U.S. Department of Justice

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

FY 2012

Performance and

 Accountability Report
The Department of Justice, 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.” As its head, the 

Attorney General is the chief litigator and the chief law 

enforcement officer of the United States.

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 Consistent with the Rule of Law

Goal II: Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the

American People, and Enforce Federal

Law

Goal III: Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial,

 Efficient, and Transparent Administration

 of Justice at the Federal, State, Local,

Tribal, and International Levels

The Department is headquartered in Washington, DC, at

the Robert F. Kennedy Building, occupying a city block 

bounded by 9th and 10th Streets and Pennsylvania and 

Constitution Avenues, NW. The Department also has 

field offices in all states and territories and maintains 

offices in over 100 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)

INTERPOL Washington

Justice Management Division (JMD)

National Security Division (NSD)

Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT)

Office of Information Policy (OIP)

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

FY 2012

PERFORMANCE AND

ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT

November 2012
November 9, 2012 

A MESSAGE FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

On my first day as Attorney General, I promised that the Justice Department’s top priority 

would be to protect the safety, rights, and interests of the American people. More than 3 years later, 

that promise has been fulfilled. I’m proud to report that the Department’s commitment to empowering 

and defending our people – and to aggressively and fairly enforcing our laws – has never been 

stronger. And our approach to protecting the American people from national security threats; reducing 

and preventing violent crime; eradicating financial, health care, and mortgage fraud; and safeguarding 

the most vulnerable among us has, quite simply, never been more effective. 

Defending the United States from terrorism and other threats to national security remains the 

Department’s highest concern. The Department has strengthened its essential surveillance and 

intelligence-gathering capabilities in a manner that is not only consistent with the rule of law – but also 

with our most sacred values. Since 2009, the Department has convicted more than 100 individuals of 

serious federal terrorism violations. We’ve uncovered – and prevented – multiple plots hatched by 

terrorist groups abroad, as well as extremists here at home. For example, in 2012, we convicted a man 

in connection with his purchase of materials to make a bomb and his research of potential U.S. targets, 

including the Dallas home of former President George W. Bush. We obtained a guilty verdict in the 

case of a former U.S. service member who planned a bomb attack against American soldiers at a 

restaurant in Killeen, Texas. We also prevented U.S. military and strategic technologies from falling 

into the wrong hands, including the disruption of a network conspiring to illegally export to Iran U.S.-

origin materials for the construction of gas centrifuges to enrich uranium. 

At the same time, our resolve to protect our citizens from violent crime has never been 

stronger. Over the last 3 years the Department has successfully fought gangs and transnational 

organized crime groups; prosecuted more than 55,000 defendants for violations of firearms laws; and 

successfully arrested and prosecuted large numbers of dangerous fugitives, including 19 individuals 

who had been featured on the FBI’s 15 “Most Wanted” list. We also have worked to make 

communities safer by supporting effective offender reentry and reinvestment programs with more than 

$200 million in Second Chance Act grants. These funds are helping to provide critical educational and 

training opportunities to ensure that individuals released from jails and prisons can successfully return 

to their communities as productive, law-abiding citizens.

Beyond this, the Department has taken decisive action to combat a wide range of financial and 

health care fraud crimes. Through new initiatives such as the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task 

Force, Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team, and the Residential MortgageBacked Securities Working Group, we are working with both public and private sector partners to 

identify financial fraud schemes and hold accountable those responsible for these crimes. Working 

closely with the Department of Housing and Urban Development and a bipartisan group of 49 state 

attorneys general, we achieved the largest federal-state settlement in history – totaling $25 billion – 

with five of the nation’s top mortgage servicers. Our health care fraud prevention efforts recovered 

nearly $4.1 billion in FY 2011, a single-year record. 
In addition, we have worked tirelessly to safeguard the most vulnerable members of society by 

working to stop the abuse, neglect, trafficking, and exploitation of children, the elderly, and other 

populations. Over the past 3 fiscal years, we prosecuted 35 percent more hate crime cases than during 

the preceding 3-year period. Thanks to new protections included in the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act – which was signed into law in 2009 – we’ve strengthened our 

ability to achieve justice on behalf of all those who are victimized simply because of who they are. 

Additionally, through the Department’s Access to Justice Initiative, we are helping to fulfill the 

promise of equal justice under law by working to ensure that our justice system can efficiently deliver 

outcomes that are fair and accessible to all, irrespective of wealth or status.

Furthermore, the Department remains committed to using its resources both efficiently 

effectively – and to acting as a sound steward of precious taxpayer dollars. During FY 2012, the 

Department realigned functions of the National Drug Intelligence Center saving $19.2 million. We 

also saved $39.3 million by using economies of scale to reduce administrative costs across multiple 

DOJ components in areas including printing, publications, travel and conferences. And we will 

continue to seek savings and find efficiencies throughout the Department, while successfully executing 

our mission responsibilities. 

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 2012 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 2012, the Department again earned an unqualified audit opinion on our consolidated 

financial statements. For the sixth straight year, the auditor’s report on internal control identified no 

material weaknesses at the consolidated level. While we continue as a Department to demonstrate 

noteworthy progress, we are committed to pursuing actions to correct remaining areas where we have 

deficiencies. In addition, the Department is implementing the Unified Financial Management 

System (UFMS), which has allowed DOJ to retire four legacy systems and improve financial 

accountability. The number of users of UFMS will double in the first quarter of FY 2013, and the 

system is an integral part of the Department’s strategy and commitment to ensure transparency. 

The Department conducted its annual assessment of the effectiveness of internal controls to 

support effective and efficient programmatic operations and compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations (FMFIA Section 2) and to determine whether financial management systems conform to 

government-wide requirements (FMFIA Section 4). Based on the results of this assessment, I provide 

qualified assurance that the Department met the objectives of FMFIA. The assessment did not identify 

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

assessment identified one material weakness required to be reported under FMFIA Section 2 related to 

prison crowding. In addition, I provide reasonable assurance that the Department’s internal control 

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

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

providing timely and useful information on the Department’s accomplishments for the American 

public. We will not rest on our achievements, but will continue to be unyielding in our efforts to 

prevent terrorism, fight violent crime, prosecute financial fraud, protect our most vulnerable citizens, 

and to carry out the entirety of our critical mission. 

 

 Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

 Attorney General

Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report i

U.S. Department of Justice – FY 2012 

Performance and Accountability Report 

Introduction iii 

Section I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Mission I-1 

Strategic Goals and Objectives I-1 

Organizational Structure I-2 

Financial Structure I-4 

FY 2012 Resource Information I-5 

Analysis of Financial Statements I-8 

Data Reliability and Validity I-9 

Analysis of Performance Information I-10 

FY 2012-2013 Priority Goals I-14 

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance I-17 

Management Assurances I-18 

Summary of Material Weakness and Corrective Actions I-22 

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010 I-23 

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

Conditions, and Trends 

Other Management Information, Initiatives, and Issues 

I-24 

I-25 

Limitations of the Financial Statements I-25 

 

Section II: FY 2012 Performance Report 

Overview II-1 

Strategic Goal I II-3 

Strategic Goal II II-5 

Strategic Goal III II-22 

 

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 2012 Annual Financial Statements III-5 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements III-7 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting III-11 

Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters III-13 

Principal Financial Statements and Related Notes III-15 

 Consolidated Balance Sheets III-16 

PAR

Table of Contents
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report ii

 Consolidated Statements of Net Cost III-17 

 Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position III-18 

 Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources III-20 

 Combined Statements of Custodial Activity III-21 

 Notes to the Financial Statements III-22 

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements III-67 

 Consolidating Balance Sheets III-68 

 Consolidating Statements of Net Cost III-70 

 Consolidating Statements of Changes in Net Position III-72 

 Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources III-76 

 Combining Statements of Custodial Activity III-80 

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information III-83 

 Consolidated Stewardship Investments III-84 

Other Accompanying Information III-85 

 Combined Schedule of Spending III-86 

Section IV: Management Section 

 

Overview IV-1 

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

Department of Justice 

Management’s Response to the Office of the Inspector General’s Report on the Top 

Management and Performance Challenges in the Department of Justice 

IV-3 

IV-21 

FMFIA Corrective Action Plan 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts 

IV-35 

IV-39 

 

Appendices 

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

(B) FY 2012 Financial Management Status Report B-1 

(C) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2012 C-1 

(D) Intellectual Property Report – FY 2012 D-1 

(E) Acronyms E-1 

(F) Department Component Websites F-1 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report iii

 Introduction 

This Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) for fiscal year (FY) 2012 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 2012 and for the preceding fiscal year (FY 2011) and reports on all 

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

FY 2012 audited financial statements have been consolidated or combined based upon the results of audits 

undertaken in each of the nine Departmental financial reporting entities. 

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

fight against terrorism continues to be the highest priority of the Department. In FY 2012, the Attorney 

General announced the Department’s Strategic Plan for FYs 2012-2016 (available electronically on the 

Department’s website at http://www.justice.gov/jmd/strategic2012-2016/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 2012 Performance Report: This section provides the Department’s FY 2012 

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 2012 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 2016 long-term outcome goals set forth in its 

FYs 2012-2016 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 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report iv

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

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

those challenges, and the corrective action plans required by the Federal Manager’s Financial Integrity Act 

(FMFIA) for the internal control weaknesses. 

Appendices (A) Improper Payments Information Act Reporting Details; (B) FY 2012 Financial 

Management Status Report; (C) Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2012; (D) Intellectual 

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

This report is available at http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2012/TableofContents.htm. 

This report meets the following legislated reporting requirements: 

Compliance with Legislated Reporting Requirements

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

response to Inspector General audits 

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

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

conform with related requirements 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and GPRA Modernization Act of 

2010 (GPRAMA) – Requires performance reporting against all established agency goals outlined in 

current strategic planning documents 

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

statements 

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

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

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

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

Report 

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

agency efforts to identify and reduce improper payments 


Department of Justice  FY 2012 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 new Strategic Plan for fiscal years (FY) 2012-

2016, 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

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

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

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

Strategic Goal Strategic Objectives

I Prevent Terrorism and Promote the 

Nation’s Security Consistent with the 

Rule of Law 

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

1.2 Prosecute those involved in terrorists acts 

1.3 Combat espionage against the United States

II Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the 

American People, and Enforce Federal 

Law 

2.1 Combat the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime 

2.2 Prevent and intervene in crimes against vulnerable populations; 

uphold the rights of, and improve services to, America’s crime victims 

2.3 Combat the threat, trafficking, and use of illegal drugs and the 

diversion of licit drugs 

2.4 Combat corruption, economic crimes, and international organized 

crime 

2.5 Promote and protect Americans’ civil rights 

 

2.6 Protect the federal fisc and defend the interests of the United 

States 

III Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, 

Efficient, and Transparent Administration 

of Justice at the Federal, State, Local, 

Tribal, and International Levels 

3.1 Promote and strengthen relationships and strategies for the 

administration of justice with state, local, tribal, and international law 

enforcement 

3.2 Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal 

proceedings; apprehend fugitives; and ensure the appearance of 

criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement 

3.3 Provide for the safe, secure, humane, and cost-effective 

confinement of detainees awaiting trial and/or sentencing, and those in 

the custody of the federal prison system 

3.4 Adjudicate all immigration cases promptly and impartially in 

accordance with due process 

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. 

Organizational Structure
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-3

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

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

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

Divisions. The Office of Justice Programs (OJP), the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) provide leadership and assistance to state, local, and 

tribal governments. Other major Departmental components include the Executive Office for 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 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. 
I-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Department’s financial reporting structure is comprised of nine principal components. 

Components: 

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

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

 Bureau of Prisons (BOP) 

 Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) 

 Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 

 Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI) 

 Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 

 Offices, Boards and Divisions (OBDs) * 

 U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) 

OBDs*: 

Offices Boards

Office of the Attorney General Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

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

Office of the Associate Attorney General 

Community Relations Service Divisions

Executive Office for Immigration Review Antitrust Division

Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Civil Division

Executive Office for U.S. Trustees Civil Rights Division

Executive Office for Organized Crime Drug 

Enforcement Task Forces 

Criminal Division 

Environment and Natural Resources Division

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Justice Management Division

Office of Information Policy National Security Division

Office of Legal Counsel Tax Division

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 

INTERPOL Washington 

 

Financial Structure
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-5

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

Department’s operations for FY 2012. The charts on this page reflect employees on board as of 

September 22, 2012. 

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

legal services. 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Employees

Attorneys, 9%

Correctional 

Officers, 15% Agents, 22%

Other, 54%

FY 2012 DOJ Employees On Board by Category

Attorneys, Correctional Officers, Agents, and Other*

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

30.98% (35,898)

18.52% (21,456)

4.16% (4,815) 

0.52% (608) 

8.33% (9,651)

32.64% (37,816)

4.83% (5,596)

0.02% (22) 

FY 2012 DOJ Employees On Board by Component

115,862 Employees

AFF/SADF

OJP

ATF

USMS

DEA

OBDs

FBI

BOP (including FPI)

FY 2012 Resource Information
I-6 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Table 1. Sources of DOJ Resources 

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Table 2. How DOJ Resources Were Spent 

 (Dollars in Thousands) 

Note: FY 2011 net cost has been reclassified in the current year to align with the Department’s FY 2012-2016 Strategic Plan.

Source FY 2012 FY 2011 % Change

Earned Revenue: $3,115,804 $3,331,777 -6.5%

Budgetary Financing Sources: 

 Appropriations Received 27,693,689 27,479,834 0.8%

 Appropriations Transferred-In/Out 330,471 400,839 -17.6%

 Nonexchange Revenues 2,803,960 2,004,395 39.9%

 Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash 

Equivalents 4,194,465 1,580,584 165.4%

 Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement 109,395 113,735 -3.8%

 Other Adjustments (192,761) (132,256) -45.7%

Other Financing Sources: 

 Donations and Forfeitures of Property 120,275 157,607 -23.7%

 Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (12,623) 44,556 -128.3%

 Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by 

Others 878,014 998,485 -12.1%

 Other Financing Sources (5,199) (4,613) -12.7%

Total DOJ Resources $39,035,490 $35,974,943 8.5%

Strategic Goal (SG) FY 2012 FY 2011 % Change

I Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s 

Security Consistent with the Rule of Law 

Gross Cost $5,727,278 $5,626,149 

Less: Earned Revenue 470,233 470,783

Net Cost 5,257,045 5,155,366 2.0%

II Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the 

American People, and Enforce Federal Law 

Gross Cost 20,059,682 14,666,708

Less: Earned Revenue 1,115,263 1,055,269

Net Cost 18,944,419 13,611,439 39.2%

III 

Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, 

Efficient, and Transparent Administration of 

Justice at the Federal, State, Local, Tribal, 

and International Levels 

Gross Cost 15,523,414 15,674,026

Less: Earned Revenue 1,530,308 1,805,725

Net Cost 13,993,106 13,868,301 0.9%

Total Gross Cost 41,310,374 35,966,883

Less: Total Earned Revenue 3,115,804 3,331,777

Total Net Cost of Operations $38,194,570 $32,635,106 17.0%
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-7

 

 

0%

25%

50%

14%

50%

36%

FY 2012 Percentage of Net Costs by Strategic Goal

SG I SG II SG III

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

SG I SG II SG III

$5,257

$18,944

$13,993

$5,155

$13,611 $13,868

Comparison of Net Costs by Strategic Goal - FY 2012 and 2011

(Dollars in Millions)

FY 2012

FY 2011
I-8 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

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, 2012 and 2011. These statements were 

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

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

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

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB). 

The following information highlights the Department’s financial position and results of operations in FY 2012. 

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, 2012, shows $43.2 billion in 

total assets, an increase of $398 million over the previous year’s total assets of $42.8 billion. Fund Balance 

with U.S. Treasury (FBWT) was $24.7 billion, which represented 57 percent of total assets. 

Liabilities: Total Department liabilities were $15.9 billion as of September 30, 2012, an increase of 

$2.7 billion from the previous year’s total liabilities of $13.3 billion. This increase is primarily due to the 

reactivation of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 and the recognition of related unfunded 

liabilities. 

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 $38.2 billion for the year ended 

September 30, 2012, an increase of $5.6 billion (17 percent) from the previous year’s net cost of operations of 

$32.6 billion. This increase is partially due to the recognition of unfunded expenses related to the reactivation 

of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001. 

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

Strategic

Goal Description of Major Costs

I Includes resources dedicated to counterterrorism initiatives for ATF, CRM, 

DEA, FBI, NSD, USAs, and USMS 

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

Claims Settlement Commission (FCSC), Organized Crime Drug Enforcement 

Task Force (OCDETF), OJP, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Pardon 

Attorney (OPA), Office of the Solicitor General (OSG), OVW, USAs, USMS, 

INTERPOL Washington, UST, ATR, CIV, CRT, CRM, ENRD,TAX and 

services to America’s crime victims 

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

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

Commission 

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

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

(FTE) employment.1

 

1

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

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

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

Analysis of Financial Statements
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-9

Budgetary Resources: The Department’s FY 2012 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows 

$45.3 billion in total budgetary resources, an increase of $2.9 billion from the previous year’s total budgetary 

resources of $42.4 billion. This increase is primarily related to deposits from the settlement of large cases. 

Net Outlays: The Department’s FY 2012 Combined Statement of Budgetary Resources shows $31.6 billion 

in net outlays, an increase of $669 million from the previous year’s total net outlays of $30.9 billion. 

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

performance. As such, the Department makes every effort to ensure completeness and improve reliability of 

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

sets, as well as looking toward the future for trends) to ensure the data we rely on to make day-to-day 

management decisions are as accurate and reliable as possible and targets are ambitious enough given the 

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

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

each performance measure presented. The Department ensures each reporting component providing data for 

this report meets the following criteria: 

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

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

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

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

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

obtained.

Data Reliability and Validity
I-10 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requires an agency’s Strategic Plan to be updated 

every four years and cover a period of not less than four years forward from the fiscal year in which it is 

submitted. 

The Department’s new FY 2012-2016 Strategic Plan, which contains three strategic goals, is used for this 

report. The Department’s Plan also includes 12 key performance measures addressing DOJ’s highest priorities 

toward achieving its long-term outcome goals. The performance measures are included in the Department’s 

annual Budget and Performance Summary and reported in this document. The Department’s full Performance 

Report for these measures, including an update on our progress toward meeting the FY 2016 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 12 key measures are compiled 30 days after the end of the fiscal year and, 

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

During FY 2012, Departmental leadership continued to display a clear commitment to performance 

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

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

quarterly status reporting and operating plans. 

For this report, 100 percent of the performance measures have actual data for FY 2012. The Department 

achieved 58 percent of its key measures in FY 2012. In certain cases, FY 2012 data have yet to be finalized 

and could change the final outcome. 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. 

In FY 2012, the Department successfully developed and implemented a new web-based performance 

management system. The Department will continue to examine its performance management system and 

implement improvements, where necessary. Additional improvement areas include developing trend reports, 

continuing to improve the quality and utility of performance information 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 2016 long-term outcome goals for each of the 12 key performance measures. As of the close 

of FY 2012, 11 of 12 of the Department’s long-term key measures are on-track for full achievement against its 

FY 2016 long-term outcome goals (targets). Four 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
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-11

The chart below and the table that follows summarize the Department’s achievement of its FY 2012 key 

performance measures. 

 

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

58%

42%

Achievement of FY 2012 Key Performance Measures

Target Achieved Target Not Achieved
I-12 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2012

Target

FY 2012

Actual

Target

Achieved/

Not Achieved

No. Strategic Goal I:  Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s Security

Consistent with the Rule of Law

1 Number of counterterrorism 

intelligence products shared with 

the U.S. Intelligence Community, 

state and local Law Enforcement 

Community partners, and foreign 

government agencies [FBI] 

13,628 12,445 Not Met1

1 FBI attributes the measure missing its target to lower Intelligence Information Report (IIR) production. FBI 

emphasized the production of high-value IIRs which addressed priority intelligence gaps or provided actionable 

intelligence to Intelligence Community and Law Enforcement partners over low-value IIRs which served only to flood 

the system with non-actionable intelligence or information of little-to-no intelligence value.

Strategic Goal II:  Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American

People, and Enforce Federal Law

2 Number of criminal enterprises 

engaging in white-collar crimes 

dismantled [FBI] 

360 409 Met

3 Percent increase in gang arrests 

resulting from coordination of 

gang investigations [FBI, ATF, 

DEA]

2% -16% Not Met2

2 This measure represents collective data from FBI, ATF, and DEA. FBI has yet to report its final number for 

FY 2012. ATF’s actual number in FY 2012 is lower than their FY 2011 baseline number. DEA met its target for the 

year. 

4 Number of intelligence products 

to support federal, state, and 

local law enforcement [FBI] 

46 53 Met 

5 Number of 

matters/investigations of child 

sexual exploitation and human 

trafficking resolved [CRT, FBI, 

CRM, USA, USMS] 

4,938 4,348 Not Met3

3 Cases relating to this measure are trending the same way as all other criminal cases in FY 2012. Overall, criminal 

cases filed in FY 2012 have dropped when compared to the baseline year, FY 2011. 

 Consolidated Priority 

Organizations Target (CPOT)-

linked drug trafficking 

organizations [DEA, FBI 

(Consolidated data - OCDETF)] 

 

6 Dismantled 145 171 Met

7 Disrupted 340 446 Met

 Percent of cases favorably 

resolved: [ENRD, ATR, CRM, 

USA, TAX, CIV, CRT 

(Consolidated data - 

JMD/Budget Staff)] 

 

8 Criminal Cases 90% 92% Met

9 Civil Cases 80% 81% Met

Strategic Goal III:  Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, Efficient, and

Transparent Administration of Justice at the Federal, State, Local, Tribal,

and International Levels

10 Percent of system-wide crowding 

in federal prisons [BOP] 

37% 38% Not Met4

4 While the target was not met, FY 2012 actual represents a one percent reduction from 

FY 2011 system-wide crowding rate.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-13

[ ] Designates the

reporting entity

FY 2012

Target

FY 2012

Actual

Target

Achieved/

Not Achieved

11 Number of inmate participants in 

the Residual Drug Abuse 

Program [BOP] 

18,500 

(baseline) 

14,482 Not Met5

5 New methodology was developed in FY 2012 to calculate RDAP participation to reduce potential for doublecounting of inmates. The more precise methodology has resulted in the number of participants during FY 2012 less 

than the initial target number.

12 Number and percent of primary 

felony fugitives apprehended or 

cleared [USMS] 

34,421 

52% 

36,229 

50% 

Met 
I-14 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

The FY 2012 OMB Budget and Performance Plan guidance memorandum required federal agencies to identify a 

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

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

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

plan. 

The following comprise the Department’s four Priority Goals for FY 2012–2013 and are linked to the larger DOJ 

policy framework and strategic plan goals. 

Priority Goal 1, National Security: Better inform the Intelligence Community, thereby increasing the 

ability to protect Americans from terrorism or other threats to national security - both at home and 

abroad: 

 By the end of 2013, increase the number of intelligence products shared with the U.S. 

Intelligence Community and state and local Law Enforcement Community partners by 

6 percent 

 By the end of 2013, increase the number of intelligence products shared with foreign 

government agencies by 6 percent 

Terrorism is the most significant national security threat the country faces. Accordingly, the number one 

priority of the Department is, and will continue to be, protecting the security of this Nation’s citizens. The 

Administration has recognized that terrorism cannot be defeated by military means alone and the Department 

is at the forefront of the fight against terrorism. DOJ provides a broad spectrum of tools and skills to combat 

terrorists. Specifically, DOJ’s agents, analysts, and prosecutors will use every available resource and 

appropriate tool to detect, deter, and disrupt terrorist plots, investigate and prosecute terrorists, and aid in 

developing rule of law programs in post-conflict countries to help prevent terrorism abroad. The Department 

will aggressively pursue emerging threats around the world and at home, enhance the ability to gather and 

analyze actionable intelligence, and engage in outreach efforts to all communities in order to prevent terrorism 

before it occurs. 

o Status: The Department met its FY 2012 target for increasing the number of intelligence products 

shared with foreign government agencies, but missed its FY 2012 target for increasing the number of 

intelligence products shared with the U.S. Intelligence Community and state and local Law 

Enforcement Community Partners.

The number of intelligence products shared with foreign government agencies decreased from 1,860 to 

1,795 from the third to the fourth quarter of FY 2012, but exceeded its fourth quarter target by 200 

percent. In comparison, intelligence products shared in FY 2011 for the third and fourth quarters were 

850 and 801, respectively. Shared Counterterrorism Division (CTD) intelligence products include a 

wide variety of disseminations to foreign governments. Coordination and cooperation with foreign 

partners serve the interests of FBI CTD to identify upcoming threats and better monitor the activities 

of known entities. CTD Executive Management has identified the need for increased communications 

with Foreign Governments, and as such, CTD has pushed for increased contact. 

The number of intelligence products shared with the U.S. Intelligence Community and state and local 

Law Enforcement Community partners increased from 3,061 to 3,347 from the third to the fourth 

quarter of FY 2012, and missed its fourth quarter target by only 2%. In comparison, intelligence 

products shared in FY 2011 for the third and fourth quarter were 3,434 and 3,642, respectively. The 

FBI CTD recognizes coordination and collaboration with Other Government Agency (OGA), 

Intelligence Community (IC), and domestic Law Enforcement (LE) partners is essential to mitigating 

FY 2012 – 2013 Priority Goals
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-15

the domestic and international threat. CTD attributes the measure missing its fourth quarter target to 

lower Intelligence Information Report (IIR) production. Based on feedback received from OGA, IC, 

and LE partners, CTD emphasized the production of high-value IIRs which addressed priority 

intelligence gaps or provided actionable intelligence to IC and LE partners over low-value IIRs which 

served only to flood the system with non-actionable intelligence or information of little-to-no 

intelligence value. This change has been well-received by OGA, IC, and LE partners. CTD Executive 

Management will continue to focus on increased intelligence sharing in the effort to combat the 

terrorist threat.

Priority Goal 2, Reduce Gang Violence: By September 30, 2013, in conjunction with state and local law 

enforcement agencies, reduce the number of violent crimes attributed to gangs by achieving 5 percent 

increases on 3 key indicators: 

 Youths who exhibited a change in targeted behaviors as a result of participation in DOJ gang 

prevention program 

 Coordination on gang investigations among federal, state, and local law enforcement resulting in 

gang arrests 

 Intelligence products produced in support of federal, state, and local investigations that are 

focused on gangs posing a significant threat to communities 

Gangs and gun violence pose a serious threat to public safety in many communities throughout the United 

States. Too many youth are exposed to violence and gangs. Too many families continue to face substantial 

challenges in keeping their children safe and free from the conditions that can lead to violence. While data 

shows that overall violent crime in the United States is decreasing, many communities continue to experience 

high levels of gun violence and gang-related crimes. Gang members are increasingly migrating from urban to 

suburban, rural, and tribal communities and are responsible for a growing percentage of crime and violence in 

many communities. The Department’s efforts to protect our citizens from violence will be carried out through 

collaboration with our state, local, and tribal partners. Through the United States Attorneys and our violent 

crime task forces, the Department will work with individual jurisdictions to address the impact of gang-related 

crimes on communities. The federal, state, local, and tribal efforts will be enhanced through increased 

coordinated enforcement efforts and intelligence sharing. Additionally, prevention of gang violence and gang 

membership is a necessary element of our strategy to address violent crime. The Department will utilize a 

number of evidence-based programs to assist state, local, and tribal governments in their efforts to deter youths 

from participation in gangs through these data-driven prevention programs, which are designed to prevent 

increases in gang membership and to deter youth violence. 

o Status: The percentage of program youth who exhibited a change in targeted behaviors while 

participating in DOJ prevention programs to reduce youth crime and violence (including gangs) is 

targeted annually and actual data is reported in the first and third quarters due to data collection cycles. 

In FY 2012, the Department reported that 67% of program youth exhibited a change in targeted 

behaviors, exceeding the FY 2012 target of 65%. In FY 2011, 63% of program youth exhibited a 

change in targeted behaviors. 

The Department exceeded its FY 2012 target for the number of gang cases supported by the Gang 

Unit, and the National Gang Targeting, Enforcement & Coordination Center/Operations Section: 

Gangs (GangTECC/OSG) in FY 2012 by 169 or 22%. In FY 2011, the Department increased the 

number of cases supported by 192 cases or 26%. 

The Department exceeded its FY 2012 target to produce intelligence products in support of federal, 

state, and local investigations that are focused on gangs posing a significant threat to communities by 

7 or 16%. In FY 2012, the number of intelligence products produced increased from FY 2011 by 8 

or18%. 
I-16 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Priority Goal 3, Protect the American people from Financial and Healthcare fraud: In order to 

efficiently and effectively address financial fraud and healthcare fraud, by the end of FY 2013, increase 

by 5 percent over FY 2011 levels, the number of investigations completed per Department of Justice 

attorney working on financial fraud and healthcare fraud cases; additionally, institute a system for 

tracking compliance by corporate defendants with the terms of judgments, consent decrees, settlements, 

deferred prosecution agreements, and non-prosecution agreements. 

The recent financial crisis, which has impacted every American, has resulted in fraud and deception in the 

finance and housing markets as well as fraudulent schemes that misuse the public’s unprecedented investment 

in economic recovery. Criminals who commit mortgage fraud, securities and commodities fraud, and other 

types of fraud relating to the response to the economic crisis, including the funds disbursed through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Troubled Asset Relief Program, victimize the American 

public as a whole. Similarly, those who defraud Medicare, Medicaid, and other government health care 

programs defraud every American. Fraudsters take critical resources out of our health care system—thus 

contributing to the rising cost of health care for all Americans and endangering the short-term and long-term 

solvency of these essential health care programs. The Department will continue to address these critical 

problems by vigorously investigating and prosecuting both health care fraud and financial fraud, in order to 

protect American businesses, consumers, and taxpayers. 

o Status: The Department did not achieve its FY 2012 goal of increasing by 2.5% the number of 

investigations completed per DOJ attorney working on financial fraud and healthcare fraud cases. The 

target for FY 2012 was 11.92 investigations per attorney. However, actual results show only 10.28 

investigations per attorney. Several factors have contributed to the decline in the number of 

investigations completed in FY 2012. Over the last several years, including the baseline year, 

FY 2011, the number of health care fraud and financial fraud cases reached all-time highs. The 

complexity of these health care fraud and financial fraud cases continues to increase, e.g., number of 

defendants and methods of fraud. As complexity increases, more attorney effort is expended on these 

complex cases, thereby reducing the overall number of investigations completed. Finally, the Speedy 

Trial Act necessitates that priority be placed on existing cases. Therefore, the availability of attorneys 

to devote effort to new matters is further limited. 

Priority Goal 4, Protect those most in need of help: With special emphasis on child exploitation and civil 

rights. By September 30, 2013, working with state and local law enforcement agencies, protect potential 

victims from abuse and exploitation by achieving a 5 percent increase for 3 sets of key indicators: 

 open investigations concerning non-compliant sex offenders, sexual exploitation of children, and 

human trafficking 

 matters/investigations resolved concerning sexual exploitation of children and human trafficking 

 number of children depicted in child pornography that are identified by the FBI

The abuse, neglect, exploitation, and trafficking, including sexual abuse, of children, the elderly, and other 

vulnerable populations, causes irrevocable harm to victims and society. Ensuring that our children, seniors, 

and all citizens can live without being disturbed by sexual trauma, exploitation, or human trafficking are more 

than criminal justice issues, they are societal and moral issues. Despite efforts to date, the threat of these 

crimes remains very real. In the broadest terms, the goal of the Department is to prevent child sexual 

exploitation, elder abuse, hate crimes, and human trafficking from occurring in the first place, in order to 

protect every person from the physical and mental traumas associated with these crimes. 

o Status: Overall, DOJ is on track to achieve this goal. Five out of six performance measures for this goal 

exceeded their FY 2012 annual targets. At the beginning of FY 2012, the USMS brought on-board 

additional full time sex offender investigative coordinators to focus on non-compliant sex offenders, and 

it exceeded its FY 2012 annual target (1,305) for Open investigations concerning non-compliant sex 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-17

offenders by 17% (1,531); this is a 19 % increase as compared to the FY 2011 activity. Open 

investigations concerning human trafficking exceeded its annual target of 188 by 37%t (258); this is a 

41% increase compared to the FY 2011 activity. Matters/investigations resolved concerning human 

trafficking exceeded its annual target of 83 by 29% (107); this is a 34% increase as compared to the FY 

2011 activity. Number of children depicted in child pornography that are identified by the FBI exceeded 

its annual target of 175 by 37 percent (239). This is one less than identified in FY 2011. Open 

investigations concerning sexual exploitation of children surpassed its FY 2012 annual target (560) by 

41 percent (792); this is 45% increase as compared to the FY 2011 activity. Matters/investigations 

resolved concerning sexual exploitation of children, reached only 87% (4,245) of its FY 2012 annual 

target (4,855); this is a 10% decrease as compared to the FY 2011 activity. 

There are three factors contributing to the slower progress in resolving matters/investigations concerning 

the sexual exploitation of children. First, the Criminal Division resolved an unusually large number of 

matters in FY 2011 (a particularly large international child pornography ring was investigated and 

charged in FY 2011, resulting in a large number of matters resolved) that produced a particularly high 

FY 2011 baseline. Second, due to increasing sophistication of many offenders’ use of technologies to 

help evade detection, it often is taking more time to investigate individual matters. Third, the difficulty 

in replacing experienced child exploitation prosecutors may be another reason that DOJ is slightly below 

expectations on this performance measure. 

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. In addition, the Department considers reports issued by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) 

when assessing internal control. 

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

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

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

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

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

response to new legislation, OMB initiatives, and OIG recommendations, as discussed later in this section and 

in Appendix A. 

Departmental management continued in FY 2012 to further strengthen and maximize the effectiveness of its 

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

 refining the assessment framework, 

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

 providing direct assistance to components with previously identified reportable conditions, and 

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

Analysis of Systems, Controls, and Legal Compliance
I-18 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

conform to related requirements (FMFIA § 4). 

Guidance for implementing the Integrity Act is provided through OMB Circular A-123, Management’s 

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

effectiveness of programmatic internal controls and conformance with financial system requirements, the Circular 

requires agencies to provide an assurance statement on the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting. 

FMFIA Assurance Statement

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

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

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

efficient programmatic operations, reliable financial reporting, and compliance with applicable laws and regulations 

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

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

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

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

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

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

currently at 38 percent over the rated capacity. Details of the weakness are provided in the section Summary of 

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

effectively as of September 30, 2012, and the assessment identified no other material weaknesses in the design or 

operation of the controls. 

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

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

with applicable laws and regulations. Based on the results of this assessment, the Department can provide 

reasonable assurance that its internal control over financial reporting was operating effectively as of June 30, 2012, 

and the assessment identified no material weaknesses in the design or operation of the controls. 

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

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

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

transparent manner. We will continue to strengthen controls in areas where we are aware of concerns identified 

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

Accountability Office. We look forward in FY 2013 to building on our achievements as we continue the important 

work of the Department. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

November 9, 2012 

Management Assurances
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-19

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financial Management Systems.

FFMIA Compliance Determination

During FY 2012, 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 Management Systems Strategy, Goals, and Framework 

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

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

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

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

budget management. In FYs 2009 through 2012, the Department made measurable progress in implementing 

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

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

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

migration of the ATF, which occurred in FY 2011, and the migrations of the USMS and FBI, which are 

underway and scheduled for completion in FYs 2013 and 2014, respectively. The migration of the USMS will 

replace one of the three major non-integrated legacy accounting systems, leaving two in use in the Department. 

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

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

component. 

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

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

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

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

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

processes. 
I-20 Department of Justice  FY 2012 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 system requirements (FMFIA § 4), and compliance with the 

FFMIA. 

Table 3. Summary of Financial Statement Audit 

Financial Statement Audit Opinion and Material Weaknesses 

Audit Opinion Unqualified 

Restatement No 

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated

Ending

Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-21

Table 4. Summary of Management Assurances 

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

Statement of Assurance Qualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed

Ending

Balance

Prison Crowding 1 0 0 0 0 1 

Total Material Weaknesses 1 0 0 0 0 1 

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

Statement of Assurance Unqualified

Material Weaknesses Beginning

Balance New Resolved Consolidated Reassessed

Ending

Balance

None 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total Material Weaknesses 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Conformance with Financial Management System 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-22 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

A summary of the material weakness identified in the Department’s FY 2012 assessment of the effectiveness 

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

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

As of September 30, 2012, the inmate population housed in BOP operated institutions exceeded the 

rated housing capacity by 38 percent. The BOP’s Long Range Capacity Plan relies on multiple approaches to 

house the increasing federal inmate population, such as contracting with the private sector and state and local 

facilities for certain groups of low-security inmates; expanding existing institutions where infrastructure 

permits, programmatically appropriate, and cost effective to do so; and acquiring, constructing, and activating 

new facilities as funding permits. 

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

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

enacted budgets. The BOP’s formal Corrective Action Plan includes utilizing contract facilities; expanding 

existing institutions; and acquiring, constructing, and activating new institutions as funding permits. The BOP 

will continue to validate progress on construction projects at new and existing facilities through on-site 

inspections or by reviewing monthly construction progress reports. 

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

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

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

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

rate for FY 2018 is projected to be 44 percent. 

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

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

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

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

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

programs. 

Programmatic Material Weakness and Corrective Actions – Prison Crowding

Summary of Material Weakness and Corrective Actions
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-23

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

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

A summary of actions taken by Departmental management in FY 2012 to implement the Improper Payments 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

regardless of the improper payment percentage of total program outlays. The Department’s top-down 

approach for assessing the risk of significant improper payments allows the reporting of results by the 

Department’s five mission-aligned programs – Law Enforcement; Litigation; Prisons and Detention; State, 

Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance; and Administrative, Technology, and Other. 

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

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

the year ended September 30, 2012, the Department concluded there were no programs susceptible to 

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

program outlays and $10 million or $100 million. 

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

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

contracts, grants, and benefit payments – if conducting such audits would be cost-effective. Prior to FY 2011, 

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

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

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

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

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

strive to achieve an annual recovery rate target of at least 85 percent by the end of FY 2013. 

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

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

established annual payment recovery rate targets through FY 2014 to drive performance. In FY 2012, the 

Department updated its targets and added an annual target for FY 2015. 

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

recapture performance. Based on performance through the year ended September 30, 2012, the Department 

Payment Recapture Audits

Risk Assessment

Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act of 2010
I-24 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

achieved a payment recovery rate of 93 percent for the cumulative period of FYs 2004 through 2012. 

Additional details, to include the Department’s annual payment recovery rate, are provided in Appendix A. 

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

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

future. 

James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 

 DOJ workload could potentially increase resulting from the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and 

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

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

aircraft crashes of September 11, 2001, or the debris removal efforts that took place in the immediate 

aftermath. 

Technology 

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

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

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

white collar crime and terrorism.

Economy

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

nature of anti-competitive behavior. 

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

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

scope of civil justice matters. 

Government

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

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

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

Globalization 

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

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

trade agreements, and other foreign policy concerns. 

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. 

 

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

Events, Conditions, and Trends
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report I-25

Unpredictable

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

is determined to confront proactively 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. 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

 The Department received $4.0 billion in funding for programs, under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009. In addition, $2.0 million was provided for the Department’s Office of the 

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

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

further job creation, economic recovery, and other purposes of the Act. 

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

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

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

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

September 30, 2012:

(Dollars in Thousands) 

Component Appropriation Amount Obligations Outlays

OJP $2,761,930 $2,761,172 $2,510,180

OVW $225,564 $221,911 $201,947

COPS $1,002,506 $989,458 $724,151

ATF $10,000 $9,713 $9,475

OIG $2,000 $1,800 $1,800

DOJ Total $4,002,000 $3,984,054 $3,447,553

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

Other Management Information, Initiatives, and Issues
I-26 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-1

Performance Section – 

FY 2012 Performance Report 

(Unaudited)

This section of the PAR 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 12 key performance measures for these goals by detailing program objectives and FY 2012 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 2016 long-term outcome goals set forth in its FYs 2012-2016 Strategic Plan. 

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

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

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

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

In FY 2012, 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 

For FY 2012, the Department introduced a new set of key performance measures that track the progress of the 

long-term performance goals. Our long-term performance goals continue to reflect results, not just workload 

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

criminal groups, such as major drug trafficking organizations. In areas such as litigation, where resultsoriented measurement is particularly difficult, we continue to reevaluate our long-term targets to ensure that 

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

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

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

cannot be reduced to numerical counts of activities. Additionally, isolating 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Measure Refinement, Data Revisions, and Subsequent Year Reporting 

The FY 2012 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. 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 this report, ten years of data will be presented unless the performance outcome 

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

For purposes of this report, the Department’s new FY 2012-2016 Strategic Plan is used with key performance 

measures fully aligning to the Plan’s priorities and goals. Therefore, the FY 2012 Performance and 

Accountability Report highlights the key goals and performance measures reflected in the FY 2012-2016 

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

measure targets in FY 2012. Additional programmatic and performance information can be found in 

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

(http://www.justice.gov/jmd/strategic2012-2016/index.html). 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-3

STRATEGIC GOAL 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the 

Nation’s Security Consistent with the Rule of Law 

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

Terrorism is the most significant national security threat that faces our Nation. The 

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

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

prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur; investigate and prosecute those who commit 

or intend to commit terrorist acts; and strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter and respond to terrorist 

incidents. In order to have the information we need to keep our Nation safe, we are continuing to strengthen 

and expand our counterintelligence capabilities and to ensure that the people that intend to do us harm come to 

justice. 

Background/Program Objectives: The FBI is committed to disrupting and preventing terrorism, from 

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

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

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

international and domestic terrorism-related matters. 

Only through broad and timely sharing of relevant information among all agencies of government with 

national security responsibilities, as well as our state and local and foreign partners, can we effectively identify 

and work to prevent terrorist plots and other threats before they occur. As a result, the FBI disseminates 

intelligence products to numerous partners and stakeholders in the U.S. Intelligence Community, federal, state, 

municipal and tribal law enforcement community, and foreign government agencies. 

Performance Measure: NEW MEASURE: Number of Counterterrorism Intelligence Products Shared with 

the U.S. Intelligence Community, state and local law enforcement community partners, and Foreign 

Government Agencies 

FY 2012 Target: 13,628

FY 2012 Actual: 12,445 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The FBI missed its target for this measure in FY 2012. Based on feedback 

received from Other Government Agency (OGA), IC, and law enforcement partners, CTD emphasized the 

production of high-value Intelligence Information Reports (IIRs) which addressed priority intelligence gaps or 

provided actionable intelligence to IC and law enforcement partners over low-value IIRs which served only to 

flood the system with non-actionable intelligence or information of little-to-no intelligence value. Although 

the emphasis on high-value IIRs resulted in missing the FY 2012 target, the change has been well-received by 

OGA, IC, and law enforcement partners. CTD executive management will continue to focus on increased 

intelligence sharing in the effort to combat the terrorist threat. 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Increase by 15 percent the number of counterterrorism intelligence

products shared with the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC), state and local Law Enforcement

Community partners, and foreign government agencies in order to protect Americans from

terrorism (baseline = 13,231)

FY 2012 Progress: FY 2012 target was not met.  However, the Department is on target to achieve

this long‐term outcome goal.

I 
II-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

0

10,000

20,000

FY12

12,445 13,628

Number of Counterterrorism Intelligence Products Shared with the U.S. 

Intelligence Community, State and Local Law Enforcement Community 

Partners, and Foreign Government Agencies

Actual Target

Data Definition: Data represents the number of intelligence products shared with domestic partners. 

Intelligence products for domestic partners include: White Papers, Intelligence Information Reports, 

Intelligence Bulletins, Intelligence Assessments, National Threat Bulletins, Current Intelligence Reports, Intel 

Studies, Intel Notes, meetings, and briefings. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are stored on multiple platforms and collected routinely. Some data are 

calculated manually. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data are validated and verified through FBI reports and communications. 

Data Limitations: Some data are calculated manually. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-5

STRATEGIC GOAL 2: Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the 

American People, and Enforce Federal Law

50% of the Department’s Net Costs supports 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: Through the White-Collar Crime Program, the FBI investigates criminals 

and criminal enterprises that seek illicit gains through fraud and guile. Illegal activities investigated include 

corporate, health care, securities and commodities, financial institution, mortgage, government (defense 

procurement and other areas), insurance, mass marketing, and bankruptcy fraud; environmental crimes; and 

money laundering. U.S. citizens and businesses lose billions of dollars each year to criminals engaged in nonviolent fraudulent enterprises. The globalization of economic and financial systems, technological advances, 

declining corporate and individual ethics, and the sophistication of criminal organizations have resulted in 

annual increases in the number of illegal acts characterized by deceit, concealment, or violations of trust. 

These crimes contribute to a loss of confidence in financial institutions, public institutions, and industry.

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

Dismantled 

FY 2011 Revised Actual: 368 (Previous Actual: 340)

FY 2012 Target: 360 

FY 2012 Actual: 409

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The FBI met and exceeded its target for this measure in FY 2012 through 

proactive investigative techniques and technological advances. Increased use of Group I Undercover 

Operations, Title IIIs, and other advanced techniques not commonly used in past white-collar crime (WCC) 

cases enabled significant investigative achievements against WCC threat actors. It should be noted that there 

is a potential lag in the reporting of the data for this measure, meaning that the final result may ultimately vary 

from this report. FY 2012 final results will be reflected in the FY 2014 President’s budget detailed 

congressional justifications. 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Dismantle a cumulative total of 1,861 criminal enterprises engaging in

white‐collar crime (FY 2012‐2016)

FY 2012 Progress: Department is on target to achieve this long‐term outcome goal.

II 
II-6 Department of Justice  FY 2012 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 Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis 

Application database that tracks accomplishments from inception to closure. 

Data Validation and Verification: Data 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, such as those resulting from appeals. Data 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. 

73

137 163

231

277

211

250

309

368

409

360

0

100

200

300

400

500

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Number of Criminal Enterprises Engaging in White-Collar Crimes Dismantled

Actual Target

Note: FY 2011 actual number has been updated and does not reflect the number reported in the FY 2011 Performance Accountability Report. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-7

Background/Program Objectives: Gangs and gun violence pose a serious threat to public safety in many 

communities throughout the United States. Too many youth are exposed to violence and gangs. Too many 

families continue to face substantial challenges in keeping their children safe and free from the conditions that 

can lead to violence. Many communities continue to experience high levels of gun violence and gang-related 

crimes. Gang members are increasingly migrating from urban to suburban, rural, and tribal communities and 

are responsible for a growing percentage of crime and violence in many communities. The Department’s 

efforts to protect our citizens from violence will be carried out through collaboration with our state, local, and 

tribal partners. Through the United States Attorneys and our violent crime task forces, the Department will 

work with individual jurisdictions to address the impact of gang-related crimes on communities. The federal, 

state, local, and tribal efforts will be enhanced through increased coordinated enforcement efforts and 

intelligence sharing. Additionally, prevention of gang violence and gang membership is a necessary element 

of our strategy to address violent crime. The Department will utilize evidence-based, data driven prevention 

programs, which are designed to prevent increases in gang membership and to deter youth violence, to assist 

state, local, and tribal governments in their efforts to deter youths from participation in gangs. 

Performance Measure: NEW MEASURE: Percent increase in Gang Arrests Resulting from Coordination of 

Gang Investigations 

FY 2012 Target: 2% 

FY 2012 Actual: - 16% 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: There are 3 contributing DOJ components for this measure, namely, ATF, 

DEA, and FBI. The overall target for this measure was not met for FY 2012. While DEA met its target for the 

year, ATF numbers declined from FY 2011 baseline, and FBI has yet to finalize its FY 2012 data. 

Addressing violent crime is one of the Attorney General’s FY 2012 Priority Goals, and the National Gang 

Targeting, Enforcement & Coordination Center (GangTECC) section /Operational Section for Gangs (OSG) at 

DEA’s Special Operations Division (SOD) has been fulfilling this priority goal. Since merging under the 

operational direction of SOD in FY 2010, the GangTECC section within SOD has been successfully 

coordinating several high impact gang operations. After supporting only approximately 100 cases in three 

years prior to the SOD merger, under the operational direction of SOD, the GangTECC/OSG supported over 

800 cases in just its first full year at SOD. Further, in FY 2012 with a target of 2% increase in gang arrests 

resulting from coordination, SOD-supported gang cases (DEA) accounted for 891 arrests which represented a 

4.4% increase from the previous year. In addition, as part of the GangTECC/OSG mission of coordinating 

significant local impact cases, the section also conducts outreach to state and locals, bringing them into the 

operations and providing support. During FY 2012, OSG conducted 34 outreach meetings throughout the 

country with federal, state and local law enforcement counterparts. 

The FBI has yet to finalize its FY 2012 actual number. FBI expects an additional increase in the final results 

for this measure once field personnel submit their statistics into the FBI’s Integrated Statistical Reporting and 

Analysis Application later in the calendar year. The final end of year performance data for this measure will 

be reflected in DOJ’s FY 2012 Violent Crime Priority Goal reporting process. In comparison to FY 2011, the 

FBI has exceeded many statistical accomplishments for FY 2012. While the FBI’s Violent Gang Safe Streets 

Task Forces (VGSSTFs) fell short of their target of 8,531 arrests for FY 2012, VGSSTFs dismantled 123 

criminal organizations – the second highest dismantlement total of the past 13 fiscal years. In addition, FBI 

Special Agents and task force officers posted a greater number of indictments/information, convictions, and 

disruptions. The FBI views indictments, convictions, disruptions, and dismantlements as relevant measures as 

these statistical accomplishments show a greater impact on combating violent gangs. As of September 30, 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Increase by 8 percent gang arrests resulting from coordination of gang

investigations (baseline = 9,305)

FY 2012 Progress: FY 2012 target was not met.  However, the Department is on target to achieve

this long‐term outcome goal.
II-8 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

2012, the VGSSTFs arrested 7,758 individuals; filed indictments/information against 4,292 subjects; convicted 

3,149 defendants; and disrupted the activities of 1,557 criminal enterprises. The FBI recognizes that violent 

gangs are one of the biggest threats in the United States as 52 out of 56 FBI field offices have ranked violent 

gangs as a priority criminal threat. VGSSTFs are examples of the FBI’s longstanding and continued 

commitment to address violent gang activity across the U.S. As of September 30, 2012, the FBI’s safe streets 

and gang unit administered 164 VGSSTFs nationwide. 

The ATF did not meet its target for this measure in FY 2012. ATF’s contribution to this measure, which is 

also one of DOJ’s Violent Crime Priority Goal indicators, is 74 arrests in FY 2012, which is a 16 percent 

decrease from the FY 2011 baseline figure of 88 arrests. However, while the number of arrests is down, the 

total number of ATF cases coordinated through GangTECC has increased from 22 in FY 2011 to 108 in FY 

2012. Approximately 70 percent of these cases were initiated during the 3rd and 4th quarters of FY 2012, and 

will result in arrests and referrals for prosecution during FY 2013. Inclusive of the cases coordinated through 

GangTECC, in FY 2012, 1,889 gang-related and 1,500 trafficking-related defendants in ATF cases were 

convicted. The following case highlights ATF’s FY 2012 efforts: In September 2008, the President of the San 

Francisco Chapter of the Hells Angels was murdered in a gang related incident in the Mission District of San 

Francisco. Pursuant to an extensive ATF investigation, in February 2012, a member of the Mongols 

Motorcycle Club was found guilty of murder in aid of racketeering, assault with a deadly weapon (in aid of 

racketeering), use of firearm during/in relation to a crime of violence, and using a firearm causing murder 

during a crime of violence. The jury found that he had murdered the President of the Hells Angels Chapter to 

maintain or increase his position in the Mongols Motorcycle Club. In May 2012, he was sentenced to four life 

terms of imprisonment. 

Data Definition: ATF’s data reflect the number of gang-related cases and arrests resulting from coordination 

with state and local law enforcement and supported by the Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination 

Center/Operational Section for Gangs. DEA’s Defendant Statistical System (DSS) is designated as the 

database of record for all arrest statistics and data. The Case Status System (CAST) is an automated on-line 

record-keeping system for entering, updating, and retrieving information on all DEA case files and general 

files. Every file opened since October 1, 1986 must have a CAST record. CAST also provides authorized 

users with file status statistics and case review scheduling. FBI data represent the number of gang 

investigations that were reported in the Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application. 

Data Collection and Storage: ATF’s data source is their National Field Office Case Information System, an 

integrated and centralized data management solution allowing real time monitoring and oversight of all 

criminal enforcement activities in the field. Statistics associated with DEA’s GangTECC activities are 

-16%

2%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

FY12

Percentage Increase in Gang Arrests Resulting from 

Coordination of Gang Investigations

Actual Target
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-9

gathered and tracked by SOD using DEA DSS and CAST systems. FBI data are collected and stored in the 

Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application. 

Data Validation and Verification: ATF data are verified through an inspection process which occurs on a 

four-year cycle and is performed at each ATF field office and division. DEA data are reviewed by quarters. 

DEA systems of record are also dynamic and data are regularly updated automatically. FBI data are validated 

and verified through its Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application. 

Data Limitations: ATF investigations often span multiple years from initiation through closure; case-related 

data are calculated based on the date investigations are closed, and therefore likely to include investigations 

that have spanned previous time periods. FBI data are collected manually. FBI field personnel are required to 

enter accomplishment data within 30 days of the accomplishment or a change in the status, such as those 

resulting from appeals. Data 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-10 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The mission of the FBI’s Gangs/Criminal Enterprise Program is to address 

violent gang threats in the U.S. by aggressively identifying, prioritizing, and targeting the most violent street 

and prison gangs whose activities constitute criminal enterprises. The FBI established the Safe Streets Violent 

Crime Initiative to attack gang and drug-related violence through the establishment of long-term, proactive, 

and coordinated teams of federal, state, and local law enforcement officers and prosecutors. The teams are 

manifested in Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Forces (VGSSTFs), which are composed of approximately 839 

FBI Special Agents, 1,411 state and local law enforcement personnel, and 92 other federal law enforcement 

agents. Through VGSSTFs, the FBI pursues violent gangs through sustained, proactive, and coordinated 

investigations and prosecutes gang members for a number of violations that include, but are not limited to, 

racketeering, drug conspiracy, and firearms violations. The Safe Streets Task Forces (SSTFs) concept expands 

cooperation and communication amongst federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, increasing 

productivity and avoiding duplication of investigative efforts. SSTFs combine short term, street-level 

enforcement activity with sophisticated investigative techniques like undercover operations and Title III wire 

taps to root out, prosecute, and disrupt and dismantle the entire gang, from the street-level enforcers and 

dealers to crew leaders and gang's command structure. 

The National Gang Intelligence Center (NGIC) integrates intelligence from across federal, state, and local law 

enforcement communities on the growth, migration, criminal activity, and association of violent gangs. NGIC 

supports law enforcement by sharing timely and accurate information and by providing strategic, tactical, and 

analytical intelligence products. Products are defined as intelligence products that have a nexus to gang 

matters. These intelligence products include Intelligence Bulletins, Intelligence Assessments, Intelligence 

Reports, Situational Awareness Bulletins, and Gang Information Reports. 

Performance Measure: NEW MEASURE: Number of Intelligence Products to Support Federal, State, and 

Local Law Enforcement

FY 2012 Target: 46

FY 2012 Actual: 53 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The FBI met and exceeded its target for this measure in FY 2012 for the 

number of intelligence products produced in support of federal, state, and local investigations that are focused 

on gangs posing a significant threat to the U.S. NGIC projected it would produce and disseminate 46 

intelligence products in FY 2012. However, NGIC surpassed this goal by producing 53 intelligence products. 

In order to accomplish the target set for this measure, NGIC conducted outreach to law enforcement 

organizations to promote the existence and use of NGIC Online. Through NGIC Online, investigators 

throughout the country can submit requests for intelligence and analytical support electronically and receive 

the resulting analytical products electronically. NGIC Online also allows the requestor to check the status of 

the request online. As a result of the successful implementation of NGIC Online, law enforcement officers can 

obtain gang intelligence more quickly and effectively. NGIC Online thus represents, and promotes, the 

efficient use of law enforcement resources. 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Increase by 14 percent intelligence products produced in support of

federal, state, and local investigations that are focused on gangs posing a significant threat to

communities (baseline = 45)

FY 2012 Progress: Department is on target to achieve this long‐term outcome goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-11

Data Definitions: Intelligence products such as Intelligence Reports, Bulletins, Assessments, and Notes are 

produced and disseminated to Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. These intelligence products 

aid law enforcement agencies in their efforts to address violent gangs as they focus on criminal activity, trends, 

growth, and migration of gangs domestically and internationally. 

Data Collection and Storage: All disseminated intelligence products are uploaded into NGIC Online. 

Reports are generated through NGIC Online to track the type and number of products disseminated.

Data Validation and Verification: The Violent Criminal Threat Section management has the ability to run 

reports to verify the number of reports produced and disseminated. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

53 46

0

50

100

FY12

Number of Intelligence Products to Support Federal, State, and Local Law 

Enforcement

Actual Target
II-12 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The abuse, neglect, exploitation, and trafficking, including sexual abuse, of 

children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations, causes irrevocable harm to victims and society. 

Ensuring that our children, seniors, and all citizens can live without being disturbed by sexual trauma, 

exploitation, or human trafficking are more than criminal justice issues, they are societal and moral issues. 

Despite efforts to date, the threat of these crimes remains very real. In the broadest terms, the goal of the 

Department is to prevent child sexual exploitation, elder abuse, hate crimes, and human trafficking from 

occurring in the first place, in order to protect every person from the physical and mental traumas associated 

with these crimes. 

Performance Measure: NEW MEASURE: Number of Matters/Investigations of Child Sexual Exploitation 

and Human Trafficking Resolved

FY 2012 Target: 4,938

FY 2012 Actual: 4,348 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The Department did not meet the target for FY 2012. However, the 

following are highlights of some of the accomplishments in FY 2012. 

In the U.S. Attorney Office Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Omelyan Botsvynyuk was sentenced to life plus 

20 years for operating a human trafficking organization that smuggled young Ukrainian immigrants into the 

United States forcing them to work in a cleaning business he ran with his brother Stepan, who was also 

convicted. Both defendants, along with three other brothers (two awaiting extradition from Canada and one a 

fugitive), illegally smuggled Ukrainian workers into the country and promised them jobs with good pay. 

However, once here, the brothers controlled the workers through physical force, threats of force, sexual 

assault, control of the workers’ documents, debt bondage, and extortion of their families in the Ukraine in 

order to keep them in involuntary servitude. On September 6, 2012, in the Western District of Louisiana, John 

Wyss, aka “Bones,” 55, of Monroe, Wisconsin, was sentenced to life in prison for his participation in an 

international criminal network known as Dreamboard, a private, members-only, online bulletin board that was 

created and operated to promote pedophilia, encourage the sexual abuse of very young children, and promote 

the creation and dissemination of graphic images and videos of child sexual abuse throughout the world. Wyss 

was convicted at trial of one count of engaging in a child exploitation enterprise, one count of conspiracy to 

advertise child pornography, and one count of conspiracy to distribute child pornography. A total of 72 

individuals, including Wyss, have been charged for their participation in Dreamboard. On June 27, 2012, in 

the District of Connecticut, Jesse Osmun, 32, of Milford, Connecticut, pleaded guilty to one count of traveling 

from the United States to South Africa and engaging in illicit sexual conduct with children. Osmun sexually 

abused four minor girls while he was a volunteer with the U.S. Peace Corps in South Africa. On October 10, 

2012, Osmun was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment, followed by 10 years of supervised release. 

The CRM announced in May 2012 that Michael Wayne Wooten, a former security officer in the Birmingham 

City School System and a substitute bus driver for Shelby County Schools, was sentenced to 30 years in prison 

for producing child pornography. Wooten was also ordered to remain on supervised release for the rest of his 

life after completing his prison term. The court noted during the hearing that Wooten had numerous child 

victims. Also, in August 2012, eight more defendants were sentenced for their involvement in an international 

criminal network organized to sexually exploit children in connection with their participation in the 

Dreamboard Child Exploitation bulletin board. Altogether, these eight defendants received a collective total of 

169 years in prison. 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Increase by 8 percent the matters/investigations resolved concerning

sexual exploitation of children and human trafficking to protect potential victims from abuse and

violence (baseline = 4,817)

FY 2012 Progress: Target was not met for FY 2012.  However, the Department is on target to

achieve this long‐term outcome goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-13

The CRT has spearheaded a number of initiatives aimed at aggressively combating human trafficking, 

including outreach to the public concerning potential trafficking situations, training for and collaboration with 

law enforcement officers, and implementing programs to address the needs of trafficking victims. CRT led the 

creation of a specialized Human Trafficking Prosecution Unit that is a global leader in trafficking 

prosecutions, and its representatives train foreign investigators and prosecutors at the United Nations and 

across the globe. CRT established a national, toll-free telephone complaint line to enable victims and others to 

report possible trafficking and worker exploitation abuses. CRT has been instrumental in developing a 

national human trafficking training curriculum for state and local law enforcement and in drafting model 

legislation for states to implement their own anti-trafficking laws. CRT filed the second-highest number of 

human trafficking cases in the history of the Division, exceeded only by the number of cases charged in 

FY 2010. 

Data Definition: A matter or investigation is defined as “open” once it is assigned a number. The definition 

of resolved means the matter/investigation is closed. Matter/investigation can be closed for a variety of 

reasons, such as plea bargain, dismissal, declination, and trial. Open investigations pertaining to sexual 

exploitation of children encompass domestic sexual child abuse, child pornography, child abuse in Indian 

country, and child enticement cases. Human trafficking open investigations pertain to adult and child human 

trafficking. 

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

management system and companion interface systems. Currently, matters and investigations worked on by 

more than one component are included in the totals from CRM, CRT, and the Executive Office of the U.S. 

Attorneys (EOUSA). Also, the court’s disposition date is used for reporting purposes for CRM and CRT; 

however, EOUSA uses the date entered into their current case management system. Additionally CRM and 

EOUSA count matters and investigations at the defendant level; CRT count civil and criminal 

matters/investigations. 

Data Validation and Verification: Each component implements their individual methodology for verifying 

data; however, in general, matter/investigation listings and reports are reviewed by attorney managers for data 

completeness and accuracy on a routine basis. Batch data analysis and ad hoc reviews are also conducted. 

Data Limitations: Data quality suffers from the lack of a single DOJ case management system and a 

standardized methodology for capturing matters/investigations related data. Due to reporting lags, 

matter/investigation closures for any given year may be under or over-reported.

4,348 4,938

0

5,000

10,000

FY12

Number of Matters/Investigations of Child Sexual Exploitation and Human 

Trafficking Resolved

Actual Target
II-14 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

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

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

CPOT List. The first CPOT List was issued in September 2002 and is reviewed and updated semi-annually. 

The List identifies the most significant international drug trafficking and money laundering organizations and 

those primarily responsible for the nation’s illegal drug supply. The Attorney General has designated the 

OCDETF Program as the centerpiece of DOJ’s illegal drug supply reduction strategy. The Program 

coordinates multi-agency and multi-jurisdictional investigations targeting the most serious drug trafficking 

threats. The OCDETF Program is responsible for coordinating the annual formulation of the CPOT list. The 

OCDETF Program functions through the efforts of the USAs; elements of CRM; the investigative, 

intelligence, and support staffs of DEA, FBI, ATF, and USMS; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; the 

U.S. Coast Guard; and the Internal Revenue Service. The OCDETF agencies also partner with numerous state 

and local law enforcement agencies. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FY 2011 Revised Actual: 

Dismantled: 198 (Previous Actual: 195) 

Disrupted: 414 (Previous Actual: 408) 

FY 2012 Target: 

Dismantled; 145 

Disrupted: 340 

FY 2012 Actual:

Dismantled: 171 

Disrupted: 446 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The Department achieved impressive results during FY 2012 in dismantling 

and disrupting CPOT-linked drug trafficking organizations. The Department dismantled 171 CPOT-linked 

organizations in FY 2012, exceeding its target by 18%. The Department disrupted 446 CPOT-linked 

organizations in FY 2012, exceeding its target by 31%. This is an 8% increase over the 414 reported for 

FY 2011. 

During FY 2012, in addition to making important gains against CPOT-linked organizations, the Department 

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

four CPOT targets were dismantled and seven CPOT targets were disrupted. Through these dismantlements 

and disruptions, the Department made significant impacts against the Sinaloa Cartel, the North Valley Cartel 

and other significant cartels operating out of Mexico and South America. All four of the dismantled CPOT 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Dismantle 725 Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT)‐linked

drug trafficking organizations (FY 2012‐2016).  Disrupt 1,700 CPOT‐linked drug trafficking

organizations (FY 2012‐2016)

FY 2012 Progress: Department is on target to achieve this long‐term outcome goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-15

targets were arrested and either deported or extradited to the United States for prosecution; three disrupted 

targets have been extradited to the United States as well; and another disrupted target is pending extradition. 

These eleven disrupted and dismantled CPOTs had a significant impact on the illegal drug supply in the 

United States. It is estimated that their activities included using the internet to sell various drugs and 

controlled substances to customers worldwide; the combined capability of importing and distributing over 150 

metric tons of cocaine into the United States, Mexico, and Europe; shipping truckloads containing more than 

2 tons of cocaine to New York alone; and using a multitude of companies to distribute a variety of drugs and 

launder money. Approximately $2.1 million in drug proceeds bound for Mexico was seized from just one of 

these organizations and many front companies have been identified in several countries and on the internet. 

The reach of these transnational drug trafficking organizations extended across multiple continents. Law 

enforcement activity targeting these CPOTs involved complex and coordinated intelligence driven 

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

partners. 

The Department’s FY 2012 successes dismantling or disrupting 617 CPOT-linked drug trafficking 

organizations, an increase over the previous high of 612 dismantled or disrupted in FY 2011, as well as the 

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

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

Data Definition: An organization is considered linked to a CPOT if credible evidence exists of a nexus 

between the primary investigative target and a CPOT target, verified associate, or component of the CPOT 

organization. Disrupted means impeding the normal and effective operation of the targeted organization, as 

indicated by changes in the organizational leadership and/or changes in methods of operation. Dismantled 

means destroying the organization's leadership, financial base, and supply network such that the organization 

is incapable of reconstituting itself. 

Data Collection and Storage: For this measure, OCDETF reviews all of the cases worked by the FBI and the 

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

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

double counting in Department-level reports. 

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

182

367

198

414

145

340

171

446

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Tgt.

FY12

Act.

CPOT-Linked Drug Trafficking Organizations Disrupted and Dismantled

Dismantled Disrupted

Note: FY 2011 actual numbers have been updated and do not reflect the numbers in the FY 2011 Performance Accountability Report.
II-16 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

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

opportunity to nominate targets for addition to or 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 or deleted from the CPOT List. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

verifies reported information with the investigating agency’s headquarters. 

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

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

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

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

to operate. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-17

Background/Program Objectives: Representing the rights and interests of the American people is a top 

priority for the Department of Justice. Among the DOJ components sharing responsibilities to achieve this 

goal are the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys, the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environment 

and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions. 

There are 94 U.S. Attorney Offices located throughout the United States and its territories. Each U.S. 

Attorney serves as the chief federal law enforcement officer within his or her judicial district and, as such, is 

responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the federal government; the litigation and defense 

of civil cases in which the United States is a party; the handling of criminal and civil appellate cases before 

United States Courts of Appeal; and the collection of civil and criminal debts and restitutions owed the federal 

government which are administratively uncollectable. 

Additionally, the Department has litigators that specialize in the areas of: preserving a competitive market 

structure; defending the public fisc against unwarranted claims; protecting civil rights; enforcing federal civil 

and criminal statutes; safeguarding the environment; and administrating internal revenue laws. 

The Antitrust Division (ATR) promotes and protects the competitive process – and the American economy – 

through the enforcement of antitrust laws. These laws apply to virtually all industries and to every level of 

business, including manufacturing, transportation, distribution, and marketing. 

The Civil Division (CIV) defends challenges to Congressional statutes, Presidential actions, national security 

issues, health care programs, vaccine injury claims, and energy policies; pursues violators of immigration and 

consumer protection laws; and handles thousands of affirmative and defensive cases with billions of dollars at 

issue related to accident and liability claims, natural disasters and other unprecedented events. CIV also 

handles commercial issues such as bankruptcy, contract disputes, banking, insurance, patents, fraud, and debt 

collection and administers the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program and the newly re-opened 

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund. 

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

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

state and locally operated institutions, national origin, voting, retaliation based on military service, and certain 

federally funded and conducted programs. Additionally, CRT enforces criminal civil rights responsibilities for 

human trafficking and involuntary servitude statutes, acts of racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender identity, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

matters; providing expert legal advice and training; providing critical law enforcement tools (e.g., Title III 

wiretaps); and forging global law enforcement partnerships. 

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

civil and criminal pollution-control and wildlife protection laws. Additionally, ENRD defends environmental 

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Favorably resolve 90% of Criminal Cases (litigating divisions)

FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Favorably resolve 80% of Civil Cases (litigating divisions)

FY 2012 Progress: Department is on target to achieve this long‐term outcome goal.
II-18 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

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, ENRD litigates cases concerning 

Indian rights and claims. 

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

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

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

Performance Measure: Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

FY 2012 Target:

Criminal Cases: 90% 

Civil Cases: 80 % 

FY 2012 Actual:

Criminal Cases: 92% 

Civil Cases: 81% 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The Department exceeded its target for this performance measure. The 

following are highlights of the accomplishments achieved by relevant components in FY 2012. 

The U.S. Attorneys continued its efforts combating fraud with its Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and 

94 regional mortgage fraud task forces and working groups, together with targeted financial fraud training 

provided at the National Advocacy Center including seminars in the areas of mortgage fraud, bank fraud, 

health care fraud, and securities fraud. Some highlights of these efforts include the following: On February 1, 

2012, David Higgs, Managing Director at Credit Suisse Group, and Salmaan Siddiqui, Vice President in the 

Investment Banking Division, plead guilty in the Southern District of New York to failing to mark to market 

the fair value of Residential Mortgage backed Securities and Commercial Mortgage backed Securities assets, 

which contributed to a $2.65 billion write down in Credit Suisse's reported net income, approximately $540 

million of which was attributable to defendants' conduct. On June 4, 2012, in the District of New Jersey, 

Matthew Kluger, a lawyer who fed inside information to a professional stock trader in a 17-year scheme that 

netted millions, was sentenced to 12 years in prison. This is the longest sentence ever handed down in an 

insider trading case. Stock trader Garrett D. Bauer was sentenced to 108 months in prison for his role in the 

scheme. On July 2, 2012, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its 

criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs. The 

resolution is the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history and the largest payment ever by a drug 

company. GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal information, including two counts of 

introducing misbranded drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and one count of failing to 

report safety data about the drug Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration. Under the terms of the plea 

agreement, GSK will pay a total of $1 billion, including a criminal fine of $956,814,400 and forfeiture in the 

amount of $43,185,600. GSK will also pay $2 billion to resolve its civil liabilities with the federal government 

under the False Claims Act, as well as the states. In May 2012, Global Health Care Company Abbott 

Laboratories Inc. plead guilty and agreed to pay $1.5 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising 

from the company’s unlawful promotion of the prescription drug Depakote for uses not approved as safe and 

effective by the Food and Drug Administration. The resolution – the second largest payment by a drug 

company – includes a criminal fine and forfeiture totaling $700 million and civil settlements with the federal 

government and the states totaling $800 million. Abbott also will be subject to court-supervised probation and 

reporting obligations for Abbott’s Chief Executive Officer and Board of Directors. 

The ATR obtained $1.1 billion in criminal fines in FY 2012 against antitrust violators. The Division's 

investigations into the liquid crystal displays (LCDs) and auto parts industries yielded significant restitution 

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

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

proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. On the civil side, the Division was successful in 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-19

protecting competition and U.S. consumers by challenging proposed mergers and agreements in areas as 

diverse as telecommunications, health care and tax preparation software. 

In FY 2012, CIV defeated billions of dollars in unmeritorious claims, in addition to the successful defense of 

suits filed against the government as a result of federal policies, laws, and involvement in commercial 

activities, domestic and foreign operations, entitlement programs, law enforcement initiatives, military actions, 

and counterterrorism efforts. CIV also pursued affirmative litigation, bringing suits on behalf of the United 

States, which resulted in the return of billions of dollars to the Treasury, Medicare, and other entitlement 

programs. This year alone, the Division, working with the U.S. Attorneys, recovered a record-high amount of 

over $4.8 billion as a result of its aggressive efforts in fighting health care, mortgage, and procurement fraud. 

The CRT reached the Nation’s largest-ever fair lending settlement on behalf of minorities who were steered 

discriminatorily towards subprime loans, and negotiated $25 billion in settlements with the Nation’s five 

largest mortgage servicers as part of the enforcement of mortgage protections for U.S. service members. CRT 

achieved both a record monetary recovery by the United States in a disability-based housing discrimination 

case, and a record monetary recovery for sexual harassment in a suit brought under the Fair Housing Act. As 

part of its work to protect vulnerable populations, CRT has convicted the most persons on hate crimes in over 

a decade, and charged the most defendants on human trafficking offenses in the history of the Division. CRT 

has also filed record numbers of criminal police misconduct cases. In New Orleans, CRT conducted one of the 

most extensive reviews ever of a law enforcement agency, and is now working to develop a comprehensive 

blueprint for sustainable reform of the police department. A similarly extensive review has been completed in 

Puerto Rico. CRT is committed to investigating voting irregularities and monitoring voter registration 

requirements to ensure that the vote of every American is counted, including military personnel, their families, 

and civilian personnel working overseas. CRT’s determined enforcement of the Supreme Court’s decision in 

Olmstead v L.C., led to landmark settlements with Virginia, Delaware, and Georgia, that will allow thousands 

of disabled citizens to receive community-based services.

The CRM prosecuted and achieved favorable dispositions in FY 2012 in cases covering a wide range of 

complex case law. For example, in a shared case with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of 

Texas, the Division successfully prosecuted Robert Allen Stanford for a twenty year, $7.2 billion Ponzi 

scheme centering around an offshore bank, which Stanford owned and operated in Antigua and Barbuda. 

Stanford was convicted and received a 110-year sentence. The Division was also instrumental in prosecuting 

the New England La Cosa Nostra (LCN) leadership in Providence, RI, which resulted in ten defendants being 

charged with racketeering conspiracy and extortion offenses. A total of ten defendants pleaded guilty, 

including two successive LCN bosses. Lastly, the Barclays Bank PLC, a financial institution headquartered in 

London, has entered into an agreement with the Division to pay a $160 million penalty to resolve violations 

arising from Barclays’s submissions for the London InterBank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the Euro Interbank 

Offered Rate (EURIBOR), which are benchmark interest rates used in financial markets around the world. 

The ENRD continued to enforce the Clean Air Act. ENRD and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

reached an innovative agreement in April 2012 with Ohio-based Marathon Petroleum Company that already 

has significantly reduced air pollution from all six of the company’s petroleum refineries. In a first for the 

refining industry, Marathon has agreed to install state-of-the-art controls on waste combustion devices known 

as flares and to cap the volume of waste gas sent to flares. The settlement is part of EPA’s national effort to 

reduce air pollution from refinery, petrochemical, and chemical flares. When fully implemented, the 

agreement is expected to reduce harmful air pollution by approximately 5,400 tons per year and result in future 

cost savings for the company. The agreement, accompanied by a $460,000 civil penalty, resolves Marathon’s 

alleged violations of the Clean Air Act. Marathon also will spend an as yet undetermined sum to comply with 

the flaring caps required in the consent decree. Under the agreement, Marathon will also implement a project 

at its Detroit, Michigan refinery to remove another 15 tons per year of VOCs and another one ton per year of 

benzene from the air. At an estimated cost of $2.2 million, Marathon will install controls on numerous sludge 

handling tanks and equipment. Marathon’s six refineries, which are located in Robinson, Illinois; Catlettsburg, 

Kentucky; Garyville, Louisiana; Detroit, Michigan; Canton, Ohio; and Texas City, Texas, have a capacity of 

more than 1.15 million barrels per day.
II-20 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

One of the Tax Division’s top litigation priorities continues to be the concerted civil and criminal effort to 

combat the serious problem of non-compliance 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 

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 continues 

to receive 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 offshore-banking clients have been initiated, of which 47 cases 

have been charged, with 38 guilty pleas having been entered, 3 convicted after trial (two of whom have been 

sentenced, with each receiving a 10-year prison sentence), and 6 awaiting trial. A number of facilitators who 

helped clients hide assets offshore have been indicted, resulting in 19 bankers, 8 advisors, and 2 attorneys 

being charged and awaiting trial; one advisor and one banker have been convicted and sentenced. One Swiss 

bank, Wegelin and Co., has been indicted. The other banks implicated include not only UBS, but another 

international Swiss bank, regional Swiss banks, an Israeli bank and HSBC India. In addition, grand jury 

investigations have been opened into additional offshore banks across the world, and the Division obtained a 

court decision allowing the IRS to summon additional account information from HSBC Bank. The Division 

also ensures that the public is aware of the offshore initiative. Indeed, the IRS credits the publicity 

surrounding this initiative with prompting a huge increase in the number of taxpayers who have “come in from 

the cold” and voluntarily disclosed to the IRS their previously hidden foreign accounts. Nearly 18,000 US 

taxpayers made voluntary disclosures in the 18-month period concluding February, 2011 – in contrast to fewer 

than 100 in a typical year – and made $2.2 billion in payments to the IRS. Another 12,000 US taxpayers 

disclosed their accounts under the 2011 Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Initiative (which ended September 9, 

2011) and have made $500 million in payments to the IRS so far. 

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

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

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

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

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

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Percent of Cases Favorably Resolved 

Criminal Civil 

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

Civil 87% 85% 84% 83% 83% 79% 83% 85% 85% 80% 81%

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 

Tgt.

FY12 

Act.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-21

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

management system and companion interface systems. Currently, cases worked on by more than one 

component are included in the totals from CRM, CRT, ENRD, and the EOUSA. Also, the court’s disposition 

date is used for reporting purposes for ATR, CIV, CRM, CRT, and ENRD; however, EOUSA and TAX use 

the date entered into their current case management system. Additionally, CIV counts at the party level; CRM, 

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

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

and condemnation cases in their totals. 

Data Validation and Verification: Each component implements their individual methodology for verifying 

data; however, in general, case listings and reports are reviewed by attorney managers for data completeness 

and accuracy on a routine basis. Batch data analysis and ad hoc reviews are also conducted. 

Data Limitations: Data quality suffers from the lack of a single DOJ case management system and a 

standardized methodology for capturing case related data. Due to the inherent variances in data collection and 

management, cases may refer to cases or individuals. In addition, due to reporting lags, case closures for any 

given year may be under or over-reported. 
II-22 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

STRATEGIC GOAL 3: Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, 

Efficient, and Transparent Administration of Justice at the 

Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and International Levels

36% of the Department’s Net Costs supports 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: 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: Percent of System-wide Crowding in Federal Prisons 

FY 2012 Target: 37% 

FY 2012 Actual: 38% 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: During FY 2012, the overall BOP population increased by 919. Although 

the BOP did not achieve its target for FY 2012, the institution population decreased by 378 and capacity from 

activating facilities Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Mendota, CA and FCI Berlin, NH) increased by 564 

beds to achieve a 1 percent reduction in system-wide crowding from FY 2011. Reducing overcrowding 

remains a high priority for both BOP and DOJ. 

The BOP will continue the activation process at FCI Berlin, NH, and the Secure Female FCI Aliceville, AL, in 

FY 2013, in addition to completing construction of FCI Hazelton, WV, and USP Yazoo City, MS. Dependent 

on funding, this additional capacity should help alleviate crowding in FY 2013. In addition, the BOP 

purchased the Thomson Correctional Center at the end of FY 2012. This facility will add needed high-security 

beds to help alleviate the overcrowding in federal prisons. 

Revised FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Reduce system‐wide crowding in federal prisons to 30% by 2016

FY 2012 Progress: Department will have difficulty in meeting this long‐term outcome goal.

III 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-23

 

Data Definitions: The crowding levels are based on a mathematical ratio of the number of inmates divided by 

the rated capacity of the institutions at each of the specific security levels. The percent of crowding represents 

the rate of crowding that is over rated capacity. For example, if an institution had a number of inmates that 

equaled the rated capacity, this would represent 100 percent occupancy, which equals 0 percent crowding. 

Any occupancy above 100 percent represents a percentage of crowding. System-wide: represents all inmates 

in BOP facilities and all rated capacity, including secure and non-secure facilities, low, medium, and high 

security levels, as well as administrative maximum, detention, medical, holdover, and other special housing 

unit categories. Minimum security facilities: non-secure facilities that generally house non-violent, low risk 

offenders with shorter sentences. These facilities have limited or no perimeter security fences or armed posts. 

Low security facilities: double-fenced perimeters, mostly dormitory housing, and strong work/program 

components. Medium security facilities: strengthened perimeters, mostly cell-type housing, work and 

treatment programs and a lower inmate-to-staff ratio than low security facilities. High security facilities: also 

known as U.S. Penitentiaries, highly secure perimeters, multiple and single cell housing, lowest inmate-to-staff 

ratio, close control of inmate movement.

Data Collection and Storage: Data are gathered from several computer systems. Inmate data are collected 

on the BOP on-line system (SENTRY). The BOP also utilizes a population forecast model to plan for future 

contracting and construction requirements to meet capacity needs. 

Data Validation and Verification: Subject matter experts review and analyze population and capacity levels 

daily, both overall and by security level. BOP institutions print a SENTRY report, which provides the count 

of inmates within every institution cell house. The report further subdivides the cell houses into counting 

groups, based on the layout of the institution. Using this report, institution staff conduct an official inmate 

count five times per day to confirm the inmate count within SENTRY. The BOP Capacity Planning 

Committee (CPC), comprised of top BOP officials, meets bi-monthly to review, verify, and update population 

projections and capacity needs for the BOP. Offender data are collected regularly from the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts by the BOP Office of Research and Evaluation in order to project population trends. 

The CPC reconciles bed space needs and crowding trends to ensure that all available prison space is fully 

utilized, both in federal prisons and in contract care. 

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

39% 41%

34% 36% 37% 36% 37% 37% 39% 38% 37%

0%

25%

50%

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Percent of System-wide Crowding in Federal Prisons 

Actual Target
II-24 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: In response to the rapid growth of federal inmates with a diagnosis of a 

drug use disorder (40 percent of inmates entering the BOP), the BOP continues to develop evidence based 

treatment practices to manage and treat drug-using offenders. More than half of the BOP’s facilities operate an 

RDAP. The RDAP are located in separate units, away from the general population. The RDAP is based on 

Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), wrapped into a modified therapeutic community model of treatment. 

The CBT and therapeutic communities are proven-effective treatment models with inmate populations. 

Inmates who participate in RDAP continue with drug abuse treatment when transferred to a Residential Reentry 

Center in the community while still in BOP custody. The BOP contracts with community-based treatment providers, 

often the same treatment providers who will continue the offender’s course of treatment when released to community 

supervision. This ensures a continuity of treatment and supervision. 

Performance Measure: NEW MEASURE: Number of inmate participants in RDAP 

FY 2012 Target: 18,500 (establish baseline) 

FY 2012 Actual: 14,482 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: The BOP approved 120 additional RDAP positions to allow an additional 

1,616 inmates to participate in the program. BOP opened an RDAP in a United States Penitentiary for the first 

time in 15 years. A Spanish Language RDAP was approved this year with activation to occur in FY 2013. 

The target of 18,500 was generated using a calculation of all inmate movement into and out of the RDAP. 

Through closer review, BOP determined this methodology resulted in the potential for the same inmate to be 

counted twice within the same fiscal year. ABOP has now developed a more refined methodology to calculate 

RDAP participation, with significantly less potential for duplication. This more precise methodology will be 

utilized going forward. Thus, while this change has resulted in the number of participants during the fiscal 

year being less than the target number, it is a preferred method to report inmate participation in RDAP. 

Revised FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Increase the number of inmate participants in the Residential

Drug Abuse Program (RDAP) by 6 percent (from 18,500 to 19,920)

FY 2012 Progress: Department will not meet the current long‐term outcome goal target.  New

methodology has been developed in calculating inmate participants which will alter the long‐term

outcome goal target.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-25

Data Definitions: RDAP - data reported are the actual number of BOP inmates who participated in the RDAP 

within the fiscal year. 

Data Collection and Storage: Data are collected/entered into the BOP's SENTRY data system and the 

Psychology Data System (PDS). Data are collected/entered primarily by Case Managers, Drug Abuse 

Treatment Specialists and Drug Abuse Treatment Coordinators in the institutions. SENTRY data tracks the 

inmate's "basic" status in RDAP as WAIT, PARTICIPANT, COMPLETE, WITHDRAW, EXPELLED, or 

INCOMPLETE. PDS tracks the inmate's clinical progress, including: treatment plans; 60 day treatment 

reviews; group contacts; individual contacts; and treatment summaries. Both SENTRY and PDS are stored 

electronically. Signed documents are inserted in inmate's Central File. 

Data Validation and Verification: Validation is conducted by the Drug Abuse Program Coordinator through 

regular treatment meetings, supervision and inmate file and data reviews. Data Verification is conducted 

through PDS and SENTRY data which are monitored by Central Office and the Regional Offices no less than 

monthly. Examples of reviews conducted include, but are not limited to: programs are operating as intended; 

participant status and progress are documented appropriately; PDS documentation meets the clinical standard 

as outlined by policy and training; inmates are interviewed for RDAP appropriately; and to ensure all inmates 

qualified for the RDAP are receiving the RDAP before their release from BOP custody.

Data Limitations: None known at this time. 

 

14,482 18,500

0

15,000

30,000

FY12

Number of Inmate Participants in RDAP

Actual Target
II-26 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Background/Program Objectives: The USMS has a long and distinguished history of providing assistance 

and expertise to other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies in support of violent crime reduction 

through fugitive investigations. These partnerships have evolved into the ultimate force multiplier in federal 

law enforcement, and allow our task forces to focus on the most egregious state and local fugitives and ensure 

the greatest protection to the public by maximizing the effectiveness of resources. The USMS uses a 

combination of Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) and District Fugitive Task Forces (DFTFs) to form a 

national network responsible for the apprehension of violent fugitive felons. The Presidential Threat 

Protection Act of 2000 initially established the USMS RFTF model. It consists of federal, state, and local law 

enforcement authorities in designated regions of the United States, which are directed and coordinated by the 

USMS, for the purpose of locating and apprehending fugitives. In addition to domestic activities, the USMS is 

the lead agency responsible for extraditing (or deporting) U.S. fugitives that have fled to foreign countries 

back into this country. The USMS also apprehends 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 of Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Apprehended or Cleared

FY 2012 Target: 34,421 

FY 2012 Actual: 36,229 

Discussion of FY 2012 Results: In FY 2012, the USMS apprehended or cleared 36,229 primary Federal 

felony fugitives, exceeding the target of 34,421. This resulted in 50 percent of total primary Federal felony 

fugitives apprehended or cleared which is half of the 72,001 warrants on hand or received during FY 2012. 

Among those arrested, 3,934 (including state/local) were for crimes of homicide, 4,917 (including state/local) 

were gang members, and 12,976 (including state/local) were sex offenders. In addition, in FY 2012, the 

USMS had 924 fugitives extradited or deported to the United States from other countries. 

The 7 operating RFTF, in addition to the 60 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 DFTF combined led to the arrest of 86,016 state and local fugitive felons in FY 

2012. The USMS initiated 3,208 Federal investigations into the failure of sex offenders to meet their 

registration requirements. 

Revised FY 2016 Outcome Goal: Apprehend or clear 33,660 primary fugitives

FY 2012 Progress: Department is on target to achieve this long‐term outcome goal.
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report II-27

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 arrested, 

has a detainer issued, or the warrant is dismissed. The percent cleared is calculated by dividing the number of 

cleared fugitives by the sum of received fugitives (fugitives who had a warrant issued during the fiscal year) 

and on-hand fugitives (fugitives who had an active warrant at the beginning of the fiscal year). 

Data Collection and Storage: The USMS maintains 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) and 

the International Justice and Public Safety Information Network (NLETS) through JDIS to look for previous 

criminal information.

Data Validation and Verification: Warrant and fugitive data are verified according to NCIC policy and 

procedures. 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: JDIS data are accessible to all USMS district offices and are updated as new information is 

collected, thus there may be a lag in the reporting of data. 

Number of Primary Federal Felony Fugitives Apprehended or Cleared 27,278 29,140 30,434 30,192 33,437 34,393 32,860 32,864 34,629

36,229

34,421

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

FY03 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Actual Target
II-28 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-1

Financial Section

While Section II of this Report provided performance data (required by GPRA), Section III provides financial 

information required by the Chief Financial Officers Act. This data outlines not only the costs of programs, 

but also the costs of achieving individual results by strategic goal. As required by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, the following section provides the 

Statements of Net Cost by major program for the Department of Justice, and it is aligned directly with the 

goals and objectives in the Department’s Strategic Plan and Annual Performance Plan.

Following the Chief Financial Officer’s message, the Office of the Inspector General’s Commentary and 

Summary, and the Reports of Independent Auditors, are the following statements:

Consolidated Balance Sheets – Presents resources owned or managed by the Department that are 

available to provide future economic benefits (assets); amounts owed by the Department that will 

require payments from those resources or future resources (liabilities) and residual amounts retained 

by the Department, comprising the difference (net position) as of September 30, 2012 and 2011.

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost – Presents the net cost of Department operations for the fiscal 

years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011. 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, 2012 and 2011.

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, 2012 and 2011.

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, 2012 and 2011.

Overview

Section III 
III-2 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice  FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report III-3

A Message From The Chief Financial Officer 

November 9, 2012 

I am very pleased to report that the Department has earned an unqualified audit opinion on its 

fiscal year 2012 consolidated financial statements. I am also pleased that for the sixth straight 

year the auditor’s report on internal controls over financial reporting did not identify any 

material weaknesses at the consolidated Department level. Moreover, for the first time, no 

material weaknesses were reported in any of the individual component level audits. The 

continued progress made by our financial management offices is demonstrable evidence of the 

Department’s commitment to pursuing continual improvement in sound financial management 

practices. 

The Department is fully cognizant of the economic difficulties faced by our country. We have 

been devoted to looking for ways to operate more efficiently in order to ensure taxpayer funds 

are spent wisely on the critical national security and law enforcement activities the Department 

performs for the nation. The Department’s leadership has challenged our components to find 

savings across our operations, and components have responded with savings in many areas, 

including travel management and the consolidation of large information technology contracts. 

The Department’s SAVE Council will continue during fiscal year 2013 to look for additional 

areas we can reduce spending in order to operate as efficiently as possible. When we find areas 

where we can improve our practices and save money, we will act on those opportunities. 

Also on the horizon is the continued successful implementation of the Department’s Unified 

Financial Management System (UFMS). As fiscal year 2013 started, implementations of 

UFMS began at the United States Marshals Service and four program offices in the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation. The use of UFMS was also expanded at the Department’s Assets 

Forfeiture Management program. Building upon successful implementations at DEA and ATF, 

these new implementations, while broad in scope and complexity, bring great potential for 

improving our financial management capabilities for the future. 

We take our financial accountability seriously, and we take our commitment to sound agency 

performance and providing taxpayer value seriously. We look forward in 2013 to furthering 

our fiscal achievements as the Department continues to serve the nation and its citizens. 

Lee Lofthus 

Chief Financial Officer 
III-4 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-5

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

ANNUAL FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

FISCAL YEAR 2012

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL

COMMENTARY AND SUMMARY

This audit report contains the Annual Financial Statements of the U.S. Department of Justice 

(Department) for the fiscal years (FY) ended September 30, 2012, and September 30, 2011. Under 

the direction of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG), KPMG LLP performed the Department’s 

audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. The 

audit resulted in an unqualified opinion on the FY 2012 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 2011, the Department also received an unqualified opinion on its financial 

statements (OIG Report No. 12-03).

KPMG LLP also issued Reports on Internal Control over Financial Reporting and on 

Compliance and Other Matters. For FY 2012, the auditors did not identify any significant 

deficiencies in the Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting. 

Although progress continues to be made, it is important to note that the Department still does not 

have a unified financial management system to readily support ongoing accounting operation and 

preparation of financial statements. As discussed in past years, we believe the most important 

challenge facing the Department in its financial management is to successfully implement an 

integrated financial management system to replace the disparate and, in some cases, antiquated 

financial systems used by Department components.

No instances of non-compliance or other matters that are required to be reported under 

Government Auditing Standards were identified during the audit in the FY 2012 Independent 

Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters. Additionally, KPMG LLP’s tests disclosed no 

instances in which the Department’s financial management systems did not substantially comply 

with the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996.

The OIG reviewed KPMG LLP’s reports and related documentation and made necessary 

inquiries of its representatives. Our review, as differentiated from an audit in accordance with 

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 and other matters. KPMG LLP is responsible for the attached 

auditors’ reports dated November 9, 2012, and the conclusions expressed in the reports. However, 

our review disclosed no instances where KPMG LLP did not comply, in all material respects, with 

auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America.
III-6 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-7

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, 2012 and 2011, 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” or “basic 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 $2.0 billion and 

$2.1 billion, and total net costs of $2.9 billion and $2.8 billion, as of and for the years ended September 30, 

2012 and 2011, respectively. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have 

been furnished to us, and our opinion, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those components, is 

based solely on the reports of the other auditors.

We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of 

America; the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued 

by the Comptroller General of the United States; and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin 

No. 07-04, Audit Requirements for Federal Financial Statements, as amended. Those standards and OMB 

Bulletin No. 07-04 require that we plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance about 

whether the consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes 

consideration of internal control over financial reporting as a basis for designing audit procedures that are 

appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of 

the Department’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we express no such opinion. An 

audit also includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the 

consolidated financial statements, assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made 

by management, as well as evaluating the overall consolidated financial statement presentation. We 

believe that our audits and the reports of the other auditors provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, based on our audits and the reports of the other auditors, the consolidated financial 

statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the U.S. 

Department of Justice as of September 30, 2012 and 2011, and its net costs, changes in net position, 

budgetary resources, and custodial activity for the years then ended in conformity with U.S. generally 

accepted accounting principles.

KPMG LLP

Suite 12000

1801 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership,

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Page 2 of 3

Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-8

As discussed in Note 1.Z to the consolidated financial statements, the Department changed its presentation 

for reporting the combined statement of budgetary resources in fiscal year 2012, based on new reporting 

requirements under OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. As a result, the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s combined statement of budgetary resources for fiscal year 2011 has been adjusted 

to conform to the current year presentation.

U.S. generally accepted accounting principles require that the information in Required Supplementary 

Information, including Management’s Discussion and Analysis, and Required Supplementary Stewardship 

Information be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a 

part of the basic financial statements, is required by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board who 

considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an 

appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. We and the other auditors have applied certain 

limited procedures to the required supplementary information in accordance with auditing standards 

generally accepted in the United States of America, which consisted of inquiries of management about the 

methods of preparing the information and comparing the information for consistency with management’s 

responses to our inquiries, the basic financial statements, and other knowledge we obtained during our 

audits of the basic financial statements. We and the other auditors do not express an opinion or provide 

any assurance on the information because the limited procedures do not provide us with sufficient evidence 

to express an opinion or provide any assurance.

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements as a 

whole. The September 30, 2012 and 2011 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, and is 

not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information is the responsibility of management 

and was derived from and relates directly to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare 

the basic financial statements. The September 30, 2012 and 2011 consolidating and combining information 

in the Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements has been subjected to the auditing procedures 

applied by us and the other auditors, in the audits of the basic financial statements and certain additional 

procedures, including comparing and reconciling such information directly to the underlying accounting 

and other records used to prepare the basic financial statements or to the basic financial statements 

themselves, and other additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in 

the United States of America. In our opinion, based on our audits and the reports of the other auditors, the

September 30, 2012 and 2011 consolidating and combining information in the Consolidating and 

Combining Financial Statements section is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic 

financial statements as a whole. The information in the Introduction, FY 2012 Performance Report, Other 

Accompanying Information, Management Section, and Appendices is presented for the purposes of 

additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. Such information has not 

been subjected to the auditing procedures applied by us and the other auditors in the audits of the basic 

financial statements, and accordingly, we do not express an opinion or provide any assurance on it. 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our reports dated November 9, 

2012, 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. 
Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Page 3 of 3

Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-9

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, 2012
III-10 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-11

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, 2012 and 2011 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, 2012. We did not audit the financial statements of the following components of the

Department: the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI); and the Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as of and for the years ended September 30, 2012 

and 2011. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been furnished to

us, and our report, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those components, is based solely on the

reports of the other auditors. Also, as discussed in Note 1.Z to the consolidated financial statements, the 

Department changed its presentation for reporting the combined statement of budgetary resources in fiscal 

year 2012, based on new reporting requirements under OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements. 

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 2012 financial statements of the USMS, FPI, and ATF. 

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon, including the other

auditors’ Independent Auditors’ Reports on 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 management of the Department is responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal 

control over financial reporting. In planning and performing our fiscal year 2012 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 

KPMG LLP

Suite 12000

1801 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership,

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
Independent Auditors’ Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Page 2 of 2

III-12 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

opinion on the effectiveness of the Department’s internal control over financial reporting. Accordingly, we 

do not express an opinion on the effectiveness of the Department’s internal control over financial reporting. 

We and the other auditors 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 2012 audit, we and the other auditors did not identify any deficiencies in internal control over 

financial reporting that we and the other auditors consider to be material weaknesses, as defined above.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Department’s management, 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, 2012
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-13

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, 2012 and 2011, 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, 2012. We did not audit the financial statements of the following components of the

Department: the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS); the Federal Prison Industries, Inc. (FPI); and the Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as of and for the years ended September 30, 2012

and 2011. Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports have been furnished to

us, and our report, insofar as it relates to the amounts included for those components, is based solely on the

reports of the other auditors. Also, as discussed in Note 1.Z to the consolidated financial statements, the 

Department changed its presentation for reporting the combined statement of budgetary resources in fiscal 

year 2012, based on new reporting requirements under OMB Circular No. A-136, Financial Reporting 

Requirements. 

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 2012 financial statements of the USMS, FPI, and ATF. 

Those financial statements were audited by other auditors whose reports thereon, including the other

auditors’ Independent Auditors’ Reports on Compliance and Other Matters, have been furnished to us. 

Accordingly, our report on the Department’s compliance and other matters, insofar as it relates to those

components, is based solely on the reports and findings of the other auditors.

The management of the Department is responsible for complying with laws, regulations, contracts, and 

grant agreements applicable to the Department. As part of obtaining reasonable assurance about whether 

the Department’s consolidated financial statements are free of material misstatement, we and the other 

auditors performed tests of the Department’s compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, 

contracts, and grant agreements, noncompliance with which could have a direct and material effect on the 

determination of the consolidated financial statement amounts, and certain provisions of other laws and 

regulations specified in OMB Bulletin No. 07-04, including the provisions referred to in Section 803(a) of

KPMG LLP

Suite 12000

1801 K Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20006

KPMG LLP is a Delaware limited liability partnership,

the U.S. member firm of KPMG International Cooperative

(“KPMG International”), a Swiss entity.
Independent Auditors’ Report on Compliance and Other Matters

Page 2 of 2

III-14 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

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 of this 

report, exclusive of those referred to in FFMIA, disclosed no instances of noncompliance or other matters 

that are required to be reported herein under Government Auditing Standards or OMB Bulletin No. 07-04.

The results of our and the other auditors’ tests of FFMIA disclosed no instances in which the Department’s 

financial management systems did not substantially comply with the (1) federal financial management 

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 Department’s management, 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, 2012
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-15

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Principal Financial Statements and Related Notes
Dollars in Thousands 2012 2011

ASSETS (Note 2)

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury (Note 3) $ 24,745,298 $ 23,354,452

Investments, Net (Note 5) 6,213,903 6,919,799

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 324,327 380,431

Other Assets (Note 10) 266,573 115,103

Total Intragovernmental 31,550,101 30,769,785

Cash and Monetary Assets (Note 4) 260,682 250,253

Accounts Receivable, Net (Note 6) 115,612 125,898

Inventory and Related Property, Net (Note 7) 166,609 170,889

Forfeited Property, Net (Note 8) 145,111 172,746

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (Note 9) 10,186,144 10,217,770

Advances and Prepayments 760,870 1,079,767

Other Assets (Note 10) 5,585 5,982

Total Assets $ 43,190,714 $ 42,793,090

LIABILITIES (Note 11)

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 302,575 $ 366,027

Accrued Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 260,652 250,625

Custodial Liabilities (Note 21) 1,114,298 605,009

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 368,713 377,451

Total Intragovernmental 2,046,238 1,599,112

Accounts Payable 4,108,056 2,504,820

Accrued Grant Liabilities 604,119 614,419

Actuarial Federal Employees' Compensation Act Liabilities 1,474,278 1,359,360

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 653,909 644,502

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 838,252 831,783

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 74,441 72,709

Deferred Revenue 556,464 533,427

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments (Note 14) 1,587,167 4,063,738

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 28,671 68,652

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 17,096 25,141

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities (Note 25) 731,237 535,838

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (Note 25) 2,766,400 -

Other Liabilities (Note 15) 455,657 415,976

Total Liabilities $ 15,941,985 $ 13,269,477

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) $ 25,963 $ 21,727

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 10,568,815 11,952,581

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds (Note 17) 10,949,539 9,066,816

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 5,704,412 8,482,489

Total Net Position $ 27,248,729 $ 29,523,613

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 43,190,714 $ 42,793,090

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 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, 2012 and 2011

III-16
Dollars in Thousands

Net Cost of

Intra- With the Intra- With the Operations

FY governmental Public Total governmental Public Total (Note 18)

Goal 1 2012 $ 1,426,981 $ 4,300,297 $ 5,727,278 $ 439,321 $ 30,912 $ 470,233 $ 5,257,045

2011 $ 1,461,443 $ 4,164,706 $ 5,626,149 $ 447,623 $ 23,160 $ 470,783 $ 5,155,366

Goal 2 2012 3,361,356 16,698,326 20,059,682 468,597 646,666 1,115,263 18,944,419

2011 3,328,444 11,338,264 14,666,708 427,340 627,929 1,055,269 13,611,439

Goal 3 2012 2,729,014 12,794,400 15,523,414 867,132 663,176 1,530,308 13,993,106

2011 2,688,773 12,985,253 15,674,026 1,107,938 697,787 1,805,725 13,868,301

Total 2012 $ 7,517,351 $ 33,793,023 $ 41,310,374 $ 1,775,050 $ 1,340,754 $ 3,115,804 $ 38,194,570

2011 $ 7,478,660 $ 28,488,223 $ 35,966,883 $ 1,982,901 $ 1,348,876 $ 3,331,777 $ 32,635,106

Goal 1 Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security Consistent with the Rule of Law

Goal 2 Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American People, and Enforce Federal Law

Goal 3

Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-17

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011

Gross Costs Less: Earned Revenues

Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, Efficient, and Transparent Administration of Justice at the Federal, 

State, Local, Tribal, and International Levels
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 21,727 $ 11,952,581 $ - $ 11,974,308

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 72,044 27,621,645 - 27,693,689

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out - 330,471 - 330,471

Other Adjustments - (152,761) - (152,761)

Appropriations Used (67,808) (29,183,121) - (29,250,929)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources 4,236 (1,383,766) - (1,379,530)

Unexpended Appropriations $ 25,963 $ 10,568,815 $ - $ 10,594,778

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 9,066,816 $ 8,482,489 $ - $ 17,549,305

Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Adjustments - (40,000) - (40,000)

Appropriations Used 67,808 29,183,121 - 29,250,929

Nonexchange Revenues 2,802,985 975 - 2,803,960

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 4,194,465 - - 4,194,465

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 109,395 - 109,395

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 120,245 30 - 120,275

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (149,908) 137,285 - (12,623)

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 15,446 887,286 (24,718) 878,014

Other Financing Sources - (5,199) - (5,199)

Total Financing Sources 7,051,041 30,272,893 (24,718) 37,299,216

Net Cost of Operations (5,168,318) (33,050,970) 24,718 (38,194,570)

Net Change 1,882,723 (2,778,077) - (895,354)

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 10,949,539 $ 5,704,412 $ - $ 16,653,951

Net Position $ 10,975,502 $ 16,273,227 $ - $ 27,248,729

III-18

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

2012

Dollars in Thousands

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report
Earmarked All Other

Funds Funds Eliminations Total

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances $ 19,585 $ 13,791,272 $ - $ 13,810,857

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received 71,746 27,408,088 - 27,479,834

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out - 400,839 - 400,839

Other Adjustments (326) (105,930) - (106,256)

Appropriations Used (69,278) (29,541,688) - (29,610,966)

Total Budgetary Financing Sources 2,142 (1,838,691) - (1,836,549)

Unexpended Appropriations $ 21,727 $ 11,952,581 $ - $ 11,974,308

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances $ 7,636,045 $ 8,068,651 $ - $ 15,704,696

Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Adjustments - (26,000) - (26,000)

Appropriations Used 69,278 29,541,688 - 29,610,966

Nonexchange Revenues 2,003,887 508 - 2,004,395

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and 

Cash Equivalents 1,580,584 - - 1,580,584

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement - 113,735 - 113,735

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 157,381 226 - 157,607

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (6,192) 50,748 - 44,556

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed

by Others (Note 19) 16,069 1,007,880 (25,464) 998,485

Other Financing Sources - (4,613) - (4,613)

Total Financing Sources 3,821,007 30,684,172 (25,464) 34,479,715

Net Cost of Operations (2,390,236) (30,270,334) 25,464 (32,635,106)

Net Change 1,430,771 413,838 - 1,844,609

Cumulative Results of Operations $ 9,066,816 $ 8,482,489 $ - $ 17,549,305

Net Position $ 9,088,543 $ 20,435,070 $ - $ 29,523,613

III-19

Dollars in Thousands

2011

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
Dollars in Thousands 2012 2011

Budgetary Resources:

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 3,882,323 $ 4,039,298

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 877,535 753,442

Other Changes in Unobligated Balance (12,383) 34,970

Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net 4,747,475 4,827,710

Appropriations (discretionary and mandatory) 33,346,750 30,646,052

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 7,193,483 6,956,003

Total Budgetary Resources $ 45,287,708 $ 42,429,765

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred (Note 20) 41,251,276 38,547,442

Unobligated Balance, End of Period:

Apportioned 2,730,163 2,426,008

Exempt from Apportionment 218,191 211,197

Unapportioned 1,088,078 1,245,118

Total Unobligated Balance - End of Period 4,036,432 3,882,323

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $ 45,287,708 $ 42,429,765

Change in Obligated Balance:

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations, Gross $ 16,676,653 $ 17,759,329

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,790,659 1,753,098

Total Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 14,885,994 16,006,231

Obligations Incurred 41,251,276 38,547,442

Less: Outlays, Gross 40,120,017 38,876,674

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (99,702) (37,562)

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 877,535 753,442

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period

Unpaid Obligations, Gross 16,930,377 16,676,653

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 1,890,361 1,790,659

Total Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 15,040,016 $ 14,885,994

Budgetary Authority and Outlays, Net:

Budgetary Authority, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) 40,540,233 37,602,055

Less: Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 7,093,781 6,918,445

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (99,702) (37,562)

(discretionary and mandatory)

Budget Authority, Net (discretionary and mandatory) 33,346,750 30,646,048

Outlays, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) 40,120,017 38,876,674

Less: Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 7,093,781 6,918,445

Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) 33,026,236 31,958,229

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 1,425,127 1,025,644

Agency Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) 31,601,109 30,932,585

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

III-20 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands 2012 2011

Revenue Activity

Sources of Cash Collections

Delinquent Federal Civil Debts as Required by the Federal 

Debt Recovery Act of 1986 $ 6,995,798 $ 5,222,083

Fees and Licenses 36,710 32,437

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil 12,613 82,288

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal 39,824 38,350

Miscellaneous 13,652 4,853

Total Cash Collections 7,098,597 5,380,011

Accrual Adjustments (1,405) 3,643

Total Custodial Revenue 7,097,192 5,383,654

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture (105,670) (96,346)

U.S. Department of Commerce (3,746) (5,103)

U.S. Department of the Interior (129,015) (29,959)

U.S. Department of Justice (21,085) (81,181)

U.S. Department of Labor (9,175) (736)

U.S. Postal Service (7,675) (4,362)

U.S. Department of State (26,613) (8,535)

U.S. Department of the Treasury (969,585) (249,184)

Office of Personnel Management (157,714) (58,144)

Federal Communications Commission (310) (14,727)

Social Security Administration (921) (2,726)

Smithsonian Institution (8) (190)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (125,354) (28,703)

General Services Administration (130,087) (88,447)

Securities and Exchange Commission (411) (3)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (59) (71)

Railroad Retirement Board (288) (100)

Tennessee Valley Authority (8) -

Environmental Protection Agency (189,137) (341,267)

U.S. Department of Transportation (13,674) (7,236)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (66,585) (66,843)

Agency for International Development (511) (22,233)

Small Business Administration (6,371) (10,447)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1,283,167) (2,001,923)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (725) (3,792)

Export-Import Bank of the United States (17,264) (24,643)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (1,129,547) (11,099)

National Archives & Records Administration (29) -

U.S. Department of Energy (3,313) (2,093)

U.S. Department of Education (14,452) (55,431)

Independent Agencies (63,619) (67,264)

Treasury General Fund (653,526) (619,716)

U.S. Department of Defense (217,607) (173,894)

Transferred to the Public (508,622) (516,597)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred (566,077) (307,947)

Refunds and Other Payments (513,185) (364,644)

Retained by the Reporting Entity (162,057) (118,068)

Total Disposition of Collections (7,097,192) (5,383,654)

Net Custodial Activity (Note 21) $ - $ -

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-21

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements.

U. S. Department of Justice

Combined Statements of Custodial Activity

For the Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011
FY 2012 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-22 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

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 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-23

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 (FECA) 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; Radiation 

Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) Liabilities; and September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

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 2012 and 

2011, 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.

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. 
FY 2012 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements

Notes to the Financial Statements

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted)

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-24 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

 E. Non-Entity Assets

Non-entity assets are not available for use by the Department and consist primarily of restricted 

undisbursed civil and criminal debt collections, seized cash, accounts receivable, and other monetary 

assets.

 F. Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury and Cash 

Funds with the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) represent primarily appropriated, revolving, and 

trust funds available to pay current liabilities and finance future authorized purchases. The Treasury, as 

directed by authorized certifying officers, processes cash receipts and disbursements. The Department 

does not, for the most part, maintain cash in commercial bank accounts. Certain receipts, however, are 

processed by commercial banks for deposit into individual accounts maintained at the Treasury. The 

Department=s cash and other monetary assets consist of undeposited collections, imprest funds, cash used 

in undercover operations, cash held as evidence, and seized cash.

 G. Investments

Investments are market-based Treasury securities issued by the Bureau of Public Debt. When securities 

are purchased, the investment is recorded at face value (the value at maturity). The Department=s intent is 

to hold investments to maturity, unless the invested funds are needed to sustain operations. No provision 

is made for unrealized gains or losses on these securities because, in the majority of cases, they are held to 

maturity. The market value of the investments is the current market value at the end of the reporting 

period. It is calculated by using the “End of Day” price listed in The FedInvest Price File which can be 

found on the Bureau of Public Debt website (http://www.fedinvest.gov/). Investments are reported on the 

Consolidated Balance Sheet at their net value, the face value plus or minus any unamortized premium or 

discount. Premiums and discounts are amortized over the life of the Treasury security. The interest 

method is used for the amortization of premium and discount of Treasury notes and the straight-line 

method is used for Treasury bills. Amortization is based on the straight-line method over the term of the 

securities.

The AFF, the U.S. Trustee System Fund, and the Federal Prison Commissary Fund are three earmarked 

funds that invest in Treasury securities. The Treasury does not set aside assets to pay future expenditures 

associated with earmarked funds. Instead, the cash generated from earmarked funds is used by the 

Treasury for general Government purposes. When these earmarked funds redeem their Treasury securities 

to make expenditures, the Treasury will finance the expenditures in the same manner that it finances all 

other expenditures. 

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. 
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-25

H. Accounts Receivable

Net accounts receivable includes reimbursement and refund receivables due from federal agencies and 

the public, 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. 

J. General Property, Plant and Equipment 

With the exception of land, real property and leasehold improvements are capitalized when the cost of 

acquiring and/or improving the asset is $100 or more and the asset has a useful life of two or more 

years. Land is capitalized regardless of the acquisition cost. Real property is depreciated or 

amortized, based on historical cost, using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the 

asset. 

Except for BOP and FPI, Department acquisitions of personal property, excluding internal use 

software, costing $25 or more is capitalized if the asset has an estimated useful life of two or more 

years. Personal property is depreciated, based on historical cost, using the straight-line method over 

the estimated useful life of the asset. BOP and FPI capitalize personal property acquisitions over $5

and $10, respectively. 

Internal use software is capitalized when developmental phase costs or enhancement costs are $500 or

more and the asset has an estimated useful life of two or more years. Aircraft are capitalized when the 

initial cost of acquiring those assets is $100 or more. Internal use software and aircraft are depreciated, 

based on historical cost, using the straight-line method over the estimated useful life of the asset.
FY 2012 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements

Notes to the Financial Statements

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted)

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-26 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

K. Advances and Prepayments

Advances and prepayments, classified as assets on the Consolidated Balance Sheets, consist primarily 

of funds disbursed to grantees in excess of total expenditures made by those grantees to third parties, 

funds advanced to state and local participants in the DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication and 

Suppression Program, and travel advances issued to federal employees for official travel. Travel 

advances are limited to meals and incidental expenses expected to be incurred by the employees 

during official travel. Payments in advance of the receipt of goods and services are recorded as 

prepaid charges at the time of payment and are recognized as expenses when the goods and services 

are received.

L. Forfeited and Seized Property

Forfeited property is property for which the title has passed to the U.S. Government. This property is 

recorded at the estimated fair market value at the time of forfeiture and is not adjusted for any 

subsequent increases and decreases in estimated fair market value. The value of the property is 

reduced by the estimated liens of record.

Property is seized in consequence of a violation of public law. Seized property can include monetary 

instruments, real property, and tangible personal property of others in the actual or constructive 

possession of the custodial agency. Most non-cash property is held by the USMS from the point of 

seizure until its disposition. This property is recorded at the estimated fair market value at the time of 

seizure and is not adjusted for any subsequent increases and decreases in estimated fair market value.

M. Liabilities

Liabilities represent the monies or other resources that are likely to be paid by the Department as the 

result of a transaction or event that has already occurred. However, no liability can be paid by the 

Department absent proper budget authority. Liabilities that are not funded by the current year 

appropriation are classified as liabilities not covered by budgetary resources in Note 11. Accrued 

payroll and benefits are accrued based on the number of days in a pay period earned but not paid to 

employees at the end of the fiscal year.

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 
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-27

N. Accrued Grant Liabilities (continued)

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 administrative proceedings, legal actions, and claims. The 

balance sheet includes an estimated liability for those legal actions where management and the Chief 

Counsel consider adverse decisions “probable” and amounts are reasonably estimable. Legal actions 

where management and the Chief Counsel consider adverse decisions “probable” or “reasonably 

possible” and the amounts are reasonably estimable are disclosed in Note 16. However, there are 

cases where amounts have not been accrued or disclosed because the amounts of the potential loss 

cannot be estimated or the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome is considered “remote”.

P. Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual and compensatory leave is expensed with an offsetting liability as it is earned and the liability 

is reduced as leave is taken. Each year, the balance in the accrued annual leave liability account is 

adjusted to reflect current pay rates. To the extent current or prior year appropriations are not 

available to fund annual and compensatory leave earned but not taken, funding will be obtained from 

future financing sources. Sick leave and other types of nonvested leave are expensed as taken.

Q. Interest on Late Payments

Pursuant to the Prompt Payment Act, 31 U.S.C. ' 3901-3907, the Department pays interest on 

payments for goods or services made to business concerns after the due date. The due date is 

generally 30 days after receipt of a proper invoice or acceptance of the goods or services, whichever is 

later.

R. Retirement Plan

With few exceptions, employees hired before January 1, 1984 are covered by the Civil Service 

Retirement System (CSRS) and employees hired on or after that date are covered by the Federal 

Employees Retirement System (FERS). For employees covered by CSRS, the Department contributes 

7% of the employees= gross pay for regular and 7.5% for law enforcement officers’ retirement. For 

employees covered by FERS, the Department contributes 11.9% of the employees= gross pay for 

regular and 26.3% 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. 
FY 2012 U. S. Department of Justice Annual Financial Statements

Notes to the Financial Statements

(Dollars in Thousands, Except as Noted)

These notes are an integral part of the financial statements. 

III-28 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

R. Retirement Plan (continued)

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.

S. Federal Employee Compensation Benefits

The FECA provides income and medical cost protection to covered federal civilian employees injured 

on the job, employees who have incurred a work-related occupational disease, and beneficiaries of 

employees whose death is attributable to a job-related injury or occupational disease. The total FECA 

liability consists of an actuarial and an accrued portion as discussed below.

Actuarial Liability: The Department of Labor (DOL) calculates the liability of the federal government

for future compensation benefits, which includes the expected liability for death, disability, medical, 

and other approved costs. The liability is determined using the paid-losses extrapolation method 

calculated over the next 37-year period. This method utilizes historical benefit payment patterns 

related to a specific incurred period to predict the ultimate payments related to that period. The 

projected annual benefit payments are discounted to present value. The resulting federal government

liability is then distributed by agency. The Department’s portion of this liability includes the 

estimated future cost of death benefits, workers' compensation, medical, and miscellaneous cost for 

approved compensation cases for the Department employees. The Department liability is further 

allocated to component reporting entities on the basis of actual payments made to the FECA Special 

Benefits Fund (SBF) for the three prior years as compared to the total Department payments made 

over the same period.

The FECA actuarial liability is recorded for reporting purposes only. This liability constitutes an 

extended future estimate of cost, which will not be obligated against budgetary resources until the 

fiscal year in which the cost is actually billed to the Department. The cost associated with this liability 

cannot be met by the Department without further appropriation action. 

Accrued Liability: The accrued FECA liability is the amount owed to the DOL for the benefits paid 

from the FECA SBF directly to Department employees. 

T. Intragovernmental Activity

Intragovernmental costs and exchange revenue represent transactions made between two reporting 

entities within the federal government. Costs and earned revenues with the public represent exchange 

transactions made between the reporting entity and a non-federal entity. The classification of revenue 

or cost as “intragovernmental” or “with the public” is defined on a transaction-by-transaction basis. 

The purpose of this classification is to enable the federal government to prepare consolidated financial 

statements, not to match public and intragovernmental revenue with the costs incurred to produce 

public and intragovernmental revenue.
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-29

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 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 2012 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 2012 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, U.S. Trustee System Fund, 

Antitrust Division, Crime Victims Fund, Diversion Control Fee Account, and Federal Prison 

Commissary Fund.

W. Allocation Transfer of Appropriation

The Department is a party to allocation transfers with other federal agencies as a transferring (parent) 

entity and/or a receiving (child) entity. Allocation transfers are legal delegations by one department of 

its authority to obligate budget authority and outlay funds to another department. Generally, all 

financial activity related to these allocation transfers (e.g., budget authority, obligations, outlays) is 

reported in the financial statements of the parent entity, from which the underlying legislative 

authority, appropriations, and budget apportionments are derived. Two exceptions to this general rule 

affecting the Department include the funds transferred from the Judicial Branch to the USMS, and 

funds transferred from the Executive Office of the President to OJP. Per OMB’s guidance, USMS and 

OJP report all activity relative to these allocation transfers in the respective financial statements.

The activity related to these transfers, included as part of these financial statements, is highlighted 

below:

OJP, as the parent, transfers funds from the Crime Victims Fund to the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS). This transfer is required by 42 U.S.C. §10603a {Sec. 14-4A} for Child 

Abuse Prevention and Treatment Grants. Amounts made available by section §10601(d)(2) of this 

title, for the purposes of this section, are to be obligated and expended by the Secretary of HHS for 

grants under section §5106c of this title.

OJP receives, as a child entity, allocation transfers of appropriations from the Executive Office of 

the President. This transfer is authorized by P.L. 111-117 and P.L. 112-74. Per OMB guidance 

OJP reports all budgetary and proprietary activity for Do Right by Youth Pilot transferred from 

the Executive Office of the President to OJP. 

The Department also allocated funds from BOP, as the parent, to the Public Health Service (PHS), a 

primary division of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). 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. 
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-31

W. Allocation Transfer of Appropriation (continued)

USMS, as the child, receives allocation transfers of appropriation from the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts. The allocation transfers are used for costs associated with protective guard services -

Court Security Officers at United States courthouses and other facilities housing federal court 

operations. These costs include their salaries (paid through contracts), equipment, and supplies. This 

transfer is performed on an annual basis.

X. Tax Exempt Status

As an agency of the federal government, the Department is exempt from all income taxes imposed by

any governing body whether it be a federal, state, commonwealth, local or foreign government.

Y. Use of Estimates

The preparation of financial statements requires management to make certain estimates and 

assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and the reported amounts of 

revenue and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

Z. Reclassifications

The FY 2011 financial statements were reclassified to conform to the FY 2012 Departmental financial 

statement presentation requirements. The Department has realigned its Statement of Net Cost and 

Note 18, Net Cost of Operations by Suborganization to further align to the revised goal structure in 

accordance with the Department’s Strategic Plan. Also, changes to the presentation of the Combined 

and Combining Statements of Budgetary Resources were made, in accordance with guidance 

provided in OMB Circular A-136 and as such, activity and balances reported on the FY 2011 

Combined and Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources have been reclassified to conform to the 

presentation in the current year. Certain other prior year amounts have also been reclassified to 

conform with the current year presentation. The reclassifications have no material effect on total 

assets, liabilities, net position, change in net position or budgetary resources, as previously reported.

AA. Subsequent Events

Subsequent events and transactions occurring after September 30, 2012 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 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 2. Non-Entity Assets

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 1,294,306 $ 727,647

Investments, Net 1,516,625 3,989,294

Total Intragovernmental 2,810,931 4,716,941

With the Public

Cash and Monetary Assets 229,373 233,376

Accounts Receivable, Net 4,032 7,304

Total With the Public 233,405 240,680

Total Non-Entity Assets 3,044,336 4,957,621

Total Entity Assets 40,146,378 37,835,469

Total Assets $ 43,190,714 $ 42,793,090
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-33

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.

Annual and multi-year budget authority expires at the end of its period of availability. During the first through 

the fifth expired years, the unobligated balance is unavailable and may only be used to adjust obligations and 

disbursements that were recorded before the budgetary authority expired or to meet a legitimate or bona fide 

need arising in the fiscal year for which the appropriation was made. The unobligated balance for no-year 

budget authority may be used to incur obligations indefinitely for the purpose specified by the appropriation 

act. No-year budget authority unobligated balances are still subject to the annual apportionment and allotment 

process.

Unobligated Balance - Unavailable includes amounts appropriated in prior fiscal years that are no longer 

available to fund new obligations, but can be used for upward and/or downward adjustments for existing 

obligations. Additionally, this line includes amounts received that are restricted to future use and as a result 

are not apportioned for current use. Other restricted funds include the collections of fees in excess of amounts 

budgeted for administering the Diversion Control Program. These collections may not be used until 

authorized by Congress. 

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources primarily represent the net of 1) investments in short-term 

securities with budgetary resources, 2) resources temporarily not available pursuant to public law,

3) custodial liabilities, and 4) miscellaneous receipts.

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Fund Balances

Trust Funds $ 100,106 $ 104,879

Special Funds 9,564,996 7,609,838

Revolving Funds 572,010 473,319

General Funds 14,447,788 15,105,225

Other Fund Types 60,398 61,191

Total Fund Balances with U.S. Treasury $ 24,745,298 $ 23,354,452

Status of Fund Balances

Unobligated Balance - Available $ 2,948,354 $ 2,637,205

Unobligated Balance - Unavailable 1,088,078 1,245,118

Obligated Balance not yet Disbursed 15,040,015 14,885,994

Other Funds (With)/Without Budgetary Resources 5,668,851 4,586,135

Total Status of Fund Balances $ 24,745,298 $ 23,354,452
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 4. Cash and Monetary Assets

The majority of Other Cash consists of project-generated proceeds from undercover operations.

Note 5. Investments, Net

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Cash

Undeposited Collections $ 16,439 $ 2,813

Imprest Funds 14,876 14,071

Seized Cash Deposited 82,166 87,243

Other Cash 72,557 72,700

Total Cash 186,038 176,827

Monetary Assets

Seized Monetary Instruments 74,644 73,426

Total Cash and Monetary Assets $ 260,682 $ 250,253

Unamortized

Face Premium Interest Investments, Market 

Value (Discount) Receivable Net Value

As of September 30, 2012

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 6,213,792 $ (76) $ 187 $ 6,213,903 $ 6,214,504

As of September 30, 2011

Intragovernmental

Non-Marketable Securities

Market Based $ 6,919,892 $ (137) $ 44 $ 6,919,799 $ 6,920,238
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-35

Note 6. Accounts Receivable, Net

Intragovernmental accounts receivable consists mainly of amounts due under reimbursable agreements with 

federal entities for services and goods provided.

The accounts receivable with the public primarily consists of OBDs U.S. Trustee Chapter 11 quarterly fees, 

FBI Non-Federal User Fee Program, FBI National Name Check Program, court mandated restitution, and 

refunds due from the public.

Note 7. Inventory and Related Property, Net

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

 2012 2011

Intragovernmental 

Accounts Receivable $ 324,425 $ 380,562

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (98) (131)

Total Intragovernmental 324,327 380,431

With the Public

Accounts Receivable 131,503 141,934

Allowance for Uncollectible Accounts (15,891) (16,036)

Total With the Public 115,612 125,898

Total Accounts Receivable, Net $ 439,939 $ 506,329

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Inventory

Raw Materials $ 45,078 $ 42,832

Work in Process 26,081 30,583

Finished Goods 53,949 60,697

Inventory Purchased for Resale 19,715 18,286

Excess, Obsolete, and Unserviceable 30,562 27,087

Inventory Allowance (26,416) (27,265)

Operating Materials and Supplies

Held for Current Use 17,640 18,669

Total Inventory and Related Property, Net $ 166,609 $ 170,889
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property

Equitable Sharing Payments:

The statute governing the use of the AFF (28 U.S.C. '524(c)) permits the payment of equitable shares of 

forfeiture proceeds to participating foreign governments and state and local law enforcement agencies. The 

statute does not require such sharing and permits the Attorney General wide discretion in determining those 

transfers. Actual sharing is difficult to predict because many factors influence both the amount and timing of 

disbursement of equitable sharing payments, such as the length of time required to move an asset through the 

forfeiture process to disposition, the amount of net proceeds available for sharing, the elapse of time for 

Departmental approval of equitable sharing requests for cases with asset values exceeding $1 million, and 

appeal of forfeiture judgments. Because of uncertainties surrounding the timing and amount of any equitable 

sharing payment, an obligation and expense are recorded only when the actual disbursement of the equitable 

sharing payment is imminent. The anticipated equitable sharing allocation level for FY 2013 is $446 million.

Analysis of Change in Forfeited Property:

The number of items represents quantities calculated using many different units of measure. If necessary, the 

adjustments column includes property status and valuation changes received after, but properly credited to the 

appropriate fiscal years. The valuation changes include updates and corrections to an asset’s value recorded in 

the prior year.
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-37

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 117 - 283 (222) 178 - 178

Instruments Value $ 1,730 $ - $ 25,544 $ (25,945) $ 1,329 $ (658) $ 671

Real Number 452 - 390 (424) 418 - 418

Property Value $ 98,008 $ - $ 64,732 $ (80,744) $ 81,996 $ (977) $ 81,019

Personal Number 3,384 - 6,156 (5,682) 3,858 - 3,858

Property Value $ 74,846 $ (16,146) $ 80,856 $ (75,584) $ 63,972 $ (551) $ 63,421

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 23,593 - 17,525 (14,322) 26,796 - 26,796

Total Number 27,546 - 24,354 (20,650) 31,250 - 31,250

Value $ 174,584 $ (16,146) $ 171,132 $ (182,273) $ 147,297 $ (2,186) $ 145,111

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Forfeited Liens Ending

Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Forfeitures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Financial Number 97 - 155 (135) 117 - 117

Instruments Value $ 2,219 $ - $ 15,822 $ (16,311) $ 1,730 $ - $ 1,730

Real Number 477 - 315 (340) 452 - 452

Property Value $ 89,018 $ - $ 74,928 $ (65,938) $ 98,008 $ (866) $ 97,142

Personal Number 3,047 - 5,996 (5,659) 3,384 - 3,384

Property Value $ 102,196 $ - $ 93,813 $ (121,163) $ 74,846 $ (972) $ 73,874

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 19,378 - 16,231 (12,016) 23,593 - 23,593

Total Number 22,999 - 22,697 (18,150) 27,546 - 27,546

Value $ 193,433 $ - $ 184,563 $ (203,412) $ 174,584 $ (1,838) $ 172,746
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Method of Disposition of Forfeited Property:

During FYs 2012 and 2011, $132,710 and $165,406 of forfeited property were sold, $2,672 and $16,211 were 

destroyed or donated, $10,349 and $9,262 were returned to owners, and $36,542 and $12,533 were disposed of 

by other means, respectively. Other means of disposition 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 drugs. The AFF/SADF reports property seized for 

forfeiture and the FBI, DEA, and ATF report property seized for evidence.

The adjustments for FYs 2012 and 2011 include property status and valuation changes received after, but 

properly credited to FYs 2011 and 2010, respectively. The valuation changes include updates and corrections 

to an asset’s value recorded in a prior year. During FY 2011, the DEA had access to better information that 

allowed the reporting of partial destructions of drugs held for evidence at the time of partial destruction rather 

than at the time the exhibit was fully destroyed. Therefore, the DEA has recorded an adjustment in the 

FY 2011 “Adjustment” column to primarily reflect the partial destruction of exhibits destroyed in prior years. 

ATF’s adjustments for non-valued firearms are items determined to be seized for evidence that were not 

included in the seized for evidence balances in prior years.

The DEA, FBI, and ATF have custody of 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 drugs have no 

value and are destroyed upon resolution of legal proceedings. 
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-39

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Analyzed drug evidence includes cocaine, heroin, marijuana and methamphetamine and represents actual 

laboratory tested classification and weight in kilograms (KG). Since enforcing the controlled substances laws 

and regulations of the United States is a primary mission of the DEA, the DEA reports all analyzed drug 

evidence regardless of seizure weight. However, the enforcement of these laws and regulations is incidental to 

the missions of the FBI and ATF and therefore they only report those individual seizures exceeding 1 KG in 

weight. 

“Other” primarily consists of substances, both controlled and non-controlled as defined per the Controlled

Substances Act, other than those discussed above. “Bulk Drug Evidence” is comprised of controlled 

substances housed by the DEA in secured storage facilities of which only a sample is taken for laboratory 

analysis. The actual bulk drug weight may vary from seizure weight due to changes in moisture content over 

time. 

Unanalyzed drug evidence is qualitatively different from analyzed and bulk drug evidence because unanalyzed 

drug evidence includes the weight of packaging and drug categories are based on the determination of Special 

Agents instead of laboratory chemists. For these reasons, unanalyzed drug evidence is not reported by the 

Department. Seized drug evidence must be analyzed and confirmed through laboratory testing to be placed in 

one of the five categories of drug above. 

“Disposals” occur when seized property is forfeited, returned to parties with a bona fide interest, or destroyed 

in accordance with federal guidelines. 
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

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 $ 4,016,891 $ - $ 1,587,055 $ (4,067,423) $ 1,536,523 $(125,969) $ 1,410,554

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 477 (135) 328 (150) 520 - 520

Instruments Value $ 53,241 $ (33,852) $ 55,920 $ (6,941) $ 68,368 $ (4,851) $ 63,517

Real Number 146 (2) 131 (148) 127 - 127

Property Value $ 48,364 $ 365 $ 35,139 $ (38,784) $ 45,084 $ (9,710) $ 35,374

Personal Number 7,477 - 8,264 (7,722) 8,019 - 8,019

Property Value $ 184,003 $ - $ 107,126 $ (107,332) $ 183,797 $ (16,667) $ 167,130

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 36,915 - 19,716 (23,059) 33,572 - 33,572

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Forfeiture

Seized Cash Value $ 1,424,806 $ - $ 3,844,026 $ (1,251,941) $ 4,016,891 $ (92,080) $ 3,924,811

Deposited and 

Seized Monetary

Instruments

Financial Number 413 (109) 274 (101) 477 - 477

Instruments Value $ 99,712 $ (66,438) $ 24,101 $ (4,134) $ 53,241 $ (3,236) $ 50,005

Real Number 183 - 153 (190) 146 - 146

Property Value $ 61,270 $ - $ 49,431 $ (62,337) $ 48,364 $ (16,030) $ 32,334

Personal Number 7,319 - 7,171 (7,013) 7,477 - 7,477

Property Value $ 161,552 $ - $ 124,371 $ (101,920) $ 184,003 $ (16,209) $ 167,794

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 34,281 - 23,858 (21,224) 36,915 - 36,915
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-41

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

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 $ 46,847 $ (2,185) $ 33,100 $ (27,118) $ 50,644 $ - $ 50,644

Instruments

Personal Number 1,421 41 323 (371) 1,414 - 1,414

Property Value $ 36,379 $ (35) $ 9,673 $ (15,680) $ 30,337 $ - $ 30,337

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 62,595 (197) 16,088 (14,155) 64,331 - 64,331

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 56,161 421 28,033 (31,031) 53,584 - 53,584

 Heroin KG 3,108 (50) 1,124 (761) 3,421 - 3,421

 Marijuana KG 17,807 (321) 4,626 (4,689) 17,423 - 17,423

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 278,152 252 995,893 (876,653) 397,644 - 397,644

 Methamphetamine KG 6,957 10 3,413 (1,877) 8,503 - 8,503

 Other KG 24,763 (1,145) 3,923 (5,687) 21,854 - 21,854

 Total Drug Evidence KG 386,948 (833) 1,037,012 (920,698) 502,429 - 502,429

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Liens Ending

Seized Property Beginning Adjust- Ending and Balance,

Category Balance ments Seizures Disposals Balance Claims Net of Liens

Seized for Evidence

Seized Monetary Value $ 45,577 $ (4,903) $ 45,419 $ (39,246) $ 46,847 $ - $ 46,847

Instruments

Personal Number 1,602 (85) 412 (508) 1,421 - 1,421

Property Value $ 26,691 $ 8,649 $ 13,946 $ (12,907) $ 36,379 $ - $ 36,379

Non-Valued

 Firearms Number 44,465 7,405 14,268 (3,543) 62,595 - 62,595

 Drug Evidence

 Cocaine KG 278,449 (222,619) 27,429 (27,098) 56,161 - 56,161

 Heroin KG 3,450 (589) 812 (565) 3,108 - 3,108

 Marijuana KG 20,061 (1,521) 6,362 (7,095) 17,807 - 17,807

 Bulk Drug Evidence KG 227,564 1,043 1,058,390 (1,008,845) 278,152 - 278,152

 Methamphetamine KG 7,622 (1,928) 2,649 (1,386) 6,957 - 6,957

 Other KG 46,663 (16,935) 3,563 (8,528) 24,763 - 24,763

 Total Drug Evidence KG 583,809 (242,549) 1,099,205 (1,053,517) 386,948 - 386,948
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 8. Forfeited and Seized Property (continued)

Method of Disposition of Seized Property:

During FYs 2012 and 2011, $4,121,701 and $1,297,764 of seized property were forfeited, $100,681 and 

$120,156 were returned to parties with a bonafide interest, and $40,896 and $54,566 were either released to a 

designated party or transferred to the appropriate federal entity under forfeiture or abandonment procedures. 

Non-valued property was primarily disposed of through destruction. 

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 

As of September 30, 2012

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 184,622 $ 184,622 - $ N/A

Improvements to Land 4,926 (1,187) 3,739 15 yrs

Construction in Progress 658,901 - 658,901 N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 10,075,903 (4,329,867) 5,746,036 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 887,732 (472,971) 414,761 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 456,739 (151,139) 305,600 5-30 yrs

Boats 12,420 (7,005) 5,415 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 651,787 (397,427) 254,360 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,743,587 (1,048,698) 694,889 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 93,139 (53,503) 39,636 2-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 1,498,657 (834,557) 664,100 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 1,266,385 (455,763) 810,622 2-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 403,463 - 403,463 N/A

Total $ 17,938,261 $ (7,752,117) $ 10,186,144

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2012 $ 230,403 $ 843,795 $ 1,074,198
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-43

Note 9. General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net (continued)

As of September 30, 2011

Acquisition Accumulated Net Book Useful

Cost Depreciation Value Life

Land and Land Rights $ 193,042 $ 193,042 - $ N/A

Improvements to Land 4,584 (866) 3,718 15 yrs

Construction in Progress 894,755 - 894,755 N/A

Buildings, Improvements and 

Renovations 9,578,003 (4,001,606) 5,576,397 2-50 yrs

Other Structures and Facilities 849,524 (433,515) 416,009 10-50 yrs

Aircraft 450,418 (132,678) 317,740 5-30 yrs

Boats 10,078 (5,943) 4,135 5-25 yrs

Vehicles 594,285 (368,856) 225,429 2-25 yrs

Equipment 1,676,992 (1,007,478) 669,514 2-25 yrs

Assets Under Capital Lease 105,246 (61,623) 43,623 2-30 yrs

Leasehold Improvements 1,338,886 (714,246) 624,640 2-20 yrs

Internal Use Software 773,237 (287,106) 486,131 3-10 yrs

Internal Use Software in Development 762,637 - 762,637 N/A

Total $ 17,231,687 $ (7,013,917) $ 10,217,770

Federal Public Total

Sources of Capitalized Property, Plant and Equipment 

Purchases for FY 2011 $ 229,207 $ 1,023,422 $ 1,252,629
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 10. Other Assets

Other Intragovernmental Assets include an advance to the United States District Court to initiate the 

condemnation proceeding for the acquisition of a prison facility in Illinois. It also includes amounts due from 

Treasury General Fund related to ATF. Other Assets With the Public primarily consist of farm livestock held 

by the BOP. 

Note 11. Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Intragovernmental

Advances and Prepayments $ 266,561 $ 115,075

Other Intragovernmental Assets 12 28

 Total Intragovernmental 266,573 115,103

Other Assets With the Public 5,585 5,982

Total Other Assets $ 272,158 $ 121,085

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Intragovernmental

Accrued FECA Liabilities $ 257,897 $ 247,813

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 1,584 2,178

Other 5,315 3,690

Total Intragovernmental 264,796 253,681

With the Public

Actuarial FECA Liabilities 1,474,278 1,359,360

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 830,119 822,891

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities (Note 12) 74,441 72,709

Deferred Revenue 409,396 358,742

Contingent Liabilities (Note 16) 28,551 68,652

Capital Lease Liabilities (Note 13) 16,627 23,941

RECA Liabilities (Note 25) 731,237 535,838

 September 11th Victim Compensation Fund (Note 25) 2,766,400 -

Other 99,979 122,152

Total With the Public 6,431,028 3,364,285

Total Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources 6,695,824 3,617,966

Total Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources 9,246,161 9,651,511

Total Liabilities $ 15,941,985 $ 13,269,477
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-45

Note 11. Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources (continued) 

Generally, liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which Congressional action is 

needed before budgetary resources can be provided. However, some liabilities do not require appropriations 

and will be liquidated by the assets of the entities holding these liabilities. Such assets include civil and 

criminal debt collections, seized cash and monetary instruments, and revolving fund operations. 

Other Liabilities with the Public consists primarily of future funded energy savings performance contracts and 

utilities.

Note 12. Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 

Per SFFAS No. 5, Accounting for Liabilities of the Federal Government, SFFAS No. 6, Accounting for 

Property, Plant, and Equipment, and Technical Release No. 2 Determining Probable and Reasonably 

Estimable for Environmental Liabilities in the Federal Government, Technical Release No. 10,

Implementation Guidance on Asbestos Cleanup Costs Associated with Facilities and Installed Equipment, and 

Technical Release No. 11, Implementation Guidance on Cleanup Costs Associated with Equipment, federal

agencies are required to recognize liabilities for environmental clean-up costs when the future outflow or 

sacrifice of resources is probable and reasonably estimable.

 

Firing Ranges 

The BOP operates firing ranges on 66 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, 2011, BOP management determined their estimated clean-up liability to 

be $26,045. In FY 2012, 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 cleanup liability of $26,935, based on an inflation rate of 1.9 percent, should be recorded. 

 

Asbestos

BOP conducted a review of 46 institutions that were built prior to 1980; the review provided an estimate of the 

extent of friable and non-friable Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM) remaining in each of the institutions as 

of October 30, 2009. As of September 30, 2011, BOP management determined their estimated clean-up 

liability to be $36,677. As of September 30, 2012, BOP management adjusted the clean-up liability in the 

amount of $610 for the removal of asbestos at 2 locations and by the U.S. inflation rate of 1.9 percent as 

determined by the U.S. Treasury and as such determined that an estimated asbestos clean-up liability of 

$37,287 should be recorded.

The FBI operates facilities in Quantico, Virginia that contain friable and non-friable ACM. The facilities have 

a useful life of 50 years. The estimated total liability of $11,613 is based on the square footage of the facilities 
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Asbestos (continued)

that may be contaminated. This value, divided by the useful life and multiplied by the number of years in 

service, is the estimated cleanup liability. As of September 30, 2012 and 2011, the FBI recognized the

estimated cleanup liability of $10,219 and $9,987, respectively. The estimated asbestos cleanup liability is 

increased each quarter by recording future expenses for the asbestos clean-up costs. During FY 2012, future 

funded expense for asbestos cleanup is $232. There are no other potentially responsible parties to the 

environmental liability and there are no unrecognized amounts to disclose as of September 30, 2012.

Note 13. Leases

Capital leases include a Federal Transfer Center (25 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; an airplane 

hangar (20 year lease term) in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, which expired in FY 2011 and was not renewed; 

and other machinery and equipment that expire over future periods.

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

Capital Leases 2012 2011

Summary of Assets Under Capital Lease

Land and Buildings $ 89,625 $ 100,352

Machinery and Equipment 3,514 4,894

Accumulated Amortization (53,503) (61,623)

Total Assets Under Capital Lease (Note 9) $ 39,636 $ 43,623

Future Capital Lease Payments Due

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2013 $ 9,073 $ 608 $ 9,681

2014 9,073 22 9,095

2015 32 15 47

2016 32 14 46

2017 32 - 32

 After 2017 64 - 64

Total Future Capital Lease Payments $ 18,306 $ 659 $ 18,965

Less: Imputed Interest (1,679) (15) (1,694)

Less: Executory Costs - (175) (175)

FY 2012 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 16,627 $ 469 $ 17,096

FY 2011 Net Capital Lease Liabilities $ 23,941 $ 1,200 $ 25,141

2012 2011

Net Capital Lease Liabilities Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 469 $ 1,200

Net Capital Lease Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources $ 16,627 $ 23,941
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-47

Note 13. Leases (continued)

The net capital lease liability not covered by budgetary resources primarily represents the capital lease of the 

Federal Transfer Center for which the Department received Congressional authority to fund with annual 

appropriations.

Note 14. Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments

The Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments represent liabilities for seized assets held by the Department 

pending disposition. 

Future Noncancelable Operating Lease Payments 

Land and Machinery and

Fiscal Year Buildings Equipment Total

2013 $ 233,863 $ 9,640 $ 243,503

2014 252,603 4,482 257,085

2015 266,289 4,461 270,750

2016 270,881 78 270,959

2017 266,291 78 266,369

 After 2017 2,608,046 30 2,608,076

Total Future Noncancelable Operating

Lease Payments $ 3,897,973 $ 18,769 $ 3,916,742

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Investments, Net $ 1,430,357 $ 3,903,069

Seized Cash Deposited 82,166 87,243

Seized Monetary Instruments 74,644 73,426

Total Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments $ 1,587,167 $ 4,063,738
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 15. Other Liabilities

The majority of Intragovernmental Other Liabilities are composed of tenant allowances for operating leases, 

monies received from prisoner funds, and certain receipts of cash that are in suspense, clearing, deposit, or 

general fund accounts that are owed to the Treasury.

Other Liabilities with the Public consists of project-generated proceeds from undercover operations. The 

proceeds not subject to forfeiture will be returned to the Department of Treasury General Fund at the 

conclusion of the project. In addition, Other Liabilities with the Public are composed 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, such as accrued retirement contributions, life insurance, 

and retiree health benefits.

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Intragovernmental 

Employer Contributions and Payroll Taxes Payable $ 205,477 $ 197,871

Other Post-Employment Benefits Due and Payable 23 25

Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities 1,584 2,178

Advances from Others 152,447 169,108

Liability for Clearing Accounts 2,550 1,067

Other Liabilities 6,632 7,202

Total Intragovernmental 368,713 377,451

With the Public

Other Accrued Liabilities 5,945 5,645

Advances from Others 11,020 6,992

Liability for Nonfiduciary Deposit Funds

and Undeposited Collections 61,803 60,688

Liability for Clearing Accounts 482 405

Custodial Liabilities 209,775 152,987

Other Liabilities 166,632 189,259

Total With the Public 455,657 415,976

Total Other Liabilities $ 824,370 $ 793,427
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-49

Note 16. Contingencies and Commitments

Additionally, FPI has entered into firm purchase commitments for solar panel material totaling $5,012 which 

is to be delivered in FY 2015.

Accrued

Liabilities Lower Upper

As of September 30, 2012

Probable $ 28,671 $ 25,871 $ 41,366

Reasonably Possible 52,860 76,131

As of September 30, 2011

Probable $ 68,652 $ 68,652 $ 190,144

Reasonably Possible 86,576 135,569

Estimated Range of Loss
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 17. Earmarked Funds

Earmarked funds are financed by specifically identified revenues and are required by statute to be used for 

designated activities or purposes, and must be accounted for separately from the Government’s general 

revenues. See SFFAS 27, Identifying and Reporting Earmarked Funds, for the required criteria for an 

earmarked fund.

As of September 30, 2012

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 $ 78,375 $ 17,623 $ 37,506 $ 9,359,797 $ 107,051 $ 86,948 $ 9,687,300

Investments, Net 4,200,767 224,210 - - - - 4,424,977

Other Assets 154,634 52,124 1,587 13,666 42,699 27,298 292,008

Total Assets $ 4,433,776 $ 293,957 $ 39,093 $ 9,373,463 $ 149,750 $ 114,246 $14,404,285

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 2,667,843 $ 9,020 $ 5,871 $ 19,031 $ 7,543 $ 14,775 $ 2,724,083

Other Liabilities 145,546 21,648 14,830 81,323 428,094 13,259 704,700

Total Liabilities $ 2,813,389 $ 30,668 $ 20,701 $ 100,354 $ 435,637 $ 28,034 $ 3,428,783

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ - $ 25,963 $ - $ - $ - $ 25,963

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,620,387 263,289 (7,571) 9,273,109 (285,887) 86,212 10,949,539

Total Net Position $ 1,620,387 $ 263,289 $ 18,392 $ 9,273,109 $ (285,887) $ 86,212 $10,975,502

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 4,433,776 $ 293,957 $ 39,093 $ 9,373,463 $ 149,750 $ 114,246 $14,404,285

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

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 $ 4,319,407 $ 227,203 $ 156,773 $ 724,712 $ 307,498 $ 361,981 $ 6,097,574

Less: Earned Revenues 10,585 226,566 87,461 - 244,354 360,290 929,256

Net Cost of Operations $ 4,308,822 $ 637 $ 69,312 $ 724,712 $ 63,144 $ 1,691 $ 5,168,318

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 1,760,544 $ 259,137 $ 15,219 $ 7,202,248 $ (232,162) $ 83,557 9,088,543

Budgetary Financing Sources 4,197,792 4,085 72,044 2,795,573 - - 7,069,494

Other Financing Sources (29,127) 704 441 - 9,419 4,346 (14,217)

 Total Financing Sources $ 4,168,665 $ 4,789 $ 72,485 $ 2,795,573 $ 9,419 $ 4,346 $ 7,055,277

Net Cost of Operations $ (4,308,822) $ (637) $ (69,312) $ (724,712) $ (63,144) $ (1,691) $ (5,168,318)

Net Change (140,157) 4,152 3,173 2,070,861 (53,725) 2,655 1,886,959

Net Position End of Period $ 1,620,387 $ 263,289 $ 18,392 $ 9,273,109 $ (285,887) $ 86,212 $10,975,502
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-51

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued)

As of September 30, 2011

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Balance Sheet

Assets

Fund Balance with U. S. Treasury $ 229,030 $ 14,532 $ 33,106 $ 7,260,185 $ 104,565 $ 80,240 $ 7,721,658

Investments, Net 2,443,702 216,029 - - - - 2,659,731

Other Assets 180,020 58,406 3,152 275 46,184 27,572 315,609

Total Assets $ 2,852,752 $ 288,967 $ 36,258 $ 7,260,460 $ 150,749 $ 107,812 $10,696,998

Liabilities

Accounts Payable $ 918,358 $ 8,236 $ 5,949 $ 9,664 $ 6,923 $ 11,131 $ 960,261

Other Liabilities 173,850 21,594 15,090 48,548 375,988 13,124 648,194

Total Liabilities $ 1,092,208 $ 29,830 $ 21,039 $ 58,212 $ 382,911 $ 24,255 $ 1,608,455

Net Position

Unexpended Appropriations $ - $ - $ 21,727 $ - $ - $ - $ 21,727

Cumulative Results of Operations 1,760,544 259,137 (6,508) 7,202,248 (232,162) 83,557 9,066,816

Total Net Position $ 1,760,544 $ 259,137 $ 15,219 $ 7,202,248 $ (232,162) $ 83,557 $ 9,088,543

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 2,852,752 $ 288,967 $ 36,258 $ 7,260,460 $ 150,749 $ 107,812 $10,696,998

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Diversion Federal Prison Total

Assets Forfeiture U.S. Trustee Antitrust Crime Victims Control Fee Commissary Earmarked

Fund System Fund Division Fund Account Fund Funds

Statement of Net Cost

Gross Cost of Operations $ 1,673,412 $ 234,356 $ 162,760 $ 662,569 $ 277,514 $ 332,106 $ 3,342,717

Less: Earned Revenues 9,513 314,921 91,636 - 195,235 341,176 952,481

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ (80,565) $ 71,124 $ 662,569 $ 82,279 $ (9,070) $ 2,390,236

Statement of Changes in Net Position

Net Position Beginning of Period $ 1,687,400 $ 176,675 $ 14,385 $ 5,866,596 $ (159,279) $ 69,853 $ 7,655,630

Budgetary Financing Sources 1,585,180 1,070 71,420 1,998,221 - - 3,655,891

Other Financing Sources 151,863 827 538 - 9,396 4,634 167,258

Total Financing Sources 1,737,043 1,897 71,958 1,998,221 9,396 4,634 3,823,149

Net Cost of Operations (1,663,899) 80,565 (71,124) (662,569) (82,279) 9,070 (2,390,236)

Net Change 73,144 82,462 834 1,335,652 (72,883) 13,704 1,432,913

Net Position End of Period $ 1,760,544 $ 259,137 $ 15,219 $ 7,202,248 $ (232,162) $ 83,557 $ 9,088,543
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 17. Earmarked Funds (continued)

The Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 established the AFF to receive the proceeds of forfeiture and 

to pay the costs associated with such forfeitures, including the costs of managing and disposing of property, 

satisfying valid liens, mortgages, and other innocent owner claims, and costs associated with accomplishing 

the legal forfeiture of the property. Authorities of the fund have been amended by various public laws enacted 

since 1984. Under current law, authority to use the fund for certain investigative expenses shall be specified in 

annual appropriation acts. Expenses necessary to seize, detain, inventory, safeguard, maintain, advertise or 

sell property under seizure are funded through a permanent, indefinite appropriation. In addition, beginning in

FY 1993, other general expenses of managing and operating the Asset Forfeiture Program are paid from the 

permanent, indefinite portion of the fund. Once all expenses are covered, the balance is maintained to meet 

ongoing expenses of the program. Excess unobligated balances may also be allocated by the Attorney General 

in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §524(c)(8)(E).

United States Trustees (UST) supervise the administration of bankruptcy cases and private trustees in the 

Federal Bankruptcy Courts. The Bankruptcy Judges, UST, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986 (Public 

Law 99–554) expanded the pilot trustee program to a 21 region, nationwide program encompassing 88 judicial 

districts. The UST System Fund collects user fees assessed against debtors, which offset the annual 

appropriation.

The Antitrust Division administers and enforces antitrust and related statutes. This program primarily involves 

the investigation of suspected violations of the antitrust laws, the conduct of civil and criminal proceedings in 

the federal courts, and the maintenance of competitive conditions. The Antitrust Division collects filing fees 

for pre-merger notifications and retains these fees for expenditure in support of its programs.

The Crime Victims Fund is financed by collections of fines, penalty assessments, and bond forfeitures from 

defendants convicted of federal crimes. This fund supports victim assistance and compensation programs 

around the country and advocates, through policy development, for the fair treatment of crime victims. The 

Office for Victims of Crime administers formula and discretionary grants for programs designed to benefit 

victims, provides training for diverse professionals who work with victims, develops projects to enhance 

victims' rights and services, and undertakes public education and awareness activities on behalf of crime 

victims.

The Diversion Control Fee Account is established in the General Fund of the Treasury as a separate account. 

Fees charged by the DEA under the Diversion Control Program are set at a level that ensures the recovery of 

the full costs of operating this program. The program’s purpose is to prevent, detect, and investigate the 

diversion of controlled substances from legitimate channels, while ensuring an adequate and uninterrupted 

supply of controlled substances required to meet legitimate needs. 

The Federal Prison Commissary Fund was created in the early 1930s to allow inmates a means to purchase 

additional products and services above the necessities provided by appropriated federal funds, e.g., personal 

grooming products, snacks, postage stamps, and telephone services. The Trust Fund is a self-sustaining trust 

revolving fund account that is funded through sales of goods and services to inmates.
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-53

Note 18. Net Cost of Operations by Suborganization 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

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 Consistent with the Rule of Law

Gross Cost $ - $ 381,836 $ 4,794 $ - $ 111,714 $ 5,341,870 $ 6,419 $ - $ - $ (119,355) $ 5,727,278

Less: Earned Revenues - 116,119 - - 12,630 460,839 - - - (119,355) 470,233

Net Cost of Operations - 265,717 4,794 - 99,084 4,881,031 6,419 - - - 5,257,045

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American People, and Enforce Federal Law

Gross Cost 4,319,407 8,591,116 32,637 998,795 2,837,798 2,964,275 1,278,676 7,242 - $ (970,264) 20,059,682

Less: Earned Revenues 10,585 924,300 - 4,839 724,373 340,061 81,369 - - (970,264) 1,115,263

Net Cost of Operations 4,308,822 7,666,816 32,637 993,956 2,113,425 2,624,214 1,197,307 7,242 - - 18,944,419

Goal 3: Ensure and support the Fair, Impartial , Efficient and Transpaerent Administration of Justice at the Federal, State, Local, Tribal and International Levels

Gross Cost - 2,473,536 3,154,286 2,465,313 - 1,050,783 - 7,499,577 763,098 (1,883,179) 15,523,414

Less: Earned Revenues - 225,181 1,543,645 22,458 - 485,894 - 410,305 701,286 (1,858,461) 1,530,308

Net Cost of Operations - 2,248,355 1,610,641 2,442,855 - 564,889 - 7,089,272 61,812 (24,718) 13,993,106

Net Cost of Operations $ 4,308,822 $ 10,180,888 $ 1,648,072 $ 3,436,811 $ 2,212,509 $ 8,070,134 $ 1,203,726 $ 7,096,514 $ 61,812 $ (24,718) $ 38,194,570

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security Consistent with the Rule of Law

Gross Cost $ - $ 378,325 $ 6,484 $ - $ 106,082 $ 5,223,334 $ 5,649 $ - $ - $ (93,725) $ 5,626,149

Less: Earned Revenues - 116,209 - - 693 447,606 - - - (93,725) 470,783

Net Cost of Operations - 262,116 6,484 - 105,389 4,775,728 5,649 - - - 5,155,366

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American People, and Enforce Federal Law

Gross Cost 1,673,412 5,858,718 30,396 1,004,443 2,929,005 2,992,410 1,268,049 6,613 - (1,096,338)$ 14,666,708

Less: Earned Revenues 9,513 1,002,609 - 7,489 722,217 318,479 91,300 - - (1,096,338) 1,055,269

Net Cost of Operations 1,663,899 4,856,109 30,396 996,954 2,206,788 2,673,931 1,176,749 6,613 - - 13,611,439

Goal 3: Ensure and support the Fair, Impartial , Efficient and Transpaerent Administration of Justice at the Federal, State, Local, Tribal and International Levels

Gross Cost - 2,441,919 3,174,846 2,730,468 - 1,014,392 - 7,213,365 942,915 (1,843,879) 15,674,026

Less: Earned Revenues - 203,511 1,583,960 35,273 - 511,037 - 385,676 904,683 (1,818,415) 1,805,725

Net Cost of Operations - 2,238,408 1,590,886 2,695,195 - 503,355 - 6,827,689 38,232 (25,464) 13,868,301

Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ 7,356,633 $ 1,627,766 $ 3,692,149 $ 2,312,177 $ 7,953,014 $ 1,182,398 $ 6,834,302 $ 38,232 $ (25,464) $ 32,635,106
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 19. Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others

Imputed Inter-Departmental Financing Sources are the unreimbursed (i.e., non-reimbursed and underreimbursed) portion of the full costs of goods and services received by the Department from a providing entity 

that is not part of the Department. In accordance with SFFAS No. 30, Inter-Entity Cost Implementation 

Amending SFFAS No.4, Managerial Cost Accounting Concepts and Standards, 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 

29.8% of basic pay for regular, 50.9% law enforcement officers, 23.2% regular offset, and 45.2% law 

enforcement officers offset. For employees covered by Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), the 

cost factors are 13.7% of basic pay for regular and 29.7% for law enforcement officers. 

The cost to be paid by other agencies is the total calculated future costs, less employee and employer 

contributions. In addition, other retirement benefits, which include health and life insurance that are paid by 

other federal entities, must also be disclosed. 

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Imputed Inter-Departmental Financing

U.S. Treasury Judgment Fund $ 39,181 $ 71,537

Health Insurance 572,584 594,476

Life Insurance 2,038 2,038

Pension 264,211 330,434

Total Imputed Inter-Departmental $ 878,014 $ 998,485
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-55

Note 19. Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (continued)

Imputed Intra-Departmental Financing Sources as defined in SFFAS No. 4, Managerial Cost Accounting 

Standards and Concepts, are the unreimbursed portion of the full costs of goods and services received by a 

Department component from a providing entity that is part of the Department. Recognition is required for 

those transactions determined to be material to the receiving entity. The determination of whether the cost is 

material requires considerable judgment based on the specific facts and circumstances of each type of good or 

service provided. SFFAS No. 4 also states that costs for broad and general support need not be recognized by 

the receiving entity, unless such services form a vital and integral part of the operations or output of the 

receiving entity. Costs are considered broad and general if they are provided to many, if not all, reporting 

components and not specifically related to the receiving entity’s output. The FPI imputed $24,718 and 

$25,464 for FYs 2012 and 2011, 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:

The apportionment categories are determined in accordance with the guidance provided in Part 4 “Instructions 

on Budget Execution” of OMB Circular A-11, Preparation, Submission and Execution of the Budget.

Category A obligations represent resources apportioned for calendar quarters. Category B obligations 

represent resources apportioned for other time periods; for activities, projects, and objectives or for a 

combination thereof.

Total

Direct Reimbursable Obligations 

 Obligations Obligations Incurred

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 28,500,520 $ 5,919,576 $ 34,420,096

Category B 5,928,795 204,702 6,133,497

Exempt from Apportionment - 697,683 697,683

Total $ 34,429,315 $ 6,821,961 $ 41,251,276

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Obligations Apportioned Under

Category A $ 28,235,878 $ 5,835,181 $ 34,071,059

Category B 3,604,743 46,787 3,651,530

Exempt from Apportionment - 824,853 824,853

Total $ 31,840,621 $ 6,706,821 $ 38,547,442
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources (continued)

Status of Undelivered Orders:

Undelivered Orders (UDO) represent the amount of goods and/or services ordered, which have not been 

actually or constructively received. This amount includes any orders which may have been prepaid or 

advanced but for which delivery or performance has not yet occurred.

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.

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

UDO Obligations Unpaid $ 10,343,834 $ 11,606,422

UDO Obligations Prepaid/Advanced 1,172,884 1,344,717

Total UDO $ 11,516,718 $ 12,951,139
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-57

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 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 20. Information Related to the Statement of Budgetary Resources (continued)

Statement of Budgetary Resources vs Budget of the United States Government:

The reconciliation as of September 30, 2011 is presented below. The reconciliation as of September 30, 2012

is not presented, because the submission of the Budget of the United States (Budget) for FY 2014, which 

presents the execution of the FY 2012 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 2013. 

Other differences represent financial statement adjustments, timing differences and other immaterial 

differences between amounts reported in the Department SBR and the Budget of the United States

Government. 

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

(Dollars in Millions) Distributed

Budgetary Obligations Offsetting Net

Resources Incurred Receipts Outlays

Statement of Budgetary Resources (SBR) $ 42,430 $ 38,547 $ 1,026 $ 30,932

Funds not Reported in the Budget

Expired Funds: OBDs, USMS, DEA, OJP, FBI, ATF & BOP (662) (56) - -

AFF/SADF Forfeiture Activity (37) - - -

OCDETF Adjustments (22) 5 - -

USMS Court Security Funds (428) (418) - (407)

Distributed Offsetting Receipts - - (444) 445

Special and Trust Fund Receipts - - - 580

Other - (4) (3) 3

Budget of the United States Government $ 41,281 $ 38,074 $ 579 $ 31,553
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-59

Note 21. Net Custodial Revenue Activity

Custodial revenue activity represents those collections of non-exchange revenue on behalf of other recipient 

entities. These collections are not recorded as revenue by the Department but as activity on the Statement of 

Custodial Activity. The custodial liabilities presented on the Consolidated Balance Sheet and Note 15

represent funds held by the Department that have yet to be disbursed to the appropriate Federal agency or 

individual.

The primary source of the Department’s Office of Debt Collection Management (DCM) collections consists of 

civil litigated matters, e.g., student loan defaults, and health care fraud. The DCM also processes certain 

payments on criminal debts as an accommodation for the BOP and the Clerks of the U.S. District Courts. The 

BOP aggregates collections of inmate criminal debt by correction facility, and the DCM sorts the collections 

by judicial district and disburses payments to the respective Clerks of the U.S. Court. The DCM also accepts 

wire transfers or other payments on a criminal debt if a Clerk of the U.S. Court is unable or unwilling to do so. 

In addition, other negligible custodial collections occur for interest, fines, and penalties.

The OBDs collect civil fines, penalties, and restitution payments that are incidental to its mission. By court 

order, the OBDs were given the investment authority and the settlement funds collected must be invested. The 

OBDs invest these funds with the Treasury, Bureau of the Public Debt. As of September 30, 2012 and 2011, 

the custodial assets and liabilities recorded by the OBDs on the Consolidated Balance Sheet are $1,320,292

and $752,797, respectively. The OBDs custodial collections totaled $7,035,591 and $5,260,397 for the fiscal 

years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011. 

For the fiscal years ended September 30, 2012 and 2011, DEA collected $27,595 and $97,268, respectively. 

DEA’s collections include $15 million of the total fees collected for the Diversion Control Program and civil 

monetary penalties related to violations of the Controlled Substances Act that were incidental to DEA’s 

mission. Since DEA has no statutory authority to use these excess funds, DEA transmits them to the Treasury 

General Fund. The DEA has a custodial liability for funds that have not yet been transmitted to the Treasury 

General Fund. As of September 30, 2012 and 2011 balances for custodial liabilities were $3,781 and $5,199,

respectively.

As an agent of the federal government and as authorized by 26 U.S.C. § 6301, ATF collects fees from firearms 

and explosives industries, as well as import, permit and license fees. Special Occupational Taxes are collected 

from certain firearms businesses. Miscellaneous collections include project-generated proceeds. As ATF is 

unable to use these collections in its operations, ATF also has the authority to transfer these collections to the 

Treasury General Fund. The ATF custodial collections totaled $24,675 and $21,444 for the fiscal years ended 

September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively.

The FBI collected $10,736 and $902, in September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, in restitution payments, 

seized abandoned cash, and project generated proceeds. These collections were incidental to the FBI’s 

mission. Since the FBI does not have statutory authority to use these funds, the FBI remits these funds upon 

receipt to the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund. The FBI reports a custodial liability when custodial revenues are 

held by the FBI, but have not yet been transmitted to the U.S. Treasury’s General Fund. As of September 30, 

2012 and 2011, the FBI did not have any custodial liabilities.
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 22. OMB Circular A-136 Consolidated Balance Sheet Presentation

Dollars in Thousands 2012 2011

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 24,745,298 $ 23,354,452

Investments, Net 6,213,903 6,919,799

Accounts Receivable, Net 324,327 380,431

Other Assets 266,573 115,103

Total Intragovernmental 31,550,101 30,769,785

Cash and Other Monetary Assets 260,682 250,253

Accounts Receivable, Net 115,612 125,898

Inventory and Related Property, Net 166,609 170,889

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 10,186,144 10,217,770

Other Assets 911,566 1,258,495

Total Assets $ 43,190,714 $ 42,793,090

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 302,575 $ 366,027

Other Liabilities 1,743,663 1,233,085

Total Intragovernmental 2,046,238 1,599,112

Accounts Payable 4,108,056 2,504,820

Federal Employee and Veteran Benefits 1,474,278 1,359,360

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 74,441 72,709

Other Liabilities 8,238,972 7,733,476

Total Liabilities $ 15,941,985 $ 13,269,477

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ 25,963 $ 21,727

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds 10,568,815 11,952,581

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 10,949,539 9,066,816

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds 5,704,412 8,482,489

Total Net Position $ 27,248,729 $ 29,523,613

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 43,190,714 $ 42,793,090

U.S. Department of Justice

Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2012 and 2011
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-61

Note 23. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of

Financing)

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Resources Used to Finance Activities

Budgetary Resources Obligated

Obligations Incurred $ 41,251,276 $ 38,547,442

Less: Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 8,071,018 7,709,445

Obligations Net of Offsetting Collections and Recoveries 33,180,258 30,837,997

Less: Offsetting Receipts 1,425,127 1,025,644

Net Obligations 31,755,131 29,812,353

Other Resources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property 120,275 157,607

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement (12,623) 44,556

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others (Note 19) 878,014 998,485

Other (5,199) (4,613)

Net Other Resources Used to Finance Activities 980,467 1,196,035

Total Resources Used to Finance Activities 32,735,598 31,008,388

Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost of

Operations

Net Change in Budgetary Resources Obligated for Goods, Services

and Benefits Ordered but not Yet Provided 1,565,963 1,608,057

Resources That Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods (Note 24) (68,557) (45,816)

Budgetary Offsetting Collections and Receipts That do not

Affect Net Cost of Operations 700,546 294,218

Resources That Finance the Acquisition of Assets (1,069,993) (1,184,420)

Other Resources or Adjustments to Net Obligated Resources

That do not Affect Net Cost of Operations 24,810 14,296

Total Resources Used to Finance Items not Part of the Net Cost

of Operations 1,152,769 686,335

Total Resources Used to Finance the Net Cost of Operations $ 33,888,367 $ 31,694,723
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 23. Reconciliation of Net Cost of Operations (proprietary) to Budget (formerly the Statement of 

Financing) (continued)

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2012 and 2011 2012 2011

Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not Require

or Generate Resources in the Current Period

Components That will Require or Generate Resources in 

Future Periods (Note 24) $ 3,174,134 $ 129,497

Depreciation and Amortization 1,059,391 826,899

Revaluation of Assets or Liabilities 35,468 23,586

Other 37,210 (39,599)

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That will not Require or

Generate Resources 1,132,069 810,886

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will not

 Require or Generate Resources in the Current Period 4,306,203 940,383

Net Cost of Operations $ 38,194,570 $ 32,635,106
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-63

Note 24. Explanation of Differences Between Liabilities not Covered by Budgetary Resources and 

Components of Net Cost of Operations Requiring or Generating Resources in Future Periods

Liabilities that are not covered by realized budgetary resources and for which there is not certainty that 

budgetary authority will be realized, such as the enactment of an appropriation, are considered liabilities not 

covered by budgetary resources. These liabilities totaling $6,695,824 and $3,617,966 on September 30, 2012

and 2011, 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, 2012 and 2011

2012 2011

Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods

Decrease in Contingent Liabilities $ (40,101) $ (33,108)

Decrease in Unfunded Capital Lease Liabilities (7,314) (6,762)

Decrease in RECA Liabilities - (5,946)

Decrease in Other Unfunded Employment Related Liabilities (594) -

Decrease in Other Liabilities (20,548) -

Total Other (68,557) (45,816)

Total Resources that Fund Expenses Recognized in Prior Periods $ (68,557) $ (45,816)

Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Require or Generate Resources in Future Periods

Increase in Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities $ 7,228 $ 5,921

Increase in Environmental and Disposal Liabilities 1,732 1,052

(Increase)/Decrease in Exchange Revenue Receivable from the Public 21,078 (51,628)

Other

Increase in Actuarial FECA Liabilities 114,918 45,255

Increase in Accrued FECA Liabilities 10,084 6,689

Increase in Deferred Revenue 50,654 47,578

Increase in RECA Liabilities 195,399 -

 Increase in September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Liabilities 2,766,400 -

Increase in Other Unfunded Employee Related Liabilities - 420

Increase in Other Liabilities - 78,484

(Increase)/Decrease in Nonexchange Receivables from the Public (96) (94)

(Increase)/Decrease in Surcharge Revenue Receivable

from Other Federal Agencies 6,737 (4,180)

Total Other 3,144,096 174,152

Total Components of Net Cost of Operations That Will Require or 

Generate Resources in Future Periods $ 3,174,134 $ 129,497
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Note 25. Compensation Funds

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act

On October 15, 1990, Congress passed the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), 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 above-ground nuclear weapons tests or as a result of 

their exposure to radiation during employment in underground uranium mines. Implementing regulations were 

issued by the Department and published in the Federal Register on April 10, 1992, establishing 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, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Amendments of 2000, P.L. 106-245, was 

enacted. Some of the widespread changes include new claimant populations, additional compensable diseases, 

lower radiation exposure thresholds, modified medical documentation requirements, and removal of certain 

disease restrictions. Pursuant to the 2000 Amendments, the Department was directed to issue implementing 

regulations. The Department published two related rulemakings in the Federal Register to implement the 

legislation. 

Subsequent action by Congress required modification to those rulemakings. Therefore, the Department 

published a “final” rule in the Federal Register on March 23, 2004, which went into effect on April 22, 2004. 

There are now five categories of claimants: uranium miners, uranium millers, ore transporters, downwinders, 

and on-site participants. Each category requires similar eligibility criteria: if claimants can demonstrate that 

they contracted a compensable disease after working or residing in a designated location for a specified period 

of time, they qualify for compensation.

The enactment of two pieces of legislation changed the funding sources for RECA claimants. The National 

Defense Authorization Act for FY 2005 requires that RECA Section 5 claimants (uranium miners, millers, and 

ore transporters) be paid out of the Department of Labor’s (Labor) Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Fund. The RECA Section 5 liability of $316,993 as of March 30, 2004, was transferred to 

Labor during FY 2005. The RECA Fund began exclusively paying RECA Section 4 claimants (downwinders 

and on-site participants) in FY 2005. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, contains language that 

made funding for the RECA Trust Fund mandatory and indefinite beginning in FY 2006.

The OBDs recognized liabilities of $731,237 and $535,838 for estimated future benefits payable by the 

Department as of September 30, 2012 and 2011, respectively, to eligible individuals under the Act through

FY 2023. The estimated liability is based on activity between FYs 2007 - 2012. Key factors in determining 

future liability are trends in the number of claims filed, trends in the percentage of claims adjudicated, and 

trends in the percentage of claims approved. These estimates are then discounted in accordance with the 

discount rates set by the Office of Management and Budget.
FY 2012 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-65

Note 25. Compensation Funds (continued)

September 11th Victim Compensation Fund

Title II of The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 (Zadroga Act) P.L. 111-347, 

reactivates the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund of 2001 and requires a Special Master, appointed by 

the Attorney General, to provide compensation to any individual (or a personal representative of a deceased 

individual) who suffered physical harm or was killed as a result of the terrorist-related aircraft crashes of 

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

The Zadroga Act amends the Air Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act by among other things: 

Expanding the geographic zone recognized as a 9/11 crash site and providing greater consistency with the 

World Trade Center Health Program by adding additional forms of proof that may be used to establish 

eligibility.

The Zadroga Act requires that the total amount of Federal funds paid for including compensation with respect 

to claims filed on or after October 3, 2011, will not exceed $2,775,000. Furthermore, the total amount of 

Federal funds expended during the period from October 3, 2011, through October 3, 2016, may not exceed 

$875,000. For fiscal year 2012, the Department of Justice received an appropriation of $200,000. 

Summarized financial information about appropriated funds received, donations received from the public, 

benefit payments disbursed and payable, and the Fund balance is presented below:

As of September 30, 2012

2012

Appropriated Funds Received $ 200,000

Less: Salaries and Expenses Disbursements 6,212

Total Disbursements 6,212

Total Fund Balance with Treasury $ 193,788

Total Federal Funds available for September 11th Victim Compensation Fund $2,775,000

Less: Accounts Payable for Salaries and Expenses 2,388

Total Funded Liabilities 2,388

Total Disbursements 6,212

Total Funded Activities 8,600

Unfunded Liability for September 11th Victim Compensation Fund $2,766,400
III-66 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-67

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Consolidating and Combining Financial Statements
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 78,375 $ 5,702,037 $ 488,186 $ 12,614,717 $ 694,616 $ 3,601,365 $ 232,563 $ 1,305,195 $ 28,244 $ - $ 24,745,298

Investments, Net 5,631,124 310,479 - - - - - - 272,300 - 6,213,903

Accounts Receivable, Net 6,035 322,530 145,641 6,642 51,930 143,146 37,105 3,653 21,578 (413,933) 324,327

Other Assets 2,339 79,029 7,093 47,203 32,442 30,187 1,514 165,000 - (98,234) 266,573

Total Intragovernmental 5,717,873 6,414,075 640,920 12,668,562 778,988 3,774,698 271,182 1,473,848 322,122 (512,167) 31,550,101

Cash and Monetary Assets 106,166 46 - - 15,337 67,135 71,196 802 - - 260,682

Accounts Receivable, Net - 66,493 29 4,348 5,397 27,069 352 7,361 4,563 - 115,612

Inventory and Related Property, Net - 106 2,742 - 7,588 7,310 - 19,609 129,254 - 166,609

Forfeited Property, Net 145,111 - - - - - - - - - 145,111

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 1,150 133,777 265,904 11,006 381,780 2,811,251 206,737 6,286,908 87,631 - 10,186,144

Advances and Prepayments - 1,132 47 693,159 12,030 48,789 963 4,622 128 - 760,870

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 4,701 700 - 5,585

Total Assets $ 5,970,300 $ 6,615,629 $ 909,826 $ 13,377,075 $ 1,201,120 $ 6,736,252 $ 550,430 $ 7,797,851 $ 544,398 $ (512,167) $ 43,190,714

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 71,352 $ 310,984 $ 25,874 $ 22,536 $ 35,216 $ 183,590 $ 13,996 $ 47,558 $ 3,538 $ (412,069) $ 302,575

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 9,860 16,753 69 27,152 31,101 20,852 152,884 1,981 - 260,652

Custodial Liabilities - 1,110,517 - - 3,781 - - - - - 1,114,298

Other Liabilities 39 51,451 12,439 107,620 20,095 99,996 10,450 69,148 97,573 (100,098) 368,713

Total Intragovernmental 71,391 1,482,812 55,066 130,225 86,244 314,687 45,298 269,590 103,092 (512,167) 2,046,238

Accounts Payable 2,596,491 306,823 244,011 33,317 85,690 462,174 42,947 291,709 44,894 - 4,108,056

Accrued Grant Liabilities - 167,668 - 436,451 - - - - - - 604,119

Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 56,121 93,617 442 158,435 176,422 116,959 853,362 18,920 - 1,474,278

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 151 135,398 36,317 7,910 64,151 213,448 33,917 155,218 7,399 - 653,909

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 246 181,786 43,258 6,011 98,986 277,074 51,019 171,739 8,133 - 838,252

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - 10,219 - 64,222 - - 74,441

Deferred Revenue 145,111 - - - 409,396 - - 1,957 - - 556,464

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 1,536,523 - - - 450 45,262 4,932 - - - 1,587,167

Contingent Liabilities - 3,565 - - 8,968 11,788 - 4,230 120 - 28,671

Capital Lease Liabilities - - - 9 - - 394 16,627 66 - 17,096

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 731,237 - - - - - - - - 731,237

9/11 Victim Compensation Fund - 2,766,400 - - - - - - - - 2,766,400

Other Liabilities - 209,775 8,532 - 10,555 6,342 61,073 159,380 - - 455,657

Total Liabilities $ 4,349,913 $ 6,041,585 $ 480,801 $ 614,365 $ 922,875 $ 1,517,416 $ 356,539 $ 1,988,034 $ 182,624 $ (512,167) $ 15,941,985

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ - $ 25,963 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 25,963

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 3,355,787 259,570 3,478,217 499,366 2,151,355 175,104 649,416 - - 10,568,815

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,620,387 255,718 - 9,273,109 (285,887) - - 86,212 - - 10,949,539

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - (3,063,424) 169,455 11,384 64,766 3,067,481 18,787 5,074,189 361,774 - 5,704,412

Total Net Position $ 1,620,387 $ 574,044 $ 429,025 $ 12,762,710 $ 278,245 $ 5,218,836 $ 193,891 $ 5,809,817 $ 361,774 $ - $ 27,248,729

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 5,970,300 $ 6,615,629 $ 909,826 $ 13,377,075 $ 1,201,120 $ 6,736,252 $ 550,430 $ 7,797,851 $ 544,398 $ (512,167) $ 43,190,714

III-68 Department of Justice - FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2012
AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

ASSETS

Intragovernmental

Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury $ 229,030 $ 5,223,163 $ 562,246 $ 11,287,838 $ 702,470 $ 3,618,458 $ 241,768 $ 1,468,669 $ 20,810 $ - $ 23,354,452

Investments, Net 6,346,771 302,328 - - - - - - 270,700 - 6,919,799

Accounts Receivable, Net 4,869 350,778 168,560 6,970 43,655 181,271 27,803 3,347 34,360 (441,182) 380,431

Other Assets 1,766 95,294 15,506 78,034 47,061 27,867 7,643 - - (158,068) 115,103

Total Intragovernmental 6,582,436 5,971,563 746,312 11,372,842 793,186 3,827,596 277,214 1,472,016 325,870 (599,250) 30,769,785

Cash and Monetary Assets 113,822 46 - - 16,575 50,843 68,184 783 - - 250,253

Accounts Receivable, Net - 59,086 35 6,056 5,998 32,369 256 9,778 12,320 - 125,898

Inventory and Related Property, Net - 106 3,060 - 7,506 8,103 - 18,180 133,934 - 170,889

Forfeited Property, Net 172,746 - - - - - - - - - 172,746

General Property, Plant and Equipment, Net 633 280,102 264,246 12,526 401,220 2,558,525 210,262 6,387,481 102,775 - 10,217,770

Advances and Prepayments 6 1,978 - 1,009,997 14,700 47,144 786 3,899 1,257 - 1,079,767

Other Assets - - 184 - - - - 4,473 1,325 - 5,982

Total Assets $ 6,869,643 $ 6,312,881 $ 1,013,837 $ 12,401,421 $ 1,239,185 $ 6,524,580 $ 556,702 $ 7,896,610 $ 577,481 $ (599,250) $ 42,793,090

LIABILITIES

Intragovernmental

Accounts Payable $ 67,345 $ 317,501 $ 31,314 $ 54,240 $ 46,943 $ 229,722 $ 14,942 $ 37,098 $ 3,612 $ (436,690) $ 366,027

Accrued FECA Liabilities - 9,780 15,912 86 27,222 30,829 20,074 144,780 1,942 - 250,625

Custodial Liabilities - 599,810 - - 5,199 - - - - - 605,009

Other Liabilities 169 83,592 14,538 117,275 20,766 121,218 10,474 69,364 102,615 (162,560) 377,451

Total Intragovernmental 67,514 1,010,683 61,764 171,601 100,130 381,769 45,490 251,242 108,169 (599,250) 1,599,112

Accounts Payable 851,013 307,561 354,200 24,177 92,054 416,733 45,450 367,973 45,659 - 2,504,820

Accrued Grant Liabilities - 245,174 - 369,245 - - - - - - 614,419

Actuarial FECA Liabilities - 51,746 86,365 680 149,846 182,426 110,697 761,197 16,403 - 1,359,360

Accrued Payroll and Benefits 767 137,132 33,239 8,182 63,094 208,273 34,276 151,321 8,218 - 644,502

Accrued Annual and Compensatory Leave Liabilities 168 181,586 43,940 6,148 98,437 270,528 51,897 170,187 8,892 - 831,783

Environmental and Disposal Liabilities - - - - - 9,987 - 62,722 - - 72,709

Deferred Revenue 172,746 - - - 358,742 - - 1,939 - - 533,427

Seized Cash and Monetary Instruments 4,016,891 - - - 440 42,880 3,527 - - - 4,063,738

Contingent Liabilities - - - - 7,754 52,335 - 8,563 - - 68,652

Capital Lease Liabilities - - - 14 - - 1,071 23,941 115 - 25,141

Radiation Exposure Compensation Act Liabilities - 535,838 - - - - - - - - 535,838

Other Liabilities - 152,987 12,071 - 9,720 4,687 59,905 176,606 - - 415,976

Total Liabilities $ 5,109,099 $ 2,622,707 $ 591,579 $ 580,047 $ 880,217 $ 1,569,618 $ 352,313 $ 1,975,691 $ 187,456 $ (599,250) $ 13,269,477

NET POSITION

Unexpended Appropriations - Earmarked Funds $ - $ 21,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,727

Unexpended Appropriations - All Other Funds - 3,472,362 257,093 4,605,970 503,763 2,194,512 174,210 744,671 - - 11,952,581

Cumulative Results of Operations - Earmarked Funds 1,760,544 252,629 - 7,202,248 (232,162) - - 83,557 - - 9,066,816

Cumulative Results of Operations - All Other Funds - (56,544) 165,165 13,156 87,367 2,760,450 30,179 5,092,691 390,025 - 8,482,489

Total Net Position $ 1,760,544 $ 3,690,174 $ 422,258 $ 11,821,374 $ 358,968 $ 4,954,962 $ 204,389 $ 5,920,919 $ 390,025 $ - $ 29,523,613

Total Liabilities and Net Position $ 6,869,643 $ 6,312,881 $ 1,013,837 $ 12,401,421 $ 1,239,185 $ 6,524,580 $ 556,702 $ 7,896,610 $ 577,481 $ (599,250) $ 42,793,090

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-69

Consolidating Balance Sheet

U. S. Department of Justice

As of September 30, 2011
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Goal 1: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security Consistent with the Rule of Law

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 99,284 $ 4,794 $ - $ 17,534 $ 1,424,724 $ - $ - $ - $ (119,355) $ 1,426,981

Gross Cost - With the Public - 282,552 - - 94,180 3,917,146 6,419 - - - 4,300,297

 Subtotal Gross Costs - 381,836 4,794 - 111,714 5,341,870 6,419 - - (119,355) 5,727,278

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 87,077 - - 12,630 458,969 - - - (119,355) 439,321

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 29,042 - - - 1,870 - - - - 30,912

 Subtotal Earned Revenues - 116,119 - - 12,630 460,839 - - - (119,355) 470,233

 Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 265,717 $ 4,794 $ - $ 99,084 $ 4,881,031 $ 6,419 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,257,045

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American People, and Enforce Federal Law

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 382,840 $ 1,804,101 $ 32,637 $ 45,938 $ 892,256 $ 790,598 $ 383,250 $ - $ - $ (970,264) $ 3,361,356

Gross Cost - With the Public 3,936,567 6,787,015 - 952,857 1,945,542 2,173,677 895,426 7,242 - - 16,698,326

 Subtotal Gross Costs 4,319,407 8,591,116 32,637 998,795 2,837,798 2,964,275 1,278,676 7,242 - (970,264) 20,059,682

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 10,585 529,236 - 4,839 473,274 340,061 80,866 - - (970,264) 468,597

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 395,064 - - 251,099 - 503 - - - 646,666

 Subtotal Earned Revenues 10,585 924,300 - 4,839 724,373 340,061 81,369 - - (970,264) 1,115,263

 Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ 4,308,822 $ 7,666,816 $ 32,637 $ 993,956 $ 2,113,425 $ 2,624,214 $ 1,197,307 $ 7,242 $ - $ - $ 18,944,419

Goal 3: Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, Efficient, and Transparent Administration of Justice at the Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and International Levels

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,808,388 $ 544,969 $ 148,858 $ - $ 280,253 $ - $ 1,664,927 $ 164,798 $ (1,883,179) $ 2,729,014

Gross Cost - With the Public - 665,148 2,609,317 2,316,455 - 770,530 - 5,834,650 598,300 - 12,794,400

 Subtotal Gross Costs - 2,473,536 3,154,286 2,465,313 - 1,050,783 - 7,499,577 763,098 (1,883,179) 15,523,414

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 159,062 1,537,097 22,310 - 334,507 - 20,904 651,713 (1,858,461) 867,132

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 66,119 6,548 148 - 151,387 - 389,401 49,573 - 663,176

 Subtotal Earned Revenues - 225,181 1,543,645 22,458 - 485,894 - 410,305 701,286 (1,858,461) 1,530,308

 Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 2,248,355 $ 1,610,641 $ 2,442,855 $ - $ 564,889 $ - $ 7,089,272 $ 61,812 $ (24,718) $ 13,993,106

Total Net Cost of Operations $ 4,308,822 $ 10,180,888 $ 1,648,072 $ 3,436,811 $ 2,212,509 $ 8,070,134 $ 1,203,726 $ 7,096,514 $ 61,812 $ (24,718) $ 38,194,570

Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-70

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012
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 Consistent with the Rule of Law

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 112,985 $ 6,484 $ - $ 15,196 $ 1,420,503 $ - $ - $ - $ (93,725) $ 1,461,443

Gross Cost - With the Public - 265,340 - - 90,886 3,802,831 5,649 - - - 4,164,706

Subtotal Gross Costs - 378,325 6,484 - 106,082 5,223,334 5,649 - - (93,725) 5,626,149

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 93,776 - - 687 446,885 - - - (93,725) 447,623

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 22,433 - - 6 721 - - - - 23,160

Subtotal Earned Revenues - 116,209 - - 693 447,606 - - - (93,725) 470,783

Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 262,116 $ 6,484 $ - $ 105,389 $ 4,775,728 $ 5,649 $ - $ - $ - $ 5,155,366

Goal 2: Prevent Crime, Protect the Rights of the American People, and Enforce Federal Law

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ 380,028 $ 1,868,383 $ 30,396 $ 43,903 $ 907,038 $ 813,795 $ 381,239 $ - $ - $ (1,096,338) $ 3,328,444

Gross Cost - With the Public 1,293,384 3,990,335 - 960,540 2,021,967 2,178,615 886,810 6,613 - - 11,338,264

Subtotal Gross Costs 1,673,412 5,858,718 30,396 1,004,443 2,929,005 2,992,410 1,268,049 6,613 - (1,096,338) 14,666,708

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental 9,513 575,651 - 7,489 521,896 318,479 90,650 - - (1,096,338) 427,340

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 426,958 - - 200,321 - 650 - - - 627,929

Subtotal Earned Revenues 9,513 1,002,609 - 7,489 722,217 318,479 91,300 - - (1,096,338) 1,055,269

Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ 4,856,109 $ 30,396 $ 996,954 $ 2,206,788 $ 2,673,931 $ 1,176,749 $ 6,613 $ - $ - $ 13,611,439

Goal 3: Ensure and Support the Fair, Impartial, Efficient, and Transparent Administration of Justice at the Federal, State, Local, Tribal, and International Levels

Gross Cost - Intragovernmental $ - $ 1,736,875 $ 546,964 $ 180,000 $ - $ 275,867 $ - $ 1,629,744 $ 163,202 $ (1,843,879) $ 2,688,773

Gross Cost - With the Public - 705,044 2,627,882 2,550,468 - 738,525 - 5,583,621 779,713 - 12,985,253

Subtotal Gross Costs - 2,441,919 3,174,846 2,730,468 - 1,014,392 - 7,213,365 942,915 (1,843,879) 15,674,026

Earned Revenues - Intragovernmental - 158,055 1,581,441 35,228 - 335,879 - 15,252 800,498 (1,818,415) 1,107,938

Earned Revenues - With the Public - 45,456 2,519 45 - 175,158 - 370,424 104,185 - 697,787

Subtotal Earned Revenues - 203,511 1,583,960 35,273 - 511,037 - 385,676 904,683 (1,818,415) 1,805,725

Subtotal Net Cost of Operations $ - $ 2,238,408 $ 1,590,886 $ 2,695,195 $ - $ 503,355 $ - $ 6,827,689 $ 38,232 $ (25,464) $ 13,868,301

Total Net Cost of Operations $ 1,663,899 $ 7,356,633 $ 1,627,766 $ 3,692,149 $ 2,312,177 $ 7,953,014 $ 1,182,398 $ 6,834,302 $ 38,232 $ (25,464) $ 32,635,106

III-71

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Net Cost

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Unexpended Appropriations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ - $ 21,727 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 21,727

All Other Funds - 3,472,362 257,093 4,605,970 503,763 2,194,512 174,210 744,671 - - 11,952,581

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 72,044 - - - - - - - - 72,044

All Other Funds - 6,848,091 1,189,000 1,638,300 2,035,000 8,117,973 1,152,000 6,641,281 - - 27,621,645

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

All Other Funds - (28,074) 416,211 (8,470) 27,254 (60,821) (15,067) (562) - - 330,471

Other Adjustments 

All Other Funds - (40,561) (2,200) (55,000) (10,000) - - (45,000) - - (152,761)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (67,808) - - - - - - - - (67,808)

All Other Funds - (6,896,031) (1,600,534) (2,702,583) (2,056,651) (8,100,309) (1,136,039) (6,690,974) - - (29,183,121)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - 4,236 - - - - - - - - 4,236

All Other Funds - (116,575) 2,477 (1,127,753) (4,397) (43,157) 894 (95,255) - - (1,383,766)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds - 4,236 - - - - - - - - 4,236

All Other Funds - (116,575) 2,477 (1,127,753) (4,397) (43,157) 894 (95,255) - - (1,383,766)

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds - 25,963 - - - - - - - - 25,963

All Other Funds - 3,355,787 259,570 3,478,217 499,366 2,151,355 175,104 649,416 - - 10,568,815

Total All Funds $ - $ 3,381,750 $ 259,570 $ 3,478,217 $ 499,366 $ 2,151,355 $ 175,104 $ 649,416 $ - $ - $ 10,594,778

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-72
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 1,760,544 $ 252,629 $ - $ 7,202,248 $ (232,162) $ - $ - $ 83,557 $ - $ - $ 9,066,816

All Other Funds - (56,544) 165,165 13,156 87,367 2,760,450 30,179 5,092,691 390,025 - 8,482,489

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 1,760,544 252,629 - 7,202,248 (232,162) - - 83,557 - - 9,066,816

All Other Funds - (56,544) 165,165 13,156 87,367 2,760,450 30,179 5,092,691 390,025 - 8,482,489

Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Ajustments

All Other Funds - (40,000) - - - - - - - - (40,000)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 67,808 - - - - - - - - 67,808

All Other Funds - 6,896,031 1,600,534 2,702,583 2,056,651 8,100,309 1,136,039 6,690,974 - - 29,183,121

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 3,327 4,085 - 2,795,573 - - - - - - 2,802,985

All Other Funds - - 975 - - - - - - 975

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents

Earmarked Funds 4,194,465 - - - - - - - - - 4,194,465

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 109,395 - - - - - - - - 109,395

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 120,245 - - - - - - - - - 120,245

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 30 - - 30

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (149,908) - - - - - - - - - (149,908)

All Other Funds - (36,621) 58 2,295 (1,374) 5,333 15,949 151,645 - - 137,285

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds 536 1,145 - - 9,419 - - 4,346 - - 15,446

All Other Funds - 175,254 51,770 4,474 71,487 276,722 40,346 233,672 33,561 (24,718) 862,568

Other Financing Sources

All Other Funds - - - - - (5,199) - - - - (5,199)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 4,168,665 73,038 - 2,795,573 9,419 - - 4,346 - - 7,051,041

All Other Funds - 7,104,059 1,652,362 2,710,327 2,126,764 8,377,165 1,192,334 7,076,321 33,561 (24,718) 30,248,175

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (4,308,822) (69,949) - (724,712) (63,144) - - (1,691) - - (5,168,318)

All Other Funds - (10,110,939) (1,648,072) (2,712,099) (2,149,365) (8,070,134) (1,203,726) (7,094,823) (61,812) 24,718 (33,026,252)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds (140,157) 3,089 - 2,070,861 (53,725) - - 2,655 - - 1,882,723

All Other Funds - (3,006,880) 4,290 (1,772) (22,601) 307,031 (11,392) (18,502) (28,251) - (2,778,077)

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds 1,620,387 255,718 - 9,273,109 (285,887) - - 86,212 - - 10,949,539

All Other Funds - (3,063,424) 169,455 11,384 64,766 3,067,481 18,787 5,074,189 361,774 - 5,704,412

Total All Funds $ 1,620,387 $ (2,807,706) $ 169,455 $ 9,284,493 $ (221,121) $ 3,067,481 $ 18,787 $ 5,160,401 $ 361,774 $ - $ 16,653,951

III-73

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

 Department of Justice •FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

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 $ - $ 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

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds - 19,585 - - - - - - - - 19,585

All Other Funds - 3,979,216 328,900 5,571,977 559,167 2,255,206 202,183 894,623 - - 13,791,272

Budgetary Financing Sources

Appropriations Received

Earmarked Funds - 71,746 - - - - - - - - 71,746

All Other Funds - 6,901,999 1,142,388 1,893,160 2,019,682 7,941,932 1,114,772 6,394,155 - - 27,408,088

Appropriations Transferred-In/Out

All Other Funds - (187,823) 388,191 200,344 71,029 (61,176) (7,892) (1,834) - - 400,839

Other Adjustments 

Earmarked Funds - (326) - - - - - - - - (326)

All Other Funds - (23,338) (2,285) (45,365) (4,039) (15,884) (2,231) (12,788) - - (105,930)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - (69,278) - - - - - - - - (69,278)

All Other Funds - (7,197,692) (1,600,101) (3,014,146) (2,142,076) (7,925,566) (1,132,622) (6,529,485) - - (29,541,688)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds - 2,142 - - - - - - - - 2,142

All Other Funds - (506,854) (71,807) (966,007) (55,404) (60,694) (27,973) (149,952) - - (1,838,691)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds - 2,142 - - - - - - - - 2,142

All Other Funds - (506,854) (71,807) (966,007) (55,404) (60,694) (27,973) (149,952) - - (1,838,691)

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds - 21,727 - - - - - - - - 21,727

All Other Funds - 3,472,362 257,093 4,605,970 503,763 2,194,512 174,210 744,671 - - 11,952,581

Total All Funds $ - $ 3,494,089 $ 257,093 $ 4,605,970 $ 503,763 $ 2,194,512 $ 174,210 $ 744,671 $ - $ - $ 11,974,308

III-74 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Eliminations Consolidated

Cumulative Results of Operations

Beginning Balances

Earmarked Funds $ 1,687,400 $ 171,475 $ - $ 5,866,596 $ (159,279) $ - $ - $ 69,853 $ - $ - $ 7,636,045

All Other Funds - (142,839) 137,022 12,217 80,998 2,413,112 29,258 5,147,049 391,834 - 8,068,651

Beginning Balances, as Adjusted

Earmarked Funds 1,687,400 171,475 - 5,866,596 (159,279) - - 69,853 - - 7,636,045

All Other Funds - (142,839) 137,022 12,217 80,998 2,413,112 29,258 5,147,049 391,834 - 8,068,651

Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Ajustments

All Other Funds - (26,000) - - - - - - - - (26,000)

Appropriations Used

Earmarked Funds - 69,278 - - - - - - - - 69,278

All Other Funds - 7,197,692 1,600,101 3,014,146 2,142,076 7,925,566 1,132,622 6,529,485 - - 29,541,688

Nonexchange Revenues

Earmarked Funds 4,596 1,070 - 1,998,221 - - - - - - 2,003,887

All Other Funds - - - 508 - - - - - - 508

Donations and Forfeitures of Cash and Cash Equivalents

Earmarked Funds 1,580,584 - - - - - - - - - 1,580,584

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

All Other Funds - 113,735 - - - - - - - - 113,735

Other Budgetary Financing Sources

Other Financing Sources

Donations and Forfeitures of Property

Earmarked Funds 157,381 - - - - - - - - - 157,381

All Other Funds - - - - - - - 226 - - 226

Transfers-In/Out Without Reimbursement

Earmarked Funds (6,120) - - - - - - (72) - - (6,192)

All Other Funds - (53,304) 162 10,600 14,358 74,270 3,153 1,485 24 - 50,748

Imputed Financing from Costs Absorbed by Others 

Earmarked Funds 602 1,365 - - 9,396 - - 4,706 - - 16,069

All Other Funds - 220,246 55,646 5,265 79,833 305,129 47,544 257,818 36,399 (25,464) 982,416

Other Financing Sources

All Other Funds - - - - - (4,613) - - - - (4,613)

Total Financing Sources

Earmarked Funds 1,737,043 71,713 - 1,998,221 9,396 - - 4,634 - - 3,821,007

All Other Funds - 7,452,369 1,655,909 3,030,519 2,236,267 8,300,352 1,183,319 6,789,014 36,423 (25,464) 30,658,708

Net Cost of Operations

Earmarked Funds (1,663,899) 9,441 - (662,569) (82,279) - - 9,070 - - (2,390,236)

All Other Funds - (7,366,074) (1,627,766) (3,029,580) (2,229,898) (7,953,014) (1,182,398) (6,843,372) (38,232) 25,464 (30,244,870)

Net Change

Earmarked Funds 73,144 81,154 - 1,335,652 (72,883) - - 13,704 - - 1,430,771

All Other Funds - 86,295 28,143 939 6,369 347,338 921 (54,358) (1,809) - 413,838

Ending Balances

Earmarked Funds 1,760,544 252,629 - 7,202,248 (232,162) - - 83,557 - - 9,066,816

All Other Funds - (56,544) 165,165 13,156 87,367 2,760,450 30,179 5,092,691 390,025 - 8,482,489

Total All Funds $ 1,760,544 $ 196,085 $ 165,165 $ 7,215,404 $ (144,795) $ 2,760,450 $ 30,179 $ 5,176,248 $ 390,025 $ - $ 17,549,305

III-75

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Consolidating Statement of Changes in Net Position - Continued

U. S. Department of Justice
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Budgetary Resources

Unobligated Balance, Net, Brought Forward, October 1 $ 1,088,719 $ 814,323 90,397 $ 187,462 $ 158,292 $ 947,534 $ 60,967 $ 379,813 $ 154,816 $ 3,882,323

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 84,186 224,583 54,620 53,296 114,289 290,427 32,746 23,388 - 877,535

Other Changes in Unobligated Balance - 67,691 (7,632) (2,409) 21 (53,259) (14,933) (1,862) - (12,383)

Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net 1,172,905 1,106,597 137,385 238,349 272,602 1,184,702 78,780 401,339 154,816 4,747,475

Appropriations (discretionary and mandatory) 4,100,446 7,142,929 1,610,644 2,286,418 2,346,455 8,110,411 1,151,866 6,597,581 - 33,346,750

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 17,027 2,162,444 1,538,614 196,233 525,323 1,395,880 94,820 561,856 701,286 7,193,483

Total Budgetary Resources $ 5,290,378 $ 10,411,970 $ 3,286,643 $ 2,721,000 $ 3,144,380 $ 10,690,993 $ 1,325,466 $ 7,560,776 $ 856,102 $ 45,287,708

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred (Note 21) $ 4,528,369 $ 9,284,881 $ 3,184,684 $ 2,543,035 $ 2,976,982 $ 9,591,524 $ 1,279,257 $ 7,164,861 $ 697,683 $ 41,251,276

Unobligated Balance, End of Period:

Apportioned 639,541 861,850 61,752 152,618 127,526 624,435 29,929 232,512 - 2,730,163

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - 59,772 158,419 218,191

Unapportioned 122,468 265,239 40,207 25,347 39,872 475,034 16,280 103,631 - 1,088,078

Total Unobligated Balance - End of Period 762,009 1,127,089 101,959 177,965 167,398 1,099,469 46,209 395,915 158,419 4,036,432

Total Status of Budgetary Resources: $ 5,290,378 $ 10,411,970 $ 3,286,643 $ 2,721,000 $ 3,144,380 $ 10,690,993 $ 1,325,466 $ 7,560,776 $ 856,102 $ 45,287,708

Change in Obligated Balance:

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations, Gross $ 1,092,300 $ 4,564,149 $ 648,610 $ 5,025,867 $ 712,030 $ 3,165,268 $ 245,431 $ 1,051,944 $ 171,054 $ 16,676,653

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,889 816,547 188,832 25,236 157,357 492,704 59,852 10,882 34,360 1,790,659

Total Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 1,087,411 3,747,602 459,778 5,000,631 554,673 2,672,564 185,579 1,041,062 136,694 14,885,994

Obligations Incurred 4,528,369 9,284,881 3,184,684 2,543,035 2,976,982 9,591,524 1,279,257 7,164,861 697,683 41,251,276

Less: Outlays, Gross 2,687,103 9,445,119 3,240,907 3,237,410 2,852,539 9,394,120 1,233,314 7,324,472 705,033 40,120,017

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (4,000) (24,183) 28,761 (2,347) (28,576) (75,764) (7,219) 844 12,782 (99,702)

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 84,186 224,583 54,620 53,296 114,289 290,427 32,746 23,388 - 877,535

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period

Unpaid Obligations, Gross 2,849,380 4,179,328 537,767 4,278,196 722,184 3,072,245 258,628 868,945 163,704 16,930,377

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 8,889 840,730 160,071 27,583 185,933 568,468 67,071 10,038 21,578 1,890,361

Total Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 2,840,491 $ 3,338,598 $ 377,696 4,250,613 $ 536,251 $ 2,503,777 $ 191,557 $ 858,907 $ 142,126 $ 15,040,016

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

III-76
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Budgetary Authority and Outlays, Net:

Budgetary Authority, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) $ 4,117,473 $ 9,305,373 $ 3,149,258 $ 2,482,651 $ 2,871,778 $ 9,506,291 $ 1,246,686 $ 7,159,437 $ 701,286 $ 40,540,233

Less: Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 13,027 2,138,261 1,567,375 193,886 496,747 1,320,116 87,601 562,700 714,068 7,093,781

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (4,000) (24,183) 28,761 (2,347) (28,576) (75,764) (7,219) 844 12,782 (99,702)

(discretionary and mandatory)

Budget Authority, Net (discretionary and mandatory) $ 4,100,446 $ 7,142,929 $ 1,610,644 $ 2,286,418 $ 2,346,455 $ 8,110,411 $ 1,151,866 $ 6,597,581 $ - $ 33,346,750

Outlays, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) $ 2,687,103 $ 9,445,119 $ 3,240,907 $ 3,237,410 $ 2,852,539 $ 9,394,120 $ 1,233,314 $ 7,324,472 $ 705,033 $ 40,120,017

Less: Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 13,027 2,138,261 1,567,375 193,886 496,747 1,320,116 87,601 562,700 714,068 7,093,781

Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) 2,674,076 7,306,858 1,673,532 3,043,524 2,355,792 8,074,004 1,145,713 6,761,772 (9,035) 33,026,236

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 3,327 1,117,582 - 26 295,736 145 2,859 5,452 - 1,425,127

Agency Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) $ 2,670,749 $ 6,189,276 $ 1,673,532 $ 3,043,498 $ 2,060,056 $ 8,073,859 $ 1,142,854 $ 6,756,320 $ (9,035) $ 31,601,109

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

U. S. Department of Justice

III-77 Department of Justice • FY 2012 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 $ 1,010,179 $ 929,953 $ 133,375 $ 232,500 $ 223,391 $ 946,877 $ 110,131 $ 377,906 $ 74,986 $ 4,039,298

Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 83,669 206,483 64,819 54,156 102,053 216,564 21,159 4,539 - 753,442

Other Changes in Unobligated Balance - 93,421 (21,395) (2,311) 33,854 (58,985) (7,780) (1,834) - 34,970

Unobligated Balance from Prior Year Budget Authority, Net 1,093,848 1,229,857 176,799 284,345 359,298 1,104,456 123,510 380,611 74,986 4,827,710

Appropriations (discretionary and mandatory) 1,602,768 7,030,338 1,549,689 2,750,112 2,295,492 7,923,857 1,112,429 6,381,367 - 30,646,052

Spending Authority from Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 12,309 2,108,819 1,596,290 33,249 505,291 1,321,494 85,420 388,448 904,683 6,956,003

Total Budgetary Resources $ 2,708,925 $ 10,369,014 $ 3,322,778 $ 3,067,706 $ 3,160,081 $ 10,349,807 $ 1,321,359 $ 7,150,426 $ 979,669 $ 42,429,765

Status of Budgetary Resources:

Obligations Incurred (Note 21) $ 1,620,206 $ 9,554,691 $ 3,232,381 $ 2,880,244 $ 3,001,789 $ 9,402,273 $ 1,260,392 $ 6,770,613 $ 824,853 $ 38,547,442

Unobligated Balance, End of Period:

Apportioned 635,227 554,020 57,730 169,067 118,503 594,313 38,931 258,217 - 2,426,008

Exempt from Apportionment - - - - - - - 56,381 154,816 211,197

Unapportioned 453,492 260,303 32,667 18,395 39,789 353,221 22,036 65,215 - 1,245,118

Total Unobligated Balance - End of Period 1,088,719 814,323 90,397 187,462 158,292 947,534 60,967 379,813 154,816 3,882,323

Total Status of Budgetary Resources: $ 2,708,925 $ 10,369,014 $ 3,322,778 $ 3,067,706 $ 3,160,081 $ 10,349,807 $ 1,321,359 $ 7,150,426 $ 979,669 $ 42,429,765

Change in Obligated Balance:

Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1

Unpaid Obligations, Gross $ 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 Obligated Balance, Net - Brought Forward, October 1 978,434 4,079,687 543,337 5,485,181 595,067 2,742,550 155,645 1,178,867 247,463 16,006,231

Obligations Incurred 1,620,206 9,554,691 3,232,381 2,880,244 3,001,789 9,402,273 1,260,392 6,770,613 824,853 38,547,442

Less: Outlays, Gross 1,426,916 9,658,520 3,227,503 3,311,068 2,964,749 9,242,252 1,219,844 6,899,342 926,480 38,876,674

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (644) (21,773) (23,618) 430 24,619 (13,443) 10,545 (4,537) (9,141) (37,562)

Less: Recoveries of Prior Year Unpaid Obligations 83,669 206,483 64,819 54,156 102,053 216,564 21,159 4,539 - 753,442

Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period

Unpaid Obligations, Gross 1,092,300 4,564,149 648,610 5,025,867 712,030 3,165,268 245,431 1,051,944 171,054 16,676,653

Less: Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources 4,889 816,547 188,832 25,236 157,357 492,704 59,852 10,882 34,360 1,790,659

Total Obligated Balance, Net - End of Period $ 1,087,411 $ 3,747,602 $ 459,778 $ 5,000,631 $ 554,673 $ 2,672,564 $ 185,579 $ 1,041,062 $ 136,694 $ 14,885,994

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-78

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
Dollars in Thousands AFF/SADF OBDs USMS OJP DEA FBI ATF BOP FPI Combined

Budgetary Authority and Outlays, Net:

Budgetary Authority, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) $ 1,615,077 $ 9,139,157 $ 3,145,979 $ 2,783,361 $ 2,800,783 $ 9,245,351 $ 1,197,849 $ 6,769,815 $ 904,683 $ 37,602,055

Less: Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 11,665 2,087,046 1,572,672 33,683 529,910 1,308,051 95,965 383,911 895,542 6,918,445

Change in Uncollected Customer Payments from Federal Sources (644) (21,773) (23,618) 430 24,619 (13,443) 10,545 (4,537) (9,141) (37,562)

(discretionary and mandatory)

Budget Authority, Net (discretionary and mandatory) $ 1,602,768 $ 7,030,338 $ 1,549,689 $ 2,750,108 $ 2,295,492 $ 7,923,857 $ 1,112,429 $ 6,381,367 $ - $ 30,646,048

Outlays, Gross (discretionary and mandatory) $ 1,426,916 $ 9,658,520 $ 3,227,503 $ 3,311,068 $ 2,964,749 $ 9,242,252 $ 1,219,844 $ 6,899,342 $ 926,480 $ 38,876,674

Less: Actual Offsetting Collections (discretionary and mandatory) 11,665 2,087,046 1,572,672 33,683 529,910 1,308,051 95,965 383,911 895,542 6,918,445

Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) 1,415,251 7,571,474 1,654,831 3,277,385 2,434,839 7,934,201 1,123,879 6,515,431 30,938 31,958,229

Less: Distributed Offsetting Receipts 4,596 777,312 - 206 243,616 (7,284) 3,892 3,306 - 1,025,644

Agency Outlays, Net (discretionary and mandatory) $ 1,410,655 $ 6,794,162 $ 1,654,831 $ 3,277,179 $ 2,191,223 $ 7,941,485 $ 1,119,987 $ 6,512,125 $ 30,938 $ 30,932,585

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-79

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Budgetary Resources - Continued

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
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 $ - $ 6,995,798 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,995,798

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 21,710 - - 36,710

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 12,595 - 18 - - 12,613

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal - 39,750 - - - - 74 - - 39,824

Miscellaneous - 43 - - - 10,736 2,873 - - 13,652

Total Cash Collections $ - $ 7,035,591 $ - $ - $ 27,595 $ 10,736 $ 24,675 $ - $ - $ 7,098,597

Accrual Adjustments - - - - (1,418) - 13 - - (1,405)

Total Custodial Revenue $ - $ 7,035,591 $ - $ - $ 26,177 $ 10,736 $ 24,688 $ - $ - $ 7,097,192

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (105,670) - - - - - - - (105,670)

U.S. Department of Commerce - (3,746) - - - - - - - (3,746)

U.S. Department of the Interior - (129,015) - - - - - - - (129,015)

U.S. Department of Justice - (21,085) - - - - - - - (21,085)

U.S. Department of Labor - (9,175) - - - - - - - (9,175)

U.S. Postal Service - (7,675) - - - - - - - (7,675)

U.S. Department of State - (26,613) - - - - - - - (26,613)

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (917,662) - - (27,595) - (24,328) - - (969,585)

Office of Personnel Management - (157,714) - - - - - - - (157,714)

Federal Communications Commission - (310) - - - - - - - (310)

Social Security Administration - (921) - - - - - - - (921)

Smithsonian Institution - (8) - - - - - - - (8)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (125,354) - - - - - - - (125,354)

General Services Administration - (130,087) - - - - - - - (130,087)

Securities and Exchange Commission - (411) - - - - - - - (411)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (59) - - - - - - - (59)

Railroad Retirement Board - (288) - - - - - - - (288)

Tennessee Valley Authority - (8) - - - - - - - (8)

Environmental Protection Agency - (189,137) - - - - - - - (189,137)

U.S. Department of Transportation - (13,674) - - - - - - - (13,674)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (66,585) - - - - - - - (66,585)

Agency for International Development - (511) - - - - - - - (511)

Small Business Administration - (6,371) - - - - - - - (6,371)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (1,283,167) - - - - - - - (1,283,167)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (725) - - - - - - - (725)

Export-Import Bank of the United States - (17,264) - - - - - - - (17,264)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (1,129,547) - - - - - - - (1,129,547)

National Archives & Records Administration - (29) - - - - - - - (29)

U.S. Department of Energy - (3,313) - - - - - - - (3,313)

U.S. Department of Education - (14,452) - - - - - - - (14,452)

Independent Agencies - (63,619) - - - - - - - (63,619)

Treasury General Fund - (642,790) - - - (10,736) - - - (653,526)

U.S. Department of Defense - (217,607) - - - - - - - (217,607)

Transferred to the Public - (508,622) - - - - - - - (508,622)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - (567,495) - - 1,418 - - - - (566,077)

Refunds and Other Payments - (512,825) - - - - (360) - - (513,185)

Retained by the Reporting Entity - (162,057) - - - - - - - (162,057)

Total Disposition Of Collections - (7,035,591) - - (26,177) (10,736) (24,688) - - (7,097,192)

Net Custodial Activity $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

III-80

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

 Department of Justice • FY 2012 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 $ - $ 5,222,083 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 5,222,083

Fees and Licenses - - - - 15,000 - 17,437 - - 32,437

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Civil - - - - 82,268 - 20 - - 82,288

Fines, Penalties and Restitution Payments - Criminal - 38,255 - - - - 95 - - 38,350

Miscellaneous - 59 - - - 902 3,892 - - 4,853

Total Cash Collections $ - $ 5,260,397 $ - $ - $ 97,268 $ 902 $ 21,444 $ - $ - $ 5,380,011

Accrual Adjustments - - - - 3,617 - 26 - - 3,643

Total Custodial Revenue $ - $ 5,260,397 $ - $ - $ 100,885 $ 902 $ 21,470 $ - $ - $ 5,383,654

Disposition of Collections

Transferred to Federal Agencies

U.S. Department of Agriculture - (96,346) - - - - - - - (96,346)

U.S. Department of Commerce - (5,103) - - - - - - - (5,103)

U.S. Department of the Interior - (29,959) - - - - - - - (29,959)

U.S. Department of Justice - (81,181) - - - - - - - (81,181)

U.S. Department of Labor - (736) - - - - - - - (736)

U.S. Postal Service - (4,362) - - - - - - - (4,362)

U.S. Department of State - (8,535) - - - - - - - (8,535)

U.S. Department of the Treasury - (130,778) - - (97,268) - (21,138) - - (249,184)

Office of Personnel Management - (58,144) - - - - - - - (58,144)

Federal Communications Commission - (14,727) - - - - - - - (14,727)

Social Security Administration - (2,726) - - - - - - - (2,726)

Smithsonian Institution - (190) - - - - - - - (190)

U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs - (28,703) - - - - - - - (28,703)

General Services Administration - (88,447) - - - - - - - (88,447)

Securities and Exchange Commission - (3) - - - - - - - (3)

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation - (71) - - - - - - - (71)

Railroad Retirement Board - (100) - - - - - - - (100)

Environmental Protection Agency - (341,267) - - - - - - - (341,267)

U.S. Department of Transportation - (7,236) - - - - - - - (7,236)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security - (66,843) - - - - - - - (66,843)

Agency for International Development - (22,233) - - - - - - - (22,233)

Small Business Administration - (10,447) - - - - - - - (10,447)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services - (2,001,923) - - - - - - - (2,001,923)

National Aeronautics and Space Administration - (3,792) - - - - - - - (3,792)

Export-Import Bank of the United States - (24,643) - - - - - - - (24,643)

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development - (11,099) - - - - - - - (11,099)

U.S. Department of Energy - (2,093) - - - - - - - (2,093)

U.S. Department of Education - (55,431) - - - - - - - (55,431)

Independent Agencies - (67,264) - - - - - - - (67,264)

Treasury General Fund - (618,814) - - - (902) - - - (619,716)

U.S. Department of Defense - (173,894) - - - - - - - (173,894)

Transferred to the Public - (516,597) - - - - - - - (516,597)

(Increase)/Decrease in Amounts Yet to be Transferred - (304,330) - - (3,617) - - - - (307,947)

Refunds and Other Payments - (364,312) - - - - (332) - - (364,644)

Retained by the Reporting Entity - (118,068) - - - - - - - (118,068)

Total Disposition Of Collections - (5,260,397) - - (100,885) (902) (21,470) - - (5,383,654)

Net Custodial Activity $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

III-81 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

U. S. Department of Justice

Combining Statement of Custodial Activity

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2011
III-82 Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank.
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-83

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information 

Unaudited
U. S. Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-84

U.S. Department of Justice

Required Supplementary Stewardship Information 

Consolidated Stewardship Investments

For the Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009 and 2008

In Thousands

The Bureau of Justice Assistance administers the Correctional Systems and Correctional 

Alternatives for Tribal Lands (CSCATL) and the Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-InSentencing (VOI/TIS) Incentive grant programs. Both programs provide grants for the purposes of 

building and expanding correctional facilities and jails to increase secure confinement space for 

violent offenders and implementing correctional alternatives to reduce reliance on incarceration. 

VOI/TIS funds are available to any of the 50 United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 

U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and recognized Tribal 

governments; while CSCATL funds are available to tribes within the 50 states. The Tribal Law and 

Order Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-211) expanded the CSCATL grant program scope to include 

multi-purpose justice centers. The facilities built or expanded with these funds constitute nonfederal physical property. Upon completion, the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of 

Interior, and/or tribal grantees are responsible for supporting, operating, and maintaining the 

correctional facilities. 

The CSCATL strategy broadly addresses tribal justice systems and lends support to tribes that: 

− Are interested in establishing/enhancing (tribal/non-tribal) multi-agency cooperation and 

collaborations; 

− Are committed to conducting community-wide assessment for purpose of developing a 

comprehensive master plan that encompasses the design, use, capacity, and cost of adult and/or 

juvenile justice sanctions and services; 

− Wish to explore an array of detention and correctional building options, including prototypical 

or quasi-prototypical concepts/designs for local correctional facilities, multipurpose justice 

centers, and regional facilities; and 

− Are interested in learning about/applying community-based alternatives to help control and 

prevent jail overcrowding due to growing problems involving alcohol, substance abuse, and 

methamphetamine. 

CSCATL and VOI/TIS funds expended from fiscal years 2008 through September 30, 2012, are as 

follows:

Dollars in Thousands 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

Cooperative Agreement Program 

Administered by USMS $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,140 

Discretionary Grants to Indian 

Tribes 97553 52,339 24,768 14,320 5,094

Formula Grants to States 84 -1,139 11,389 41,561 59,011

Total $97,637 $51,200 $36,157 $55,881 $65,245
Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-85

See Independent Auditors’ Report on Financial Statements

Other Accompanying Information 

Unaudited
U. S. Department of Justice • FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report III-86

U.S. Department of Justice

Other Accompanying Information

Combined Schedule of Spending

For the Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 2012

 

Dollars in Thousands 2012

What Money is Available to Spend?

Total Resources $ 45,287,708

Less: Amount Available but Not Agreed to be Spent 2,948,354

Less: Amount Not Available to be Spent 1,088,078

Total Amounts Available to be Spent $ 41,251,276

How was the Money Spent?

Personnel Compensation and Benefits

1100 Personnel Compensation $ 10,917,316

1200 Personnel Benefits 4,238,615

1300 Former Personnel 14,817

2100 Travel & Transportation of Persons 481,904

2200 Transportation of Things 118,861

Other Program Related Expenses

2300 Rent, Communications, and Utilities 3,145,662

2400 Printing 29,969

2500 Other Services 14,034,299

2600 Supplies and Materials 1,678,624

3100 Equipment/IT Software 1,158,926

3200 Leasehold Improvements 380,390

4100 Grants 3,661,089

4200 Insurance Claims and Indemnities 259,178

4300 Interest and Dividends 367

Total Spending 40,120,017

Amounts Remaining to be Spent 1,131,259

Total Amounts Available to be Spent $ 41,251,276


Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-1

Management Section 

(Unaudited) 

Each year, the Department identifies existing and potential management challenges, weaknesses, and areas in 

need of improvement. Two primary sources used to identify these issues are the Department’s OIG-identified 

Top Management and Performance Challenges and the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) 

assessment process. The challenges identified by the Department’s OIG are from an auditor’s perspective and 

include areas of concern that bear significantly on how well the Department carries out its mission and meets 

its responsibilities as a steward of public funds. The FMFIA assessment process evaluates the effectiveness of 

internal controls to support effective and efficient programmatic operations, reliable financial reporting, and 

compliance with applicable laws and regulations (FMFIA § 2) and whether financial management systems 

conform to financial system requirements (FMFIA § 4). 

Presented on the following pages are the OIG-identified Top Management and Performance Challenges in the 

Department, Department management’s response to those challenges, and the Corrective Action Plan resulting 

from the FMFIA assessment. 

Section IV

Overview
IV-2 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-3

Top Management and Performance 

Challenges in the Department of Justice 

November 7, 2012 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

 THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

FROM: MICHAEL E. HOROWITZ 

 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) 2012 

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. 

The challenges are based on the OIG’s oversight work, research, and judgment. 

While the challenges are not presented in priority order, we continue to believe that 

Safeguarding National Security presents the greatest challenge to the Department. We 

also have highlighted the many challenges the Department faces in enforcing federal law 

in a coordinated and effective fashion, and we again have highlighted the importance of 

Restoring Confidence in the Department, as recent events – most notably the events 

detailed in our August 2012 report on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives’ Operation Fast and Furious and Related Matters – have once more placed 

the Department’s role as a custodian of the public’s trust under intense scrutiny. 

In addition, we have posed many questions that go to the heart of the 

Department’s structure and operations, such as whether the Department is adequately 

addressing the growing costs of the federal prison system, whether aspects of the 

Department’s four law enforcement components could be further consolidated with each 

other, and whether the Department’s operations duplicate similar efforts by other 

federal agencies. These questions are not new, but they take on new importance in this 

era of constrained budgets. Together, these issues pose a clear, if daunting, challenge: 

the Department must have in place an innovative and transparent strategic vision for 

how to fulfill its mission without requiring additional resources. 

We hope this document will assist the Department in addressing its top 

management and performance challenges. We look forward to continuing to work with 

the Department to respond to these important issues. 

Attachment 

OIG 
IV-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-5

1. Safeguarding National Security: Terrorism remains a significant threat world-wide as the 

country moves into the second decade since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In its latest 

“Report on Terrorism,” the National Counterterrorism Center identified more than 10,000 terrorist 

attacks world-wide during calendar year 2011, resulting in nearly 45,000 victims and over 

12,500 deaths in 70 countries. Consequently, safeguarding national security has remained the 

Department of Justice’s (DOJ or Department) highest priority and the focus of intensive resources: 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) alone dedicated approximately 4,200 of its approximately 

13,000 special agents to investigate more than 33,000 national security cases in fiscal year (FY) 2011. 

The Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) oversight has consistently demonstrated that the 

Department faces many challenges in its efforts to help protect the nation from attack. One such 

challenge is ensuring that national security information is appropriately shared among Department 

components and the intelligence community so that responsible officials have the information they 

need to act in a timely and effective manner. The OIG is currently conducting numerous reviews in 

this area. For example, we are examining whether the FBI and National Security Division are 

appropriately handling and coordinating the Department’s responsibilities with regard to terrorist 

financing, a crucial component of the country’s efforts to disrupt terrorist organizations and prevent 

future attacks. 

The OIG is also continuing its oversight of information sharing and coordination among Department 

components with respect to watchlisting terrorists. For example, in audits conducted in 2008 and 

2009, the OIG concluded that the FBI was not adding known or suspected terrorists to the Terrorist 

Watchlist maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center in a timely fashion and that it lacked 

effective procedures to ensure that names on the watchlist were updated or removed as required by 

law. We have initiated another review to determine whether the FBI has made progress toward 

remedying these deficiencies. 

We are also reviewing the operations and functions of the FBI’s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task 

Force, an entity formed to provide information that helps keep foreign terrorists and their supporters 

out of the United States or leads to their removal, detention, prosecution, or other legal action. Our 

review is evaluating whether the FBI has implemented a viable strategy to locate and track suspected 

terrorists and their supporters, including its efforts to coordinate with law enforcement and 

intelligence agencies both inside and outside the Department, and whether the FBI has appropriately 

managed terrorist-related information maintained by the task force. 

In addition to the challenges of information sharing, the Department faces the challenge of ensuring 

the appropriate use of the tools available to its personnel responsible for monitoring and detecting 

national security risks and threats. The importance of this challenge was demonstrated in two prior 

OIG reviews assessing the FBI’s use of national security letters (NSL), which allow the government 

to obtain information such as telephone and financial records from third parties without a court 

order, but which are subject to legal requirements that protect fundamental civil liberties and privacy 

interests. These reviews found that the FBI had misused this authority by failing to comply with 

important legal requirements designed to protect civil liberties and privacy interests, and we 

therefore made recommendations to help remedy these failures. The FBI has implemented many of 

these recommendations and continues to make progress in implementing others. However, some 

recommendations remain outstanding. We are now conducting our third review of NSLs to assess 

the FBI’s progress in responding to those recommendations and to evaluate the FBI’s automated 

system for tracking NSL-related activities and ensuring compliance with applicable laws. The 

review will also evaluate the FBI’s use of two related national security tools: the authority to obtain 

business records pursuant to Section 215 of the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing 

Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act, and the 
IV-6 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

authority to use pen register and trap-and-trace devices under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance 

Act (FISA). 

Similarly, the OIG recently completed a review of the Department’s use of Section 702 of the FISA 

Amendments Act (FAA), which culminated in a classified report released to the Department and 

Congress. Section 702 confers authority to “target persons reasonably believed to be located outside 

the United States to acquire foreign intelligence information.” As required by the FAA, the OIG 

examined the number of disseminated FBI intelligence reports containing 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. The OIG also reviewed the FBI’s compliance with the required targeting and 

minimization procedures. 

2. Enhancing Cyber Security: Computer systems that are integral to the infrastructure, 

economy, and defense of the United States face the constant and rapidly growing threat of cyber 

intrusion and attack, including the threat of cyber terrorism. According to recent statements by the 

Secretary of Defense, the United States is increasingly vulnerable to foreign computer hackers 

seeking to launch cyber-attacks on critical national infrastructure. While the number of cyber 

security incidents directly affecting the Department remains classified, a recent study by the 

Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the number of such incidents reported by 

federal agencies increased by nearly 680 percent from 2006 to 2011. The Department will continue 

to face challenges as it seeks to prevent, deter, and respond to cyber security incidents – both those 

targeting its own networks and those that endanger the many private networks upon which the nation 

depends. 

The Department has identified the investigation of cyber crime and the protection of the nation’s 

network infrastructure as one of its top priorities. The Department’s FY 2013 budget request 

highlights the increased resources sought for the Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative, 

which is intended to combine the missions of various federal agencies to protect government 

computer systems and begin to address the protection of private sector systems, as well as for the 

FBI’s cyber terrorism investigations and the forensic examination of digital evidence. The budget 

request also seeks increased resources for the National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force 

(NCIJTF), an FBI-led multi-agency task force to coordinate the counterintelligence, 

counterterrorism, intelligence, and law enforcement activities of its member organizations in 

response to cyber threats. 

In addition to funding increases, the Department has sought to strengthen cyber security by 

responding to recommendations made in OIG reports relating to cyber security. For example, in 

September 2011, the OIG released an audit report examining the operations of the Justice Security 

Operations Center (JSOC), which was established in 2007 to protect the Department’s information 

technology systems from cyber intrusions, attacks, espionage, and other cyber incidents. The audit 

identified needed improvements to JSOC’s activities, including its cooperation and coordination with 

Department components and with the Department of Homeland Security’s United States Computer 

Emergency Readiness Team. We made 20 recommendations to improve JSOC’s ability to report 

and manage information pertaining to cyber incidents, and to enhance the effectiveness of 

coordination between JSOC and components and offices. The Department has implemented 

corrective action and closed 19 of the 20 recommendations. The Department has also implemented 

and closed all 10 recommendations in the OIG’s 2011 audit report assessing the NCIJTF and the 

capabilities of FBI field offices to investigate national security cyber intrusion cases. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-7

However, the challenges posed by cyber crime multiply as cyber threats grow in number and 

complexity. Of central importance to any cyber security strategy is working effectively with the 

private sector. The Department must not only encourage the private sector to invest in the security 

of its own networks, but it must also conduct aggressive outreach to assure potential victims of cyber 

crime that proprietary network information disclosed to law enforcement will not become public. 

Even a modest increase in the rate at which cyber crimes are reported would afford the Department 

invaluable opportunities to learn the newest tactics used by an unusually dynamic population of 

criminals and other adversaries, and to arrest and prosecute more perpetrators. 

Cyber intrusion and attack also pose risks to the security of the Department’s information, the 

continuity of its operations, and the effectiveness of its law enforcement and national security efforts, 

and the Department consequently faces the challenge of protecting its own systems, including 

systems that protect its sensitive and classified information. Partly in response to the highly 

publicized 2010 incident in which an Army intelligence analyst allegedly provided classified combat 

footage and hundreds of thousands of classified State Department documents to a website devoted to 

publishing secret information, news leaks, and classified media from anonymous sources, the 

President issued an executive order requiring a government-wide program for deterring, detecting, 

and mitigating insider threats. As a result, in March 2012 the Department established an Insider 

Threat Detection and Prevention Working Group. The Department plans to issue a strategy and 

guidance on how components should implement an insider threat program and to provide training on 

insider threats. 

But more can be done. For example, the OIG annually conducts its Federal Information Security 

Management Act audits, which include testing the effectiveness of information security policies, 

procedures, and practices of a representative subset of agency systems. The OIG recently reviewed 

the security programs and a selection of individual systems for six Department components: the 

FBI, Justice Management Division (JMD), Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), U.S. Marshals Service 

(USMS), Criminal Division, and Tax Division. These audits identified deficiencies that included 

inadequate configuration management settings that expose workstations to cyber security threats; 

inadequate identification and authentication controls that increase the risk of inappropriate or 

unauthorized access to information systems; audit and accountability controls that decrease the 

timely identification of operational problems and unauthorized activity; and inadequate contingency 

planning that increases the risk that information systems will not continue to operate during an 

emergency. In addition, the Civil Division has yet to complete corrective actions in response to the 

2009 OIG audit report finding significant vulnerabilities in its laptop computer encryption policies 

and practices. The Department must strive not only to correct these deficiencies, but to avoid them 

in the first instance. 

3. Managing the Federal Prison System: Housing a continually growing and aging 

population of federal inmates and detainees is consuming an ever-larger portion of the Department’s 

budget, making safe and secure incarceration increasingly difficult to provide, and threatening to 

force significant budgetary and programmatic cuts to other DOJ components in the near future. In 

FY 2006, there were 192,584 inmates in BOP custody. As of October 2012, the BOP reported 

218,936 inmates in its custody, an increase of nearly 14 percent. Not surprisingly, these trends 

mirror the increased number of federal defendants sentenced each year, which rose from 

approximately 60,000 in FY 2001 to more than 86,000 in FY 2011, according to the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission. 

The Department’s own budget reports demonstrate the fundamental financial challenges facing the 

Department. Fifteen years ago, the BOP’s enacted budget was $3.1 billion, which represented 

approximately 16 percent of the Department’s budget. In comparison, the Department has requested 
IV-8 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

$6.8 billion for the BOP in FY 2013, or 26 percent of the Department’s total FY 2013 budget 

request. Moreover, the President’s FY 2013 budget projects the budget authority for federal 

correctional activities to rise to $7.4 billion by 2017. 

The Department has been aware for years of the problems that it is facing due to the rapidly 

expanding prison population. The Department first identified prison overcrowding as a 

programmatic material weakness in its FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, and it has 

been similarly identified in every such report since. In fact, prison overcrowding was the 

Department’s only identified material weakness in this last year. To reduce overcrowding in existing 

federal prisons as the inmate population continues to grow, the BOP has contracted with private 

sector and state and local facilities to house certain groups of low-security inmates, and it recently 

purchased an existing state facility. The Department also has expanded existing federal facilities, 

and the GAO recently reported that from FY 2006 through FY 2011 the BOP increased its rated 

capacity by approximately 8,300 beds as a result of opening 5 new facilities. 

Yet despite this increase in bed space since FY 2006, and despite the growth in BOP budget 

authority from approximately 22 percent of the DOJ budget in FY 2006 to the requested 26 percent 

in FY 2013, conditions in the federal prison system continued to decline. Since FY 2000, the BOP’s 

inmate-to-staff ratio has increased from about four-to-one to a projected five-to-one in FY 2013. 

Since FY 2006, federal prisons have moved from 36 percent over rated capacity to 39 percent over 

rated capacity in FY 2011, with medium security facilities currently operating at 47 percent over 

rated capacity and high security facilities operating at 52 percent over rated capacity. Moreover, the 

Department’s own outlook for the federal prison system is bleak: the BOP projects system-wide 

crowding to exceed 44 percent over rated capacity through 2018. In an era where the Department’s 

overall budget is likely to remain flat or decline, it is readily apparent from these figures that the 

Department simply cannot solve this challenge by spending more money to operate more federal 

prisons unless it is prepared to make drastic cuts to other important areas of the Department’s 

operations. 

One approach the Department recently has embraced to reduce prison system costs is to focus on 

reducing recidivism. According to Department figures, of the more than 45,000 federal offenders 

who leave prison every year and return to American communities, approximately 40 percent are 

rearrested or have their supervised release revoked within 3 years. The Deputy Attorney General has 

spoken about various alternatives to incarceration – including the Pretrial Alternatives to Detention 

Initiative in the Central District of Illinois, the Conviction and Sentence Alternative program in the 

Central District of California, and the BRIDGE program in the District of South Carolina. 

The Department also is pursuing legislative proposals targeting the problem of recidivism. Recent 

proposals include the Federal Prisoner Recidivism Reduction Programming Enhancement Act, 

which would allow prisoners who successfully participate in programs that have been demonstrated 

to reduce recidivism to earn up to 60 days per year of credit toward the completion of their 

sentences, and the Federal Prisoner Good Conduct Time Act, which would increase the amount of 

time a federal prisoner could earn for good behavior to reduce his or her sentence. 

The Department’s efforts to develop new alternatives to incarceration also may help reduce 

overcrowding and costs. For example, it supported changes to the federal sentencing guidelines to 

permit drug or mental health treatment for certain low-level offenders to serve as an alternative to 

incarceration. It also revised the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual regarding available alternatives to 

incarceration, such as pretrial diversion programs that offer addicted defendants treatment and 

monitoring instead of prosecution. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-9

Additionally, the Department can make better use of existing programs to realize cost savings and 

reduce overcrowding. For example, in December 2011, the OIG reviewed the Department’s 

International Prisoner Treaty Transfer Program, which permits certain foreign national inmates from 

treaty nations to transfer to their home countries to serve the remainder of their sentences. 

According to the U.S. Sentencing Commission, 48 percent of defendants sentenced in FY 2011 were 

non-U.S. citizens, up from 37 percent in FY 2006, and the BOP reported that, as of August 2012, up 

to approximately 27 percent of federal inmates were foreign nationals. Yet the OIG review found 

the BOP and the Criminal Division’s International Prisoner Transfer Unit had rejected 97 percent of 

foreign national inmates’ requests to transfer from FY 2005 through FY 2010, and in FY 2010, 

slightly less than 1 percent of the 40,651 foreign national inmates in the BOP’s custody were 

transferred to their home countries to complete their sentences. While some factors that reduce the 

number of transfers are beyond the Department’s control, the OIG found the Department could take 

steps to increase the number of inmates transferred and the timeliness of the process that would 

result in potentially significant savings. The Department is now implementing the OIG’s 

14 recommendations to manage the program more effectively. Similarly, the OIG is reviewing the 

BOP’s implementation of its Compassionate Release Program, which allows the Department to 

release prisoners under extraordinary and compelling conditions, such as terminal illness. 

Importantly, the challenges facing the BOP and the Department are not limited to overcrowding and 

rapidly increasing costs. For example, the Department bears the heavy responsibility of preventing 

the sexual abuse of inmates in BOP facilities and detainees in the custody of the USMS. The OIG 

raised concerns about this issue in a 2009 report on the Department’s efforts to detect and deter staff 

sexual abuse of inmates in federal prisons, and the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003 (PREA) 

required the Department to issue by June 2010 national standards to enhance the detection, 

prevention, reduction, and punishment of prison rape. The Department issued its final rule in 

May 2012, and the new rule is responsive to the concerns we previously raised. However, the BOP’s 

and USMS’s implementation of the rule may prove challenging. Among other requirements, the 

new standards obligate agencies to include compliance with PREA standards as a requirement in any 

new contract or contract renewal with outside entities, thus imposing new monitoring obligations on 

the BOP and USMS with respect to private contract facilities. 

The Department also faces challenges in managing its prisoner work program, Federal Prison 

Industries, Inc. (FPI), a wholly owned federal government corporation created by Congress that 

operates under the trade name UNICOR. As of September 2012, the FPI had closed 36 of 

104 factories while opening only 13 new factories in the previous 5 years, resulting in an overall 

decrease in both the number of facilities and the number of inmates working in FPI facilities. The 

FPI is currently employing only about 8 percent of work-eligible inmates, well below its goal of 

25 percent. The OIG is reviewing the FPI’s business management practices to determine what 

factors have led to the significant reduction of inmate work and the FPI’s plans to maintain and 

create work opportunities for inmates. Also under review are the FPI’s management of its business 

operations, including development and significant changes to product offerings, and how the FPI is 

using new legislative authority that would allow it to grow its business and employ more inmates. 

4. Leading the Department in an Era of Budget Constraints: The Department’s mission 

has remained substantially unchanged since 2001, yet the budgetary environment in which the 

Department operates has changed dramatically. From FY 2001 through FY 2011, the Department’s 

discretionary budget grew by more than 41 percent in real dollars, from $20.4 billion to 

$28.9 billion. Yet the Department’s discretionary budget decreased by more than 7 percent in 

FY 2012 to $26.8 billion, and its FY 2013 discretionary budget request of $26.7 billion represents a 

further decrease from historical levels. With the President’s budget for FY 2013 forecasting 

additional cuts to the overall Executive Branch discretionary budgets in coming years, it appears 
IV-10 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

likely that Department leadership faces the significant challenge of fulfilling the Department’s 

mission without the assurance of increased resources. 

The Department has taken initial steps to reduce its budget. For example, the Attorney General 

issued a memorandum ordering a Department-wide temporary hiring freeze and instructed 

components to limit travel, training, and conference spending. In February 2011, the Deputy 

Attorney General provided guidance for operational and programmatic efficiencies. The Department 

has implemented cost-saving initiatives relating to information technology expenditures, travel 

expenses, and time-and-attendance tracking. The Attorney General also created his Advisory 

Council for Savings and Efficiencies (SAVE Council) in 2010, which has taken such steps as 

eliminating the Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) Mobile Enforcement Teams, posting 

administrative notices on the forfeiture.gov website, consolidating Department offices, and merging 

JMD’s strategic planning and management functions. 

With respect to the Department’s budget request for FY 2013, the Department has proposed almost 

$700 million in efficiencies, offsets, and rescissions, representing approximately 2.6 percent of the 

Department’s total budget. Approximately $647 million of these cuts resulted from administrative 

efficiencies, non-grant program reductions, and rescissions of prior year balances. However, the 

Department also has proposed approximately $228 million in FY 2013 program increases, including: 

$55 million for investigating and prosecuting financial and mortgage fraud; $32 million for 

traditional missions (civil rights, cyber security, intellectual property, transnational organized crime, 

and immigration services); and $141 million to ensure prisoners and detainees are confined in secure 

facilities and to improve federal prisoner reentry. 

As part of the effort to find operational efficiencies, the Department should redouble its efforts to 

adopt and implement OIG recommendations designed to reduce costs. We understand that 

corrective actions take time to implement, but as of September 2012, 819 OIG recommendations to 

the Department remained open, including many recommendations that could lead to substantial cost 

savings. Our FY 2012 audits and related single audits also identified $25 million in questioned costs 

that the Department should make every effort to resolve and, if necessary, recover. Additionally, 

various GAO reports have identified functions that the Department may wish to consolidate, such as 

the recent report recommending that the Department consider combining its Asset Forfeiture 

Program with that of the Treasury Department. 

The Department must also focus on enhancing long term planning for large information technology 

projects. For example, in January 2012, the OIG released a follow-up audit report examining the 

status of the Integrated Wireless Network program intended to address the Department’s aging law 

enforcement communications systems, meet federal law enforcement requirements to communicate 

across agencies, allow interoperability with state and local law enforcement partners, and meet 

mandates to use federal radio frequency spectrum more efficiently. Our previous audit had 

concluded that the program was at high risk of failing to secure an integrated wireless network for 

use by the Department, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Treasury Department. We 

found that by 2012, after spending more than $356 million over 10 years, the program had yet to 

achieve the results intended when the Department began developing it in 1998 due to inconsistent 

funding from Congress, the departure from the program of a major federal agency partner, and 

unforeseen changes in the technological environment. Similarly, our September 2012 audit report 

examining the FBI Laboratory’s forensic DNA case backlog found that after spending $14 million 

since 2003 on two attempts to develop an information management system, the FBI Laboratory did 

not have a system capable of electronically managing laboratory operations, and a new system was 

in the preliminary stages of development. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-11

The Department should also continue to strengthen its efforts to collect criminal penalties, civil 

judgments, and other funds owed to the Department, while also ensuring that enforcement efforts 

across its components and sub-components remain equally and appropriately vigorous. In FY 2011, 

the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices collected $6.5 billion in criminal and civil actions – $2.7 billion in 

restitution, criminal fines, and felony assessments, and $3.8 billion in individually and jointly 

handled civil actions – as well as an additional $1.68 billion collected through asset forfeiture actions 

in partnership with other divisions and agencies. However, at the end of FY 2011, the 

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices reported an ending principle balance of nearly $75 billion relating to 

criminal and civil actions that remained uncollected. In addition, collection efforts may vary 

substantially among the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. For example, according to the United States 

Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report, a single office accounted for more than 68 percent of the 

approximately $1.5 billion recovered through civil asset forfeitures during FY 2011. Based on our 

review of Annual Statistical Reports for other fiscal years, this substantial variance does not appear 

to be anomalous. 

Leading the Department in this climate of budget constraints will require careful budget management 

and significant improvements to existing operations. Discrete operating efficiencies are unlikely to 

fully address the significant challenges of moving the Department from an era of expanding budgets 

into an era of budget constraints without sacrificing its mission. It is therefore incumbent upon the 

Department to plot a new course for the current budgetary environment, one that streamlines the 

Department’s operations while simultaneously taking on the most important and fundamental 

questions about how the Department is structured and run. 

5. Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties: Protecting civil rights and liberties requires 

that the Department ensure that it is respecting civil liberties and properly enforcing civil rights laws. 

The Attorney General has stated that “[s]afeguarding the civil rights of every American is at the 

heart of what we do, and represents our core mission.” Yet this core mission remains a challenge in 

many respects. 

Emerging technology – and shifting rules relating to its use – poses one of the most difficult 

challenges to the Department’s efforts to protect civil rights and liberties, particularly when effective 

law enforcement techniques have the potential to encroach on civil rights and liberties. For example, 

in January 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Jones, in which it 

found that installing a global positioning system (GPS) tracking device on a surveillance target’s 

vehicle constitutes a search under the Fourth Amendment. Overnight, the Court’s ruling required 

prosecuting attorneys to exercise greater oversight of the use of GPS devices and necessitated 

updated guidance and training with respect to the use of such technology. Subsequently, in 

August 2012, a federal appeals court held in United States v. Skinner that users of cellular telephones 

do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the data emanating from a cell phone that show its 

location. Whether other federal appellate courts will reach the same conclusion cannot be known, 

thus adding further complexity and uncertainty to the rules governing law enforcement’s use of 

emerging surveillance technologies. The Department will continue to face similar challenges as 

technologies evolve, and it must be prepared to adapt quickly to a fast-changing landscape of legal 

rules. 

Another emerging technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, or drones, has already joined the arsenal of 

some U.S. law enforcement agencies, and the Federal Aviation Administration predicts that 

30,000 drones will be used in the United States within 20 years. Advances in drone technology 

represent an obvious opportunity for law enforcement, as drones can be equipped with facial or 

biometric recognition technology to identify and track individuals, and can even be recharged while 

in flight using a laser on the ground. The Department provides grant funds to state and local 
IV-12 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

governments to purchase equipment and technology that could be, and has been, used for 

surveillance drones. Yet drones also raise significant privacy concerns, and there are several 

legislative proposals to improve the privacy safeguards attached to their use. As the use of drones 

increases, the Department will face the challenge of monitoring the use of its grant money to ensure 

that drone technology purchased with federal funds is used in a manner consistent with applicable 

privacy and civil rights protections. 

Abolishing unlawful discrimination is one of the most important facets of the Department’s civil 

rights and liberties mission. To that end, the Department’s Civil Rights Division works to uphold the 

civil and constitutional rights of all Americans by enforcing federal statutes prohibiting improper 

discrimination with regard to criminal enforcement, disability rights, educational opportunities, 

employment, and housing. To ensure that this important work is conducted in an evenhanded 

manner, the OIG is conducting a review of the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section. Our review is 

examining the types of cases brought by the Voting Section and any changes in the types of cases 

over time; any changes in Voting Section enforcement policies or procedures over time; whether the 

Voting Section has enforced the civil rights laws in a non-discriminatory manner; and whether any 

Voting Section employees have been harassed for participating in the investigation or prosecution of 

particular matters. We are also investigating allegations that Voting Section managers improperly 

took political affiliations into account in hiring lateral attorneys and gave preferential treatment to 

political allies in responding to FOIA requests. 

Finally, the OIG’s recent investigation into the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and 

Explosives’ (ATF) Operation Fast and Furious raised concerns about the approval process involving 

one of the Department’s most intrusive investigatory tools, the wiretap. During our review, we 

determined that at least three of the five Deputy Assistant Attorneys General who reviewed the 

wiretap applications regularly relied on summary memoranda provided by subordinates when 

approving such applications rather than undertaking a personal review of the applications 

themselves. Given the significant intrusion on individual liberties that occurs following the approval 

of a wiretap application, as well as the substantial limitations that Congress placed on the approval of 

a wiretap, we concluded that the Department needed to strengthen its approval process and made a 

recommendation for it to do so. 

6. Restoring Confidence: The Department must address several substantial challenges to 

ensure that it strengthens and maintains the public’s trust in its fairness, integrity, and efficiency. 

Inadequate management and oversight of law enforcement activities undermine confidence in 

Department operations. Over the past year, significant public attention has focused on ATF 

investigations that permitted “gun walking.” The OIG’s review of ATF’s Operations Wide Receiver 

and Fast and Furious revealed that ATF and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona 

did not manage these investigations responsibly and that hundreds of firearms that ATF agents could 

and should have interdicted ended up at multiple crime scenes in the United States and Mexico, 

including the scene of a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent’s murder. 

The OIG determined that the investigations were plagued by several systemic problems, including 

inadequate attention to public safety, a lack of sufficient supervisory controls and oversight from 

ATF Headquarters, inappropriate use of cooperating federal firearms licensees as informants, and a 

failure to coordinate with other law enforcement agencies. In addition, the OIG found that the 

Department responded to a congressional inquiry about ATF firearms trafficking investigations with 

inaccurate information. Such incidents seriously tarnish the Department’s reputation and greatly 

enhance the need to focus on restoring the public’s confidence in the Department as an organization 

capable of protecting public safety. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-13

The Department also faces challenges with respect to ensuring the fairness of its prosecutions, an 

issue that was the focus of recent Senate and House Judiciary Committee hearings on discovery 

concerns arising out of the failed prosecution of former Senator Ted Stevens. To achieve this goal, 

the Department must be able to conduct fair, objective, and accountable reviews of the conduct of its 

lawyers and other professionals, and to mete out appropriate discipline when it finds misconduct. 

In our management challenges reports in prior years, the OIG has outlined concerns about the 

Department’s disciplinary efforts. For example, the Department’s Office of Professional 

Responsibility (OPR), by statute, has jurisdiction to investigate allegations of misconduct against 

Department attorneys acting in their capacity as lawyers. The OIG has long questioned this role for 

OPR because OPR is managed as a component of the Department, has no institutional independence, 

and lacks transparency insofar as it does not regularly release its reports and conclusions to the 

public. It is therefore unduly difficult – if not impossible – for the public to assess the consistency of 

OPR’s findings and conclusions. The credibility of the Department’s disciplinary decisions is 

inevitably reduced when the responsible components operate under the direction of the Department’s 

senior leadership and without appropriate transparency. 

Additionally, the OIG is examining the effectiveness of the discipline system used by 

U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys when investigating allegations 

of employee misconduct. This review is the sixth OIG review since 2001 to assess a component’s 

disciplinary system. Previous OIG evaluations examined the disciplinary systems of the USMS, 

BOP, DEA, ATF, and FBI and made many recommendations to these components, including a stillopen recommendation from 2004 that the BOP develop procedures to ensure that discipline is 

imposed consistently throughout the agency. But the Department faces a broader challenge than 

simply ensuring that individual components maintain internally consistent and effective disciplinary 

system: it must also ensure that disciplinary procedures remain consistent across components so that 

all of the Department’s employees, attorneys and non-attorneys alike, are held to the same tough but 

fair standards. 

The Department also faces challenges with respect to ensuring the integrity of its hiring processes. 

In July 2012, the OIG issued a report finding that eight current or former JMD officials – many 

holding senior positions – violated applicable statutes and regulations in seeking the appointment of 

their relatives to positions within JMD. The OIG also found that a Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General in JMD responded inadequately to warning signs she received concerning the hiring of 

relatives of JMD employees. The 2012 OIG report marks the third OIG investigation in the last 

8 years involving improper hiring practices within JMD, suggesting that prior management efforts to 

correct hiring practices in JMD have been inadequate. Adherence to fundamental federal hiring laws 

and regulations must be enforced to restore confidence in the fairness of the Department’s hiring 

processes and the integrity of its operations. 

The Department must also restore the public’s confidence that the FBI Laboratory is using forensic 

techniques in accordance with strict protocols to ensure unbiased, objective, and reliable results. 

Between 1996 and 2004, a Department task force reviewed thousands of past prosecutions 

potentially affected by 13 FBI Laboratory employees whom the OIG criticized in an April 1997 

report concerning the FBI Laboratory. The task force identified and referred many cases for 

independent scientific review. This review involved an examination of available lab reports, bench 

notes, and trial testimony; it did not include a re-examination of the original evidence. The task 

force then provided the results of these reviews to prosecutors who, in turn, were responsible for 

determining whether to disclose the material to the defendants pursuant to laws requiring the 

disclosure of exculpatory evidence. However, the task force never published a complete accounting 
IV-14 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

of the results of its review or the prosecutors’ disclosures. At Congress’s request, the OIG recently 

initiated a review of the task force’s activities, processes, and decisions. Since the initiation of the 

OIG’s current review of this matter, the FBI, in cooperation with the Department and the Innocence 

Project, announced that it will conduct a separate and new review of all case files involving FBI 

Laboratory hair and fiber examiners. 

The Department’s handling and use of informants also has affected the public’s confidence in the 

Department. Among the most notable incidents was the FBI’s failure to properly supervise Special 

Agent John Connolly, Jr.’s dealings with organized crime figures James “Whitey” Bulger and 

Stephen Flemmi. More recently, a former FBI agent, Adrian Busby, was convicted of making false 

statements when he lied to his supervisors and the OIG about his relationship with a female 

informant. The OIG’s investigation determined that, after the informant came under investigation, 

Busby provided the informant and her defense attorney with copies of confidential FBI and Internal 

Revenue Service reports of interviews and also engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with 

the informant. Busby was sentenced to 1 year and 1 day for his crimes. Separately, the OIG found 

that ATF agents in both Operation Wide Receiver and Operation Fast and Furious used the 

substantial cooperation of federal firearms licensees to advance their investigations, creating at least 

the appearance that ATF agents approved or encouraged sales of firearms they knew were unlawful 

and did not intend to seize. In light of these missteps, the Department must focus its attention on 

ensuring the appropriate handling and use of informants. 

The Department also must ensure the transparency of its operations. An important aspect of this 

effort is to avoid over-classifying its national security information, which can inhibit information 

sharing, increase the cost of information security, and unnecessarily limit the public’s access to 

information. As required by the Reducing Over-Classification Act, the OIG is conducting a review 

to assess whether applicable classification policies, procedures, rules, and regulations have been 

adopted, followed, and effectively administered, and to identify whether any of these rules and 

practices may contribute to misclassification of Department information. 

The Department also has received criticism for its responses to requests for information pursuant to 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The Department has made progress in this regard, most 

notably by issuing a memorandum from the Attorney General in 2009 encouraging federal agencies 

to make discretionary disclosures of information and by launching www.FOIA.gov in 2011 to make 

data from agencies’ annual FOIA reports more accessible and useful. Nevertheless, with roughly 

60,000 FOIA requests handled in a decentralized fashion by 34 separate FOIA offices and the 

equivalent of 528 full-time FOIA employees, the Department faces a continuing challenge in 

ensuring that its own FOIA responses are consistent with each other and with the presumption of 

disclosure articulated the Attorney General’s memorandum. In addition, as part of its review of the 

Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division, the OIG is investigating allegations that Department 

personnel gave preferential treatment to political allies in responding to FOIA requests. 

Finally, the Department must encourage its employees to come forward and report information about 

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the Department’s operations and functions. Further, the 

Department must be committed to protecting the legal rights of those employees who do come 

forward. Whistleblowers play a crucial role in uncovering waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement, 

yet they are too often subject to retaliation for their disclosures. The OIG has conducted numerous 

investigations into allegations of retaliation, and we recently appointed an OIG Whistleblower 

Ombudsperson responsible for, among other things, ensuring that complaints of retaliation within the 

OIG’s jurisdiction are reviewed and addressed in a prompt and thorough manner, and for 

communicating with whistleblowers about the status and resolution of such complaints. The OIG 

will continue to monitor this important issue. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-15

7. Coordinating Among Law Enforcement Agencies: Law enforcement represents a central 

element of the Department’s mission, yet the ability and willingness of Department components to 

coordinate and share intelligence, resources, and personnel with one another and other law 

enforcement agencies has historically posed a significant challenge. 

One cause of this challenge is the confusion created when components have overlapping 

jurisdictions. The Department has four primary law enforcement agencies – the FBI, DEA, ATF, 

and USMS – yet these components’ jurisdictions are not exclusive. For example, whereas the FBI 

may investigate all federal crimes and instances of terrorism, other agencies possess simultaneous 

jurisdiction to enforce specific criminal laws that necessarily overlap, such as the DEA’s 

investigations of federal drug cases or ATF’s investigations of federal firearms cases. The OIG 

highlighted this issue in its October 2009 report detailing coordination problems between ATF and 

the FBI in explosives investigations and made 15 recommendations to assist in improving 

coordination and reducing conflict between the FBI and ATF on explosives investigations and 

associated support activities. Five of these recommendations remain open, including our 

recommendation that the FBI and ATF develop certain protocols on joint investigations for 

explosives incidents. More recently, an April 2011 GAO report, entitled Law Enforcement 

Coordination: DOJ Could Improve Its Process for Identifying Disagreements Among Agents, 

described similar coordination problems that exist outside of the realm of explosives investigations. 

Some overlap between these four components is unavoidable and may even help ensure proper law 

enforcement focus and attention. However, the Department should clarify the jurisdictional 

boundaries of each wherever possible. It may also benefit from considering whether consolidation of 

any operational functions or administrative functions, such as information technology, human 

resources, budgeting, and records management, could yield operational benefits, improve law 

enforcement safety, or save costs. Similarly, the Department should consider ways to increase the 

sharing of lessons learned and best practices among law enforcement components. 

In the same vein, the Department should consider whether its law enforcement components have the 

proper level of consistency in their standard procedures, protocols, and manuals; where there are 

differences, the Department should consider whether they are justified. While the Department’s law 

enforcement components generally adhere to Attorney’s General Guidelines and policies for law 

enforcement activities, specific protocols and procedures for particular investigative techniques often 

vary from component to component. In particular, our review of new policies ATF implemented 

after Operation Fast and Furious underscored the agency’s delay in completing its integration into 

the Department and in implementing controls to protect the public that were used in other 

Department law enforcement components. For example, we found that ATF had not until recently 

used review committees to evaluate either its undercover operations or its use of high-level and 

long-term confidential informants. We also expressed concern that ATF and the Department had not 

devoted sufficient attention to ensuring that ATF’s policies scrupulously adhered to requirements 

found in the Attorney General’s Guidelines and other Department policies, including ATF’s 

confidential informant policies, which were not revised to conform to the Attorney General’s 

Guidelines Regarding the Use of Confidential Informants until 8 years after ATF joined the 

Department. We therefore believe that Department-led, cross-component assessments designed to 

compare the law enforcement components’ policies could identify opportunities for improvements 

that would make the Department’s law enforcement operations more consistent and efficient. 

Finally, opportunities may exist for the Department to better coordinate the collection and sharing of 

information used in law enforcement investigations. The OIG is reviewing one such effort already 

under way, the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Fusion Center, an 
IV-16 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

intelligence and data center for drug and drug-related financial intelligence information from 

numerous member agencies and other sources, including the Treasury Department’s Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN). Our review is assessing the timeliness and value of the 

fusion center’s analytical products and information sharing procedures. 

8. Enforcing Against Fraud and Financial Offenses: The Department has long played an 

important role in preventing and reducing fraud and financial crimes, but rarely in the Department’s 

history has this role received as much attention – or as many resources – as in the past few years. 

From FY 2009 to FY 2011, with the country struggling to recover from the collapse of its housing 

market, the FBI received approximately $196 million from Congress to fund 156 new agents and 

256 new non-agent positions devoted to combating mortgage fraud. During this same time period, 

the U.S. Attorneys received an additional $19.9 million in financial fraud funding, enough to fund 

95 new attorney positions and 26 new non-attorney positions; the Criminal Division received 

$1.8 million in financial fraud funding for 5 new attorney positions and 2 new non-attorney 

positions; and the Civil Division received $10 million in financial rescue funding for 87 new attorney 

positions and 31 new non-attorney positions. The Department also requested an additional 

$55 million for FY 2013 to fund 328 new positions, including 40 FBI agents, 184 attorneys, 

49 in-house investigators, 31 forensic accountants, and other administrative support, all to support 

the Department’s efforts to investigate and prosecute financial fraud. 

Resources alone, however, are not sufficient to address the problem of fraud and financial crime; the 

Department must also make the most of the tools and resources it has at its disposal. Prosecution and 

civil litigation are among the most important of those tools. For example, in September 2012, the 

Department announced that its total recoveries in False Claims Act cases since January 2009 

exceeded $13 billion, of which $9.3 billion was recovered in cases involving fraud against federal 

health care programs. Many of those cases were the result of disclosures by whistleblowers, starkly 

demonstrating the importance of encouraging government employees to come forward with 

information about waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. The Department should continue to 

strive to maximize such recoveries. 

The Department has particularly targeted the problem of mortgage fraud. The Department reported 

in June 2012 a 92-percent increase in mortgage fraud prosecutions across the nation since FY 2009, 

and in February 2012, the Attorney General announced a $25 billion settlement with the nation’s five 

largest mortgage servicers to address misconduct by the banks in bankruptcy cases involving inflated 

or inaccurate claims, improper accounting of mortgage payments, adding improper fees and charges 

to mortgage accounts, charging hidden fees to mortgage accounts, and other similar activities. The 

OIG is conducting an audit of the Department’s strategy and approach to address mortgage fraud. 

Another tool in the fight against fraud and financial crime is the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task 

Force (FFETF), an interagency working group established by the President in November 2009 and 

led by the Attorney General. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, and 

state and local partners, the FFETF provides an unusual opportunity for a coordinated approach to 

the complex problem of fraud and financial crime. At the same time, an interagency effort of this 

scope also presents the significant challenge of coordinating these agencies’ enforcement efforts, and 

the FFETF therefore requires strong leadership from the Department. Yet the FFETF is currently 

operating without an overall strategic plan that outlines its goals for preventing fraud and identifies 

how the effectiveness of the task force’s efforts is to be measured. Nor has the FFETF published an 

annual report since 2010, its first year. We believe the FFETF has the opportunity to be more 

effective by uniting its members behind clear goals and by improving the accountability and 

transparency of its operations. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-17

The Department has also prioritized the investigation of Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities 

(RMBS) fraud. The President, in his January 2012 State of the Union address, announced the 

creation of what became known as the Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities Working Group. 

The working group is intended to be a collaborative effort to investigate RMBS misconduct by 

looking for evidence of false or misleading statements, deception, or other misconduct by market 

participants in the creation, packaging, and sale of mortgage-backed securities. However, current 

budget uncertainties and the possibility of future budget constraints could cause future managerial 

challenges for the Department in fighting this area of financial fraud. 

In addition, the Department must fight financial fraud both before and after it occurs. For example, 

the Department can use the suspension and debarment of individuals or entities to protect the 

government’s financial interest from unethical, dishonest, or otherwise irresponsible entities and to 

reduce fraud, waste, and abuse in federal programs. Suspension and debarment decisions are made 

either administratively through agency suspending and debarring officials or statutorily as a result of 

convictions for qualifying offenses. In June 2012, the OIG completed an audit of the Department’s 

implementation and oversight of statutory debarment activities from FY 2005 through FY 2010. 

Overall, the OIG found that the Department had not established an adequate system to ensure that it 

fulfills its responsibilities related to statutory debarment, creating the possibility that federal funding 

could be inadvertently and inappropriately awarded to excluded individuals. The OIG made 

21 recommendations to the Department and its components to improve the effectiveness of statutory 

debarment programs, including recommending the development of additional policies and 

procedures to improve the completeness and accuracy of the reporting of debarment actions. 

The Department also uses its Asset Forfeiture Program to confiscate both the means to commit and 

the proceeds of criminal activity. For FY 2011, the Department reported to Congress that it disposed 

of forfeited property valued at over $1.6 billion using methods such as liquidation and retention for 

official use. However, the Department may benefit from seeking greater interagency efficiency in its 

asset forfeiture efforts, as a recent GAO report concluded that there may be overlap between the 

asset management activities and the information technology infrastructures of the Department’s 

Asset Forfeiture Program and the Treasury Department’s similar Asset Forfeiture Fund. The 

Department may wish to consider studying the feasibility of consolidating or better coordinating the 

administrative structure of its asset forfeiture program with that of the Treasury Department. 

9. Administering Grants and Contracts: The Department’s management of grants and 

contracts has long presented a challenge by virtue of the large amounts of money at stake. From 

FY 2008 through FY 2011 the Department awarded approximately $15 billion in grants and 

$27 billion in contracts, and it awarded another approximately $1 billion in grants and $6 billion in 

contracts in FY 2012. Appropriate administration of public funds must always be a priority, but in 

this climate of constrained budgets, the use of billions of taxpayer dollars requires particular 

attention from Department management. 

Grants 

The OIG has previously noted the Department’s demonstrated commitment to, and significant 

improvements in, the area of grant management. While we acknowledge the Department’s 

continued efforts in this regard, we also believe that both challenges and opportunities for 

improvement remain. 

The Department maintains three grantmaking components: the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), 

Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). 
IV-18 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This division of responsibility creates the challenge of ensuring that there is proper coordination of, 

and clear strategic vision for, its overall grantmaking efforts, and that those overall efforts are 

consistent with the priorities of the Department’s non-grantmaking components. Prior OIG reports 

have found that improvements could be realized, particularly with regard to reducing duplication. 

For example, while OVW has in the past required its grant recipients to use the OJP financial guide, 

OVW has recently released its own financial guide. OVW grantees who also receive OJP grants 

therefore must often follow two different sets of rules, thereby increasing the risk of waste and 

noncompliance. A recent GAO report raised similar concerns, noting that COPS uses a different 

grant management system than OVW and OJP, thereby limiting the Department’s ability to share 

information on the funding its components have awarded or are preparing to award. The Department 

should seek to consolidate the common functions of these three grantmaking components to increase 

coordination and save costs while maintaining key separate practices for meeting individual statutory 

requirements and fulfilling the missions of each office. 

In addition to increased coordination, the Department should ensure that grants are achieving the 

intended results. The Department presented several outcome-oriented performance measures in its 

FY 2011 Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) that related to grants, yet many of those 

measures did not adequately measure the total return on investment a grant award has achieved. For 

example, the PAR included a measure of the percent reduction in DNA backlog, but it did not report 

the amount of resources used to achieve that reduction – a crucial element in any assessment of the 

success of DNA backlog-related grantmaking. Using performance measures that provide adequate 

information to evaluate not only the benefits achieved through the grantmaking process but also the 

investment required will help the Department improve the efficiency of its grantmaking and allow it 

to use its limited resources where they will be most useful. 

Once grant funds are disbursed, the Department relies on thousands of governmental and nongovernmental grant recipients to appropriately manage the billions of dollars of awards. It is 

imperative that the Department diligently oversee those recipients and provide them with tools to 

help ensure that grant terms and conditions are followed. Several such efforts are under way at the 

Department. For example, in September 2011, representatives from the Civil Division, the Antitrust 

Division, and the OIG, in cooperation with the Department’s National Advocacy Center, produced a 

grant fraud training video for federal prosecutors and other government attorneys. In March 2012 

the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force’s Recovery Act, Procurement, and Grant Fraud 

Working Group, which includes the OIG, released a training framework for reducing grant fraud 

risk. The Department also developed and implemented a Grant Financial Management Online 

Training program complete with test questions to help support grant recipient compliance with rules 

and regulation. Yet not all of these training programs are required for all Department grant 

recipients, and as demonstrated by the $22 million in questioned costs reported in FY 2012 OIG 

grant and contract audits as well as related single audits, grant management and the oversight of 

grantee expenditures continue to be significant challenges for the Department. 

Contracts 

The Department spends more on contracts for goods and services each year than on grants. Some of 

the largest of these contracts are related to the planning, implementation, and management of 

complex information technology systems. For example, the Department awarded a contract of up to 

$512 million over 7 years to provide managed information technology services and secure 

technology solutions to ATF and the USMS. The Department’s FY 2012 projections also included 

spending $220 million for the FBI’s Next Generation Identification project to share fingerprint and 

other biometric information, $87 million for JMD’s Law Enforcement Wireless Communications 

program, and $84 million for a Department-wide Unified Financial Management System, all under 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-19

Department-awarded contracts. In total, the Department awarded nearly $3 billion in contract funds 

on information technology in FY 2012. 

The OIG’s audits and reviews of Department programs have found instances of wasteful and poorly 

managed expenditures on information technology. For example, and as described above, the OIG’s 

September 2012 audit of the FBI Laboratory’s forensic DNA case backlog determined that two 

attempts and a combined $14 million since 2003 had failed to yield a system capable of 

electronically managing laboratory operations, and a new system is now in development. 

Additionally, the OIG’s September 2012 interim report on the FBI’s implementation of Sentinel, an 

investigative and case management system, found that the FBI deployed the system after taking over 

management of the project from a contractor. However, we found that the system was deployed 

behind schedule and did not provide all of the originally planned capabilities. We also found that 

although the FBI’s $441 million cost estimate is $10 million less than the latest Sentinel budget, the 

estimate did not include originally planned operations and maintenance costs for the next 2 years, 

which the FBI estimated to be $30 million annually. Moreover, the FBI did not adjust its cost 

baseline when it transferred requirements to other FBI information systems. The Department must 

ensure that there is adequate management and oversight of information technology contracts to 

minimize cost overruns and provide planned system functionality. 

Finally, the Department must ensure that it uses all the tools at its disposal to avoid awarding 

contracts to recipients who are likely to waste, embezzle, or mismanage the funds. For example, the 

Department should use suspension and debarment, described in detail above, to the fullest extent 

possible to protect the government’s financial interest from unethical, dishonest, or otherwise 

irresponsible entities, and to reduce waste, fraud, and abuse in federal programs. 

10. Ensuring Effective International Law Enforcement: According to the Administration’s 

July 2011 Strategy to Combat Transnational Organized Crime, “[t]ransnational organized crime 

poses a significant and growing threat to national and international security, with dire implications 

for public safety, public health, democratic institutions, and economic stability across the globe.” 

Moreover, transnational crime is no longer limited to organized crime. New communications 

technologies, the global banking system, and porous borders in international conflict zones have 

increasingly allowed criminals involved in terrorism, money laundering, gun trafficking, human 

trafficking, and myriad other crimes to operate internationally, thus creating new and daunting 

challenges for the Department’s international law enforcement efforts. 

In an effort to address this issue, the DEA, FBI, ATF, USMS, and the Department’s Office of 

International Affairs (OIA) have stationed personnel abroad who work with their foreign 

counterparts to investigate and prosecute violations of U.S. law, and to provide reciprocal assistance 

to their foreign counterparts. The DEA maintains the Department’s largest international presence 

with more than 1,000 full-time employees devoted to international operations in 65 countries. The 

DEA requested an international enforcement budget of more than $400 million in FY 2013. The 

FBI’s international presence is also substantial, with 61 legal attachés, 14 sub-offices, and 

287 authorized positions in 66 countries during FY 2012. 

Devoting resources to transnational law enforcement efforts will not be enough: these resources 

must also be well managed, coordinated with each other, and coordinated with both domestic and 

foreign law enforcement organizations. Meeting these challenges requires putting frameworks in 

place to support international investigations before they begin, including clear lines of investigative 

authority among law enforcement agencies, appropriate mechanisms to share information, and 

appropriate and consistent training of all personnel involved in international operations. For 

example, the Department, and in particular the OIA, works to advance the government’s interests in 
IV-20 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

extraditing defendants from abroad and in obtaining critical information through Mutual Legal 

Assistance Treaty (MLAT) requests and other means. Yet with many countries, the United States 

does not have effective legal mechanisms to permit the exchange of defendants or information. 

Ensuring that these mechanisms are in place – including bilateral and multilateral treaties, 

memoranda of understanding with foreign counterpart law enforcement agencies, and other 

agreements – will greatly enhance the Department’s ability to fight crime at home and abroad. 

International law enforcement operations also require robust supervision and oversight. The OIG’s 

recently released report on ATF’s Operation Fast and Furious vividly demonstrated the importance 

of this challenge – and the serious pitfalls and potential threats to public safety that await when law 

enforcement efforts fall short. Our report examined ATF’s Operation Wide Receiver, an 

investigation conducted in 2006 and 2007, focusing on straw purchasers of firearms that were later 

transferred to Mexico. The primary goal of the operation was to allow straw purchases to continue 

in order to identify and prosecute members of the firearms trafficking organization. In service of that 

goal, ATF agents did not arrest the primary subjects involved in straw purchasing and seized less 

than a quarter of the more than 400 firearms purchased. ATF also worked with Mexican law 

enforcement to attempt failed surveillance operations of cross-border firearms shipments and 

developed a “cooperative agreement” with its Mexican counterparts. Yet ATF Headquarters neither 

vetted nor approved these joint efforts with Mexico, and we found no evidence that senior leaders in 

the Department had knowledge of Operation Wide Receiver until 2009. That a single ATF field 

office could have conducted this investigation without more oversight illustrates the shortcomings of 

ATF’s case initiation and monitoring processes. 

In addition to robust partnerships with foreign allies, effective and efficient international law 

enforcement requires cooperation and coordination with other federal agencies. For example, our 

examination of Operation Fast and Furious raised questions about how information was shared 

among various offices of ATF, the DEA, and the FBI. We also saw coordination and information 

sharing issues between ATF and U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component 

of the Department of Homeland Security. Our report noted instances where ATF resisted ICE 

conducting any independent or coordinated investigations that were related to Operation Fast and 

Furious through recovered firearms. In light of ICE’s jurisdiction over export violations involving 

munitions and firearms, close coordination with ICE was essential in an investigation that purported 

to target a cartel in Mexico and had as a goal identifying the border crossing mechanism the cartel 

was using to obtain firearms from the United States. 

The need for cooperation among federal agencies in the context of international law enforcement is 

not limited to investigative entities. In March 2012, the OIG released a report on the Office of 

Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training (OPDAT) and the International 

Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) offices in the Criminal Division that 

assist foreign prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and governments to develop effective 

mechanisms to combat criminal conduct around the world. We found that while OPDAT’s and 

ICITAP’s relationships with most of their partner agencies were productive, their relationships with 

their primary funder, the State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement 

Affairs, warranted significant improvement during our review period. These strained relationships 

compromised OPDAT’s and ICITAP’s ability to make long-term international program plans and 

personnel retention decisions prior to 2012. Although the Department stated at the time of our report 

that these relationships had greatly improved, the inefficiencies we identified underscore the 

importance of working collaboratively with other federal agencies to address the growing challenge 

of international crime. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-21

MANAGEMENT’S RESPONSE 

TO THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL’S REPORT ON THE 

TOP MANAGEMENT AND PERFORMANCE CHALLENGES 

IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

FY 2012 

The Department of Justice (the Department, DOJ) is the world’s largest law office and the central agency 

for enforcement of federal laws. Its mission and responsibilities extend over the broad spectrum of 

American life. The Department appreciates the Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) recognition of its 

progress in addressing management and performance challenges facing this diverse institution. The 

Department’s progress is an indication of agreement with the categories of top challenges in the OIG’s 

report and represents the Department’s commitment to prioritize and address these areas. 

1 Safeguarding National Security 

The Attorney General has said, “First and foremost: we will protect Americans from terrorism and other 

threats to national security – both at home and abroad.” He has pledged to use every available and 

appropriate tool to obstruct terrorists at all stages of their actions around the world and in the United 

States. 

To address the challenge of ensuring that national security information is appropriately shared among 

Department components and the Intelligence Community (IC), the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s 

(FBI) Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTFs) coordinate with law enforcement across multiple jurisdictions. 

These Task Forces combine the resources of the FBI, the IC, state and local officers, and the military, and 

serve as a coordinating mechanism to investigate and share information regarding terrorism activity. In 

support of these efforts the FBI developed eGuardian to meet the challenges of collecting and sharing 

terrorism-related information. The eGuardian system serves as a single information repository for 

suspicious activity and is accessible to thousands of law enforcement personnel. Information captured in 

eGuardian is migrated to FBI internal systems and assigned to the appropriate JTTF for further 

investigation. 

The Terrorist Watchlist maintained by the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) is a database of 

identifying information about those known or reasonably suspected of being involved in terrorist activity. 

The Department is pleased that, to date, the OIG has closed 20 out of 23 recommendations stemming 

from its two watchlist reports. Currently, the OIG is assessing the accuracy, timeliness, and completeness 

of watchlisting practices, including nominations, modifications, and removals. 

The FBI’s Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force (FTTTF) partners with other government agencies to 

obtain data, conduct analyses, and provide investigative information to assist these agencies in detecting 

foreign national security threats. The FBI has implemented a strategy that provides significant value by 

performing in-depth analyses that proactively identify national security threats and assist ongoing national 

security investigations. 

Another tool that the Department employs is national security letters (NSL). The Department is pleased 

that the OIG recognizes the FBI’s progress in its use of NSLs while adhering to the legal requirements 

that protect civil liberties and privacy interests. The Department looks forward to the OIG’s feedback to 

resolve the outstanding recommendations, many of which are part of the current USA Patriot Act Review. 
IV-22 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

2 Enhancing Cyber Security 

The Department is keenly aware of the scope of cybersecurity threats and is collaborating with 

interagency partners and building relationships with private sector allies to address them. 

There is recent evidence that these threats are growing, and leaders of the IC have assessed that the threat 

of cyber-based terrorism, cyber-based espionage, and other state-sponsored cyber intrusions may 

eventually surpass that of terrorism generally. These threats present complex technical, legal, and 

jurisdictional challenges. They demand an all-tools response – including the use of the Department’s law 

enforcement and intelligence capabilities. 

The Department addresses cybersecurity threats in two capacities: first, as an agency responsible for 

detecting, disrupting, and deterring cyber threats, and second, as a government entity that is a potential 

target of cyber threats. DOJ has a primary role in domestic cyber incident response, and DOJ components 

are taking steps to improve their respective cybersecurity activities and to expand cross-component 

coordination of the Department’s cybersecurity efforts. The principal components that investigate or 

conduct operational cybersecurity activities (the FBI, the Criminal Division (CRM), and the National 

Security Division (NSD)) each have active and ongoing outreach efforts to increase the private sector’s 

awareness of these threats and to encourage the reporting of cyber incidents. The FBI, NSD, CRM, and 

the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs) also are increasing the use of prosecutorial tools against cyber 

threats to the national security. 

In addition to bringing prosecutions against domestic criminal actors, the FBI, CRM, NSD, and over 200 

Computer Hacking and Intellectual Property (CHIP) coordinators in USAOs around the country have 

continued to develop innovative means to disrupt, deter, and prosecute online criminal behavior, 

including through the use of civil tools and criminal forfeiture. For their part, the CHIP coordinators in 

each USAO have not only focused their efforts on prosecuting computer crime and intellectual property 

offenses, they also (1) serve as the district’s legal counsel on matters relating to those offenses and the 

collection of electronic or digital evidence; (2) train prosecutors and law enforcement personnel in the 

region; and (3) conduct public and industry outreach and awareness activities. In addition, over the past 

year, departmental components have continued robust international outreach to ensure that DOJ’s law 

enforcement partners abroad have the capacity to address computer crime within their countries, including 

by extraditing to the United States individuals involved in data breaches and other computer crimes. 

Additionally, the Department has been at the forefront of addressing the information sharing and publicprivate sector cooperation necessary to secure and protect critical networks. The Department was integral 

in developing the Administration’s proposed cybersecurity bill that would enhance information sharing in 

both directions between the federal government and the private sector, giving the private sector better 

information to direct its investments in security and enhance its defense against criminals and other 

threats to computer systems and information. 

As noted in the OIG report, the Department’s ability to achieve its strategic goals depends heavily on its 

ability to collect, process, manage, analyze, and share information. To meet mission investigative and 

information sharing requirements, DOJ’s agents, attorneys, and analysts are increasingly reliant on 

connectivity to the Internet, to other DOJ components, and to multiple levels of government. This 

connectivity level increases the exposure of DOJ systems to disruption from cyber threats and attacks. 

DOJ strives to stay abreast of cybersecurity issues and improve the protection of its critical systems and 

information from attack and compromise. The Department developed a comprehensive continuous 

monitoring program that enables all components and the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) 

to achieve near real time awareness on the security posture of its more than 230,000 information 

technology (IT) endpoint assets. In addition, the Department operates a 24/7 Security Operations Center 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-23

that monitors cyber threats and protects Department IT systems from cyber intrusions, attacks, espionage, 

and other cyber incidents. Regarding the remaining findings on contingency planning, identification and 

authentication, and audit and accountability controls, the Department developed rigorous plans of action 

and milestones for FY 2013 to help DOJ components correct these areas of weakness. 

The Department has taken a leadership role to address the five classified information safeguarding 

priority areas identified by the Senior Information Sharing and Safeguarding Steering Committee. The 

Department OCIO worked closely with the FBI to consolidate DOJ classified circuits, with the results of 

significant security enhancements and cost savings. As noted in the report, the Department worked 

quickly to establish an Insider Threat Working Group comprised of components that access and process 

classified information. The Working Group has drafted Department policy, currently in final review, that 

establishes a Departmentwide insider threat detection and prevention program. This program, in addition 

to technology investments in the areas of enterprise audit, identity and access management, and 

removable media controls, will greatly reduce the risk of classified data loss within the Department. 

DOJ’s strategic security planning includes improvements in configuration management, identity and 

access management, security monitoring, auditing, alerting, and contingency planning. All of these 

enhancements leverage previous investments in security infrastructure and resources that form a strong 

foundation upon which the Department will continue to improve and respond to new and emerging cyber 

threats. 

With regard to the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) audits cited by the OIG, the 

Civil Division has fully implemented all seven of the OIG recommendations with respect to DOJ-owned 

equipment and equipment owned by most contractors, which comprise the vast majority of portable 

equipment potentially housing DOJ data. OIG has marked four of the seven recommendations “closed.” 

The remaining three are outstanding only for equipment owned and operated by some outside experts, 

neutrals, and consultants hired under specific contracts. The solution for such contractors had been 

delayed due to technical issues with the Departmentwide encryption solution provided to the Civil 

Division. However, a pilot program for the outside contractor solution is nearing completion, and the 

Civil Division is preparing for full implementation. 

While the recent FISMA audit identified control weaknesses in configuration management in the Bureau 

of Prison’s (BOP) information security program, the audit concluded that the risk of compromising 

BOP’s information security environment was low. Nevertheless, BOP took steps to monitor and track 

vulnerabilities and immediately implemented corrective action pertaining to configuration management 

such that the issue was resolved immediately and the risk that the deficiency would reoccur in the future 

was eliminated. 

3 Managing the Federal Prison System 

The Department appreciates the OIG’s descriptions of the challenges the Federal Prison System faces. In 

addition to the alternatives to incarceration the OIG cited, the U.S. Parole Commission (the Commission) 

continues to work with its criminal justice partners to use alternatives to incarceration for low risk 

offenders that have demonstrated non-compliant behavior on supervision. 

As an example, in 2012, the Commission began the Short-term Intervention for Success project, which is 

designed to assist low risk offenders in successfully completing their terms of supervision by use of shortterm prison sanctions rather than longer prison terms. During the first year that the project has been in 

place, the average length of prison stay for prisoners that participated in the project has been 3.5 months 

compared to 11 months for prisoners committing similar violations of supervision during the 2-year 

period that preceded the pilot project. Since the pilot’s inception, the overall number of prisoners held in 
IV-24 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

custody in the District of Columbia on a Commission warrant has been cut in half. The cost in jail bed 

days that is avoided by the reduced prison sentences has saved the federal government significant 

incarcerations costs. This is an evidence-based pilot program and the Commission will be evaluating 

whether recidivism rates are impacted by the shorter prison terms. 

With respect to the OIG review of the Department’s International Prisoner Treaty Transfer Program, the 

Department notes that only a small subset of the total number of foreign national prisoners incarcerated in 

the United States are either eligible to transfer to their native countries under the provisions of the 

applicable treaties or suitable to transfer after an analysis of the facts of each case. To clarify, the 

BOP’s role in the treaty transfer process is limited with regard to determining eligibility and suitability. 

The BOP does not reject requests, but rather it reviews all inmate requests to determine if the inmate 

satisfies the requirements of the applicable treaty agreement and notifies the inmate of their apparent 

ineligibility. The BOP follows legally mandated guidance and applies the criteria to the requests. For 

example, the BOP uses criteria such as: the inmate has less than 6 months of the current sentence 

remaining to be served at the time of the request (France, Hong Kong, and Thailand require 12 months); 

the inmate has any pending proceedings, appeals, or collateral attacks – the judgment on the current 

conviction of sentence must be final. There are other equally concise criteria that the BOP applies to all 

requests. If an inmate believes the criteria were applied incorrectly, he can use the administrative remedy 

process to appeal. However, because the BOP applies a definitional process, not a judgmental one, to the 

requests, it is rare that an appeal is successful. 

Just as challenging as the above are issues related to the sexual abuse of persons in the custody of the 

Department’s BOP and the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS). As directed by the Prison Rape Elimination 

Act (PREA), the Department issued its final rule in May 2012 and is working to implement it throughout 

BOP and USMS facilities, including contract and Inter-Governmental Agreements facilities. 

With regard to the prisoner work programs of Federal Prison Industries (FPI), the serious challenges to 

FPI’s important reentry programs are not “business management practices” as mentioned by the OIG. 

Instead, fundamental changes to the economic and legislative environment in which FPI operates have 

diminished FPI’s ability to market its products and provide for broader inmate employment and training 

opportunities. FPI is one of the BOP’s most important reentry programs, one that reduces inmate 

recidivism by improving the job skills of inmates returning to society after serving their sentences. 

Unfortunately, FPI sales and revenues have significantly fallen in recent years, and, as the OIG indicates, 

more factories have been closed than opened since 2007. In addition to general economic and budgetary 

challenges affecting FPI, the change in its sales is also attributable to various legislative changes in 

Department of Defense authorization bills and various appropriations acts that have curtailed FPI’s ability 

to enter into contracts with federal agencies. The Department’s leadership, BOP leadership, and the FPI 

Board are acutely aware of the contracting and other budgetary dynamics affecting FPI’s important 

programs, and will continue to seek opportunities to sustain FPI’s programs. Among such approaches are 

an emphasis on finding repatriated off-shore work for FPI factories and a renewed emphasis on the use of 

job sharing for inmate workers. 

4 Leading the Department in an Era of Budget Constraints 

The Department has always faced budget constraints, but they have been greater over the past few years. 

As an agency whose mission requires that it often react to events, these constraints are felt across all DOJ 

components. Regardless, all components have developed strategies to work within these constraints, and 

the Department is pleased that the OIG recognizes these efforts. 

In addition to typical approaches to address tight budgets, the Department proactively saves resources and 

uses them more efficiently. For example, the Attorney General’s Advisory Council for Savings and 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-25

Efficiencies (SAVE Council) has saved $107.4 million to date by identifying opportunities for savings 

and implementing best practices Departmentwide. One example of component savings is the Drug 

Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) approach to travel costs. In FY 2012, the DEA achieved savings of 

$6.5 million on travel costs by always choosing the lowest available airfares rather than customary 

government full refundable airfares. 

Another SAVE Council initiative involves the Department advertising administrative forfeiture notices 

online. Because of the volume of administrative forfeiture notices, the Department expects to achieve an 

annual savings of $6.2 million. The Department currently offers the benefits of this online platform to 

other federal law enforcement agencies, including the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the Secret 

Service. By expanding this program to more agencies, including Customs and Border Protection and 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement, even more taxpayers’ dollars will be saved. 

Both the DOJ and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have given serious on-going consideration 

to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report recommending that the DOJ combine its Asset 

Forfeiture Program with that of the Treasury. While there are long-standing and significant differences 

between the operational and statutory environments of the two forfeiture programs, substantial benefits 

continue to be derived from adapting, whenever and wherever possible, the essential concept of 

economies of scale that is recommended by GAO. In this regard, judicial forfeiture cases are processed 

under one system for both forfeiture programs, and during FY 2012 a joint Claims Administration process 

was established to expedite the return of victims’ assets forfeited under both programs. In FY 2013, a 

single joint international asset recovery support contract will be available to the investigative agencies of 

both programs. 

Regarding long term planning for large IT systems, DOJ has maintained focus on the IWN program and, 

as noted in the OIG’s report, changing circumstances have required the Department to change 

significantly the scope and deployment approaches for the IWN program over the last 10 years, thus 

adapting the program’s spending during constrained and inconsistent funding periods. The IWN 

program’s initial objectives were later reshaped due to advances in technology and the funding challenges 

of the program. Despite these challenges, as noted in the OIG Report, the Department has achieved 

significant improvements in the wireless communications capabilities delivered to DOJ’s law 

enforcement agents. 

 

The Department has maintained its commitment to implementing a secure, reliable, and interoperable 

Land Mobile Radio system for its tactical wireless communications. Additionally, the Department’s 

Chief Information Officer (CIO), in conjunction with the Wireless Communication Board, provides 

oversight, governance, and management of resources associated with the IWN program to ensure 

efficiencies, reduce duplication, and improve economies of scale. 

The Department is identifying and eliminating wasteful and duplicative IT spending. Several activities 

that were begun in FY 2012 to manage the Department’s IT spending across the entire departmental 

portfolio will continue and expand in FY 2013. The Department is tracking all unclassified IT spending, 

allowing the Department to identify situations where duplicative component spending can be replaced 

with the use of shared resources. The Department also established commodity IT working groups in key 

areas such as email, data centers, telecommunications, and mobility. These cross-component groups are 

developing plans to consolidate IT assets and increase leveraged use of shared infrastructure. Another 

key area of work is strategic sourcing and vendor management. The Department will continue vendor 

management efforts begun in 2012 that include identifying strategic sourcing opportunities to pool the 

purchasing power of the Department. 
IV-26 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Regarding the Department’s debt collection efforts, in FY 2012, the Department collected $13.16 billion 

in criminal and civil actions - the highest amount ever and more than double the $6.5 billion collected in 

FY 2011. The $13.16 billion collected includes $3.03 billion in restitution, criminal fines, and felony 

assessments, and $10.12 billion in individually and jointly handled civil actions. In addition, 

$4.39 billion was collected through asset forfeiture actions in partnership with other divisions and 

agencies. 

5 Protecting Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 

The Department never loses sight of its responsibility to protect individuals’ civil rights and liberties. 

This is more than just policy; protecting civil rights and civil liberties is part of the Department’s culture 

and one of the Attorney General’s identified priorities. 

Discrimination persists in the education system, in the foreclosure crises, in America’s workplaces, and in 

the voting booth. The Department uses a multifaceted program of enforcement designed to target and 

deter discriminatory conduct to: fulfill the promise of basic civil rights protections through effective and 

vigorous enforcement of the law; deter and remedy discriminatory and illegal conduct through the 

successful prosecution of these federal laws; and promote voluntary compliance and civil rights 

protection through a variety of education, technical assistance, and outreach programs. 

The Department uses electronic surveillance techniques in some investigations because they are an 

effective law enforcement tool. At the same time, the Department recognizes that these court-authorized 

tools must be used carefully because if they are used inappropriately, they could intrude on civil liberties. 

The Department follows strict protocol when approving and using such techniques. In an effort to 

enhance its own approval process, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

updated and reissued guidance in April 2011 that reflects current laws and provides updated policies and 

procedures concerning approval and reporting requirements for the use of electronic surveillance. 

Another technology, unmanned aerial vehicles, also raises privacy and civil rights concerns. As a 

provider of grant funds to state and local governments to purchase equipment and technology that could 

be used for surveillance drones, the Department will ensure that grants used for funding drone technology 

will include requirements to ensure that federal funds are used in a manner consistent with applicable 

privacy and civil rights protections. 

The Department is carefully monitoring court rulings and other legal proceedings related to the use of 

emerging technologies and modifying its investigative and prosecutorial guidance accordingly. 

6 Restoring Confidence 

The Department continues to strengthen its processes to maintain the public’s trust in its fairness, 

integrity, and efficiency. 

When the Attorney General learned of the ATF’s flawed Fast and Furious operation, he ordered that the 

practices involved in that operation be stopped, he ordered the OIG to investigate the matter, and he 

instituted personnel changes and procedural reforms at the ATF. The ATF Acting Director issued a 

memorandum, dated November 3, 2011, clarifying policy concerning the transfer of firearms in the 

course of investigations. ATF established a monitored case program that ensures Headquarters’ oversight 

of significant investigations. Additionally, ATF is completing a comprehensive revision to ATF’s 

firearms transfer policy, which also addresses public safety, supervisory controls, and Headquarters’ 

oversight of criminal investigations. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-27

With respect to the OIG’s concern that the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) has no 

institutional independence, the Department notes that OPR operates independently, with no interference 

from Department senior leadership. Actually, the OIG Report points to no instance in which Department 

senior leadership interfered with an OPR investigation, nor does it point to any OPR investigations that 

failed to hold Department leaders accountable. OPR has not hesitated to investigate senior Department 

leadership at the highest levels in the past, where appropriate, and to make misconduct findings against 

Department attorneys when the evidence supported such findings. Indeed, in FY 2012, OPR made 

professional misconduct findings in approximately 43% of the investigations it closed during the year. 

To address the OIG’s concern that OPR lacks transparency, OPR believes it is appropriately transparent, 

given the strict privacy protections afforded witnesses and subjects pursuant to the Privacy Act. In fact, 

the Privacy Act prevents OPR from releasing personal information about Department employees, except 

in limited circumstances. 

With respect to the 2004 OIG Disciplinary Audit, the BOP continues to work to close the open 

recommendation. An unresolved issue regarding the Standards of Employee Conduct policy was litigated 

before the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). The FLRA ordered the agency to negotiate the 

union’s proposal regarding its request for an employee to receive a copy of his affidavit during the course 

of Office of Internal Affairs and OIG investigations. The agency and the union have been unable to reach 

an agreement on this issue, but the BOP remains committed to resolving this matter and issuing the policy 

to meet the OIG’s recommendation. 

Regarding the OIG audit report on USMS Internal Affairs, a staffing shortage and a significant case 

backlog existed within Internal Affairs, the organization responsible for discipline within the USMS. 

However, as of August 2012, only 12 cases were older than 180 days. Additionally, the USMS has 

addressed its disciplinary system within its Strategic Plan. The USMS expects its latest update to the OIG 

regarding the status of open recommendations associated with this audit will close the audit report. 

The Department’s senior leadership took the OIG’s findings in its report on the integrity of the hiring 

process within the Justice Management Division (JMD) very seriously. In response to the OIG report, the 

Assistant Attorney General for Administration (AAG/A) stressed to all JMD employees the importance of 

following the merit system principles, the prohibited personnel practices guidance, and the nepotism 

statute, all of which ensure a fair civil service system. In addition, the AAG/A instituted procedures to 

ensure that no inappropriate preferences in hiring occur in the future. Finally, the AAG/A appointed an 

impartial senior executive to review the employee and selecting official disclosures to ensure their 

confidentiality is preserved and that JMD is in compliance with all laws, policies, and regulations. As it 

did in the earlier cited instances, JMD will take appropriate action on the findings included in the OIG 

report. 

The Department is focused on ensuring the transparency of its operations. It is committed to the full 

implementation of the “new era of open government” and the presumption of disclosure established in the 

President’s and the Attorney General’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) memoranda. Despite 3 

straight years of receiving over 61,000 FOIA requests, the fourth highest number of requests received by 

any agency, the Department has made substantial efforts to ensure that requests consistently are processed 

in accordance with the FOIA and the President’s and Attorney General’s FOIA memoranda. 

7 Coordinating Among Law Enforcement Agencies 

The Department agrees with the OIG that its components must coordinate and share intelligence, 

resources, and personnel with one another and other law enforcement agencies. To address any possible 

confusion created within the Department due to overlapping jurisdiction among the four primary law 
IV-28 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

enforcement components (ATF, DEA, FBI, and USMS), the Department has worked to clarify roles and 

responsibilities when multiple organizations are involved in an incident or investigation. 

Under the direction of the Deputy Attorney General, law enforcement components within the DOJ 

convened a De-confliction Working Group, consisting of representatives from DEA, FBI, USMS, ATF, 

and JMD, to examine the existing departmental de-confliction policies, procedures, and practices to 

further improve the efficient use of available resources and maximize the Department’s performance. Deconfliction of operational information such as persons of interest, investigative targets, and pre-planned 

enforcement operations is an essential element in all DOJ law enforcement investigations. Additionally, 

de-confliction facilitates the sharing of investigative information as well as the coordination among 

federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

To address the OIG’s recommendation that the FBI and ATF develop a protocol for joint investigations of 

explosives incidents, the organizations have been working together, under the direction the Deputy 

Attorney General, on the jurisdictional overlap pertaining to explosives investigations. Since the Deputy 

Attorney General’s Explosives Protocol was issued in FY 2010, the FBI and ATF have continued to 

resolve any lingering confusion over which entity should lead particular explosives investigations. They 

are developing plans and strategies to improve further the Department’s coordination and management of 

explosives investigations. The Department has made significant progress toward resolving the 

jurisdictional concerns outlined in the OIG report. It has improved and integrated the databases for 

explosives-related information, improved law enforcement training for explosives investigations, and 

identified ways in which the FBI and ATF laboratories can work more efficiently and collaboratively on 

explosives investigations. 

The OIG also recommends that the Department consider whether components’ standards are 

appropriately consistent and notes that ATF’s revision of several policies after Fast and Furious 

“underscores” ATF’s delay in fully integrating with the Department and implementing controls already in 

place to protect the public. ATF has been working over the last year to ensure that all of its law 

enforcement policies are updated and consistent with Attorney General’s Guidelines and policies for law 

enforcement activities. For example, in addition to establishing monitored case program management and 

updating its Firearm Enforcement Program policy, ATF has coordinated with other departmental 

components to update its confidential informant (CI) protocols. The results have produced a number of 

positive changes and additions to ATF’s CI policy that will ensure effective approval processes for CIs 

and comprehensive de-confliction, not only within ATF but with other law enforcement agencies. 

The OIG identified the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force’s (OCDETF) Fusion Center 

(OFC) as one of the Department’s efforts to share law enforcement information. The OFC is a key 

compartment in the Department’s information sharing efforts. It supports numerous types of cases, 

including drugs, gangs, and transnational organized crime. In total the Department operates three fusion 

centers that support its law enforcement mission, the OFC, the Special Operations Division, and the El 

Paso Intelligence Center. These fusion centers, which address separate aspects of the enforcement 

process, combine the support of numerous federal partners, including participants from the Department, 

the IC, and other federal law enforcement agencies, as well as state, local, and foreign agencies. The law 

enforcement information sharing activities provided by these centers not only support case agents in the 

specific cases they are investigating, but they also link cases and agents through the information sharing 

process. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-29

8 Enforcing Against Fraud and Financial Offenses 

For the past several years, the Department has prioritized its efforts to eliminate fraud and other financial 

offenses and penalize those who commit them, and it has made use of the available tools, including 

prosecution, civil litigation, investigations, and task forces. 

Some examples of the use of prosecution and civil litigation include the following: In the real estate 

sector, as a result of the Department’s Antitrust Division’s (ATR) efforts in FY 2012, 53 defendants 

pleaded guilty to real estate foreclosure and tax lien conspiracies across the United States that suppress 

and restrain competition in ways that harm communities and already financially distressed homeowners. 

In the municipal bonds industry, ATR’s ongoing investigations have resulted in criminal charges against 

20 former executives of various financial services companies and one corporation. Numerous financial 

institutions have agreed to pay a combined total of nearly $750 million in restitution, penalties, and 

disgorgement to federal and state agencies for their roles in the conduct. 

As for the use of investigations, since the creation of the Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement 

Action Team (known as “HEAT”) in May 2009, preventing and shutting down health care fraud schemes 

have become top priorities for both DOJ and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Joint 

DOJ/HHS Medicare Fraud Strike Forces are now operating in nine locations nationwide: Miami, Los 

Angeles, Detroit, Houston, Brooklyn, Baton Rouge, Tampa, Chicago, and Dallas. Since the first Strike 

Force was launched in 2007, these teams have charged more than 1,480 defendants for falsely billing the 

Medicare program more than $4.8 billion. 

The Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force (FFETF) is a tool that was established by the President in 

2009 and is led by the Attorney General. The FFETF’s mission, enumerated in the Executive Order 

creating it, is to (i) enhance coordination and cooperation among government agencies responsible for the 

investigation and prosecution of significant financial crimes and violations, (ii) strengthen the efforts of 

the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local agencies to investigate and prosecute 

significant financial crimes and other violations relating to the financial crisis and the recovery efforts, 

(iii) protect the public and encourage greater coordination in the detection and prosecution of financial 

crimes through extensive outreach and educational opportunities, and (iv) support victims of financial 

crimes. While the Task Force’s goals are ambitious, its foundation is rooted in simplicity: those charged 

with protecting the public in all levels of government cannot work in isolated and compartmentalized 

silos. Instead, the government is unified in its approach and execution, and it can achieve more by having 

its many offices and agencies working together than it ever could with the organizations acting separately. 

In FY 2012 the FFETF created two additional working groups, the Residential Mortgage-Backed 

Securities (RMBS) Working Group and the Consumer Protection Working Group, both of which already 

have produced identifiable results. For example, the RMBS Working Group is overseeing active 

investigations by various DOJ components, numerous USAOs, and other government and state agencies 

and offices. Recently it announced the filing of a civil complaint against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC 

(formerly known as Bear Stearns & Co. Inc.), JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., and EMC Mortgage LLC 

(formerly known as EMC Mortgage Corporation) by the Office of the New York Attorney General (a 

Working Group co-chair) based in part on the substantial assistance provided by the Department and 

other Working Group members. The suit was filed against these defendants for making fraudulent 

misrepresentations and omissions to promote the sale of residential mortgage-backed securities to 

investors. These defendants allegedly deceived investors concerning the way with which they evaluated 

the quality of mortgage loans packaged into residential mortgage-backed securities prior to Bear Stearns 

& Co’s collapse in early 2008, incurring losses that have totaled approximately $22.5 billion to-date. 
IV-30 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

The Department agrees with the OIG that transparency and accountability of the FFETF are important. 

That is a principle reason the FFETF initially established a public website, www.stopfraud.gov, which 

frequently contains updates of the efforts of the various Task Force members and their activities, as well 

as provides educational resources for the public. Significantly, in an effort to reach an even larger 

population, the Victims’ Rights Committee, which maintains the website, recently added a web-page 

containing Spanish-language resources for victims of financial fraud crimes. The FFETF will continue to 

examine new ways it can expand its reach, as well as continue to publish the results of its work, to the 

extent practicable. 

Last, although the resources of the FFETF RMBS Working Group are frequently a topic of public 

discussion, the group has been performing quite well with its existing resources. Currently, it has more 

than 200 attorneys, investigators, analysts, and staff actively engaged in these investigations, and another 

dozen USAOs that have assisted with witness interviews around the country. The President’s budget 

request for FY 2013 includes $55 million to assist the Department in fighting financial fraud, including 

RMBS fraud, in such ways as funding more FBI agents, prosecutors, civil attorneys, in-house 

investigators, and forensic accountants. 

The Department agrees that suspension and debarment are powerful administrative tools which, when 

used appropriately, help protect the government’s financial interests from unethical, dishonest, or 

otherwise irresponsible entities, as well as help reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. The Department’s 

Suspending and Debarring Official (SDO) has actively used these tools in cooperation with the OIG to the 

fullest extent possible. For example, in calendar year 2011, the OIG referred 27 cases to the SDO 

recommending suspension or debarment, and the SDO issued notices of suspension or proposed 

debarment in 22 cases. The SDO also issued a notice to show cause in one case, entered into an 

administrative agreement in one case, and declined to initiate proceedings in one case involving an 

organization and three employees. Thus far in calendar year 2012, the OIG has referred 28 cases to the 

SDO, and the SDO has issued notices of suspension or debarment in 26 cases and proposed the 

debarment of the organization rather than two of its employees in the final two cases. 

Meanwhile, to increase the integrity of the participants in the investigation and prosecution processes 

related to fraud and other financial offenses, on January 30, 2012, the Attorney General issued a policy 

statement on parallel proceedings that updated and strengthened the Department’s longstanding policy 

that its "prosecutors and civil attorneys coordinate together and with agency attorneys in a manner that 

adequately takes into account the government’s criminal, civil, regulatory and administrative remedies." 

Pursuant to this policy statement, and in an effort to ensure that suspension and debarment officials at 

government agencies have greater access to publicly-available information on corporate defendants that 

would permit them to pursue debarment and suspension remedies as appropriate, the Deputy Attorney 

General directed that all litigating components provide corporate criminal case information to the 

Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee quarterly. 

Regarding the Department’s Asset Forfeiture Program, as was stated in the Department’s response to 

Challenge #4, the Department concurred with the GAO’s recommendation and is working with the 

Treasury forfeiture program to conduct a joint study to assess the feasibility of consolidation in the areas 

of asset management and asset tracking systems. The study will take into account the costs, benefits, and 

key questions to consider when determining whether consolidation could realize increased efficiencies, 

effectiveness, and cost savings. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-31

9 Administering Grants and Contracts 

Grants

The Department’s grant making components, the OJP, the Office on Violence Against Women (OVW), 

and the Community Oriented Policing Service (COPS), have significantly improved collaboration and 

information sharing among themselves and other federal agencies to reduce duplication, identify cost 

efficiencies, and address common issues. The DOJ Grants Management Challenges Workgroup, 

established by the Associate Attorney General’s Office and comprised of grants officials from COPS, 

OJP, and OVW, meets to develop consistent practices and procedures in a wide variety of grant 

administration and management areas. For example, in January 2012, the Department issued policy and 

procedures developed by the Grants Management Challenges Workgroup to implement the DOJ-wide 

high risk grantee designation program. 

In recent months, COPS, OJP, and OVW have taken a number of actions in response to the recent GAO 

recommendations pertaining to potential duplication and overlap. DOJ currently is conducting a study to 

identify opportunities for shared grants management services. The first phase of the study, completed in 

August 2012, focused on documenting each component’s award life cycle and identifying the areas of 

commonality across functional requirements to better assess the feasibility of a shared solution from a 

systems perspective. The study found a high degree of commonality and the potential for greater 

collaboration among the grant making components. Based on these findings, the Department will conduct 

an assessment to better understand the extent to which the Department’s grant programs overlap with one 

another and determine if grant programs may be consolidated to mitigate the risk of unnecessary 

duplication. Using the results from the assessment, DOJ will be in a better position to develop a targeted 

and strategic approach to carry out a review of applications across all three components during the preaward process. As part of this approach, DOJ will work to establish policies and procedures to govern 

this coordinated effort. 

Meanwhile, COPS, OJP, and OVW have been engaged in an IT shared services feasibility analysis. 

During the first phase of the project, and after reviewing the current systems and business requirements, 

the contractor concluded that sharing a grants system was feasible, but that without enhancements, neither 

OJP’s system nor COPS’ system could support the business needs of each component. The two offices 

currently are beginning phase two of the project which will assist them with identifying the most feasible 

option for sharing IT services. This may include enhancing an existing system, building a new system, or 

sharing data through a data warehouse. 

The OIG expressed concern regarding a decision to maintain separate Financial Grants Management 

Guides for OJP and OVW and that the Guides had duplicate information and might confuse grantees of 

both offices. While the Department recognizes that two guides may create a slight additional burden on 

those grantees that receive funding from both organizations, the Department notes that specific guides 

improve grantee performance by responding to their specific needs. 

Regarding performance measurement, the Department is constantly trying to develop more meaningful 

measures for its grant making components. OJP is improving the quality and usefulness of the 

performance data collected from state, local, and tribal partners to help the agency make better informed 

programmatic and funding decisions. OJP recently initiated a new Performance Management effort 

aimed at integrating high-quality, reliable data into performance reporting and its operations, specifically 

grant monitoring, strategic planning, and management decision-making. As a first step in this effort, in 

FY 2013, OJP will carry out a thorough assessment of its current business processes related to 

performance measurement. 
IV-32 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

The COPS’ performance goal is to obtain COPS-related contribution to a 3% rate of change over 36 

months in homicide violent crime rates. COPS will implement a comprehensive community policing 

strategy within targeted COPS-funded cities and compare the crime rates of those cities with cities of 

similar size and demographics that have not received COPS funding. Also, beginning in FY 2013, COPS 

will implement the Homicide Reduction Measure to determine if grant funding is achieving the intended 

results. 

The Department is dedicated to improving continuously its oversight and monitoring of grantees and 

grant programs. OJP consistently exceeds its statutory requirement to conduct comprehensive monitoring 

of not less than 10% of total award dollars. In FY 2012, OJP monitored more than twice the award 

amount required by law. It also conducts annual desk reviews on each of its nearly 14,000 grants. COPS 

also has a comprehensive monitoring strategy that entails programmatic and financial oversight of all of 

its grantees. The COPS Monitoring Division conducts both on-site and office-based grant reviews. Each 

visit, whether on-site or in the office, is supported with an exhaustive monitoring report that captures an 

extended list of requests, potential problems, documented issues, and recommendations. During FY 

2012, the Monitoring Division managed 144 on-site grantee monitoring visits totaling 222 grants valued 

at over $276 million. 

The grant-making components also closely coordinate with grantees and the OIG to address issues 

identified in grant audits and resolve outstanding audit recommendations in a timely manner. They have 

worked proactively and collaborative with the OIG on significant new programs that pose special risks, 

such as the Presidential Nominating Convention Security Funding, to ensure that all steps are taken to 

mitigate the risks with such large and/or complex funding programs. 

To help grant recipients follow grant terms and conditions, the Department ensures grantees have access 

to tools and training necessary to effectively implement and manage their programs. The Grant 

Management Challenges Workgroup created an on-line grantee financial management training program. 

In December 2011, the Department launched this comprehensive on-line training tool for all DOJ 

grantees and grant management staff. The OIG described this training as a tool to help ensure that grant 

terms and conditions are followed, and to support grant recipients’ compliance with rules and regulations. 

On-line training has increased the accessibility of DOJ’s grant recipients to financial management 

administration and program compliance requirements and has been highly rated by those using the tool. 

In addition, under the DOJ High Risk Policy, grantees designated as high-risk receive an automatic 

special condition on all new DOJ awards that requires them to take financial management training. 

Contracts

The Department spends large amounts on contracts each year, and it closely monitors the cost, timeliness, 

and quality of requested goods and services. As noted by the OIG, some of the largest of these contracts 

are related to planning, implementation, and management of complex information technology systems. 

The Department, under the direction of its new Chief Information Officer, is examining its entire IT 

portfolio and is exploring opportunities for leveraged buying and strategic sourcing of IT commodities 

and services. 

With regard to the OIG’s comments on the FBI’s Sentinel system, the FBI successfully deployed Sentinel 

in July 2012. The Department notes that the FBI did not eliminate or reduce any of the Sentinel 

requirements to stay within the $451 million budget allocation. However, IT has changed significantly 

since system requirement specifications were developed 7 years ago. Since October 2010, Sentinel 

executives and stakeholders have completed several comprehensive reviews of the requirements 

necessary to achieve the objectives set out for Sentinel. Some requirements changed to take advantage of 

new technology. Additional functionalities originally planned for Sentinel continue to be provided more 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-33

effectively by other systems that remain online irrespective of Sentinel. The Department notes that 

implying that Sentinel was in any way deficient for “not providing all of the originally planned 

capabilities” is misleading. Because of the dynamic nature of the FBI’s development process, the FBI 

deployed Sentinel for approximately $10 million less than had been budgeted. Beyond reporting the 

actual cost of the project, $441, there is no “cost baseline” to adjust. 

The Department agrees that it “must ensure that there is adequate management and oversight of 

information technology contracts to minimize cost overruns.” This aspect of the recommendation, 

however, is out of place following a discussion of Sentinel. The Sentinel project did not suffer from cost 

overruns; it came in under budget. As for the other aspect of the recommendation, rather than ensuring 

that an IT project “provide[s] planned system functionality” statically, as initially conceived even if that 

was years before deployment, Sentinel serves as a model of dynamic reassessment and refinement of a 

project’s required functionality. Sentinel has not failed to provide any appropriate functionality; data 

provided to the OIG confirms that the FBI has recognized significant efficiency gains in just the first few 

months since deployment. 

10 Ensuring Effective International Law Enforcement 

As the OIG states, in an effort to address the threat of transnational organized crime, the DEA, FBI, ATF, 

USMS, and the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs (OIA) have stationed personnel abroad 

to work with their foreign counterparts to investigate and prosecute violations of U.S. law. To build and 

nurture relationships with law enforcement counterparts, the Department works with host nation 

counterparts through vetted units, legal attaches, and other personnel stationed overseas. A large amount 

of the Department’s international work, however, takes place in its domestic offices. For example, in 

addition to its 10 prosecutors stationed abroad, OIA has an additional 50 attorneys and 35 paralegals in 

Washington, DC. Similarly, the Department’s law enforcement components have substantial numbers of 

personnel within the United States who are pursuing international cases and who work in collaboration 

with personnel posted overseas. 

The Department agrees with the OIG that devoting resources to transnational law enforcement efforts will 

not be enough, that the resources must also be well managed, coordinated with each other, and 

coordinated with both domestic and foreign law enforcement organizations. 

The Department recognizes that there always will be issues and differences that must be worked out with 

other organizations, regardless of whether those organizations are foreign or domestic. The OIG 

references the Criminal Division’s Office of Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and 

Training (OPDAT) and its International Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program (ICITAP) 

offices and their relationship with their primary funder, the State Department (State). While both OPDAT 

and ICITAP have responsibilities that are strictly focused on assisting foreign entities – training 

prosecutors, law enforcement agencies, and governments, they work very closely and collaboratively with 

their international counterparts. However, the complexity of funding for international activities presents 

challenges that the Department continues to address. 

 
IV-34 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-35

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, 2012 

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 

As of September 30, 2012, the inmate population housed in BOP operated institutions exceeded the rated housing capacity by 

38 percent. The BOP’s Long Range Capacity Plan relies on multiple approaches to house the increasing federal inmate 

population, such as contracting with the private sector and state and local facilities for certain groups of low-security inmates; 

expanding existing institutions where infrastructure permits, programmatically appropriate, and cost effective to do so; and 

acquiring, constructing, and activating new facilities as funding permits. 

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

and modifications to the plan, as needed, commensurate with funding received through enacted budgets. The BOP’s formal 

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

activating new institutions as funding permits. The BOP will continue to validate progress on construction projects at new and

existing facilities through on-site inspections or by reviewing monthly construction progress reports. 

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

dependent on funding. Other correctional reforms and alternatives will require policy and/or statutory changes. Other initiatives 

notwithstanding, if the acquisition, expansion, construction, and activation plans detailed in the BOP’s Long Range Capacity Plan 

are funded as proposed, the over-crowding rate for FY 2018 is projected to be 44 percent. 

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

implement an array of crime prevention, sentencing, and corrections management improvements that focus on accountability and 

rehabilitation, while protecting public safety. The Department recognizes that the BOP’s capacity management efforts must be 

teamed with targeted programs that are proven to reduce recidivism and promote effective re-entry. The BOP will continue to 

work with the Department on these programs. 

FMFIA
IV-36 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Business Process Area (N/A for Section 2 and Section 4 issues) 

Not Applicable 

Date First Identified 

2006 

Original Target Completion Date 

09/30/2012 

Current Target Completion Date 

Dependent on funding 

Actual Completion 

Date

Issue Identified By 

Bureau of Prisons 

Source Document Title 

BOP Population Projections 

Description of Remediation 

Increase the number of federal inmate beds to keep pace with projected increases in the inmate population. Efforts to reach this 

goal include expanding existing institutions, acquiring surplus properties for conversion to correctional facilities, constructing 

new institutions, utilizing contract facilities, and exploring alternative options of confinement for appropriate cases. 

Milestones Original Target Date Current Target Date Actual Completion 

Date

1. As of September 30, 2006, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 162,514 and was 

housed in a capacity of 119,510, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 36 percent. 

09/30/2006 09/30/2006 

2. As of September 30, 2007, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 167,323 and was 

housed in a capacity of 122,189, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 37 percent, an increase of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2007 09/30/2007 

3. As of September 30, 2008, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 165,964 and was 

housed in a capacity of 122,366, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 36 percent, a decrease of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2008 09/30/2008 

4. As of September 30, 2009, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 172,423 and was 

housed in a capacity of 125,778, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 37 percent, an increase of 1 percent for the year. 

09/30/2009 09/30/2009 

5. As of September 30, 2010, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 173,289 and was 

housed in a capacity of 126,713, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 37 percent, the same rate as at the end of the previous 

year. 

09/30/2010 09/30/2010 

6. As of September 30, 2011, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 177,934 and was 

housed in a capacity of 127,795, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 39 percent, an increase of 2 percent for the year. 

09/30/2011 09/30/2011 

7. As of September 30, 2012, the inmate population in BOP 

owned and operated institutions reached 177,556 and was 

housed in a capacity of 128,359, resulting in an over-crowding 

rate of 38 percent, a decrease of 1 percent for the year.

09/30/2012 09/30/2012 

8. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 130,404 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2013. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 40 percent at that time, an increase of 2 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2013 

9. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 134,170 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2014. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 39 percent at that time, a decrease of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2014 

10. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 135,130 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2015. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 39 percent at that time, the same rate as 

projected for the end of the previous year. 

09/30/2015 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-37

11. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 136,430 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2016. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 40 percent at that time, an increase of 1 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2016 

12. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 136,430 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2017. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 42 percent at that time, an increase of 2 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2017 

13. Planning estimates call for a rated capacity of 136,942 to be 

reached by the end of FY 2018. The over-crowding rate is 

projected to be 44 percent at that time, an increase of 2 percent 

for the year. 

09/30/2018 

Reason for Not Meeting Original Target Completion Date 

Funding received through enacted budgets for additional capacity has not kept pace with the increases in the federal inmate 

population. 

Status of Funding Available to Achieve Corrective Action 

FY 2013 funding is unknown at this point because the FY 2013 budget has not been enacted. The Department of Justice’s 

proposed FY 2014 budget for BOP is under review at the Office of Management and Budget. 

Planned Measures to Prevent Recurrence 

The BOP will continue to structure budget requests to address capacity needs in the most cost effective manner possible. 

Validation Indicator

Results are measured as a new institution or expansion project is activated and resulting increases in rated capacity are 

established. A corresponding decrease in the over-crowding rate will also be a tangible measurement of the results. Progress on 

construction projects at new and existing facilities will be validated via on-site inspections of each facility or by review of

monthly construction progress reports.

Organizations Responsible for Corrective Action 

BOP Administration Division and Program Review Division
IV-38 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-39

Section 536 of the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2012 (Act) of 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. Law 112-55) 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 2012. 

Undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts include budget authority that is no longer available for 

new obligations but is still available for disbursement. According to Section 20.4(c) of OMB Circular 

No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, the expired phase "lasts 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 2012, the below information is required to be reported in 

the Performance and Accountability Reports and annual performance plans/budgets with regard to 

undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts: 1) details on future action the department, agency, or 

instrumentality will take to resolve undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts; 2) the method that the 

department, agency, or instrumentality uses to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts; 

3) identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that may be returned to the Treasury of 

the United States; 4) in the preceding three fiscal years, details on the total number of expired grant 

accounts with undisbursed balances (on the first day of each fiscal year) for the department, agency, or 

instrumentality and the total finances that have not been obligated to a specific project remaining in the 

accounts. 

Three Department of Justice grant-making agencies are required to report under this guidance: 

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

Violence Against Women (OVW). Their responses are noted below: 

Details on future actions that will be taken to resolve undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts: 

COPS closely monitors the financial activity of all grantees. This includes requiring all grant recipients to 

report the financial expenditures for all COPS awards on a quarterly basis. COPS also maintains a group 

of dedicated Grant Program Specialists and Staff Accountants that offer grantees real-time technical 

assistance with implementing any aspect of their grant. Due to the additional reporting requirements and 

transparency associated with American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) grant 

recipients, COPS has implemented additional efforts to monitor COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP) 

grantees. First, all CHRP grantees are required to complete an online grants management training, which 

includes a training track specifically addressing financial reporting and disbursement of funds. Second, 

CHRP grantees were notified earlier this year that the undisbursed balance on their grant awards will 

lapse on September 30, 2015 (5 years after the last unexpired year for ARRA), thus all grant program 

requirements should be completed by that time and all expensed funds disbursed. Third, beginning in 

November 2010, COPS conducts quarterly outreach efforts to a select group of CHRP grantees who 

appear to have either discrepancies in the financial or programmatic reporting on their awards. Finally, 

the COPS Director receives monthly and quarterly reports of CHRP activity, including disbursement data, 

and COPS management works with the Justice Management Division (JMD), OMB, and the Office of the 

Vice President (OVP) to ensure that ARRA funds are being disbursed and outlayed timely. 

All OJP discretionary/categorical and block/formula grantees are required to submit a financial report 

quarterly. Grantees have 90 days after the end date of the award to drawdown funds and close out the 

award. If the payments to the grantee are less than the amount of the grant expenditures, then the grantee 

is given the opportunity to draw down these funds. OJP Customer Service Outreach staff calls the grantee 

Undisbursed Balances in Expired Grant Accounts
IV-40 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

to ask them to draw down their funds. The first notice will commence on the same day as the phone call 

to the grantee. If the grantee has not drawn down their available funds after 14 calendar days, a second 

contact is made by the Customer Service Outreach staff and a second notice is sent. If there is no action 

by the grantee, a third notice is sent to the grantee informing them that OJP will de-obligate the funds 

from their grant. If the grantee has not retrieved their funds after 14 additional calendar days, the funds 

are de-obligated. After deobligation, the grantee will receive a Grant Adjustment Notice (GAN) in the 

mail informing them that the funds have been de-obligated and are no longer available and the grant is 

closed. 

OVW closely monitors the financial activity of all grantees. All grant recipients are required to report 

their financial expenditures for OVW awards on a quarterly basis and their project performance activities 

on a semi-annual or annual basis. ARRA grantees are also required to submit special Section 1512 

reports on a quarterly basis that include project and financial information. OVW reviews 100 percent of 

these reports for each reporting period and contacts the grantees regarding any concerns or questions. 

OVW has Grant Program Specialists and Financial Analysts that offer ARRA grantees technical 

assistance with implementing any aspect of their grant, including trainings, outreach, site visits and 

monitoring. The OVW management receives and reviews frequent reports on ARRA grant activity, 

including obligation and outlay data, and OVW management works with JMD, OMB, OVP, and the 

OIG to ensure that ARRA funds are being disbursed and outlayed timely. 

 

Method used to track undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts: 

COPS utilizes both the Financial Management Information System 2 (FMIS2) data as well as data from 

OJP's Grant Payment Request System (GPRS) to track CHRP undisbursed balances. OJP currently uses 

its Grants Management System (financial reports), FMIS2 and GPRS to track undisbursed balances. 

OVW utilizes both FMIS2 data as well as data from OJP's GPRS to track undisbursed balances. 

Identification of undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts that may be returned to the Treasury: 

The Department has the authority to transfer unobligated balances of expired appropriations to the 

Working Capital Fund. Specifically, Public Law 102-140 provides that at no later than the end the fifth 

fiscal year after the fiscal year for which funds are appropriated or otherwise made available, unobligated 

balances of appropriations available to the Department of Justice during such fiscal year may be 

transferred into the capital account of the Working Capital Fund to be available for the Department-wide 

acquisition of capital equipment, development and implementation of law enforcement or litigation 

related automated data processing systems, and for the improvement and implementation of the 

Department's financial management and payroll/personnel systems. Therefore, in general unobligated 

and undisbursed balances in the Department’s expired grant accounts will be transferred to the Working 

Capital Fund for use as authorized by law, not 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. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report IV-41

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 (dollars in millions): 

OJP: 

FY 2008: 9 accounts; $105.5 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2009: 10 accounts; $66.0 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 8 accounts; $1,638.6 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2011: 6 accounts; $859.7 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2012:   5 accounts; $485.6 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

COPS: 

FY 2008: No undisbursed and unobligated balances

FY 2009: No undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2010: 1 account; $1,001.9 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2011: 1 account; $861.8 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2012: 1 account; $580.3 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

OVW:

FY 2008: No undisbursed and unobligated balances

FY 2009: No undisbursed and unobligated balances

FY 2010: 1 account; $223.0 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2011: 1 account; $154.4 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

FY 2012: 1 account; $63.2 in undisbursed and unobligated balances 

 
IV-42 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 


Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report A-1

APPENDIX A 

The Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), as amended by the Improper Payments Elimination 

and Recovery Act of 2010 (IPERA), requires agencies to annually report information on improper payments to 

the President and Congress through their annual Performance and Accountability Report. In accordance with 

that requirement and the implementing guidance in OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, Requirements for 

Effective Measurement and Remediation of Improper Payments, and OMB Circular A-136, Financial 

Reporting Requirements, the Department provides the following improper payments reporting details. 

Item I. Risk Assessment. Briefly describe the risk assessment performed (including the risk factors 

examined, if appropriate) subsequent to completing a full program inventory. List the risk-susceptible 

programs (i.e., programs that have a significant risk of improper payments based on OMB guidance 

thresholds) identified by the agency risk assessment. Highlight any changes to the risk assessment 

methodology or results that occurred since the FY 2011 IPIA report. 

In accordance with the IPIA, as amended by the IPERA, and the April 2011 OMB implementing guidance, 

OMB Circular A-123, Appendix C, the Department assessed its programs and activities for susceptibility to 

significant improper payments. The Department’s top-down approach for assessing the risk of significant 

improper payments allows for the analysis and reporting of results by the Department’s five mission-aligned 

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

and Administrative, Technology, and Other. The approach promotes consistency across the Department in 

implementing the expanded requirements of the IPERA. 

In FY 2012, the Department disseminated an updated risk assessment survey instrument for Departmental 

components to use in conducting the required risk assessment. The instrument examined disbursement 

activities against nine risk factors, such as payment volume and process complexity, and covered commercial 

payments, custodial payments, benefit and assistance payments, and grants and cooperative agreements.1

 

The Department’s risk assessment methodology for FY 2012 did not change significantly from FY 2011; 

i.e., for FY 2012, the methodology again included assessing risk against various risk factors and for various 

payment types. The primary difference for FY 2012 was that the Department included clarifying language in 

the survey instrument to ensure components considered all questioned costs as improper payments when 

conducting the required risk assessment. 

The results of the FY 2012 risk assessment did not differ from FY 2011; i.e., the Department concluded 

based on the results of the Department-wide risk assessment for the period ending September 30, 2012, that 

there were no programs susceptible to significant improper payments, i.e., improper payments exceeding the 

OMB thresholds of both 2.5 percent of program outlays and $10 million, or $100 million. 

Item II. Statistical Sampling. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to 

significant improper payments shall briefly describe the statistical sampling process conducted to 

estimate the improper payment rate for each program identified with a significant risk of improper 

 

1 The nine risk factors examined during the risk assessment were Policies and Procedures; Results of OMB Circular A-123 

Assessment, OIG Audits/Reviews, and other External Audits/Reviews; Corrective Actions; Results of Monitoring Activities; Results of 

Recapture Audit Activities; Process Complexities; Volume and Dollar Amount of Payments; Control Risk; and Capability of 

Personnel. 

Improper Payments Information Act (as amended by the IPERA) Reporting Details
A-2 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

payments. Highlight any changes to the statistical sampling process that have occurred since the 

FY 2011 IPIA report. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. This remains unchanged from FY 2011. 

Item III. Corrective Actions. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to 

significant improper payments shall describe the corrective action plans for: 

A. Reducing the estimated improper payment rate and amount for each type of root cause 

identified. Agencies shall report root cause information (including error rate and error amount) 

based on the following three categories: Administrative and Documentation errors, 

Authentication and Medical Necessity errors, and Verification errors. This discussion must 

include the corrective actions, planned or taken, most likely to significantly reduce future 

improper payments due to each type of error an agency identifies, the planned or actual 

completion date of these actions, and the results of the actions taken to address these root 

causes. If efforts are ongoing, it is appropriate to include that information in this section and 

to highlight current efforts, including key milestones. Agencies may also report root cause 

information based on additional categories, or sub-categories, of the three categories listed 

above, if available. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

B. Grant-making agencies with risk-susceptible grant programs shall briefly discuss what the 

agency has accomplished in the area of funds stewardship past the primary recipient. 

Discussion shall include the status of projects and results of any reviews. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments, to include grant programs. 

Item IV. Improper Payments Reporting. 

A. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to significant improper 

payments must provide the following information in a table: 

- all risk-susceptible programs must be listed whether or not an error measurement is 

being reported; 

- where no measurement is provided, the agency should indicate the date by which a 

measurement is expected; 

- if the Current Year (CY) is the baseline measurement year, and there is no Previous 

Year (PY) information to report, indicate by either “Note” or “N/A” in the PY column; 

- if any of the dollar amounts included in the estimate correspond to newly established 

measurement components in addition to previously established measurement 

components, separate the two amounts to the extent possible; 

- agencies are expected to report on CY activity or, if not feasible, PY activity is 

acceptable if approved by OMB. Agencies should include future year outlay and 

improper payment estimates for CY+1, +2, and +3 (future year outlay estimates should 

match the outlay estimates for those years as reported in the most recent President’s 

Budget). 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

B. Agencies should include the gross estimate of the annual amount of improper payments 

(i.e., overpayments plus underpayments) and should list the total overpayments and 

underpayments that make up the current year amount. In addition, agencies are allowed to 

calculate and report a second estimate that is a net total of both overpayments and 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report A-3

underpayments (i.e., overpayments minus underpayments). The net estimate is an additional 

option only and cannot be used as a substitute for the gross estimate. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

Item V. Recapture of Improper Payments Reporting. 

A. An agency shall discuss payment recapture audit (or recovery auditing) efforts, if applicable. 

The discussion should describe the agency’s payment recapture audit program, the actions 

and methods used by the agency to recoup overpayments, a justification of any overpayments 

that have been determined not to be collectable, and any conditions giving rise to improper 

payments and how those conditions are being resolved (e.g., the business process changes 

and internal controls instituted and/or strengthened to prevent further occurrences). If the 

agency has excluded any programs or activities from review under its payment recapture audit 

program (including any programs or activities where the agency has determined a payment 

recapture audit program is not cost-effective), the agency should list those programs and 

activities excluded from the review, as well as the justification for doing so. Include in the 

discussion the dollar amount of cumulative recoveries collected beginning with FY 2004. 

The Department’s payment recapture audit program is part of its overall program of internal control 

over disbursements. The program includes establishing and assessing internal controls to prevent 

improper payments, reviewing disbursements to identify improper payments, assessing root causes of 

improper payments, developing corrective action plans, and tracking the recovery of improper 

payments and disposition of recovered funds. The Department’s top-down approach for tracking and 

reporting the results of recovery auditing activities promotes consistency across the Department in 

implementing the expanded requirements of the IPERA. In FY 2012, the Department provided 

components an updated template to assist them in analyzing root causes of improper payments and 

tracking the recovery of such payments and disposition of recovered funds. 

The root causes for overpayments other than for grants largely fell within the OMB-defined error 

category of Documentation and Administrative, as most errors were overpayments resulting from 

duplicate payments or data entry errors. Departmental components have implemented actions to 

address specific areas where improvements could be made. For example, to reduce duplicate 

payments and prevent other types of improper payments, the Drug Enforcement Administration 

(DEA) conducts data analytics on payment data entered into the Unified Financial Management 

System (UFMS) prior to processing disbursements to identify payments that, if processed, would be 

improper, e.g., payments to ineligible recipients, payments for ineligible services, and duplicate 

payments. To reduce data entry errors, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) increased its use of 

electronic billing and consolidation of invoices. 

The root causes for grant overpayments also largely fell within the Documentation and Administrative 

category, as most involved payments for which grantees did not provide sufficient documentation to 

support the payments. To reduce the risk of these types of overpayments, the Department’s granting 

components expanded training and communications informing grantees of their responsibilities related 

to receiving Federal awards. For example, the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) requires all grantees 

responsible for improper payments to submit written policies and procedures describing the internal 

controls put in place to prevent similar occurrences in the future. 

Departmental components have also taken actions to facilitate the recovery of improper payments. 

For example, the FBI produces an accounts receivable report to track the age and collection efforts for 

all uncollected improper payments. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

issues demand letters to debtors notifying them of the status of the debt, the date payment is due, 

where to send payment, and the collection actions the ATF can pursue to recover the debt. 
A-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

The Department excluded employee disbursements and intra-governmental payments from the scope 

of its payment recapture audit program in accordance with the IPERA and OMB implementing 

guidance. The Department also excluded payments to confidential informants because of its 

responsibility to protect sensitive law enforcement information. Lastly, the Department excluded 

payments at DEA foreign offices, because the DEA obtains the services of the Department of State for 

certifying and disbursing payments on behalf of the DEA at foreign offices. 

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

recapture performance. Based on performance through the period ending September 30, 2012, the 

Department achieved a payment recovery rate of 93 percent for the cumulative period of FYs 2004 

through 2012, and an annual recovery rate of 121 percent for FY 2012.2

 In FY 2012, approximately 

$22,400 of overpayments were determined not to be collectable, the majority of which were due to a 

vendor’s bankruptcy. Table 1B provided later in this section provides additional detail on the 

approximate $40.5 million in improper payments identified in FYs 2004 through 2012 and the 

approximate $37.5 million of recovered funds. 

B. Complete the tables below (if any of this information is not available, indicate by either “Note” 

or “N/A” in the relevant column or cell): 

Note: To allow information to be easily viewable, the Department reformatted the table in 

OMB Circular A-136 into three separate tables. Table 1A provides information on the total amount of 

disbursements subject to review in FY 2012, as well as the total amount reviewed under the 

Department’s payment recapture audit program. As shown in the table, the Department reviewed 

100 percent of its FY 2012 disbursements, except for the payments excluded from review as discussed 

in Item V.A. 

Table 1A 

Payment Recapture Audit Reporting Scope 

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program) 

Amount Subject 

to Review for 

FY 2012 

Reporting 

Actual Amount 

Reviewed and 

Reported in 

FY 2012 

Percent 

Reviewed 

Administrative, 

Technology, and Other 

Commercial $600,449,112 $600,449,112 100% 

Custodial $5,955,270,022 $5,955,270,022 100% 

Litigation Commercial $793,173,598 $793,173,598 100% 

Law Enforcement Commercial $4,291,446,597 $4,291,446,597 100% 

State, Local, Tribal, and 

Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $159,235,197 $159,235,197 100% 

Commercial $102,238,947 $102,238,947 100% 

Grants and Cooperative Agreements $3,551,457,673 $3,551,457,673 100% 

Prisons and Detention Commercial $6,431,245,074 $6,431,245,074 100% 

Total $21,884,516,220 $21,884,516,220 100% 

 

2

 In FY 2012, the improper payments recovered exceeded the improper payments identified for recovery due to the recovery during 

FY 2012 of improper payments identified in previous years; this scenario resulted in the annual recovery rate exceeding 100 percent. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

Table 1B provides the cumulative results of payment recapture audit activities for the nine-year period of FYs 2004 shown in the table, as of the end of FY 2012, the Department had recovered 93 percent of the improper payments i

The Department reported a cumulative recovery rate of 86 percent in its FY 2011 PAR. As shown in the table, the 

rate for grants was 79 percent, while the cumulative recovery rate for all other types of payments ranged from 90 to 

lower recovery rate for grants is attributed in part to factors that extend the time frame for receiving recovered gran

some grantees have been placed on multi-year repayment programs based on ability to pay and other factors. 

Table 1B 

Cumulative Payment Recapture Audit Reporting

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

FYs 2004 through 2012 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery3

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Determined 

Not to be 

Collectable 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Rate 

(Percent of 

Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered out 

of Cumulative 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery) 

Cum

Im

Pay

Outs

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $1,260,749 $0 $1,236,335 98% 

Custodial $0 $0 $0 N/A 

Litigation Commercial $3,396,822 $5 3,304,175 97% Law Enforcement Commercial $18,032,017 $22,428 $17,816,867 99% State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $10,000 $0 $10,000 100% 

Commercial $356,861 $0 $356,861 100% Grants and Cooperative Agreements $8,959,071 $0 $7,075,724 79% $1

Prisons and Detention Commercial $8,473,208 $0 $7,665,641 90% Total $40,488,728 $22,433 $37,465,603 93% $33 Improper payments identified for recovery do not include all questioned costs. When questioned costs are identified in an OIG audit report or throu

Departmental management initiates a process to validate whether the costs in question were improper payments; e.g., the Department will request addifor transactions that, at the time of audit, were not supported by adequate documentation. The validation process can take months, and in some cases y

Therefore, for payment recapture audit reporting purposes, improper payments identified for recovery include only the questioned costs for which Dep

completed the validation process and determined that the incurred costs should not have been charged to the Government. 

A-5 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report

Table 1C provides the results of payment recapture audit activities separately by current year (FY 2012) and previo

through 2011 combined). As shown in the current year section of the table, the improper payments recovered for t

Enforcement and State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance – exceeded the improper payments identified for recovrecovery during FY 2012 of improper payments identified in previous years. 

Table 1C 

Payment Recapture Audit Reporting by Current Year and Previous Years

DOJ 

Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of 

Payment 

(includes only 

the types made 

per program)

Current Year

(FY 2012) 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified 

for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Rate 

(Percent of 

Current Year 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

out of Current 

Year Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery)

Improper 

Payments 

Determined 

Not to be 

Collectable 

Percent of 

Improper 

Payments 

Determined 

Not to be 

Collectable 

out of 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Outstanding 

Percent 

Outstanding 

(Percent of 

Current Year 

Improper 

Payments 

Outstanding 

out of Current 

Year Improper 

Payments 

Identified for 

Recovery)

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $593,668 $571,201 96% $0 0% $22,467 4% 

Custodial $0 $0 N/A $0 N/A $0 N/A 

Litigation Commercial $715,807 $712,859 99% $5 0% $2,943 1% Law Enforcement 

Commercial $2,092,781 $3,034,572 145% $22,428 1% ($964,219) (46%) 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance 

$0 $0 N/A $0 N/A $0 N/A 

Commercial $0 $0 N/A $0 N/A $0 N/A Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

$2,523,692 $3,363,168 133% $0 0% ($839,476) (33%) 

Prisons and Detention 

Commercial $1,579,240 $1,374,451 87% $0 0% $204,789 13% 

Total $7,505,188 $9,056,251 121% $22,433 1% ($1,573,496) (22%) 

A-6 
Department of Justice 

 FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

If an agency has a payment recapture audit program in place, then the agency is required to establish annutheir annual performance. The targets shall be based on the rate of recovery. Agencies are expected to reamounts and rates, as well as recovery rate targets for three years. Table 2 provides current year (FY 2012) payment recapture audit activities information, cumulative information (Fand recovery rate targets for three years. As mentioned, the lower cumulative recovery rate for grants is attributed 

extend the time frame for receiving recovered grant funds. In FY 2013, the Department will continue focusing on 

rate for grants and sustaining the high recovery rates for all other types of payments. 

Table 2 

Improper Payments Recovery Rates and Targets 

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program Type of Payment (includes only the types made per program)

Cumulative 

(FYs 2004 through 2012) 

Current Year 

(FY 2012)

Improper 

Payments 

Identified 

for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recovery 

Rate 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified 

for 

Recovery 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Recov

Rat

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $1,260,749 $1,236,335 98% $593,668 $571,201 

Custodial $0 $0 N/A $0 $0 

Litigation Commercial $3,396,822 3,304,175 97% $715,807 $712,859 1Law Enforcement Commercial $18,032,017 $17,816,867 99% $2,092,781 $3,034,572 1State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $10,000 $10,000 100% $0 $0 

Commercial $356,861 $356,861 100% $0 $0 Grants and Cooperative Agreements $8,959,071 $7,075,724 79% $2,523,692 $3,363,168 1

Prisons and Detention Commercial $8,473,208 $7,665,641 90% $1,579,240 $1,374,451 Total $40,488,728 $37,465,603 93% $7,505,188 $9,056,251 14 Recovery rate targets were adjusted in FY 2012 to 85 percent for all programs, consistent with OMB guidance. 

A-7 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

C. In addition, agencies shall report the following information on their payment recapture audit programs, if a

i. An aging schedule of the amount of overpayments identified through the payment recapture audit 

outstanding (i.e., overpayments that have been identified but not recovered). Typically, the aging obegins at the time the overpayment is detected. Indicate with a note whenever that is not the case. 

Table 3 provides the aging schedule for the Department’s overpayments that were outstanding (not recover

FY 2012. As shown in the table, of the approximate $2.5 million in overpayments that were outstanding fo

70 percent were grants. As mentioned, in FY 2013, the Department will continue focusing on improving t

grants.

Table 3 

Aging of Cumulative Outstanding Overpayments 

DOJ Mission-Aligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

Amount Outstanding 

(0 to 6 months) 

Amount Outstanding 

(6 months to 1 year) 

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $2,647 $0 

Custodial $0 $0 

Litigation Commercial $18,882 $63 Law Enforcement Commercial $90,644 $37,699 State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $0 $0 

Commercial $0 $0 Grants and Cooperative Agreements $58,970 $48,604 

Prisons and Detention Commercial $185,433 $29,458 Total $356,576 $115,824 

A-8 
Department of Justice 

 FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

ii. A summary of how recovered amounts have been disposed of (if any of this information is not avai

either “Note” or “N/A” in the relevant column or cell). 

Table 4 provides the disposition information for the improper payments the Department recovered in FY 2table, approximately $8.7 million of the approximate $9.1 million recovered (or 96 percent) was returned t

from which the payments were made. 

Table 4 

Disposition of FY 2012 Recovered Funds 

DOJ MissionAligned 

Program 

Type of Payment 

(includes only the types made per 

program)

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

in FY 2012 

Disposition 

Returned to 

Original 

Fund 

Agency 

Expenses to 

Administer 

the Program 

Payment 

Recapture 

Auditor 

Fees 

Financial 

Management 

Improvement 

Activities 

Used fo

Origin

Purpos

Administrative, Technology, and Other 

Commercial $571,201 $571,201 $0 $0 $0 

Custodial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Litigation Commercial $712,859 $712,859 $0 $0 $0 Law Enforcement 

Commercial $3,034,572 $3,034,540 $0 $0 $0 

State, Local, Tribal, and Other Assistance 

Benefits and Assistance $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 

Commercial $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

$3,363,168 $3,016,890 $0 $0 $0 

Prisons and Detention 

Commercial $1,374,451 $1,372,553 $0 $0 $0 

Total $9,056,251 $8,708,043 $0 $0 $0 

A-9 
A-10 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

D. As applicable, agencies should also report on improper payments identified and recovered 

through sources other than payment recapture audits. For example, agencies could report on 

improper payments identified through statistical samples conducted under the IPIA, agency 

post-payment reviews or audits, Office of the Inspector General reviews, Single Audit reports, 

self-reported overpayments, or reports from the public. Specific information on additional 

required reporting for contracts is included in Section 7 of OMB memorandum M-11-04, issued 

in November 2010. Reporting this information is required for FY 2011 reporting and beyond. If 

previous year information is not available, indicate by a “Note.” 

The Department’s payment recapture audit program leverages both internal and external efforts to 

identify improper payments. The reporting in Tables 1B through 5 is inclusive of all overpayments, 

regardless of whether they were identified through internal or external sources. Table 5 provides 

information on the overpayments that were identified in the current year (FY 2012) and previous year 

(FY 2011) by source, i.e., through internal efforts or by auditors, vendors, or payment recapture audit 

contractors. The table also provides the recovery information associated with overpayments identified 

by those sources. The table provides information for FYs 2011 and 2012 only, as agencies were not 

required to track this level of detail prior to FY 2011. 

Table 5 

Sources of Identifying Overpayments 

Source 

Current Year 

(FY 2012) 

Previous Year 

(FY 2011) 

Cumulative 

(FYs 2012 and 2011) 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Improper 

Payments 

Identified 

Improper 

Payments 

Recovered 

Internal Efforts $2,765,498 $3,442,617 $5,249,056 $4,308,320 $8,014,554 $7,750,937 

Auditors 

(e.g., by the OIG 

or audits for OMB 

Circular A-133) 

$2,017,196 $2,942,838 $5,909,309 $3,290,056 $7,926,505 $6,232,894 

Vendors $2,722,494 $2,670,796 $1,475,958 $1,658,681 $4,198,452 $4,329,477 

Payment 

Recapture Audit 

Contractors 

$0 $0 $0 $11,360 $0 $11,360 

Total $7,505,188 $9,056,251 $12,634,323 $9,268,417 $20,139,511 $18,324,668 

Item VI. Accountability. Any agency that has programs or activities that are susceptible to significant 

improper payments shall describe the steps the agency has taken and plans to take (including 

timeline) to ensure that agency managers, accountable officers (including the agency head), programs, 

and States and localities (where appropriate) are held accountable for reducing and recovering 

improper payments. Specifically, they should be held accountable for meeting applicable improper 

payments reduction targets and establishing and maintaining sufficient internal controls (including an 

appropriate control environment) that effectively prevents improper payments from being made and 

promptly detects and recovers any improper payments that are made. 

Not applicable. Based on the results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment, there were no 

programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report A-11

Item VII. Agency Information Systems and Other Infrastructure. 

A. Describe whether the agency has the internal controls, human capital, and information 

systems and other infrastructure it needs to reduce improper payments to the levels the 

agency has targeted. 

The results of the FY 2012 Department-wide risk assessment demonstrated that, overall, the 

Department has sufficient internal controls over disbursement activities to prevent improper payments. 

The assessment identified no programs susceptible to significant improper payments. 

Department-wide actions to reduce improper payments are accomplished through an aggressive 

strategy of re-engineering and standardizing business processes, concurrent with the Department’s 

implementation of an integrated financial management system, which is underway. As of the end of 

FY 2012, all Departmental components reported that they had sufficient internal controls, human 

capital, and the information systems and other infrastructure needed to reduce improper payments to 

targeted levels. 

In addition to the Department’s actions to improve agency information systems and infrastructure, 

individual components have taken actions to incorporate additional controls into their financial 

systems to reduce improper payments. For example, in FY 2012, the Federal Prison Industries 

implemented a centralized accounts payable documentation management system. The system 

provides end-to-end automation of invoices and also provides reconciliation, voucher posting, 

workflow for approvals, and detailed reporting and auditing information that can be used to monitor 

payment activities. 

B. If the agency does not have such internal controls, human capital, and information systems 

and other infrastructure, describe the resources the agency requested in its most recent 

budget submission to Congress to establish and maintain the necessary internal controls, 

human capital, and information systems and other infrastructure. 

Not applicable. The continued implementation of the Department’s integrated financial management 

system will complement the Department’s current infrastructure and capabilities to reduce improper 

payments. 

Item VIII. Barriers. Describe any statutory or regulatory barriers that may limit the agency’s corrective 

actions in reducing improper payments and actions taken by the agency to mitigate the barriers’ 

effects. 

The Department has not identified any statutory or regulatory barriers that limit its corrective actions in 

reducing improper payments. 

Item IX. Additional Comments. Discuss any additional comments, if any, on overall agency efforts, 

specific programs, best practices, or common challenges identified as a result of IPERA 

implementation. 

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

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

The Department’s top-down approach for implementing the expanded requirements of the IPERA promotes 

consistency across the Department, both with regard to conducting the required risk assessment and for 

tracking and reporting payment recapture audit activities. In FY 2013, the Department will continue its efforts 

to further reduce improper payments, as well as improve the recovery rate for grants. 

 
A-12 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report B-1

APPENDIX B 

This financial management status report describes the Department’s three most significant and 

overarching financial management initiatives – achieving a clean audit opinion, implementing a new 

Department-wide financial management system, and continually improving internal controls. The 

President’s emphasis on transparency emphasizes the significance of federal government performance 

and accountability to achieve successful results. The ultimate goal is accurate and timely financial 

information on a recurring basis. These initiatives support the Department’s overall goal to improve 

management and administration of the Department’s programs while also supporting mandates such as 

the CFO Act, the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), the Federal Financial Management 

Improvement Act (FFMIA), the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Federal Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), and the Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) of 1996. 

Reliable Financial Statements and Meeting Due Dates for Financial Statements. 

KPMG LLP, an independent public accounting firm under contract with the Department’s Office of the 

Inspector General, performed the FY 2012 consolidated Department audit. The Department earned an 

unqualified opinion on its audited consolidated financial statements for FY 2012. 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 2012 and beyond, the Department expects 

to maintain its consistent status on its audited consolidated financial statements. 

Integrated Financial Management System. 

The Unified Financial Management System (UFMS) initiative is the keystone to the Department’s 

strategy for financial systems improvement. UFMS is replacing multiple core financial management and 

procurement systems with an integrated Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) solution, Momentum, 

provided by CGI Federal Inc. Implementation of UFMS is streamlining and standardizing business 

processes and procedures across DOJ Components. 

As of September 2012, UFMS continued to support more than 2,500 users worldwide from the DEA 

(fully implemented), ATF (fully implemented), Asset Forfeiture Program/AFP (Phase I), BOP (UFMS 

Acquisitions), FBI (Phase I), and USMS (UFMS Acquisitions). In October 2013 the number of UFMS 

users will grow to 5,000 with completion of three implementations – FBI phase II pilot, AFP (fully 

implemented) and USMS (fully implemented). By FY 2014 UFMS will serve as the financial system of 

record for 4 DOJ components (DEA, ATF, USMS and FBI), and AFP. 

Major accomplishments in FY 2012 include the following: 

 Go-lives in October 2012 are on schedule for the FBI phase II pilot, AFP and USMS. 

 Worked collaboratively with FBI to stand up UFMS SECRET at an FBI facility to support the 

successful deployment of UFMS to FBI in October 2012. 

FY 2012 Financial Management Status Report
 Department of Justice B-2  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

 A newer version of UFMS, 2.1, was configured, tested and formally accepted in January 2012 

which met the timeframe for the FBI configuration of UFMS. 

 FY 2012 is the third year DEA relied on the UFMS as the system of record and the second year 

for ATF. Both received clean audit opinions based on UFMS. 

 Requirements for two additional UFMS interfaces, the Over the Counter Channel Application 

(OTCnet) and CWTSato Travel E2 Solutions®, were finalized early in FY 12 and the design, 

development and testing activities were completed to enable deployment of both in October 

2012. 

 The UFMS 1.1 Shared Acquisitions users (BOP and USMS) were successfully migrated to the 

UFMS 2.0 Shared instance in June 2012. This is the 7th UFMS project completed on schedule 

and budget since FY 2008. The Shared Acquisitions migration also provided the first 

successful test/execution of data migration from an older to a newer version of UFMS. 

Successful data migrations will be critical to controlling the costs of the long term operations 

and maintenance of UFMS. 

 Transitioned the responsibility and staff (government and contractor) from the UFMS Program 

Management Office (PMO) to Finance Staff to provide oversight of the IT security functions 

for UFMS. Transitioned responsibilities include leadership of IT security issues, subject matter 

expertise for vulnerability management, Certification &Accreditation activities, incident 

response, maintenance of documentation and collaboration with FBI on efforts relating to 

UFMS SECRET and the Cross Domain Solution. Responsibility for physical and personnel 

security as well as IT security maintenance functions such as collaboration on patch 

management, vulnerability scanning, analysis and tracking and audit log analysis, remains with 

the UFMS PMO/Solution Services group. The transition was effective in March 2012. 

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA) Remediation Plan and A-123 

Compliance. 

During FY 2012, the Department continued efforts to resolve internal control weaknesses in 

critical areas by providing oversight and resources to individual components. Through ongoing 

review programs, components aggressively demonstrated their commitment to identify areas of 

concern and implement corrective actions promptly. The Department also continued to 

demonstrate progress on its multiyear project to implement an integrated financial management 

system. This system will eventually provide a single source for timely and reliable financial data, 

and strengthen the Department’s overall control environment. The system will also facilitate the 

collection of information, increase transparency, and enhance decision-making by program 

managers. 

The Department continued its commitment to improving and strengthening controls through the annual 

OMB Circular A-123, Appendix A assessment. Using a top-down risk-based approach, efforts were 

focused on significant areas where the risk of material errors in financial reporting could occur. Efforts 

are continuing to coordinate and leverage existing reviews and assessments of the controls over 

significant financial information systems. These actions, coupled with the Department’s corrective action 

plan process, have enabled the Department to monitor the components’ progress against corrective action 

plans more timely and, when necessary, provide additional resources to correct control weaknesses. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report C-1

APPENDIX C 

Office of the Inspector General (OIG) Follow-Up Audit of the DOJ Internal Controls over 

Reporting of Terrorism-Related Statistics 

 In February 2007, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) completed an audit of the Department’s internal 

controls over reporting terrorism-related statistics. This audit reviewed terrorism-related statistics reported by 

the Department and three Department components – the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys, and Criminal Division, and it found that the Department components and 

the Department as a whole did not accurately report terrorism-related statistics. The three components did not 

accurately report 24 of the 26 statistics reviewed, with some statistics significantly overstated or understated, 

while others were overstated or understated by minor amounts. 

The OIG initiated a follow-up audit to determine if the: (1) Department components took appropriate actions 

to implement the recommendations from the 2007 audit; and (2) corrective actions implemented improved the 

components’ ability to gather, track, classify, verify, and report accurate terrorism-related statistics. Following 

the 2007 audit report, the National Security division (NSD) took over responsibility for corrective actions on 

the recommendations to the Criminal Division. In November 2008, the NSD’s Counterterrorism Section 

revised and republished its circular that established and documented internal control procedures for gathering, 

verifying, and reporting terrorism-related statistics. These procedures, if implemented appropriately, should 

ensure that statistics are accurately reported and supported. This audit provided results pertaining only to the 

NSD. 

The OIG found that while the NSD revised its procedures for gathering, classifying, and reporting terrorismrelated statistics based on the recommendations from the 2007 audit, the NSD’s implementation of the revised 

procedures were not effective at ensuring that terrorism-related statistics were reported accurately. In this 

audit, the OIG identified nine unique terrorism-related statistics reported by the NSD in budget submissions or 

other documents for fiscal years 2009 through 2012, and the auditors selected five of the nine statistics to test 

for accuracy. The OIG determined that the NSD did not accurately report four of the five statistics reviewed. 

Although it appears that the statistics were not significantly overstated or understated, the inaccurate reporting 

indicates a need for the NSD to strengthen further its application of controls for gathering, verifying, and 

reporting its terrorism-related statistics. The statistics were inaccurately reported because the NSD’s: (1) 

Counterterrorism Section did not maintain documentation detailing the statistics on convictions, charges, and 

cases favorably resolved at the time the numbers were reported; and (2) Office of Justice for Victims of 

Overseas Terrorism did not have written internal control procedures for gathering, tracking, verifying, and 

reporting its terrorism-related statistic on U.S. victims of terrorism identified abroad. 

NSD has already taken steps to implement all three of the OIG’s recommendations.

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Review of Terrorist Watchlist Screening Processes

The attempted bombing of Northwest Flight 253 in December 25, 2009, exposed weaknesses in how the 

federal government nominated individuals to the terrorist watchlist and gaps in how agencies used the list to 

screen individuals to determine if they posed a threat. In response, the President tasked agencies to take 

corrective actions. GAO was asked to assess: (1) government actions since the incident to strengthen the 

nominations process; (2) how the composition of the watchlist has changed based on these actions; and 

(3) how agencies are addressing gaps in screening processes. GAO analyzed government reports, the guidance 

used by agencies to nominate individuals to the watchlist, data on the volumes of nominations from January 

Major Program Evaluations Completed During FY 2012
C-2 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

2009 through May 2011, the composition of the list, and the outcomes of screening agencies programs. GAO 

also interviewed official from intelligence, law enforcement, and screening agencies to discuss changes to 

policies, guidance, and processes and related impacts on agency operations and the traveling public, among 

other things. Overall, the volume of nominations the Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) is receiving from the 

FBI and NCTC has generally increased since the attempted attack. GAO found the TSC has avoided backlogs 

by employing a variety of strategies to address its workload, including management of personnel resources and 

use of more advanced technology. 

GAO recommended the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism ensure that the 

outcomes and impacts of agencies’ actions to strengthen nominations and screening processes are routinely 

assessed. 

OIG Audit of the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory’s Forensic DNA Case Backlog 

The OIG initiated an audit of the FBI’s forensic case backlog on September 16, 2011. The primary objective 

of the audit was to: (1) verify the total number of forensic DNA cases that remained unprocessed by the FBI 

Laboratory; (2) evaluate the status of the implementation of a laboratory information management system; 

(3) examine the effect of outsourcing agreements on the overall DNA forensic casework backlog, and 

(4) assess any impending external factors that may have impacted the ability of the forensic DNA units to 

maintain their workload. The OIG concluded that the FBI Laboratory’s forensic DNA casework backlog has 

been significantly reduced. The OIG found that the FBI has effectively eliminated the Nuclear DNA Unit case 

backlog, which is noted as a significant achievement. This progress can be attributed primarily to efficiency 

improvements and the addition of personnel. While the Mitochondrial DNA Unit’s backlog decreased, the 

OIG found that that the decreases can be attributed to a decision to no longer automatically conduct 

Mitochondrial DNA analysis on all hairs identified or improvised explosive devices. The FBI took these cases 

out of the queue for automatic examination because there have been no documented instances for which 

probative results were generated from these Mitochondrial DNA examinations. Instead, the Mitochondrial 

DNA Unit worked together with the Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) to revise the 

Unit’s case acceptance policy so that new submissions to the unit are more likely to yield probative 

information. The FBI’s current effort to implement a laboratory information management system, eLAB, has 

an experienced program manager, has secured initial funding of $4 million, and has adopted the FBI 

Information Technology Governance Framework. 

GAO Study of the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Inmate Crowding - Growing Inmate Crowding 

Negatively Affects Inmates, Staff, and Infrastructure

BOP operates 117 federal prisons to house approximately 178,000 federal offenders, and contracts with private 

companies and some state governments to house about another 40,000 inmates. BOP calculates the number of 

prisoners that each BOP-run institution can house safely and securely (i.e., rated capacity). GAO was asked to 

address (1) the growth in BOP’s population from fiscal years 2006 through 2011 and BOP’s projections for 

inmate population and capacity; (2) the effects of a growing federal prison population on operations within 

BOP facilities, and the extent to which BOP has taken actions to mitigate these effects; and (3) actions selected 

states have taken to reduce their prison populations, and the extent to which BOP has implemented similar 

initiatives. 

GAO analyzed BOP’s inmate population data from fiscal year 2006 through 2011, BOP’s 2020 long-range 

capacity plan, and BOP policies and statutory authority. The results are not generalizable, but provide 

information on the effects of a growing prison population. Despite the continued growth in inmates and 

related expenses, in recent years, BOP has been adding capacity and staff at a lower rate than the inmate 

population has been growing. As a result, both individual facilities and the federal prison system as a whole 

are experiencing increased crowding. Crowding has implications for inmates, staff, and infrastructure – as 

well as safety and security, and the potential for inmate disruptions or an even more serious security incident is 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report C-3

a significant concern. BOP has taken steps to help mitigate the implications of crowding in the federal system, 

but does not have the authority to implement many of the reforms that several states have adopted to reduce 

crowding and, in some states, the size of their prison populations. BOP also requires congressional approval 

and appropriated funds to expand capacity in the federal system. As such, BOP has limited ability to address 

crowding in the federal prison system. GAO makes no recommendations in this report. 
C-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

This page intentionally left blank. 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-1

APPENDIX D 

The information in this section is provided pursuant to the statutory mandate in Title 18, United States Code, 

Section 2320(g), which requires a report of Department of Justice prosecutions of intellectual property 

(IP) crimes brought under sections 2318, 2319, 2319A and 2320 of Title 18 of the United States Code. 

Prosecutions under other IP statutes are not included. This information has been provided by the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), which maintains criminal caseload information as reported by 

the 94 U.S. Attorneys' Offices. 

The pages that follow contain summary case information, segregated by statutory provision, and preceded by a 

brief description of each offense. Also included is a list of cases referred for prosecution by the Bureau of 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Following the 

summary data is a district by district break out of the same data. 

The automated case management system used to collect data for the U.S. Attorneys' Offices does not break out 

copyright infringement cases according to the following categories: audiovisual (videos and films); audio 

(sound recordings); literary works (books and musical compositions); computer programs or video games. 

Also, the case management system does not separately identify copyright infringement cases where the 

infringer advertises the infringing work online or makes the infringing work available on the Internet for 

download, reproduction, performance or distribution by others. Thus, that information is not included. 

Similarly, data on fines, penalties, settlements or restitution are not included because that information cannot 

be extracted from the database according to particular statutes. 

Intellectual Property Report – FY 2012
D-2 Department of Justice  FY 2012 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 2012 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 22 

Number of Defendants: 36 

Number of Cases Filed: 10 

Number of Defendants: 17 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 7 

Number of Defendants: 21 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 9 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 1 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 11 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 4 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 4 

13 to 24 Months: 1 

25 to 36 Months: 0 

37 to 60 Months: 1 

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. 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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-3

Offense: willful infringement of a copyright for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or through 

large-scale, unlawful reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, regardless of whether there was a profit motive. 

 FY 2012 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

 Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 79 

 Number of Defendants: 120 

 Number of Cases Filed: 40 

 Number of Defendants: 59 

 Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 33 

 Number of Defendants: 52 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

 Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 40 

 Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 1 

 Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 11 

 Number of Defendants Acquitted: 0 

 Other Terminated Defendants: 0 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

 No Imprisonment: 16 

 1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 11 

 13 to 24 Months: 7 

 25 to 36 Months: 3 

 37 to 60 Months: 4 

 61 + Months: 0 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against a 

defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was 

charged against the same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. 

Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or 

matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2319 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506* ‐ Criminal

Infringement of a Copyright.
D-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 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 2012 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 0 

Number of Defendants: 0 

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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-5

Offense: intentionally trafficking or attempting to traffic in goods or services and knowingly using a counterfeit mark on 

or in connection with such goods or services. 

FY 2012 - TOTALS (All Districts)

Referrals and Cases:

Number of Investigative Matters Received by U.S. Attorneys: 223 

Number of Defendants: 361 

Number of Cases Filed: 110 

Number of Defendants: 154 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 110 

 Number of Defendants: 150 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 107 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 2 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charge Was Dismissed: 34 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 5 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 61 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 20 

13 to 24 Months: 12 

25 to 36 Months: 8 

37 to 60 Months: 8 

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. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed 

defendant outcome information is based upon the defendant’s outcome on the individual charge. Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may 

have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, 

charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320. 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320* ‐ Trafficking in Counterfeit Goods or Services.
D-6 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

 All Districts - All Statutes

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY12

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 303 243 343 330 314 

Number of Defendants: 467 404 543 481 496 

Number of Cases Filed: 179 150 158 158 152 

Number of Defendants: 239 203 239 203 218 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 174 175 152 135 144 

Number of Defendants: 270 230 212 206 205 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 220 198 185 178 183 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 8 5 7 13 4 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 26 21 14 11 11 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 8 2 2 1 2 

Other Terminated Defendants: 8 4 4 3 5 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 101 114 114 92 88 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 46 31 33 26 43 

13 to 24 Months: 39 27 25 31 25 

25 to 36 Months: 20 6 9 15 15 

37 to 60 Months: 19 17 7 21 15 

61 + Months: 3 8 4 6 1 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTIONS 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 OR TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE,

SECTION 506*
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-7

Referrals and Cases:

 FY 12

Number of Investigative Matters Received: 155 

Number of Defendants: 224 

Number of Cases Filed: 91 

Number of Defendants: 120 

Number of Cases Resolved/Terminated: 90 

Number of Defendants: 112 

Disposition of Defendants in Concluded Cases:

Number of Defendants Who Pleaded Guilty: 103 

Number of Defendants Who Were Tried and Found Guilty: 1 

Number of Defendants Against Whom Charges Were Dismissed: 4 

Number of Defendants Acquitted: 1 

Other Terminated Defendants: 3 

Prison Sentencing for Convicted Defendants (# represents defendants):

No Imprisonment: 61 

1 to 12 Months Imprisonment: 19 

13 to 24 Months: 11 

25 to 36 Months: 8 

37 to 60 Months: 5 

61+ Months: 0 

*This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 

U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants 

where more than one of the statutes was charged against the same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information is based upon the overall 

outcome of the defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 

U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified 

statutes. This chart does not include data on the investigation and prosecution of other intellectual property crimes, such as economic espionage, 18 

U.S.C. 1831; theft of trade secrets, 18 U.S.C. 1832; signal piracy, 47 U.S.C. 553 and 605; and circumvention of copyright protection systems, 17 U.S.C. 

1201 to 1205. 

Statistics on Matters/Cases Originating with the United States Bureau of Customs & Border Protection

and Bureau of Immigrations & Customs Enforcement*
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 110011 10000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 110000 00000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 4 11 4 11 2 12 50700

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 665500 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 120000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000001 01000

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 110000 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 000011 00100

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 110000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 000000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 000000 00000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 110000 00000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000 00000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 220000 00000

OREGON 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

D-8 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 000000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000 00000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000003 00300

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 110000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000011 10000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 140000 00000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 251111 10000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000011 10000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 22 36 10 17 7 21 9 1 11 0 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-9

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
PRISON SENTENCING

NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 001000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 140000

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 000010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 000000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-10 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
PRISON SENTENCING

NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 100000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 100000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 100000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

Grand Total 441010

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-11

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT LABELS FOR PHONO RECORDS AND COPIES OF MOTION PICTURES OR OTHER 

AUDIOVISUAL WORKS
TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 001111 10000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 5 10 2422 20000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 5 10 3808 10700

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 552211 10000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 280000 00000

DELAWARE 341112 10100

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 231111 10000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 452234 40000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000001 01000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 110000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 001100 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000011 10000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 220000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000011 10000

IOWA SOUTHERN 111100 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 110000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 110011 10000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 110000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 001111 10000

MASSACHUSETTS 110000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 221111 00100

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 130000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 220011 10000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 120000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 000000 00000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 110000 00000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000 00000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 10 11 3311 10000

NEW YORK WESTERN 122200 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 002211 10000

OHIO SOUTHERN 002322 20000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 111111 10000

OREGON 110000 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 001100 00000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

D-12

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 110000 00000

PUERTO RICO 220000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 220000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 112255 40100

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000003 30000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 351100 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000011 10000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 222244 40000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 441100 00000

TEXAS WESTERN 110011 10000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000022 20000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 6 20 5 16 0 5 40100

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 011100 00000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 79 120 40 59 33 52 40 1 11 0 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-13

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 001000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 020000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 010000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 001000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 100000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 010000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 400000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 001000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 100000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 100000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 010000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000010

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 000100

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 000110

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 010000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-14

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 112000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 210000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 100000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 110110

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 010000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 200000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 112000

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 16 11 7 3 4 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-15

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2319, TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 - CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 000000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000 00000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

COLORADO 000000 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000 00000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000 00000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000000 00000

HAWAII 000000 00000

IDAHO 000000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000 00000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

KANSAS 000000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000 00000

MAINE 000000 00000

MARYLAND 000000 00000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000 00000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 000000 00000

NEVADA 000000 00000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 000000 00000

NEW MEXICO 000000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 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

D-16

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASES CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000 00000

PUERTO RICO 000000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000 00000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000 00000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000 00000

TEXAS NORTHERN 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 000000 00000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2319A charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 

 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A.

D-17

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 000000

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 000000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 000000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 000000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000000

HAWAII 000000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 000000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 000000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 000000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 000000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 000000

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 000000

NEVADA 000000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 000000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 000000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 000000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 000000

NEW YORK WESTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 000000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 000000

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 000000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-18

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 000000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 000000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 000000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 000000

TEXAS WESTERN 000000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 000000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 000000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 000000

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2319A was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2319A charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving 

 18 U.S.C. 2319A where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2319A.

D-19

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES, SECTION 2319A - UNAUTHORIZED FIXATION OF AND TRAFFICKING IN SOUND RECORDINGS AND MUSIC VIDEOS OF LIVE MUSICAL 

PERFORMANCES
REFERRALS AND CASES DISPOSITION OF CHARGE

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 120011 10000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 130000 00000

ARIZONA 120000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000022 20000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 27 31 19 23 13 14 90401

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 10 20 5712 00200

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 11 13 4434 10210

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 330000 00000

COLORADO 001113 20100

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 000027 50200

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 220025 30200

FLORIDA MIDDLE 13 20 7777 70000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 592647 60100

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 130000 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000033 30000

HAWAII 483634 40000

IDAHO 230000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 110000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 280034 20200

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000011 10000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA SOUTHERN 001100 00000

KANSAS 110011 00100

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 002200 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 220011 10000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 111100 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 250011 10000

MAINE 130000 00000

MARYLAND 6 13 4948 40103

MASSACHUSETTS 221100 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 482306 00600

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000 00000

MINNESOTA 233423 30000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 110000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 345544 40000

MISSOURI WESTERN 20 40 1100 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 001111 10000

NEVADA 000011 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 884433 30000

NEW MEXICO 120000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 7 10 1314 30100

NEW YORK NORTHERN 111111 10000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 5 7 2 3 7 10 7 2 1 0 0

NEW YORK WESTERN 7 21 6633 20001

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 251111 10000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 221100 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 002311 10000

OHIO NORTHERN 5 11 3455 50000

OHIO SOUTHERN 110000 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000 00000

OREGON 121300 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 10 13 3344 30010

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

D-20

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 121111 10000

PUERTO RICO 000000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 5 11 5 12 3 3 20100

SOUTH DAKOTA 142400 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000011 10000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 330011 10000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 440000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 111224 00400

TEXAS NORTHERN 332211 10000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 8 14 6725 40100

TEXAS WESTERN 7 13 3933 30000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 442222 20000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000011 00100

WASHINGTON EASTERN 110011 10000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 341155 40100

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 223 361 110 154 110 150 107 2 34 2 5

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2320 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320.

D-21

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 100000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 200000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 431100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 100000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 011000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 230000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 101100

FLORIDA MIDDLE 511000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 400200

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000120

HAWAII 202000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 011000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 100000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 000000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 100000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 400000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 000000

MINNESOTA 300000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 201010

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 100000

NEVADA 100000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 101100

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 201000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 100000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 720000

NEW YORK WESTERN 200000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 100000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 010000

OHIO NORTHERN 300200

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 210000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-22

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 100000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 020000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000010

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000010

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 001000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 001030

TEXAS WESTERN 300000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 020000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 100000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 130000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 61 20 12 8 8 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2320 was brought as any charge against a defendant. Displayed defendant 

 outcome information based upon the outcome of the 18 U.S.C. 2320 charge only, and does not necessarily represent the overall outcome of a defendant.

 Defendants against whom charges were dismissed may have been convicted of other, related offenses. This chart may not include criminal cases or matters involving

 18 U.S.C. 2320 where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include only a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 2320.

D-23

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2320 - TRAFFICKING IN COUNTERFEIT GOODS OR SERVICES

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 
REFERRALS AND CASES OVERALL DISPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 000011 10000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 000000 00000

ARIZONA 120000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000011 10000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 20 22 15 17 8 9 80100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 6 12 4724 40000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 662234 30010

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 330000 00000

COLORADO 001100 00000

CONNECTICUT 000000 00000

DELAWARE 340000 00000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 111112 20000

FLORIDA MIDDLE 15 20 11 11 8 10 10 0000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 000036 60000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000033 30000

HAWAII 242434 40000

IDAHO 340000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 110000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 000034 40000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 000011 10000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000011 10000

IOWA SOUTHERN 112200 00000

KANSAS 110000 00000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 330022 20000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 111100 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 220011 10000

MAINE 130000 00000

MARYLAND 6 13 4937 40003

MASSACHUSETTS 001100 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 020000 00000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 221111 10000

MINNESOTA 233423 30000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 110000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 454444 40000

MISSOURI WESTERN 5 11 0000 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 001111 10000

NEVADA 120011 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 331111 10000

NEW MEXICO 120000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 231311 10000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 111111 10000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 552266 51000

NEW YORK WESTERN 4 13 6711 10000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 110000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 001111 10000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 110000 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000 00000

OHIO NORTHERN 373466 60000

OHIO SOUTHERN 001200 00000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 110000 00000

OREGON 011300 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 683333 30000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 110000 00000

D-24 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**
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 120000 00000

PUERTO RICO 110000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 000000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 584744 40000

SOUTH DAKOTA 142400 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000011 10000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 110000 00000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 440000 00000

TEXAS EASTERN 110011 00100

TEXAS NORTHERN 112222 20000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 896712 10100

TEXAS WESTERN 661133 30000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000 00000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 261415 50000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000 00000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 110011 10000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 232233 20100

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 155 224 91 120 90 112 103 1413

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-25

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 100000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 100000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 430100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 130000

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 111000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 000000

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 000000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 010010

FLORIDA MIDDLE 811000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 310200

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000120

HAWAII 202000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 031000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 100000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 100000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 200000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 400000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 000000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 100000

MINNESOTA 300000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 201010

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 100000

NEVADA 100000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 100000

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 100000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 100000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 500100

NEW YORK WESTERN 100000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 100000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 000000

OHIO NORTHERN 400200

OHIO SOUTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 000000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 210000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-26 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**
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 121000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000010

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 000000

TEXAS EASTERN 000000

TEXAS NORTHERN 001100

TEXAS SOUTHERN 001000

TEXAS WESTERN 300000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 122000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 100000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 110000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 61 19 11 8 5 0

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***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 2012 Performance and Accountability Report D-27

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

FOR THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF CUSTOMS & BORDER PROTECTION AND BUREAU OF IMMIGRATION & CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT ONLY

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**
REFERRALS AND CASES OVERALL DISPOSITION OF THE DEFENDANT

 MATTER MATTER CASE CASES CASES CASES GUILTY GUILTY DISMISS ACQUIT OTHER 

 RECEIVE RECEIVE FILED FILED TERM TERM PLEAS VERDICT DEFEND DEFEND TERM 

DISTRICT COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND COUNT DEFEND DEFEND DEFEND COUNT COUNT DEFEND 

ALABAMA MIDDLE 000000 00000

ALABAMA NORTHERN 231133 30000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

ALASKA 130000 00000

ARIZONA 120000 00000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 000022 20000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000 00000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 32 41 21 27 15 16 140101

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 14 26 9 18 3 14 120200

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 16 186645 40010

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 441100 00000

COLORADO 001113 30000

CONNECTICUT 280000 00000

DELAWARE 341127 60100

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 451136 50100

FLORIDA MIDDLE 21 29 14 14 9 11 110000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000 00000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 592647 70000

GEORGIA MIDDLE 120000 00000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 130001 01000

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

GUAM 000033 30000

HAWAII 483634 40000

IDAHO 340000 00000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 110000 00000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 281134 40000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000 00000

INDIANA NORTHERN 110022 20000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 220000 00000

IOWA NORTHERN 000011 10000

IOWA SOUTHERN 112200 00000

KANSAS 110011 10000

KENTUCKY EASTERN 110000 00000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 002200 00000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 330022 20000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 111100 00000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 360011 10000

MAINE 130000 00000

MARYLAND 6 13 5 10 4 8 50003

MASSACHUSETTS 331100 00000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 482306 60000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 221111 10000

MINNESOTA 233423 30000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000 00000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 240000 00000

MISSOURI EASTERN 565555 50000

MISSOURI WESTERN 21 411100 00000

MONTANA 000000 00000

NEBRASKA 001111 10000

NEVADA 120011 10000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000 00000

NEW JERSEY 884433 30000

NEW MEXICO 120000 00000

NEW YORK EASTERN 8 111314 40000

NEW YORK NORTHERN 111111 10000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 16 19 5 6 8 11 8 3 0 0 0

NEW YORK WESTERN 8 236733 20001

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 220000 00000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 251111 10000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 221100 00000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000 00000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 002311 10000

OHIO NORTHERN 5 114566 60000

OHIO SOUTHERN 112322 20000

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000 00000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 221111 10000

OREGON 231300 00000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 10 134444 30010

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 220000 00000

D-28

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 231111 10000

PUERTO RICO 220000 00000

RHODE ISLAND 220000 00000

SOUTH CAROLINA 5 11 6 13 7 7 70000

SOUTH DAKOTA 142400 00000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 000014 40000

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 681111 10000

TENNESSEE WESTERN 440011 10000

TEXAS EASTERN 221224 10300

TEXAS NORTHERN 554455 50000

TEXAS SOUTHERN 12 18 7825 40100

TEXAS WESTERN 9 18 3944 40000

UTAH 000000 00000

VERMONT 000000 00000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 000022 20000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 12 28 7 18 3 8 80000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000011 00100

WASHINGTON EASTERN 110011 10000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 352266 50100

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000 00000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000 00000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 110000 00000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000 00000

WYOMING 000000 00000

GRAND TOTALS 314 496 152 218 144 205 183 4 11 2 5

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

D-29

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 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 102000

ALABAMA SOUTHERN 000000

ALASKA 000000

ARIZONA 000000

ARKANSAS EASTERN 200000

ARKANSAS WESTERN 000000

CALIFORNIA CENTRAL 661100

CALIFORNIA EASTERN 161220

CALIFORNIA NORTHERN 112000

CALIFORNIA SOUTHERN 000000

COLORADO 011100

CONNECTICUT 000000

DELAWARE 330000

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 111110

FLORIDA MIDDLE 911000

FLORIDA NORTHERN 000000

FLORIDA SOUTHERN 410200

GEORGIA MIDDLE 000000

GEORGIA NORTHERN 000010

GEORGIA SOUTHERN 000000

GUAM 000120

HAWAII 202000

IDAHO 000000

ILLINOIS CENTRAL 000000

ILLINOIS NORTHERN 031000

ILLINOIS SOUTHERN 000000

INDIANA NORTHERN 101000

INDIANA SOUTHERN 000000

IOWA NORTHERN 100000

IOWA SOUTHERN 000000

KANSAS 000100

KENTUCKY EASTERN 000000

KENTUCKY WESTERN 000000

LOUISIANA EASTERN 200000

LOUISIANA MIDDLE 000000

LOUISIANA WESTERN 100000

MAINE 000000

MARYLAND 410000

MASSACHUSETTS 000000

MICHIGAN EASTERN 303000

MICHIGAN WESTERN 100000

MINNESOTA 300000

MISSISSIPPI NORTHERN 000000

MISSISSIPPI SOUTHERN 000000

MISSOURI EASTERN 201020

MISSOURI WESTERN 000000

MONTANA 000000

NEBRASKA 100000

NEVADA 100000

NEW HAMPSHIRE 000000

NEW JERSEY 101100

NEW MEXICO 000000

NEW YORK EASTERN 201001

NEW YORK NORTHERN 100000

NEW YORK SOUTHERN 730100

NEW YORK WESTERN 200000

NORTH CAROLINA EASTERN 000000

NORTH CAROLINA MIDDLE 100000

NORTH CAROLINA WESTERN 000000

NORTH DAKOTA 000000

NORTHERN MARIANAS 010000

OHIO NORTHERN 400200

OHIO SOUTHERN 000110

OKLAHOMA EASTERN 000000

OKLAHOMA NORTHERN 000000

OKLAHOMA WESTERN 010000

OREGON 000000

PENNSYLVANIA EASTERN 210000

PENNSYLVANIA MIDDLE 000000

D-30

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 
PRISON SENTENCING

 

 NOT 1-12 13-24 25-36 37-60 60+ 

DISTRICT IMPRIS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS MONTHS

PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN 100000

PUERTO RICO 000000

RHODE ISLAND 000000

SOUTH CAROLINA 142000

SOUTH DAKOTA 000000

TENNESSEE EASTERN 210010

TENNESSEE MIDDLE 000010

TENNESSEE WESTERN 100000

TEXAS EASTERN 100000

TEXAS NORTHERN 111110

TEXAS SOUTHERN 001030

TEXAS WESTERN 310000

UTAH 000000

VERMONT 000000

VIRGIN ISLANDS 200000

VIRGINIA EASTERN 332000

VIRGINIA WESTERN 000000

WASHINGTON EASTERN 100000

WASHINGTON WESTERN 230000

WEST VIRGINIA NORTHERN 000000

WEST VIRGINIA SOUTHERN 000000

WISCONSIN EASTERN 000000

WISCONSIN WESTERN 000000

WYOMING 000000

GRAND TOTALS 88 43 25 15 15 1

*Caseload data extracted from the United States Attorneys' Case Management System.

**FY 2012 numbers are actual data through the end of September 2012.

***This chart includes data on any and all criminal cases/defendants where 18 U.S.C. 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320 or 17 U.S.C. 506 was brought as any charge against 

 a defendant. However, the statutes were run together to eliminate any double counting of cases/defendants where more than one of the statutes was charged against the 

 same defendant. Displayed defendant outcome information based upon the overall outcome of a defendant. This chart may not include criminal cases/defendants involving

 18 U.S.C. 2318, 18 U.S.C. 2319, 18 U.S.C. 2319A, 18 U.S.C. 2320, or 17 U.S.C. 506, where the lead charge, charges filed, or charges of conviction include

 only a conspiracy to violate any of the identified statutes. 

D-31

TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2320, and TITLE 17, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 506 COMBINED

CRIMINAL CASELOAD STATISTICS*

FISCAL YEAR 2012 REPORTED as of SEPTEMBER 30, 2012**

 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 
This page intentionally left blank.

D-32 Department of Justice · FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report E-1

APPENDIX E 

AAG/A Assistant Attorney General for Administration 

ACM Asbestos Containing Materials 

AFF Assets Forfeiture Fund 

AFF/SADF Assets Forfeiture Fund and Seized Asset Deposit Fund 

AMBER America's Missing: Broadcasting Emergency Response 

AOUSC Administrative Office of U.S. Courts 

ARRA American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

ATR Antitrust Division 

BIA Board of Immigration Appeals 

BJA Bureau of Justice Assistance 

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics 

BOP Bureau of Prisons 

Budget Budget of the United States 

CAST Case Status System 

CBT Cognitive Behavioral Therapy 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CHRP COPS Hiring Recovery Program (under Recovery Act) 

CI Confidential Informant 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CIV Civil Division 

CJIS Criminal Justice Information Services 

CODIS Combined DNA Index System 

COPS Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 

COTS Commercial-Off-The-Shelf 

CPC Capacity Planning Committee 

CPOT Consolidated Priority Organization Target 

CRM Criminal Division 

CRS Community Relations Service 

CRT Civil Rights Division 

CSCATL Correctional Systems and Correctional Alternatives for Tribal Lands 

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System 

CTD Counterterrorism Division 

CVF Crime Victims Fund 

CY Calendar Year/Current Year 

C

B

A

Acronyms
E-2 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

DCIA Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996 

DCM Debt Collection Management 

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration 

DFTF District Fugitive Task Force 

Department, The Department of Justice 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DIDO Designated Intelligence Disclosure Officials 

DIRB Department Investment Review Board 

DNA Deoxyribonucleic Acid 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DOL Department of Labor 

DSS Defendant Statistical System 

EEO Equal Employment Opportunity 

ENRD Environment and Natural Resources Division 

EOIR Executive Office for Immigration Review 

EOUSA Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

EPIC El Paso Intelligence Center 

EURIBOR Euro Interbank Offered Rate 

FAA FISA Amendments Act 

FASAB Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FBWT Fund Balance with U.S. Treasury 

FCI Federal Correctional Institution 

FCSC Foreign Claims Settlement Commission 

FECA Federal Employees Compensation Act 

FEGLI Federal Employees Group Life Insurance Program 

FEHB Federal Employees Health Benefits Program 

FERS Federal Employees Retirement System 

FFETF Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force 

FFMIA Federal Financial Management Improvement Act 

FinCEN Financial Crimes Enforcement Network 

FISA Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act 

FISMA Federal Information Security Management Act 

FLRA Federal Labor Relations Authority 

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

FMIS Financial Management Information System 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FPI Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 

F

E

D
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report E-3

FTE Full-Time Equivalent 

FTTTF Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force 

FY Fiscal Year 

GangTECC National Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordination Center 

GAO Government Accountability Office 

GAN Grant Adjustment Notice 

GMRA Government Management Reform Act 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 

GPRS Grant Payment Request System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

GSK GlaxoSmithKline 

HEAT Health Care Fraud Prevention and Enforcement Action Team 

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

IC Intelligence Community 

ICE Immigrations and Customs Enforcement 

ICITAP Internation Criminal Investigative Training Assistance Program 

IG Inspector General 

IGA Intergovernmental Agreement 

Integrity Act Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act 

INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization 

IP Intellectual Property 

IPERA Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act 

IPIA Improper Payments Information Act 

IRR Intelligence Information Report 

IRS Internal Revenue Service 

ISDC Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee 

IT Information Technology 

IWN Integrated Wireless Network 

JDIS Justice Detainee Information System 

JMD Justice Management Division 

JSOC Justice Security Operations Center 

JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force 

J

I

H

G
E-4 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

KG Kilogram 

LCD Liquid Crystal Display 

LCM Lower of average cost or market value 

LCN La Cosa Nostra 

LIBOR London InterBank Offered Rate 

LLC Limited Liability Company 

LLP Limited Liability Partnership 

MDMA 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine 

MLAT Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty 

MOU Memorandum of Understanding 

MS Mara Salvatrucha 

N/A Not Applicable 

NCIC National Crime Information Center 

NCIJTF National Cyber Investigative Joint Task Force 

NCMEC National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

NGI Next Generation Identification 

NGIC National Gang Intelligence Center 

NIJ National Institute of Justice 

NLETS International Justice and Public Safety Information Network 

NSD National Security Division 

NSL National Security Letter 

OAAM Office of Audit, Assessment, and Management 

OBDs Offices, Boards and Divisions 

OCDETF Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces 

OCGS Organized Crime and Gang Section 

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer 

ODR Office of Dispute Resolution 

OFC OCDETF Fusion Center 

OFDT Office of the Federal Detention Trustee 

OGA Other Government Agency 

OIA Office of International Affairs 

OIG Office of the Inspector General 

K

O

N

M

L
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report E-5

OIP Office of Information Policy 

OJP Office of Justice Programs 

OJJDP Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

OLA Office of Legislative Affairs 

OLC Office of Legal Counsel 

OLP Office of Legal Policy 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPA Office of the Pardon Attorney 

OPDAT Overseas Prosecutorial Development, Assistance and Training 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

OPR Office of Professional Responsibility 

OSG Office of the Solicitor General 

OSG Operational Section for Gangs 

OTJ Office of Tribal Justice 

OVP Office of the Vice President 

OVW Office on Violence Against Women 

PAR Performance and Accountability Report 

Patriot Act USA PATRIOT Act 

PHS Public Health Services 

PL Public Law 

PMT Performance Measurement Tool 

PMRU Professional Misconduct Review Unit 

PRAO Professional Responsibility Advisory Office 

PREA Prison Rape Elimination Act 

PSOB Act Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Act of 1976 

PTS Prisoner Tracking System 

PY Prior Year/Previous Year 

RCA Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 

RDAP Residential Drug Abuse Program 

RECA Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

RFTF Regional Fugitive Task Force 

RICO Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organization 

RMBS Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities 

RSAT Residential Substance Abuse Treatment 

SAVE Council Advisory Council for Savings and Efficiencies 

SBF Special Benefits Fund 

SBR Statement of Budgetary Resources 

SDO Suspending and Debarring Official 

SENTRY Bureau of Prisons' primary mission-support database 

S

R

P
E-6 Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report 

SFFAS Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards 

SG Strategic Goal 

SIS Short-term Intervention for Success 

SIU Sensitive Investigation Unit 

SOD Special Operations Division 

TAX Tax Division 

TBD To Be Determined 

TEDAC Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center 

Treasury, the Department of Treasury 

Trust Fund Federal Prison Commissary Fund 

TSC Terrorist Screening Center 

TSP Federal Thrift Savings Plan 

UDO Undelivered Orders 

UFMS Unified Financial Management System 

UNICOR Federal Prison Industries, Inc. 

US-CERT United States Computer Emergency Readiness Center 

USAs United States Attorneys 

USAO United States Attorneys’ Offices 

USA PATRIOT Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept 

 and Obstruct Terrorism 

USC United States Code 

USMS United States Marshals Service 

USNCB United States National Central Bureau 

USPC United States Parole Commission 

USSGL U.S. Standard General Ledger 

UST United States Trustee 

USTP United States Trustees Program 

VGSSTF Violent Gang Safe Streets Task Force 

VOI/TIS Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-In Sentencing 

WCC White-Collar Crime 

WIN Warrant Information Network System 

W

V

U

T
Department of Justice  FY 2012 Performance and Accountability Report F-1

APPENDIX F 

Component Website

American Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Desk (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/programs/aiana.htm

Antitrust Division www.justice.gov/atr/index.html

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives www.atf.gov/

Bureau of Justice Assistance (OJP) www.bja.gov/

Bureau of Justice Statistics (OJP) www.bjs.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 http://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/

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 Washington www.justice.gov/interpol-washington/

Justice Management Division www.justice.gov/jmd/

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (OJP) www.ncjrs.gov/

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 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 Justice Programs www.ojp.usdoj.gov/

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJP) www.ojjdp.gov/

Office of Legal Counsel www.justice.gov/olc/index.html

Office of Legal Policy www.justice.gov/olp/

Office of Legislative Affairs www.justice.gov/ola/

Office of the Pardon Attorney www.justice.gov/pardon/

Office of Professional Responsibility www.justice.gov/opr/index.html

Office of Public Affairs www.justice.gov/opa/index.html

Office of the Solicitor General www.justice.gov/osg/

Office of Tribal Justice www.justice.gov/otj/index.html

Office for Victims of Crime (OJP) www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/

Office on Violence Against Women www.ovw.usdoj.gov/

Tax Division www.justice.gov/tax/

U.S. Attorneys www.justice.gov/usao/

U.S. Marshals Service www.justice.gov/marshals/

U.S. Parole Commission www.justice.gov/uspc/

 

Department Component Websites
F-2 Department of Justice  FY 2012 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 2012 

Performance and Accountability Report. We welcome your 

comments and suggestions on how we can improve this report for 

FY 2013. Please email any comments to: performance@usdoj.gov

This document is available on the Internet at:

http://www.justice.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2012/TableofContents.htm

Please view our Strategic Plan at:

http://www.justice.gov/jmd/strategic2012-2016/index.html
U.S. Department of Justice

www.justice.gov