U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

FY 2011

Performance and

 Accountability Report
The Department of Justice, which has more than 116,000 

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 101 countries worldwide.

History and Enabling Legislation Strategic Goals

Mission Location

Component Organizations

Attorney General

Deputy Attorney General

Associate Attorney General

Antitrust Division (ATR)

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

 Explosives (ATF)

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 Organized Crime Drug

 Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA)

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees (UST)

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 of Tribal Justice (OTJ)

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW)

Professional Responsibility Advisory Office (PRAO)

Tax Division (TAX)

U.S. Attorneys (USAO)

U.S. Marshals Service (USMS)

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

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

FY 2011

PERFORMANCE AND

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

November 2011
November 10, 2011 

A MESSAGE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Throughout my tenure as Attorney General, I have been privileged to lead our Nation’s 

Department of Justice in the critical work of protecting the American people and extending the 

promise of equal justice under law. Despite growing demands and significant budgetary 

challenges, I am proud to report that the Department’s law enforcement activities have never 

been more aggressive, innovative, or effective; and that, across every Department component, 

our commitment to integrity, accountability, and the highest standards of professionalism has 

never been stronger. 

Over the last year, protecting the American people from terrorism and other national 

security threats has remained the Department’s highest priority. We’ve built on the 

achievements of 2009 and 2010, a period in which the Department charged more defendants in 

federal court with the most serious terror-related offenses than in any similar period since 9/11. 

We’ve also expanded our efforts to aggressively pursue emerging threats, and have enhanced our 

ability to gather and analyze actionable intelligence and engage in outreach that can help prevent 

terrorism before it occurs – all while upholding the values and the sacred rights that have always 

defined and distinguished this country. 

At the same time, we have strengthened our operations and reinvigorated the 

Department’s traditional missions. Although the national violent crime rate has continued to 

decline over the past two years, many communities still live in fear of the gun-, gang-, and drugfueled violence that has already claimed far too many innocent lives. But, through intelligencedriven, threat-based prosecutions, the Justice Department has made meaningful progress in 

dismantling criminal organizations and putting them out of business for good. One promising 

model for success in this area is “Project Delirium,” a sophisticated recent operation which 

resulted in nearly 2,000 arrests over 20 months, and included seizures of more than 12 tons of 

drugs and $62 million in U.S. currency.

The Department also has maximized limited resources by reinforcing key interagency 

partnerships and new joint initiatives – such as the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and 

the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team (HEAT) – that have 

transformed the way we protect Americans from fraud crimes. These efforts have helped to 

secure record recoveries totaling billions of dollars, and have raised awareness about these 

devastating offenses. Over the last year, we have expanded the number of Medicare Fraud Strike 

Forces, which are now operating in nine cities across the country. Since the inception of the first 

Strike Force four years ago, these operations have been instrumental in bringing charges against 

more than 1,100 defendants who collectively have falsely billed the Medicare program for nearly 

$3 billion. 
In addition, we have reaffirmed our commitment to protecting the most vulnerable 

members of society by working to prevent – and to stop – the abuse, neglect, exploitation, and 

trafficking of children, the elderly, and other populations. One major accomplishment in this 

area has been Operation Delego – an ongoing investigation that was launched in December of 

2009 and has targeted hundreds of individuals for their alleged participation in a members-only 

online bulletin board that promoted pedophilia and encouraged the sexual abuse of very young 

children. As we carry these efforts into the future, we will continue to protect those most in need 

of our help by efficiently leveraging and coordinating law enforcement and prosecutorial assets 

across the Department, and by utilizing new legislative tools and authorities provided under laws 

such as the landmark Matthew Shepard and James Bird, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act. 

The Department is also committed to 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 2011 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). 

In FY 2011, the Department again earned an unqualified audit opinion on our 

consolidated financial statements. For the fifth straight year, the auditor’s report on internal 

control identified no material weaknesses at the consolidated level. While we continue as a 

Department to demonstrate noteworthy progress, we are committed to pursuing actions to correct 

remaining areas where we have deficiencies. In addition, the Department is implementing a 

unified standards-based financial system, an integral part of the Department’s strategy and 

commitment to ensure transparency and accountability. 

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 systems non-conformances required to be reported under FMFIA 

Section 4; however, the assessment identified one material weakness required to be reported 

under FMFIA Section 2 related to prison crowding. 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 the Department’s accomplishments for the American 

public. We will continue to build on these accomplishments, and we will continue to be resolute 

in our efforts to prevent terrorism, to fight crime, to protect our most vulnerable citizens, and to 

carry out the full scope of our critical mission. 

 

Eric H. Holder 

Attorney General

Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report i

U.S. Department of Justice – FY 2011 

Performance and Accountability Report 

Introduction iii 

Section I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Mission I-1 

Strategic Goals and Objectives I-1 

Organizational Structure I-3 

Financial Structure I-5 

FY 2011 Resource Information I-6 

Analysis of Financial Statements I-9 

Data Reliability and Validity I-10 

Analysis of Performance Information 

Priority Goals 

I-11 

I-16 

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance I-19 

Management Assurances I-20 

Summary of Material Weakness and Corrective Actions 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 

I-24 

I-25 

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

Conditions, and Trends I-26 

Limitations of the Financial Statements I-27 

 

Section II: FY 2011 Performance Report 

Overview II-1 

Strategic Goal I II-3 

Strategic Goal II II-5 

Strategic Goal III II-29 

 

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 2011 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-13 

Principal Financial Statements and Related Notes III-15 

 Consolidated Balance Sheets III-16 

 Consolidated Statements of Net Cost III-17 

PAR

Table of Contents
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report ii

 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position III-18 

 Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources III-20 

 Combined Statements of Custodial Activity III-22 

 Notes to the Financial Statements III-23 

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements III-67 

 Consolidating Balance Sheets III-68 

 Consolidating Statements of Net Cost III-70 

 Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position III-72 

 Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources III-76 

 Combining Statements of Custodial Activity III-80 

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information III-83 

 Consolidated Stewardship Investments III-84 

 

Section IV: Management Section 

Overview IV-1 

Office of the Inspector General–Top Management and Performance Challenges in the 

Department of Justice 

Department of Justice Management’s Response to the Office of the Inspector GeneralIdentified Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of 

Justice 

IV-3 

IV-23 

FMFIA Corrective Action Plan 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts 

IV-39 

IV-43 

 

Appendices 

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

(B) FY 2011 Financial Management Status Report B-1 

(C) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2011 C-1 

(D) Intellectual Property Report – FY 2011 D-1 

(E) Acronyms E-1 

(F) Department Component Websites F-1 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report iii

 Introduction 

This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for fiscal year (FY) 2011 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 2011 and for the preceding fiscal year (FY 2010) and reports on all 

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

FY 2011 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 highest 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 2011 Performance Report: This section provides the Department’s FY 2011 

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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 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) Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details; (B) FY 2011 Financial 

Management Status Report; (C) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2011; (D) Intellectual 

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

This report is available at http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2011/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) and GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 (GPRAMA) – 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 Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA) – Requires reporting on 

agency efforts to identify and reduce improper payments 


Department of Justice  FY 2011 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, 

Associate 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 

Strategic Goals and Objectives

Mission

Section I
I-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 Plan is available electronically on the Department’s website at: http://www.justice.gov. 

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 2011 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), the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), 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 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 Structure
I-4 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

OFFICE OF 

THE

SOLICITOR

GENERAL

Attorney General

Deputy

Attorney General

ASSOCIATE

ATTORNEY 

GENERAL

OFFICE OF 

LEGAL POLICY

OFFICE OF 

LEGISLATIVE 

AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF 

PUBLIC 

AFFAIRS

OFFICE OF 

LEGAL 

COUNSEL FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF 

INVESTIGATION

DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT 

ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF 

PROFESSIONAL 

RESPONSIBILITY

OFFICE OF THE 

PARDON 

ATTORNEY

EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE FOR 

UNITED STATES 

ATTORNEYS

NATIONAL 

SECURITY 

DIVISION

OFFICE OF

THE INSPECTOR 

GENERAL

JUSTICE 

MANAGEMENT 

DIVISION

UNITED STATES 

PAROLE 

COMMISSION

CRIMINAL 

DIVISION

BUREAU OF 

PRISONS

UNITED 

STATES 

MARSHALS 

SERVICE

UNITED 

STATES 

ATTORNEYS

CIVIL 

DIVISION

CIVIL 

RIGHTS 

DIVISION

OFFICE OF 

JUSTICE 

PROGRAMS

COMMUNITY 

ORIENTED 

POLICING 

SERVICES

EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE FOR 

UNITED STATES 

TRUSTEES

OFFICE OF 

INFORMATION 

POLICY

ENVIRONMENT 

AND NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

DIVISION

ANTITRUST 

DIVISION

COMMUNITY 

RELATIONS 

SERVICE

TAX 

DIVISION

U.S. NATIONAL

CENTRAL

BUREAU

INTERPOL

OFFICE OF

INTERGOVERNMENTAL

AND PUBLIC 

LIAISON

SOLICITOR

GENERAL

NATIONAL DRUG 

INTELLIGENCE 

CENTER

EXECUTIVE 

OFFICE FOR 

IMMIGRATION 

REVIEW

FOREIGN 

CLAIMS 

SETTLEMENT 

COMMISSION

OFFICE OF 

DISPUTE 

RESOLUTION

PROFESSIONAL 

RESPONSIBILITY 

ADVISORY 

OFFICE

OFFICE OF THE 

FEDERAL 

DETENTION 

TRUSTEE

BUREAU OF 

ALCOHOL, 

TOBACCO, 

FIREARMS, & 

EXPLOSIVES

OFFICE ON 

VIOLENCE 

AGAINST

WOMEN

EXECUTIVE OFFICE 

FOR ORGANIZED 

CRIME DRUG 

ENFORCEMENT 

TASK FORCES

OFFICE OF 

TRIBAL 

JUSTICE
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-5

The Department’s financial reporting structure is comprised of nine principal components and various Offices, 

Boards, and Divisions (OBDs). 

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) 

OBDs*: 

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

Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force 

Criminal Division 

Environment and Natural Resources Division

National Drug Intelligence Center Justice Management Division

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services National Security Division

Office of Dispute Resolution Tax Division

Office of Information Policy 

Office of Intergovernmental 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 

 

Financial Structure
I-6 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

 

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

Department’s operations for FY 2011. The charts on this page reflect employees on board as of 

September 24, 2011. 

Attorneys, 9%

Correctional 

Officers, 15% Agents, 22%

Other, 54%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Employees

FY 2011 DOJ Employees On Board by Category

Attorneys, Correctional Officers, Agents, and Other*

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

legal services. 

30.46% (35,369)

19.22% (22,316)

4.33% (5,022) 

0.58% (668) 

8.36% (9,711)

32.15% (37,327)

4.88% (5,673)

0.02% (19) 

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

FY 2011 DOJ Employees On Board by Component

116,105 Employees

AFF/SADF

OJP

ATF

USMS

DEA

OBDs

FBI

BOP (including FPI)

FY 2011 Resource Information
Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 2011 FY 2010 % Change

Earned Revenue: $3,331,777 $3,275,846 1.7%

Budgetary Financing Sources: 

 Appropriations Received 27,479,834 28,342,153 -3.0%

 Appropriations Transferred-In/Out 400,839 510,516 -21.5%

 Nonexchange Revenues 2,004,395 2,367,453 -15.3%

 Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash 

Equivalents 1,580,584 1,502,466 5.2%

 Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement 113,735 75,097 51.5%

 Other Adjustments (132,256) (153,751) 14.0%

Other Financing Sources: 

 Donations and Forfeitures of Property 157,607 71,204 121.3%

 Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement 44,556 (1,889) 2458.7%

 Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by 

Others 998,485 902,877 10.6%

 Other Financing Sources (4,613) 0

Total DOJ Resources $35,974,943 $36,891,972 -2.5%

Strategic Goal (SG) FY 2011 FY 2010 % Change

I Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s 

Security 

Gross Cost $5,726,094 $5,545,532 

Less: Earned Revenue 484,009 506,463

Net Cost 5,242,085 5,039,069 4.0%

II 

Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and 

Represent the Rights and Interests of the 

American People 

Gross Cost 17,227,131 16,665,443

Less: Earned Revenue 1,547,697 1,488,093

Net Cost 15,679,434 15,177,350 3.3%

III Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of 

Justice 

Gross Cost 13,013,658 12,550,173

Less: Earned Revenue 1,300,071 1,281,290

Net Cost 11,713,587 11,268,883 3.9%

Total Gross Cost 35,966,883 34,761,148

Less: Total Earned Revenue 3,331,777 3,275,846

Total Net Cost of Operations $32,635,106 $31,485,302 3.7%
I-8 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

 

16%

48%

36%

0%

25%

50%

FY 2011 Percentage of Net Costs by Strategic Goal

SG I SG II SG III

$5,242 $5,039

$15,679 $15,177

$11,714 $11,269

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

SG I SG II SG III

Comparison of Net Costs by Strategic Goal - FY 2011 and 2010

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2011

FY 2010
Department of Justice  FY 2011 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, 2011 and 2010. 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 promulgated by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). 

The following information highlights the Department’s financial position and results of operations in FY 2011. 

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, 2011, shows $42.8 billion in 

total assets, an increase of $2.7 billion over the previous year’s total assets of $40.1 billion. Fund Balance 

with U.S. Treasury (FBWT) was $23.4 billion, which represented 55 percent of total assets. This increase is 

predominantly due to large investments activity (deposits) related to the Madoff, Barclays and Adelphia cases 

that occurred in FY 2011. 

Liabilities: Total Department liabilities were $13.3 billion as of September 30, 2011, an increase of 

$2.7 billion from the previous year’s total liabilities of $10.6 billion. This increase is primarily due to the 

offsetting liability related to the large deposits of the seized cash from the Madoff, Barclays, and Adelpia cases 

that occurred in FY 2011. 

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 $32.6 billion for the year ended 

September 30, 2011, an increase of $1.1 billion (3.7 percent) from the previous year’s net cost of operations of 

$31.5 billion. This increase is partially due to an increase in third party and equitable sharing payments related 

to large cases. 

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, CRM, 

DEA, FBI, NSD, USAs, and USMS 

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

Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC), Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force (OCDETF), Office of Dispute Resolution (ODR), OJP, Office of 

Legal Counsel, Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA), Office of the Solicitor 

General (OSG), OVW, USAs, USMS, U.S. National Central Bureau 

(INTERPOL), UST, ATR, CIV, CRT, CRM, ENRD, and TAX 

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 

Analysis of Financial Statements
I-10 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

Budgetary Resources: The Department’s FY 2011 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows 

$42.4 billion in total budgetary resources, a decrease of $403 million from the previous year’s total budgetary 

resources of $42.8 billion. This decrease is primarily related to the change in the Temporarily not Available 

Pursuant to Public Law amount. 

Net Outlays: The Department’s FY 2011 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows $30.9 billion 

in net outlays, an increase of $1 billion from the previous year’s total net outlays of $29.9 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 ensure completeness and improve 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 day-to-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.

 

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.

Data Reliability and Validity
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-11

According to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 and as amended in the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010, an agency’s Strategic Plan must be updated every four years and cover a period of 

not less than four years forward from the fiscal year in which it is submitted. The Department will publish a 

new FY 2012-2016 Strategic Plan in FY 2012.

The Department’s FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan, which contains three goals, is used for this report. The 

Department’s Plan includes 20 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 20 key measures are compiled less than 30 days after the end of the fiscal year and, occasionally, data 

for the entire year are not available at the time of publication. 

During FY 2011, 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, 96 percent of the performance measures have actual data for FY 2011. 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 80 percent of its key indicators in FY 2011, which is higher than last 

year’s overall success of 77 percent. 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 outcome goals for each of the 20 key performance measures. As of the close 

of FY 2011, the Department’s long-term key measures are on-track for full achievement against its 

FY 2012 long-term outcome goals (targets). One full year of performance remains 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. 

Beginning in FY 2012, the Department will implement its new Strategic Plan for FY 2012-2016. Similar to 

our existing Plan, the new Plan will include specific long-term outcome goals that reflect the Department’s 

highest priorities. The Department’s strategic planning process included a full-scale review of the existing 20 

long-term outcome measures. That review revealed that certain goals have been accomplished; some were too 

output oriented to warrant inclusion on the long-term outcome measure list and some no longer reflected the 

mission of the reporting components. For the FY 2012-2016 Strategic Plan, the Department will unveil its 

current list of long-term outcome measures, which will fully align with current priorities and goals. Just as in 

Analysis of Performance Information
I-12 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

the past, the Department’s annual Budget and Performance Summary will target long-term outcome goals and 

reported each year in this report. 

To prepare for the introduction of the FY 2012-2016 key outcome measures, following the FY 2011 report, the 

Department will be discontinuing the following measures: 

1. Catastrophic acts of terrorism 

2. Number of organized criminal enterprises dismantled 

3. Number of children depicted in child pornography identified by the FBI 

4. Number of high-impact Internet fraud targets neutralized 

5. Percent of assets/funds returned to creditors – Chapter 7; Chapter 13 

6. Percent reduction in DNA backlog (casework only) 

7. Percent of children recovered within 72 hours of an issuance of an AMBER alert 

8. Number of participants in the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment (RSAT) Program 

9. Graduation rate of program participants in the Drug Courts Program 

10. Per day jail costs 

11. Comparative recidivism for Federal Prison Industries (FPI) inmates versus non-FPI inmates 

12. Rate of serious assaults in federal prisons (per 5,000 inmates) 

13. Inspection results—Percent of federal facilities with American Correctional Association (ACA) 

accreditations 

14. Percent of Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) priority cases completed within 

established timeframes 

a. Institutional Hearing Program 

b. Detained Cases – Immigration Court 

c. Detained Appeals 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-13

The chart below and the table that follows summarize the Department’s achievement of its FY 2011 key 

performance measures. 

Note: For FY 2011, the Department of Justice had 20 key performance measures. Some measures had more than one annual target; 

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

instead of 20 was used. 

80%

16%

4%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Achievement of FY 2011 Key Performance Measures

Target Achieved Target Not Achieved Data Not Yet Available
I-14 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2011

Target

FY 2011

Actual

Target

Achieved/

Not Achieved

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

1 Catastrophic acts of terrorism 

[FBI] 

Zero Zero Achieved 

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

Rights and Interests of the American People

2 Number of organized criminal 

enterprises dismantled [FBI] 

37 39 Achieved

3 Number of children depicted in 

child pornography identified by 

the FBI [FBI]

140 240 Achieved

 Percentage of firearms 

investigations resulting in a 

referral for criminal prosecution 

[ATF] (Discontinued) 1

N/A N/A N/A 

1

ATF is discontinuing this measure and will be replaced with a new outcome measure linked to ATF strategic plan’s 

goals and objectives. 

4 Consolidated Priority 

Organizations Target (CPOT)-

linked drug trafficking 

organizations [DEA, FBI 

(Consolidated data - OCDETF)] 

 

 Dismantled 157 195 Achieved

 Disrupted 318 408 Achieved

5 Number of high-impact Internet 

fraud targets neutralized [FBI] 

10 11 Achieved

6 Number of criminal enterprises 

engaging in white-collar crimes 

dismantled [FBI] 

250 340 Achieved

7 Percent of cases favorably 

resolved: [ENRD, ATR, CRM, 

USA, TAX, CIV, CRT 

(Consolidated data - 

JMD/Budget Staff)] 

 

 Criminal Cases 90% 93% Achieved

 Civil Cases 80% 85% Achieved

Percent of assets/funds returned 

to creditors: [USTP] 

(Discontinued)2

 Chapter 7 N/A N/A N/A 

 Chapter 13 N/A N/A N/A 2

USTP is discontinuing this measure. New measures have been developed that better reflect the mission, outcomes 

and impacts of the USTP. 

 Number of homicides per site 

(funded under the Weed and 

Seed program) [OJP] 

(Discontinued)3

N/A N/A N/A 

3

This measure will be replaced with a new outcome measure which collects and analyzes the number of homicides, 

robberies, aggravated assaults, burglaries, weapons offenses, and drug arrests on the Weed and Seed site, and 

calculates and tracks the average change in proportion to the overall crime rate of the jurisdiction. The existing measure 

only reports on homicides because data on the other offenses are harder to collect. 

8 Percent reduction in DNA 

backlog (casework only) [OJP]

25% 33% Achieved

9 Percent of children recovered 

within 72 hours of an issuance of 

an AMBER alert [OJP] 

76% 90% Achieved
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-15

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2011

Target

FY 2011

Actual

Target

Achieved/

Not Achieved

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

10 Number of participants in the 

Residential Substance Abuse 

Treatment (RSAT) Program 

[OJP] 

28,000 TBD4 TBD

4

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

11 Graduation rate of program 

participants in the Drug Courts 

Program (adult drug court 

participants only) [OJP] 

73% 43% Not Achieved5

5

In FY 2011, OJP established a new graduation rate target based on both historical grantee reporting and extensive 

research into a national average drug court graduation rate. 

12 Ensure judicial proceedings are 

not interrupted due to 

inadequate security [USMS]

Zero Zero Achieved

13 Number and percent of primary 

felony fugitives apprehended or 

cleared [USMS] 

 

 Number 34,000 34,629 Achieved

 Percent 56% 52% Not Achieved6

6

While the target number was met for this measure, the percentage target of 56% was not met due to a larger than 

expected increase in the number of wanted primary federal felony fugitives. 

14 Per day jail costs [OFDT] $74.02 $72.88 Achieved

15 Percent of system-wide 

crowding in federal prisons 

[BOP] 

38% 39% Not Achieved7

7

BOP was not able to achieve the target due to greater than expected inmate growth and lack of funding to bring on-line 

the medium security beds at FCI Mendota. 

16 Ensure zero escapes from 

secure BOP facilities [BOP] 

Zero Zero Achieved

17 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% 12% Not Achieved8

8

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. Comparing results from one year to the next is inherently speculative.

18 Rate of serious assaults In 

federal prisons (per 5,000 

Inmates) [BOP] 

16/5,000 

Assaults/Inmates 

10/5,000 Achieved

19 Inspection results—Percent of 

federal facilities with American 

Correctional Association (ACA) 

accreditations [BOP] 

99% 100% Achieved

20 Percent of Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) 

priority cases completed within 

established timeframes [EOIR]

 

 Institutional Hearing Program 85% 88% Achieved

 Detained Cases – 

 Immigration Court 

85% 88% Achieved

 Detained Appeals 90% 94% Achieved
I-16 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

The FY 2011 OMB Budget and Performance Plan guidance memorandum required federal agencies to identify a 

limited number of Priority Goals that are considered priorities for both the Administration and the agency, have high 

relevance to the public or reflect the achievement of key agency missions, and would produce significant results over a 

12 to 24 month timeframe. The Priority Goals should also represent critical elements of a federal agency’s strategic 

plan. 

The following comprise the Department’s six Priority Goals for FY 2010–2011 and are linked to the larger DOJ policy 

framework and strategic plan goals. 

Priority Goal 1, National Security: Increase the percentage of total counterterrorism investigations 

targeting top priority threats by 5 percent by the end of FY 2011 

Terrorism remains a serious threat to the national security of the United States and the safety of all Americans. 

The Department of Justice is the leader of the nation’s domestic counterterrorism efforts, and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has the lead role in investigating both international and domestic terrorism 

within the United States and terrorism against U.S. persons and interests abroad. The FBI Counterterrorism 

Division (CTD) includes both the Domestic Terrorism and International Terrorism programs. Accordingly, 

this Priority Goal involves increasing the percentage of total counterterrorism investigations targeting both top 

priority domestic and international terrorism threats. With more investigations targeting high priority terrorist 

threats, the FBI is better positioned to detect, penetrate, and disrupt the most serious terrorist activity that 

threatens our country. 

o Status: The Department did not achieve its FY 2011 goal of targeting 65.1 percent of all 

counterterrorism investigations toward Top Priority threats, having achieved 62.7 percent.  The 

Department’s inability to achieve the target for this measure is believed to stem from several causes: 

 Principally, the counterterrorism threats which comprise the FBI’s “top priority” have evolved 

since this measure was adopted at the end of FY 2009. New threats have emerged, requiring 

the diversion of resources away from the threats originally defined to be within the scope of 

this measure. Because of these emerging threats, the FBI’s performance on this measure 

appears unresponsive, when in actuality the FBI has allocated its investigative resources 

properly against the most significant counterterrorism threats. 

 Additionally, data collection for this Priority Goal has led to improved accounting for 

investigative resources within the FBI’s Counterterrorism Division (CTD). The CTD now 

follows various strategies to better track its investigations against priority threats, including 

guidance it provides to FBI Field Offices on how to appropriately classify investigations, and 

a stronger internal review process which can identify new threats and aid FBI Field Offices in 

their response. 

 The FBI anticipates that these actions will improve its response capability for terrorist threats 

facing the United States. 

Priority Goal 2, White Collar Crime: Increase white collar crime caseload by 5 percent by FY 2012, 

with emphasis on mortgage fraud, health care fraud, and official corruption, and with 90 percent of 

cases favorably resolved 

The Department will pursue criminal and civil litigation to protect the federal fisc and hold accountable 

corrupt officials and those who commit fraud. The Department will also pursue criminal and civil litigation 

to preserve the environment and our limited natural resources, and promote transparency in markets by 

preserving competition and protecting consumers and investors. 

FY 2010 – 2011 Priority Goals
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-17

o Status: The Department surpassed its FY 2011 caseload target. In addition, the Department favorably 

resolved 92.6 percent of its white collar crime cases through the fourth quarter, surpassing its annual 

target. 

Priority Goal 3, Violent Crime: Increase agents and prosecutors by 3 percent, in order to reduce 

incidents of violent crime in high crime areas by FY 2012 

The Violent Crime Priority Goal focuses on the aspects of the Department’s overall violent crime strategy that 

involve tackling uniquely federal issues, such as prosecuting national and international gangs, and partnering 

with state and local law enforcement to lend support in addressing the most significant local challenges. The 

Department’s value is in providing the leadership necessary to bring different federal, state, and local partners 

together to focus on multi-jurisdictional problems within a particular community. 

o Status: The Department surpassed its FY 2011 annual target of increasing the number of agents and 

prosecutors assigned to violent crime. 

Priority Goal 4, Immigration: Increase immigration judges by 19 percent by the end of 

FY 2011 so that as Department of Homeland Security (DHS) criminal alien enforcement activity 

increases, not less than 85 percent of the immigration court detained cases are completed within 60 days 

An increased number of immigration judges will help the DOJ Executive Office for Immigration Review keep 

up with the workload created by increased enforcement against criminal aliens by the DHS, so that the 

immigration courts can continue to complete at least 85 percent of detained cases within 60 days. 

o Status: The Department was unable to meet its targeted increase of immigration judges due to the 

Department-wide hiring freeze and the FY 2011 enacted funding level, which was $19 million less 

than the FY 2011 President’s Budget request; $11 million of that reduction would have funded 21 

additional immigration judges. The Department did, however, complete 88 percent of detained 

immigration court cases within 60 days, surpassing its target. 

Priority Goal 5, Public Safety: Support 7,200 additional police officers by FY 2012 via Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Programs to promote community policing 

strategies that are evidence-based 

The Department’s COPS Office goal is to support 7,200 additional police officers by FY 2012 via COPS 

Office Hiring Programs to promote community policing strategies that are evidence-based. This Priority Goal 

also addresses efforts to enhance the ability of the officers funded (or redeployed veterans) to use community 

policing strategies that are evidenced based. 

o Status: The Department supported 7,115 officers via COPS Office Hiring Programs through the 

fourth quarter of FY 2011, narrowly missing its target of 7,200 by barely more than one percent. The 

target of 7,200 was based in part on estimated cost of living adjustments (COLAs). The COLA costs 

in FY 2010 and FY 2011 were greater than anticipated, reducing available resources to support 

additional officers. The FY 2011 enacted funding level was less than anticipated. While significant 

progress toward this Priority Goal was made, the goal was not achieved by the end of FY 2011. The 

COPS Office anticipates achievement of this goal during FY 2012. 
I-18 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Priority Goal 6, Civil Rights: Increase the number of people favorably impacted by the resolution of 

civil rights cases and matters: 

 By the end of 2011 increase the criminal civil rights caseload by 18 percent with 80 percent of cases 

favorably resolved 

 By the end of 2011 increase the non-criminal civil rights caseload by 28 percent, with 80 percent of 

cases favorably resolved 

 By the end of 2011 increase the number of complaints finalized by mediation by 10 percent, with 75 

percent of mediation complaints successfully resolved 

Some of our nation’s most critical and treasured laws are those that advance equal justice and secure equal 

opportunity. It is the mission of the Civil Rights Division to make sure those laws continue to fulfill their 

purpose – namely, to protect the rights of all individuals so that equal opportunity can be a reality for everyone 

across the nation. We are focusing our efforts on matters with a broader impact, which will allow us to better 

leverage our existing tools and use our laws to their fullest extent, while taking on more complex 

investigations and cases that are more resource intensive. This will ultimately result in relief to more people 

and expand the reach of the Division in its critical protection of the rights of all Americans. 

o Status: The Department met or surpassed all of its targets for this Priority Goal, with one exception – 

the FY 2011 goal to increase the criminal civil rights caseload by 18 percent. The impact of the 

Department-wide hiring freeze and reduced funding limited the Civil Rights Division’s ability to staff 

the criminal program fully. The Criminal Section of CRT was down between seven and nine attorney 

staff and was not able to fill those vacancies. The Criminal Section was therefore unable to continue 

breaking records in the number of criminal civil rights cases brought for a third straight year. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-19

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 Justice Management Division’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 Office of the Inspector General (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 new legislation, OMB initiatives, and OIG recommendations. For example, in 

FY 2011, the Department implemented a top-down approach to assess the risk of significant improper 

payments across the Department’s mission-aligned programs as required by the Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA or Act) and the OMB April 2011 implementing guidance, 

Appendix C of OMB Circular A-123, Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper 

Payments. The Department also expanded the scope of its payment recapture audits to contracts, grants, and 

benefit and other payments as required by the Act and implementing guidance. The Department’s enhanced 

improper payments internal control framework leverages and builds on existing controls within the 

Department, such as the annual assessment of internal control for Appendix A of OMB Circular A-123, 

Internal Control over Financial Reporting, and promotes consistency across the Department in implementing 

the Act. Details on additional actions taken by Departmental management to implement the IPERA are 

provided later in this section and in Appendix A. 

Departmental management continued in FY 2011 to further strengthen and maximize the effectiveness of its 

annual assessment of internal control over financial reporting. Examples of such actions include: 

 refining the assessment framework, 

 enhancing the oversight process to ensure prompt implementation of corrective actions, 

 providing direct assistance to components with previously identified 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 provided later in this section. 

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance
I-20 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

The Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 (FMFIA or Integrity Act) 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, Management’s 

Responsibility for Internal Control. In addition to requiring agencies to provide an assurance statement on the 

effectiveness of programmatic internal controls and conformance with financial system 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 the 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, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations 

(FMFIA § 2). The Department also assessed whether its financial management systems conform to financial system 

requirements (FMFIA § 4). Based on the results of the assessments, the Department can provide qualified 

assurance that its internal controls and financial management systems meet the objectives of the FMFIA. The 

assessment of systems did not identify any non-conformances required to be reported under FMFIA § 4; however, 

the assessment of internal controls identified one programmatic material weakness required to be reported under 

FMFIA § 2. This weakness involves the need to reduce the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) crowding rate, 

currently at 39 percent over the rated capacity. Details of the weakness are provided in the section Summary of 

Material Weakness and Corrective Actions. Other than the exception noted, the internal controls were operating 

effectively as of September 30, 2011, and the assessment found no other material weaknesses 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, the Department can provide 

reasonable assurance that its internal control over financial reporting was operating effectively as of June 30, 2011, 

and the assessment found no material weaknesses 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 will continue to strengthen controls in areas where we are aware of concerns identified 

through the Department’s internal review activities or by the Office of the Inspector General and Government 

Accountability Office. We look forward in FY 2012 to building on our achievements as we continue the important 

work of the Department. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

November 10, 2011 

Management Assurances
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-21

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 

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

financial management by ensuring that federal financial management systems provide accurate, reliable, and 

timely financial management information to the government’s managers. Compliance with the FFMIA 

provides the basis for the continuing use of reliable financial management information by program managers, 

as well as by the President, Congress, and public. The FFMIA requires agencies to have financial 

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

applicable federal accounting standards, and the application of the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger 

at the transaction level. Guidance for implementing the FFMIA is provided through OMB Circular A-127, 

Financial Management Systems. 

FFMIA Compliance Determination

During FY 2011, the Department assessed its financial management systems for compliance with the FFMIA 

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

is based on the results of Federal Information Security Management Act of 2002 (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. A summary of the Department’s compliance with the specific 

requirements of the FFMIA is provided at the end of this sub-section. 

Financial Management Systems Strategy, Goals, and Framework

The Department’s financial management systems strategy is to replace the three remaining major 

non-integrated legacy accounting systems in use in the Department with the single, integrated financial 

management system the Department is deploying – the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS). 

UFMS delivers standard, core accounting processes, as well as the data needed for effective financial and 

budget management. In FYs 2009 through 2011, the Department made measurable progress in implementing 

UFMS. In FY 2009, the DEA successfully migrated to UFMS and, importantly, obtained an unqualified audit 

opinion on its financial statements produced from UFMS that year and in every year since. As expected, the 

DEA project was a large, complex, and difficult migration, but one that helped to lay the foundation for the 

migration of the ATF, which occurred in the first quarter of FY 2011, and the migrations of the USMS and 

FBI, which are underway and scheduled for completion in FYs 2013 and 2014, respectively. UFMS 

implementation goals, such as the migrations of the USMS and FBI, leverage lessons learned from previous 

migrations and are based on and aligned with operational risks and requirements unique to each component. 

The Department’s UFMS implementation has already enabled components to improve financial and budget 

management and realize increased efficiencies. Additional improvements and efficiencies are expected to be 

realized as additional components fully migrate to UFMS. For example, UFMS has standardized and 

integrated financial processes to more effectively support accounting operations, provide accurate and timely 

financial information throughout the year, facilitate preparation of financial statements, and streamline audit 

processes. 
I-22 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Summary of 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 management system requirements (FMFIA § 4), and compliance 

with the 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 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-23

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 

Total Material Weaknesses 1 0 0 0 0 1 

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 

Compliance 

Agency Auditor

Yes Yes 

Compliance with Specific Requirements 

Systems Requirements Yes 

Accounting Standards Yes 

USSGL at Transaction Level Yes 
I-24 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

A summary of the material weakness identified in the Department’s FY 2011 assessment of the effectiveness 

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

actions. The associated Corrective Action Plan is provided in Section IV of this document. 

As of September 30, 2011, the inmate population housed in BOP-operated institutions exceeded the 

rated housing capacity by 39 percent. The BOP’s Long Range Capacity Plan relies on multiple approaches to 

house the increasing federal inmate population, such as contracting with the private sector and 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 acquiring, constructing, and activating 

new facilities as funding permits. 

To address this material weakness, the BOP will continue implementing its Long Range Capacity Plan, 

making enhancements and modifications to the plan, as needed, commensurate with funding received through 

enacted budgets. For example, in FY 2011, the BOP modified its Plan because the enacted budget did not 

include the funding needed to activate two newly constructed prisons, acquire a new facility, or contract for 

the increased use of private sector and state and local facilities for low-security inmates, all three of which 

would have increased housing capacity and decreased the prison over-crowding rate. The BOP’s formal 

Corrective Action Plan includes utilizing contract facilities; expanding existing institutions; and acquiring, 

constructing, and activating new institutions as funding permits. The BOP will continue to validate progress 

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

construction progress reports. 

This material weakness was first reported in 2006. Remediation of the weakness through increasing prison 

capacity is primarily dependent on funding. Other correctional reforms and alternatives will require policy 

and/or statutory changes. Other initiatives notwithstanding, if the acquisition, expansion, construction, and 

activation plans detailed in the BOP’s Long Range Capacity Plan are funded as proposed, the over-crowding 

rate for FY 2014 is projected to be 43 percent. Without the funding and the BOP’s other mitigating actions, 

the projected over-crowding rate would be 50 percent. 

The Department’s corrective action efforts are not limited to the BOP alone. The Department continues to 

consider and implement an array of crime prevention, sentencing, and corrections management improvements 

that focus on accountability and rehabilitation, while protecting public safety. The Department recognizes that 

the BOP’s capacity management efforts must be teamed with targeted programs that are proven to reduce 

recidivism and promote effective re-entry. The BOP will continue to work with the Department on these 

programs. 

Programmatic Material Weakness and Corrective Actions – Prison Crowding

Summary of Material Weakness and Corrective Actions
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-25

The Department recognizes the importance of maintaining adequate internal controls to ensure proper 

payments and is committed to the continuous improvement of the overall disbursement management process. 

A summary of actions taken by Departmental management in FY 2011 to implement the Improper Payments 

Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) follow. Additional details, as well as the Department’s submission 

of the required improper payments reporting, are provided in Appendix A of this document. 

The IPERA and OMB April 2011 implementing guidance, OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Requirements 

for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments, require agencies to review all programs 

and activities they administer to identify those that are susceptible to significant improper payments. The 

IPERA defines significant improper payments as gross annual improper payments (i.e., the total amount of 

overpayments plus underpayments) in a program exceeding (1) both 2.5 percent of program outlays and 

$10 million of all program or activity payments made during the fiscal year reported or (2) $100 million, 

regardless of the improper payment percentage of total program outlays. 

In FY 2011, the Department updated its top-down approach for assessing the risk of significant improper 

payments to allow the reporting of results by the Department’s five mission-aligned programs – 

Law Enforcement; Litigation; Prison and Detention; State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance; and 

Administrative, Technology, and Other. 

In accordance with the IPERA and OMB implementing guidance, the Department assessed its programs and 

activities for susceptibility to significant improper payments. Based on the results of the risk assessment for 

the period ending September 30, 2011, the Department concluded there were no programs susceptible to 

significant improper payments, i.e., improper payments exceeding the IPERA thresholds of both 2.5 percent of 

program outlays and $10 million, or $100 million. 

The IPERA and OMB implementing guidance require agencies to conduct payment recapture audits (also 

known as recovery audits) for each program and activity that expends $1 million or more annually – including 

contracts, grants, and benefit payments – if conducting such audits would be cost-effective. Previously, 

payment recapture audits were only required for agencies that entered into contracts with a total value in 

excess of $500 million in a fiscal year, and for certain other programs that were not applicable to the 

Department. The OMB implementing guidance also requires agencies to establish annual targets for their 

payment recapture audit programs – based on the rate of recovery – to drive performance. Agencies have the 

discretion to set their own payment recapture targets for review and approval by OMB, but agencies are to 

strive to achieve annual recapture targets of at least 85 percent within three years (with the first reporting year 

being FY 2011 and the third, FY 2013). 

In FY 2011, the Department expanded the scope of its payment recapture audits to contracts, grants, and 

benefit and other payments as required by the IPERA and OMB implementing guidance. The Department also 

established annual payment recapture targets through FY 2014 to drive performance. 

In accordance with the IPERA and OMB implementing guidance, the Department measured payment 

recapture performance under the expanded scope of its payment recapture audits. Based on performance for 

Payment Recapture Audits

Risk Assessment

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
I-26 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

the period ending September 30, 2011, the Department achieved an overall improper payment recovery rate of 

86 percent – 1 percent better than the OMB target rate of 85 percent that agencies are to strive to achieve by 

FY 2013. 

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. 

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 

 Potential increase in DOJ workload resulting from the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation 

Act of 2010. The Act provides compensation to any individual (or personal representative of a 

deceased individual) who suffered physical harm as a result of the terror-related aircraft crashes of 

September 11, 2001, or the debris removal efforts that took place in the immediate aftermath. The 

Department could see a high volume of claims in the near future, FY 2012-2013. 

Immigration Enforcement 

 As the Department of Homeland Security hires additional border patrol agents, the number of illegal 

immigrant and criminal smugglers detained for attempting to cross the border will undoubtedly 

increase. Increased apprehension will in turn require increased Department resources to account for 

the additional detainees. EOIR in particular would require additional immigration judges to keep pace 

with the increased caseload, area U.S. Attorneys’ offices could also see increased prosecution 

caseloads, and the Civil Division could see an increase in appeals of removal decisions. 

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. 

 Growing dependence on technology is creating an increasing vulnerability to illegal acts, especially 

white collar crime and terrorism.

Economy

 Amount of regulation and the pace of economic growth and globalization are changing the volume and 

nature of anti-competitive behavior. 

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

including money laundering, white collar crime, and alien smuggling, as well as the complexity and 

scope of civil justice matters. 

Government

 Changes in the fiscal posture or policies of state and local governments could have dramatic effects on 

their capacity to remain effective law enforcement partners, e.g., the ability and willingness of these 

governments to allow federal use of their jail space affects achievement of detention goals. 

Globalization 

 Issues of criminal and civil justice increasingly transcend national boundaries, requiring the 

cooperation of foreign governments and involving treaty obligations, multinational environment and 

trade agreements, and other foreign policy concerns. 

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

Events, Conditions, and Trends
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report I-27

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 $4.0 billion in funding for programs, under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. In addition, $2.0 million was provided 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. 

 Additional information regarding the Department’s Recovery Act activities can be found on: 

http://www.justice.gov/recovery/; government-wide Recovery Act information can also be found on: 

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx. 

 The following table summarizes appropriations, obligations, and outlays by component, as of 

September 30, 2011: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Component Appropriation Amount Obligations Outlays

OJP $2,761,930 $2,761,197 $2,285,487

OVW $225,564 $223,067 $162,043

COPS $1,002,506 $996,367 $422,188

ATF $10,000 $9,948 $8,159 

OIG $2,000 $900 $900 

DOJ Total $4,002,000 $3,991,479 $2,878,777 

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-28 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-1

Performance Section – 

FY 2011 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 20 key performance measures for these goals by detailing program objectives and FY 2011 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. 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 2011, 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 2011, the Department continued to improve its key performance measures and track the 

progress of 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 resultsoriented 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Measure Refinement, Data Revisions, and Subsequent Year Reporting 

The FY 2011 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report that have since been revised/updated are 

reported as FY 2010 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 2010, but due to calendar year reporting or other limitations was 

not available for reporting that year, FY 2010 data and discussion of results are reported for the first time in 

the pages that follow. For this report, ten years of data will be presented unless the performance outcome goal 

has less than ten years, in which case all information is then presented. 

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 anticipates the release in FY 2012 of the new Strategic Plan for 

FY 2012-2016. However, for purposes of this report, the Department’s FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan is used 

with key performance measures fully aligning to the existing Plan’s priorities and goals. Therefore, the 

FY 2011 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 2011. Additional programmatic and performance information can be 

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

Tables. 

As we prepare for the introduction of the 2012-2016 key indicators, the following measures will be 

discontinued following the FY 2011 Report: 

1. Catastrophic acts of terrorism 

2. Number of organized criminal enterprises dismantled 

3. Number of children depicted in child pornography identified by the FBI 

4. Number of high-impact Internet fraud targets neutralized 

5. Ensure judicial proceedings are not interrupted due to inadequate security 

6. Percent reduction in DNA backlog (casework only) 

7. Percent of children recovered within 72 hours of an issuance of an AMBER alert 

8. Number of participants in the Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Program 

9. Graduation rate of program participants in the Drug Courts Program 

10. Per day jail costs 

11. Comparative recidivism for Federal Prison Industries (FPI) inmates versus non-FPI inmates 

12. Rate of serious assaults In federal prisons (per 5,000 Inmates) 

13. Inspection results—Percent of federal facilities with American Correctional Association (ACA) 

accreditations 

14. Percent of Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) priority cases completed within 

established timeframes 

a. Institutional Hearing Program 

b. Detained Cases – Immigration Court 

c. Detained Appeals 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

FY02 FY04 FY06 FY08 FY10

Catastrophic Acts of 

 Terrorism

Actual Target

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the 

Nation’s Security 

16% 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 at any stage, from thwarting 

those intending to conduct a terrorist act, to investigating the financiers of terrorist operations. All 

counterterrorism (CT) investigations are managed at FBI Headquarters by the Counterterrorism Division 

(CTD). The CTD provides a centralized, comprehensive, and intelligence-driven approach to addressing both 

international and domestic terrorism-related matters. 

Under the leadership of the FBI Director, the FBI has overhauled 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: Catastrophic Acts of Terrorism 

FY 2011 Target: 0

FY 2011 Actual: 0 

 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The FBI has achieved its target of zero catastrophic terrorist acts for this 

measure for FY 2011 and will continue its efforts to keep the American people safe from terrorism. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: No catastrophic acts of terrorism

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

I 
II-4 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 performance measure, a catastrophic terrorist act is defined as an act 

resulting in significant loss of life and/or significant property damage. 

 

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

senior management at headquarters. 

Data Validation and Verification: All data have been approved and validated by subject matter experts and 

executives in the FBI’s CTD. 

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. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-5

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. 

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, the 

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

criminal enterprise investigations, through the use of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) 

Act, target the entire entity responsible for the crime problem. With respect to groups involved in racketeering 

activities, the FBI focuses on: the Russian/Eastern European/Eurasian organized crime groups, Asian criminal 

enterprises, La Cosa Nostra and Italian organized crime groups, Balkan/Albanian Organized crime groups, 

Middle Eastern criminal enterprises, and African criminal enterprises. Each of these groups is engaged in a 

myriad of criminal activities.

Performance Measure: Number of Organized Criminal Enterprises Dismantled 

FY 2010 Revised Actual: 39 (Previous Actual: 37)

FY 2011 Target: 37 

FY 2011 Actual: 39

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The FBI achieved its target for this measure in FY 2011. The FBI’s 

Transnational Organized Crime Program exceeded the target of 37 dismantlements through the refinement and 

capitalization of the advantages of intelligence driven investigations. In addition, the FBI increased 

coordination and intelligence sharing with domestic and international law enforcement and intelligence 

agencies. Several significant law enforcement actions during FY 2011 highlighted the effectiveness of these 

efforts, including the examples listed below. 

An Armenian Thief-In-Law (TIL) was successfully prosecuted for racketeering for the first time in the United 

States. The Armenian TIL and 72 other members and associates of an Armenian-American organized crime 

group were indicted for activities related to more than $163 million in fraudulent Medicare claims. 

127 subjects were arrested for racketeering related crimes, including murder and extortion, resulting in the 

largest single day operation against La Cosa Nostra. 

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

(FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

II 
II-6 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

As stated in the data limitations, it should be noted that there is a potential lag in the reporting of the data for 

this measure, meaning that the final result may ultimately vary from this report. Final results will be reflected 

in the FY 2013 Congressional Justifications. 

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. 

17 17

29

34 36

43 38 43 39 39 37

0

10

20

30

40

50

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Number of Organized Criminal Enterprises Dismantled 

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-7

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: Number of Children Depicted in Child Pornography Identified by the FBI 

FY 2011 Target: 140 

FY 2011 Actual: 240 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The FBI significantly surpassed its target for this measure. 

The FBI continues its collaboration with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children’s (NCMEC) 

Child Victim Identification Program (CVIP), CyberTipline, the Innocent Images International Task Force, the 

Endangered Child Alert Program, and other related efforts. 

A major contributor to IINI’s FY 2011 performance is IINI’s presence at NCMEC. Currently, IINI details 

three employees to NCMEC. For example, an actionable lead relayed to the Jacksonville Field Office in late 

FY 2010 from a NCMEC CyberTipline Report has led to the identification of 44 child victims to date. 

As stated in the data limitations, it should be noted that there is a potential lag in the reporting of the data for 

this measure, meaning that the final result may ultimately vary from this report. Final results will be reflected 

in the FY 2013 Congressional Justifications. 

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. 

37

73

187

118

246

240

140

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Number of Children Depicted in Child Pornography Identified by the FBI

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal:   Target a cumulative total of 793 children depicted in child pornography

identified by the FBI

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-8 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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. 

Data Validation and Verification: Law enforcement personnel nationwide are required to submit data on 

child pornography materials and victims to the Child Victim Identification Program, managed by FBI Cyber 

Division personnel assigned to the NCMEC. Submissions of child pornography material must include a law 

enforcement point-of-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: Historical data (prior to FY 2008) for this measure had to be retrieved from a manual 

count of identified victims in ECs during the years reviewed. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-9

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. 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 in the crisis on our Southwest Border. Our 

firearms trafficking interdiction 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. 

Performance Measure: (DISCONTINUED MEASURE) Percentage of Firearms Criminal Investigations 

Resulting in a Referral for Criminal Prosecution

FY 2011 Target: N/A

FY 2011 Actual: N/A - See Discussion of FY 2011 Results 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: This measure was discontinued at the end of FY 2010. As part of ATF’s 

FY 2010 – FY 2016 Strategic Plan, a Performance Index was developed to measure ATF’s 10 core functions 

as well as the strategic goals and strategic objectives. The Index includes a performance goal statement for 

each core function to provide comprehensive tracking and measurement of ATF’s performance across the 

enterprise. In the Index, each performance goal statement aligns with specified strategic objectives and their 

corresponding performance indicators. This structure allows ATF to evaluate performance at each level: 

enterprise, budget decision unit, core function/performance goal statement, and strategic objective, and to use 

performance indicators to track progress against targets. ATF will incorporate the newly developed indicators 

into future submissions and align them to the Department’s strategic plan. 

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

referrals for prosecution to 62% (FY 2007‐2012)  

FY 2011 Progress: N/A
II-10 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 

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, 

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. 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. 

 

1

 “Although studies that focus exclusively on violent offenders are 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).

55% 57% 57% 60% 59% 56%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Percentage of Firearms Investigations Resulting in a Referral for Criminal 

Prosecution

Actual
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-11

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 

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 OCDETF 

Program as the centerpiece of DOJ’s drug supply reduction strategy. The Program coordinates multi-agency 

and multi-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 USAs; elements of CRM; the investigative, intelligence, and support staffs 

of DEA, FBI, ATF, and USMS; 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 

FY 2010 Revised Actual: 

Dismantled: 182 (Previous Actual: 176) 

Disrupted: 367 (Previous Actual: 365) 

FY 2011 Target: 

Dismantled; 157 

Disrupted: 318 

FY 2011 Actual:

Dismantled: 195 

Disrupted: 408 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The Department achieved unprecedented results during FY 2011 in 

dismantling and disrupting CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations. The Department dismantled 195 

CPOT-linked organizations in FY 2011, exceeding its target by 24 percent. This is a 7 percent increase over 

the 182 dismantled in FY 2010. The Department disrupted 408 CPOT-linked organizations in FY 2011, 

exceeding its target by 28 percent. This is an 11 percent increase over the 367 reported in FY 2010 and a 

48 percent increase over the 276 reported in FY 2009.

During FY 2011, in addition to making important gains against CPOT-linked organizations, the Department 

continued to achieve significant successes against the CPOTs themselves. Over the course of the last year, six 

CPOT targets were dismantled and six CPOT targets were disrupted. Through these dismantlements and 

disruptions, the Department made significant impacts against the Gulf Cartel and other significant cartels 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Dismantle 810 Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT)‐linked

drug trafficking organizations (FY 2007‐2012).  Disrupt 1,260 CPOT‐linked drug trafficking

organizations (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-12 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

operating out of South America. Five of the six dismantled CPOT targets were arrested and extradited to the 

United States for prosecution. These six dismantled CPOTs had a significant impact on the illegal drug supply 

in the United States. It is estimated that their individual activities included: the capability of importing and 

distributing 100,000 tablets of 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA) per month into the United 

States and distributing MDMA, cocaine, marijuana, hash, and methamphetamine around the world; 

distributing 40 kilograms of heroin to the New York area on a monthly basis; and moving cocaine valued in 

excess of $4 billion into the United States since 2004. 

In addition to arrests, the Department made other significant gains against the dismantled and disrupted CPOT 

targets including seizing nearly two million MDMA tablets from a dismantled CPOT target; securing the 

forfeiture of $35 million from a dismantled CPOT and seizing 24 properties in excess of 12,000 acres; and 

seizing approximately $245 million in assets and financial instruments, over 90 labs, and 24 tons of cocaine 

from a disrupted CPOT target. Law enforcement activity targeting these CPOTs involved complex and 

coordinated intelligence driven investigations, with exceptional cooperation between U.S. law enforcement 

agencies and international partners. 

The Department’s FY 2011 unprecedented successes dismantling or disrupting 603 CPOT-linked drug 

trafficking organizations, a 10 percent increase over the 549 dismantled or disrupted in FY 2010, as well as the 

significant enforcement actions against CPOTs themselves have resulted in keeping multi-ton quantities of 

illegal drugs such as cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine from ever entering the United States. 

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 the FBI and the 

DEA. When there are cases that both agencies work, they are counted as one case in the consolidated numbers 

reported in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report. This procedure is in place to prevent 

double counting in Department-level reports. 

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. 

20

62 36

159

121

204

93

189

86

169

104

299

143

276

182

367

157

318

195

408

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Tgt.

FY11

Act.

CPOT-Linked Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted and Dismantled

Dismantled Disrupted

Note: FY 10 actual and FY 11 target data have been updated and do not reflect the numbers reported in FY 2012 Performance and Budget Summary.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-13

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. 

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.
II-14 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: Internet fraud is defined as 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, Internet auction fraud, and unauthorized electronic funds transfers are problems that plague millions of 

U.S. victims. 

The FBI and the National White Collar Crime Center (NW3C) partnered in May 2000 to support the Internet 

Crime Complaint Center (IC3). NW3C is a non-profit membership organization funded by OJP Bureau of 

Justice Assistance (BJA) and dedicated to supporting law enforcement in the prevention, investigation, and 

prosecution of economic and high-tech crime. For victims of Internet crime, IC3, which is a partnership 

between FBI, NW3C, and BJA, provides a convenient and easy 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, nationwide 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 2011 Target: 10 

FY 2011 Actual: 11 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The FBI’s actual performance in FY 2011 fell slightly from prior 

years, but was still above the target. 

Data Definition: Case data are reviewed by IC3 staff to determine if investigative targets meet certain “high 

impact” criteria: Total loss amount greater than $100,000; Internal nexus; White-Collar Crime-related fraud; 

Money Laundering scheme; Pharmaceutical Fraud; Phishing; Attack/Identity Theft; and 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. 

5

7

10 9

11 11

13

12 11 10

0

5

10

15

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Number of High-Impact Internet Fraud Targets Neutralized

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Neutralize a cumulative total of 78 high‐impact Internet fraud targets  

(FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-15

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 

an action. 

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 under-report the number of neutralizations. 

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. Corporate fraud, health care 

fraud, financial institution fraud, government fraud (housing, defense procurement, and other areas), insurance 

fraud, securities and commodities fraud, mass marketing fraud, bankruptcy fraud, environmental crimes, and 

money laundering are among the illegal activities investigated. 

U.S. citizens and businesses lose billions of dollars each year to criminals engaged in non-violent fraudulent 

enterprises. Technological advances, the globalization of economic and financial systems, the sophistication 

of criminal organizations, and declining corporate and individual ethics, 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 and trust in financial institutions, public institutions, and industry. 

Performance Measure: Number of Criminal Enterprises Engaging in White-Collar Crimes Dismantled 

FY 2011 Target: 250 

FY 2011 Actual: 340 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The FBI met and exceeded its target for this measure in FY 2011. The FBI’s 

success in meeting this target was largely due to an increase in the number of agents focusing on WCC. In 

addition, the FBI has developed efficiencies through proactive investigative techniques and technological 

advances used to address various WCC threats. For example, in relation to Corporate and Securities Fraud, the 

utilization of Group I Undercover Operations increased from 8 to 11, an increase of 38 percent. These 

increases, along with advances in the utilization of Title IIIs and other advanced techniques not historically 

commonly utilized in WCC cases, resulted in significant progress against crime problems such as Insider 

Trading, as exemplified by the recent conviction and sentencing of Raj Rajaratnam, former founder of hedge 

fund Galleon Group. In addition, in FY 2011, the FBI was successful at investigating Investment Fraud, as a 

strong emphasis was placed on this problem through the national “Operation Broken Trust” initiative 

organized by the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. This initiative was the largest sweep pertaining to 

investment fraud in U.S. history. Due in part to this initiative and advances in proactive investigations, the 

FBI obtained the most convictions in the history of its Corporate and Securities Fraud programs. 

As stated in the data limitations, it should be noted that there is a potential lag in the reporting of the data for 

this measure, meaning that the final result may ultimately vary from this report. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Dismantle a cumulative total of 745 criminal enterprises engaging in

white‐collar crime (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-16 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 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. 

49

73

137 163

231

277

211

250

309

340

250

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Number of Criminal Enterprises Engaging in White-Collar Crimes 

Dismantled

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-17

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 Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys, 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 Congressional statutes, Presidential actions, national security 

issues, benefit programs, and energy policies; pursues violators of immigration and consumer protection laws; 

handles thousands of affirmative and defensive cases with billions of dollars at issue related to accident and 

liability claims, natural disasters and other unprecedented events, and commercial issues such as bankruptcy, 

contract disputes, banking, insurance, patents, fraud, and debt collection; and administers the Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act and the 9/11 Victim Compensation Programs. 

The Civil Rights Division (CRT) enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in education, religion, 

employment, credit, housing fair lending, public accommodations and facilities, conditions of confinement in 

state and locally operated institutions, national origin, voting, retaliation based on military service, 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, sexual orientation, gender identity, 

disability or religious violence, “color of law” offenses by local and federal law enforcement officials, and 

conspiracies to interfere with federally protected rights. CRT also enforces the criminal and civil provisions to 

protect the rights of people to use the services of reproductive health clinics free from interference. 

The Criminal Division (CRM) develops, enforces, and supervises the application of all federal criminal laws 

(except those specifically assigned to other divisions). The mission of the CRM is to identify and respond to 

critical and emerging national and international criminal threats, and to lead the enforcement, regulatory, and 

intelligence communities in a coordinated, nationwide response to reduce those threats. The Division engages 

in several functions vital to achieving its mission: investigating and prosecuting significant criminal cases and 

matters; providing expert legal advice and training; providing critical law enforcement tools (e.g., 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, ENRD defends environmental 

challenges to government programs and activities and represents the U.S. in matters concerning the 

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 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-18 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

stewardship of the nation's natural resources and public lands. In addition, ENRD litigates cases concerning 

Indian rights and claims. 

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. 

Performance Measure: Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

FY 2011 Target:

Criminal Cases: 90% 

Civil Cases: 80 % 

FY 2011 Actual:

Criminal Cases: 93% 

Civil Cases: 85% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The U.S. Attorneys continued its efforts combating fraud with its Financial 

Fraud Enforcement Task Force and 94 regional mortgage fraud task forces and working groups, together with 

targeted financial fraud training provided at the National Advocacy Center including seminars in the areas of 

mortgage fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud, and public corruption. Some highlights of these efforts include 

the following: In April 2011, Lee Bentley Farkas was convicted in a case prosecuted by CRM and the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia, of securities fraud and other crimes in connection with 

his role in a $2.9 billion fraud scheme which contributed to the failures of one of the 50 largest banks in the 

United States and one of the largest privately held mortgage lending companies in the United States. On 

June 30, 2011, Farkas was sentenced to 30 years imprisonment, and on September 26, 2011 was ordered to pay 

restitution in the amount of $3.5 million. In March and June 2011, respectively, two executive from the A&O 

Resource Management Ltd., Christian Allmendinger and Adley Abdulwahab, were convicted of numerous 

offenses that arose from their operation of a group of entities collectively referred to as A&O life settlement 

fraud scheme. In September 2011, Allmendinger and Abdulwahab were sentenced to 45 years and 60 years, 

respectively, in prison. Five other individuals pled guilty and are currently serving prison terms in connection 

with the A&O fraud scheme. The A&O fraud scheme caused more than 800 investors, many of whom were 

elderly, to lose more than $100 million. In a health care fraud settlement in the District of Massachusetts, 

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) paid $600 million to resolve False Claims Act allegations regarding its 

manufacturing and distribution of certain adulterated drugs made at GSK’s facility. In addition, a GSK 

subsidiary pled guilty to a criminal felony for releasing into interstate commerce adulterated drugs, and paid a 

criminal fine of $150 million. 

The CRM prosecuted and achieved favorable dispositions in FY 2011 in cases covering a wide range of 

complex case law. Examples of this work include the successful conviction of Lee Bentley Farkas, the former 

chairman of a private mortgage lending company, Taylor, Bean & Whitaker (TBW), for his role in a more than 

$2.9 billion fraud scheme that contributed to the failures of Colonial Bank, one of the 25 largest banks in the 

United States in 2009, and TBW, one of the largest privately held mortgage lending companies in the United 

States in 2009; the sentencing of the last defendant in a multi-defendant investigation of the Latin Kings gang 

in Maryland to 22-and-a-half years in prison; a guilty plea of the owner of a mental health care company in 

Miami for orchestrating a $205 million Medicare fraud scheme, which led to the sentence of 50 years in 

prison. 

The ATR assessed $524.3 million in criminal fines in FY 2011 against antitrust violators. ATR’s 

investigations into the air transportation and cargo and electronic auto parts industries yielded significant 

restitution and fines which helped fund the Department's Crime Victims Fund. In addition, ATR continued its 

work with the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and its efforts to wage an aggressive, coordinated and 

proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. On the civil side, ATR was successful in 

protecting competition and U.S. consumers by challenging proposed mergers and agreements in areas as 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-19

diverse as health insurance, oil and gas, software, credit and debit card networks, dairy, media, and hospital 

services. 

The CIV 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. CIV also pursued affirmative 

litigation, bringing suits on behalf of the United States, which resulted in the return of billions of dollars to the 

Treasury, Medicare, and other entitlement programs. 

The CRT has made significant strides in fulfilling its mission to vigorously enforce the civil rights of all 

Americans. In the wake of the foreclosure crisis, CRT substantially increased efforts to enforce the fair 

lending laws, filing more law suits under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act than in any year in at least a 

decade, and reached the largest settlement ever under the Fair Housing Act to resolve claims of rental 

discrimination, as well as obtained the largest amount of monetary relief ever in a Justice Department Fair 

Lending settlement; training thousands of federal and local law enforcement officials and community 

stakeholders around the country on the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevent Act of 

2009, as well as indicting four cases under the Act, and secured the first seven convictions under the Act; 

winning convictions in a landmark case against five New Orleans police officers involved in shootings of 

civilians and an extensive cover-up that occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, which also resulted in five 

additional officers pleading guilty to charges related to the incident; signing comprehensive settlement 

agreements with Georgia and Delaware to enforce the Supreme Court’s Olmstead decision, ensuring that 

thousands of individuals with disabilities will receive services in their communities, rather than being 

segregated in institutions; issuing the most extensive overhaul of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

regulations since the passage of the Act in 1990; stepping up enforcement of the voting rights, taking an 

unprecedented number of actions to protect the voting rights of military and overseas voters in the 2010 

election cycle; expanded other efforts to protect members of the military and their families, including a 

$20 million settlement with Bank of America/Countrywide to resolve allegations that the bank illegally 

foreclosed on members of the military without court orders; and conducting one of the most extensive reviews 

ever of a law enforcement agency, and are working with city officials, the police department and the 

community to develop a comprehensive blueprint for sustainability reform of the New Orleans Police 

Department. 

The ENRD continued to enforce the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, and pipeline safety laws. 

Specifically, the Division participated in an agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 

U.S. Department of Transportation with BP Exploration Alaska, Inc. (BP Alaska) under which the company 

will pay a $25 million civil penalty and carry out a system-wide pipeline integrity management program, as 

part of a settlement for spilling more than 5,000 barrels of crude oil from the company’s pipelines on the North 

Slope of Alaska in 2006. The penalty is the largest per-barrel penalty to date for an oil spill. The settlement 

also addresses Clean Air Act violations arising out of BP Alaska’s improper asbestos removal along the 

pipeline in the aftermath of the spill. BP Alaska is required to develop a $60 million system-wide program to 

manage pipeline integrity for the company’s 1,600 miles of pipeline on the North Slope. The program will 

address corrosion and other threats to these oil pipelines and require regular inspections and adherence to a 

risk-based assessment system. BP Alaska has already spent $200 million replacing the lines that leaked on the 

North Slope. Of the $25 million penalty, $20.05 million will be deposited in the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

established under the Clean Water Act and administered by the U.S. Coast Guard. The remainder, $4.95 

million, will be paid to the U.S. Treasury. The funds paid to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund will be used to 

finance federal response activities and provide compensation for damages sustained from future discharges or 

threatened discharges of oil into water or adjoining shorelines. 

The Tax Division’s top litigation priority continues to be the concerted civil and criminal effort to combat the 

serious problem of non-compliance with our tax laws by U.S. taxpayers using secret offshore accounts – a 

problem that a 2008 Senate report concluded costs the U.S. Treasury at least $100 billion annually. As part of 

the deferred prosecution agreement the Tax Division negotiated in 2009 with UBS, Switzerland’s largest bank, 
II-20 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

as well as a 2009 agreement negotiated among the U.S., UBS, and the Swiss government to settle a civil 

summons enforcement proceeding brought by the Tax Division, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) continues 

to receive account information about thousands of the most significant tax cheats among the U.S. taxpayers 

who maintain secret Swiss bank accounts. The prosecution results so far have been encouraging: To date, 

approximately 150 grand jury investigations of offshore-banking clients have been initiated, of which 38 cases 

have been charged, with 31 guilty pleas having been entered, 2 convicted after trial (with each receiving a 

10 -year prison sentence), and 5 awaiting trial. A number of facilitators who helped clients hide assets 

offshore have been indicted, resulting in 13 bankers, 2 advisors, and 2 attorneys being charged and awaiting 

trial; 1 advisor being convicted and awaiting sentencing; and 1 banker being convicted and sentenced. The 

banks implicated include not only UBS, but another international Swiss bank, a regional Swiss bank, and 

HSBC India. In addition, grand jury investigations have been opened into additional offshore banks across the 

world, and the Tax Division obtained a court decision allowing the IRS to summon additional account 

information from HSBC Bank. The Tax Division also ensures that the public is aware of the offshore 

initiative. Indeed, the IRS credits the publicity surrounding this initiative with prompting a huge increase in 

the number of taxpayers who have “come in from the cold” and voluntarily disclosed to the IRS their 

previously hidden foreign accounts. Nearly 18,000 U.S. taxpayers made voluntary disclosures in the 18-month 

period concluding February, 2011 – in contrast to fewer than 100 in a typical year – and made $2.2 billion in 

payments to the IRS. Another 12,000 U.S. taxpayers disclosed their accounts under the 2011 Offshore 

Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (which ended September 9, 2011) and have made $500 million in payments to 

the IRS so far. 

Data Definition: Cases favorably resolved include those cases that resulted in court judgments favorable to 

the government, as well as settlements. For antitrust-related merger cases, favorably resolved data includes: 

abandoned mergers, mergers “fixed,” or mergers with consent decrees. Non-merger cases favorably resolved 

include 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. 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 ENRD; however, EOUSA and TAX use the 

date 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, 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

Criminal Civil 

Criminal 91% 92% 91% 91% 92% 92% 92% 92% 94% 90% 93%

Civil 86% 87% 85% 84% 83% 83% 79% 83% 85% 80% 85%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 

Tgt.

FY11 

Act.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-21

ATR includes Criminal, Civil Merger, and Civil Non-Merger; ENRD includes affirmative, defensive, criminal, 

and condemnation cases in their totals. 

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. Actual data prior to FY 2003 for the CRM was inconsistent until 

technical and policy improvements were implemented that fiscal year. Lastly, EOUSA data does not include 

information for the month of September 2005 for the Eastern District of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina.
II-22 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The United States Trustee Program (USTP) is a component of the 

Department of Justice that seeks to promote the efficiency and protect the integrity of the federal bankruptcy 

system. To further the public interest in the just, speedy and economical resolution of cases filed under the 

Bankruptcy Code, the Program monitors the conduct of bankruptcy parties and private estate trustees, oversees 

related administrative functions, and acts to ensure compliance with applicable laws and procedures. It also 

identifies and helps investigate bankruptcy fraud and abuse in coordination with United States Attorneys, the 

FBI, and other law enforcement agencies. 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: (DISCONTINUED MEASURE) Percent of Assets/Funds Returned to Creditors for 

Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 

FY 2010 Target: Chapter 7: 58% 

 Chapter 13: 84% 

FY 2010 Actual: Chapter 7: 57% 

 Chapter 13: 82% 

FY 2011 Target: Chapter 7: N/A 

 Chapter 13: N/A 

FY 2011 Actual: Chapter 7: N/A 

 Chapter 13: N/A 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: 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 disbursed to creditors may include private trustee compensation, professional fees, and 

costs associated with administering the bankruptcy case. These costs directly impact on the amount of assets 

that are available to be returned. 

For Chapter 7 assets returned to creditors, the percentage was slightly below the target level. The USTP 

attributes this to abnormally high administrative costs in 2010 due primarily to one highly influential case 

(with highly-valued assets) where the percentage allocated to administrative costs was unusually high. 

Without this case, the USTP would have exceeded the performance measure target for FY 2010. 

The USTP also did not meet its FY 2010 target for Chapter 13 assets returned to creditors. A recent analysis 

of the disbursements indicated that the lower percentage of assets returned is due to a decrease in assets 

available for disbursement and an increase in fees paid to debtor attorneys. This reduced the amount that 

otherwise could be distributed to creditors. The increased attorney fees account for the majority of the 

decrease in the proportion available for distribution to creditors. 

The USTP periodically conducts an extensive review of its performance measures with special emphasis on 

achieving comprehensive programmatic results as they relate to resource expenditures and needs. Several new 

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 2011 Progress: N/A
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-23

measures were developed that better reflect the mission, outcomes and impacts of the USTP. They will be 

reported in the out years. As a result, the performance measure above has been discontinued. 

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 bi-annual 

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. 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

 Percent of Assets/Funds

Returned to Creditors for 

Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 

Chapter 7 Chapter 13

Chapter 7 57% 57% 58% 59% 63% 61% 60% 56% 58% 57%

Chapter 13 86% 85% 86% 86% 87% 86% 84% 82% 84% 82%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 

Tgt.

FY10 

Act.
II-24 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: Prior to its elimination in FY 2011, the OJP Community Capacity 

Development Office (CCDO) provided the Weed and Seed Program, an innovative, comprehensive multiagency 

approach to law enforcement, crime prevention, and community revitalization. The Weed and Seed Program 

assists communities with linking 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, the Weed and Seed sites engage in community 

policing activities that foster proactive police-community engagement and problem solving. 

Performance Measure: (DISCONTINUED MEASURE) Number of Homicides per Site (funded under the Weed 

and Seed Program) 

CY 2009 Revised Actual: 3.6 (Previous Actual: 3.9) 

CY 2010 Target: Reduction to 3.7 homicides per site 

CY 2010 Actual: 4.6 

CY 2011 Target: N/A 

CY 2011 Actual: N/A 

Discussion of CY 2010 Results: The target for CY 2010 is to reduce the average number of homicides per site to 

3.7; however the actual average number of homicides per Weed and Seed site for CY 2010 was 4.6. The Weed and 

Seed program was not funded after FY 2010 and, as a result, the 2010 data include data for one calendar quarter that 

was not funded. As a result of the discontinuation of the program, data for this performance measure will not be 

reported in the future. 

Data Definition: Although sites are affected by a range of criminal activities, such as drugs and vandalism, 

CCDO selected homicide statistics as the indicator of the severity of sites’ crimes. The number of homicides 

per site is an average calculated by summing the number of homicides reported for all sites and dividing by the 

number of sites reporting. 

5.0

3.7 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.6

4.6

3.7

0

2

4

6

CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09 CY10

Number of Homicides 

per Site 

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Reduce homicides at Weed and Seed Program sites from 4.4 to a

maximum of 4.0 per Weed and Seed site by 2012

FY 2011 Progress: N/A
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-25

Data Collection and Storage: Weed and Seed grantees report performance measure data on an annual basis 

via web submissions to the Justice Research and Statistics Association (JRSA) and OJP’s Grants Management 

System. 

Data Validation and Verification: CCDO validates and verifies performance measure data through site 

visits and follow-up phone calls conducted by JRSA. 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 to coincide with 

submissions to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. The data are not comparable across years because dissimilar 

sites are added and graduated (continue to use the Weed and Seed strategy without additional federal funding) 

each year and, due to the small number of sites overall, these changes can greatly affect performance data. 
II-26 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) funds and administers the DNA 

Backlog Reduction Program 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). The overreaching goal of the program is to reduce the size of the DNA casework backlog so 

that more DNA samples profiles are available in CODIS for matching to forensic cases, offenders, and 

arrestees. CODIS matches offer powerful investigative leads that can solve past crimes and prevent new 

crimes from occurring. 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, non-negligent manslaughter and 

forcible rape); however, from FY 2008 to date, funds can be used for any criminal DNA case. OJP’s role in 

reducing the DNA backlog is to provide funding to qualified labs that apply for federal funding in analyzing 

cases. 

Performance Measure: Percent Reduction in DNA Backlog (casework only) 

FY 2011 Target: 25% 

FY 2011 Actual: 33% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: OJP’s FY 2011 target for reducing the DNA casework backlog was set at 25 

percent. The DNA backlog was reduced by 33 percent, which exceeded the target. 

Data Definition: NIJ computes this measure by calculating the cumulative number of samples requested to be 

worked with federal overtime, supply, and/or outsourcing assistance as part of the FY 2011 solicitation 

process. This number is divided by the total number of backlogged DNA cases as of December 31 of the year 

prior to when solicitations are released (for FY 2011, the number of cases in the backlog as of December 31, 

2010). Because the size of the backlog is assessed at the end of each calendar year, the number of samples in 

the backlog tends to vary at other times as more or fewer samples are submitted for analysis and tested. For 

example, when more samples are submitted than tested, the number of samples in the backlog necessarily 

grows. Likewise, when more samples are tested than were submitted for analysis, the number of samples in the 

backlog shrinks. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data for this measure are collected by NIJ program manager and are 

maintained in office files. 

Data Validation and Verification: The number of cases funded for analysis in FY 2011 is computed from 

applications submitted by grantees to the FY 2011 DNA Backlog Reduction Program. During the course of 

the grant, which can take up to three years to complete, grant managers monitor each grant to ensure that 

11%

21%

34% 37%

45%

33%

29% 33%

25%

0%

17%

35%

52%

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Percent Reduction in DNA Backlog 

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Realize a 31% reduction in the Casework DNA backlog by FY 2012.  

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-27

grantees are meeting or achieving the targets they proposed in their application. To date, on average, grantees 

have exceeded the targets proposed in their applications. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 
II-28 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: Research shows that it is critical to post and resolve AMBER Alerts as soon 

as possible because abductors who murder children are most likely to do so within four hours following the 

abduction. The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) administers OJP’s AMBER 

Program, which supports best practices training and technical assistance for state and regional AMBER Alert 

teams. At the end of 2001, there were only four statewide AMBER Alert plans. Today, all 50 states, 2 U.S. 

territories (the U.S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico), and 15 Indian tribes have plans in place. The AMBER Alert 

strategy focuses on: (1) strengthening the existing AMBER Alert system; (2) expanding the scope of AMBER 

Alert; and (3) enhancing communication and coordination. 

Performance Measure: Percent of Children Recovered within 72 Hours of an Issuance of an AMBER Alert

FY 2011 Target: 76% 

FY 2011 Actual: 90% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The target for FY 2011 was to recover 76 percent of children within 72 hours 

of issuing an AMBER Alert. OJP exceeded the target with an actual of 90 percent of victims recovered within 

72 hours of an AMBER Alert. 

Data Definition: Recovery rate is determined by taking 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 alerts 

issued. The result is expressed as a percentage. Children from cases classified as hoax or unfounded after 

intake are excluded from the measure. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected 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. 

85.3% 81.9% 81.7% 86.9% 90%

76%

50.0%

100.0%

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Percent of Children Recovered within 72 Hours of an Issuance of an AMBER Alert

Actual Target

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 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-29

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient 

Administration of Justice

36% 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; 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 

CY 2010 Target: 25,000 

CY 2010 Actual: 29,872 

CY 2011 Target: 28,000 

CY 2011 Actual: Data for this measure is collected on a calendar year basis and will be available in 

June 2012 

Discussion of CY 2010 and CY 2011 Results: The target for CY 2010 was to have 25,000 participants in RSAT 

programs. During CY 2010, OJP RSAT grantees reported that 29,872 individuals participated in RSAT programs, 

which exceeded the target by 4,872 participants. 

The target for CY 2011 is to have 28,000 participants in RSAT programs. Data for this measure are collected on a 

quarterly basis and will be available in June 2012. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: 11,200 offenders remain arrest free 1 year following release

from aftercare (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.

III 
II-30 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 grantee into the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) Performance Measurement Tool (PMT). 

Data Validation and Verification: Data are validated and verified through program managers’ programmatic 

monitoring. This oversight includes a review of all relevant material to determine grant performance, desk 

reviews of grantee support documentation, telephone contacts, and on-site grant monitoring. 

1. BJA applies front-end business rules and logic to the data grantees enter into the PMT so that erroneous data 

values are rejected. Grantees get an error message if they try to leave a required field blank or enter a value 

that is impossible. 

2. BJA applies data cleaning techniques to the back-end data when analyzing it after reporting is complete. 

Follow-up phone calls or outreach may be conducted during this step. 

3. BJA grant managers review and validate performance measure data during on-site visits, using specific 

questions pertaining to data included in the checklist. BJA conducts on-site monitoring for approximately five 

percent of active grants. 

4. Outside of the on-site visit process, BJA grant managers review and approve the progress reports. As a 

result of this review, the BJA grant manager may contact the grantee to ask them to explain or resolve any 

perceived inconsistent or missing performance measure data. 

Data Limitations: Due to previous data collection limitations regarding the variations in reporting period for 

the grantees, BJA migrated the collection of RSAT performance measures to the PMT, an online data 

collection tool. The grantees began reporting the RSAT data in the PMT for the reporting period January 1- 

June 30, 2009 and have reported on a quarterly basis since then. The number of RSAT participants for 2010 

reflects the 2010 calendar year, but in the future, because grantees are reporting on a quarterly basis, BJA will 

be able to report these numbers on a fiscal or calendar year basis. The issue of variations in grantee reporting 

periods has been resolved. 

 

38,639

25,521

33,239

31,740

27,756 26,991 28,308

39,159

29,872

25,000

28,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

CY02 CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09 CY10 CY11

Number of Participants in RSAT

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-31

Background/Program Objectives: OJP’s Drug Court Program is administered by BJA and 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 2,500 jurisdictions have established or are planning to 

establish a drug court. Currently, every state and two U.S. Territories have one or more drug courts in 

operation. 

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-eight 

percent of the 4.3 million people who reported to the 2009 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) 

 FY 2010 Target: 71%

 FY 2010 Actual: 52.6% 

 FY 2011 Target: 73% 

 FY 2011 Actual: 43% 

Discussion of FY 2010 and FY2011 Results: The target for FY 2010 is a graduation rate of 71 percent. Drug 

Court grantees achieved a graduation rate of 52.6 percent in FY 2010. As a result of not meeting this target, 

BJA researched this performance measure and the data reported for it. As described below, BJA revised the 

FY 2011 and future targets to be more appropriate targets for the Drug Court program and participants. 

The target for FY 2011 was originally set at 73 percent. However, during FY 2011, BJA established a new 

graduation rate target based on both historical grantee reporting and extensive research into a national average 

drug court graduation rate. The national average for drug court graduation rate is 50 percent for established 

(mature) drug courts. BJA has been reporting graduation rates for implementation (immature) grantees, which 

are just launching start up activities. The average historical rate for immature drug courts is near 46 percent. 

Since, in the future, BJA will report on graduation rates for implementation (immature) and enhancement 

(mature) grantees’ graduation rates separately, BJA has established a static target of 48 percent. OJP Drug 

Court grantees reported that 43 percent of program participants graduated during FY 2011.

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Increase the graduation rate of drug court participants from 21%  

(FY 2005) to 32% by FY 2012

2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-32 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definitions: The graduation rate is calculated by dividing the number of graduates (successful 

completions) during the reporting period by the sum of the successful and unsuccessful completions. 

Unsuccessful completions stem from failure to complete program requirements, as a result of actions such as 

re-arrest or relapse in substance abuse. 

Data Collection and Storage: Program managers obtain data from reports submitted by grantees into BJA’s 

PMT. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data are validated and verified through program managers’ 

programmatic monitoring. This oversight includes a review of all relevant material to determine grant 

performance, desk reviews of grantee support documentation, telephone contacts, and on-site grant 

monitoring. 

1. BJA applies front-end business rules and logic to the data grantees enter into the PMT so that erroneous data 

values are rejected. Grantees get an error message if they try to leave a required field blank or enter a value 

that is impossible. 

2. BJA applies data cleaning techniques to the back-end data when analyzing it after reporting is complete. 

Follow-up phone calls or outreach may be conducted during this step. 

3. BJA grant managers review and validate performance measure data during on-site visits, using specific 

questions pertaining to data included in the checklist. BJA conducts on-site monitoring for approximately five 

percent of active grants. 

4. Outside of the on-site visit process, BJA grant managers review and approve the progress reports. As a 

result of this review, the BJA grant manager may contact the grantee to ask them to explain or resolve any 

perceived inconsistent or missing performance measure data. 

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 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. 

The reporting cycle for these data is July 1-June 30. 

65.0%

63.2% 57.3% 52.6%

71%

43%

73%

0%

70%

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Graduation Rate of Program Participants in the Drug Courts Program

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-33

Background/Program Objectives: The 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 2011 Target: 0 

FY 2011 Actual: 0

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The USMS met its FY 2011 target of zero interrupted judicial proceedings. 

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 Communication Center collects Weekly Activity Reports and 

Incident Reports from the districts. These reports have been collected by the USMS Communications Center 

via email since FY 2003. 

Data Validation and Verification: Before data are disseminated agency-wide, the USMS Communications 

Center verifies the information with HQ operational program managers to ensure accuracy. 

Data Limitations: This measure was not tracked or reported until FY 2003.

1

0 0 0

2

1

2

0 0 0

0

1

2

3

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

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 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-34 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The USMS has 7 Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTF) and 

approximately 82 district-based warrant squads that handle the warrant workload. The RFTFs and district 

warrant squads rely on interagency fugitive task forces involving hundreds of federal, state, and local law 

enforcement officers. Combining resources enables the USMS to focus on the most violent fugitives. In 

addition to domestic activities, the USMS is the lead agency responsible for extraditing (or deporting) U.S. 

fugitives that have fled to foreign countries back into this country. The USMS is also responsible for 

apprehending and deporting foreign fugitives within the U.S. who are wanted abroad. 

As part of the fugitive apprehension mission, the USMS has been designated by the Attorney General as the 

lead agency for location and apprehending non-compliant sex offenders and others who violate the provisions 

of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. A non-compliant sex offender is any person who fails to 

comply with Federal registration requirements. 

Performance Measure: Number and Percent of Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended

FY 2010 Revised Actual: 32,864 or 50% (Previous Actual: 36,126 or 56%)

FY 2011 Target: 34,000 or 56% 

FY 2011 Actual: 34,629 or 52% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The USMS revised the previously reported figure for the FY 2010 

performance measure from 36,126 and 56 percent to 32,864 and 50 percent. The change is a result of an 

update to reflect final data/information. For FY 2011, The USMS exceeded its target of 34,000 primary 

Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared by apprehending or clearing 34,629 primary Federal felony 

fugitives in FY 2011. This resulted in 52 percent of total primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or 

cleared which is more than half of all warrants on hand or received during FY 2011. While the target number 

was met for this measure, the percentage target of 56 percent was not met due to a larger than expected 

increase in the number of wanted primary federal felony fugitives. The USMS still views this as a successful 

performance because the targeted number of primary federal fugitives apprehended or cleared was achieved. 

Among those arrested, 3,913 were for crimes of homicide, 4,958 were gang members, and 12,793 were sex 

offenders. In addition, in FY 2011, the USMS had 885 fugitives extradited and /or deported to the United 

States from other countries. 

The 7 operating RFTFs, 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 RFTFs and District Fugitive Task Forces combined led to the arrest of 85,691 state and 

local fugitive felons in FY 2011. The USMS initiated 2,808 Federal investigations into the failure of sex 

offenders to meet their registration requirements. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Apprehend or clear 56% or 33,192 primary fugitives

FY 2011 Progress: The Department will not meet the original percentage target.  A new target

(51%) has been established for FY 2012.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-35

Data Definition: A “primary” federal felony fugitive means that the USMS has apprehension responsibility. 

The USMS has primary jurisdiction to investigate fugitive matters involving escaped federal prisoners; 

probation, parole, and bond default violators; warrants generated by DEA and referred to the USMS; any other 

federal warrant referred by another federal agency without arrest powers; and any warrant referred by state and 

local agencies. 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 cleared 

fugitives by the sum of received fugitives (fugitives who had a warrant issued during the fiscal year) and onhand fugitives (fugitives who had an active warrant at the beginning of the fiscal year). 

Data Collection and Storage: The USMS maintains a centralized Warrant Information Network (WIN) with 

the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS) to collect warrant information, investigative leads, and other 

criminal information. Upon receipt of a warrant from a federal judge, Deputy U.S. Marshals query the FBI’s 

National Crime Information Center (NCIC) through WIN to look for previous criminal information.

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 

Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended 

53% 54% 55% 55% 54% 55% 55% 52% 50% 52% 56%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Percent of Total Primary Fugitives

Actual Target

Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended 

25,054 27,278 29,140 30,434 30,192

33,437 34,393 32,860 32,864 34,629 34,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 

Number of Fugitives

Actual Target
II-36 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

against the signed paper records. The USMS is able to enhance fugitive investigative effort by sharing data 

with other agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, DEA, Department of Agriculture, Department 

of Defense, Department of State, and a variety of state and local task forces around the country. 

Data Limitations: WIN data are accessible to all USMS district offices and continuously updated as new 

information is collected. There may be a lag in the reporting of data. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-37

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 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, the 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, the 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 2010 Revised Actual: $70.56 (Previous Actual: $70.59) 

FY 2011 Target: $74.02

FY 2011 Actual: $72.88

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The actual per day jail cost for FY 2011 was below the target because of 

1) a moratorium on per diem rate increases awarded to state and local facilities providing detention space to 

the USMS, and 2) economies of scale realized through greater than anticipated usage of private detention 

facilities that provide reduced housing costs for greater facility utilization. The per diem rate moratorium 

resulted in cost avoidances during FY 2011. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Hold the average per day jail cost for federal detention at or

below inflation

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-38 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 limitation is ensuring that USMS district level input into PTS occurs in a timely and 

correct manner. 

 

$60.07 $60.87 $61.87 $61.92 $62.73 $64.40 $67.47 $69.01 $70.56 $72.88 $74.02

$0.00

$25.00

$50.00

$75.00

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

Per Day Jail Costs 

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-39

Background/Program Objectives: The BOP constantly monitors and reports weekly on 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 2011 Target: 38% 

FY 2011 Actual: 39% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: During FY 2011, the overall BOP population increased by 7,541. The target 

crowding level was based upon a projected population increase of 6,034 inmates during FY 2011. Further, the 

projected population increase for BOP institutions was 2,695 and the actual increase was 4,645. During 

FY 2011, the BOP was able to increase the rated capacity by 830 of the 958 planned beds, by bringing on-line 

the remaining beds at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) McDowell and the minimum security satellite 

camp at Mendota. The BOP was not able to achieve the target due to greater than expected inmate growth and 

lack of funding to bring on-line the medium security beds at FCI Mendota. 

 

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 percent occupancy, which equals 0 percent crowding. 

Any occupancy above 100 percent 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 lower inmate-to-staff ratio than low security facilities. High security facilities: also 

known as U.S. Penitentiaries, highly secure perimeters, multiple and single cell housing, lowest inmate-to-staff 

ratio, close control of inmate movement.

33%

39% 41%

34% 36% 37% 36% 37% 37% 39% 38%

0%

25%

50%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

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 2011 Progress: The Department will not meet this long‐term goal target by FY 2012.
II-40 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 conduct 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 all available prison space is fully 

utilized, both in federal prisons and in contract care. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-41

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 2011 Target: 0 

FY 2011 Actual: 0

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: During FY 2011, 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 DHS/ Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

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 

submitted by the institution where the incident occurred. This has become an automated process, which went 

nationwide in August of 2009, known as the TruIntel system. The data is captured in data sets and made 

available to the Office of Research and Evaluation, which analyzes the data and makes the escape information 

available through the Management Analysis Portal, specifically the Institution Management Dashboard. 

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. 

0 0

2

0

1

0 0 0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 F10 FY11

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 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-42 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: An objective of FPI is to reduce recidivism by providing job training to help 

inmates develop a basic work ethic and marketable skills, thereby allowing them to become productive lawabiding citizens upon release. 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 than similarly situated 

non-participants. 

Treatment subjects, defined as inmates who participated in FPI for at least six months, are drawn from the 

population of recently released inmates, released FY 2005-2007. The treatment subjects are matched with 

comparison subjects who did not participate in FPI using a propensity score technique designed to insure that 

the comparison subjects are similar to treatment subjects. Subjects are followed over a 3-year period and the 

comparison between groups is reviewed and interpreted to identify the relative difference in the risk of 

recidivism. 

The targets for inmates released in FY 2005-2007 is: Inmates who participated in FPI will remain 15 percent 

less likely to recidivate 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 2011 Target: 3 years; 15% 

FY 2011 Actual: 3 years; 12% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: Analyses show a 12 percent relative reduction in recidivism comparing FPI 

participants with similarly situated comparison subjects. 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. Comparing results from one 

year to the next is inherently speculative. That type of analysis would be confounded by changes in the 

composition of the release population, changes in law enforcement practices, changes in the program, the 

unpredictable effects of unique historical events, changes that affect opportunities to commit crime, start a 

family, get a good job, live in a safe neighborhood, and obtain treatment and support. The FPI does not 

currently plan to revise the target in the near future. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Comparative recidivism rates for Federal Prison Industry (FPI)

inmates: 15% 3 years following release

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-43

Data Definition: Recidivism is defined as a tendency to relapse into a previous mode of behavior, such as 

criminal activity resulting in arrest and incarceration. For purposes of the measure, recidivism over the 3 years 

following release is defined as an arrest or a return to BOP custody for a supervised release violation or a new 

conviction. 

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 verifications 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 significant 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. A 1-year lag after the end of the follow-up period is necessary to complete the study. 

The data provided utilizes a statistical model to predict recidivism, based upon the confounding factors known 

to be predictors, such as demographic characteristics, prior record, and types of offense. Although considered 

to be a valid method, sampling risk is present. Projected targets are based on an earlier study of recidivism by 

FPI participating inmates and their similarly situated non-participating counterparts, also referred to as 

comparison subjects. 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. 

23%

39%

34%

22%

18%

12%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

 Comparitive Recidivism for FPI vs. Non-FPI Inmates 

(Percentage Less Likely to Recidivate)

Actual Target
II-44 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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, inmate-on-inmate serious 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 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 2011 Target: 16 

FY 2011 Actual: 10

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: The FY 2011 target was met. The actual rate of serious assaults was 10 per 

5,000 inmates, lower than the target rate of 16 per 5,000 inmates for FY 2011. 

Data Definition: Reported assault rate is based on guilty findings of serious assaults. Serious assaults involve 

serious physical injury being attempted or carried out by an inmate. They include sexual assaults as well as 

armed assaults on the institution’s secure perimeter. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data is collected from 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 and the Institution Management Dashboard), which permits retrieval of 

data in an aggregated manner. The data represents guilty findings of serious inmate on inmate assaults. 

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 

15

14

10

13

14

12 12

14 13

10

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

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 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-45

(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. 

The SENTRY system is 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 12 month 

periods ending the last month of the previous quarter. 
II-46 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 2011 Target: 99%

FY 2011 Actual: 100%

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: All of the BOP’s one hundred fifteen prisons eligible to participate in the 

accreditation program achieved or maintained their accreditation. FCI McDowell, WV will be eligible for 

initial accreditation in January 2012 and has successfully completed their site visit. New institutions are not 

considered eligible for accreditation status until approximately two years after initial activation. 

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 

re-accreditation, are now on file and maintained by the BOP Accreditation Manager. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

95%

90%

94%

99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 100% 99%

75%

100%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11

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 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report II-47

Background/Program Objectives: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has jurisdiction 

over various immigration matters relating to 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 and the expeditious removal of criminal and other inadmissible 

aliens where no relief is available. 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 and 

other detained aliens, 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 2011 Target: 85% for Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) and detained immigration court cases 

and 90% for detained appeals 

FY 2011 Actual: 

Immigration Court IHP Cases Completed Prior to Release from Incarceration: 88% 

Immigration Court Detained Cases Completed Within 60 Days: 88% 

Immigration Court Detained Appeals Completed Within 150 Days: 94% 

Discussion of FY 2011 Results: Through careful management of EOIR’s resources, the agency exceeded all 

three of its goals for FY 2011. As part of the Department’s priority goal initiative, EOIR has placed its focus 

on continuing to meet its large detained caseload. EOIR also used video teleconferencing when appropriate to 

handle the detained immigration court docket, including Institutional Hearing Program cases. The BIA also 

continued to manage its resources carefully to ensure that it exceeded its goal of completing 90 percent of 

detained appeals within 150 days. EOIR will continue to look at innovative ways to manage its detained 

docket, including close coordination with DHS. 

Percent of EOIR Priority Cases Completed Within Established Time Frames 

70%

80%

90%

100%

IHP 84% 86% 88% 89% 92% 86% 91% 90% 87% 85% 88%

Detained Cases 84% 88% 88% 91% 92% 89% 90% 88% 89% 85% 88%

Detained Appeals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97% 96% 96% 93% 90% 94%

FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 Tgt FY11 

Act.

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Complete 90% of Executive Office for Immigration Review

priority cases within established timeframes

FY 2011 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-48 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definition: The EOIR has defined its priority caseload as two types of immigration court cases (IHP, 

and detained cases) and one type of Board of Immigration Appeals case (detained appeals). The 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. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected from the Case Access System for EOIR (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. 


Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-1

Financial Section

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 the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, 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 the Reports 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, 2011 and 2010.

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost – Presents the net cost of Department operations for the fiscal 

years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. 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, 2011 and 2010.

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, 2011 and 2010.

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, 2011 and 2010.

Overview

Section III 
III-2 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-3

A Message From the Chief Financial Officer 

November 10, 2011 

I am pleased to report that the Department has earned an unqualified audit opinion on its 

FY 2011 consolidated financial statements. More importantly, for the fifth straight year, the 

auditor’s report on internal controls over financial reporting did not identify any material 

weaknesses at the consolidated Department level, and for the first time no significant 

deficiencies were identified at the consolidated Department level. Where our individual 

components have deficiencies with financial, reporting, or information systems controls, we 

will continue our commitment to address the underlying causes of those issues until they are 

eliminated. 

One of our notable accomplishments this year was the successful implementation of the 

Department’s Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) at the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). ATF accomplished a large and complex system 

conversion while maintaining an unqualified opinion on its financial statements. This was a 

significant achievement. 

The Department is fully cognizant of the economic difficulties faced by our country. We have 

been devoted to looking for ways to operate more efficiently in order to ensure taxpayer funds 

are spent wisely on the critical national security and law enforcement activities the Department 

performs for the nation. The Department’s leadership has challenged our components to find 

savings across our operations, and components have responded with savings in real property 

management, travel, information technology, and conference spending, to name only a few 

savings areas. The Department’s SAVE Council is continuing to look for additional areas we 

can reduce spending in order to operate as efficiently as possible. When we find areas where 

we can improve our practices, we have implemented new controls and procedures. Travel and 

conferences are two such areas. 

We take our financial accountability seriously, and we take our commitment to sound agency 

performance and providing taxpayer value seriously. We look forward in FY 2012 to 

furthering our fiscal achievements as the Department continues to serve the nation and its 

citizens. 

Lee Lofthus 

Chief Financial Officer 
III-4 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2011

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY

This audit report contains the Annual Financial Statements of the U.S. Department of Justice 

(Department) for the fiscal years (FY) ended September 30, 2011, and September 30, 2010. Under the 

direction of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), KPMG LLP performed the Department’s audit in 

accordance with U.S. generally accepted government auditing standards. The audit resulted in an 

unqualified opinion on the FY 2011 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 2010, the 

Department also received an unqualified opinion on its financial statements (OIG Report No. 11-03).

KPMG LLP also issued Reports on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on 

Compliance and Other Matters. For FY 2011, the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over 

Financial Reporting identified no deficiencies in internal control. Nevertheless, it is important to note 

that the Department still does not have a unified financial management system to readily support ongoing 

accounting operation 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 2011 Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters, the auditors 

identified no instances of non-compliance with applicable laws and regulations and the Federal Financial 

Management Improvement Act of 1996.

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 10, 2011, 

and the conclusions expressed in the reports. However, our review disclosed no instances where 

KPMG LLP did not comply, in all material respects, with U.S. generally accepted government auditing 

standards.
III-6 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-7

Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Acting 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, 2011 and 2010, 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 following components of the Department: the U.S. Marshals 

Service (USMS); the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI); and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms 

and Explosives (ATF), which statements reflect total assets of $2.1 billion and $2.4 billion, and total net 

costs of $2.8 billion and $2.8 billion, as of and for the years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, 

respectively. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been furnished 

to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those components, is based solely on 

the reports 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 reports of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the reports 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, 2011 and 2010, 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. 

KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-3389 

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership, 

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative 

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Page 2

III-8 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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 

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 audits and the 

reports 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, FY 2011 Performance Report, 

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 10, 

2011, 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 10, 2011 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-9

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Acting 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, 2011 and 2010, 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, and have issued our report thereon dated 

November 10, 2011. We did not audit the financial statements of the following components of the 

Department: the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI); and the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as of and for the years ended September 30, 2011

and 2010. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been furnished to 

us, and our report, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those components, is based solely on the 

reports 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.

As stated above, we did not audit the fiscal year 2011 financial statements of the USMS, FPI, and ATF. 

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 those components, is based solely on the reports 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 2011 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, but not for the purpose of expressing 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. We did not test all internal 

KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-3389 

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership, 

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative 

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 2

III-10 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity 

Act of 1982. 

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 material weakness is a deficiency, or a 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.

Our consideration of internal control over financial reporting was for the limited purpose described in the 

fourth paragraph of this report and was not designed to identify all deficiencies in internal control over 

financial reporting that might be deficiencies, significant deficiencies, or material weaknesses. In our fiscal 

year 2011 audit, we did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting that we 

consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above.

Exhibit I presents the status of the prior year’s finding and recommendations.

We noted certain additional matters that we have reported to management of the Department in a separate 

letter dated November 10, 2011.

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 10, 2011
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 3

EXHIBIT I

Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-11

STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR’S FINDING 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 the prior year’s finding and recommendations. The following table provides our 

assessment of the progress the Department has made in correcting the previously identified significant 

deficiency. We also provide the Office of the Inspector General report number where the deficiency was 

reported, our recommendations for improvement, and the status of the recommendations as of the end of fiscal 

year 2011:

Report Significant 

Deficiency Recommendation Status

Annual 

Financial 

Statements 

Fiscal Year 

2010

Report 

No. 11-03

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 

U.S. generally 

accepted 

accounting 

principles

Recommendation No. 1: 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, 2010.

Completed1

Recommendation No. 2: Assess the adequacy of the 

Department’s accounting, internal control, and financial 

reporting policies in the areas of: (1) seized and forfeited 

property and (2) undelivered orders and accounts 

payable. Based on the results of this assessment, 

determine the need to issue new guidance and/or reiterate 

to the AFF and ATF 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 

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. Monitor 

the AFF’s and ATF’s adherence to the Department’s 

accounting and financial reporting policies and 

procedures throughout the year.

Completed1

Recommendation No. 3: 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.

Completed1

 

1 Sufficient progress has been made in addressing this finding and the related recommendation such that the remaining risk of 

misstatement no longer merits the attention by those charged with governance. Therefore, the condition has been downgraded to a 

deficiency in internal control.
III-12 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-13

Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters

Acting 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, 2011 and 2010, 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 10, 2011. We did not audit the financial statements of the following components of the 

Department: the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI); and the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as of and for the years ended September 30, 2011

and 2010. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been furnished to 

us, and our report, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those components, is based solely on the 

reports 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 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 2011 financial statements of the USMS, FPI, and ATF. 

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon, including the other 

auditors’ Independent Auditors’ Reports on Compliance and Other Matters, have been furnished to us. 

Accordingly, our report on the Department’s compliance and other matters, insofar as it relates to those 

components, is based solely on the reports 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 2011 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 

KPMG LLP 

2001 M Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20036-3389 

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership, 

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative 

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters

Page 2

III-14 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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.

The results of our and the other auditors’ tests of compliance described in the preceding paragraph, 

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 

system requirements, (2) applicable Federal accounting standards, and (3) application of the 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 10, 2011
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-15

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Principal Financial Statements and Related Notes
Dollars in Thousands 2011 2010

ASSETS (Note 2)

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury (Note 3) 23,354,452 $ 23,596,587 $ 

Investments, Net (Note 5) 6,919,799 4,061,733 

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 380,431 302,310 

Other Assets (Note 10) 115,103 122,664 

Total Intragovernmental 30,769,785 28,083,294 

Cash and Monetary Assets (Note 4) 250,253 245,283 

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 125,898 87,260 

Inventory and Related Property, Net (Note 7) 170,889 237,347 

Forfeited Property, Net (Note 8) 172,746 189,122 

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9) 10,217,770 9,741,154 

Advances and Prepayments 1,079,767 1,501,404 

Other Assets (Note 10) 5,826 5,982 

Total Assets $ 40,090,690 42,793,090 $ 

LIABILITIES (Note 11) 

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 273,619 366,027 $ 

Accrued Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 250,625 243,446 

Custodial Liabilities (Note 21) 605,009 331,172 

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 389,522 951,367 

Total Intragovernmental 1,611,183 1,799,604 

Accounts Payable 2,520,022 2,504,820 

Accrued Grant Liabilities 614,419 530,823 

Actuarial Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 1,359,360 1,314,105 

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 644,502 594,981 

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 831,783 826,881 

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 72,709 71,657 

Deferred Revenue 502,119 533,427 

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments (Note 14) 4,063,738 1,470,383 

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 68,652 101,760 

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 25,141 33,649 

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities 535,838 541,784 

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 403,905 267,369 

Total Liabilities $ 10,575,137 13,269,477 $ 

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) 21,727 $ 19,585 $ 

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 11,952,581 13,791,272 

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) 9,066,816 7,636,045 

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 8,482,489 8,068,651 

Total Net Position $ 29,515,553 29,523,613 $ 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 40,090,690 42,793,090 $ 

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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, 2011 and 2010

III-16
Dollars in Thousands

Net Cost of

Intra- With the Intra- With the Operations

FY governmental Public Total governmental Public Total (Note 18)

Goal 1 2011 $ 1,486,363 $ 4,239,731 $ 5,726,094 $ 446,831 $ 37,178 $ 484,009 $ 5,242,085

2010 $ 1,358,260 $ 4,187,272 $ 5,545,532 $ 474,421 $ 32,042 $ 506,463 $ 5,039,069

Goal 2 2011 3,663,829 13,563,302 17,227,131 758,583 789,114 1,547,697 15,679,434

2010 3,464,016 13,201,427 16,665,443 751,806 736,287 1,488,093 15,177,350

Goal 3 2011 2,328,468 10,685,190 13,013,658 777,487 522,584 1,300,071 11,713,587

2010 2,113,376 10,436,797 12,550,173 801,044 480,246 1,281,290 11,268,883

Total 2011 $ 7,478,660 $ 28,488,223 $ 35,966,883 $ 1,982,901 $ 1,348,876 $ 3,331,777 $ 32,635,106

2010 $ 6,935,652 $ 27,825,496 $ 34,761,148 $ 2,027,271 $ 1,248,575 $ 3,275,846 $ 31,485,302

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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-17

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, 2011 and 2010

Gross Costs Less: Earned Revenues
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 13,791,272 19,585 $ - $ 13,810,857 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 71,746 27,408,088 - 27,479,834 

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out - 400,839 - 400,839 

Other Adjustments (326) (105,930) - (106,256) 

Appropriations Used (69,278) (29,541,688) - (29,610,966) 

Total Budgetary Financing Sources (1,838,691) 2,142 - (1,836,549) 

Unexpended Appropriations $ 11,952,581 21,727 $ - $ 11,974,308 $ 

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 8,068,651 7,636,045 $ - $ 15,704,696 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Adjustments - (26,000) - (26,000) 

Appropriations Used 69,278 29,541,688 - 29,610,966 

Nonexchange Revenues 2,003,887 508 - 2,004,395 

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 1,580,584 - - 1,580,584 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 113,735 - 113,735 

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 157,381 226 - 157,607 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (6,192) 50,748 - 44,556 

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 16,069 1,007,880 (25,464) 998,485 

Other Financing Sources - (4,613) - (4,613) 

Total Financing Sources 30,684,172 3,821,007 (25,464) 34,479,715 

Net Cost of Operations (30,270,334) (2,390,236) 25,464 (32,635,106) 

Net Change 413,838 1,430,771 - 1,844,609 

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 8,482,489 9,066,816 $ - $ 17,549,305 $ 

Net Position $ 20,435,070 9,088,543 $ - $ 29,523,613 $ 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

2011

Dollars in Thousands

III-18 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 13,902,525 22,207 $ - $ 13,924,732 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 90,312 28,251,841 - 28,342,153 

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out - 510,516 - 510,516 

Other Adjustments (9,001) (144,750) - (153,751) 

Appropriations Used (83,933) (28,728,860) - (28,812,793) 

Total Budgetary Financing Sources (111,253) (2,622) - (113,875) 

Unexpended Appropriations $ 13,791,272 19,585 $ - $ 13,810,857 $ 

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 7,828,974 5,631,023 $ - $ 13,459,997 $ 

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used 83,933 28,728,860 - 28,812,793 

Nonexchange Revenues 2,366,521 932 - 2,367,453 

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 1,502,466 - - 1,502,466 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 75,097 - 75,097 

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 70,864 340 - 71,204 

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (31,173) 29,284 - (1,889) 

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 12,161 918,164 (27,448) 902,877 

Total Financing Sources 29,752,677 4,004,772 (27,448) 33,730,001 

Net Cost of Operations (29,513,000) (1,999,750) 27,448 (31,485,302) 

Net Change 239,677 2,005,022 - 2,244,699 

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 8,068,651 7,636,045 $ - $ 15,704,696 $ 

Net Position $ 21,859,923 7,655,630 $ - $ 29,515,553 $ 

III-19

Dollars in Thousands

2010

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010
Dollars in Thousands 2011 2010

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 4, $ 4,046,852 039,298 $ 

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 753,442 766,846 

Budget Authority

Appropriations Received 36,902,262 32,769,570 

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections 

Earned

Collected 7,056,837 7,071,984 

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 95,361 (133,650) 

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received (138,396) (46,906) 

Without Advance from Federal Sources (57, (31,324) 799) 

Subtotal Budget Authority 43, 39,629,674 858,265 

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual 514,574 585,613 

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law (6,595,224) (2,041,625) 

Permanently not Available (140,590) (154,303) 

Total Budgetary Resources (Note 20) $ 42,833,057 42,429,765 $ 

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 32,257,303 31,840,621 $ 

Reimbursable 6,706,821 6,536,456 

Total Obligations Incurred (Note 20) 38,547,442 38,793,759 

Unobligated Balance - Available

Apportioned 2,426,008 2,739,193 

Exempt from Apportionment 211,197 120,016 

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 2,637,205 2,859,209 

Unobligated Balance not Available 1,245,118 1,180,089 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 42,833,057 42,429,765 $ 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

III-20 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands 2011 2010

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations 17,759,329 $ 17,646,368 $ 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,753,098 1,918,071 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 16,006,231 15,728,297 

Obligations Incurred 38,547,442 38,793,759 

Less: Gross Outlays 38,876,674 37,913,953 

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 753,442 766,846 

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (37,562) 164,974 

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period

Unpaid Obligations 16,676,654 17,759,329 

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,753,098 1,790,659 

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period 14,885,995 $ 16,006,231 $ 

Net Outlays

Gross Outlays 38,876,674 $ 37,913,953 $ 

Less: Offsetting Collections 6,918,445 7,025,077 

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Note 20) 1,025,644 941,368 

Total Net Outlays (Note 20) $ 29,947,508 30,932,585 $ 

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-21

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, 2011 and 2010
Dollars in Thousands 2011 2010

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 5,222,083 $ 4,789,655 $ 

Fees and Licenses 28,985 32,437 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil 82,288 5,985 

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal 38,350 33,048 

Miscellaneous 704 3,951 

Total Cash Collections 4,858,377 5,379,109 

Accrual Adjustments 271 3,643 

Total Custodial Revenue 4,858,648 5,382,752 

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture (84,620) (96,346) 

U.S. Department of Commerce (5,103) (1,725)

U.S. Department of the Interior (29,959) (283,244)

U.S. Department of Justice (81,181) (24,865)

U.S. Department of Labor (736) (3,537)

U.S. Postal Service (4,362) (6,762)

U.S. Department of State (8,535) (199)

U.S. Department of the Treasury (249,184) (606,978)

Office of Personnel Management (58,144) (46,636)

Federal Communications Commission (14,727) (2,693)

Social Security Administration (2,726) (3,558)

Smithsonian Institution (190) (209)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (28,703) (35,068)

General Services Administration (88,447) (4,008)

Securities and Exchange Commission (3) (2)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (71) (42)

Railroad Retirement Board (100) (143)

Environmental Protection Agency (341,267) (720,010)

U.S. Department of Transportation (7,236) (765)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (66,843) (30,872)

Agency for International Development (22,233) (2,155)

Small Business Administration (10,447) (5,360)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2,001,923) (1,528,861)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (3,792) (2,859)

Export-Import Bank of the United States (24,643) (4,704)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (11,099) (25,985)

U.S. Department of Energy (2,093) (2,281)

U.S. Department of Education (55,431) (63,002)

Independent Agencies (67,264) (54,493)

Treasury General Fund (618,814) (485,769)

U.S. Department of Defense (112,640) (173,894) 

Transferred to the Public (516,597) (391,304)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred (307,947) (210,508)

Refunds and Other Payments (364,644) (11,016)

Retained by the Reporting Entity (118,068) (101,775)

Net Custodial Activity (Note 21) $ - - $ 

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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, 2011 and 2010

III-22
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-23

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 2011 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-24 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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. 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 include 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 2011 and 

2010, 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 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-25

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 the invested funds 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. The interest method 

is used for the amortization of premium and discount of Treasury notes and the straight-line method is used 

for Treasury bills. 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 2011 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-26 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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. Inventories are valued at the lower of average cost

or market value (LCM) and include materials, labor and manufacturing overhead. Market value is 

calculated on the basis of the contractual or anticipated selling price, less allowance for administrative 

expenses. DOJ values its finished goods and sub-assembly items at a standard cost that is periodically 

adjusted to approximate actual cost. DOJ has established inventory allowances to account for LCM 

adjustments and obsolete items that may not be utilized in future periods.

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 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-27

J. General Property, Plant and Equipment 

With the exception of land, real property and leasehold improvements are 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 straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the asset. 

Except for BOP and FPI, Department acquisitions of personal property, excluding internal use 

software, costing $25 or more is 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. Except for FBI, aircraft are 

capitalized when the initial cost of acquiring those assets is $100 or more. FBI capitalized aircraft over 

$25. 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 and is not adjusted for any subsequent increases and decreases in estimated fair market value.
FY 2011 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-28 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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. Accrued 

payroll and benefits are accrued based on the number of days in a pay period earned but not paid to 

employees at the end of the quarter

On October 15, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2210 (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 above-ground 

nuclear weapons tests or as a result of their exposure to radiation during employment in underground 

uranium mines. The September 30, 2011 and 2010 estimated liabilities are based on activity between 

FYs 2006 - 2011, 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.

Estimates for the grant accrual contain assumptions that have an impact on the financial statements. 

The key assumptions used in the grant accrual are: grantees have consistent spending patterns 

throughout the life of the grant, grantees will drawdown throughout the life of the grant, and the grant 

has a determined end date. The primary elements of these assumptions include, but are not limited to, 

type of grant that has been awarded, grant period, accounting basis used by the grantees, and the grant 

expenditure rate.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-29

O. Contingencies and Commitments

The Department is involved in various legal actions, including administrative proceedings, lawsuits, 

and claims. A liability is generally recognized on the Balance Sheet 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. However, there are cases where amounts have not been accrued or disclosed 

because the amounts of the potential loss cannot be estimated or the likelihood of an unfavorable 

outcome is considered “remote”.

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 11.7% of employees= gross pay for regular 

and 25.7% 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 2011 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-30 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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’s 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

Intragovernmental costs and exchange revenue represent transactions made between two reporting 

entities within the federal government. Costs and earned revenues with the public represent exchange 

transactions made between the reporting entity and a non-federal entity. The classification of revenue 

or cost as “intragovernmental” or “with the public” 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 public and intragovernmental revenue with the costs incurred to produce 

public and intragovernmental revenue.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-31

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:

1. A statute committing the federal government to use specifically identified revenues and other 

financing sources only for designated activities, benefits or purposes; 
FY 2011 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-32 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

V. Earmarked Funds (continued)

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. Allocation Transfer of Appropriation

The Department is a party to allocation transfers with other Federal agencies as a transferring (parent) 

entity and/or a receiving (child) entity. Allocation transfers are legal delegations by one department of 

its authority to obligate budget authority and outlay funds to another department. Generally, all 

financial activity related to these allocation transfers (e.g., budget authority, obligations, outlays) is 

reported in the financial statements of the parent entity, from which the underlying legislative authority, 

appropriations, and budget apportionments are derived. An exception to this general rule affecting the 

Department includes the funds transferred from the Judicial Branch to the USMS, for whom the USMS 

is the child to the allocation transfer, but, per OMB guidance, will report all activity relative to these 

allocation transfers in the USMS financial statements.

The activity related to these transfers, included as part of these financial statements, is highlighted 

below:

OJP, as the parent, transfers funds from the Crime Victims Fund (CVF) to the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS). This transfer 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 purposes of this section, are to be obligated and expended by the Secretary of HHS for 

grants under section §5106c of this title.

The Department also allocated funds from BOP, as the parent, 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. 

USMS, as the child, receives allocation transfers of appropriation from the Administrative Office of 

U.S. Courts (AOUSC). The allocation transfers are used for costs associated with protective guard 

services - Court Security Officers 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.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-33

X. 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.

Y. 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.

Z. Reclassifications

The FY 2010 financial statements were reclassified to conform to the FY 2011 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.

AA. Subsequent Events

Subsequent events and transactions occurring after September 30, 2011 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 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 2. Non-Entity Assets

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 727,647 $ 908,929

Investments, Net 3,989,294 1,379,942

Total Intragovernmental 4,716,941 2,288,871

With the Public

Cash and Monetary Assets 233,376 228,085

Accounts Receivable, Net 7,304 15,257

Total With the Public 240,680 243,342

Total Non-Entity Assets 4,957,621 2,532,213

Total Entity Assets 37,835,469 37,558,477

Total Assets $ 42,793,090 $ 40,090,690
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-35

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, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Fund Balances

Trust Funds $ 104,879 $ 84,695

Special Funds 7,609,838 6,248,505

Revolving Funds 473,319 455,486

General Funds 15,105,225 16,746,926

Other Fund Types 61,191 60,975

Total Fund Balances with U.S. Treasury $ 23,354,452 $ 23,596,587

Status of Fund Balances

Unobligated Balance - Available $ 2,637,205 $ 2,859,209

Unobligated Balance - Unavailable 1,245,118 1,180,089

Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 14,885,995 16,006,230

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources 4,586,134 3,551,059

Total Status of Fund Balances $ 23,354,452 $ 23,596,587

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 is unavailable and may only 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.

Unobligated Balance - Unavailable includes amounts appropriated in prior fiscal years that are no longer 

available to fund new obligations, but can be used for upward and/or downward adjustments for existing 

obligations. Additionally, this line includes amounts received that are restricted to future use and as a result are 

not apportioned for current use. Other restricted funds include the collections of fees in excess of amounts 

budgeted for administering the Diversion Control Program. These collections may not be used until authorized 

by Congress. 

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources primarily represent the net 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.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 4. Cash and Monetary Assets

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Cash

Undeposited Collections $ 2,813 $ 3,132

Imprest Funds 14,071 14,068

Seized Cash Deposited 87,243 106,154

Other Cash 72,700 51,476

Total Cash 176,827 174,830

Monetary Assets

Seized Monetary Instruments 73,426 70,453

Total Cash and Monetary Assets $ 250,253 $ 245,283

The majority of Other Cash consists of project-generated proceeds from undercover operations.

Note 5. Investments, Net

Unamortized

Face Premium Interest Investments, Market 

Value (Discount) Receivable Net Value

As of September 30, 2011

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 6,919,892 $ (137) $ 44 $ 6,919,799 $ 6,920,238

As of September 30, 2010

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 4,062,336 $ (798) $ 195 $ 4,061,733 $ 4,061,690
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-37

Note 6. Accounts Receivable, Net

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

 2011 2010

Intragovernmental 

Accounts Receivable $ 380,562 $ 304,000

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (131) (1,690)

Total Intragovernmental 380,431 302,310

With the Public

Accounts Receivable 141,934 93,552

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (16,036) (6,292)

Total With the Public 125,898 87,260

Total Accounts Receivable, Net $ 506,329 $ 389,570

Intragovernmental accounts receivable consists mainly of amounts due under reimbursable agreements with 

federal entities for services and goods provided.

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, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Inventory

Raw Materials $ 42,832 $ 116,826

Work in Process 30,583 38,442

Finished Goods 60,697 53,308

Inventory Purchased for Resale 18,286 16,580

Excess, Obsolete, and Unserviceable 27,087 43,494

Inventory Allowance (27,265) (48,739)

Operating Materials and Supplies

Held for Current Use 18,669 17,436

Total Inventory and Related Property, Net $ 170,889 $ 237,347
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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 2012 is $446 million.

Analysis of Change in Forfeited Property:

The number of items represents quantities calculated using many different units of measure. If necessary, the 

adjustments column includes property status and valuation changes received after, but properly credited to the 

appropriate fiscal years. The valuation changes include updates and corrections to an asset’s value recorded in 

the prior year.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-39

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 97 - 155 (135) 117 - 117

Instruments Value $ 2,219 $ - $ 15,822 $ (16,311) $ 1,730 $ - $ 1,730

Real Number 477 - 315 (340) 452 - 452

Property Value $ 89,018 $ - $ 74,928 $ (65,938) $ 98,008 $ (866) $ 97,142

Personal Number 3,047 - 5,996 (5,659) 3,384 - 3,384

Property Value $ 102,196 $ - $ 93,813 $ (121,163) $ 74,846 $ (972) $ 73,874

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 19,378 - 16,231 (12,016) 23,593 - 23,593

Total Number 22,999 - 22,697 (18,150) 27,546 - 27,546

Value $ 193,433 $ - $ 184,563 $ (203,412) $ 174,584 $ (1,838) $ 172,746

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 90 - 162 (155) 97 - 97

Instruments Value $ 19,680 $ - $ 10,043 $ (27,504) $ 2,219 $ (155) $ 2,064

Real Number 496 - 358 (377) 477 - 477

Property Value $ 104,905 $ - $ 60,739 $ (76,626) $ 89,018 $ (3,468) $ 85,550

Personal Number 3,496 - 5,264 (5,713) 3,047 - 3,047

Property Value $ 105,038 $ - $ 67,480 $ (70,322) $ 102,196 $ (688) $ 101,508

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 21,940 - 9,457 (12,019) 19,378 - 19,378

Total Number 26,022 - 15,241 (18,264) 22,999 - 22,999

Value $ 229,623 $ - $ 138,262 $ (174,452) $ 193,433 $ (4,311) $ 189,122
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Method of Disposition of Forfeited Property:

During FYs 2011 and 2010, $165,406 and $103,678 of forfeited property were sold, $16,211 and $6,560 were 

destroyed or donated, $9,262 and $17,045 were returned to owners, and $12,533 and $47,169 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 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.

The adjustments for FYs 2011 and 2010 include property status and valuation changes received after, but 

properly credited to FYs 2010 and 2009, respectively. The valuation changes include updates and corrections 

to an asset’s value recorded in a prior year. During FY 2011, the DEA had access to better information that 

allowed the reporting of partial destructions of drugs held for evidence at the time of partial destruction rather 

than at the time the exhibit was fully destroyed. Therefore, the DEA has recorded an adjustment in the 

FY 2011 “Adjustment” column to primarily reflect the partial destruction of exhibits destroyed in prior years. 

ATF’s adjustments for non-valued firearms are items determined to be seized for evidence that were not 

included in the seized for evidence balances in prior years.

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 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-41

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Analyzed drug evidence includes cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine and 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. 

“Other” primarily consist of illegal substances other than those discussed above. “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 seized property is forfeited, returned to parties with a bona fide interest, or destroyed in 

accordance with federal guidelines.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

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 $ 1,424,806 $ - $ 3,844,026 $ (1,251,941) $ 4,016,891 $ (92,080) $ 3,924,811

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 413 (109) 274 (101) 477 - 477

Instruments Value $ 99,712 $ (66,438) $ 24,101 $ (4,134) $ 53,241 $ (3,236) $ 50,005

Real Number 183 - 153 (190) 146 - 146

Property Value $ 61,270 $ - $ 49,431 $ (62,337) $ 48,364 $ (16,030) $ 32,334

Personal Number 7,319 - 7,171 (7,013) 7,477 - 7,477

Property Value $ 161,552 $ - $ 124,371 $ (101,920) $ 184,003 $ (16,209) $ 167,794

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 34,281 - 23,858 (21,224) 36,915 - 36,915

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

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 $ 1,451,259 $ - $ 1,588,064 $ (1,614,517) $ 1,424,806 $ (91,260) $ 1,333,546

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 365 - 114 (66) 413 - 413

Instruments Value $ 124,578 $ (37,259) $ 28,692 $ (16,299) $ 99,712 $ (9,045) $ 90,667

Real Number 210 - 162 (189) 183 - 183

Property Value $ 66,178 $ (5,699) $ 56,409 $ (55,618) $ 61,270 $ (9,675) $ 51,595

Personal Number 7,429 - 6,699 (6,809) 7,319 - 7,319

Property Value $ 158,880 $ - $ 88,032 $ (85,360) $ 161,552 $ (11,544) $ 150,008

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 39,569 - 9,459 (14,747) 34,281 - 34,281
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-43

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

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 $ 45,577 $ (4,903) $ 45,419 $ (39,246) $ 46,847 $ - $ 46,847

Instruments

Personal Number 1,602 (85) 412 (508) 1,421 - 1,421

Property Value $ 26,691 $ 8,649 $ 13,946 $ (12,907) $ 36,379 $ - $ 36,379

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 44,465 7,405 14,268 (3,543) 62,595 - 62,595

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 278,449 (222,619) 27,429 (27,098) 56,161 - 56,161

 Heroin KG 3,450 (589) 812 (565) 3,108 - 3,108

 Marijuana KG 20,061 (1,521) 6,362 (7,095) 17,807 - 17,807

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 227,564 1,043 1,058,390 (1,008,845) 278,152 - 278,152

 Methamphetamine KG 7,622 (1,928) 2,649 (1,386) 6,957 - 6,957

 Other KG 46,663 (16,935) 3,563 (8,528) 24,763 - 24,763

 Total Drug Evidence KG 583,809 (242,549) 1,099,205 (1,053,517) 386,948 - 386,948

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

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 $ 40,401 $ (2,164) $ 34,425 $ (27,085) $ 45,577 $ - $ 45,577

Instruments

Personal Number 1,485 47 300 (230) 1,602 - 1,602

Property Value $ 27,943 $ (2,186) $ 13,202 $ (12,268) $ 26,691 $ - $ 26,691

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 43,878 (230) 8,685 (7,868) 44,465 - 44,465

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 349,451 (34,698) 33,711 (70,015) 278,449 - 278,449

 Heroin KG 3,572 (20) 643 (745) 3,450 - 3,450

 Marijuana KG 19,913 (26) 5,400 (5,226) 20,061 - 20,061

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 223,936 1,278 1,128,098 (1,125,748) 227,564 - 227,564

 Methamphetamine KG 6,791 (47) 2,154 (1,276) 7,622 - 7,622

 Other KG 47,180 386 5,359 (6,262) 46,663 - 46,663

 Total Drug Evidence KG 650,843 (33,127) 1,175,365 (1,209,272) 583,809 - 583,809
FY 2011 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-44 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Method of Disposition of Seized Property:

During FYs 2011 and 2010, $1,297,764 and $1,628,886 of seized property were forfeited, $120,156 and 

$155,022 of valued property seized for evidence were returned to parties with a bonafide interest, and $54,566

and $27,239 were either released to a designated party or transferred to the appropriate federal entity under 

forfeiture or abandonment procedures. Non-valued property was primarily disposed of through destruction. 

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 

As of September 30, 2011

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 193,042 $ - $ 193,042 N/A

Improvements to Land 4,584 (866) 3,718 15 yrs

Construction in Progress 894,755 - 894,755 N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 9,578,003 (4,001,606) 5,576,397 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 849,524 (433,515) 416,009 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 450,418 (132,678) 317,740 5-30 yrs

Boats 10,078 (5,943) 4,135 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 594,285 (368,856) 225,429 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,676,992 (1,007,478) 669,514 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 105,246 (61,623) 43,623 5-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 1,338,886 (714,246) 624,640 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 773,237 (287,106) 486,131 3-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 762,637 - 762,637 N/A

Total $ 17,231,687 $ (7,013,917) $ 10,217,770

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2011 $ 229,207 $ 1,023,422 $ 1,252,629
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-45

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (continued)

As of September 30, 2010

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 192,821 $ - $ 192,821 N/A

Improvements to Land 4,518 (552) 3,966 15 yrs

Construction in Progress 728,617 - 728,617 N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 9,365,319 (3,679,717) 5,685,602 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 808,964 (395,986) 412,978 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 377,329 (115,798) 261,531 5-30 yrs

Boats 9,967 (5,302) 4,665 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 549,692 (335,338) 214,354 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,612,309 (995,050) 617,259 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 107,399 (58,688) 48,711 5-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 1,129,117 (609,571) 519,546 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 408,472 (194,868) 213,604 3-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 837,500 - 837,500 N/A

Total $ 16,132,024 $ (6,390,870) $ 9,741,154

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2010 $ 235,776 $ 1,121,727 $ 1,357,503
FY 2011 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-46 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 10. Other Assets

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Intragovernmental

Advances and Prepayments $ 115,075 $ 122,609

Other Intragovernmental Assets 28 55

 Total Intragovernmental 115,103 122,664

Other Assets With the Public 5,982 5,826

Total Other Assets $ 121,085 $ 128,490

Other Assets With the Public primarily consist of farm livestock held by the BOP. 

Note 11. Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Intragovernmental

Accrued FECA Liabilities $ 247,813 $ 241,124

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 2,178 1,758

Other 3,690 58

Total Intragovernmental 253,681 242,940

With the Public

Actuarial FECA Liabilities 1,359,360 1,314,105

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 822,891 816,970

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 72,709 71,657

Deferred Revenue 358,742 311,164

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 68,652 101,760

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 23,941 30,703

RECA Liabilities 535,838 541,784

Other 122,152 47,300

Total With the Public 3,364,285 3,235,443

Total Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 3,617,966 3,478,383

Total Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources 9,651,511 7,096,754

Total Liabilities $ 13,269,477 $ 10,575,137
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-47

Note 11. Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources (continued)

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

Per SFFAS No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government, SFFAS No. 6, Accounting for 

Property, Plant, and Equipment, and Technical Release No. 2, Determining Probably and Reasonably 

Estimable for Environmental Liabilities in the Federal Government, federal agencies are required to recognize 

liabilities for environmental clean-up costs when the future outflow or sacrifice of resources is probable and 

reasonably estimable.

Firing Ranges

The BOP operates firing ranges on 65 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. As of September 30, 2010, BOP management determined their estimated clean-up liability to be 

$25,069. In FY 2011, BOP management adjusted the estimated clean-up liability by the current U.S. inflation 

rate as determined by the U.S. Treasury and as such determined that an estimated firing range clean-up liability 

of $26,045, based on an inflation rate of 3.9 percent, should be recorded.

Asbestos

BOP conducted a review of 46 institutions that were built prior to 1980; the review provided an estimate of the 

extent of friable and non-friable Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) remaining in each of the institutions as 

of October 30, 2009. As of September 30, 2010, BOP management determined their estimated clean-up 

liability to be $36,833. As of September 30, 2011, BOP management adjusted the clean-up liability in the 

amount of $156 for the removal of asbestos at 5 locations and by the U.S. inflation rate of 3.9 percent as 

determined by the U.S. Treasury and as such determined that an estimated asbestos clean-up liability of 

$36,677, should be recorded.

The FBI operates facilities in Quantico, Virginia that contain friable and non-friable ACM. The facilities have 

a useful life of 50 years. The estimated total liability of $11,613 is based on the square footage of the facilities 

that may be contaminated. This value, divided by the useful life and multiplied by the number of years in 

service, is the estimated cleanup liability. As of September 30, 2011 and 2010, the FBI recognized the 

estimated cleanup liability of $9,987 and $9,755. The estimated asbestos cleanup liability is increased each 

quarter by recording future expenses for the asbestos clean-up costs. During FY 2011, future funded expense 

for asbestos cleanup is $232. There are no other potentially responsible parties to the environmental liability 

and there are no unrecognized amounts to disclose as of September 30, 2011.
FY 2011 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-48 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 13. Leases

Capital leases include a Federal Transfer Center (25 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; an airplane 

hangar (20 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, which expired in FY 2011 and will not be renewed; 

and other machinery and equipment that expire over future periods.

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

Capital Leases 2011 2010

Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease

Land and Buildings $ 100,352 $ 100,352

Machinery and Equipment 4,894 7,047

Accumulated Amortization (61,623) (58,688)

Total Assets Under Capital Lease (Note 9) $ 43,623 $ 48,711

Future Capital Lease Payments Due

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2012 $ 9,073 $ 970 $ 10,043

2013 9,073 592 9,665

2014 9,073 15 9,088

2015 32 15 47

2016 32 14 46

 After 2016 96 - 96

Total Future Capital Lease Payments $ 27,379 $ 1,606 $ 28,985

Less: Imputed Interest (3,438) (41) (3,479)

Less: Executory Costs - (365) (365)

FY 2011 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 23,941 $ 1,200 $ 25,141

FY 2010 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 31,649 $ 2,000 $ 33,649

2011 2010

Net Capital Lease Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 1,200 $ 2,946

Net Capital Lease Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 23,941 $ 30,703

The net capital lease liability not covered by budgetary resources primarily represents the capital lease of the 

Federal Transfer Center for which the Department received Congressional authority to fund with annual 

appropriations.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-49

Note 13. Leases (continued)

Future Noncancelable Operating Lease Payments 

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2012 $ 223,236 $ 10,505 $ 233,741

2013 283,190 9,543 292,733

2014 314,601 4,408 319,009

2015 313,075 4,386 317,461

2016 313,609 - 313,609

 After 2016 3,417,847 - 3,417,847

Total Future Noncancelable Operating

Lease Payments $ 4,865,558 $ 28,842 $ 4,894,400

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, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Investments, Net $ 3,903,069 $ 1,293,776

Seized Cash Deposited 87,243 106,154

Seized Monetary Instruments 73,426 70,453

Total Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments $ 4,063,738 $ 1,470,383
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 15. Other Liabilities

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Intragovernmental 

Employer Contributions and Payroll Taxes Payable $ 197,871 $ 176,303

Other Post-Employment Benefits Due and Payable 25 37

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 2,178 1,759

Advances from Others 169,108 262,847

Liability for Deposit Funds, Clearing

 Accounts and Undeposited Collections 13,138 4,208

Other Liabilities 7,202 506,213

Total Intragovernmental 389,522 951,367

With the Public

Other Accrued Liabilities 122,184 47,360

Advances from Others 6,992 3,951

Liability for Deposit Funds, Clearing

 Accounts and Undeposited Collections 49,022 45,616

Custodial Liabilities 152,987 118,879

Other Liabilities 72,720 51,563

Total With the Public 403,905 267,369

Total Other Liabilities $ 793,427 $ 1,218,736

In prior years, the majority of Intragovernmental Other Liabilities were related to miscellaneous receipts of civil 

and criminal debt collections where Treasury was designated as the recipient of either a portion of a collection 

or the entire amount. As of September 30, 2010 this amount totaled $485,769. In FY 2011, OBDs changed its 

method of reporting for these miscellaneous receipts. As outlined in Note 25, Changes in Accounting 

Principle, these miscellaneous receipts will no longer be reported as Other Liabilities on the Consolidated 

Balance Sheet.

Other Accrued Liabilities with the Public consists primarily of future funded energy savings performance 

contracts and utilities.

The majority of Other Liabilities with the Public consists of project-generated proceeds from undercover 

operations. The proceeds not subject to forfeiture will be returned to the Department of Treasury General Fund 

at the conclusion of the project. 

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, such as accrued retirement contributions, life insurance, 

and retiree health benefits.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-51

Note 16. Contingencies and Commitments

Accrued

Liabilities Lower Upper

As of September 30, 2011

Probable $ 68,652 $ 68,652 $ 190,144

Reasonably Possible 86,576 135,569

As of September 30, 2010

Probable $ 101,760 $ 101,760 $ 214,237

Reasonably Possible 95,585 124,326

Estimated Range of Loss

Additionally, FPI has entered into firm purchase commitments for solar panel material totaling $36,801 of 

which $13,129 is to be delivered in FY 2012 and $23,672 is to be delivered in FY 2015.
FY 2011 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-52 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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, 2011

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 $ 229,030 $ 14,532 $ 33,106 $ 7,260,185 $ 104,565 $ 80,240 $ 7,721,658

Investments, Net 2,443,702 216,029 - - - - 2,659,731

Other Assets 180,020 58,406 3,152 275 46,184 27,572 315,609

Total Assets $ 2,852,752 $ 288,967 $ 36,258 $ 7,260,460 $ 150,749 $ 107,812 $10,696,998

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 918,358 $ 8,236 $ 5,949 $ 9,664 $ 6,923 $ 11,131 $ 960,261

Other Liabilities 173,850 21,594 15,090 48,548 375,988 13,124 648,194

Total Liabilities $ 1,092,208 $ 29,830 $ 21,039 $ 58,212 $ 382,911 $ 24,255 $ 1,608,455

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ - $ 21,727 $ - $ - $ - $ 21,727

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,760,544 259,137 (6,508) 7,202,248 (232,162) 83,557 9,066,816

Total Net Position $ 1,760,544 $ 259,137 $ 15,219 $ 7,202,248 $ (232,162) $ 83,557 $ 9,088,543

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 2,852,752 $ 288,967 $ 36,258 $ 7,260,460 $ 150,749 $ 107,812 $10,696,998

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

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 $ 1,673,412 $ 234,356 $ 162,760 $ 662,569 $ 277,514 $ 332,106 $ 3,342,717

Less: Exchange Revenues 9,513 314,921 91,636 - 195,235 341,176 952,481

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ (80,565) $ 71,124 $ 662,569 $ 82,279 $ (9,070) $ 2,390,236

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 1,687,400 $ 176,675 $ 14,385 $ 5,866,596 $ (159,279) $ 69,853 $ 7,655,630

Budgetary Financing Sources 1,585,180 1,070 71,420 1,998,221 - - 3,655,891

Other Financing Sources 151,863 827 538 - 9,396 4,634 167,258

 Total Financing Sources 1,737,043 1,897 71,958 1,998,221 9,396 4,634 3,823,149

Net Cost of Operations (1,663,899) 80,565 (71,124) (662,569) (82,279) 9,070 (2,390,236)

Net Change 73,144 82,462 834 1,335,652 (72,883) 13,704 1,432,913

Net Position End of Period $ 1,760,544 $ 259,137 $ 15,219 $ 7,202,248 $ (232,162) $ 83,557 $ 9,088,543
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-53

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued)

As of September 30, 2010

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 $ 180,150 $ 4,439 $ 30,210 $ 5,938,699 $ 123,755 $ 67,328 $ 6,344,581

Investments, Net 2,197,486 184,105 - - - - 2,381,591

Other Assets 197,403 20,704 4,894 3,380 52,534 27,560 306,475

Total Assets $ 2,575,039 $ 209,248 $ 35,104 $ 5,942,079 $ 176,289 $ 94,888 $ 9,032,647

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 698,517 $ 11,370 $ 5,652 $ 15,560 $ 8,479 $ 12,696 $ 752,274

Other Liabilities 189,122 21,203 15,067 59,923 327,089 12,339 624,743

Total Liabilities $ 887,639 $ 32,573 $ 20,719 $ 75,483 $ 335,568 $ 25,035 $ 1,377,017

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ - $ 19,585 $ - $ - $ - $ 19,585

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,687,400 176,675 (5,200) 5,866,596 (159,279) 69,853 7,636,045

Total Net Position $ 1,687,400 $ 176,675 $ 14,385 $ 5,866,596 $ (159,279) $ 69,853 $ 7,655,630

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 2,575,039 $ 209,248 $ 35,104 $ 5,942,079 $ 176,289 $ 94,888 $ 9,032,647

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

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 $ 1,291,742 $ 229,760 $ 166,135 $ 608,723 $ 255,152 $ 338,286 $ 2,889,798

Less: Exchange Revenues 7,324 289,191 72,958 - 189,376 331,199 890,048

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,284,418 $ (59,431) $ 93,177 $ 608,723 $ 65,776 $ 7,087 $ 1,999,750

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 1,425,883 $ 116,141 $ 25,734 $ 4,112,981 $ (100,558) $ 73,049 $ 5,653,230

Budgetary Financing Sources 1,506,330 319 81,311 2,362,338 - - 3,950,298

Other Financing Sources 39,605 784 517 - 7,055 3,891 51,852

Total Financing Sources 1,545,935 1,103 81,828 2,362,338 7,055 3,891 4,002,150

Net Cost of Operations (1,284,418) 59,431 (93,177) (608,723) (65,776) (7,087) (1,999,750)

Net Change 261,517 60,534 (11,349) 1,753,615 (58,721) (3,196) 2,002,400

Net Position End of Period $ 1,687,400 $ 176,675 $ 14,385 $ 5,866,596 $ (159,279) $ 69,853 $ 7,655,630
FY 2011 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-54 Department of Justice • FY 2011 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 (UST) 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 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-55

Note 18. Net Cost of Operations by Suborganization

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

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 $ - $ 378,325 $ 6,484 $ - $ 106,082 $ 5,326,383 $ 5,649 $ - $ - $ (96,829) $ 5,726,094

Less: Earned Revenue - 116,209 - - 693 463,936 - - - (96,829) 484,009

Net Cost of Operations - 262,116 6,484 - 105,389 4,862,447 5,649 - - - 5,242,085

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost 1,673,412 5,858,718 30,396 2,680,635 2,929,005 3,903,753 1,268,049 6,613 - $ (1,123,450) 17,227,131

Less: Earned Revenue 9,513 1,002,609 - 32,322 722,217 813,186 91,300 - - (1,123,450) 1,547,697

Net Cost of Operations 1,663,899 4,856,109 30,396 2,648,313 2,206,788 3,090,567 1,176,749 6,613 - - 15,679,434

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - 2,441,919 3,174,846 1,054,276 - - - 7,213,365 942,915 (1,813,663) 13,013,658

Less: Earned Revenue - 203,511 1,583,960 10,440 - - - 385,676 904,683 (1,788,199) 1,300,071

Net Cost of Operations - 2,238,408 1,590,886 1,043,836 - - - 6,827,689 38,232 (25,464) 11,713,587

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ 7,356,633 $ 1,627,766 $ 3,692,149 $ 2,312,177 $ 7,953,014 $ 1,182,398 $ 6,834,302 $ 38,232 $ (25,464) $ 32,635,106

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

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 $ - $ 359,943 $ 5,159 $ - $ 100,315 $ 5,185,327 $ 7,185 $ - $ - $ (112,397) $ 5,545,532

Less: Earned Revenue - 110,232 - - 632 507,996 - - - (112,397) 506,463

Net Cost of Operations - 249,711 5,159 - 99,683 4,677,331 7,185 - - - 5,039,069

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost 1,291,742 5,763,437 4,872 2,757,971 2,801,202 3,846,770 1,265,934 6,860 - (1,073,345) 16,665,443

Less: Earned Revenue 7,324 968,224 - 49,851 677,670 767,210 91,159 - - (1,073,345) 1,488,093

Net Cost of Operations 1,284,418 4,795,213 4,872 2,708,120 2,123,532 3,079,560 1,174,775 6,860 - - 15,177,350

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - 2,269,929 3,016,174 988,230 - - - 7,021,759 951,139 (1,697,058) 12,550,173

Less: Earned Revenue - 180,804 1,514,103 26,252 - - - 372,199 857,542 (1,669,610) 1,281,290

Net Cost of Operations - 2,089,125 1,502,071 961,978 - - - 6,649,560 93,597 (27,448) 11,268,883

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,284,418 $ 7,134,049 $ 1,512,102 $ 3,670,098 $ 2,223,215 $ 7,756,891 $ 1,181,960 $ 6,656,420 $ 93,597 $ (27,448) $ 31,485,302
FY 2011 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-56 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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 cost of 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 un-reimbursed 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 

30.1% of basic pay for regular, 51.1% law enforcement officers, 23.5% regular offset, and 45.6% law 

enforcement officers offset. For employees covered by Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), the cost 

factors are 13.8% of basic pay for regular and 29.8% 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, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Imputed Inter-Departmental Financing

U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund $ 71,537 $ 135,498

Health Insurance 594,476 553,366

Life Insurance 2,038 1,969

Pension 330,434 212,044

Total Imputed Inter-Departmental $ 998,485 $ 902,877
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-57

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. Costs 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 $25,464 and $27,448 for FYs 

2011 and 2010, 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, 2011

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 28,235,878 $ 5,835,181 $ 34,071,059

Category B 3,604,743 46,787 3,651,530

Exempt from Apportionment - 824,853 824,853

Total $ 31,840,621 $ 6,706,821 $ 38,547,442

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 29,509,630 $ 5,664,568 $ 35,174,198

Category B 2,747,673 30,019 2,777,692

Exempt from Apportionment - 841,869 841,869

Total $ 32,257,303 $ 6,536,456 $ 38,793,759

The apportionment categories are determined in accordance with the guidance provided in Part 4 “Instructions 

on Budget Execution” of OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget.

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.
FY 2011 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-58 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources (continued)

Status of Undelivered Orders:

Undelivered Orders (UDO) represent 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, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

UDO Obligations Unpaid $ 11,606,422 $ 12,835,522

UDO Obligations Prepaid/Advanced 1,344,717 1,824,439

Total UDO $ 12,951,139 $ 14,659,961

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, 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. 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.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-59

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.

 The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976 (the “PSOB Act”) is generally codified at 42 U.S.C. 

'46 Subchapter XII.

 OJP’s PSOB appropriation supports one mandatory and two discretionary programs that provide

 benefits to public safety officers who are severely injured in the line of duty and to the families 

 and survivors of public safety officers killed or mortally injured in the line of duty. 

 The PSOB Program offers three types of benefits: 

1. Death Benefits, a one-time financial benefit to survivors of public safety officers whose

deaths resulted from injuries sustained in the line of duty. Under the Hometown Heroes 

Survivors Benefit Act of 2003, survivors of public safety officers who die of a heart attack or

stroke within 24 hours of stressful, non-routine public safety activities may also qualify for

death benefits. 

2. Disability Benefits, a one-time financial benefit to public safety officers permanently disabled 

by catastrophic injuries sustained in the line of duty. 

3. Education Benefits, which provide financial support for higher education expenses (such as 

tuition and fees, books, supplies, and room and board) to the eligible spouses and children of 

public safety officers killed or permanently disabled in the line of duty.

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 2011 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-60 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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, 2010 is presented below. The reconciliation as of September 30, 2011 is 

not presented, because the submission of the Budget of the United States (Budget) for FY 2013, which presents 

the execution of the FY 2011 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 2012. 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

(Dollars in Millions) Distributed

Budgetary Obligations Offsetting Net

Resources Incurred Receipts Outlays

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) $ 42,833 $ 38,794 $ 941 $ 29,948

Funds not Reported in the Budget

Expired Funds: OBDs, USMS, DEA, OJP, FBI, ATF & BOP (786) (211) - -

AFF/SADF Forfeiture Activity (12) - - -

OCDETF Adjustments (9) 15 - -

USMS Court Security Funds (418) (398) - (380)

Distributed Offsetting Receipts - - (368) 368

Special and Trust Fund Receipts - - - 573

Other (4) 2 1 (1)

Budget of the United States Government $ 41,604 $ 38,202 $ 574 $ 30,508

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 Government. 
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-61

Note 21. 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 the Department’s Office of Debt Collection Management (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 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.

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, 2011 and 2010, 

the custodial assets and liabilities recorded by the OBDs on the Consolidated Balance Sheet are $752,797 and 

$448,467, respectively. The OBDs custodial collections totaled $5,260,397 and $4,822,740 for the fiscal years 

ended September 30, 2011 and 2010. 

For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2011 and 2010, DEA collected $97,268 and $20,963, 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. As of September 30, 2011 and 2010 balances for custodial liabilities were $5,199 and $1,584,

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. Special Occupational Taxes are collected 

from certain firearms businesses. Miscellaneous collections include project-generated proceeds. 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 $21,444 and $14,674 for the fiscal years ended 

September 30, 2011 and 2010, respectively.
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 22. OMB Circular A-136 Consolidated Balance Sheet Presentation

Dollars in Thousands 2011 2010

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 23,354,452 $ 23,596,587

Investments, Net 6,919,799 4,061,733

Accounts Receivable, Net 380,431 302,310

Other Assets 115,103 122,664

Total Intragovernmental 30,769,785 28,083,294

Cash and Other Monetary Assets 250,253 245,283

Accounts Receivable, Net 125,898 87,260

Inventory and Related Property, Net 170,889 237,347

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 10,217,770 9,741,154

Other Assets 1,258,495 1,696,352

Total Assets $ 42,793,090 $ 40,090,690

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 366,027 $ 273,619

Other Liabilities 1,245,156 1,525,985

Total Intragovernmental 1,611,183 1,799,604

Accounts Payable 2,504,820 2,520,022

Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits 1,359,360 1,314,105

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 72,709 71,657

Other Liabilities 7,721,405 4,869,749

Total Liabilities $ 13,269,477 $ 10,575,137

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ 21,727 $ 19,585

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 11,952,581 13,791,272

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 9,066,816 7,636,045

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 8,482,489 8,068,651

Total Net Position $ 29,523,613 $ 29,515,553

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 42,793,090 $ 40,090,690

U.S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2011 and 2010
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-63

Note 23. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of

Financing)

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Obligations Incurred $ 38,547,442 $ 38,793,759

Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 7,709,445 7,626,950

Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 30,837,997 31,166,809

Less: Offsetting Receipts 1,025,644 941,368

Net Obligations 29,812,353 30,225,441

Other Resources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 157,607 71,204

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement 44,556 (3,433)

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (Note 19) 998,485 902,877

Other (4,613) -

Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 1,196,035 970,648

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 31,008,388 31,196,089

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of

Operations

Net Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services

and Benefits Ordered but not Yet Provided 1,608,057 139,965

Resources That Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods (Note 24) (45,816) (77,146)

Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts That do not

Affect Net Cost of Operations 294,218 300,608

Resources That Finance the Acquisition of Assets (1,184,420) (1,295,160)

Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated Resources

That do not Affect Net Cost of Operations 14,296 (49,768)

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost

of Operations 686,335 (981,501)

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 31,694,723 $ 30,214,588
FY 2011 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-64 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 23. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of 

Financing) (continued)

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2011 and 2010 2011 2010

Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not Require

or Generate Resources in the Current Period

Components That will Require or Generate Resources in 

Future Periods (Note 24) $ 129,497 $ 450,866

Depreciation and Amortization 826,899 727,012

Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities 23,586 29,772

Other (39,599) 63,064

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not

 Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period 940,383 1,270,714

Net Cost of Operations $ 32,635,106 $ 31,485,302
FY 2011 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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-65

Note 24. 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 $3,617,966 and $3,478,383 on September 30, 2011

and 2010, 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, 2011 and 2010

2011 2010

Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods

Other

Decrease in Contingent Liabilities $ (33,108) $ (70,893)

Decrease in Unfunded Capital Lease Liabilities (6,762) (6,253)

Decrease in RECA Liabilities (5,946) -

Total Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods $ (45,816) $ (77,146)

Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Require or Generate Resources in Future Periods

Increase in Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities $ 5,921 $ 45,156

Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 1,052 49,545

(Increase)/Decrease in Exchange Revenue Receivable from the Public (51,628) (1,671)

Other

Increase in Actuarial FECA Liabilities 45,255 80,206

Increase in Accrued FECA Liabilities 6,689 6,951

Increase in Deferred Revenue 47,578 41,324

Increase in RECA Liabilities - 197,949

Increase in Other Unfunded Employee Related Liabilities 420 230

Increase in Other Liabilities 78,484 33,030

(Increase)/Decrease in Nonexchange Receivables from the Public (94) (63)

(Increase)/Decrease in Surcharge Revenue Receivable

from Other Federal Agencies (4,180) (1,791)

Total Other 174,152 357,836

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Require or 

Generate Resources in Future Periods $ 129,497 $ 450,866
FY 2011 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-66 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 25. Changes in Accounting Principle

Based upon guidance received from the U.S. Department of Treasury in FY 2011, the OBDs has changed its 

method of reporting for Debt Collection Management miscellaneous receipts, which as of September 30, 2011 

totaled $618,814. This change in method of reporting results in a change in accounting principle, which OBDs 

is applying prospectively beginning with FY 2011. The cumulative amount of miscellaneous receipts from prior 

years that were reported as Other Liabilities (Note 15) will no longer be reported in the Consolidated Balance 

Sheet, and will be reflected in the Statement of Custodial Activity as Transfers to the Treasury General Fund.

Based upon guidance received from OMB regarding their interpretation of P.L. 112-10, Section 1101, OJP has 

changed its method of accounting for previous years’ unobligated CVF collections, which as of October 1, 

2010, totaled $4,801,473. As a result of this change in accounting principle, which OJP is applying 

prospectively beginning with FY 2011 (subject to the annual appropriation language for the CVF fund), the 

cumulative amount of unobligated CVF collections from prior years is included in the ‘Appropriations 

Received’ and ‘Temporarily Not Available Pursuant to Public Law’ line items of the Combined Statement of 

Budgetary Resources.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-67

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 229,030 $ 5,223,163 $ 562,246 $ 11,287,838 $ 702,470 $ 3,618,458 $ 241,768 $ 1,468,669 $ 20,810 $ - $ 23,354,452

Investments, Net 6,346,771 302,328 - - - - - - 270,700 - 6,919,799

Accounts Receivable, Net 4,869 350,778 168,560 6,970 43,655 181,271 27,803 3,347 34,360 (441,182) 380,431

Other Assets 1,766 95,294 15,506 78,034 47,061 27,867 7,643 - - (158,068) 115,103

Total Intragovernmental 6,582,436 5,971,563 746,312 11,372,842 793,186 3,827,596 277,214 1,472,016 325,870 (599,250) 30,769,785

Cash and Monetary Assets 113,822 46 - - 16,575 50,843 68,184 783 - - 250,253

Accounts Receivable, Net - 59,086 35 6,056 5,998 32,369 256 9,778 12,320 - 125,898

Inventory and Related Property, Net - 106 3,060 - 7,506 8,103 - 18,180 133,934 - 170,889

Forfeited Property, Net 172,746 - - - - - - - - - 172,746

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 633 280,102 264,246 12,526 401,220 2,558,525 210,262 6,387,481 102,775 - 10,217,770

Advances and Prepayments 6 1,978 - 1,009,997 14,700 47,144 786 3,899 1,257 - 1,079,767

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 4,473 1,325 - 5,982

Total Assets $ 6,869,643 $ 6,312,881 $ 1,013,837 $ 12,401,421 $ 1,239,185 $ 6,524,580 $ 556,702 $ 7,896,610 $ 577,481 $ (599,250) $ 42,793,090

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 67,345 $ 317,501 $ 31,314 $ 54,240 $ 46,943 $ 229,722 $ 14,942 $ 37,098 $ 3,612 $ (436,690) $ 366,027

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 9,780 15,912 86 27,222 30,829 20,074 144,780 1,942 - 250,625

Custodial Liabilities - 599,810 - - 5,199 - - - - - 605,009

Other Liabilities 169 83,592 26,609 117,275 20,766 121,218 10,474 69,364 102,615 (162,560) 389,522

Total Intragovernmental 67,514 1,010,683 73,835 171,601 100,130 381,769 45,490 251,242 108,169 (599,250) 1,611,183

Accounts Payable 851,013 307,561 354,200 24,177 92,054 416,733 45,450 367,973 45,659 - 2,504,820

Accrued Grant Liabilities - 245,174 - 369,245 - - - - - - 614,419

Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 51,746 86,365 680 149,846 182,426 110,697 761,197 16,403 - 1,359,360

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 767 137,132 33,239 8,182 63,094 208,273 34,276 151,321 8,218 - 644,502

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 168 181,586 43,940 6,148 98,437 270,528 51,897 170,187 8,892 - 831,783

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - 9,987 - 62,722 - - 72,709

Deferred Revenue 172,746 - - - 358,742 - - 1,939 - - 533,427

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 4,016,891 - - - 440 42,880 3,527 - - - 4,063,738

Contingent Liabilities - - - - 7,754 52,335 - 8,563 - - 68,652

Capital Lease Liabilities - - - 14 - - 1,071 23,941 115 - 25,141

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 535,838 - - - - - - - - 535,838

Other Liabilities - 152,987 - - 9,720 4,687 59,905 176,606 - - 403,905

Total Liabilities $ 5,109,099 $ 2,622,707 $ 591,579 $ 580,047 $ 880,217 $ 1,569,618 $ 352,313 $ 1,975,691 $ 187,456 $ (599,250) $ 13,269,477

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ - $ 21,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,727

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 3,472,362 257,093 4,605,970 503,763 2,194,512 174,210 744,671 - - 11,952,581

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,760,544 252,629 - 7,202,248 (232,162) - - 83,557 - - 9,066,816

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - (56,544) 165,165 13,156 87,367 2,760,450 30,179 5,092,691 390,025 - 8,482,489

Total Net Position $ 1,760,544 $ 3,690,174 $ 422,258 $ 11,821,374 $ 358,968 $ 4,954,962 $ 204,389 $ 5,920,919 $ 390,025 $ - $ 29,523,613

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 6,869,643 $ 6,312,881 $ 1,013,837 $ 12,401,421 $ 1,239,185 $ 6,524,580 $ 556,702 $ 7,896,610 $ 577,481 $ (599,250) $ 42,793,090

 -

III-68 Department of Justice - FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2011
AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 180,150 $ 5,825,079 $ 684,686 $ 10,519,156 $ 809,035 $ 3,694,239 $ 261,136 $ 1,600,858 $ 22,248 $ - $ 23,596,587

Investments, Net 3,491,262 270,271 - - - - - - 300,200 - 4,061,733

Accounts Receivable, Net 4,245 291,193 149,713 6,883 39,117 158,737 28,291 6,235 25,219 (407,323) 302,310

Other Assets 2,607 134,244 17,212 76,831 51,090 30,638 14,349 407 - (204,714) 122,664

Total Intragovernmental 3,678,264 6,520,787 851,611 10,602,870 899,242 3,883,614 303,776 1,607,500 347,667 (612,037) 28,083,294

Cash and Monetary Assets 131,030 46 - - 13,407 51,017 49,009 774 - - 245,283

Accounts Receivable, Net - 19,769 47 5,774 2,325 30,384 162 20,012 8,787 - 87,260

Inventory and Related Property, Net - 106 2,739 - 6,770 7,927 - 16,474 203,331 - 237,347

Forfeited Property, Net 189,122 - - - - - - - - - 189,122

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 1,417 231,301 257,937 12,032 382,137 2,197,590 207,118 6,334,726 116,896 - 9,741,154

Advances and Prepayments 12 8,225 17 1,428,298 9,929 46,698 1,669 3,845 2,711 - 1,501,404

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 4,662 980 - 5,826

Total Assets $ 3,999,845 $ 6,780,234 $ 1,112,535 $ 12,048,974 $ 1,313,810 $ 6,217,230 $ 561,734 $ 7,987,993 $ 680,372 $ (612,037) $ 40,090,690

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 69,170 $ 306,300 $ 26,177 $ 18,928 $ 42,007 $ 162,573 $ 14,803 $ 33,303 $ 4,621 (404,263) $ 273,619

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 9,265 15,725 129 26,651 31,231 19,567 139,222 1,656 - 243,446

Custodial Liabilities - 329,588 - - 1,584 - - - - - 331,172

Other Liabilities - 569,083 24,344 147,914 18,726 114,588 9,393 73,926 201,167 (207,774) 951,367

Total Intragovernmental 69,170 1,214,236 66,246 166,971 88,968 308,392 43,763 246,451 207,444 (612,037) 1,799,604

Accounts Payable 629,347 363,569 406,268 33,369 117,280 488,886 45,744 389,178 46,381 - 2,520,022

Accrued Grant Liabilities - 147,652 - 383,171 - - - - - - 530,823

Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 50,022 83,490 657 144,858 176,353 107,012 735,856 15,857 - 1,314,105

Accrued Payroll and Benefits - 128,797 30,525 7,930 59,032 187,572 31,560 140,727 8,838 - 594,981

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities - 183,120 42,138 6,068 98,608 265,775 52,408 168,853 9,911 - 826,881

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - 9,755 - 61,902 - - 71,657

Deferred Revenue 189,122 - - - 311,164 - - 1,833 - - 502,119

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 1,424,806 - - - 447 42,120 3,010 - - - 1,470,383

Contingent Liabilities - 4,738 17,000 - 4,928 66,762 3,505 4,827 - - 101,760

Capital Lease Liabilities - - 946 18 - - 1,875 30,703 107 - 33,649

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 541,784 - - - - - - - - 541,784

Other Liabilities - 118,879 - - 7,639 3,297 41,416 96,138 - - 267,369

Total Liabilities $ 2,312,445 $ 2,752,797 $ 646,613 $ 598,184 $ 832,924 $ 1,548,912 $ 330,293 $ 1,876,468 $ 288,538 $ (612,037) $ 10,575,137

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ - $ 19,585 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,585

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 3,979,216 328,900 5,571,977 559,167 2,255,206 202,183 894,623 - - 13,791,272

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,687,400 171,475 - 5,866,596 (159,279) - - 69,853 - - 7,636,045

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - (142,839) 137,022 12,217 80,998 2,413,112 29,258 5,147,049 391,834 - 8,068,651

Total Net Position $ 1,687,400 $ 4,027,437 $ 465,922 $ 11,450,790 $ 480,886 $ 4,668,318 $ 231,441 $ 6,111,525 $ 391,834 $ - $ 29,515,553

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 3,999,845 $ 6,780,234 $ 1,112,535 $ 12,048,974 $ 1,313,810 $ 6,217,230 $ 561,734 $ 7,987,993 $ 680,372 $ (612,037) $ 40,090,690

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-69

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2010
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 - Intragovernmental $ - $ 112,985 $ 6,484 $ - $ 15,196 $ 1,448,527 $ - $ - $ - $ (96,829) $ 1,486,363

Gross Cost - With the Public - 265,340 - - 90,886 3,877,856 5,649 - - - 4,239,731

 Subtotal Gross Costs - 378,325 6,484 - 106,082 5,326,383 5,649 - - (96,829) 5,726,094

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 93,776 - - 687 449,197 - - - (96,829) 446,831

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 22,433 - - 6 14,739 - - - - 37,178

 Subtotal Earned Revenues - 116,209 - - 693 463,936 - - - (96,829) 484,009

 Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 262,116 $ 6,484 $ - $ 105,389 $ 4,862,447 $ 5,649 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,242,085

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 380,028 $ 1,868,383 $ 30,396 $ 158,557 $ 907,038 $ 1,061,638 $ 381,239 $ - $ - $ (1,123,450) $ 3,663,829

Gross Cost - With the Public 1,293,384 3,990,335 - 2,522,078 2,021,967 2,842,115 886,810 6,613 - - 13,563,302

 Subtotal Gross Costs 1,673,412 5,858,718 30,396 2,680,635 2,929,005 3,903,753 1,268,049 6,613 - (1,123,450) 17,227,131

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 9,513 575,651 - 32,277 521,896 652,046 90,650 - - (1,123,450) 758,583

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 426,958 - 45 200,321 161,140 650 - - - 789,114

 Subtotal Earned Revenues 9,513 1,002,609 - 32,322 722,217 813,186 91,300 - - (1,123,450) 1,547,697

 Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ 4,856,109 $ 30,396 $ 2,648,313 $ 2,206,788 $ 3,090,567 $ 1,176,749 $ 6,613 $ - $ - $ 15,679,434

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,736,875 $ 546,964 $ 65,346 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,629,744 $ 163,202 $ (1,813,663) $ 2,328,468

Gross Cost - With the Public - 705,044 2,627,882 988,930 - - - 5,583,621 779,713 - 10,685,190

 Subtotal Gross Costs - 2,441,919 3,174,846 1,054,276 - - - 7,213,365 942,915 (1,813,663) 13,013,658

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 158,055 1,581,441 10,440 - - - 15,252 800,498 $ (1,788,199) 777,487

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 45,456 2,519 - - - - 370,424 104,185 - 522,584

 Subtotal Earned Revenues - 203,511 1,583,960 10,440 - - - 385,676 904,683 (1,788,199) 1,300,071

 Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 2,238,408 $ 1,590,886 $ 1,043,836 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,827,689 $ 38,232 $ (25,464) $ 11,713,587

Total Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ 7,356,633 $ 1,627,766 $ 3,692,149 $ 2,312,177 $ 7,953,014 $ 1,182,398 $ 6,834,302 $ 38,232 $ (25,464) $ 32,635,106

Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-70

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
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 - Intragovernmental $ - $ 82,443 $ 5,159 $ - $ 24,424 $ 1,358,631 $ - $ - $ - $ (112,397) $ 1,358,260

Gross Cost - With the Public - 277,500 - - 75,891 3,826,696 7,185 - - - 4,187,272

Subtotal Gross Costs - 359,943 5,159 - 100,315 5,185,327 7,185 - - (112,397) 5,545,532

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 90,793 - - 632 495,393 - - - (112,397) 474,421

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 19,439 - - - 12,603 - - - - 32,042

Subtotal Earned Revenues - 110,232 - - 632 507,996 - - - (112,397) 506,463

Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 249,711 $ 5,159 $ - $ 99,683 $ 4,677,331 $ 7,185 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,039,069

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 382,798 $ 1,799,980 $ 4,872 $ 140,429 $ 836,028 $ 1,007,910 $ 365,344 $ - $ - $ (1,073,345) $ 3,464,016

Gross Cost - With the Public 908,944 3,963,457 - 2,617,542 1,965,174 2,838,860 900,590 6,860 - - 13,201,427

Subtotal Gross Costs 1,291,742 5,763,437 4,872 2,757,971 2,801,202 3,846,770 1,265,934 6,860 - (1,073,345) 16,665,443

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 7,324 563,603 - 49,844 482,951 631,012 90,417 - - (1,073,345) 751,806

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 404,621 - 7 194,719 136,198 742 - - - 736,287

Subtotal Earned Revenues 7,324 968,224 - 49,851 677,670 767,210 91,159 - - (1,073,345) 1,488,093

Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ 1,284,418 $ 4,795,213 $ 4,872 $ 2,708,120 $ 2,123,532 $ 3,079,560 $ 1,174,775 $ 6,860 $ - $ - $ 15,177,350

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,535,834 $ 523,823 $ 56,647 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,513,891 $ 180,239 $ (1,697,058) $ 2,113,376

Gross Cost - With the Public - 734,095 2,492,351 931,583 - - - 5,507,868 770,900 - 10,436,797

Subtotal Gross Costs - 2,269,929 3,016,174 988,230 - - - 7,021,759 951,139 (1,697,058) 12,550,173

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 141,722 1,511,198 26,252 - - - 12,903 778,579 (1,669,610) 801,044

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 39,082 2,905 - - - - 359,296 78,963 - 480,246

Subtotal Earned Revenues - 180,804 1,514,103 26,252 - - - 372,199 857,542 (1,669,610) 1,281,290

Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 2,089,125 $ 1,502,071 $ 961,978 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,649,560 $ 93,597 $ (27,448) $ 11,268,883

Total Net Cost of Operations $ 1,284,418 $ 7,134,049 $ 1,512,102 $ 3,670,098 $ 2,223,215 $ 7,756,891 $ 1,181,960 $ 6,656,420 $ 93,597 $ (27,448) $ 31,485,302

III-71

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ - $ 19,585 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 19,585

All Other Funds - 3,979,216 328,900 5,571,977 559,167 2,255,206 202,183 894,623 - - 13,791,272

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 71,746 - - - - - - - - 71,746

All Other Funds - 6,901,999 1,142,388 1,893,160 2,019,682 7,941,932 1,114,772 6,394,155 - - 27,408,088

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

All Other Funds - (187,823) 388,191 200,344 71,029 (61,176) (7,892) (1,834) - - 400,839

Other Adjustments 

Earmarked Funds - (326) - - - - - - - - (326)

All Other Funds - (23,338) (2,285) (45,365) (4,039) (15,884) (2,231) (12,788) - - (105,930)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (69,278) - - - - - - - - (69,278)

All Other Funds - (7,197,692) (1,600,101) (3,014,146) (2,142,076) (7,925,566) (1,132,622) (6,529,485) - - (29,541,688)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - 2,142 - - - - - - - - 2,142

All Other Funds - (506,854) (71,807) (966,007) (55,404) (60,694) (27,973) (149,952) - - (1,838,691)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds - 2,142 - - - - - - - - 2,142

All Other Funds - (506,854) (71,807) (966,007) (55,404) (60,694) (27,973) (149,952) - - (1,838,691)

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds - 21,727 - - - - - - - - 21,727

All Other Funds - 3,472,362 257,093 4,605,970 503,763 2,194,512 174,210 744,671 - - 11,952,581

Total All Funds $ - $ 3,494,089 $ 257,093 $ 4,605,970 $ 503,763 $ 2,194,512 $ 174,210 $ 744,671 $ - $ - $ 11,974,308

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-72
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 1,687,400 $ 171,475 $ - $ 5,866,596 $ (159,279) $ - $ - $ 69,853 $ - $ - $ 7,636,045

All Other Funds - (142,839) 137,022 12,217 80,998 2,413,112 29,258 5,147,049 391,834 - 8,068,651

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 1,687,400 171,475 - 5,866,596 (159,279) - - 69,853 - - 7,636,045

All Other Funds - (142,839) 137,022 12,217 80,998 2,413,112 29,258 5,147,049 391,834 - 8,068,651

Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Ajustments

All Other Funds - (26,000) - - - - - - - - (26,000)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 69,278 - - - - - - - - 69,278

All Other Funds - 7,197,692 1,600,101 3,014,146 2,142,076 7,925,566 1,132,622 6,529,485 - - 29,541,688

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 4,596 1,070 - 1,998,221 - - - - - - 2,003,887

All Other Funds - - - 508 - - - - - - 508

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents

Earmarked Funds 1,580,584 - - - - - - - - - 1,580,584

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 113,735 - - - - - - - - 113,735

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 157,381 - - - - - - - - - 157,381

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 226 - - 226

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (6,120) - - - - - - (72) - - (6,192)

All Other Funds - (53,304) 162 10,600 14,358 74,270 3,153 1,485 24 - 50,748

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds 602 1,365 - - 9,396 - - 4,706 - - 16,069

All Other Funds - 220,246 55,646 5,265 79,833 305,129 47,544 257,818 36,399 (25,464) 982,416

Other Financing Sources

All Other Funds - - - - - (4,613) - - - - (4,613)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 1,737,043 71,713 - 1,998,221 9,396 - - 4,634 - - 3,821,007

All Other Funds - 7,452,369 1,655,909 3,030,519 2,236,267 8,300,352 1,183,319 6,789,014 36,423 (25,464) 30,658,708

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (1,663,899) 9,441 - (662,569) (82,279) - - 9,070 - - (2,390,236)

All Other Funds - (7,366,074) (1,627,766) (3,029,580) (2,229,898) (7,953,014) (1,182,398) (6,843,372) (38,232) 25,464 (30,244,870)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds 73,144 81,154 - 1,335,652 (72,883) - - 13,704 - - 1,430,771

All Other Funds - 86,295 28,143 939 6,369 347,338 921 (54,358) (1,809) - 413,838

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds 1,760,544 252,629 - 7,202,248 (232,162) - - 83,557 - - 9,066,816

All Other Funds - (56,544) 165,165 13,156 87,367 2,760,450 30,179 5,092,691 390,025 - 8,482,489

Total All Funds $ 1,760,544 $ 196,085 $ 165,165 $ 7,215,404 $ (144,795) $ 2,760,450 $ 30,179 $ 5,176,248 $ 390,025 $ - $ 17,549,305

U. S. Department of Justice

III-73

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

 Department of Justice •FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ - $ 22,207 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 

- $ - $ 

- $ - $ 22,207

All Other Funds - 3,782,236 222,502 5,951,999 540,670 2,114,589 183,607 1,106,922 

- 

- 13,902,525

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds - 22,207 - 

- 

- - 

- - - - 22,207

All Other Funds - 3,782,236 222,502 5,951,999 540,670 2,114,589 183,607 1,106,922 - - 13,902,525

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 90,312 - - - - - - - - 90,312

All Other Funds - 7,220,403 1,190,039 2,501,851 2,053,353 7,922,537 1,158,272 6,205,386 - - 28,251,841

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

All Other Funds - (209,609) 393,936 200,453 39,756 90,116 (3,318) (818) - - 510,516

Other Adjustments 

Earmarked Funds - (9,001) - - - - - - - - (9,001)

All Other Funds - (40,750) - (54,000) - (50,000) - - - - (144,750)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (83,933) - - - - - - - - (83,933)

All Other Funds - (6,773,064) (1,477,577) (3,028,326) (2,074,612) (7,822,036) (1,136,378) (6,416,867) - - (28,728,860)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - (2,622) - - - - - - - - (2,622)

All Other Funds - 196,980 106,398 (380,022) 18,497 140,617 18,576 (212,299) - - (111,253)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds - (2,622) - - - - - - - - (2,622)

All Other Funds - 196,980 106,398 (380,022) 18,497 140,617 18,576 (212,299) - - (111,253)

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds - 19,585 - - - - - - - - 19,585

All Other Funds - 3,979,216 328,900 5,571,977 559,167 2,255,206 202,183 894,623 - - 13,791,272

Total All Funds $ - $ 3,998,801 $ 328,900 $ 5,571,977 $ 559,167 $ 2,255,206 $ 202,183 $ 894,623 $ - $ - $ 13,810,857

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-74

U. S. Department of Justice
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 1,425,883 $ 119,668 $ - $ 4,112,981 $ (100,558) $ - $ - $ 73,049 $ - $ - $ 5,631,023

All Other Funds - 29,192 132,920 15,014 85,653 1,923,897 33,169 5,160,967 448,162 - 7,828,974

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 1,425,883 119,668 - 4,112,981 (100,558) - - 73,049 - - 5,631,023

All Other Funds - 29,192 132,920 15,014 85,653 1,923,897 33,169 5,160,967 448,162 - 7,828,974

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 83,933 - - - - - - - - 83,933

All Other Funds - 6,773,064 1,477,577 3,028,326 2,074,612 7,822,036 1,136,378 6,416,867 - - 28,728,860

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 3,864 319 - 2,362,338 - - - - - - 2,366,521

All Other Funds - - - 932 - - - - - - 932

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents

Earmarked Funds 1,502,466 - - - - - - - - - 1,502,466

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 75,097 - - - - - - - 75,097

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 70,864 - - - - - - - - - 70,864

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 340 - - 340

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (31,259) - - - 86 - - - - - (31,173)

All Other Funds - (81,783) 186 24,608 9,432 69,206 2,407 5,394 (166) - 29,284

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds - 1,301 - - 6,969 - - 3,891 - - 12,161

All Other Funds - 161,894 38,441 4,712 68,740 354,864 39,264 212,814 37,435 (27,448) 890,716

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 1,545,935 85,553 - 2,362,338 7,055 - - 3,891 - - 4,004,772

All Other Funds - 6,928,272 1,516,204 3,058,578 2,152,784 8,246,106 1,178,049 6,635,415 37,269 (27,448) 29,725,229

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (1,284,418) (33,746) - (608,723) (65,776) - - (7,087) - - (1,999,750)

All Other Funds - (7,100,303) (1,512,102) (3,061,375) (2,157,439) (7,756,891) (1,181,960) (6,649,333) (93,597) 27,448 (29,485,552)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds 261,517 51,807 - 1,753,615 (58,721) - - (3,196) - - 2,005,022

All Other Funds - (172,031) 4,102 (2,797) (4,655) 489,215 (3,911) (13,918) (56,328) - 239,677

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds 1,687,400 171,475 - 5,866,596 (159,279) - - 69,853 - - 7,636,045

All Other Funds - (142,839) 137,022 12,217 80,998 2,413,112 29,258 5,147,049 391,834 - 8,068,651

Total All Funds $ 1,687,400 $ 28,636 $ 137,022 $ 5,878,813 $ (78,281) $ 2,413,112 $ 29,258 $ 5,216,902 $ 391,834 $ - $ 15,704,696

III-75

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

U. S. Department of Justice
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 1,010,179 $ 929,953 $ 133,375 $ 232,500 $ 223,391 $ 946,877 $ 110,131 $ 377,906 $ 74,986 $ 4,039,298

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 83,669 206,483 64,819 54,156 102,053 216,564 21,159 4,539 - 753,442

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 2,097,810 7,255,995 1,142,388 8,692,854 2,262,356 7,941,932 1,114,772 6,394,155 - 36,902,262

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned

Collected 11,665 2,095,196 1,576,541 62,049 529,938 1,307,280 95,965 384,112 994,091 7,056,837

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 624 43,636 16,620 87 4,563 19,410 (488) 1,768 9,141 95,361

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received - (8,150) (3,869) (28,370) (28) 771 - (201) (98,549) (138,396)

Without Advance from Federal Sources 20 (21,863) 6,998 (517) (29,182) (5,967) (10,057) 2,769 - (57,799)

Subtotal Budget Authority 2,110,119 9,364,814 2,738,678 8,726,103 2,767,647 9,263,426 1,200,192 6,782,603 904,683 43,858,265

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual - (74,088) 388,191 200,344 71,029 (61,176) (7,892) (1,834) - 514,574

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law (495,042) (439) - (6,099,743) - - - - - (6,595,224)

Permanently not Available - (57,709) (2,285) (45,654) (4,039) (15,884) (2,231) (12,788) - (140,590)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 2,708,925 $ 10,369,014 $ 3,322,778 $ 3,067,706 $ 3,160,081 $ 10,349,807 $ 1,321,359 $ 7,150,426 $ 979,669 $ 42,429,765

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 1,615,962 $ 7,259,310 $ 1,622,322 $ 2,848,111 $ 2,492,777 $ 8,101,889 $ 1,174,282 $ 6,725,968 $ - $ 31,840,621

Reimbursable 4,244 2,295,381 1,610,059 32,133 509,012 1,300,384 86,110 44,645 824,853 6,706,821

Total Obligations Incurred 1,620,206 9,554,691 3,232,381 2,880,244 3,001,789 9,402,273 1,260,392 6,770,613 824,853 38,547,442

Unobligated Balance - Available:

Apportioned 635,227 554,020 57,730 169,067 118,503 594,313 38,931 258,217 - 2,426,008

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - - 56,381 154,816 211,197

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 635,227 554,020 57,730 169,067 118,503 594,313 38,931 314,598 154,816 2,637,205

Unobligated Balance not Available 453,492 260,303 32,667 18,395 39,789 353,221 22,036 65,215 - 1,245,118

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 2,708,925 $ 10,369,014 $ 3,322,778 $ 3,067,706 $ 3,160,081 $ 10,349,807 $ 1,321,359 $ 7,150,426 $ 979,669 $ 42,429,765

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

III-76
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations $ 982,679 $ 4,874,461 $ 708,551 $ 5,510,847 $ 777,043 $ 3,221,811 $ 226,043 $ 1,185,212 $ 272,682 $ 17,759,329

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,245 794,774 165,214 25,666 181,976 479,261 70,398 6,345 25,219 1,753,098

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 978,434 4,079,687 543,337 5,485,181 595,067 2,742,550 155,645 1,178,867 247,463 16,006,231

Obligations Incurred 1,620,206 9,554,691 3,232,381 2,880,244 3,001,789 9,402,273 1,260,392 6,770,613 824,853 38,547,442

Less: Gross Outlays 1,426,916 9,658,520 3,227,503 3,311,068 2,964,749 9,242,252 1,219,844 6,899,342 926,480 38,876,674

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 83,669 206,483 64,819 54,156 102,053 216,564 21,159 4,539 - 753,442

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from 

Federal Sources (644) (21,773) (23,618) 430 24,619 (13,443) 10,545 (4,537) (9,141) (37,562)

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period:

Unpaid Obligations 1,092,300 4,564,149 648,610 5,025,867 712,030 3,165,268 245,431 1,051,944 171,055 16,676,654

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,889 816,547 188,832 25,236 157,357 492,704 59,852 10,882 34,360 1,790,659

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 1,087,411 $ 3,747,602 $ 459,778 $ 5,000,631 $ 554,673 $ 2,672,564 $ 185,579 $ 1,041,062 $ 136,695 $ 14,885,995

Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 1,426,916 $ 9,658,520 $ 3,227,503 $ 3,311,068 $ 2,964,749 $ 9,242,252 $ 1,219,844 $ 6,899,342 $ 926,480 $ 38,876,674

Less: Offsetting Collections 11,665 2,087,046 1,572,672 33,683 529,910 1,308,051 95,965 383,911 895,542 6,918,445

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 4,596 777,312 - 206 243,616 (7,284) 3,892 3,306 - 1,025,644

Total Net Outlays $ 1,410,655 $ 6,794,162 $ 1,654,831 $ 3,277,179 $ 2,191,223 $ 7,941,485 $ 1,119,987 $ 6,512,125 $ 30,938 $ 30,932,585

III-77

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Budgetary Resources 

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 1,195,445 653,984 75,661 224,290 323,879 1,060,034 82,195 372,051 59,313 $ 4,046,852

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 67,328 225,639 66,898 66,225 129,127 166,563 38,221 6,845 - 766,846

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 1,554,993 7,589,965 1,190,039 4,864,189 2,284,189 7,922,537 1,158,272 6,205,386 - 32,769,570

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned

Collected 10,073 2,135,632 1,592,758 129,382 537,802 1,338,006 81,707 374,407 872,217 7,071,984

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 223 (44,709) (39,937) (3,489) (33,532) 1,699 9,679 (2,005) (21,579) (133,650)

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received - 7,520 4,475 (83,090) 25 17,463 - (203) 6,904 (46,906)

Without Advance from Federal Sources - 92,950 (18,314) 4,745 (5,407) (106,807) 1,509 - - (31,324)

Subtotal Budget Authority 1,565,289 9,781,358 2,729,021 4,911,737 2,783,077 9,172,898 1,251,167 6,577,585 857,542 39,629,674

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual - (134,512) 393,936 200,453 39,756 90,116 (3,318) (818) - 585,613

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law (387,200) - - (1,654,425) - - - - - (2,041,625)

Permanently not Available - (50,303) - (54,000) - (50,000) - - - (154,303)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 2,440,862 $ 10,476,166 $ 3,265,516 $ 3,694,280 $ 3,275,839 $ 10,439,611 $ 1,368,265 $ 6,955,663 $ 916,855 $ 42,833,057

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 1,423,309 $ 7,327,826 $ 1,569,307 $ 3,434,149 $ 2,532,674 $ 8,278,414 $ 1,155,484 $ 6,536,140 $ - $ 32,257,303

Reimbursable 7,374 2,218,387 1,562,834 27,631 519,774 1,214,320 102,650 41,617 841,869 6,536,456

Total Obligations Incurred 1,430,683 9,546,213 3,132,141 3,461,780 3,052,448 9,492,734 1,258,134 6,577,757 841,869 38,793,759

Unobligated Balance - Available:

Apportioned 669,036 667,416 97,391 208,972 195,008 547,896 53,461 300,013 - 2,739,193

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - - 45,030 74,986 120,016

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 669,036 667,416 97,391 208,972 195,008 547,896 53,461 345,043 74,986 2,859,209

Unobligated Balance not Available 341,143 262,537 35,984 23,528 28,383 398,981 56,670 32,863 - 1,180,089

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 2,440,862 $ 10,476,166 $ 3,265,516 $ 3,694,280 $ 3,275,839 $ 10,439,611 $ 1,368,265 $ 6,955,663 $ 916,855 $ 42,833,057

III-78

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations 919,387 4,771,602 634,587 5,959,947 687,246 2,810,122 238,351 1,352,082 273,044 $ 17,646,368

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,022 746,533 223,465 24,410 220,915 584,369 59,209 8,350 46,798 1,918,071

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 915,365 4,025,069 411,122 5,935,537 466,331 2,225,753 179,142 1,343,732 226,246 15,728,297

Obligations Incurred 1,430,683 9,546,213 3,132,141 3,461,780 3,052,448 9,492,734 1,258,134 6,577,757 841,869 38,793,759

Less: Gross Outlays 1,300,063 9,217,715 2,991,279 3,844,655 2,833,524 8,914,482 1,232,222 6,737,782 842,231 37,913,953

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 67,328 225,639 66,898 66,225 129,127 166,563 38,221 6,845 - 766,846

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from 

Federal Sources (223) (48,241) 58,251 (1,256) 38,939 105,108 (11,188) 2,005 21,579 164,974

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period:

Unpaid Obligations 982,679 4,874,461 708,551 5,510,847 777,043 3,221,811 226,043 1,185,212 272,682 17,759,329

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,245 794,774 165,214 25,666 181,976 479,261 70,398 6,345 25,219 1,753,098

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 978,434 $ 4,079,687 $ 543,337 $ 5,485,181 $ 595,067 $ 2,742,550 $ 155,645 $ 1,178,867 $ 247,463 $ 16,006,231

Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 1,300,063 $ 9,217,715 $ 2,991,279 $ 3,844,655 $ 2,833,524 $ 8,914,482 $ 1,232,222 $ 6,737,782 $ 842,231 $ 37,913,953

Less: Offsetting Collections 10,073 2,143,152 1,597,233 46,292 537,827 1,355,469 81,707 374,204 879,120 7,025,077

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 3,864 691,754 - 242 231,967 253 622 12,666 - 941,368

Total Net Outlays $ 1,286,126 $ 6,382,809 $ 1,394,046 $ 3,798,121 $ 2,063,730 $ 7,558,760 $ 1,149,893 $ 6,350,912 $ (36,889) $ 29,947,508

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-79
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 $ - $ 5,222,083 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,222,083

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 17,437 - - 32,437

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 82,268 - 20 - - 82,288

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal - 38,255 - - - - 95 - - 38,350

Miscellaneous - 59 - - - - 3,892 - - 3,951

Total Cash Collections $ - $ 5,260,397 $ - $ - $ 97,268 $ - $ 21,444 $ - $ - $ 5,379,109

Accrual Adjustments - - - - 3,617 - 26 - - 3,643

Total Custodial Revenue $ - $ 5,260,397 $ - $ - $ 100,885 $ - $ 21,470 $ - $ - $ 5,382,752

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (96,346) - - - - - - - (96,346)

U.S. Department of Commerce - (5,103) - - - - - - - (5,103)

U.S. Department of the Interior - (29,959) - - - - - - - (29,959)

U.S. Department of Justice - (81,181) - - - - - - - (81,181)

U.S. Department of Labor - (736) - - - - - - - (736)

U.S. Postal Service - (4,362) - - - - - - - (4,362)

U.S. Department of State - (8,535) - - - - - - - (8,535)

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (130,778) - - (97,268) - (21,138) - - (249,184)

Office of Personnel Management - (58,144) - - - - - - - (58,144)

Federal Communications Commission - (14,727) - - - - - - - (14,727)

Social Security Administration - (2,726) - - - - - - - (2,726)

Smithsonian Institution - (190) - - - - - - - (190)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (28,703) - - - - - - - (28,703)

General Services Administration - (88,447) - - - - - - - (88,447)

Securities and Exchange Commission - (3) - - - - - - - (3)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (71) - - - - - - - (71)

Railroad Retirement Board - (100) - - - - - - - (100)

Environmental Protection Agency - (341,267) - - - - - - - (341,267)

U.S. Department of Transportation - (7,236) - - - - - - - (7,236)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (66,843) - - - - - - - (66,843)

Agency for International Development - (22,233) - - - - - - - (22,233)

Small Business Administration - (10,447) - - - - - - - (10,447)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (2,001,923) - - - - - - - (2,001,923)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (3,792) - - - - - - - (3,792)

Export-Import Bank of the United States - (24,643) - - - - - - - (24,643)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (11,099) - - - - - - - (11,099)

U.S. Department of Energy - (2,093) - - - - - - - (2,093)

U.S. Department of Education - (55,431) - - - - - - - (55,431)

Independent Agencies - (67,264) - - - - - - - (67,264)

Treasury General Fund - (618,814) - - - - - - - (618,814)

U.S. Department of Defense - (173,894) - - - - - - - (173,894)

Transferred to the Public - (516,597) - - - - - - - (516,597)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - (304,330) - - (3,617) - - - - (307,947)

Refunds and Other Payments - (364,312) - - - - (332) - - (364,644)

Retained by the Reporting Entity - (118,068) - - - - - - - (118,068)

Net Custodial Activity $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

III-80

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 $ - $ 4,789,655 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,789,655

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 13,985 - - 28,985

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 5,963 - 22 - - 5,985

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal - 33,004 - - - - 44 - - 33,048

Miscellaneous - 81 - - - - 623 - - 704

Total Cash Collections $ - $ 4,822,740 $ - $ - $ 20,963 $ - $ 14,674 $ - $ - $ 4,858,377

Accrual Adjustments - - - - 211 - 60 - - 271

Total Custodial Revenue $ - $ 4,822,740 $ - $ - $ 21,174 $ - $ 14,734 $ - $ - $ 4,858,648

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (84,620) - - - - - - - (84,620)

U.S. Department of Commerce - (1,725) - - - - - - - (1,725)

U.S. Department of the Interior - (283,244) - - - - - - - (283,244)

U.S. Department of Justice - (24,865) - - - - - - - (24,865)

U.S. Department of Labor - (3,537) - - - - - - - (3,537)

U.S. Postal Service - (6,762) - - - - - - - (6,762)

U.S. Department of State - (199) - - - - - - - (199)

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (571,742) - - (20,891) - (14,345) - - (606,978)

Office of Personnel Management - (46,636) - - - - - - - (46,636)

Federal Communications Commission - (2,693) - - - - - - - (2,693)

Social Security Administration - (3,558) - - - - - - - (3,558)

Smithsonian Institution - (209) - - - - - - - (209)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (35,068) - - - - - - - (35,068)

General Services Administration - (4,008) - - - - - - - (4,008)

Securities and Exchange Commission - (2) - - - - - - - (2)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (42) - - - - - - - (42)

Railroad Retirement Board - (143) - - - - - - - (143)

Environmental Protection Agency - (720,010) - - - - - - - (720,010)

U.S. Department of Transportation - (765) - - - - - - - (765)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (30,872) - - - - - - - (30,872)

Agency for International Development - (2,155) - - - - - - - (2,155)

Small Business Administration - (5,360) - - - - - - - (5,360)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (1,528,861) - - - - - - - (1,528,861)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (2,859) - - - - - - - (2,859)

Export-Import Bank of the United States - (4,704) - - - - - - - (4,704)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (25,985) - - - - - - - (25,985)

U.S. Department of Energy - (2,281) - - - - - - - (2,281)

U.S. Department of Education - (63,002) - - - - - - - (63,002)

Independent Agencies - (54,493) - - - - - - - (54,493)

Treasury General Fund - (485,769) - - - - - - - (485,769)

U.S. Department of Defense - (112,640) - - - - - - - (112,640)

Transferred to the Public - (391,304) - - - - - - - (391,304)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - (210,225) - - (283) - - - - (210,508)

Refunds and Other Payments - (10,627) - - - - (389) - - (11,016)

Retained by the Reporting Entity - (101,775) - - - - - - - (101,775)

Net Custodial Activity $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

III-81 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010
III-82 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-83

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information Unaudited
U. S. Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-84

U.S. Department of Justice

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information 

Consolidated Stewardship Investments

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008 and 2007

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. 

VOI/TIS and CSCATL funds are available for the following purposes:

 

 Build or expand correctional facilities to increase the bed capacity for the confinement of 

 persons convicted of a Part 1 violent crime or adjudicated delinquent for an act that, if

 committed by an adult, would be a Part 1 violent crime. NOTE: Part 1 violent crime included

 murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault as

 reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for purposes of the Uniform Crime Reports. 

 Build or expand temporary or permanent correctional facilities, including facilities on military 

 bases, prison barges, and boot camps, for the confinement of convicted offenders and

 criminal aliens, for the purpose of freeing suitable existing prison space for the confinement of

 persons convicted of a Part 1 violent crime.

 Build or expand jails.

 Additionally, since fiscal year (FY) 1999, up to 10.0 percent of a state's VOI/TIS award may be

 applied to the costs of offender drug testing or intervention programs during periods of

 incarceration and post-incarceration criminal justice supervision and/or pay the costs of

 providing the required reports on prison drug use. 

VOI/TIS and CSCATL funds expended from FY 2007 through FY 2011 are as follows:

Dollars in Thousands 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Cooperative Agreement Program 

Administered by USMS $0 $0 $0 $1,140 $2,839

Discretionary Grants to Indian 

Tribes 52,339 24,768 14,320 5,094 11,334

Formula Grants to States -1,139 11,389 41,561 59,011 188,171

Total $51,200 $36,157 $55,881 $65,245 $202,344

 


Department of Justice  FY 2011 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, reliable financial reporting, and 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations (FMFIA § 2) and whether financial management systems 

conform to financial system 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 Plan resulting 

from the FMFIA assessment. 

Section IV

Overview
IV-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-3

Top Management and Performance

Challenges in the Department of Justice

November 8, 2011

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: CYNTHIA A. SCHNEDAR

ACTING 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) 2011 

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.

While the challenges are not presented in priority order, similar to past years we 

continue to believe that Counterterrorism presents the greatest challenge to the 

Department. In addition, we added the challenge of Implementing Cost Savings and 

Efficiencies in recognition of the difficult challenges the Department faces in continuing 

to execute its mission in this constrained fiscal climate. In recognition of the fact that 

2011 was the fifth straight year that the Department earned an unqualified opinion on 

its consolidated financial statements with no material weakness, we have removed the 

challenge of Financial Management from the top 10 list. In addition, we have recategorized two of last year's challenges so that the issues previously represented by 

Organized Crimes and Financial Crimes and Cyber Crimes are represented in this year's 

list as Criminal Law Enforcement and Financial Enforcement.

We wish to emphasize that all 10 challenges are critical, and many are closely 

related to each other. For example, we believe that the challenges of combating 

terrorism, enforcing criminal law, and managing detention and incarceration cannot be 

addressed in isolation, but rather must take into account the challenge of protecting 

civil rights and civil liberties. Similarly, many of this year's top 10 challenges relate to 

fiscal responsibility and resource management, such as Implementing Cost Savings and 

Efficiencies; Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and Security; 

Financial Enforcement; and Grants and Contract Management.

We hope this document will assist Department managers in addressing its top

management and performance challenges. We look forward to continuing to work with 

the Department to respond to these important issues.

Attachment

OIG
IV-4 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-5

1. Counterterrorism: Ten years after the anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,

counterterrorism remains the highest priority of the Department of Justice (the Department). The deaths

of al-Qaeda leaders, including the May 2011 death of Osama Bin Laden, have not affected the goal of 

al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups to conduct attacks inside the United States. In June 2011, the 

Administration’s Strategy for Counterterrorism noted that the significant terrorist threat posed by 

al-Qaeda, its affiliates, and its adherents requires the United States and its partners to develop and pursue 

more agile and adaptive methods to defeat it. In addition, domestic terrorism also remains a significant 

concern, as illustrated by the January 2011 discovery of an improvised explosive device alongside a 

parade route in Spokane, Washington, and by the increasing dangers posed by anti-government militia 

extremism. Although the country and the Department have made considerable progress over the past 

decade to combat terrorism, the present era of budget and deficit reduction means that significant 

challenges remain in protecting the country from those who would do it harm while not shortchanging the 

Department’s other important missions.

Examination of the circumstances of the September 11 attacks makes it clear that the Department must 

ensure that it accurately processes, manages, and shares the information it has regarding known and 

suspected terrorists. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) is conducting multiple reviews and audits 

to assess how the Department manages information relating to counterterrorism. For example, we are 

examining the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) management of the terrorist watchlist nominations 

process and its encounters with individuals on the watchlist. In a previous audit, the OIG concluded that 

the FBI did not nominate known or suspected terrorists to the watchlist in a timely manner and did not 

update or remove watchlist records as required. The current review follows up on our prior audit to 

ensure that the FBI is making adequate progress to improve this important program. It is critical that the 

watchlist contain accurate and up-to-date information because it is used by government personnel to 

determine how to respond when a known or suspected terrorist requests entry into the United States. The 

OIG is also examining the FBI’s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) to determine if the FBI 

has implemented a viable strategy to locate and track suspected terrorists and their supporters; if the 

FTTTF’s coordination with law enforcement, intelligence agencies, and other outside entities has 

enhanced its abilities; and if the FBI has appropriately managed terrorist-related information maintained 

by the FTTTF.

Accurate tracking of counterterrorism efforts is also essential to the management of Department 

resources, as Congress and the Department use statistical reports relating to terrorism to make operational 

and funding decisions to support the Department’s annual budget requests for counterterrorism activities.

Particularly in this time of constrained budgets and deficit reduction efforts, it is essential that the 

Department report with precision terrorism-related statistics, such as the number of individuals charged 

with terrorism as a result of terrorism investigations and the number of threats made against people, cities, 

and transportation facilities. The OIG is conducting a follow-up audit of the Department’s internal 

controls over terrorism reporting to determine whether the National Security Division (NSD), the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and the FBI have taken appropriate actions to implement 

the recommendations from our 2007 audit that found that Department components and the Department as 

a whole did not accurately collect and report terrorism-related statistics. Four of the recommendations we 

made in that prior audit remain open, including that the FBI ensure terrorism-related statistics are not 

reported unless evidence is maintained to support the statistics. Our follow-up audit seeks to determine 

what progress has been made toward closing our recommendations and to determine whether the other 

corrective actions the Department has implemented have improved the components’ ability to gather, 

track, classify, verify, and report accurate terrorism-related statistics.

Terrorists and criminal hackers are increasingly using the freedom and anonymity of the Internet to 

threaten national security, and their evolving methods require ongoing adaptation by the Department and 

the FBI. In April 2011, the OIG published a report examining the FBI’s ability to address the threat of 
IV-6 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

cyber intrusions intended to compromise national security. The report focused on the FBI’s efforts to 

develop the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force (NCIJTF) and the capabilities of FBI field 

offices to investigate national security cyber intrusion cases. While our audit found that the FBI had 

completed the interim goals for the NCIJTF, such as identifying techniques and tactics being used to 

attack computer networks and incorporating intelligence and law enforcement community partners into 

the day-to-day operations of the task force, we also identified areas where the NCIJTF could improve its 

capabilities to defend against cyber attacks. For example, information sharing, even among task force 

members, was a significant concern. We found that the NCIJTF did not always share relevant 

information about cyber threats among the task force’s partner agencies even though the agencies are colocated at the NCIJTF and are expected to work together daily to mitigate and neutralize cyber threats. 

Some agencies’ representatives were often asked to leave NCIJTF threat focus cell meetings to limit 

dissemination of information. Further, our audit found that NCIJTF partner agencies had not agreed to a 

consistent information sharing framework, leaving NCIJTF partner agencies with potentially divergent 

understandings about what information would be shared.

In addition, we found that FBI field agents often lacked the technical skills necessary to investigate cyber 

intrusion cases, and many agents believed they did not have time to take the required training to gain 

these skills. Effective information sharing and proper training are critical to an effective counterterrorism 

strategy in general, and particularly with regard to cyber intrusions. Our report made 10 

recommendations, including that the FBI consider creating a new “cyber intrusion” career path and 

establish regional hubs staffed with cyber intrusion experts to ensure that the Department has appropriate 

specialists to address this emerging threat. The FBI has indicated that it agrees with all 10 

recommendations, and the OIG will continue to monitor this important issue.

Investigation and prosecution of terrorist financing also play an important role in the Department’s efforts 

to disrupt terrorist organizations and prevent terrorist attacks. The FBI and NSD share responsibility for 

identifying, investigating, and prosecuting persons and entities providing financial support to terrorist 

organizations and in providing operational support and legal guidance to federal, state, local, and 

international entities. The OIG has initiated a review of FBI and NSD efforts to combat terrorist 

financing that will examine whether the FBI and NSD are appropriately handling and coordinating these 

important responsibilities.

In addition, the Department must ensure that it is prepared to respond in the event of a terrorist attack. 

Since the publication of our June 2010 report concluding that the Department as a whole needed to 

improve its preparedness to respond to a weapon of mass destruction incident, the Department has formed 

an Emergency Preparedness Committee to assess its emergency preparedness policies and procedures, 

and to implement the recommendations made in our report. Those recommendations included

designating a leader in the Department with the authority to manage the entire response program and 

updating the Department’s response policies to conform them to the National Response Framework and 

National Incident Management System. However, 18 months after the creation of this committee, all five 

of the recommendations we made to the Department remain open. We believe that the Department will 

be better prepared to ensure public safety in the event of a terrorist attack when this work is complete.

Finally, coordination between the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF) in the event of a terrorist attack involving explosives remains a significant concern. We first raised 

these issues in our October 2009 review of the coordination between the FBI and ATF in responding to 

explosives incidents. While the FBI and ATF have made efforts to address the problems identified in our 

report and the Department has assigned lead jurisdiction over terrorism-related explosives investigations 

to the FBI, important questions remain. The questions include what ATF’s investigative role will be 

when an explosion’s nexus to terrorism is in dispute and which component will have lead agency 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-7

jurisdiction over non-terrorism crimes that have historically been investigated by the FBI, such as bank 

robberies. The Department must resolve these coordination issues promptly.

In sum, the effective management of counterterrorism efforts remains a fundamental challenge for the 

Department. Although the Department’s commitment to combating terrorism has been robust and steady, 

its management of such critical matters as information sharing and agency coordination can be 

substantially improved.

2. Implementing Cost Savings and Efficiencies: The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 

the United States is facing an enormous budget deficit of $1.28 trillion in 2011, and there are significant 

pressures to reduce this deficit. During the past fiscal year, two potential government shut downs were 

narrowly averted by last minute bipartisan agreements, which included the establishment of a “Super

Committee” of Members of Congress appointed to find ways to deeply cut the federal budget. Within the 

current fiscal environment of reduced budgets, hiring and pay freezes, and deficit reduction, it is essential 

that the Department manage its resources as efficiently and effectively as possible by streamlining or 

eliminating duplicative or ineffective programs and ensuring that expenditures directly support its 

mission.

To its credit, the Department has already taken steps to eliminate duplicative programs and reduce costs. 

In July 2010, the Attorney General created the Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies (the SAVE 

Council), which helps the Department identify and implement best practices for saving taxpayer dollars, 

realizing efficiencies, and monitoring Department progress. The Department has estimated that the 

SAVE Council has saved more than $51 million. Most recently, the Department announced more than 

$130 million in cost savings and efficiency measures (which include the previously mentioned 

$51 million) that it intends to implement, such as consolidating Antitrust Field Division offices and 

merging the Justice Management Division’s strategic planning and management functions. Additionally, 

in January 2011, Attorney General Holder issued a memorandum ordering a Department-wide temporary 

hiring freeze and instructing components to limit travel, training, and conference spending to only those 

needs that are essential. The Department also has announced that it will realign functions in various 

offices, lower lease costs by consolidating or reducing office space, and continue to look for ways to more 

effectively use the Department’s resources. The Department’s efforts to identify cost savings are 

commendable.

Yet more can be done. We believe that the Department also could achieve significant cost savings if it 

were to consolidate and streamline its efforts in programs with comparable characteristics. For example, 

as we described in our 2009 report regarding explosives investigation coordination between the FBI and 

ATF, the Department should consider consolidating its explosives training facilities, including the 

facilities used to train explosives-detecting canines, as well as Department laboratories that perform 

explosives-related analyses. In addition, the Department maintains three components that award grants –

the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and Community

Oriented Policing Services (COPS). In our March 2011 report regarding the Department’s efforts to

monitor and oversee grants awarded through OJP, we found that OVW and COPS perform certain 

monitoring and oversight functions that are duplicative of the services available through OJP.

In addition to streamlining duplicative programs and consolidating office space, the Department must also 

negotiate its contracts in a manner that maximizes the value it receives. For example, the Department 

spends over $1.2 billion a year on non-federal detention space, an amount that has continued to increase 

each year even though the number of detainees has remained relatively constant. We have repeatedly 

expressed concern that the Department was not effectively negotiating the rates it pays to house federal 

detainees. In our March 2011 report regarding the Department’s process for negotiating the rates it pays

to state and local governments to house detainees, we described significant deficiencies in the United 
IV-8 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

States Marshals Service’s (USMS) negotiation strategy tools. For example, although the USMS collects 

operating expense data from jails showing how much each spends to house detainees, it did not 

consistently use this data to negotiate lower rates. In addition, we found that during negotiations, the 

USMS inconsistently applied pricing factors such as independent estimates and rates charged by nearby 

jails and, in some cases, proposed rates were compared only to the highest rates in a particular area 

without regard to whether facilities were comparable in terms of type, size, and location. We also

identified instances in which some state and local governments took advantage of circumstances such as a 

shortage in detention space to demand unjustifiable increased rates. We therefore made several 

recommendations to help the Department better negotiate, justify, and document agreements to obtain 

non-federal detention space that could result in significant cost savings, including moving detainees to 

different facilities when a local facility demands an unjustifiable rate increase. It is essential that the 

Department collect and use accurate and up-to-date information in this program and others to ensure it is 

in the best position when it negotiates with contractors and vendors what it will spend on its programs.

During fiscal year (FY) 2011, the OIG issued several reports that highlighted other, smaller expenditures 

that the Department should analyze to identify opportunities for cost savings. For example, the OIG 

conducted an audit of how much the Department spends on conference planning and food and beverage 

costs. The Department reported that it hosted or participated in 1,832 conferences in FYs 2008 and 2009 

at a total cost of $121 million. Our audit found that the Department spent approximately $600,000 in 

grant funds to procure event planning services for five conferences without demonstrating that these firms 

also offered the most cost-effective logistical services and that two of the Department’s components did 

not collect salary and benefit cost data from their event planners. We also identified unallowable and 

unnecessary event planning costs. We recommended that components ensure that the Department uses 

training and technical assistance providers, who are generally more skilled than needed for providing 

purely logistical services, to plan conferences only when it is the most cost-effective method of providing 

logistical services, and that recipients of Department funds for conference planning be required to track 

their time and activities associated with such services. The Department should ensure it is receiving good 

value for the considerable sums of money it spends on conferences. In response to our report, the 

Department is taking action to control future conference expenditures. For example, the Justice 

Management Division (JMD) is issuing guidance to Department components requiring them to conduct a 

cost-benefit analysis when justifying ordering food and beverages to obtain free meeting space. In 

addition, Department components are implementing guidelines regarding conference food and beverage 

limits for conferences supported with cooperative agreement funds that are congruent with Departmentwide rules.

The Department can also control expenditures through oversight to ensure that expenses are incurred in 

accordance with Department policy and government regulations. In November 2010, the OIG issued a 

report that found while the large majority of U.S. Attorneys rarely or never exceeded the government 

lodging rate, a small number of U.S. Attorneys routinely exceeded the government rate by large amounts, 

with insufficient justification. We also found that deficiencies and inconsistencies in the Department’s 

travel policies enabled U.S. Attorneys to authorize their own travel, including authorizing themselves to 

exceed the government rate. As a result of this review, the Department issued a new policy clarifying the 

requirement that U.S. Attorneys obtain authorization for their travel from the Executive Office for United 

States Attorneys. The Department reports that it is implementing new procedures to ensure that 

U.S. Attorneys, and all Department employees, receive authorization for travel only when necessary and 

that all related travel expenses are incurred in accordance with government and Department travel 

regulations. We will continue to monitor their efforts in this area.

Fiscal responsibility is always important, and never more so than in difficult economic times when the 

Department must fulfill its mission despite budget constraints. The Department must remain innovative 

and vigilant in continuing to identify opportunities to increase efficiencies, eliminate ineffective 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-9

programs, and direct funding toward its highest priorities. The Department’s challenge is to use its 

resources wisely and maximize the effectiveness of its programs while meeting or exceeding established 

performance goals.

3. Southwest Border Security Issues: For the second year in a row, the effort to combat organized 

criminal activities such as the smuggling of humans, drugs, firearms and ammunition, and currency along 

the 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico continues to present a formidable challenge for the Department. 

The Department’s 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment continued to report that crime cartels are 

primarily responsible for most of the illicit drugs and the thousands of illegal immigrants that are 

smuggled across the border from Mexico. Simultaneously, firearms and currency are smuggled from the 

United States into Mexico.

The Department has responded to these criminal activities with a multi-faceted approach under its 

Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative, using assets of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),

ATF, FBI, the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), and United States 

Attorneys’ Offices, among others. Major efforts aimed at the Southwest border include ATF’s Project 

Gunrunner; the DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) and its Special Operations Division (SOD); 

OCDETF co-located strike forces and the multi-agency OCDETF Fusion Center; and the FBI’s criminal 

investigations. However, according to the 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment, the availability of 

most illegal drugs has continued to increase. While violent crime along the Southwest border as a whole 

has decreased, as it has nationwide, some locations have seen increases.

ATF’s efforts to manage its Southwest border law enforcement responsibilities have been complicated by 

allegations that a gun trafficking investigation known as Operation Fast and Furious was mishandled and 

endangered public safety. Operation Fast and Furious grew out of ATF’s Project Gunrunner, a national 

initiative to stem firearms trafficking to Mexico, and the Department’s Southwest Border Enforcement 

Initiative, which is intended to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high level of 

violence associated with these activities. The OIG is reviewing the development and implementation of 

Operation Fast and Furious and similar investigations, including matters such as the involvement of 

Department components and other law enforcement or government entities in the investigations; 

information sharing issues among the agencies; the guidelines and other internal controls in place and 

compliance with those controls during the investigations; and the investigative outcomes.

In addition to our ongoing review of Operation Fast and Furious, in November 2010 we completed a 

review of ATF’s overall management of Project Gunrunner. Our review found poor coordination and 

collaboration, and inadequate information sharing between ATF and other Department components, and 

between ATF and units of the Mexican government. In response to the OIG’s 15 recommendations, ATF 

has reported to the OIG that it will implement a revised Cartel Strategy for combating firearms 

trafficking, increase its dissemination of intelligence information to its Mexican partners, increase

coordination with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and improve its coordination with the DEA. The OIG continues 

to monitor ATF’s implementation of the corrective actions it agreed to take in response to our 

recommendations.

The OIG also continues to examine other aspects of the Department’s Southwest Border Enforcement 

Initiative. In response to the recommendations we made in our June 2010 report regarding the DEA’s 

El Paso Intelligence Center, the Department has implemented initiatives to improve its operations, 

including establishing a Predictive Analysis and Targeting Unit to enhance analysis of information 

regarding drug seizures and the use of fraudulent documents. The DEA also reported to the OIG that it 

received Office of National Drug Control Policy funding for a program that allowed EPIC to increase 

drug seizure data reporting into the National Seizure System and, thus, to create a more complete record 
IV-10 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

of drug seizure information. In addition, the DEA reported that EPIC added a Community of Interest 

feature to its web portal, which provides broader and more interactive sharing of Southwest border 

information for EPIC’s users. With the integration of the Border Intelligence Fusion Section, another 

new DHS-led organization based at EPIC, the Department may be able to provide more timely and 

accurate information and analysis to other agencies and intelligence centers.

Border security issues are also affected by the enforcement of immigration laws. Although DHS 

organizations are charged with most immigration-related responsibilities, we are reviewing the efforts of 

the Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) to address its backlog of cases.

Although the Department is actively working with other federal agencies, with state and local law 

enforcement, and with Mexico to respond to the law enforcement challenges along the Southwest border, 

much remains to be done. The Department’s challenge is to continue its efforts to reduce the flow of 

illegal immigrants, drugs, and weapons between Mexico and the United States effectively, without 

endangering public safety.

4. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: While the Department must aggressively continue 

to pursue its counterterrorism and criminal law enforcement responsibilities, it also must not waver from 

its commitment and responsibility to uphold civil and constitutional rights. As several of our recent 

reviews have demonstrated, finding the appropriate balance between these important goals presents a 

significant challenge.

The OIG has conducted a series of reviews to evaluate the Department’s and the FBI’s use of various 

counterterrorism investigative tools. For example, the OIG is currently conducting its third examination 

of the FBI’s use of National Security Letters (NSL), which are used to obtain information such as 

telephone and financial records from third parties without a court order. Of particular note, this review 

will evaluate the automated system the FBI implemented to generate and track NSLs. This system, which 

the FBI created in response to deficiencies identified in our prior reports, is critical to the responsible 

administration of the FBI’s counterterrorism tools. We are also examining the FBI’s use of its authority 

pursuant to Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act (Patriot Act) to obtain business records and the FBI’s 

use of its pen register and trap-and-trace authority under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

Another powerful investigative mechanism with important implications for civil rights and liberties is the 

material witness warrant. These warrants are governed by a statute that permits the arrest and detention 

of witnesses, under specified circumstances and without a showing of probable cause, so that they are 

available to provide testimony in criminal proceedings. The OIG has initiated a review of allegations of 

civil rights and civil liberties abuses in the Department’s post-September 11 use of material witness 

warrants in the national security context.

The Department has also been granted intelligence-gathering authorities under Section 702 of the FISA 

Amendments Act of 2008 (FAA) that are useful to its counterterrorism mission but also have civil rights 

and liberties implications. Section 702 authorizes targeting non-U.S. persons reasonably believed to be 

outside the United States in order to acquire foreign intelligence information. The OIG is examining the 

FBI’s use of this statute, including the FBI’s compliance with targeting and minimization procedures 

required under the FAA that are designed to ensure that the Department strikes an appropriate balance 

between its national security responsibilities and its responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties.

With regard to non-terrorism investigations, the Department has made progress implementing 

recommendations we made in our 2010 report concerning allegations that the FBI improperly targeted 

certain domestic advocacy groups for scrutiny based upon the exercise of their First Amendment rights. 

For example, the FBI has reported that its Office of General Counsel has issued instructions to its 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-11

personnel not to retain information regarding an individual’s exercise of First Amendment rights without 

the requisite law enforcement nexus, statutory authorization, or the individual’s consent, and it is 

developing a corporate policy to the same effect. The FBI has also promised to ensure that FBI agents 

must specify the potential violation of a specific federal criminal statute as part of documenting the basis 

for opening a preliminary or full investigation in cases involving investigation of members of advocacy 

groups for activities connected to the exercise of their First Amendment rights. The FBI has not, 

however, taken the same action with regard to investigation of advocacy groups themselves, and we 

believe the FBI should do so promptly.

Protecting civil rights and liberties, however, is not just a matter of balancing the citizenry’s rights against 

the need for aggressive law enforcement or counterterrorism investigations. The Department also must 

ensure that it is properly enforcing civil rights laws. The OIG has undertaken a review of the enforcement 

of civil rights laws by the Voting Section of the Department’s Civil Rights Division. The review is 

examining the types of cases brought by the Voting Section and any changes in the types of cases over 

time; any changes in Voting Section enforcement policies or procedures over time; whether the Voting 

Section has enforced the civil rights laws in a non-discriminatory manner; and whether any Voting 

Section employees have been harassed for participating in the investigation or prosecution of particular 

matters.

Another critical challenge facing the Department in protecting civil rights and liberties is ensuring that it 

has adequate measures in place so that it does not wrongly accuse someone of committing a crime. This 

issue was raised in the OIG’s June 2011 follow-up report examining the FBI’s progress in implementing 

recommendations for improvements to the FBI Laboratory’s latent fingerprint operations following the 

misidentification of Brandon Mayfield in 2004. Mayfield, who was an attorney in Portland, Oregon, at 

the time, was arrested after the FBI Laboratory examiners wrongly identified his fingerprint as matching a 

fingerprint found on a bag of detonators connected to the March 2004 terrorist attack on commuter trains 

in Madrid, Spain. Our follow-up report concluded that the FBI Laboratory has made significant 

improvements to its latent print operations since the misidentification, including undertaking research to 

develop objective criteria for latent fingerprint analysis and substantially revising its Standard Operating 

Procedures and training materials to address many of the causes of the Mayfield misidentification.

Finally, the Department’s responsibility to protect civil rights and liberties includes ensuring the integrity 

of our justice system in all respects, even after conviction. The Department’s challenges relating to 

detention and incarceration, a crucial aspect of protecting civil rights and liberties, are discussed in the 

Detention and Incarceration section of this document.

5. Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and Security: The 

Department’s management of its information technology (IT) systems continues to remain a top 

management challenge, and it has proven particularly difficult recently. Large IT projects have failed, 

been delayed, or faced cost overruns just as federal budgets are tightening and cyber intrusions are

emerging as a bigger threat. The Department’s struggles in planning and implementing IT systems are so 

serious that in 2010, three Department projects were identified by the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) as “high risk”: the Justice Management Division’s Litigation Case Management System (LCMS), 

the FBI’s Sentinel case management project, and the FBI’s Next Generation Identification (NGI) project 

to share fingerprint and other biometric information. Since that time, the Department has decided to 

terminate the LCMS project, after spending millions of dollars on the project. As a result, the Department 

still struggles with decentralized, disparate litigation case management processes.

The FBI is continuing with its two projects that OMB identified as high-risk. One is the ongoing 

development and implementation of the Sentinel project intended to upgrade the FBI’s electronic case 

management system and provide the FBI with an automated workflow process. In our October 2010 
IV-12 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

report on Sentinel, we expressed our concerns that the implementation of Sentinel had been delayed and 

was over budget. We found that the deployment of Sentinel’s Phase 2 in July 2010 had resulted in some 

improvements to the FBI’s case management system, but it did not deliver much of the functionality that

was originally intended. We are currently concluding our eighth review of the Sentinel program, and we 

continue to have concerns regarding its implementation. When we began this review, the Sentinel project 

was at a crossroads and the FBI had announced a plan to complete the remaining two phases of Sentinel 

using a new “Agile development” strategy. We are currently examining the effectiveness of the new 

Agile strategy and whether the FBI will meet the functionality requirements of the case management 

system. In addition, we are evaluating the milestones the FBI has set to determine if the FBI will meet its

goals without cost overruns.

Another difficult and costly IT project for the FBI has been the development of NGI, its fingerprint and 

biometric information sharing project. According to OMB’s “Federal IT Dashboard,” NGI is expected to 

cost $1.2 billion by the time it is completed in FY 2017. One of the key challenges for this project is to 

contain its cost while implementing a design that can accommodate new types of biometric evidence as it 

becomes available.

In addition to the three IT systems OMB identified as “high risk,” we are concerned about the 

implementation and maintenance of the Department’s Unified Financial Management System (UFMS). 

The Department has long sought to implement a Department-wide financial management system to 

replace the disparate accounting systems used throughout the Department. The OIG reviewed whether 

the UFMS project was on budget and being implemented according to schedule. In our June 2011 report,

we found that although 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, different and sometimes outdated versions of UFMS are in use. Using 

different and outdated versions of UFMS increases the risk and complexity of making any necessary 

changes or updates to the system. The significant challenges the Department continues to face regarding 

the implementation of UFMS include justifying and obtaining sufficient funding for the project in

difficult budget times, staff turnover, and ensuring progress while competing with other Departmental 

priorities. Additionally, the Department must manage and support current UFMS users. Despite the 

Department’s difficulties with UFMS, it is vital for the Department to obtain accurate, near real-time 

financial information concerning its operations in order to more effectively support its mission.

Another complex and problematic technology project for the Department is the development and 

implementation of a secure, interoperable, nationwide wireless integrated network to facilitate 

communication among federal law enforcement officials in different agencies and to meet mandates to 

use radio frequencies more efficiently. For the past several years, the Department has been attempting to 

fully implement this project along with the Departments of Homeland Security and the Treasury. In our 

2007 report, we noted that the program was at a high risk for failure because of inconsistent funding and 

weaknesses in the program’s governing structure. We continue to have concerns about the program’s 

implementation, and our review of the program is ongoing.

While the Department has had difficulties developing and implementing new systems, it has had some 

success in making its existing IT systems more secure. The Justice Security Operations Center (JSOC) 

was established in 2007 to protect Department IT environments from cyber intrusions, incidents, attacks, 

and espionage. JSOC provides incident response planning, training, and assistance to all Department

components and works with components to prevent, monitor, mitigate, and resolve cyber incidents and 

attacks on the Department. JSOC also coordinates with the Department of Homeland Security’s United 

States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) in reporting incidents. Our audit of the Justice 

Security Operations Center’s capabilities and coordination determined that for the most part, JSOC has 

been able to effectively monitor network traffic, process the information it receives from Department 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-13

components and offices, and report incidents to US-CERT. However, we also found that JSOC could 

further enhance its communication regarding cyber incidents with Department components.

Up-to-date and secure systems are vital to effective management of all of the Department’s operations. 

Developing, implementing, and securing IT systems is a complex, costly, and constantly evolving 

challenge. Particularly in this era of budget tightening, the Department must ensure that it implements 

and supports valuable and cost-effective IT systems.

6. Criminal Law Enforcement: Although the Department has consistently identified the fight 

against terrorism as its top priority in recent years, the Department’s criminal law enforcement efforts are 

a major part of its responsibilities. Transnational organized crime, which encompasses a broad spectrum 

of criminal activities ranging from illegal gambling to the distribution of illegal drugs and weapons, 

human trafficking, and financial crimes, is truly global in nature and scope as technological advances 

enable criminal organizations to operate anywhere in the world. Cyber crime, the use of computers to 

conduct a wide variety of criminal activities, including fraud, identity theft, and sexual exploitation of 

minors, is a persistent law enforcement challenge. Fighting violent, transnational, and cyber crime 

presents an unrelenting management challenge for the Department.

However, there was positive news in the September 2011 report issued by the Bureau of Justice Statistics,

which stated that the rate of violent crime committed against U.S. residents aged 12 or older during 2010 

fell by 13 percent. Statistics in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report also indicate that crime during 2010 

generally decreased 6 percent from 2009 levels, and in particular, the estimated number of violent crimes, 

such as murder, non-negligent manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, declined for the 

fourth consecutive year.

Some additional positive news is that the FBI has eliminated the backlog in processing DNA samples of 

convicted offenders, arrestees, and detainees, which assists in identifying and prosecuting violent 

criminals. Historically, the FBI Laboratory has had a significant backlog of DNA samples to process as a 

result of federal legislation enacted in the past 10 years that expanded the scope of DNA sample 

collection from violent offenders to include anyone who commits a federal offense, as well as to nonU.S. citizens detained in the United States. Our 2011 audit report examining the FBI’s efforts to reduce 

its backlog revealed that the FBI has effectively eliminated its backlog and currently has a manageable 

monthly workload. However, we identified some areas for improvement, such as the lack of written 

policies and reporting methods designed to ensure workload levels are accurately identified and reported 

to management, and the need for better long-term storage of DNA samples, which are maintained 

indefinitely in the event the FBI must retest a sample to confirm a match.

While the FBI has eliminated the backlog in processing DNA samples of convicted offenders, arrestees, 

and detainees, it is also responsible for processing forensic DNA collected from crime scenes and 

evidentiary items such as envelopes, clothing, and drinking glasses, which is then compared to samples 

collected from known persons in an attempt to identify the perpetrator of a crime. Our August 2010 

report examining the FBI Laboratory’s forensic DNA case backlog concluded that the FBI Laboratory 

had a significant and growing backlog of cases requiring the processing of forensic DNA samples, and in 

September 2011, the OIG initiated a follow-up review to determine if the FBI has made progress to

reduce this backlog.

Along with continuing the Department’s efforts to reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent 

crime generally, dismantling and disrupting organizations that distribute and traffic illegal drugs and 

firearms continues to present a significant challenge to the Department. According to the Department’s 

2011 National Drug Threat Assessment, major transnational criminal organizations are largely 

responsible for the supply of illicit drugs smuggled to the United States, and criminal gangs remain in 
IV-14 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

control of most of the retail distribution of illegal drugs throughout the United States. The study also 

determined that the threat posed by gang involvement, particularly in the Southwest region of the United 

States, is increasing. One of the measures the Department has taken to combat this threat is the creation 

of the Organized Crime and Gang Section in the Criminal Division. In a review completed in late 2009, 

we raised serious concerns about the lack of information sharing between National Gang Intelligence 

Center (NGIC) and the National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center (GangTECC). 

In response to our review, in late 2010, the Organized Crime and Gang Section merged with GangTECC. 

We believe this important step could enhance the Department’s efforts to more effectively battle 

organized crime related to illegal drug trafficking.

However, one of the fastest growing gang-related drug threats is the manufacturing and distribution of 

methamphetamine, along with the distribution of cocaine and crack cocaine. In 2010, the OIG issued a 

report describing its review of the DEA’s Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program, which was 

established primarily to assist local law enforcement agencies in rural areas to reduce drug-related 

violence and disrupt or dismantle methamphetamine traffickers and laboratories. We determined that a 

significant problem with the MET program was that it was not deployed in the rural areas for which it 

was intended. Although the DEA concurred with our recommendations regarding the implementation of 

the METs, in October 2011, the Department announced that it would eliminate the MET program and 

reassign 145 positions. The manufacture and distribution of methamphetamine remains a significant 

problem, and the DEA will have to redirect its efforts to ensure that the elimination of the MET program 

does not increase the growth of this threat.

In addition to illegal drugs, the use and distribution of illegal weapons is a continuing threat. ATF is 

responsible for the federal firearms licensee inspection program, which helps ensure that licensed gun 

dealers do not sell firearms to individuals who are prohibited from owning them. The OIG is conducting 

a follow-up review of ATF’s inspection program, which will evaluate the changes ATF has made to its 

inspection process, the process it uses to refer suspected criminal violations, and how it institutes 

administrative actions against licensed dealers who violate federal firearms laws and regulations.

Illegal weapons and drugs, and the violence associated with the manufacture and distribution of illegal 

drugs, are not the only serious criminal law enforcement threats the Department must address. As 

sophisticated criminal organizations increasingly take advantage of technological advancements and 

create online global networks to carry out criminal activity, organized crime has evolved from extortion 

and intimidation to additionally encompass matters as complex as financial fraud and human smuggling.

Organized crime has now truly become “transnational” in scope, and the Department must use 

sophisticated and aggressive techniques to address it.

Fighting transnational and cyber crime, such as identity theft, remains an important challenge for the 

Department. Large-scale breaches of corporate and government data networks resulting in the theft of 

millions of credit and debit card numbers and other personal information have been the subject of 

numerous recent news articles, underscoring the increase in and prevalence of cyber crime. In April 

2011, the Department announced that it had disabled an international “botnet,” which infected more than 

2 million computers with a malicious software program that enabled criminals to remotely control 

computers to steal private personal and financial information from unsuspecting users. While the 

Department made strides in investigating and prosecuting cyber criminals in 2011, it must continue to 

focus its efforts in this area in conjunction with other law enforcement partners, not the least because, as 

we noted in the Counterterrorism challenge, cyber intrusion poses a grave threat to national security.

In sum, while the Department has made some progress in the struggle to reduce violent crime, it still faces 

significant challenges in reducing the global influence of transnational criminal networks.
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-15

7. Restoring Confidence in the Department: We have reported this as a management challenge 

since 2007 in response to the controversy surrounding the firing of nine U.S. Attorneys and the hiring of 

certain career attorneys based on improper political and ideological affiliation. Since we first reported this 

challenge, we recognize that the Department has undertaken significant efforts toward restoring 

confidence in the Department. However, as we reported last year, some concerns remain over whether 

the Department has an adequate disciplinary process for its attorneys and law enforcement personnel, and 

new issues have arisen concerning enforcement decisions by the Department.

In 2008 and 2009, the OIG and the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility issued a series of 

three reports substantiating allegations that Department officials improperly used political and ideological 

considerations to make employment decisions for career attorney positions in the Civil Rights Division, 

the Department’s Honors Program and Summer Law Intern Program, and other career attorney positions. 

Since those reports were issued, the Department has addressed most of our recommendations by 

developing new policies, briefings, and training materials that explicitly instruct hiring officials to use 

merit-based principles rather than ideological or political affiliation when hiring for career positions. 

However, a May 2011 Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) policy that prohibits discrimination on the 

basis of political affiliation, among other factors, does not specifically state that it applies to detailee 

positions, not even detailees in policy-making positions. We do not believe that the Department’s new 

EEO policy sufficiently addresses the concerns we raised in one of our hiring reports, and we believe that 

the Department should provide guidance that includes examples of the types of questions permissible in 

detailee interviews that are consistent with the Department’s policy prohibiting the consideration of 

political affiliation.

Law enforcement agency misuse of investigative authority also undermines confidence in Department 

operations. In a 2007 review, the OIG found that the FBI had improperly or illegally used its National 

Security Letter authority, which is used in terrorism and espionage investigations and permits the FBI to 

obtain information such as telephone, e-mail, and financial records from third parties without a court 

order. To address such concerns, the FBI established the Integrity and Compliance Program, modeled on 

compliance programs in the private sector, to proactively identify and correct weaknesses in policy, 

training, or other operations that could result in FBI employees violating the law or FBI policy as they 

conduct their work. Among other measures, the Office of Integrity and Compliance (OIC) has 

established a compliance helpline that allows FBI employees to report compliance concerns 

anonymously, promulgated a non-retaliation policy for reporting compliance concerns, and incorporated 

an explicit compliance element into the performance appraisal plans of FBI employees. We currently are 

reviewing the Integrity and Compliance Program to evaluate, among other things, where the program is 

effective at promoting a culture of integrity and ethical compliance throughout the FBI.

We believe the FBI’s establishment of the Integrity and Compliance Program is a good beginning, but as 

the Department’s leading law enforcement agency charged with upholding and enforcing all federal 

criminal laws, the FBI must continue to develop strong measures to reinforce and sustain its integrity. In 

2010 we issued a report finding significant abuses and cheating on the examination designed to measure

FBI employees’ knowledge of the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), which 

implements the Attorney General’s Guidelines governing FBI domestic operations. Since our report was 

issued, the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility has been investigating and adjudicating the 

individual cases and has imposed a range of discipline, including non-disciplinary counseling, letters of 

censure, and suspension without pay for a period of time. The FBI is in the process of updating and 

revising the DIOG and has announced plans for new training and testing focusing on the revisions. While 

we believe these measures are important, the FBI must also continually ensure that its personnel are fully 

trained and are able to demonstrate that they take seriously the responsibility to act in accordance with the 

Constitution, laws, rules, policies, and procedures governing the FBI’s investigative activities.
IV-16 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

In addition to addressing law enforcement misconduct, the Department must also address allegations of 

prosecutorial misconduct in a manner that promotes public confidence. The Department has recently 

undertaken several measures to address the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. In addition to mandatory 

training it began in 2010 regarding the government’s discovery obligations in criminal cases, the 

Department has instituted changes to its internal process for investigating, reporting, and addressing 

prosecutorial misconduct. In 2011, as part of an effort to address allegations that its investigations were 

not concluded in a timely fashion, a new management team in the Department’s Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR) instituted internal management controls and deadlines for completing investigations 

and reports. Prior backlogs in the publication of OPR’s annual report, which describes how it handles its 

caseload and summarizes its significant investigations, have been eliminated and it is currently up to date. 

However, the report summaries contained in the annual report provide only limited details regarding the 

investigations and the basis for OPR’s conclusions. While OPR has begun to take steps to determine 

whether it can make public more information about the cases it investigates, it states that constraints in the 

provisions of the Privacy Act limit the amount of information it can publicly disclose.

In order to facilitate timely and consistent resolution of disciplinary matters arising out of findings of 

professional misconduct by OPR, the Attorney General also established the Professional Misconduct 

Review Unit (PMRU) in 2011. The PMRU was designed to reduce delays in imposing attorney discipline 

and to establish consistent resolution of similar misconduct matters. Beginning in October 2011, the 

PMRU has been required to submit a report to the Deputy Attorney General semiannually, detailing its 

compliance with the deadlines established for deciding appropriate disciplinary action. We believe 

OPR’s efforts and the establishment of the PMRU are improvements to the process of addressing 

prosecutorial misconduct in a more timely and consistent way, but we believe OPR and the PMRU should 

devise ways to make public more of their findings in order to deter potential misconduct and to promote 

the Department’s efforts to address it.

In addition, as discussed in the Southwest Border Security Issues challenge, we are reviewing ATF’s gun 

trafficking investigation known as Fast and Furious and allegations that it was mishandled and

endangered public safety. This review is examining the involvement in and oversight and management of 

the investigation by multiple Department components, including ATF, the United States Attorney’s 

Office, and divisions within the Department.

Overall, the Department has taken several significant steps toward restoring its reputation for impartiality 

and excellence, but we believe the Department as a whole should continue to enhance its training and 

ethics programs and develop ways to make its disciplinary findings more transparent.

8. Financial Enforcement: It is especially important in this era of budget cuts and deficit reduction 

for the Department to vigorously enforce laws related to financial crimes such as mortgage fraud and 

fraud related to government contracts. In November 2009, President Obama established the Financial 

Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) to enhance effectiveness in sharing information among federal, 

state, and local government agencies to help prevent and combat financial fraud. We believe that this 

effort is essential and that the Department’s role in it is central, but the Department should aggressively 

pursue financial crimes of all kinds, both independent from and in cooperation with the FFETF. The 

Department should also continue to pursue civil enforcement actions against those who commit fraud.

Mortgage fraud has become pervasive, causing the mortgage lending industry, homeowners, businesses, 

and the national economy to lose billions of dollars annually. The FBI’s 2010 Mortgage Fraud Report 

noted that mortgage fraud continued to steadily increase over 2009 levels. Combating mortgage fraud 

effectively requires the cooperation of law enforcement, prosecutors, and industry entities. The 

Department’s Mortgage Fraud Working Group, which consists of representatives from the federal 

inspectors general community, the FBI, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, and the National Association of 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-17

Attorneys General, helps direct the resources aimed at addressing the growing problem of mortgage fraud. 

The OIG is performing an audit of the Department’s efforts to address mortgage fraud, which will include 

an assessment of the Department’s efforts in and as a result of the Mortgage Fraud Working Group.

In addition to prosecuting mortgage fraud, the Department recovers significant civil penalties pursuant to 

statutes such as the False Claims Act, which imposes liability upon individuals and organizations that 

submit fraudulent claims to the government. In October 2011, the Department announced that its total 

recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 exceeded $7.8 billion.

However, fraud and mismanagement among recipients of federal funds also demands swift and effective 

action, and the Department should take steps to ensure that it uses all of the tools at its disposal to protect 

the funds it administers. For example, the Department should suspend or debar irresponsible recipients of 

federal financial and nonfinancial assistance and benefits. Suspension and debarment prevent 

irresponsible recipients from receiving federal funding if they have a criminal conviction or have been 

indicted for a criminal offense or a willful failure to perform to the terms of a contract or grant. In 

October 2011, the OIG issued a report regarding the Department’s implementation and oversight of 

debarment and administrative suspension and other enforcement tools. We found that Department 

awarding officials have generally complied with federal regulations. However, we also found that the 

Department did not have a formal system to track the status of suspension and debarment referrals, and 

that 77 contracts and contract modifications totaling $15 million were awarded to 6 separate suspended or 

debarred parties. We provided eight recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the Department’s 

suspension and debarment program. The Department already has implemented many of the 

recommendations we made in our report, such as creating a case tracking system, and it is working to 

address the remaining recommendations.

The Department’s financial responsibilities also include seizing and forfeiting assets criminals and their 

organizations have acquired through such serious offenses as drug trafficking, human trafficking, white 

collar crime, and money laundering. In 2011, the OIG issued a report regarding the management and 

oversight of the United States Marshals Service’s Complex Asset Team, which is responsible for helping 

USMS district offices manage and dispose of unique and complicated assets, such as operating 

businesses, financial instruments, and commercial real estate holdings. We identified numerous 

deficiencies, including inadequate record keeping procedures, inadequate pre-seizure planning to ensure 

that the government can effectively administer a seized asset, and inadequate tracking mechanisms to 

account for seized assets. In addition, we found that the way the USMS managed complex assets 

increased the risk that the government could undervalue forfeited assets. The OIG’s recommendations 

included developing and implementing formal procedures regarding the disposition of complex assets, 

conducting pre-seizure planning, and bolstering the legal, accounting, and valuation knowledge of asset 

management staff.

The Department must use both criminal prosecution and civil penalty enforcement to ensure that it 

forcefully exercises its financial enforcement responsibilities. The challenge for the Department is not 

only to punish those who commit fraud, but also to use all available measures to reduce and deter the 

incidence of fraud in taxpayer-funded programs.

9. Detention and Incarceration: The Department, primarily through the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP)

and the United States Marshals Service, continues to face the daunting challenge of safely, securely, and 

economically handling the growing population of federal inmates and detainees. This challenge is multifaceted, as the BOP must address overcrowding and the resulting higher inmate-to-staff ratios; provide 

health care, jobs, training, and other rehabilitative programs for inmates while they are incarcerated; and 

manage residential reentry centers for inmates readjusting to their communities. At the same time, the 

BOP must effectively manage its own staff to prevent misconduct such as staff smuggling in contraband 
IV-18 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

or staff sexual abuse of inmates. Further, the BOP must constantly work to maintain the infrastructure of 

its aging facilities.

Detention and incarceration remains a challenge because the federal inmate population continues to rise. 

In FY 2011, the federal inmate population increased by 3.6 percent, from 210,227 to 217,768 inmates. 

This continues the trend of the last decade, which saw the federal inmate population rise by 39 percent 

since end of FY 2001. This sustained influx of prisoners has led to increased overcrowding across the 

federal prison system as capacity has not expanded along with the inmate population. As of the end of 

FY 2011, BOP facilities were filled to 39 percent above rated capacity, as compared with being filled to 

32 percent over rated capacity a decade ago. The greatest growth is in the numbers of medium- and highsecurity inmates who must be housed in BOP facilities rather than in contract facilities such as local jails. 

Consequently, the BOP must either add beds to existing BOP institutions, often by converting program or 

recreational space, or it must build new institutions, which becomes increasingly difficult to finance in an 

era of budget reductions. Since FY 2006, the Department has identified prison overcrowding as a 

programmatic material weakness in the Department’s annual Performance and Accountability reports.

One way to assist in reducing the inmate population is through the International Prisoner Treaty Transfer 

Program, which permits certain foreign national inmates from treaty nations to transfer to their home 

countries to serve the remainder of their sentences. The OIG is currently reviewing the responsibilities of 

the Bureau of Prisons and the Criminal Division’s International Prisoner Transfer Unit in the treaty 

transfer program.

The increasing inmate population also challenges the BOP’s ability to manage its workforce and maintain 

a safe and secure prison environment. The BOP’s staffing has not increased commensurately with the 

inmate population. From FY 2001 to FY 2011, the inmate-to-staff ratio increased from 4.1 inmates for 

each correctional officer to 4.94 to 1, an almost 21-percent increase. According to the BOP, increases in 

prison crowding and the inmate-to-staff ratio are correlated with increases in inmate violence. The 

stretching of the BOP workforce also increases the challenge for the BOP to detect and prevent 

misconduct by staff members. The number of misconduct investigations of BOP Correctional Officers 

doubled from FY 2001 to FY 2010, from 2,299 to 4,603. Arrests of Correctional Officers also increased, 

as a total of 272 Correctional Officers were arrested, increasing 89 percent from 18 in FY 2001 to 34 in 

FY 2010. Although the number of BOP employees involved in misconduct is only a fraction of the 

BOP’s workforce of over 38,000, misconduct by even a few employees can undermine the safety and 

security of institutions and violate the rights of inmates.

We believe the BOP can help prevent staff misconduct by screening out unsuitable applicants when hiring 

correctional officers and staff members. In September 2011, the OIG released a report analyzing whether 

the BOP’s hiring process could more effectively identify potentially unsuitable applicants for Correctional 

Officer positions. Through logistic regression analysis, we found that combinations of certain applicant 

characteristics have strong relationships with an increased likelihood that substantiated misconduct 

resulting in at least a 1-day suspension would occur during the first 2 years after a Correctional Officer 

begins work. We determined that if the BOP were to systematically evaluate individuals based on 

combinations of factors in addition to the single thresholds it now relies on, it could add a useful tool to 

its screening practices. The BOP agreed to examine how it might implement this approach.

Along with preventing staff misconduct generally, another especially serious issue is preventing sexual 

abuse of inmates. The Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 mandated that the Department review 

proposed standards issued by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission and issue national 

standards to enhance the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape by June 2010. 

The Department did not meet that deadline until January 24, 2011, when it released a proposed rule 
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-19

designed to prevent and respond to sexual abuse in incarceration settings. The Department plans to issue 

the final rule by December 2011, according to the schedule it published in the Federal Register.

In addition to the formidable challenges it faces in eliminating staff misconduct, the BOP also faces 

challenges in supporting the effective and safe operation of its prisoner work program, Federal Prison 

Industries, Inc. (FPI), a wholly owned federal government corporation that operates under the trade name 

UNICOR. Created by Congress in 1934, FPI’s mission is to provide employment and training to keep 

federal inmates productively and safely occupied. At the same time, FPI’s mandate is to maintain its selfsufficiency through the sale of its products and services. However, over the last 2 fiscal years, FPI closed 

or downsized 40 of its 109 work facilities and reduced the number of inmates working in FPI facilities so 

that, although FPI has a goal of employing 25 percent of work-eligible inmates, at present it employs only 

about 9 percent. The OIG is currently reviewing FPI’s business management practices.

Aspects of the Department’s Detention and Incarceration challenge also extend to the 

United States Marshals Service, which is responsible for maintaining the safety of tens of thousands of 

detainees awaiting trial or sentencing. The primary difficulty the USMS faces is to arrange for safe, 

affordable, and cost-effective detention space to house some 60,000 federal detainees, 80 percent of 

whom must be housed in state and local jails or other community detention facilities because there is 

insufficient federal space in which to house them. As discussed in more detail in the Implementing Cost 

Savings and Efficiencies challenge, housing detainees in a safe environment in a cost-effective manner 

continues to represent a significant challenge for the Department, and the USMS must ensure that such 

facilities are not in a position to take advantage of the need for space by charging unjustifiable rates.

In sum, the Department continues to face difficult challenges in providing adequate and safe prison and 

detention space for the increasing prisoner and detainee populations and in maintaining the safety and 

security of federal inmates and prison personnel.

10. Grants and Contract Management: The Department’s management of grants and contracts it 

awards has long presented a challenge in light of the large amounts of money at stake. Since FY 2009, 

the Department has received over $15 billion in grant funds to award through the combined 

appropriations from the regular appropriations cycle and pursuant to the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). In addition, the Department also spends a sizable amount 

through contract purchases each year. According to USAspending.gov, the Department awarded 

approximately $6.3 billion in contracts for goods and services for FY 2011. In light of this large volume 

of grant and contract awards, the OIG devotes considerable attention through audits and fraud 

investigations to overseeing the Department’s efforts at grants and contract management. While we 

believe the Department has made concerted efforts to enhance its management of its responsibilities, such 

as increasing training and providing assistance in determining how to collect performance information, 

these changes will take time to fully implement and to incorporate into the Department’s regular 

practices.

Through FY 2011, the Department has obligated more than 99 percent of its Recovery Act funds, and the 

grantees have received approximately 72 percent of the Recovery Funds that have been obligated. Such 

significant amounts of money require strict controls over the way the funds are awarded and spent. The 

Department has taken significant steps in recent years to improve its grant management practices, 

including implementing better controls to ensure that it correctly ranks applications, treats applicants

consistently, documents award decisions, and resolves conflicts of interest. While the Department has 

implemented corrective actions to address the majority of the concerns we have raised in our reports, 

some recommendations remain open. For example, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW) 

revised its Peer Review Guidelines to ensure that peer reviewers carefully assess applications for potential 

conflicts of interest before they actually evaluate and score the applications. However, the revised 
IV-20 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

guidelines do not provide staff with a process to follow when conducting an internal review that will 

check for scoring errors and verify the accuracy of future final peer review scores. We believe that OVW 

should provide specific guidance as to the correct protocols necessary for an internal review. In addition, 

our February 2011 review of the award process for the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) Recovery 

Act Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Grant Program revealed that an internal BJA peer reviewer 

had significant involvement with an applicant that received an award. Specifically, the peer reviewer had 

participated in the applicant’s Advisory Committee, but the reviewer still certified that he had no conflicts 

of interest while reviewing program applications. We believe that the BIA should consider strengthening 

internal controls to reduce the risk of appearances of conflicts of interest or favoritism towards a 

particular grantee.

One of the most significant challenges remaining for the Department in this area is to translate 

improvements it has made in its own management of grants into improvements in grantees’ management 

of funds. The Department must improve its oversight of grantees’ internal controls to ensure funds are 

being spent in accordance with the terms of the grants. For example, the Office of Justice Programs

(OJP), the Department’s primary grant awarding agency, provides grants to state and local law 

enforcement and community organizations to prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and 

juvenile justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related issues, and assist crime victims. 

The OIG recently reviewed OJP’s monitoring and oversight of grants it awarded in FYs 2009 and 2010. 

During that period, OJP made over 13,000 grant awards totaling more than $7.7 billion, which included 

over 4,000 Recovery Act grants, totaling about $2.8 billion. Our March 2011 report noted that while OJP 

has significantly improved its monitoring and oversight, it should make additional improvements such as 

more thoroughly assessing and documenting how it reviews the programmatic, financial, and 

administrative aspects of the grants it awards and more clearly describing the methodology it uses to 

select which grants to monitor. We also recommended that the Department eliminate duplication among 

certain grant monitoring services performed by OJP, OVW, and the Community Oriented Policing 

Services Office.

The Department’s limited budgetary resources also currently present a considerable challenge to its 

efforts to improve oversight of grantees’ internal controls. In April 2011, budget restrictions forced OJP 

to freeze most travel, including travel for monitoring, grantee training, programmatic conferences, and 

other programmatic travel. It remains to be seen whether OJP’s alternative monitoring plans, which 

include multi-office site visits, local travel, and remote monitoring (enhanced desk reviews), will slow or 

decrease the progress it has made in enhancing its oversight efforts.

Further, while monitoring and oversight of grants is an important responsibility, we also believe that the 

Department must take further action to address outstanding recommendations to remedy questioned costs 

from our audits of grantees. We understand that corrective actions take time to implement. However, 

some recommendations have been outstanding for more than 6 years and involve potentially significant 

amounts of money. For example, in a December 2006 report of our audit of the Department’s grant 

closeout process, we identified over $37 million in questioned costs related to drawdowns occurring more 

than 90 days past the grant end date. Effective oversight and monitoring includes follow up to ensure that 

taxpayer dollars have been spent in accordance with grant requirements.

In addition to grants, the Department spends a considerable amount of taxpayer funds in its contracts for 

goods and services. All government agencies are required to promote full and open competition for these 

contracts, which is critical to ensure that the government receives the best offer for goods and services 

that it procures. One of the key steps in the procurement process is thoroughly evaluating the vendors’

technical proposals to determine which vendors have met the minimum requirements of the request for 

proposal and have the most effective plan for accomplishing those requirements. The failure to undertake 

this evaluation can have significant adverse consequences. For example, we reviewed the United States
Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-21

Marshals Service’s oversight of its Judicial Facilities Security Program. Our November 2010 report

found that the USMS awarded a contract worth approximately $300 million to a court security officer 

contractor with a history of fraudulent activities, despite an earlier fraud alert issued by the OIG’s

Investigations Division. The contractor ultimately filed for bankruptcy, leaving many court security 

officers temporarily without payment for their services.

Some of the largest contracts that the Department awards are related to the planning and implementation 

of complex information technology systems. As previously discussed in Information Technology Systems 

Planning, Implementation, and Security, the management and oversight of IT contracts to minimize cost 

overruns and provide planned system functionality remain a top challenge for the Department.

In sum, the Department expends a considerable amount of scarce resources on grants and contracts. It is 

essential that the Department use proper controls to ensure grants and contracts are properly awarded and 

monitored to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
IV-22 Department of Justice • FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-23

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S TOP 

MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES 

The Department of Justice (the Department, DOJ) is the world's largest law office and the central 

agency for enforcement of federal laws. As such, the mission and responsibilities of DOJ extend 

over the broad spectrum of American life. The Department appreciates the Office of the 

Inspector General’s (OIG) recognition of our progress in addressing management and 

performance challenges over our diverse institution. The removal of Financial Management

from DOJ’s top 10 list of management and performance challenges represents the Department’s 

commitment to prioritizing and addressing these areas.

1. Counterterrorism 

Countering terrorism continues to be the highest priority of the Department. To be successful in 

confronting terrorism, the Department is keenly aware that it must be vigilant and fair in its 

investigations of those who would do harm to Americans. The Department acknowledges the 

need for accurate reporting of terrorism-related statistics so that it can make knowledgeable 

operational decisions and provide Congress with explicit budget requests. To that end, and with 

regard to the OIG Follow-Up Audit of the Department’s Internal Controls Over Terrorism 

Reporting, the Department notes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) created new 

corporate policy following the OIG 2007 audit and has provided drafts of that policy to the OIG. 

Upon final approval, expected in early FY 2012, these actions should close out the remaining 

four recommendations. 

The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) also works to properly maintain and 

disseminate accurate terrorism data. As part of its February 2007 audit, the OIG made six 

recommendations to EOUSA to help ensure better reporting of terrorism data by the U.S. 

Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs) and to better track the flow of terrorism data at EOUSA. EOUSA 

immediately responded to those recommendations, and by September 2007, the OIG had 

affirmatively closed all six. In March 2011, the OIG opened a new review of terrorism statistics 

with EOUSA, FBI, National Security Division (NSD), and other components, all of which are 

working closely with the OIG on this latest review. 

In the OIG’s report on the FBI’s ability to address the threat of cyber intrusions, the OIG found 

that while the FBI had made progress in developing the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task 

Force (NCIJTF), information sharing at the NCIJTF was hindered by legal restrictions and policy 

limitations. As noted by the OIG, while the FBI has no legal authority to require its NCIJTF 

partners to share information, the FBI has successfully established and implemented new policies 

and procedures, agreed to by the NCIJTF partners, for the sharing of information within the 

NCIJTF. Since the OIG report was issued, the FBI has taken sufficient action to close seven out 

of ten issued recommendations. 

The Department is acutely aware that terrorists are increasingly using technology to threaten 

national security, and government employees must have the skills to be able to defend against 

them. To address improving technical skills, the Department is actively participating in a 

governmentwide effort, led by the Office of Personnel Management, to develop a comprehensive 
IV-24 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

strategic human capital plan to reduce high risk skills gaps in specific mission critical 

occupations (MCOs). Once the framework is finalized, the Department will focus on identifying 

and mitigating skills gaps in MCOs throughout the Department. We expect that cybersecurity 

(to include cyber intrusion) will be identified as one of DOJ’s MCOs to be considered. 

The Department understands the need for clear roles and coordination in the event of a terrorist 

attack involving explosives. An August 3, 2010, Deputy Attorney General memorandum – 

Protocol for Assigning Lead Agency Jurisdiction in Explosives Investigations – required the FBI 

and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to develop a joint plan to 

consolidate and streamline their efforts. Regarding overlap with the now operational National 

Explosives Task Force (NETF), the efforts of the ATF and the FBI will more than meet the 

recommended changes addressed in the OIG’s audit. The NETF, jointly staffed by FBI and ATF 

subject matter experts, provides a coordination point to ensure effective and proper application of 

Department explosives resources in joint responses to incidents. This ensures cooperation, 

communication, de-confliction, and coordination of resources to eliminate overlap and 

duplication of effort. ATF and FBI continue to meet regularly to ensure there is no jurisdictional 

confusion or unnecessary overlap. 

2. Implementing Cost Savings and Efficiencies 

The Department is constantly searching for ways in which it can save costs and operate more 

efficiently. The Attorney General’s Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies (the SAVE 

Council) is responsible for developing and reviewing Departmentwide savings and efficiency 

initiatives. The Council provides a framework to identify and implement best practices for 

saving taxpayer money, realizing efficiencies. The Council paves the way for the development 

of future on-going initiatives that will result in cost avoidance, actual savings, and streamlining, 

while leveraging and instituting best practices. The Council conducts monthly meetings to 

monitor component progress to ensure positive results for cost savings, cost avoidance, and 

efficiencies. In addition, the Council meets quarterly with the Deputy Attorney General to 

provide a progress report. 

Efficiency is invaluable in the event of a terrorist attack. Since the OIG’s issuance of its 2009 

report regarding explosives investigation coordination between the FBI and ATF, the 

Department has taken significant measures to resolve the issued recommendations. Most 

notably, the August 3, 2010, memorandum mentioned above, required the FBI and ATF to 

develop a joint plan to consolidate and streamline their efforts regarding explosives 

investigations; explosives training facilities, including the facilities used to train explosivesdetecting canines; and Department laboratories that perform explosives-related analyses. In 

response, the FBI and ATF have agreed to uniform standards for explosive detection canine 

training. The FBI and ATF have agreed broadly to increase interoperability of explosives 

information databases, including integrating explosives databases into state-based fusion centers, 

enabling unified searches of multiple explosives databases and co-locating personnel responsible 

for analysis of both trends and technical exploitation analysis. To this end, upon request, ATF 

issued Bombing and Arson Tracking Team accounts for all FBI Special Agent Bomb 

Technicians. In addition, all FBI Special Agent Bomb Technicians report their response to 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-25

explosive incidents to the FBI’s Strategic Information Operations Center as well as to local ATF 

counterparts. 

To address the OIG’s recommendation that the Department pursue efforts to standardize 

oversight services provided by the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) to the Office on Violence 

Against Women (OVW) and the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS) Office, the 

Office of the Associate Attorney General continues to convene regular meetings with the 

Department Grants Management Challenges Workgroup, which was created in January 2010. 

The Workgroup, led by a Deputy Associate Attorney General and comprised of grant officials 

from OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW, addresses common issues and develops consistent 

management practices. In addition to developing a Departmentwide High-Risk Grantee 

Designation Program, the Workgroup recently has developed a Departmentwide, on-line 

financial training tool for grantees that will be launched in December 2011, in partnership with 

the OIG. The Workgroup also is revising the training tool to incorporate information pertaining 

to conference planning, costs, and reporting in compliance with Justice Management Division’s 

(JMD) conference guidelines. Additionally, the Workgroup has developed an internal training 

module for all of the grant-making components to use to train their staffs on the Departmentwide 

High-Risk Grantee Designation Program. The training sessions for each component are 

scheduled to begin by year end, although some of the components already have begun to provide 

this training. 

Under this challenge, the OIG mentions findings in a March 2011 report of some duplicative 

monitoring and oversight functions within OJP, the COPS Office, and OVW. To clarify, the 

COPS Office has a comprehensive monitoring strategy that entails programmatic and financial 

oversight of all its grantees. During FY 2011, the Office Monitoring Division visited over 126 

sites and reviewed 233 grants valued at over $259 million. Meanwhile, OJP conducts financial 

oversight of a very small selection of COPS grantees. For example, during FY 2011 OJP visited 

only two COPS sites. In addition, the COPS Finance Office monitors grantees’ financial 

implementation daily, weekly, and quarterly as defined in a series of internal policies on expired 

grants, extended grants, and closed out grants. In FY 2011, for monitoring purposes, the COPS’ 

Finance Office tailored and enhanced site visits for COPS-specific grantees. None of this 

monitoring is conducted by OJP. 

However, per a request from the Associate Attorney General’s Office to ensure consistency 

across programs, OJP does provide financial monitoring for OVW through a reimbursable 

agreement. OVW’s programmatic monitoring is separate, though. OVW administers statutorily 

defined programs that require an understanding of both violence against women issues and the 

underlying program for effective programmatic monitoring. Each of OVW’s 22 grant programs 

has program-specific eligibility, purpose areas, and minimum certification requirements. Even 

within OVW, it has been determined that the effectiveness of programmatic monitoring declines 

significantly if a program specialist is required to know the intricacies of more than four or five 

programs. 

Besides eliminating duplicative functions between or among components, Department 

components also are looking within to find cost savings and efficiencies. The U.S. Marshals 

Service (USMS), for instance, is making strides to streamline its business processes. For 
IV-26 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

example, it has undertaken a number of cost savings initiatives. In FY 2011, the USMS has 

identified and started to reduce a number of programs, including Home to Work Use of Vehicles. 

It also has identified a number of consolidation initiatives, including office space and business 

functions, and is studying them for implementation feasibility in FY 2012. Furthermore, the 

USMS is looking at consolidating business-financial and procurement operations, leveraging the 

deployment of the Unified Financial Management System in FY 2013 to potentially eliminate 

positions as incumbents attrit. 

Another method through which the Department constantly strives for cost savings is via contract 

negotiations. The OIG refers to the USMS’s responsibility to house detainees and to negotiate 

contracts in a manner that maximizes the value it receives from third parties for housing 

detainees. The OIG also discusses this under Challenge #9, Detention and Incarceration. The 

Department’s response can be found under Challenge #9, as well. 

Another area at which the Department is looking to increase cost savings and efficiencies is 

conference spending. For the most part, components abide by the Department’s guidelines. For 

example, during the COPS 2011 Conference, the COPS Office adhered to the Department’s 

guidance on conference planning that resulted from the previous 2006 audit on this subject. 

Although the Department has put extensive new conditions in place, in response to a recent OIG 

report, some components are taking this opportunity to enhance their own policies. For example, 

OJP already has implemented numerous measures, and has others underway, to control the costs 

of conferences and further enhance oversight. It currently is examining the logistical 

arrangements and contract costs for every planned OJP-sponsored conference and meeting and is 

obtaining Department approval. For new contracts and agreements, OJP has prohibited the use 

of OJP funding to purchase food and/or beverages for any meeting, conference, training, or other 

event. Exceptions, such as for events held in extremely remote areas where sustenance is not 

otherwise available, require prior approval from OJP. In addition, OJP, COPS, and OVW are 

developing additional stringent conference cost policies. 

Travel expenses are another area that the Department is reviewing in its efforts to produce cost 

savings. The OIG stated under this management challenge that “...the Department’s travel 

policies enabled U.S. Attorneys to authorize their own travel, including authorizing themselves 

to exceed the government rate.” The Department submits that it has had travel guidance and 

orders in place for many years. However, as the OIG report disclosed, there were a number of 

instances where some components failed to follow these guidelines. The Department will 

continue to work with its components to ensure that they fully implement the policies and curtail 

non-essential spending. The Department will not tolerate non-compliance with its policies. 

3. Southwest Border Security Issues 

The southwest border remains the most active area for drugs entering the United States, and the 

Department continues its efforts to control that area through multiple resources. As of 

September 30, 2011, the Department’s lead agency in the fight against illegal drugs, DEA, had 

1,224 Special Agent positions – 30 percent of all its domestic agent positions – allocated to its 

southwest border field divisions. Since the inception of the PTO program in FY 2001, DEA has 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-27

disrupted 1,661 and dismantled 1,218 PTOs in its southwest border field divisions. In FY 2011, 

DEA continued to exhibit its leadership on the southwest border through the Organized Crime 

Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) program where DEA participated as the lead agency 

or co-lead of all OCDETF investigations in the Southwest Region (91 percent and 88 percent, 

respectively). 

Based on estimates made in March 2011, approximately 97 percent of the detected cocaine 

destined for the United States transited the Mexico/Central America corridor. DEA is combating 

this with the largest U.S. law enforcement presence in Mexico with 60 Special Agent positions 

located throughout Mexico. DEA participates in a number of interagency efforts to address 

Southwest Border security issues. This includes the Southwest Border Initiative, a multi-agency, 

federal law enforcement operation that attacks Mexico-based drug trafficking organizations 

operating along the southwest border by targeting the communications systems of their command 

and control centers. Twenty-six of the 65 criminal targets on the FY 2011 CPOT list (40 

percent) are based in Mexico. As of September 30, 2011, there were 547 DEA PTO 

investigations, of which 59 were foreign Priority Target investigations with a link to a Mexican 

based CPOT. 

DEA focuses much of its southwest border efforts on providing Mexican law enforcement 

partners with information, training, and equipment that will allow them to apprehend, prosecute, 

and convict high level drug traffickers. DEA’s El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC) continues to 

be a key element in bilateral relations with the Government of Mexico. Additionally, DEA has 

completed the restructuring of the Mexican Sensitive Investigative Unit (SIU) Program – a 

program that seeks to create focused and well-trained drug investigative and intelligence units of 

trustworthy character and integrity 

In addition to targeting the flow of drugs across the southwest border, DEA is working hard to 

intercept the flow of drug proceeds from the United States into Mexico. On the U.S. side of the 

border, the desire for illicit drugs prompts the movement of billions of U.S. dollars annually. 

Through its Global Financial Strategy, DEA is implementing innovative investigative techniques 

to understand how drug traffickers are transporting bulk currency and how to shut down these 

shipments. One effective tool is the License Plate Reader Initiative, which combines existing 

DEA and other law enforcement database capabilities with new technology to identify and 

interdict conveyances being used to transport bulk cash, drugs, weapons, and other contraband. 

The process for fighting drug traffickers does not end with the investigation. The five southwest 

border USAOs continue to concentrate a large percentage of their prosecution resources on 

prosecuting border-related offenses. Also, the Criminal Division’s Office of Overseas 

Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training sponsored two bi-national U.S. – Mexico 

Conferences in FY 2011 in which the five southwest border U.S. Attorneys met with their 

Mexican federal prosecutor counterparts to open dialogue and coordinate sharing law 

enforcement intelligence and prosecution strategies in order to work together and effectively 

dismantle the transnational criminal organizations operating along the border. 

Partnered with drug trafficking is the challenge of returning illegal aliens to their home countries. 

Many of these cases are adjudicated by the Department’s Executive Office for Immigration 
IV-28 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Review (EOIR). EOIR’s mission is the timely adjudication of all cases; therefore, the agency 

maintains goals for completing the various types of cases it receives. However, EOIR’s 

workload depends on the number of matters filed before it. DHS determines EOIR’s initial 

caseload by filing charging documents alleging aliens’ illegal presence in the United States. The 

nature and number of the proceedings and the number of appeals from immigration court 

decisions are determined by the parties themselves. 

In June 2010, DHS announced its civil immigration enforcement priorities as they pertain to the 

apprehension, detention, and removal of aliens. Those priorities focus on national security, 

public safety, and border security. In response to DHS’s announced priorities, EOIR shifted 

resources to meet the anticipated corresponding increase in the agency’s detained caseload. 

Placing a high priority on the adjudication of detained cases has impacted EOIR’s non-detained 

docket. 

The Department continues to coordinate with agencies to address issues confronting law 

enforcement agencies along the southwest border. DOJ and DHS meet frequently to discuss 

enforcement initiatives as well as ways to handle immigration court dockets that meet the needs 

of all federal agencies involved. 

4. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

The Department never loses sight of its responsibility to protect individuals’ civil rights and 

liberties. We believe that, no matter who or what we are investigating, we cannot infringe on 

those rights. In fact, it is our belief that, by protecting peoples’ civil rights and liberties, we are 

better able to protect all from those who would do us harm. We are pleased that the OIG 

recognizes our success in this area, and we intend to continue this good work. 

With regard to the Domestic Advocacy Report, as the OIG noted, the FBI’s Office of General 

Counsel has issued instructions to its personnel not to retain information regarding an 

individual’s exercise of First Amendment rights without the requisite law enforcement nexus, 

statutory authorization, or the individual’s consent, and is developing a corporate policy to the 

same effect. The FBI also has promised to ensure that its agents are required to specify the 

potential violation of a specific federal criminal statute as part of documenting the basis for 

opening a preliminary or full investigation in cases involving investigation of members of 

advocacy groups for activities connected to the exercise of their First Amendment rights. Lastly, 

it bears noting that it is the policy and practice of the FBI’s Domestic Terrorism Operations Unit 

to require FBI agents to specify the potential violations of federal law when initiating a 

preliminary investigation or full enterprise investigation in domestic terrorism cases on domestic 

advocacy groups. The Department believes that this action demonstrates that the FBI has 

adequately addressed investigations of domestic advocacy groups. 

5. Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and Security 

The Department consists of 43 component organizations, many of which are responsible for their 

own information technology (IT) plans, budgets, development, and implementation. 

Accordingly, the Department’s Investment Review Board (DIRB) has been in place for many 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-29

years and regularly monitors components’ IT projects. In an attempt to further strengthen its 

management practices, the Department is looking at a variety of changes in the way that it 

procures, manages, and implements IT aimed at improving planning and maximizing the results 

of project implementation. 

Currently the DIRB regularly monitors each of the programs identified by the OIG, and it has 

directed a variety of actions to correct project management deficiencies and reduce program risk. 

In the case of the Litigation Case Management System project, the DIRB determined that it was 

in the best interest of the Department to terminate it because continuing the project was not as 

affordable as pursuing other alternatives. 

With respect to the FBI’s Sentinel project, the FBI recognizes that it must develop a modern 

electronic case management system to effectively manage its investigation caseload. After 

difficulties with the previous development approach, the Department made a conscious decision 

to complete the development of the Sentinel Program using an Agile Development process 

performed by a small development team managed in-house by the FBI. The Department 

continues to meet monthly with the FBI Chief Information Officer (CIO) and his Sentinel team 

to monitor the program’s progress. The DIRB is working closely with the FBI to further develop 

the plans for the coming deployment of Sentinel in order to alleviate any concerns it may have 

with the details of the FBI’s current plans. 

Meanwhile, the FBI Next Generation Identification (NGI) program underwent an extensive 

TechStat review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in November 2010. During 

that review, OMB and the Department found the program to be well planned and managed. Due 

to the program’s high development cost, however, OMB requested quarterly reviews to insure 

there was sufficient oversight. The program has continued to develop NGI in an incremental 

process and released significant improvements to fingerprint matching functionality in FY 2011 

for use by the law enforcement community. 

Regarding the Department’s Unified Financial Management System (UFMS), the OIG states, 

“...different and sometimes outdated versions of UFMS are in use. Using different and outdated 

versions increases the risk and complexity of making any necessary changes...”. We agree with 

the risks identified by the OIG for this large and complex project. We note the Department 

currently is using only two versions of UFMS. UFMS 1 continues to be used for those 

components that were the Department’s first to be converted to UFMS, and those components 

eventually will migrate to UFMS 2. Due to the complexity of this conversion, and the 

continuous improvements in software, those components with later conversion dates will get to 

use a more advanced version of software. However, once all components that the Department 

intends to convert to UFMS have been converted, the Department will upgrade all users to the 

latest version of UFMS. Then, every software modification or update will be pushed down to all 

users simultaneously.

Under this challenge the OIG also discusses the Department’s integrated wireless network 

(IWN). The Department has continued to partner with DHS in the operation and maintenance of 

the metropolitan San Diego system, and the Department has enabled DHS components to use the 

Pacific Northwest system even as the Department has expanded that system to cover all of the 
IV-30 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

State of Washington and most of the State of Oregon. The Department also has partnered with 

Treasury – and the Department of the Interior’s U.S. Park Police – on the development of the 

shared system currently being deployed in the National Capital Region. Additionally, the 

Department has worked regularly and collaboratively with DHS and other federal law 

enforcement agencies on interoperable communications initiatives, such as the Emergency 

Communications Preparedness Center, the Public Safety Working Group established by the 

National Telecommunication and Information Administration as part of the President’s Spectrum 

management Initiative, and technical working groups such as the Federal Partnership for 

Interoperable Communications, which was recently hosted at the WMO. 

The Department also notes that, at the time the IWN system was conceived, the financial climate 

and horizon were vastly different than they are today. The Department has received funding in 

uncertain and changing increments without the benefit of funding stream predictability. Such a 

climate makes planning difficult and requires continual technical readjustments and refinements. 

The Department has made significant progress given the constraints under which it was 

operating. 

 

The Department is pleased that the Inspector General’s office acknowledged the significant 

progress the Department has made in the area of IT security, including the development of the 

Justice Security Operations Center (JSOC) in 2007. The JSOC has worked continually to 

improve and mature the capabilities at the enterprise level across all components, and this year it 

expanded to 24x7 operations. It will strive to continue to enhance communications to 

components regarding all threats, services, and responsibilities. The JSOC participates in the 

quarterly IT Security Governance Council and CIO Council meetings to discuss service offerings 

to the component CIOs. 

6. Criminal Law Enforcement 

Law enforcement has always been the primary mission of the Department. Regardless of the 

types of threats facing the citizens of the United States, the Department has a responsibility to 

protect them – whether it is directly or via grants and partnerships with state, local, and tribal 

governments. Despite reports of a decline in violent crime, challenges still exist, especially with 

violence associated with drug markets (primarily along the Southwest Border), the increasing 

number of crimes committed with firearms, and the presence of organized gangs. Additionally, 

the vast majority of violent crime in the United States falls within the jurisdiction of state and 

local agencies that lack adequate resources to successfully combat violent crime issues that often 

have a multijurisdictional dimension. Therefore, a federal solution is often required, and one of 

the Department’s approaches to violent crime has been to partner with state and local agencies 

through existing violent crime-related task forces. 

The Department is pleased that the OIG highlighted the FBI’s elimination of its DNA processing 

backlog for convicted offenders, arrestees, and detainees. Since the OIG issued its August 2010 

interim Technical Assistance Report on the FBI Laboratory’s DNA Case Backlog, the FBI has 

effectively implemented measures to close three of the five issued recommendations. 

Specifically, the FBI has successfully: 1) implemented time tracking procedures and definitions 

to capture time spent conducting forensic DNA casework; 2) coordinated with the District of 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-31

Columbia Metropolitan Police Department to eliminate 200 instances of missing evidence; and 

3) implemented measures to monitor the effect of outsourcing agreements on the overall DNA 

forensic casework backlog. 

Fighting drugs requires constant review and evaluation. As the OIG mentions, the Department 

responded to the 2011 National Drug Threat Assessment by creating the Organized Crime and 

Gang Section (OCGS) in the Criminal Division. Since then, OCGS has repeatedly demonstrated 

a commitment to fighting violent crime on the southwest border, an area where much of the drug 

and firearms trafficking – and associated violence – is taking place. Already, OCGS is involved 

in significant prosecutions of cross-border violent enterprises. In addition, OCGS attorneys have 

led prosecutions for gun trafficking and illegal exportation of weapons in Nashville, 

Philadelphia, Tucson, and elsewhere. The Department believes the formation of OCGS will 

enhance the efforts to more effectively battle organized crime related to illegal drug and firearms 

trafficking. 

 

The Department recognizes the role transnational criminal organizations play in smuggling illicit 

drugs into the United States. These current emerging drug trafficking trends necessitate a 

focused approach, and DEA is striving to ensure that existing resources are deployed to the 

highest priority overseas locations to maximize the impact on the global narcotics trade. A key 

element in combating international drug trafficking is the concerted and coordinated efforts of 

the inter-agency community to jointly identify chokepoints vulnerable to enforcement efforts and 

then to simultaneously direct assets to vigorously target those chokepoints on a coordinated and 

sustained basis. To this end, in 2005, DEA developed the Drug Flow Attack Strategy (DFAS), 

which has the primary objective of causing major disruption to the flow of drugs, money, and 

chemicals between the source zones and the United States. Under this strategy, DEA works with 

the Department of Defense/Joint Interagency Task Force-South, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

DHS/Customs and Border Protection, the State Department (including Country Teams led by 

U.S. Ambassadors), and other federal departments and agencies. 

While DEA continues to coordinate large scale, multi-agency enforcement operations, it also 

plays a significant role in providing investigative equipment and training to other countries. One 

of DEA’s international priorities is to work with its host nation counterparts, including the 

Government of Mexico, to expand the capabilities of vetted units, including SIUs. As mentioned 

under Challenge #3, SIUs are groups of host nation investigators that are polygraphed, trained, 

equipped, and guided by DEA. The SIU program seeks to create focused and well-trained drug 

investigative and intelligence units of trustworthy character and integrity in selected nations. 

Investigations are ongoing, and cases, particularly those involving sensitive and high-level 

targets, are being developed by these units. Currently, DEA has SIUs in 10 countries: Mexico, 

the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Panama, Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Paraguay, Afghanistan, 

and Thailand. 

To fulfill the critical mission of reducing drug use domestically, DEA devotes resources to the 

disruption and dismantlement of drug trafficking organizations, and the seizure of illicitly 

obtained profits by attacking the command and control, smuggling and transportation networks, 

financial infrastructure, and all supporting elements of organizations networked throughout the 

United States. DEA’s Priority Targets represent the most significant drug trafficking 
IV-32 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

organizations responsible for the production, transportation, and distribution of illegal drugs 

destined for consumption in the United States. Through the fourth quarter of FY 2011, DEA had 

disrupted or dismantled 3,030 domestic and foreign priority targets. 

Through OCDETF, DEA also targets organizations on the Attorney General’s CPOT list – the 

“Most Wanted” drug trafficking and money laundering organizations believed to be primarily 

responsible for the nation’s illicit drug supply. The objective is to dismantle these organizations 

so that reestablishment of the same criminal organization is impossible and the source of the 

drug is eliminated. The disruption or dismantlement of CPOT organizations is accomplished 

primarily by multi-agency cooperation and the use of intelligence-driven operations to identify 

and target international drug trafficking organizations that play significant roles in the 

production, transportation, distribution, financing, or other support of large scale drug 

trafficking. 

Finally, DEA places a high priority on targeting the financial infrastructure of major drug 

trafficking organizations and members of the financial community who facilitate the laundering 

of their proceeds. From FY 2005 through FY 2011, DEA denied drug traffickers a cumulative 

total of $21.4 billion in revenue through the seizure of both assets and drugs. 

The Department’s primary platform for attacking the major international drug cartels and their 

distribution networks and facilitators in the United States is through prosecutor-led, intelligencedriven, multi-agency task forces, with the OCDETF Program serving the primary coordinating 

function. OCDETF task forces operate in each of the 94 judicial districts in the United States, 

and OCDETF has established co-located strike forces in 11 key locations for the pursuit of the 

highest level traffickers of drugs, guns, and money. The OCDETF Program and its component 

investigative and prosecutorial entities – DEA, FBI, ATF, USMS, Homeland Security 

Investigations, Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigations, the U.S. Coast Guard, the 

USAOs, and the Criminal Division – have achieved significant success in disrupting and 

dismantling the highest level criminal organizations that contribute to the supply of illegal drugs 

in the United States. However, the Department faces an increasing challenge in maintaining and 

building on that success in the current constrained budget environment, as each of the individual 

OCDETF components and the OCDETF Program itself continue to sustain reductions in 

resources. 

The proposed elimination of the Mobile Enforcement Team (MET) program will reduce the 

DEA resources that focus on gangs and violent organizations, including those trafficking 

methamphetamine. However, DEA will continue to support the Department’s efforts to reduce 

violent crime through its participation in task forces led by DEA and other DOJ agencies. DEA 

currently has over 150 regional task forces and participates on over 60 High Intensity Drug 

Trafficking Area task forces across the United States. These task forces include targeting gangs 

and other violent organizations. In addition, DEA participates in a number of anti-gang 

initiatives with other law enforcement components, including ATF’s Violent Crime Impact 

Teams and Project Safe Neighborhoods, FBI’s Safe Streets and Safe Trails Task Forces, and 

DOJ’s Weed and Seed Program. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-33

DEA will realign the resources associated with the 16 METs to support its Diversion Control 

Program to combat the diversion of licit pharmaceuticals into illicit commerce, the fastest 

growing drug problem in the United States. 

7. Restoring Confidence in the Department 

The Department is making constant progress in this area and is ever-vigilant in maintaining the 

highest ethical standards among its employees. In response to the 2008 and 2009 reports cited 

by the OIG, the Department’s Human Resources organization developed and deployed online 

training for hiring managers via the LearnDOJ Learning Management System on the topics of 

Merit Systems Principles and Prohibited Personnel Practices. The Department is pleased that the 

OIG’s narrative acknowledges this action as part of the Department’s success in meeting the 

recommendations contained in those previous reports. 

Regarding the OIG’s report on the FBI’s Office of Integrity and Compliance, the Department 

concurs with the OIG’s statement, “the FBI must also continually ensure that its personnel are 

fully trained and are able to demonstrate that they take seriously the responsibility to act in 

accordance with the Constitution, laws, rules, policies, and procedures governing the FBI’s 

investigative activities.” To that effect, the FBI recently completed revisions and effectively 

published a Revised Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG). Mandatory training 

currently is underway to ensure all Special Agents, Intelligence Analysts, and Task Force 

Personnel understand the Revised DIOG. Everyone required to go through this training must do 

so by January 3, 2012.

The OIG cites several measures the Department has taken to address prosecutorial misconduct. 

However, the OIG expressed concern that its Office of Professional Responsibility’s (OPR) 

annual report provides only limited details. The Department believes, on the other hand, that the 

changes OPR adopted to address concerns relating to attorney discipline and noted by the OIG 

have ensured that the Department has in place an adequate disciplinary process for attorneys. As 

indicated by the OIG, OPR will continue to strive to make its work more transparent, consistent 

with the statutory obligations of the Privacy Act.

8. Financial Enforcement 

The Department is deeply committed to protecting Americans from financial fraud. The 

financial crisis has exposed shameless schemes that have decimated pocketbooks and retirement 

accounts alike, stripping Americans of their confidence and fiscal security. In response to the 

crisis, the USAOs have been aggressively prosecuting those who commit financial fraud. In FY 

2011, the USAOs filed 3,717 financial fraud cases against 5,555 defendants. 

 

The Department is engaged in a variety of efforts – many beyond the Financial Fraud 

Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) – to deal with financial fraud of all kinds. Around the 

country, local offices have created their own task forces and working groups tailored to the needs 

of their communities. A number of offices at Department headquarters and in USAOs are refocusing on all types of financial fraud. These offices are making creative use of a number of 
IV-34 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

civil enforcement tools, such as the Financial Institution Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement 

Act of 1989 and the Anti-Fraud Injunction Act. 

 

In the context of mortgage fraud, the USAOs have joined forces with the FFETF, which has held 

several mortgage fraud summits across the country in areas that have been hardest hit by this 

crime. With respect to enforcement efforts, the USAOs have been instrumental in combating 

mortgage fraud. In FY 2011, the offices filed 486 cases against 904 defendants. These are 

impressive figures given that, in FY 2010, the offices filed a record number of mortgage fraud 

cases– 656 cases against 1,235 defendants–many of whom are still active cases. 

 

The Department recognizes the importance of protecting the funds it administers and is 

committed to using all of the tools at its disposal, including suspension and debarment, to ensure 

that it conducts business only with responsible parties. To that end, the Department will 

continue to emphasize the suspension and debarment case referral process throughout its 

components and leadership offices, including issuing guidance to litigating, investigating, 

contracting, and grant-making components. Additionally, the Department has implemented a 

suspension and debarment case tracking system to improve the effectiveness of its suspension 

and debarment program. 

On the law enforcement side, the USMS Asset Forfeiture Financial Investigator Program has 

recovered large sums of money owed to victims of financial crimes, the Federal Government, 

and state and local governments through equitable sharing agreements. The Chief Inspector who 

manages this Program is a member of the President’s FFETF. He also sits on the Securities and 

Commodities Fraud Working Group, and the Victim’s Rights Committee. He has undertaken a 

financial enforcement initiative to enter outstanding Forfeiture Money Judgments into the 

Treasury Offset Program, something that has never been done before. This effort will ensure 

greater enforcement by the Government to offset federal payments to defendants/debtors for 

improved collection purposes. 

In late September 2011, the USMS completed its 3-year plan to hire 57 Deputy U.S. Marshals 

and strategically co-locate them in USAOs in 50 districts to add value to asset forfeiture financial 

investigations as described above. Through an MOU, deputies work closely with prosecutors 

and investigating agents in DOJ-led criminal investigations to conduct financial analysis to 

identify assets that were used to facilitate crime, or were derived from the proceeds thereof. 

An important component of the USMS Program is that deputies, using authority found at 28 

U.S.C. ' 566, have begun to enforce and collect on the more than $220 billion in outstanding 

Forfeiture Money Judgments across judicial districts. At the request of a federal prosecutor, the 

Court may impose a Forfeiture Money Judgment on a defendant when the Government can 

demonstrate that the proceeds were derived from the underlying criminal activity for which an 

individual is being prosecuted, and assets may not be otherwise located, seized, or readily 

available to the Government to pursue for forfeiture. Before the formulation of the USMS 

Program, this debt went largely uncollected, a by-product of limited resources and agents whose 

caseloads diverted attention to investigating the pressing crime of the moment. Since FY 2007, 

Deputy U.S. Marshals have collected nearly $10 million in debt. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-35

9. Detention and Incarceration 

The Department is responsible for ensuring the safety of, and humane conditions for, its inmates 

and detainees. As the primary provider of housing for federal inmates, the BOP oversees the 

conduct of both the prisoners and BOP staff. To this end, BOP agrees that any prohibited 

conduct is unacceptable, and it will continue to screen out unsuitable applicants during the hiring 

process. 

To address the increasing federal inmate population, the Department continues to review its 

policies on International Prisoner Treaty Transfer in an effort to increase suitable candidates for 

transfer. The challenge for the Department is to continue its efforts to transfer suitable 

candidates to serve their sentences in their home country, consistent with its treaty obligations 

and responsibility to ensure public safety. 

With regard to housing detainees, DOJ and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

collectively, have approximately 31 competitively-awarded contracts for privately-provided 

detention and/or correctional services. In contrast, DOJ and DHS have nearly 2,000 

Intergovernmental Agreements with state and local authorities for the housing of federal 

prisoners and inmates. To continue their efforts to obtain detention and/or correctional services 

at fair and reasonable prices, both the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) and 

USMS have implemented all of the recommendations the OIG set forth in its March 2011 report, 

“Audit of the Intergovernmental Agreement Detention Space Negotiation Process.” 

Further, in 2011, to assist the USMS and other agencies in analyzing prices when determining 

the reasonableness of prices sought for detention and correctional services, OFDT released the 

FY 2011 Price Analysis Guide for detention and correctional services contracts and agreements. 

The guide provides the Average National Price and the U.S. Bureau of the Census Geographical 

Area Average Price for agreements and contracts awarded by the USMS, the Bureau of Prisons 

(BOP), and DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and takes into account differences in 

economic conditions within the United States. 

10. Grants and Contract Management 

The Department takes its responsibilities for grant and contract management very seriously. It 

recognizes that, because of the large amount of resources that flow to state, local, and tribal 

governments through the Department, grant management will always be a challenge. No matter 

how competently the Department manages its grants, it must be ever-vigilant to ensure that 

taxpayers’ funds are being used properly. 

OJP has tackled this challenge aggressively, establishing policies, procedures, and internal 

controls to ensure sound stewardship, strong programmatic and financial management, and 

effective monitoring and oversight of OJP’s grant programs. This policy and internal control 

framework positions OJP to carry out statutory mandates and requirements and to detect and 

prevent potential waste, fraud, and abuse of the billions of taxpayer dollars OJP awards in grants 

each fiscal year. 
IV-36 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

In its efforts to constantly improve its processes, OVW has Peer Review Guidelines to support 

the initiation of better internal controls that will check for scoring errors and verify the accuracy 

of future final peer review scores. The standards were implemented in a handful of programs in 

FY 2010 and across all grant programs in FY 2011. 

Regarding the OIG’s review of the award process for the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) 

Recovery Act Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Grant Program, OJP is confident that there 

was not a conflict of interest, or an appearance thereof, in the peer review process related to the 

award of a training and technical assistance grant. In this case, the internal peer reviewer, who 

was a grant manager with responsibility for providing oversight during such grantee meetings,

did not have a direct personal or financial relationship with the applicant, and was intentionally 

not engaged in the consideration of final peer review scores or the recommendation and selection 

process for these awards. OJP’s position is that this (or any) reviewer’s professional relationship 

– in an OJP capacity – is not one that needs to be disclosed as a potential conflict of interest. 

OJP notes that the FY 2011 Conflict of Interest form makes this distinction. OJP’s position is 

that its policy and senior policy advisors, who have professional relationships with applicants to 

carry out the work of BJA, are capable of providing an impartial, objective, and independent peer 

review of such applications and have unique expertise and insights that make them appropriate 

choices for certain peer reviews. OJP emphasizes that it is committed to administering fair and 

open competitive award processes, and, during the last year, OJP has implemented additional 

measures. 

In response to the OIG’s March 2011 audit on OJP’s oversight and monitoring of grants, OJP’s 

Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) revised its on-site monitoring 

procedures. These procedures ensure that program office site visit reviews are consistent with 

common procedures and that proper documentation to support on-site findings is collected and 

maintained. In addition, OAAM finalized its Site Visit Quality Review Process, which was 

designed to assess the completeness and quality of on-site monitoring visits through the review 

of sampled monitoring reports and associated documentation. To address the OIG’s 

recommendation that the Office of the Associate Attorney General pursue efforts to 

standardize oversight services provided by OJP to the OVW and COPS Office, the 

Associate’s Office continues to convene regular meetings with the Department Grants 

Management Challenges Workgroup. The Department’s discussion of this Workgroup can be 

found under Challenge #2. 

OJP is dedicated to continuously improving its oversight and monitoring of grantees and grant 

programs. To ensure that OJP is targeting potential at-risk grantees, it systematically assesses 

grants and grantees against a set of risk factors to prioritize monitoring activities. In FY 2012, 

with the benefit of increased automation of the grants assessment tool, grants will be assessed 

quarterly to identify potential at-risk grantees in real time. Additionally, in FY 2011, OJP’s BJA 

began using an internal process called "GrantStat" to methodically analyze qualitative and 

quantitative grantee performance data to determine program effectiveness and goal attainment. 

The process works as an indicator system to identify issues and allow for early intervention with 

training and technical assistance if needed. The COPS Office also has a comprehensive 

monitoring strategy that entails programmatic and financial oversight of all COPS grantees, 

which is described in detail under Challenge #2. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-37

In its March 2011 report, the OIG also highlighted many of the significant improvements in 

OJP’s monitoring, stating, “Since the establishment of OAAM, OJP has made a significant 

commitment to improving the monitoring and oversight of grants.” OJP’s improvements in 

grants management have been highlighted recently in a NASA OIG audit on NASA’s grants 

administration and management. The report mentions OJP’s grant monitoring and oversight as a 

best practice and highlights OJP’s improvements as cited in the DOJ OIG audit report. In 

addition, in an oversight hearing on Housing and Urban Development, the House Committee on 

Financial Services pointed to OJP as a model for accountability, transparency, and project 

management on the Correctional Facilities in Tribal Lands program. 

The OIG cites outstanding recommendations from a 2006 report. OJP replies that all 

recommendations and questioned costs directed to OJP as part of the 2006 OIG audit report of 

the Departments’ grant closeout process were closed by the OIG in January 2009. Furthermore, 

to maintain current on its grant closeouts, OJP leadership tracks this activity on a monthly basis. 

As an additional measure, the Grants Management System automatically triggers a hold on grant 

funds after the end date of the grant. 

The current closeout process has been streamlined for efficiency and is extremely effective in 

ensuring that grants are closed in a timely manner. Grantees are informed in an Initial 

Notification Letter prior to the onset of the closeout process that they have 90 days from the 

grant end date to complete their final drawdown of reimbursable costs. Additionally, careful 

tracking of the grant end date and timely outreach to grantees has provided grant managers with 

timely submissions for extensions. All grantees are advised that a) extension requests should be 

submitted prior to the award end date, b) they have only 90 days after the award end date to draw 

eligible funds for reimbursement, and c) funds not drawn after that time will be forfeited. 

The other aspect of this challenge addresses contract management. Regarding the OIG’s 

concerns with the USMS’ oversight of its Judicial Facilities Security Program, the USMS has 

enhanced its procurement process by implementing stricter oversight of the Program. The 

contract has since been re-awarded, and the USMS, working with the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts, established special standards of responsibility for the recent award. These 

special standards required the contractor to demonstrate financial responsibility. The evaluation 

also included background investigations on the principals of the offerors and due diligence for 

establishing and verifying special standards of responsibility. 

As is the case across all federal agencies, the Department uses multiple IT contracts to support its 

operations and administrative functions. Similar to other DOJ components, the COPS Office 

faced challenges in FY 2011 with the management and oversight of IT contracts. However, the 

COPS Office has taken significant steps to address these shortcomings. To improve contract 

staff efficiencies, the COPS Office initiated the JCON/COPS migration project that will 

substantially reduce the number of IT personnel necessary to maintain COPS’ office automation 

and server management functions. The COPS Office also has addressed contract management 

consolidation. Consistent with the M11-29 OMB memo on CIO authorities, the COPS Office 

has consolidated all IT contract-related functions under the office of the Chief Technology 

Officer. 
IV-38 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Department is proud of its constantly improving processes for grant and contract 

management and anticipates even further improvements in the future. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-39

Corrective Action Plan 

FMFIA SECTION 2 – PROGRAMMATIC MATERIAL WEAKNESS – PRISON CROWDING 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Corrective Action Plan

Issue and Milestone Schedule 

Report Date 

September 30, 2011; 2011 Fiscal Year (FY) 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. At the end of FY 2011, the inmate 

population housed in BOP operated institutions reached 177,934. Inmates were housed in a rated capacity of 127,795, resulting 

in an over-crowding rate of 39 percent above rated capacity. The BOP’s Long Range Capacity Plan relies on multiple 

approaches to house the increasing federal inmate population, such as contracting with the private sector and 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 acquiring, constructing, and activating new facilities as funding 

permits. 

To address this material weakness, the BOP will continue implementing its Long Range Capacity Plan, making enhancements 

and modifications to the plan, as needed, commensurate with funding received through enacted budgets. For example, in 

FY 2011, the BOP modified its Plan because the enacted budget did not include the funding needed to activate two newly 

constructed prisons, acquire a new facility, or contract for the increased use of private sector and state and local facilities for 

low-security inmates, all three of which would have increased housing capacity and decreased the prison over-crowding rate. 

The BOP’s formal Corrective Action Plan includes utilizing contract facilities; expanding existing institutions; and acquiring,

constructing, and activating new institutions as funding permits. The BOP will continue to validate progress on construction 

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

This material weakness was first reported in 2006. Remediation of the weakness through increasing prison capacity is primarily

dependent on funding. Other correctional reforms and alternatives will require policy and/or statutory changes. Other initiatives 

notwithstanding, if the acquisition, expansion, construction, and activation plans detailed in the BOP’s Long Range Capacity 

Plan are funded as proposed, the over-crowding rate for FY 2014 is projected to be 43 percent. Without the funding and the 

BOP’s other mitigating actions, the projected over-crowding rate would be 50 percent. 

The Department’s corrective action efforts are not limited to the BOP alone. The Department continues to consider and 

implement an array of crime prevention, sentencing, and corrections management improvements that focus on accountability 

and rehabilitation, while protecting public safety. The Department recognizes that the BOP’s capacity management efforts must 

be teamed with targeted programs that are proven to reduce recidivism and promote effective re-entry. The BOP will continue 

to work with the Department on these programs. 

FMFIA
IV-40 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

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. 

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. As of September 30, 2010, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 173,289 and was 

housed in a capacity of 126,713, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 37 percent, the same rate as at the end of the previous 

year. 

09/30/2010 09/30/2010 

6. As of September 30, 2011, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 177,934 and was 

housed in a capacity of 127,795, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 39 percent, an increase of 2 percent for the year. 

09/30/2011 09/30/2011 

7. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 128,581 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2012. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 43 percent at that time, an increase of 4 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2012 

8. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 132,075 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2013. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 44 percent at that time, an increase of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2013 

9. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 134,515 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2014. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 43 percent at that time, a decrease of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2014 

Reason for Not Meeting Original Target Completion Date 

Funding received through enacted budgets for additional capacity has not kept pace with the increases in the federal inmate 

population. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-41

Status of Funding Available to Achieve Corrective Action 

The FY 2011 enacted budget for the BOP did not include the funding needed to activate two newly constructed prisons, acquire a 

new facility, or contract for the increased use of private sector and state and local facilities for low-security inmates, all three of 

which would have increased housing capacity and decreased the prison over-crowding rate. FY 2012 funding is unknown at this 

point because the budget has not been enacted. The Department of Justice’s proposed FY 2013 budget for BOP is under review 

at the Office of Management and Budget. As of year-end FY 2011, the BOP's Long-term Capacity Plan was partially funded 

through FY 2017. 

Planned Measures to Prevent Recurrence 

The BOP will continue to structure budget requests to address capacity needs in the most cost effective manner possible. 

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.

Organizations Responsible for Corrective Action 

BOP Administration Division and Program Review Division
IV-42 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-43

Section 537 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Act) of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. Law 111-117) requires certain departments, agencies, 

and instrumentalities of the United States Government receiving appropriations under the Act to track 

undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts for FY 2011. 

Undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts include budget authority that is no longer available for 

new obligations but is still available for disbursement. According to Section 20.4(c) of OMB Circular 

No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, the expired phase "lasts for five years 

after the last unexpired year unless the expiration period has been lengthened by legislation. Specifically, 

you may not incur new obligations against expired budget authority, but you may liquidate existing 

obligations by making disbursements." For FY 2011, the below information is required to be reported in 

the Performance and Accountability Reports and annual performance plans/budgets with regard to 

undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts: 1) details on future action the department, agency, or 

instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts; 2) the method that the 

department, agency, or instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts; 3) 

identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of 

the United States; 4) in the preceding three fiscal years, details on the total number of expired grant 

accounts with undisbursed balances (on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department, agency, or 

instrumentality and the total finances that have not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the 

accounts. 

Three Department of Justice grant-making agencies are required to report under this guidance: 

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

Violence Against Women (OVW). Their responses are noted below: 

Details on future actions that will be taken to resolve undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts: 

COPS closely monitors the financial activity of all grantees. This includes requiring all grant recipients to 

report the financial expenditures for all COPS awards on a quarterly basis. COPS also maintains a group 

of dedicated Grant Program Specialists and Staff Accountants that offer grantees real-time technical 

assistance with implementing any aspect of their grant. Due to the additional reporting requirements and 

transparency associated with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) grant 

recipients, COPS has implemented additional efforts to monitor COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) 

grantees. First, all CHRP grantees are required to complete an online grants management training, which 

includes a training track specifically addressing financial reporting and disbursement of funds. Second, 

CHRP grantees were notified earlier this year that the undisbursed balance on their grant awards will 

lapse on September 30, 2015 (5 years after the last unexpired year for ARRA), thus all grant program 

requirements should be completed by that time and all expensed funds disbursed. Third, beginning in 

November 2010, COPS conducts quarterly outreach efforts to a select group of CHRP grantees who 

appear to have either discrepancies in the financial or programmatic reporting on their awards. Finally, 

the COPS Director receives monthly and quarterly reports of CHRP activity, including disbursement data, 

and COPS management works with the Justice Management Division (JMD), OMB, and the Office of the 

Vice President (OVP) to ensure that ARRA funds are being disbursed and outlayed timely. 

All OJP discretionary/categorical and block/formula grantees are required to submit a financial report 

quarterly. Grantees have 90 days after the end date of the award to drawdown funds and close out the 

award. If the payments to the grantee are less than the amount of the grant expenditures, then the grantee 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts
IV-44 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

is given the opportunity to draw down these funds. OJP Customer Service Outreach staff calls the grantee 

to ask them to draw down their funds. The first notice will commence on the same day as the phone call 

to the grantee. If the grantee has not drawn down their available funds after 14 calendar days, a second 

contact is made by the Customer Service Outreach staff and a second notice is sent. If there is no action 

by the grantee, a third notice is sent to the grantee informing them that OJP will de-obligate the funds 

from their grant. If the grantee has not retrieved their funds after 14 additional calendar days, the funds 

are de-obligated. After deobligation, the grantee will receive a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) in the 

mail informing them that the funds have been de-obligated and are no longer available and the grant is 

closed. 

OVW closely monitors the financial activity of all grantees. All grant recipients are required to report 

their financial expenditures for OVW awards on a quarterly basis and their project performance activities 

on a semi-annual or annual basis. ARRA grantees are also required to submit special Section 1512 

reports on a quarterly basis that include project and financial information. OVW reviews 100 percent of 

these reports for each reporting period and contacts the grantees regarding any concerns or questions. 

OVW has Grant Program Specialists and Financial Analysts that offer ARRA grantees technical 

assistance with implementing any aspect of their grant, including trainings, outreach, site visits and 

monitoring. The OVW management receives and reviews frequent reports on ARRA grant activity, 

including obligation and outlay data, and OVW management works with JMD, OMB, OVP, and the 

OIG to ensure that ARRA funds are being disbursed and outlayed timely. 

 

Method used to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts: 

COPS utilizes both the Financial Management Information System 2 (FMIS2) data as well as data from 

OJP's Grant Payment Request System (GPRS) to track CHRP undisbursed balances. OJP currently uses 

its Grants Management System (financial reports), FMIS2 and GPRS to track undisbursed balances. 

OVW utilizes both FMIS2 data as well as data from OJP's GPRS to track undisbursed balances. 

Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that may be returned to the Treasury: 

The Department has the authority to transfer unobligated balances of expired appropriations to the 

Working Capital Fund. Specifically, Public Law 102-140 provides that at no later than the end the fifth 

fiscal year after the fiscal year for which funds are appropriated or otherwise made available, unobligated 

balances of appropriations available to the Department of Justice during such fiscal year may be 

transferred into the capital account of the Working Capital Fund to be available for the Department-wide 

acquisition of capital equipment, development and implementation of law enforcement or litigation 

related automated data processing systems, and for the improvement and implementation of the 

Department's financial management and payroll/personnel systems. Therefore, in general unobligated 

and undisbursed balances in the Department’s expired grant accounts will be transferred to the Working 

Capital Fund, and will not be returned to the Treasury. An exception to this will be American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act grant funds; pursuant to Public Law 111-203, such grant funds that have not been 

obligated as of December 31, 2012, will be rescinded and returned to the Treasury. 

The total number of expired grant accounts with undisbursed balances (on the first day of each fiscal 

year) and the total finances that have not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the accounts, 

are as follows: 

OJP: 

FY 2009: 10 accounts; total of $65,961,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 8 accounts; total of $1,638,582,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2011: 6 accounts; total of $859,662,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report IV-45

COPS: 

FY 2008: No undisbursed and unobligated balances

FY 2009: No undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 1 account; $1,001,950,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2011: 1 account; $861,776,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

OVW:

FY 2008: No undisbursed and unobligated balances

FY 2009: No undisbursed and unobligated balances

FY 2010: 1 account; $223,012,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2011: 1 account; $154,366,000 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 
IV-46 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report A-1

APPENDIX A 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), requires agencies to annually report information on improper payments to 

the President and Congress through their annual Performance and Accountability Report. In accordance with 

that requirement and the implementing guidance in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Requirements for 

Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments, and OMB Circular A-136, Financial 

Reporting Requirements, the Department provides the following improper payments reporting details. 

Item I. Risk Assessment. Briefly describe the risk assessment performed (including the risk factors 

examined, if appropriate) subsequent to completing a 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 by the agency risk assessment. Highlight any changes to the risk assessment 

methodology or results that occurred since the FY 2010 IPIA report. 

In accordance with the IPIA, as amended by the IPERA, and the April 2011 OMB implementing guidance, 

OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, the Department assessed its programs and activities for susceptibility to 

significant improper payments. In FY 2011, the Department updated its top-down approach for assessing the 

risk of significant improper payments Department-wide to allow for the analysis and reporting of results by the 

Department’s five mission-aligned programs – Law Enforcement; Litigation; Prison and Detention; State, 

Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance; and Administrative, Technology, and Other. The updated approach 

promoted consistency across the Department in implementing the expanded requirements of the IPERA. In 

conjunction with implementing the updated approach, the Department developed and disseminated guidance 

for conducting the required risk assessment, along with a risk assessment survey instrument for Departmental 

component use in examining disbursement activities against nine risk factors, such as payment volume and 

process complexity.1

 The instrument covered commercial payments, grants and cooperative agreements, 

benefit and assistance payments, payments to State and local governments, and custodial payments. 

The Department’s risk assessment methodology for FY 2011 did not change significantly from FY 2010; 

i.e., for FY 2011, the methodology again included assessing risk against various risk factors and for various 

payment types. The primary differences for FY 2011 were that the Department’s updated risk assessment 

methodology included the additional types of payments required by the IPERA and OMB implementing 

guidance, as well as the reporting of information by the Department’s five mission-aligned programs. 

The results of the FY 2011 risk assessment did not differ from FY 2010; i.e., the Department concluded 

based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment for the period ending September 30, 2011, that 

there were no programs susceptible to significant improper payments, i.e., improper payments exceeding the 

OMB thresholds of both 2.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million, or $100 million.

Item II. Statistical Sampling. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to 

significant improper payments shall briefly describe the statistical sampling process conducted to 

estimate the improper payment rate for each program identified with a significant risk of improper 

 

1 The nine risk factors examined during the risk assessment were Policies and Procedures; Results of OMB Circular A-123 

Assessment, OIG Audits/Reviews, and other External Audits/Reviews; Corrective Actions; Results of Monitoring Activities; Results of 

Recapture Audit Activities; Process Complexities; Volume and Dollar Amount of Payments; Control Risk; and Capability of 

Personnel. 

Improper Payments Information Act (as amended by the IPERA) Reporting Details
A-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

payments. Highlight any changes to the statistical sampling process that have occurred since the 

FY 2010 IPIA report. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. This remains unchanged from FY 2010. 

Item III. Corrective Actions. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to 

significant improper payments shall describe the corrective action plans for: 

A. Reducing the estimated improper payment rate and amount for each type of root cause 

identified. Agencies shall report root cause information (including error rate and error amount) 

based on the following three categories: Administrative and Documentation errors, 

Authentication and Medical Necessity errors, and Verification errors. This discussion must 

include the corrective actions, planned or taken, most likely to significantly reduce future 

improper payments due to each type of error an agency identifies, the planned or actual 

completion date of these actions, and the results of the actions taken to address these root 

causes. If efforts are ongoing, it is appropriate to include that information in this section and 

to highlight current efforts, including key milestones. Agencies may also report root cause 

information based on additional categories, or sub-categories, of the three categories listed 

above, if available. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

B. Grant-making agencies with risk-susceptible grant programs shall briefly discuss what the 

agency has accomplished in the area of funds stewardship past the primary recipient. 

Discussion shall include the status of projects and results of any reviews. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments, to include grant programs. 

Item IV. Improper Payments Reporting. 

A. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to significant improper 

payments must provide the following information in a table: 

- all risk-susceptible programs must be listed whether or not an error measurement is 

being reported; 

- where no measurement is provided, the agency should indicate the date by which a 

measurement is expected; 

- if the Current Year (CY) is the baseline measurement year, and there is no Previous 

Year (PY) information to report, indicate by either “Note” or “N/A” in the PY column; 

- 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; 

- agencies are expected to report on CY activity or, if not feasible, PY activity is 

acceptable if approved by OMB. Agencies should include future year outlay and 

improper payment estimates for CY+1, +2, and +3 (future year outlay estimates should 

match the outlay estimates for those years as reported in the most recent President’s 

Budget). 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

B. Agencies should include the gross estimate of the annual amount of improper payments 

(i.e., overpayments plus underpayments) and should list the total overpayments and 

underpayments that make up the current year amount. In addition, agencies are also allowed 

to calculate and report a second estimate that is a net total of both overpayments and 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report A-3

underpayments (i.e., overpayments minus underpayments). The net estimate is an additional 

option only and cannot be used as a substitute for the gross estimate. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

Item V. Recapture of Improper Payments Reporting. 

A. An agency shall discuss payment recapture audit (or recovery auditing) efforts, if applicable. 

The discussion should describe the agency’s payment recapture audit program, the actions 

and methods used by the agency to recoup overpayments, a justification of any overpayments 

that have been determined not to be collectable, and any conditions giving rise to improper 

payments and how those conditions are being resolved (e.g., the business process changes 

and internal controls instituted and/or strengthened to prevent further occurrences). If the 

agency has excluded any programs or activities from review under its payment recapture audit 

program (including any programs or activities where the agency has determined a payment 

recapture audit program is not cost-effective), the agency should list those programs and 

activities excluded from the review, as well as the justification for doing so. Include in the 

discussion the dollar amount of cumulative recoveries collected beginning with FY 2004. 

The Department’s payment recapture audit program is part of its overall program of internal control 

over disbursements. The program includes establishing and assessing internal controls to prevent 

improper payments, reviewing disbursements to identify improper payments, assessing root causes of 

improper payments, developing corrective action plans, and tracking the recovery of improper 

payments and disposition of recovered funds. In FY 2011, the Department updated its top-down 

approach for tracking and reporting the results of recovery auditing activities to promote consistency 

across the Department in implementing the expanded requirements of the IPERA. In conjunction with 

implementing the updated approach, the Department developed and disseminated a template to assist 

components in analyzing root causes of improper payments and tracking the recovery of such 

payments and disposition of recovered funds. 

The root causes for overpayments other than for grants largely fell within the OMB-defined error 

category of Documentation and Administrative, as most errors were overpayments resulting from 

duplicate payments or data entry errors. Departmental components have implemented corrective 

actions to address specific areas where improvements could be made. For example, to reduce 

duplicate payments, components within the Offices, Boards, and Divisions have increased the use of 

analytics by instituting searches of vendor invoice records prior to processing disbursements. To 

reduce data entry errors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) increased its use of electronic 

billing and consolidation of invoices. 

 

The root causes for grant overpayments also largely fell within the Documentation and Administrative 

category, as most involved questioned costs, e.g., expenditures that did not have sufficient 

documentation to support the cost. To reduce the risk of these types of overpayments, the 

Department’s granting components expanded training and communications informing grantees of their 

responsibilities related to receiving Federal awards. 

 

Departmental components have also taken actions to facilitate the recovery of improper payments. For 

example, the FBI produces an accounts receivable report to track the age and collection efforts for all 

uncollected improper payments. The Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) actions include generating a 

report at least quarterly that identifies potential duplicate disbursements, researching the questionable 

disbursements, resolving issues to identify payments that were proper, and initiating recovery actions 

for payments deemed to be improper. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF) issues demand letters to debtors notifying them of the status of the debt, the date payment is 

due, where to send payment, and the collection actions the ATF can pursue to recover the debt. 
A-4 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Department excluded employee disbursements and intra-governmental payments from the scope 

of its payment recapture audit program in accordance with the IPERA and OMB implementing 

guidance. The Department also excluded payments to confidential informants because of its 

responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information. Lastly, the Department excluded 

payments at Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) foreign offices, because the DEA obtains the 

services of the Department of State for certifying and disbursing payments on behalf of the DEA at 

foreign offices. 

In accordance with the IPERA and OMB implementing guidance, the Department measured payment 

recapture performance under the expanded scope of its payment recapture audit program. Based on 

performance for the period ending September 30, 2011, the Department achieved an overall improper 

payment recovery rate of 86 percent – 1 percent better than the OMB target rate of 85 percent that 

agencies are to strive to achieve by FY 2013. There were no FY 2011 overpayments that were 

determined not to be collectable. Table 1B provided later in this section provides additional detail on 

the approximate $33.0 million in improper payments identified in FYs 2004 through 2011 and the 

approximate $28.4 million of recovered funds. 

B. Complete the tables below (if any of this information is not available, indicate by either “Note” 

or “N/A” in the relevant column or cell): 

Note: To allow information to be easily viewable, the Department reformatted the table in 

OMB Circular A-136 into three separate tables. Table 1A provides information on the total amount of 

disbursements subject to review in FY 2011, as well as the total amount reviewed under the 

Department’s payment recapture audit program. As shown in the table, the Department reviewed 

100 percent of its FY 2011 disbursements, except for the payments excluded from review as discussed 

in Item V.A. 

Table 1A 

Payment Recapture Audit Reporting Scope 

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program) 

Amount 

Subject to 

Review for 

FY 2011 

Reporting 

Actual Amount 

Reviewed and 

Reported in 

FY 2011 

Percent 

Reviewed 

Administrative, 

Technology, and Other 

Commercial $757,647,071 $757,647,071 100% 

Custodial $516,597,093 $516,597,093 100% 

Litigation Commercial $689,725,587 $689,725,587 100% 

Law Enforcement Commercial $4,422,205,055 $4,422,205,055 100% 

State and Local Governments $1,116,361,158 $1,116,361,158 100% 

State, Local, Tribal, and 

Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $130,341,406 $130,341,406 100% 

Commercial $106,937,122 $106,937,122 100% 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements $3,808,605,661 $3,808,605,661 100% 

Prisons and Detention Commercial $ 3,312,945,299 $ 3,312,945,299 100% 

State and Local Governments $ 754,136,121 $ 754,136,121 100% 

Total $15,615,501,573 $15,615,501,573 100% 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

Table 1B provides the cumulative results of payment recapture audit activities for the eight-year period of FYs 2004 throuthe table, as of the end of FY 2011, the Department had recovered 86 percent of the improper payments identified for reco

reported a cumulative recovery rate of 94 percent in its FY 2010 PAR. The decreased rate for FY 2011 is attributed to the 

payment recapture audit reporting required under the IPERA; i.e., in FY 2010, agencies were required to report recovery rpayments only; whereas, in FY 2011, agencies are required to report on additional types of payments, such as payments to 

governments, benefit payments, and grants. As shown in the table, the recovery rate for grants was approximately 58 percrate for all other types of payments ranged from 91 percent to 100 percent. The lower recovery rate for grants is attributed 

extend the time frame for receiving recovered grant funds. For example, the OJP has referred approximately $1.2 million 

collection and is, thus, dependent on the Treasury’s collection processing schedule. In addition, some grantees have been 

repayment programs based on ability to pay and other factors, which also extends the time frame for receiving recovered g

Table 1B 

Cumulative Payment Recapture Audit Reporting

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

FYs 2004 through 2011 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Rate 

(Percent of 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered out 

of Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery) 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Outstanding 

Pe

Outs

(Pe

Cum

Im

Pay

Outs

o

Cum

Im

Pay

Iden

Rec

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $667,081 $665,134 99.7% $1,947 

Custodial $0 $0 N/A $0 

Litigation Commercial $2,681,015 $2,591,316 96.7% $89,699 Law Enforcement Commercial $15,939,236 $14,782,295 92.7% $1,156,941 

State and Local Governments $0 $0 N/A $0 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $10,000 $10,000 100.0% $0 

Commercial $356,861 $356,861 100.0% $0 Grants and Cooperative Agreements $6,435,379 $3,712,556 57.7% $2,722,823 

Prisons and Detention Commercial $6,740,090 $6,137,312 91.1% $602,778 

State and Local Governments $153,878 $153,878 100.0% $0 

A-5 Total $32,983,540 $28,409,352 86.1% $4,574,188 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report

Table 1C provides the results of payment recapture audit activities separately by current year (FY 2011) and previous year

2010 combined). As shown in the table, for the first two Departmental programs, the amount of commercial improper pay

FY 2011 exceeded the amount identified for recovery due to the recovery during FY 2011 of improper payments identifie

Table 1C 

Payment Recapture Audit Reporting by Current Year and Previous Years

DOJ Mission-Aligned Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

Current Year 

(FY 2011) 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Overpayments 

Determined 

Not to be 

Collectable 

Percent of 

Overpayments 

Determined 

Not to be 

Collectable 

out of 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery 

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $155,512 $261,351 $0 N/A 

Custodial $0 $0 $0 N/A 

Litigation Commercial $455,062 $943,442 $0 N/A Law Enforcement Commercial $3,556,735 $2,668,526 $0 N/A 

State and Local Governments $0 $0 $0 N/A 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $10,000 $10,000 $0 N/A 

Commercial $326,377 $326,377 $0 N/A Grants and Cooperative Agreements $6,435,379 $3,712,556 $0 N/A 

Prisons and Detention Commercial $1,541,380 $1,192,287 $0 N/A 

State and Local Governments $153,878 $153,878 $0 N/A 

Total $12,634,323 $9,268,417 $0 N/A 

A-6 
Department of Justice 

 FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

If an agency has a payment recapture audit program in place, then the agency is required to establish annual targannual performance. The targets shall be based on the rate of recovery. Agencies are expected to report current rates, as well as recovery rate targets for three years. 

Table 2 provides current year (FY 2011) payment recapture audit activities information, cumulative information (FYs 200

recovery rate targets for three years. As shown in the current year section of the table, for the first two Departmental progcommercial improper payments recovered exceeded the amount identified for recovery due to the recovery during FY 201

identified in previous years. As also shown in the table, the Department achieved an overall improper payment recovery r

the end of FY 2011 – 1 percent better than the OMB target rate of 85 percent that agencies are to strive to achieve by FY 2Department will focus on improving the recovery rate for grants and sustaining the high recovery rates for all other types o

Table 2 

Improper Payments Recovery Rates and Targets 

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

Current Year 

(FY 2011) 

Cumulative 

(FYs 2004 through 2011)

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Rate 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recov

Rat

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $155,512 $261,351 168.1% $667,081 $665,134 99

Custodial $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 

Litigation Commercial $455,062 $943,442 207.3% $2,681,015 $2,591,316 96Law Enforcement Commercial $3,556,735 $2,668,526 75.0% $15,939,236 $14,782,295 92

State and Local Governments $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $10,000 $10,000 100.0% $10,000 $10,000 100

Commercial $326,377 $326,377 100.0% $356,861 $356,861 100Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

$6,435,379 $3,712,556 57.7% $6,435,379 $3,712,556 57

Prisons and Detention Commercial $1,541,380 $1,192,287 77.4% $6,740,090 $6,137,312 91

State and Local Governments $153,878 $153,878 100.0% $153,878 $153,878 100

Total $12,634,323 $9,268,417 73.4% $32,983,540 $28,409,352 86

A-7
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

C. In addition, agencies shall report the following information on their payment recapture audit programs, if app

i. An aging schedule of the amount of overpayments identified through the payment recapture audit pro

outstanding (i.e., overpayments that have been identified but not recovered). Typically, the aging of aat the time the overpayment is detected. Indicate with a note whenever that is not the case. 

Table 3 provides the aging schedule for the Department’s overpayments that were outstanding (not recovered

FY 2011. As shown in the table, of the approximate $1 million of overpayments that was outstanding more th

$900,000 (or 88 percent) was grants. As mentioned, in FY 2012, the Department will focus on improving the 

Table 3 

Aging of Cumulative Outstanding Overpayments 

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

Amount Outstanding 

(0 to 6 months) 

Amount Outstanding 

(6 months to 1 year) 

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $1,355 $114 

Custodial $0 $0 

Litigation Commercial $69,035 $6,961 Law Enforcement Commercial $15,746 $1,034,736 

State and Local Governments $0 $0 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $0 $0 

Commercial $0 $0 Grants and Cooperative Agreements $644,379 $1,158,132 

Prisons and Detention Commercial $11,793 $587,750 

State and Local Governments $0 $0 

Total $742,308 $2,787,693 

A-8 
Department of Justice 

 FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

ii. A summary of how recovered amounts have been disposed of (if any of this information is not availab

“Note” or “N/A” in the relevant column or cell). 

Table 4 provides the disposition information for the improper payments the Department recovered in FY 2011table, almost $7.8 million of the approximate $9.3 million recovered (or 84 percent) was returned to the originthe payments were made; another $1.1 million (or 12 percent) was returned to the Treasury. 

Table 4 

Disposition of FY 2011 Recovered Funds 

DOJ MissionAligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

in FY 2011 

Disposition 

Returned to 

Original 

Fund 

Agency 

Expenses to 

Administer 

the Program 

Payment 

Recapture 

Auditor 

Fees 

Financial 

Management 

Improvement 

Activities 

Used 

Orig

Purp

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $261,351 $249,991 

Custodial $0 

Litigation Commercial $943,442 $943,442 Law Enforcement 

Commercial $2,668,526 $2,325,015 $34

State and Local Governments $0 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $10,000 $10,000 

Commercial $326,377 $326,377 Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

$3,712,556 $2,605,592 

Prisons and Detention 

Commercial $1,192,287 $1,179,731 

State and Local Governments $153,878 $153,878 

Total $9,268,417 $7,794,026 $0 $0 $0 $34

A-9 
A-10 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

D. As applicable, agencies should also report on improper payments identified and recovered 

through sources other than payment recapture audits. For example, agencies could report on 

improper payments identified through statistical samples conducted under the IPIA, agency 

post-payment reviews or audits, Office of the Inspector General reviews, Single Audit reports, 

self-reported overpayments, or reports from the public. Specific information on additional 

required reporting for contracts is included in Section 7 of OMB memorandum M-11-04, issued 

in November 2010. Reporting this information is required for FY 2011 reporting and beyond. If 

previous year information is not available, indicate by a “Note.” 

The Department’s payment recapture audit program leverages both internal and external efforts to 

identify improper payments. The reporting in Tables 1B through 5 is inclusive of all overpayments, 

regardless of whether they were identified through internal or external sources. Table 5 provides 

information on the overpayments that were identified in FY 2011 by source, i.e., through internal 

efforts or by auditors, vendors, or payment recapture audit contractors. The table also provides 

FY 2011 recovery information associated with overpayments identified by those sources. The table 

provides information for FY 2011 only, as the Department did not track this level of detail in previous 

years. 

Table 5 

Sources of Identifying Overpayments 

Source 

Improper Payments 

Identified in FY 2011 

Improper Payments 

Recovered in FY 2011 

Internal Efforts $5,249,056 $4,308,320 

Auditors (e.g., by the OIG or 

audits for OMB Circular A-133) $5,909,309 $3,290,056 

Vendors $1,475,958 $1,658,681 

Payment Recapture Audit 

Contractors $0 $11,360 

Total $12,634,323 $9,268,417 

Item VI. Accountability. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to significant 

improper payments shall describe the steps the agency has taken and plans to take (including 

timeline) to ensure that agency managers, accountable officers (including the agency head), programs, 

and States and localities (where appropriate) are held accountable for reducing and recovering 

improper payments. Specifically, they should be held accountable for meeting applicable improper 

payments reduction targets and establishing and maintaining sufficient internal controls (including an 

appropriate control environment) that effectively prevents improper payments from being made and 

promptly detects and recovers any improper payments that are made. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

Item VII. Agency Information Systems and Other Infrastructure. 

A. Describe whether the agency has the internal controls, human capital, and information 

systems and other infrastructure it needs to reduce improper payments to the levels the 

agency has targeted. 

The results of the FY 2011 Department-wide risk assessment demonstrated that, overall, the 

Department has sufficient internal controls over disbursement activities to prevent improper payments. 

The assessment identified no programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

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 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report A-11

implementation of an integrated financial management system, which is underway. As of the end of 

FY 2011, all Departmental components reported that they had sufficient internal controls, human 

capital, and the information systems and other infrastructure needed to reduce improper payments to 

targeted levels. 

In addition to the Department’s actions to improve agency information systems and infrastructure, 

individual components have taken actions to incorporate additional controls into their financial 

systems to reduce improper payments. For example, in FY 2011, the Federal Prison Industries (FPI) 

purchased a Document Management Service for processing accounts payable vendor invoices, which 

the FPI plans to implement the first quarter of FY 2012. The increased capability will provide 

end-to-end automation that integrates document automation, reconciliation, voucher processing, 

workflow for approvals, and detailed reporting information. 

B. If the agency does not have such internal controls, human capital, and information systems 

and other infrastructure, describe the resources the agency requested in its most recent 

budget submission to Congress to establish and maintain the necessary internal controls, 

human capital, and information systems and other infrastructure. 

Not applicable. The continued implementation of the Department’s integrated financial management 

system will complement the Department’s current infrastructure and capabilities to reduce improper 

payments. 

Item VIII. Barriers. 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. Discuss any additional comments, if any, on overall agency efforts, 

specific programs, best practices, or common challenges identified as a result of IPERA 

implementation. 

The Department recognizes the importance of maintaining adequate internal controls to ensure proper payments 

and is committed to the continuous improvement of the overall disbursement management process. The 

Department’s use in FY 2011 of a top-down approach for implementing the expanded requirements of the 

IPERA promoted consistency across the Department, both with regard to conducting the required risk 

assessment and for tracking and reporting payment recapture audit activities. In FY 2012, the Department will 

continue its efforts to further reduce improper payments, as well as improve the recovery rate for grants – the 

only type of payment for which the Department’s recovery rate as of the end of FY 2011 was below 90 percent. 

 
A-12 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report B-1

APPENDIX B 

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 FY 2011 consolidated Department audit. The Department earned an 

unqualified opinion on its audited consolidated financial statements for FY 2011. 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 2011 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 

strategy for financial systems improvement. UFMS is replacing multiple core financial management and 

procurement systems with an integrated Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solution, Momentum, 

provided by CGI Federal Inc. Implementation of UFMS is streamlining and standardizing business 

processes and procedures across DOJ Components. 

As of September 2011, UFMS supports more than 2,500 users worldwide from the DEA (fully 

implemented), ATF (fully implemented), Asset Forfeiture Program/AFP (Phase 1), BOP (UFMS 

Acquisitions), FBI (Phase 1), and USMS (UFMS Acquisitions). By FY 2014 UFMS will serve as the 

financial system of record for 4 DOJ components (DEA, ATF, USMS and FBI), and AFP. 

Major accomplishments in FY 2011 include the following: 

 In October 2010, ATF deployed UFMS 2.0 as their financial system of record making it the 

second major DOJ law enforcement component to successfully implement UFMS. ATF is the 

first organization to use UFMS 2.0, which is configured to securely support multiple DOJ 

organizations and includes over 100 enhancements to the base product. 

    FY 2011 Financial Management Status Report
 Department of Justice B-2  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

 FY 2011 is the third year DEA relied on the UFMS as the system of record. DEA has received a 

clean audit opinion for the thirteenth consecutive year. 

 The USMS has a base-lined schedule for deployment of the UFMS 2.0 across the organization in 

October 2012. Requirements are final, design and configuration are underway; conversion and 

testing efforts are on target to begin in October 2011. 

 Deployment of the UFMS 2.0 for the JMD/AFP Phase 2 is planned for October 2012, concurrent 

with the deployment to the USMS. 

 The FBI kicked off Phase 2 of their UFMS implementation in November 2010. FBI and JMD 

reached an agreement in May 2011 that FBI will host the UFMS-SECRET domain, which 

includes a technical refresh of UFMS. 

 In January 2011, the oversight of production services was transitioned to the JMD, Finance Staff, 

Unified Financial Systems Group. Centralized services include batch processing, system 

administration, critical incident response and coordination with Tier 1 help desk staff at the 

component. 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Remediation Plan and A-123 

Compliance. 

During FY 2011, 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 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, Appendix A 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. Efforts 

are continuing 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. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report C-1

APPENDIX C 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Assessment of DOJ’s Law Enforcement 

Coordination between the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USMS 

The Department of Justice law enforcement components—ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS—have overlapping 

jurisdiction over violent crime investigations, specifically when they involve illegal drugs, gang violence, 

firearms, explosives, arson, and fugitive apprehension. The GAO assessed the extent to which selected agents 

are clear on their agencies’ roles and responsibilities, and how components determine and coordinate roles and 

responsibilities to avoid unnecessary use of resources. The GAO reviewed documents such as Department 

directives and interviewed DOJ component officials in headquarters and nine cities, which were selected based 

on population and the presence of all DOJ components. The GAO also surveyed a randomly selected, nongeneralized sample of 315 field agents. The results provided information about the range of perspectives of 

surveyed agents. 

GAO recommends that DOJ assess options to better identify and diagnose disagreements in the field and take 

action to limit the negative impacts from disagreements over jurisdictional overlap for some criminal 

investigations. 

GAO Review of DOJ’s Compliance with the National Child Search Assistance Act 

The National Child Search Assistance Act, as amended, requires that within two hours of receiving a missing 

child report, law enforcement agencies (LEAs) enter the report into the Department’s National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC), a clearinghouse of information instantly available to LEAs nationwide. DOJ’s 

Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS), the CJIS Advisory Policy Board, and state criminal justice 

agencies share responsibility for overseeing this requirement. GAO examined 1) CJIS’s and the Board’s 

efforts to implement and monitor compliance with the requirement; and 2) selected LEA-reported challenges 

with timely entry and DOJ’s actions to assist LEAs in addressing them. 

GAO recommends that CJIS and the Board consider establishing minimum standards for states to use to 

monitor compliance with the 2-hour rule and CJIS and Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP) use existing mechanisms to obtain and share information on LEAs challenges and successful efforts 

to mitigate them. In their meeting with the Board in June 2011, the FBI suggested to the Board to consider 

revising the current sanctions policy which provides that no agency will be referred within the 3-year initial 

policy audit rollout period. The FBI also proposed that the Board consider agencies found to be non-compliant 

be referred immediately for sanctions.

Audit by the Office of the Inspector General on FBI’s Convicted Offender Backlog 

The FBI Laboratory’s Federal DNA Database Unit had effectively eliminated its backlog of convicted 

offender, arrestee, and detainee DNA samples. The OIG determined that the FBI reduced this backlog from 

over 312,000 samples in December 2009 to a workload of approximately 14,000 samples in May 2011. 

While the FBI was successful in reducing its backlog, the OIG identified some concerns with reporting 

backlog statistics, estimating future workload, and storage space for DNA samples. Analyzing DNA samples 

has several stages through which each sample must sequentially pass. The OIG found that from April 2005 

through May 2011, the FBI Laboratory reported to management its backlog of convicted offender, arrestee, 

and detainee samples by only reporting the stage with the most backlogged samples, rather than capturing all 

Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2011
C-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

samples being processed across all stages. Based on these findings the OIG made three recommendations 

designed to assist the FBI in more accurately identifying, reporting, projecting, and storing its convicted 

offender, arrestee, and detainee DNA sample workload. The FBI concurs with the three recommendations and 

will implement the recommendations proposed by the OIG. 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Audit of DOJ’s Processing of Clemency Petitions 

On September 26, 2011, the OIG issued its final report of the “Audit of the Department of Justice Processing 

of Clemency Petitions.” The evaluation focused on the processes of the core mission of the Office of the 

Pardon Attorney (OPA), which is to receive and review all petitions addressed to the President for executive 

clemency for federal criminal convictions, conduct the necessary investigations, and prepare recommendations 

for the President as to the disposition of each case, which are reviewed and signed on behalf of the Department 

of Justice by the Deputy Attorney General. 

The objectives of the audit, whose scope included clemency petitions pending at the beginning of FY 2005 and 

petitions opened between FY 2005 and FY 2010, were to determine 1) whether OPA has established effective 

procedures for processing and reducing the backlog of clemency petitions (defined as “all clemency petitions 

that have been received by the OPA, but have not received a final decision by the President or been 

administratively closed by the OPA”), and 2) whether DOJ components have established effective procedures 

to respond in a timely manner to OPA’s referrals to them of clemency applications for information and 

comment. 

The audit report found that OPA “utilize[s] a reasonable approach to investigate the merits of clemency 

petitions and develop its recommendations.” It further found that although the backlog of petitions increased 

by 92 percent over the six years from the beginning of FY 2005 to the end of FY 2010, the increase “was due 

in part to the fact that the number of clemency petitions received by the OPA more than doubled from 

FY 2005 to FY 2010, and the President did not make any decisions on clemency petitions from the time he 

took office in January 2009 through FY 2010.” Moreover, the report found that during the time period 

addressed by the audit, “the number of petitions processed by the OPA increased by 61 percent,” and that at 

the end of the audit period, “more than half of the backlog was outside of DOJ’s control.” The audit 

determined that a “significant cause of the delay in processing clemency petitions was that the entities 

receiving referrals did not always respond to the OPA’s referrals within the period of time required by the 

entities’ internal guidelines or the period of time requested by the OPA,” and that “the OPA often did not 

follow up on outstanding referrals within the 60 days required by its internal policy.” 

OPA concurred with all four recommendations in the OIG audit report, and the second recommendation has 

been closed based upon the detailed explanation OPA provided to the OIG of the procedure it has 

implemented to process referrals electronically. The remaining three recommendations are deemed resolved 

by the OIG and will be closed when OPA provides evidence to the OIG that it has implemented the procedures 

for addressing the recommendations that OPA outlined in its response to the audit. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-1

APPENDIX D 

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 2011
D-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 2011 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 28 

Number of Defendants: 49 

Number of Cases Filed: 9 

Number of Defendants: 25 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 5 

Number of Defendants: 9 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 3 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 2 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 3 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 1 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 2 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 0 

13 to 24 Months: 0 

25 to 36 Months: 0 

37 to 60 Months: 1 

61 + Months: 2 

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.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-3

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 2011 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

 Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 82 

 Number of Defendants: 118 

 Number of Cases Filed: 46 

 Number of Defendants: 70 

 Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 48 

 Number of Defendants: 64 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

 Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 42 

 Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 2 

 Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 18 

 Number of Defendants Acquitted: 1 

 Other Terminated Defendants: 1 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

 No Imprisonment: 25 

 1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 2 

 13 to 24 Months: 10 

 25 to 36 Months: 3 

 37 to 60 Months: 4 

 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.
D-4 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 2011 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 2 

Number of Defendants: 2 

Number of Cases Filed: 0 

Number of Defendants: 0 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 1 

Number of Defendants: 1 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 1 

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: 1 

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.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-5

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 2011 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 229 

Number of Defendants: 340 

Number of Cases Filed: 113 

Number of Defendants: 134 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 89 

 Number of Defendants: 139 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 88 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 9 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 37 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 5 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 43 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 18 

13 to 24 Months: 16 

25 to 36 Months: 8 

37 to 60 Months: 8 

61 + Months: 4 

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.
D-6 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

 All Districts - All Statutes

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 368 303 243 343 330 

Number of Defendants: 561 467 404 543 481 

Number of Cases Filed: 200 179 150 158 158 

Number of Defendants: 268 239 203 239 203 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 177 174 175 152 135 

Number of Defendants: 278 270 230 212 206 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 240 220 198 185 178 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 10 8 5 7 13 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 15 26 21 14 11 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 1 8 2 2 1 

Other Terminated Defendants: 12 8 4 4 3 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 129 101 114 114 92 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 44 46 31 33 26 

13 to 24 Months: 33 39 27 25 31 

25 to 36 Months: 18 20 6 9 15 

37 to 60 Months: 11 19 17 7 21 

61 + Months: 15 3 8 4 6

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 OR TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE,

SECTION 506*
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-7

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 11

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 169 

Number of Defendants: 239 

Number of Cases Filed: 90 

Number of Defendants: 105 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 59 

Number of Defendants: 81 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 63 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 9 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 7 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 2 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 33 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 14 

13 to 24 Months: 7 

25 to 36 Months: 6 

37 to 60 Months: 12 

61+ Months: 0 

*These charts include 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. These charts 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. These charts do 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. 

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 110000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 001100 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 330013 20100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 2 15 2 15 1 2 02000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 110000 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 110000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 120000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000001 00010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 110000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 110000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 110000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 110000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 111100 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 130000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 111100 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 000000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 110000 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 110000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

D-8 Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
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 000011 00100

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000 00000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 012500 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 330000 00000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 001111 00100

VIRGINIA EASTERN 590000 00000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 111111 10000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 28 49 9 25 5 9 32310

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-9

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
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 200000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000002

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

D-10 Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
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 000010

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

Grand Total 200012

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-11

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

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 001111 10000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 220000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 111122 10100

ALASKA 000011 10000

ARIZONA 111122 10100

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 662233 30000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 2 15 3 16 4 5 40001

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 673300 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 110000 00000

DELAWARE 142400 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 330000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 124511 10000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 241114 12100

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000011 10000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 110000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 3 3 0 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 001111 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 111100 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000011 10000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 110000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 111100 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 110011 10000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 113311 10000

MASSACHUSETTS 010000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 331111 10000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000011 10000

MISSOURI EASTERN 111122 20000

MISSOURI WESTERN 110000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 111111 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 110000 00000

NEW MEXICO 220000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 110000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 10 13 0000 00000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 220011 10000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 330011 10000

OHIO SOUTHERN 121111 10000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 110011 10000

OREGON 002233 30000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 111111 10000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

D-12

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 230044 30100

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 224433 30000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 012500 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 110000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000011 00100

TEXAS NORTHERN 452200 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 220000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 111100 00000

UTAH 000011 00100

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 223311 00100

VIRGINIA EASTERN 2 10 1534 20110

VIRGINIA WESTERN 001212 20000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 110000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 001111 10000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 82 118 46 70 48 64 42 2 18 1 1

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 100000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000100

ALASKA 100000

ARIZONA 100000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 300000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 202000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 100000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 100020

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000100

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 100000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 100000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 100000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 001000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 100000

MISSOURI EASTERN 101000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 100000

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 010000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000010

OHIO SOUTHERN 000100

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 100000

OREGON 111000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 100000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 300000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 102000

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 001010

VIRGINIA WESTERN 002000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 100000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 25 2 10 3 4 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**
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 110000 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 000011 10000

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

D-16

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
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 110000 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 220011 10000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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.

D-17

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
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 010000

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

D-18

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
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 010000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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.

D-19

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
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 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000023 30000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 110023 10200

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 142211 01000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 23 26 12 13 6 11 41600

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 593333 30000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 16 25 4400 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 110023 00300

COLORADO 110012 10100

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 3 12 2801 00001

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 881100 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 12 17 9933 30000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 110000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 6 10 4811 10000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 4 12 0023 20100

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 573400 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 472300 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 110000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 011100 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 221122 20000

KANSAS 220001 00100

KENTUCKY EASTERN 110000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 110000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 443333 30000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 110000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000011 10000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 695537 40003

MASSACHUSETTS 232222 20000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 360000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 150000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000011 10000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 561122 20000

MISSOURI WESTERN 560012 20000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 110012 00200

NEVADA 112211 00001

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000044 31000

NEW JERSEY 231134 20200

NEW MEXICO 110000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 4 9 3 6 4 16 10 1 5 0 0

NEW YORK NORTHERN 221100 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 11 14 11 12 11 16 16 0000

NEW YORK WESTERN 580000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 160001 10000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 331100 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 230000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 12 14 5500 00000

OHIO SOUTHERN 110000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 120022 10100

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 12 14 9927 20500

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 111111 10000

D-20

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 440022 10100

PUERTO RICO 000000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 111111 10000

SOUTH CAROLINA 220013 30000

SOUTH DAKOTA 240000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 111100 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 111100 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 554400 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 3 11 1200 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 121100 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 376945 22100

TEXAS WESTERN 340033 30000

UTAH 110000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000011 10000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 5 5 3 3 6 10 3 3 4 0 0

VIRGINIA WESTERN 291100 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 001100 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 673334 20200

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 221111 10000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 229 340 113 134 89 139 88 9 37 0 5

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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.

D-21

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 012000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 100000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000010

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 102110

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 011100

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000001

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 300000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 100000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 110000

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 100010

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 210000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 001000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 300100

MASSACHUSETTS 200000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 100000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000110

MISSOURI WESTERN 010010

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 400000

NEW JERSEY 200000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 532100

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 10 22002

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000001

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 100000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 110000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 001000

D-22

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 001000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 001000

SOUTH CAROLINA 111000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 010210

TEXAS WESTERN 110100

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 100000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 122010

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 010010

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 010000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 43 18 16 8 8 4

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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.

D-23

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000012 20000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000012 20000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 112211 01000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 17 20 10 11 3 5 41000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 241100 00000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 13 19 4400 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 110023 30000

COLORADO 220000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 021200 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 220000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 10 14 11 13 3 3 30000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 110000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 484811 10000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 220000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 231123 20100

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 463400 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 582300 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 110000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 011100 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 111100 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 221133 30000

KANSAS 110000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 110000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 110000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 333322 20000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 110000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000022 20000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 583326 40002

MASSACHUSETTS 121111 10000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 150000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 452222 20000

MISSOURI WESTERN 561112 20000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000012 00200

NEVADA 001100 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000044 31000

NEW JERSEY 011111 10000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 001138 71000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 221100 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 10 12 1111 10000

NEW YORK WESTERN 470000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 050000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 331100 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 12 12 5500 00000

OHIO SOUTHERN 230000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 110000 00000

OREGON 120011 00100

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 11 12 7722 20000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 001111 10000

D-24 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**
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 220011 00100

PUERTO RICO 110044 30100

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 112201 10000

SOUTH DAKOTA 130000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 111100 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 554400 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 150000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 122200 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 245645 22100

TEXAS WESTERN 450033 30000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000011 10000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 3 11 2647 43000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 001100 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 551111 10000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 221100 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 169 239 90 105 59 81 63 9702

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 011000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 110000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000010

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 100040

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 021000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 300000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 100000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 110000

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 200010

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 200000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 101000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 300100

MASSACHUSETTS 100000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000110

MISSOURI WESTERN 010010

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 400000

NEW JERSEY 000010

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 431000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 100000

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 110000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 001000

D-26 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 300000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 100000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 010210

TEXAS WESTERN 110100

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 100000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 112120

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 010000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 33 14 7 6 12 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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 2011 Performance and Accountability Report D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**
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 111111 10000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 221123 30000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 111134 40000

ALASKA 000011 10000

ARIZONA 111122 20000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 142211 01000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 32 35 14 15 9 16 131200

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 7 24 6 19 7 10 72001

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 22 327700 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 220023 30000

COLORADO 220012 20000

CONNECTICUT 110000 00000

DELAWARE 3 14 3 10 0 1 10000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 11 111100 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 12 17 12 14 4 4 40000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 110000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 7 114811 10000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 220000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 6 161138 42110

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000011 10000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 573400 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 220000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 8 11 2 3 0 10 10 0 0 0 0

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 110000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 011100 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 001111 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 111100 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 221133 30000

KANSAS 220001 10000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 220000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 220000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 554433 30000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 110000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 110022 20000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 8 117748 60002

MASSACHUSETTS 242222 20000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 691111 10000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 150000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000011 10000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 130011 10000

MISSOURI EASTERN 672244 40000

MISSOURI WESTERN 781112 20000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 110012 00200

NEVADA 112211 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000044 31000

NEW JERSEY 341134 30100

NEW MEXICO 330000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 4 9 3 6 5 17 16 1 0 0 0

NEW YORK NORTHERN 331100 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 22 28 11 12 11 16 160000

NEW YORK WESTERN 580000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 380012 20000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 331100 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 230000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 15 175511 10000

OHIO SOUTHERN 231111 10000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 110011 10000

OREGON 122255 40100

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 14 16 10 10 3 8 80000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 111111 10000

D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 440022 10100

PUERTO RICO 230044 30100

RHODE ISLAND 111111 10000

SOUTH CAROLINA 334446 60000

SOUTH DAKOTA 240000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 123600 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 221100 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 554400 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 3 11 1211 10000

TEXAS NORTHERN 683300 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 596945 22100

TEXAS WESTERN 781133 30000

UTAH 110011 00100

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 223311 10000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 12 24 4 8 9 14 11 3000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 292312 20000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 001100 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 894434 40000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 222222 20000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 330 481 158 203 135 206 178 13 11 1 3

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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. 

D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 100000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 012000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 210100

ALASKA 100000

ARIZONA 200000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000010

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 702140

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 213102

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 021000

COLORADO 000101

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 100000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 400000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 100000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 210030

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000100

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 811000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 100000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 200010

KANSAS 000100

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 210000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 101000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 500100

MASSACHUSETTS 200000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 001000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 100000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 100000

MISSOURI EASTERN 101110

MISSOURI WESTERN 010010

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 100000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 400000

NEW JERSEY 200010

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 843110

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 10 22002

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 010001

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000010

OHIO SOUTHERN 000100

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 100000

OREGON 211000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 411110

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 001000

D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 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 001000

PUERTO RICO 300000

RHODE ISLAND 001000

SOUTH CAROLINA 213000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 001000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 010210

TEXAS WESTERN 110100

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 100000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 423140

VIRGINIA WESTERN 002000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 120010

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 92 26 31 15 21 6

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2011 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2011.

***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. 

D-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 2011 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2011**

 Department of Justice · FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 
D-32 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report E-1

APPENDIX E 

ACA American Correctional Association 

ACM Asbestos Containing Materials 

ACS Automated Case Support 

AFF Assets Forfeiture Fund 

AFF/SADF Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund 

AFR Agency Financial Report or Performance and Accountability Report 

AMBER America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response 

AOUSC Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

ATR Antitrust Division 

AOUSC Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals 

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance 

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics 

BOP Bureau of Prisons 

BP Alaska BP Exploration Alaska, Inc 

Budget Budget of the United States 

CASE Case Access System for EOIR 

CCDO Community Capacity Development Office 

CDR Chronological Disciplinary Record 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CHRP COPS Hiring Recovery Program (under Recovery Act) 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CIV Civil Division 

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services 

CODIS Combined DNA Index System 

COLA Cost of Living Adjustments 

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 

C

B

A

Acronyms
E-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System 

CT Counterterrorism 

CTD Counterterrorism Division 

CVF Crime Victims Fund 

CVIP Child Victim Identification Program 

CY Calendar Year/Current Year 

DCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

DCM Debt Collection Management 

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration 

DFAS Drug Flow Attack Strategy 

Department, The Department of Justice 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DIOG Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide 

DIRB Department Investment Review Board 

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

ECs Electronic Communications 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

ENRD Environment and Natural Resources Division 

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

EOUSA Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center 

ESF Emergency Support Function 

FAA FISA Amendments Act 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FBWT Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury 

FCI Federal Correctional Institution 

FCSC Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

FECA Federal Employees Compensation Act 

FEGLI Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program 

FEHB Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System 

FFETF Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force 

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 

FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act 

F

E

D
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report E-3

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

FMIS Financial Management Information System 

FPI Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FTTTF Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force 

FY Fiscal Year 

GangTECC National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GAN Grant Adjustment Notice 

GMRA Government Management Reform Act 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GPRS Grant Payment Request System 

GSK GlaxoSmithKline 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

IC3 Internet Crimes Complaint Center 

IG Inspector General 

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement 

IHP Institutional Hearing Program 

IINI Innocent Images National Initiative 

Integrity Act Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization 

IP Intellectual Property 

IPERA Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act 

IPIA Improper Payments Information Act 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISRAA Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application 

IT Information Technology 

IVRS Integrated Violence Reduction Strategy

IWN Integrated Wireless Network 

JDIS Justice Detainee Information System 

JMD Justice Management Division 

JRSA Justice Research and Statistics Association 

JSOC Justice Security Operations Center 

J

I

H

G
E-4 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

KG Weight in Kilograms 

LCM Lower of average cost or market value 

LCMS Litigation Case Management System 

LEA Law Enforcement Agency 

LLC Limited Liability Company 

LLP Limited Liability Partnership 

MCO Mission Critical Occupation 

MDMA 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine 

MET Mobile Enforcement Team 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MS Mara Salvatrucha 

N/A Not Applicable 

NCIC National Crime Information Center 

NCIJTF National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force 

NCMEC National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

NDIC National Drug Intelligence Center 

NETF National Explosives Task Force 

NGI Next Generation Identification 

NGIC National Gang Intelligence Center 

NIJ National Institute of Justice 

NSD National Security Division 

NSL National Security Letter 

NW3C National White Collar Crime Center 

OAAM Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

OBDs Offices, Boards and Divisions 

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 

OCGS Organized Crime and Gang Section 

ODR Office of Dispute Resolution 

OFDT Office of the Federal Detention Trustee 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

OIP Office of Information Policy 

K

O

N

M

L
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report E-5

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

OLA Office of Legislative Affairs 

OLC Office of Legal Counsel 

OLP Office of Legal Policy 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPA Office of Pardon Attorney 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

OSG Office of Solicitor General 

OTJ Office of Tribal Justice 

OVP Office of the Vice President 

OVW Office on Violence Against Women 

PAR Performance and Accountability Report 

Patriot Act USA PATRIOT Act 

PHS Public Health Services 

PL Public Law 

PMT Performance Measurement Tool 

PMRU Professional Misconduct Review Unit 

PRAO Professional Responsibility Advisory Office 

PSOB Act Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976 

PTS Prisoner Tracking System 

PY Prior Year/Previous Year 

RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 

RECA Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

RFTF Regional Fugitive Task Force 

RICO Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization 

RSAT Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 

SAVE Council Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies 

SBF Special Benefits Fund 

SBR Statement of Budgetary Resources 

SENTRY Bureau of Prisons' primary mission-support database 

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 

SG Strategic Goal 

SIU Sensitive Investigation Unit 

SOD Special Operations Division 

S

R

P
E-6 Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report 

TAX Tax Division 

TBD To Be Determined 

TBW Taylor, Bean & Whitaker 

TIL Thief-In-Law 

Treasury, the Department of Treasury 

Trust Fund Federal Prison Commissary Fund 

TSP Federal Thrift Savings Plan 

UDO Undelivered Orders 

UFMS Unified Financial Management System 

UNICOR Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 

US-CERT United States Computer Emergency Readiness Center 

USAs United States Attorneys 

USAO United States Attorneys’ Offices 

USC United States Code 

USMS United States Marshals Service 

USNCB United States National Central Bureau 

USPC United States Parole Commission 

USSGL U.S. Standard General Ledger 

UST United States Trustee 

USTP United States Trustees Program 

VOI/TIS Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In Sentencing 

WCC White-Collar Crime 

WIN Warrant Information Network System 

W

V

U

T
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report F-1

APPENDIX F 

Component Website

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/aiana.htm 

Antitrust Division www.justice.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) bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Civil Division www.justice.gov/civil/index.html

Civil Rights Division www.justice.gov/crt/

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.justice.gov/crs/index.html

Criminal Division www.justice.gov/criminal/ 

Diversion Control Program www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/

Drug Enforcement Administration www.justice.gov/dea/index.htm

Environment and Natural Resources Division www.justice.gov/enrd/

Executive Office for Immigration Review www.justice.gov/eoir/

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees www.justice.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.justice.gov/fcsc/

INTERPOL - U.S. National Central Bureau www.justice.gov/usncb/

Justice Management Division www.justice.gov/jmd/

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (OJP) www.ncjrs.gov/

National Drug Intelligence Center www.justice.gov/ndic/

National Institute of Corrections www.nicic.gov/

National Institute of Justice (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/ 

National Security Division www.justice.gov/nsd/ 

Office of the Associate Attorney General www.justice.gov/asg/index.html 

Office of the Attorney General www.justice.gov/ag/

Office of the Deputy Attorney General www.justice.gov/dag/

Office of Dispute Resolution www.justice.gov/odr/

Office of the Federal Detention Trustee www.justice.gov/ofdt/index.html

Office of Information Policy www.justice.gov/oip/oip.html

Office of the Inspector General www.justice.gov/oig/

Office of Intelligence Policy and Review www.justice.gov/nsd/oipr-redirect.htm

Office of Intergovernmental and Public Liaison www.justice.gov/oipl/index.html 

Office of Justice Programs www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJP) www.ojjdp.gov/ 

Office of Legal Counsel www.justice.gov/olc/index.html

Office of Legal Policy www.justice.gov/olp/

Office of Legislative Affairs www.justice.gov/ola/

Office of the Pardon Attorney www.justice.gov/pardon/

Office of Professional Responsibility www.justice.gov/opr/index.html

Office of Public Affairs www.justice.gov/opa/index.html

Office of the Solicitor General www.justice.gov/osg/

Office of Tribal Justice www.justice.gov/otj/index.html

Office for Victims of Crime (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/

Office on Violence Against Women www.ovw.usdoj.gov/ 

Tax Division www.justice.gov/tax/

U.S. Attorneys www.justice.gov/usao/ 

U.S. Marshals Service www.justice.gov/marshals/

U.S. Parole Commission www.justice.gov/uspc/ 

Department Component Websites
F-2 Department of Justice  FY 2011 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 2011 

Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your 

comments and suggestions on how we can improve this report for 

FY 2012. Please email any comments to: performance@usdoj.gov

This document is available on the Internet at:

http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2011/TableofContents.htm

Please view our Strategic Plan at:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/index.html
U.S. Department of Justice

www.justice.gov