Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

May 2004 U.S. ATTORNEYS

Performance-Based 

Initiatives Are 

Evolving 

GAO-04-422 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt? GAO-04-422 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Paul L. Jones, 

202-512-8777, Jonesp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-422, a report to 

congressional requesters 

May 2004

U.S. ATTORNEYS

Performance-Based Initiatives Are 

Evolving 

DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals and objectives 

applicable to its components, including U.S. Attorneys. Released in February 

2004, DOJ’s fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission showed the 

two strategic goals and seven strategic objectives applicable to U.S. 

Attorneys. 

 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S. Attorneys 

DOJ strategic objectives

that apply to U.S. Attorney activities

DOJ’s fiscal year 2005

strategic goals

that apply to

U.S. Attorney activities

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ fiscal year 2005 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys.

Goal 2 - Enforce federal 

laws and represent the 

rights and interests of the 

American people

Goal 1 - Prevent 

terrorism and promote 

the nation’s security

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

1.2 Investigate and prosecute those who have committed, or intend to 

 commit, terrorist acts in the United States

2.1 Reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, including 

 crimes against children

2.2 Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs

2.3 Combat white-collar, economic crime, and cybercrime

2.4 Uphold the civil and Constitutional rights of all Americans, and protect 

 vulnerable members of society

2.5 Enforce federal statutes, uphold the rule of law, and vigorously represent 

 the interests of the United States in all matters for which DOJ has jurisdiction

DOJ has developed performance measures for U.S. Attorneys’ activities, and 

the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is exploring ways 

to measure performance in individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. Performance 

measures covering U.S. Attorneys continue to evolve. DOJ’s fiscal year 

2005 congressional budget submission included an outcome measure—

percentage of cases favorably resolved—that is intended to show how U.S. 

Attorneys contribute to DOJ’s overall mission. According to DOJ budget 

officials, these measures will be revised as DOJ gains more experience with 

performance-based budgeting. EOUSA is also developing performance 

initiatives, for example, implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun violence, 

which includes developing related performance measures. 

DOJ is undertaking initiatives to provide better tools for monitoring the 

performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has redesigned its internal 

evaluation program and begun implementing a new process for collecting 

and analyzing information to assess each U.S. Attorneys Office’s progress 

toward addressing DOJ’s priorities and meeting performance expectations. 

According to DOJ officials, these tools will continue to evolve. 

DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate performance-based strategic 

human capital management into day-to-day operations, including those of 

U.S. Attorneys Offices. Among other things, EOUSA is exploring how to 

integrate DOJ strategic goals and objectives with individual performance 

expectations. 

Within the Department of Justice 

(DOJ), the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices 

represent the United States in 

criminal and civil matters across the 

nation. The Government 

Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) of 1993 requires federal 

agencies, including DOJ, to set goals 

and objectives, measure 

performance, and report their 

accomplishments in order to move 

toward a performance-based 

environment. Integral to achieving 

these goals and objectives is 

strategic human capital 

management--the marshalling, 

managing, and maintaining the 

human capital needed to maximize 

government performance and 

achieve accountability. 

This report describes (1) how DOJ’s 

strategic goals and objectives apply 

to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ’s plans 

and efforts to develop performance 

measures that apply to U.S. 

Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ 

uses for monitoring the performance 

of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and 

(4) DOJ efforts to move toward 

strategic human capital management 

for U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

DOJ reviewed a draft of this report 

and had no comments. 
Page i GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Letter 1

Background 2

Results 4

Concluding Observations 7

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 7

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 9 

Appendix II Information on the History, Operations, and 

Structure of U.S Attorneys Offices 13 

Appendix III Governmentwide Management and Performance 

Initiatives Affecting DOJ and Its Components 19 

The Government Performance and Results Act 19

The Performance and Budget Initiative 20

Strategic Human Capital Management 23

Appendix IV DOJ’s Departmentwide Strategic Goals and 

Objectives Applicable to U.S. Attorneys 25 

Appendix V Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys Are 

Evolving 30 

Appendix VI DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring the Performance of 

U.S. Attorneys Offices Is Evolving 49 

Appendix VII DOJ and EOUSA Are Considering Approaches to 

Move Toward Strategic Human Capital Management 60 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Appendix VIII Summary of GAO’s Survey of Supervisory Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys about Various Management Issues 68 

Performance Goals and Measures 69

Monitoring Cases and Matters 69

Performance Evaluation 70

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Staffing 71

Administrative Support 72

Appendix IX GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 75 

GAO Contact 75

Staff Acknowledgments 75

Related GAO Products on Strategic Human Capital Management 76 

Tables 

Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual 

Performance Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal 

Year 2004, and Associated Actual and Requested 

Resources for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004 26

Table 2: DOJ’s Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 

That Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, 

Appropriated, and Requested Budgetary Resources for 

Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005 29

Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys’ Activities in 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan 31

Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget 

Submission for Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug 

Trafficking, and White-Collar Crime Showing Relationship 

between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related Activities and 

Projected and Requested Budgetary Increases 44

Table 5: DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives 62

Figures 

Figure 1: DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for 

U.S. Attorneys 5

Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts 17
Page iii GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output 

Goals and Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal 

Structure 22

Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for 

U.S Attorneys—Criminal Decision Unit 35

Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for 

U.S Attorneys—Civil Decision Unit 37

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for 

U.S Attorneys—Legal Education Decision Unit 38

Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 

Attorneys—Criminal Decision Unit 40

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 

Attorneys—Civil Decision Unit 41

Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S 

Attorneys—Legal Education Decision Unit 42
Page iv GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Abbreviations 

ATAC Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council 

ATTF Anti-terrorism Task Force 

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives 

DEA Drug Enforcement Agency 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOJ Department of Justice 

DSES District Self Evaluation Survey 

EARS Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations 

EOUSA Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FTE Full-time equivalent 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

JMD Justice Management Division 

JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force 

MPS Management and Planning Staff 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PMA President’s Management Agenda 

PSN Project Safe Neighborhoods 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

May 28, 2004 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Chris Cannon 

Chairman 

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

With the advent of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

of 1993, federal agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ), were 

to move toward performance-based management. GPRA requires agencies 

to, among other things, set goals, measure performance, and report on 

their accomplishments in their annual performance plans and annual 

performance reports. As a result of GPRA, DOJ has established a number 

of goals broadly intended to show how DOJ will carry out its law 

enforcement and administration of justice responsibilities. Within DOJ, the 

94 U.S. Attorneys Offices represent the United States in civil and criminal 

matters across the nation and its territories. U.S. Attorneys Offices localize 

the national criminal justice presence, while serving the different 

communities in which each is located. As the nation’s principal litigators, 

U.S. Attorneys’ performance is critical to DOJ achieving its goals and 

objectives under GPRA. Integral to achieving these goals and objectives is 

strategic human capital management—the marshaling, managing, and 

maintaining of the human capital needed to maximize government 

performance and ensure accountability. In this environment of increasing 

accountability and in light of the responsibilities of the U.S. Attorneys, it is 

important for Members of Congress to be able to understand how DOJ’s 

strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, what DOJ is doing 

to develop performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, the tools 

DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and what 

initiatives DOJ has undertaken to foster strategic human capital 

management in U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

This report is the third in a series of reports responding to your request 

that we examine various aspects of the management of U.S. Attorneys 

Offices.1

 In this report, we describe (1) how DOJ strategic goals and 

objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, (2) DOJ’s plans and efforts to develop 

performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ 

uses to monitor the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ 

efforts to move toward strategic human capital management for U.S. 

Attorneys Offices. 

To address our objectives, we performed work at DOJ, including the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), the Justice 

Management Division (JMD), and 10 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, selected 

primarily on the basis of geographic dispersion and office size. At these 

locations, we interviewed officials and obtained documents on strategic 

management and performance measurement issues, human capital 

management, and basic operational issues in the context of laws, 

regulations, and available guidance issued by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), DOJ, and 

our best practices work. Our work at the 10 U.S. Attorneys Offices is not 

generalizable to the universe of U.S Attorneys Offices. We also surveyed 

768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from across the 94 U.S. Attorneys 

Offices using a Web-based survey instrument. The survey was designed to 

obtain supervisors’ views on various aspects of management and human 

capital issues affecting the offices in which they worked. The survey 

represents the views of the 532 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who 

responded to our Web survey in early 2003. 

We did our work between November 2001 and May 2004 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I 

discusses our scope and methodology in greater detail. 

U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government in 

criminal and civil proceedings. U.S. Attorneys investigate and prosecute a 

wide range of criminal activities—including international and domestic 

terrorism, corporate fraud, public corruption, violent crime, and drug 

trafficking—and handle the majority of criminal cases prosecuted by DOJ. 

 1

See U.S. General Accounting Office, Information Technology: Executive Office for U. S. 

Attorneys Needs to Institutionalize Key IT Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751

(Washington, D.C.: July 2003) and U.S. Attorneys: Controls Over Grant-Related Activities 

Should Be Enhanced, GAO-03-733 (Washington, D.C.: June 2003). 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

They also initiate civil actions to protect the interests of the United States, 

represent and defend the interests of the government in lawsuits filed 

against the government, and collect debts owed the federal government 

that are administratively uncollectible. EOUSA provides the 94 U.S. 

Attorneys Offices with general executive assistance and direction, policy 

development, administrative management direction and oversight, 

operational support, and coordination with other components of the 

department and other federal agencies.2

 In fiscal year 2003, the budget 

for U.S. Attorneys was about $1.5 billion to support approximately 

5,000 attorneys and a similar number of support staff. (More detailed 

information on the history, operations, and structure of U.S. Attorneys 

Offices can be found in app. II.) 

U.S. Attorneys are not required to engage in strategic planning or 

performance planning under GPRA, but according to EOUSA’s Director, 

U.S. Attorneys are required to contribute information to their parent 

agency, DOJ, so that DOJ can fulfill its GPRA requirements. GPRA’s main 

documents are strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 

performance reports. Together, these documents create a recurring cycle 

of planning, program execution, and reporting, thereby providing federal 

agencies the basis to manage for results. OMB Circular A-11 lays out 

guidelines for agencies to follow when implementing GPRA. According to 

Circular A-11, strategic plans provide the framework for implementing 

GPRA and set out an agency’s course of action and accomplishment over 

the long term. Strategic plans are to include, among other things, strategic 

or general goals that are statements of aim or purpose defined in a manner 

that allows a future assessment to be made on whether the goal was or is 

being achieved. 

Complementing strategic plans are annual performance plans that set 

forth performance goals.3

 According to Circular A-11, performance goals 

define targeted levels of performance against which actual achievements 

can be compared and can either be outcome goals—which describe the 

intended result, effect, or consequence that will occur from carrying out a 

 2

There are 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and 93 U.S. Attorneys—-the same U.S. Attorney serves 

the District of Guam and the District of the Northern Mariana Islands. 

3

According to OMB Circular A-11 dated July 2003, beginning with the budget for fiscal year 

2005, agencies are to prepare a performance budget in lieu of the annual performance plan 

for their budget submission to OMB and Congress. The Circular stated that the 

performance budget should satisfy all statutory requirements for the annual performance 

plan. 
Page 4 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

program or activity—or output goals—which describe the level of activity 

or effort that will be produced over a period of time or by a specified date. 

A performance measure is a particular value or characteristic used to 

measure output or outcome. To complete the cycle, annual performance 

reports provide information on actual performance compared to the 

projected performance levels or targets, defined by annual performance 

goals. (More detailed information on GPRA, Circular A-11, and 

governmentwide management and performance initiatives can be found in 

app. III.) 

As required by GPRA, DOJ has established departmentwide strategic goals 

and objectives that apply to the activities of its components, including the 

activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ’s Strategic Plan for 2001 through 2006 and 

Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan presented 8 strategic goals and 

38 strategic objectives—6 of these strategic goals and 12 of the strategic 

objectives involved the use of U.S. Attorneys’ resources. For fiscal years 

2003 through 2008, DOJ has drafted, but had not yet released as of March 

2004, a new departmentwide strategic plan that DOJ officials told us would 

consolidate many of the strategic goals and objectives in the previous 

strategic plan. DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys 

Congressional Submission showed 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic 

objectives that will apply to U.S. Attorneys’ activities. For example, the 

budget submission includes a strategic goal—prevent terrorism and 

promote the nation’s security—and one of the strategic objectives for that 

goal is to prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they 

occur. (App. IV provides a more detailed discussion of how DOJ strategic 

goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys’ activities.) 

Results 
Page 5 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 1: DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 Strategic Goals and Objectives for U.S. Attorneys 

DOJ has developed performance measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys’ 

activities, and EOUSA is exploring ways to measure performance in 

individual U.S. Attorneys Offices. DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance 

Plan included performance measures applicable to U.S. Attorneys, which 

focused on selected areas, such as antiterrorism, civil litigation, and 

witness assistance, but did not cover activities related to violent crime, 

drugs, and other areas, such as fraud and corruption. Performance 

measures covering U.S. Attorneys’ activities continued to evolve and, in its 

fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, DOJ included an 

outcome measure—percentage of cases favorably resolved—that is 

intended to show how U.S. Attorneys contribute to DOJ’s overall mission. 

According to DOJ officials, the performance measures for U.S. Attorneys 

and the format for presenting these measures will continue to evolve and 

will be revised as DOJ gains more experience with performance-based 

budgeting. In the meantime, EOUSA and individual U.S. Attorneys Offices 

have also been developing ways to measure performance in U.S. Attorneys 

Offices. For example, EOUSA has begun the process to engage a 

contractor to design performance measures that will link U.S. Attorneys 

Office activities to the overall U.S. Attorneys’ budget; EOUSA has funded 

one district’s efforts to develop its own strategic plan to help it measure 

districtwide performance; and EOUSA and individual U.S. Attorneys’ 

Offices are implementing a DOJ initiative to curb gun violence, which 

includes developing related performance measures. (App. V provides a 

more detailed discussion on DOJ’s and EOUSA’s efforts to establish 

performance measures of U.S. Attorney activities.) 

DOJ strategic objectives

that apply to U.S. Attorney activities

DOJ’s fiscal year 2005

strategic goals

that apply to

U.S. Attorney activities

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ fiscal year 2005 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys.

Goal 2 - Enforce federal 

laws and represent the 

rights and interests of the 

American people

Goal 1 - Prevent 

terrorism and promote 

the nation’s security

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

1.2 Investigate and prosecute those who have committed, or intend to 

 commit, terrorist acts in the United States

2.1 Reduce the threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, including 

 crimes against children

2.2 Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of illegal drugs

2.3 Combat white-collar, economic crime, and cybercrime

2.4 Uphold the civil and Constitutional rights of all Americans, and protect 

 vulnerable members of society

2.5 Enforce federal statutes, uphold the rule of law, and vigorously represent 

 the interests of the United States in all matters for which DOJ has jurisdiction
Page 6 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

DOJ is making revisions to an ongoing internal evaluation program and 

developing a performance reporting process that are intended to provide 

DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys better tools for monitoring the 

performance of U.S. Attorneys’ Offices. Specifically: 

• EOUSA has redesigned its ongoing internal evaluation program for U.S. 

Attorneys Offices to focus more attention on “critical areas of 

management and performance,” such as strategic planning, senior 

management operations, and DOJ’s priority programs (e.g., antiterrorism, 

violent crimes and drugs, and civil rights prosecutions). As of February 

2004, EOUSA had not completed all elements of the redesign, but our 

review of guidance issued by EOUSA as part of this redesign showed 

attention to results oriented management, including strategic planning and 

performance management. EOUSA officials also told us that they had 

made additional changes to the guidance and would continue to do so 

during the remainder of fiscal year 2004. 

• EOUSA has begun to implement a process for collecting from U.S. 

Attorneys Offices information “based on qualitative and quantitative 

measures,” regarding their efforts to meet DOJ’s performance and 

management expectations. As EOUSA gains more experience, this process 

and the information being required from each U.S. Attorney’s Office 

continues to evolve. We compared EOUSA’s original template for 

collecting 2002 information and its revised draft template for collecting 

2003 information. Our analysis showed that the latest draft guidelines were 

more specific and targeted than the earlier version. EOUSA officials told 

us that it may be difficult to develop a quantitative measure, because the 

factors affecting how each U.S. Attorney’s Office could best meet an 

objective vary according to local situations. 

(App. VI provides a more detailed discussion on DOJ’s efforts to monitor 

the performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices.) 

As part of its efforts to move toward performance-based management, 

generally, DOJ and EOUSA have taken steps to integrate strategic human 

capital management into the day-to-day operations of EOUSA and U.S. 

Attorneys Offices. Specifically, in September 2002, DOJ published its 

Human Capital Strategic Plan. The plan applied to personnel in DOJ’s 

components, such as the U.S. Attorneys, and was linked to its overall 

Strategic Plan. Subsequently, however, DOJ’s Inspector General and OMB 

identified human capital challenges facing DOJ, for example, DOJ’s ability 

to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees in many areas 

of operation. DOJ’s Director of Personnel told us that DOJ is currently 

taking steps to move forward with its human capital efforts, including, for 
Page 7 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

example, developing a new employee appraisal system. In addition to 

DOJ’s departmentwide efforts, EOUSA is considering its own human 

capital initiatives, including hiring an experienced manager to lead 

EOUSA’s human capital management effort. EOUSA is also working with 

U.S. Attorneys to develop new management training that is expected to 

include course work on individual performance management and 

organizational strategic planning. EOUSA is also working with the U.S. 

Attorneys Office for the Middle District of Tennessee to develop the 

prototype for a new appraisal format that is to link individual performance 

with organizational goals and objectives. (App. VII provides a more 

detailed discussion on DOJ’s and EOUSA’s efforts to integrate strategic 

human capital management into day-to-day operations.) 

U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the federal government and 

localize the national criminal justice presence in communities across the 

country. The performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is critical to DOJ 

achieving its strategic goals and objectives. DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. 

Attorneys have taken or are considering various steps that are designed to 

move U.S. Attorneys Offices toward a more results oriented, performancebased environment consistent with GPRA and governmentwide efforts to 

strategically manage human capital. However, many initiatives are not yet 

complete and some are in the early planning stages. DOJ’s, EOUSA’s, and 

U.S. Attorneys’ efforts thus far appear to be steps in the right direction. 

However, these initiatives will continue to evolve and they bear watching 

to help ensure that DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys take advantage of 

their momentum and build on the progress already made. 

On May 3, 2004, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the 

Attorney General. On May 19, 2004, DOJ officials informed us that the 

agency had no comments on the report. DOJ provided technical comments 

that we have incorporated where appropriate. 

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

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 21 days after its 

issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to other 

interested congressional committees and to the Attorney General. We will 

also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Concluding 

Observations 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 
Page 8 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

If you have any questions, please contact me or John F. Mortin, Assistant 

Director, at (202) 512-8777. You may also contact me by e-mail at 

jonespl@gao.gov or Mr. Mortin at mortinj@gao.gov. Key contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix IX. 

Paul L. Jones, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice Issues 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 9 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Our objectives in this report were to describe (1) how Department of 

Justice (DOJ) strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. Attorneys, 

(2) DOJ’s plans and efforts to develop performance measures that apply to 

U.S. Attorneys, (3) the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of 

U.S. Attorneys Offices, and (4) DOJ efforts to move toward strategic 

human capital management for U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

We performed our work at DOJ, including the Executive Office for United 

States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the Justice Management Division (JMD) in 

Washington, D.C. We also performed work at 10 selected U.S. Attorneys 

Offices—the districts of Delaware, Nebraska, Nevada, and South Carolina; 

the Southern District of Indiana; the Western District of Washington; the 

Central District of California; the Eastern District of Pennsylvania; the 

Western District of Texas; and the Eastern District of Virginia. We selected 

the 10 offices primarily to achieve geographic dispersion and a mix of 

office sizes.1

 In making our final selections, we focused on districts where 

a U.S. Attorney had been appointed. At each of the 10 offices, we met with 

the U.S. Attorney and his or her key managers and using a standardized 

data collection instrument, we discussed issues and collected documents 

pertaining to strategic and performance planning, performance 

measurement, and goal setting; office and staff accountability; and human 

capital, including the allocation of human capital resources and recruiting 

and retention for attorneys and support staff. Our work at the 10 selected 

offices is not generalizable to the universe of U.S. Attorneys Offices. In 

addition, we obtained and reviewed reports and Web-based material on 

the overall management of DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorneys Offices; and 

laws and regulations governing DOJ, EOUSA, and U.S. Attorney 

operations. Furthermore, we obtained and reviewed relevant laws, 

regulations, and reports pertaining to the implementation of the 

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, performance 

and budget integration, and human capital strategic management. 

To describe (1) how DOJ strategic goals and objectives apply to U.S. 

Attorneys and (2) DOJ’s plans and efforts to develop performance 

measures that apply to U.S. Attorneys, we reviewed DOJ’s Strategic Plan 

for fiscal years 2001 through 2006 and DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance 

Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 

 1

EOUSA defines an extra-large office as having 100 or more attorneys; a large office as 

having 44 to 99 attorneys; a medium office as having 25 to 43 attorneys; and a small office 

as having less than 25 attorneys. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 10 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

2004 Performance Plan. We also examined the U.S. Attorney’s 

congressional budget submission for fiscal year 2004, submitted to 

Congress in February 2003, and its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget 

submission, submitted in February 2004, as part of the President’s budget. 

We reviewed these documents in the context of GPRA and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11, which provides guidance 

on (1) agency strategic and performance planning and reporting related to 

GPRA and (2) developing a performance-based budget under the 

President’s performance and budget initiative. We also interviewed 

officials at DOJ, including JMD, EOUSA, and the 10 selected U.S. 

Attorneys Offices and obtained available documents on DOJ’s and 

EOUSA’s efforts to (1) develop performance measures for U.S. Attorneys 

and their offices and (2) link performance measures for U.S. Attorneys’ 

performance to the U.S. Attorney’s budget. In addition, we reviewed our 

past reports that addressed strategic and performance planning, including 

measuring performance, at DOJ and at other agencies throughout the 

federal government. Furthermore, we examined reports by DOJ’s Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) on the top management challenges facing DOJ for 

fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003 pertaining to performance measurement 

and strategic planning and reviewed available OMB documents on federal 

agency efforts to implement the performance and budget initiative under 

the President’s Management Agenda (PMA). 

To describe the processes DOJ uses to monitor the performance of U.S. 

Attorneys Offices, we interviewed officials at EOUSA and the 10 selected 

offices and obtained and reviewed available documentation on the 

strategies, policies, procedures, and practices used to assess the 

performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices and plans to develop new or revise 

existing performance assessment initiatives. We then discussed our 

examination of these documents with EOUSA officials to further gain an 

understanding of their efforts. 

To describe DOJ efforts to move toward strategic human capital 

management for U.S. Attorneys Offices, we reviewed our reports, and 

OMB and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidelines on strategic 

human capital management.2

 We also interviewed officials at JMD, 

EOUSA, and the 10 selected U.S. Attorneys Offices and obtained and 

 2

See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update, GAO-01-262 (Washington, 

D.C.: January 2001); High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital Management, 

GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003); and Human Capital: A Self Assessment 

Checklist for Agency Leaders, GAO/OCG-00-14G (Washington, D.C.: September 2000). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 11 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

analyzed documentation on their efforts to develop policies, procedures, 

and practices for adopting and implementing DOJ’s and EOUSA’s human 

capital strategies. In addition, we obtained and analyzed management 

challenge reports issued by DOJ’s OIG and examined OMB budget 

documents and reports that discussed DOJ’s progress implementing its 

human capital initiative. Furthermore, we discussed OIG and OMB 

comments about DOJ’s efforts with its Director of Personnel. 

To supplement our efforts on performance management and human 

capital issues, we also designed and implemented a Web-based survey of 

the universe of 768 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in each of the 

94 U.S. Attorneys Offices covering various topics related to the 

management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. We developed the survey to obtain 

the supervisors perceptions of key management topics pertaining to 

performance goals and measurement and aspects of U.S. Attorney’s 

human capital framework, particularly workforce planning and training 

and staff development. To implement our survey, we obtained a list of the 

universe of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from EOUSA and worked 

with EOUSA officials to ensure that the list accurately reflected all 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys in supervisory positions as of January 2003. To 

ensure that we obtained the highest response rate possible, we made the 

Web-based survey available to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys from 

January 8, 2003, through February 28, 2003, and sent reminders via e-mail 

and telephone calls to supervisors. While the overall response rate was 

relatively high (70 percent overall), not all supervisors who completed the 

surveys provided responses to all the appropriate questions. We did not 

independently verify the accuracy or completeness of responses provided 

from the survey. Moreover, the responses presented in this report reflect 

the views of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in early 2003, at the time 

the survey was conducted. 

Because this was not a sample survey, there are no sampling errors. 

However, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce 

errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, 

difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of 

information that are available to respondents, or in how the data are 

entered into a database or were analyzed, can introduce unwanted 

variability into the survey results. We took steps in the development of the 

questionnaire, the data collection, and the data analysis to minimize these 

nonsampling errors. For example, social science survey specialists 

designed the questionnaire in collaboration with our staff with subject 

matter expertise. Then, the draft questionnaire was pretested with a 

number of Supervisory U.S. Attorneys to ensure that the questions were 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 12 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

relevant, clearly stated, and easy to comprehend. When the data were 

analyzed, a second, independent analyst checked all computer programs. 

Since this was a Web-based survey, respondents entered their answers 

directly into the electronic questionnaire. This eliminates the need to have 

the data keyed into a database, thus removing an additional source of 

error. 

Our work was performed between November 2001 and May 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 

Page 13 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

U.S. Attorneys, the principal litigators for the federal government in 

criminal and civil proceedings are, by statute, under supervisory control of 

the Attorney General. Since the earliest days of the nation’s history, U.S. 

Attorneys have prosecuted cases in the federal judicial districts. The 

Judiciary Act of 1789 directed the President to appoint an attorney for 

each federal judicial district to prosecute all crimes and offenses against 

the United States and all civil actions in which the United States was 

concerned.1

 At that time, U.S. Attorneys prosecuted only crimes 

specifically mentioned in the Constitution, such as piracy, treason, and 

counterfeiting. Today, under Title 28 U.S.C. 547, U.S. Attorneys prosecute 

criminal cases brought by the federal government; prosecute and defend 

civil cases in which the United States is a party; and collect debts owed the 

federal government that are administratively uncollectible. 

Following the passage of the Judiciary Act, U.S. Attorneys functioned until 

1820 without supervision by any executive agency. At that time, Congress 

paved the way for some central oversight of U.S. Attorneys by giving the 

President power to designate an officer within the Department of the 

Treasury to oversee U.S. Attorneys’ activities. Authority over U.S. 

Attorneys then shifted to the Attorney General in 1870 when the 

Department of Justice (DOJ) was established. Since then, U.S. Attorneys 

have served at the direction of the Attorney General. As the head of DOJ, 

the Attorney General is to supervise all litigation to which the United 

States is a party and direct all U.S. Attorneys and Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

in the discharge of their duties. While DOJ participates in the appointment 

process for each U.S. Attorney by recommending to the President the 

names of qualified nominees, each is a presidential appointee, confirmed 

by the Senate, and serves as the chief federal law enforcement official in 

their communities. As such, they serve to “localize” the national 

government’s criminal justice’s presence. Consequently, although the 

Attorney General supervises U.S. Attorneys, they also serve the different 

and diverse communities to which they are appointed. According to the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), a degree of tension 

 1

1 Stat. 73, 92-93. The Judiciary Act also provided for the appointment of the Attorney 

General to represent the United States in litigation before the Supreme Court and to furnish 

legal advice to the President and department heads. 

Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 
Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 

Page 14 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

will always exist between the local and national mandates of U.S. 

Attorneys.2

EOUSA was established in 1953 in the Office of the Deputy Attorney 

General. Among other things, EOUSA provides general executive 

assistance to the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices and is responsible for preparing 

the U.S. Attorneys congressional budget submission and providing 

oversight and operational support. EOUSA also facilitates coordination 

between U.S. Attorneys Offices and other federal agencies and other DOJ 

components,3

 including 

• litigating divisions—-such as the Civil Division, Criminal Division, the 

Civil Rights Division, and the Antitrust Division—which, along with 

U.S. Attorneys, enforce federal criminal and civil laws, including civil 

rights, tax, antitrust, environmental, and civil justice statutes; 

• investigative agencies—including the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

(FBI); the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA); and the Bureau of 

Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF)—which prevent and 

deter crime and arrest criminal suspects;4

 and 

 2

Redeployment of United States Attorneys’ Personnel, (N.D.), A Report by the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys as Requested by Senate Report 105-235 Regarding FY 

1999 Appropriations for the Department of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies. 

3

The 40 component organizations are the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the 

Deputy Attorney General, the Office of the Associate Attorney General, the Office of the 

Solicitor General, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of Legal Counsel, the 

Office of Legal Policy, the Office of Intelligence Policy and Review, the Office of 

Professional Responsibility, the Office of Legislative Affairs, the Office of 

Intergovernmental and Public Liaison, the Office of Information and Privacy, the Office of 

Public Affairs, the Office of Dispute Resolution, the Justice Management Division, the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys, the Antitrust Division, the Civil Division, the 

Civil Rights Division, the Criminal Division, the Environment and Natural Resources 

Division, the Tax Division, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, the Drug Enforcement 

Administration, the FBI, ATF, the U.S. Marshals Service, Interpol – U.S. National Central 

Bureau, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, the Office of the Pardon Attorney, 

the U.S. Parole Commission, the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, the Community 

Relations Service, the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission of the United States, the 

Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, the 

National Drug Intelligence Center, the Professional Responsibility Advisory Office, the 

Office of Federal Detention Trustee, and the Office of Violence Against Women. According 

to a JMD official, DOJ treats EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys as one component. 

4

The U.S. Attorneys also litigate cases for investigative agencies outside of DOJ, for 

example, the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection in the Department of Homeland 

Security. 
Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 

Page 15 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

• the Justice Management Division (JMD) which, among other things, 

provides (1) assistance to senior DOJ managers, on various 

organizational, management, and administrative issues and (2) direct 

support to DOJ offices, boards, and divisions on such things as 

personnel, accounting, and budget matters. 

According to DOJ’s fiscal year 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys, 

U.S. Attorneys Offices handle about 95 percent of the criminal cases 

prosecuted by DOJ. U.S. Attorneys receive most of their criminal referrals, 

or “matters,” from federal investigative agencies or become aware of 

criminal activities in the course of investigating or prosecuting other 

cases. In addition, they receive criminal matters from state and local 

investigative agencies or, occasionally, from citizens. Once a matter is 

received, the U.S. Attorney’s Office decides the appropriateness of 

bringing criminal charges and, if deemed appropriate, initiates 

prosecutions. Except for misdemeanor offenses and instances in which an 

alleged offender waives the right to a grand jury indictment, the U.S. 

Attorney presents evidence against an alleged offender to a grand jury. If 

the grand jury decides to return an indictment, the U.S. Attorney presents 

the criminal charges in open court during criminal arraignment. In its 

fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission, DOJ reported that 

during fiscal year 2003, U.S. Attorneys Offices received 102,563 criminal 

matters. The offices reviewed and declined to bring charges on a total of 

39,172 criminal matters during the year and filed 59,998 criminal cases 

against 81,624 defendants in U.S. District Court. 

U.S. Attorneys also initiate civil actions—called affirmative litigation—to 

assert and protect the interests of the United States and defend the 

interests of the government in lawsuits filed against the United States—

referred to as defensive litigation. DOJ reported in its fiscal year 2005 

congressional budget submission that of all the civil cases pending as of 

the end of fiscal year 2003, 74 percent were defensive litigation. DOJ also 

stated that civil matters and cases represented a significant portion of U.S. 

Attorneys Offices’ workload, reporting in its 2005 congressional budget 

submission that by the end of fiscal year 2003, pending civil cases 

represented 64 percent of the 176,587 pending criminal and civil cases in 

U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

The fiscal year 2004 appropriation for U.S. Attorneys was about 

$1.5 billion to support approximately 5,000 attorneys and a similar number 

of support staff. Almost all these attorneys and staff worked in the 

94 federal judicial districts throughout the 50 states, the District of 
Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 

Page 16 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Columbia, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the 

Virgin Islands.5

Figure 2 shows the boundaries of each of the 94 U.S. Attorney Districts. 

 5

The 94 U.S. Attorney Offices and their branch locations comprise over 240 sites. 
Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 

Page 17 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 2: 94 U.S. Attorneys Districts 
Appendix II: Information on the History, 

Operations, and Structure of U.S Attorneys 

Offices 

Page 18 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Key to U.S. Attorney Districts 

ALN – Northern District of Alabama KYE – Eastern District of Kentucky OKE – Eastern District of Oklahoma 

ALM – Middle District of Alabama KYW – Western District of Kentucky OKN – Northern District of Oklahoma 

ALS – Southern District of Alabama LAE—Eastern District of Louisiana OKW – Western District of Oklahoma 

AK – District of Alaska LAM – Middle District of Louisiana OR – District of Oregon 

AZ – District of Arizona LAW – Western District of Louisiana PAE – Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

ARE — Eastern District of Arkansas ME – District of Maine PAM – Middle District of Pennsylvania 

ARW – Western District of Arkansas MD – District of Maryland PAW – Western District of Pennsylvania 

CAC – Central District of California MA – District of Massachusetts PR – District of Puerto Rico 

CAE – Eastern District of California MIE – Eastern District of Michigan RI – District of Rhode Island 

CAN – Northern District of California MIW – Western District of Michigan SC – District of South Carolina 

CAS – Southern District of California MN – District of Minnesota SD – District of South Dakota 

CO — District of Colorado MSN – Northern District of Mississippi TNE – Eastern District of Tennessee 

CT – District of Connecticut MSS – Southern District of Mississippi TNM – Middle District of Tennessee 

DC – District of Columbia MOE – Eastern District of Missouri TNW – Western District of Tennessee 

DE – District of Delaware MOW – Western District of Missouri TXE – Eastern District of Texas 

FLM – Middle District of Florida MT – District of Montana TXN – Northern District of Texas 

FLN – Northern District of Florida NE – District of Nebraska TXS – Southern District of Texas 

FLS – Southern District of Florida NV – District of Nevada TXW – Western District of Texas 

GAM – Middle District of Georgia NH – District of New Hampshire UT – District of Utah 

GAN – Northern District of Georgia NJ – District of New Jersey VT – District of Vermont 

GAS – Southern District of Georgia NM – District of New Mexico VI – District of the Virgin Islands 

GU—District of Guam NMI – District of the Northern Marianas Islands VAE – Eastern District of Virginia 

HI — District of Hawaii NYE – Eastern District of New York VAW – Western District of Virginia 

ID – District of Idaho NYN – Northern District of New York WAE – Eastern District of Washington 

ILC – Central District of Illinois NYS – Southern District of New York WAW – Western District of Washington 

ILN – Northern District of Illinois NYW – Western District of New York WVN – Northern District of West Virginia 

ILS – Southern District of Illinois NCE – Eastern District of North Carolina WVS – Southern District of West Virginia 

INN – Northern District of Indiana NCM – Middle District of North Carolina WIE – Eastern District of Wisconsin 

INS – Southern District of Indiana NCW – Western District of North Carolina WIW – Western District of Wisconsin 

IAN – Northern District of Iowa ND – District of North Dakota WY – District of Wyoming 

IAS — Southern District of Iowa OHN – Northern District of Ohio 

KS – District of Kansas OHS – Southern District of Ohio 

Source: U.S. Attorneys Web page. 
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

Page 19 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Since the mid-1990s, the federal government has implemented various 

initiatives to improve the management and performance of federal 

agencies, including the Department of Justice (DOJ) and its components. 

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 19931 seeks to 

improve the effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability of federal 

programs by mandating that agencies set goals for program performance 

and measure results. Under GPRA, agencies are required to develop 

strategic plans that identify their long-range goals and objectives; annual 

performance plans that set forth annual goals and indicators of 

performance; and annual performance reports that describe the actual 

levels of performance achieved compared to the annual goal. These plans 

and reports are designed to define a course to improve the performance of 

government programs and operations and are intended to show what is 

being accomplished with the money that is being spent. GPRA plans and 

reports are developed for use by 

• agency officials and staff in leading, managing, and carrying out federal 

programs and activities; 

• the President and Congress when forming programmatic and policy 

decisions and for oversight; and 

• the public for information on the purpose and effectiveness of 

programs and activities and the resources spent in conducting them. 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11 provides 

guidelines for agencies to follow when developing GPRA plans and 

reports. According to the July 2002 A-11 Circular,2

 strategic plans are to 

include general goals, which define how an agency is to carry out its 

mission over time. These general goals are to be expressed to allow for a 

future assessment of whether the goal was or is being achieved. Strategic 

plans can also include strategic objectives—statements of aim or purpose, 

which are not directly measurable, but can be used to group general goals. 

 1

Pub. L. No. 103-62. 

2

OMB Circular A-11 was revised during our review; therefore, we indicate the date of the 

Circular for the provisions cited. 

Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

The Government 

Performance and 

Results Act 
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

Page 20 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Annual performance plans are to contain performance goals, performance 

objectives, and performance measures or indicators that target levels of 

performance. Annual performance goals are to be expressed as tangible, 

measurable objectives against which achievement can be compared. 

Performance goals are to be either (1) outcome goals, which describe 

intended results, effects, or consequences that were expected to occur 

from carrying out a program or activity or (2) output goals, which measure 

what an agency is to produce. Agencies are instructed by OMB Circular 

A-11 that performance goals and indicators typically are to have a 

numerical target level or other measurable value, which facilitates the 

future assessment of whether the goals and indicators were actually 

achieved. 

Finally, annual performance reports are to provide information on 

agencies’ actual performance and their progress in achieving the goals and 

objectives in the strategic plan and annual performance plan. Actual 

performance is to be compared to the projected performance levels or 

targets in the annual performance plan. Where target levels are not 

achieved, the agency is to explain why and describe the steps to be taken 

to accomplish goals in the future. According to Circular A-11, agencies 

may combine performance reports with performance plans. 

Under GPRA and OMB Circular A-11, only agencies, such as DOJ, and not 

components of agencies, such as U.S. Attorneys, are required to prepare 

strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports. However, 

strategic plans are to focus on those programs and activities, like those of 

U.S. Attorneys, that help agencies carry out their mission, and annual 

performance plans are to link agencies daily operations to the broad goals 

and objectives in the strategic plans. 

Related to GPRA is the Performance and Budget Initiative. In the summer 

of 2001, the President announced that agencies would be required to 

integrate their budgets with performance information to provide a greater 

focus on performance and increase the value and use of program 

performance information in resource and management decisions.3

 3

The President announced his strategy—called the President’s Management Agenda 

(PMA)—for improving the management and performance of the federal government. Under 

PMA, the President identified five crosscutting management initiatives that are linked and 

support each other; budget and performance integration, strategic human capital 

management, improved financial performance, expanded electronic government, and 

competitive sourcing. 

The Performance and 

Budget Initiative 
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

Page 21 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Beginning with the budget for fiscal year 2005, OMB requires agencies to 

prepare a performance budget in lieu of the performance plan. According 

to the latest OMB Circular A-11, dated July 2003, the performance budget 

is supposed to satisfy all statutory requirements for the annual 

performance plan required by GPRA. 

Under the July 2003 OMB Circular A-11, strategic goals are to be paired 

with related long-term performance goals (outcomes) and annual 

performance goals (mainly outputs); target levels of performance are to be 

set for performance goals. According to the Circular, resources and 

organizational efforts should be directly linked to outputs, and the 

resources and outputs should be summed to outcomes. Figure 3 uses a 

pyramid, developed by OMB, to illustrate the relationship between 

strategic, outcome, and output goals and resources under OMB’s fully 

integrated goal structure. 
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

Page 22 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 3: Relationship between Strategic, Outcome, and Output Goals and 

Resources under a Fully Integrated Goal Structure 

a Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 

relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 

OMB has also begun to link performance and the budget process under its 

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Using PART, OMB has been 

rating programs in four areas—program design, strategic planning, 

program management, and program results—and intends to use the results 

of these assessments during the budget review process to diagnose how 

programs can be improved and to inform budget and management 

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11, Part 6, june 2002.

Strategic

goal

Outcome

goals

Output

 goals

Programs/Organizational units

(i.e., dollars, FTEa

Resour

)

ces
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

Page 23 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

decisions.4 According to OMB Circular A-11, PART assessments will span 

all executive branch programs over the next several years. In addition, 

OMB has established a quarterly rating system to grade agency (1) 

progress and (2) status in meeting the President’s Management Agenda 

(PMA). Budget and performance integration is one of the five initiatives in 

PMA, which uses a score card to reflect progress: a score of red indicates 

that the initiative is in serious jeopardy; a score of yellow indicates that 

there is slippage in the implementation schedule requiring adjustments by 

the agency to achieve the initiative on a timely basis; and a score of green 

indicates that implementation is proceeding according to plans. For OMB’s 

status score, red indicates that the agency’s efforts has any of a number of 

serious flaws; yellow indicates that the agency has met some, but not all of 

the criteria or standards for success; and green indicates that the agency 

meets all of the standards for success. 

Related to the government’s overall effort to improve the management and 

performance of federal agencies is strategic human capital management. 

In January 2001, we designated strategic human capital management as a 

governmentwide high-risk area.5

 In January 2003, we reported that the 

basic problem, which continues today, has been the long-standing lack of a 

consistent approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining the human 

capital needed to maximize government performance and ensure 

accountability.6

 In our January 2003 report, we stated that two principles 

are central to human capital management: 

• People are assets whose value can be enhanced through investment. As 

with any investment, the goal is to maximize value while managing risk. 

• An organization’s human capital approaches should be designed, 

implemented, and assessed by the standard of how well they help the 

organization achieve and pursue its mission. 

 4

OMB is using PART to assess the effectiveness of programs—defined as the list of agency 

programs and activities that appear in Program and Financing Schedules of the Budget 

Appendix. PART supports the assessment of four aspects of a program—does the program 

perform a clear federal role; has an agency set valid long-term and annual goals for the 

program; is the program well-managed; and is the program achieving the results set forth in 

the agency’s GPRA plans? 

5

See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk: An Update, GAO-01-263 (Washington, 

D.C.: January 2001). 

6

See U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human Capital 

Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

Strategic Human 

Capital Management 
Appendix III: Governmentwide Management 

and Performance Initiatives Affecting DOJ 

and Its Components 

Page 24 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

We also said that agencies face challenges in four key areas: 

• Leadership: Top leadership in the agencies must provide the 

committed and inspired attention needed to address human capital and 

related organizational transformation issues. 

• Strategic human capital planning: Agencies human capital planning 

efforts need to be more fully and demonstrably integrated with mission 

and critical program goals. 

• Acquiring, developing, and retaining talent: Additional efforts are 

needed to improve recruiting, hiring, professional development, and 

retention strategies to ensure that agencies have the needed talent. 

• Results oriented organizational cultures: Agencies continue to lack 

organizational cultures that promote high performance and 

accountability and empower and include employees in setting and 

accomplishing programmatic goals. 

Various GAO products on strategic human capital management are listed 

at the end of this report. 

Strategic human capital management has also been designated as one of 

the five governmentwide initiatives under PMA. The Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) is leading the federal government’s strategic 

management of human capital initiative. Among other things, OPM is 

responsible for developing tools and providing support to help agencies 

succeed in their human capital transformation efforts. Similar to the 

performance and budget integration initiative, OMB has been grading 

agency progress and status on strategic human capital management using 

a red, green, and yellow scoring system. 
Appendix IV: DOJ’s Departmentwide Strategic 

Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. 

Attorneys 

Page 25 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

As required by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 

1993, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has developed departmentwide 

strategic goals and objectives that apply to the activities of its 

components, including U.S. Attorneys. DOJ’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal 

Years 2001 through 2006 and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan identified 

6 of 8 strategic goals, and 12 of 38 long-term strategic objectives that 

applied to the activities of U.S. Attorneys. DOJ has drafted a new 

departmentwide strategic plan for fiscal years 2003 through 2008 that is 

expected to consolidate many of the strategic goals and objectives in the 

previous strategic plan it will replace. DOJ’s fiscal year 2005 congressional 

budget submission, which, according to DOJ, corresponds to its new 

strategic plan,1

 showed that 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic objectives are 

to apply to U.S. Attorneys’ activities. 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8 strategic 

goals and 38 long-term strategic objectives. DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 

Performance Plan listed 38 annual performance goals that were identical 

to DOJ’s 38 long-term strategic objectives. These strategic 

objectives/annual performance goals were presented in the context of DOJ 

budget activities and, among other things, showed the resources—Fulltime equivalents (FTEs) and dollars—by component organization, needed 

to address them.2

 For example, DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan 

showed that to address DOJ’s annual performance goal 2.1—reduce the 

threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, especially as it stems 

from the illegal use of guns or from organized criminal enterprises—DOJ 

expected that it would use 12,624 FTEs from various components, 

including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Criminal Division, 

and U.S. Attorneys, at a cost of about $1.9 billion during fiscal year 

2004. U.S. Attorneys were expected to contribute 1,751 FTEs and 

$238 million toward this effort. 

The plan identified U.S. Attorneys as key players engaged in addressing 

various strategic objectives/annual performance goals. DOJ’s Fiscal Year 

 1

At the time of our review, DOJ’s new strategic plan had not been released. 

2

Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget 

estimates relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE employment and states that FTE 

employment is calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be 

worked) by the total number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the 

number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of 

compensable days in the fiscal year. 

Appendix IV: DOJ’s Departmentwide 

Strategic Goals and Objectives Applicable to 

U.S. Attorneys 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2001 

through Fiscal Year 2006 

Strategic Plan Included 

Strategic Goals and 

Objectives That Applied to 

U.S. Attorneys’ Activities 
Appendix IV: DOJ’s Departmentwide Strategic 

Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. 

Attorneys 

Page 26 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

2004 Performance Plan, showed that 6 of 8 annual strategic goals and 12 of 

38 strategic objectives/annual performance goals involved the use of U.S. 

Attorneys’ resources in meeting DOJ’s mission. Table 1 shows the 6 DOJ 

strategic goals and the 12 strategic objectives/annual performance goals 

that, according to DOJ’s fiscal year 2004 Performance Plan, involved the 

use of U.S. Attorney resources. 

Table 1: DOJ Strategic Goals and Strategic Objectives/Annual Performance Goals Applicable to U.S. Attorneys for Fiscal Year 

2004, and Associated Actual and Requested Resources for Fiscal Years 2002, 2003, and 2004 

Dollars in millions 

DOJ stategic 

goala 

DOJ strategic objective/annual 

performance goala Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 

 

FTEb

Actual 

dollars FTEb

Requested 

dollars FTEb

Requested 

dollars 

1. Protect America against the threat of terrorism 

 1.1 Prevent terrorism—Prevent, disrupt, 

and defeat terrorist operations before 

they occur 

15 $2 55 $7 55 $7

 1.2 Investigate terrorist acts—Develop 

and implement the full range of 

resources available to investigate 

terrorist incidents, bringing their 

perpetrators to justice 

 1.3 Prosecute terrorist acts—Vigorously 

prosecute those who have committed, 

or intend to commit, terrorist acts 

against the United States 

281 63 463 61 463 61

2. Enforce federal criminal laws 

 2.1 Violent Crime—Reduce the threat, 

incidence, and prevalence of violent 

crime, especially as it stems from illegal 

use of guns or from organized criminal 

enterprise 

1,661 219 1,720 228 1,751 238

 2.2 Drugs—Reduce the threat, 

trafficking, and related violence of illegal 

drugs by identifying, disrupting, and 

dismantling drug trafficking 

organizations 

2,725 359 2,869 380 2,916 395

 2.4 White-collar crime—Combat whitecollar crime and economic crime, 

especially cybercrime 

2,644 348 2,798 370 2,844 384

3. Prevent and reduce crime and violence by assisting state, tribal, local, and community-based programs 

 3.1 Law enforcement—Improve the 

crime fighting and criminal justice 

administration capabilities of state, 

tribal, and local governments 

20 3 22 3 22 3
Appendix IV: DOJ’s Departmentwide Strategic 

Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. 

Attorneys 

Page 27 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Dollars in millions 

DOJ stategic 

goala 

DOJ strategic objective/annual 

performance goala Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 

 

FTEb

Actual 

dollars FTEb

Requested 

dollars FTEb

Requested 

dollars 

4. Protect the rights and interests of the American people by legal representation, enforcement of federal laws, and defense 

of U.S. interests 

 4.1 Civil rights—Uphold the civil rights 

of all Americans, reduce racial 

discrimination, and promote 

reconciliation through vigorous 

enforcement of civil rights laws 

18 2 19 3 19 3

 4.2 Environment—Promote the 

stewardship of America’s environment 

and natural resources through the 

enforcement and defense of 

environmental laws and programs 

62 8 67 9 67 9

 4.5 Civil laws—Effectively represent the 

interests of the United States in all civil 

matters for which DOJ has jurisdiction 

2,418 306 2,610 346 2,656 358

5. Fairly and effectively administer the immigration and naturalization laws of the United States 

 5.1. Enforcement—Secure America’s 

borders, especially to reduce the 

incidence of alien smuggling 

435 47 470 62 470 62

7. Protect the federal judiciary and provide critical support to the federal justice system to ensure it operates effectively 

 7.2 Victims rights—Protect the rights of 

crime victims and assist them in moving 

through the processes of the federal 

justice system 

258 31 279 37 279 37

Total 10,537 $1,388 11,372 $1,506 11,542 $1,557

Source: GAO analysis of DOJ Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan. 

a

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan identified 8 strategic goals and 38 long-term 

strategic objectives. DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan discussed 38 annual performance 

goals that were identical to DOJ’s 38 long-term strategic objectives. 

b

Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 

relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 

JMD officials told us that DOJ’s strategic plan is produced using what they 

described as a “top down” approach to strategic planning. Under this 

approach, DOJ’s Strategic Plan Executive Working Group, composed of 

officials from the Offices of the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney 

General, and the Associate Attorney General, and other DOJ offices, 

identifies strategic goals and objectives. JMD’s Management and Planning 

Staff (MPS) solicits components, including EOUSA, for background, 
Appendix IV: DOJ’s Departmentwide Strategic 

Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. 

Attorneys 

Page 28 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

strategies, and other input supporting the goals and objectives that affect 

their organizations, and develops a draft strategic plan. The draft plan is 

reviewed by the Executive Working Group and presented to DOJ’s 

Strategic Management Council, which represents DOJ’s key components, 

for concurrence before the Attorney General approves it. In February 

2004, JMD officials told us that EOUSA was currently providing JMD input 

toward the development of DOJ’s fiscal years 2003 through 2008 strategic 

plan. 

JMD officials said that EOUSA had recently provided JMD input toward 

the development of DOJ’s Fiscal Years 2003 through 2008 Strategic Plan, 

which had not been issued as of March 2004. However, JMD officials said 

that the new strategic goals and objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys 

were published in the Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget United States 

Attorneys Congressional Submission, which is organized to better conform 

with OMB Circular A-11 regarding performance and budget integration. 

JMD officials told us that the new strategic plan would substantively be 

similar to DOJ’s Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006 and they 

had consolidated strategic goals and objectives resulting in fewer goals 

and objectives than in the previous plan. In fact, the fiscal year 2005 

congressional budget submission, published in February 2004, shows that 

U.S. Attorneys will play a role in 2 strategic goals and 7 strategic 

objectives, as compared with 6 goals and 12 objectives in the previous 

plan.3

 Specifically, during fiscal year 2005, U.S. Attorneys are expected to 

need about $70.6 million and 534 FTEs toward achieving DOJ’s new 

strategic goal I—Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation’s Security. 

Also, during fiscal year 2005, U.S. Attorneys are expected to need 

$1,476.9 billion and 11,156 FTEs toward achieving DOJ’s new strategic 

goal II—Enforce Federal Laws and Represent the Rights and Interests of 

the American People. Like the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, the 

Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget United States Attorneys 

Congressional Submission provided a breakdown of budgetary resources 

(FTEs and dollars) by strategic objective. Table 2 shows the 2 strategic 

goals and 7 objectives in which U.S. Attorneys play a role, as discussed in 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget United States Attorneys 

 3

At the time of our review, DOJ had not published its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Year 2003 

through 2008 and, as a result, we did not have a comprehensive list of DOJ’s strategic goals 

and objectives applicable to other DOJ components. 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2005 

Congressional Budget 

Submission Includes 

Revised Strategic Goals 

and Objectives Applicable 

to U.S. Attorneys Activities 
Appendix IV: DOJ’s Departmentwide Strategic 

Goals and Objectives Applicable to U.S. 

Attorneys 

Page 29 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Congressional Submission, and the associated budgetary resources for 

Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005. 

Table 2: DOJ’s Strategic Goals and Objectives for Fiscal Year 2005 That Apply to U.S. Attorneys, and Associated Actual, 

Appropriated, and Requested Budgetary Resources for Fiscal Years 2003, 2004, and 2005 

Dollars in millions 

DOJ strategic 

goal DOJ strategic objective 

Fiscal year 2003 

actual obligations 

Fiscal year 2004 

appropriations with 

rescissions 

Fiscal year 2005 

request 

 FTEaDollars FTEaDollars FTEaDollars

1. Prevent terrorism and promote the nation’s security 

 1.1 Prevent, disrupt, and defeat 

terrorist operations before they occur

53 $7 53 $7 53 $7

 1.2 Investigate and prosecute those 

who have committed, or intend to 

commit, terrorist acts in the United 

States 

448 61 448 59 481 64

2. Enforce federal laws and represent the rights and interests of the American people 

 2.1 Reduce the threat, incidence, 

and prevalence of violent crime, 

including crimes against children 

3,219 435 3,453 456 3,473 459

 2.2 Reduce the threat, trafficking, 

use, and related violence of illegal 

drugs 

2,398 324 2,464 326 2,551 337

 2.3 Combat white-collar, economic 

crime, and cybercrime 

2,622 354 2,697 356 2,701 357

 2.4 Uphold the civil and 

Constitutional rights of all 

Americans, and protect vulnerable 

members of society 

19 3 19 2 19 2

 2.5 Enforce federal statutes, uphold 

the rule of law, and vigorously 

represent the interests of the United 

States in all matters for which the 

Department has jurisdiction 

2,295 323 2,406 318 2,421 320

Totalsb 11,054 $1,506 11,540 $1,525 11,699 $1,548

Source: DOJ Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget for U.S. Attorneys, Congressional Submission 

a

Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 

relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 

 bTotals may not add due to rounding. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 30 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) performance measures for U.S. 

Attorneys are evolving. U.S. Attorneys performance measures included in 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan focused on selected areas, such 

as antiterrorism, but did not cover activities, such as violent crime and 

drugs. Responding to a 2003 Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

initiative requiring agencies to develop performance-based budgets, DOJ 

included an outcome-oriented performance measure—percentage of cases 

favorably resolved—in its U.S. Attorneys’ fiscal year 2005 congressional 

budget submission. According to DOJ officials, the performance measures 

for U.S. Attorneys and the format for presenting them will continue to 

evolve and will be revised, as DOJ gains more experience with 

performance-based budgeting. In addition to DOJ’s efforts, the Executive 

Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and some U.S. Attorneys 

Offices have also undertaken initiatives directed toward measuring U.S. 

Attorneys’ performance. 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan contained performance 

measures for some U.S. Attorneys activities, but the measures did not 

capture the full scope of U.S. Attorneys responsibilities. Our analysis of 

DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan showed that it contained 

88 performance measures that applied across DOJ’s components, although 

most applied to the activities of DOJ components other than U.S. 

Attorneys, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Drug 

Enforcement Administration (DEA), and the Office of Justice Programs. 

Specifically, our review of the plan showed that 3 of the 88 performance 

measures applied exclusively to the activities of U.S. Attorneys; another 

5 measures applied to U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ litigating components. 

Activities covered by the relevant performance measures included 

antiterrorism, criminal and civil environmental crime, civil litigation, 

witness assistance, and alternative dispute resolution. Other areas 

including violent crime, drugs, and some white-collar crime such as fraud 

and public corruption, did not have related performance measures for 

U.S. Attorneys. Table 3 shows the performance measures that applied to 

the activities of U.S. Attorneys by strategic goal and strategic 

objective/annual performance goal for fiscal year 2004. 

Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

U.S. Attorney Performance 

Measures in Fiscal Year 

2004 Performance Plan 

Were Focused on Some 

U.S. Attorney Activities 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 31 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Table 3: Performance Measures for U.S. Attorneys’ Activities in DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan 

Strategic goal 

Strategic objective/annual 

performance goal Performance measure 

Responsible DOJ 

components 

Fiscal year 2004 

performance target 

Strategic goal I—Protect America against the threat of terrorism 

 Develop and implement the full 

range of resources available to 

investigate terrorist incidents, 

bringing their perpetrators to 

justice and vigorously 

prosecute those who have 

committed, or intend to commit, 

terrorist acts against the United 

States 

Terrorist-related convictions U.S. Attorneys N/Aa

Strategic goal II—Enforce federal criminal laws 

 Combat white-collar crime and 

economic crime, especially 

cybercrime 

Percent of criminal 

environmental and wildlife 

cases successfully litigated 

U.S. Attorneys and 

the Environment and 

Natural Resources 

Division 

80% 

Strategic goal IV—Protect the rights and interests of the American people by legal representation 

 Promote the stewardship of 

America’s environment and 

natural resources through the 

enforcement and defense of 

environmental laws and 

programs 

Percent of civil 

environmental cases 

successfully resolved 

U.S. Attorneys and 

the Environment and 

Natural Resources 

Division 

80% affirmative; 75% 

defensive 

 Effectively represent the 

interests of the United States in 

all civil matters for which the 

DOJ has jurisdiction 

Percent of favorable 

resolutions in civil cases 

U.S. Attorneys and 

the Civil Division 

80% 

 Percent of favorable 

resolutions in civil 

immigration cases 

U.S. Attorneys and 

the Civil Division 

85% 

 Percentage of cases 

resolved using alternative 

dispute resolution 

U.S. Attorneys and 

the Civil Division, the 

Civil Rights Division, 

Environment and 

Natural Resources 

Division, and the Tax 

Division 

65% 

Strategic goal VII—Protect the federal judiciary and provide critical support to the federal justice system to ensure it 

operates effectively 

 Protect the rights of crime 

victims and assist them in 

moving through the processes 

of the federal justice system. 

Victims receiving assistance U.S. Attorneys 100% 

 Witnesses receiving 

emergency assistance 

U.S. Attorneys 100% 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 32 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Source: GAO Analysis of DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2001 through 2006 Strategic Plan and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report, Fiscal Year 2003 Final Performance Plan, and Fiscal Year 2004 Performance 

Plan. 

a

According to DOJ, targeted levels of performance were not projected for this indicator. JMD officials 

said that there are a few measures in the performance plan that are included for lack of better or 

more informative measures. 

According to JMD officials, DOJ’s annual performance plan, which was 

prepared by JMD’s Budget Staff, included “the highest level” or most 

outcome-oriented performance measures related to DOJ’s strategic goals 

and objectives. They said that DOJ components, including EOUSA for U.S. 

Attorneys, developed most proposed measures and DOJ Budget Staff 

selected from the proposed measures those that were to be included in the 

performance plan. Officials said that in winnowing down the potential 

measures, Budget Staff considered whether the measure was outcome 

oriented; represented a large amount of DOJ resources; and was of such 

importance that it warranted inclusion, even if it represented a small 

program. They said they also considered the quality and validity of data to 

be used to measure performance. 

JMD officials told us that U.S. Attorneys followed the same general 

approach in developing their performance measures as other DOJ 

components. However, EOUSA and JMD officials pointed out that U.S. 

Attorneys have a unique role in the law enforcement process. They said 

that U.S. Attorneys prosecute cases investigated by federal law 

enforcement agencies within DOJ, including FBI and ATF, and those from 

many other departments, such as Customs and Border Protection in the 

Department of Homeland Security, the Postal Inspection Service, and the 

Internal Revenue Service. They also pointed out that U.S. Attorneys work 

with federal, state, and local law enforcement organizations to establish 

strategies for dealing with particular crimes confronting local 

jurisdictions. 

EOUSA and JMD officials also explained that, while it can be argued that 

the U.S. Attorneys have considerable influence over local crime efforts, it 

can also be argued that the investigating components have considerable 

influence over particular types of crime investigated, and each (the U.S. 

Attorneys and investigating components) is dependent upon the other for 

success. They added that, given the complexity of the U.S. Attorney’s role 

in the law enforcement process, it would be difficult to develop measures 

that capture all U.S. Attorney activities. These officials further stated that 

U.S. Attorney performance outcomes are, therefore, often reflected in the 

outcomes associated with other DOJ components, such as FBI, and, by the 

litigating components within the department that have policy-level 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 33 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

responsibility for particular areas of the law, such as the Criminal Section 

of the Civil Rights Division in human trafficking cases. 

As part of its effort to implement OMB guidelines on performance and 

budget integration, DOJ has been revising U.S. Attorney performance 

measures. According to OMB’s July 2003 Circular A-11, a performance 

budget consists of a performance oriented framework, within which, at a 

minimum, resources were to be aligned at the program level, and agencies 

were encouraged to align resources at the performance goal level. In 

addition, agencies were to include a comparison of (1) total program 

benefits and total program costs, using quantitative, objective data to the 

maximum extent possible, as well as qualitative or judgmental material 

and (2) the marginal benefits and the marginal costs associated with the 

additional funds or reduced funding proposed. To address these new 

requirements, DOJ redesigned the performance and resources tables 

included in its fiscal year 2004 and 2005 congressional budget submissions. 

For its fiscal year 2004 congressional budget submission for U.S. 

Attorneys, DOJ used a revised format to present its performance and 

resources tables. Following this format, DOJ grouped the 12 strategic 

objectives applicable to U.S. Attorneys from the Fiscal Year 2001 through 

2006 Strategic Plan into 5 program activities1

—antiterrorism, violent and 

trafficking crimes, white-collar crime, civil litigation, and training. The 

5 program activities and their corresponding strategic objectives were 

placed under three groups called decision units—criminal, civil, and legal 

education. The criminal decision unit covered 3 program activities—

antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crime, and white-collar crime; the 

civil decision unit covered 1 program activity—civil litigation; and the legal 

education decision unit covered 1 program activity—training. For each of 

the 5 program activities, DOJ showed the number of U.S. Attorney FTEs 

and related budgetary resources used during fiscal year 2002, projected to 

be used for fiscal year 2003, and requested for fiscal year 2004. Under the 

criminal decision unit, DOJ also showed actual and projected data, 

 1

In the fiscal year 2004, U.S. Attorney Congressional Budget Submission, DOJ uses the term 

program activity to cover 5 specific areas—antiterrorism, violent and trafficking crimes, 

white-collar crime, civil litigation, and training. According to a JMD official, a program 

activity is the thematic area reflecting the basic types of work performed by U.S. Attorneys. 

However, OMB Circular A—11 states that program activity is defined as the list of 

programs and activities appearing in the Program and Financing schedules of the Budget 

Appendix. In the DOJ Budget Appendix for Fiscal Year 2004, U.S. Attorneys program 

activities are defined as Direct Program: U.S. Attorneys, and Reimbursable Programs. 

DOJ Has Begun to Revise 

U.S. Attorney Performance 

Measures in Line with New 

Performance Budget 

Format 

DOJ’s Redesigned Performance 

and Resources Tables for its 

Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional 

Budget Submission for U.S. 

Attorneys 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 34 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

categorized by DOJ as performance measures, for activities involving 

defendants (i.e., prosecuted and guilty) for various types of crime, 

including terrorism, violent crime, white-collar crime, and other crimes. 

For the civil decision unit, DOJ showed the number of affirmative and civil 

defense cases filed and the number and percentage of favorable 

judgments. For the legal education decision unit, DOJ showed the number 

of DOJ and non-DOJ students trained. The performance and resources 

tables in the fiscal year 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys 

provided placeholders, but no information, for outcome measures 

associated with the 3 decision units. 

Figures 4, 5, and 6 reprint the performance and resources tables for each 

of the three decision units in the fiscal year 2004 congressional budget 

submission for U.S. Attorneys. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 35 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 4: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S Attorneys—Criminal Decision Unit 

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys 

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 

number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 

2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 36 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys 

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total 

number of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 

2,080, 2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 37 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 5: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S Attorneys—Civil Decision Unit 

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys. 

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 38 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 6: Fiscal Year 2004 Performance and Resources Table for U.S Attorneys—Legal Education Decision Unit 

Source: Fiscal Year 2004 Congressional Authorization and Budget Submission for U.S. Attorneys

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 

According to JMD officials, the tables presented in the 2004 congressional 

budget submission were based on a template used for all DOJ component 

agencies. One JMD official, responsible for preparing DOJ’s congressional 

budget submission for its component agencies, including U.S. Attorneys, 

told us that DOJ had developed the format and aligned selected strategic 

objectives for each DOJ component in order to comply with OMB Circular 

A-11 budget and performance integration requirements. The JMD official 

further explained that in order to develop the tables and help it categorize 

the major program activities and the key performance measures that 

applied to each component, JMD officials worked with component 

agencies, for example, EOUSA in the case of U.S. Attorneys. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 39 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

For its fiscal year 2005 congressional budget submission for U.S. 

Attorneys, DOJ used the new performance and resources table format and 

included more performance information, in keeping with OMB’s directive 

that agencies present their fiscal year 2005 budgets as their annual 

performance plans. As in its fiscal year 2004 submission for U.S. Attorneys, 

DOJ grouped the applicable strategic goals and objectives under the 

3 decision units—criminal, civil, and legal education. As discussed earlier, 

DOJ identified 7 strategic objectives for U.S. Attorneys (replacing the 

12 used in the fiscal year 2004 budget) that are to be published in DOJ’s 

new strategic plan. DOJ also reduced the number of program activities 

from 5 to 4. Specifically, the criminal decision unit had 2 program 

activities—1 for antiterrorism and 1 new program activity that combined 

violent crime, drug trafficking, and white-collar crime; the civil decision 

unit had 1 program activity—-civil litigation; and the legal education unit 

had 1 program activity—training. DOJ reported U.S. Attorney FTEs and 

related budgetary resources used during fiscal year 2003, projected to be 

used for fiscal year 2004, and requested for fiscal year 2005 for each 

program activity. 

As in DOJ’s 2004 budget submission for U.S. Attorneys, its fiscal year 

2005 submission included data for each decision unit, grouped under the 

heading performance measures, for example, defendant-related activity for 

the criminal decision unit. In addition, the fiscal year 2005 submission 

presented an outcome measure—percentage of cases favorably resolved—

with data for the criminal and civil decision units. For the criminal 

decision unit, it showed that U.S. Attorneys had achieved a favorable 

resolution in 91.7 percent of criminal cases during fiscal year 2003 and 

expected to achieve a favorable resolution in 91.6 percent of criminal 

cases–its target—during fiscal years 2004 and 2005. Under the civil 

decision unit, DOJ reported that U.S. Attorneys had achieved a favorable 

resolution for 85.6 percent of civil cases during fiscal year 2003 and was 

expecting to achieve a favorable resolution in its target of 85.6 percent of 

civil cases in fiscal years 2004 and 2005. No outcome measure was 

included for the legal education decision unit. Figures 7, 8, and 9 reprint 

the performance and resource tables for U.S. Attorneys from the fiscal 

year 2005 congressional budget submission. 

DOJ’s Performance and 

Resources Tables in Fiscal Year 

2005 Congressional Budget 

Submission for U.S. Attorneys 

Continued to Evolve 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 40 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 7: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S Attorneys—Criminal Decision Unit 

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 41 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 8: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S Attorneys—Civil Decision Unit 

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission 

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full-time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 42 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Figure 9: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance and Resource Table for U.S Attorneys—Legal Education Decision Unit 

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission

Note: OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates relating to personnel 

resources in terms of full -time equivalent (FTE) employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 

In a February 2004 meeting on the U.S. Attorneys’ fiscal year 2005 

congressional budget submissions, JMD and EOUSA budget officials 

explained to us changes in DOJ’s 2005 budget tables for U.S. Attorneys. 

The officials said that the 2005 submission did not include some of the 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 43 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

goals and measures that appeared in the Fiscal Year 2004 Performance 

Plan, such as U.S. Attorney measures related to victim assistance, because 

DOJ had streamlined its goals and objectives, focusing on primary mission 

areas, in accordance with OMB instructions. They added that DOJ would 

like all of its litigating units to focus on their contributions to DOJ’s overall 

mission. 

These officials said that DOJ’s outcome measure—percentage of cases 

favorably resolved—included in the U.S. Attorneys’ budget submission 

was designed to apply to all of DOJ’s litigating units. However, the officials 

also noted that the fiscal year 2005 budget table for a component does not 

always present an outcome measure for an activity in which it is involved. 

For example, the officials pointed out that the U.S. Attorney budget table 

does not present an outcome measure for terrorism even though U.S. 

Attorneys are involved in DOJ antiterrorism efforts; rather the outcome for 

terrorism is included in the FBI performance table. They said that in future 

years DOJ will attempt to cross-reference the performance of one 

component with another in those instances where outcomes were linked; 

for example, future budget tables for U.S. Attorneys would likely include a 

cross-reference showing that their efforts contributed to the FBI’s 

antiterrorist outcome. 

With regard to the legal education decision unit, JMD and EOUSA officials 

told us that DOJ considered not including it as a decision unit for U.S. 

Attorneys, because other components view training as a support function 

and do not include it as a budget decision unit. However, DOJ decided to 

include it as a decision unit for U.S. Attorneys because of the importance 

of legal education to DOJ’s success. However, they did not include an 

outcome measure because they consider legal education to be a support 

function. 

As mentioned earlier, one of the President’s goals for requiring agencies to 

integrate their budgets with performance information was to increase the 

value and use of program performance information in resource and 

management decisions. Although DOJ has taken steps to integrate budget 

and performance information in its fiscal year 2005 budget submission, it 

is not always clear what DOJ is trying to measure in the fiscal year 2005 

U.S. Attorney performance and resources tables. 

Specifically, when analyzing the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney 

congressional budget submission, we observed that for one of the two 

program activities under the criminal decision unit, DOJ used data on 

Unclear What DOJ Is 

Measuring in Its Fiscal 

Year 2005 U.S. Attorney 

Performance and 

Resources Tables 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 44 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

defendants—”total defendants terminated”2 and guilty—to show year-toyear changes in the level of U.S. Attorney activity. Categorized as 

performance measures, these data showed numbers for the total 

“defendants terminated” and defendants found guilty in fiscal years 

2003, 2004, and 2005. Excerpted from the fiscal year 2005 U.S. Attorney 

congressional budget submission, table 4 shows how DOJ presented the 

defendant-related data for the program activity—violent crime, drug 

trafficking, and white-collar crime. 

Table 4: Excerpt of U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission for Program Activity: Violent Crime, Drug Trafficking, 

and White-Collar Crime Showing Relationship between U.S. Attorney Defendant-Related Activities and Projected and 

Requested Budgetary Increases 

Dollars in thousands 

Program activitya—violent 

crime, drug trafficking, and 

white-collar crime 

Planned (fiscal year 2003 

actual) 

Projected (2004 appropriation 

with recissions) 

Requested (total 2005 

request) 

 FTEb Dollars FTEb Dollars FTEb Dollars

 8,208 $1,089,087 8,583 $1,114,848 8,694 $1,126,523

Performance measures 

 Total defendants terminated 75,189 78,718 79,733

 Total defendants guilty 68,960 72,105 73,075

Outcome 

 Percentage of cases 

favorably resolved 91.7% 91.6% 91.6%

Source: Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget U.S. Attorneys Congressional Budget Submission.

a

Program activity in this table refers to program activities as related DOJ’s Strategic Goals and 

Objectives.

b

Full-time equivalent (FTE). OMB Circular A-11 requires agencies to prepare budget estimates 

relating to personnel resources in terms of FTE employment and states that FTE employment is 

calculated by dividing the total number of regular hours (worked or to be worked) by the total number 

of compensable hours. According to Circular A-11, the number of compensable hours can be 2,080, 

2,088, or 2,096 depending on the number of compensable days in the fiscal year. 

We observed that for the program activity violent crime, drug trafficking, 

and white-collar crimes, DOJ calculated its outcome measure—percentage 

of cases favorably resolved—using data on defendants. However, DOJ 

 2

According to EOUSA officials, DOJ uses the term “defendants terminated” in its fiscal year 

2005 budget submission to mean the total number of defendants for which some type of 

closure was reached—they were guilty, acquitted, or the proceedings involving particular 

defendants were dismissed, or otherwise terminated. They said that their terminology has 

always been “defendants terminated” and that terminology is consistent with that used by 

the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 45 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

failed to explain that the number of cases can differ from the number of 

defendants, because an individual case can have multiple defendants. 

Specifically, our analysis of the tables showed that, for each of the 3 years 

covered by the congressional budget submission, DOJ used the number of 

defendants guilty divided by defendants terminated-–the rate of 

conviction3—-to calculate the percentage of cases actually or expected to 

be favorably resolved. For example, for fiscal year 2003, total defendants 

guilty (68,960) divided by total defendants terminated (75,189) equals 

91.7 percent, the same percentage as that reported for cases favorably 

resolved. For fiscal year 2005, total defendants guilty (73,075) divided by 

total defendants terminated (79,733) equaled 91.6 percent, the same 

number reported as the expected percentage of cases favorably resolved 

for that fiscal year. 

JMD and EOUSA budget officials confirmed that for the U.S. Attorneys’ 

criminal decision unit program activities, the target percentage for the 

outcome measure—percentage of cases favorably resolved—was based on 

historical data on defendants (the conviction rate) but that a precise 

relationship did not necessarily exist between defendants and cases. For 

example, they said that in cases with multiple defendants, the case 

outcome would still be categorized as favorable when some, but not all, 

defendants were convicted. These officials also said that, in the future, 

JMD and EOUSA would likely consider using a less precise percentage for 

the U.S. Attorney’s outcome measure in order to avoid confusion about the 

relationship between cases and defendants. 

The JMD and EOUSA officials emphasized that the outcome measure—

percentage of cases favorably resolved—was used to enable all DOJ’s 

litigating components to use a single outcome measure. They further 

explained that while all the litigating units were using a single outcome 

measure, the data currently used by each component were not 

standardized and, therefore, each component might have used different 

data to establish its performance targets. For example, while U.S. 

Attorneys used conviction data for its violent crime, drug trafficking, and 

white-collar crime program activity to determine percentage of cases 

favorably resolved, on the civil side, they used data on settlements and 

 3

According to DOJ officials, the rate of conviction or conviction rate is those defendants 

who pleaded guilty or were found guilty via trial as a percentage of all defendants 

terminated. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 46 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

judgments in favor of the United States to determine the percentage of 

cases favorably resolved. 

We also asked these officials whether the fiscal year 2004 and 2005 data on 

total defendants terminated and guilty, as presented in the tables, were 

performance targets. They said that these data were not targets to be 

achieved, but were presented in this format only for budgetary purposes to 

indicate actual or expected activity based on budgetary increases 

requested. They said that in future budgets DOJ would clarify that data on 

defendants were not to be considered as targets. They further indicated 

that in the future the congressional budget submission presentation would 

likely be changed and “cleaned up” as DOJ gained more experience. 

EOUSA is considering other ways to address performance measurement 

issues and establish results oriented performance measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Offices. According to EOUSA officials, these efforts are 

intended to bring EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys in line with DOJ’s overall 

efforts to integrate performance and the budget and advance performance 

measurement within DOJ. EOUSA’s initiatives are summarized as follows: 

• Performance Measurement for Budget and Performance Integration: 

EOUSA has taken initial steps to develop performance measures that 

can link the activities of U.S. Attorneys offices to the budget. 

Specifically, as of September 2003, EOUSA had begun the process for 

engaging a contractor to provide technical assistance in developing 

performance measures for U.S. Attorneys Offices and their activities. 

EOUSA’s statement of work, dated April 2003, called for the 

development of performance measures for individual U.S. Attorneys 

Offices and an overall national “roll-up” measure, based on the 

individual measures, for use by EOUSA as input to DOJ’s Performance 

Plan and Report. According to EOUSA, this initiative should assist in 

the development of an overall plan to enhance performance and 

accountability in U.S Attorneys Offices and also help EOUSA develop 

measures that are linked to DOJ’s overall ongoing efforts to measure 

performance. In February 2004, the EOUSA Deputy Director told us 

that EOUSA may not have the resources to award the contract in fiscal 

year 2004. 

• Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement in U.S. Attorney 

Districts: According to EOUSA, some U.S. Attorneys Offices have 

developed, or are developing, strategic plans, and EOUSA is 

considering how one office’s efforts to do strategic planning and 

EOUSA is Considering 

Other Ways to Measure 

Results of U.S. Attorneys 

Offices’ Activities 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 47 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

performance measurement might be used in other districts. 

Specifically, EOUSA, working with the Western District of Washington, 

has begun to examine how strategic planning and associated 

performance measures developed by that district could be applied to 

other U.S. Attorneys Offices. During the latter part of 2002, the U.S. 

Attorneys Office, with funding from EOUSA, hired a strategic planning 

consultant to assist the Western District of Washington in piloting a 

community strategy process.4

 As of May 2003, the District had 

completed a strategic plan, which included strategic goals and 

strategies, but it had not developed specific indicators and targets in 

support of the strategy. In addition, information provided by EOUSA in 

September and November 2003 also indicated that two other districts—

the Western District of Michigan and the Eastern District of 

Kentucky—had, in recent years, developed strategic plans containing 

strategic goals and objectives. According to EOUSA officials, the 

Western District of Washington was awaiting funds from EOUSA in 

order to continue the district’s strategic planning effort, but EOUSA 

may not have the funds to support the effort and the district may have 

to provide its own funding. 

• Project Safe Neighborhoods: U.S. Attorneys Offices are also working 

with local communities to develop performance measures related to 

reducing gun crime through a multiyear DOJ commitment, called 

Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN). PSN requires each U.S. Attorneys 

Office to support, promote, and implement a comprehensive gun 

violence reduction program within each local district. It includes 

establishing a communitywide strategic plan to combat gun violence 

and awarding research grants in each district to measure the impact of 

PSN in reducing gun violence. DOJ is currently, working with the 

Michigan State University to examine how data gathered in each 

district can be used to measure performance in combating gun crime. 

• EOUSA’s Strategic Planning And Performance Measurement: EOUSA 

has also developed its own strategic plan, which establishes 5 strategic 

goals and articulates strategies and activities for accomplishing those 

goals. Among other things, the plan calls for the development of 

performance measures for some goals. For example, one of EOUSA’s 

strategic goals (strategic goal 4) was to satisfy the current emerging 

budgetary and financial management needs of EOUSA and the U.S. 

 4

According to EOUSA officials, the Western District of Washington’s strategic planning 

effort was initially funded by EOUSA in July 2002 in response to the district’s one-time 

request to hire a management consultant. 
Appendix V: Performance Measures for U.S. 

Attorneys Are Evolving 

Page 48 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Attorneys Offices. Under this goal, EOUSA budget staff responsible for 

working with other DOJ components on budget and performance 

measurement issues were to implement a performance measures pilot 

project to develop outcome-based measures for three top-priority 

areas—counterterrorism, gun crimes, and corporate fraud. 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 49 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) approach to monitoring the 

performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices is evolving. In November 2001, the 

Deputy Attorney General announced a plan to improve DOJ’s ability to 

assess U.S. Attorneys’ efforts to address the Attorney General’s priorities 

and meet management and performance expectations. One aspect of the 

plan was the enhancement of U.S. Attorneys long-standing internal 

evaluation program, Evaluation and Review Staff evaluations—called 

EARS evaluations—-to increase its effectiveness as a management tool.1

 

A second component of the plan was to communicate to U.S. Attorneys 

the information necessary to support DOJ’s priorities and implement 

sound management. A third and related aspect of the plan was the 

introduction of a new process for collecting and analyzing information to 

assess each U.S. Attorneys’ Office progress toward addressing priorities 

and meeting the performance expectations of the Attorney General. At the 

time of our review, DOJ had implemented some, but not all, of its planned 

steps to enhance its ability to assess the performance of U.S. Attorneys 

Offices and these efforts continue to evolve. 

In response to the Deputy Attorney General’s management plan, the 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) has begun to make 

changes to its internal evaluation program—otherwise known as EARS 

reviews—that are intended to enhance DOJ’s ability to assess the 

performance and management of U.S. Attorneys Offices. These changes 

focus on such topics as strategic planning, senior management operations, 

relations with law enforcement and the judiciary, case and personnel 

management, and DOJ’s priority programs (e.g., antiterrorism, violent 

crimes and drugs, and civil rights prosecutions). During our review, 

EOUSA had not yet completed making all of the changes announced by 

the Deputy Attorney General. 

 1

The evaluation program, which was initiated in 1969, was designed to evaluate each 

district’s compliance with federal regulations and provide information to DOJ on 

performance, management, and various priorities and objectives. Among other things, the 

evaluations assessed compliance with DOJ priorities, policies, and programs; reviewed 

staffing and workload; and determined whether U.S. Attorneys Offices were meeting the 

internal control requirements of the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. In 1984, 

EOUSA established the Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS) as a component to coordinate 

the evaluation program. EARS evaluations are coordinated by its staff in Washington, D.C., 

and conducted in each of the 94 districts approximately every 3 years by teams of Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys and staff from around the country. 

Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

EOUSA Has Begun to 

Change Internal Reviews 

to Emphasize Performance 

and Management Issues, 

but Changes Are Not 

Complete 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 50 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Under 28 C.F.R. Part 0.22, EOUSA is to evaluate the performance of the 

U.S. Attorneys Offices, make appropriate reports, and take corrective 

actions if necessary. EOUSA’s EARS staff is responsible for the ongoing 

evaluation program. According to EOUSA, the EARS program is an 

internal review program designed, among other things, to examine 

management controls and prevent waste, loss, unauthorized use, or 

misappropriation in federal programs, as required under the Federal 

Managers Financial Integrity Act.2

 EARS evaluations are conducted in each 

of the 94 U.S. Attorneys Offices every 3 years by teams of experienced 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys, and administrative and financial litigation 

personnel from other U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

In a November 2001 memorandum that outlined DOJ’s plans to enhance its 

ability to assess the performance of U.S. Attorney’s Offices, the Deputy 

Attorney General noted that EARS evaluations had effectively diagnosed 

the strengths and weaknesses of each office, but they had been 

underutilized as a management tool. He stated that he, therefore, would 

direct EOUSA to redesign EARS to, among other things, 

• focus more attention on “critical areas of management and 

performance;” 

• institute a “red flag” system for identifying and reacting to particularly 

vexing issues identified during evaluations whereby senior EOUSA 

officials and/or Assistant U.S. Attorneys who are experts in specific 

areas would provide quick assistance and support to the district under 

evaluation; and 

• establish management consulting as a primary responsibility of the 

EARS staff who, up to that time, had been primarily occupied with 

evaluations and their follow-up and had little time to provide advice 

and assistance to U.S. Attorneys. 

As of February 2004, EOUSA had not, however, completed its redesign of 

the EARS evaluation program. Consequently, we were unable to fully 

assess how the redesign is likely to affect EOUSA’s ability to evaluate the 

performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices. Key elements of the redesigned 

EARS have not been implemented. For example, as of February 2004, 

EOUSA had not put into operation the “red flag” program for its legal 

 2

31 U.S.C. 3512. 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 51 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

evaluations. As part of the management consulting program called for by 

the Deputy Attorney General, EOUSA officials said that some “road 

shows” had been developed to provide specialized on-site training sessions 

on various management issues for individual U.S. Attorneys Offices and 

some informal consulting with offices was taking place, but EOUSA was 

still working on more refined management training for supervisory U.S. 

Attorneys. 

Furthermore, according to EOUSA officials, using the new evaluation 

guidelines, EARS staff had completed the fiscal year 2003 evaluation cycle 

begun in October 2002 for some, but not all, of the U.S. Attorneys Offices 

to be reviewed in 2003 and had begun some reviews for the fiscal year 

2004 offices. However, as of February 2004, the final reports for the 

completed reviews were not available. For the fiscal year 2003 reviews, 

EOUSA used an updated manual to train evaluators that includes the 

changes made to the evaluation program thus far. Our comparison of this 

newly revised training manual with the old manual showed that the EARS 

guidance has been revised to provide greater focus on assessing steps 

each office is taking in regard to results oriented management, such as 

strategic planning and performance measurement. For example, one of 

EOUSA’s key changes involved a redesign of the EARS pre-evaluation 

survey, which, according to EOUSA, is to be completed by each district a 

few weeks before that district’s evaluation is to begin. Specifically, in 

January 2003, EOUSA replaced the EARS “District Self Evaluation Survey” 

(DSES)—first used in 1997—with its new “USAO Management Survey.” 

Our comparison of the two surveys showed that both were designed to 

prompt each district targeted for evaluation to describe various aspects of 

its operations. However, the new Management Survey was also designed 

to prompt each district to provide more descriptive information on various 

matters, including senior management efforts to plan, develop budgets, 

and establish policies and procedures. In addition, the Management Survey 

also prompts districts to provide descriptive information not covered in 

the DSES, including information on strategic planning and what the 

district is doing to measure its performance and results in its litigation of 

criminal or civil cases. 

Our comparison of DSES and the Management Survey also showed that 

both prompted districts to provide information on their management 

structure and prompted them to discuss the background, duties, and 

responsibilities of district managers, such as the First Assistant U.S. 

Attorney and other executive-level Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys. 

However, in contrast to the DSES, the Management Survey also prompts 

the district to, among other things, describe how 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 52 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

• the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team sets long-term goals 

and objectives, translates those into resources, budgets, and programs; 

and monitors and measures performance and productivity and 

• the U.S. Attorneys Office senior management team motivates the U.S. 

Attorneys Office attorney and support staff to effectively implement 

the U.S. Attorneys Office’s long-term goals and objectives, budgets and 

programs, and policies and procedures, and to develop and sustain 

high levels of performance. 

Whereas DSES contained a section asking districts to list and discuss their 

priorities, the new management survey asks districts to describe the crime 

problem that influences the U.S. Attorneys Office’s response to DOJ’s 

strategic goals and objectives and the district priorities. Furthermore, 

under the new survey, districts are asked to respond to particular 

questions about strategic plans and district priorities and efforts to 

measure results related to those initiatives. Specifically, the Management 

Survey asks the district to, among other things, describe, 

• how the U.S. Attorneys Office has addressed DOJ’s strategic plan; 

• any other prosecutorial, civil, or outreach priorities in the district and 

how the U.S. Attorneys Office is addressing them; 

• any specific target or performance standards used by the U.S. 

Attorneys Office to measure its initiatives, any performance goals or 

indicators that have been established to reflect results rather than 

workload or processes, and any criteria in place to measure the 

performance and results in the U.S. Attorney’s Office litigation of 

criminal cases or civil cases; and 

• how performance standards for criminal and civil litigation are used to 

review the Office’s overall civil and criminal caseload, set priorities and 

goals, and evaluate Assistant U.S. Attorney performance. 

We also noted that, consistent with the Management Survey, EARS 

guidance for conducting evaluations has been revised to now include a 

section entitled “Strategic Plan and District Priorities.” Specifically, under 

the new EARS guidelines, evaluators are asked to interview key U.S. 

Attorney managers about various aspects of U.S. Attorney operations, 

including strategic planning and priority issues. To illustrate, the Interview 

Guide for the First Assistant U.S. Attorney and Other Executive Level 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys includes a section entitled 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 53 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

“Strategic Plan and District Priorities” that asks officials to respond to or 

discuss the following: 

• Discuss the district’s priorities and any unique factors affecting the 

district. 

• Do you feel that there should be any changes to the quality or quantity 

or priority of the cases handled by the U.S. Attorney’s Office? 

• Are there any special programs or initiatives that are affecting the 

workload or allocation of resources in the U.S. Attorney’s Office? Are 

there any issues relating to any special programs or initiatives? 

In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that they had made some 

additional changes to the manual during fiscal year 2003 and that this 

process was continuing in fiscal year 2004. In addition, officials said that in 

order to link EARS with strategic planning, they would have to look at the 

needs of U.S. Attorneys Offices and available resources. 

Another component of the Deputy Attorney General’s management plan 

emphasized DOJ’s commitment to communicate the Attorney General’s 

priorities and expectations to U.S. Attorneys and their management teams. 

DOJ used its Strategic Plan as a framework for communicating DOJ’s 

goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys Offices. However, in February 

2004, because recent and pending changes to DOJ’s strategic and 

performance planning, DOJ officials said that they may have to develop 

other vehicles to use in their discussions with U.S. Attorneys Offices about 

their respective plans, strategies, and targets. 

According to the September 24, 2003, letter we received from EOUSA’s 

Director, the Attorney General established DOJ’s priorities through the 

fiscal year 2001 through 2006 strategic plan and, as discussed earlier, 

U.S. Attorneys have a direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of the 

8 established goals. In addition, through meetings, conferences, e-mails, 

and other media, the Attorney General has articulated four national 

priorities for U.S. Attorneys that are directly linked to DOJ’s strategic 

plan—antiterrorism under DOJ strategic goal I; reduction in gun violence 

under strategic goal II; reduction of the supply and demand for illegal 

drugs under strategic goal II and III; and enforcement of civil rights under 

strategic goal IV. 

DOJ’s Strategic Plan Used 

as a Framework for 

Communicating Priorities 

and Expectations to U.S. 

Attorneys Offices 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 54 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

In his letter to us, EOUSA’s Director confirmed that U.S. Attorneys have a 

direct role and responsibility in at least 6 of the 8 strategic goals and said 

that the Attorney General had taken several opportunities to communicate 

DOJ’s strategic goals and objectives to U.S. Attorney’s Offices. In 

November 2001, for example, EOUSA transmitted to U.S. Attorneys 

Offices a memorandum from the Attorney General to all of DOJ 

concerning the restructuring of DOJ to better meet the threat of terrorism. 

The memorandum also discussed the issuance of DOJ’s Strategic Plan for 

Fiscal Years 2001 through 2006. Also, in December 2002, EOUSA’s Director 

issued a memorandum to all U.S. Attorneys, First Assistant U.S. Attorneys, 

and all Administrative Officers notifying them of how they could access 

DOJ’s Strategic Plan on DOJ’s Web site. 

In addition to DOJ’s performance goals and measures, EOUSA’s Director 

told us that individual U.S. Attorneys Offices may establish performance 

goals and measures in each office, which could vary considerably from 

district to district and even within a district. He said that a district that has 

different branch offices could have goals that vary from branch to branch. 

However, the Director said that because many districts do not formalize 

strategic and performance plans—and are not required to—it was difficult 

to provide examples. Further, he added that this is not to say that U.S. 

Attorneys do not set priorities within their offices, devote resources to 

those priorities, and expect certain results. 

Because of recent and pending changes to strategic and performance 

planning in DOJ, we asked JMD and EOUSA officials how EOUSA would 

communicate DOJ’s strategic goals and objectives to U.S. Attorneys. They 

told us that they may have to develop new vehicles for these discussions, 

although they also noted that the performance measures for U.S. Attorneys 

would still be in the DOJ Strategic Plan and the DOJ congressional budget 

submission. 

Our survey of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys in January and 

February 2003 indicated that DOJ had communicated its national 

performance goals to them. Specifically, nearly 90 percent (469 of 526) of 

the respondents to our survey indicated that they had received 

information about performance goals from DOJ through at least one of a 

variety of ways, including hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings, and 

the Internet. 

In addition, responses to our survey also indicated that, as of early 

2003, some U.S. Attorneys Offices had established and communicated 

local goals and measures to their supervisory staff. Specifically, 77 percent 

DOJ Has Communicated Its 

Goals and Objectives to 

Supervisory U.S. Attorneys 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 55 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

(363 of the 470) of the Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who 

responded to this question said that their districts had established district 

level performance goals and measures. Furthermore, about 83 percent of 

these supervisors (297 of 360 respondents) stated that the cases handled 

by their unit to a very great or great extent realistically reflected the 

district level performance goals and measures established by the U.S. 

Attorneys Office.3

Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors’ responses, 

go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp. 

DOJ has also begun to implement a new process for collecting and 

analyzing information about U.S. Attorneys Offices efforts to meet DOJ’s 

priorities and expectations. We were unable to fully examine DOJ’s efforts 

to assess performance using its new process because DOJ had not fully 

implemented the process. In addition, the information requested from U.S. 

Attorneys Offices continues to evolve. 

According to the Deputy Attorney General’s November 2001 

announcement, to provide DOJ with the means of assessing the progress 

of each U.S. Attorney’s office to meet the Attorney General’s objectives, 

DOJ would 

• require that each U.S. Attorneys Office submit a performance report 

that contains “qualitative and quantitative measures” detailing, among 

other things, its progress on the prosecutive priorities of the 

administration during calendar year 2002 and 

• assess each office as of January 1, 2003, based on the performance 

reports, caseload data from the centralized case management system; 

reports of consultations with investigating agency field offices and the 

judiciary; and the most significant finding from recent EARS 

evaluations. 

 3

In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA’s Director said that many districts do not 

formalize strategic and performance plans (and are not required to); thus it was difficult to 

provide specific examples of district-level performance goals and measures. The Director 

further stated that, in some cases, respondents could have misconstrued the survey 

question regarding district level performance goals and measures to include “performance 

workplan” goals, which are goals established between a supervisor and employee as part of 

an individual’s annual performance assessment. 

DOJ Has Initiated, but Not 

Fully Implemented, a New 

Process to Assess U.S. 

Attorneys Offices 

Performance 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 56 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

In September 2002, the Deputy Attorney General issued a memorandum to 

U.S. Attorneys Offices instructing them on how to prepare the 

performance reports he had discussed in his November 2001 

memorandum. The September 2002 memorandum discussed strategic 

goals and objectives related to the Attorney General’s four top prosecutive 

priorities—antiterrorism, gun violence reduction, drugs, and civil rights 

and identified an additional priority—corporate fraud—to which U.S. 

Attorneys had been asked to pay particular attention. 

For each of the five priorities, the memorandum asked each office to 

respond to a question or a series of questions that were primarily focused 

on discussing the steps each Office had taken to accomplish DOJ’s 

prosecutorial goals and objectives. For example, regarding antiterrorism, 

the Deputy Attorney General stated that DOJ’s objectives were to 

“Prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations before they occur; develop and implement 

the full range of resources available to investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their 

perpetrators to justice; vigorously prosecute those who have committed, or intend to 

commit, terrorist acts in the United States.” 

The memorandum asked each U.S. Attorneys Office to describe the 

district’s plan for accomplishing the three antiterrorism objectives, what 

had been done to apply these objectives in the district, what had been 

accomplished, and what obstacles remained. In addition, each office was 

asked to consider, among other things: 

• What is the current status of your district’s Anti-Terrorism Task Force 

(ATTF)?4

• If you have a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)5 in your district, how 

is it coordinating with the ATTF and what is your office’s involvement 

in JTTF? 

 4

The Attorney General issued a directive that included a provision directing each U.S. 

Attorneys Office to establish an ATTF to serve as a standing organizational structure for a 

coordinated state and federal response to terrorism within each U.S. Attorney’s District. 

The ATTF has a three fold objective: prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations 

before they occur; develop and implement the full range of resources available to 

investigate terrorist incidents, bringing their perpetrators to justice; and vigorously 

prosecute those who have committed, or intend to commit, terrorist acts in the United 

States. In a September 2003 memorandum, the Attorney General changed the name of these 

task forces to Anti-Terrorism Advisory Council (ATAC), leaving its current membership 

intact. 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 57 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

• What steps have been taken to improve information sharing? 

• Have antiterrorism cases been developed in your district? Describe. 

The Deputy Attorney General’s memorandum asked each district to 

provide information for each of the three other priorities, as well as for 

corporate fraud. In addition, the Deputy Attorney General asked U.S. 

Attorneys Offices to 

• identify any other priorities in their district and discuss why and how 

these priorities were established; the objectives selected to accomplish 

these priorities; the steps taken to implement the objectives; any 

outcomes realized; and any obstacles that remain; and 

• assess the Office’s strengths and weaknesses by answering questions 

about a variety of topics, including the quality of work; productivity; 

morale; and partnerships with others, including the “bench” and local 

investigative agencies. 

In April 2003, we reviewed the reports and EOUSA summaries of the 

reports for each of the 10 Offices we had visited and, in particular, 

examined whether the 10 Offices had begun to use quantifiable resultsoriented measures as a way of developing their performance reports. Our 

analysis showed that each report was informative about what the 10 U.S. 

Attorney’s Offices were doing to address the Attorney General’s priorities, 

district priorities, and management issues, but—as requested by DOJ—the 

10 U.S. Attorneys Offices generally used anecdotal information about their 

successes on particular cases to demonstrate results rather than 

quantifiable measures that would indicate their progress in achieving the 

Attorney General’s and district priorities. 

For example, all of the 10 Offices discussed their efforts regarding the 

Attorney General’s antiterrorism priorities, including their involvement in 

ATTFs; efforts to share information among local, state, and federal task 

force members; and some of the obstacles they faced in meeting 

antiterrorism objectives. Likewise, the 10 reports discussed efforts related 

to drugs, civil rights, Project Safe Neighborhoods (PSN), and corporate 

 5

The JTTF program was established by DOJ to bring teams of state and local law 

enforcement officers, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents, and other federal 

agents and personnel together to investigate and prevent acts of terrorism. Since 

September 11, 2001, the FBI had expanded its JTTF initiative from 35 JTTFs to 84 JTTFs 

nationwide. 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 58 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

fraud. Some provided case examples to show their efforts in these areas 

and discussed some of the barriers they faced in carrying out the Attorney 

General’s priorities. Regarding the latter, 3 of the 10 reports noted that 

they were hampered in their ability to deal with corporate fraud cases 

because FBI resources had been shifted to counter-terrorism activities, 

and one of these districts reported that the lack of FBI resources 

hampered its efforts in the area of civil rights. 

In addition, the 10 Offices generally discussed their local priorities and 

what they were doing in those areas. For example, 1 report discussed 

13 areas—ranging from cybercrime to environmental crime to health care 

fraud—that the Office was pursuing; discussed the reasons the district was 

pursuing them; and described some cases related to those areas. Another 

Office described its efforts in four areas—-public corruption, illegal 

immigration, violent crime, and white-collar fraud—while still another 

discussed its efforts in regard to three priorities—mortgage fraud, health 

care fraud, and crimes against children. Finally, each of the 10 reports 

discussed a variety of management issues, including district efforts to 

reorganize, manage information technology and case data, review cases 

and hold staff accountable, enhance productivity, recruit candidates, train 

staff, and garner feedback from client agencies and the judiciary. 

EOUSA provided worksheets that showed, among other things, the 

scorecard criteria they planned to use to assess the reports on each of the 

four priorities, and three other areas—corporate fraud, management, and 

“intangibles.” EOUSA officials were to make their assessments based on a 

5-point scale—tailored to each of the four priorities and the three other 

areas—with a score of “5” reserved for reports sections that “went beyond 

the guidelines” and a “one” reserved for “recites the question, little else,” 

or in the case of “intangibles,” “report contains no meaningful 

information.” EOUSA’s guidance did not instruct officials to examine 

whether districts had developed performance measures. However, EOUSA 

suggested that officials evaluate the reports based on a variety of topics, 

including any information on caseload statistics being a good gauge of 

office productivity as well as anything that could be a potential best 

practice. 

Although, according to the November 2001 memorandum, the 

performance reporting process was intended to assess performance-based 

on qualitative and quantitative measures, EOUSA’s Director, in his 

September 24, 2003, letter to us, indicated that the objective of the process 

was to provide a management tool for districts. He said it was not 

designed to “have them in the business of forecasting and setting 
Appendix VI: DOJ’s Approach to Monitoring 

the Performance of U.S. Attorneys Offices Is 

Evolving 

Page 59 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

expectations and predictions for prosecutions like a corporation would 

forecast sales and productivity of goods and services.” The Director went 

on to state that: 

“Because of the numerous variables outside of the control of the USAOs and because our 

organization’s success should not be measured by pure numbers of prosecutions, our goals 

are more qualitative, such as making a difference in the community and coordinating 

efforts among multiple law enforcement agencies.” 

However, EOUSA’s Director also said that throughout the performance 

reporting process and analysis of reports, EOUSA has developed many 

ideas for improving the process and ensuring it provides the information it 

needs, while not overburdening districts. He said there are plans to make 

the performance reporting guide more user friendly and to provide 

additional information not captured the first time. 

According to EOUSA, as of February 2004, the new template for the 

2003 performance reports was still under review, and EOUSA expected 

that, in the coming weeks, the new template would be sent out to the U.S. 

Attorney districts for completion. We compared the draft template EOUSA 

plans to use to collect 2003 performance information with the 2002 version 

of the template and found that the latest iteration identified the same 

priorities as the previous template. In addition, for some priorities, for 

example, corporate fraud/white-collar crime, EOUSA added new, more 

specific, and targeted questions, including some requiring quantifiable 

responses. However, EOUSA told us that it may be difficult to develop a 

quantitative measure because the factors affecting the development of 

performance measures vary from office to office, depending on the local 

situation. For example, the type and character of cases prosecuted may 

vary among U.S. Attorneys, depending on differences in state laws and 

whether or not cases can be prosecuted by the state. Officials also said 

that they are in the process of creating links between the performance 

reports and EARS so that EARS evaluators can benefit from the 

information in the performance reports, as these reports are part of the 

pre-evaluation materials that EARS evaluators use. 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 60 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Executive Office for United 

States Attorneys (EOUSA) have begun to take steps intended to integrate 

performance-based strategic human capital management into the day-today operations of EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. For example, DOJ 

has developed a Human Capital Strategic Plan that includes personnel in 

U.S. Attorneys Offices and is linked to DOJ’s Strategic Plan. However, DOJ 

faces additional human capital challenges, such as attracting, training, and 

retaining sufficiently qualified employees in many areas of its operation. 

DOJ officials told us they were continuing to address these challenges. In 

addition to DOJ’s efforts, EOUSA has taken preliminary steps to develop 

its own Human Capital Strategic Plan that is to be linked to the DOJ 

Strategic Plan and is exploring other actions to enhance its human capital 

management. 

In September 2002, DOJ published a Human Capital Strategic Plan that 

covered all of DOJ, including EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys Offices. 

According to DOJ, the goals of the Human Capital Strategic Plan, which 

was to support DOJ’s Strategic Plan, were to (1) identify and document 

DOJ’s human capital accomplishments and (2) design and implement a 

plan to eliminate gaps in DOJ’s human capital management. DOJ stated 

that, among other things, the plan was designed to describe the framework 

DOJ was developing to meet its unique human capital needs and cover 

DOJ personnel in law enforcement, legal, and administrative occupational 

categories. 1

 Regarding the legal field, DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Plan 

stated that DOJ had over 7,500 attorneys and more than 1,300 paralegal 

specialists across the United States, and the largest portion of these were 

affiliated with U.S. Attorneys in each of the 94 districts.2

 1

According to DOJ, individuals in the legal field made up the second largest category of 

personnel in DOJ. The largest category was law enforcement personnel—when the plan 

was prepared, DOJ reported that it had over 20,000 criminal investigators; nearly 15,000 

correctional officers; and nearly 10,000 agents and 10,000 inspectors in the Immigration and 

Naturalization Service (INS). Individuals in more than 150 job classifications 

administrative, technical, and clerical functions made up the third largest category of 

other/administrative occupations in DOJ. These included individuals in budget and finance, 

human resources, security, information technology, and miscellaneous clerical and 

technical positions. In March 2003, INS was transferred to the Department of Homeland 

Security and the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms was transferred from the 

Department of the Treasury to DOJ. 

2

 In May 2004, DOJ officials said that DOJ had more than 8,000 attorneys. 

Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

DOJ’s Human Capital 

Initiatives Include U.S. 

Attorneys Offices 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 61 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

In its plan, DOJ reported that it had already experienced significant 

success in managing its human capital. According to DOJ’s plan, among 

other things, DOJ (1) was viewed by applicants as having highly desirable 

job opportunities, especially as agents with the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) or as 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys, (2) had well-established, excellent training 

programs for new law enforcement and legal job entrants; (3) had 

projected low annual retirement rates—the actual retirement rate for 2001 

was one-third less than projected; (4) had tested and implemented an 

electronic training strategy, in addition to several components having 

tested and implemented electronic hiring systems; and (5) had an 

extensive data bank on job competencies needed for all its occupations.3

DOJ also reported that, based on guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

GAO, and the National Academy of Public Administration, and consistent 

with the administration’s Human Capital Initiative, it had identified 4 goals 

and related objectives that would help it eliminate gaps in human capital 

management. Table 5 shows DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Goals and 

Objectives. 

 3

U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, September 2002 and DOJ’s 

Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, 

Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan. 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 62 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Table 5: DOJ’s Human Capital Strategic Goals and Objectives 

DOJ human capital goal DOJ human capital objectives 

Human capital goal 1 —Design an 

effective organization and workforce 

that aligns with the overall DOJ mission 

and Strategic Plan 

1. Ensure the human capital objectives align with the DOJ Strategic Plans and Annual 

Performance Plans. 

 2. Monitor and report on organizational reforms in DOJ components. 

 3. Redirect DOJ resources to primary missions (e.g., counterterrorism, drug enforcement, 

and detention/incarceration) and shift resources to the “front lines.” 

 4. Expand the use of contractors to perform commercial activities where it improves 

efficiency and economy. 

 5. Develop a workforce analysis and planning model to be applied across DOJ. 

Human capital goal 2 —Reduce skill 

gaps through recruitment, training, and 

succession planning 

1. Develop and implement a DOJ-wide recruitment strategy. 

 2. Implement continuous process improvement for recruitment and hiring activities and 

ensure that the hiring process is streamlined as possible. 

 3. Ensure that hiring is automated across DOJ to the greatest extent possible. 

 4. Analyze the background investigation process, and modify as needed. 

 5. Conduct a study of flexible/alternative pay programs at DOJ and other federal 

organizations. 

 6. Document and continue to build on DOJ’s workforce development strategy and 

address any training gaps or issues identified. 

Human capital goal 3 —Develop an 

organizational culture focused on 

performance and results 

1. Develop a performance management model at the DOJ level that “cascades” strategic 

goals to front-line employees, and design an implementation strategy that includes 

communication and training. 

 2. Advance the state of information sharing and communication at DOJ, and identify and 

adopt new methods to automate the HR processes to improve access. 

 3. Strengthen the values of worklife programs and assess how directly they are linked to 

attrition reduction and mission accomplishment. 

Human capital goal 4 —Strengthen 

human capital leadership at DOJ 

1. Identify, document, and improve the nature, content, and level of DOJ employee 

participation in leadership development programs, including the extent of such programs 

at the component level. 

 2. Restructure management of DOJ’s Senior Executive Service corps. 

Source: U.S. Department of Justice Human Capital Strategic Plan, September 2002. 

Since publishing its Human Capital Strategic Plan, DOJ’s Office of 

Inspector General (OIG) and OMB have identified DOJ’s management of 

its human capital as a challenge facing DOJ. For example, in November 

2002 and November 2003, the OIG listed human capital as one of the top 

10 challenges facing DOJ and, among other things, discussed DOJ’s ability 

to attract, train, and retain sufficiently qualified employees in many areas 

of operation. In addition, as part of its analysis of agency progress toward 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 63 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

implementing the human capital initiative outlined in the President’s 

Management Agenda, OMB gave DOJ a score of green for progress—

meaning that DOJ’s implementation of the human capital initiative was 

proceeding according to plans. DOJ received this score, because, among 

other things, it had drafted a human capital implementation plan that 

outlined action items along with target dates and responsible staff to 

support each of the plan’s objectives. However, DOJ received a red for 

status—indicating that, according to OMB’s criteria, agency efforts to meet 

OMB’s standards regarding human capital planning had any number of 

serious flaws. In May 2004, DOJ officials stated that DOJ had been 

receiving a red score because DOJ has been implementing its human 

capital improvement efforts, but has not completed implementation to the 

point of achieving results across the board. 

DOJ recognizes that it faces challenges and, according to DOJ’s Director of 

Personnel, is working to address these issues as it continues to move 

forward. In October 2003, the Director told us that DOJ was making 

progress on its human capital initiative and identified a number of steps 

that DOJ was taking. Specifically, she said that, in September 2003, DOJ 

awarded a contract to do workforce analysis and planning and in October, 

the contractor met with component Human Resources Directors to walk 

them through how it plans to implement the project. In addition, since the 

issuance of DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Report & Fiscal Year 

2003 Revised Final Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan, 

DOJ has begun to develop a new, more detailed, implementation plan that 

will enable DOJ to more closely track its progress toward implementation. 

Moreover, she noted that DOJ is also in the early stages of developing a 

scorecard to measure performance for key human capital indicators. 

However, she indicated that DOJ is struggling with measuring impact. 

DOJ’s Personnel Director also identified employee-related human capital 

initiatives. Specifically, she said that DOJ has been working on a new 

employee performance appraisal system for General Schedule and Senior 

Executive Service Employees that will be designed to link individual 

employee performance management to objectives, measures, and results. 

In addition, DOJ has established a Business Case Committee to study what 

options are available to DOJ for improving human capital management 

outside of the pay and personnel rules under Title 5 of the United States 

Code and, according to DOJ officials, similar to human capital reform 

efforts underway at Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 64 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Department of Defense (DOD).4 The Personnel Director said that the 

Committee was created because of concern that DOJ may lose some of its 

best people if DHS and DOD are able to develop personnel systems that 

give them greater flexibility to recruit and retain employees at higher rates 

of pay, similar to what DOJ experienced during the creation of the 

Transportation Security Administration. 

According to the Director, EOUSA has been heavily involved in some of 

the efforts DOJ is taking to implement its human capital initiative 

departmentwide. Specifically, she said that EOUSA has participated fully 

in DOJ’s policy development process to modify the DOJ employee 

performance appraisal system and has played a role on DOJ’s Business 

Case Committee. 

EOUSA is also considering ways that it can initiate strategic human capital 

planning across U.S. Attorneys Offices. EOUSA has recently hired a human 

capital manager to do strategic human capital planning and, among other 

things, explore ways to link individual performance to organizational 

performance and examine whether U.S. Attorneys Offices have the 

appropriate number of staff, with the appropriate skills, to meet strategic 

goals and objectives. In addition, EOUSA is taking other steps, including 

exploring ways to better link pay and performance to help U.S. Attorneys 

Offices retain high performing staff. 

Recognizing the need to develop its own human capital initiative, in his 

September 24, 2003, letter to us, the Director of EOUSA told us that 

EOUSA had recently hired an experienced manager to lead EOUSA’s 

human capital initiative. The Director said that the decision to hire the 

human capital manager was based on an EOUSA “white paper” that 

concluded that a human capital initiative position would free up staff 

resources and provide strategic vision and planning. EOUSA’s white paper 

stated that the human capital manager would report directly to EOUSA’s 

Chief Operating Officer and work with all EOUSA components and U.S. 

 4

Title 5 laws (or requirements) refer to those personnel management laws, procedures, and 

associated functions generally applicable to federal employees. Most federal personnel 

laws governing topics such as classification, appointment, pay and benefits, and adverse 

action are contained in Title 5. Title 5 also contains laws unrelated to federal personnel 

issues, such as the Administrative Procedures Act and the Freedom of Information Act, 

that are also applicable to federal agencies. 

EOUSA Is Considering Its 

Own Human Capital 

Initiatives 

EOUSA Has Developed Plans 

to Implement a Human Capital 

Initiative 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 65 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Attorneys Offices in effecting the implementation of EOUSA’s human 

capital initiative. According to EOUSA, the human capital manager would 

• enable EOUSA to begin collecting data related to human capital 

management, which according to EOUSA, had been the subject of 

many “GAO meetings with EOUSA concerning the human capital 

management objectives of both the Administration and the Hill;” 

• assist in restructuring and suggesting creative approaches to human 

resource management—for instance, analyzing whether the 

organization could effectively employ buyouts; 

• serve as the organization’s liaison with other organizations, such as 

GAO, OPM, and DOJ at large in matters related to human capital; and 

• free up resources in EOUSA’s Personnel Policy Division to focus on, 

among other things, U.S. Attorney District staffing issues, rather than 

Human Capital Policy, reporting, and liaison. 

EOUSA also stated in its white paper that it needs to develop a human 

capital strategic plan that is linked to DOJ’s Strategic Plan. According to 

the paper, the component plan must be used to set organizational goals, 

develop employee performance standards, and facilitate performancerelated personnel decisions. In so doing, the white paper indicated that 

EOUSA needed to be able to track at least one performance element in 

each employee’s performance work plan—designed to document 

employee performance expectations and appraisals—back to a DOJ or 

component strategic goal. The white paper discussed three options for 

making this linkage, including one that would require that all EOUSA 

employee performance work plans have one performance element called 

“Annual Goals and Initiatives” that could be linked to one or more goals of 

the EOUSA strategic plan. 

In addition, EOUSA’s white paper discussed what EOUSA called strategic 

“people planning” whereby EOUSA would consider whether it had the 

right number of staff with the right skills to meet strategic goals this year, 

and for the next several years. The paper also stated that EOUSA should 

consider how the strategic goals of EOUSA’s “people” organizations 

address strategic issues; whether those goals relate to EOUSA’s efforts to 

meet its strategic goals and initiatives for the next several years; and the 

extent to which strategic goals reflect coordinated analysis of EOUSA’s 

workforce relative to its mission. The white paper listed two options for 

implementing its people-planning initiative. First, EOUSA offices 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 66 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

associated with personnel and management issues could coordinate their 

objectives for consistency. Second, these and other offices could “closely 

link short and long-range planning activities to strategic goals and 

objectives.” EOUSA’s white paper did not specify how EOUSA planned to 

analyze whether U.S. Attorneys Offices had the right number of staff, with 

the right skills, to meet their strategic goals over the next year or over the 

next several years. In February 2004, EOUSA officials told us that EOUSA 

had not begun to fully implement its human capital restructuring effort 

because the human capital manager has been focusing on formulating a 

buyout initiative for EOUSA’s legal assistants, legal secretaries, among 

others.5

In his September 24, 2003, letter, EOUSA’s Director described other steps 

EOUSA has begun to take to address human capital issues. For example, 

the Director said that EOUSA and U.S. Attorneys are working to develop 

new management training that is expected to include course work on 

individual performance management and organizational strategic planning. 

Also, EOUSA’s Director told us that EOUSA’s personnel staff is working 

with the Middle District of Tennessee to develop the prototype for a new 

appraisal format that is to enhance linkage between performance and 

identified goals and objectives. EOUSA said that, under this initiative, the 

U.S. Attorney has articulated his goals and objectives, and his attorney 

management staff has begun to refine their performance elements and 

standards to clearly identify and communicate to their employees 

management’s expectations to accomplish those objectives. In the 

meantime, EOUSA’s Director said EOUSA staff has shared with the district 

a proposal for a new appraisal form that would assist them in 

reconstructing their performance management system. EOUSA’s Director 

said that the results of this effort would be a pilot for revising U.S. 

Attorney performance management, in connection with DOJ’s overall 

effort to integrate goals and objectives into employee’s expectations and 

appraisal, discussed earlier. 

In addition, EOUSA’s Director said that EOUSA is working with an 

internal DOJ advisory subcommittee to examine possible changes to the 

U.S. Attorney pay system, with a view toward restructuring pay and 

performance systems and linking pay to performance. According to 

 5

According to U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Workforce: Payroll and Human 

Capital Changes During Downsizing, GAO/GGD-99-57 (Washington, D.C.: August 1999), 

a buyout refers to paid separation incentives used by federal agencies since 1993 to induce 

employees to voluntarily leave federal service. 

EOUSA Has Taken Other Steps 

to Address Strategic Human 

Capital Management 
Appendix VII: DOJ and EOUSA Are 

Considering Approaches to Move Toward 

Strategic Human Capital Management 

Page 67 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

EOUSA, this effort, which is in the very early deliberative stages, arises out 

of concerns that (1) the existing pay scale for Supervisory Assistant and 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys are out of date and too low to compete with the 

private sector in many districts and (2) the current performance rating 

system does not give U.S. Attorneys enough flexibility to provide larger 

pay increases to distinguish more precisely among varying levels of 

performance. Regarding the latter, the subcommittee is exploring whether 

a change in the existing performance rating system could give U.S. 

Attorneys greater leverage to retain talented, experienced attorneys in 

light of “increasing demands on all U.S. Attorneys Offices.” 

In our survey of over 750 Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys during 

January and February 2003, we addressed the question of whether 

retaining experienced attorneys may be an issue facing EOUSA and U.S. 

Attorneys in the future. Our survey results showed that about 68 percent 

of respondents who had supervised a unit for at least 2 years indicated 

that there had been attrition among Assistant U.S. Attorneys they had 

supervised during that time period. About 53 percent of respondents said 

they had either too few or far too few Assistant U.S. Attorneys working in 

their unit, given the workload over the last 6 months of 2002. When asked 

the extent to which they anticipated a shortage of Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

in the next 3 years as a result of increased unit workload, about 64 percent 

of responding supervisors answered to at least a moderate extent. 

Approximately 35 percent answered this way when asked if attrition 

would cause the shortage. 

Appendix VIII summarizes the results of our survey of Supervisory 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys. To view our survey and supervisors’ responses, 

go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp.
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 68 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

Using a Web-based questionnaire, we surveyed all Supervisory Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys in all 94 federal judicial districts between January 8, 2003, 

and February 28, 2003. We sent this survey to 768 supervisors and received 

532 responses— an approximate 70 percent response rate. The results of 

our survey are applicable only to the supervisors who responded and are 

not generalizable to all U.S. Attorney Office supervisors nationwide. 

Accordingly, the response results for individual questions are applicable 

only to the supervisors who had opinions and provided answers. We 

developed a series of questions to obtain supervisors’ views on various 

topics, including performance goals and measures; supervisory monitoring 

of cases and matters handled by Assistant U.S. Attorneys; individual 

performance evaluations; Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing and attrition; 

administrative (nonattorney) staff support; and training.1

Please note that in the following discussion of survey results, we always 

refer to Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys who had an opinion and 

responded to a particular question. For any question, the survey 

respondent has the option of answering the question, indicating “No basis 

to judge,” or not answering the question at all. In other cases, a respondent 

may be instructed to skip one or more questions depending on how they 

answered a prior question. Because of this, the actual number of 

respondents fluctuates slightly for each question. In most cases, relatively 

small numbers of Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys’ responses were 

excluded from the analysis of specific questions. 

The following highlights supervisors’ responses to questions covering key 

issues addressed in our survey. To view our survey and supervisors’ 

responses, go to http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-04-616sp. 

 1

In this report, information on U.S. Attorneys’ information technology needs is limited to 

LIONS and ALCATRAZ systems in terms of case progress and attorney performance. For a 

more complete discussion of this topic, please refer to U.S. General Accounting Office, 

Information Technology: Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys Needs to Institutionalize 

Key IT Management Disciplines, GAO-03-751 (Washington, D.C.: July 2003). 

Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 69 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

responded to various questions about DOJ performance goals and district 

goals and measures.2

• National performance goals—Nearly 90 percent of the respondents 

indicated that they received information about the national performance 

goals from DOJ through at least one of a variety of ways, which included 

hardcopy, e-mails, oral and video briefings, the Internet, as well as other 

means. Only about 10 percent said the goals had not been communicated 

to their unit. 

• District performance goals and measures—About 77 percent of the 

470 supervisors answering the question indicated that their U.S. Attorneys 

Office had established district level performance goals and measures, 

while about 23 percent said that their offices did not establish these goals 

and measures. 

• Approximately 83 percent of those who said their U.S. Attorneys Office 

had established district level performance goals and measures 

answered to a very great or great extent that the cases handled by their 

unit realistically reflected the district level performance goals and 

measures established by the U.S. Attorneys Office. 

• About 87 percent of respondents did not feel changes were needed in 

establishing district level strategic objectives, performance goals, and 

performance measures in their U.S. Attorneys Office. 

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

responded to questions about how they monitored the progress of cases 

and matters assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their units. 

• Progress—The majority of supervisors who responded said that they use a 

variety of ways to monitor the progress of cases or matters assigned to the 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. For example, over 87 percent of 

respondents indicated that they used periodic case reviews, nearly 

84 percent use periodic meetings with staff, about 60 percent used 

biannual reviews and approximately 50 percent used quarterly reviews, to 

a very great or great extent. About 40 percent of respondents said that they 

 2

For purposes of this report, we refer to national level performance goals and measures as 

those by which federal agencies are to measure performance under the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-62). We asked supervisors to identify 

whether DOJ communicated its strategic goals and objectives and if, at the district level, 

long-range goals and objectives were articulated to U.S. Attorneys Offices’ staff. 

Performance Goals 

and Measures 

Monitoring Cases 

and Matters 
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 70 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

use to a very great or great extent existing management information 

systems—such as LIONS, the U.S. Attorney case management system—to 

monitor case progress. 

• Approach to monitoring progress—The majority of supervisors who 

responded said that they use a variety of ways to monitor time spent on a 

specific case or matter assigned to the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their 

unit. For example, about 80 percent said that they used individual 

meetings to cover a specific case or matter; about 70 percent said they 

used periodic reviews, as needed; about 41 percent used quarterly reviews; 

and nearly 40 percent used biannual reviews, to a very great or great 

extent. 

• Frequency of reviews—Respondents also said that these various reviews 

were either much more than adequate, more than adequate, or adequate to 

review time spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their 

unit. For example, about 93 percent of respondents indicated that periodic 

case/matter reviews, as the need arises, were at least adequate to review 

time spent on a case or matter; approximately 83 percent said that 

quarterly reviews were at least adequate; and about 80 percent said that 

biannual reviews were at least adequate for this purpose. 

• Importance of monitoring time spent—About 47 percent of respondents 

said that it was either very important or important to review the amount of 

time being spent on a case or matter by Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their 

unit with an additional 37 percent saying that it was moderately important. 

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

responded to various questions about evaluating the performance of the 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they supervise. 

Usefulness of appraisals—About 53 percent of respondents answered that 

performance appraisals were either very useful or useful in recognizing 

outstanding performance and about 38 percent indicated that performance 

appraisals were either very useful or useful in identifying performance that 

needs improvement for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. 

• Appraisal form and critical job factors—Only 24 percent of 

respondents answered to a very great or great extent when asked 

whether the performance appraisal form provides a true assessment of 

critical job factors while about 27 percent of respondents responded to 

some, little, or no extent when asked this question. About 48 percent 

answered to a moderate extent. 

• Performance counseling—When asked the extent to which they 

believed they could provide candid, constructive job performance 

counseling, approximately 65 percent of supervisors who responded 

Performance 

Evaluation 
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 71 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

indicated to a very great or great extent. Adding the response “to a 

moderate extent” brings the total to almost 97 percent. 

• Training on performance counseling—Finally, nearly 80 percent of 

responding supervisors answered very great, great, or moderate extent 

when asked whether they had been provided with adequate 

supervisory training to provide effective job performance counseling. 

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

responded to various questions about Assistant U.S. Attorney staffing and 

attrition. 

• Extent of attrition—About 68 percent of respondents who had supervised 

a unit for at least 2 years indicated that there has been attrition among the 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys that they have supervised over that time period. 

In addition, about 68 percent of supervisors responding said that they 

were not aware of any practices in place in their office or unit to help 

retain Assistant U.S. Attorneys currently employed. Of the 139 supervisors 

who indicated that retention practices were in place, nearly 86 percent 

said that those practices were either very or somewhat effective. 

• Staff shortages—Given the unit workload over the last 6 months of 2002, 

about 45 percent of respondents said that their unit had about the right 

number of Assistant U.S. Attorneys. However, approximately 53 percent of 

respondents said they have either too few or far too few Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys working in their unit. 

• When asked the extent to which they anticipated a shortage of 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys in the next 3 years as a result of increased unit 

workload, about 64 percent of responding supervisors answered to a 

very great, great, or moderate extent. Approximately 35 percent 

answered this way when asked if attrition would cause the shortage 

and about 26 percent answered this way when lack of attorneys with 

specialized skills or expertise was specified as the potential cause. 

• Of the respondents who indicated that they anticipated shortages of 

U.S. Attorneys in their unit over the next 3 years, about 38 percent said 

that their units are or are planning to increase hiring as a strategy to 

counter shortages, while about 21 percent indicated that specialized 

training was a strategy that was planned or in place to counter the 

anticipated shortage. 

• Experience and expertise—When asked whether they believed that their 

units have the right mix of Assistant U.S. Attorneys in terms of experience 

and expertise for the types of cases handled, about 76 percent of the 

supervisors responding answered either very great or great extent for 

experience and approximately 73 percent answered this way for expertise. 

Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys Staffing 
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 72 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

responded to various questions about the workload and skills of the 

administrative staff—paralegals and legal assistant and secretaries—that 

supported their units. 

• Workload—In terms of their ability to deal with the current workload, over 

62 percent of supervisors who responded said that the number of paralegal 

specialist staff is less than or much less than adequate, while nearly 38 

percent say the number of paralegal specialist staff is either adequate, 

more than adequate, or much more than adequate. Only about 5 percent 

indicated that the number of paralegals was in any way more than 

adequate. 

• Skill level—Nearly 83 percent of responding supervisors said the skill 

levels of the paralegal specialist staff currently working with their unit are 

either adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate. 

• Feasibility of assuming other duties—Nearly 60 percent of responding 

supervisors answered either definitely or probably yes when asked 

whether it would be feasible for existing or newly hired paralegal 

specialists to assume some of the legal duties currently performed by 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys in their unit. About 40 percent of supervisors with 

an opinion indicated that they would definitely not or probably not be able 

to assume these duties.3

• Workload—When asked whether the number of support staff currently 

working with their unit was adequate in terms of dealing with the current 

workload, nearly 50 percent of responding supervisors answered either 

less than or much less than adequate. Slightly over 50 percent of 

responding supervisors answered either adequate, more than adequate, or 

much more than adequate. Of those who said that they had less than 

adequate support staff available to do the work, approximately 34 percent 

responded that this adversely affected casework either to a very great or 

great extent. Adding answers of moderate extent to this total raises it to 

over 83 percent. 

• Skill level—Nearly 87 percent of responding supervisors said that the 

support staff currently working with their unit had skill levels that were 

 3

Supervisors indicated that paralegal tasks encompass assisting at trial; assisting with the 

client, agency, witness, or victim; providing automation systems and computerized support; 

filing papers with the court; drafting correspondence, pleadings; analyzing documents; 

providing document summaries; and doing general factual and legal research. To a lesser 

extent, paralegals may do deposition summaries, prepare for or attend depositions, 

conduct investigations, and maintain the law library. 

Administrative 

Support 

Paralegals 

Legal Assistants and 

Secretaries 
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 73 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

adequate, more than adequate, or much more than adequate. Only 

13 percent of supervisors responded that the skill level of support staff 

was less than or much less than adequate. Of those responding that the 

skill level of support staff was less than adequate, nearly 84 percent said 

that this adversely affected their casework to a very great, great, or 

moderate extent. 

The following summarizes how Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

responded to various questions about training and training opportunities 

provided by DOJ through the National Advocacy Center, an institute for 

legal education training operated by EOUSA. 

• Assessment of training needs—About 88 percent of respondents said that 

either they or someone else in their unit assessed the training needs of all 

of the Assistant U.S. Attorneys whom they supervised. 

• Training frequency—Approximately 96 percent of respondents who have 

been supervisors for at least 2 years said that they or the Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys whom they supervised had taken courses sponsored by the 

National Advocacy Center within the past 2 years. 

• About 79 percent of supervisors reported that, over a 2-year period, 

they had personally taken one to two courses; nearly 13 percent said 

they took three to four courses; and 5 percent said that they did not 

take any courses. (The percentages do not add up to 100 percent 

because some specified another alternative not listed here.) 

• Almost all (99 percent) responded that at least one of the Assistant U.S. 

Attorneys who they supervised had taken a course at the National 

Advocacy Center within the past 2 years; about 69 percent of 

respondents said that their staff have also taken courses provided 

through the Justice Television Network programming; and nearly 

36 percent said that staff had taken courses presented by 

videoconference. To a much lesser extent (ranging from about 

8 percent to 12 percent), courses were presented at their offices by a 

Center instructor, or self-administered as a computer-based course or 

using printed materials. 

• Training for New Assistant U.S. Attorneys—Almost 32 percent of 

respondents said that new Assistant U.S. Attorneys should take one to 

two courses during their first 2 years in the unit, 54 percent said they 

should take three to four courses, and about 10 percent said they should 

take more than four courses. (The percentages do not add up to 

100 percent because some specified another alternative not listed here.) 

• Course content—Approximately 55 percent of respondents said that the 

content of the courses offered over the past 2 years by the Center was 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Training 
Appendix VIII: Summary of GAO’s Survey of 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys about 

Various Management Issues 

Page 74 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

highly relevant to the work the Assistant U.S. Attorneys performed in their 

unit while nearly 43 percent said that it was generally relevant. 

• Information about training opportunities— Supervisors were kept 

informed of training opportunities presented by the Center in a variety of 

ways. Approximately 48 percent of responding supervisors said that they 

received information about training opportunities from a Web site; about 

62 percent received electronic information from the Center; and 

approximately 44 percent received information through hard copy or 

electronic format from the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys. 

Additionally, about 85 percent said they received information 

electronically from their U.S. Attorney’s Office. 

• Reason for not taking National Advocacy Center courses—The 

Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorneys were also asked about reasons for 

not taking courses offered by the Center. Their responses are as follows: 

• The ongoing caseload is too heavy to take time for training courses—

approximately 44 percent of those responding answered to a very great 

or great extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to 

close to 79 percent. 

• Reluctant to take time away from casework for training—

approximately 36 percent of those responding answered to a very great 

or great extent. Adding moderate extent increases the percentage to 

70 percent. 

• Travel time to training location is excessive—approximately 47 percent 

of those responding answered to a very great or great extent. Adding 

moderate extent increases the percentage to about 68 percent. 
Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 75 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

John F. Mortin, (202) 512-8777. 

Barbara A. Stolz, Richard R. Griswold, Carla D. Brown, Susan S. Mak, 

Daniel R. Garcia, Grace Coleman, Shari Caporale, Stuart M. Kaufman, 

David Alexander, Elsie Picyk, and Maria Romero. 

Appendix IX: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products on Strategic Human 

Capital Management 

Page 76 GAO-04-422 Performance-Based Initiatives 

A Model of Strategic Human Capital Management (Exposure Draft), 

GAO-02-373SP (Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002). 

Human Capital: Implementing Pay for Performance at Selected 

Personnel Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-83 (Washington, D.C.: January 

23, 2004). 

Human Capital: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other Countries’ 

Succession Planning and Management Initiatives, GAO-03-914

(Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2003). 

Human Capital: Selected Agency Actions to Integrate Human Capital 

Approaches to Attain Mission Results, GAO-03-446 (Washington, D.C.: 

April 11, 2003). 

Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39

(Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2003). 

Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and 

Development Efforts in the Federal Government, GAO-03-893G

(Washington, D.C.: July 2003). 

Human Capital: Effective Use of Flexibilities Can Assist Agencies in 

Managing Their Workforces, GAO-03-2 (Washington, D.C.: December 6, 

2002). 

Human Capital: Practices that Empowered and Involved Employees, 

GAO-01-1070 (Washington, D.C. September 14, 2001). 

Results Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: 

March 14, 2003). 

Related GAO Products on Strategic Human 

Capital Management 

(440100) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs