispute Resolution 

OFBCI Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives 

OFDT Office of the Federal Detention Trustee 

OFS Other Financing Sources 

OGC Office of General Counsel 

OIA Office of International Affairs 

OIC Office of Integrity and Compliance (under FBI) 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

OIP Office of Information Policy 

OIPM Office of Information Technology Program Management 

OIPR Office of Intelligence Policy and Review (NSD) 

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

OLC Office of Legal Counsel 

OLP Office of Legal Policy 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy 

OPA Office of Pardon Attorney 

OPEAU Organizational Program Evaluation and Analysis Unit 

OPI Office of Protective Intelligence 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

OSC Office of Special Counsel 

OSG Office of Solicitor General 

OSII Office of Strategic Intelligence and Information 

OTJ Office of Tribal Justice 

OVC Office for Victims of Crime 

OVW Office on Violence Against Women 

OWS Office for Weed and Seed 

PAR Performance and Accountability Report 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PCLO Privacy and Civil Liberties Office 

PHS Public Health Services 

PIJ Palestinian Islamic Jihad 

P

O
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report F-7

PIOB Potential Intelligence Oversight Board 

PL Public Law 

PM Program Manager

PMA President’s Management Agenda 

PMO Program Management Office 

PMP Program Management Plan 

POAM Plan of Action and Milestones 

PP&E Property, Plant and Equipment 

PROTECT Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 

PSN Project Safe Neighborhoods 

PSP President’s Surveillance Program

PTS Prisoner Tracking System 

PY Prior Year 

QC Quality Control 

QSR Quarterly Status Report 

RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 

RECA Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

RFQ Request for Quotation 

RFTF Regional Fugitive Task Force 

RICO Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization 

RISS Regional Information Sharing System 

RMD Records Management Division 

RSAT Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 

SAC Special Agent in Charge 

SAR Suspicious Activity Reporting

SBF Special Benefits Fund 

SBR Statement of Budgetary Resources 

SCI Sensitive Compartmented Information 

SCNP Statement of Changes in Net Position 

SCPMO Strategy, Communication and Policy Management Office 

SEA Safe Explosives Act 

SENTRY Bureau of Prisons' primary mission-support database 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 

SG Strategic Goal 

SMS Strategic Management System 

SRPO Senior Real Property Officer 

SRQ Single Review Queue 

S

R

Q
F-8 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

SSA Senior Special Agent 

SSN Social Security Number 

TAX Tax Division 

TCEP Transnational Criminal Enterprise Program 

TECS Treasury Enforcement Communication System 

TIDE Terrorist Identity Datamart Environment 

TPMO eTravel Program Management Office 

Treasury Department of Treasury 

TREX Terrorist Review and Examination Unit 

Trust Fund Federal Prison Commissary Fund 

TSC Terrorist Screening Center 

TSDB Terrorist Screening Database 

TSP Federal Thrift Savings Plan 

UBT Unobligated Balance Transfer 

UCR Uniform Crime Report 

UDO Undelivered Orders 

UFMS Unified Financial Management System 

UHP Universal Hiring Program 

USA United States Attorneys 

USA PATRIOT Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism 

USAO United States Attorneys’ Offices 

USC United States Code 

US-CERT U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team 

USMS United States Marshals Service 

USNCB United States National Central Bureau

USP United States Penitentiary 

USSGL U.S. Standard General Ledger 

UST United States Trustee 

USTP United States Trustees Program 

VCIT Violent Crime Impact Team 

VICAR Violent Crimes in Aid of Racketeering 

VOCA Victim of Crime Act 

VOI/TIS Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In Sentencing 

V

U

T
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report F-9

WCC White-Collar Crime 

WCF Working Capital Fund 

WIN Warrant Information Network System 

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction 

WTC World Trade Center 

W
F-10 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report G-1

APPENDIX G 

Component Website

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/aiana.htm 

Antitrust Division www.usdoj.gov/atr/index.html

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives www.atf.gov

Bureau of Justice Assistance (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bja/

Bureau of Justice Statistics (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/

Civil Division www.usdoj.gov/civil/home.html

Civil Rights Division www.usdoj.gov/crt/crt-home.html

Community Oriented Policing Services - COPS www.cops.usdoj.gov

Community Capacity Development Office (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/welcome_flash.html 

Community Relations Service www.usdoj.gov/crs/index.html

Criminal Division www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ 

Diversion Control Program www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/

Drug Enforcement Administration www.usdoj.gov/dea/

Environment and Natural Resources Division www.usdoj.gov/enrd/

Executive Office for Immigration Review www.usdoj.gov/eoir/

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees www.usdoj.gov/ust/

Federal Bureau of Investigation www.fbi.gov/

Federal Bureau of Prisons www.bop.gov

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States www.usdoj.gov/fcsc/

INTERPOL - U.S. National Central Bureau www.usdoj.gov/usncb/

Justice Management Division www.usdoj.gov/jmd/

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (OJP) www.ncjrs.org/

National Drug Intelligence Center www.usdoj.gov/ndic/

National Institute of Corrections www.nicic.org/

National Institute of Justice (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ 

National Security Division www.usdoj.gov/nsd/ 

Office of the Associate Attorney General www.usdoj.gov/aag/index.html 

Office of the Attorney General www.usdoj.gov/ag/

Office of the Deputy Attorney General www.usdoj.gov/dag/

Office of Dispute Resolution www.usdoj.gov/odr/

Office of the Federal Detention Trustee www.usdoj.gov/ofdt/index.html

Office of Information Policy www.usdoj.gov/oip/oip.html

Office of the Inspector General www.usdoj.gov/oig/

Office of Intelligence Policy and Review www.usdoj.gov/oipr/

Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison www.usdoj.gov/oipl/index.html 

Office of Justice Programs www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJP) www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ 

Office of Legal Counsel www.usdoj.gov/olc/index.html

Office of Legal Policy www.usdoj.gov/olp/

Office of Legislative Affairs www.usdoj.gov/ola/

Office of the Pardon Attorney www.usdoj.gov/pardon/

Office of Professional Responsibility www.usdoj.gov/opr/index.html

Office of Public Affairs www.usdoj.gov/opa/index.html

Office of the Solicitor General www.usdoj.gov/osg/

Office of Tribal Justice www.usdoj.gov/otj/index.html

Office for Victims of Crime (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/

Office on Violence Against Women www.usdoj.gov/ovw/ 

Tax Division www.usdoj.gov/tax/

U.S. Attorneys www.usdoj.gov/usao/ 

U.S. Marshals Service www.usdoj.gov/marshals/

U.S. Parole Commission www.usdoj.gov/uspc/ 

Department Component Websites
G-2 Department of Justice • FY 2009 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
We Welcome Your Comments and Suggestions!

Thank you for your interest in the Department of Justice FY 2009

Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your 

comments and suggestions on how we can improve this report for

FY 2010. Please email any comments to: performance@usdoj.gov

This document is available on the Internet at:

http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2009/TableofContents.htm

Please view our Strategic Plan at:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/index.html
U.S. Department of Justice

www.usdoj.gov