U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Stewards of the

AMERICAN DREAM

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

FY 2010

Performance and

Accountability Report
The Department of Justice, which has more than 116,500

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 96 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 2010

PERFORMANCE AND

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

NOVEMBER 2010
November 9, 2010

A MESSAGE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

When I became Attorney General, I promised to lead a Department of Justice firmly 

rooted in – and guided by – our nation’s greatest traditions of equal justice, the rule of law, and 

responsible, responsive government. For the past twenty months, that commitment has been my 

guidepost. 

Above all, our highest priority has been the grave responsibility of protecting the 

American people from terrorism – and doing so within the letter and spirit of the law. There is 

no tension between the ideals that formed this nation and the realities of what we must do to keep 

it safe. Adherence to the rule of law strengthens security. It also deprives terrorist organizations 

of one of their prime recruiting tools. To this end, some of the Department’s most experienced 

and courageous prosecutors and law enforcement agents are working in Iraq and Afghanistan to 

foster the rule of law. Here in the United States, their domestic counterparts are fighting 

terrorism wherever it is attempted. Strategies employed over the past year have resulted in 

several high-profile cases in which lives were saved, including a planned bombing of the New 

York City subway system and the attempted car bombing in Times Square in May.

At the same time, I have emphasized reinvigorating the traditional missions of the 

Department. Without relaxing our guard in the fight against terrorism, we are embracing our 

historic role in fighting crime, protecting civil rights, preserving the environment, and ensuring 

fairness in the marketplace. In the past fiscal year, the Department has worked to dismantle 

some of the highest-level drug trafficking organizations; Project Coronado, for example, resulted 

in nearly 1,200 arrests at the culmination of a 44-month operation. The Department’s 

Environment and Natural Resources Division successfully secured a record recovery of nearly $2 

billion for environmental cleanup. In June, Department efforts led to the breakup of a deepcover Russian spy ring operating in the United States.

The Department has also renewed its commitment to collaboration. From our 

coordination with the Department of Housing and Urban Development on the Financial Fraud 

Enforcement Task Force to the joint Departments of Justice and Health and Human Services 

summits on eliminating health-care fraud, we are forging the partnership necessary to achieve 

breakthrough results for America. In that spirit, we have worked with our Congressional leaders 

to promote two historic pieces of legislation that passed this fiscal year: the Matthew Shepard 

and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act – one of the most important civil-rights laws in 

recent history – and the Tribal Law and Order Act, which is providing critical new tools in our 

fight against domestic violence and major crimes in Indian Country. 
In addition to fulfilling our core missions and critical responsibilities, the Department’s 

leadership is committed to maintaining strong program and fiscal management. Prepared 

pursuant to the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 and guidance in Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) Circulars A-11, A-123, and A-136, the FY 2010 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 2010, the Department again earned an unqualified audit opinion on our 

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

identified at the consolidated level in the auditor’s report on internal control. While we continue 

as a Department to demonstrate noteworthy progress, we are committed to pursuing actions to 

correct 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 

taxpayers. We will continue to build on these accomplishments, and continue to be resolute in 

our quest to protect our citizens by fighting terrorism and crime, and enforcing our federal laws 

with integrity. 

 

 Eric H. Holder 

Attorney General

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report i

U.S. Department of Justice – FY 2010

Performance and Accountability Report 

Introduction iii

Section I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Mission I-1

Strategic Goals and Objectives I-1

Organizational and Financial Structure I-3

Department of Justice Financial Structure I-5

FY 2010 Resource Information I-6

Analysis of Financial Statements I-9

Data Reliability and Validity I-10

Analysis of Performance Information I-11

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

Management Assurances I-16

Summary of Material Weakness and Corrective Actions I-20

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

Conditions, and Trends I-21

Limitations of the Financial Statements I-22

Section II: FY 2010 Performance Report

Overview II-1

Strategic Goal I II-3

Strategic Goal II II-6

Strategic Goal III II-32

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 2010 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-19

Principal Financial Statements III-21

Consolidated Balance Sheet III-22

Consolidated Statement of Net Cost III-23

Consolidated Statement of Changes in Net Position III-24

Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources III-26

PAR

Table of Contents
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report ii

Combined Statement of Custodial Activity III-28

Notes to the Financial Statements III-29

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements III-73

Consolidating Balance Sheet III-74

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost III-76

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position III-78

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources III-82

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity III-86

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information III-89

Consolidated Stewardship Investments III-90

Section IV: Management Section

Overview IV-1

Office of the Inspector General–Identified 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-31

FMFIA Corrective Action Plan

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts

IV-49

IV-51

Appendices

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

Close the Report A-1

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

(C) FY 2010 Financial Management Status Report C-1

(D) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2010 D-1

(E) Intellectual Property Report – FY 2010 E-1

(F) Acronyms F-1

(G) Department Component Websites G-1
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report iii

 Introduction 

This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for fiscal year (FY) 2010 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 2010 and for the preceding fiscal year (FY 2009) and reports on all 

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

FY 2010 audited financial statements have been consolidated or combined based upon the results of audits 

undertaken in each of the nine Departmental financial reporting entities.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and OMB Circular A-123.

Section II – FY 2010 Performance Report: This section provides the Department’s FY 2010

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 2010 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 2010 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 2010 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 Plan required by the FMFIA for the programmatic internal control 

weakness.

Appendices: (A) OIG Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the FY 2010 Annual Financial 

Statement Audit Report; (B) Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details; (C) FY 2010 Financial 

Management Status Report; (D) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2010; (E) Intellectual 

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

This report is available at http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2010/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 

management systems conform with related requirements

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

for 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 management systems for adherence to government-wide requirements and 

standards

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

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

Report

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

identify and reduce improper payments


Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 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/jmd/mps/strategic2007-2012/index.html. 

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

expects to deliver an updated Strategic Plan in FY 2011. 

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-3

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

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

United States government in court; the major investigative agencies – the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

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

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

(USMS), which protects the federal judiciary, apprehends fugitives, and detains persons in federal custody; the 

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

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

surveillance operations under a single authority. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Organizational and Financial Structure
I-4 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-5

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

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

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

 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

 Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) 

 Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

 Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs) 

 U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) 

Offices Boards

Office of the Attorney General Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

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

Office of the Associate Attorney General

Community Relations Service Divisions

Executive Office for Immigration Review Antitrust Division

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Civil Division

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees Civil Rights Division

Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces 

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

Department of Justice Financial Structure
I-6 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

Department’s operations for FY 2010. The charts on this page reflect employees on board as of 

September 25, 2010. 

Agents, 22%

Attorneys, 9%

Correctional 

Officers, 15%

Other, 54%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Employees

FY 2010 DOJ Employees On Board by Category

Agents, Attorneys, Correctional Officers, and Other*

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

legal services. 

29.97% (34,926)

19.63% (22,876)

4.41% (5,136) 

0.60% (698) 

8.51% (9,915)

32.16% (37,485)

4.70% (5,475)

0.02% (20) 

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

FY 2010 DOJ Employees On Board by Component

116,531 Employees

AFF/SADF

OJP

ATF

USMS

DEA

OBDs

FBI

BOP (including FPI)

FY 2010 Resource Information
Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 FY 2009 % Change

Earned Revenue: $3,275,846 $3,314,595 -1.2%

Budgetary Financing Sources: 

 Appropriations Received 28,342,153 30,452,903 -6.9%

 Appropriations Transferred In/Out 510,516 535,342 -4.6%

 Nonexchange Revenues 2,367,453 1,757,766 34.7%

 Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash 

Equivalents 1,502,460 1,376,423 9.2%

 Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement 75,097 89,948 -16.5%

 Other Adjustments and Other Budgetary Financing 

Sources (153,751) (331,068) 53.6%

Other Financing Sources: 

 Donations and Forfeitures of Property 71,204 68,213 4.4%

 Transfers In/Out Without Reimbursement (1,889) 9,397 -120.1%

 Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 902,877 703,700 28.3%

Total $36,891,966 $37,977,219 -2.9%

Strategic Goal (SG) FY 2010 FY 2009 % Change

I Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s 

Security 

Gross Cost $5,545,532 $4,525,551 

Less: Earned Revenue 506,463 559,958 

Net Cost 5,039,069 3,965,593 27.1% 

II 

Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and 

Represent the Rights and Interests of the 

American People 

Gross Cost 16,665,443 14,878,016 

Less: Earned Revenue 1,488,093 1,389,584 

Net Cost 15,177,350 13,488,432 12.5% 

III Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of 

Justice 

Gross Cost 12,550,173 11,870,824 

Less: Earned Revenue 1,281,290 1,365,053 

Net Cost 11,268,883 10,505,771 7.3% 

Total Gross Cost 34,761,148 31,274,391 

Less: Total Earned Revenue 3,275,846 3,314,595 

Total Net Cost of Operations $31,485,302 $27,959,796 12.6% 
I-8 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

 

16%

48%

36%

0%

25%

50%

FY 2010 Percentage of Net Costs by Strategic Goal

SG I: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

SG II: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

SG III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

$3,966 $5,039

$13,488 $15,177

$10,506 $11,269

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

Comparison of Net Costs by Strategic Goal - FY 2009 and 2010

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2009 FY 2010

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

FY 2010 $5,039 $15,177 $11,269

SG I SG II SG III
Department of Justice  FY 2010 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, 2010 and 2009. These statements were 

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

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

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

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). 

The following information highlights the Department’s financial position and results of operations in FY 2010. 

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, 2010, shows $40 billion in total 

assets, an increase of $3.4 billion over the previous year’s total assets of $36.6 billion. Fund Balance with 

U.S. Treasury (FBWT) was $23.6 billion, which represented 58.9 percent of total assets. This increase is 

predominantly due to an increase in Debt Collection Management (DCM) activity. 

Liabilities: Total Department liabilities were $10.6 billion as of September 30, 2010, an increase of 

$1.4 billion from the previous year’s total liabilities of $9.2 billion. This increase is primarily due to DCM 

activity on behalf of other government agencies and substantial increases in the Radiation Exposure 

Compensation Act (RECA) liability estimations. 

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 $31.5 billion for the year ended 

September 30, 2010, an increase of $3.5 billion (12.6 percent) from the previous year’s net cost of operations 

of $28 billion. 

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

Strategic

Goal Description of Major Costs

I Includes resources dedicated to counterterrorism initiatives for ATF, Criminal 

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

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

Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC), Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Forces (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, and the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, 

Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions 

III Includes resources for BOP, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 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 2010 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 2010 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows 

$42.8 billion in total budgetary resources, a decrease of $1.8 billion from the previous year’s total budgetary 

resources of $44.6 billion. This decrease is predominantly due to a decrease in the Appropriations Received. 

Net Outlays: The Department’s FY 2010 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows $30 billion in 

net outlays, an increase of $1.9 billion from the previous year’s total net outlays of $28.1 billion. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

providing data for this report meets the following criteria: 

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

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

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

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

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

obtained.

 

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-11

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

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

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

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

available to the public in July 2007. The Department anticipates the release in late 2010 of the new Strategic 

Plan for FY 2010-2015.

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

includes 23 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 23 key measures are 

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

available at the time of publication. 

During FY 2010, 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 informs 

quarterly status reporting and operating plans. 

For this report, 83 percent of the performance measures have actual data for FY 2010. 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 77 percent of its key indicators in FY 2010, which is higher than last 

year’s overall success of 61 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 performance goals for each of the 23 key performance measures. As of the 

close of FY 2010, the Department’s long-term key measures are on-track for full achievement against FY 2012 

targets. Two full years of performance remain until the Department reports against planned progress, and a 

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

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

Department to reach its goals. 

Analysis of Performance Information
I-12 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

The chart below and the table that follows summarize the Department’s achievement of its FY 2010 key 

performance measures. 

Note: For FY 2010, the Department of Justice had 23 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 30 key performance measures instead of 23 was used. 

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2010

Target

FY 2010

Actual

Target Achieved/

Not Achieved

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

 Terrorist acts committed by 

foreign nationals against U.S. 

interests within U.S. borders 

[FBI] [Discontinued] 1

Zero Zero Not Applicable 

1

 Measure was consolidated into catastrophic acts of terrorism. 

1 Catastrophic acts of terrorism 

[FBI] [Title Refined] 2

Zero Zero Achieved 

2

 Includes both domestic and international terrorist acts. 

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] 

36 37 Achieved 

3 Number of children depicted in 

child pornography identified by 

the FBI [FBI]

130 246 Achieved 

4 Percentage of firearms 

investigations resulting in a 

referral for criminal prosecution 

[ATF] 

60% 56% Not Achieved3

3

Target was missed by 4 percentage points. In FY 2010, ATF increased its commitment to Southwest Border firearms interdiction initiatives, detailing 

80 special agents, investigators, and intelligence personnel to the Phoenix/Tucson Gunrunner Impact Teams. 

 DOJ's reduction in the supply of 

illegal drugs available for 

consumption in the U.S. 

[OCDETF] [Discontinued] 4

N/A N/A Not Applicable 

 4 Baseline amounts for the supply of illegal drugs available for consumption in the United States have not been measurable. Therefore, the Department 

is no longer planning to report on its effect on the reduction of the supply of illegal drugs available for consumption in the United States. 

77%

7%

16%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Achievement of FY 2010 Key Performance Measures

Target Achieved Target Not Achieved Data Not Yet Available
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-13

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2010

Target

FY 2010

Actual

Target Achieved/

Not Achieved

5 Consolidated Priority 

Organizations Target (CPOT)-

linked drug trafficking 

organizations [DEA, FBI 

(Consolidated data - OCDETF)] 

 

 Dismantled 149 176 Achieved

 Disrupted 281 365 Achieved

6 Number of high-impact Internet 

fraud targets neutralized [FBI] 

13 12 Not Achieved5

5

Target for this measure was not met in FY 2010, due to the extent of IC3 resources needed to support high profile cases throughout the national and 

international law enforcement communities. Throughout FY 2010, many arrests were made in at least two very large investigations, one of which 

involved 390 FBI-wide investigations. Because of the 390 investigations throughout the field, the resources of several analysts were used to assist the 

entire scheme. While this was a large focus for the IC3 this fiscal year, FBI does not anticipate as much time being allocated to this initiative since the 

arrests were made. 

7 Number of criminal enterprises 

engaging in white-collar crimes 

dismantled [FBI] 

160 309 Achieved

8 Percent of cases favorably 

resolved: [ENRD, ATR, CRM, 

USA, TAX, CIV, CRT 

(Consolidated data - 

JMD/Budget Staff)] 

 

 Criminal Cases 90% 94% Achieved

 Civil Cases 80% 85% Achieved

9 Percent of assets/funds returned 

to creditors: [USTP] 

 

 Chapter 7 58% TBD6 TBD 

 Chapter 13 84% TBD6 TBD 

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

10 Number of homicides per site 

(funded under the Weed and 

Seed program) [OJP] 

3.7 TBD7 TBD 

 7Data are collected on a calendar year basis and reported with a one year lag. 

11 Percent reduction in DNA 

backlog (casework only) [OJP]

25% 29% Achieved 

12 Percent of children recovered 

within 72 hours of an issuance of 

an AMBER alert [OJP] 

75.0% 86.9% Achieved 

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

13 Number of participants in the 

Residential Substance Abuse 

Treatment (RSAT) Program 

[OJP] 

25,000 TBD8 TBD 

8

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

14 Graduation rate of program 

participants in the Drug Courts 

Program (adult drug court 

participants only) [OJP]

71% TBD9

TBD 

9

Data unavailable at time of publication; to be reported at the end of calendar year 2010. 

15 Ensure judicial proceedings are 

not interrupted due to 

inadequate security [USMS]

Zero Zero Achieved 

16 Total primary fugitives 

apprehended or cleared [USMS] 

 

 Number 33,000 36,126 Achieved 

 Percent 53% 56% Achieved 

17 Per day jail costs [OFDT] $70.98 $70.59 Achieved
I-14 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2010

Target

FY 2010

Actual

Target Achieved/

Not Achieved

18 Percent of system-wide 

crowding in federal prisons 

[BOP] 

40% 37% Achieved

19 Ensure zero escapes from 

secure BOP facilities [BOP] 

Zero Zero Achieved

20 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% 18% Achieved

 6 years after release 10% 19% Achieved

21 Rate of serious assaults In 

federal prisons (per 5,000 

Inmates) [BOP] 

16/5,000 

Assaults/Inmates 

13/5,000 

Assaults/Inmates 

Achieved

22 Inspection results—Percent of 

federal facilities with American 

Correctional Association (ACA) 

accreditations [BOP] 

99% 99% Achieved 

23 Percent of Executive Office for 

Immigration Review (EOIR) 

priority cases completed within 

established timeframes [EOIR]

 

 Asylum (Discontinued)10 N/A N/A N/A 

 Institutional Hearing Program 85% 87% Achieved

 Detained Cases – 

Immigration Court11

85% 89% Achieved

 Detained Appeals 90% 93% Achieved

 10At the end of FY 2009, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) discontinued this measure. The agency shifted its highest priority to the 

detained caseload. These cases are the highest priority for EOIR because individuals involved in these proceedings are being detained at the 

expense of the United States government. 

11The measure, “Detained Cases – Immigration Court,” is technically a new measure because the pool of cases has changed from previous years. 

The pool of cases in previous years was based only on detained cases that did not have applications for relief submitted by the alien and the timeframe 

was 30 days. Beginning in FY 2010, the new pool of cases is based on all detained cases and the timeframe within 60 days. 

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

measure indicates when data will be available. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-15

Internal Control Program in the Department of Justice 

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

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

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

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

Department’s Senior Assessment Team, the 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 

OMB initiatives and OIG recommendations. For example, during FY 2010, in response to the OMB Open 

Government Directive – Framework for the Quality of Federal Spending Information, Departmental 

management developed a framework with details of the internal controls implemented over information 

quality, including system and process changes, and the integration of these controls within the Department’s 

existing infrastructure. The framework reflects the coordinated efforts that are occurring among Departmental 

components and offices to ensure effective implementation of the principles of transparency, participation, and 

collaboration set forth in the President’s January 2009 Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government. 

In addition, Departmental management continued in FY 2010 to further strengthen and maximize the 

effectiveness of the Department’s assessment of internal control over financial reporting, which is required by 

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

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

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

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

reportable conditions, and 

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

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

program are included later in this section. 

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance
I-16 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conform to related requirements (FMFIA § 4). 

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

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

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

effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. 

FMFIA Assurance Statement 

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

financial management systems that meet the objectives of 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 and compliance with applicable laws and regulations (FMFIA § 2) and whether 

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

assessment for the period ending September 30, 2010, I provide qualified assurance that the Department met the 

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

under FMFIA § 4; however, the assessment 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 37 percent over the rated capacity. Details of the exception are provided in the section Summary of 

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

effectively, and no other material weakness was found in the design or operation of the controls. 

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

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

with applicable laws and regulations. Based on the results of this assessment for the period ending June 30, 2010, 

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

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

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

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

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

transparent manner. We look forward in FY 2011 to building on our achievements to further improve internal 

control as we continue the important work of the Department.

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

November 9, 2010 

Management Assurances
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-17

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 

The Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) was designed to 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 specifically requires agencies to have financial 

management systems that substantially comply with federal financial management systems 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. 

FFMIA Compliance Determination 

During FY 2010, 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 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 Systems Strategy, Goals, and Framework 

The Department’s financial management systems strategy is to ultimately replace the six major non-integrated 

accounting systems currently in use throughout the Department with a single, integrated financial management 

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

budget management. In FYs 2009 and 2010, the Department made measurable progress in implementing the 

integrated system – the Unified Financial Management System (UFMS). In FY 2009, the DEA successfully 

migrated to UFMS and, importantly, obtained an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements 

produced from UFMS. As expected, the DEA project was a large, complex, and difficult migration, but one 

that helped to lay the foundation for the migration of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (ATF), which is set for the first quarter of FY 2011, and the migration of other Departmental 

components in the future pending the outcome of a systems review being conducted by OMB in accordance 

with M-10-26. UFMS implementation goals, such as the FY 2011 ATF migration, are based on and aligned 

with operational risks and requirements. 

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

management and realize increased efficiencies. Additional migrations to UFMS are expected to result in 

improvements and efficiencies. 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. 

As required, the Department has compiled the current inventory of baseline financial management and mixed 

systems and will submit it separately to OMB through the General Services Administration. 
I-18 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 systems requirements (FMFIA § 4), and compliance 

with the FFMIA. As noted in Table 4, sufficient progress was made in FY 2010 to remediate internal control 

deficiencies related to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s previously reported material weakness related to 

the use of national security letters, and the issue is no longer considered a material weakness. 

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-19

Table 4. Summary of Management Assurances 

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

Statement of Assurance Qualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed

Ending

Balance

Prison Crowding 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Federal Bureau of 

Investigation Use of National 

Security Letters 

1 0 1 0 0 0 

Total Material Weaknesses 2 0 1 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 the 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-20 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

A summary of the material weakness identified in the Department’s FY 2010 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 available in Section IV of this document. 

As of September 30, 2010, the inmate population housed in BOP operated institutions exceeded the 

rated housing capacity by 37 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 and constructing new 

facilities as funding permits. The Long Range Capacity Plan details the acquisition, expansion, and 

construction necessary to maximize the BOP’s ability to keep pace with the increasing inmate population, 

thereby striving to maintain safe and secure operations in facilities housing federal inmates. 

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. The formal 

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

constructing 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. 

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

considering an innovative array of crime prevention, sentencing, and corrections management improvements 

that will 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. 

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

capacity is largely dependent on funding, while other correctional reforms and alternatives may require policy 

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

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 38 percent. Without the utilization of contract facilities and the BOP’s other 

mitigating actions, the projected over-crowding rate would be 45 percent.

Programmatic Material Weakness and Corrective Actions – Prison Crowding

Summary of Material Weakness and Corrective Actions
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report I-21

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

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

future. 

Technology 

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

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

Economy

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

bankruptcy filings. 

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

litigation. 

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

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

Government

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

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

Globalization 

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

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

agreements, and other foreign policy concerns.

Social-Demographic

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

are expected to grow rapidly over the next several years. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

 The Department received $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. 

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

Events, Conditions, and Trends
I-22 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

September 30, 2010: 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Component Appropriation Amount Obligations Outlays

OJP $2,761,930 $2,761,464 $1,916,510

OVW $225,564 $223,384 $71,218 

COPS $1,002,506 $1,002,264 $140,730 

ATF $10,000 $9,973 $7,932 

DOJ Total* $4,000,000 $3,997,085 $2,136,391**

*Excludes $2 million in funding for OIG oversight. 

**Individual component outlays do not sum to total outlays due to rounding 

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


Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-1

Performance Section – 

FY 2010 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 23 key performance measures for these goals by detailing program objectives and FY 2010 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 a companion to the budget process. We recognize 

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

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

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

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

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

In FY 2010, 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 2010, the Department continued to improve its key performance measures and track the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section II

Overview
II-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Measure Refinement, Data Revisions, and Subsequent Year Reporting 

The FY 2010 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 2009 Performance and Accountability Report that have since been revised/updated are 

reported as FY 2009 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 2009, but due to calendar year reporting or other limitations was 

not available for reporting that year, FY 2009 data and discussion of results are reported for the first time in 

the pages that follow. 

In certain cases, performance measures have been discontinued, consolidated, 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,” “Consolidated” or “New” measure. The title of the measures have also been 

changed and designated as “Refined” measures. 

As described in Section I, the Department anticipates the release in FY 2011 of the new Strategic Plan for 

FYs 2010-2015. However, for purposes of this report, the Department’s FYs 2007-2012 Strategic Plan is used 

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

FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report highlights the key goals and performance measures reflected 

in the FY 2007-2012 Strategic Plan which was in effect during the relevant time performance results were 

evaluated. The Report also provides details on the Department’s success in meeting its performance measure 

targets in FY 2010. Additional programmatic and performance information can be found in individual 

components’ budget submissions, specifically within the Performance and Resources Tables.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-3

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 are brought to justice. 

Background/Program Objectives: The FBI is committed to stopping terrorism at any stage, from thwarting 

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

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

thereby employing and enhancing a national perspective. 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 moved aggressively to implement a comprehensive plan 

that has fundamentally transformed the organization. The Director has overhauled the FBI’s Counterterrorism 

(CT) operations, expanded its intelligence capabilities, modernized its business practices and technology, and 

improved coordination with its partners. The FBI is dedicated to preventing and disrupting terrorist plots 

before they are executed. 

Performance Measure: TITLE REFINED: Catastrophic Acts of Terrorism (Formerly Catastrophic Acts of 

Domestic Terrorism) – now includes both domestic and international terrorist acts, and replaces similar 

measures reporting all acts of international terrorism committed by foreign nationals within U.S. borders and 

catastrophic acts of domestic terrorism. 

FY 2010 Target: 0

FY 2010 Actual: 0 

 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The FBI achieved its target for this measure in FY 2010. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: No catastrophic acts of terrorism

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

I 
II-4 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

4

1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

TITLE REFINED: Catastrophic Acts of 

 Terrorism

Actual Target

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 Counterterrorism Division. 

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. 

Performance Measure: DISCONTINUED/CONSOLIDATED MEASURE: Terrorist Acts Committed by 

Foreign Nationals Against U.S. Interests (within U.S. Borders) 

FY 2010 Target: 0 

FY 2010 Actual: Not Applicable 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: 

This measure has been discontinued and consolidated into the measure, “Catastrophic Acts of Terrorism,” 

starting in FY 2010. The measure, “Catastrophic Acts of Terrorism” (which formerly was called, 

“Catastrophic Acts of Domestic Terrorism”), includes both domestic and international terrorist acts, and 

replaces similar measures reporting all acts of international terrorism committed by foreign nationals within 

U.S. borders and catastrophic acts of domestic terrorism. 

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

FY 2010 Progress: Discontinued/Consolidated
Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 (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, under the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization (RICO) statute, target the entire entity 

responsible for the crime problem. The FBI focuses on the following groups involved in racketeering 

activities: La Cosa Nostra and Italian organized crime groups, Russian/Eastern European/Eurasian organized 

crime groups, Balkan/Albanian Organized crime groups, Middle Eastern criminal enterprises, Asian criminal 

enterprises and Nigerian/West African criminal enterprises. Each of these groups is engaged in a myriad of 

criminal activities. 

Gangs/Criminal Enterprises 

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

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

South America that pose the greatest threats to the economic and national security of the U.S. This is 

accomplished through the FBI’s Violent Gang and Drug Programs, Major Theft initiatives, increased 

involvement in the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Program, and support and 

leadership of high-intensity drug trafficking area initiatives. In recent years, the FBI has concentrated antigang efforts in the Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) National Gang Task Force, which supports, coordinates, and 

facilitates the development of local, state, federal, and international investigations of the MS-13 and 18th Street 

transnational criminal gangs into national and international level investigations and prosecutions. 

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

among both state and local law enforcement organizations, as well as among other federal law enforcement 

agencies. The NGIC analyzes a broad spectrum of gang information to identify migration patterns and current 

trends. 

The Gang Targeting and Coordination Center focuses on enhancing gang investigations conducted by federal 

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

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

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

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

(FY 2007‐2012)

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

II 
II-6 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Performance Measure: Number of Organized Criminal Enterprises Dismantled 

FY 2009 Revised Actual: 43 (Previous Actual: 39)

FY 2010 Target: 36 

FY 2010 Actual: 37

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The FBI met its performance target for FY 2010. Three notable 

dismantlements are listed below. 

The FBI’s Dallas Field Office and the Denton County Sheriff’s Office conducted an OCDETF investigation 

entitled Operation Bad Dream which targeted the Albanian Organized Crime (AOC) group of Benny Lusha. 

The Benny Lusha Organization (BLO) was involved in international narcotics trafficking, human smuggling, 

interstate transportation of stolen property, public corruption, money laundering, mortgage fraud, and income 

tax fraud. Operation Bad Dream was closely coordinated with other investigations of AOC associates of the 

BLO. The BLO obtained narcotics from Mexican sources and distributed narcotics throughout the United 

States and Europe. Drug proceeds were laundered through front businesses and real estate. To date, $170,000 

in bribe money and $610,000 of narcotics proceeds have been seized. The trial of the two alleged BLO leaders 

is set for January 2011. 

The Cleveland Field Office of the FBI, along with the Toledo Police Department, executed search warrants on 

three Toledo area clothing and shoe retail locations. The purpose of the search warrants was to seize 

counterfeit merchandise sold from these locations. Approximately $1.1 million worth of counterfeit 

merchandise was seized from the three locations. Several Ohio, Michigan, New York and China distributors 

were identified as being suppliers of counterfeit goods. The investigation concluded with four federal 

informations and four federal convictions. 

The FBI, DEA, Secret Service and Cambodian National Police (CNP) jointly conducted an investigation 

targeting an Asian Criminal Enterprise involved in distributing heroin, ecstasy, and North Korean counterfeit 

U.S. currency known as “Supernotes.” In October 2009, the FBI conducted a buy/bust in Phnom Penh, 

Cambodia, of two kilograms of heroin. Subsequently, the CNP conducted search warrants at five separate 

locations, including a "Mega Lab" for the production of crystal methamphetamine. Agents seized an 

additional fifteen kilograms of Asian heroin, two kilograms of crystal methamphetamine, over one ton of 

precursor chemicals and the equipment to manufacture crystal methamphetamine. Eleven indictments were 

issued in Cambodia and eight arrests were made, including the head of the CNP Anti-Narcotics Division. The 

source of the Supernotes was identified and indicted, but remains a fugitive. 

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. 

21 17 17

29 34 36

43

38

43 37 36

0

10

20

30

40

50

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Number of Organized Criminal Enterprises Dismantled 

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-7

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

by an FBI field manager, and subsequently verified through inspection. Inspections occur at least once 

annually, tracing sampled data 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. 
II-8 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 2010 Target: 130 

FY 2010 Actual: 246 

Discussion of FY 2010 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) and CyberTipline as well as successful FBI initiatives such as the 

Innocent Images International Task Force and the Endangered Child Alert Program (ECAP). 

CVIP serves as the national clearinghouse for child pornography cases and the main point of contact to 

international agencies regarding victims of child pornography. CyberTipline operates a Congressionallymandated reporting website for child sexual exploitation, including child pornography and online enticement. 

A major contributor to IINI’s FY 2010 performance is IINI’s presence at NCMEC. Currently, IINI details one 

agent and three investigative specialists to NCMEC. An actionable lead relayed to the Jacksonville Division 

in late FY 2010 from a NCMEC CyberTipline Report has lead to the identification of 24 child victims. 

In 2004, the FBI initiated the Innocent Images International Task Force (IIITF) to promote and develop a 

coordinated international law enforcement response against Online Child Sexual Exploitation (OCSE). The 

IIITF is intended to develop a cadre of international law enforcement experts to formulate and deliver a unified 

global response against OCSE. Since its inception, IIITF has been instrumental to the successful initiation and 

resolution of several high profile, complex OCSE investigations with a global footprint. The expanding IIITF 

is comprised of 70 task force officers from 33 countries. 

ECAP, an aggressive approach to identify unknown individuals involved in the sexual abuse of children and 

the production of child pornography, became operational in February 2004. ECAP uses national and 

international media exposure of unknown adults featured in child pornography and displays their faces on the 

“Seeking Information” section of the FBI website in hopes that someone can identify them. To date, exposure 

of these subjects has led to the successful identification and arrest of several previously-unknown child 

pornography subjects and the identification of more than 30 child victims. 

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

identified by the FBI.

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on track to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-9

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

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

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected and stored in a database at 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 CVIP, 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: The FBI cannot directly control the number of children identified at any given time 

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

The FBI always makes every effort to identify and rescue victimized children. Historical data (prior to 

FY 2008) for this measure had to be retrieved from a manual count of identified victims in ECs during the 

years reviewed. 

37

73

187

118

246

130

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Number of Children Depicted in Child Pornography Identified by the FBI

Actual Target
II-10 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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. ATF’s efforts to reduce violent firearms crime include: 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Area Gang Enforcement Teams. 

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

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

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

acquire or misuse firearms. 

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

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

developing advanced firearms investigative techniques. 

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

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

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

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

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

Act. 

 Keeping restricted firearms such as machine guns out of the hands of prohibited persons by 

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

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

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

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-11

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

firearms are kept current. 

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

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

domestically. 

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

industry to implement educational programs which help to reduce firearms violence. 

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

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

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

 

Performance Measure: Percentage of Firearms Investigations Resulting in a Referral for Criminal 

Prosecution

FY 2010 Target: 60%

FY 2010 Actual: 56% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: ATF’s target goal of referring for criminal prosecution 60% percent of its 

investigations within the firearms programs area fell short by 4 percentage points (56%). However, during this 

reporting period ATF increased its commitment to Southwest Border firearms interdiction initiatives, detailing 

80 special agents, investigators, and intelligence personnel to the Phoenix/Tucson Gunrunner Impact Teams 

(GRIT) from May to August 2010. ATF is the Federal law enforcement agency with unique expertise and 

statutory authority to enforce Federal firearms laws. Nearly meeting the 60% goal while simultaneously 

expanding its commitment to investigating and disrupting Southwest border firearms trafficking and related 

violent crime demonstrates that ATF has a significant impact on reducing firearms violence through 

investigations and the referral of criminals for prosecution. 

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

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

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

ATF’s FY 2010 efforts: 

 Phoenix Field Division: A subset of ATF’s broader firearms enforcement program, Project 

Gunrunner is ATF’s comprehensive firearms trafficking interdiction strategy to disrupt the illegal flow 

of firearms into Mexico, and to impact the firearms violence along the Southwest border associated 

with Mexican drug trafficking organizations and cartels. In May 2010, ATF launched a GRIT, an 

initiative under Project Gunrunner, involving a 100-day deployment of supplemental ATF resources to 

the Phoenix Field Division to disrupt and dismantle the southbound supply of firearms to Mexican 

drug trafficking organizations. 

The GRIT initiative brought more than 80 experienced ATF personnel from around the country to 

Arizona and New Mexico. GRIT special agents initiated 174 firearms trafficking-related criminal 

investigations and seized approximately 1,300 illegally-trafficked firearms and 71,000 rounds of 

ammunition, along with drugs and currency. ATF’s industry operations investigators conducted more 

than 800 federal firearms licensee compliance inspections. 

The Phoenix GRIT was concluded in September 2010. As of September 17, 2010, 96 defendants have 

been arrested, charged, convicted or sentenced since June 2010 on gun-related charges. The majority 

of defendants include violent felons, drug traffickers who use weapons, and those trafficking firearms 

to Mexico. Cases involved more than 370 guns, many of them AK-47 style rifles and other “weapons 
II-12 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

of choice” of drug cartels, and hundreds of thousands of rounds of ammunition smuggled into or 

destined for Mexico. 

 Tampa Field Division: Orlando, Florida – In September 2010, ATF, U.S. Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Attorney, Middle District of Florida, announced the initial results of 

Operation Castaway, an intensive and wide-ranging OCDETF firearms trafficking investigation 

conducted by ATF, ICE, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office, the 

Brevard County Sheriff’s Office, and the Miami-Dade Police Department. This was an ATF led 

investigation initiated from analysis conducted by the ATF Field Intelligence Group, based on 

information derived from ATF Industry Operations referrals, and National Tracing Center trace and 

multiple sales data. ATF describes Operation Castaway as the most significant firearms trafficking 

investigation in Central Florida history. 

According to court documents, a group of defendants connected to Hugh Crumpler, III, were involved 

in a major international gun trafficking operation. Crumpler has trafficked, for several years, more 

than 1,000 firearms to various groups and defendants who exported these weapons all over Central and 

South America and to Puerto Rico. The defendants trafficked in Glock semi-automatic handguns, 

Fabrique Nationale Herstal 5.7x28 mm semi-automatic handguns, and AR-15 styled short-barreled 

rifles, among other firearms. 

Recently, several of the Operation Castaway defendants were sentenced. Hugh Crumpler, III (age 63, 

of Palm Bay) was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison for dealing firearms without a license and 

unlawfully possessing short barreled rifles; Ramon Lopez, Jr. (age 29, of Kissimmee) was sentenced 

to 74 months in federal prison for dealing firearms without a license and unlawfully possessing short 

barreled rifles; Carlos Humberto Guillen-Rivera (age 29, of Honduras) was sentenced to 84 months in 

federal prison for conspiring to possess and illegally possessing short barreled rifles; Cesar Augusto 

Guillen-Rivera (age 31, of Honduras) was sentenced to 65 months in federal prison for conspiring to 

possess and illegally possessing short barreled rifles; Erlin Javier Guillen-Rivera (age 25, of 

Honduras) was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison for conspiring to possess and illegally 

possessing short barreled rifles; and Hector Saenz (age 38, of Honduras) was sentenced to 46 months 

for conspiracy. 

Operation Castaway defendant Jesus Puentes pleaded guilty on August 31, 2010 to conspiring to 

possess and illegally possessing short barreled rifles and will be sentenced on November 18, 2010. 

Defendant Jorge Acosta has pleaded guilty to conspiring to possess and illegally possessing short 

barreled rifles. Acosta will be sentenced at a future date. Two additional defendants, Antonia RuizVarela and Manuel Dejesus Carrasco-Ruiz, are still at large and have yet to be arrested by authorities. 

Operation Castaway remains an ongoing investigation. 

 Atlanta Field Division: Brunswick, Georgia – Recently, 34 federal indictments unsealed in federal 

court, have charged 57 defendants with federal firearms, drug trafficking or other federal offenses. 

Thirty-two additional defendants were charged by Glynn County authorities on related state firearms 

and drug charges. The federal and state charges follow a 9-month undercover investigation dubbed 

“Operation Thunderbolt.” 

The U.S. Attorney’s Office, ATF, the Glynn County Police Department and the Glynn CountyBrunswick Narcotics Enforcement Team initiated Operation Thunderbolt in the fall of 2009. 

Additional investigative support was provided by ICE and the U.S. Secret Service. Undercover ATF 

agents posed as members of the Brunswick community interested in purchasing guns and drugs from 

the criminal element. During the operation, undercover agents purchased 245 firearms, including 

handguns, rifles, assault rifles and sawed-off shotguns, and approximately $200,000 worth of illegal 

drugs, including more than 3 pounds of cocaine, over 1,500 ecstasy pills, over 800 oxycodone pills, 

and a quantity of methadone. Many of the individuals who sold firearms and drugs to the undercover 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-13

agents are allegedly convicted felons. In addition, a number of the guns purchased by undercover 

agents were allegedly stolen. 

Following numerous arrests, initial appearances for several of the federally indicted defendants were 

held in U.S. District Court, Brunswick, Georgia, on August 12, 2010. In summary, a total of 55 

federal defendants were indicted, with two additional subjects yet to be identified also charged 

federally; and 29 adult defendants and three juveniles were arrested or being sought on state charges. 

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% 60%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Percentage of Firearms Investigations Resulting in a Referral for Criminal 

Prosecution

Actual Target
II-14 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Performance Measure: DISCONTINUED MEASURE: DOJ’s Reduction in the Supply of Illegal Drugs 

Available for Consumption in the United States 

FY 2010 Target: Progress toward establishing baseline

FY 2010 Actual: See Discussion of FY 2010 Results 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The Department will no longer report on this measure. Measuring reduction 

in the drug supply is a complex process because supply reduction is a reflection of a number of factors. Drug 

seizures, eradication efforts, precursor chemical interdictions, cash and asset seizures, increased 

border/transportation security, international military operations, social and political forces, climatic changes, 

and even natural disasters all impact the drug supply at any given time. The Department’s strategy focuses on 

incapacitating entire drug networks by targeting their leaders for arrest and prosecution, by disgorging the 

profits that fund the continuing drug operations, and by eliminating the international supply sources. Although 

the Department’s efforts ultimately have a lasting impact upon the flow of drugs in the United States, it is not 

possible to confidently gauge base amounts for the supply of illegal drugs available for consumption in the 

United States in order to estimate a valid reduction percentage due to the numerous factors involved. 

Therefore, the Department is no longer planning to report the percentage amount of its reduction of the supply 

of illegal drugs available for consumption in the United States. 

FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Develop meaningful baselines for the supply of drugs available for

consumption in the United States (FY 2007‐2009).  Achieve a 6% reduction in the supply of illegal

drugs (FY 2010‐2012) available for consumption in the United States using the baseline

established by the close of FY 2010.

FY 2010 Progress: N/A
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-15

Background/Program Objectives: The Department focuses its drug law enforcement efforts on reducing the 

availability of drugs by disrupting and dismantling the largest drug trafficking organizations and related money 

laundering networks operating internationally and domestically, including those on the Attorney General’s 

Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List. The first CPOT List was issued in September 2002 

and is reviewed and updated bi-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 United States Attorneys; 

elements of the Department’s Criminal Division; the investigative, intelligence, and support staffs of the DEA; 

FBI; ATF; USMS; ICE; the U.S. Coast Guard; and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). The OCDETF 

agencies also partner with numerous State and local law enforcement agencies. 

The goal of each OCDETF investigation is to determine connections among related investigations nationwide 

in order to identify and dismantle the entire structure of the drug trafficking organizations, from international 

supply and national transportation cells, to regional and local distribution networks. A major emphasis of the 

Department’s drug strategy is to disrupt the traffickers’ financial dealings and to dismantle the financial 

infrastructure that supports these organizations. The OCDETF Program has the greatest impact upon the flow 

of drugs through this country when it successfully incapacitates the entire drug network by targeting and 

prosecuting its leadership and seizing the profits that fund continued operations. 

Performance Measure: CPOT-Linked Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted and Dismantled 

Revised FY 2009 Actual: 

Dismantled: 143 

Disrupted: 276 

FY 2010 Target: 

Dismantled: 149 

Disrupted: 281 

FY 2010 Actual: 

Dismantled: 176 

Disrupted: 365 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The Department achieved unprecedented results during FY 2010 in 

dismantling and disrupting CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations. The Department dismantled 176 

CPOT-linked organizations in FY 2010, exceeding its target by 18%. This is a 23% increase over the 143 

dismantled in FY 2009, the highest number reported prior to FY 2010. The Department disrupted 365 CPOTFY 2012 Outcome Goal: Dismantle 810 Consolidated Priority Organization Target‐linked drug

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

(FY 2007‐2012).

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve the long‐term goal of dismantling 810

CPOT‐linked drug organizations (FY 2007‐2012).  The Department is also on target to achieve the

long‐term goal of disrupting 1,260 CPOT‐linked drug trafficking organizations by FY 2012.  The

Department remains committed to target, disrupt and dismantle these priority organizations in

the future.  
II-16 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

linked organizations in FY 2010, exceeding its target by 30%. This is a 32% increase over the 276 reported in 

FY 2009 and a 22% increase over the 299 reported in FY 2008, the highest number reported prior to FY 2010. 

During FY 2010, in addition to making important gains against CPOT-linked organizations, the Department 

continued to achieve significant successes against the CPOTs themselves. These results against CPOT targets 

have included the dismantlement of a dangerous Colombian drug kingpin who ruled a vast drug empire and 

moved millions of dollars worth of cocaine and heroin intended for the United States and Europe and 

disruptions to leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, Los Zetas, a significant global heroin drug trafficker in 

Afghanistan known to fund the terrorist activities of the Taliban, and a major Jamaican Narcotic trafficker. 

Law enforcement activity targeting these CPOTs involved complex and coordinated intelligence driven 

investigations, with the exceptional cooperation of U.S. law enforcement agencies and international 

governments. 

The Department’s FY 2010 unprecedented successes dismantling or disrupting 541 CPOT-linked drug 

trafficking organizations, a 29% increase over the 419 dismantled or disrupted in FY 2009, the highest number 

reported prior to 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 FBI and 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. 

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. 

20

62 36

159

121

204

93

189

86

169

104

299

143

276

149

281

176

365

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Tgt. FY10 Act.

CPOT-Linked Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted and Dismantled

Dismantled Disrupted

Note: FY 2009 actual numbers have been updated and reflect data reported in FY 2011 Budget and Performance Summary. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-17

Data Validation and Verification: The CPOT List is updated bi-annually. Each OCDETF agency has an 

opportunity to nominate targets for addition to/deletion from the List. Nominations are considered by the 

CPOT Working Group (made up of mid-level managers from the participating agencies). Based upon the 

Working Group’s recommendations, the OCDETF Operations Chiefs decide which organizations will be 

added to/deleted from the CPOT List. 

Once a CPOT is added to the List, OCDETF investigations can be linked to that organization. The links are 

reviewed and confirmed by OCDETF field managers using the OCDETF Fusion Center, agency databases, 

and intelligence information. Field recommendations are reviewed by the OCDETF Executive Office. In 

instances where a link is not fully substantiated, the sponsoring agency is given the opportunity to follow-up. 

Ultimately, the OCDETF Executive Office "un-links" any investigation for which sufficient justification has 

not been provided. When evaluating disruptions/dismantlements of CPOT-linked organizations, OCDETF 

verifies reported information with the investigating agency’s headquarters. 

Data Limitations: Investigations of CPOT-level organizations are complex and time-consuming, and the 

impact of disrupting/dismantling such a network may not be apparent immediately. In fact, data may lag 

behind enforcement activity. For example, a CPOT-linked organization may be disrupted in one FY and 

subsequently dismantled in a later year when law enforcement permanently destroys the organization’s ability 

to operate. 
II-18 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 Office of Justice 

programs (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 2010 Target: 13 

FY 2010 Actual: 12 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The FBI did not reach the target for this measure in FY 2010, due to the 

extent of IC3 resources needed to support high profile cases throughout the national and international law 

enforcement communities. Throughout FY 2010, many arrests were made in at least two very large 

investigations; one of which involved 390 FBI-wide investigations. Due to the 390 investigations conducted 

throughout the field, the resources of several analysts were required. While this was a large focus for the IC3 

this fiscal year, it is anticipated that less time will be allocated to this initiative in the future given that the 

arrests have already been made. 

Data Definition: Case data are reviewed by the 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. 

5

7

10 9

11 11

13

12 13

0

5

10

15

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-19

Data Collection and Storage: The data source is a record system maintained by the IC3. The list of targets is 

updated each year. 

Data Validation and Verification: Targets are determined by subject matter expert teams at the IC3 and 

approved by the Unit Chief. IC3 staff maintains the list and determines when a target has been the subject of 

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. Losses incurred as a 

result of these crimes are not merely monetary; these crimes also 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 2009 Revised Actual: 250 (Previous Actual: 234) 

FY 2010 Target: 160 

FY 2010 Actual: 309 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: Congressional enhancements, improved use of intelligence and forensic 

accountant resources, and the coordinated efforts of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force have 

contributed to a 24 percent increase in dismantlements over the previous year. In FY 2010, 21 percent of the 

dismantlements (66) were related to corporate and securities fraud, including high yield investment and Ponzi 

schemes; 25 percent (76) related to financial institution fraud, including mortgage fraud; and 29 percent (90) 

related to health care fraud. 

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

white‐collar crime (FY 2007‐2012)

FY 2010 Progress: The Department has achieved this long‐term goal.
II-20 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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, and subsequently verified through inspection. Inspections occur at least once 

annually, tracing sampled data 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. 

59 49

73

137

163

231

277

211

250

309

160

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Number of Criminal Enterprises Engaging in White-Collar Crimes 

Dismantled

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-21

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 Presidential actions; national security issues; benefit 

programs; energy policies; commercial issues such as bankruptcy, contract disputes, banking, insurance, 

patents, fraud, and debt collection; all manner of accident and liability claims; and criminal violations of the 

immigration and consumer protection laws. 

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

employment, credit, housing, public accommodations and facilities, voting, and certain federally funded and 

conducted programs. Additionally, CRT enforces criminal civil rights responsibilities for human trafficking 

and involuntary servitude statutes, acts of racial, ethnic or religious violence, “color of law” offenses by local 

and federal law enforcement officials, and conspiracies to interfere with federally protected rights. 

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

(except those specifically assigned to other divisions). The mission of the Criminal Division 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 

(i.e., Title III wiretaps); and forging global law enforcement partnerships. 

The Environment and Natural Resources Division (ENRD) brings cases against those who violate the nation's 

civil and criminal pollution-control and wildlife protection laws. Additionally, the Division defends 

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

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

concerning Indian rights and claims. 

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-22 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

And finally, the Tax Division's (TAX) mission is to enforce the nation’s tax laws fully, fairly, and consistently, 

through both criminal and civil litigation, in order to promote voluntary compliance with the tax laws, 

maintain public confidence in the integrity of the tax system, and promote the sound development of the law. 

Performance Measure: Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

FY 2010 Target:

Criminal Cases: 90% 

Civil Cases: 80 % 

FY 2010 Actual:

Criminal Cases: 94% 

Civil Cases: 85% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The collaboration of the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices in each of the FBI’s 

Mortgage Fraud Task Forces and Working Groups, together with the targeted mortgage fraud training 

provided at the National Advocacy Center resulted in significant accomplishments. For example, in the 

Northern District of Georgia, Edward William Farley, was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison on charges 

of bank fraud and conspiracy involving mortgage fraud, a real estate investment “Ponzi” scheme with over 100 

victims, a check-kiting scheme, and bankruptcy fraud. As a result of the defendant’s lies and manipulations, 

the lenders lost millions of dollars in this flip scheme. In an example of investment fraud, in the Southern 

District of Florida, Scott Rothstein was sentenced to 50 years in prison in connection with the operation of a 

$1.2 billion Ponzi scheme through his defunct law firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A (RRA). At the 

time of his guilty plea, Rothstein had agreed to forfeit $1.2 billion, including 24 pieces of real property, 

numerous luxury cars, boats, and other vessels, jewelry, sports memorabilia, business interests, bank accounts, 

and more. In a health care fraud settlement in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Novartis Pharmaceuticals 

Corporation (NPC) will pay $422.5 million for off-label drug marketing. Criminal information was filed 

against NPC for the off-label marketing of the anti-epileptic drug Trileptal. In a separate civil settlement 

agreement, NPC agreed to pay the United States and participating states $237.5 million, plus interest, to settle 

allegations that it caused invalid claims for payment for Trileptal, Diovan, Tekturna, Exforge, Sandostatin, and 

Zelnorm to be submitted to government programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Federal 

Employees Health Benefits Program. 

The Criminal Division prosecuted and achieved favorable dispositions in FY 2010 in cases covering a wide 

range of complex case law. Examples of this work include the successful resolution of a long-running 

investigation of Credit Suisse AG for its efforts to help sanctioned countries avoid U.S. banking regulations 

(resulting in the forfeiture of $536 million, representing the largest forfeiture ever entered against an entity for 

violations of what is known as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act); the sentencing of a MS-13 

gang leader to life in prison for racketeering offenses including the murder of a witness; the indictment of 18 

defendants and 95 defendants who pleaded guilty in healthcare fraud cases. 

The Antitrust Division assessed $554.8 million in criminal fines in FY 2010 against antitrust violators. The 

Division's investigations into the liquid crystal display panel and air transportation industries yielded 

significant fines which help to fund the Department's Crime Victims Fund. In addition, the Division continued 

its Economic Recovery Initiative efforts to provide nationwide training and public outreach to ensure 

successful results from the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. On the 

civil side, the Division was successful in protecting competition and U.S. consumers by challenging proposed 

mergers and agreements in areas as diverse as entertainment event ticketing, digital e-books, credit and debit 

card networks, and air transportation. 

The Civil Division exceeded its target by defeating billions of dollars in unmeritorious claims, in addition to 

the successful defense of suits filed against the government as a result of the government’s policies, laws, and 

involvement in commercial activities, domestic and foreign operations and entitlement programs, as well as 

law enforcement initiatives, military actions, and counterterrorism efforts. The Division also pursued 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-23

affirmative litigation, bringing suits on behalf of the United States, which resulted in the return of nearly three 

billion dollars to the Treasury, Medicare, and other entitlement programs. 

The Civil Rights Division has made significant strides in fulfilling its mission to vigorously enforce the civil 

rights of all Americans. The cornerstone of this effort is the Division’s commitment to fair, vigorous, and 

evenhanded enforcement of all of the laws within its authority, including: in the wake of the foreclosure crisis, 

CRT substantially increased efforts to enforce the fair lending laws, including through the establishment of a 

new fair lending unit, and obtained a $6.1 million settlement with AIG subsidiaries resolving allegations of 

discrimination against African-American borrowers—the largest fair lending settlement ever secured by DOJ; 

filed 52 Fair Housing Act (FHA) lawsuits and entered into 54 consent decrees, including the largest monetary 

settlement of rental-discrimination claims DOJ has ever obtained under the FHA; vigorously enforced the 

Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C, which prohibits the unnecessary institutionalization of 

people with disabilities; robustly implemented the Project Civic Access (PCA) initiative, a wide-ranging effort 

to ensure that all public facilities and programs in cities, counties, towns, and villages throughout the United 

States are accessible to people with disabilities; obtained significant settlements affecting thousands of 

institutionalized inmates and youth in juvenile justice facilities, including a landmark settlement of conditions 

in one of the largest jails in the country; opened more than 80 investigations under the newly enacted Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act, filed record numbers of labor trafficking cases including cases of unprecedented scope 

and impact, and filed numerous cases alleging police abuse and other official misconduct; and promoted the 

expeditious resolution of service members’ employment discrimination complaints through the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) fast-track program. 

The Environment and Natural Resources Division made significant progress in addressing civil litigating 

activities involving the enforcement of environmental statutes such as the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Specifically, the Division secured the largest recovery ever of 

funds for hazardous waste cleanup and environmental restoration through the bankruptcy reorganization of 

American Smelting and Refining Company LLC, known as ASARCO. The Company and its predecessors 

operated in the mining, milling, and smelting industries for more than 100 years, leaving a legacy of 

environmental contamination at more than 80 sites in 19 states. ASARCO’s 2005 bankruptcy is the largest 

environmental bankruptcy in history, in terms of both number of sites and the amount of the company’s 

liability. The ASARCO reorganization plan includes total payments of $1.67 billion to the United States, 

various trusts, and 14 different states. Much of the money paid to the U.S. will be placed in special accounts 

in the Superfund for the Environmental Protection Agency to pay for future cleanup work. It also will be 

placed into accounts at the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior to pay for natural resource restoration. 

The Tax Division continues to work hand-in-hand with the IRS to combat the serious problem of noncompliance with our tax laws by US taxpayers using secret offshore accounts – a problem that a 2008 Senate 

report concluded costs the US Treasury at least $100 billion annually. As part of the deferred prosecution 

agreement the Tax Division negotiated in 2009 with UBS AG, Switzerland’s largest bank, as well as a 2009 

agreement negotiated among the US, UBS, and the Swiss government to settle a civil summons enforcement 

proceeding brought by the Tax Division, the IRS is receiving, from UBS and from the Swiss, account 

information about thousands of the most significant tax cheats among the US taxpayers who maintain secret 

Swiss bank accounts. The prosecution results so far have been encouraging: To date, approximately 150 

grand jury investigations of UBS clients have been initiated, six cases have been charged and are awaiting 

trial, 12 guilty pleas have been entered and a number of facilitators who helped clients hide assets offshore 

have been indicted. In addition, grand jury investigations have been opened into six additional offshore banks 

across the world. Moreover, the IRS credits these two agreements with prompting a huge increase in the 

number of taxpayers – nearly 18,000 in the past year, in contrast to fewer than 100 in a typical year – who 

have “come in from the cold” and voluntarily disclosed to the IRS their previously hidden foreign accounts 

and who have also agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the US Treasury. 
II-24 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

the government, as well as settlements. For merger cases, favorably resolved data includes: abandoned 

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

instances where practices changed after the investigation and complaints filed with consent decrees. The data 

set includes non-appellate cases closed during the fiscal year. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are currently captured within each component’s automated case 

management system and companion interface systems. The following information about the data should be 

noted. Cases worked on by more than one component are included in the totals from CRM, CRT, ENRD, and 

EOUSA. The court’s disposition date is used for reporting purposes for ATR, CIV, CRM, CRT, and ENRD; 

however, EOUSA and TAX use the date it is entered into their current case management system. 

Additionally, CIV counts at the party level; CRM, ENRD, and the Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA) count cases at the defendant level; CRT and TAX count Civil and Criminal cases. Lastly, 

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: The quality of the data is limited because each component captures its respective data 

within its own system and may use different methodology in capturing the 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. Furthermore, Criminal Division data for FYs 

2001 through 2002 are estimates. Actual data are not available due to technical and policy improvements that 

were not implemented until FY 2003. Lastly, EOUSA data do not include information for the month of 

September 2005 for the Eastern District of Louisiana due to Hurricane Katrina.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

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

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

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 

Tgt.

FY10 

Act.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-25

Background/Program Objectives: The U.S. Trustee Program (USTP) was established nationwide (except in 

North Carolina and Alabama) in 1986 to separate the administrative functions from the judicial responsibilities 

of the bankruptcy courts and to bring accountability to the bankruptcy system. The USTP protects and 

preserves the integrity of the bankruptcy system by ensuring that parties comply with the law and that 

bankruptcy estate assets are properly handled. The USTP appoints Trustees who serve as fiduciaries for 

bankruptcy estates and administer cases filed under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13. The U.S. Trustee regulates and 

monitors the activities of these private trustees and ensures their compliance with fiduciary standards. To 

promote the effectiveness of the bankruptcy system and maximize the return to creditors, the Department 

targets and reports the percent of assets/funds returned to creditors. 

Performance Measure: Percent of Assets/Funds Returned to Creditors for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 

FY 2009 Target: Chapter 7: 58% 

 Chapter 13: 86% 

FY 2009 Actual: Chapter 7: 56% 

 Chapter 13: 82%

FY 2010 Target: Chapter 7: 58% 

 Chapter 13: 84 % 

FY 2010 Actual: Data will not be available until FY 2011 because of the need to audit data submitted 

by private trustees prior to reporting.

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 distributed 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. 

The USTP periodically reviews and reevaluates its performance targets and the Program’s efforts toward 

reaching them. Beginning in FY 2008, the percentage of assets returned to creditors for chapter 13 bankruptcy 

filings was increased to 86 percent to reflect a more aggressive target. The actual percentage of funds returned 

to creditors was 84 percent in FY 2008 and 82 percent in FY 2009. A detailed analysis revealed that the lower 

percentage of assets returned is due to a decrease in assets available for disbursement while fees paid to debtor 

attorneys increased by approximately 15 percent over FY 2008, reducing amounts that otherwise could be 

distributed to creditors. The increased attorney fees account for the majority of the decrease in the amount 

available for distribution to creditors. Upon reevaluation of this measure, the target for FY 2010 and 

subsequent years was revised to 84 percent, reflecting a more realistic percentage of returns. 

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 2009 Progress: Although the Department missed its 2009 Chapter 7 and 13 targets, the

Department is on track to achieve both long‐term goals.
II-26 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 59% 57% 57% 58% 59% 63% 61% 60% 58% 56% 58% TBD

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

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 

Tgt.

FY09 

Act.

FY10 

Tgt.

FY10 

Act.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-27

Background/Program Objectives: The Office of Justice Programs’ Community Capacity Development Office 

(CCDO) administers 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. The Weed and Seed program assists communities in “weeding out” violent crime, gang 

activity, drug use, and drug trafficking in targeted neighborhoods and “seeding” 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 and community engagement and problem solving. 

Performance Measure: Number of Homicides per Site (funded under the Weed and Seed Program) 

CY 2009 Target: Reduction to 3.7 homicides per site 

CY 2009 Actual: 3.9 homicides per site 

CY 2010 Target: Reduction to 3.7 homicides per site 

CY 2010 Actual: Data for this measure are collected on a calendar year basis and will be available in 

September 2011. 

Discussion of Calendar Year (CY) 2009 Results: The target for CY 2009 was to reduce the average number of 

homicides per site to 3.7. In CY 2009 there was an average of 3.9 homicides per site. While this result missed the 

target, almost the entire difference can be attributed to a single site, which reported 45 homicides or almost 10 percent 

of the 459 homicides reported by 117 active Weed and Seed sites nationwide. Excluding this one site, the average 

number of homicides was 3.6, which is below the target. 

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. 

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 the JRSA. Additionally, homicide statistics reported by jurisdictions are 

verified against the Uniform Crime Report published annually by the FBI. 

5.0

3.7 3.7 3.3 3.5 3.5 3.9 3.7 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 (CY 2005) to

a maximum of 4.0 per Weed and Seed site by 2012  

FY 2009 Progress: The FY 2011 President’s Budget does not request funding for this program.
II-28 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-29

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 goals of both of these efforts are to reduce the size of the 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 additional funding to 

qualified labs that apply for federal funding to assist in analyzing cases. 

Performance Measure: Percent Reduction in DNA Backlog 

FY 2010 Target: Casework: 25% 

FY 2010 Actual: Casework: 29% 

 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: OJP’s FY 2010 target for reducing the DNA casework backlog was set at 

25 percent in 2009. In FY 2010, NIJ-funded crime labs reduced the DNA backlog by 29 percent, which 

exceeded the target, due to a funding increase of $2.6 million over the FY 2009 amount. OJP is now collecting 

updated national backlog data each year, and the trend shows the backlog to be increasing. 

Data Definition: The NIJ computes this measure by calculating the cumulative number of backlogged DNA 

cases federally-funded for analysis as part of the FY 2010 solicitation process (32,400). This number is then 

divided by the total number of backlogged DNA cases as of December 31 of the year prior to when the 

solicitations are released (111,649). 

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

maintained in office files. 

Data Validation and Verification: The number of cases funded for analysis in FY 2010 is computed from 

applications submitted by grantees to the FY 2010 DNA Backlog Reduction Program. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

 

11%

21%

34% 37%

45%

33%

29% 25%

0%

17%

35%

52%

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Percent Reduction in DNA Backlog 

Actual Target

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

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-30 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 and twelve 

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 2010 Target: 75% 

FY 2010 Actual: 86.9% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The total recovery rate within 72 hours of the issuance of an AMBER alert was 

86.9 percent for FY 2010. This result exceeds the target of 75 percent by 11.9 percentage points. This is 

attributable to better coordination and training; increased public awareness of the AMBER program; technological 

advances; and greater cooperation among law enforcement, transportation officials, and broadcasters. 

Additionally, in FY 2010, AMBER alert completed a number of activities. Below are actual AMBER alert 

accomplishments: 

- Number of participants provided AMBER alert training: 2,700 

- Number of requestors provided technical assistance: 1,343 

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. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected from law enforcement and the National Crime Information 

Center database. This database stores abducted children’s names 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%

75%

50.0%

100.0%

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-31

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 

2009 Target: 20,000 

2009 Actual: 39,159 

2010 Target: 25,000 

2010 Actual: Data for this measure is collected on a calendar year basis and will be available in 

 September 2011 

Discussion of CY 2009 Results: The target for CY 2009 is to have 20,000 participants in RSAT-funded programs. 

In CY 2009, there were 39,159 participants in RSAT. In past years, grantees may have undercounted the number of 

participants, given that they were accustomed to report one entry for all of their open and active awards. In FY 

2010, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) remedied that data collection flaw, and grantees are now reporting on 

the number of participants for each open and active award. BJA believes these data to be more reliable. 

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

from aftercare (FY 2007‐2012)

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

III 
II-32 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Definitions: The number of RSAT Program participants is the count of program participants during the 

reporting period. The number of participants is collected from grantees. 

 

Data Collection and Storage: Program managers obtain data from reports submitted by grantees into BJA’s 

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. 

Data Limitations: Because of 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 2009 

reflects the 2009 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. 

 

10,546

38,639

25,521

33,239 31,740

27,756 26,991 28,308

39,159

20,000

25,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

CY01 CY02 CY03 CY04 CY05 CY06 CY07 CY08 CY09 CY10

Number of Participants in RSAT

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-33

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 2,200 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-seven 

percent of the 6.1 million people who reported to the 2008 National Crime Victimization Survey that they had 

been a victim of violence believed that the perpetrator was using drugs, or drugs in combination with alcohol. 

Further, 54 percent of jail inmates were abusing or dependent on drugs, according to Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) 2002 Survey of Inmates in Local Jails. Correspondingly, 53 percent of state inmates, and 

45 percent of federal inmates abused or were dependent on drugs in the year before their admission to prison, 

according to the BJS 2004 Survey of Inmates in State and Federal Correctional Facilities. 

 

Performance Measure: Graduation Rate of Program Participants in the Drug Courts Program (Adult drug 

court participants only) (see Data Limitations) 

 2010 Target: 71% 

2010 Actual: TBD 

Discussion of 2010 Results: The target for FY 2010 is a graduation rate for graduation-eligible participants of 

71 percent. FY 2010 data will be available at the end of calendar year 2010. 

Data Definitions: The graduation rate is calculated by dividing the number of graduates during the reporting 

period (numerator) by the total number of drug court participants that exit the drug court program during the 

reporting period due to graduating (completing program requirements) or failing to graduate as a result of 

noncompliance with program requirements (denominator). 

Data Collection and Storage: Program managers obtain data from reports submitted by grantees into BJA’s 

PMT. 

65.0% 63.2% 57.3%

71%

0%

70%

FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Graduation Rate of Program Participants in the Drug Courts Program

Actual Target

FY 2012 Outcome Goal:  Increase the graduation rate of drug court participants from 21% (FY2005)

to 32% by FY 2012

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

  
II-34 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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. 

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. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-35

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 2010 Target: 0 

FY 2010 Actual: 0

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The USMS met its FY 2010 target of zero interrupted judicial proceedings 

due to inadequate security. The USMS revised the figure for the FY 2009 performance measure to two 

interruptions from one interruption reported at the end of last year. The change is a result of a subsequent 

review of courtroom incidents within the definition of “interruption” as defined below. 

Data Definition: An “interruption” occurs when a judge is removed as a result of a potentially dangerous 

incident and/or where proceedings are suspended until the USMS calls on additional deputies to guarantee the 

safety of the judge, witness, and other participants.

Data Collection and Storage: The USMS uses Weekly Activity Reports and Incident Reports collected at 

Headquarters as the data source. 

Data Validation and Verification: Before data are disseminated via reports, they are checked and verified by 

the program managers. These reports are collected manually. 

Data Limitations: This measure has been updated with the changes to be reported in the FY 2011 PAR. 

Since 2007 when this measure was instituted, the USMS has changed its operating procedures whereby Judges 

are instructed to leave the courtroom in the face of any security threat. As a result limiting the number of 

interrupted proceedings is counter to our protection measures. Because protection is by nature a zero-tolerance 

goal, any measurement above zero is a failure in mission.

1

0 0 0

2

1

2

0 0

0

1

2

3

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-36 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The USMS has seven 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 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 locating 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

Revised 2009 Actual: 32,860 or 52%

FY 2010 Target: 33,000 or 53% 

FY 2010 Actual: 36,126 or 56% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The USMS exceeded its target of 33,000 primary Federal felony fugitives 

apprehended or cleared by apprehending or clearing 36,126 primary Federal felony fugitives in FY 2010. This 

resulted in 56% of total primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared which is more than half of all 

warrants on hand or received during FY 2010. Among those arrested, 3,610 were for crimes of homicide, 

4,857 were gang members, and 11,072 were sex offenders. In addition, the USMS extradited or deported 805 

fugitives in FY 2010. 

The seven operating RFTF, 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 RFTF and District Fugitive Task Forces combined led to the arrest of 81,919 

state and local fugitive felons in FY 2010. The USMS initiated 3,025 Federal investigations into the failure of 

sex offenders to meet their registration requirements. 

The USMS revised the actual figure for the FY 2009 performance measure to 32,860 from the 31,119 reported 

at the end of last year. This adjustment is a result of the data lag as district offices continuously review and 

update new information as it is collected. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Apprehend or clear 56% or 33,192 primary fugitives

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-37

Data Definition: A “primary” Federal felony fugitive means that the USMS has the lead 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 “apprehended” or “cleared” if the fugitive is 

physically arrested or a detainer is lodged against a prisoner in state or local custody. 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 on-hand 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) 

within 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. 

Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended 

 

49% 53% 54% 55% 55% 54% 55% 55% 52% 56% 53%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Percent of Total Primary Fugitives

Actual Target

Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Cleared or Apprehended 

 

21,522

25,054 27,278 29,140 30,434 30,192 33,437 34,393 32,860 36,126 33,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Number of Fugitives

Actual Target
II-38 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Data Validation and Verification: Warrant and fugitive data are verified by a random sampling of NCIC 

records generated by the FBI. The USMS coordinates with district offices to verify that warrants are validated 

against the signed court records. The USMS is able to enhance fugitive investigative efforts 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 is accessible to all USMS district offices and is continuously updated as new 

information is collected, thus there may be a lag in the reporting of data. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-39

Background/Program Objectives: The mandate of the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) is to 

manage resource allocations, exercise financial supervision of detention operations, and set government-wide 

detention policy. OFDT has overall management and responsibility for federal detention services relating to the 

detention of federal prisoners in the custodial jurisdiction of the USMS. 

Costs begin at the time a prisoner is brought into USMS custody and extend through termination of the criminal 

proceeding and/or commitment to the Bureau of Prisons (BOP). Detention bed space for federal detainees is 

acquired as effectively and efficiently as possible through: (1) federal detention facilities, where the government 

pays for construction and operation of the facility through the BOP; (2) Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA) 

with State and local jurisdictions who have excess prison/jail bed capacity and where a daily rate is paid for the 

use of the bed; and (3) private jail facilities where a daily rate is paid. 

In recent years, DOJ has not been able to rely as much on IGAs and federal facilities to meet the surge in the 

detention population as State and local governments are increasingly using their facilities for their own detention 

requirements. With space unavailable in areas where more federal bed-space is needed, DOJ has increasingly 

turned to the private sector. 

Ensuring safe, secure, and humane confinement for federal detainees is critically important. To address the 

variance between federal, State and local government, and privately owned and managed facilities, the federal 

Performance-Based Detention Standards were developed. To ensure compliance, federal contract vehicles are 

written or modified to reflect federal Performance-Based Detention Standards with private contractor 

performance compensation based on their ability to demonstrate compliance. The comprehensive Quality 

Assurance Review Program provides various methodologies for assessing a facility’s operations to ensure that 

the safe, secure, and humane confinement criteria are met, as well as addressing Congress’ concerns for public 

safety as it relates to violent prisoners (e.g., Interstate Transportation of Dangerous Criminals Act, also known as 

Jenna’s Act). 

Performance Measure: Per Day Jail Costs 

FY 2010 Target: $70.98

FY 2010 Actual: $70.59

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: Performance was in line with expectation. There were no anomalies that 

caused increases in the per diem rate. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Hold the average per day jail cost for federal detention at or

below inflation.

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-40 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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. 

 

$59.01 $60.07 $60.87 $61.87 $61.92 $62.73 $64.40 $67.47 $69.01 $70.59 $70.98

$0.00

$25.00

$50.00

$75.00

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Per Day Jail Costs 

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-41

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 2010 Target: 40% 

FY 2010 Actual: 37% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: During FY 2010, the BOP population increased by a net of 1,468 inmates. 

Capacity was added as a result of the final phase of activation at Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) 

Pollock, LA and the start of the activation at FCI McDowell, WV. As a result, the BOP was able to reach the 

target for rated capacity and system-wide crowding. 

 

Data Definitions: The crowding levels are based on a mathematical ratio of the number of inmates divided 

by the rated capacity of the institutions at each of the specific security levels. The percent of crowding 

represents the rate of crowding that is over rated capacity. For example, if an institution had a number of 

inmates that equaled the rated capacity, this would represent 100% occupancy, which equals 0% crowding. 

Any occupancy above 100% represents a percentage of crowding. System-wide: represents all inmates in 

BOP facilities and all rated capacity, including secure and non-secure facilities, low, medium, and high 

security levels, as well as administrative maximum, detention, medical, holdover, and other special housing 

unit categories. Minimum security facilities: non-secure facilities that generally house non-violent, low risk 

offenders with shorter sentences. These facilities have limited or no perimeter security fences or armed posts. 

Low security facilities: double-fenced perimeters, mostly dormitory housing, and strong work/program 

components. Medium security facilities: strengthened perimeters, mostly cell-type housing, work and 

treatment programs and a 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.

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. 

32% 33%

39% 41%

34% 36% 37% 36% 37% 37% 40%

0%

25%

50%

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department will not meet this long‐term goal target by FY 2012.
II-42 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-43

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 2010 Target: 0 

FY 2010 Actual: 0

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: During FY 2010, the BOP had no escapes from secure BOP facilities. 

Data Definitions: All BOP institutions are assigned a security classification level based in part on the 

physical design of each facility. There are four security levels: minimum; low; medium; and high. 

Additionally, there is an administrative category for institutions that house a variety of specialized populations 

such as pre-trial, medical, mental health, sex offenders, and U.S. Department of Homeland Security, ICE 

detainees. Low, medium, and high security levels and administrative institutions are defined as “secure,” 

based on increased security features and type of offenders designated. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data for this measure are taken from the Significant Incident Reports 

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. 

4

0 0

2

0

1

0 0 0 0 0

0

1

2

3

4

5

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
II-44 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: An objective of FPI is to reduce recidivism by providing job training and 

helping inmates develop a basic work ethic and marketable skills, thereby allowing them to become productive 

law-abiding citizens. The finding of the initial performance measurement in FY 2005 was consistent with an 

earlier well designed evaluation of the effects of the prison industries experience. Both evaluations found that 

inmates who had participated in FPI were less likely to recidivate after release from prison than similarly 

situated non-participants. This replication will assess group differences 3 years and 6 years after release for 

recidivism defined as return to federal prison for a new offense. The targets for inmates released in FY 2004-

2007 are: Inmates who participate in FPI will remain 15% less likely to recidivate at 3 years, and 10% less 

likely to recidivate at 6 years, after release from a secure facility, compared to similarly situated inmates who 

did not participate. 

Performance Measure: Comparative Recidivism for FPI Inmates vs. Non-FPI Inmates (Percentage less likely 

to recidivate) 

FY 2010 Target: 3 years: 15% 

 6 years: 10% 

FY 2010 Actual: 3 years: 18% 

 6 years: 19% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: FPI exceeded the FY 2010 targets of 15% less likely to recidivate at 3 years 

and 10% less likely to recidivate at 6 years with actual results of 18% and 19% respectively. 

Data Definition: Recidivism means a tendency to relapse into a previous mode of behavior, such as criminal 

activity resulting in arrest and incarceration. For the FY 2010 analysis, recidivism over the 6-years following 

release from federal prison is defined as return to BOP custody due to a conviction for a new offense and 

recidivism over the 3 years following release is defined as return to BOP custody for a supervised release 

violation or a new arrest. Adoption of the more inclusive 3-year definition for the 6-year measure would 

require extensive resources for obtaining and coding FBI NCIC Criminal History Records. Resources are 

unavailable to allow the more resource intensive recidivism definition for both the 3- and 6-year follow-up 

periods. The BOP will only report on the 3-year measure beginning in FY 2011. 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

 Comparative Recidivism for FPI vs. Non-FPI Inmates 

(Percentage Less Likely to Recidivate)

3 Years Post Release 23% 39% 34% 22% 15% 18%

6 Years Post Release 10% 23% 42% 12% 10% 19%

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 Tgt. FY10 Act.

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Comparative recidivism rates for Federal Prison Industry (FPI)

inmates: 15% 3 years following release, and 10% 6 years following release

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-45

Data Collection and Storage: Data are gathered from the BOP's operational computer system (SENTRY), 

and is analyzed by the BOP's Office of Research and Evaluation. 

Data Validation and Verification: The data from the BOP SENTRY system is subject to verification and 

validation on a nearly daily basis; field staff modifies offenders' status on an on-going basis and updates the 

files as appropriate. The BOP data undergoes a number of quality control procedures ensuring its accuracy. 

Data Limitations: Although non-citizens make up a large minority of the BOP population, they are excluded 

from analyses because many of them are deported following release from prison, and it is not known if they 

recidivate. Projected targets are based on an earlier study of recidivism by FPI participating inmates and their 

similarly situated non-participating counterparts. The results of this ongoing research may differ from earlier 

findings due to changes in the program, improved research methods, changes in the composition of the inmate 

population, and changes in the quality and comprehensiveness of data. 
II-46 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 Target: 16 

FY 2010 Actual: 13

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: The FY 2010 target was met. The actual rate of serious assaults was 13 per 

5,000 inmates, lower than the target rate of 16 per 5,000 inmates for FY 2010. 

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 

(which are conducted at least every three years), annual operational reviews, and Institution Character Profiles 

14 15 14

10

13 14

12 12

14 13

16

0

5

10

15

20

25

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-47

(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-48 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 Target: 99% 

FY 2010 Actual: 99% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: One hundred fourteen of the BOP’s 115 prisons eligible to participate in the 

reaccreditation program maintained their accreditation. FCI Loretto, PA participated in an accreditation audit 

in September 2010, and is expected to be granted re-accreditation at ACA’s January 2011 Winter Conference. 

In the latter part of September 2010, FCI McDowell, WV began activating but is not yet eligible for initial 

accreditation. 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% 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. 

 

95% 95%

90%

94%

99% 99% 100% 100% 99% 99% 99%

75%

100%

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

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 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-49

Subject matter experts review report findings to verify accuracy and develop any necessary corrective 

measures. The ACA accreditation meeting minutes, identifying the institutions receiving accreditation and reaccreditation, are now on file and maintained by the BOP Accreditation Manager. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 
II-50 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has jurisdiction 

over various immigration matters relating to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), aliens, and other 

parties. EOIR comprises three adjudicating components: the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), the 

Immigration Courts, and the Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer. EOIR’s mission is to be the 

best administrative tribunal possible, rendering timely, fair, and well-considered decisions in the cases brought 

before it. EOIR’s ability to achieve its mission is critical to the guarantee of justice and due process in 

immigration proceedings, and public confidence in the timeliness and quality of EOIR adjudications. Included 

in this context are the timely grants of relief from removal in meritorious cases, the expeditious removal of 

criminal and other inadmissible aliens, and the effective utilization of limited detention resources. To assure 

mission focus, EOIR has identified adjudication priorities and set specific time frames for most of its 

proceedings. These priorities include court cases involving criminal 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 2010 Target: 85% for International Hearing Program (IHP) and detained immigration court cases 

and 90% for detained appeals 

FY 2010 Actual: 

Immigration Court IHP Cases Completed Prior to Release from Incarceration: 87% 

Immigration Court Detained Cases Completed Within 60 Days: 89% 

Immigration Court Detained Appeals Completed Within 150 Days: 93% 

Discussion of FY 2010 Results: Through careful management of EOIR’s resources, the agency exceeded all 

three of its goals for FY 2010. As part of the Department’s high priority performance goal initiative, EOIR 

has placed its focus on hiring immigration judges so that the agency is able to continue 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. 

Revised FY 2012 Outcome Goal: Complete 90% of Executive Office for Immigration Review

priority cases within established timeframes.

FY 2010 Progress: The Department is on target to achieve this long‐term goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report II-51

Data Definition: The EOIR has defined its priority caseload as two types of immigration court cases 

(Institutional Hearing Program, and detained cases) and one type of Board of Immigration Appeals case 

(detained appeals). The Institutional Hearing Program (IHP) is a collaborative effort between EOIR, DHS and 

various federal, State, and local corrections agencies. The program permits immigration judges to hold 

removal hearings inside correctional institutions prior to the alien completing his or her criminal sentence. 

Detained aliens are those in the custody of DHS or other entities. 

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. 

Performance Measure: Discontinued Measure: Immigration Court Expedited Asylum Cases Completed 

Within 180 Days 

FY 2010 Target: N/A 

 FY 2010 Actual: N/A 

Discussion for FY 2010 Results: At the end of FY 2009, EOIR discontinued this measure. The agency 

shifted its highest priority to the detained caseload. These cases are the highest priority for EOIR because 

individuals involved in these proceedings are being detained at the expense of the United States government. 

Percent of EOIR Priority Cases Completed Within Established Time Frames 

70%

80%

90%

100%

Asylum 91% 91% 91% 89% 92% 95% 90% 86% 82% N/A N/A

IHP 89% 84% 86% 88% 89% 92% 86% 91% 90% 85% 87%

Detained Cases 83% 84% 88% 88% 91% 92% 89% 90% 88% 85% 89%

Detained Appeals N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 97% 96% 96% 90% 93%

FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 

Tgt.

FY10 

Act.
II-52 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice • FY 2010 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 OMB Circular A-136, the 

following section provides the Statements of Net Cost by major program for the Department of Justice, and it 

is aligned directly with the goals and objectives in the Department’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance 

Plan.

Following the Chief Financial Officer’s message, the Office of the Inspector General’s Commentary and 

Summary, and our Report of Independent Auditors, are the following statements:

Consolidated Balance Sheets – Presents resources owned or managed by the Department that are 

available to provide future economic benefits (assets); amounts owed by the Department that will 

require payments from those resources or future resources (liabilities) and residual amounts retained 

by the Department, comprising the difference (net position) as of September 30, 2010 and 2009.

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost – Presents the net cost of Department operations for the fiscal 

years ended September 30, 2010 and 2009. 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, 2010 and 2009.

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, 2010 and 2009.

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, 2010 and 2009.

Overview

Section III 
III-2 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-3

A Message From the Chief Financial Officer

November 9, 2010

The Department of Justice made measurable progress during the past year in continuing to improve our 

financial management practices. We recognize our important financial stewardship responsibilities, and 

prudent financial management and accountability are at the core of our programs and operations.

I am pleased to report that the Department has earned an unqualified audit opinion on its FY 2010 consolidated 

financial statements. More importantly, for the fourth straight year, the auditor’s report on internal controls 

identified no material weaknesses at the consolidated level, and no Department-level material weaknesses in 

financial reporting. Overall, we were able to substantially reduce significant deficiencies across our 

components, yet another positive accomplishment. Where we have remaining deficiencies, we will continue 

our work to improve our operations, reporting, and information systems controls.

There is no question that difficult financial times bring with them an even greater responsibility for agencies to 

demonstrate their commitment to financial accountability. In July of 2010, the Attorney General inaugurated 

the Department’s SAVE Council, a cross-component group of senior managers dedicated to identifying 

savings and efficiencies in our operations and programs. From conference expenditures to information 

technology projects, we have taken a critical eye to ensuring our efforts provide good value for their cost, and 

we’ve taken action to curtail costs where projects do not meet our standards. Importantly, while we look for 

opportunities to save, we also look for opportunities to improve our systems and internal controls. The Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA) completed its second year on the Department’s Unified Financial 

Management System (UFMS) and again had no major findings associated with their financial audit. The 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives prepared this year to go live on UFMS at the start of 

Fiscal Year 2011, joining DEA, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Prisons, and United States 

Marshals Service as UFMS customers in whole or part on this important systems improvement effort.

I believe the talent and dedication of the Department’s financial managers nationwide can be seen in the 

positive audit results earned this year. We look forward in FY 2011 to building upon these achievements for 

our nation and our taxpayers.

Lee Lofthus

Chief Financial Officer
III-4 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENT

FISCAL YEAR 2010

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY

This audit report contains the Annual Financial Statement of the U.S. Department of Justice 

(Department) for the fiscal years (FY) ended September 30, 2010, and September 30, 2009. 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 2010 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 2009, the Department also received an 

unqualified opinion on its financial statements (OIG Report No. 10-05).

KPMG LLP also issued reports on internal control and on compliance and other matters. For 

FY 2010, the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting identified one 

significant deficiency, which is an improvement over the prior year, where the auditors reported two 

significant deficiencies. The FY 2010 significant deficiency related to a few serious, but isolated, financial 

reporting issues, including the U.S. Marshals Service’s funds management controls; the Assets Forfeiture Fund 

and Seized Asset Deposit Fund’s seized and forfeited property reporting controls; and the Bureau of Alcohol, 

Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ funds management controls. The chart at the end of our discussion 

illustrates the FYs 2010 and 2009 financial statement results for the Department and the nine reporting 

components.

As reflected in the chart, the Department has continued to show improvement in addressing major 

weaknesses identified in the OIG’s previous annual financial statement audits. For example, at the component 

level the number of significant deficiencies has decreased from eight in FY 2009 to four in FY 2010. 

Nevertheless, it is important to note that the Department still does not have a unified financial management 

system to readily support ongoing accounting operations and preparation of financial statements. As discussed 

in past years, we believe the most important challenge facing the Department in its financial management is to 

successfully implement an integrated financial management system to replace the disparate and, in some cases, 

antiquated financial systems used by Department components.

In the FY 2010 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.
III-6 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

The OIG reviewed KPMG LLP’s reports and related documentation and made necessary inquiries of 

its representatives. Our review, as differentiated from an audit in accordance with U.S. generally accepted 

government auditing standards, was not intended to enable us to express, and we do not express, an opinion on 

the Department’s financial statements, conclusions about the effectiveness of internal control, conclusions on 

whether the Department’s financial management systems substantially complied with the Federal Financial 

Management Improvement Act of 1996, or conclusions on compliance with laws and regulations. KPMG LLP

is responsible for the attached auditors’ reports dated November 9, 2010, 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.

Comparison of FY 2010 and FY 2009 Audit Results

Reporting 

Entity

Auditors’ 

Opinion On 

Financial 

Statements

Number of Material 

Weaknesses1

Number of Significant 

Deficiencies2

Financial Information 

Systems Financial Information Systems

2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009 2010 2009

Consolidated DOJ U3 U 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1

AFF/SADF U U 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

OBDs U U 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

USMS U U 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

OJP U U 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

DEA U U 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

FBI U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

ATF U U 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

BOP U U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

FPI U U 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Component Totals 1 1 0 0 2 5 1 2

Consolidated Department of Justice (Consolidated DOJ); 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); Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI)

1 A material weakness is a deficiency (see below), or combination of deficiencies, in internal control such that there is a reasonable 

possibility that a material misstatement of the entity’s financial statements will not be prevented , or detected and corrected on a timely 

basis.

2 A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or combination of deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, 

yet important enough to merit attention by those charged with governance. A deficiency in internal control exists when the design or 

operation of a control does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent 

or detect and correct misstatements on a timely basis.

3 Unqualified opinion – An auditor’s report that states the financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial 

position and results of operations of the reporting entity, in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles.
KPMG LLP

2001 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-3389

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-7

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

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, 2010 and 2009, 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 $2.4 billion and total net costs of 

$2.8 billion, as of and for the year ended September 30, 2010. Additionally, we did not audit the financial 

statements of the USMS, which statements reflect total assets of $945.7 million and total net costs of 

$1.3 billion as of and for the year ended September 30, 2009. 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, 2010 and 2009, 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. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements 

Page 2 

III-8 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

As discussed in Note 26 to the consolidated financial statements, the Department changed its method of 

accounting for temporary rescissions of budgetary authority in fiscal year 2010. 

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 2010 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 9, 

2010, on our consideration of the Department’s internal control over financial reporting and our tests of its 

compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. 

The purpose of those reports is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial 

reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal 

control over financial reporting or on compliance. Those reports are an integral part of an audit performed 

in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be read in conjunction with this report in 

assessing the results of our audits.

November 9, 2010 
KPMG LLP

2001 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-3389

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-9

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

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, 2010 and 2009, 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 9, 2010. 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 year ended September 30, 2010. 

Additionally, we did not audit the financial statements of the USMS as of and for the year ended 

September 30, 2009. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been 

furnished to us, and our report, insofar as it related to the amounts included for those components, was 

based solely on the reports of the other auditors. As discussed in Note 26 to the consolidated financial 

statements, the Department changed its method of accounting for temporary rescissions of budgetary 

authority in fiscal year 2010.

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 2010 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 2010 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 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 2

III-10 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

the effectiveness of the Department’s internal control over financial reporting. We did not test all internal 

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 2010 audit, we did not, nor did the reports of the other auditors, identify any deficiencies in internal 

control over financial reporting that we consider to be material weaknesses for the Department, as defined 

above. However, we noted, and the reports of the other auditors identified, a deficiency in internal control 

over financial reporting described in Exhibits I and II that we consider to be a significant deficiency in 

internal control over financial reporting. A significant deficiency is a deficiency, or a combination of 

deficiencies, in internal control that is less severe than a material weakness, yet important enough to merit 

attention by those charged with governance.

Exhibit I is an overview of the significant deficiencies identified in the Department’s component auditors’ 

Independent Auditors’ Reports on Internal Control over Financial Reporting, and includes an explanation 

of how these component-level significant deficiencies are reported at the Department level. Exhibit II 

provides the details of the Department-wide significant deficiency. Exhibit III presents the status of prior 

years’ findings and recommendations.

The Department’s responses to the finding identified in our audit are presented in Exhibit II. We did not 

audit the Department’s responses and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of the U.S. Department of 

Justice, the U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, OMB, the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office, and the U.S. Congress and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone 

other than these specified parties.

November 9, 2010
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 3

EXHIBIT I

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-11

OVERVIEW OF SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY

The following table summarizes the four significant deficiencies identified by the Department’s component 

auditors during fiscal year 2010. The component auditors considered one of these significant deficiencies to 

be a material weakness. We analyzed the component-level material weakness and significant deficiencies to 

determine their effect on the Department’s internal control over financial reporting and concluded that they 

comprise one Department-wide significant deficiency.

Significant Deficiencies

Noted During Fiscal Year 2010

D

O

J

A

F

F

O

B

D

S

U

S

M

S

(1)

O

J

P

D

E

A

F

B

I

A

T

F

(1)

B

O

P

F

P

I

(1)

Improvements are needed in the Department’s 

component financial systems’ general controls.

S

Improvements are needed in the components’ 

internal controls to provide reasonable assurance 

that transactions are properly recorded, processed, 

and summarized to permit the preparation of 

financial statements in accordance with U.S. 

generally accepted accounting principles.

S S M S

Total Material Weaknesses

Reported by Components’ Auditors

FY 2010 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

FY 2009 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total Significant Deficiencies

Reported by Components’ Auditors

FY 2010 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0

FY 2009 7 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1

Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund (AFF); Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs); United States 

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); Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); 

and Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI).

Legend:

(1) The financial statements of the ATF and the FPI were audited by other auditors in FY 2010, and those of the USMS 

were audited by other auditors in FYs 2010 and 2009.

M – Material weakness

S – Significant deficiency

In Exhibit II we discuss in detail the Department-wide significant deficiency noted above.
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 4

EXHIBIT II

III-12 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY

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.

The Department and its component entities have made significant progress in addressing previously reported 

material weaknesses and significant deficiencies. However, three of the component entities’ auditors continue 

to report a material weakness and significant deficiencies in internal controls that inhibit the preparation of 

financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. As detailed below, 

further improvement is needed in the following component entities’ 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.

Funds Management Controls. The USMS does not have adequate financial and compliance controls to 

ensure that obligation transactions are executed and recorded in accordance with laws and regulations and the 

related undelivered orders and accounts payable balances are accurate and complete. The component auditors 

identified accounting errors and instances of noncompliance with accounting standards, OMB Circular 

No. A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget, and the United States Standard General 

Ledger, as follows:

Undelivered Orders (UDOs). As a result of their interim and year-end testing, the component auditors 

identified errors related to the accuracy of undelivered orders balances. Included in the errors identified by the 

component auditors were: (1) UDOs that were overstated due to the failure to establish an accounts payable 

upon receipt of the goods or services, (2) UDOs that were found to be invalid due to accounts payable accruals 

or deobligations not having been recorded after the period of performance had expired, (3) UDOs that were 

misstated due to the failure to record approved modification increases or deobligations not having been 

recorded, (4) UDOs that were misstated because the recorded amounts did not agree with the underlying 

source documents or unsupported because supporting documentation could not be provided, and (5) UDOs 

that were misstated due to errors having been made in the calculation of accounts payable accruals. As a result 

of these accounting errors, the USMS’s undelivered orders balances were misstated at quarter-end, as follows:

Sample Population Likely Misstatement

Headquarters and District Offices (March 31, 2010) $20.5 million net overstatement

Headquarters (June 30, 2010) $861 thousand net understatement

Headquarters and District Offices (September 30, 2010) $18.7 million net overstatement
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 5

EXHIBIT II

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-13

Delivered Orders – Obligations Unpaid (Accounts Payable). As a result of their interim and year-end testing, 

the component auditors identified accounting and recordkeeping errors related to the USMS’s accounts 

payable accrual estimates. Included in the errors identified by the component auditors were accounts payable 

that were incorrect or unsupported due to: (1) the failure to accrue for services received before quarter-end, (2) 

the accrual methodology failing to take into consideration accruals that were already posted, and (3) lack of 

supporting documentation . As a result of these accounting errors, the USMS’s accounts payable balance was 

misstated at quarter-end, as follows:

Sample Population Likely Misstatement

Headquarters and District Offices (March 31, 2010) $9.9 million net overstatement

Headquarters (June 30, 2010) $6.3 million net understatement

Headquarters and District Offices (September 30, 2010) $15.8 million net understatement

Prisoner Medical Obligations and Accounts Payable. The component auditors noted that the USMS does not

have consistent procedures or policies in place for estimating and recording medical obligations incurred by 

the district offices. During the fiscal year, the USMS established Medical Services Procedures that were 

scheduled to be implemented in July 2010 under a pilot program. These procedures were not implemented at 

the time the component auditors conducted district office site visits during June and July. Based on 

discussions with district office personnel during the site visits, the component auditors determined that district 

offices were applying the same inconsistent procedures that the USMS has used in prior years.

Unauthorized Commitments. The component auditors noted that the USMS made unauthorized commitments 

during the fiscal year in connection with projects related to security system monitoring, court security officers, 

guard services, and prisoner medical services and prescriptions. These unauthorized commitments resulted in

16 contract ratifications totaling $2.3 million. In addition, 24 ratifications totaling $2.2 million were in process 

pending receipt of additional documentation from the program offices. The Federal Acquisition Regulation

prohibits agencies from entering into contracts unless the contracting officer ensures that all requirements of 

law, executive orders, regulations, and other applicable procedures have been satisfied. Unauthorized 

commitments could result in Anti-Deficiency Act violations or other funds management concerns if sufficient 

funds are not available to cover the unauthorized commitments.

Undelivered Orders and Accounts Payable. ATF’s internal controls need improvement to ensure that 

undelivered orders are valid, accounts payable transactions are calculated correctly, and related account 

balances are accurate and complete. The component auditors noted that ATF personnel are not adequately 

reviewing and approving transactions before posting them to the general ledger, validating posted results to 

ensure data accuracy, or monitoring undelivered orders to determine their validity.

As a result of their interim and year-end testing of undelivered orders and accounts payable balances, the 

component auditors identified accounting errors and instances of noncompliance with accounting standards,

OMB Circular No. A-11, and the United States Standard General Ledger, including: (1) UDOs that were 

misstated because accruals were calculated improperly, in duplicate, or not at all, (2) capital lease-related 

UDOs that were overstated because the amount related to the capital lease liability should have been classified 

as a budgetary accounts payable, (3) capital lease-related accounts payable that were overstated because 

“receivers” were posted in the accounting system, creating accounts payable that duplicated the capital lease 

liability that had already been recorded, and (4) UDOs and accounts payable that were incorrectly recorded 

because vendor accruals were calculated incorrectly.
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 6

EXHIBIT II

III-14 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

As a result of these accounting errors, ATF’s undelivered orders and accounts payable balances were misstated 

at quarter-end, as follows:

Sample Population Likely Misstatement

March 31, 2010 Undelivered Orders - $2.0 million net overstatement

Accounts Payable - $550 thousand net overstatement

June 30, 2010 Undelivered Orders - $4.3 million net overstatement

Accounts Payable - $7 thousand net overstatement

September 30, 2010 Undelivered Orders - $404 thousand understatement

Accounts Payable - $2.6 million overstatement

Seized and Forfeited Property. The component auditors noted that the AFF’s internal controls are in need of 

improvement with respect to the: (1) status and valuation of seized and forfeited assets, and (2) deletion of 

property records from the asset tracking system, as described below.

Internal Controls Related to Status and Valuation. In conducting interim and year-end tests of transactions 

recorded in the Consolidated Asset Tracking System (CATS), the component auditors identified various 

valuation and classification errors, including: (1) forfeited property items that were either misclassified or 

improperly valued, (2) seized property items that were either misclassified or improperly valued, and (3) FIRE 

assets that were improperly included in the seized asset footnote item count and dollar value disclosures (FIRE 

assets are assets that have been Frozen, Indicted, Restrained, or Encumbered as part of a federal investigation 

and are entered into CATS upon receipt of an indictment or temporary restraining order but have not yet been 

seized by the investigative agency).

As a result of the valuation and classification errors noted above, the seized and forfeited property balances 

were misstated as follows:

Sample Area Likely Misstatement

June 30, 2010

Seized property (cash and monetary instruments) $2.3 million net overstatement

Seized property (non-cash) $9.9 million net overstatement

August 31, 2010

Forfeited property $6.8 million net overstatement

Seized property (non-cash) $7.9 million net overstatement

September 30, 2010

Seized property (non-cash) $5.9 million net overstatement

Internal Controls Related to the Deletion of Records from CATS. In conducting tests related to the deletion of 

property records from CATS, the component auditors noted that 8 out of 80 records were not supported by 

evidence of authorization prior to their removal from CATS. If not properly authorized, such deletions could 

result in misstatements in the notes to the AFF’s financial statements. In the cases at hand, there was no 

financial statement (footnote) effect because valid explanations were provided; however, these explanations 

were not supported by documentation authorizing the deletion of the records from CATS.
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting 

Page 7

EXHIBIT II

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-15

Recommendations:

We recommend the Department:

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. (Updated)

Management Response:

DOJ management concurs. The Justice Management Division will continue to work with the USMS to 

document and improve processes related to external reporting to include continued evaluation of their 

business processes and financial activities associated with accounts payable and undelivered orders. In 

FY 2011, the USMS’ Office of the Chief Financial Officer will continue to coordinate with relevant 

offices, external and internal, to ensure that advance reconciliations and analyses are performed at least 

quarterly and discrepancies resolved timely. The Audit Coordination and Remediation (ACR) team will 

continue to serve as an audit liaison, recommend and implement improvements in the funds management 

process, and advises the OCFO on remediation strategies. The USMS will continue its training efforts in 

FY 2011 to ensure staff and contractors understand their responsibilities for timely recording of 

obligations. 

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/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. (Updated)

Management Response:

DOJ management concurs. AFF will continue to work closely with asset forfeiture components to 

strengthen data entry and period end closing procedures to ensure that property and accounting systems 

reflect accurate information. In addition, data quality control teams will be used to help validate and 

review the accuracy of the entries. ATF is establishing stronger oversight to validate and review accounts 

payable, obligation, and deobligation transactions. Specifically, ATF is enhancing financial management 

policies and procedures to address the above finding and reiterate all transaction review and 

documentation requirements.

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 system requirements established by OMB Circular A-127, Financial Management Systems, 

and can accommodate the requirements of applicable federal accounting standards. (Updated)

Management Response:

DOJ management concurs. The UFMS initiative is a keystone to the Department’s financial systems 

improvement planning for the future. UFMS is replacing the Department’s multiple core financial 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 8

III-16 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

management and procurement systems with an integrated Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solution, 

Momentum, provided by CGI, Federal Inc. Implementation of the UFMS will improve financial 

management and procurement operations through streamlining and standardizing business processes and 

procedures across all components. As of September 2010, UFMS supported more than 2,000 users 

worldwide, including the DEA (fully implemented), BOP (UFMS Acquisitions), Marshals Service (UFMS 

Acquisitions), and Asset Forfeiture Program (pilot program). October 2010 the ATF went live on 

schedule and within budget with a full UFMS implementation. JMD and DOJ senior leadership meets on 

a regular basis to discuss and address the challenges and risks associated with the implementation of the 

UFMS across the Department (excluding FPI).
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 9

EXHIBIT III

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-17

STATUS OF PRIOR YEARS’ FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As required by Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, and 

by OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended, we have 

reviewed the status of prior years’ findings and recommendations. The following table provides our 

assessment of the progress DOJ has made in correcting the previously identified significant deficiencies. We 

also provide the Office of the Inspector General report number where the deficiency was reported, our 

recommendation for improvement, and the status of the recommendation as of the end of fiscal year 2010:

Report Significant 

Deficiency

Recommendation Status

Annual 

Financial 

Statement 

Fiscal 

Year 

2007 

Report 

No. 08-01

Improvements are 

needed in the 

components’ 

internal controls to 

provide reasonable 

assurance that 

transactions are 

properly recorded, 

processed, and 

summarized to 

permit the 

preparation of 

financial statements 

in accordance with 

generally accepted 

accounting 

principles

Recommendation No. 5: Continue efforts to 

implement a Department-wide integrated financial 

management system that is in compliance with the 

United States Government Standard General 

Ledger, conforms to the financial management 

systems requirements established by the Financial 

Systems Integration Office (formerly the Joint 

Financial Management Improvement Program), 

and can accommodate the requirements of 

applicable Federal accounting standards.

In Process 

(Updated by 

Fiscal Year 2010

Recommendation 

No. 3)

Annual 

Financial 

Statement 

Fiscal 

Year 2009

Report

No. 10-05

Improvements are 

needed in the 

Department’s 

component financial 

management 

systems’ general 

and application 

controls

Recommendation No. 1: Require the 

components to submit and implement corrective 

action plans that address the weaknesses identified 

above. The corrective action plans should focus 

on correcting the deficiencies in access controls 

and configuration management discussed in the 

component auditors’ Independent Auditors’ 

Reports on Internal Control over Financial 

Reporting, to the extent that the significant 

deficiencies had not been remediated prior to the 

end of the fiscal year. The corrective action plans 

should also include a timeline that establishes 

when major events must be completed. The 

Department’s CIO should monitor the 

components’ efforts to correct deficiencies, hold 

them accountable for meeting the action plan 

timelines, and ensure the corrective actions are 

implemented adequately to address the noted 

deficiencies.

Completed* 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 10

EXHIBIT III

III-18 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Report Significant 

Deficiency Recommendation Status

Annual 

Financial 

Statement 

Fiscal 

Year 2009

Report

No. 10-05

Improvements are 

needed in the 

components’ 

internal controls to 

provide reasonable 

assurance that 

transactions are 

properly recorded, 

processed, and 

summarized to 

permit the 

preparation of 

financial statements 

in accordance with 

generally accepted 

accounting 

principles

Recommendation No. 2: Monitor the corrective 

actions taken by the USMS to improve the 

condition of its funds management controls, in 

response to the specific recommendations made in 

the component auditor’s Independent Auditors’ 

Report on Internal Control over Financial 

Reporting issued in connection with the audit of 

the USMS’s financial statements as of and for the 

year ended September 30, 2009.

In Process 

(Updated by 

Fiscal Year 2010

Recommendation 

No. 1)

Recommendation No. 3: Assess the adequacy of 

the Department’s accounting, internal control, and 

financial reporting policies in the areas of: 

(1) seized and forfeited property, (2) budgetary 

upward and downward adjustments, 

(3) deobligation of funds, (4) inventory controls, 

and (5) consideration of economic factors in the 

funding analysis journal entry process. Based on 

the results of this assessment, determine the need 

to issue new guidance and/or reiterate to 

components the existing policies for those areas in 

which the components’ auditors identified 

significant deficiencies related to the recording of 

transactions and the preparation of financial 

statements in accordance with generally accepted 

accounting principles. Monitor the components’ 

adherence to the Department’s accounting and 

financial reporting policies and procedures 

throughout the year.

In Process 

(Updated by 

Fiscal Year 2010

Recommendation 

No. 2)

*Sufficient progress has been made in addressing this finding and the related recommendation such that the

remaining risk of misstatement is inconsequential. Therefore, the condition has been downgraded to a control 

deficiency.
KPMG LLP

2001 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036-3389

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-19

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

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, 2010 and 2009, and the related consolidated statements of net cost and changes in net 

position and the combined statements of budgetary resources and custodial activity (hereinafter referred to 

as the “consolidated financial statements”) for the years then ended, and have issued our report thereon 

dated November 9, 2010. 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 year ended September 30, 2010. 

Additionally, we did not audit the financial statements of the USMS as of and for the year ended 

September 30, 2009. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been 

furnished to us, and our report, insofar as it related to the amounts included for those components, was 

based solely on the reports of the other auditors. As discussed in Note 26 to the consolidated financial 

statements, the Department changed its method of accounting for temporary rescissions of budgetary 

authority in fiscal year 2010.

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 2010 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 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 2010 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
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters

Page 2

III-20 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Section 803(a) of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). We and the

other auditors limited our tests of compliance to the provisions described in the preceding sentence, and we 

did not test compliance with all laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements applicable to the 

Department. However, providing an opinion on compliance with those provisions was not an objective of 

our audit, and accordingly, we do not express such an opinion.

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 9, 2010
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-21

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Principal Financial Statements and Related Notes
Dollars in Thousands 2010 2009

ASSETS (Note 2)

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury (Note 3) $ 23,596,587 $ 20,857,015

Investments, Net (Note 5) 4,061,733 3,842,785

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 302,310 326,410

Other Assets (Note 10) 122,664 130,988

Total Intragovernmental 28,083,294 25,157,198

Cash and Monetary Assets (Note 4) 245,283 229,794

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 87,260 79,824

Inventory and Related Property, Net (Note 7) 237,347 298,701

Forfeited Property, Net (Note 8) 189,122 226,843

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9) 9,741,154 9,215,026

Advances and Prepayments 1,501,404 1,415,521

Other Assets (Note 10) 5,826 4,921

Total Assets $ 40,090,690 $ 36,627,828

LIABILITIES (Note 11)

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 273,619 $ 309,072

Accrued Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 243,446 236,258

Custodial Liabilities (Note 22) 331,172 136,106

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 958,914 545,205

Total Intragovernmental 1,807,151 1,226,641

Accounts Payable 2,520,022 2,253,013

Accrued Grant Liabilities 530,823 431,219

Actuarial Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 1,314,105 1,233,899

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 594,981 522,704

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 826,881 782,177

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 71,657 22,316

Deferred Revenue 502,119 498,308

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments (Note 14) 1,470,383 1,491,660

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 101,760 172,653

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 33,649 42,221

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities 541,784 343,835

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 259,822 175,865

Total Liabilities $ 10,575,137 $ 9,196,511

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) $ 19,585 $ 22,207

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 13,791,272 13,902,525

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) 7,636,045 5,631,023

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 8,068,651 7,875,562

Total Net Position $ 29,515,553 $ 27,431,317

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 40,090,690 $ 36,627,828

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 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, 2010 and 2009

III-22
Dollars in Thousands

Net Cost of

Intra- With the Intra- With the Operations

FY governmental Public Total governmental Public Total (Note 18)

Goal 1 2010 $ 1,358,260 $ 4,187,272 $ 5,545,532 $ 474,421 $ 32,042 $ 506,463 $ 5,039,069

2009 $ 1,133,358 $ 3,392,193 $ 4,525,551 $ 533,229 $ 26,729 $ 559,958 $ 3,965,593

Goal 2 2010 3,464,016 13,201,427 16,665,443 751,806 736,287 1,488,093 15,177,350

2009 3,482,029 11,395,987 14,878,016 769,559 620,025 1,389,584 13,488,432

Goal 3 2010 2,113,376 10,436,797 12,550,173 801,044 480,246 1,281,290 11,268,883

2009 1,969,386 9,901,438 11,870,824 921,473 443,580 1,365,053 10,505,771

Total 2010 $ 6,935,652 $ 27,825,496 $ 34,761,148 $ 2,027,271 $ 1,248,575 $ 3,275,846 $ 31,485,302

2009 $ 6,584,773 $ 24,689,618 $ 31,274,391 $ 2,224,261 $ 1,090,334 $ 3,314,595 $ 27,959,796

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-23

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, 2010 and 2009

Gross Costs Less: Earned Revenues
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 22,207 $ 13,902,525 $ - $ 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 (2,622) (111,253) - (113,875)

Unexpended Appropriations $ 19,585 $ 13,791,272 $ - $ 13,810,857

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 5,631,023 $ 7,875,562 $ - $ 13,506,585

Adjustments (Note 26)

Changes in Accounting Principles - (46,588) - (46,588)

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted 5,631,023 7,828,974 - 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 4,004,772 29,752,677 (27,448) 33,730,001

Net Cost of Operations (1,999,750) (29,513,000) 27,448 (31,485,302)

Net Change 2,005,022 239,677 - 2,244,699

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 7,636,045 $ 8,068,651 $ - $ 15,704,696

Net Position $ 7,655,630 $ 21,859,923 $ - $ 29,515,553

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

2010

Dollars in Thousands

III-24 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 44,902 $ 9,169,075 $ - $ 9,213,977

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 125,076 30,327,827 - 30,452,903

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out - 535,342 - 535,342

Other Adjustments - (231,068) - (231,068)

Appropriations Used (147,771) (25,898,651) - (26,046,422)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources (22,695) 4,733,450 - 4,710,755

Unexpended Appropriations $ 22,207 $ 13,902,525 $ - $ 13,924,732

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 4,052,221 $ 7,462,291 $ - $ 11,514,512

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used 147,771 25,898,651 - 26,046,422

Nonexchange Revenues 1,756,595 1,171 - 1,757,766

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 1,376,423 - - 1,376,423

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 89,948 - 89,948

Other Budgetary Financing Sources - (100,000) - (100,000)

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 68,145 68 - 68,213

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (42,202) 51,599 - 9,397

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 10,573 721,476 (28,349) 703,700

Total Financing Sources 3,317,305 26,662,913 (28,349) 29,951,869

Net Cost of Operations (1,738,503) (26,249,642) 28,349 (27,959,796)

Net Change 1,578,802 413,271 - 1,992,073

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 5,631,023 $ 7,875,562 $ - $ 13,506,585

Net Position $ 5,653,230 $ 21,778,087 $ - $ 27,431,317

III-25

Dollars in Thousands

2009

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009
Dollars in Thousands 2010 2009

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 4,046,852 $ 3,549,862

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 766,846 956,534

Budget Authority

Appropriations Received 32,769,570 34,394,369

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections

Earned

Collected 7,071,984 6,833,760

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources (133,650) 121,266

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received (46,906) (245,721)

Without Advance from Federal Sources (31,324) (32,542)

Subtotal Budget Authority 39,629,674 41,071,132

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual 585,613 625,290

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law (2,041,625) (1,295,083)

Permanently not Available (154,303) (331,080)

Total Budgetary Resources (Note 20) $ 42,833,057 $ 44,576,655

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 32,257,303 $ 34,077,757

Reimbursable 6,536,456 6,452,046

Total Obligations Incurred (Note 20) 38,793,759 40,529,803

Unobligated Balance - Available

Apportioned 2,739,193 2,646,548

Exempt from Apportionment 120,016 101,425

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 2,859,209 2,747,973

Unobligated Balance not Available 1,180,089 1,298,879

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 42,833,057 $ 44,576,655

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2010 and 2009

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

III-26 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands 2010 2009

Change in Obligated Balance

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations $ 17,646,368 $ 13,268,917

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,918,071 1,829,346

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 15,728,297 11,439,571

Obligations Incurred 38,793,759 40,529,803

Less: Gross Outlays 37,913,953 35,195,818

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 766,846 956,534

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 164,974 (88,725)

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period

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 - End of Period $ 16,006,231 $ 15,728,297

Net Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 37,913,953 $ 35,195,818

Less: Offsetting Collections 7,025,077 6,588,035

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts (Note 20) 941,368 539,325

Total Net Outlays (Note 20) $ 29,947,508 $ 28,068,458

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-27

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, 2010 and 2009
Dollars in Thousands 2010 2009

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 $ 4,789,655 $ 2,884,775

Fees and Licenses 28,985 29,224

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil 5,985 44,979

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal 33,048 22,997

Miscellaneous 704 357

Total Cash Collections 4,858,377 2,982,332

Accrual Adjustments 271 188

Total Custodial Revenue 4,858,648 2,982,520

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture (84,620) (92,073)

U.S. Department of Commerce (1,725) (771)

U.S. Department of the Interior (283,244) (25,059)

U.S. Department of Justice (510,634) (123,787)

U.S. Department of Labor (3,537) (528)

U.S. Postal Service (6,762) (4,435)

U.S. Department of State (199) -

U.S. Department of the Treasury (606,978) (368,790)

Office of Personnel Management (46,636) (19,833)

National Credit Union Administration - (470)

Federal Communications Commission (2,693) (9,773)

Social Security Administration (3,558) (982)

Smithsonian Institution (209) (8)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (35,068) (28,710)

General Services Administration (4,008) (116,631)

Securities and Exchange Commission (2) (4)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (42) (1,958)

Railroad Retirement Board (143) (335)

Tennessee Valley Authority - (4,207)

Environmental Protection Agency (720,010) (223,334)

U.S. Department of Transportation (765) (1,357)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (30,872) (17,169)

Agency for International Development (2,155) -

Small Business Administration (5,360) (5,332)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1,528,861) (1,367,320)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (2,859) (2,957)

Export-Import Bank of the United States (4,704) -

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (25,985) (18,347)

U.S. Department of Energy (2,281) (4,065)

U.S. Department of Education (63,002) (18,003)

Independent Agencies (54,493) (54,916)

U.S. Department of Defense (112,640) (113,023)

Transferred to the Public (391,304) (329,816)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred (210,508) 55,568

Refunds and Other Payments (11,016) (918)

Retained by the Reporting Entity (101,775) (83,177)

Net Custodial Activity (Note 22) $ - $ -

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 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, 2010 and 2009

III-28
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-29

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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

B. Basis of Presentation

These financial statements have been prepared from the books and records of the Department in 

accordance with United States generally accepted accounting principles issued by the Federal Accounting 

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) and presentation guidelines in the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. These financial statements are different from 

the financial reports prepared pursuant to OMB directives which are used to monitor and control the use of 

the Department=s budgetary resources. The accompanying financial statements include the accounts of all 

funds under the Department=s control. To ensure that the Department financial statements are meaningful 

at the entity level and to enhance reporting consistency within the Department, Other Assets and Other 

Liabilities as defined by OMB Circular A-136 have been disaggregated on the balance sheet. These 

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 2010 and 

2009, 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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-31

D. Basis of Accounting (continued)

The financial statements should be read with the realization that they are for a component of the U.S.

Government, a sovereign entity. One implication of this is that liabilities cannot be liquidated without 

legislation that provides resources and legal authority to do so. 

 E. Non-Entity Assets

Non-entity assets are not available for use by the Department and consist primarily of restricted undisbursed 

civil and criminal debt collections, seized cash, accounts receivable, and other monetary assets.

 F. Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury and Cash 

Funds with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) represent primarily appropriated, revolving, and trust 

funds available to pay current liabilities and finance future authorized purchases. The Treasury, as directed 

by authorized certifying officers, processes cash receipts and disbursements. The Department does not, for 

the most part, maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Certain receipts, however, are processed by 

commercial banks for deposit into individual accounts maintained at the Treasury. The Department=s cash 

and other monetary assets consist of undeposited collections, imprest funds, cash used in undercover 

operations, cash held as evidence, and seized cash.

 G. Investments

Investments are market-based Treasury securities issued by the Bureau of Public Debt. When securities are 

purchased, the investment is recorded at face value (the value at maturity). The Department=s intent is to 

hold investments to maturity, unless securities are needed to sustain operations. No provision is made for 

unrealized gains or losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to maturity. 

The market value of the investments is the current market value at the end of the reporting period. It is 

calculated by using the “End of Day” price listed in The FedInvest Price File which can be found on the 

Bureau of Public Debt website (http://www.fedinvest.gov/). Investments are reported on the Consolidated 

Balance Sheet at their net value, the face value plus or minus any unamortized premium or discount. 

Premiums and discounts are amortized over the life of the Treasury security. Amortization is based on the 

straight-line method over the term of the securities.

The AFF, the U.S. Trustee System Fund, and the Federal Prison Commissary Fund are three earmarked 

funds that invest in Treasury securities. The Treasury does not set aside assets to pay future expenditures 

associated with earmarked funds. Instead, the cash generated from earmarked funds is used by the Treasury 

for general Government purposes. When these earmarked funds redeem their Treasury securities to make 

expenditures, the Treasury will finance the expenditures in the same manner that it finances all other 

expenditures. 
FY 2010 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 2010 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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-33

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, $25 and over are capitalized if the asset has an estimated useful life of two or more years. 

Personal property is depreciated, based on historical cost, using the straight-line method over the 

estimated useful life of the asset. BOP and FPI capitalize personal property acquisitions over $5. 

Internal use software is capitalized when developmental phase costs or enhancement costs are $500 or 

more and the asset has an estimated useful life of two or more years. Except for FBI, aircraft are 

capitalized when the initial cost of acquiring those assets is $100 or more. FBI capitalizes 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. 
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

M. Liabilities

Liabilities represent the monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the Department as the 

result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can be paid by the 

Department absent proper budget authority. Liabilities that are not funded by the current year 

appropriation are classified as liabilities not covered by budgetary resources in Note 11.

On October 15, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2210 (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, 2010 and 2009 estimated liabilities are based on activity between 

FYs 2006 - 2010, 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.

O. Contingencies and Commitments

The Department is involved in various legal actions, including administrative proceedings, lawsuits, 

and claims. A liability is generally recognized as an unfunded liability for those legal actions where

unfavorable decisions are considered “probable” and an estimate for the liability can be made.

Contingent liabilities that are considered “probable” or “reasonably possible” are disclosed in Note 16. 

Liabilities that are considered “remote” are not recognized in the financial statements or disclosed in the 

notes to the financial statements.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-35

P. Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual and compensatory leave is expensed with an offsetting liability as it is earned and the liability is 

reduced as leave is taken. Each year, the balance in the accrued annual leave liability account is 

adjusted to reflect current pay rates. To the extent current or prior year appropriations are not available 

to fund annual and compensatory leave earned but not taken, funding will be obtained from future 

financing sources. Sick leave and other types of nonvested leave are expensed as taken.

Q. Interest on Late Payments

Pursuant to the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. ' 3901-3907, the Department pays interest on 

payments for goods or services made to business concerns after the due date. The due date is generally 

30 days after receipt of a proper invoice or acceptance of the goods or services, whichever is later.

R. Retirement Plan

With few exceptions, employees hired before January 1, 1984 are covered by the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) and employees hired on or after that date are covered by the Federal 

Employees Retirement System (FERS). For employees covered by CSRS, the Department contributes 

7% of the employees= gross pay for regular and 7.5% for law enforcement officers’ retirement. For 

employees covered by FERS, the Department contributes 11.2% of employees= gross pay for regular 

and 24.9% for law enforcement officers’ retirement. All employees are eligible to contribute to the 

Federal Thrift Savings Plan (TSP). For those employees covered by the FERS, a TSP account is 

automatically established to which the Department is required to contribute an additional 1% of gross

pay and match employee contributions up to 4%. No contributions are made to the TSP accounts 

established by the CSRS employees. The Department does not report CSRS or FERS assets, 

accumulated plan benefits, or unfunded liabilities, if any, which may be applicable to its employees. 

Such reporting is the responsibility of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Statement of 

Federal Financial Accounting Standards (SFFAS) No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal 

Government, requires employing agencies to recognize the cost of pensions and other retirement 

benefits during their employees= active years of service. Refer to Note 19, Imputed Financing from 

Costs Absorbed by Others, for additional details.
FY 2010 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 2010 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

These transactions and/or balances result from business activities conducted between two different 

federal government entities.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-37

U. Revenues and Other Financing Sources

The Department receives the majority of funding needed to support its programs through Congressional 

appropriations. The Department receives annual, multi-year, and no-year appropriations that may be 

used, within statutory limits, for operating and capital expenditures. Additional funding is obtained 

through exchange revenues, nonexchange revenues, and transfers-in.

Appropriations Used are recognized as budgetary financing sources at the time the related program or 

administrative expenses are incurred. Exchange revenues are recognized when earned, for example, 

when goods have been delivered or services rendered. Nonexchange revenues are resources that the

government demands or receives, for example, forfeiture revenue and fines and penalties.

The Department=s exchange revenue consists of the following activities: licensing fees to manufacture 

and distribute controlled substances; services rendered for legal activities; space management; data 

processing services; sale of merchandise and telephone services to inmates; sale of manufactured goods 

and services to other federal agencies; and other services. Fees are set by law and are periodically 

evaluated in accordance with OMB guidance. 

The Department=s nonexchange revenue consists of forfeiture income resulting from the sale of 

forfeited property, penalties in lieu of forfeiture, recovery of returned asset management cost, judgment 

collections, and other miscellaneous income. Other nonexchange revenue includes the OJP Crime 

Victims Fund receipts, ATF fees from firearms and ammunition industries, and AFF/SADF interest on 

investments with the Treasury. 

The Department=s deferred revenue includes fees received for processing various applications and 

licenses with DEA for which the process was not completed at the end of fiscal year or for licenses that 

are valid for multiple years. These monies are recorded as liabilities in the financial statements. 

Deferred revenue also includes forfeited property held for sale. When the property is sold, deferred 

revenue is reversed and forfeiture revenue in the amount of the gross proceeds of the sale is recorded.

V. Earmarked Funds

SFFAS No. 27, Identifying and Reporting Earmarked Funds, defines ‘earmarked funds’ as being 

financed by specifically identified revenues, often supplemented by other financing sources, which 

remain available over time. These specifically identified revenues and other financing sources are 

required by statute to be used for designated activities, benefits or purposes, and must be accounted for 

separately from the government’s general revenues. The three required criteria for an Earmarked Fund 

are:
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

V. Earmarked Funds (continued)

1. A statute committing the federal government to use specifically identified revenues and other 

financing sources only for designated activities, benefits or purposes;

2. Explicit authority for the earmarked fund to retain revenues and other financing sources not used in 

the current period for future use to finance the designated activities, benefits, or purposes; and

3. A requirement to account for and report on the receipt, use, and retention of the revenues and other 

financing sources that distinguishes the earmarked fund from the Government’s general revenues.

The following funds meet the definition of an earmarked fund: AFF, UST System Fund, Antitrust 

Division, Crime Victims Fund, Diversion Control Fee Account, and Federal Prison Commissary Fund.

W. Tax Exempt Status

As an agency of the federal government, the Department is exempt from all taxes imposed by any 

governing body whether it be a federal, state, commonwealth, local or foreign government.

X. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and 

assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of 

revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Y. Reclassifications

The FY 2009 financial statements were reclassified to conform to the FY 2010 Departmental financial 

statement presentation requirements. The reclassifications had no material effect on total assets, 

liabilities, net position, change in net position or budgetary resources as previously reported.

Z. Subsequent Events

Subsequent events and transactions occurring after September 30, 2010 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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-39

Note 2. Non-Entity Assets

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 908,929 $ 293,403

Investments, Net 1,379,942 1,376,821

Total Intragovernmental 2,288,871 1,670,224

With the Public

Cash and Monetary Assets 228,085 208,617

Accounts Receivable, Net 15,257 15,053

Total With the Public 243,342 223,670

Total Non-Entity Assets 2,532,213 1,893,894

Total Entity Assets 37,558,477 34,733,934

Total Assets $ 40,090,690 $ 36,627,828
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

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, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Fund Balances

Trust Funds $ 84,695 $ 96,440

Special Funds 6,248,505 4,396,836

Revolving Funds 455,486 414,811

General Funds 16,746,926 15,886,777

Other Fund Types 60,975 62,151

Total Fund Balances with U.S. Treasury $ 23,596,587 $ 20,857,015

Status of Fund Balances

Unobligated Balance - Available $ 2,859,209 $ 2,747,973

Unobligated Balance - Unavailable 1,180,089 1,298,879

Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 16,006,230 15,728,297

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources 3,551,059 1,081,866

Total Status of Fund Balances $ 23,596,587 $ 20,857,015

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 be used to adjust obligations and 

disbursements that were recorded before the budgetary authority expired or to meet a legitimate or bona fide 

need arising in the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made. The unobligated balance for no-year 

budget authority may be used to incur obligations indefinitely for the purpose specified by the appropriation act. 

No-year budget authority unobligated balances are still subject to the annual apportionment and allotment 

process.

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources primarily represent the net 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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-41

Note 4. Cash and Monetary Assets

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Cash

Undeposited Collections $ 3,132 $ 10,022

Imprest Funds 14,068 11,158

Seized Cash Deposited 106,154 135,002

Other Cash 51,476 7,691

Total Cash 174,830 163,873

Monetary Assets

Seized Monetary Instruments 70,453 65,921

Total Cash and Monetary Assets $ 245,283 $ 229,794

Note 5. Investments, Net

Unamortized

Face Premium Interest Investments, Market 

Value (Discount) Receivable Net Value

As of September 30, 2010

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 4,062,336 $ (798) $ 195 $ 4,061,733 $ 4,061,690

As of September 30, 2009

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 3,843,066 $ (476) $ 195 $ 3,842,785 $ 3,843,218
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 6. Accounts Receivable, Net

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

 2010 2009

Intragovernmental 

Accounts Receivable $ 304,000 $ 332,216

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (1,690) (5,806)

Total Intragovernmental 302,310 326,410

With the Public

Accounts Receivable 93,552 94,791

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (6,292) (14,967)

Total With the Public 87,260 79,824

Total Accounts Receivable, Net $ 389,570 $ 406,234

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, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Inventory

Raw Materials $ 116,826 $ 148,399

Work in Process 38,442 49,282

Finished Goods 53,308 55,939

Inventory Purchased for Resale 16,580 16,653

Excess, Obsolete, and Unserviceable 43,494 22,825

Inventory Allowance (48,739) (12,213)

Operating Materials and Supplies

Held for Current Use 17,436 17,816

Total Inventory and Related Property, Net $ 237,347 $ 298,701
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-43

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 2011 is $400 million.

Analysis of Change in Forfeited Property:

The number of items represents quantities calculated using many different units of measure. The adjustments 

for FYs 2010 and 2009 include property status and valuation changes received after, but properly credited to 

FYs 2009 and 2008, respectively. The valuation changes include updates and corrections to an asset’s value 

recorded in a prior year. 
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

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

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 80 - 143 (133) 90 - 90

Instruments Value $ 1,847 $ - $ 49,642 $ (31,809) $ 19,680 $ - $ 19,680

Real Number 478 - 451 (433) 496 - 496

Property Value $ 103,163 $ - $ 93,195 $ (91,453) $ 104,905 $ (1,488) $ 103,417

Personal Number 2,899 - 5,725 (5,128) 3,496 - 3,496

Property Value $ 41,532 $ (3,252) $ 123,799 $ (57,041) $ 105,038 $ (1,292) $ 103,746

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 22,607 - 11,377 (12,044) 21,940 - 21,940

Total Number 26,064 - 17,696 (17,738) 26,022 - 26,022

Value $ 146,542 $ (3,252) $ 266,636 $ (180,303) $ 229,623 $ (2,780) $ 226,843
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-45

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Method of Disposition of Forfeited Property:

During FYs 2010 and 2009, $103,678 and $104,883 of forfeited property were sold, $6,560 and $7,032 were 

destroyed or donated, $17,045 and $24,831 were returned to owners, and $47,169 and $43,557 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 2010 and 2009 include property status and valuation changes received after, but 

properly credited to FYs 2009 and 2008, respectively. The valuation changes include updates and corrections 

to an asset’s value recorded in a prior year.

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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Analyzed drug evidence represents actual laboratory tested classification and weight in kilograms (KG). Since 

enforcing the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United States is a primary mission of the DEA, 

the DEA reports all analyzed drug evidence regardless of seizure weight. However, the enforcement of these 

laws and regulations is incidental to the missions of the FBI and ATF and therefore they only report those 

individual seizures exceeding 1 KG in weight. 

“Adjustments” are primarily due to the validation of drug weights that occurs after the drugs have been 

analyzed. “Other Drugs” are illegal substances not including cocaine, heroin, marijuana, bulk drug evidence, 

and methamphetamine. “Bulk Drug Evidence” is comprised of controlled substances housed by the DEA in 

secured storage facilities of which only a sample is taken for laboratory analysis. The actual bulk drug weight 

may vary from seizure weight due to changes in moisture content over time. 

Unanalyzed drug evidence is qualitatively different from analyzed and bulk drug evidence because unanalyzed 

drug evidence includes the weight of packaging and drug categories are based on the determination of Special 

Agents instead of laboratory chemists. For these reasons, unanalyzed drug evidence is not reported by the 

Department. Seized drug evidence must be analyzed and confirmed through laboratory testing to be placed in 

one of the five categories of drug above. “Disposals” occur when evidence is either returned to the owner or 

destroyed in accordance with federal guidelines. 
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-47

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

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

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Forfeiture

Seized Cash Value $1,228,440 $ - $1,544,033 $(1,321,214) $ 1,451,259 $(62,683) $ 1,388,576

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 384 - 71 (90) 365 - 365

Instruments Value $ 102,209 $ - $ 50,116 $ (27,747) $ 124,578 $ (8,272) $ 116,306

Real Number 199 - 190 (179) 210 - 210

Property Value $ 65,663 $ - $ 61,426 $ (60,911) $ 66,178 $ (9,761) $ 56,417

Personal Number 7,365 3 7,501 (7,440) 7,429 - 7,429

Property Value $ 144,304 $ 389 $ 154,686 $ (140,499) $ 158,880 $(15,238) $ 143,642

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 42,708 - 14,919 (18,058) 39,569 - 39,569
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

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 Drugs 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

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Evidence

Seized Monetary Value $ 38,171 $ (4,946) $ 35,375 $ (28,199) $ 40,401 $ - $ 40,401

Instruments

Personal Number 51,693 (50,625) 740 (323) 1,485 - 1,485

Property Value $ 29,459 $ (18,475) $ 25,717 $ (8,758) $ 27,943 $ - $ 27,943

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 45,259 (269) 6,807 (7,919) 43,878 - 43,878

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 393,021 540 58,114 (102,224) 349,451 - 349,451

 Heroin KG 3,489 (81) 654 (490) 3,572 - 3,572

 Marijuana KG 21,017 (1,776) 5,359 (4,687) 19,913 - 19,913

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 216,689 2,358 1,200,533 (1,195,644) 223,936 - 223,936

 Methamphetamine KG 6,212 204 1,741 (1,366) 6,791 - 6,791

 Other Drugs KG 52,598 (370) 6,217 (11,265) 47,180 - 47,180

 Total Drug Evidence KG 693,026 875 1,272,618 (1,315,676) 650,843 - 650,843
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-49

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Method of Disposition of Seized Property:

During FYs 2010 and 2009, $1,628,886 and $1,402,885 of seized property were forfeited, $155,022 and 

$136,939 were returned to parties with a bonafide interest, and $27,239 and $47,504 were disposed of by other 

means, respectively. Other means of disposition include seized property that is sold, converted to cash, or 

destroyed.

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 

As of September 30, 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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (continued) 

As of September 30, 2009

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 192,971 $ - $ 192,971 N/A

Improvements to Land 4,518 (251) 4,267 15 yrs

Construction in Progress 884,163 - 884,163 N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 8,789,318 (3,374,721) 5,414,597 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 774,780 (358,344) 416,436 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 343,708 (102,815) 240,893 5-30 yrs

Boats 10,061 (4,709) 5,352 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 500,119 (311,073) 189,046 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,548,950 (982,552) 566,398 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 107,247 (54,366) 52,881 5-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 971,367 (509,398) 461,969 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 333,728 (151,195) 182,533 3-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 603,520 - 603,520 N/A

Total $ 15,064,450 $ (5,849,424) $ 9,215,026

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2009 $ 252,302 $ 911,475 $ 1,163,777

Note 10. Other Assets

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Intragovernmental

Advances and Prepayments $ 122,609 $ 130,878

Other Intragovernmental Assets 55 110

 Total Intragovernmental 122,664 130,988

Other Assets With the Public 5,826 4,921

Total Other Assets $ 128,490 $ 135,909

Other Assets With the Public primarily consist of farm livestock held by the BOP. 
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-51

Note 11. Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Intragovernmental

Accrued FECA Liabilities $ 241,124 $ 234,173

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 1,758 1,528

Other 58 46

Total Intragovernmental 242,940 235,747

With the Public

Actuarial FECA Liabilities 1,314,105 1,233,899

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 816,970 771,814

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 71,657 22,112

Deferred Revenue 311,164 269,840

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 101,760 172,653

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 30,703 36,956

RECA Liabilities 541,784 343,835

Other 47,300 14,282

Total With the Public 3,235,443 2,865,391

Total Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 3,478,383 3,101,138

Total Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources 7,096,754 6,095,373

Total Liabilities $ 10,575,137 $ 9,196,511

Generally, liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which Congressional action is needed 

before budgetary resources can be provided. However, some liabilities do not require appropriations and will 

be liquidated by the assets of the entities holding these liabilities. Such assets include civil and criminal debt

collections, seized cash and monetary instruments, and revolving fund operations. 

Note 12. Environmental and Disposal Liabilities

The BOP operates firing ranges on 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, 2009, BOP management determined their estimated clean-up liability to be 

$22,112. In FY 2010, 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 $25,069, based on an inflation rate of 11.6 percent, should be recorded.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 12. Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (continued)

An extensive review of the current and past safety practices of FPI’s Recycling business segment revealed that 

cleanup of past lead and other contamination was recommended as the result of their glass breaking operation. 

Included in FPI’s Balance Sheet as of September 30, 2010 and 2009 are $0 and $204 in Environmental and 

Disposal Liabilities, respectively.

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.

BOP conducted a review of 46 institutions that were in service prior to April 6, 1973; 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. The BOP recognized the estimated total clean-up cost for friable and nonfriable asbestos for those facilities as a liability and recorded the offsetting charge as a “Change in Accounting 

Principles” in the Statement of Changes in Net Position (SCNP). As of September 30, 2010, BOP management 

has determined their estimated asbestos clean-up liability is $36,833.

The FBI operates a facility in Quantico, Virginia, built in 1968 with an estimated useful life of 50 years. The 

FBI recognized the estimated total cleanup cost for friable and non-friable asbestos for the facility as a liability 

and reported the offsetting charge as a “Change in Accounting Principles” in the Statement of Change in Net 

Position. As of September 30, 2010, FBI management has determined their estimated asbestos clean-up 

liability is $9,755.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-53

Note 13. Leases

Capital leases include a Federal Detention Center (25 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; an airplane

hangar (20 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; and other machinery and equipment that expire over 

future periods. 

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

Capital Leases 2010 2009

Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease

Land and Buildings $ 100,352 $ 100,352

Machinery and Equipment 7,047 6,895

Accumulated Amortization (58,688) (54,366)

Total Assets Under Capital Lease (Note 9) $ 48,711 $ 52,881

Future Capital Lease Payments Due

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2011 $ 10,086 $ 1,095 $ 11,181

2012 9,073 939 10,012

2013 9,073 571 9,644

2014 9,073 - 9,073

2015 32 - 32

 After 2015 128 - 128

Total Future Capital Lease Payments $ 37,465 $ 2,605 $ 40,070

Less: Imputed Interest (5,816) (71) (5,887)

Less: Executory Costs - (534) (534)

FY 2010 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 31,649 $ 2,000 $ 33,649

FY 2009 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 38,787 $ 3,434 $ 42,221

2010 2009

Net Capital Lease Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 2,946 $ 5,265

Net Capital Lease Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 30,703 $ 36,956

The net capital lease liability not covered by budgetary resources primarily represents the capital lease of the 

Federal Detention Center for which the Department received Congressional authority to fund with annual 

appropriations.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 13. Leases (continued)

Operating leases have been established for multiple years. Many of the operating leases that expire over an 

extended period of time include an option to purchase the equipment at the current fair market value, or to 

renew the lease for additional periods. 

Operating Lease Expenses

Lease Type 2010 2009

Noncancelable Operating Leases $ 103,569 $ 100,079

Cancelable Operating Leases 1,579,021 1,500,363

Total Operating Lease Expenses $ 1,682,590 $ 1,600,442

Future Noncancelable Operating Lease Payments Due

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2011 $ 154,838 $ 10,724 $ 165,562

2012 226,102 9,025 235,127

2013 272,443 9,011 281,454

2014 285,557 4,405 289,962

2015 283,547 4,382 287,929

 After 2015 3,282,286 - 3,282,286

Total Future Noncancelable Operating

Lease Payments $ 4,504,773 $ 37,547 $ 4,542,320

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, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Investments, Net $ 1,293,776 $ 1,290,737

Seized Cash Deposited 106,154 135,002

Seized Monetary Instruments 70,453 65,921

Total Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments $ 1,470,383 $ 1,491,660
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-55

Note 15. Other Liabilities

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Intragovernmental 

Employer Contributions and Payroll Taxes Payable $ 176,303 $ 151,946

Other Post-Employment Benefits Due and Payable 37 125

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 1,759 1,528

Advances from Others 262,847 259,841

Liability for Deposit Funds, Clearing

 Accounts and Undeposited Collections 4,208 31,773

Other Liabilities 513,760 99,992

Total Intragovernmental 958,914 545,205

With the Public

Other Accrued Liabilities 47,360 14,400

Advances from Others 3,951 8,591

Liability for Deposit Funds, Clearing

 Accounts and Undeposited Collections 45,616 46,438

Custodial Liabilities 118,879 104,446

Other Liabilities 44,016 1,990

Total With the Public 259,822 175,865

Total Other Liabilities $ 1,218,736 $ 721,070

Intragovernmental Other Liabilities primarily represent civil debt collections where the Treasury General Fund 

is designated as the recipient of either a portion of a collection or the entire amount of a collection.

Other Accrued Liabilities with the Public consists primarily of future funded energy savings performance 

contracts and utilities. 

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.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 16. Contingencies and Commitments

Accrued

Liabilities Lower Upper

As of September 30, 2010

Probable $ 101,760 $ 101,760 $ 214,237

Reasonably Possible 95,585 124,326

As of September 30, 2009

Probable $ 172,653 $ 172,653 $ 197,535

Reasonably Possible 173,765 200,307

Estimated Range of Loss

Additionally, FPI has entered into firm purchase commitments for solar panel material totaling $25,485 to be 

delivered in fiscal year 2011 and $23,671 to be delivered in fiscal year 2014.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-57

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, 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 (Revenue) 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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued)

As of September 30, 2009

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Balance Sheet

Assets

Fund Balance with U. S. Treasury $ 39,583 $ 9,018 $ 45,651 $ 4,203,542 $ 143,100 $ 76,756 $ 4,517,650

Investments, Net 2,072,999 129,065 - - - - 2,202,064

Other Assets 235,695 11,223 6,091 3,807 46,228 26,997 330,041

Total Assets $ 2,348,277 $ 149,306 $ 51,742 $ 4,207,349 $ 189,328 $ 103,753 $ 7,049,755

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 695,551 $ 13,222 $ 11,660 $ 36,329 $ 995 $ 19,165 $ 776,922

Other Liabilities 226,843 19,943 14,348 58,039 288,891 11,539 619,603

Total Liabilities $ 922,394 $ 33,165 $ 26,008 $ 94,368 $ 289,886 $ 30,704 $ 1,396,525

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ - $ 22,207 $ - $ - $ - $ 22,207

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,425,883 116,141 3,527 4,112,981 (100,558) 73,049 5,631,023

Total Net Position $ 1,425,883 $ 116,141 $ 25,734 $ 4,112,981 $ (100,558) $ 73,049 $ 5,653,230

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 2,348,277 $ 149,306 $ 51,742 $ 4,207,349 $ 189,328 $ 103,753 $ 7,049,755

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Cost of Operations $ 1,001,512 $ 223,649 $ 159,370 $ 588,070 $ 217,450 $ 328,415 $ 2,518,466

Less: Exchange Revenues 6,723 231,498 42,208 - 179,933 319,601 779,963

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 994,789 $ (7,849) $ 117,162 $ 588,070 $ 37,517 $ 8,814 $ 1,738,503

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 1,007,809 $ 107,305 $ 17,330 $ 2,955,373 $ (69,174) $ 78,480 $ 4,097,123

Budgetary Financing Sources 1,387,107 234 125,075 1,745,678 - - 3,258,094

Other Financing Sources 25,756 753 491 - 6,133 3,383 36,516

Total Financing Sources 1,412,863 987 125,566 1,745,678 6,133 3,383 3,294,610

Net Cost of Operations (994,789) 7,849 (117,162) (588,070) (37,517) (8,814) (1,738,503)

Net Change 418,074 8,836 8,404 1,157,608 (31,384) (5,431) 1,556,107

Net Position End of Period $ 1,425,883 $ 116,141 $ 25,734 $ 4,112,981 $ (100,558) $ 73,049 $ 5,653,230
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-59

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued)

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 established the AFF to receive the proceeds of forfeiture and to 

pay the costs associated with such forfeitures, including the costs of managing and disposing of property, 

satisfying valid liens, mortgages, and other innocent owner claims, and costs associated with accomplishing the 

legal forfeiture of the property. Authorities of the fund have been amended by various public laws enacted 

since 1984. Under current law, authority to use the fund for certain investigative expenses shall be specified in 

annual appropriation acts. Expenses necessary to seize, detain, inventory, safeguard, maintain, advertise or sell 

property under seizure are funded through a permanent, indefinite appropriation. In addition, beginning in

FY 1993, other general expenses of managing and operating the Asset Forfeiture Program are paid from the 

permanent, indefinite portion of the fund. Once all expenses are covered, the balance is maintained to meet 

ongoing expenses of the program. Excess unobligated balances may also be allocated by the Attorney General 

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §524(c)(8)(E).

United States Trustees supervise the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees in the Federal 

Bankruptcy Courts. The Bankruptcy Judges, UST, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public Law 

99–554) expanded the pilot trustee program to a 21 region, nationwide program encompassing 88 judicial 

districts. The UST System Fund collects user fees assessed against debtors, which offset the annual 

appropriation.

The Antitrust Division administers and enforces antitrust and related statutes. This program primarily involves 

the investigation of suspected violations of the antitrust laws, the conduct of civil and criminal proceedings in 

the federal courts, and the maintenance of competitive conditions. The Antitrust Division collects filing fees for 

pre-merger notifications and retains these fees for expenditure in support of its programs.

The Crime Victims Fund is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures from 

defendants convicted of federal crimes. This fund supports victim assistance and compensation programs 

around the country and advocates, through policy development, for the fair treatment of crime victims. The 

Office for Victims of Crime administers formula and discretionary grants for programs designed to benefit 

victims, provides training for diverse professionals who work with victims, develops projects to enhance 

victims' rights and services, and undertakes public education and awareness activities on behalf of crime 

victims. 

The Diversion Control Fee Account is established in the General Fund of the Treasury as a separate account. 

Fees charged by the DEA under the Diversion Control Program are set at a level that ensures the recovery of the 

full costs of operating this program. The program’s purpose is to prevent, detect, and investigate the diversion 

of controlled substances from legitimate channels, while ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted supply of 

controlled substances required to meet legitimate needs. 

The Federal Prison Commissary Fund was created in the early 1930s to allow inmates a means to purchase 

additional products and services above the necessities provided by appropriated federal funds, e.g., personal 

grooming products, snacks, postage stamps, and telephone services. The Trust Fund is a self-sustaining trust 

revolving fund account that is funded through sales of goods and services to inmates.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 18. Net Cost of Operations by Suborganization

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 (Revenue) 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 (Revenue) 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 (Revenue) of Operations - 2,089,125 1,502,071 961,978 - - - 6,649,560 93,597 (27,448) 11,268,883

Net Cost (Revenue) 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

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

Gross Cost $ - $ 340,620 $ 5,138 $ - $ 66,558 $ 4,220,194 $ 8,321 $ - $ - $ (115,280) $ 4,525,551

Less: Earned Revenue - 114,099 - - 536 560,603 - - - (115,280) 559,958

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations - 226,521 5,138 - 66,022 3,659,591 8,321 - - - 3,965,593

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost 1,001,512 5,265,364 4,129 1,919,976 2,672,648 3,819,673 1,153,318 6,987 - (965,591) 14,878,016

Less: Earned Revenue 6,723 865,107 - 116,353 592,747 718,689 55,556 - - (965,591) 1,389,584

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations 994,789 4,400,257 4,129 1,803,623 2,079,901 3,100,984 1,097,762 6,987 - - 13,488,432

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - 2,156,636 2,792,695 1,024,312 - - - 6,573,615 1,061,586 (1,738,020) 11,870,824

Less: Earned Revenue - 198,914 1,471,465 58,795 - - - 357,601 987,949 (1,709,671) 1,365,053

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations - 1,957,722 1,321,230 965,517 - - - 6,216,014 73,637 (28,349) 10,505,771

Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 994,789 $ 6,584,500 $ 1,330,497 $ 2,769,140 $ 2,145,923 $ 6,760,575 $ 1,106,083 $ 6,223,001 $ 73,637 $ (28,349) $ 27,959,796

Intragovernmental costs and exchange revenue, as presented on the Consolidated Statements of Net Cost,

represent transactions made between two reporting entities within the federal government. The classification of 

revenue or cost as “intragovernmental” is defined on a transaction-by-transaction basis. The purpose of this 

classification is to enable the federal government to prepare consolidated financial statements, not to match 

intragovernmental revenue with the costs incurred to produce intragovernmental revenue.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-61

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, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Imputed Inter-Departmental Financing

U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund $ 135,498 $ 40,448

Health Insurance 553,366 540,484

Life Insurance 1,969 1,843

Pension 212,044 120,925

Total Imputed Inter-Departmental $ 902,877 $ 703,700
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 19. Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (continued)

Imputed Intra-Departmental Financing Sources as defined in SFFAS No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting 

Standards and Concepts, are the unreimbursed portion of the full costs of goods and services received by a 

Department component from a providing entity that is part of the Department. Recognition is required for those 

transactions determined to be material to the receiving entity. The determination of whether the cost is material 

requires considerable judgment based on the specific facts and circumstances of each type of good or service 

provided. SFFAS No. 4 also states that costs for broad and general support need not be recognized by the 

receiving entity, unless such services form a vital and integral part of the operations or output of the receiving 

entity. Cost are considered broad and general if they are provided to many, if not all, reporting components and 

not specifically related to the receiving entity’s output. The FPI imputed $27,448 and $28,349 for FYs 2010

and 2009, 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, 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

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 32,327,966 $ 5,359,554 $ 37,687,520

Category B 1,749,791 66,542 1,816,333

Exempt from Apportionment - 1,025,950 1,025,950

Total $ 34,077,757 $ 6,452,046 $ 40,529,803

Per OMB Circular A-11, Category A obligations represent resources apportioned for calendar quarters. 

Category B obligations represent resources apportioned for other time periods; for activities, projects, and 

objectives or for a combination thereof.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-63

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, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

UDO Obligations Unpaid $ 12,835,522 $ 13,063,814

UDO Obligations Prepaid/Advanced 1,824,439 1,799,409

Total UDO $ 14,659,961 $ 14,863,223

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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

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 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-65

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, 2009 is presented below. The reconciliation as of September 30, 2010 is 

not presented, because the submission of the Budget of the United States (Budget) for FY 2012, which presents 

the execution of the FY 2010 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 2011. 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

(Dollars in Millions) Distributed

Budgetary Obligations Offsetting Net

Resources Incurred Receipts Outlays

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) $ 44,577 $ 40,530 $ 539 $ 28,068

Funds not Reported in the Budget

Expired Funds: OBDs, USMS, DEA, OJP, FBI, ATF & BOP (889) (314) - -

AFF/SADF Forfeiture Activity (60) - - -

OCDETF Adjustments (3) 6 - -

USMS Court Security Funds (378) (371) - (347)

Distributed Offsetting Receipts - - 7 3

OBDs/DEA Special and Trust Fund Receipts - - (1) 536

Other (1) (4) 6 -

Budget of the United States $ 43,246 $ 39,847 $ 551 $ 28,260

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. 
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 21. Allocation Transfers 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. 

During FY 2010, the Department transferred $17,000 from the Crime Victims Fund to the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS). For FY 2009, the OJP, as the parent, transferred the same amount to HHS.

This funding is required by 42 U.S.C. §10603a {Sec. 14-4A} for Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment 

Grants. Amounts made available by section §10601(d)(2) of this title, for the purpose of this section, shall be 

obligated and expended by the Secretary of HHS for grants under section §5106c of this title. The activity 

related to these transfers is included as part of these financial statements.

The Department also allocated funds from BOP to the Public Health Service (PHS). PHS provides a portion of 

medical treatment for federal inmates. The money is designated and expended for current year obligation of 

PHS staff salaries, benefits, and applicable relocation expenses. The amounts BOP, as the parent, transferred to 

PHS totaled $90,000 and $82,000 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively, and the 

related activity is included as part of these financial statements.

The Department receives allocation transfers of appropriation from the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

(AOUSC). However, the AOUSC is not an Executive Branch entity and is not required to report annual 

financial statements. Although the USMS is the child in the allocation transfer, per OMB guidance, all activity 

relative to these allocation transfers is reported in these financial statements. The allocation transfers are used 

for costs associated with protective guard services - Court Security Officers (CSOs) at United States 

courthouses and other facilities housing federal court operations. These costs include their salaries (paid 

through contracts), equipment, and supplies. This transfer is performed on an annual basis.

Note 22. Net Custodial Revenue Activity

Custodial revenue activity represents those collections of non-exchange revenue on behalf of other recipient 

entities. These collections are not recorded as revenue by the Department but as activity on the Statement of 

Custodial Activity. The custodial liabilities presented on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and Note 15

represent funds held by the Department that have yet to be disbursed to the appropriate Federal agency or 

individual.
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-67

Note 22. Net Custodial Revenue Activity (continued)

The primary source of DCM collections consists of civil litigated matters (i.e., student loan defaults, health care 

fraud, etc.). The DCM also processes certain payments on criminal debts as an accommodation for the Bureau 

of Prisons (BOP) and the Clerks of the U.S. District Courts. The BOP aggregates collections of inmate criminal 

debt by correction facility, and the DCM sorts the collections by judicial district and disburses payments to the 

respective Clerks of the U.S. Court. The DCM also accepts wire transfers or other payments on a criminal debt 

if a Clerk of the U.S. Court is unable or unwilling to do so. In addition, other negligible custodial collections 

occur for interest, fines and penalties.

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, 2010 and 2009, 

the custodial assets and liabilities recorded by the OBDs on the balance sheet are $448,467 and $238,242

respectively. The OBDs custodial collections totaled $4,822,740 and $2,907,842 for the fiscal years ended 

September 30, 2010 and 2009. 

For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, DEA collected $20,963 and $59,961, respectively. 

DEA’s collections include $15 million of the total fees collected for the Diversion Control Program and civil 

monetary penalties related to violations of the Controlled Substances Act that were incidental to DEA’s 

mission. Since DEA has no statutory authority to use these excess funds, DEA transmits them to the Treasury 

General Fund. The DEA has a custodial liability for funds that have not yet been transmitted to the Treasury 

General Fund. The September 30, 2010 and 2009 balances for custodial liabilities were $1,584 and $2,310

respectively.

As an agent of the federal government and as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6301, ATF collects fees from firearms 

and explosives industries, as well as import, permit and license fees. In addition, Special Occupational Taxes 

are collected from certain firearms businesses. As ATF is unable to use these collections in its operations, ATF 

also has the authority to transfer these collections to the Treasury General Fund. The ATF custodial collections 

totaled $14,674 and $14,529 for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2010 and 2009, respectively.
FY 2010 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-68 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 23. OMB Circular A-136 Consolidated Balance Sheet Presentation

Dollars in Thousands 2010 2009

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 23,596,587 $ 20,857,015

Investments, Net 4,061,733 3,842,785

Accounts Receivable, Net 302,310 326,410

Other Assets 122,664 130,988

Total Intragovernmental 28,083,294 25,157,198

Cash and Other Monetary Assets 245,283 229,794

Accounts Receivable, Net 87,260 79,824

Inventory and Related Property, Net 237,347 298,701

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 9,741,154 9,215,026

Other Assets 1,696,352 1,647,285

Total Assets $ 40,090,690 $ 36,627,828

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 273,619 $ 309,072

Other Liabilities 1,533,532 917,569

Total Intragovernmental 1,807,151 1,226,641

Accounts Payable 2,505,665 2,253,013

Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits 1,314,105 1,233,899

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 71,657 22,316

Other Liabilities 4,862,202 4,460,642

Total Liabilities $ 10,560,780 $ 9,196,511

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ 19,585 $ 22,207

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 13,805,629 13,902,525

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 7,636,045 5,631,023

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 8,068,651 7,875,562

Total Net Position $ 29,529,910 $ 27,431,317

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 40,090,690 $ 36,627,828

U.S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2010 and 2009
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-69

Note 24. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of

Financing)

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Obligations Incurred $ 38,793,759 $ 40,529,803

Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 7,626,950 7,633,297

Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 31,166,809 32,896,506

Less: Offsetting Receipts 941,368 539,325

Net Obligations 30,225,441 32,357,181

Other Resources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 71,204 68,213

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (3,433) 9,170

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (Note 19) 902,877 703,700

Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 970,648 781,083

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 31,196,089 33,138,264

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of

Operations

Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services

and Benefits Ordered but not Yet Provided 139,965 (4,940,729)

Resources That Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods (Note 25) (77,146) (7,656)

Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts That do not

Affect Net Cost of Operations 300,608 (65,939)

Resources That Finance the Acquisition of Assets (1,295,160) (1,174,153)

Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated Resources

That do not Affect Net Cost of Operations (49,768) 29,514

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost

of Operations (981,501) (6,158,963)

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 30,214,588 $ 26,979,301
FY 2010 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements

Notes to the Financial Statements

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted)

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-70 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 24. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of 

Financing) (continued)

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2010 and 2009 2010 2009

Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not Require

or Generate Resources in the Current Period

Components of Net Cost of Operations That will Require or 

Generate Resources in Future Periods (Note 25) $ 450,866 $ 267,978

Components not Requiring or Generating Resources

Depreciation and Amortization 727,012 685,778

Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities 29,772 28,129

Other 63,064 (1,390)

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That will not Require or

Generate Resources 819,848 712,517

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not

 Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period 1,270,714 980,495

Net Cost of Operations $ 31,485,302 $ 27,959,796
FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-71

Note 25. Explanation of Differences Between Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources and 

 Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods

Liabilities that are not covered by realized budgetary resources and for which there is not certainty that 

budgetary authority will be realized, such as the enactment of an appropriation, are considered liabilities not 

covered by budgetary resources. These liabilities totaling $3,478,383 and $3,101,138 on September 30, 2010

and 2009, 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, 2010 and 2009

2010 2009

Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods

Other

Decrease in Contingent Liabilities $ (70,893) $ -

Decrease in Capital Lease Liabilities (6,253) (5,779)

Decrease in Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities - (1,877)

Total Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods $ (77,146) $ (7,656)

Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods

Increase in Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities $ 45,156 $ 54,646

Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 49,545 -

(Increase)/Decrease in Exchange Revenue Receivable from the Public (1,671) 3,877

Other

Increase in Actuarial FECA Liabilities 80,206 97,330

Increase in Accrued FECA Liabilities 6,951 9,494

Increase in Deferred Revenue 41,324 54,510

Increase in Contingent Liabilities - 8,341

Increase in RECA Liabilities 197,949 22,164

Increase in Other Unfunded Employee Related Liabilities 230 -

Increase in Other Liabilities 33,030 5,953

(Increase)/Decrease in Nonexchange Receivables from the Public (63) 113

(Increase)/Decrease in Surcharge Revenue Receivable

from Other Federal Agencies (1,791) 11,550

Total Other 357,836 209,455

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or 

Generating Resources in Future Periods $ 450,866 $ 267,978
FY 2010 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-72 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 26. Change in Accounting Principle

For FY 2010, in accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the AFF 

changed its method of reporting rescissions of budgetary authority by reporting $387,200 as temporarily not 

available pursuant to public law in the budgetary resources section of the SBR. In FY 2009, based on guidance 

issued by OMB, rescissions were reported as unobligated balances not available in the status of budgetary 

resources of the SBR. The new method of accounting for rescissions was adopted based on guidance received 

from the OMB to better align rescissions reported in the SBR with the amounts reported by OMB in the Budget 

of the United States.

OMB Circular No. A-136 states that the cost for any clean-up cost liability recognized upon implementation of 

the FASAB Technical Bulletin 2006-1, Recognition and Measurement of Asbestos-Related Cleanup Costs, 

requiring recognition shall be shown on the SCNP as a prior period adjustment. The BOP and FBI recognized 

the estimated total clean-up cost for friable and non-friable asbestos as a liability and reported the offsetting 

charge as a “Change in Accounting Principles” in the SCNP. As of September 30, 2010, BOP and FBI 

management has determined their estimated asbestos clean-up liability is $36,833 thousand and $9,755 

thousand, respectively

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

Statement of Changes in Net Position $ 46,588

.
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-73

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements
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 26,273 114,588 9,393 73,926 201,167 (207,774) 958,914

Total Intragovernmental 69,170 1,214,236 66,246 166,971 96,515 308,392 43,763 246,451 207,444 (612,037) 1,807,151

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 - - 92 3,297 41,416 96,138 - - 259,822

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2010

III-74
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 39,583 $ 4,900,344 $ 497,604 $ 9,306,877 $ 783,421 $ 3,292,066 $ 257,432 $ 1,758,029 $ 21,659 $ - $ 20,857,015

Investments, Net 3,363,736 215,149 - - - - - - 263,900 - 3,842,785

Accounts Receivable, Net 4,021 334,297 188,213 10,372 72,897 137,156 18,612 3,765 46,798 (489,721) 326,410

Other Assets 2,757 199,351 3,025 49,746 55,295 57,512 20,694 347 - (257,739) 130,988

Total Intragovernmental 3,410,097 5,649,141 688,842 9,366,995 911,613 3,486,734 296,738 1,762,141 332,357 (747,460) 25,157,198

Cash and Monetary Assets 160,522 46 - - 10,089 52,058 6,341 738 - - 229,794

Accounts Receivable, Net - 10,144 146 7,208 2,543 31,159 99 19,611 8,914 - 79,824

Inventory and Related Property, Net - 120 2,150 - 6,862 8,804 - 16,533 264,232 - 298,701

Forfeited Property, Net 226,843 - - - - - - - - - 226,843

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 2,071 183,139 254,273 13,781 387,325 1,814,851 196,681 6,239,221 123,684 - 9,215,026

Advances and Prepayments 3 6,907 68 1,337,788 9,241 51,986 853 3,729 4,946 - 1,415,521

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 3,721 1,016 - 4,921

Total Assets $ 3,799,536 $ 5,849,497 $ 945,663 $ 10,725,772 $ 1,327,673 $ 5,445,592 $ 500,712 $ 8,045,694 $ 735,149 $ (747,460) $ 36,627,828

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 67,523 $ 347,723 $ 35,165 $ 50,095 $ 65,505 $ 166,513 $ 18,366 $ 41,402 $ 4,982 $ (488,202) $ 309,072

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 8,973 15,222 136 25,594 32,785 19,751 132,154 1,643 - 236,258

Custodial Liabilities - 133,796 - - 2,310 - - - - - 136,106

Other Liabilities - 178,149 20,878 230,852 21,888 87,513 8,332 62,659 194,192 (259,258) 545,205

Total Intragovernmental 67,523 668,641 71,265 281,083 115,297 286,811 46,449 236,215 200,817 (747,460) 1,226,641

Accounts Payable 628,028 329,785 353,922 29,365 113,778 356,100 46,047 343,619 52,369 - 2,253,013

Accrued Grant Liabilities - 109,498 - 321,721 - - - - - - 431,219

Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 47,504 81,314 494 139,308 176,818 105,498 669,020 13,943 - 1,233,899

Accrued Payroll and Benefits - 114,220 24,728 7,470 52,574 161,029 28,055 125,510 9,118 - 522,704

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities - 178,265 38,931 5,625 93,474 244,863 48,600 162,056 10,363 - 782,177

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - - - 22,112 204 - 22,316

Deferred Revenue 226,843 - - - 269,840 - - 1,625 - - 498,308

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 1,451,259 - - - 575 37,390 2,436 - - - 1,491,660

Contingent Liabilities - - 18,250 - 16,995 128,978 3,500 4,930 - - 172,653

Capital Lease Liabilities - - 1,831 20 - - 3,241 36,956 173 - 42,221

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 343,835 - - - - - - - - 343,835

Other Liabilities - 104,446 - - 67 5,362 110 65,880 - - 175,865

Total Liabilities $ 2,373,653 $ 1,896,194 $ 590,241 $ 645,778 $ 801,908 $ 1,397,351 $ 283,936 $ 1,667,923 $ 286,987 $ (747,460) $ 9,196,511

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ - $ 22,207 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 22,207

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 3,782,236 222,502 5,951,999 540,670 2,114,589 183,607 1,106,922 - - 13,902,525

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,425,883 119,668 - 4,112,981 (100,558) - - 73,049 - - 5,631,023

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - 29,192 132,920 15,014 85,653 1,933,652 33,169 5,197,800 448,162 - 7,875,562

Total Net Position $ 1,425,883 $ 3,953,303 $ 355,422 $ 10,079,994 $ 525,765 $ 4,048,241 $ 216,776 $ 6,377,771 $ 448,162 $ - $ 27,431,317

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 3,799,536 $ 5,849,497 $ 945,663 $ 10,725,772 $ 1,327,673 $ 5,445,592 $ 500,712 $ 8,045,694 $ 735,149 $ (747,460) $ 36,627,828

III-75 Department of Justice - FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2009
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security

Gross Cost - 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 (Revenues) 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 (Revenues) 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 (Revenues) of Operations $ - $ 2,089,125 $ 1,502,071 $ 961,978 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,649,560 $ 93,597 $ (27,448) $ 11,268,883

Total Net Cost (Revenue) 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-76

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report
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 $ - $ 86,405 $ 5,138 $ - $ 13,414 $ 1,143,681 $ - $ - $ - $ (115,280) $ 1,133,358

Gross Cost - With the Public - 254,215 - - 53,144 3,076,513 8,321 - - - 3,392,193

 - 340,620 5,138 - 66,558 4,220,194 8,321 - - (115,280) 4,525,551

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 98,711 - - 501 549,297 - - - (115,280) 533,229

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 15,388 - - 35 11,306 - - - - 26,729

 - 114,099 - - 536 560,603 - - - (115,280) 559,958

$ - $ 226,521 $ 5,138 $ - $ 66,022 $ 3,659,591 $ 8,321 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,965,593

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the Rights and Interests of the American People

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 291,499 $ 1,840,475 $ 4,129 $ 119,310 $ 817,575 $ 1,035,139 $ 339,493 $ - $ - $ (965,591) $ 3,482,029

Gross Cost - With the Public 710,013 3,424,889 - 1,800,666 1,855,073 2,784,534 813,825 6,987 - - 11,395,987

 1,001,512 5,265,364 4,129 1,919,976 2,672,648 3,819,673 1,153,318 6,987 - (965,591) 14,878,016

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 6,723 556,405 - 116,353 409,000 591,269 55,400 - - (965,591) 769,559

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 308,702 - - 183,747 127,420 156 - - - 620,025

 6,723 865,107 - 116,353 592,747 718,689 55,556 - - (965,591) 1,389,584

$ 994,789 $ 4,400,257 $ 4,129 $ 1,803,623 $ 2,079,901 $ 3,100,984 $ 1,097,762 $ 6,987 $ - $ - $ 13,488,432

Goal 3: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,478,170 $ 467,739 $ 105,707 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,398,657 $ 257,133 $ (1,738,020) $ 1,969,386

Gross Cost - With the Public - 678,466 2,324,956 918,605 - - - 5,174,958 804,453 - 9,901,438

 - 2,156,636 2,792,695 1,024,312 - - - 6,573,615 1,061,586 (1,738,020) 11,870,824

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 166,974 1,468,876 58,795 - - - 17,598 918,901 (1,709,671) 921,473

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 31,940 2,589 - - - - 340,003 69,048 - 443,580

 - 198,914 1,471,465 58,795 - - - 357,601 987,949 (1,709,671) 1,365,053

$ - $ 1,957,722 $ 1,321,230 $ 965,517 $ - $ - $ - $ 6,216,014 $ 73,637 $ (28,349) $ 10,505,771

Total Net Cost (Revenue) of Operations $ 994,789 $ 6,584,500 $ 1,330,497 $ 2,769,140 $ 2,145,923 $ 6,760,575 $ 1,106,083 $ 6,223,001 $ 73,637 $ (28,349) $ 27,959,796

Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-77

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009
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

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

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-78

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010
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 1,933,652 33,169 5,197,800 448,162 - 7,875,562

Adjustments:

Changes in Accounting Principles (Note 27)

All Other Funds - - - - - (9,755) - (36,833) - - (46,588)

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-79 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

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 Eliminations Consolidated

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ - $ 44,902 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,902

All Other Funds - 2,669,214 191,625 2,881,349 475,267 1,884,207 167,668 899,745 - - 9,169,075

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 125,076 - - - - - - - - 125,076

All Other Funds - 7,787,138 964,000 5,036,600 1,959,084 7,336,191 1,068,215 6,176,599 - - 30,327,827

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

All Other Funds - (261,192) 354,616 283,817 158,467 (8,978) 16,647 (8,035) - - 535,342

Other Adjustments 

All Other Funds - (109,426) - (121,642) - - - - - - (231,068)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (147,771) - - - - - - - - (147,771)

All Other Funds - (6,303,498) (1,287,739) (2,128,125) (2,052,148) (7,096,831) (1,068,923) (5,961,387) - - (25,898,651)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - (22,695) - - - - - - - - (22,695)

All Other Funds - 1,113,022 30,877 3,070,650 65,403 230,382 15,939 207,177 - - 4,733,450

Net Change

Earmarked Funds - (22,695) - - - - - - - - (22,695)

All Other Funds - 1,113,022 30,877 3,070,650 65,403 230,382 15,939 207,177 - - 4,733,450

Ending 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

Total All Funds $ - $ 3,804,443 $ 222,502 $ 5,951,999 $ 540,670 $ 2,114,589 $ 183,607 $ 1,106,922 $ - $ - $ 13,924,732

III-80

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 1,007,809 $ 79,733 $ - $ 2,955,373 $ (69,174) $ - $ - $ 78,480 $ - $ - $ 4,052,221

All Other Funds - 139,314 143,048 13,519 69,323 1,328,549 35,030 5,249,477 484,031 - 7,462,291

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 1,007,809 79,733 - 2,955,373 (69,174) - - 78,480 - - 4,052,221

All Other Funds - 139,314 143,048 13,519 69,323 1,328,549 35,030 5,249,477 484,031 - 7,462,291

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 147,771 - - - - - - - - 147,771

All Other Funds - 6,303,498 1,287,739 2,128,125 2,052,148 7,096,831 1,068,923 5,961,387 - - 25,898,651

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 10,684 233 - 1,745,678 - - - - - - 1,756,595

All Other Funds - - - 1,171 - - - - - - 1,171

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents

Earmarked Funds 1,376,423 - - - - - - - - - 1,376,423

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 89,948 - - - - - - - - 89,948

Other Budgetary Financing Sources

All Other Funds - (100,000) - - - - - - - - (100,000)

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 68,145 - - - - - - - - - 68,145

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 68 - - 68

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (42,389) - - - 180 - - 7 - - (42,202)

All Other Funds - (88,381) 335 49,215 12,143 61,342 2,173 14,766 6 - 51,599

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds - 1,244 - - 5,953 - - 3,376 - - 10,573

All Other Funds - 160,000 32,295 4,054 60,445 207,505 33,126 186,289 37,762 (28,349) 693,127

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 1,412,863 149,248 - 1,745,678 6,133 - - 3,383 - - 3,317,305

All Other Funds - 6,365,065 1,320,369 2,182,565 2,124,736 7,365,678 1,104,222 6,162,510 37,768 (28,349) 26,634,564

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (994,789) (109,313) - (588,070) (37,517) - - (8,814) - - (1,738,503)

All Other Funds - (6,475,187) (1,330,497) (2,181,070) (2,108,406) (6,760,575) (1,106,083) (6,214,187) (73,637) 28,349 (26,221,293)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds 418,074 39,935 - 1,157,608 (31,384) - - (5,431) - - 1,578,802

All Other Funds - (110,122) (10,128) 1,495 16,330 605,103 (1,861) (51,677) (35,869) - 413,271

Ending 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 1,933,652 33,169 5,197,800 448,162 - 7,875,562

Total All Funds $ 1,425,883 $ 148,860 $ 132,920 $ 4,127,995 $ (14,905) $ 1,933,652 $ 33,169 $ 5,270,849 $ 448,162 $ - $ 13,506,585

U. S. Department of Justice

III-81

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

 Department of Justice •FY 2010 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-82

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-83
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 595,213 $ 651,099 $ 93,320 $ 460,054 $ 161,745 $ 1,076,486 $ 53,971 $ 360,659 $ 97,315 $ 3,549,862

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 79,515 252,846 61,319 106,867 86,345 270,506 80,237 18,899 - 956,534

Budget Authority:

Appropriations Received 1,669,860 8,203,630 964,000 6,782,278 2,193,596 7,336,191 1,068,215 6,176,599 - 34,394,369

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections:

Earned

Collected 7,215 1,845,846 1,482,381 240,818 385,364 1,442,098 61,800 372,994 995,244 6,833,760

Change in Receivables from Federal Sources 2,376 142,149 22,610 599 39,199 (86,453) (5,500) (4,015) 10,301 121,266

Change in Unfilled Customer Orders

Advance Received - 13,671 1,078 (216,745) (9) (26,471) - 352 (17,597) (245,721)

Without Advance from Federal Sources (681) 16,972 9,393 (12,506) 42,199 (121,340) 33,421 - - (32,542)

Subtotal Budget Authority 1,678,770 10,222,268 2,479,462 6,794,444 2,660,349 8,544,025 1,157,936 6,545,930 987,948 41,071,132

Nonexpenditure Transfers, Net, Anticipated and Actual - (171,244) 354,616 283,817 158,467 (8,978) 16,647 (8,035) - 625,290

Temporarily not Available Pursuant to Public Law - - - (1,295,083) - - - - - (1,295,083)

Permanently not Available - (209,438) - (121,642) - - - - - (331,080)

Total Budgetary Resources $ 2,353,498 $ 10,745,531 $ 2,988,717 $ 6,228,457 $ 3,066,906 $ 9,882,039 $ 1,308,791 $ 6,917,453 $ 1,085,263 $ 44,576,655

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations Incurred

Direct $ 1,151,330 $ 7,999,433 $ 1,375,617 $ 5,945,243 $ 2,304,512 $ 7,672,318 $ 1,132,564 $ 6,496,740 $ - $ 34,077,757

Reimbursable 6,723 2,092,114 1,537,439 58,924 438,515 1,149,687 94,032 48,662 1,025,950 6,452,046

Total Obligations Incurred 1,158,053 10,091,547 2,913,056 6,004,167 2,743,027 8,822,005 1,226,596 6,545,402 1,025,950 40,529,803

Unobligated Balance - Available:

Apportioned 539,014 450,832 51,934 225,179 313,155 737,212 44,648 284,574 - 2,646,548

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - - 42,112 59,313 101,425

Total Unobligated Balance - Available 539,014 450,832 51,934 225,179 313,155 737,212 44,648 326,686 59,313 2,747,973

Unobligated Balance not Available 656,431 203,152 23,727 (889) 10,724 322,822 37,547 45,365 - 1,298,879

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 2,353,498 $ 10,745,531 $ 2,988,717 $ 6,228,457 $ 3,066,906 $ 9,882,039 $ 1,308,791 $ 6,917,453 $ 1,085,263 $ 44,576,655

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

III-84
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 $ 909,109 $ 3,271,864 $ 546,861 $ 3,927,350 $ 702,505 $ 2,262,951 $ 215,902 $ 1,120,502 $ 311,873 $ 13,268,917

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 2,327 587,412 191,462 36,317 139,516 792,162 31,288 12,365 36,497 1,829,346

Total Unpaid Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 906,782 2,684,452 355,399 3,891,033 562,989 1,470,789 184,614 1,108,137 275,376 11,439,571

Obligations Incurred 1,158,053 10,091,547 2,913,056 6,004,167 2,743,027 8,822,005 1,226,596 6,545,402 1,025,950 40,529,803

Less: Gross Outlays 1,068,260 8,338,963 2,764,011 3,864,703 2,671,941 8,004,328 1,123,910 6,294,923 1,064,779 35,195,818

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations, Actual 79,515 252,846 61,319 106,867 86,345 270,506 80,237 18,899 - 956,534

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from 

Federal Sources (1,695) (159,121) (32,003) 11,907 (81,399) 207,793 (27,921) 4,015 (10,301) (88,725)

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period:

Unpaid Obligations 919,387 4,771,602 634,587 5,959,947 687,246 2,810,122 238,351 1,352,082 273,044 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 - End of Period $ 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

Outlays

Gross Outlays $ 1,068,260 $ 8,338,963 $ 2,764,011 $ 3,864,703 $ 2,671,941 $ 8,004,328 $ 1,123,910 $ 6,294,923 $ 1,064,779 $ 35,195,818

Less: Offsetting Collections 7,215 1,859,517 1,483,459 24,071 385,354 1,415,627 61,800 373,346 977,646 6,588,035

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 10,684 287,073 (520) 1,362 235,998 1,668 247 2,813 - 539,325

Total Net Outlays $ 1,050,361 $ 6,192,373 $ 1,281,072 $ 3,839,270 $ 2,050,589 $ 6,587,033 $ 1,061,863 $ 5,918,764 $ 87,133 $ 28,068,458

III-85

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 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 - (510,634) - - - - - - - (510,634)

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)

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-86 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2010
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 $ - $ 2,884,775 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,884,775

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 14,224 - - 29,224

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 44,961 - 18 - - 44,979

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal - 22,959 - - - - 38 - - 22,997

Miscellaneous - 108 - - - - 249 - - 357

Total Cash Collections $ - $ 2,907,842 $ - $ - $ 59,961 $ - $ 14,529 $ - $ - $ 2,982,332

Accrual Adjustments - - - - 211 - (23) - - 188

Total Custodial Revenue $ - $ 2,907,842 $ - $ - $ 60,172 $ - $ 14,506 $ - $ - $ 2,982,520

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (92,073) - - - - - - - (92,073)

U.S. Department of Commerce - (771) - - - - - - - (771)

U.S. Department of the Interior - (25,059) - - - - - - - (25,059)

U.S. Department of Justice - (123,787) - - - - - - - (123,787)

U.S. Department of Labor - (528) - - - - - - - (528)

U.S. Postal Service - (4,435) - - - - - - - (4,435)

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (294,619) - - (59,961) - (14,210) - - (368,790)

Office of Personnel Management - (19,833) - - - - - - - (19,833)

National Credit Union Administration - (470) - - - - - - - (470)

Federal Communications Commission - (9,773) - - - - - - - (9,773)

Social Security Administration - (982) - - - - - - - (982)

Smithsonian Institution - (8) - - - - - - - (8)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (28,710) - - - - - - - (28,710)

General Services Administration - (116,631) - - - - - - - (116,631)

Securities and Exchange Commission - (4) - - - - - - - (4)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (1,958) - - - - - - - (1,958)

Railroad Retirement Board - (335) - - - - - - - (335)

Tennessee Valley Authority - (4,207) - - - - - - - (4,207)

Environmental Protection Agency - (223,334) - - - - - - - (223,334)

U.S. Department of Transportation - (1,357) - - - - - - - (1,357)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (17,169) - - - - - - - (17,169)

Small Business Administration - (5,332) - - - - - - - (5,332)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (1,367,320) - - - - - - - (1,367,320)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (2,957) - - - - - - - (2,957)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (18,347) - - - - - - - (18,347)

U.S. Department of Energy - (4,065) - - - - - - - (4,065)

U.S. Department of Education - (18,003) - - - - - - - (18,003)

Independent Agencies - (54,916) - - - - - - - (54,916)

U.S. Department of Defense - (113,023) - - - - - - - (113,023)

Transferred to the Public - (329,816) - - - - - - - (329,816)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - 55,779 - - (211) - - - - 55,568

Refunds and Other Payments - (622) - - - - (296) - - (918)

Retained by the Reporting Entity - (83,177) - - - - - - - (83,177)

Net Custodial Activity $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2009

 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-87
III-88 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-89

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information Unaudited
U. S. Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report III-90

U.S. Department of Justice

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information 

Consolidated Stewardship Investments

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2007 and 2006

In Thousands

The Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In Sentencing (VOI/TIS) and the Correctional Grants 

for Tribal Programs are administered by OJP’s Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The VOI/TIS 

and Correctional Grants for Tribal Land programs provide grants to all states as well as the District 

of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, 

and Tribes for the purposes of building or expanding correctional facilities and jails to increase 

secure confinement space for violent offenders. The facilities built or expanded with these funds 

constitute non-federal physical property. 

The Recovery Act Correctional Facilities on Tribal Lands Program and the Correctional Facilities on 

Tribal Lands Program assist tribes in cost effectively constructing and renovating correctional 

facilities associated with the incarceration and rehabilitation of juvenile and adult offenders subject 

to tribal jurisdiction. In addition, this funding allows tribes to explore community-based alternatives 

to help control and prevent jail overcrowding due to alcohol and other substance abuse. The Bureau 

of Justice Assistance administers both programs in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

VOI/TIS and Correctional Grants for Tribal Lands funds expended from FY 2006 through FY 2010

are as follows:

Dollars in Thousands 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006

Cooperative Agreement Program 

Administered by USMS $0 $0 $1,140 $2,839 $2,521 

Discretionary Grants to Indian 

Tribes 24,768 14,320 5,094 11,334 4,007

Formula Grants to States 11,389 41,561 59,011 188,171 222,650

Total $ 36,157 $55,881 $65,245 $202,344 $229,178

 


Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-1

Management Section 

(Unaudited) 

Each year, the Department identifies existing and potential management challenges, weaknesses, and areas in 

need of improvement. Two primary sources used to identify these issues are the Department’s OIG-identified 

Top Management and Performance Challenges and the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) 

assessment process. The challenges identified by the Department’s OIG are from an auditor’s perspective and 

include areas of concern that bear significantly on how well the Department carries out its mission and meets 

its responsibilities as a steward of public funds. The FMFIA assessment process evaluates the effectiveness of 

internal controls to support effective and efficient programmatic operations and compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations (FMFIA § 2) and whether financial management systems conform to government-wide 

requirements (FMFIA § 4). 

Presented on the following pages are the OIG-identified Top Management and Performance Challenges in the 

Department, Department management’s response to those challenges, and the corrective action plans resulting 

from the FMFIA assessment. 

Section IV

Overview
IV-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-3

Top Management and Performance

Challenges in the Department of Justice

November 9, 2010

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

THE ACTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: GLENN A. FINE

INSPECTOR GENERAL

SUBJECT: Top Management and Performance Challenges

in the Department of Justice

Attached to this memorandum is the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) 

2010 list of top management and performance challenges facing the Department of 

Justice (Department). We have prepared similar lists since 1998. By statute, this 

list is required to be included in the Department’s annual Performance and 

Accountability Report.

We hope this document will assist Department managers in addressing the 

top management and performance challenges facing the Department. We look 

forward to continuing to work with the Department to respond to these important 

issues.

Attachment

OIG
IV-4 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-5

Top Management and Performance Challenges 

in the Department of Justice – 2010 

1. Counterterrorism: Counterterrorism is the highest priority of the Department of Justice 

(Department or DOJ), and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has consistently identified it 

as a top management challenge facing the Department. Various public examples of terrorism 

attempts, including the attempt on December 25, 2009, to detonate an explosive device on board 

a flight from Amsterdam to Detroit and the attempt on May 1, 2010, to detonate a bomb in Times 

Square in New York City, illustrate the continuing threat of terrorism. While the Department has 

made progress in combating terrorism, we believe the Department continues to face significant 

challenges in this area. 

To address the threat of terrorism, the Department has undergone transformational changes in its 

counterterrorism efforts, such as the creation of the National Security Division in 2006 to 

consolidate the Department’s primary national security operations. In addition, the Department’s 

law enforcement components, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), and the United States Marshals Service (USMS), have undergone structural changes 

since 2001 to allow them to better address terrorism. Yet, the Department must ensure that it and 

its components are effectively sharing that information to disrupt attacks and to respond 

effectively to acts of terrorism. 

The Department also must be prepared to ensure public safety in the event of a terrorist act. In a 

recent review, the OIG concluded that the Department needs to improve its response 

preparedness. The OIG’s June 2010 report on the readiness of the Department and its 

components to respond to a potential weapons of mass destruction (WMD) incident found that 

the FBI had taken appropriate steps to prepare to respond to a WMD attack, such as establishing 

WMD response plans, providing WMD training to FBI staff on responding to a WMD incident, 

and regularly conducting and participating in WMD response exercises. However, we also 

found that the Department as a whole was not fully prepared to provide a coordinated response to 

a potential WMD attack and had not implemented adequate WMD response plans. 

In particular, the Department’s management of plans for responding to a WMD attack was 

uncoordinated and fragmented, with no entity or individual assigned responsibility for central 

oversight of WMD response activities throughout the Department. We also determined that 

Department-level critical incident response policies and plans had not been fully implemented, 

were not in compliance with national policies, were outdated, and did not specifically address the 

appropriate response to a WMD attack. In addition, we found inadequate efforts among 

Department components to coordinate a response to a WMD incident. No Department law 

enforcement component, other than the FBI, had specific WMD operational response plans. 

Moreover, other than the FBI, Department components provided little to no training for 

responding to a WMD incident and rarely participated in WMD exercises. 
IV-6 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

In addition, while the Department had designated ATF as the lead agency to coordinate the use 

of federal law enforcement resources to maintain public safety and security if local and state 

resources are overwhelmed during a WMD incident, ATF had not adequately prepared for this 

role. When we specifically examined the readiness of Department components’ field offices in 

the Washington National Capital Region (NCR) to respond in a coordinated way to a WMD 

incident, we found that outside of special events, only the FBI had conducted WMD-specific 

planning or training in the NCR. 

The Department responded constructively to our report, assigning the Associate Deputy Attorney 

General for National Security the responsibility for coordinating all Department policies 

associated with continuity of operations, continuity of government, and emergency response at 

the scene of an incident. The Department also established a committee to develop policy, 

training, and strategies to ensure that the Department as a whole is ready to respond to a WMD 

incident. While the Department has begun to address the deficiencies we identified, we will 

continue to assess the progress of the Department in this area. 

Another example of insufficient counterterrorism coordination among Department components 

relates to the FBI and ATF response to explosives incidents. Federal law gives the FBI and ATF 

concurrent jurisdiction over most federal explosives incidents. In an October 2009 review, we 

determined that the FBI and ATF had developed separate and often conflicting approaches to 

explosives investigations and explosives-related activities such as training, information sharing, 

and forensic analysis. These conflicts resulted in unnecessary competition and duplication of 

efforts and also could result in problematic responses to explosions, including terrorist incidents. 

In response to our report, in August 2010 the Acting Deputy Attorney General issued a new 

protocol designed to improve coordination between the FBI and ATF. The protocol described 

factors that are strong indicators of a nexus to terrorism – such as the use of a chemical, 

biological, radiological, or nuclear agent or an attack on a government building, mass transit, or a 

power plant – and assigned lead-agency jurisdiction based on those factors to the FBI. The new 

protocol gave ATF lead jurisdiction to investigate explosives incidents that do not involve a 

credible terrorism nexus and which are not governed by agreements between ATF and FBI either 

locally or at the headquarters. The Acting Deputy Attorney General also directed ATF and the 

FBI to develop a joint plan for consolidated explosives training and to convene a board to discuss 

how laboratory resources and training could be better coordinated and integrated. 

We believe these actions are positive steps that can improve coordination between the FBI and 

ATF. However, the Department needs to ensure that its protocols are workable and are enforced, 

and that the FBI and ATF consistently coordinate and cooperate in explosives investigations. 

Another important Department counterterrorism responsibility involves the management of the 

consolidated terrorist watchlist. This watchlist is used by frontline government screening 

personnel to determine how to respond when a known or suspected terrorist requests entry into 

the United States. In May 2009 the OIG issued an audit examining the FBI’s practices for 

making nominations to the consolidated terrorist watchlist. The audit concluded that the FBI did 

not consistently nominate known or suspected terrorists to the terrorist watchlist in a timely 

manner or in accordance with FBI policy, and the FBI also did not update or remove watchlist 

records as required. Since we issued our report, the FBI has reported that it has improved the 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-7

timeliness of its nomination activities and has increased its monitoring of field office 

submissions. The OIG recently initiated a new review of the FBI’s management of the watchlist 

to assess the progress in this area. 

The Department also seeks to disrupt terrorist acts by attacking terrorists’ financing. The OIG is 

currently reviewing the FBI’s and the National Security Division’s (NSD) efforts to identify, 

investigate, and prosecute terrorist-related financing activities. Our audit is also reviewing how 

the FBI and NSD coordinate efforts throughout the law enforcement community to combat 

terrorist-financing operations. 

In addition to improving information sharing and coordination, the Department also should 

regularly evaluate the balance of resources devoted to counterterrorism and traditional law 

enforcement activities. In April 2010, we issued a report that examined the process by which the 

FBI assigns its personnel resources, including how the FBI utilizes agents and intelligence 

analysts on counterterrorism matters and other investigative areas such as violent crime, white 

collar crime, and cyber crime. Our review also detailed changes in the FBI’s caseload by 

investigative area. 

We determined that in fiscal year (FY) 2009, 26 percent of FBI agents were assigned to 

counterterrorism matters, which was double the percentage of agents assigned to such matters in 

FY 2001. We also found that the FBI generally used field agents in line with the level it 

allocated for counterterrorism activities in FY 2009. In addition, we found that the FBI has 

improved its ability to monitor and evaluate its allocation and utilization of personnel resources 

by establishing a Resource Planning Office and by developing an extensive management 

information system. In addition, the FBI has established various resource management 

initiatives to oversee the allocation and utilization of personnel resources. 

Our report recommended that, to further improve the allocation of resources, including 

counterterrorism resources, the FBI should develop a more sophisticated resource allocation 

methodology and regularly examine personnel resource utilization associated with divisionspecific priorities. In recent correspondence, the FBI stated that it has implemented such a 

resource allocation methodology and is taking action to implement the rest of our 

recommendations. We believe that these actions can improve the FBI’s management of its 

personnel resources based on a risk-based analysis of threats and FBI priorities. 

The Department is also faced with the challenge of hiring employees with specialized skills that 

are essential to its counterterrorism efforts, such as employees with foreign language capabilities 

or expertise in information technology. In a follow-up review we conducted of the FBI’s 

Foreign Language Translation Program, we reported that the FBI continued to have significant 

amounts of unreviewed foreign language materials in counterterrorism and counterintelligence, 

the FBI’s highest priority investigative areas. The FBI also continued to fall short in meeting its 

linguist hiring goals, resulting in a decrease in the number of FBI linguists at the same time the 

FBI has increased the amount of material it collects for translation. Without sufficient linguist 

resources, the FBI will not be able to review all the high-priority material it collects, increasing 

the risk that the FBI will not detect information in its possession that is important to its 

counterterrorism and counterintelligence efforts. In response to our report, the FBI stated that it 
IV-8 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

is in the process of accelerating timeframes for converting part-time contract linguists to fulltime FBI linguist positions and is implementing plans to add Investigative Analyst Consultants to 

assist in reducing timeframes for security clearance adjudications. 

In sum, the Department must continue to improve information sharing and coordination in its 

counterterrorism efforts, and we believe that counterterrorism remains a critical challenge for the 

Department. 

2. Restoring Confidence in the Department of Justice: We first identified this as a top 

management challenge after the controversy concerning the Department’s firing of U.S. 

Attorneys and the politicized hiring of certain career Department employees. We believe the 

Department has taken aggressive steps to respond to these issues. However, other issues of 

concern persist, such as allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and the Department’s ability to 

address these allegations in a timely and transparent manner. We believe that restoring 

confidence in the Department remains a top management challenge. 

In 2008 and 2009 the OIG and the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) 

issued three joint reports that substantiated serious allegations of improper politicization in hiring 

for career attorney positions in the Department’s Honors Program and Summer Law Intern 

Program, for other career positions, and in the Civil Rights Division. Another joint OIG/OPR 

report concluded that partisan political considerations played a part in the Department’s removal 

of U.S. Attorneys in 2006. 

To correct problems we found in these reviews, the Department has taken important steps, such 

as returning the responsibility for hiring career employees from politically appointed officials to 

career employees and developing new training that stresses that the process for hiring career 

employees must be merit based. The Department also invited individuals who had applied to the 

Department’s Honors Program in 2006 and who may have been excluded for reasons of political 

affiliation to reapply. The Department offered positions to 17 of the 54 attorneys who chose to 

reapply and interview for the positions. 

In addition, the former Attorney General appointed a special counsel to investigate whether any 

crime was committed related to removal of the U.S. Attorneys. That investigation was 

concluded in July 2010 with a determination by the special counsel that the evidence “did not 

demonstrate any prosecutable criminal offense” was committed with regard to the removal of 

U.S. Attorney David Iglesias of New Mexico and that the evidence did not justify broadening the 

scope of the investigation beyond the removal of Iglesias. The special counsel also concluded 

“that DOJ leadership never determined whether the complaints about Mr. Iglesias were 

legitimate and that the fact that the investigation of the complaints about Iglesias’s performance 

never occurred bespeaks undue sensitivity to politics on the part of DOJ officials who should 

answer not to partisan politics but to principles of fairness and justice.” 

Although the Department has addressed most of the recommendations in the OIG/OPR reports, it 

still has not fully addressed one recommendation. We found that the Department had considered 

certain career attorneys’ political or ideological affiliations when deciding whether to approve 

temporary details of these attorneys to certain high-level Department positions. We 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-9

recommended that the Department clarify the circumstances under which political or ideological 

considerations may be considered when assessing career candidates for details to various 

Department positions. The Department agreed with the recommendation but has not yet 

implemented corrective action. 

The Department has been subject to significant criticism for some of its prosecutorial actions, 

including allegations of misconduct in the prosecution of former Alaska Senator Ted Stevens. 

Articles have also focused attention on other allegations of misconduct by federal prosecutors 

and the process by which the Department investigates such allegations. For example, a recent 

study released in October 2010 by the Northern California Innocence Project found 64 cases in 

California where courts determined there was prosecutorial misconduct by federal attorneys. In 

38 of those cases, the federal courts found the misconduct resulted in harmful error and either set 

aside the conviction or sentence, declared a mistrial, or barred the introduction of certain 

evidence. 

The Department has taken a variety of actions to address the issue of prosecutorial misconduct. 

For example, in January 2010 the Department issued a document entitled Guidance for 

Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery, which provides requirements for prosecutors’ 

discovery obligations, such as what material must be reviewed, how the review should be 

conducted, and how disclosure should be made. The Department also appointed a National 

Coordinator of Criminal Discovery Initiatives to oversee training for prosecutors, supervise the 

creation of centralized resource materials, and oversee other projects relating to criminal 

prosecutions. All Department prosecutors are now required to annually complete 2 hours of 

training on the government’s criminal disclosure obligations and policies, and new prosecutors 

are required to complete more extensive training on this topic within their first 12 months of 

employment. In addition, the Department has designated “discovery experts” in all 94 

United States Attorneys’ Offices and in the Department’s criminal litigating components. The 

Department also plans to reconvene a Computer Forensics Working Group to address the 

problem of properly cataloging electronically stored information recovered as part of federal 

investigations. These initiatives demonstrate commitment by the Department to improving 

training for prosecutors and for seeking to prevent prosecutorial misconduct. 

However, we believe the Department faces additional challenges in ensuring that it has an 

adequate process to investigate and hold accountable any Department attorneys who commit 

professional misconduct. The transparency, effectiveness, and timeliness of the Department’s 

internal process to address allegations of prosecutorial misconduct have been questioned, and we 

believe the Department should take action to improve the transparency of that process. For 

example, OPR, the internal entity that investigates allegations of prosecutorial misconduct by 

Department attorneys, has taken steps during the past 2 years to address the backlog in its annual 

reports and to more promptly post its annual reports containing summaries of its investigations of 

allegations of prosecutorial misconduct. However, these reports provide only limited details on 

the cases and the basis of OPR’s conclusions. The Acting Deputy Attorney General recently 

stated that the Attorney General has directed the Department “to work on finding ways to make 

more information available to the public about these matters.” We believe this is one important 

step. However, we believe that the timeliness and transparency of the Department’s internal 
IV-10 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

processes for addressing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct need improvement to increase 

public confidence in the Department’s ability to address such allegations. 

Allegations have also arisen regarding the enforcement of federal voting rights law by the Voting 

Section of the Civil Rights Division. The OIG recently initiated a review of the enforcement of 

civil rights laws by the Voting Section that will examine the types of cases brought by the Voting 

Section over time, any changes in Voting Section enforcement policies or procedures, 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. 

The actions of the Department’s law enforcement components can also affect the public’s 

confidence in Department operations. For example, the Department must strive to ensure that it 

abides by the Attorney General’s Guidelines for conducting investigations and does not 

improperly infringe on First Amendment rights in its investigations. In September 2010 the OIG 

issued a report concerning allegations that the FBI had targeted certain domestic advocacy 

groups for scrutiny based upon their exercise of rights guaranteed under the First Amendment to 

the United States Constitution. In this review, we examined whether the FBI complied with the 

Attorney General’s Guidelines in classifying and conducting certain investigations. Our review 

did not find that the FBI had targeted these groups for investigation on the basis of their First 

Amendment activities, but we concluded that the factual basis for opening some of the 

investigations of individuals affiliated with the groups was factually weak, that the FBI extended 

the duration of investigations in some cases involving advocacy groups or their members without 

adequate basis, and that in a few instances the FBI improperly retained information about the 

groups in its files. Our findings about this report are discussed in more detail in our discussion 

of the Department’s challenge in protecting civil rights and liberties. 

In September 2010 we also issued a report which found that a significant number of FBI 

employees had cheated on the FBI exam regarding the Domestic Investigations and Operations 

Guide (DIOG). The DIOG implements the Attorney General’s Consolidated Guidelines for FBI 

Domestic Operations, which were issued in 2007 and replaced several older sets of guidelines 

that separately addressed the requirements FBI agents must follow in criminal investigations, 

national security investigations, and foreign intelligence collection. When the DIOG was 

implemented, the FBI assured Congress that the new guidelines “take seriously the need to 

ensure compliance and provide for meaningful oversight to protect privacy rights and civil 

liberties” and that the FBI would ensure that the FBI complied with the new guidelines. We 

credited the FBI for implementing comprehensive training on the DIOG and for requiring 

employees to take and pass a computerized 51-question exam concerning this guide. However, 

in our limited investigation of four FBI field offices, we found that a significant number of FBI 

employees had engaged in some form of cheating or improper conduct on the DIOG exam, some 

in clear violation of FBI directives regarding the exam. For example, some FBI employees 

consulted with others while taking the exam when that was specifically forbidden by the testtaking protocols. Others used or distributed answer sheets or study guides that essentially 

provided the answers to the test. A few exploited a programming flaw to reveal the answers to 

the exam. Almost all of those who cheated falsely certified on the final question of the exam that 

they had not consulted with others. We recommended that the FBI take action regarding those 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-11

who cheated on the DIOG exam, consider other appropriate steps to determine whether other test 

takers engaged in similar inappropriate conduct, and also conduct a new exam on the revised 

DIOG. We are awaiting the FBI’s response to these recommendations, which we believe can 

restore confidence that all FBI agents recognize the critical importance of complying with the 

Attorney General’s Guidelines. 

In sum, the Department should continue to focus attention on meeting the challenge of restoring 

confidence in the Department. 

3. Law Enforcement Issues Along the Southwest Border: Organized criminal activities 

along the 2,000-mile U.S. border with Mexico present stark challenges for the Department. 

According to the Department’s 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment, most of the illicit drugs 

in the United States and thousands of illegal immigrants are smuggled across the border from 

Mexico by crime cartels. Criminal activity also occurs in the other direction across the border, 

with firearms and currency smuggled from the United States into Mexico. This year we have 

added law enforcement issues along the Southwest Border as one of the top management 

challenges for the Department. 

To combat violent crime, gun smuggling, drug trafficking, and illegal immigration along the 

Southwest Border, the Department created the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative, which 

seeks to promote cooperation and enhanced intelligence and enforcement activities to attack 

major Mexican-based trafficking organizations on both sides of the border. The initiative is a 

cooperative effort among the Department’s law enforcement components and United States 

Attorneys’ Offices, the Department of Homeland Security, and many state and local law 

enforcement agencies. 

ATF’s Project Gunrunner is a key component of the Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative. 

Project Gunrunner is intended to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and the high 

level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border. An OIG review of 

Project Gunrunner found that an increase in ATF’s program activities related to firearms 

trafficking from the United States to Mexico, but we also found that significant weaknesses in 

Project Gunrunner implementation undermined its effectiveness. For example, our review found 

poor coordination and collaboration between ATF and other Department components, and 

between ATF and units of the Mexican government. In addition, ATF does not systematically 

and consistently exchange intelligence with its Mexican agency contacts and some U.S. partner 

agencies. Some ATF field agents reported that they do not find investigative leads provided to 

them by ATF’s Field Intelligence Groups to be timely and usable. Intelligence personnel in 

ATF’s Southwest Border field divisions also do not routinely share firearms trafficking 

intelligence with each other. Moreover, ATF’s focus remains largely on inspections of gun 

dealers and investigations of straw purchasers, rather than on higher-level traffickers, smugglers, 

and the ultimate recipients of the trafficked guns. ATF also is not using intelligence effectively 

to identify and target firearms trafficking organizations operating along the Southwest Border 

and in Mexico. 

In September 2010, after we had provided our draft report to ATF, ATF circulated a revised 

strategy for combating firearms trafficking to Mexico and related violence. ATF’s new strategy 
IV-12 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

includes 13 key elements, such as closer coordination with other law enforcement agencies, 

particularly related to intelligence on drug cartels; the need to improve intelligence collection, 

sharing, and analysis and the prioritization of leads; improved coordination with Southwest 

border field divisions and ATF’s Mexico Country Office, including the use of Border Liaison 

Officers; focusing investigations on complex conspiracy cases and entire trafficking rings; 

greater use of the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force Program; and 

improved investigative coordination and intelligence sharing with Mexican law enforcement, 

including on gun tracing. We believe ATF’s strategy can address many of the weaknesses 

identified in our review, but development of an implementation plan – with defined goals, 

specific actions, and resources – is essential to the success of this new strategy. 

The OIG’s report on the El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC), a multi-agency intelligence center 

funded primarily by the DEA, also identified improvements that are needed in intelligence 

relating to Southwest Border drug smuggling and associated violence. We found that EPIC’s 

partner agencies and users regard EPIC’s products and services as valuable and useful, but we 

identified weaknesses that have hindered EPIC’s effectiveness. For example, EPIC did not 

analyze some information that it alone collected regarding drug seizures, fraudulently used 

documents, and activities of drug traffickers. As a result, EPIC was likely overlooking drug 

trafficking trends and patterns that could assist interdiction investigations and operations. In 

addition, EPIC’s coordination with federal and state intelligence organizations across the country 

was inconsistent, and federal agencies’ requests for information from EPIC’s databases have 

been declining since 2005 at the same time the Department’s focus on trafficking and associated 

violence on the Southwest border was increasing. 

In response to the OIG’s recommendations regarding EPIC, the DEA reported it has taken steps 

to improve EPIC’s systems for sharing information with federal, state, and local law enforcement 

users, and that EPIC is improving its capability to use seizure information to better identify 

vulnerabilities along the Southwest Border. Also, according to the DEA, EPIC will provide 

better access to its fraudulent documents database to authorized law enforcement agencies, 

including the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and 

EPIC is incorporating performance metrics in its strategic plan. 

In addition to addressing violent crime and drug trafficking problems, the Department also plays 

a key role in immigration policy and enforcement along the Southwest Border. The 

Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review is responsible for operating 59 

immigration courts. In our 2008 report on allegations of politicized hiring of immigration 

judges, we noted that the hiring deficiencies contributed to the increasing workload of 

immigration judges. The backlog of immigration cases has continued to grow due to an 

increasing caseload and unfilled vacancies on the immigration court. We are now conducting a 

review that is examining the operation of the immigration courts, the backlog in immigration 

cases, and other issues that affect the Department’s enforcement of immigration laws. 

In sum, while the Department has increased its efforts to address violent crime and illegal 

immigration along the Southwest Border, recent OIG reviews have highlighted the need for 

stronger coordination among the Department’s components and between the Department and 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-13

other agencies. We believe that the difficult issues confronting law enforcement agencies along 

the Southwest Border make this a top management challenge for the Department. 

4. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: At the same time that the Department is pursuing its 

counterterrorism and law enforcement responsibilities, the Department must also seek to protect 

civil rights and civil liberties. As Director FBI Mueller recently stated: 

If we safeguard our civil liberties, but leave our country vulnerable to a terrorist 

attack, we have lost. If we protect America from terrorism, but sacrifice civil 

liberties, we have also lost. We must work to strike that balance, every day, in 

every case. 

Several of our recent reviews demonstrate the challenges the Department faces in pursuing this 

balance. For example, as noted above in the challenge on restoring confidence in the 

Department, in September 2010 we issued a report concerning allegations that the FBI targeted 

certain domestic advocacy groups for scrutiny based upon their exercise of rights guaranteed 

under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The OIG review examined FBI 

activities from 2001 through 2006 related to domestic advocacy groups such as the Thomas 

Merton Center, Greenpeace, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the Catholic 

Worker. Our review did not find that the FBI had targeted any of the groups for investigation on 

the basis of their First Amendment activities. However, we concluded that the FBI did not 

always act consistently with its policy requiring “strict compliance” with the Attorney General’s 

Guidelines in certain cases implicating First Amendment rights. We found that the factual basis 

for opening some of the investigations of individuals affiliated with the groups was weak, that 

the FBI extended the duration of some investigations involving advocacy groups or their 

members without adequate basis, and that in a few instances the FBI improperly retained 

information about the groups in its files. The FBI also classified some investigations relating to 

nonviolent civil disobedience under its “Acts of Terrorism” classification, which resulted in the 

watchlisting of subjects during the pendency of the investigation. 

Our report recommended that the FBI should 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 advocacy groups or their members for activities connected to 

the exercise of their First Amendment rights. We also recommended that the Department and the 

FBI consider whether the current Attorney General’s Guidelines and FBI policies should be 

modified to reinstate the prohibition on retaining information from public events that is not 

related to potential criminal or terrorist activity. In addition, we recommended that the FBI and 

the Department provide further guidance on when cases involving First Amendment issues 

should be classified as Acts of Terrorism matters and when they should not. The FBI stated that 

it concurred with the recommendations in our report, and we believe the FBI should take prompt 

action to ensure that these recommendations are implemented. 

The need for an appropriate balance between the Department’s counterterrorism and law 

enforcement responsibilities and the need to protect civil rights and civil liberties was also 

highlighted by an OIG report examining the FBI’s use of exigent letters and other processes to 

obtain telephone records without legal process. In addition to prior reports on the FBI’s misuse 
IV-14 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

of national security letters (NSL), in January 2010 the OIG issued a review that examined the 

extent of the FBI’s use of exigent letters and other informal requests, rather than properly issued 

NSLs, to obtain telephone records between 2003 and 2006. We found misuse of exigent letters 

and widespread use of other improper and even more informal requests for telephone records, 

such as requests made by e-mail, face to face, on post-it notes, and by telephone. The FBI also 

had obtained telephone records using a practice referred to by the FBI and the providers as 

“sneak peeks.” Our report described other troubling incidents regarding such requests, including 

improper requests for reporters’ telephone records; inaccurate statements made by the FBI to the 

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court; improper use of administrative subpoenas; and serious 

lapses in training, supervision, and oversight regarding the use of NSLs. 

In response to our reports on NSLs and the use of exigent letters, the FBI has taken significant 

steps to correct deficiencies we identified. For example, the FBI has implemented an automated 

system to generate and track NSLs and ensure accurate reports to Congress and the public on 

NSL usage. The FBI also issued NSL guidance memoranda, conducted training of FBI field and 

Headquarters personnel on the proper use of NSLs, and created a new Office of Integrity and 

Compliance modeled after private sector compliance programs. In addition, the Department’s 

National Security Division has instituted periodic national security reviews of FBI field and 

Headquarters divisions to assess whether the FBI is using various investigative and intelligence 

techniques, including NSLs, in accordance with applicable laws, guidelines, and policies. We 

are currently assessing the effectiveness of the FBI’s corrective actions in these areas. 

The OIG is also conducting additional reviews addressing the challenge the Department faces in 

balancing its counterterrorism and law enforcement responsibilities with protecting individual 

civil rights and civil liberties. For example, Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008 (Act) authorizes the targeting of non-U.S. persons 

reasonably believed to be outside the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information. 

The Act requires the OIG to examine the number of disseminated FBI intelligence reports that

contain a reference to a U.S. person identity, the number of U.S. person identities subsequently 

disseminated in response to requests for identities not referred to by name or title in the original 

reporting, the number of targets later determined to be located in the United States, and whether 

communications of such targets were reviewed. Our review is also examining the FBI’s 

compliance with the targeting and minimization procedures required under FISA. 

In sum, the Department must continually focus on implementing appropriate training, policies, 

controls, and oversight mechanisms to make certain that the Department protects civil rights and 

civil liberties while at the same time aggressively pursuing its counterterrorism and law 

enforcement responsibilities. 

5. Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and Security: The 

Department’s planning, implementation, and security of its information technology (IT) systems 

form an increasingly difficult challenge, and the Department’s track record in this area is uneven. 

The Department annually spends almost $3 billion on planning, implementing, and securing its 

many complex IT systems. The Department must plan those systems so that they keep pace with 

technological innovations and meet the changing IT needs of the Department. At the same time, 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-15

the Department must seek to implement those systems in a timely and cost-effective fashion and 

ensure the security of those systems. 

As noted in previous years’ top management challenges, the Department has experienced 

significant problems in developing and implementing these IT systems. Several of the 

Department’s major IT initiatives have failed to meet their objectives after hundreds of millions 

of dollars were expended. Some of these IT systems have taken so long to develop that they 

were technologically outdated by the time they were ready to be implemented. 

Yet, the Department still uses a decentralized system for development of IT projects, which 

results in higher costs and duplicate IT solutions to common business processes. The 

Department IT Investment Review Board (DIRB), which is chaired by the Deputy Attorney 

General, attempts to monitor the progress of the Department’s most important IT investments 

and annually reviews each component’s IT investment portfolio. However, the DIRB’s lack of 

direct line authority over IT project development makes it dependent on the components for 

information about IT projects and reduces its ability to prevent problems in the development of 

IT systems. 

As evidence of the Department’s difficulties in this area, in August 2010 the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) issued a list of 26 high-risk IT projects across the federal 

government that “experienced problems such as significant cost increases or schedule delays.” 

That list contained three Department projects – the FBI’s Sentinel Project to develop a case 

management information system, the Justice Management Division’s Litigation Case 

Management System (LCMS) project to develop a case management information system for all 

seven of the Department’s litigating divisions, and the FBI’s Next Generation Identification 

(NGI) project to develop a state-of-the-art automated system for sharing fingerprint and other 

biometric information. We share OMB’s concern over these three IT systems. 

 

With regard to Sentinel, when the FBI awarded a contract to Lockheed Martin in March 2006 to 

develop Sentinel, the FBI estimated that it would cost a total of $425 million and be completed 

by December 2009. In a report issued in October 2010, the seventh of our reports on the 

development of Sentinel, we found that Sentinel is at least 2 years behind schedule and at least 

$100 million over budget. According to its original plan, Sentinel was to be fully completed by 

now. However, after spending about $405 million of the $451 million budgeted for the Sentinel 

project, the FBI has delivered only two of Sentinel’s four phases to its agents and analysts. 

Moreover, we believe that the most challenging development work for Sentinel still remains. 

The FBI recently announced a new plan for completing Sentinel. According to this new plan, the 

FBI will employ a new “agile methodology” and assume direct management of Sentinel 

development, reducing the role of Lockheed Martin as the prime contractor. Our initial 

consideration of the plan raises significant concerns and questions about the FBI’s approach, 

including concerns relating to the cost, schedule, and amount of work to complete Sentinel. We 

are also concerned that budget and schedule constraints might reduce the functionality ultimately 

delivered to the FBI’s agents and analysts. We will continue to monitor the progress of Sentinel. 

The second high risk Department project identified by OMB, the LCMS project, has been under 

development since 2004. LCMS, which was intended to be a centralized IT case management 
IV-16 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

system for approximately 14,500 authorized users in the Department’s seven litigating divisions, 

was originally estimated to cost about $42 million and to be completed by December 2010. Yet, 

in an audit report issued in March 2009 we found that the LCMS project was more than 2 years 

behind schedule, approximately $20 million over budget, and at significant risk of not meeting 

the Department’s requirements for litigation case management. 

The reasons for the delays and cost overruns in LCMS were similar to problems we have 

identified with the implementation of other Department IT systems. Specifically, we found an 

ineffective requirements planning processes for LCMS, requirements being modified after much 

work had been done, defects identified in system integration and user acceptance that were costly 

to correct, and the failure to adequately address in a timely fashion the difficulties the contractor 

was having in meeting schedule and cost requirements. Because of these deficiencies OMB’s 

Chief Information Officer recently reported that the Department has decided to terminate the 

LCMS project. As a result, millions of dollars in development of this IT system were spent in an 

unsuccessful attempt to develop a consolidated system, and the Department still struggles with 

decentralized, disparate litigation case management systems. 

The third Department high-risk project identified by OMB is the FBI’s Next Generation 

Identification (NGI) project, which is intended to enhance the existing capabilities of the FBI’s 

current fingerprint identification system and provide searching capability for other types of 

biometric identification, such as palm prints, iris scans, and tattoos. NGI is intended to 

significantly reduce the amount of time needed to conduct searches for high-priority records. 

The FBI has requested $2.7 billion for this project from FY 2006 through FY 2010, and the 

project is expected to be completed by 2017. According to the OMB’s “Federal IT Dashboard,” 

the total cost of NGI is expected to be $3.4 billion through its completion in FY 2017. One of 

the key challenges for this high-dollar project is to contain its cost while implementing a design 

that can accommodate new types of biometric evidence as they become available. 

The issues associated with these three projects mirror problems that the Department has 

experienced in the development of other IT systems. For example, the OIG identified similar IT 

system implementation issues in a March 2010 OIG review regarding the backlog of forensic 

analysis of DNA in the FBI Laboratory. Since September 2003, the FBI has spent over 

$10 million on developing a laboratory information system. Yet, over 6 years later the system is 

still under development, and the FBI Laboratory is incapable of generating an electronic chainof-custody document, tracking laboratory-wide evidence workflows, or producing laboratorywide statistical reports to identify problems and delays. 

Another example of a difficult major IT development project is the Department’s Integrated 

Wireless Network (IWN), a joint project with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and 

the Department of Treasury (Treasury) that is intended to allow federal law enforcement agents 

to communicate across agencies. This project is seeking to permit interoperability with state and 

local law enforcement partners, and meet mandates to use federal radio frequency spectrum more 

efficiently. In March 2007, the OIG reported that the project, which at that time had a budgeted 

cost of $5 billion between the Department, DHS, and Treasury, was at high risk for failure due to 

weaknesses in the program’s governing structure and the uncertain and inconsistent funding 

mechanisms that allowed the participating agencies to pursue separate solutions. Now it appears 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-17

that the development of IWN is still struggling. We are currently conducting an audit of the 

IWN project to evaluate the cost, schedule, and implementation of the IWN program. 

Another example of an IT system under development that presents major challenges and must be 

carefully monitored is the Department’s Unified Financial Management System, which is 

intended to standardize and streamline financial processes across the Department. The 

Department currently uses six major accounting systems that are not integrated with each other. 

These disparate legacy systems prevent the Department from easily obtaining current, detailed, 

and accurate financial information about the Department as a whole. The challenges in the 

development of a Unified Financial Management System are discussed more fully in the 

financial management challenge discussion. 

When developing IT systems, the Department also must make certain that they are secure. The 

Department must ensure that IT developers and integrators have a clear understating of a 

system’s requirements, that staff implement and continuously monitor security controls, and that 

adequate funding is available throughout the system’s lifecycle to maintain the system’s 

certification and accreditation. 

In sum, developing IT systems in a timely, cost-effective, and secure way remains a major 

challenge for the Department. The difficulties the Department is facing are similar to the 

problems in other federal agencies, and there are no quick and easy solutions. But the 

Department’s track record in this area is uneven, and we believe the Department must focus on 

this increasingly important challenge. 

6. Violent and Organized Crime: While focusing on counterterrorism, the Department 

must also continue to address violent and organized crime. Organized crime in particular 

presents challenges for the Department because it is responsible for a wide range of criminal 

activity, such as manipulation of financial markets, drug trafficking, prostitution and human 

trafficking, and violent crimes, and has taken on an increasingly transnational nature. Organized 

criminals can launch their attacks from around the globe, which presents significant challenges 

for the Department’s law enforcement efforts. 

One type of organized crime – gang-related crime – has increased in prevalence and scope. 

According to the February 2010 National Drug Threat Assessment, in 2009 there were an 

estimated 1 million members belonging to over 20,000 criminally active gangs within the United 

States. The 2009 National Gang Threat Assessment reported that criminal gangs commit as 

much as 80 percent of the crime in many communities. 

To combat violent gangs, among other measures, the Department established the National Gang 

Intelligence Center (NGIC) and the National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination 

Center (GangTECC). NGIC, which is administered by the FBI, is a multi-agency center that 

develops and shares gang-related information among federal, state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement agencies. GangTECC, which is administered by the Criminal Division, is a 

coordination center for multi-jurisdictional gang investigations. Partnership of these two centers 

was intended to provide investigators and prosecutors with “one-stop shopping” for intelligence 

on gang activity and assistance with gang prosecutions. 
IV-18 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

However, an OIG review in November 2009 found that NGIC and GangTECC were not 

effectively collaborating and were not sharing gang-related information despite being located in 

the same office suite. Specifically, we concluded that the Department’s two gang intelligence 

and coordination centers had not significantly improved the coordination and execution of its 

anti-gang initiatives. We also found that NGIC has not established a centralized gang 

information database as directed by statute due to technological limitations and operational 

problems, and had not shared gang intelligence and information effectively with other law 

enforcement organizations. 

In response to our review, the Department is establishing a partnership of GangTECC and NGIC 

with the DEA’s Special Operations Division and the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task 

Force Fusion Center. The Department also is considering merging three Criminal Division 

sections, including GangTECC and the Criminal Division’s Gang Unit, to form the Organized 

Crime and Gang Section. As of September 2010, however, the Criminal Division merger was 

still pending formal approval by the Department. 

Despite the challenges in combating organized crime, we believe the Department’s efforts in 

addressing violent crime, in conjunction with its state and local partners, has shown progress. In 

2009, an estimated 1.32 million violent crimes were reported, but this represented a decrease of 

5.6 percent when compared with the number of violent crimes reported for 2008 (1.39 million).

Number of Reported Violent Crimes, 

2000 - 2009 

Source: The FBI’s 2009 Crime in the United States report. 

However, challenges remain in combating violent crime. For example, the FBI Laboratory 

analyzes forensic DNA from crime scenes, which can provide critical evidence in identifying and 

prosecuting violent criminals. Our recent audit found that the FBI Laboratory’s backlog of 

forensic DNA cases is large and growing. As of March 2010, the FBI Laboratory had a backlog 

of over 3,200 forensic DNA cases in its Nuclear DNA Unit, which primarily examines biological 

fluid stains, such as blood and semen, and in its Mitochondrial DNA Unit, which analyzes 

evidence such as naturally shed hairs, hair fragments, bones, and teeth. From FY 2009 through 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-19

the second quarter of FY 2010, the backlog of cases in the Nuclear DNA Unit grew by almost 

40 percent, and in the Mitochondrial DNA Unit the backlog of cases grew by almost 130 percent. 

The length of time it takes for contributors to receive results from the FBI Laboratory after 

submission of evidence varies from an average of approximately 150 days to over 600 days, 

depending on the type of submission. This backlog can delay legal proceedings that are waiting 

on the results of DNA analysis, prevent the timely capture of criminals, prolong the incarceration 

of innocent people who could be exonerated by DNA evidence, and adversely affect families of 

missing persons waiting for positive identification of remains. 

The FBI reported that it is in the process of hiring additional forensic examiners to address the 

forensic DNA backlog. However, hiring and training the new personnel could take 

approximately 12 to 18 months and therefore would not have a significant impact on the current 

backlog for almost 2 years. The FBI is also pursuing other strategies, such as outsourcing 

agreements and a laboratory information management system, to address the forensic backlog. 

Our report made five recommendations to the FBI to help improve Laboratory DNA operations, 

such as standardizing FBI Laboratory-wide definitions for calculating backlog, ensuring FBI 

Laboratory users have access to a laboratory information management system, and examining 

the effect of outsourcing agreements on the overall backlog and the time contributors wait for 

test results. The FBI concurred with these recommendations and is developing a plan to 

implement them. 

Another critical service that the Department provides to combat one type of violent crime is the 

maintenance of the National Sex Offender Registry. Yet, in a 2008 report, we found that 

information in the National Sex Offender Registry was incomplete and inaccurate, and the 

registry was not a reliable tool for law enforcement and the public. In response to our report, the 

FBI initiated audits of state sex offender registries, which are the source of information in the 

National Sex Offender Registry, to ensure the information contained in the National Sex 

Offender Registry is complete and accurate and in compliance with FBI procedures and statutory 

guidelines. In addition, since the issuance of our report, the FBI and USMS have improved 

procedures for transferring data from the National Sex Offender Registry and the National Crime 

Information Center’s Wanted Persons File from the FBI to the USMS so the information can be 

used to identify fugitives wanted for offenses related to sex offender registration requirements. 

ATF also plays an important role in combating violent crime by ensuring that federal laws are 

followed during the sale of guns. For example, ATF conducts regulatory inspections of Federal 

Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to determine whether FFLs are taking appropriate measures to avoid 

selling firearms to prohibited persons. In a 2004 review, we found that ATF’s inspection 

program was not fully effective for ensuring that FFLs comply with federal firearms laws 

because inspections were infrequent and of inconsistent quality, and follow-up inspections and 

adverse actions were sporadic even when numerous or serious violations were identified. We 

recommended ATF improve its inspection program by developing a standard inspection process, 

revising staffing requirements, improving the comprehensiveness of crime gun tracing by law 

enforcement agencies, and creating a tracking system to monitor the progress and timeliness of 

FFL denials and revocations. We are now conducting a follow-up review to assess the changes 

ATF has made to the gun dealer inspection program since 2004. 
IV-20 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

In sum, although violent crime in general has decreased over the past several years, the 

Department must not relent in its focus on this challenge, and the Department must focus 

particular attention on the challenges posed by organized criminal groups. 

7. Financial Crimes and Cyber Crimes: The need to aggressively combat financial 

crimes and cyber crimes is an increasing challenge for the Department. Financial fraud 

continues to affect the economy, and the increased use of computers and the Internet in 

furtherance of financial crimes, as well as the international scope of these criminal activities, has 

exacerbated the challenge of cyber crime. 

In November 2009, a presidential Executive Order created the Financial Fraud Enforcement 

Task Force (Task Force). The Department described the Task Force as the “cornerstone” of its 

work in the financial fraud area. Led by the Department, the Task Force combines the work of 

several agencies to focus on mortgage crime, securities fraud, American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) and rescue fraud, and financial discrimination.

In connection with the Task Force the Department launched Operation Stolen Dreams, a multiagency initiative designed to combat mortgage fraud. In June 2010 the Department reported that 

this operation involved the prosecution of 1,215 criminal defendants nationwide who allegedly 

were responsible for more than $2.3 billion in losses. The Department also reported that the 

operation recovered more than $147 million through 191 civil enforcement actions. 

The Department and the Task Force are also focusing investigative resources on securities fraud 

as well as on Recovery Act fraud and fraud in other rescue funds. Among other things, the 

Department is providing training to federal grantees and contractors on ways to prevent and 

detect such fraud. 

Closely related to the challenge of financial crimes is cyber crime. Rapid technological advances 

and the widespread use of the Internet make cyber crime an increasing challenge for the 

Department. The broad range of cyber crime includes online fraud, identity theft, and child 

pornography. In addition, cyber attacks can threaten national security and also result in serious 

financial consequences for individuals, businesses, and government institutions. Cyber crime is 

of particular concern because it can be committed remotely and anonymously, across state and 

international borders. 

Identity theft is a major cause of financial and cyber crime. According to the Department, 

identify theft was the fastest growing crime in 2008, victimizing more than 10 million 

Americans. Yet, a March 2010 OIG audit report found that that the Department had not 

developed a comprehensive strategy to combat identity theft. We also determined that the 

Department had not implemented several of the recommendations stemming from a 2008 followup report issued by the President’s Identity Theft Task Force. We recommended that the 

Department ensure that its efforts to combat identity theft are better coordinated and are given 

sufficient priority. Since we issued our audit, the Department has designated a senior official to 

coordinate the Department’s identity theft enforcement efforts, and all relevant DOJ components 

have designated an official to oversee their components’ identity theft enforcement efforts. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-21

These officials have held initial meetings and are working to improve the Department’s efforts to 

combat identity theft. 

The Department must also focus attention on cyber crime that can threaten national security. 

The OIG is examining the development and operation of the FBI’s National Cyber Investigative 

Joint Task Force, as well as the capabilities of FBI field offices to investigate national security 

cyber cases. In addition, we are conducting a separate review on the Departments Justice 

Security Operations Center, which helps protect the Department’s information technology 

infrastructure and sensitive data from cyber attacks. 

Overall, we believe the Department is making progress in combating financial and cyber crime 

through targeted initiatives and by collaborating with other agencies to combat the mounting 

challenge. However, this area is a top management challenge for the Department. 

8. Detention and Incarceration: Safely, securely, and economically handling the large 

federal inmate and detainee populations is a difficult challenge for the Department. The Federal 

Bureau of Prisons (BOP) must contend with overcrowded and aging facilities, higher inmate to 

staff ratios, the need to address staff sexual abuse of inmates and other types of staff misconduct, 

and providing jobs and training programs for inmates while they are incarcerated. At the same 

time, the USMS must find cost-effective detention space in state and local facilities to house tens 

of thousands of federal detainees awaiting trial or sentencing. 

These challenges are even more difficult because of the significant increase in the federal inmate 

population. In the past 10 years, the inmate population has risen from 156,572 inmates at the end 

of FY 2001 to 210,227inmates at the end of FY 2010, an increase of 34 percent. The inmate to 

staff ratio for 2001 was 4.1 to 1 and for 2010 was at 4.82 to 1. Approximately 82 percent of 

inmates are confined in BOP-operated facilities, with the balance housed in privately managed or 

community-based facilities and local jails. 

This influx of prisoners has led to overcrowding across the BOP prison system with BOP 

facilities at 37 percent above rated capacity, on average. The greatest growth is in the numbers 

of medium- and high-security inmates who the BOP cannot house in contract facilities. The 

BOP must either add beds to existing BOP institutions or build new institutions. Since FY 

2006, the Department has identified prison overcrowding as a material weakness in the 

Department’s Performance and Accountability Report. According to the BOP, increases in 

prison crowding and the inmate to staff ratio are both correlated with increases in violence 

among the inmate population. 

In addition to being overcrowded, approximately one-third of the BOP’s 116 institutions are 

50 years old or older. Aging facilities often present greater security risks than newer facilities. 

Many of the BOP’s older facilities have never undergone major renovations and require 

extensive work to maintain compliance with established prison security standards. 

Another factor that can affect the safety of inmates and staff is misconduct by correctional 

officers. One especially serious type of misconduct that undermines the safety and security of 

prisons – for both inmates and other staff – is staff sexual abuse of inmates. This is not a 
IV-22 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

harmless or victimless crime. It harms inmates, and it also undermines the security of 

institutions by corrupting staff members. Of the small percentage of correctional officers who 

have sexual relationships with inmates, many also smuggle contraband, ranging from cell phones 

to drugs and weapons, into prisons for these inmates. 

In September 2009, the OIG issued a report on the Department’s efforts to prevent staff sexual 

abuse of inmates. Since then, we have continued to assess the BOP’s progress in preventing 

sexual abuse of inmates and providing services to inmate victims. We have found that, in 

response to our recommendations, the BOP has improved its procedures for tracking 

allegations, clarified and reinforced prison procedures for providing medical and psychological 

services to inmate victims, and updated training for inmates and staff. However, of continuing 

concern are the BOP’s procedures for safeguarding inmate victims of sexual abuse. As 

protective measures, the BOP typically isolates inmate victims in special housing units and 

transfers victims to other institutions. Yet, these measures may further traumatize victims and 

move them further away from family members. Alternatives to isolation and transfer are 

available, and the BOP has agreed to considered alternatives in each incident. However, the 

BOP has not developed a method to determine whether institutions have appropriately 

considered alternatives before isolation and transfer are used as protective measures. 

Under the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the Department is responsible for reviewing 

the proposed standards issued by the National Prison Rape Elimination Commission and 

issuing national standards to enhance the detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of 

prison rape. The Act mandated that the Attorney General publish a final rule adopting national 

standards by June 2010, 1 year from the date of the Commission’s recommendations. The 

Department has not yet met this statutory requirement. The Department is in the process of 

considering comments to the recommended standards but has not published its final rule. We 

believe it is essential that the Department move quickly to comply with the Act and implement 

a final rule to help protect inmates from prison rape. 

The BOP’s ability to screen out unsuitable applicants when hiring correctional officers is an 

important safety issue for both inmates and staff members. Last year, 28 BOP officers were 

convicted of committing criminal acts while on the job, such as sexual abuse of inmates or 

smuggling contraband into a prison facility. In addition, approximately 80 correctional officers 

were fired or resigned because of misconduct findings. While these employees represent only a 

small percentage of the BOP’s work force of over 38,000 employees (about half of which are 

correctional officers), misconduct by even a few employees can undermine the safety and 

security of institutions and violate the rights of inmates. The OIG is currently examining the 

BOP’s strategies and procedures for hiring correctional officers. 

Federal Prison Industries, called “UNICOR,” is a government corporation within the BOP that 

provides employment to staff and inmates at federal prisons throughout the United States. 

Participation in the UNICOR Program can help reduce inmate misconduct by keeping prisoners 

productively occupied, and it also can reduce recidivism by providing inmates with marketable 

work skills. As of June 2010, UNICOR operated 103 factories at 73 prison locations, 

employing approximately 17,000 inmates. However, the number of inmates who participate in 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-23

UNICOR was significantly lower this year than previous years because UNICOR closed and 

downsized several factories during the past year. 

In addition to the challenge of managing UNICOR so that it is financially self-sustaining, the 

BOP also must ensure that UNICOR facilities provide a safe work environment for inmates and 

staff. The OIG released a report in October 2010 that found workers and inmates at several BOP 

institutions were exposed to toxic metals, such as cadmium and lead, and other hazards while 

working in electronic waste (e-waste) recycling plants operated by UNICOR. Our report, which 

was completed with the assistance of four federal agencies with expertise in health, safety, and 

environmental matters, found that UNICOR had significant problems with its e-waste program 

and exhibited a troubling lack of attention to the safety of staff and inmates who participated in 

the e-waste recycling operations, especially from the program’s inception in the mid-1990s to 

2003. However, we also found that UNICOR began to implement significant health and safety 

improvements to its e-waste recycling operations starting in June 2003, primarily to control 

exposures to toxic metals. Our review determined that by 2009, with limited exceptions, 

UNICOR’s e-waste operations were compliant with Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration requirements and were being operated safely. The OIG and the agencies that 

assisted us made various recommendations that can help UNICOR further improve its 

compliance with applicable health, safety, and environmental requirements. The BOP concurred 

with those recommendations and is beginning to implement them. 

The OIG also recently reviewed the BOP’s furlough program, which is used to transfer inmates 

to another BOP institution, a medical facility for long-term treatment, or a halfway house when 

the inmates are nearing the end of their sentences. The BOP also uses non-transfer furloughs, 

where inmates are allowed to leave and return to the same institution, to permit inmates to 

receive short-term medical treatment, strengthen their family ties, or allow them to participate in 

educational, religious, or work-related activities. 

Our report, issued in September 2010, found weaknesses in the BOP’s policies regarding the 

furlough program. Most significantly, the BOP’s current furlough policy does not require BOP 

staff to notify victims and witnesses when an inmate is released on a medical furlough, does not 

require inmates to sign a document specifying that a urinalysis test will be conducted upon the 

inmate’s return from the furlough, and does not contain limitations on the furlough eligibility of 

inmates found guilty of drug use or the introduction of drugs into BOP institutions. 

We also determined that the BOP drafted a policy in 2003 to address these and other weaknesses 

in its furlough program. However, the BOP has not implemented this draft policy for over 

7 years because, according to BOP officials, the BOP must negotiate policy changes with the 

union representing BOP employees before implementing the changes, and this draft policy never 

reached the top of the queue for negotiation. Therefore, 7 years after the BOP drafted a policy 

that addresses weaknesses in the furlough program, the policy has yet to be implemented. 

Moreover, in response to our report, the BOP estimated that the revised furlough policy would 

not be negotiated and implemented until December 2017. We believe that the BOP’s timeframe 

for implementation of this recommendation is excessive and unacceptable. In essence, the 

BOP’s response to our recommendation is stating that it will take a total of 14 years before 
IV-24 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

important improvements to its furlough policy, including one that would enhance victims’ rights, 

are implemented. 

When our report was issued, the union representing BOP employees stated that BOP 

management was at fault because it failed to use a mechanism to prioritize this issue for 

negotiations. According to the BOP, there are approximately 50 other items on the list to be 

negotiated, including important issues such as searches of BOP staff for contraband, procedures 

related to the BOP witness security program, and staff discipline procedures. 

We believe that it is critical for the BOP and the union to address expeditiously outstanding 

issues, including the furlough program and other issues that can affect the safety and security of 

prison staff and inmates. We also believe that the negotiating process needs to be revised to 

allow the issues to be addressed in a timelier manner. 

In addition to incarcerating sentenced inmates at BOP facilities, the Department also must 

provide safe and affordable detention space for nearly 60,000 federal detainees awaiting trial or 

sentencing. The USMS is responsible for housing these detainees, and the Department’s Office 

of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) oversees approximately $1 billion in the annual budget 

for housing federal detainees. The USMS houses 80 percent of its detainees in non-federal 

detention space. To do so, it negotiates contracts, known as Intergovernmental Agreements 

(IGA), with approximately 1,800 state and local governments. 

Over the years, we have expressed concerns that the Department was not effectively negotiating 

the rates it pays to state and local entities for housing these federal detainees. In FY 2008, the 

OFDT and USMS made changes in the way they establish jail-day rates with state and local 

detention facilities. One change involves OFDT using an econometric statistical model, known 

as eIGA, for estimating a fixed-price range for the jail-day rate for federal detainees housed at 

state and local facilities. However, negotiated jail-day rates under the new approach appear to 

give some state and local facilities a large profit to house the detainees. We are conducting an 

audit reviewing the Department’s use of the eIGA process to determine whether it is 

economically and efficiently setting the jail-day rates. This issue can have significant 

consequences for the total budget required to house detainees. 

In sum, the Department continues to face difficult challenges in providing adequate prison and 

detention space for the increasing prisoner and detainee populations and in maintaining the 

safety and security of prisons. 

9. Grant Management: The OIG has included grant management as a top management 

challenge since the inception of this list. Beginning in 2009, the Department faced heightened 

challenges in grant management because it had to award $4 billion in grants under the Recovery 

Act at the same time that it had to award the $3 billion in grant funding contained in the 

Department’s annual appropriations. 

For 2010, we report a single challenge that focuses on the Department’s management of grant 

funds in the Recovery Act as well as the Department’s regular grant programs.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-25

The Recovery Act, which provided $787 billion in total funding to attempt to stimulate the 

economy, included $4 billion in Department grant funding to enhance state, local, and tribal law 

enforcement; to combat violence against women; and to fight Internet crimes against children. 

As of the end of August 2010, the Department had expended about 52 percent of its Recovery 

Act funds. The Department handled this increased grant workload without any significant 

increase in staff. Our reviews have found that, in general, the Department’s grant management 

staff made extraordinary efforts to implement the Recovery Act programs and generally issued 

the Recovery grant funds in a timely, fair, and objective manner. 

At the same time, the Department has sought to improve its regular grant management 

practices. In 2009, shortly after the passage of the Recovery Act, the OIG developed a 

document, entitled Improving the Grants Management Process, which contains a series 

of recommendations and best practices in grant management that federal agencies should 

consider implementing. The Department responded positively to the recommendations in 

this document and has implemented changes in its grant management practices, including 

expanding the use of online training opportunities among grant recipients and assisting 

grantees in determining the appropriate performance information to collect. In addition, 

the Department’s Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) Office of Audit, Assessment, and 

Management has improved the Department’s monitoring and oversight of grants by: 

(1) establishing a working group to review monitoring practices and develop standard 

monitoring approaches and procedures, (2) enhancing computer systems and developing 

new procedures for managing grant programs, (3) updating oversight and monitoring 

procedures, and (4) improving site visit documentation and the quality of site visit 

reports. 

This past year, when the Department planned to expand the number of grants awarded to tribal 

organizations, the Department asked the OIG for additional recommendations relating 

specifically to tribal grant management and oversight. In response, the OIG drafted a document, 

entitled Improving the Grant Management Process for Department of Justice Tribal Grant 

Programs, which provided additional recommendations for the Department to consider, such as 

increasing training, assistance, and oversight to tribes with inadequate accounting systems. 

While we believe the Department has taken positive steps toward improving its grant 

management practices, these changes will take time to fully implement and to incorporate into 

the Department’s regular practices. Moreover, our audit work has continued to identify areas 

where the Department could further improve its management of grants. For example, our audits 

of Recovery Act programs found that the Department’s program offices and bureaus did not 

always assess the programmatic, financial, and administrative areas of the grants before making 

awards, and they also did not retain adequate documentation to support their review work. 

In addition, the Department needs to ensure that grant applicants submit key documents in their 

application packages. For example, our review of OJP’s administration of the Byrne Grant 

Program, which provided $2.2 billion in both formula and discretionary Recovery Act grants to 

states, tribes, and local governments to support a broad range of law enforcement activities, 

found that OJP generally managed the Recovery Act funds for the Byrne Program in accordance 

with OMB guidelines and established grant management practices. However, we also found that 
IV-26 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

OJP awarded several formula grants to applicants whose packages were missing key 

documentation, such as complete program narratives, project abstracts, and budget documents. 

OJP also treated competitive grant applicants inconsistently, allowing some grant applications to 

continue through the competitive process even though they did not meet one or more of the 

solicitation requirements, while denying other applicants further consideration for the same 

deficiencies. OJP agreed to implement procedures to ensure that applications are treated 

consistently when OJP reviews applications to determine whether they meet the application 

requirements. 

The Department should also implement better controls to ensure that it correctly scores grant 

applications. For example, in May 2010 we issued an audit report on the selection process for 

the $1 billion Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Hiring Recovery Program, which 

awards grants to state and local entities for the hiring, rehiring, and retention of career law 

enforcement officers. Our audit determined that COPS used inaccurate formulas in developing 

the scores and ranks of applicants, which resulted in the allocation of grants to 45 entities that 

should not have received grants, while another 34 entities that should have received grants did 

not. In addition, we identified six grantees that received more officer positions than they should 

have and six grantees that received fewer officer positions than they should have. In response to 

our audit, COPS informed us that it has corrected the formulas for future use and modified its 

FY 2010 hiring grant allocation process to ensure that those entities that were negatively affected 

due to scoring inaccuracies received appropriate grant funding. We plan to review these actions 

taken by COPS. 

We found a similar calculation error in our audit of the Office on Violence Against Women’s 

(OVW) administration of $225 million in grant funding. Our audit determined that the OVW 

had awarded its grants in a prompt and reasonable manner, but we identified several instances 

where OVW internal peer reviewers incorrectly tabulated individual application scores and thus 

incorrectly ranked some applications higher than others. In addition, we found that peer 

reviewers were not always screened for potential conflicts of interest before they were allowed to 

evaluate and score discretionary grant applications. 

We also found in our Recovery Act audits that the Department was not consistently documenting 

its reasons for making discretionary awards and was not explaining why some applications that 

were ranked lower by peer reviewers were awarded grants over applications that peer reviewers 

had ranked higher. Although the Department is not required to follow the rankings of peer 

reviewers in awarding grants, we believe that the Department should document its rationale for 

award decisions that deviate from peer review results. 

Our other recent oversight work on non-Recovery Act funds identified areas where the 

Department can improve its grant management. In July 2010, we issued a report on OJP’s 

management of its offender reentry initiatives, programs which seek to reduce inmate recidivism 

and to help state, local, and community organizations provide assistance to released inmates as 

they transition to life outside prison. Our audit found that OJP had not established an effective 

system for monitoring grantees to assess whether they were meeting program goals. In response 

to the audit, OJP has taken steps to make grantees aware of reporting procedures to facilitate 

timely and accurate reports, provided detailed and precise definitions to current reentry grant 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-27

applicants regarding target populations, and to evaluate the current reentry grant program. In our 

individual audits of grantees’ use of awarded funds, we determined that the use of some grant 

funds were not supported by documentation, were unallowable based on the terms and conditions 

of the grant, or were not used for appropriate grant expenditures. 

We also believe that the Department can take further action to address outstanding 

recommendations to resolve questioned costs from our audits of grantees. For example, we 

released an audit report in 2006 on the Department’s grant closeout process in which we 

recommended that OVW resolve $37 million in questioned costs related to grant drawdowns 

occurring more than 90 days past the grant end date and de-obligate and put to better use over 

$14 million obligated to expired grants that were already 90 days past the grant end date in 2006. 

We have had multiple communications with OVW about this issue since we issued our report in 

2006, but OVW has yet to resolve these recommendations. 

In sum, we believe the Department is demonstrating a commitment to improving its grant 

management process, and we have seen significant signs of improvement in this area. However, 

further improvements are needed, and considerable work remains before managing the billions 

of dollars the Department awards annually in grants is no longer a top challenge for the 

Department. 

10. Financial Management: Financial management has been a top management challenge 

for the Department since 2003. It is important to recognize that the Department has made 

significant improvements in its internal controls over financial reporting and management at the 

same time there has been an increasing demand for accountability and transparency in these 

financial systems. Yet, we believe the need for accurate, near real-time financial information 

continues to present management challenges for the Department. 

For FY 2010, the Department again earned an unqualified opinion and improved its financial 

reporting. For the fourth straight year the financial statement auditors did not identify any 

material weaknesses at the consolidated level. Department components also reduced component 

significant deficiencies from eight in FY 2009 to four in FY 2010. 
IV-28 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

FY 2007

18

FY 2008

14

FY 2009

8

FY 2010

4

Number of Component Significant

Deficiencies

As in past years, however, much of this success was achieved through heavy reliance on 

contractor assistance, manual processes, and protracted reconciliations. We remain concerned 

about the sustainability and cost of these ad hoc and labor-intensive efforts, which are often 

overlooked in measuring the true costs of maintaining the current financial management systems. 

The decentralized structure of the Department also presents a major challenge to obtaining 

current, detailed, and accurate financial information about the Department as a whole because 

there is no one single source for the financial data. The Department currently uses six major 

accounting systems that are not integrated with each other. In some cases, the components’ 

outdated financial management systems are not integrated with all of their own subsidiary 

systems and therefore do not provide automated financial transaction processing activities 

necessary to support management’s need for timely and accurate financial information 

throughout the year. As a result, many financial tasks must be performed manually at interim 

periods and at year end. These costly and time-intensive efforts will continue to be necessary to 

produce financial statements and satisfy other financial data submission requirements until 

automated, integrated processes and systems are implemented that readily produce financial 

information throughout the year. 

The Department has long recognized the need for a Department-wide financial management 

system and has sought to implement a Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) to replace 

the disparate major accounting systems currently used throughout the Department. 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. 

Yet, only the DEA has fully implemented the UFMS, with ATF scheduled for full 

implementation during FY 2011. Successfully implementing the UFMS at the DEA is a 

significant achievement, although the DEA’s legacy system was one of the most modern 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-29

financial management systems within the Department. Likewise, ATF has one of the 

Department’s most modern systems. Thus, the central issue to this challenge remains largely 

unaddressed because the Department’s other components continue to use non-integrated and, in 

some cases, antiquated financial management systems. 

Implementation of the UFMS at the USMS, which has one of the most antiquated legacy 

financial management systems, began in FY 2010 and will continue through FY 2012. 

Moreover, based on recent OMB guidance, the implementation of the UFMS at the FBI, which 

has another antiquated legacy financial management system, is uncertain. At the request of 

OMB, the Department has begun detailed discussions with the Financial Systems Advisory 

Board (FSAB), which advises OMB about IT development. FSAB is conducting a review of 

pending agency financial system IT projects. We understand that FSAB supports DOJ’s desire 

to further consolidate its financial management systems, but it also recognizes that the size and 

cost of the project presents significant risk of failure and excessive cost in implementing the 

UFMS. In particular FSAB recommended further disaggregation of the various milestones 

associated with implementing the UFMS at the Department, and that the Department perform 

further analysis of the operation and maintenance portion of the enterprise-wide implementation 

of the UFMS. 

In sum, while the Department continues to show improvement in its overall financial 

management, some Department components still lack updated financial management systems. 

The Department needs accurate, near real-time financial information, and we believe it will be 

difficult to meet this demand until the Department replaces its antiquated, paper-based systems 

with modern systems that are technically sufficient. 
IV-30 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-31

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S 

TOP MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES 

1. Counterterrorism 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) correctly characterized counterterrorism as the highest 

priority of the Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department). In order to better meet recent and 

ongoing counterterrorism challenges, the Department has focused on more effective use of 

resources as well as bolstering coordination and communication among DOJ components and 

with other federal agencies. Additionally, the Department has increased efforts to ensure 

effective international collaboration through several DOJ components, including the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and INTERPOL Washington. In coordination with the FBI and 

the U.S. Department of State, INTERPOL Washington facilitates the exchange of 

counterterrorism tactical and strategic law enforcement information between relevant U.S. 

entities and their counterparts in INTERPOL member countries. This exchange helps enable 

identification of the membership, hierarchy, methods, and criminal activities of terrorist groups; 

identify recruitment sources and methods; disrupt and/or dismantle criminal entities that play a 

central role in the funding and/or support of terrorist activities; assist participating member 

countries in the exchange of investigative information; and encourage, on an international level, 

relationships and information exchange between law enforcement and relevant partners, such as 

customs, immigration authorities, and security and intelligence agencies. 

The Department has taken steps to address all of the OIG observations in the June 2010 report on 

the readiness of the Department and its components to respond to a potential weapons of mass 

destruction (WMD) incident. Specifically, by establishing an Emergency Preparedness 

Committee (EPC) chaired by a senior Department member with the membership coming from all 

the components, the internal component coordination was directly improved. The EPC formed a 

number of associated issue sub-groups which included: Continuity of Operations (COOP) and 

Continuity of Government (COG); WMD Policies and Procedures; National Response 

Framework annex -- Emergency Support Functions 13 (ESF-13); and Operations and 

Management. 

Within these subgroups, the Department has moved swiftly to resolve identified shortcomings. 

Through the ESF-13 subcommittee, all Department agencies supported the continuation of the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) as lead for ESF-13. However, the 

group noted ATF required appropriate funding to properly administer this mission. The WMD 

working group has identified training that can be made available to all Department components 

to assist them with developing their various response plans. Also, to better coordinate the use of 

federal law enforcement resources to maintain public safety and security if local and state 

resources are overwhelmed during a WMD incident, the ATF/FBI working group, with DOJ 

leadership oversight, is meeting weekly. In these meetings, the working group addresses 

deficiencies relating to response to WMD incidents, as well as training, information sharing, and 

forensic laboratory protocols, and is preparing a joint plan for explosives coordination. 

Additionally, ATF has directed its field special agents in charge (SACs) to meet with their 

respective counterparts to develop plans for the initial response to all explosives incidents in their 

area of responsibility. 
IV-32 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

The COOP/COG group is actively coordinating Department support to those programs. Most 

importantly, through the development of the EPC, the Department has recognized the simple 

regular exchange and coordination of information has already begun to establish a more 

coordinated Departmentwide approach. The EPC has recommended a permanent coordinator 

position be established to assist the Department in continued component collaboration and 

coordination on all emergency response matters. It will continue to meet on a regular basis. 

To address its balance of resources, the FBI’s Corporate Resource Planning Board (CRPB), 

comprised of the FBI senior leadership, has implemented a structured, semi-annual process to 

review and adopt resource allocation decisions across all programs. The process begins with 

field offices requesting and justifying needs for resource enhancements or realignments to 

address risks and threats within their domains. Those requests are then reviewed by FBI 

Headquarters program managers using the national-level view of domains and threats, before 

final recommendations are presented to the CRPB. As referenced on page IV-7 of the OIG’s 

FY 2010 Top Management and Performance Challenges report, the FBI now has modified the 

CRPB process by implementing a transparent and repeatable risk-based methodology to inform 

those resource allocation decisions. 

The methodology, known as Risk-Based Management (RBM), has completed one full annual 

cycle, and produced a standardized method for quantifying risk, that is used by all FBI 

investigative programs; an implementation of the methodology, whereby each investigative 

program has identified a specific set of risk indicators (as defined by the standard RBM method); 

a collection of data and metrics for each risk indicator, identifiable down to the field office level, 

or better; a ranking of each of the risk indicator sets, within each program, through a series of 

structured weighting sessions held with the senior managers of each program; and a model, 

based on the risk indicator ranking, and data for each program, that provides executives with 

recommendations for resource allocation or alignment. 

Also, the RBM process has produced two other key deliverables. The FBI has created a training 

and communication plan with training in RBM for all FBI Senior Executive Service level 

executives, as well as publication of all RBM data, risk indicator rankings, and field office 

rankings, on a website accessible to all FBI employees. The FBI has also created a protocol to 

drive new weighting sessions. Based on this protocol, the FBI is in the process of conducting 

updated sessions for four operational programs. 

The FBI began using RBM in making resource allocation decisions in FY 2010. Program 

managers were able to see the relative risk levels for individual offices in their programs, when 

recommending personnel resource allocations. For FY 2011, the new weighting sessions will 

drive changes in the relative risk levels, which will be taken into account in resource allocation 

decisions. The RBM team also has begun to develop plans that more closely will integrate the 

risk management process with the production of intelligence, as well as plans to enable visual 

and graphical presentation of risk indicator data that may contribute to field office domain 

awareness. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-33

The FBI is continuing to make strides in its efforts to address the language needs of its highest 

investigative priorities. These ongoing efforts center around three key areas: linguist hiring, 

technology upgrades, and prioritization. 

Regarding linguist hiring, the FBI’s Security Division now has three investigative analyst 

consultants fully dedicated to the background investigation and security adjudication of linguist 

applicants. While the Department expects that this will have a positive impact on the processing 

time frame, there will be a more significant return on investment in terms of a more thorough 

background investigation, as enhanced security requirements cannot be ignored. According to 

the FBI, much of the attrition of FBI linguists has not resulted in any net loss of full time 

equivalents of linguist output, which has either increased or remained steady. The apparent 

numerical decrease in linguists had more to do with the FBI cleaning its books of contract 

linguists who, due to various competing interests, were unable or no longer able to provide any 

real service to the FBI. In the meantime, the FBI has established comprehensive growth plans 

aimed at satisfying FBI requirements both locally and nationally. To that end, Foreign Language 

Program Managers have studied each field division’s workload, space and equipment capacity, 

local domain in terms of investigative needs and recruitable language populations, and have 

formulated division-specific recruitment strategies within the framework of a national hiring 

plan. 

In the area of technology, the FBI is undergoing a number of upgrades designed to more 

effectively and efficiently process foreign language material. The FBI is upgrading the digital 

collection system used for national security matters. The upgrade is designed to provide greater 

storage capacity, provide the capability to directly access data inter-divisionally without having 

to forward duplicate copies of data (which in the past had made it difficult and labor intensive to 

provide accurate metrics), and provide more accurate reporting. Furthermore, the new system’s 

graphical user interface is much more user friendly to the linguists (being very similar to the 

systems used on the criminal investigative side of the house) and provides better capabilities and 

analytical tools. 

Technology upgrades also will help with prioritization, as a significant portion of the 

“unreviewed” material consists primarily of SPAM, duplicate emails, and other electronic data 

files that have no intelligence value. The FBI’s Operations Technology Division and the Special 

Technologies Application Office are developing SPAM filters and other analytical tools 

designed to filter out material of no intelligence value and zero in on higher priority material. 

Similarly, the FBI’s Foreign Language Program is operating off specific prioritization guidance 

issued by the Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence Divisions with regard to tier and priority 

levels of material, as well as the perishable intelligence value of lower priority 

counterintelligence material after a specified period of time. The Foreign Language Program 

also has worked closely with both the national security and criminal investigative operational 

divisions to set up automated alerts when application is made for electronic intercept authority 

under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act or Title 3, thus giving the Foreign Language 

Program more lead time to plan the staffing of anticipated language requirements. 

2. Restoring Confidence in the Department of Justice 
IV-34 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Attorney General explained on the day he was sworn into office, “We must fulfill our duties 

faithfully, and apply the law evenhandedly, without regard to politics, party, or personal 

interest.” Departmental components and employees across the agency maintain a conscientious 

focus on demonstrating a commitment to this mission, and, while we recognize that fulfilling our 

duties requires constant vigilance, we are proud of the steps we have made to ensure that the 

Attorney General’s directive is the reality within the Department. 

While the Department has taken numerous steps to ensure that personnel decisions are based 

exclusively on the merits, the Department has not issued specific clarification yet on the 

consideration of political affiliation or ideological affiliation as a proxy for political affiliation 

when deciding whether to approve temporary details of career attorneys to certain high-level 

Department positions. The Department has resolved the legal question on which the clarification 

depended and expects to issue the clarification in the near future. 

The Department continues to take aggressive measures to ensure that prosecutors are meeting 

their professional responsibility obligations in every case. The Department has implemented 

mandatory annual discovery training for all Department prosecutors and held its first discovery 

training for new prosecutors at the National Advocacy Center in October 2010. The Department 

will conduct a “train the trainer” course in November 2010. The course will enable prosecutors 

and members of the law enforcement community to return to their district or component to 

provide discovery training to law enforcement agents and officers throughout the Department. In 

addition, the Department conducted discovery training for Department paralegals in September 

2010. These and other similar efforts will continue in the future under the supervision of the 

Department’s first National Discovery Coordinator, who was appointed in February 2010. Also, 

in February 2011, the Department will conduct training for Professional Responsibility Officers 

from throughout the country. This training will further enable the front-line experts on 

professional responsibility issues to advise prosecutors within their district or component. 

The Department also is focused on increasing the efficiency and transparency of professional 

responsibility investigations conducted by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). In 

fact, OPR has increased the pace at which it is concluding investigations and is examining ways 

to increase transparency consistent with the restrictions of the Privacy Act. This complex effort 

requires balancing the subjects’ privacy interests with the public interest consistent with the 

Privacy Act and the cases that have interpreted it. As noted by OIG, OPR now has issued annual 

reports for each preceding fiscal year and will now timely produce such reports so that 

summaries of significant cases are available to the public and to prosecutors throughout the 

Department. 

The Department is aware of allegations that have arisen regarding enforcement priorities in the 

Civil Rights Division. The Department looks forward to receiving reports pertaining to these 

allegations from both OPR and OIG. In the meantime, the Department is fully committed to the 

full and evenhanded enforcement of the civil rights laws, and the Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights has communicated this commitment to the attorneys in the Division. 

Finally, the FBI is reviewing the OIG’s September 2010 report pertaining to cheating on the FBI 

exam regarding the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG) and is determining 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-35

what additional steps and referrals are appropriate. In the fall of 2010, the FBI will be 

conducting additional DIOG training using the traditional Virtual Academy training and 

procedures. This training will review the most important concepts that were introduced during 

last year’s DIOG training and will cover the most important revisions (based on field input) that 

will appear in the next edition (DIOG 2). In addition, the FBI Director has reaffirmed to all 

employees the importance of taking actions that reflect personal and institutional integrity. 

In sum, the Department has expended significant time and energy to ensuring that Department 

attorneys comply with their responsibility to serve the ends of justice fairly, and the Department 

will continue to engage in this ongoing effort to assure that the public has every confidence that 

those responsibilities are being met. 

3. Law Enforcement Issues along the Southwest Border 

The Department shares the OIG’s view that effective communication of information and 

intelligence across components and agencies is key to fulfilling the Department’s law 

enforcement and national security responsibilities. The Department has worked to enhance 

communication while addressing violent crime and illegal immigration along the Southwest 

Border through its Southwest Border Enforcement Initiative (the “Initiative”). The Initiative is a 

cooperative effort among the Department’s law enforcement components, including the FBI, the 

DEA, and ATF, and United States Attorneys’ Offices, to enhance multi agency intelligence and 

enforcement activities to attack major Mexican-based trafficking organizations on both sides of 

the border. The OIG identified law enforcement issues along the Southwest Border as one of the 

top management challenges for the Department, and focused on a few aspects of the Southwest 

Border Initiative, including ATF’s Project Gunrunner, the role of the El Paso Intelligence Center 

(EPIC), and the role of the Department’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR). 

ATF’s Project Gunrunner is designed to reduce cross-border drug and firearms trafficking and 

the high level of violence associated with these activities on both sides of the border. ATF has 

taken concrete steps to implement the new strategy for combating firearms trafficking to Mexico 

and other related violence. On September 16, 2010, ATF transmitted to all field SACs and 

affected Field Operations headquarters division chiefs the ATF Cartel Strategy document, a 

transmittal memorandum, and PowerPoint slides outlining recent enhancements to ATF’s case 

management system for coding Southwest Border and cartel-related investigations. ATF 

directed the SACs to review and internally disseminate this material, and on September 23, 2010, 

posted the documents on its Intraweb. ATF also designated these materials as the topic for 

mandatory roll call training in October 2010 for all field special agents. 

ATF has scheduled a Project Gunrunner coordination conference at the El Paso Intelligence 

Center (EPIC) in December 2010 for all managers and supervisors for field divisions/field 

offices/field intelligence groups (FIGs) with designated Gunrunner groups; border liaison agents; 

members of its International Affairs Office, Mexico Country Office, Office of Strategic 

Intelligence and Information Criminal Intelligence Division; the Southwest Border Field 

Intelligence Support Team; the ATF EPIC staff; and the ATF Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) and Gunrunner program offices. ATF will continue its 

periodic conference calls involving intelligence personnel from its FIGs, regional field 
IV-36 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

intelligence support teams, and headquarters intelligence components, as well as training and 

information sharing conferences involving FIG personnel. This may be accomplished through 

DOJ components’ continued participation in various interagency settings, including EPIC, the 

OCDETF Program and its Southwest Border Strike Forces, the Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) Border Intelligence Fusion Section (BIFS), and the Office of National Drug 

Control Policy National and Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategies. 

EPIC remains a principal component of the Department’s effort to develop enhanced and 

coordinated multiagency intelligence and operational capabilities. The Department continues to 

make advances in the operation of EPIC. EPIC’s efforts to enhance analysis of information on 

drug seizures, fraudulent document use, and trafficker activities included the initiation of a 

Predictive Analysis and Targeting Unit. The Unit initially is focused on providing expanded 

information based on analysis of seizure and other resource data to the DHS sponsored Alliance 

to Combat Transnational Threat Unified Commands and other EPIC partner agency customers. 

This coordinated effort with DHS will be expanded further by the functions of the BIFS, which 

will be launched within EPIC in November 2010. The Predictive Analysis and Targeting Unit 

will become part of the BIFS, and analytical functions will be expanded with additional 

personnel available through the launch of the BIFS. An added enhancement that will result with 

the BIFS addition will be the expanded connectivity to the numerous federal and state 

intelligence organizations throughout the United States. Initially, direct coordination and 

connectivity will be provided to EPIC via the BIFS for the 72 DHS-sponsored and funded State 

Intelligence Fusion centers. 

In addition, we note that the decline in usage of EPIC by federal agencies is offset by a 

corresponding increase in queries to the OCDETF Fusion Center (OFC) which reached initial 

operating capacity in 2006. EPIC is a tactical intelligence center and the OFC is an investigative 

support center. The Department led OFC provides a single fused repository for sensitive 

investigative information. The OFC conducts cross-agency and cross-jurisdictional integration 

and analysis of drug related data to create comprehensive intelligence pictures of targeted 

organizations through its fused database Using advanced computer and analytic tools, the 

interagency workforce that includes agents and analysts from DOJ, DHS, and the Department of 

Treasury builds comprehensive targeting packages that support complex multi-jurisdictional 

investigations against the criminal organizations that are the primary sources of the criminal 

activity along the Southwest border. Using the protocols established by the DEA-led Special 

Operations Division, these packages, are distributed and ensure seamless enforcement operations 

across organization/agency lens and geographic boundaries. 

Some enhancements at EPIC for the coordination of law enforcement issues include deploying 

new Intelligence Research Specialists and Special Agents to offices that directly impact violent 

crime and drug trafficking activities of organizations and Mexican drug cartels. 

In addition to EPIC and the OFC, the DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD) is another 

lynchpin in the Department’s effort to coordinate tactical intelligence and operation information 

across components and agencies. SOD supports comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional 

enforcement efforts against the criminal enterprises operating in the Southwest by identifying 

connections among and between seemingly disparate investigative and enforcement activities 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-37

and building a coordinated whole of government response. Operation Xcellerator and projects 

such as Coronado and Deliverance, are examples of SOD’s success and demonstrate the ability 

of law enforcement agencies at every level nationwide to coordinate targeting and dismantling of 

Mexican drug trafficking organizations. These efforts resulted in significant drug, currency, and 

asset seizures, as well as large numbers of arrests. 

In April 2010, the EPIC Identity Fraud Unit was established. It uses advanced analytical 

techniques and multiagency database research to provide intelligence support to law enforcement 

agencies in identity verification, all aspects of identity fraud, alien smuggling, specialized worldwide targeting, and intelligence-driven special operations with DHS. The U.S. Department of 

State joined this effort by placing a full-time representative at EPIC in July 2010. The unit has 

expanded and enhanced its capabilities by instituting Operation No Refuge (ONR), which 

identifies persons of interest who are encountered at the border who may be clandestinely 

entering the United States to further criminal enterprises. Through intelligence sharing efforts 

with the Government of Mexico, ONR is designed to prevent the entry of non-immigrant visa 

holders that are high-level cartel members, their families, associates, and members of 

transnational gangs. EPIC’s role is to conduct an extensive analysis, leverage a wide array of 

information and intelligence sources, and combine targeting and intelligence gathering at the 

ports of entry. This operation has led to interdictions for Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) Field 

Operations at the ports of entry, and CBP Border Patrol at the checkpoints. It has contributed to 

new or existing investigations with DHS’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement and DOJ’s 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), or resulted in immediate immigration adverse actions 

or visa revocations through the Department of State. 

To address the Department’s role in immigration policy and enforcement along the Southwest 

Border, the Department chose as part of the Administration’s High Priority Performance Goals 

initiative a goal that would directly address the hiring issues faced by the immigration courts: 

Increase immigration judges by 19 percent by the end of FY 2011 so that as the DHS criminal 

alien enforcement activity increases, not less than 85 percent of the immigration court detained 

cases are completed within 60 days. To meet this priority goal, as well as to ensure fair and 

timely case adjudication, the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) has made 

immigration judge hiring the agency’s top priority. 

EOIR has taken a number of measures to ensure that it meets the priority goal for immigration 

judge hiring. It has begun the hiring process in advance of actual vacancies when possible, has 

centralized the hiring process at EOIR headquarters, has added staff to the hiring project, has 

increased the number of application review teams, and has reduced the time frames for many of 

the hiring steps. Seventeen new immigration judges joined EOIR during FY 2010 and an 

additional 24 judges will have entered on duty in October 2010. The hiring process is ongoing 

for additional new immigration judges who will be placed where the need is greatest, at sites that 

have a high volume of detained cases. Although time-consuming, the recruitment and selection 

process for immigration judges is a system for identifying and appointing the very best 

candidates. The recruitment procedures include public announcements for vacancies, a rigorous, 

multi-level review of applications, and a multi-panel interview and selection process involving 

career officials in EOIR and senior career and non-career officials in the Department. 
IV-38 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

To address issues along the Southwest Border, DOJ and DHS meet frequently to discuss ways to 

handle immigration court dockets that meet the needs of all federal agencies involved. These 

coordination efforts, such as the Alternatives to Detention program and other docket 

management initiatives, should begin to show results in FY 2011. 

The Department also is working towards better international coordination. INTERPOL has been 

working with member countries to exchange information regarding human smuggling and 

trafficking in an attempt to dismantle transnational criminal organizations. INTERPOL 

Washington also serves to build relationships between DOJ, DHS, and other member countries 

to investigate criminal organizations that use the southern border of the United States to illegally 

traffic persons, and participates regularly in forums and conferences as subject matter experts in 

the investigation and prosecution of these crimes. 

4. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

The Department is committed to protecting individual’s civil rights and liberties while ensuring 

that those who want to harm the United States and its citizens be brought to justice. We are 

encouraged by the OIG’s recognition of our constant efforts to ensure these rights and liberties. 

However, as the OIG pointed out in its report, the Department must continually focus on 

implementing appropriate training, policies, controls, and oversight mechanisms to make certain 

that all employees abide by the law protecting these rights and liberties. 

As part of this continuing focus, the FBI has reviewed its policies and is in the process of 

modifying them, as appropriate. The FBI expects that its Counterterrorism Policy Guide will 

clarify when cases involving First Amendment issues should be classified as Acts of Terrorism 

matters and when they should not. In addition, the Counterterrorism Policy guide will require 

that the initiation of a domestic terrorism investigation on an individual identify the particular 

federal statute that has been, or may have been, violated. Finally, the FBI has drafted a corporate 

policy stating that, under the Privacy Act, information regarding an individual’s exercise of First 

Amendment rights may not be retained without the requisite law enforcement nexus, statutory 

authorization, or the individual’s consent, and that any documentation of such information must 

be destroyed. 

5. Information Technology Systems Planning, Implementation, and Security 

The Department is committed to managing its Information Technology (IT) systems efficiently, 

cost-effectively, and securely. Indeed, the Department already has made significant progress in 

planning and implementing new IT systems, and its future projects and efforts will continue to 

build on that success. 

To that end, while the Department Chief Information Officer (CIO) does not have authority over 

the various components’ IT budgets, he does have insight into – and oversight of – their IT 

priorities through the annual budget process. During that process, each component’s CIO 

presents his or her IT priorities to the Department CIO, who then provides recommendations to 

Department senior managers on IT investment priorities based on overall compliance with the 

Department’s mission, the Attorney General’s priorities, and the Department’s strategic plan. In 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-39

addition, all components must ensure that any new project – regardless of size – meets the 

requirements of the Department’s reference architecture and that the program uses sound 

program management methodology. Programs that have a total development and 

implementation cost in excess of $100 million require regular review by the Department’s 

Investment Review Board (DIRB), which is chaired by the Deputy Attorney General. These 

reviews provide senior management with an in-depth view of the program, including its 

schedule, cost, and any potential issues. This process ensures that issues are surfaced and 

addressed before they can have a significant impact or become critical to the program’s overall 

success. Consistent with its general effort to ensure effective IT management, the Department 

fully supports and places a high priority on the continued development of IT systems in a cost 

effective manner. 

With regard to the OIG’s comments concerning the Sentinel program, the FBI has indicated it is 

working to complete the program within the approved budget, and without reduction in 

functionality. The Department will monitor closely the work done under the revised project plan 

and approach. The Department supports the FBI's decision to alter its approach to finishing the 

project and minimize project costs. The FBI examined several options in detail for completing 

the Sentinel Project, and selected an approach based on what is known as “agile development” 

methodology. This approach will reduce the FBI’s reliance on the more traditional multi-level 

large development organization with a much flatter, smaller, and less costly organization using 

product experts. The Department CIO and the FBI CIO worked very closely with the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) on the development of the new agile development approach 

that the FBI is undertaking. In October 2010, the FBI briefed the DIRB on a revised plan for 

completing the program within the FY 2011 budget funds. The DIRB verbally approved the 

FBI’s plan and program for FY 2011 with specific follow-up actions required to address DIRB 

questions. Following the briefing to the DIRB, the Department CIO, the FBI CIO, and the 

Sentinel Program team met with the Federal CIO as part of the TechStat review process. At the 

end of that review, the Federal CIO expressed his support for the continuation of the program 

based on the revised plan. 

With regard to the Department’s Litigation Case Management System (LCMS) project, recently, 

the Department made a decision to discontinue the LCMS program because of schedule delays, 

implementation risk, and cost overruns. The Department has determined that it will no longer 

attempt to consolidate the eight individual case tracking applications into one central system. 

Instead, the Department has determined that many of the original LCMS business objectives can 

be supported more cost effectively by enhancing the existing Component Case Tracking 

applications. In the future, the Department will support selective, small litigation IT initiatives 

which adhere to the following criteria: 1) strong executive business sponsorship from the 

components; 2) high-value, mission business need; and 3) schedules for delivering new 

operational capabilities within 6-12 months. Any such initiatives will be evaluated, prioritized, 

and approved through our formal governance process with final approval from the Office of the 

Deputy Attorney General. 

The third Department high-priority project identified by OMB is the FBI’s Next Generation 

Identification (NGI) project, which is intended to enhance the existing capabilities of the FBI’s 

current fingerprint identification system (Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System 
IV-40 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

– IAFIS) and provide searching capability for other types of biometric identification, such as 

palm prints, iris scans, and tattoos. NGI is intended to significantly reduce the amount of time 

needed to conduct searches for high-priority records. The FBI has requested $1.2 billion for this 

project from FY 2008 through FY 2017. To be accurate, the development portion of the project 

is expected to be completed by 2014 followed by 3 years of operations and maintenance by the 

prime contractor. According to the OMB’s “Federal IT Dashboard,” the aggregated cost 

of IAFIS and NGI is expected to be $3.4 billion through FY 2017. The $3.4 billion includes the 

IAFIS cost of $2.2 billion which was to develop and maintain the current fingerprint 

identification system (IAFIS), as well as the NGI cost of $1.2 billion which will ultimately 

replace IAFIS. One of the key challenges for this high-dollar project is to contain the cost while 

implementing a design that can accommodate new types of biometric evidence as they become 

available. 

With regard to the comments on the Department’s Integrated Wireless Network (IWN) program, 

IWN is a project intended to modernize DOJ’s secure tactical radio communications and 

improve federal law enforcement agent communication across agencies. Since the OIG issued 

its March 2007 report, the Department has refined its deployment strategy in order to meet the 

DOJ law enforcement communication needs in the most cost effective manner. While the OIG 

has indicated the "development of IWN is still struggling,” substantial efforts have been made in 

recent months to rigorously review the project management approach and provide increased 

oversight and support to the project, one facet of which was the addition of a senior law 

enforcement radio and telecommunications expert to the IWN Project Management Office. 

Additionally, the OCIO and IWN management team have worked in concert to make critical 

adjustments to both the short and long term IWN development plans. The Department's newly 

developed three-pronged approach to the project is designed to accomplish several key things, 

including: accelerating the replacement of handsets with narrowband compliant units; 

leveraging existing FBI legacy infrastructure (e.g. towers, transmitters, dispatch capabilities) in 

order to achieve greater IWN coverage more quickly and at a lower cost; and deploying trunking 

in those areas where the trunking architecture will provide superior law enforcement radio 

coverage. The Department's new approach also aligns projected funding streams with the three 

deployment prongs to ensure a reliable, phased implementation approach in support of the law 

enforcement components. 

6. Violent and Organized Crime 

The Department is pleased that the OIG recognizes our many accomplishments in fighting 

violent and organized crimes. We agree that fighting these crimes is a high priority, and we 

continuously work to sharpen our techniques. All levels of government – federal, state, local, 

and tribal – must be ever-vigilant in their pursuit of individuals, gangs, and organizations that 

cause harm to U.S. citizens. And, more and more, both violent and organized crime cross 

international borders. 

In response to the OIG’s reference to their follow-up review of Federal Firearms Licensees 

(FFLs), ATF currently is working with the OIG on the review and is confident that the OIG will 

find that ATF has instituted several improvements to its FFL inspection program since the 2004 

review. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-41

In addition to the efforts noted by the OIG and by the Department, INTERPOL’s Transnational 

Gang and Child Protection Programs are responsible for ensuring that all INTERPOL member 

countries are advised in a timely and continuous manner of the identities and criminal histories 

of violent gang members and child sex offenders deported from the United States. Since 2007, 

INTERPOL Washington has issued over 4,400 INTERPOL Green Notices on known violators, 

to assist law enforcement agencies throughout the world in the identification and location of 

these transnational subjects who pose a potential threat to public safety, and are likely to remain 

engaged in criminal activities. 

7. Financial Crimes and Cyber Crimes 

The OIG’ Top Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice – 2010

acknowledges the Department’s progress in combating financial and cyber crime. Although we 

are focused on continuing to develop successful strategies to combat these crimes, the 

Department recognizes that this is, and will continue to be for some time, a challenging area. 

The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF), mentioned by the OIG, brings together 

more than 20 federal agencies to strengthen the Government’s efforts to investigate and 

prosecute fraud related to the financial crisis, recover the proceeds of financial fraud, and ensure 

just and effective punishment for the perpetrators of that fraud. 

The Mortgage Fraud Working Group has played a leading role in the FFETF. It is comprised of 

over a dozen members and is chaired by the U.S. Attorneys. The working group includes 

representatives from the FBI, the Housing and Urban Development OIG, and the National 

Association of Attorneys General (consisting of state attorneys general). Working with our 

partners at the state and local levels, the primary goal of the working group is to marshal the 

government’s civil and criminal capabilities to combat the mortgage fraud that has proliferated 

as a result of the financial crisis and help homeowners who have suffered from mortgage fraud. 

In June 2010, the Department announced the results of a nationwide mortgage fraud sweep. 

Called “Operation Stolen Dreams,” the sweep was the largest collective enforcement effort ever 

brought to bear to combat mortgage fraud. Spanning 3 months, the sweep involved more than 

1,200 criminal defendants nationwide and nearly 200 civil enforcement actions resulting in the 

recovery of over $147 million. 

The Department’s efforts to combat financial crime have been increasingly aggressive and 

sustained, and these efforts have resulted in significant progress. In the first three quarters of FY 

2010, the Department charged 4,352 defendants with financial fraud. Of those, 3,218 defendants 

pleaded guilty, and 2,815 were sentenced to some prison term. Of the 2,815 sentenced to prison, 

1,618 defendants received sentences greater than 12 months. 

The Criminal Division’s Fraud Section has targeted its investigations and prosecutions on four 

major areas: foreign corrupt practices; health care fraud; corporate, securities, and commodities 

fraud; and financial institutions and government fraud. In each of these areas, the Fraud Section, 

together with its partner agencies, is using increasingly aggressive, innovative, and intelligence-
IV-42 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

driven tactics to unearth and prosecute these crimes. The results are unprecedented fines, huge 

taxpayer savings, and significant jail sentences for individual violators. 

Meanwhile, as U.S. Attorneys have been, and are being, confirmed, they have been hiring over 

100 additional civil and criminal prosecutors and support staff solely dedicated to addressing 

financial crimes. The positions were funded by the FY 2009 Supplemental and FY 2010 budgets 

and were allocated to those U.S. Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) with the greatest need and a 

comprehensive plan for their efficient use. 

With respect to cyber and intellectual property crimes, the Department continues its coordinated 

efforts in Eastern Europe, Latin America, and elsewhere to ensure development of national laws 

and capacity to address these threats, and to foster international legal frameworks for 

cooperation, including the International Convention on Cyber Crime. Building upon this legal 

foundation, the Department has participated in successful joint investigations over the last years 

with Romania, Ukraine, Egypt, and many other countries, to address cyber crime that crosses 

national borders. These operations have resulted in arrests and prosecutions in the United States 

and overseas, including extradition of suspects to the United States. 

The Department currently is implementing the 2010 Joint Strategic Plan on Enforcement of 

Intellectual Property. In support of the Strategic Plan, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

(EOUSA) has implemented enhanced data collection procedures to track and report the 

enforcement priorities of the Strategic Plan, including consumer protection, national and 

economic security, and organized crime activities. Furthermore, the Office of Legal Education is 

sponsoring a national conference in April of 2011, focusing on internet crimes, investigative 

techniques, and advancements in technology. This conference will reinforce the Strategic Plan 

priorities, educate prosecutors on the procedures of the new data collection system, and enable 

prosecutors to refine investigative and trial techniques. 

To improve identity fraud prosecutions, the Department has taken the following steps: First, all 

94 U.S. USAOs participated in an identity fraud survey which asked questions pertaining to 

office practices with regard to maintaining identity fraud task forces and working groups, 

financial thresholds for prosecutions, and proper use of case and personnel time tracking 

systems. Second, based on the survey results and other interaction with USAOs, the Department 

conducted an intensive review of available statistical information to obtain a more realistic 

appraisal of identity fraud practice in USAOs. 

Third, the Department is highlighting the importance of identity fraud to all incoming U.S. 

Attorneys, who now receive a report on their district’s identity fraud practice at their orientation, 

including information concerning task forces and working groups, as well as data showing how 

identity fraud statistics for their districts compare to other districts of similar size. Fourth, a 

white collar crime coordinator from EOUSA is in regular email contact with the identity fraud 

points of contact in all USAOs concerning legal and tactical issues in identity fraud cases. Any 

USAO can seek assistance on legal and tactical issues in identity fraud issues through this email 

chain. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-43

Fifth, the Fraud Section of the Criminal Division has continued to host valuable monthly Identity 

Fraud Working Group Sessions, which include representatives from interested DOJ components, 

prosecutors from around the United States, and federal agencies. Various group members join in 

informal subgroups to work on specific issues of concern in identity fraud. 

Sixth, the National Advocacy Center conducted an identity fraud training program. This course 

was well attended by Assistant U.S. Attorneys from a wide variety of practice areas, which 

reflects the use of identity fraud statutes in a wide range of cases. The program also included 

training on victim issues and the effective use of task forces. 

Finally, as criminals commit financial and cyber crimes by exploiting technological advances, 

the Criminal Division’s Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (AFMLS) has 

responded by creating a new Forfeiture Unit to assist other litigating sections in forfeiture of 

proceeds and instrumentalities of financial and cyber crimes. AFMLS also has recently created a 

Money Laundering and Bank Integrity Unit, dedicated to investigating complex national and 

international criminal cases with a focus on financial institutions, professional money launderers, 

and criminals who use emerging and innovative money laundering techniques, such as virtual 

currencies and mobile payments systems. 

8. Detention and Incarceration 

One of the Department of Justice’s most important responsibilities is to house federal prisoners 

and detainees safely and humanely. The Department remains committed to fulfilling this 

responsibility, despite the increasing prison and detainee populations and mounting resource 

challenges noted by the Inspector General. 

The Department shares the OIG’s concerns about the significant rise in prisoner population. 

Although adding beds to existing institutions or building new institutions would address the 

problem – and are a necessary part of the solution – the Department believes there may be other 

options to consider, as well. As a Nation, we cannot bear the cost – socially or economically – of 

building our way out of the prison issue or neglecting to look at the issues driving the rising 

prison population. The Attorney General’s Sentencing and Corrections Working Group is 

looking across the policy spectrum at innovative approaches for preventing crime, sentencing 

prisoners, and reforming correctional management that will, first and foremost, protect public 

safety while holding prisoners accountable in humane conditions. 

The Department continues to maintain a zero tolerance policy for staff sexual abuse and takes 

any allegation of sexual abuse in its facilities seriously. In response to this ongoing concern, the 

Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) continues to assess and adjust its current policy, Program 

Statement 5324.06, Sexually Abusive Behavior Prevention and Intervention Program. In 

addition, the BOP issued guidance to its Wardens on October 16, 2009, and October 12, 2010, 

highlighting the importance of reporting all cases of sexually abusive behavior toward inmates, 

including cases involving alleged victimization by a staff member and unfounded allegations. 

The memorandum dated October 12, 2010, re-iterated that Wardens first are to consider 

alternatives to segregation or transfer based on the circumstances of the allegation and that they 
IV-44 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

are required to document what methods were considered and why (if applicable) alternatives to 

segregation or transfer were not used. In addition, the memo required Wardens to place the 

above documentation in the case referral sent to the Office of Internal Affairs. The Department 

and BOP are committed to maintaining their focus on this issue. 

The Department is working diligently to develop national standards to combat sexual assault in 

correctional facilities pursuant to the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) and agrees 

that a final rule should be implemented expeditiously. In addition to preparing the rule, the 

Department has been working to ensure that, once promulgated, the national standards are 

successful. The Department is uniquely positioned to serve as a force multiplier, enabling best 

practices to gain recognition and enabling correctional systems – especially those with limited 

experience at developing practices and procedures to detect, prevent, and punish prison rape – to 

benefit from the PREA efforts of other jurisdictions. To that end, the Department’s Bureau of 

Justice Assistance has entered into a 3-year cooperative agreement for the development and 

operation of a Resource Center for the Elimination of Prison Rape. The Resource Center will 

provide additional training, technical assistance, and program implementation resources to the 

field to assist in the identification and promulgation of best practices and promising practices. 

As a member of the PREA Working Group, the USMS Prisoner Operations Division provides 

expertise and experience on lock-up standards. On October 1, 2010, the working group provided 

the Deputy Attorney General with recommendations for national standards for review and 

approvals. The USMS is fully compliant with the standards as drafted and has developed a new 

sexual assault policy. It is working with the National Institute of Corrections to create an on-line 

training module about the Prison Rape Elimination Act and its new sexual assault policy. 

The Department agrees with the OIG’s assessment of the benefits of the UNICOR program, 

which is run by Federal Prison Industries (FPI). FPI’s ability to maintain inmate employment 

levels and remain self-sustaining has been a challenge in recent years due to the continued 

impact of several external factors, such as adverse legislation, a struggling economy, and a 

downturn in the demand for items needed to support the war effort. 

In an effort to reduce operating costs and maintain FPI’s self-sufficiency through this downturn, 

FPI closed and downsized factories. While these measures generated substantial cost savings, 

they also resulted in a decrease in inmate employment, dropping the rate further below the goal 

of employing 25 percent of the inmate population. Alternative measures are being evaluated by 

the Department to enhance work opportunities and reentry initiatives while providing job skills 

training to the highest practicable number of inmates. 

Several concerns related to BOP’s furlough program were highlighted by the OIG. In order to 

better track and review furloughs, in October 2010, the Central Office Correctional Programs 

staff participated in a management assessment to modify the program review guidelines. 

Ultimately, the results from this assessment will be used to strengthen controls for release codes, 

escape data, and inmate custody requirements for furloughs (victim and witness notification). 

The BOP continues to work with Union representatives on policy negotiations in an effort to 

develop a more effective mechanism for coordinating policy changes. During the week of 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-45

October 4, 2010, BOP labor negotiators and Union officials attended Partnership Building 

training. Negotiations began October 26, 2010, for the furlough policy. A tentative meeting is 

scheduled for November 16-18, 2010, in an effort to conclude negotiations. 

Regarding jail day rates, the Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) shares the OIG’s 

goal of setting efficient and economic rates. Indeed, it already has implemented many of the 

recommendations previously identified by the OIG. For example, as part of eIGA, OFDT is 

collecting detailed cost information from state and local jails and is making the information 

available to USMS personnel involved in negotiating these jail day rates. To date, it has 

collected detailed cost information for 514 jails and has used the information to negotiate rates in 

256 agreements. 

The cost information that OFDT is collecting also will assist in setting economic rates in another 

key aspect. As the OIG points out, OFDT has developed a new econometric statistical model, 

known as the core rate. Later this year, after OFDT acquires sufficient cost information – and on 

a continual basis thereafter – OFDT will undertake to assess and refine what the core rate should 

be. This core rate then will serve as a benchmark or Government’s estimate for detention 

services provided by state and local jails, helping to ensure that jail day rates are economical and 

cost-efficient. 

9. Grant Management 

As the OIG acknowledges, by April of 2009, each of the Department's three grant-making 

components (the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), the Office on Violence 

Against Women (OVW), and the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)) had plans in place to 

implement the OIG’s recommendations from the February 2009 Improving the Grants 

Management Process report. In January 2010, the three components began bi-weekly meetings 

to address the issues raised by the OIG in the 2009 Top Management and Performance 

Challenges in the Department report and to develop Departmentwide policies and procedures to 

improve the grant process. As a result of these meetings, we now have a departmental process 

for dealing with high-risk grantees. The Department also anticipated and incorporated the 

recommendations in the OIG’s January 2010 Improving the Grant Management Process for 

Department of Justice Tribal Grant Programs report in developing the 2010 Coordinated Tribal 

Assistance Solicitation process. For the first time, the Department's three grant components 

issued their tribal grants under a single solicitation and coordinated the peer review and award 

process. The components also have developed joint training and technical assistance programs 

for tribal grantees, which will begin in FY 2011. The components will continue to meet biweekly, and will add the issues raised in the 2010 Top Management and Performance 

Challenges to its list of priorities for FY 2011. 

The OJP is committed to administering a grant awards process in a fair, accessible, and 

transparent fashion – and, as good stewards of federal funds, manage the grants system in a 

manner that avoids waste, fraud, and abuse. The OJP is employing a comprehensive approach to 

address grants management issues identified by audits and reviews. At every possible 

opportunity, OJP-wide corrective actions are implemented to respond to OIG grant-related and 

program-specific audit recommendations. The OJP has worked to implement appropriate 
IV-46 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

corrective actions quickly in response to the OIG’s audit findings on the administration of the 

Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. The OJP currently is developing 

agency-wide procedures to ensure that applications are consistently treated when determining 

whether they meet basic minimum requirements (BMR) and should proceed to peer review 

process. Similar to FY 2010, each OJP bureau and program office will issue internal policy 

guidance outlining the BMR process for its FY 2011 competitive solicitations. In FY 2010, the 

OJP revised its competitive solicitation language to clearly describe what material is required to 

be submitted by the applicant and to notify the applicant of the implications if they fail to submit 

an application that contains critical specified elements (i.e., will not proceed to peer review or 

receive further consideration). 

With regard to the 2009 COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP), the COPS Office agreed with 

the OIG’s determination that there were minor technical inaccuracies with some of the formulas 

COPS used in its application scoring methodology, which impacted 40 agencies that either 

should have received grants but did not, or received fewer officers than they should have. (These 

40 agencies represented only 3.82 percent of all 1,046 CHRP award recipients – and less than 

1.7% of the $1 billion in CHRP funding). In addition to a host of other information, applicants 

seeking funding from the CHRP program were asked to provide data for 3 years on the 

applicant’s agency budget, jurisdictional budget, jurisdictional revenue, and jurisdictional 

general fund balance. These questions were scored using a formula for measuring the change 

over time that the OIG identified as inaccurate. After this issue was identified, the COPS Office 

proactively determined the scope of the inaccuracy, developed an appropriate improvement to 

the formula for future use, and identified the agencies negatively affected. 

The COPS Office then remedied the 40 agencies identified using available funding, including FY 

2010 COPS Hiring Program funding. Thirty-four of these agencies originally would have 

received CHRP funding, and six would have received more CHRP funding (additional officer 

positions), if the new formula had been used. The COPS Office immediately notified the 40 

affected agencies of the remedial action and their pending FY 2010 awards. Prior to awarding 

this funding, the COPS Office verified that these agencies were in compliance with all other 

grant conditions and obtained updated budget data from each agency, as it was necessary to have 

current and validated salary information in order to determine accurate award amounts. As noted 

in the audit report, the OIG agreed that this was a reasonable approach. Accordingly, awards 

were made to the 40 agencies remedying this issue in September 2010. 

The OVW takes very seriously its responsibilities as a grant-making agency and is dedicated to 

managing its grant programs effectively and with transparency. The OVW understands that 

funding decisions impact communities across the country, and therefore these decisions must be 

made in a fair manner without error. A key element to this decision-making process is the peer 

review process. In order to ensure that individual application scores by peer reviewers are 

tabulated correctly, the OVW has incorporated a Peer Review Scores Certification as part of its 

peer review process. Lead peer reviewers will ensure that the scores of the panel are recorded 

and calculated accurately and sign a certification to the fact. Another key element to an 

objective peer review is the elimination of any existing or potential conflicts of interest. In order 

to strengthen its existing conflict of interest policy, peer reviewers will no longer receive any 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-47

scoring forms until they have signed and returned all of their necessary conflict of interests 

forms. 

While peer review scores are a basis for funding decisions, a thorough internal review is 

completed to assess financial stability, compliance with programmatic and statutory 

requirements, and past performance for organizations previously receiving OVW funding. In 

addition, the OVW has the discretion to consider geographic distribution of potential awards in 

its funding decisions to ensure that all regions of the country are benefiting from the grant 

dollars. The basis for any funding recommendation is substantiated in a comprehensive 

recommendation memo that is reviewed by the Director of the Office. If final funding 

recommendations deviate from rank order of the combined internal and peer review scores, 

justification is provided in this memo. The OVW now maintains both paper and electronic 

copies of its funding memos. 

The OJP has procedures in place to record the key aspects of the award process and document 

award recommendations and decisions. The OJP’s Grants Management System is the source for 

the official grant file and includes auditable documentation for all actions taken during the life of 

the grant. In accordance with established policy directives, the OJP will continue to document 

funding recommendations and decisions. This documentation describes the process used to 

evaluate applications, states the categories and the priority areas of the solicitation, lists the 

applications being recommended, and describes the factors used to make funding 

recommendations. Explanations are included for all applications not recommended for funding 

that received higher scores (or included in a higher tier if banding is used) than applications with 

lower scoring that were recommended for funding. 

The OJP is dedicated to continuously improving its oversight and monitoring of grantees and 

grant programs. The OJP has established common procedures and guidance to improve the 

quality and completeness of monitoring across OJP, as well as provided effective tools to its 

grants managers to properly document desk reviews and on-site monitoring, formally 

communicate with grantees through the system, and track the resolution of open issues. As part 

of its oversight responsibilities, the OJP Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management (OAAM) 

will continue to evaluate the quality and level of monitoring of OJP grants and identify 

opportunities for improvement. 

Additionally, the OAAM will review the procedures and internal controls of OJP’s grant 

management processes, provide recommendations for improvement, and monitor actions to 

ensure improvements are implemented. The OAAM will also continue to conduct program 

assessments of OJP and COPS Office grants and grant programs to measure performance against 

intended outcomes and assess compliance with applicable regulations and statutes. Assessment 

reports will include targeted recommendations for making program improvements and enhancing 

grant oversight practices, as well as program accomplishments and best practices. 

The OJP works closely with the OIG in addressing grantee issues identified in single and grant 

audits. The OJP has streamlined its audit follow-up activities, eliminating existing backlogs and 

allowing for more timely resolution of outstanding audit recommendations. In FY 2010, the OJP 

closed 151 of the 289 open single and OIG grant audit reports. This represented the resolution of 
IV-48 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

nearly 500 findings. Of the $15.9 million in questioned costs by the OIG, grantees submitted 

supportable documentation for $11.1 million and returned $3.3 million to DOJ for unallowable 

or unsupported costs. The remaining $1.5 million were duplicate costs addressed by DOJ grant 

recipients in other audit reports, or through litigation. 

The OVW continues to work with the OIG to address and resolve the two remaining 

recommendations from the 2005 Department of Justice Grant Close-Out Audit. One of the 

recommendations was that OVW remedy questioned costs related to drawdowns occurring more 

than 90 days past the grant end date (401 open awards at the time of the audit). To resolve this, 

OVW will provide a one-time no-cost extension letter to grantees and institute a policy that 

prohibits grantees from drawing down funds after 90 days. Only five awards remain for 

closeout. The second recommendation was that OVW deobligate funds related to expired grants 

that are more than 90 days past the grant end date (288 open awards at the time of the audit). 

OVW will deobligate all funds and put them to better use. The OVW plans to submit a request 

for closure of this audit by December 2010. 

10. Financial Management 

We agree with the OIG conclusion that the Department will not be able to fully meet the 

demands for program transparency and new Accountable Government initiatives without the 

Unified Financial Management System (UFMS). The Department remains fully committed to 

standardizing the core accounting functions and delivering an integrated financial and acquisition 

solution to strengthen internal controls, management oversight, and accountability. 

We also agree that the implementation of UFMS has been too slow. Faced with tightly 

constrained budgetary resources, the UFMS program has been funded primarily (over 70%) from 

agency balances. We appreciate the valuable support, guidance, and oversight provided by the 

OIG staff in working with the Controller’s Office to address and resolve these issues. 

Despite continued challenges, UFMS is serving as the system of record for two major law 

enforcement components, DEA and ATF, and in its first year of UFMS operations, DEA retained 

its clean audit opinion. UFMS now serves about 2,500 DOJ users worldwide. 

Consistent with current OMB direction, the Department has further separated the UFMS 

implementation tasks and will adjust the outyear implementations at the Offices, Boards, and 

Divisions; OJP; and the BOP in order to focus on successful implementation at the USMS and 

the FBI. Implementation of UFMS at the USMS is on schedule and budget for deployment in 

the first half of FY 2012. While the FBI Phase 2 implementation of UFMS did not begin in FY 

2010, it now is underway with a heightened focus on managing the risks of this critical effort. 

Working together, we can achieve the goals of improving financial accountability and 

streamlining financial operations, while retaining audit results. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-49

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, 2010; 2010 Fiscal Year End 

Issue Title 

Prison Crowding 

Issue ID 

06BOP001 

Component Name 

Bureau of Prisons 

Issue Category 

 FMFIA, Section 2 Reportable Condition Material Weakness 

 FMFIA, Section 4 Non-conformance

 OMB A-123, Appendix A Reportable Condition Material Weakness

Issue Category – SAT Concurrence or Recategorization 

Concur 

Issue Description 

The growth of the federal inmate population continues to exceed available capacity. At the end of fiscal year 2010, the inmate

population housed in BOP operated institutions reached 173,289. Inmates were housed in a rated capacity of 126,713, resulting 

in an over-crowding rate of 37 percent above rated capacity, the same rate as at the end of fiscal year 2009. 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 and constructing new facilities as 

funding permits. The Long Range Capacity Plan details the acquisition, expansion, and construction necessary to maximize the 

BOP’s ability to keep pace with the increasing inmate population, thereby striving to maintain safe and secure operations in 

facilities housing federal inmates. 

Through the utilization of contract facilities for low-security inmates, acquisition and expansion of existing institutions, and 

construction of new facilities, the BOP’s Long-Range Capacity Plan projects a rated capacity in BOP operated institutions of 

136,709 by September 30, 2014. If acquisition, expansion, and construction plans are funded as proposed, the over-crowding rate 

at that time is projected to be 38 percent. Without the utilization of contract facilities and the BOP’s other mitigating actions, the 

projected over-crowding rate would be 45 percent. 

Corrective action efforts are not limited to the BOP alone. The Department has begun considering an innovative array of crime 

prevention, sentencing, and corrections management improvements that will 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. Remediation of the material weakness through 

increasing prison capacity is largely dependent on funding, while other correctional reforms and alternatives may require policy 

and/or statutory changes. The BOP will work with the Department on these initiatives.

Business Process Area (N/A for Section 2 and Section 4 issues) 

Not Applicable 

Date First Identified 

2006 

Original Target Completion Date 

09/30/2012 

Current Target Completion Date 

Dependent on funding 

Actual Completion 

Date

Issue Identified By 

Bureau of Prisons 

Source Document Title 

BOP Population Projections 

Description of Remediation 

Increase the number of federal inmate beds to keep pace with projected increases in the inmate population. Efforts to reach this 

goal include expanding existing institutions, acquiring surplus properties for conversion to correctional facilities, constructing 

new institutions, utilizing contract facilities, and exploring alternative options of confinement for appropriate cases. 

FMFIA
IV-50 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

Milestones Original Target Date Current Target Date Actual Completion 

Date

1. As of September 30, 2006, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 162,514 and was 

housed in a capacity of 119,510, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 36 percent. 

09/30/2006 09/30/2006 

2. As of September 30, 2007, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 167,323 and was 

housed in a capacity of 122,189, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 37 percent, an increase of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2007 09/30/2007 

3. As of September 30, 2008, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 165,964 and was 

housed in a capacity of 122,366, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 36 percent, a decrease of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2008 09/30/2008 

4. As of September 30, 2009, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 172,423 and was 

housed in a capacity of 125,778, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 37 percent, an increase of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2009 09/30/2009 

5. 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. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 128,489 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2011. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 39 percent at that time, an increase of 2 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2011 

7. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 132,900 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2012. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 38 percent at that time, a decrease of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2012 

8. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 134,561 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2013. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 39 percent at that time, an increase of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2013 

9. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 136,709 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2014. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 38 percent at that time, a decrease of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2014 

Reason for Not Meeting Original Target Completion Date 

Funding for additional capacity has not kept pace with the increases in the federal inmate population. 

Status of Funding Available to Achieve Corrective Action 

The FY 2011 and out-year budget requests are structured to address the BOP’s long-term capacity needs in the most cost effective 

manner possible. The DOJ's proposed FY 2012 budget for BOP is under review at the Office of Management and Budget; as of 

year-end FY 2010, the BOP's Long-term Capacity Plan was partially funded through FY 2016. The BOP will continue to 

structure budget requests to address capacity needs in the most cost effective manner possible.

Planned Measures to Prevent Recurrence 

The BOP will continue to develop budget requests consistent with inmate population increases. 

Validation Indicator

Results are measured as a new institution or expansion project is activated and resulting increases in rated capacity are 

established. A corresponding decrease in the over-crowding rate will also be a tangible measurement of the results. Progress on 

construction projects at new and existing facilities will be validated via on-site inspections of each facility or by review of

monthly construction progress reports.

Organization Responsible for Corrective Action 

BOP Program Review Division
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-51

An October 15, 2010, memorandum from the Controller of the White House Office of Management and 

Budget noted that 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 2010. Therefore, certain 

information is required to be reported this fiscal year on the undisbursed balances in expired grant 

accounts. 

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-II, 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 2010, the below information is required to be reported in 

the Performance and Accountability Reports or Agency Financial Reports (AFR) 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 monitor 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 will conduct 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 a monthly report 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. 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts
Department of Justice IV-52  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

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 

is given the opportunity to draw down these funds. OJP Customer Service Outreach staff will call 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 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: 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report IV-53

All dollars noted below in Thousands: 

OJP: 

FY 2007: 6 accounts: total of $69,294 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2008: 8 accounts: total of $60,725 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2009: 10 accounts: total of $65,961 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 8 accounts: total of $1,638,582 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

COPS: 

FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009: No undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 1 account: $1,001,950 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

OVW:

FY 2007, FY 2008, FY 2009: No undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 1 account: $223,012 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 
Department of Justice IV-54  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report A-1

APPENDIX A 

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provided a draft of the Independent Auditors’ Report on 

Internal Control over Financial Reporting to the Department of Justice (Department). The Department’s 

response is incorporated in the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting of 

this final report. The following provides the OIG analysis of the response and summary of actions necessary 

to close the report. 

Recommendation Number: 

1. Resolved. The Department concurred with our recommendation. This recommendation can be closed 

when subsequent annual financial statement audit testing verifies that the Department monitored the 

corrective actions taken by the USMS to improve the condition of its funds management controls, in 

response to the specific recommendations made in the component auditors’ Independent Auditors’ 

Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting issued in connection with the audit of the 

USMS’s financial statements as of and for the year ended September 30, 2010. 

2. Resolved. The Department concurred with our recommendation. This recommendation can be closed 

when subsequent annual financial statement audit testing verifies that the Department assessed 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, the Department should 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. The 

Department should monitor the AFF’s and ATF’s adherence to the Department’s accounting and 

financial reporting policies and procedures throughout the year. 

3. Resolved. The Department concurred with our recommendation. This recommendation can be closed 

when the Department has implemented a Department-wide integrated financial management system 

that is in compliance with the United States Government Standard General Ledger, conforms to the 

financial management system requirements established by OMB Circular A-127, Financial 

Management Systems, and can accommodate the requirements of applicable federal accounting 

standards. 

 

Office of the Inspector General

Analysis and Summary of Actions Necessary to Close the Report
A-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report B-1

APPENDIX B 

Item I. Describe the risk assessment performed subsequent to the agency completing its full program 

inventory. List the risk-susceptible programs (i.e., programs that have a significant risk of improper 

payments based on OMB guidance thresholds) identified through the agency’s risk assessment. 

Highlight any changes to the agency’s risk assessment or risk assessment results that have occurred 

since its IPIA Reporting in the FY 2009 PAR. 

In accordance with the Improper Payments Information Act (IPIA) and OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, 

Requirements for Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments, the Department assessed its 

programs and activities for susceptibility to significant improper payments. The Department has implemented 

a top-down approach that assesses risk from a Department-wide perspective, allowing management to focus on 

the most significant programs and activities in terms of risk and materiality. The approach promotes 

consistency across components and enhances internal control related to preventing, detecting, and recovering 

improper payments. In conjunction with implementing the top-down approach, the Department developed and 

disseminated guidance for conducting the required risk assessment, along with a risk assessment survey 

instrument for components to use in capturing information on ten risk factors, such as payment volume and 

process complexity. The instrument covered commercial payments, as well as intra-governmental payments, 

employee disbursements, and grant payments. 

The Department’s IPIA risk assessment process has not changed significantly since FY 2009. In addition, the 

results of the FY 2010 IPIA risk assessment did not differ significantly from the results of the FY 2009 IPIA 

risk assessment. Based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment for the period ending 

September 30, 2010, the Department concluded there were no programs with a significant risk of improper 

payments exceeding the OMB thresholds of 2.5 percent of program payments and $10 million.

Item II. Describe the statistical sampling process conducted to estimate the improper payment rate for 

each program identified. Highlight any changes to the agency’s statistical sampling process that have 

occurred since its IPIA Reporting in the FY 2009 PAR. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment, the Department concluded there 

were no programs susceptible to improper payments exceeding both 2.5 percent of program payments and 

$10 million. This remains unchanged from FY 2009. 

Item III. Describe the Corrective Action Plans for: 

A. Reducing the estimated rate and amount of improper payments for each type of root cause of 

error. Include the corrective action(s) most likely to significantly reduce future improper 

payments due to each type of error. 

The results of the Department-wide risk assessment demonstrated that, overall, the Department has 

sufficient internal controls over disbursement processes, the dollar amount of improper payments is 

not material, and the risk of significant improper payments is low. Nonetheless, Departmental 

components have implemented corrective actions to address specific areas where improvements can be 

made. For example, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) requires personnel at payment sites 

to complete its Intranet-based electronic form, Notification of Erroneous Payment, for any improper 

payment identified. Data to be reported on the form include the underlying cause(s) of the improper 

payment and corrective actions planned to prevent recurrence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

(FBI) efforts to prevent and reduce improper payments also include identifying the causes of errors 

and appropriate corrective actions; i.e., its post-payment procedures specifically address the need to 

    Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details
B-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

correct root causes of errors. Other examples of corrective actions and ongoing efforts to prevent 

improper payments are further described in Item V, Recovery Auditing Reporting, and Item VII, 

Agency Information Systems and Other Infrastructure. 

B. Grant-making agencies with risk-susceptible grant programs, discuss what the agency has 

accomplished in the area of funds stewardship past the primary recipient. Include the status of 

projects and results of any reviews. 

Not applicable. The Department-wide risk assessment concluded there were no risk-susceptible grant 

programs. 

Item IV. Program Improper Payment Reporting 

The table below is required for each reporting agency. Agencies must include the following 

information: 

- all risk-susceptible programs must be listed in this chart 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, indicate by either note or by N/A in 

the Prior Year (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; 

- include outlay estimates for CY+1, +2, and +3; and 

- agencies are expected to report on CY activity or, if not feasible, PY activity is acceptable. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment, the Department concluded there 

were no programs susceptible to improper payments exceeding both 2.5 percent of program payments and 

$10 million. 

Item V. Recovery Auditing Reporting 

A. Discuss the agency’s recovery auditing effort, if applicable, including any contract types 

excluded from review and the justification for doing so, actions taken to recoup improper 

payments, and the business process changes and internal controls instituted and/or 

strengthened to prevent further occurrences. 

The Department’s recovery auditing program is part of its overall program of effective internal control 

over disbursements. The recovery auditing program includes preventive and detective controls to 

ensure payments are legal, proper, and correct. For example, the Department’s policies pertaining to 

the Recovery Auditing Act and IPIA provide a methodology for identifying improper payments; 

establish a system to monitor improper payments and their causes; and include controls and actions for 

preventing, detecting, and recovering improper payments. 

In addition to implementing the controls established by the Department, components have taken 

specific actions to enhance their disbursement processes and associated internal controls to prevent 

further occurrences of improper payments. Components have also taken specific actions to facilitate 

recovery of improper payments. For example, the FBI developed an accounts receivable report that 

tracks the age and collection efforts for all uncollected improper payments, and DEA enhanced its data 

collection and analytics efforts to ensure information on the status of recoveries and trends of 

improper payments can be readily generated. The Office of Justice Programs’ (OJP) actions include 

developing and regularly generating a report 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. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report B-3

All of the Department’s components’ internal review activities include reviews of disbursements that 

test for improper payments. For example, for the Department’s Offices, Boards, and Divisions, the 

Justice Management Division’s Quality Control and Compliance Group conducts periodic internal 

reviews of financial controls that include tests for improper payments. 

B. Complete the table below. 

Summary of Recovery Program Activities  

Current Year (FY 2010) and Prior Years (FYs 2004 through 2009)

Amount Subject

to Review for  

FY 2010

Reporting

Actual Amount

Reviewed and

Reported  

FY 2010

Amounts

Identified

for

Recovery

FY 2010

Amounts

Recovered

FY 2010

Amounts

Identified

for Recovery

in Prior

Years

Amounts

Recovered

in Prior

Years

Cumulative

Amount

Identified

for Recovery

(FY 2010 +

Prior Years)

Cumulative

Amount

Recovered  

(FY 2010 +

Prior Years)

$10,549,092,624 $10,549,092,624

(100 percent) $3,576,883 $4,084,993 $16,772,333 $15,055,944 $20,349,216 $19,140,937

(94 percent)

As shown in the table, for the cumulative reporting period of FY 2004 through FY 2010, the 

Department has recovered approximately $19.1 million or 94 percent of the total amount of improper 

commercial payments identified for recovery, up from 90 percent at FY 2009 year end. As also 

shown, the amount of improper payments recovered in FY 2010 exceeds the amount identified for 

recovery due to the recovery during FY 2010 of improper payments identified in previous years. 

Item VI. Describe the steps the agency has taken and plans to take (including time line) to ensure that 

agency managers (including the agency head) are held accountable for reducing and recovering 

improper payments. 

The Assistant Attorney General for Administration has implemented IPIA and recovery auditing policies and 

controls throughout the Department that cover preventing, detecting, and recovering improper payments. As 

mentioned previously, the dollar amount of the Department’s improper payments is not material, and the risk 

of significant improper payments is low. Nonetheless, the Department holds managers accountable for 

reducing and recovering improper payments through performance ratings. In addition, the Department 

requires components to provide a report each quarter on recovery auditing activities so component progress on 

reducing and recovering improper payments can be monitored throughout the year. Data required to be 

reported include the amounts of total payments, total payments reviewed for improper payments, improper 

payments identified for recovery, improper payments recovered, and improper payments remaining to be 

recovered; the root causes of improper payments; and corrective actions taken or planned to resolve issues 

timely and effectively. 

In addition to the Department’s measures to hold managers accountable for reducing and recovering improper 

payments, some components have established additional accountability measures. For example, for internal 

reviews conducted by the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Program Review Office, it is the responsibility of 

the Chief Executive Officer of each site reviewed to address each deficiency in the program review final report 

and provide an explanation of the corrective action taken to resolve the deficiencies. 

Item VII. Agency Information Systems and Other Infrastructure 

A. Describe whether the agency has the information systems and other infrastructure it needs to 

reduce improper payments to the levels the agency has targeted. 

Department-wide actions to reduce improper payments are accomplished through an aggressive 

strategy of re-engineering and standardizing business processes, concurrent with the Department’s 

implementation of an integrated financial management system, which is underway and scheduled to be 

implemented across Departmental components within the next four years. In addition to the 
B-4 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Department’s actions to reduce improper payments, individual components have built controls into 

their financial systems that are designed to prevent improper payments and identify such payments so 

recovery actions can be initiated. For example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives (ATF) financial system validates that the same invoice number has not been used 

previously by a vendor when a subsequent invoice from that vendor is being processed for payment. 

B. If the agency does not have such systems and infrastructure, describe the resources the 

agency requested in its most recent budget submission to Congress to obtain the necessary 

information systems and infrastructure. 

Not applicable. The integrated financial management system, when fully implemented throughout the 

Department, will complement the Department’s current infrastructure and capabilities to reduce 

improper payments. 

Item VIII. Describe any statutory or regulatory barriers that may limit the agency’s corrective actions in 

reducing improper payments and actions taken by the agency to mitigate the barriers’ effects. 

The Department has not identified any statutory or regulatory barriers that limit its corrective actions in 

reducing improper payments. 

Item IX. Additional comments, if any, on overall agency efforts, specific programs, best practices, or 

common challenges identified as a result of IPIA implementation. 

The Department’s continued use of a top-down approach for IPIA compliance promotes consistency across 

components and enhances internal controls and activities designed to prevent, detect, and recover improper 

payments. As mentioned previously, use of a top-down approach allows the Department to focus on its most 

significant programs and activities in terms of risk and materiality. 

Additional Departmental IPIA efforts in FY 2010 included enhancing its Recovery Auditing Activities data 

collection instrument to facilitate quarterly monitoring of activities and annual reporting for the Performance 

and Accountability Report. The Department also provided a workshop to reinforce requirements and promote 

consistency throughout the Department with regard to IPIA compliance. The workshop focused on conducting 

and documenting the required IPIA risk assessment and reporting the data needed for the Performance and 

Accountability Report. 
 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report C-1

APPENDIX C 

This financial management status report describes the Department’s three most 

significant and overarching financial management initiatives – achieving a clean audit 

opinion, implementing a new Department-wide financial management system, and 

continually improving internal controls. The President’s emphasis on transparency 

emphasizes the significance of federal government performance and accountability to 

achieve successful results. The ultimate goal is accurate and timely financial information 

on a recurring basis. These initiatives support the Department’s overall goal to improve 

management and administration of the Department’s programs while also supporting 

mandates such as the CFO Act, the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA), the Government 

Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA), and the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996. 

Reliable Financial Statements and Meeting Due Dates for Financial Statements. 

KPMG LLP, an independent public accounting firm under contract with the 

Department’s Office of the Inspector General, performed the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 

consolidated Department audit. The Department earned an unqualified opinion on its 

audited consolidated financial statements for FY 2010. All nine of the Department’s 

components that produce financial statements received unqualified opinions, as well. 

The Department and components continued to demonstrate progress in remediating 

weaknesses identified by the independent auditors. The Department has consistently met 

the OMB due date for submission of the consolidated financial statements. Ensuring 

these deadlines are met required planning and coordination which included issuance of 

the annual Financial Statement Requirements and Preparation Guide (Guide). The Guide 

includes a detailed timeline of major events and interim milestones. This, along with 

components’ corrective actions quarterly status updates, adds to the foundation necessary 

to eliminate auditor-reported internal control material weaknesses. For FY 2010 and 

beyond, the Department expects to maintain its consistent status on its audited 

consolidated financial statements. 

Integrated Financial Management System. The Unified Financial Management 

System (UFMS) initiative is the keystone to the Department’s financial systems 

improvement planning for the future. UFMS is replacing the Department’s multiple core 

financial management and procurement systems with an integrated Commercial Off-TheShelf (COTS) solution, Momentum, provided by CGI Federal Inc. Implementation of the 

UFMS is improving financial management and procurement operations through 

streamlining and standardizing business processes and procedures across all components. 

The Department Components identified to replace their current financial management and 

procurement systems include the Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP), Federal Bureau of 

    FY 2010 Financial Management Status Report
 Department of Justice C-2  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

Investigation (FBI); U.S. Marshals Service (Marshals Service); Drug Enforcement 

Administration (DEA); Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP); Office of Justice Programs (OJP); 

Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs); and Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). 

As of September 2010, UFMS supported more than 2,000 users worldwide, including the DEA 

(fully implemented), BOP (UFMS Acquisitions), Marshals Service (UFMS Acquisitions), and 

AFP (pilot program). 

Significant strides were made in FY 2010 to bring additional users onto the system and prepare 

the next Components for implementation. Major accomplishments included the following: 

 Implemented Marshals Service Phase 1, UFMS Acquisitions, in March 2010 

demonstrating that two DOJ organizations (BOP and the Marshals Service) could 

successfully operate in a single shared instance. Sharing instances in UFMS will result in 

significant cost savings across the Department by consolidating system administration 

functions and eliminating duplicative processes. 

 Accomplished the upgrade to UFMS 2.0, which supports additional business processes, 

reports, reference data, management solutions, planning, and system security 

enhancements. 

 Completed the design, configuration, testing, training, and conversion activities to deploy 

UFMS 2.0 to ATF as its system of record in October 2010, which will add 500 more 

users. 

 Finished planning activities and initiated Phase 2 of the full implementation at the 

Marshals Service. This included the requirements gathering and gap analysis. The 

Marshals Service is scheduled to go live in 2012. 

 Updated the UFMS Authority to Operate. 

 Collaborated with the FBI to prepare for the start up in the first quarter of FY 2011 of the 

Phase 2 implementation of UFMS at the Criminal Justice Information System (CJIS). 

 Improved system availability of UFMS by meeting the performance standard of 99 

percent availability in 11 of the 12 months, and improved the user experience during peak 

processing times. Customer service continues to be a priority, and performance against 

the objectives will continue to be measured and evaluated as new customers are 

implemented. 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Remediation Plan and 

A-123 Compliance. During FY 2010, 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. 
 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report C-3

The Department continued its commitment to improving and strengthening controls 

through the annual OMB Circular A-123 assessment. Using a top-down risk-based 

approach, efforts were focused on significant areas where the risk of material errors in 

financial reporting could occur. An increased effort was also made to coordinate and 

leverage existing reviews and assessments of the controls over significant financial 

information systems. These actions, coupled with the Department’s corrective action 

plan process, have enabled the Department to monitor the components’ progress against 

corrective action plans more timely and, when necessary, provide additional resources to 

correct control weaknesses. 

 
 Department of Justice C-4  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report D-1

APPENDIX D 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Review of Department of Justice's Preparations to 

Respond to a Weapons of Mass Destruction Attack 

The OIG examined the preparedness of DOJ and its components to respond to a Weapons of Mass Destruction 

(WMD) incident. This review, however, did not examine preparedness to prevent a WMD. Emergency 

preparedness functions are generally considered to have two main elements: operational response and 

continuity planning. Operational response consists of an on-scene response to the incident and investigation of 

the incident. Continuity planning includes continuity of operations planning and continuity of government 

planning. In conducting this review, the OIG examined the roles of the Office of the Deputy Attorney 

General, Justice Management Division, Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Criminal Division, 

Drug Enforcement Administration, Executive Office of the United States Attorneys, Federal Bureau of 

Investigation, National Security Division, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, United States 

Attorney’s Offices in the National Capital Region, and the United States Marshals Service. The OIG 

concluded that only the FBI has taken adequate steps to respond to a potential WMD attack. 

OIG Review of the Department’s Anti-Gang Intelligence and Coordination Centers 

The OIG conducted a review to examine the intelligence and coordination activities of National Gang 

Intelligence Center and Gang Targeting Enforcement, and Coordinating Center (the Centers) and to assess the 

effectiveness of their contributions to DOJ anti-gang initiatives. Specifically, the OIG examined whether the 

Centers provide comprehensive gang intelligence and coordination services to enhance gang investigations and 

prosecutions in the field. In addition, the OIG assessed the effectiveness of the Department’s management and 

co-location of the Centers. The Centers were created to be the Department’s national intelligence and 

coordination mechanisms, respectively, for gang-related investigations and prosecutions. The OIG generated 

15 recommendations to help improve the Centers’ missions of assisting federal, state, and local law 

enforcement to address violent regional and national gangs. The Office of the Deputy Attorney 

General (ODAG) generated a joint response on behalf of the Criminal Division, the FBI and the ODAG that 

agreed in concept with the 15 recommendations and is in the process of evaluating and formulating measures 

to resolve many of the identified issues. 

OIG Review of the Coordination between the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the 

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

The OIG audit examined the Department’s oversight and the FBI’s and ATF’s operations of explosives-related 

activities from FY 2003 through April 2009. The objective of this review was to evaluate the level of 

coordination between the FBI and ATF in explosive investigations, including the effectiveness of explosive 

incident protocols to determine lead agency jurisdiction, the extent of information sharing and consolidation of 

explosives data, the degree of training coordination, and the use of laboratory resources for explosives 

analysis. The OIG found that the FBI and ATF were not adequately coordinating explosives-related 

operations and had developed similar technical abilities to respond to explosives incidents. The OIG made 15 

recommendations to improve coordination and reduce conflict between the FBI and ATF on explosives 

investigations and related activities. The OIG further stated that it is critical that the Department issue a new 

directive to clearly define lead investigative authority between the FBI and ATF and require coordination of 

investigative actions when it is unclear at the outset as to which of the agencies has lead investigative 

authority. Additionally, the recommendations included developing protocols on joint investigations for 

Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2010
D-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

explosives incidents, implementing new policies to ensure both federal reporting to the ATF and development 

of a more user-friendly system, as well as agreeing on standardized post-blast curricula, render-safe 

procedures, and canine training standards. In a joint response, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

agreed in concept with all 15 recommendations and agreed to formulate measures to resolve many of the 

identified issues. On August 3, 2010, the Deputy Attorney General signed a decision memorandum with 

directives for ATF and FBI. 

OIG Review of FBI’s Laboratory Forensic DNA Backlog 

Forensic DNA casework testing involves the identification and evaluation of biological evidence using DNA 

technologies. Forensic DNA analysis is an important tool in law enforcement and counterterrorism 

investigations. DNA analysis can be used to implicate or eliminate a suspect, solve cases that had previously 

been thought of as unsolvable, link evidence from different crime scenes, or aid in the identification of victims. 

The FBI Laboratory conducts analyses of forensic DNA cases as well as of convicted offender samples. As a 

result of this study, the OIG made five recommendations: 1) Standardize FBI Laboratory-wide definitions for 

calculating backlog within case working units; 2) Ensure the availability of an information portal that has 

received permanent authority to operate for FBI Laboratory users to access a laboratory information 

management system; 3) Establish formal time tracking procedures and definitions in the FBI Laboratory to 

accurately capture time spent conducting forensic DNA casework; 4) Coordinate with the District of Columbia 

Metropolitan Police Department to resolve the more than 200 instances of missing case evidence; and 

5) Examine the effect of outsourcing agreements on the overall DNA forensic casework backlog and the time 

contributors wait for test results. The FBI concurred with the OIG recommendations and has taken the 

necessary corrective actions to close this report. 

OIG Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration’s El Paso Intelligence Center (EPIC)

The objectives of the review were to assess EPIC’s effectiveness at analyzing and disseminating intelligence 

and its coordination with law enforcement and intelligence centers and agencies. 

OIG issued 11 recommendations in the report. One of the recommendations, number 4, was directed to the 

Office of the Deputy Attorney General. The recommendations were as follows: 1) EPIC implement an 

outreach and education program to promote the use of its products and services, including information about 

how to use the EPIC Portal; 2) EPIC update its Principals Accord or adopt a comparable multiagency 

framework that formalizes each member’s roles and responsibilities for implementing and sustaining EPIC’s 

programs and that provides a process for resolving differences that may arise; 3) EPIC promote increased 

reporting of drug seizure data to the National Seizure System through the EPIC Portal and traditional methods; 

4) The Office of the Deputy Attorney General work with the Office of National Drug Control Policy to 

establish policy or guidance requiring HIDTAs to implement data and information sharing provisions to 

establish EPIC as their hub for seizure and drug movement information; 5) EPIC establish points of contact at 

all national, regional, state, and local fusion centers to enhance information sharing and use of EPIC’s services 

and products; 6) EPIC issue more substantive analytical products based on the seizure data collected in the 

National Seizure System; 7) EPIC assess the feasibility of analyzing digitally scanned fraudulent documents to 

identify trends in both sources and patterns of fraudulent document use, and of providing the data to other 

intelligence centers for their use; 8) The DEA assess the feasibility of enhancing the capability at EPIC to 

analyze tactical information to identify links, trends, and patterns in drug trafficking activity in support of 

interdictions operations and investigations; 9) EPIC examine new approaches for making Gatekeeper 

information more current and accessible; 10) EPIC develop performance metrics for all its programs and 

operations that define relevant and objective standards, and use the metrics to evaluate program effectiveness; 

11) EPIC develop a mechanism to systematically collect feedback on its products and services from users. 

DEA has responded and taken actions to address the recommendations. OIG is still reviewing the information 

to determine if the DEA status meets the intent of the recommendations. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report D-3

OIG Review of DEA’s Clandestine Laboratory Cleanup Program

The objectives were to evaluate 1) whether there is adequate oversight and inspection of the clandestine lab 

cleanups performed by contractors primarily to assure effective cleanup; 2) whether contracting is 

accomplished in accordance with applicable laws, regulations, and policies, and 3) the DEA's overall 

effectiveness in administering the Clandestine Lab Cleanup Program. OIG issued six recommendations to 

DEA for improvement of the program. The recommendations were 1) Ensure that final manifests are 

submitted with vendor invoices and that invoices are not paid until a final manifest is received; 2) Ensure that 

all final manifests are compared with Certificates of Disposal to determine if all hazardous waste materials 

were disposed of properly; 3) Ensure that vendor cleanup personnel have the required Sensitive Access Level 

adjudication or are in the process of obtaining one before being allowed to perform the hazardous waste 

cleanup services and that the labor costs are not paid for personnel performing cleanups without required 

Sensitive Access Level adjudications; 4) Ensure that cleanups are performed by a minimum of two properly 

trained vendor personnel; 5) Ensure that vendors list the correct generators on the manifests; and 6) Analyze 

the option of contracting separately with the EPA-regulated disposal facilities in order to resolve the 

conflicting time requirements for vendor submission of final invoices and disposal facility submission of 

Certificates of Disposal. On September 17, 2010, DEA provided a response to OIG on the actions taken to 

address the six recommendations made in the report. The actions taken on recommendations 1-5 to update the 

Clan Lab standard operating procedures met the intent of the recommendation. On the same day, September 

17, 2010, OIG closed recommendations 1-5 based on the updated standard operating procedures provided to 

OIG. Recommendation 6 requires DEA to complete an analysis of contracting separately with the EPAregulated disposal facilities. The DEA analysis is ongoing. 

 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Examination of Bureau of Prisons’ (BOP) Methods 

for Cost Estimation 

GAO was congressionally directed to examine 1) how BOP estimates costs when developing its 

annual budget request to DOJ; 2) the extent to which BOP’s methods for estimating costs follow 

established best practices; and 3) the extent to which BOP’s costs for key operations exceeded 

requested funding levels identified in the President’s budget in recent years, and how this has affected 

BOP’s ability to manage its growing inmate population. GAO analyzed BOP budget documents, 

interviewed BOP and DOJ officials, and compared BOP’s cost estimation documentation to criteria 

in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. GAO found that BOP’s methods for cost 

estimation largely reflect best practices outlined in GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. 

BOP followed a well-defined process for developing a mostly comprehensive, well documented, 

accurate, and credible cost estimate for fiscal year 2008. For example, BOP used relevant historical 

cost data and considered adjustments for general inflation when estimating costs for its budget 

request to DOJ. Moreover, BOP’s methods for projecting inmate population changes were accurate, 

on average, to within 1 percent of the actual inmate population growth from fiscal year 1999 to 

August 2009. GAO recommended that BOP 1) conduct an uncertainty analysis quantifying the 

extent to which its operational costs could vary due to changes in key cost assumptions and submit 

the results, along with budget documentation, to DOJ; and 2) improve documentation of calculations 

used to estimate its costs. BOP agreed with GAO’s recommendations.
D-4 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-1

APPENDIX E 

The information in this section is provided pursuant to the statutory mandate in Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 2320(g), which requires a report of Department of Justice prosecutions of intellectual property 

(IP) crimes brought under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A and 2320 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

Prosecutions under other IP statutes are not included. This information has been provided by the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), which maintains criminal caseload information as reported by 

the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices. 

The pages that follow contain summary case information, segregated by statutory provision, and preceded by a 

brief description of each offense. Also included is a list of cases referred for prosecution by the Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Following the 

summary data is a district by district break out of the same data. 

The automated case management system used to collect data for the U.S. Attorneys' Offices does not break out 

copyright infringement cases according to the following categories: audiovisual (videos and films); audio 

(sound recordings); literary works (books and musical compositions); computer programs or video games. 

Also, the case management system does not separately identify copyright infringement cases where the 

infringer advertises the infringing work online or makes the infringing work available on the Internet for 

download, reproduction, performance or distribution by others. Thus, that information is not included. 

Similarly, data on fines, penalties, settlements or restitution are not included because that information cannot 

be extracted from the database according to particular statutes. 

Intellectual Property Report – FY 2010
E-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 26 

Number of Defendants: 32 

Number of Cases Filed: 9 

Number of Defendants: 9 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 12 

Number of Defendants: 24 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 9 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 2 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 13 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 6 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 1 

13 to 24 Months: 1 

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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-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 2010 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

 Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 132 

 Number of Defendants: 174 

 Number of Cases Filed: 74 

 Number of Defendants: 83 

 Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 84 

 Number of Defendants: 95 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

 Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 84 

 Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 1 

 Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 8 

 Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

 Other Terminated Defendants: 2 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

 No Imprisonment: 54 

 1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 14 

 13 to 24 Months: 12 

 25 to 36 Months: 3 

 37 to 60 Months: 2 

 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.
E-4 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 1 

Number of Defendants: 1 

Number of Cases Filed: 0 

Number of Defendants: 0 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 0 

Number of Defendants: 0 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 0 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 0 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 0 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 0 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 0 

13 to 24 Months: 0 

25 to 36 Months: 0 

37 to 60 Months: 0 

61 + Months: 0 

Total Dollar Value of All Criminal Fines Imposed: Not Available (fines can be assessed in lieu of or in addition to prison 

sentences.) 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed 

defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may 

have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, 

charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319A* ‐ Unauthorized Fixation of and Trafficking in Sound

Recordings and Music Videos of Live Musical Performances.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-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 2010 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 194 

Number of Defendants: 346 

Number of Cases Filed: 87 

Number of Defendants: 159 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 74 

 Number of Defendants: 118 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 78 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 4 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 31 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 3 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 48 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 16 

13 to 24 Months: 9 

25 to 36 Months: 4 

37 to 60 Months: 3 

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. 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.
E-6 Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

 All Districts - All Statutes

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 333 368 303 243 343 

Number of Defendants: 580 561 467 404 543 

Number of Cases Filed: 178 200 179 150 158 

Number of Defendants: 297 268 239 203 239 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 155 177 174 175 152 

Number of Defendants: 223 278 270 230 212 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 178 240 220 198 185 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 9 10 8 5 7 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 16 15 26 21 14 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 2 1 8 2 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 18 12 8 4 4 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 91 129 101 114 114 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 35 44 46 31 33 

13 to 24 Months: 22 33 39 27 25 

25 to 36 Months: 13 18 20 6 9 

37 to 60 Months: 17 11 19 17 7 

61 + Months: 9 15 3 8 4 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 OR TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE,

SECTION 506*
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-7

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 10

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 177 

Number of Defendants: 281 

Number of Cases Filed: 85 

Number of Defendants: 115 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 66 

Number of Defendants: 86 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 76 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 4 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 4 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 54 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 16 

13 to 24 Months: 4 

25 to 36 Months: 3 

37 to 60 Months: 2 

61+ Months: 1 

*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 000000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 130000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 110006 50100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 220012 02000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 230012 10100

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 110000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 000000 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 110000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 120033 00300

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 000012 00200

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 000013 20100

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 110000 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

E-8 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 556644 00400

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 120000 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 000012 10100

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 111100 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 451100 00000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 221100 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 26 32 9 9 12 24 9 2 13 0 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-9

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 400010

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000002

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 010000

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 200000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-10 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*
PRISON SENTENCING

NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 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 001000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 000000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHER 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHER 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

Grand Total 611012

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-11

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER AUDIOVISUAL WORKS

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 000000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 221100 00000

ALASKA 001111 10000

ARIZONA 151412 20000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 110000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 554444 30001

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 342213 30000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 7 10 1123 20100

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 110000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000022 20000

DELAWARE 220000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 340000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 561111 10000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000022 10100

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 111111 10000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000011 10000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 110011 10000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 111100 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 112211 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000011 10000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 110000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 110011 10000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 111100 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 331122 20000

MASSACHUSETTS 000022 20000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 330000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000011 10000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 111100 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 253557 50200

MISSOURI WESTERN 000033 30000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000022 10100

NEVADA 110013 30000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 111122 00101

NEW MEXICO 001111 10000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 110000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 7 14 2233 20100

NEW YORK WESTERN 220000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 331111 10000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000011 10000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 342222 11000

OHIO SOUTHERN 441100 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 120011 10000

OREGON 220022 20000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

E-12

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 001111 10000

PUERTO RICO 35 41 29 29 25 25 24 0100

RHODE ISLAND 001111 10000

SOUTH CAROLINA 331100 00000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 240000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 113322 20000

TEXAS EASTERN 111111 10000

TEXAS NORTHERN 341212 20000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 130000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 002211 10000

UTAH 111111 10000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 111100 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 10 18 3602 20000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 120022 20000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 001100 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 110000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 132 174 74 83 84 95 84 1802

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-13

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 100000

ARIZONA 101000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 210000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 300000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 020000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 110000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 010000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 100000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000010

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 001000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 100000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 001000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 010000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 010000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 100100

MASSACHUSETTS 020000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 100000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 311000

MISSOURI WESTERN 002010

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 100000

NEVADA 102000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 100000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 101000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 100000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 010000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 100100

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 100000

OREGON 200000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-14

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS 

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 100000

PUERTO RICO 23 01000

RHODE ISLAND 100000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 200000

TEXAS EASTERN 010000

TEXAS NORTHERN 101000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 100000

UTAH 100000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 011000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 010100

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 54 14 12 3 2 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-15

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 110000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 000000 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 000000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 000000 00000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000 00000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

E-16

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 000000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000 00000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000 00000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 000000 00000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 110000 00000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2319A charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 

 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A.

E-17

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 000000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-18

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 000000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 000000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2319A charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 

 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A.

E-19

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL PERFORMANCES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 222300 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 452311 10000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 220000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 001111 10000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 18 24 15 20 8 17 80801

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 11 13 1177 70000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 4 16 1 11 3 5 40100

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 221100 00000

COLORADO 232511 00100

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 120000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 121200 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 12 25 0014 30100

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 341223 21000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 494746 40200

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000001 00100

GUAM 333300 00000

HAWAII 180000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 221100 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 260000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 120000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 021201 10000

KANSAS 021200 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 220000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 221111 01000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 552211 01000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 2 11 2 10 1 1 10000

MASSACHUSETTS 220000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 3 12 1811 10000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 130022 20000

MINNESOTA 3 10 0000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 110000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 332200 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 781233 00300

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 220011 10000

NEVADA 110012 00200

NEW HAMPSHIRE 575711 00010

NEW JERSEY 331001 00100

NEW MEXICO 110012 20000

NEW YORK EASTERN 3 23 1 13 4 17 12 0500

NEW YORK NORTHERN 350000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 5 17 3535 50000

NEW YORK WESTERN 223300 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 120000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 350046 60000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 121100 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 5 15 2 11 1 4 10300

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110011 01000

E-20

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 000011 10000

PUERTO RICO 222211 10000

RHODE ISLAND 230000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 221233 20100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 440000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 251200 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 220000 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 894433 20001

TEXAS WESTERN 775523 30000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 111100 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 11 19 6845 40010

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 110033 10200

WASHINGTON WESTERN 574511 10000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 441122 10001

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 194 346 87 159 74 118 78 4 31 2 3

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2320 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320.

E-21

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 010000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 100000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 402101

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 610000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 310000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 210000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 300000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 112000

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 100000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000001

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000010

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 100000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 100000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 110000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 100000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 200000

NEW YORK EASTERN 540210

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 201110

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 600000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 010000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 100000

E-22

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 100000

PUERTO RICO 100000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 101000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 110000

TEXAS WESTERN 102000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 121000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 010000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 100000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 010000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 48 16 9432

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2320 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320.

E-23

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 110000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 111200 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 451211 10000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 130000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 110000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 001111 10000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 897733 30000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 670022 20000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 10 26 1 11 3 4 40000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

COLORADO 220000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 121200 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 13 25 0013 30000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 341211 01000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 022333 30000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 333300 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 221100 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 120000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 021201 10000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000011 10000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 221111 01000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 333311 01000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 1 9 2 10 1 1 10000

MASSACHUSETTS 220000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 120000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 130022 20000

MINNESOTA 3 10 0000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 332200 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 121200 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 220033 30000

NEVADA 110000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 355711 00010

NEW JERSEY 111000 00000

NEW MEXICO 110000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 1 4 0 2 3 14 14 0 0 0 0

NEW YORK NORTHERN 350000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 7 25 1112 20000

NEW YORK WESTERN 221100 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 120000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 241111 01000

OHIO SOUTHERN 110000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000011 10000

OREGON 010000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 120013 00300

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

E-24 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 36 42 29 29 24 24 24 0000

RHODE ISLAND 001111 10000

SOUTH CAROLINA 220033 20100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 330000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 450000 00000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 892211 10000

TEXAS WESTERN 775500 00000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 111100 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 10 17 5735 40010

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 001100 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 332211 10000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110011 10000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 177 281 85 115 66 86 76 4420

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-25

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 010000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 100000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 101100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 110000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 310000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 210000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 100000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 300000

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 100000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 010000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000001

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000010

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000100

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 110000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 200010

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 670100

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 200000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 100000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 100000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

E-26 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 23 01000

RHODE ISLAND 100000

SOUTH CAROLINA 101000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 100000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 121000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 100000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 010000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 54 16 4321

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***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 2010 Performance and Accountability Report E-27

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**
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 220000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 222300 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 562311 10000

ALASKA 001111 10000

ARIZONA 281412 20000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 220000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 111111 10000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 24 30 19 24 12 24 20 0202

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 16 19 3 3 8 12 10 2000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 13 29 2 12 4 6 50100

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 331100 00000

COLORADO 342511 10000

CONNECTICUT 000022 20000

DELAWARE 340000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 461200 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 18 32 1125 50000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 451223 21000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 494757 70000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 111112 10100

GUAM 333300 00000

HAWAII 180000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000011 10000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 331111 10000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 371100 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 232211 10000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 021201 10000

KANSAS 021200 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000011 10000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 330000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 331122 11000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 553311 01000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 5 14 3 11 3 3 30000

MASSACHUSETTS 220022 20000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 6 15 1811 10000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 240022 20000

MINNESOTA 3 10 0000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000011 10000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 221100 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 585757 50200

MISSOURI WESTERN 8 10 1233 30000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 220033 30000

NEVADA 220013 30000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 575711 00010

NEW JERSEY 442123 20001

NEW MEXICO 111123 30000

NEW YORK EASTERN 3 23 1 13 4 17 17 0000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 460000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 12 31 5 7 6 10 90100

NEW YORK WESTERN 443300 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 561111 10000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000011 10000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 692268 71000

OHIO SOUTHERN 441100 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 120011 10000

OREGON 341122 20000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 6 16 2 11 1 4 10300

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110011 01000

E-28

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 001122 20000

PUERTO RICO 37 43 31 31 26 26 25 0100

RHODE ISLAND 231111 10000

SOUTH CAROLINA 552333 20100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 240000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 440000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 113322 20000

TEXAS EASTERN 362311 10000

TEXAS NORTHERN 681212 20000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 9 12 4433 20001

TEXAS WESTERN 776634 40000

UTAH 111111 10000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 111100 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 24 41 9 14 4 7 60010

VIRGINIA WESTERN 120022 20000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 111133 10200

WASHINGTON WESTERN 794511 10000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 441122 20000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 110000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 343 543 158 239 152 212 185 7 14 2 4

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

E-29

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 010000

ALASKA 100000

ARIZONA 101000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 100000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 11 15111

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 910002

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 320000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000100

CONNECTICUT 110000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 320000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 300000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 412000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000010

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 001000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 100000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 001000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 100000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 010000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 010001

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000010

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 200100

MASSACHUSETTS 020000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 100000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 110000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 100000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 311000

MISSOURI WESTERN 002010

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 200010

NEVADA 102000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 101000

NEW MEXICO 300000

NEW YORK EASTERN 770210

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 402210

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 100000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 010000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 700100

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 100000

OREGON 200000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 010000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 100000

E-30

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 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 200000

PUERTO RICO 24 01000

RHODE ISLAND 100000

SOUTH CAROLINA 101000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 200000

TEXAS EASTERN 010000

TEXAS NORTHERN 101000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 110000

TEXAS WESTERN 202000

UTAH 100000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 132000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 010100

WASHINGTON EASTERN 010000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 100000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 020000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 114 33 25 9 7 4

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2010 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2010.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

E-31

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2010 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2010**

 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
This page intentionally left blank.

E-32 Department of Justice · FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report 
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report F-1

APPENDIX F

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

AFMLS Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section (Criminal Division)

AFR Agency Financial Report or Performance and Accountability Report

AIG American International Group, Inc.

AMBER America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response

AOC Albanian Organized Crime

AOUSC Administrative Office of U.S. Courts

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act

ASARCO American Smelting Refining Company LLC

ASU Analytical Support Unit

ATEB Alcohol and Tobacco Enforcement Branch

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

ATR Antitrust Division

ATDD Alcohol Tobacco Diversion Division

AUSA Assistant United States Attorneys

AOUSC Administrative Office of U.S. Courts

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals

BIFS Border Intelligence Fusion Sections (DHS)

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics

BLO Benny Lusha Organization

BMR Basic Minimum Requirements

BOP Bureau of Prisons

CASE Case Access System for EOIR

CBP Customs and Border Patrol

CCDO Community Capacity Development Office

CDR Chronological Disciplinary Record

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CHRP COPS Hiring Recovery Program (under Recovery Act)

C

B

A

Acronyms
F-2 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

CIO Chief Information Officer

CIV Civil Division

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services

CNP Cambodian National Police

CODIS Combined DNA Index System

COG Continuity of Government

COOP Continuity of Operations

COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf

CPC Capacity Planning Committee

CPOT Consolidated Priority Organization Target

CRPB Corporate Resource Planning Board (FBI)

CRM Criminal Division

CRS Community Relations Service

CRT Civil Rights Division

CSOs Court Security Officer

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

CT Counterterrorism

CTD Counterterrorism Division

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

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 Communication

ECAP Endangered Child Alert Program

ENRD Environment and Natural Resources Division

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review

EOUSA Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

EPC Emergency Preparedness Committee

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center

ESF Emergency Support Function

E

D
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report F-3

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

FFL Federal Firearms Licensee

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act

FHA Fair Housing Act

FIG Field Intelligence Group

FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

FMIS Financial Management Information System

FMIS Financial Management Information System 2

FPI Federal Prison Industries, Inc.

FSAB Financial Systems Advisory Board

FTE Full-Time Equivalent

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 Grants Management System

GRIT Gun Runner Impact Team

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

IAFIS Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System

IC3 Internet Crimes Complaint Center

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement

IG Inspector General

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement

I

H

G

F
F-4 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

IHP Institutional Hearing Program

IIITF Innocent Images International Task Force

IINI Innocent Images National Initiative

Integrity Act Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act

INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization

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

KG Weight in Kilograms

LCM Lower of average cost or market value

LCMS Litigation Case Management System

LLC Limited Liability Company

LLP Limited Liability Partnership

MS Mara Salvatrucha

N/A Not Applicable

NCIC National Crime Information Center

NCMEC National Center for Missing and Exploited Children

NCR Washington National Capital Region

NDIC National Drug Intelligence Center

NGI Next Generation Identification

NGIC National Gang Intelligence Center

NIJ National Institute of Justice

NPC Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

NSD National Security Division

NSL National Security Letter

K

N

M

L

J
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report F-5

NSLB National Security Law Branch

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

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

OCSE Online Child Sexual Exploitation

ODAG Office of the Deputy Attorney General 

ODR Office of Dispute Resolution

OFC OCDETF Fusion Center

OFDT Office of the Federal Detention Trustee

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OIP Office of Information Policy

OJP Office of Justice Programs

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

OLC Office of Legal Counsel

OLP Office of Legal Policy

OMB Office of Management and Budget

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

ONR Operations No Refuge

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

PCA Project Civic Act

PHS Public Health Services

PL Public Law

PMT Performance Measurement Tool

PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003

PSOB Act Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976

PTS Prisoner Tracking System

PY Prior Year

RBM Risk-Based Management

RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000

RECA Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

R

P

O
F-6 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

RFTF Regional Fugitive Task Force

RICO Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization

RRA Rothstein Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.

RSAT Residential Substance Abuse Treatment

SAC Special Agent in Charge

SBF Special Benefits Fund

SBR Statement of Budgetary Resources

SCNP Statement of Changes in Net Position

SENTRY Bureau of Prisons' primary mission-support database

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards

SG Strategic Goal

SOD Special Operations Division

TAX Tax Division

TBD To Be Determined

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.

USAs United States Attorneys

USAO United States Attorneys’ Offices

USC United States Code

USERRA Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act

USMS United States Marshals Service

USNCB United States National Central Bureau

USSGL U.S. Standard General Ledger

UST United States Trustee

USTP United States Trustees Program

VOI/TIS Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In Sentencing

V

U

T

S
Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report F-7

WCC White-Collar Crime

WIN Warrant Information Network System

WMD Weapons of Mass Destruction

W
F-8 Department of Justice • FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice  FY 2010 Performance and Accountability Report G-1

APPENDIX G 

Component Website

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/aiana.htm 

Antitrust Division www.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
G-2 Department of Justice  FY 2010 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 2010

Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your 

comments and suggestions on how we can improve this report for

FY 2011. Please email any comments to: performance@usdoj.gov

This document is available on the Internet at:

http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2010/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