RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS’ OFFICES

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of the Inspector General 

Audit Division 

Audit Report 09-03 

November 2008
- i - 

RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS’ OFFICES 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators for the United States 

government and oversee the operations of the 94 United States Attorneys’ 

Offices (USAO) located throughout the United States and its territories.1

 The 

USAOs are responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals who 

violate U.S. criminal laws, representing and defending the United States in 

civil litigation (including debt collection), and handling criminal and civil 

appeals. 

The Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) acts as a liaison 

between the Department of Justice (DOJ or the Department) and the U.S. 

Attorneys by forwarding direction and guidance from the Attorney General 

and Deputy Attorney General to the USAOs. EOUSA also provides 

management oversight and administrative support to the USAOs, which 

includes allocating resources among USAOs and maintaining USAO resourcerelated and casework databases. 

The U.S. Attorneys are responsible for handling litigation involving a 

wide variety of criminal and civil matters. Examples of their criminal 

responsibilities include narcotics trafficking, terrorism-related offenses, and 

public corruption. Examples of their civil responsibilities include bankruptcy, 

foreclosure, and medical malpractice matters. Given this broad spectrum of 

responsibilities, U.S. Attorneys operate with a significant level of autonomy 

in determining where to focus their office’s prosecutorial efforts within the 

framework of the national priorities established by the Attorney General. 

The number and types of matters handled by each USAO varies because of 

the specific problems facing each jurisdiction. 

As of April 21, 2008, the USAOs employed 5,381 attorneys and 

5,921 support personnel. The USAOs and EOUSA had a combined fiscal year 

(FY) 2008 budget of $1.755 billion. According to EOUSA officials, when 

including reimbursable funding the total budget managed by EOUSA was 

approximately $2 billion. 

 1

 The U.S. Attorney for the District of Guam also oversees the District of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, resulting in 93 U.S. Attorneys for 94 USAOs. See Appendix II for 

a map of USAOs. 
- ii - 

OIG Audit Approach 

This Office of the Inspector General (OIG) audit examined the 

allocation of personnel resources among USAOs. The audit also reviewed 

the criminal and civil areas to which USAO attorneys were allocated and 

utilized, as well as the number and types of matters being addressed by the 

94 USAOs across the country. The objectives of this audit were to: 

(1) examine the accuracy and completeness of the data regarding USAO 

resource utilization and cases, as well as to assess the process by which 

personnel resources are allocated among USAOs; (2) determine the 

allocation and utilization of attorneys within USAOs; and (3) determine the 

changes in USAO casework from FY 2003 through FY 2007. 

In conducting this audit, we analyzed EOUSA data related to the 

allocation of attorneys to USAOs, the actual utilization of these attorneys by 

USAOs, and the cases worked by USAOs. We interviewed the EOUSA 

Director, as well as senior management officials within the Director’s Office 

and other staffs or divisions of EOUSA regarding the resource allocation 

process, the cases worked by USAOs, and the various data systems 

maintained by EOUSA. In general, our audit covered the period from 

FYs 2003 through 2007. Appendix I contains a further description of our 

audit objectives, scope, and methodology. 

Results in Brief

Our audit found that although funding and authorized full-time 

equivalents (FTE) for EOUSA and the USAOs increased during our 5-year 

review period, USAOs have experienced a significant gap between allocated 

attorney FTEs and the number of FTEs that the USAOs are actually utilizing.2

 

EOUSA attributes this significant gap to rising expenses and budget 

constraints. Further, the average number of cases handled per USAO 

attorney FTE increased from FYs 2003 to 2007. 

We also determined that the process used by EOUSA and the USAOs to 

allocate personnel resources has weaknesses. Specifically, EOUSA does not 

have reliable and specific data to make fully informed resource allocation 

decisions and to use in reporting statistical data to others, including to the 

Attorney General and Congress. According to EOUSA officials, several 

attempts have been made to develop ways to better allocate resources 

among USAOs, including the most recent effort performed by the Resource 

 2

 One FTE equates to 2,080 work hours. 
- iii - 

Allocation Working Group (RAWG).3

 However, EOUSA has not been able to 

develop an objective process for determining the appropriate staffing levels 

of USAOs, nor has it been able to develop a method for reallocating attorney 

resources among USAOs. 

We found that EOUSA does not routinely perform comprehensive 

reviews of attorney utilization or the types and number of USAO cases and 

instead has relied on infrequent reviews of this information to determine the 

efficiency and effectiveness of USAO operations. We believe that EOUSA 

should perform analyses similar to the ones we present in our report to 

ensure that it has the most accurate and up-to-date information possible 

when making its management decisions. 

We concluded that weaknesses in the process for allocating personnel 

resources to USAOs are mainly attributable to three issues: (1) the lack of 

an objective staffing model, (2) the use of incomplete and inaccurate data 

when making resource planning and allocation decisions, and (3) EOUSA’s 

difficulty in reallocating existing resources between offices. 

EOUSA officials stated that they have made several attempts over the 

years to objectively determine the resource needs of the USAOs. However, 

they also acknowledged that these efforts have been unsuccessful in 

creating a reliable and objective formula to determine the appropriate 

staffing levels of USAOs. 

In addition, to assess USAOs’ resource needs and to allocate new 

positions, EOUSA relies in part on personnel resource utilization data and 

casework data that is accumulated and reported by each USAO. However, 

we identified inconsistencies with the data and are concerned that EOUSA is 

relying on inaccurate data to determine resource needs, allocate positions, 

and respond to inquiries from the Attorney General, Congress, and the 

public. 

According to EOUSA officials, another difficulty in more effectively 

allocating limited personnel resources is EOUSA’s inability to reallocate 

personnel from one district to another. EOUSA officials explained that 

EOUSA’s attempts to reallocate positions among USAOs have been met with 

opposition from several sources, including U.S. Attorneys, individual offices, 

and the AGAC. 

 3

 The RAWG, which is one of the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee’s (AGAC) 

working groups, is composed of eight U.S. Attorneys. The AGAC, in turn, is comprised of 

16 U.S. Attorneys and 1 AUSA and affords a mechanism for U.S. Attorneys to provide input 

on DOJ policies, as well as advises the Attorney General on a variety of operational and 

programmatic issues affecting U.S. Attorneys. 
- iv - 

In this audit, we also analyzed personnel utilization and casework data 

to determine the types and number of cases within the USAOs. Based upon 

our analyses, we found that from FY 2003 through FY 2007 USAOs, in total, 

were utilizing fewer attorney FTEs on counterterrorism matters than were 

funded by Congress for this purpose. In addition, although USAOs, in total, 

expended more attorney FTEs than allocated to other areas, such as health 

care fraud and Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) 

matters, we identified individual USAOs that were not utilizing their entire 

allotment of attorney FTEs as funded by Congress.4 At the audit close-out 

meeting, EOUSA officials stated that EOUSA and the USAOs have begun to 

address the underutilization of personnel resources in particular prosecutive 

areas. 

When assessing the casework of USAOs, we focused primarily on 

criminal matters referred to USAOs during FYs 2003 through 2007, and we 

determined the status of those matters as of September 30, 2007. 

Specifically, we analyzed whether the matters were filed for prosecution, 

declined, or remained in a pending status. The results of this analysis 

differed among the various prosecutorial areas. For instance, in total, the 

USAOs prosecuted a larger percentage of the referred narcotics, violent 

crime, and immigration matters compared to other types of matters. In 

addition, according to records in the National Legal Information Office 

Network System (LIONS), a large percentage of the matters referred to 

USAOs between FYs 2003 and 2007 – 35 percent – were considered to be 

pending a decision whether to prosecute as of September 30, 2007.5

 Our 

review also revealed that the criminal and civil caseloads per USAO attorney 

FTE generally increased from FY 2003 to FY 2007. 

During our review, we determined that EOUSA does not routinely 

examine the utilization of attorneys within the USAOs. EOUSA also does not 

regularly perform evaluations of each USAO’s casework within all 

prosecutorial areas. While EOUSA conducts district evaluations every 4 to 

5 years that include utilization and casework assessments, we believe that 

 4

 The OCDETF Program is a multi-agency effort created to identify, disrupt, and 

dismantle the most serious drug trafficking and money laundering organizations, including 

those primarily responsible for the nation’s drug supply. 

5

 The National LIONS, which is a centralized computer database that contains 

information on the casework of all USAOs, is used by EOUSA to provide statistical 

information to the Attorney General and Congress. 
- v - 

EOUSA should conduct more in-depth reviews of this type of data on a more 

regular basis to assess how district offices are utilizing their resources.6

 

 In our report, we make 10 recommendations to assist EOUSA in its 

resource planning and allocation decisions, as well as in its management of 

USAO operations. Our report, along with the appendices, contains detailed 

information on the full results of our review of the USAOs’ resource 

allocation. The remaining sections of this Executive Summary summarize in 

more detail our audit findings. 

Weaknesses in Resource Allocation 

 As discussed in the following sections, we found weaknesses in the 

allocation of USAO resources because EOUSA did not have necessary 

information to make fully informed resource and planning decisions. Despite 

its attempts to do so, EOUSA has been unable to develop a reliable and 

objective quantitative model to use in evaluating the needs of individual 

USAOs. 

When formulating its annual budget request and assessing USAO 

resource needs, EOUSA considers data from two databases, the USA-5 and 

LIONS.7

 EOUSA also uses this data to help decide where to place additional 

attorney positions and to respond to inquiries from Congress, the Attorney 

General, and the public. However, we found deficiencies in the data that call 

into question its reliability. These deficiencies can affect EOUSA’s budget 

requests, allocation process, and statistical reporting. 

Further, EOUSA has encountered difficulty in reallocating existing 

positions among USAOs given the inherent independence of presidentially 

appointed U.S. Attorneys and their general reluctance to willingly give up 

attorney positions to be reallocated to other USAOs. 

Unsuccessful Attempts to Assess Resource Needs 

Over the past several years, EOUSA has been unsuccessful in its 

attempts to develop a formula to identify optimal resource levels for USAOs. 

 6

 Because of budget limitations faced by the organization during our review period, 

these district evaluations were occurring every 4 to 5 years. However, at the audit 

close-out meeting EOUSA officials stated that these evaluations have resumed their triennial 

cycle. 

7

 The USAOs use the United States Attorneys’ Monthly Resource Summary Reporting 

System (referred to as the USA-5) to record USAO employees’ time. They use LIONS to 

manage and record casework information.
- vi - 

As a result, EOUSA has been unable to statistically justify the reallocation of 

current USAO resources. EOUSA’s most recent attempt, which began in 

April 2006, concluded that it was not feasible to develop a simple, reliable, 

and objective formula for determining the appropriate staffing of USAOs. 

Even if such a model were available, however, the EOUSA Director stated 

that one of the AGAC’s working groups concluded that it would be politically 

impractical to reallocate existing positions among USAOs. 

Limitations of USAO Utilization Data 

We found weaknesses in the accuracy of self-reported USA-5 data on 

USAO attorneys’ time. These weaknesses include the lack of consistency in 

recording attorney time, minimal recording of time to specific categories, 

and no standardized approach for entering time on cases that span several 

different types of offenses. 

Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) are required to record time to the 

USA-5, at a minimum, on a monthly basis although EOUSA encourages 

USAO personnel to enter time on a daily basis. Discussions with USAO 

personnel indicated that AUSAs generally enter their time in various 

intervals, such as weekly or monthly. We believe that the probability of the 

data being inaccurate is much greater when there is a significant span of 

time between the actual work performed and the time those activities are 

recorded. 

Further, AUSAs must record time to broad categories according to the 

types of matters or cases on which they are working, such as violent crime. 

The USA-5 system contains more specific categories, such as criminal gang 

prosecution, which were established to report to the Department and 

Congress the number of resources being utilized in various priority areas. 

However, during our review of the USA-5 data we determined that AUSAs 

generally do not record time to the more specific categories because it is not 

mandatory to do so. Although EOUSA officials explained that not every case 

requires use of such a specific category, we believe there is a significant 

underutilization of the more specific category codes. We found that only 

13 to 16 percent of total reported attorney FTEs was associated with any 

specific category during any of the fiscal years in our review period. 

Another factor that may contribute to inaccurate USAO resource 

utilization data is the lack of a standardized method for recording time to 

cases involving multiple offenses. For example, in a day an AUSA may work 

12 hours on a case associated with terrorism, narcotics, and fraud. Since 

there is no standard approach to allocating time among these activities, 

AUSAs can record time in a variety of ways, such as recording all 12 hours 
- vii - 

only to fraud, or recording 4 hours to each of the three areas associated with 

the case. As a result, the USA-5 may inaccurately depict AUSAs expending 

more or less time on certain activities than was actually performed. 

Limitations of USAO Casework Data 

The casework data contained in LIONS is generated at the USAO level, 

and the classification of cases varies from one district to another. For 

instance, two districts may each have a case involving firearms and drug 

trafficking violations. One district may categorize the case as a drug 

trafficking offense, while the other district may categorize it as a firearms 

offense. EOUSA officials noted that the data contained in LIONS may 

therefore be inconsistent and result in reporting imprecise information on 

the number of specific types of cases being handled by USAOs. 

Additionally, we identified a lag between the time cases are actually 

filed in court and when that information is entered into LIONS. According to 

EOUSA officials, 30 days is a reasonable period of time in which to enter case 

information into LIONS after a case filing. However, as reflected in the 

following table, we found that 74,490 of the 254,481 cases (29 percent) filed 

between FYs 2003 and 2007 exceeded this 30-day timeframe. EOUSA 

officials offered various explanations for the delays, including resource 

constraints leading to case entry backlog, as well as the possibility of delays 

in receiving the necessary court documents. 

Lack of Existing Resource Reallocation 

According to EOUSA officials, USAOs have historically maintained a 

base level of attorney FTEs from one fiscal year to the next, and existing 

positions are rarely moved from one office to another. EOUSA officials 

 8

 Due to rounding, the percentages in this table total 100.01 percent. 

SPAN OF TIME BETWEEN CASE FILINGS AND ENTRY INTO LIONS

Range Number of Cases Percentage of Total8

1 to 30 Days 179,991 70.73% 

31 to 180 Days 53,521 21.03% 

181 Days to 365 Days 14,596 5.74% 

1+ to 2 Years 4,220 1.66% 

2+ to 5 Years 1,829 0.72% 

5+ to 10 Years 224 0.09% 

Greater than 10 Years 100 0.04% 

Total 254,481 100.01% 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 
- viii - 

provided several reasons they said contribute to EOUSA’s difficulty in 

reallocating existing positions among USAOs. Due to this inability to 

reallocate positions, some USAOs may be overstaffed while others may be 

understaffed. 

However, attempts by EOUSA to move positions from one district to 

another are generally met with opposition from several sources, including 

U.S. Attorneys, individual offices, and the AGAC. In addition, EOUSA 

officials said that positions are, at times, congressionally appropriated to 

specific districts and EOUSA cannot, in turn, allocate those positions to other 

USAOs. 

However, in congressional appropriation reports for FY 2002, EOUSA 

was given the opportunity to redistribute resources among districts. 

Specifically, the congressional reports associated with the Department’s 

2002 appropriations language stated that “all previous congressional 

guidance to the U.S. Attorneys regarding initiatives and the designation of 

funds is waived.” Moreover, the Appropriations Committee stated that 

EOUSA was free to distribute manpower and funding among the district 

offices as it saw fit and directed EOUSA to submit a report on its proposed 

actions by March 2002. However, according to an EOUSA official, EOUSA did 

not submit a written report to the Appropriations Committees explaining its 

actions; instead, according to this official, a verbal report was provided and 

EOUSA did not reallocate any positions among USAOs. EOUSA officials said 

Congress has not passed similar language regarding the redistribution of 

resources since that time. 

EOUSA has attempted to alleviate some of its allocation-related issues 

by assigning new positions to particular USAOs for a specified time period, at 

the conclusion of which EOUSA re-evaluates the personnel resource needs of 

that and other offices and determines if those positions should remain or be 

reallocated to other USAOs. Moreover, EOUSA has conducted a more indepth assessment of district needs in specific priority areas before it 

allocated these newly appropriated positions to address those specific 

activities. 

While we believe EOUSA has taken steps to mitigate staffing 

discrepancies among districts, we believe that EOUSA should enhance the 

reliability of its resource utilization and casework data so that it is able to 

more effectively assess and allocate resources among USAOs according to 

their needs. 

 
- ix - 

Utilization of USAO Resources 

 USAO attorney resources are measured in FTEs. The number of FTEs 

assigned to an office by the Department is called its allocated amount, while 

the actual use of those resources as tracked through the USA-5 time 

reporting system is referred to as utilization. 

We determined that the number of attorney FTEs allocated to USAOs 

rose slightly throughout our review period – increasing from 5,459 attorney 

FTEs in FY 2003 to 5,708 in FY 2007, an increase of 5 percent, as depicted in 

the following graph. 

TOTAL ATTORNEY FTEs ALLOCATED TO USAOs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and 

Planning Staff data 

In addition, we compared the allocation and utilization of attorney 

FTEs within each USAO throughout our review period and found that, in 

total, USAOs were utilizing fewer attorney FTEs than allocated during each 

fiscal year of our review period, as reflected in the following graph. EOUSA 

officials attributed this shortfall primarily to budget limitations, which 

prevented USAOs from actually filling positions allocated to them. As 

discussed below, we also determined that several USAOs were not utilizing 

attorney resources in accordance with the funding provided for specific 

activities, including counterterrorism, health care fraud, and OCDETF.9

 9

 As mentioned above, we identified several concerns with the accuracy and 

reliability of the USAOs’ personnel utilization and casework data. While these concerns may 

affect the analyses we performed, we believe the overall results presented have utility for 

examining the activities of the U.S. Attorney organization. Further, this data is the only 

utilization and casework data available for purposes of our audit and is used and relied upon 

by EOUSA. 
- x - 

COMPARISON OF ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED ATTORNEY FTEs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and USA-5 data

According to EOUSA officials, this underutilization occurred primarily 

because USAOs had limited budgets to address annual rising costs, such as 

cost-of-living adjustments and increases in rent. In addition, EOUSA stated 

that it could not fully fund all of its reimbursable positions with the money 

provided for these positions. EOUSA explained that it had to supplement 

reimbursable funding with its own direct appropriations because the 

reimbursable funding remained constant during our review period while 

costs increased. As a result, these officials stated that USAOs did not have 

adequate funds remaining to fill vacant positions, even though the positions 

were allocated to the offices. 

We found, however, that the gaps between allocated and utilized 

attorney FTEs were mitigated when the additional hours worked by attorneys 

in excess of a standard 40-hour work week were factored into our 

evaluation, as illustrated in the following graph. When combining these 

additional attorney work hours to the regular time charged by attorneys, the 

USAOs actually utilized a greater number of attorney FTEs than allocated 

throughout our review period. Thus, the previously discussed gaps between 

allocated and utilized attorney FTEs were absorbed by existing attorneys 

recording more hours. However, even when including these additional 
- xi - 

hours, the overall utilization of attorney FTEs was still less in FY 2007 

(5,982 FTEs) than it was in FY 2003 (6,274 FTEs). 

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED, UTILIZED, AND ADDITIONAL 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff 

and USA-5 data 

Increase in USAO Unused Attorney FTEs 

We also examined the percentage gap between allocated and utilized 

attorney FTEs (excluding additional time recorded by attorneys) of USAOs by 

office size and found that the gaps within all groups generally increased from 

FYs 2003 to 2007, as shown in the following table.10 As the table illustrates, 

large and extra-large offices were affected more than smaller offices. 

 10 EOUSA categorizes offices based upon the allocated attorney staff levels. During 

our review period, EOUSA used the following distinctions: (1) extra-large (greater than or 

equal to 100 attorneys), (2) large (between 45 and 99.9 attorneys), (3) medium (between 

25 and 44.9 attorneys), and (4) small (less than 25 attorneys). 
- xii - 

PERCENTAGES OF USAO UNUSED ATTORNEY FTEs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007

USAO Category FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

Extra-large 4.11% 4.56% 5.79% 11.62% 14.50% 

Large 3.33% 2.45% 4.92% 7.54% 9.18% 

Medium 2.58% 1.81% 4.46% 4.60% 6.28% 

Small 3.41% 3.40% 4.23% 5.39% 5.85% 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and 

 USA-5 data 

“Burn” Rates 

 Additionally, we analyzed the “burn” rates of attorney FTEs in various 

prosecutorial areas to determine if USAOs were utilizing resources in 

accordance with the specific activities for which funding was provided by 

Congress. EOUSA uses the term “burn” rate to refer to the difference 

between allocated resources and actual utilized resources. An “overburn” 

occurs when more resources are utilized than allocated. In turn, an 

“underburn” occurs when fewer resources are utilized than allocated. 

We limited our burn rate analyses to counterterrorism, firearms, health 

care fraud, and OCDETF because these are specific areas in which EOUSA 

separately tracks both the allocation and utilization of attorney FTEs. 

 Based upon this analysis, we determined that USAOs expended fewer 

attorney FTEs on counterterrorism matters than were allocated for this 

purpose. Specifically, as reflected in the following chart, between 189 and 

204 attorney FTEs were utilized annually on counterterrorism matters during 

FYs 2003 through 2005, while USAOs were allocated a total of 250 attorney 

FTEs for counterterrorism matters during the same time period. 
- xiii - 

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED ON COUNTERTERRORISM MATTERS 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Allocated FTEs Regular & Additional FTEs Utilized

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and 

USA-5 data

In FY 2006, an additional 43 attorney FTEs were allocated for 

counterterrorism work, resulting in a total of 293 attorney FTEs for this 

initiative during FYs 2006 and 2007. However, our analyses revealed that 

USAOs continued to utilize approximately the same number of attorney FTEs 

on counterterrorism matters in FYs 2006 and 2007 as they had in FYs 2003 

through 2005. During the audit close-out meeting, the EOUSA Director 

explained that due to the timing of the FY 2006 appropriations, these 

additional counterterrorism attorney FTEs would not have been captured (or 

utilized) until FY 2007 or later. 

 

The EOUSA Director informed us that EOUSA had recently become 

aware of this underutilization and reported the matter to the Deputy 

Attorney General. The EOUSA Director further explained that he believed a 

portion of this underburn was caused by inaccurate time reporting by 

AUSAs, as well as fewer terrorism-related matters being referred by 

investigative agencies than had been referred in the past. He stated that he 

is working to enhance the AUSAs’ time reporting and ensure that USAOs are 

expending appropriate resources in priority areas. 

 In contrast to our review of counterterrorism burn rates, throughout 

our review period USAOs, in total, utilized more attorney FTEs than were 

allocated on firearms, health care fraud, and OCDETF matters. Burn rates for 

all district offices in these areas can be found in Appendices VII through X. 
- xiv - 

Lack of Comprehensive Resource Review 

 Through discussions with EOUSA officials, we determined that EOUSA 

does not regularly perform comprehensive reviews of the use of attorney 

resources in USAOs. Instead, EOUSA, with assistance from USAOs, 

performs periodic district office evaluations, called Evaluation and Review 

Staff (EARS) reviews, which include an assessment of the personnel 

resources utilized on priority areas.11 While these evaluations are intended 

to be conducted every 3 years, according to EOUSA officials, during the 

period that we reviewed recent budget limitations resulted in the evaluations 

being conducted every 4 to 5 years. 

Because EOUSA relies primarily on these evaluations to obtain detailed 

information about USAOs’ resource usage, EOUSA does not have an accurate 

perception of how many and what kind of resources USAOs are utilizing from 

one fiscal year to the next in specific areas, such as counterterrorism and 

OCDETF. This makes it difficult for EOUSA to determine what resources a 

district may need, as well as whether districts are using resources in 

accordance with the specific purpose for which they were allocated. 

EOUSA executive management informed us they were aware of this 

deficiency and said they plan to develop and implement a model in which 

this information would be routinely collected and reviewed for all district 

offices. We believe that such a model would provide critical information and 

allow EOUSA to review USAO resource allocation and utilization data on a 

more objective and frequent basis. However, EOUSA must also address the 

deficiencies affecting the reliability of the USA-5 data on which the model 

will rely. In addition, we recommend that EOUSA include in its new model 

an analysis of USAO burn rates to ensure the expected number of resources 

is being utilized as intended. 

USAO Casework 

When a law enforcement agency presents information about an 

investigation to a USAO, the USAO records this information in LIONS as a 

“matter referred.” The matter then becomes a “case” in LIONS once the 

USAO files an indictment or information in court. 

USAOs handle a wide variety of criminal and civil matters, and 

according to EOUSA and USAO officials, several factors affect the type of 

 11 EOUSA monitors the activities of USAOs through a formal evaluation process 

overseen by its Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS). Among other things, the EARS 

reviewers examine whether USAOs are following DOJ polices and the Attorney General’s 

priorities in their allocation of prosecutive resources. 
- xv - 

cases worked by USAOs, including national and district priorities, availability 

of resources, complexity of cases, and changes in priorities within 

investigative agencies. 

We determined that from FYs 2003 through 2007, 554,675 criminal 

matters were referred to USAOs. We analyzed this data as of 

September 30, 2007, to determine how many matters were filed for 

prosecution, declined, or were still pending. From FYs 2003 through 2007, 

424,538 civil matters were referred to USAOs. We analyzed these matters 

to determine if any matters were still pending as of September 30, 2007. 

Criminal Casework

 In total, the USAOs filed for prosecution approximately 50 percent of 

all criminal matters referred between FYs 2003 and 2007 and declined 

13 percent of the total matters referred. As of September 30, 2007, the 

remaining 35 percent were still pending a decision whether or not to 

prosecute. Of the 196,906 pending matters, 54,127, or nearly 30 percent, 

had been in a pending status for at least 3 years as shown in the following 

graph. 
- xvi - 

TOTAL CRIMINAL MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs12

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

When we presented this information to EOUSA officials, they were 

surprised at the large number of pending matters, particularly the large 

number of cases in pending status for such long periods of time, and said 

they were unable to fully explain this data without reviewing individual district 

files. We therefore judgmentally selected a limited sample of 50 pending 

matters from several different USAOs and requested that these USAOs notify 

us whether the matters were, in fact, pending. According to the USAOs’ 

responses, 44 percent of the matters we tested were accurately reflected as 

awaiting a decision to prosecute as of September 30, 2007 – half of which 

were referred to USAOs between FYs 2003 and 2005. However, the 

remaining 56 percent of matters in our sample were not actually in pending 

status. Instead, the USAOs explained that many of these matters had been 

prosecuted and the defendants sentenced prior to September 30, 2007. 

 12 This graph illustrates the total number of criminal matters referred during each 

fiscal year of our review period and the action taken on those matters from the time they 

were referred to the end of our review period (FY 2007). For example, in FY 2004, 

115,983 criminal matters were referred to USAOs. Between FYs 2004 and 2007, 60,824 of 

the 115,983 matters were filed for prosecution and 19,363 were declined. The remaining 

35,796 remained pending as of September 30, 2007. 
- xvii - 

When discussing this data with EOUSA officials, they provided a variety 

of reasons as to why some of the matters in our sample would have had 

subsequent case filings and terminations in the districts’ LIONS that were 

not reflected in the National LIONS. For instance, EOUSA officials explained 

that the National LIONS was not capturing all cases filed by districts due to 

an error in the transmission process. EOUSA officials also stated that some 

matters may have been terminated without a case having been filed because 

they were handled in a certain court setting, such as magistrate court, but 

that these actions were not reflected in LIONS as case filings. 

EOUSA officials further stated that EOUSA does not check the accuracy 

of the data in the National LIONS by comparing it to what was transmitted 

from the USAOs or what is reflected in the LIONS databases accessible in the 

district offices. EOUSA officials stated that EOUSA instead relies upon data 

certifications performed semiannually by district offices. However, these 

certifications are done in the districts and address only the data that the 

districts submit to EOUSA, not what is ultimately stored in the National 

LIONS, and our work shows that these data sets are inconsistent. We 

believe that this analysis has revealed significant concerns over the accuracy 

and reliability of LIONS data. 

We also assessed criminal casework in each USAO for each 

prosecutorial area we reviewed. These individual USAO criminal casework 

analyses are contained within Appendices XI through XIX. 

Civil Casework

 The USAOs received 9,118 fewer civil referrals during FY 2007 than 

during FY 2003 – decreasing from 89,961 matters in FY 2003 to 

80,843 matters in FY 2007. Unlike criminal casework, USAOs do not record 

declinations of civil matters because USAOs must accept the majority of civil 

matters referred, which involve defensive litigation where the USAOs defend 

the U.S. government. 

As a result, our analyses of civil casework assessed the number of civil 

matters filed or pending as of September 30, 2007. We found that the 

percentage of civil matters filed remained relatively steady throughout our 

review period – ranging from 87 to 90 percent of all civil matters referred 

during each of the 5 fiscal years under review. 

Casework per Attorney FTE

 Using USAO case data, we computed the average caseload per 

attorney FTE for FYs 2003 through 2007. As shown in the following graph, 
- xviii - 

the average number of cases per attorney FTE generally increased 

throughout our review period. 

AVERAGE NUMBER OF TOTAL CASES PER USAO ATTORNEY FTE 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

Lack of Comprehensive Casework Review 

 As with the utilization of attorneys, we found that EOUSA does not 

routinely receive reports that provide a comprehensive assessment of the 

number and types of cases handled by each USAO. As discussed previously, 

EOUSA generally monitors USAO casework and workloads as part of the 

EARS evaluations of offices, which are to be performed every 3 years. 

However, during the period that we reviewed, evaluations generally occurred 

every 4 to 5 years. 

Besides these evaluations, the Data Analysis Staff at EOUSA analyzes 

USAO data on an ad hoc basis when it receives a request, and it also 

compiles an annual statistical report that provides details on the entire 

caseload of individual USAOs. However, EOUSA’s annual statistical report 

does not include specific caseload information for the districts, such as the 

number of narcotics trafficking cases filed by each USAO. 

EOUSA informed us that it intends to implement a method to routinely 

examine the casework of all 94 USAOs instead of continuing to rely mainly 

upon peer evaluations. As explained by the EOUSA Director, EOUSA intends 
- xix - 

to develop a method to examine the resource management of each USAO on 

a consistent basis and will provide measurable results, including various 

casework and caseload statistics. We believe that such an effort is 

important, and we recommend that this review include analyses similar to 

those that we performed. 

Conclusion and Recommendations 

We found weaknesses in the process used by EOUSA and the USAOs to 

allocate personnel resources. EOUSA has not developed an objectively 

sound statistical model to determine the optimal staffing levels for USAOs. 

In addition, while data from the USA-5 and LIONS are considered by EOUSA 

in resource planning and allocation decisions, as well as in responding to 

inquiries from the Department and Congress, we identified substantial 

deficiencies in the data that calls into question its accuracy and reliability. 

Additionally, EOUSA generally does not reallocate positions from one USAO 

to another for a variety of reasons. Most importantly, one of those reasons 

is opposition from several sources, including USAOs that strongly oppose 

losing any resources from their offices. 

We found that USAOs, in total, utilized fewer attorney resources than 

intended for counterterrorism matters during each fiscal year of our review 

period. The EOUSA Director stated that this underutilization was partially 

caused by inaccurate time reporting by USAO attorneys and partially due to 

investigative agencies not bringing as many terrorism-related matters to the 

USAOs as they had in the past. 

EOUSA conducts evaluations of individual USAOs that include an 

assessment of USAO resources utilized on certain prosecutorial areas, as 

well as a review of USAO casework and workloads. According to EOUSA 

officials, these evaluations are to be conducted on a triennial basis, but have 

recently occurred less frequently because of budget limitations. Rather than 

waiting for an extended period of time to collect detailed data on district 

activities, we believe that EOUSA should regularly collect and review 

resource utilization and casework data for all USAOs to ensure effective 

resource management within district offices. 

Our audit work and findings resulted in 10 recommendations to assist 

EOUSA in its resource planning and allocation decisions, as well as in 

overseeing the operations of USAOs. Our recommendations include 

implementing policies and processes to assist in improving the accuracy of 

USAO data, as well as recommendations for EOUSA to regularly conduct 

comprehensive reviews on the utilization of attorney resources and USAO 

casework. 
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT OF 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEYS’ OFFICES 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................... 1

Organizational Structure ......................................................................1

Budget Overview.................................................................................3

Prior Reviews .....................................................................................4

OIG Audit Approach.............................................................................5 

CHAPTER 2: WEAKNESSES IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION ................... 6

USAO Personnel Resource Allocation Process...........................................6

Time Reporting Process........................................................................8

Casework Reporting Process .................................................................9

Concerns with Resource Allocation....................................................... 10

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 18

Recommendations............................................................................. 19 

CHAPTER 3: UTILIZATION OF ATTORNEY RESOURCES................... 20

Overall Utilization of Attorney Resources .............................................. 20

EOUSA Monitoring of Attorney Utilization.............................................. 33

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 34

Recommendation .............................................................................. 35 

CHAPTER 4: USAO CASEWORK ....................................................... 36

Factors Affecting USAO Casework........................................................ 36

USAO Criminal Casework.................................................................... 37

USAO Civil Casework ......................................................................... 51

Criminal and Civil Casework per Attorney FTE ....................................... 53

EOUSA Monitoring ............................................................................. 55

Conclusion ....................................................................................... 55

Recommendation .............................................................................. 56 

APPENDIX I: OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY ............... 57 

APPENDIX II: MAP OF USA DISTRICT OFFICES.............................. 65 

APPENDIX III: USAO ACRONYMS................................................... 66 

APPENDIX IV: USA-5 PAPER FORM................................................ 67 

APPENDIX V: TOTAL USAO ATTORNEY UTILIZATION..................... 71 
APPENDIX VI: UNUSED USAO ATTORNEY FTEs .............................. 74 

APPENDIX VII: COUNTERTERRORISM BURN RATES....................... 77 

APPENDIX VIII: HEALTH CARE FRAUD BURN RATES...................... 80 

APPENDIX IX: OCDETF BURN RATES.............................................. 83 

APPENDIX X: FIREARMS BURN RATES ........................................... 86 

APPENDIX XI: TERRORISM-RELATED CASEWORK .......................... 89 

APPENDIX XII: NARCOTICS CASEWORK ........................................ 93 

APPENDIX XIII: VIOLENT CRIME CASEWORK ................................ 97 

APPENDIX XIV: WHITE COLLAR CRIME CASEWORK ..................... 101 

APPENDIX XV: CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION CASEWORK ................. 105 

APPENDIX XVI: PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASEWORK ...................... 109 

APPENDIX XVII: ORGANIZED CRIME CASEWORK ........................ 113 

APPENDIX XVIII: CIVIL RIGHTS CASEWORK ............................... 117 

APPENDIX XIX: ALL OTHER CRIMINAL CASEWORK...................... 121 

APPENDIX XX: CIVIL MATTERS BY USAO ..................................... 125 

APPENDIX XXI: CASELOADS PER ATTORNEY FTE ......................... 129 

APPENDIX XXII: EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR 

 U.S. ATTORNEYS RESPONSE ............................. 132 

APPENDIX XXIII: OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS 

 AND SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO 

 CLOSE THE REPORT ........................................ 139
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 

 The U.S. Attorneys are the principal litigators of the United States 

government and are responsible for handling litigation involving a wide 

variety of criminal and civil matters. Examples of criminal matters they 

handle include narcotics trafficking, terrorism, and public corruption 

offenses. Examples of civil matters include bankruptcy, foreclosure, and 

medical malpractice cases. U.S. Attorneys must decide where to focus their 

prosecutorial efforts, within the framework of the national priorities 

established by the Attorney General. Therefore, the criminal and civil 

casework of individual district offices differ based upon a variety of factors. 

The purpose of this review was to evaluate the accuracy and 

completeness of the United States Attorneys’ Offices’ (USAO) utilization and 

casework data to determine if decision-makers were utilizing reliable 

information during the budget and resource allocation processes, as well as to 

assess the process by which human resources are allocated among the various 

USAOs. In addition, we identified the criminal and civil areas to which 

attorneys were allocated and utilized during fiscal years (FY) 2003 through 

2007. We also reviewed the changes occurring between FYs 2003 and 2007 in 

the type and number of criminal and civil matters addressed by USAOs. 

Organizational Structure 

Ninety-four USAOs are located throughout the United States, 

Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.13 

Each USAO is headed by a U.S. Attorney who is appointed by the President 

and confirmed by the Senate. The U.S. Attorney serves as the district’s 

principal litigator under the direction of the Attorney General. USAOs are 

responsible for investigating and prosecuting individuals who violate U.S. 

criminal laws, representing and defending the United States in civil litigation 

(including debt collection), and handling both criminal and civil appeals. As 

of April 21, 2008, the USAOs employed 5,381 U.S. Attorneys and Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) and 5,921 support personnel. 

The Attorney General, through the Deputy Attorney General, directs 

the work of the U.S. Attorneys, and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys 

(EOUSA) acts as a liaison between the Department of Justice (DOJ or the 

Department) and the U.S. Attorneys. Each U.S. Attorney operates with a 

 13 The U.S. Attorney for the District of Guam also oversees the District of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, resulting in 93 U.S. Attorneys for 94 USAOs. See Appendix II for 

the geographical boundaries of the USAOs and Appendix III for the acronyms of each USAO. 
- 2 - 

significant level of autonomy, while EOUSA provides management oversight 

and administrative support to the USAOs, including general executive 

assistance and direction and policy development. EOUSA officials stated that 

EOUSA does not instruct individual USAOs how to focus their prosecutorial 

efforts. 

The following chart illustrates EOUSA’s operational structure. As of 

April 21, 2008, the various operational units within EOUSA were comprised 

of 36 attorneys and 237 support staff, primarily in Washington, D.C. During 

FY 2008, the enacted budget for the entire U.S. Attorney organization, 

including the USAOs and EOUSA, was $1.755 billion. According to EOUSA 

officials, when including reimbursable funding the total budget managed by 

EOUSA was approximately $2 billion. 

EXHIBIT 1-1

EOUSA OPERATIONAL CHART 

(as of March 2008) 

Source: EOUSA 
- 3 - 

Monitoring 

EOUSA monitors the activities of USAOs through a formal evaluation 

process overseen by its Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS), which conducts 

peer evaluations of individual district offices.14 EARS attempts to perform an 

evaluation of each USAO every 3 years. However, according to EOUSA 

officials, during the period that we reviewed, due to recent budget 

constraints, the evaluation cycle had occurred about every 4 to 5 years. 

However, at the audit close-out meeting, EOUSA officials stated that these 

evaluations have resumed their triennial cycle. 

Among other things, the EARS reviews examine each USAO’s 

compliance with EOUSA management standards regarding criminal and civil 

workload. The EARS process is also used to assess how well USAOs are 

following DOJ polices and the Attorney General’s priorities. 

Budget Overview 

EOUSA coordinates with the Attorney General's Advisory Committee 

(AGAC) in formulating a budget submission for all USAOs.15 During this 

process, the AGAC reviews the Attorney General’s priorities, USAO casework 

and utilization data, and any new legislation affecting USAO workload. From 

this review, the AGAC provides its recommendations on resource needs to 

EOUSA for consideration during budget formulation. This information, 

including a draft budget, is then presented to the EOUSA Director for review 

and approval before the final submission is made to DOJ. The following 

table depicts the amounts requested and enacted for USAOs during FYs 2003 

through 2008. 

 14 EARS reviews are conducted jointly by EARS and USAO personnel, including 

experienced AUSAs from other districts. 

15 The AGAC, which is comprised of 16 U.S. Attorneys and 1 AUSA: (1) provides a 

mechanism for U.S. Attorneys to provide input on DOJ policies, and (2) advises the Attorney 

General on a variety of operational and programmatic issues affecting U.S. Attorneys. 
- 4 - 

EXHIBIT 1-2

U.S. ATTORNEY FUNDING AND FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) 

REQUESTS AND ENACTED APPROPRIATIONS 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2008

Fiscal 

Year 

Amount Requested 

in President’s 

Budget 

(in billions) 

Amount 

Enacted 

(in billions)

FTEs Requested 

in President’s 

Budget 

FTEs 

Enacted 

2003 $1.489 $1.506 11,022 11,372 

2004 $1.557 $1.525 11,542 11,540 

2005 $1.548 $1.542 11,699 11,628 

2006 $1.626 $1.589 11,920 11,631 

2007 $1.664 $1.655 11,722 11,687 

2008 $1.748 $1.755 11,938 11,787 

Source: DOJ and EOUSA budget documents 

 

Prior Reviews 

No recent reports by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) and 

the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG) have examined USAO 

resource management. However, we identified two reports – one GAOreport issued in FY 2004 and one OIG report issued in FY 2007 – pertaining 

to the accuracy of federal prosecution data, particularly terrorism-related 

statistics reported by DOJ. The GAO concluded that DOJ does not have 

sufficient management oversight and internal controls in place to ensure the 

accuracy and reliability of EOUSA’s terrorism-related statistics.16 

Specifically, the GAO stated that approximately 46 percent of the FY 2002 

terrorism-related convictions were misclassified. 

The OIG’s February 2007 review examined the reporting of terrorismrelated statistics by three DOJ components, including EOUSA.17 The OIG 

report found that EOUSA and the USAOs did not accurately report the 

11 terrorism-related statistics that were reviewed, including the number of 

terrorism-related convictions and the number of terrorism and anti-terrorism 

cases terminated against defendants. The OIG report also found that, in 

general, EOUSA and the USAOs had not established effective internal control 

procedures for verifying the accuracy of the Legal Information Office 

Network System (LIONS) data to ensure statistics reported based on LIONS 

 16 U.S. Government Accountability Office. Justice Department: Better Management 

Oversight and Internal Controls Needed to Ensure Accuracy of Terrorism-Related Statistics, 

GAO-03-266 (January 17, 2003). 

17 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General, The Department of 

Justice’s Internal Controls Over Terrorism Reporting, Audit Report 07-20 (February 2007). 
- 5 - 

data were accurate. Finally, the OIG report concluded that EOUSA’s 

definition of terrorism-related program activity was not clear. EOUSA has 

taken corrective action, and all of the OIG’s recommendations to the agency 

have been closed.

OIG Audit Approach 

The objectives of this audit were to: 

(1) examine the accuracy and completeness of USAO utilization and 

casework data, as well as assess the process by which personnel 

resources are allocated to USAOs; 

(2) determine the allocation and utilization of attorneys within 

USAOs; and 

(3) determine the changes in USAO casework from FY 2003 through 

FY 2007. 

To accomplish these audit objectives, we reviewed EOUSA data related 

to the allocation of attorneys to USAOs, the actual utilization of these 

attorneys, and the USAOs’ casework for FYs 2003 through 2007. In 

addition, we interviewed EOUSA officials, including the Director and other 

senior management within the Director’s Office, regarding the allocation 

process, USAO priorities, and the performance of USAOs. 

Chapters 2 through 4 present an overview of our audit results, while 

the audit scope and methodology are presented in Appendix I. In Chapter 2, 

we examine the methods for collecting utilization and casework data, and we 

assess the reliability of this data. We also discuss EOUSA’s process for 

allocating human resources among the USAOs. Chapter 3 focuses on the 

utilization of attorneys in comparison to USAO allocated staffing levels. In 

Chapter 4, we examine the criminal and civil matters referred to USAOs, 

including the number of matters filed, declined, or pending, as well as the 

average caseload per attorney FTE. 
- 6 - 

CHAPTER 2: WEAKNESSES IN RESOURCE ALLOCATION 

We found that the process used by EOUSA and the USAOs to 

allocate personnel resources has weaknesses. For example, 

EOUSA does not regularly collect reliable and specific data to 

make fully informed resource allocation decisions and to use in 

reporting statistical data to others, including to the Attorney 

General and Congress. We also found data inconsistencies in the 

systems used to record time and casework information, which 

occurred because the time and case reporting guidance for USAO 

employees were too general and implementation of the guidance 

varied among USAOs. In addition, EOUSA has not developed a 

process to objectively determine the appropriate staffing levels 

of individual USAOs. Moreover, EOUSA generally had difficulty 

reallocating positions from one USAO to another for a variety of 

reasons. 

USAO Personnel Resource Allocation Process 

 

EOUSA informed us that its first priority in distributing appropriated 

funding is to support the historic base-level of attorney resources among 

USAOs. According to EOUSA officials, each USAO has been authorized a 

base level of funding for attorneys that is generally maintained from one 

fiscal year to the next. EOUSA does not reexamine this base FTE level for 

each office on a regular basis. However, these base levels may be increased 

when additional resources are provided to EOUSA. 

If the annual appropriation provides for additional USAO positions, 

EOUSA notifies the district offices via a memorandum explaining the type of 

positions available and the criteria to be considered in determining where to 

place the resources. Those interested USAOs submit a response to EOUSA 

explaining the reasons why the district should receive additional positions, 

including any related data supporting its request. EOUSA, in turn, reviews 

these responses, formulates basic recommendations, and forwards this 

information along with other district-specific data to the Resource Allocation 

Working Group (RAWG).18 This working group reviews the district 

submissions, as well as EOUSA-provided data and input, revises EOUSA’s 

recommendations as it deems necessary, and forwards that information to 

the EOUSA Director, who reviews and makes any necessary revisions to the 

proposed allocations. The recommendations are then provided to the 

 18 The RAWG, which is one of the AGAC’s working groups, is composed of eight U.S. 

Attorneys. 
- 7 - 

Deputy Attorney General, who determines where to place any new positions 

among the USAOs. 

The following diagram illustrates the current process for allocating 

human resources among the USAOs. 

EXHIBIT 2-1

HUMAN RESOURCE ALLOCATION PROCESS 

Source: OIG-created diagram based upon discussions with EOUSA and USAO officials 

Besides direct appropriations, EOUSA also receives additional funding 

and resources through reimbursable programs, such as the Organized Crime 

Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF).19 According to an EOUSA official, 

the process of allocating reimbursable positions may differ from that 

depicted in Exhibit 2-1 depending on the particular reimbursable program. 

This official further explained that the Executive Office of OCDETF decides in 

which USAOs reimbursable positions should be placed, and EOUSA provides 

the additional resources to those USAOs. Moreover, an appropriation may 

dictate the specific USAO to which EOUSA should assign new positions. For 

example, the FY 2005 appropriations language stated that the District of 

New Hampshire USAO was to receive seven positions in support of Operation 

Streetsweeper, which was associated with the New Hampshire Violent Crime 

Task Force. Regardless of the source of funding, EOUSA is responsible for 

overseeing the allocation of all FTEs among USAOs. 

 19 The OCDETF Program is a multi-agency effort created to identify, disrupt, and 

dismantle the most serious drug trafficking and money laundering organizations. 
- 8 - 

According to an EOUSA official, the majority of new positions allocated 

among USAOs have historically been provided to address specific initiatives 

or activities, such as firearms enforcement or counterterrorism 

investigations, as opposed to being left to the discretion of each U.S. 

Attorney. For example, in FY 1998 EOUSA allocated 61 attorney positions 

among the USAOs to address narcotics matters, which was based upon 

funding directed by Congress for such purposes. However, the congressional 

reports associated with the FY 2002 appropriations stated that, “all previous 

congressional guidance to the U.S. Attorneys regarding initiatives and the 

designation of funds is waived.”20 As a result, this EOUSA official stated that 

U.S. Attorneys were able to assign these attorney resources as they saw fit 

and that they have been able to do so for these positions since that time. 

Time Reporting Process 

USAOs use the United States Attorneys’ Monthly Resource Summary 

Reporting System (referred to as the USA-5) to record time spent by most 

USAO personnel on various types of activities.21 According to EOUSA 

officials, data from the USA-5 is used for statistical reporting purposes, 

including ad hoc requests from the Attorney General, Congress, and the 

public. Additionally, EOUSA uses USA-5 data when considering how to 

allocate human resources among USAOs, and the data is relied upon, in 

part, for determining and justifying EOUSA’s annual budget requests. 

In the USA-5, USAO personnel assign time to various categories 

according to the types of matters or cases they have worked on, such as 

violent crime. Moreover, USAO personnel have the ability to record time to 

a more specific area by selecting a subcategory – a USA-5A designation, 

such as criminal gang prosecution – associated with the particular USA-5 

category chosen.22 According to the USA-5 manual, the USA-5A categories 

were established to report to senior Department managers and Congress the 

 20 U.S. Senate, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2002, S. Rept. 107-42; and U.S. House of 

Representatives, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 

State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, 

and for Other Purposes, 2002, H. Rept. 107-278.

21 The USA-5 system tracks the time of attorneys, paralegals, and support 

personnel, as well as the time of Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys (SAUSAs). However, the 

USA-5 system does not track the time of contractors and students working in USAOs. In 

addition, the system does not include any case-specific information. 

22 Each USA-5 category has USA-5A categories associated with it. Additionally, in 

some instances, the same USA-5A categories apply to multiple USA-5 categories. 
- 9 - 

number of resources being expended on priority areas. However, the use of 

USA-5A categories is not mandatory. 

USAO personnel using the USA-5 system can record either the actual 

number of hours worked or the percentage of time spent addressing various 

prosecutorial matters electronically or on a paper form. The USA-5 system 

then translates the information into FTEs.23 

USAO personnel are required to enter time into the USA-5 system, at a 

minimum, on a monthly basis. According to an official from EOUSA’s Case 

Management Staff, it is each USAO's responsibility to ensure that the data 

entered into the system is reliable. Each USAO submits a monthly 

transmission of its USA-5 data to EOUSA, which is then uploaded by EOUSA 

into its database. EOUSA maintains this utilization data in a summary 

format for each district but is unable to compile detailed information on the 

amount of time individual AUSAs spend on particular types of matters. As a 

result, EOUSA is only able to identify the total amount of time spent by each 

position type, such as attorneys or paralegals, on various investigative areas 

within each USAO. 

In FY 2008, EOUSA implemented a new version of the USA-5 system 

that allows it to review utilization data at the employee level. With this new 

system, EOUSA is able to review a district’s utilization data without having to 

wait for it to be submitted by individual USAOs. In addition, EOUSA now has 

the ability to review the time records of specific individuals. With this 

information, EOUSA can assess the amount of time, including additional 

hours beyond an 8-hour day, that is worked by attorneys, while in the past 

EOUSA could only identify the aggregate time worked by all attorneys in a 

USAO. 

Casework Reporting Process 

USAOs use the Legal Information Office Network System (LIONS), 

which became operational in 1998, to manage and record casework 

information, including matters referred by investigative agencies and cases 

prosecuted.24 When first implemented, LIONS was a decentralized system 

that required each USAO to transmit case information to EOUSA manually. 

 23 One FTE equates to 2,080 hours. 

24 According to EOUSA officials, LIONS will be replaced by a new DOJ-wide case 

management system called the Litigation Case Management System (LCMS). The EOUSA 

officials stated that the LCMS should be piloted during FY 2009. According to the EOUSA 

Director, EOUSA is also considering using the LCMS to track attorney time in addition to 

case information. 
- 10 - 

In 2003, EOUSA created the National LIONS (N-LIONS), which eliminated 

the manual transmission process. The N-LIONS is a centralized system that 

is automatically updated with case information from each district’s LIONS. 

EOUSA utilizes the N-LIONS to assist in formulating annual statistical reports 

and obtain information to respond to various inquiries from Congress, the 

Attorney General, and the public. 

USAO personnel must complete several fields when entering 

information into LIONS, such as the type of matter or case, the agency 

referring the matter to the USAO, and the final disposition of the case. In 

particular, LIONS contains two fields that define the type of case – the 

program category for criminal matters and the cause of action for civil 

matters. Each field has its own set of codes that identifies the specific area 

being addressed for that particular matter or case, such as domestic 

terrorism, bank robbery, or civil rights. However, these codes are different 

from the categories used by USAO personnel when recording their time 

using the USA-5 system. 

Although the LIONS User’s Manual describes the codes that should be 

used to categorize cases, EOUSA has no mechanism to determine if a record 

has been classified and reported correctly. Instead, EOUSA relies upon case 

certifications from each district office in which USAO personnel are required 

to verify data in their local databases on a semi-annual basis.25 Following 

this certification by individual USAO personnel, the U.S. Attorney must 

certify the accuracy of his or her district’s data as a whole before it is 

submitted to EOUSA. 

Concerns with Resource Allocation 

Our audit identified weaknesses in the way EOUSA evaluates the needs 

of individual USAOs. In addition, while EOUSA considers both attorney 

utilization and casework data in determining where to allocate new positions, 

we found substantial deficiencies in the USA-5 and LIONS data that call into 

question whether the attorney utilization and casework data should be relied 

upon. As a result, some offices may be given additional resources based, in 

part, on inaccurate data when, in fact, other USAOs are in greater need of 

those positions. Moreover, EOUSA officials stated that it is very difficult to 

reallocate positions among USAOs and that any such attempt is regularly 

met with opposition by those USAOs slated to lose positions. 

 25 This procedure applies to docket personnel, system managers, line attorneys and 

their administrative assistants, and supervisory attorneys. 
- 11 - 

Lack of Comprehensive Resource Needs Assessment 

In April 2006, the AGAC began an unsuccessful attempt to create a 

formula to compute appropriate staffing levels but concluded that it was not 

feasible to develop a simple, reliable, and objective formula to determine 

how personnel should be allocated among the USAOs.26 This conclusion 

mirrored those of previous EOUSA efforts. As a result, EOUSA has been 

unable to objectively determine the resource needs of the USAOs and thus 

cannot statistically justify the reallocation of current FTEs. The EOUSA 

Director stated, however, that even if such a model were available, one of 

the AGAC’s working groups concluded that it would be politically impractical 

to reallocate existing positions among USAOs. 

Weaknesses in the Reporting of Utilization Data 

 

Given the nature of the data, the USA-5 system relies upon the selfreporting of each employee and therefore is only as valid as the information 

reported by USAO personnel. During our review of the time reporting 

system, we identified weaknesses in the methods used to identify and 

categorize the various types of activities worked by USAO personnel, the 

level of detail to which time is recorded, the frequency of recording time, the 

format used to record time, and the cultural environment regarding the time 

reporting process. Each of these weaknesses can increase the inaccuracy 

and incompleteness of the USAOs’ human resource utilization data. We 

discuss each of these issues in turn. 

Categorization of Time – EOUSA does not have a standardized 

categorization method that USAO personnel use when recording time to 

specific activities. This creates a dilemma for AUSAs, particularly with 

respect to cases involving multiple offenses. For instance, an AUSA may be 

addressing a case associated with terrorism, narcotics, and fraud. However, 

there is no standard approach for recording the AUSA’s activities on such a 

multi-faceted case. As a result, AUSAs may not record their work on these 

types of cases consistently and the USA-5 may not accurately reflect the 

amount of time AUSAs spend on certain activities. In order to ensure that 

the data is as accurate as possible, we believe that EOUSA should evaluate 

the current USA-5, determine how AUSAs should record time for cases that 

involve multiple offenses, and issue clear guidance. 

Recording Time to More Specific Activities – As noted above, attorneys 

record time to broad USA-5 categories, such as violent crime, and also have 

 26 This initiative began in April 2006 and concluded in June 2008 with the issuance 

of the U.S. Attorneys’ Procedure entitled Personnel Resource Allocation Process. 
- 12 - 

the ability to record time to a more specific activity by selecting a USA-5A 

category, such as criminal gang prosecution, that is associated with the 

particular USA-5 category chosen. However, use of the more specific 

USA-5A categories is not mandatory. Based upon our review of the resource 

utilization data, we determined that attorneys generally do not record time 

to these more specific categories. EOUSA officials stated that not every case 

may necessitate a USA-5A category. For example, if a matter involves a 

simple drug trafficking matter, there may not be a corresponding USA-5A 

category. 

Nevertheless, we believe that USAOs are significantly underutilizing 

these more specific USA-5A categories when it would have been applicable 

to record time to these activities. We determined that only 13 to 16 percent 

of the total reported attorney FTEs were associated with a USA-5A category 

during any fiscal year in our review period. As a result, EOUSA is unable to 

provide a detailed description of how much time was expended by USAOs on 

specific types of activities, such as gang prosecutions, health care fraud, and 

terrorism-related matters, to those requesting this information, including 

senior Department managers and Congress. We believe that the use of 

USA-5A categories should be mandatory, if a USA-5A category is applicable, 

when recording time in the USA-5 system. 

During our discussions with the EOUSA Director, he agreed that 

attorneys do not always record their time to the specific activities on which 

they work and that this was of great concern to him. The Director stated 

that it is imperative that USAOs accurately reflect this information because 

the USA-5 data is a significant factor considered when determining where to 

place new attorney positions. He said that U.S. Attorneys have often 

informed him that their office’s USA-5 data is inaccurate and should not be 

relied upon in making allocation decisions. The Director said he will no 

longer accept U.S. Attorneys’ explanations for discrepancies in the 

recordation of USA-5 data and will consider USA-5 data at face value as an 

accurate depiction of USAO personnel utilization. 

Frequency of Recording Time – Another factor affecting the accuracy of 

USA-5 data involves the varying methods used by USAOs for capturing AUSA 

time. As mentioned above, USAO personnel must record time to the USA-5 

system at least monthly. As confirmed during our discussions with USAO 

personnel, AUSAs may decide to enter their time into the system daily or 

with any other frequency that satisfies the monthly reporting requirement. 

We believe the probability of incorrect data is much greater when there is a 

significant span of time between the actual work performed and the time 

those activities are recorded in the USA-5 system. While EOUSA officials 

said they encourage USAO personnel to enter time on a daily basis, no policy 
- 13 - 

has been established to require more frequent data entry than the current 

monthly requirement. We believe that implementing a policy requiring at 

least weekly entry would help improve the accuracy of USAO human 

resource utilization data. 

Format Used to Report Time – As previously mentioned, USAO 

personnel can either record their time on a paper form or electronically. The 

USA-5 paper form contains 4 pages and lists 51 USA-5 categories to which 

AUSAs can record their time.27 Although an electronic version of this form is 

available to USAOs, USAO personnel we interviewed stated that the 

electronic form is not user-friendly. Therefore, some USAO personnel 

decided to complete the paper format of the USA-5, which subsequently 

must be entered electronically into the USA-5. We believe that use of the 

paper form to enter attorney time is more cumbersome and time-consuming 

than the electronic form because it requires additional work by USAO 

personnel. Therefore, we believe that EOUSA needs to develop a more userfriendly electronic form for USAO personnel to record their time. 

Timekeeping – During our discussions with EOUSA and USAO officials, 

some USAO personnel stated that completing the USA-5 in an accurate 

manner requires too much time. They noted with approval that while 

private law firms require personnel to record time in small increments 

throughout each day, this type of timekeeping is not required of USAO 

personnel. Some officials remarked that USAO personnel view their primary 

objective as working cases rather than accurately depicting the time 

expended on specific activities. However, with appropriate guidance and a 

streamlined approach, we do not believe that recording time at least weekly 

in the USA-5 system is too onerous or similar to the private sector 

requirement and would not require a significant level of additional effort. 

Weaknesses in Casework Data 

During our review of EOUSA’s casework reporting system, we 

identified weaknesses in the methods used to identify and categorize the 

various types of cases handled, the timing of casework data entry, and 

oversight of the casework system. 

Categorization of Cases – According to EOUSA officials, the process for 

entering information into LIONS varies by district. Some districts have a 

centralized process in which a few people enter all case-related information 

 27 The USA-5 has separate forms to record time to criminal and civil matters. The 

criminal form is 3 pages and contains 22 USA-5 categories. The civil form is 1 page and 

contains 29 USA-5 categories. Appendix IV contains a copy of these paper forms. 
- 14 - 

into LIONS, while others have a decentralized process in which many people 

enter case information into LIONS. As a result, the categorization of case 

information in LIONS relies on the discretion of the USAO personnel entering 

it and may result in districts classifying similar cases differently. For 

example, two districts may each have a case involving firearms and drug 

trafficking violations. One district may identify its case using the drug 

trafficking program category code, while the other district identifies its case 

using the firearms code. Therefore, as noted by EOUSA officials, the 

information contained in LIONS will be inconsistent and result in reporting 

imprecise information on the number of specific types of cases being 

handled by USAOs. 

 Timing of Data Entry – During our initial review of data accuracy and 

completeness, we performed testing on the various date fields contained in 

LIONS, including the filing date, system filing date, and fiscal year fields. 

We identified delays in USAOs entering case filing information, as well as 

inconsistencies with the date information contained in LIONS. 

Among the several date fields contained in LIONS, we focused our 

review on the filing date and system filing date fields. The filing date field 

indicates the actual date a matter is filed in court, while the system filing 

date field reflects the date when the filing date is entered into LIONS. For 

statistical reporting purposes, EOUSA relies upon the date when the case 

information is entered into LIONS, or the system filing date. However, there 

can be a lag between these two dates and the extent of the lag can affect 

statistical reporting and management assessments of USAO workload. For 

example, a matter may be filed in court in July 2007, yet the data may not 

be entered in LIONS until November 2007, which would reflect a system 

filing date of November 2007. Consequently, EOUSA would include this 

matter as a new case filing in FY 2008 when, in fact, the matter was actually 

filed in court in FY 2007. As a result, a district’s workload may appear to be 

greater or less than it actually is during a given fiscal year, which can affect 

allocation and budget decisions. 

As part of our casework analyses, we found a significant number of 

cases in which there was a lag between the date the matter was filed in 

court and the date the information was recorded in LIONS. Specifically, we 

identified 254,481 cases, or almost 40 percent of the total 680,551 criminal 

and civil cases filed by USAOs between FYs 2003 and 2007, where there was 

a difference between the date the matter was filed and the date of entry into 

LIONS. The following table shows the span of time between the case filings 

and entry into LIONS for these 254,481 cases, as well as the percentage of 

the total for each range of time. 
- 15 - 

 EOUSA and USAO officials said that the case filing date should be 

entered in LIONS shortly after the matter is filed, a period they defined as 

no longer than 30 days after the matter is filed in court. We understand that 

the filing date cannot always be entered into LIONS immediately following 

the matter being filed in court and thus believe that a 30-day window is 

reasonable. As shown in the preceding table, the information was entered 

into LIONS for the majority of cases within the first 30 days of the matter 

being filed. However, we identified 74,490 cases (or 29 percent) with 

system filing dates greater than 30 days following the actual case filing 

dates. We are concerned with the significant number of cases that were 

entered into LIONS in excess of 30 days after the official court filing date 

and the effect that this lag can have on statistical reporting and 

management assessments of USAO workload. 

 When we presented this information to EOUSA officials, they offered 

various explanations for the delays, including resource constraints leading to 

case entry backlog, as well as the possibility of delays in receiving the 

necessary court documents. We also inquired about the more significant 

intervals that we identified in the data. For example, we found one matter 

that was shown as being filed during FY 1994, yet the system filing date 

indicated that this case filing was not entered until FY 2005. In response, 

EOUSA officials explained that this can occur when cases are “reopened” by 

USAO personnel, which happens when case information is updated in LIONS 

after the case had been closed. As a result, the system filing date reflects 

the date the updated information was entered in LIONS. This process, 

however, results in a statistical misrepresentation of cases filed by USAOs. 

Specifically, these “reopened” cases are shown as new cases when they 

were previously counted as new cases in prior fiscal years. Consequently, 

the actual number of cases filed per district office and by specific activity is 

 28 Due to rounding, the percentages in this table total 100.01 percent. 

EXHIBIT 2-2

SPAN OF TIME BETWEEN CASE FILINGS AND ENTRY INTO LIONS

Range Number of Cases Percentage of Total28

1 to 30 Days 179,991 70.73% 

31 to 180 Days 53,521 21.03% 

181 Days to 365 Days 14,596 5.74% 

1+ to 2 Years 4,220 1.66% 

2+ to 5 Years 1,829 0.72% 

5+ to 10 Years 224 0.09% 

Greater than 10 Years 100 0.04% 

Total 254,481 100.01% 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 
- 16 - 

imprecise, which could cause inaccurate assessments by management. 

EOUSA officials said that they cannot identify the number of instances in 

which this occurred unless they reviewed each individual case file. 

Oversight of LIONS – EOUSA relies on the USAOs to review the 

information in LIONS to ensure its accuracy. In addition to EOUSA’s guidance, 

LIONS contains error edits and drop-down lists that serve as a quality control 

device for entering casework data.29 However, during our review of the 

LIONS data we discovered inconsistencies in the completeness and accuracy 

of the data that call into question whether the automated controls over the 

system are operating as intended. In particular, we identified several 

instances in which records contained mandatory fields that were unpopulated. 

For example, LIONS system documentation indicates that the field that is 

designed to identify the referring agency for incoming cases is mandatory. 

However, this field was not always populated in the data file we received. 

Although these inconsistencies generally accounted for less than 1 percent of 

the total number of records in the data file, EOUSA officials were uncertain 

how or why the system allowed this to happen. 

Our review also identified another potential weakness in LIONS 

concerning immediate declinations. Immediate declinations refer to matters 

where USAOs expend less than 1 hour reviewing a matter before deciding not 

to prosecute. We found that no data from the District of Minnesota was 

included in the immediate declination data file provided to us. When we 

asked EOUSA officials about this anomaly, they were surprised that 

information covering several fiscal years would not be listed for an entire 

district. However, after following up with the district, EOUSA officials 

confirmed that the Minnesota USAO does not track immediate declinations. 

 

As discussed previously, EOUSA has informed the USAOs that it will no 

longer accept assertions from USAOs that LIONS data (which originates at 

the district level) should not be relied upon in making decisions on requests 

for additional resources. Further, EOUSA officials said that their 

consideration of such resource requests will be based, in part, upon available 

data. According to the EOUSA Director, this should be a strong 

encouragement to the USAOs to ensure that the data originating from their 

offices is accurate. 

 29 Error edits and lists are designed to prohibit users from entering invalid codes and 

dates or skipping a required field. 
- 17 - 

Lack of Existing Resource Reallocation 

According to EOUSA officials, USAOs have historically maintained a 

base level of attorney FTEs from one fiscal year to the next and positions are 

rarely moved from one office to another. Consequently, when different 

offices’ workloads evolve over time, some offices may be overstaffed while 

others may be understaffed. 

EOUSA officials offered several reasons to explain EOUSA’s difficulty in 

reallocating positions among USAOs once those positions have been 

assigned. According to EOUSA, the primary challenge is the resistance and 

opposition from several sources, including U.S. Attorneys, individual offices, 

and the AGAC. 

According to EOUSA officials, involvement of the Attorney General or 

Deputy Attorney General is necessary for any widespread reallocation of 

resources. Moreover, in some instances annual congressional appropriations 

language specifies that a certain number of positions are to be placed in a 

specific district office to address a particular prosecutorial initiative. When 

that initiative is ended, the district office may no longer need those 

resources for that specific purpose. However, according to EOUSA officials, 

there is little EOUSA can do to take these positions away from the USAO and 

reallocate them elsewhere. 

The working group that performed the most recent evaluation of the 

USAO resource allocation process concluded that it was politically impractical 

to reallocate existing positions among USAOs. The EOUSA Director 

discussed this conclusion with us and indicated that, although difficult, he 

believed that reallocation was possible and that EOUSA missed an 

opportunity to reallocate positions when the USAOs had a significant number 

of vacancies. 

EOUSA was given a congressionally directed opportunity to redistribute 

resources among districts during the FY 2002 appropriations. In the reports 

accompanying the Department’s 2002 appropriations, the Committees on 

Appropriations stated that they had attempted to revise the process of 

allocating resources among the USAOs to better align USAO staffing levels 

with their caseloads.30 Some of the actions suggested by the Committees 

were the use of term positions and transferring specific numbers of 

 30 U.S. Senate, Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, The Judiciary, and 

Related Agencies Appropriation Bill, 2002, S. Rept. 107-42; and U.S. House of 

Representatives, Making Appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and 

State, The Judiciary, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, 

and for Other Purposes, 2002, H. Rept. 107-278.
- 18 - 

personnel to and from certain offices. However, the congressional reports 

state that each of the suggested actions was rejected by the U.S. Attorneys. 

As a result, the Committees concluded that EOUSA should step in and 

distribute human resources and funding among the USAOs so that “the 

interests of the American people were best served.” To provide EOUSA 

more freedom in this initiative, the Committees included language in its 

report to waive previous congressional guidance regarding the designation of 

funds for specific activities and locations. By March 2002, EOUSA was to 

submit to the Committee a report on the actions it planned to take. 

According to an EOUSA official, EOUSA provided the Committees with 

a verbal report but did not reallocate any positions. EOUSA officials further 

told us that they were unaware of any additional congressional language on 

this topic since that time. 

EOUSA has attempted to mitigate some of the resource discrepancies 

by assigning term positions to USAOs. Term positions are allocated to 

district offices for a specified time period. At the conclusion of this period, 

EOUSA has the ability to reallocate those positions to other offices based 

upon a reassessment of district office needs. Additionally, EOUSA officials 

explained that they have relied upon the current process for allocating new 

positions among the USAOs, which requires an evaluation of individual 

district needs and DOJ priorities, to resolve any staffing discrepancies. 

However, these officials also stated that there have not been a sufficient 

number of new positions provided in recent years to significantly alter the 

historic resource allocation levels of USAOs. 

Conclusion 

We concluded that EOUSA does not have the necessary information to 

effectively evaluate and determine the optimal staffing levels of individual 

USAOs. Although the AGAC attempted in April 2006 to develop an objective 

model to statistically identify the appropriate level of resources for each 

district, it concluded that such a model was not feasible. 

In addition, the data systems used by EOUSA and the USAOs to help 

manage personnel resources have significant deficiencies. The USA-5 

system was created to capture the time spent by USAO personnel on various 

activities, while LIONS tracks each district’s casework data. EOUSA 

considers this information in resource planning and allocation decisions and 

relies upon this data to answer requests from Congress, the Attorney 

General, and the public. Given the widespread use of this data, it is 

important that it be accurate and complete. However, we found problems 

surrounding the accuracy of the data in both systems and recommend that 
- 19 - 

EOUSA and the USAOs place greater emphasis on accurately and specifically 

reporting attorneys’ time and casework information. 

EOUSA generally has not reallocated existing attorney positions from 

one USAO to another for a variety of reasons, including opposition from 

several sources, including individual USAOs that would be affected by the 

reallocations. Furthermore, EOUSA did not take advantage of a 

congressionally provided opportunity in FY 2002 to reallocate resources 

among USAOs. 

We believe that EOUSA should take steps to address the data 

inconsistencies, develop a process to objectively determine the appropriate 

staffing levels of individual USAOs, and move to ensure that allocations are 

in accord with that process. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that EOUSA: 

1. Establish a standardized process for tracking time to cases involving 

multiple offenses to more accurately reflect attorney utilization. 

2. Implement a policy requiring USAO personnel to record time in the 

USA-5 system on at least a weekly basis, as well as to record all time 

to a USA-5A category when such a category is available. 

3. Develop a more user friendly electronic form for USAO personnel to 

report their time in the USA-5 system. 

4. Implement a standardized approach among USAOs for categorizing 

cases within LIONS and the USAOs’ new case management system – 

Litigation Case Management System. 

5. Ensure that “reopened” cases are not reflected in the statistical 

reports in the fiscal years in which the cases were reopened. 

6. More closely monitor the casework data transmitted by USAOs to 

ensure it is accurate and complete. 

7. Re-emphasize to the USAOs the importance of utilization and 

casework data, how the data is used, and the necessity of accurately 

capturing this data. 

8. Examine the current staffing levels of USAOs, and develop methods to 

reallocate resources among USAOs. 
- 20 - 

CHAPTER 3: UTILIZATION OF ATTORNEY RESOURCES 

While the number of attorney FTEs allocated to USAOs increased 

approximately 5 percent during our 5-year review period, USAOs 

utilized 5 percent fewer attorney FTEs in FY 2007 than in 

FY 2003. EOUSA officials attributed this situation to budget 

constraints. In addition to USAOs utilizing fewer attorney FTEs 

than allocated, we found that USAOs were not always utilizing 

attorney resources as funded by Congress. For example, USAOs 

expended more FTEs than allocated on firearms violations, 

health care fraud, and OCDETF matters, and expended 

significantly fewer FTEs than allocated on counterterrorism 

matters. Moreover, we found that EOUSA does not routinely 

perform comprehensive reviews of the number of attorneys 

utilized on specific types of criminal matters within each USAO. 

Instead, EOUSA relies on infrequent EARS reviews of utilization 

data and therefore does not receive timely information about 

district resource management issues. 

Overall Utilization of Attorney Resources 

USAO attorney resources are measured in FTEs, and the number of 

FTEs assigned to an office by the Department is called its allocated amount. 

The use of these resources, which is referred to as utilization, is tracked 

through the USA-5 time reporting system. 

We obtained and analyzed data on both the allocation and utilization of 

attorney FTEs for FYs 2003 through 2007. As noted in Chapter 2, we 

identified several concerns with the accuracy and reliability of the USA-5 

data. While we believe that these concerns may affect the analyses we 

performed, the overall results presented are useful for examining the 

utilization of attorneys in the USAOs. Further, the USA-5 data is the only 

utilization data available for purposes of our audit. 

The number of attorney FTEs allocated to USAOs increased by 

5 percent from 5,459 attorney FTEs in FY 2003 to 5,708 in FY 2007.31 The 

following exhibit depicts attorney FTEs allocated to USAOs, which includes 

positions directly funded through the U.S. Attorney organization’s budget 

and those funded through reimbursable programs such as OCDETF. 

 31 For purposes of our report, “attorneys” refer to both U.S. Attorneys and Assistant 

U.S. Attorneys. 
- 21 - 

 We also analyzed the allocations among individual USAOs and found 

that 4 of 93 offices had fewer allocated attorney FTEs in FY 2007 than in 

FY 2003, 73 offices had a greater number of allocated attorney FTEs, and 

16 offices had the same number of allocated attorney FTEs during the same 

period.32 

The following exhibit presents the USAOs experiencing the greatest 

changes - both increases and decreases – in allocated attorney FTEs from 

FYs 2003 to 2007. As shown, the Districts of South Dakota and the Virgin 

Islands each decreased by 1 FTE, or 3 percent and nearly 5 percent, 

respectively. In contrast, the greatest increase experienced by any single 

USAO in our review period occurred in the Northern District of Illinois, which 

was allocated 15 more attorney FTEs in FY 2007 than in FY 2003, equating 

to a 10-percent growth. 

 32 While there are 94 USAOs, the allocation figures for the Districts of Guam and the 

Northern Mariana Islands are combined, resulting in the 93 USAOs presented in our 

analysis. 

EXHIBIT 3-1

TOTAL ATTORNEY FTEs ALLOCATED TO USAOs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff 

Data 
- 22 - 

EXHIBIT 3-2

USAOs EXPERIENCING THE GREATEST CHANGES 

IN ALLOCATED ATTORNEY FTEs 

FYs 2003 TO 2007

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff data

As shown in Exhibit 3-3, in contrast to the total number of attorney 

FTEs allocated, which increased by about 5 percent from FYs 2003 to 2007, 

the total number of attorney FTEs utilized decreased during this same 

period. 

We analyzed the USA-5 data for all attorney FTEs utilized by USAOs, 

grouped into three broad areas: (1) criminal matters, (2) civil matters, and 

(3) management and administration.33 For this analysis, we included 

regular time worked as well as additional hours worked in excess of a 

regular 40-hour work week (which we refer to as additional hours or 

additional 

 33 According to the USA-5 user’s manual, management and administration applies to 

both criminal and civil matters. However, there is no way to distinguish between criminal 

and civil matters in the system. As a result, we considered management and administration 

as its own category. 
- 23 - 

FTEs).34 While these figures do not represent the actual number of 

attorneys within USAOs, we believe it more closely reflects the total level of 

effort expended by attorneys.35 

The following exhibit presents the total number of attorney FTEs 

utilized from FYs 2003 to 2007. As illustrated in the following table, USAOs 

utilized 292 fewer attorney FTEs in FY 2007 than in FY 2003 and expended 

the majority of their attorney resources on criminal matters. 

EXHIBIT 3-3

TOTAL ATTORNEY FTEs UTILIZED 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007

Category 

FY 

2003 

FY 

2004 

FY 

2005 

FY 

2006 

FY 

2007 

Number 

Change 

 FY 2007 – 

FY 2003 

Percent 

Change 

 FY 2007 –

FY 2003 

Criminal 4,382 4,421 4,353 4,288 4,243 -139 -3.17% 

Civil 1,247 1,263 1,261 1,232 1,204 -43 -3.45% 

Management & 

Administration 645 603 563 559 535 -110 -17.05% 

Total 6,274 6,287 6,177 6,079 5,982 -292 -4.65% 

Source: OIG analysis of USA-5 data 

EOUSA officials explained that the decline in attorney FTEs utilized was 

primarily a result of budget limitations occurring throughout most of our 

 34 The USA-5 system tracks regular time and additional hours separately. Generally, 

attorneys are not compensated for additional hours they work beyond a 40 hour week. 

Federal law provides that most federal employees may be compensated only for additional 

time they work that is officially ordered or approved in writing by a supervisor. Although 

many Department attorneys work more than 40 hours per week, this additional time is 

generally not ordered or approved in writing and therefore not compensable. In 1999, a 

class of over 9,000 DOJ attorneys brought a lawsuit against the Department seeking pay for 

additional hours of work performed between 1992 and 1999, on the theory that although 

the additional hours were not approved in writing, the Department had expected and 

induced the attorneys to work additional time. Their claims were rejected by the United 

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Doe v. U.S., 463 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 

2006), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 1910 (2007). 

35 Individual USAO personnel may record time to more than one activity during the 

course of a single day, week, month, or year. This means that a single FTE does not 

necessarily indicate one individual worked an entire year on a single activity; it could mean 

that 4 employees each worked 25 percent of their time during the year on that specific 

activity. Yet, in both cases the data would indicate that one FTE was expended on that 

activity for the entire fiscal year. 
- 24 - 

review period. According to EOUSA officials, the USAOs have not received 

enough funding to support the number of FTEs authorized in the annual 

appropriations. A senior EOUSA official informed us that EOUSA allocates all 

FTEs regardless of whether it has the necessary funding to actually support 

the FTEs. Appendix V lists each USAO and the total number of attorney FTEs 

utilized during FYs 2003 and 2007. 

Agency-wide Gap between Allocated and Utilized Attorney FTEs 

During our review, we examined each USAO’s total allocated attorney 

FTEs to the actual number of attorney FTEs utilized.36 The following exhibit 

displays the comparison of allocated FTEs to utilized FTEs for FYs 2003 

through 2007. 

EXHIBIT 3-4

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and 

 USA-5 data

 36 We excluded the additional hours worked by USAO attorneys from this analysis. 

Therefore, the utilization figures shown in Exhibit 3-4 differ from those presented in 

Exhibit 3-3. 
- 25 - 

From this analysis, we determined that, in general, the gap between 

the allocated attorney FTEs and the attorney FTEs actually expended 

increased significantly throughout our review period. The largest gap 

between the allocated and utilized FTEs occurred in FY 2007, when USAOs 

utilized 628 fewer FTEs than allocated. Overall, this gap ranged from 3 to 

11 percent during our review period. 

According to EOUSA officials, the increase in the gap between 

allocated and expended FTEs was primarily a result of budget limitations in 

which USAOs did not have adequate funding to hire personnel up to the 

authorized level of FTEs. An EOUSA Assistant Director responsible for 

budget matters told us that the funding increases the organization received 

between FYs 2003 and 2007 were not enough to cover cost-of-living 

adjustments, increases in rent, and similar types of annual rising costs. 

Moreover, this official stated that EOUSA could not fully fund all of its 

reimbursable positions, such as OCDETF, with the reimbursable money 

provided for these positions. According to this official, since the 

reimbursable funding remained constant during our review period while 

costs increased, EOUSA had to supplement reimbursable funding with its 

direct appropriations. The EOUSA official said that, as a result, there were 

insufficient funds to fill these unused attorney FTEs. 

We found, however, that additional hours worked by existing attorneys 

made up for the gaps between allocated and expended attorney FTEs that 

we identified. The USA-5 data we analyzed indicated that attorneys worked 

significantly in excess of 40 hours per week, which, as discussed previously, 

is uncompensated. When these additional attorney work hours are 

incorporated into the utilization data, the results reflect that the USAOs 

actually utilized a greater number of attorney FTEs than allocated, as shown 

in Exhibit 3-5. 
- 26 - 

EXHIBIT 3-5

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED, UTILIZED, AND ADDITIONAL 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and 

USA-5 data

USAO-specific Gaps between Allocated and Utilized Attorney FTEs 

Despite the overall results presented in Exhibit 3-4, we identified 

34 offices utilizing more attorney FTEs (ranging from 0.01 FTE to 3.82 FTEs), 

when excluding additional hours, than they were allocated during at least 

one fiscal year of our review period. According to EOUSA officials, this 

occurred due to the use of term positions as well as waivers granted by 

EOUSA that were not recorded in the allocation database.37 Specifically, 

districts are sometimes provided term positions to backfill for AUSAs who are 

detailed to another DOJ component. During such details, both the detailed 

AUSA and the backfilled term position report their time on the USA-5 of the 

detailed AUSA’s home district, which will indicate that a district is utilizing 

more resources than allocated. Further, a waiver allows a district to overhire for a specific purpose or time period. As a result, the USAO may report 

 37 According to an EOUSA official, waivers are provided to help when a district 

experiences a temporary increase in workload by granting additional resources for a specific 

period of time. 
- 27 - 

a greater utilization of resources on the USA-5 than resources allocated for 

the period. However, EOUSA did not confirm that these explanations applied 

to each of the instances identified in our analysis. 

 We further examined the gap between the allocation and utilization of 

USAO attorney FTEs according to office size. During our review period, 

EOUSA categorized offices into 4 types based upon the allocated attorney 

staffing levels – extra-large (greater than or equal to 100 attorneys), large 

(between 45 and 99.9 attorneys), medium (between 25 and 44.9 attorneys), 

and small (less than 25 attorneys). Using this categorization scheme, we 

found that the percentage of unused attorney FTEs (expending fewer 

attorney FTEs than allocated) within each group generally increased from 

FYs 2003 to 2007 as depicted in Exhibit 3-6. 

 

EXHIBIT 3-6

PERCENTAGE OF UNUSED ATTORNEY FTEs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007

USAO Category FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

Extra-large 4.11% 4.56% 5.79% 11.62% 14.50% 

Large 3.33% 2.45% 4.92% 7.54% 9.18% 

Medium 2.58% 1.81% 4.46% 4.60% 6.28% 

Small 3.41% 3.40% 4.23% 5.39% 5.85% 

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and 

USA-5 data 

We determined that the percentage of unused attorney FTEs was, on 

average, highest among the extra-large and large offices. An EOUSA official 

explained that the extra-large and large offices maintain larger budgets with 

considerable staffs. Therefore, when EOUSA began experiencing budget 

shortages, EOUSA decided to target these offices first because it believed 

that the extra-large and large offices could better sustain greater budget 

cuts and vacancies than the medium and small offices. Moreover, this 

EOUSA official explained that the extra-large and large offices tend to be 

located in metropolitan areas that generally experience greater cost of living 

fluctuations, as well as larger job markets, which affect the turnover of staff 

and attrition rates at these USAOs. Appendix VI displays the percentage gap 

between allocated and expended attorney FTEs for each USAO. 

 

“Burn” Rates 

EOUSA uses the term “burn rate” to refer to the difference between 

allocated resources and actual utilized resources. An “overburn” occurs 

when more resources are utilized than allocated, and an “underburn” occurs 

when fewer resources are utilized than allocated. We calculated burn rates 
- 28 - 

by comparing the numbers of attorney FTEs allocated to specific program 

areas to time utilization data from the USA-5 system to determine if USAOs 

were utilizing attorneys in accordance with the funding provided by Congress 

for specific activities to which the FTEs were allocated. 

We focused this analysis on the program areas of counterterrorism, 

firearms, health care fraud, and OCDETF because EOUSA specifically tracks 

the allocation and utilization of attorneys for each of these areas. We found 

that in total USAOs were expending more resources than were allocated in 

several of these areas. However, the USAOs were not expending as many 

attorney FTEs on counterterrorism matters as allocated throughout our 

review period. 

As shown in Exhibit 3-7, USAOs were allocated 250 attorney FTEs for 

counterterrorism matters during FYs 2003 through 2005. The USAOs only 

expended between 151 and 163 FTEs on these matters during this period. 

Including additional hours worked by attorneys, the USAOs utilized between 

189 and 204 attorney FTEs, significantly less than the allocated FTE levels. 

An additional 43 attorney FTEs were allocated to USAOs for 

counterterrorism in FY 2006. During FYs 2006 and 2007, the USAOs had a 

total of 293 attorney FTEs allocated for counterterrorism matters. 

Nonetheless, as reflected in the following exhibit, the USAOs continued 

expending approximately the same number of attorney FTEs on 

counterterrorism matters in FYs 2006 and 2007 as they had during FYs 2003 

through 2005. During the audit close-out meeting, the EOUSA Director 

explained that due to the timing of the FY 2006 appropriations, these 

additional counterterrorism attorney FTEs would not have been captured (or 

utilized) until FY 2007 or later. Nonetheless, based on our analysis of this 

data collected during our review period, it appears that USAOs are not 

devoting the full amount of allocated attorney resources to counterterrorism 

matters. 
- 29 - 

EXHIBIT 3-7

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED ON COUNTERTERRORISM MATTERS 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Allocated FTEs Regular FTEs Utilized Regular & Additional FTEs Utilized

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and USA-5 

data

We discussed this discrepancy with the EOUSA Director, who told us 

that EOUSA recently became aware of this underutilization and had reported 

the matter to the Deputy Attorney General and the AGAC. He explained that 

this underburn was partially due to inaccurate time reporting by AUSAs and 

partially due to investigative agencies not bringing as many terrorismrelated matters to the USAOs as they had in the past. He stated that USAOs 

should be expending appropriate resources in priority areas, such as 

counterterrorism, and said he is working with the AGAC to enhance 

utilization of AUSAs in counterterrorism. In particular, the Director stressed 

the importance of USAOs being proactive in their terrorism-related work, 

such as participating in local task forces and other activities that may not be 

associated with specific terrorism cases. 

We also reviewed the counterterrorism burn rates within each USAO 

and found that the number of districts that used at least 1.50 fewer attorney 

FTEs in counterterrorism matters than allocated increased from 11 USAOs in 

FY 2003 to 28 USAOs in FY 2007. For example, during FYs 2003 to 2006, 

the Southern District of New York was allocated 15 attorney FTEs for 

counterterrorism work, yet the district consistently utilized less than was 

allocated – ranging from an underutilization of 5.65 to 11.80 FTEs. 
- 30 - 

Additionally, we determined that the Eastern District of Virginia underutilized 

7.54 attorney FTEs allocated to counterterrorism during FY 2007. 

In addition to the counterterrorism underburns identified among 

districts, we found that some districts received an additional allocation of 

counterterrorism resources in FY 2006 even though those districts had not 

fully expended the allotment of counterterrorism FTEs provided to them 

during FYs 2003 through 2005. For instance, the District of New Jersey was 

allocated 8 attorney FTEs for counterterrorism purposes during FYs 2003 

through 2005, but only utilized between 5.38 and 6.33 attorney FTEs to 

address such matters during this time period. In FYs 2006 and 2007, the 

District of New Jersey’s counterterrorism allocation increased to 9 attorney 

FTEs, yet the district expended even fewer attorney FTEs on such matters 

during this timeframe – thus resulting in a greater underburn. Appendix VII 

illustrates the underutilization or overutilization of attorney FTEs on 

counterterrorism matters for each USAO. 

In contrast to our review of counterterrorism burn rates, throughout 

our review period USAOs generally expended more attorney FTEs than were 

allocated on firearms, health care fraud, and OCDETF matters. For example, 

USAOs continued to utilize more attorney FTEs than were allocated on health 

care fraud matters during FYs 2003 through 2007, as depicted in 

Exhibit 3-8. Although the number of attorney FTEs addressing health care 

fraud matters has steadily declined from FYs 2004 to 2007, USAOs were still 

expending at least 65 more FTEs (including additional hours worked by 

attorneys) than allocated during this timeframe. 
- 31 - 

EXHIBIT 3-8

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED ON HEALTH CARE FRAUD MATTERS 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Allocated FTEs Regular FTEs Utilized Regular & Additional FTEs Utilized

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and USA-5 

data

 Several USAOs were utilizing fewer attorney FTEs than allocated for 

health care matters. For example, the Southern District of New York was 

allocated six attorney FTEs for health care fraud purposes but, on average, 

only utilized half of these resources on such matters during FYs 2005 

through 2007. Moreover, we found that some offices were allocated an 

attorney FTE to address health care fraud matters but expended little, if any, 

attorney resources on such matters during our review period. An illustration 

of the overutilization and underutilization by individual USAOs on health care 

fraud matters is provided in Appendix VIII.

 USAOs in total have been allocated a significant number of attorney 

FTEs for OCDETF drug cases, ranging from 468 FTEs in FY 2003 to 582 FTEs 

in FY 2007. Except for a slight decline in FY 2004, there has been a 

continual increase in the number of attorney FTEs utilized by USAOs on 

OCDETF matters throughout our review period. Exhibit 3-9 presents the 

attorney resource data related to OCDETF. 
- 32 - 

EXHIBIT 3-9

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED ON OCDETF MATTERS 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Allocated FTEs Regular FTEs Utilized Regular & Additional FTEs Utilized

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and USA-5 

data

 Throughout our review period, the majority of USAOs utilized more 

attorney FTEs on OCDETF matters than were allocated for this purpose. The 

District of Columbia, Southern District of Florida, and Northern District of 

Illinois were among the top five USAOs that experienced an overburn in this 

area during each of the 5 fiscal years under review. Appendix IX shows 

which USAOs underutilized or overutilized attorney FTEs on OCDETF matters. 

 Similar to our results regarding OCDETF, USAOs have continued to 

utilize more attorney FTEs than allocated on firearms matters from FYs 2003 

through 2007. However, the overburn has gradually decreased from 

FY 2004 to FY 2007, as reflected in Exhibit 3-10. 
- 33 - 

EXHIBIT 3-10

COMPARISON OF ATTORNEY FTEs 

ALLOCATED AND UTILIZED ON FIREARMS MATTERS 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

Allocated FTEs Regular FTEs Utilized Regular & Additional FTEs Utilized

Source: OIG analysis of EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Staff and USA-5 

data

 Overall, USAOs used more attorney resources than allocated on 

firearms matters. However, 20 districts expended at least 1 fewer attorney 

FTE than allocated on such matters during FY 2007. For example, the 

Eastern District of Missouri was allocated six attorney FTEs for firearms 

matters but only used approximately one attorney FTE on such matters 

during each fiscal year of our review period. In contrast, the District of 

Columbia significantly exceeded its FTE firearms allotment during each fiscal 

year of our review, ranging from an overutilization of 23.39 FTEs in one year 

to 61.77 FTEs in another year. A district-by-district assessment of attorney 

FTEs addressing firearms matters is contained in Appendix X. 

At the audit close-out meeting, EOUSA officials stated that EOUSA and 

the USAOs have begun to address the underutilization of personnel 

resources in particular prosecutive areas. 

EOUSA Monitoring of Attorney Utilization 

EOUSA does not receive routine resource utilization reports that 

provide a comprehensive assessment of the number of attorneys being 

utilized on specific types of matters within each USAO. Rather, EOUSA 
- 34 - 

monitors the utilization of resources to some degree as part of each district’s 

EARS reviews, which, as explained in Chapter 1, were being conducted every 

4 to 5 years during our review period. The Data Analysis Staff at EOUSA 

also analyzes USAO data on an ad hoc basis when the office receives a 

request. According to a high-ranking EOUSA official, however, EOUSA does 

not have sufficient and regular knowledge of how many and what kind of 

resources the USAOs utilize, which makes it difficult to determine what 

resources an office needs. Because EOUSA relies on the infrequent EARS 

reports and ad hoc Data Analysis Staff reviews, it has remained unaware of 

district resource usage for lengthy periods of time. 

We believe that EOUSA should perform comprehensive assessments 

on the number of attorneys utilized on specific types of matters within each 

USAO on a regular basis. These types of assessments would provide EOUSA 

with a better understanding on how many and what kind of resources USAOs 

utilize, which would provide important information to determine what 

resources an office needs. EOUSA told us that they are aware of this 

problem and that they plan to create a systematic model to regularly collect 

and review this type of information. However, while we believe such 

comprehensive reviews will provide EOUSA with critical information, as 

discussed in Chapter 2, EOUSA must first correct the deficiencies affecting 

the reliability of this data. 

In addition, as part of its efforts we believe that EOUSA should include 

analyses that are similar to what we have described in this chapter. 

Specifically, EOUSA should include in this process routine reviews of USAO 

burn rates in specific prosecutorial areas to help it identify potential 

misallocations of resources and take corrective action in a timely manner. 

Conclusion 

We determined that the number of attorney FTEs allocated to USAOs 

increased by approximately 5 percent throughout our review period. In 

contrast, USAOs utilized 5 percent fewer attorney FTEs in FY 2007 than in 

FY 2003. 

Our analyses revealed that, in general, the overall gap between 

allocated and utilized attorney FTEs significantly increased throughout our 

review period. According to EOUSA officials, this increase occurred mainly 

because USAOs had limited budgets to address annual rising costs, such as 

cost-of-living adjustments and increases in rent, and also had to use a 

portion of their budgets to fully staff reimbursable program areas. As a 

result, USAOs did not have adequate funds remaining to fill the authorized 

level of attorney FTEs. 
- 35 - 

However, we determined that these gaps between allocated and 

utilized attorney FTEs were mitigated when we factored additional hours 

worked by attorneys into our evaluation. When combining the additional 

hours with the regular time charged by attorneys, the USAOs utilized a 

greater number of attorney FTEs than allocated throughout our review 

period. 

 We also analyzed the utilization of attorney resources on specific 

prosecutorial matters. Based upon this analysis, we determined that EOUSA 

is not regularly monitoring the use of USAO resources and the purposes for 

which the resources were allocated. We found that USAOs did not devote 

the allocated level of attorney resources on counterterrorism matters 

throughout our review period. We also identified an underutilization of 

attorney resources in other prosecutorial areas within some individual 

USAOs, including health care fraud and OCDETF matters. In contrast, we 

identified an “overburn” of attorney resources addressing firearms, health 

care fraud, and OCDETF matters. At the audit close-out meeting, EOUSA 

officials stated that EOUSA and the USAOs have begun to address the 

underutilization of personnel resources in particular prosecutive areas. 

EOUSA management does not receive routine resource utilization 

reports that provide a comprehensive assessment of the number of 

attorneys being utilized on specific types of matters within each office. 

Although EOUSA asks about the utilization of resources as part of periodic 

EARS reviews, individual offices have recently been reviewed only every 4 to 

5 years. We believe that EOUSA should perform a comprehensive 

assessment on the number of attorney FTEs utilized on specific types of 

matters within each USAO on a regular basis to identify any resource 

utilization issues similar to what we found and to obtain information for 

assessing what resources an office needs. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that EOUSA: 

9. Perform comprehensive assessments on a regular basis of the number 

of attorneys utilized on specific types of matters within each USAO, 

including a comparison to where the resources were allocated. 
- 36 - 

CHAPTER 4: USAO CASEWORK 

We examined USAO casework data to determine the rates at 

which criminal matters referred to USAOs were prosecuted, 

declined, or still pending. We found that a large percentage of 

the total criminal matters referred to USAOs throughout our 

5-year review period remained in a pending status as of the end 

of FY 2007, including 27 percent of all criminal matters referred 

during FYs 2003 and 2004. We further evaluated this 

information by specific prosecutorial areas and found that the 

rates at which USAOs prosecuted referred narcotics, violent 

crime, and immigration matters were higher than the rates for 

public corruption, civil rights, and terrorism matters. 

Factors Affecting USAO Casework 

According to EOUSA officials, several factors influence the type of 

cases worked by USAOs, including national and district priorities, availability 

of personnel resources, complexity of cases, and changes in priorities within 

investigative agencies. While some of these factors are within the control of 

USAOs, most are not. 

National and District Priorities 

USAOs are supposed to consider DOJ national priorities when 

managing their workload. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, the 

top priority of the Department has been the prevention of terrorist attacks. 

According to the U.S. Attorneys’ Annual Statistical Report, in addition to 

counterterrorism the national criminal prosecution priorities for USAOs 

between FYs 2003 and 2006 were firearms, narcotics, corporate fraud, and 

civil rights.38 In FY 2007, cyber crime, crimes against children, and official 

corruption were added as national USAO priorities. According to EOUSA and 

USAO officials, the Department does not establish specific priorities for civil 

litigation because USAOs are required to accept all defensive litigation cases, 

which are the majority of civil cases handled by USAOs. 

In addition to the national priorities, each USAO must meet the 

prosecutorial needs of its district. As a result, a district has the ability to 

target crime areas that, while not national priorities, pose problems or 

threats in its jurisdiction. 

 38 According to EOUSA officials, EOUSA does not rank non-terrorism priorities 

because each is considered equally important within DOJ. 
- 37 - 

Availability of Resources and Case Complexity 

Authorized positions that remain unfilled may limit the types and 

number of cases handled by individual USAOs. As noted previously, budget 

limitations have resulted in an inability to staff USAOs at allocated levels, 

which in turn has led to a high rate of unused attorney FTEs and a decrease 

in the amount of attorney FTEs utilized. 

 In addition, the types of cases that USAOs handle vary in complexity 

with USAOs expending more time and resources developing and prosecuting 

complex cases. EOUSA attempted to develop a formula to measure case 

complexity, but determined it was not feasible to develop such a metric. 

Focus of Investigative Agencies 

The workload of USAOs is also dependent upon referrals from 

investigative agencies. When investigative agencies reprioritize their 

workloads, the USAOs may experience a similar shift in their casework. 

Moreover, declines or increases in certain types of criminal matters 

prosecuted by USAOs are often a direct reflection of the work done by 

investigative agencies. USAOs do not control the types of cases referred to 

them and thus cannot always control the changes in the types of cases 

prosecuted. 

USAO Criminal Casework 

Law enforcement agencies present information about their matters to 

the appropriate USAO, which decides if criminal charges will be filed. A 

district office records this information in LIONS as a matter referred. The 

matter becomes a case in LIONS once a USAO files an indictment or 

information in court. 

According to the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual, USAOs must consider 

whether there is sufficient admissible evidence to obtain and sustain a 

conviction when making their determination about accepting matters for 

prosecution. The Manual advises USAOs to weigh additional relevant 

considerations, including: (1) federal law enforcement priorities, (2) the 

nature and seriousness of the offense, (3) the deterrent effect of 

prosecution, (4) the person's culpability in connection with the offense, 

(5) the person's history with respect to criminal activity, (6) the person's 

willingness to cooperate in the investigation or prosecution of others, and 

(7) the probable sentence or other consequences if the person is convicted. 

When USAOs determine not to accept a matter for federal prosecution, it is 

referred to as a declination. 
- 38 - 

Several factors affect the timing of decisions to accept or decline a 

matter for prosecution. In certain instances, the matters referred require 

additional investigation before USAOs are able to decide whether to 

prosecute. In addition, USAOs may not have available resources to 

thoroughly review all matters referred at any given time. Moreover, for 

certain types of matters, USAOs must request approval from other entities 

prior to making a decision whether to prosecute. For example, the DOJ 

National Security Division must review and approve terrorism-related 

matters before USAOs file for prosecution. In each of these instances, 

referred matters remain in a pending status until a decision is made to either 

prosecute or decline the matter.39

Total Criminal Casework Analysis 

In our review of USAO criminal casework, we first examined the total 

number of criminal matters referred to USAOs that were filed, declined, or 

pending. This data is provided in Exhibit 4-1.40 Matters filed and declined 

may not have occurred in the same fiscal year in which the matters were 

referred. Therefore, we focused on the criminal matters referred to USAOs 

during each fiscal year and the status of those matters over the span of our 

review period.41 

 39 “Immediate declinations” are recorded when attorneys decide to decline a matter 

after reviewing it for less than 1 hour. In contrast, “later declinations” are recorded when a 

decision is made not to continue with the investigation of a matter that has been opened in 

LIONS and has been under consideration for prosecution for more than 1 hour. 

40 For purposes of our analysis, we combined immediate and later declinations. 

41 As noted in Chapter 2, we identified several concerns with the accuracy and 

reliability of the LIONS data. While we believe that these concerns may affect the analyses 

we performed, we believe the overall results presented have utility for examining the 

prosecutorial activity in the USAOs. Further, the LIONS data is the only such data available 

for purposes of our audit and is relied upon by EOUSA. 
- 39 - 

EXHIBIT 4-1

TOTAL CRIMINAL MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

 As noted in Exhibit 4-1, the total number of criminal matters referred 

to USAOs increased by 10,463, or 10 percent, from FYs 2003 through 2007 

– growing from 102,561 in FY 2003 to 113,024 in FY 2007. We also found a 

growing number of pending matters throughout our review period. In total, 

196,906 matters referred between FYs 2003 and 2007 still remained 

pending as of September 30, 2007. Over 25 percent of the total pending 

matters were referred during FYs 2003 and 2004. 

When we provided this data to EOUSA officials, they expressed 

surprise at the high rate of pending matters, particularly in certain 

prosecutorial areas (discussed later in this chapter). Although several 

factors affect the timing of USAOs’ decisions to prosecute or decline matters, 

the large number of matters that LIONS reflected as still pending at least 

3 years after being initially referred to the USAOs seemed unusual. In 

addition, EOUSA was unable to explain this high percentage of pending cases 

without reviewing individual USAO files. 
- 40 - 

Given EOUSA’s surprise at the large percentage of pending matters 

and its inability to fully explain the results of our LIONS data analysis, we 

attempted to assess whether the matters were actually still pending or 

whether the LIONS data was inaccurate. We therefore judgmentally 

selected a limited sample of 50 pending matters – 10 matters from 5 of the 

prosecutorial areas reviewed. Through coordination with EOUSA, we asked 

the applicable USAOs to review the matters and notify us, in writing, 

whether the matters were, in fact, pending and if so why they remained 

pending. 

According to the USAOs’ responses, 22 of the 50 pending matters were 

accurately reflected as awaiting a decision to prosecute as of September 30, 

2007. Of these 22 pending matters, several were either still under 

investigation or the decision to file or decline the matter for prosecution had 

been made during FY 2008. Moreover, 11 of the 22 pending matters were 

referred to the USAOs between FYs 2003 and 2005, while the remaining 11 

were referred during FYs 2006 and 2007. 

The USAOs responded that the remaining 28 matters were not actually 

pending and were instead shown as being terminated within the local LIONS 

databases, but not in National LIONS, which is the system that EOUSA uses 

for statistical reporting and resource decision-making. The USAOs stated 

that several of the matters had been prosecuted and the defendants 

sentenced prior to September 30, 2007. 

When we discussed these discrepancies with EOUSA officials, they 

stated that EOUSA does not check the accuracy of the data in the National 

LIONS by comparing it to what was transmitted from the USAOs or what is 

reflected in the LIONS databases maintained in the district offices. EOUSA 

officials stated that EOUSA instead relies upon data certifications performed 

semiannually by district offices.42 However, these certifications are done in 

the districts and address only the data that the districts submit to EOUSA, 

not what is ultimately stored in the National LIONS. Our analysis shows that 

these data sets are inconsistent. 

EOUSA officials provided a variety of reasons as to why some of the 

matters in our sample would have had subsequent case filings and 

terminations in the districts’ LIONS that were not reflected in the National 

LIONS. For instance, EOUSA officials explained that the National LIONS was 

not capturing all cases filed by districts due to an error in the transmission 

 42 EOUSA requires all districts to prepare semi-annual certifications, signed by the 

U.S. Attorney, indicating that the information contained in each USAO’s local database has 

been reviewed and accurately reflects the status of pending matters, cases, and appeals. 
- 41 - 

process. Specifically, the National LIONS does not contain information on 

any cases filed by USAOs during a 24-hour timeframe between noon on 

September 30 and noon on October 1 of each fiscal year. EOUSA officials 

also stated that some matters may have been terminated without a case 

having been filed because the matter was handled in a certain court setting, 

such as magistrate court, and that these actions are not reflected in LIONS 

as case filings. During the audit close-out meeting, EOUSA officials were 

interested in these results and advised that EOUSA would look into this 

matter. 

 We believe that our analysis has revealed significant additional 

concerns over the accuracy and reliability of LIONS data. Therefore, EOUSA 

needs to implement a mechanism for testing the reliability of the National 

LIONS data and communicating with the districts on a regular basis to 

ensure that all the information in this system accurately depicts the districts’ 

casework. 

Criminal Casework Analysis by Prosecutorial Area 

We also reviewed the matters referred to USAOs by program 

categories to determine if there were any trends in the types of matters 

USAOs accepted or declined, as well as those that remained in a pending 

status. Specifically, we analyzed matters referred during FYs 2003 through 

2007 and assessed the percentage of those matters that were filed, 

declined, or pending. 

Terrorism – As reflected in the following exhibit, we determined that 

the number of terrorism-related matters referred to USAOs gradually 

declined from FYs 2003 through 2007. In addition, the percentage of 

terrorism-related matters accepted for prosecution gradually declined 

between FYs 2004 and 2007 – from 32 percent in FY 2004 to 18 percent in 

FY 2007. According to EOUSA officials, these types of matters usually 

remain in a pending status for a longer period of time because the 

investigative agencies oftentimes ask the USAOs to refrain from filing any 

charges while the agencies gather intelligence and complete their 

investigations. 
- 42 - 

EXHIBIT 4-2

NUMBER OF TERRORISM-RELATED MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

 From a district perspective, our analysis showed that from FYs 2003 to 

2007, the extra-large USAOs generally received the majority of terrorismrelated referrals. 

We also identified substantial variations in the number of matters filed, 

declined, or pending among similar-sized district offices, including the 

following: 

 Of the 296 terrorism-related matters referred to the Northern District 

of California, only 7 percent were accepted for prosecution. 

 In contrast, of the 440 terrorism-related matters referred to the Middle 

District of Florida, 52 percent were accepted. 

Appendix XI provides a detailed listing of the total number of 

terrorism-related matters referred to each USAO during FYs 2003 through 
- 43 - 

2007, including the number and percent of those matters filed, declined, or 

pending as of September 30, 2007. 

Narcotics – USAOs filed for prosecution a significant percentage of the 

referred narcotics matters during each fiscal year of our review period, as 

reflected in Exhibit 4-3. In particular, the USAOs filed approximately 

75 percent of the narcotics matters referred during each given fiscal year 

between FYs 2003 and 2006, and 66 percent of the FY 2007 matters. 

According to EOUSA and USAO officials, a large number of narcotics matters 

are filed for prosecution because the requisite evidence is generally 

presented upon referral or the evidence needed to establish the case is 

easily obtainable. 

EXHIBIT 4-3

NUMBER OF NARCOTICS MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

Appendix XII contains a district-by-district overview of the total 

number of narcotics matters referred between FYs 2003 and 2007, as well as 

the status of those referred matters as of September 30, 2007. 
- 44 - 

 Violent Crime – Similar to narcotics matters, the USAOs prosecuted 

approximately 70 percent of the violent crime matters referred during each 

fiscal year between FYs 2003 and 2006 and 55 percent of the FY 2007 

matters. The percentage of matters declined for prosecution decreased 

significantly from 25 percent of the matters referred during FY 2003 to 

9 percent of the matters referred during FY 2007, as reflected in Exhibit 4-4. 

EXHIBIT 4-4

NUMBER OF VIOLENT CRIME MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

Appendix XIII provides a detailed listing of the total number of violent 

crime matters referred to each USAO during FYs 2003 through 2007, 

including the number and percent of those matters filed, declined, or 

pending as of September 30, 2007. 

 White Collar Crime – The results of our analyses of white collar crime 

matters were similar to those associated with terrorism-related matters. As 

reflected in the following exhibit, we determined that the percentage of 

white collar crime matters accepted for prosecution steadily declined from 
- 45 - 

FYs 2003 through 2007 – decreasing from 50 percent in FY 2003 to 

28 percent in FY 2007. Similarly, we found that the percentage of matters 

declined for prosecution decreased from 37 percent of the matters referred 

during FY 2003 to 7 percent referred during FY 2007. 

EXHIBIT 4-5

NUMBER OF WHITE COLLAR CRIME MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

Appendix XIV contains a district-by-district overview of the total 

number of white collar crime matters referred between FYs 2003 and 2007, 

as well as the status of those referred matters as of September 30, 2007. 

Immigration – During our review period, the USAOs received more 

immigration-related referrals than any other single type of criminal matter. 

Unlike the other prosecutorial areas we reviewed, USAOs declined for 

prosecution very few immigration matters during FYs 2003 through 2007 – 

only 1.5 percent of the total immigration matters referred during this 5-year 

period. 
- 46 - 

EXHIBIT 4-6

NUMBER OF IMMIGRATION MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

USAOs located along the Southwest border accounted for nearly 

80 percent of all immigration matters referred to USAOs between FYs 2003 

and 2007.43 Appendix XV provides a detailed listing of the total number of 

immigration matters referred to each USAO during FYs 2003 through 2007, 

including the number and percent of those matters filed, declined, or 

pending as of September 30, 2007. 

 Public Corruption – We found that between 23 and 46 percent of 

public corruption matters referred to USAOs were declined for prosecution 

between FYs 2003 and 2006. The percentage of matters filed for 

prosecution gradually declined from FYs 2003 through 2007. Exhibit 4-7 

 43 The following USAOs are considered Southwest border districts: (1) Southern 

District of California, (2) District of Arizona, (3) District of New Mexico, (4) Western District 

of Texas, and (5) Southern District of Texas. 
- 47 - 

shows the number of public corruption matters filed, declined, or pending by 

USAOs throughout our review period. 

EXHIBIT 4-7

NUMBER OF PUBLIC CORRUPTION MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

 

Appendix XVI contains more detailed information on public corruption 

matters within each USAO. 

Organized Crime – USAOs were referred fewer organized crime 

matters between FYs 2003 and 2007 than any other prosecutorial area we 

reviewed. We found that between 41 and 53 percent of organized crime 

matters referred to USAOs were filed for prosecution between FYs 2003 and 

2007. The percentage of matters declined for prosecution gradually 

decreased throughout our review period. 
- 48 - 

EXHIBIT 4-8

NUMBER OF ORGANIZED CRIME MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

 Among USAOs, we identified 24 offices that were not referred any 

organized crime matters between FYs 2003 and 2007. Moreover, we found 

that the following 4 USAOs were referred 756 of the 1,864 total matters 

during this time period: (1) District of Massachusetts, (2) District of 

New Jersey, (3) Eastern District of New York, and (4) Southern District of 

New York. 

Appendix XVII provides a detailed listing of the total number of 

organized crime matters referred to each USAO during FYs 2003 through 

2007, including the number and percent of those matters filed, declined, or 

pending as of September 30, 2007. 

Civil Rights – Compared to the other prosecutorial areas that we 

reviewed, we found that civil rights matters were more likely to be declined 

than filed for prosecution. Our analysis showed that only 8 percent of all 
- 49 - 

civil rights matters referred during FYs 2003 to 2007 were filed for 

prosecution, and nearly 70 percent were declined. 

According to a USAO official, the majority of civil rights matters 

declined are “color of law” violations, which we found to be the case during 

our analysis of the civil rights casework data.44 This official further 

explained that the USAOs generally decline these matters because they are 

usually based upon circumstantial evidence and are very dependent upon 

the perceived credibility of the plaintiff and witnesses. Exhibit 4-9 shows the 

number of civil rights matters filed, declined, or pending by USAOs 

throughout our review period. 

EXHIBIT 4-9

NUMBER OF CIVIL RIGHTS MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

 44 "Color of law" is a legal term used in official misconduct cases. It means that a 

law enforcement officer allegedly abused the authority provided by reason of the individual’s 

employment as a public official. 
- 50 - 

 Appendix XVIII contains more detailed information on civil rights 

matters within each USAO. 

All Other Criminal Matters – Several criminal activities fall into the 

category of “All Other Criminal,” including fugitive violations, 

pornography/obscenity violations, and government regulatory offenses. 

Exhibit 4-10 shows the number of other criminal matters filed, declined, or 

pending by USAOs throughout our review period. Appendix XIX provides a 

detailed listing of the total number of all other criminal matters referred to 

each USAO during FYs 2003 through 2007, including the number and 

percent of those matters filed, declined, or pending as of September 30, 

2007. 

EXHIBIT 4-10

NUMBER OF ALL OTHER CRIMINAL MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FILED, DECLINED, OR PENDING 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 
- 51 - 

Summary of Criminal Casework Analyses 

As reflected in the results of our criminal casework analyses, USAOs 

are more likely to file certain types of criminal matters for prosecution than 

others. We found that USAOs filed the majority of immigration, narcotics, 

and violent crime matters referred to them during the 5 years of our review. 

According to EOUSA and USAO officials, certain types of these matters are 

usually supported by adequate evidence at the time of referral. In contrast, 

matters such as civil rights, public corruption, and terrorism were more likely 

to be declined. According to EOUSA and USAO officials, the primary 

determinant for declining such matters is insufficient evidence. 

Our analyses also revealed that a significant number of matters 

referred between FYs 2003 and 2007 remained in a pending status as of 

September 30, 2007, although our sampling of a limited number of cases 

indicated that the LIONS data is unreliable and inaccurate as to the pending 

status of cases. However, according to EOUSA officials, various factors can 

cause delays in accepting or declining a matter, including their complexity, 

the availability of resources, and the attainability of evidentiary support. 

Nevertheless, EOUSA and USAO officials informed us that they believed that 

certain matters, such as immigration and narcotics, should not generally 

remain pending for an extended period of time, and they were surprised by 

our findings that a large percentage remained pending as of September 30, 

2007. Upon further inquiry, we determined that many of the pending 

matters had been closed within their local LIONS systems and that these 

matters should not be considered pending. We believe that EOUSA must 

ensure that the information entered at the district level is accurately 

reflected within the National LIONS. 

USAO Civil Casework 

We also analyzed data on the civil casework of USAOs for FYs 2003 

through 2007. Unlike criminal casework, USAOs do not record declinations of 

civil matters referred because in the majority of instances civil cases are 

defensive matters that USAOs must accept. However, EOUSA maintains data 

on the number of civil matters referred to USAOs as well as the status of the 

cases (filed or pending). Civil cases handled by USAOs include issues such as 

affirmative civil enforcement and asset forfeiture cases. Exhibit 4-11 

presents the number of total civil matters referred that were either filed or 

pending during our 5-year review period. As with our criminal casework 

analysis, the date a case was filed may not be the same fiscal year in which 

the matter was referred. 
- 52 - 

EXHIBIT 4-11

OVERALL CIVIL MATTERS REFERRED TO USAOs 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

As shown in the preceding exhibit, the total number of civil matters 

referred to USAOs decreased by 9,118, or 10 percent, from FYs 2003 

through 2007. Of the civil matters referred during those 5 fiscal years, the 

percentage of matters filed remained relatively steady – ranging from 

87 percent to 90 percent of all matters referred during each fiscal year. 

According to EOUSA officials, because a large proportion of the civil workload 

involves defensive litigation (defending the federal government) that USAOs 

must accept, the number of civil matters filed (as a percentage of the 

number of matters referred) should be relatively high. Appendix XX 

presents civil casework information for each USAO. 
- 53 - 

Criminal and Civil Casework per Attorney FTE45

 In addition to our analyses of matters filed, declined, or pending, we 

reviewed case data in association with the utilization of attorneys within 

USAOs to determine the average caseload per attorney FTE for FYs 2003 

through 2007.46 As reflected in Exhibit 4-12, the average caseload per 

attorney FTE did not change drastically from one fiscal year to the next 

throughout our review period. There was only a 2.46 increase, or 7 percent, 

of cases per attorney FTE from FY 2003 to FY 2007. 

EXHIBIT 4-12

AVERAGE NUMBER OF TOTAL CASES PER USAO ATTORNEY FTE 

FYs 2003 THROUGH 2007 

Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data 

 45 For our casework per attorney FTE analyses, we relied upon the number of FTEs 

associated with criminal and civil activities as recorded in the USA-5 system. We excluded 

time recorded to management and administration. In addition, our analyses exclude time 

expended by Special AUSAs who may have assisted USAOs with their casework during our 

review period. 

46 For our attorney caseload analysis, we utilized information on pending cases and 

did not include pending matters in this assessment. As described previously, cases are 

different than matters, which we analyzed and presented earlier in this chapter. In 

particular, a pending matter is awaiting a decision to prosecute, while a pending case 

indicates that a court action has been taken and is awaiting a final disposition, such as a 

verdict. 
- 54 - 

We also performed separate analyses of the average criminal and civil 

caseload per attorney FTE for FYs 2003 and 2007. We grouped these results 

by EOUSA’s categorization of USAOs based upon office size, as shown in the 

following table. 

EXHIBIT 4-13

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASELOADS PER ATTORNEY FTE 

FYs 2003 AND 2007 

FY 2003 FY 2007 

Active 

Cases 

Utilized 

FTE 

Cases 

per 

Attorney 

FTE 

Active 

Cases 

Utilized 

FTE 

Cases 

per 

Attorney 

FTE 

Criminal: 

Small USAOs 4,591 305.65 15.02 5,389 312.78 17.23 

Medium USAOs 10,944 644.11 16.99 12,491 649.15 19.24 

Large USAOs 14,114 846.67 16.67 15,217 852.15 17.86 

Extra-large USAOs 33,850 1,856.14 18.24 38,809 1,758.82 22.07 

Total 63,499 3,652.57 17.38 71,906 3,572.90 20.13 

Civil:

Small USAOs 8,201 103.27 79.41 8,269 102.86 80.39 

Medium USAOs 26,447 207.73 127.32 22,700 213.54 106.30 

Large USAOs 28,484 275.58 103.36 29,180 266.27 109.59 

Extra-large USAOs 49,956 489.65 102.02 51,918 466.70 111.24 

Total 113,088 1,076.23 105.08 112,067 1,049.37 106.79 

Source: OIG analysis of USA-5 and LIONS data 

As depicted in the preceding exhibit, the criminal cases per attorney 

FTE increased from FYs 2003 to 2007 among each grouping of USAOs. 

Similarly, with the exception of medium-sized USAOs, the civil cases per 

attorney FTE increased within each group from FYs 2003 to 2007. 

Appendix XXI contains a listing of criminal and civil caseloads per 

attorney FTE for each USAO. We used this information to compare an 

individual USAO’s criminal and civil caseload per attorney FTE to those of 

other similar-sized offices. This analysis revealed several districts that 

experienced significant deviations from the average criminal and civil 

caseloads per attorney FTE. Regarding criminal caseloads, we determined 

that the extra-large offices generally had 22 cases per attorney FTE in 

FY 2007. However, the Districts of Arizona and Western Texas each had an 

average of more than 50 criminal cases per attorney FTE, while the District 

of Columbia and the District of Massachusetts had average criminal 

caseloads of 3 and 10 cases per attorney FTE, respectively. 
- 55 - 

However, the problems with the LIONS data and the failure of USAOs 

to close pending cases in LIONS could affect this analysis. This results in 

cases that are no longer part of a USAO’s active workload being shown as 

on-going instead of terminated, which leads to an inaccurate view of a 

district’s workload. Therefore, the caseloads per attorney FTE presented in 

Exhibits 4-12 and 4-13 may be higher than what is actually occurring. 

EOUSA Monitoring 

As with the utilization of attorneys, EOUSA executive management 

does not receive routine casework-related reports that provide a 

comprehensive assessment of the number and types of cases handled by 

each USAO. Again, EOUSA monitors USAO casework and workloads during 

its EARS reviews of district offices, which occurred every 4 to 5 years.47 In 

addition to the EARS reviews, the Data Analysis Staff at EOUSA analyzes 

USAO data on an ad hoc basis when it receives requests, including inquiries 

received from EOUSA executive management, the Attorney General, and 

Congress. The Data Analysis Staff also compiles an annual statistical report 

that provides details on the entire caseload of individual USAOs. However, 

the Data Analysis Staff does not include specific district caseload 

information, such as the number of narcotics trafficking cases filed by each 

USAO, in these annual statistical reports. 

As discussed in Chapter 3, EOUSA hopes to address this issue by 

developing a method to evaluate the resource management of all 94 USAOs 

on a consistent basis – including examining the casework of USAOs. 

Conclusion 

In total, we determined that 554,675 criminal matters were referred to 

USAOs between FYs 2003 through 2007. According to LIONS data, of these 

criminal matters, over 50 percent were filed for prosecution, 13 percent 

were declined, and 35 percent remained in a pending status as of the end of 

FY 2007. 

We evaluated the status of criminal matters referred in specific 

prosecutorial areas and identified certain matters that were more likely to be 

filed for prosecution, such as narcotics and violent crime, which officials said 

generally have more concrete evidence upon referral. USAOs declined more 

 47 As mentioned in Chapter 1, these EARS reviews were designed to be performed 

on a triennial cycle. However, EOUSA officials stated that during the period that we 

reviewed, the EARS reviews were occurring every 4 to 5 years because of budget 

constraints. 
- 56 - 

referrals involving civil rights and public corruption cases, where officials said 

evidence is more difficult to obtain. 

We also analyzed the civil casework of USAOs and found that 

88 percent of the 424,538 civil matters referred to USAOs during FYs 2003 

through 2007 were filed, while the remaining 12 percent were in a pending 

status. We assessed the average total caseload per attorney FTE and found 

that it remained relatively constant throughout our review period – ranging 

from 37 cases per attorney FTE in FY 2003 to 40 cases per attorney FTE in 

FY 2007. 

Our review of the criminal and civil caseloads per attorney FTE showed 

that the overall criminal and civil caseloads per attorney FTE increased from 

FYs 2003 to 2007. Specifically, the average criminal caseload increased 

from 17 cases per attorney FTE in FY 2003 to 20 cases per attorney FTE in 

FY 2007. Civil casework increased by 2 percent from FYs 2003 to 2007 from 

105 cases per attorney FTE to 107 cases per attorney FTE. 

During our review period, we found that EOUSA assesses the workload 

of USAOs during EARS evaluations, which took place every 4-5 years. 

EOUSA’s Data Analysis Staff generates annual statistical reports, but they do 

not include detailed district analyses. Although EOUSA examines the 

casework of USAOs on a general level, we believe it should perform regular 

comprehensive assessments. We were told that EOUSA has recently begun 

to develop such a program. We believe that regularly generating and 

reviewing analyses similar to those presented in this chapter could help 

EOUSA in overseeing the USAOs’ operations. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that EOUSA: 

10. Ensure that a comprehensive review of each USAO’s casework is 

performed annually, including a comparison of the data maintained in 

individual district LIONS databases to the information reflected in the 

National LIONS. 
APPENDIX I 

- 57 - 

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY 

Audit Objectives 

The objectives of this audit were to: (1) examine the accuracy and 

completeness of the data regarding USAO resource utilization and cases, as 

well as to assess the process by which personnel resources are allocated 

among USAOs; (2) determine the allocation and utilization of attorneys 

within USAOs; and (3) determine the changes in USAO casework from 

FY 2003 through FY 2007. 

Scope and Methodology 

 We performed our audit in accordance with the Government Auditing 

Standards and included such tests of the records and procedures that we 

considered necessary to achieve the audit objectives. 

To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed officials at EOUSA and 

reviewed empirical USAO resource allocation, resource utilization, and 

casework data. 

Interviews 

 During the course of our review, we interviewed officials within the 

various sections of EOUSA, including the Director and Deputy Directors. 

Additionally, we spoke with USAO officials detailed to EOUSA; officials from 

the Northern District of Illinois, including the U.S. Attorney; and the U.S. 

Attorney from the Central District of Illinois. These interviews, as well as 

documentation obtained during these discussions, provided perspective on 

the resource-related and casework issues covered by our audit objectives. 

In total, we interviewed 44 EOUSA and USAO officials. 

Resource and Casework Data 

 To assist in accomplishing our audit objectives, we analyzed data 

provided by EOUSA. Specifically, we conducted analyses of USAO resource 

allocation, resource utilization, and casework data. To examine the USAOs’ 

human resource utilization, we analyzed data from the USAOs’ time 

recordkeeping system – the USA-5 – for the period of FYs 2003 through 

2007. This system captures the time of attorneys, paralegals, and support 

staff within each USAO. To examine the types and quantity of work handled 

by the USAOs during this same time period, we analyzed data from the 

USAOs’ case management system – LIONS. 
APPENDIX I 

- 58 - 

Internal Controls and Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

 Our audit objectives were informational in nature. Our assessment of 

internal controls was limited to our review of USAO data contained in the 

USA-5 system and LIONS. As noted in the body of this report, we identified 

concerns with the accuracy and reliability of the data contained within these 

automated systems. While we believe that these issues may affect the 

analyses performed, we believe that the overall results presented have 

utility for looking at the USAOs as a whole to gain a basic understanding of 

the agency’s resource utilization and workload. We did not perform an 

independent, overall assessment of the reliability of the data in the USAOs’ 

automated systems. Further, we determined examining compliance with 

laws and regulations was not significant to our objectives. 

Data Analysis 

 We performed analyses of USAO resource allocation, resource 

utilization, and casework data to identify trends and note significant changes 

in the USAOs’ operations from FY 2003 to FY 2007. In total, this data was 

comprised of 4,086,902 records. 

USAO Human Resources 

 We conducted analyses of USAO resource allocation and utilization 

data. 

Allocated Resource Levels

We used data maintained in the Resource Management and Planning 

Staff’s database to analyze the allocation of USAO resources.48 EOUSA has 

tracked the specific areas to which positions have been allocated to district 

offices since 2000, such as counterterrorism and corporate fraud. 

Allocations made prior to 2000 are combined into a category entitled 

“general.” We obtained the attorney allocations of each USAO to the 

greatest level of detail available for each fiscal year of our review period, 

focusing on changes occurring between FYs 2003 and 2007. The total 

allocated attorney FTE data amounted to 5,818 records. 

 48 EOUSA maintains this allocation data in terms of FTEs. 
APPENDIX I 

- 59 - 

Resource Utilization Levels 

 Most USAO employees record their time into the USA-5 system, at a 

minimum, on a monthly basis.49 When completing the USA-5, USAO 

personnel record either the actual number of hours worked or the 

percentage of hours worked (based on an 8-hour day) to USA-5 categories 

that are attributed to the type of function or duty being performed. For 

example, for any 8-hour day, an attorney might record that he worked 

4 hours handling a civil rights case, 2 hours on a narcotics-related trial, and 

another 2 hours on criminal appeals. The data entered into the USA-5 is 

then converted into FTEs. However, the USA-5 data is only as valid as the 

information reported by USAO personnel. EOUSA considers the USA-5 

system’s data to be the best way to assess the actual amount worked by 

USAO attorneys in specific prosecutorial areas. 

 During our review period, the USA-5A information was tracked 

separately and was not maintained in association with a particular USA-5 

category. As a result, the USA-5 data run associated with attorney regular 

time was provided in two text files, which we imported into two separate 

database files. These data runs contained a total of 351,430 records and 

contained information within 5 different fields. Each data run had the same 

fields. However, the category field within one of the data runs tracked time 

recorded to USA-5 categories, while the category field in the other data run 

indicated the USA-5A category used. Following is a listing of the fields used 

as part of our analyses: 

Field Name Field Description

 District 2- or 3-character designation for USAO 

 Month-Year Identifier of month and year to which 

record applies (mmm-yyyy format) 

 Category USA-5 or USA-5A category code 

 Category Description Description of USA-5 or USA-5A category 

 Attorney Permanent FTE Number of attorney FTEs spent on a 

particular activity 

 We analyzed the resource utilization data by fiscal year. Since the 

data provided was according to month, we totaled the attorney FTEs for all 

months within each fiscal year for each USA-5 and USA-5A category. Next, 

we divided this total by 12 months to obtain the annualized average number 

of personnel working on a particular prosecutorial area in a given fiscal year. 

 49 Attorneys, paralegals, support personnel, and Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

(SAUSAs) record their time into the USA-5 system. However, the USA-5 system does not 

track the time of contractors and students working in USAOs. 
APPENDIX I 

- 60 - 

 Additionally, we found that EOUSA tracks attorney’s additional time 

separately, which is maintained in terms of hours. Therefore, we obtained 

another USA-5 data run associated with additional attorney hours, which 

was provided in two text files – one for the USA-5 categories and another for 

the USA-5A categories. These data runs, in total, amounted to 

351,430 records, which we imported into 2 separate database files. As with 

the attorney regular time, each data run had the same fields and was 

tracked in the same way. 

We also analyzed the additional resource utilization data by fiscal year. 

Since the data provided was in terms of hours, we totaled the additional 

attorney hours for all months within each fiscal year for each USA-5 and 

USA-5A category. Next, we divided each total by 2,080 hours to obtain the 

average number of personnel working on a particular prosecutorial area in a 

given fiscal year. This computation provided us with the reported number of 

FTEs involved in the various prosecutorial areas. Finally, to provide an 

overall evaluation of the number of attorney resources expended on various 

prosecutorial areas, we combined the results of the regular attorney FTEs 

with the additional attorney FTEs by USA-5 category and USA-5A category. 

On-board Attorney Levels

We also attempted to analyze the actual number of on-board attorneys 

over the course of our review period. However, the on-board data provided 

by EOUSA was not consistent and contained anomalies. After we found that 

the initial data appeared illogical, we requested more detailed on-board 

data. However, our review of the new on-board attorney data provided by 

EOUSA continued to reveal inconsistencies and anomalies. For example, the 

data showed significant variations in the number of on-board attorneys 

within individual USAOs from pay period to pay period. EOUSA was unable 

to explain these variations but provided us with new data files containing onboard attorney information. We reviewed these new data files and 

continued to have questions surrounding the accuracy of the information. 

Given the concerns about the accuracy of the information in the various onboard data files provided, we did not include an on-board attorney analysis 

within our report. 

USAO Casework 

 

For our analyses of the USAO casework, we received various data runs 

from LIONS, focusing on matters referred, matters declined, cases filed, 

cases pending, and cases terminated from FY 2003 to FY 2007. The data 

runs were provided in text files and each one was imported into separate 

database files. 
APPENDIX I 

- 61 - 

Matters Referred

The text file received on the matters referred to USAOs was imported 

into a database file and contained 979,213 records. The data was separated 

into the following fields: 

Field Name Field Description

 Fiscal Year The fiscal year of the matter 

 USAOID Number that identifies all tables connected to a 

civil/criminal matter (USAO Number) 

 District Code for the district handling the civil/criminal matter 

 Program Category 

(Criminal) 

Code for the program category that further defines the 

type of criminal matter, e.g., Health Care Fraud 

 Cause of Action 

(Civil) 

Code for the cause of action of the civil matter, e.g., 

COSL (Student Loan) 

 Received Date Date when the civil/criminal matter was received in the 

USAO 

 Declinations 

We received two separate text files for criminal matters declined by 

USAOs, one for immediate declinations and another for later declinations. 

After importing these files into two separate database files, we appended 

them and created one file for all declinations, which totaled 152,392 records. 

The data was separated into the following fields: 

Field Name Field Description

 Fiscal Year The fiscal year of the declination 

 USAOID Number that identifies all tables connected to a 

criminal action (USAO Number) 

 District Code for the district handling the criminal action 

 Program Category 

(Criminal) 

Code for the program category that further defines the 

type of criminal action, e.g., Health Care Fraud 

 Declination Reason Code that identifies the reason a criminal action was 

declined, e.g., JTRD (Jury Trial District Court) 

Cases Filed

The text file received on the cases filed by USAOs was imported into a 

database file and contained 680,551 records. The data was separated into 

the following fields: 
APPENDIX I 

- 62 - 

Field Name Field Description

 Fiscal Year The fiscal year of the filed case 

 USAOID Number that identifies all tables connected to a 

civil/criminal case (USAO Number) 

 District Code for the district handling the civil/criminal case 

 Cause of Action 

(Civil) 

Code for the cause of action of the civil case, e.g., 

COSL (Student Loan) 

 Program Category 

(Criminal) 

Code for the program category that further defines the 

type of criminal case, e.g., Health Care Fraud 

 Filing Date Date the instrument was filed in court 

 System Filing Date Date that the filing date information was entered into 

LIONS 

 Cases Pending

The text file received on the cases pending at USAOs was imported 

into a database file and contained 910,347 records. The data was separated 

into the following fields: 

Field Name Field Description

 Fiscal Year The fiscal year of the filed case 

 USAOID Number that identifies all tables connected to a 

civil/criminal case (USAO Number) 

 District Code for the district handling the civil/criminal case 

 Cause of Action 

(Civil) 

Code for the cause of action of the civil case, e.g., 

COSL (Student Loan) 

 Program Category 

(Criminal) 

Code for the program category that further defines the 

type of criminal case, e.g., Health Care Fraud 

 Cases Terminated

The text file received on the cases terminated by USAOs was imported 

into a database file and contained 655,721 records. The data was separated 

into the same fields as the cases pending data. 

Methodology for Analyses

According to an EOUSA official, each matter or case is assigned a 

unique USAOID within a particular district. However, multiple districts could 

have the same USAOID associated with their own particular matter or case. 

As a result, EOUSA examines both the USAOID and district fields to ensure 

that it accounts for all matters and cases handled by USAOs, including those 

matters and cases with the same USAOID but associated with different 

district offices. For purposes of our review, we created a unique USAOID 

field that combined the USAOID number with the district name for each of 

the casework data runs previously mentioned. 
APPENDIX I 

- 63 - 

Further, within each data run, we separated the information into civilrelated casework and criminal-related casework. To obtain all criminalrelated records, we extracted the data according to the program category 

codes. Similarly, to obtain all civil-related records, we extracted the data 

according to the cause of action codes. It should be noted that the 

immediate and later declinations tracked within LIONS apply only to criminal 

matters. Therefore, we did not have to separate the declination data into 

criminal and civil declinations. 

For the majority of our casework analyses, we reviewed the types and 

numbers of criminal matters referred to USAOs and determined if those 

matters were filed for prosecution, declined, or remained pending. To 

perform this analysis, we joined data from the matters referred database to 

the cases filed and declinations databases according to the unique USAOID 

field contained within each database. The results of this analysis showed the 

status of criminal matters referred to USAOs during a particular fiscal year. 

It did not show when a matter was actually filed for prosecution or declined. 

For example, our analyses may have revealed that between FYs 2003 and 

2007, the USAOs filed 1,000 narcotics matters that were referred during 

FY 2003. Although these 1,000 matters were referred in FY 2003, they may 

not have all been filed during that fiscal year. Some of them may also have 

been filed in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. We were then able to compute 

the number of criminal matters that remained pending as of September 30, 

2007, by subtracting the number of matters filed and declined from the 

matters referred during a given fiscal year. 

To gain insight into the universe of pending matters in LIONS, we 

judgmentally selected a sample of 50 pending criminal matters from the 

196,906 total pending criminal matters identified during our review period. 

We focused our sample on five prosecutorial areas: (1) immigration, 

(2) narcotics, (3) terrorism, (4) violent crime, and (5) white collar crime. 

Within each of these areas, we selected 10 pending matters and opted to 

choose 2 records from each fiscal year of our review period (FYs 2003 

through 2007). Moreover, we decided to select no more than one record 

from a district office in a particular prosecutorial area and no more than two 

records per district office for our overall sample. 

To determine the criminal and civil caseloads per attorney FTE, we 

relied upon the data run of pending cases and computed the total number of 

pending criminal and civil cases within each office as of the end of FY 2007. 

We then divided these totals by the total number of criminal and civil 

attorney FTEs (regular and additional) utilized within each office during 

FY 2007 as reflected in the USA-5. 
APPENDIX I 

- 64 - 

We confined each of our casework analyses to the data we obtained 

from the LIONS system and did not review individual files to examine the 

actual level of effort expended on a single matter or case. Thus, if a matter 

was referred, declined, or filed for prosecution during a particular timeframe, 

we considered it to be reviewed during that period. 
- 65 - 

MAP OF USA DISTRICT OFFICES 

Source: OIG 
APPENDIX III 

- 66 - 

USAO ACRONYMS 

Acronym District Acronym District 

AK Alaska MT Montana 

ALM Alabama-Middle NCE North Carolina-Eastern 

ALN Alabama-Northern NCM North Carolina-Middle 

ALS Alabama-Southern NCW North Carolina-Western 

ARE Arkansas-Eastern ND North Dakota 

ARW Arkansas-Western NE Nebraska 

AZ Arizona NH New Hampshire 

CAC California-Central NJ New Jersey 

CAE California-Eastern NM New Mexico 

CAN California-Northern NMI Northern Mariana Islands 

CAS California-Southern NV Nevada 

CO Colorado NYE New York-Eastern 

CT Connecticut NYN New York-Northern 

DC District of Columbia NYS New York-Southern 

DE Delaware NYW New York-Western 

FLM Florida-Middle OHN Ohio-Northern 

FLN Florida-Northern OHS Ohio-Southern 

FLS Florida-Southern OKE Oklahoma-Eastern 

GAM Georgia-Middle OKN Oklahoma-Northern 

GAN Georgia-Northern OKW Oklahoma-Western 

GAS Georgia-Southern OR Oregon 

GU Guam PAE Pennsylvania-Eastern 

HI Hawaii PAM Pennsylvania-Middle 

IAN Iowa-Northern PAW Pennsylvania-Western 

IAS Iowa-Southern PR Puerto Rico 

ID Idaho RI Rhode Island 

ILC Illinois-Central SC South Carolina 

ILN Illinois-Northern SD South Dakota 

ILS Illinois-Southern TNE Tennessee-Eastern 

INN Indiana-Northern TNM Tennessee-Middle 

INS Indiana-Southern TNW Tennessee-Western 

KS Kansas TXE Texas-Eastern 

KYE Kentucky-Eastern TXN Texas-Northern 

KYW Kentucky-Western TXS Texas-Southern 

LAE Louisiana-Eastern TXW Texas-Western 

LAM Louisiana-Middle UT Utah 

LAW Louisiana-Western VAE Virginia-Eastern 

MA Massachusetts VAW Virginia-Western 

MD Maryland VI Virgin Islands 

ME Maine VT Vermont 

MIE Michigan-Eastern WAE Washington-Eastern 

MIW Michigan-Western WAW Washington-Western 

MN Minnesota WIE Wisconsin-Eastern 

MOE Missouri-Eastern WIW Wisconsin-Western 

MOW Missouri-Western WVN West Virginia-Northern 

MSN Mississippi-Northern WVS West Virginia-Southern 

MSS Mississippi-Southern WY Wyoming 
APPENDIX IV 

- 67 - 

USA-5 PAPER FORM 
APPENDIX IV 

- 68 - 
APPENDIX IV 

- 69 - 
APPENDIX IV 

- 70 - 
APPENDIX V 

- 71 - 

TOTAL USAO ATTORNEY UTILIZATION 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 AND 2007 

In this appendix, we present the total number of attorney FTEs 

utilized, including time recorded in excess of a standard 40-hour work week 

in each USAO during FYs 2003 and 2007, as well as the change in the 

number of total attorney FTEs utilized between FYs 2003 and 2007. We also 

indicate the district size of each office using EOUSA’s categorization of 

USAOs based upon allocated attorney staff levels. During our review period, 

EOUSA used the following distinctions: (1) extra-large (greater than or 

equal to 100 attorneys), (2) large (between 45 and 99.9 attorneys), 

(3) medium (between 25 and 44.9 attorneys), and (4) small (less than 

25 attorneys). 

DISTRICT 

FY 2003 

TOTALS 

FY 2007 

TOTALS 

CHANGE 

BETWEEN FYs 

2003 AND 2007 DISTRICT SIZE

Alabama Middle 20.93 24.16 3.23 Small 

Alabama North 50.51 49.17 -1.34 Large

Alabama South 26.91 25.83 -1.08 Small

Alaska 20.06 24.71 4.65 Small 

Arizona 137.38 134.69 -2.69 Extra-Large

Arkansas Eastern 29.05 27.81 -1.24 Medium

Arkansas Western 15.41 14.62 -0.79 Small

California Central 322.39 273.94 -48.45 Extra-Large

California Eastern 75.08 70.86 -4.22 Large

California Northern 127.80 112.67 -15.13 Extra-Large

California Southern 129.62 124.14 -5.48 Extra-Large

Colorado 80.34 73.29 -7.05 Large

Connecticut 73.68 71.24 -2.44 Large

Delaware 19.94 19.19 -0.75 Small

District of Columbia 436.81 374.43 -62.38 Extra-Large

Florida Middle 125.72 111.20 -14.52 Extra-Large

Florida Northern 39.94 38.63 -1.31 Medium

Florida Southern 265.57 234.26 -31.31 Extra-Large

Georgia Middle 29.31 31.05 1.74 Medium 

Georgia Northern 92.17 89.39 -2.78 Large

Georgia Southern 28.92 27.25 -1.67 Medium

Guam 12.92 10.23 -2.69 Small

Hawaii 34.62 32.09 -2.53 Medium

Idaho 29.05 29.15 0.10 Small 

Illinois Central 34.57 35.17 0.60 Medium 

Illinois Northern 178.28 174.95 -3.33 Extra-Large

Illinois Southern 42.68 39.07 -3.61 Medium

Indiana Northern 40.66 38.19 -2.47 Medium
APPENDIX V 

- 72 - 

DISTRICT 

FY 2003 

TOTALS 

FY 2007 

TOTALS 

CHANGE 

BETWEEN FYs 

2003 AND 2007 DISTRICT SIZE

Indiana Southern 36.85 33.68 -3.17 Medium

Iowa Northern 25.52 26.83 1.31 Small 

Iowa Southern 27.17 27.00 -0.17 Small

Kansas 46.81 47.30 0.49 Medium 

Kentucky Eastern 40.83 42.14 1.31 Medium 

Kentucky Western 39.72 38.05 -1.67 Medium

Louisiana Eastern 60.50 58.69 -1.81 Large

Louisiana Middle 22.61 25.94 3.33 Small 

Louisiana Western 39.77 36.70 -3.07 Medium

Maine 25.75 26.33 0.58 Small 

Maryland 86.73 82.50 -4.23 Large

Massachusetts 124.60 117.91 -6.69 Extra-Large

Michigan Eastern 112.43 109.22 -3.21 Extra-Large

Michigan Western 40.09 35.97 -4.12 Medium

Minnesota 55.01 52.96 -2.05 Large

Mississippi Northern 22.29 20.78 -1.51 Small

Mississippi Southern 32.44 35.59 3.15 Medium 

Missouri Eastern 64.79 61.08 -3.71 Large

Missouri Western 60.33 62.47 2.14 Large 

Montana 26.19 29.57 3.38 Small 

Nebraska 31.92 27.34 -4.58 Medium

Nevada 47.05 46.52 -0.53 Large

New Hampshire 27.32 25.77 -1.55 Small

New Jersey 154.68 153.41 -1.27 Extra-Large

New Mexico 70.71 69.77 -0.94 Large

New York Eastern 203.82 153.28 -50.54 Extra-Large

New York Northern 43.81 46.01 2.20 Medium 

New York Southern 261.32 260.20 -1.12 Extra-Large

New York Western 63.28 61.05 -2.23 Large

North Carolina Eastern 43.27 43.27 0.00 Medium 

North Carolina Middle 23.78 24.28 0.50 Small 

North Carolina Western 38.07 35.79 -2.28 Medium

North Dakota 18.50 18.90 0.40 Small 

Ohio Northern 79.57 86.55 6.98 Large 

Ohio Southern 60.52 63.53 3.01 Large 

Oklahoma Eastern 14.79 14.71 -0.08 Small

Oklahoma Northern 27.79 28.69 0.90 Medium 

Oklahoma Western 40.81 39.89 -0.92 Medium

Oregon 58.73 54.25 -4.48 Large

Pennsylvania Eastern 150.90 139.01 -11.89 Extra-Large

Pennsylvania Middle 36.07 38.29 2.22 Medium 

Pennsylvania Western 52.10 56.53 4.43 Large 

Puerto Rico 50.23 47.98 -2.25 Large

Rhode Island 22.24 18.78 -3.46 Small
APPENDIX V 

- 73 - 

DISTRICT 

FY 2003 

TOTALS 

FY 2007 

TOTALS 

CHANGE 

BETWEEN FYs 

2003 AND 2007 DISTRICT SIZE

South Carolina 65.58 62.44 -3.14 Large

South Dakota 31.86 26.80 -5.06 Medium

Tennessee Eastern 39.80 44.46 4.66 Medium 

Tennessee Middle 27.92 36.43 8.51 Medium 

Tennessee Western 42.99 39.83 -3.16 Medium

Texas Eastern 55.10 53.86 -1.24 Large

Texas Northern 88.36 93.21 4.85 Large 

Texas Southern 167.59 170.75 3.16 Extra-Large 

Texas Western 126.51 128.65 2.14 Extra-Large 

Utah 46.87 44.26 -2.61 Medium

Vermont 23.48 21.81 -1.67 Small

Virginia Eastern 139.91 142.91 3.00 Extra-Large 

Virginia Western 26.70 26.74 0.04 Small 

Virgin Islands 22.37 18.07 -4.30 Small

Washington Eastern 28.14 29.35 1.21 Medium 

Washington Western 70.97 67.51 -3.46 Large

West Virginia Northern 23.24 22.22 -1.02 Small

West Virginia Southern 30.03 29.79 -0.24 Medium

Wisconsin Eastern 42.32 43.15 0.83 Medium 

Wisconsin Western 22.88 23.48 0.60 Small 

Wyoming 19.39 21.08 1.69 Small 

Total 6,274.04 5,982.69 -291.35 
APPENDIX VI 

- 74 - 

UNUSED USAO ATTORNEY FTEs 

This appendix presents the percentage of unused attorney FTEs during 

FYs 2003 through 2007. For this analysis, we compared the total attorney 

FTEs allocated to the total attorney FTEs utilized within each USAO 

throughout our review period. However, we excluded any time recorded in 

excess of a standard 40-hour work week. For example, during FY 2003, the 

Middle District of Alabama was allocated 19.1 attorney FTEs and utilized 

18.17 attorney FTEs. Thus, this district had a total of 0.93 unused attorney 

FTEs – equating to 4.86 percent. Positive percentages shown within this 

appendix indicate that a USAO did not use its entire allocation of attorney 

FTEs. In contrast, negative percentages indicate that a USAO utilized more 

than its allocated amount of attorney FTEs. 

PERCENTAGE OF UNUSED ATTORNEY FTE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Alabama - Middle 4.86% 8.97% 7.40% 1.96% 4.94% Small 

Alabama - Northern -1.37% 1.68% 11.25% 7.13% 7.72% Large 

Alabama - Southern 3.09% -0.38% -0.47% 3.62% 4.23% Small 

Alaska 18.05% 11.03% 10.44% 20.86% 11.10% Small 

Arizona 2.91% 7.78% 7.48% 11.56% 11.06% Extra-Large

Arkansas - Eastern -0.52% 1.20% 1.71% 5.94% 7.37% Medium 

Arkansas - Western 5.84% 10.78% 5.16% 5.16% 13.52% Small 

California - Central 2.29% 2.20% 4.24% 9.25% 18.10% Extra-Large

California - Eastern 8.23% 8.22% 10.52% 19.18% 18.12% Large 

California - Northern 1.03% 0.72% 4.27% 10.45% 15.67% Extra-Large

California - Southern 10.17% 12.29% 4.32% 9.06% 17.17% Extra-Large

Colorado -1.88% -0.14% 0.51% 11.36% 10.75% Large 

Connecticut -2.21% -1.97% -1.94% -0.97% 3.72% Large 

Delaware 4.87% -3.61% 6.36% 12.30% 5.83% Small 

District of Columbia 3.45% 4.78% 5.67% 11.27% 13.47% Extra-Large

Florida - Middle 1.83% 3.31% 4.52% 12.58% 15.82% Extra-Large

Florida - Northern 0.74% 2.63% 5.99% 8.38% 9.82% Medium 

Florida - Southern 7.17% 8.99% 15.23% 18.57% 18.77% Extra-Large

Georgia - Middle 2.42% 0.28% 4.21% 1.65% -1.13% Medium 

Georgia - Northern -0.60% 0.17% 2.80% 1.71% 6.57% Large 

Georgia - Southern 2.45% 3.36% 7.85% 4.76% 12.70% Medium 

Guam 11.10% 10.60% 17.10% 19.70% 27.20% Small 

Hawaii -2.66% 2.29% 3.99% 2.76% 6.53% Medium 

Idaho -1.74% -4.78% -3.07% -5.04% -4.40% Small 

Illinois - Central 5.89% 0.88% 7.20% 6.60% 5.88% Medium 

Illinois - Northern 6.10% 3.52% 4.78% 14.43% 16.29% Extra-Large

Illinois - Southern -5.77% -4.13% -2.18% 0.80% 3.14% Medium 

Indiana - Northern 7.05% 4.73% 8.84% 4.96% 8.99% Medium 

Indiana - Southern -2.63% 2.23% 3.45% 5.22% 7.41% Medium 
APPENDIX VI 

- 75 - 

PERCENTAGE OF UNUSED ATTORNEY FTE

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

OFFICE 

SIZE

Iowa - Northern -0.29% -0.27% -2.17% -5.81% 0.57% Small 

Iowa - Southern -1.36% -1.78% -4.32% -3.82% -3.44% Small 

Kansas -4.32% -4.49% -2.52% -2.08% 2.21% Medium 

Kentucky - Eastern 2.65% 4.63% 6.89% 5.89% 6.93% Medium 

Kentucky - Western 3.35% 7.33% 10.29% 5.98% 7.46% Medium 

Louisiana - Eastern 6.98% 2.01% 13.25% 12.85% 11.64% Large 

Louisiana - Middle 9.32% 0.93% -4.99% -0.67% -3.37% Small 

Louisiana - Western -1.35% -3.44% -0.76% 2.69% 7.56% Medium 

Maine 0.13% 4.42% 1.96% 4.36% 4.00% Small 

Maryland 3.37% 3.55% 5.53% 10.33% 10.54% Large 

Massachusetts 3.47% 5.08% 6.78% 8.94% 14.69% Extra-Large

Michigan - Eastern 0.08% 1.12% 2.30% 5.97% 6.48% Extra-Large

Michigan - Western 6.80% 2.56% 4.21% 7.14% 14.39% Medium 

Minnesota 4.79% 3.67% 4.49% 6.09% 14.93% Large 

Mississippi - Northern 5.12% 4.83% 12.41% 7.19% 9.68% Small 

Mississippi - Southern -1.60% 0.02% 5.68% 9.49% -5.15% Medium 

Missouri - Eastern -0.52% 2.56% 3.87% 4.28% 2.56% Large 

Missouri - Western 1.71% -2.10% -2.15% 0.61% 1.29% Large 

Montana 1.92% 4.78% 5.55% 4.07% 0.21% Small 

Nebraska -10.81% -11.17% -3.48% 4.01% 11.03% Medium 

Nevada 10.85% 1.03% -0.91% 5.81% 15.56% Large 

New Hampshire -2.90% 3.32% 3.00% 3.99% 5.98% Small 

New Jersey 5.95% 5.99% 6.74% 8.45% 8.84% Extra-Large

New Mexico 5.14% 3.83% 3.64% 6.53% 8.59% Large 

New York - Eastern 7.14% 4.06% 5.49% 29.77% 31.12% Extra-Large

New York - Northern 9.60% 2.50% 2.27% 3.50% 5.20% Medium 

New York - Southern 1.92% 2.87% 6.43% 8.94% 15.15% Extra-Large

New York - Western -1.20% 2.73% 7.19% 8.80% 6.41% Large 

North Carolina - Eastern -0.04% 0.72% 4.48% 2.62% 4.00% Medium 

North Carolina - Middle -0.78% -1.90% 1.38% 3.77% 6.04% Small 

North Carolina - Western 5.77% 2.42% 11.98% 7.20% 7.67% Medium 

North Dakota 3.05% 2.22% 3.99% 2.05% 2.44% Small 

Ohio - Northern 8.45% 3.17% 0.53% 5.55% 4.67% Large 

Ohio - Southern -4.87% -7.22% -3.97% -0.89% -0.43% Large 

Oklahoma - Eastern 10.80% 15.51% 4.65% 0.21% 11.97% Small 

Oklahoma - Northern 3.43% 1.51% 4.98% 0.88% -0.28% Medium 

Oklahoma - Western 1.32% 0.03% 1.00% 7.73% 4.48% Medium 

Oregon -1.31% -0.25% 3.98% 5.43% 13.63% Large 

Pennsylvania - Eastern 1.86% 1.12% 1.52% 10.28% 10.50% Extra-Large

Pennsylvania - Middle 5.94% 0.08% 0.30% 1.63% 2.50% Medium 

Pennsylvania - Western 10.87% 8.63% 10.14% 12.19% 11.92% Large 

Puerto Rico 9.15% 5.18% 17.34% 18.98% 24.34% Large 

Rhode Island 8.43% 14.59% 13.79% 20.29% 23.54% Small 

South Carolina -1.19% -1.77% 5.10% 7.02% 2.27% Large 

South Dakota 5.67% 3.49% 9.97% 10.13% 16.91% Medium 

Tennessee - Eastern 11.98% 9.41% 9.36% 5.52% 8.36% Medium 

Tennessee - Middle 13.40% 11.47% 6.24% 2.97% 5.10% Medium 
APPENDIX VI 

- 76 - 

PERCENTAGE OF UNUSED ATTORNEY FTE

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

OFFICE 

SIZE

Tennessee - Western 0.93% 1.66% 1.52% 6.80% 8.17% Medium 

Texas - Eastern 3.12% 3.10% 3.02% 4.87% 8.37% Large 

Texas - Northern 10.94% 10.77% 11.47% 7.04% 8.58% Large 

Texas - Southern 6.86% 5.76% 4.74% 8.40% 10.23% Extra-Large

Texas - Western 4.04% 4.74% 4.34% 4.96% 5.41% Extra-Large

Utah -1.63% -4.12% 1.56% 1.40% 5.28% Medium 

Vermont -4.07% 0.86% 1.02% 5.71% 5.12% Small 

Virginia - Eastern 1.89% 1.80% 1.71% 5.52% 4.50% Extra-Large

Virginia - Western 5.75% 1.54% 0.99% 1.65% 3.72% Small 

Virgin Islands 8.64% 14.65% 31.17% 24.12% 17.60% Small 

Washington - Eastern 1.24% 2.59% 1.35% 1.69% 1.24% Medium 

Washington - Western 1.48% 2.11% 2.78% 10.30% 12.13% Large 

West Virginia - Northern -5.16% -6.91% -4.94% 1.92% 1.29% Small 

West Virginia - Southern 7.25% 3.40% 7.01% 4.95% 10.72% Medium 

Wisconsin - Eastern 6.60% 7.93% 9.66% 7.02% 3.91% Medium 

Wisconsin - Western -2.00% -7.02% -3.19% 2.49% -3.04% Small 

Wyoming 6.37% 8.85% 8.30% 6.59% 10.80% Small 

Total Percentage of 

Unused Attorney FTE 3.59% 3.47% 5.21% 8.86% 11.01% 
APPENDIX VII 

- 77 - 

COUNTERTERRORISM BURN RATES 

This appendix provides the burn rates of attorney FTEs, in percentage 

terms, for the prosecutorial area of counterterrorism. For these 

computations, we compared the number of attorney FTEs allocated to the 

total number of attorney FTEs utilized (including time recorded in excess of a 

standard 40-hour work week) within each USAO. For example, in FY 2004, 

the District of Columbia was allocated 7 attorney FTEs for counterterrorism 

and utilized a total of 9.8476 attorney FTEs on such matters. This amounted 

to an overburn of 2.8476 FTEs, which equated to a 40.68-percent overburn. 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Alabama - Middle -79.87% -90.90% -82.47% -90.99% -91.04% Small

Alabama - Northern -25.42% 42.16% -6.86% -37.10% -66.21% Large 

Alabama - Southern -27.90% -79.44% -90.46% -99.47% -62.87% Small

Alaska -54.56% -34.21% -46.50% -41.70% -46.79% Small 

Arizona -21.64% -2.30% 2.15% -3.13% -18.72% Extra-Large

Arkansas - Eastern -74.40% -86.27% -100.00% -99.90% -94.61% Medium 

Arkansas - Western -100.00% -91.67% -74.57% -64.36% -90.46% Small 

California - Central -5.07% 16.49% 34.71% -46.37% -10.66% Extra-Large

California - Eastern 70.70% 15.74% 1.62% -27.12% -25.66% Large 

California - Northern -18.87% -54.36% -73.66% -32.49% -55.91% Extra-Large

California - Southern 20.77% -16.43% 11.89% -9.47% -45.53% Extra-Large

Colorado -54.68% -67.51% -92.28% -97.56% -81.07% Large 

Connecticut -10.90% 11.36% -16.36% -22.96% -26.05% Large 

Delaware -95.06% -94.99% -85.63% -94.99% -95.50% Small

District of Columbia -3.19% 40.68% 73.53% 71.32% 45.98% Extra-Large

Florida - Middle 18.81% -0.26% 41.27% -35.42% -43.81% Extra-Large

Florida - Northern -68.10% -71.59% -81.27% -85.07% -83.56% Medium 

Florida - Southern 2.44% -8.63% 5.26% 25.79% 37.36% Extra-Large

Georgia - Middle -64.46% -53.67% -43.96% -50.98% -34.21% Medium 

Georgia - Northern -38.41% -60.27% -52.54% -43.00% -60.91% Large 

Georgia - Southern -71.63% 1.92% -99.81% -95.45% -85.63% Medium 

Guam -80.23% -94.46% -99.90% -100.00% -100.00% Small 

Hawaii -38.99% -49.29% -51.99% 14.47% -8.89% Medium 

Idaho 95.59% 128.93% -4.07% -45.64% -69.66% Small

Illinois - Central -62.85% -55.38% -69.47% -69.76% -21.17% Medium 

Illinois - Northern -23.01% -48.93% 2.04% -28.29% -30.54% Extra-Large

Illinois - Southern -64.62% -90.22% -74.47% -45.87% -63.83% Medium

Indiana - Northern -54.83% -68.15% -86.54% -74.31% -74.40% Medium 

Indiana - Southern -26.53% -56.93% -44.49% -23.31% -58.22% Medium 

Iowa - Northern -14.95% -30.56% 10.10% -60.13% -55.99% Small 

Iowa - Southern -13.56% -44.66% -27.80% -28.67% -27.13% Small

Kansas -70.07% -44.09% -32.53% 8.34% 40.24% Medium

Kentucky - Eastern -34.31% -44.04% -53.86% -64.84% -51.65% Medium

Kentucky - Western 19.58% -11.33% -41.67% -32.56% -49.38% Medium 
APPENDIX VII 

- 78 - 

PERCENT CHANGE OFFICE

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 SIZE

Louisiana - Eastern 34.98% -26.75% -66.49% -77.08% -41.17% Large 

Louisiana - Middle -48.09% -80.45% -61.43% -62.53% -89.94% Small 

Louisiana - Western -23.26% -29.62% 1.81% -24.06% -39.86% Medium 

Maine -4.29% 2.64% -23.99% -40.75% -16.67% Small 

Maryland 79.90% 56.17% 20.59% 1.12% 63.38% Large 

Massachusetts -11.85% -0.07% 7.79% -13.41% -17.39% Extra-Large

Michigan - Eastern 6.82% 15.16% 10.36% -12.83% -0.06% Extra-Large

Michigan - Western -26.46% -32.24% -33.21% -63.88% -62.10% Medium 

Minnesota 91.12% 104.41% 81.94% -32.89% -33.26% Large 

Mississippi - Northern -78.53% -44.09% -54.34% -60.37% -90.22% Small

Mississippi - Southern -91.33% -80.79% -65.34% -85.10% -83.41% Medium 

Missouri - Eastern 19.05% 19.52% 27.57% 15.29% -19.84% Large 

Missouri - Western -65.58% -50.33% -75.23% -21.36% -21.12% Large 

Montana -17.84% -13.29% -36.52% -46.12% -68.85% Small 

Nebraska 12.23% 1.59% -5.06% 17.32% -79.68% Medium 

Nevada -23.63% -14.55% -61.36% -80.88% -94.00% Large 

New Hampshire -27.10% -50.64% -47.32% -70.00% -80.02% Small 

New Jersey -32.70% -28.50% -20.93% -51.09% -40.43% Extra-Large

New Mexico 174.22% 51.67% 11.15% 7.58% 26.85% Large 

New York - Eastern 6.66% -23.94% -52.99% -78.69% -57.46% Extra-Large

New York - Northern 80.33% 94.01% 87.18% 47.56% 11.49% Medium

New York - Southern -52.09% -37.69% -78.65% -78.26% 7.14% Extra-Large

New York - Western -28.72% -49.33% -56.77% -49.45% -59.14% Large 

North Carolina - Eastern -73.49% -53.49% -32.88% -44.08% -60.85% Medium 

North Carolina - Middle -57.61% -65.66% -82.08% -83.14% -91.47% Small 

North Carolina - Western -8.34% -10.47% -41.89% -71.37% -54.81% Medium 

North Dakota -99.66% -81.31% -90.90% -100.00% -99.42% Small 

Ohio - Northern -14.97% 86.09% 58.83% 48.32% 94.68% Large 

Ohio - Southern -5.02% 34.28% 8.72% -22.52% 15.95% Large 

Oklahoma - Eastern -99.23% -83.33% -75.00% -100.00% -90.80% Small 

Oklahoma - Northern -98.75% -100.00% -100.00% -90.80% -90.08% Medium 

Oklahoma - Western 58.59% -9.42% -49.25% -66.94% -68.00% Medium 

Oregon 21.71% 22.10% -6.08% -11.86% -14.96% Large 

Pennsylvania - Eastern 30.00% 43.34% 69.67% 12.79% 7.67% Extra-Large

Pennsylvania - Middle -77.32% -99.33% -99.57% -96.73% -86.19% Medium

Pennsylvania - Western -26.53% -35.83% -25.07% -42.24% -65.85% Large

Puerto Rico -95.28% -95.16% -93.38% -93.34% -96.95% Large 

Rhode Island 16.46% 19.10% -74.47% -91.33% -82.37% Small

South Carolina -2.09% 0.98% -30.90% -27.89% -34.75% Large 

South Dakota -4.21% -72.21% -99.81% -99.57% -99.47% Medium

Tennessee - Eastern -9.36% 3.61% -28.76% -25.95% -33.41% Medium 

Tennessee - Middle -52.68% -72.65% -54.94% -68.20% -61.63% Medium 

Tennessee - Western -59.65% -58.00% -35.52% -40.94% -41.89% Medium 

Texas - Eastern -27.92% -28.25% -21.43% -48.14% -66.67% Large

Texas - Northern 12.78% -7.73% -15.59% -41.94% -41.64% Large 

Texas - Southern 69.60% 64.34% 75.05% 50.38% 35.18% Extra-Large

Texas - Western -2.61% -6.63% -21.93% -6.27% -26.38% Extra-Large

Utah -52.83% -45.83% -87.50% -99.95% -86.71% Medium
APPENDIX VII 

- 79 - 

PERCENT CHANGE OFFICE

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 SIZE

Vermont -80.02% -90.56% -99.81% -99.81% -90.08% Small 

Virginia - Eastern -20.82% -0.13% -2.45% -24.51% -41.86% Extra-Large

Virginia - Western -79.34% -74.78% -95.79% -100.00% -100.00% Small 

Virgin Islands -40.54% -95.54% -90.10% -95.21% -100.00% Small 

Washington - Eastern -40.68% -83.48% -62.75% -93.74% -90.82% Medium 

Washington - Western -0.98% -38.00% -84.54% -75.73% -50.84% Large 

West Virginia - Northern -33.78% 10.64% 9.29% 68.43% 86.47% Small 

West Virginia - Southern -63.01% -72.16% -83.14% -91.33% -100.00% Medium

Wisconsin - Eastern 85.66% 61.23% -37.55% 41.33% 45.98% Medium 

Wisconsin - Western 11.15% 86.46% 46.52% -15.08% 4.66% Small 

Wyoming -72.36% -81.12% -73.80% -70.43% -82.80% Small 

Total Percent Change -18.27% -19.05% -24.45% -35.11% -31.86%
APPENDIX VIII 

- 80 - 

HEALTH CARE FRAUD BURN RATES 

This appendix provides the burn rates of attorney FTEs, in percentage 

terms, for the prosecutorial area of health care fraud. For these 

computations, we compared the number of attorney FTEs allocated to the 

total number of attorney FTEs utilized (including time recorded in excess of a 

standard 40-hour work week) within each USAO. For example, in FY 2007, 

the Central District of California was allocated 6 attorney FTEs for health 

care fraud and utilized a total of 12.3972 attorney FTEs on such matters. 

This amounted to an overburn of 6.3972 FTEs, which equated to a 

106.62-percent overburn. 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Alabama - Middle -89.46% -63.11% -62.24% -90.90% -100.00% Small

Alabama - Northern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large 

Alabama - Southern -72.60% -91.04% -99.66% -100.00% -90.75% Small

Alaska N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Arizona N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Extra-Large

Arkansas - Eastern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Arkansas - Western N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

California - Central 160.40% 203.46% 178.34% 155.37% 106.62% Extra-Large

California - Eastern -2.55% -8.32% -24.58% -56.46% 28.04% Large 

California - Northern 29.73% 39.13% 103.72% 148.06% 30.40% Extra-Large

California - Southern 92.95% 108.41% 205.29% 102.03% -55.17% Extra-Large

Colorado 6.70% 4.33% 1.15% 22.68% 4.70% Large 

Connecticut 32.58% 43.37% 19.91% 40.99% 7.94% Large 

Delaware -10.29% -42.69% -60.32% -72.12% -90.46% Small

District of Columbia 285.37% 63.00% 89.60% 120.05% 167.28% Extra-Large

Florida - Middle 18.62% -10.09% -24.23% -27.06% -30.56% Extra-Large

Florida - Northern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Florida - Southern 107.21% 115.83% 123.64% 110.87% 135.80% Extra-Large

Georgia - Middle N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Georgia - Northern 69.27% 51.38% 37.60% 59.00% 36.99% Large 

Georgia - Southern -52.08% -6.63% 180.29% 295.59% 90.43% Medium 

Guam N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Hawaii N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Idaho 17.08% 12.48% 23.62% 42.72% -31.19% Small

Illinois - Central 81.19% 77.26% 91.73% 3.17% 40.03% Medium 

Illinois - Northern 64.44% 82.86% 45.82% 61.16% 55.09% Extra-Large

Illinois - Southern 328.91% 277.23% 80.48% 17.04% -58.97% Medium

Indiana - Northern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Indiana - Southern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Iowa - Northern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Iowa - Southern -19.23% -26.94% -31.46% 42.16% -63.30% Small

Kansas -26.89% -20.66% -15.75% 26.42% -13.75% Medium

Kentucky - Eastern 92.56% 36.25% 26.09% -6.09% -14.33% Medium
APPENDIX VIII 

- 81 - 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Kentucky - Western 19.49% 28.49% 91.91% 107.29% 56.07% Medium 

Louisiana - Eastern 136.54% 149.87% 83.62% 6.92% 48.04% Large 

Louisiana - Middle N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Louisiana - Western -35.22% -7.15% 128.96% 115.69% 44.04% Medium 

Maine N/A 34.36% 89.57% 105.59% 63.03% Small 

Maryland 118.97% 106.70% 173.73% 126.27% 147.18% Large 

Massachusetts 128.00% 65.84% 65.85% 67.15% 57.41% Extra-Large

Michigan - Eastern 88.20% 92.41% 73.87% 96.59% 139.97% Extra-Large

Michigan - Western 133.48% 104.60% 106.96% -6.76% 46.49% Medium 

Minnesota 61.54% -21.11% -12.34% 65.00% 52.61% Large 

Mississippi - Northern 35.54% -32.28% -23.14% -47.12% -12.05% Small

Mississippi - Southern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Missouri - Eastern 149.66% 216.84% 192.13% 149.76% 213.69% Large 

Missouri - Western -14.54% -24.15% 16.62% 23.49% 40.74% Large 

Montana N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Nebraska N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Nevada -75.15% -3.27% 13.08% 7.30% 11.15% Large 

New Hampshire N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

New Jersey 27.58% 40.38% -0.83% 63.17% 78.64% Extra-Large

New Mexico N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large 

New York - Eastern 128.96% 228.56% 252.80% 156.68% 151.46% Extra-Large

New York - Northern 16.17% 13.59% 22.72% -46.78% -18.99% Medium

New York - Southern 6.61% -17.09% -44.36% -73.85% -22.02% Extra-Large

New York - Western N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large 

North Carolina - Eastern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

North Carolina - Middle 117.05% 118.49% 67.72% 69.17% 66.67% Small 

North Carolina - Western -39.42% -5.66% 122.93% 79.26% 52.77% Medium 

North Dakota N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Ohio - Northern 86.62% 107.55% 107.94% 126.17% 75.83% Large 

Ohio - Southern -15.43% -26.12% -34.31% -15.72% 64.33% Large 

Oklahoma - Eastern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Oklahoma - Northern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Oklahoma - Western N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Oregon N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Large 

Pennsylvania - Eastern 170.01% 148.15% 166.97% 234.00% 183.16% Extra-Large

Pennsylvania - Middle -83.77% -53.58% -47.64% -56.06% -54.44% Medium

Pennsylvania - Western -14.62% -2.43% -2.20% -15.68% -39.50% Large

Puerto Rico 14.68% -19.09% 25.90% 59.49% 14.60% Large 

Rhode Island 153.24% 204.07% 28.88% 23.75% -11.96% Small

South Carolina 129.65% 116.04% 67.04% 92.45% 89.89% Large 

South Dakota -13.94% -20.24% -3.09% 0.90% -22.45% Medium

Tennessee - Eastern 117.24% 80.69% 53.33% 39.13% 82.40% Medium 

Tennessee - Middle N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Tennessee - Western N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Texas - Eastern 176.83% 322.80% 134.05% 43.48% -1.75% Large

Texas - Northern 139.47% 188.62% 200.61% 248.32% 174.62% Large 

Texas - Southern N/A 348.35% 355.96% 430.16% 427.93% Extra-Large

Texas - Western 66.39% 26.07% -2.86% 44.94% 28.69% Extra-Large
APPENDIX VIII 

- 82 - 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Utah -91.57% -100.00% -100.00% -100.00% -49.68% Medium

Vermont N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Virginia - Eastern 134.90% 156.68% 48.09% 17.40% 52.43% Extra-Large

Virginia - Western N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Virgin Islands N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Washington - Eastern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Medium 

Washington - Western 15.70% -0.87% 3.08% 9.85% 2.53% Large 

West Virginia - Northern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

West Virginia - Southern 10.48% 26.47% 16.03% 5.24% -9.46% Medium

Wisconsin - Eastern 169.50% 134.20% 140.46% 132.47% 93.03% Medium 

Wisconsin - Western 73.59% 69.17% 55.96% 54.04% 163.75% Small 

Wyoming N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Small 

Total Percent Change 88.54% 84.01% 81.61% 79.48% 64.95% 
APPENDIX IX 

- 83 - 

OCDETF BURN RATES 

This appendix provides the burn rates of attorney FTEs, in percentage 

terms, for the prosecutorial area of OCDETF. For these computations, we 

compared the number of attorney FTEs allocated to the total number of 

attorney FTEs utilized (including time recorded in excess of a standard 

40-hour work week) within each USAO. For example, in FY 2004, the 

Central District of California was allocated 21.62 attorney FTEs for OCDETF 

and utilized a total of 33.1706 attorney FTEs on such matters. This 

amounted to an overburn of 11.5506 FTEs, which equated to a 

53.43-percent overburn. 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Alabama - Middle 86.49% 233.07% 173.37% 30.40% -21.34% Small 

Alabama - Northern 39.52% 16.25% 15.68% 40.34% 2.46% Large 

Alabama - Southern -1.81% -0.44% -21.49% 20.92% -13.80% Small 

Alaska 191.34% 210.64% 92.44% 23.41% 39.56% Small 

Arizona 21.22% 7.69% 24.69% 14.01% -1.15% Extra-Large 

Arkansas - Eastern -9.25% -15.99% 49.42% 52.21% -10.29% Medium 

Arkansas - Western 31.05% 14.55% 26.68% 72.15% 88.27% Small 

California - Central 50.57% 53.43% 43.13% 20.67% -9.19% Extra-Large 

California - Eastern 38.75% 22.11% 37.85% 9.02% -4.03% Large 

California - Northern -6.25% -21.08% -12.18% 13.32% 10.00% Extra-Large 

California - Southern 32.12% 30.03% 36.82% 19.39% 10.03% Extra-Large 

Colorado 38.29% 30.71% 32.05% 9.64% 14.24% Large 

Connecticut 105.37% 56.71% 72.69% 47.08% 41.89% Large 

Delaware -32.76% -12.14% 8.75% -40.53% -57.99% Small 

District of Columbia 181.74% 119.62% 123.75% 163.15% 143.27% Extra-Large 

Florida - Middle 39.57% 36.79% 41.60% 13.95% 0.53% Extra-Large 

Florida - Northern 4.40% 3.05% -13.95% -23.33% -19.86% Medium 

Florida - Southern 85.20% 55.39% 36.45% 30.60% 32.71% Extra-Large 

Georgia - Middle 71.18% 21.53% 70.29% 93.82% 179.16% Medium 

Georgia - Northern 58.01% 51.69% 22.92% 17.50% 15.24% Large 

Georgia - Southern -29.99% -41.34% -58.97% -58.64% -29.22% Medium 

Guam N/A N/A -6.51% -56.36% -46.11% Small 

Hawaii 52.90% 50.88% 23.37% -3.84% -0.16% Medium 

Idaho 51.34% 37.28% 72.78% 41.50% 26.25% Small 

Illinois - Central 3.67% 18.84% 60.36% 37.58% 43.35% Medium 

Illinois - Northern 53.66% 58.48% 72.45% 37.70% 27.86% Extra-Large 

Illinois - Southern -16.58% -21.40% 11.08% 38.44% 55.26% Medium 

Indiana - Northern 24.31% 16.14% 23.80% -12.98% -25.40% Medium 

Indiana - Southern 60.23% 66.99% 66.42% 39.21% 57.01% Medium 

Iowa - Northern 213.56% 210.27% 210.56% 134.32% 116.10% Small 

Iowa - Southern 59.57% 45.63% 69.70% 52.76% 15.01% Small 
APPENDIX IX 

- 84 - 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Kansas 290.16% 235.74% 185.50% 133.72% 16.55% Medium 

Kentucky - Eastern 82.48% 53.70% 81.65% 37.29% 31.63% Medium 

Kentucky - Western 41.41% 55.87% 18.23% -1.82% 9.15% Medium 

Louisiana - Eastern 14.42% 79.33% 56.06% 41.04% 0.88% Large 

Louisiana - Middle 218.69% 161.25% 100.85% 109.37% 54.89% Small 

Louisiana - Western -15.01% 0.30% 6.37% 7.10% 42.05% Medium 

Maine -0.73% -55.14% -45.85% -50.91% -21.58% Small 

Maryland 58.79% 53.09% 8.24% 19.77% 11.78% Large 

Massachusetts 10.05% -0.02% 29.13% 25.34% 17.46% Extra-Large 

Michigan - Eastern 22.47% 12.49% 7.27% -10.04% -5.65% Extra-Large 

Michigan - Western -8.13% 8.80% 29.01% 89.86% 61.21% Medium 

Minnesota 12.48% 3.69% 34.78% -14.75% -2.86% Large 

Mississippi - Northern 74.89% 58.37% 50.35% 62.96% 20.11% Small 

Mississippi - Southern 31.69% 34.58% 26.87% 30.04% 9.81% Medium 

Missouri - Eastern -3.36% -0.93% -7.88% -23.43% -38.01% Large 

Missouri - Western 73.85% 60.79% 62.99% 54.84% 79.90% Large 

Montana 73.41% 57.13% 15.35% 22.20% 60.95% Small 

Nebraska 247.31% 224.95% 138.56% 6.13% -4.83% Medium 

Nevada -54.74% -20.73% -3.03% -5.26% -17.07% Large 

New Hampshire 11.83% -42.21% 15.68% 13.22% 22.75% Small 

New Jersey 43.47% 19.47% 27.38% 36.07% 49.89% Extra-Large 

New Mexico 121.27% 170.68% 129.80% 57.89% 6.27% Large 

New York - Eastern 38.21% 44.95% 49.16% -3.76% 15.89% Extra-Large 

New York - Northern 19.61% 11.16% 6.86% 26.76% 50.71% Medium 

New York - Southern 85.35% 59.44% 6.12% -23.46% 3.87% Extra-Large 

New York - Western 124.61% 98.37% 93.34% 77.36% 57.05% Large 

North Carolina - Eastern 29.91% 9.75% -10.12% 32.53% 67.58% Medium 

North Carolina - Middle 6.84% 1.56% 17.69% -8.15% 29.27% Small 

North Carolina - Western 11.03% 33.89% 28.56% 17.85% -1.58% Medium 

North Dakota 19.95% 100.14% 33.54% 69.72% 95.77% Small 

Ohio - Northern 18.13% 22.96% 35.73% 32.42% 44.23% Large 

Ohio - Southern 5.32% 34.18% 35.00% 26.12% 20.86% Large 

Oklahoma - Eastern 81.65% 56.35% 54.09% 143.13% 28.73% Small 

Oklahoma - Northern 15.04% 21.36% 35.26% 73.08% 58.17% Medium 

Oklahoma - Western 42.19% 40.82% 40.01% 39.52% 25.72% Medium 

Oregon 64.27% 75.73% 20.48% 33.00% 30.25% Large 

Pennsylvania - Eastern 19.13% 13.07% 34.88% 43.81% 23.88% Extra-Large 

Pennsylvania - Middle 138.51% 127.14% 99.78% 12.23% 21.93% Medium 

Pennsylvania - Western 2.95% -1.98% 17.15% -12.70% 26.72% Large 

Puerto Rico 177.46% 224.93% 43.19% 4.96% -29.04% Large 

Rhode Island 13.77% -14.94% 14.96% 34.44% 32.96% Small 

South Carolina 69.11% 45.03% 41.02% 22.76% 18.74% Large 

South Dakota -69.90% -75.50% -59.41% -34.93% -22.39% Medium 

Tennessee - Eastern 13.46% 23.89% 26.48% 20.89% 19.34% Medium 

Tennessee - Middle 101.18% 128.08% 121.14% 37.73% 100.83% Medium 

Tennessee - Western -36.34% -22.79% 17.37% 52.16% 29.55% Medium 
APPENDIX IX 

- 85 - 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Texas - Eastern 13.48% -3.81% 44.42% 33.88% 37.58% Large 

Texas - Northern 16.04% 12.14% 27.00% 16.25% 9.41% Large 

Texas - Southern 24.02% 23.49% 23.09% 9.74% 12.80% Extra-Large 

Texas - Western 63.30% 43.91% 28.30% 10.95% 1.21% Extra-Large 

Utah 11.76% 55.08% -6.89% -9.55% -22.90% Medium 

Vermont 27.67% 3.29% 5.30% 10.31% -25.77% Small 

Virginia - Eastern 83.01% 69.37% 63.27% 56.41% 78.64% Extra-Large 

Virginia - Western 42.57% 3.02% -17.25% 30.96% 8.42% Small 

Virgin Islands -6.27% -7.11% -16.70% 9.26% 55.13% Small 

Washington - Eastern 78.67% 24.94% 90.82% 6.20% -17.76% Medium 

Washington - Western 46.70% 73.48% 70.44% 62.26% 39.16% Large 

West Virginia - Northern -36.43% -63.02% -79.46% -81.25% -62.69% Small 

West Virginia - Southern 26.91% -9.86% -13.81% 3.07% 4.32% Medium 

Wisconsin - Eastern 27.26% 19.38% 22.81% 22.14% 11.57% Medium 

Wisconsin - Western 47.49% 47.42% 63.42% 96.42% 116.22% Small 

Wyoming -19.79% 30.78% 30.25% 45.21% 27.66% Small 

Total Percent Change 41.41% 34.60% 33.14% 21.55% 17.44% 
APPENDIX X 

- 86 - 

FIREARMS BURN RATES 

This appendix provides the burn rates of attorney FTEs, in percentage 

terms, for the prosecutorial area of firearms. For these computations, we 

compared the number of attorney FTEs allocated to the total number of 

attorney FTEs utilized (including time recorded in excess of a standard 

40-hour work week) within each USAO. For example, in FY 2007, the 

Northern District of Georgia was allocated 7 attorney FTEs for firearms and 

utilized a total of 4.4285 attorney FTEs on such matters. This amounted to 

an underburn of 2.5715 FTEs, which equated to a 36.74-percent underburn. 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Alabama - Middle 238.70% 278.33% 186.92% 182.99% 120.68% Small 

Alabama - Northern 199.67% 233.81% 169.67% 190.79% 163.91% Large 

Alabama - Southern -7.48% -29.35% -18.55% -32.79% -17.98% Small 

Alaska 45.49% 18.93% 40.48% -52.45% -31.66% Small 

Arizona -44.72% -56.97% -39.42% -26.16% -37.00% Extra-Large 

Arkansas - Eastern -49.16% -23.95% -20.96% -9.47% -10.05% Medium 

Arkansas - Western -23.57% -11.08% -27.57% -49.91% -58.70% Small 

California - Central 32.56% 31.87% 54.29% -8.89% -43.60% Extra-Large 

California - Eastern 13.48% 62.34% 60.32% 79.30% 44.31% Large 

California - Northern -5.25% 40.54% 47.47% 96.32% -7.17% Extra-Large 

California - Southern 2.48% -17.14% -57.78% -42.43% -61.08% Extra-Large 

Colorado 36.22% 57.53% 39.60% -0.90% -23.85% Large 

Connecticut 13.45% 59.52% 26.93% 36.15% 51.49% Large 

Delaware -12.61% -49.97% -5.27% -27.84% 45.16% Small 

District of Columbia 1,006.69% 1,029.52% 452.24% 439.83% 389.82% Extra-Large 

Florida - Middle 30.97% 53.81% 54.29% 61.01% 65.16% Extra-Large 

Florida - Northern -23.33% -1.89% -21.47% -21.25% -39.37% Medium 

Florida - Southern -54.69% 4.98% 49.50% 46.47% 138.07% Extra-Large 

Georgia - Middle -26.83% -19.58% -1.04% 12.80% 14.61% Medium 

Georgia - Northern -82.11% 8.53% 9.80% -2.38% -36.74% Large 

Georgia - Southern 168.32% 164.11% 135.00% 115.42% 102.50% Medium 

Guam -86.49% -11.30% -56.70% -72.38% -71.50% Small 

Hawaii 234.13% 310.70% 298.44% 150.66% 22.13% Medium 

Idaho 35.60% 68.23% 117.94% 76.50% 45.97% Small 

Illinois - Central -24.26% 151.50% 142.56% 173.08% 204.72% Medium 

Illinois - Northern 13.16% 28.90% 61.89% -5.62% -9.83% Extra-Large 

Illinois - Southern 253.80% 412.55% 296.66% 248.79% 127.67% Medium 

Indiana - Northern -39.71% -23.37% 17.39% 2.27% 9.99% Medium 

Indiana - Southern -8.79% -3.73% -24.77% -33.42% -24.16% Medium 

Iowa - Northern -11.49% 46.99% 42.63% 62.51% 92.76% Small 

Iowa - Southern 184.05% 214.73% 143.76% 102.78% 105.70% Small 

Kansas 103.75% 239.85% 190.78% 104.61% 163.09% Medium 

Kentucky - Eastern -31.39% -28.78% -53.74% 2.32% 45.80% Medium 

Kentucky - Western -51.36% 10.37% 28.42% 30.36% 61.29% Medium 
APPENDIX X 

- 87 - 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Louisiana - Eastern -11.44% -0.87% -16.73% -43.57% -34.38% Large 

Louisiana - Middle 1.81% 77.44% 122.29% 114.48% 150.96% Small 

Louisiana - Western -36.36% 68.64% 100.42% 84.10% 34.18% Medium 

Maine 37.26% 32.89% 11.97% 19.36% 37.94% Small 

Maryland -96.70% -26.68% 2.04% -4.53% -17.05% Large 

Massachusetts -9.22% 6.02% -4.76% 6.15% 6.14% Extra-Large 

Michigan - Eastern 12.28% 32.10% 35.13% 34.44% -8.48% Extra-Large 

Michigan - Western 95.38% 81.75% 90.71% 89.06% 49.37% Medium 

Minnesota -54.83% -24.73% 4.09% 6.08% 8.17% Large 

Mississippi - Northern 36.18% 102.00% 100.97% 106.09% 71.95% Small 

Mississippi - Southern -80.69% -81.99% -75.08% -26.04% -61.95% Medium 

Missouri - Eastern -80.09% -80.88% -85.38% -78.06% -83.43% Large 

Missouri - Western 173.90% 176.81% 193.38% 186.81% 176.16% Large 

Montana -55.45% -26.17% -15.87% 13.29% 16.14% Small 

Nebraska -92.91% 115.02% 182.26% 139.99% 57.42% Medium 

Nevada -51.11% -28.91% -13.04% -8.56% -27.40% Large 

New Hampshire -58.57% 15.09% -4.13% 7.00% 89.27% Small 

New Jersey -40.84% -47.28% -68.39% -83.67% -39.25% Extra-Large 

New Mexico 18.56% 39.07% 93.67% 43.19% 7.73% Large 

New York - Eastern -26.56% -58.44% -71.75% -57.77% -51.24% Extra-Large 

New York - Northern -46.47% 2.12% 22.94% -1.66% -17.02% Medium 

New York - Southern -15.90% -39.67% -16.75% -42.52% -69.61% Extra-Large 

New York - Western -96.15% -95.30% -96.49% -97.82% -46.86% Large 

North Carolina - Eastern 178.13% 208.06% 172.22% 193.39% 192.74% Medium 

North Carolina - Middle -51.14% -36.72% 22.17% 26.64% 24.47% Small 

North Carolina - Western -81.44% -32.94% -33.29% 0.44% -7.66% Medium 

North Dakota -80.38% -14.77% -22.84% -20.66% 53.48% Small 

Ohio - Northern -1.11% 61.03% 52.02% 53.83% 79.06% Large 

Ohio - Southern 64.22% 81.77% 81.73% 57.42% 35.03% Large 

Oklahoma - Eastern -42.00% 17.78% 6.99% -44.12% -30.79% Small 

Oklahoma - Northern 155.97% 204.62% 214.16% 268.55% 244.61% Medium 

Oklahoma - Western 132.03% 147.05% 53.11% 33.42% 48.08% Medium 

Oregon 21.56% 42.94% 32.67% 16.26% 31.26% Large 

Pennsylvania - Eastern 83.56% 105.27% 66.37% 36.48% 74.50% Extra-Large 

Pennsylvania - Middle -95.33% 31.81% 36.74% 34.94% 26.62% Medium 

Pennsylvania - Western -81.18% 66.27% 135.15% 93.86% 95.28% Large 

Puerto Rico -47.56% -43.03% -38.10% -33.86% -25.21% Large 

Rhode Island 0.63% 7.78% -27.69% -7.68% -44.20% Small 

South Carolina 53.07% 84.20% 72.17% 110.82% 92.19% Large 

South Dakota 5.67% 2.73% -15.40% -3.35% -29.68% Medium 

Tennessee - Eastern -92.35% -76.76% -68.97% -82.78% -74.48% Medium 

Tennessee - Middle 29.18% 77.31% 81.92% 13.49% 31.12% Medium 

Tennessee - Western 60.72% 77.95% 45.43% 39.65% 35.78% Medium 

Texas - Eastern -9.94% 3.76% 61.46% 77.95% 60.86% Large 

Texas - Northern 15.71% 53.07% 29.89% 71.12% 77.51% Large 

Texas - Southern -57.54% -34.61% -14.99% -22.03% -41.70% Extra-Large 

Texas - Western -62.93% -29.35% -39.92% -38.70% -49.45% Extra-Large 

Utah -55.44% -83.81% -97.83% -96.92% -46.46% Medium 
APPENDIX X 

- 88 - 

PERCENT CHANGE 

DISTRICT FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 

OFFICE 

SIZE 

Vermont -33.78% -40.63% -46.49% -35.36% -65.85% Small 

Virginia - Eastern -15.92% 0.23% 29.26% 18.07% 10.10% Extra-Large 

Virginia - Western -8.93% -14.18% -44.20% -71.13% -82.64% Small 

Virgin Islands -76.54% 27.57% 12.20% -24.95% -13.66% Small 

Washington - Eastern -48.21% -21.77% 1.49% 15.59% 14.70% Medium 

Washington - Western -55.67% -44.41% -24.72% -59.72% -85.33% Large 

West Virginia - Northern 76.76% 203.13% 112.61% 18.81% 8.90% Small 

West Virginia - Southern -16.04% 21.91% 6.42% 9.54% 82.90% Medium 

Wisconsin - Eastern -91.28% -84.06% -56.06% -56.31% -45.26% Medium 

Wisconsin - Western -0.16% 44.68% -4.99% 8.87% -9.05% Small 

Wyoming 23.61% 28.03% 64.09% 57.33% 60.62% Small 

Total Percent Change 15.82% 43.04% 29.64% 20.85% 18.27% 
- 89 - 

TERRORISM-RELATED CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

Alabama – Middle 8 5 62.50% 3 37.50% 0 Alabama – Northern 35 12 34.29% 21 60.00% 2 Alabama – Southern 16 3 18.75% 6 37.50% 7 Alaska 17 3 17.65% 9 52.94% 5 Arizona 157 31 19.75% 43 27.39% 83 Arkansas – Eastern 23 9 39.13% 10 43.48% 4 Arkansas – Western 15 2 13.33% 5 33.33% 8 California – Central 462 65 14.07% 237 51.30% 160 California – Eastern 74 17 22.97% 26 35.14% 31 California – Northern 296 20 6.76% 86 29.05% 190 California – Southern 76 11 14.47% 20 26.32% 45 Colorado 86 20 23.26% 42 48.84% 24 Connecticut 120 44 36.67% 50 41.67% 26 Delaware 6 1 16.67% 3 50.00% 2 District of Columbia 311 56 18.01% 132 42.44% 123 Florida – Middle 440 228 51.82% 124 28.18% 88 Florida – Northern 26 5 19.23% 17 65.38% 4 Florida – Southern 182 33 18.13% 57 31.32% 92 Georgia – Middle 53 17 32.08% 6 11.32% 30 Georgia – Northern 140 37 26.43% 69 49.29% 34 Georgia – Southern 8 2 25.00% 3 37.50% 3 Guam 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hawaii 18 4 22.22% 9 50.00% 5 Idaho 63 17 26.98% 36 57.14% 10 Illinois – Central 9 0 0.00% 5 55.56% 4 Illinois – Northern 89 15 16.85% 41 46.07% 33 Illinois – Southern 26 5 19.23% 8 30.77% 13 
- 90 - 

TERRORISM-RELATED CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

 MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Indiana – Northern 12 0 0.00% 6 50.00% 6 Indiana – Southern 67 7 10.45% 54 80.60% 6 Iowa – Northern 23 14 60.87% 5 21.74% 4 Iowa – Southern 27 12 44.44% 10 37.04% 5 Kansas 12 3 25.00% 8 66.67% 1 Kentucky – Eastern 20 2 10.00% 10 50.00% 8 Kentucky – Western 54 13 24.07% 31 57.41% 10 Louisiana – Eastern 126 28 22.22% 62 49.21% 36 Louisiana – Middle 8 0 0.00% 1 12.50% 7 Louisiana – Western 45 14 31.11% 25 55.56% 6 Maine 4 0 0.00% 3 75.00% 1 Maryland 188 36 19.15% 102 54.26% 50 Massachusetts 252 41 16.27% 134 53.17% 77 Michigan – Eastern 160 36 22.50% 48 30.00% 76 Michigan – Western 40 2 5.00% 28 70.00% 10 Minnesota 45 10 22.22% 14 31.11% 21 Mississippi – Northern 4 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 Mississippi – Southern 15 3 20.00% 10 66.67% 2 Missouri – Eastern 247 118 47.77% 84 34.01% 45 Missouri – Western 35 11 31.43% 12 34.29% 12 Montana 48 13 27.08% 26 54.17% 9 Nebraska 23 1 4.35% 14 60.87% 8 Nevada 105 27 25.71% 33 31.43% 45 New Hampshire 11 5 45.45% 4 36.36% 2 New Jersey 289 55 19.03% 80 27.68% 154 New Mexico 48 10 20.83% 28 58.33% 10 New York – Eastern 283 64 22.61% 82 28.98% 137 New York – Northern 98 30 30.61% 42 42.86% 26 New York – Southern 139 23 16.55% 62 44.60% 54 New York – Western 111 26 23.42% 39 35.14% 46 North Carolina - Eastern 78 22 28.21% 35 44.87% 21 
- 91 - 

TERRORISM-RELATED CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

North Carolina – Middle 12 2 16.67% 6 50.00% 4 North Carolina – Western 109 39 35.78% 50 45.87% 20 North Dakota 9 6 66.67% 0 0.00% 3 Ohio – Northern 56 15 26.79% 19 33.93% 22 Ohio – Southern 99 6 6.06% 43 43.43% 50 Oklahoma – Eastern 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 Oklahoma – Northern 14 5 35.71% 5 35.71% 4 Oklahoma – Western 59 11 18.64% 39 66.10% 9 Oregon 108 43 39.81% 36 33.33% 29 Pennsylvania – Eastern 113 31 27.43% 46 40.71% 36 Pennsylvania – Middle 41 8 19.51% 13 31.71% 20 Pennsylvania – Western 53 6 11.32% 31 58.49% 16 Puerto Rico 41 10 24.39% 22 53.66% 9 Rhode Island 23 3 13.04% 13 56.52% 7 South Carolina 86 19 22.09% 45 52.33% 22 South Dakota 24 6 25.00% 12 50.00% 6 Tennessee – Eastern 118 28 23.73% 53 44.92% 37 Tennessee – Middle 58 16 27.59% 35 60.34% 7 Tennessee – Western 92 52 56.52% 23 25.00% 17 Texas – Northern 100 19 19.00% 54 54.00% 27 Texas – Southern 322 85 26.40% 101 31.37% 136 Texas – Eastern 79 8 10.13% 32 40.51% 39 Texas – Western 145 54 37.24% 63 43.45% 28 Utah 197 150 76.14% 10 5.08% 37 Vermont 16 0 0.00% 15 93.75% 1 Virgin Islands 6 1 16.67% 3 50.00% 2 Virginia – Eastern 934 242 25.91% 516 55.25% 176 Virginia – Western 12 1 8.33% 10 83.33% 1 Washington – Eastern 31 5 16.13% 11 35.48% 15 Washington – Western 77 12 15.58% 42 54.55% 23 West Virginia – Northern 8 1 12.50% 4 50.00% 3 
- 92 - 

TERRORISM-RELATED CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

West Virginia – Southern 15 6 40.00% 5 33.33% 4 Wisconsin – Eastern 10 1 10.00% 9 90.00% 0 Wisconsin – Western 29 4 13.79% 20 68.97% 5 Wyoming 5 2 40.00% 2 40.00% 1 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 93 - 

NARCOTICS CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Alabama – Middle 299 216 72.24% 26 8.70% 57 Alabama – Northern 636 422 66.35% 83 13.05% 131 Alabama – Southern 642 484 75.39% 66 10.28% 92 Alaska 281 182 64.77% 35 12.46% 64 Arizona 5,201 3,562 68.49% 216 4.15% 1,423 Arkansas – Eastern 537 308 57.36% 140 26.07% 89 Arkansas – Western 327 227 69.42% 62 18.96% 38 California – Central 1,873 689 36.79% 129 6.89% 1,055 California – Eastern 1,203 745 61.93% 145 12.05% 313 California – Northern 792 330 41.67% 118 14.90% 344 California – Southern 5,153 4,562 88.53% 43 0.83% 548 Colorado 523 336 64.24% 51 9.75% 136 Connecticut 470 322 68.51% 34 7.23% 114 Delaware 197 115 58.38% 32 16.24% 50 District of Columbia 913 749 82.04% 57 6.24% 107 Florida – Middle 2,922 2,014 68.93% 538 18.41% 370 Florida – Northern 624 490 78.53% 68 10.90% 66 Florida – Southern 3,428 2,433 70.97% 235 6.86% 760 Georgia – Middle 781 497 63.64% 111 14.21% 173 Georgia – Northern 874 540 61.78% 116 13.27% 218 Georgia – Southern 445 364 81.80% 47 10.56% 34 Guam 211 155 73.46% 21 9.95% 35 Hawaii 990 546 55.15% 144 14.55% 300 Idaho 338 179 52.96% 120 35.50% 39 Illinois – Central 826 626 75.79% 67 8.11% 133 Illinois – Northern 1,345 780 57.99% 201 14.94% 364 Illinois – Southern 594 400 67.34% 130 21.89% 64 
- 94 - 

NARCOTICS CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Indiana – Northern 659 526 79.82% 78 11.84% 55 Indiana – Southern 449 323 71.94% 75 16.70% 51 Iowa – Northern 1,075 724 67.35% 177 16.47% 174 Iowa – Southern 719 588 81.78% 63 8.76% 68 Kansas 1,204 973 80.81% 117 9.72% 114 Kentucky – Eastern 891 662 74.30% 112 12.57% 117 Kentucky – Western 593 317 53.46% 85 14.33% 191 Louisiana – Eastern 602 420 69.77% 83 13.79% 99 Louisiana – Middle 281 201 71.53% 28 9.96% 52 Louisiana – Western 472 367 77.75% 48 10.17% 57 Maine 452 298 65.93% 96 21.24% 58 Maryland 819 598 73.02% 123 15.02% 98 Massachusetts 755 441 58.41% 116 15.36% 198 Michigan – Eastern 1,107 613 55.37% 96 8.67% 398 Michigan – Western 476 390 81.93% 26 5.46% 60 Minnesota 893 797 89.25% 26 2.91% 70 Mississippi – Northern 357 248 69.47% 42 11.76% 67 Mississippi – Southern 681 520 76.36% 34 4.99% 127 Missouri – Eastern 1,434 1,019 71.06% 242 16.88% 173 Missouri – Western 1,262 748 59.27% 162 12.84% 352 Montana 538 417 77.51% 77 14.31% 44 Nebraska 2,013 1,667 82.81% 294 14.61% 52 Nevada 533 386 72.42% 63 11.82% 84 New Hampshire 629 482 76.63% 53 8.43% 94 New Jersey 1,661 1,178 70.92% 136 8.19% 347 New Mexico 2,580 2,192 84.96% 147 5.70% 241 New York – Eastern 2,620 1,976 75.42% 98 3.74% 546 New York – Northern 610 433 70.98% 75 12.30% 102 New York – Southern 2,405 1,591 66.15% 147 6.11% 667 New York – Western 1,173 809 68.97% 68 5.80% 296 North Carolina - Eastern 929 695 74.81% 132 14.21% 102 
- 95 - 

NARCOTICS CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

North Carolina – Middle 478 380 79.50% 53 11.09% 45 North Carolina – Western 706 516 73.09% 84 11.90% 106 North Dakota 197 139 70.56% 35 17.77% 23 Ohio – Northern 706 535 75.78% 73 10.34% 98 Ohio – Southern 1,024 577 56.35% 92 8.98% 355 Oklahoma – Eastern 177 122 68.93% 31 17.51% 24 Oklahoma – Northern 253 146 57.71% 65 25.69% 42 Oklahoma – Western 385 192 49.87% 30 7.79% 163 Oregon 939 611 65.07% 136 14.48% 192 Pennsylvania – Eastern 888 589 66.33% 115 12.95% 184 Pennsylvania – Middle 795 625 78.62% 70 8.81% 100 Pennsylvania – Western 715 466 65.17% 141 19.72% 108 Puerto Rico 914 545 59.63% 202 22.10% 167 Rhode Island 371 180 48.52% 145 39.08% 46 South Carolina 791 610 77.12% 73 9.23% 108 South Dakota 473 381 80.55% 64 13.53% 28 Tennessee – Eastern 967 698 72.18% 147 15.20% 122 Tennessee – Middle 330 235 71.21% 37 11.21% 58 Tennessee – Western 668 560 83.83% 32 4.79% 76 Texas – Northern 853 529 62.02% 169 19.81% 155 Texas – Southern 6,668 5,697 85.44% 137 2.05% 834 Texas – Eastern 1,048 835 79.68% 104 9.92% 109 Texas – Western 10,773 9,552 88.67% 253 2.35% 968 Utah 624 570 91.35% 17 2.72% 37 Vermont 364 271 74.45% 40 10.99% 53 Virgin Islands 153 110 71.90% 24 15.69% 19 Virginia – Eastern 3,523 1,682 47.74% 209 5.93% 1,632 Virginia – Western 937 762 81.32% 70 7.47% 105 Washington – Eastern 961 752 78.25% 102 10.61% 107 Washington – Western 1,104 769 69.66% 78 7.07% 257 West Virginia – Northern 966 647 66.98% 146 15.11% 173 
- 96 - 

NARCOTICS CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINE

D

NUMBER 

PENDING

West Virginia – Southern 1,105 609 55.11% 280 25.34% 216 Wisconsin – Eastern 520 371 71.35% 60 11.54% 89 Wisconsin – Western 426 311 73.00% 71 16.67% 44 Wyoming 342 284 83.04% 12 3.51% 46 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 97 - 

VIOLENT CRIME CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

Alabama – Middle 575 443 77.04% 57 9.91% 75 Alabama – Northern 1,038 840 80.92% 112 10.79% 86 Alabama – Southern 597 417 69.85% 122 20.44% 58 Alaska 257 165 64.20% 57 22.18% 35 Arizona 2,530 1,454 57.47% 505 19.96% 571 Arkansas – Eastern 675 458 67.85% 149 22.07% 68 Arkansas – Western 258 155 60.08% 62 24.03% 41 California – Central 1,105 734 66.43% 92 8.33% 279 California – Eastern 738 489 66.26% 122 16.53% 127 California – Northern 937 489 52.19% 219 23.37% 229 California – Southern 262 175 66.79% 14 5.34% 73 Colorado 1,017 692 68.04% 143 14.06% 182 Connecticut 528 276 52.27% 142 26.89% 110 Delaware 279 210 75.27% 39 13.98% 30 District of Columbia 857 589 68.73% 156 18.20% 112 Florida – Middle 1,412 762 53.97% 369 26.13% 281 Florida – Northern 495 343 69.29% 96 19.39% 56 Florida – Southern 1,250 711 56.88% 308 24.64% 231 Georgia – Middle 536 354 66.04% 109 20.34% 73 Georgia – Northern 1,102 759 68.87% 171 15.52% 172 Georgia – Southern 753 521 69.19% 181 24.04% 51 Guam 70 42 60.00% 11 15.71% 17 Hawaii 538 371 68.96% 56 10.41% 111 Idaho 597 309 51.76% 205 34.34% 83 Illinois – Central 477 356 74.63% 77 16.14% 44 Illinois – Northern 864 577 66.78% 131 15.16% 156 Illinois – Southern 450 271 60.22% 133 29.56% 46 
- 98 - 

VIOLENT CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

Indiana – Northern 800 588 73.50% 150 18.75% 62 Indiana – Southern 382 220 57.59% 99 25.92% 63 Iowa – Northern 491 332 67.62% 67 13.65% 92 Iowa – Southern 564 410 72.70% 90 15.96% 64 Kansas 848 735 86.67% 73 8.61% 40 Kentucky – Eastern 753 535 71.05% 113 15.01% 105 Kentucky – Western 666 372 55.86% 174 26.13% 120 Louisiana – Eastern 627 423 67.46% 140 22.33% 64 Louisiana – Middle 530 329 62.08% 132 24.91% 69 Louisiana – Western 575 410 71.30% 110 19.13% 55 Maine 910 340 37.36% 405 44.51% 165 Maryland 1,193 794 66.55% 257 21.54% 142 Massachusetts 530 311 58.68% 117 22.08% 102 Michigan – Eastern 1,179 768 65.14% 102 8.65% 309 Michigan – Western 744 506 68.01% 138 18.55% 100 Minnesota 532 397 74.62% 52 9.77% 83 Mississippi – Northern 365 227 62.19% 45 12.33% 93 Mississippi – Southern 708 482 68.08% 102 14.41% 124 Missouri – Eastern 2,325 1,496 64.34% 575 24.73% 254 Missouri – Western 2,121 1,511 71.24% 438 20.65% 172 Montana 922 630 68.33% 190 20.61% 102 Nebraska 801 626 78.15% 126 15.73% 49 Nevada 1,143 750 65.62% 266 23.27% 127 New Hampshire 288 196 68.06% 40 13.89% 52 New Jersey 911 652 71.57% 91 9.99% 168 New Mexico 1,520 950 62.50% 314 20.66% 256 New York – Northern 442 233 52.71% 74 16.74% 135 New York – Southern 1,076 740 68.77% 147 13.66% 189 New York – Eastern 738 501 67.89% 34 4.61% 203 New York – Western 867 615 70.93% 105 12.11% 147 North Carolina - Eastern 1,513 1,150 76.01% 217 14.34% 146 
- 99 - 

VIOLENT CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

North Carolina – Middle 1,101 927 84.20% 134 12.17% 40 North Carolina – Western 1,127 960 85.18% 86 7.63% 81 North Dakota 540 352 65.19% 124 22.96% 64 Ohio – Northern 1,173 874 74.51% 188 16.03% 111 Ohio – Southern 924 675 73.05% 93 10.06% 156 Oklahoma – Eastern 197 129 65.48% 37 18.78% 31 Oklahoma – Northern 622 398 63.99% 167 26.85% 57 Oklahoma – Western 524 331 63.17% 82 15.65% 111 Oregon 1,038 785 75.63% 159 15.32% 94 Pennsylvania – Eastern 2,070 1,100 53.14% 622 30.05% 348 Pennsylvania – Middle 524 344 65.65% 84 16.03% 96 Pennsylvania – Western 950 582 61.26% 226 23.79% 142 Puerto Rico 369 244 66.12% 75 20.33% 50 Rhode Island 636 173 27.20% 436 68.55% 27 South Carolina 1,795 1,378 76.77% 254 14.15% 163 South Dakota 1,155 538 46.58% 472 40.87% 145 Tennessee – Eastern 1,280 871 68.05% 291 22.73% 118 Tennessee – Middle 703 429 61.02% 182 25.89% 92 Tennessee – Western 1,926 991 51.45% 513 26.64% 422 Texas – Eastern 1,259 887 70.45% 254 20.17% 118 Texas – Northern 1,434 971 67.71% 319 22.25% 144 Texas – Southern 1,357 957 70.52% 190 14.00% 210 Texas – Western 1,528 1,266 82.85% 133 8.70% 129 Utah 2,074 1,285 61.96% 685 33.03% 104 Vermont 253 164 64.82% 47 18.58% 42 Virgin Islands 80 45 56.25% 18 22.50% 17 Virginia – Eastern 1,842 1,170 63.52% 257 13.95% 415 Virginia – Western 583 458 78.56% 60 10.29% 65 Washington – Eastern 620 451 72.74% 90 14.52% 79 Washington – Western 546 387 70.88% 69 12.64% 90 West Virginia – Northern 440 259 58.86% 121 27.50% 60 
- 100 - 

VIOLENT CRIME CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

West Virginia – Southern 569 200 35.15% 226 39.72% 143 Wisconsin – Eastern 571 400 70.05% 87 15.24% 84 Wisconsin – Western 363 198 54.55% 122 33.61% 43 Wyoming 506 433 85.57% 41 8.10% 32 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 101 - 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

Alabama – Middle 139 75 53.96% 31 22.30% 33 Alabama – Northern 509 249 48.92% 180 35.36% 80 Alabama – Southern 233 111 47.64% 64 27.47% 58 Alaska 258 101 39.15% 75 29.07% 82 Arizona 568 192 33.80% 158 27.82% 218 Arkansas – Eastern 478 161 33.68% 181 37.87% 136 Arkansas – Western 170 71 41.76% 56 32.94% 43 California – Central 3,198 1,370 42.84% 589 18.42% 1,239 California – Eastern 1,176 576 48.98% 274 23.30% 326 California – Northern 1,248 322 25.80% 394 31.57% 532 California – Southern 468 175 37.39% 122 26.07% 171 Colorado 632 223 35.28% 208 32.91% 201 Connecticut 701 295 42.08% 219 31.24% 187 Delaware 251 93 37.05% 69 27.49% 89 District of Columbia 710 264 37.18% 230 32.39% 216 Florida – Middle 1,490 529 35.50% 507 34.03% 454 Florida – Northern 250 106 42.40% 69 27.60% 75 Florida – Southern 1,979 1,080 54.57% 198 10.01% 701 Georgia – Middle 284 112 39.44% 77 27.11% 95 Georgia – Northern 970 414 42.68% 273 28.14% 283 Georgia – Southern 263 121 46.01% 72 27.38% 70 Guam 128 90 70.31% 14 10.94% 24 Hawaii 263 95 36.12% 57 21.67% 111 Idaho 242 78 32.23% 94 38.84% 70 Illinois – Central 391 158 40.41% 114 29.16% 119 Illinois – Northern 1,608 672 41.79% 336 20.90% 600 Illinois – Southern 317 118 37.22% 105 33.12% 94 
- 102 - 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

Indiana – Northern 404 232 57.43% 79 19.55% 93 Indiana – Southern 346 131 37.86% 135 39.02% 80 Iowa – Northern 185 73 39.46% 61 32.97% 51 Iowa – Southern 231 101 43.72% 65 28.14% 65 Kansas 520 268 51.54% 124 23.85% 128 Kentucky – Eastern 309 156 50.49% 81 26.21% 72 Kentucky – Western 373 117 31.37% 144 38.61% 112 Louisiana – Eastern 403 168 41.69% 86 21.34% 149 Louisiana – Middle 529 223 42.16% 162 30.62% 144 Louisiana – Western 495 269 54.34% 113 22.83% 113 Maine 176 71 40.34% 59 33.52% 46 Maryland 705 310 43.97% 223 31.63% 172 Massachusetts 696 211 30.32% 218 31.32% 267 Michigan – Eastern 1,213 349 28.77% 332 27.37% 532 Michigan – Western 407 173 42.51% 112 27.52% 122 Minnesota 577 260 45.06% 119 20.62% 198 Mississippi – Northern 177 77 43.50% 43 24.29% 57 Mississippi – Southern 2,309 428 18.54% 450 19.49% 1,431 Missouri – Eastern 1,516 566 37.34% 571 37.66% 379 Missouri – Western 817 288 35.25% 161 19.71% 368 Montana 368 159 43.21% 115 31.25% 94 Nebraska 359 156 43.45% 113 31.48% 90 Nevada 659 286 43.40% 203 30.80% 170 New Hampshire 328 165 50.30% 71 21.65% 92 New Jersey 1,495 644 43.08% 311 20.80% 540 New Mexico 262 72 27.48% 102 38.93% 88 New York – Northern 421 179 42.52% 110 26.13% 132 New York – Southern 2,300 968 42.09% 584 25.39% 748 New York – Eastern 1,118 497 44.45% 234 20.93% 387 New York – Western 651 205 31.49% 172 26.42% 274 North Carolina - Eastern 412 140 33.98% 120 29.13% 152 
- 103 - 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

North Carolina – Middle 253 122 48.22% 80 31.62% 51 North Carolina – Western 573 249 43.46% 156 27.23% 168 North Dakota 115 45 39.13% 46 40.00% 24 Ohio – Northern 1,125 501 44.53% 305 27.11% 319 Ohio – Southern 933 426 45.66% 210 22.51% 297 Oklahoma – Eastern 125 62 49.60% 30 24.00% 33 Oklahoma – Northern 335 153 45.67% 89 26.57% 93 Oklahoma – Western 384 168 43.75% 108 28.13% 108 Oregon 670 331 49.40% 189 28.21% 150 Pennsylvania – Eastern 1,098 498 45.36% 288 26.23% 312 Pennsylvania – Middle 524 282 53.82% 120 22.90% 122 Pennsylvania – Western 981 441 44.95% 319 32.52% 221 Puerto Rico 241 109 45.23% 74 30.71% 58 Rhode Island 181 56 30.94% 59 32.60% 66 South Carolina 1,198 683 57.01% 266 22.20% 249 South Dakota 265 150 56.60% 74 27.92% 41 Tennessee – Eastern 348 139 39.94% 124 35.63% 85 Tennessee – Middle 326 116 35.58% 73 22.39% 137 Tennessee – Western 506 300 59.29% 101 19.96% 105 Texas – Northern 1,435 550 38.33% 482 33.59% 403 Texas – Southern 563 178 31.62% 149 26.47% 236 Texas – Eastern 647 323 49.92% 189 29.21% 135 Texas – Western 696 293 42.10% 176 25.29% 227 Utah 465 215 46.24% 98 21.08% 152 Vermont 147 49 33.33% 62 42.18% 36 Virgin Islands 46 8 17.39% 15 32.61% 23 Virginia – Eastern 1,511 640 42.36% 408 27.00% 463 Virginia – Western 224 96 42.86% 50 22.32% 78 Washington – Eastern 214 102 47.66% 59 27.57% 53 Washington – Western 688 297 43.17% 199 28.92% 192 West Virginia – Northern 197 73 37.06% 68 34.52% 56 
- 104 - 

WHITE COLLAR CRIME CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

West Virginia – Southern 395 95 24.05% 163 41.27% 137 Wisconsin – Eastern 414 181 43.72% 106 25.60% 127 Wisconsin – Western 343 132 38.48% 107 31.20% 104 Wyoming 102 50 49.02% 28 27.45% 24 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 105 - 

CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Alabama – Middle 74 68 91.89% 6 8.11% 0 Alabama – Northern 94 80 85.11% 11 11.70% 3 Alabama – Southern 100 83 83.00% 9 9.00% 8 Alaska 64 49 76.56% 8 12.50% 7 Arizona 29,435 10,774 36.60% 533 1.81% 18,128 Arkansas – Eastern 134 112 83.58% 14 10.45% 8 Arkansas – Western 434 306 70.51% 13 3.00% 115 California – Central 3,156 2,683 85.01% 51 1.62% 422 California – Eastern 1,302 1,179 90.55% 30 2.30% 93 California – Northern 884 674 76.24% 52 5.88% 158 California – Southern 11,410 9,763 85.57% 20 0.18% 1,627 Colorado 749 658 87.85% 58 7.74% 33 Connecticut 129 75 58.14% 23 17.83% 31 Delaware 103 86 83.50% 2 1.94% 15 District of Columbia 128 83 64.84% 29 22.66% 16 Florida – Middle 1,666 1,404 84.27% 106 6.36% 156 Florida – Northern 180 156 86.67% 10 5.56% 14 Florida – Southern 2,514 2,160 85.92% 134 5.33% 220 Georgia – Middle 40 35 87.50% 0 0.00% 5 Georgia – Northern 762 668 87.66% 33 4.33% 61 Georgia – Southern 49 41 83.67% 2 4.08% 6 Guam 168 114 67.86% 9 5.36% 45 Hawaii 81 49 60.49% 9 11.11% 23 Idaho 396 372 93.94% 14 3.54% 10 Illinois – Central 139 135 97.12% 0 0.00% 4 Illinois – Northern 404 342 84.65% 21 5.20% 41 Illinois – Southern 117 109 93.16% 6 5.13% 2 
- 106 - 

CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

Indiana – Northern 70 49 70.00% 13 18.57% 8 Indiana – Southern 46 30 65.22% 9 19.57% 7 Iowa – Northern 490 447 91.22% 22 4.49% 21 Iowa – Southern 411 390 94.89% 7 1.70% 14 Kansas 546 512 93.77% 13 2.38% 21 Kentucky – Eastern 396 221 55.81% 6 1.52% 169 Kentucky – Western 78 60 76.92% 11 14.10% 7 Louisiana – Eastern 269 234 86.99% 20 7.43% 15 Louisiana – Middle 44 36 81.82% 3 6.82% 5 Louisiana – Western 99 77 77.78% 6 6.06% 16 Maine 166 106 63.86% 19 11.45% 41 Maryland 219 189 86.30% 14 6.39% 16 Massachusetts 202 164 81.19% 8 3.96% 30 Michigan – Eastern 287 208 72.47% 17 5.92% 62 Michigan – Western 291 262 90.03% 6 2.06% 23 Minnesota 152 123 80.92% 11 7.24% 18 Mississippi – Northern 30 22 73.33% 5 16.67% 3 Mississippi – Southern 141 126 89.36% 6 4.26% 9 Missouri – Eastern 103 100 97.09% 2 1.94% 1 Missouri – Western 327 237 72.48% 24 7.34% 66 Montana 276 219 79.35% 30 10.87% 27 Nebraska 384 357 92.97% 18 4.69% 9 Nevada 679 646 95.14% 18 2.65% 15 New Hampshire 59 50 84.75% 1 1.69% 8 New Jersey 272 184 67.65% 25 9.19% 63 New Mexico 8,786 8,088 92.06% 22 0.25% 676 New York – Eastern 454 373 82.16% 8 1.76% 73 New York – Northern 987 878 88.96% 25 2.53% 84 New York – Southern 1,045 778 74.45% 109 10.43% 158 New York – Western 691 339 49.06% 21 3.04% 331 North Carolina - Eastern 243 180 74.07% 6 2.47% 57 
- 107 - 

CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

North Carolina – Middle 261 249 95.40% 5 1.92% 7 North Carolina – Western 215 196 91.16% 2 0.93% 17 North Dakota 438 407 92.92% 15 3.42% 16 Ohio – Northern 185 162 87.57% 7 3.78% 16 Ohio – Southern 88 63 71.59% 7 7.95% 18 Oklahoma – Eastern 8 6 75.00% 0 0.00% 2 Oklahoma – Northern 18 16 88.89% 0 0.00% 2 Oklahoma – Western 44 38 86.36% 3 6.82% 3 Oregon 1,050 1,023 97.43% 8 0.76% 19 Pennsylvania – Eastern 333 263 78.98% 29 8.71% 41 Pennsylvania – Middle 193 152 78.76% 16 8.29% 25 Pennsylvania – Western 214 179 83.64% 25 11.68% 10 Puerto Rico 814 611 75.06% 112 13.76% 91 Rhode Island 101 86 85.15% 12 11.88% 3 South Carolina 533 400 75.05% 25 4.69% 108 South Dakota 225 214 95.11% 4 1.78% 7 Tennessee – Eastern 229 202 88.21% 18 7.86% 9 Tennessee – Middle 144 124 86.11% 9 6.25% 11 Tennessee – Western 73 64 87.67% 5 6.85% 4 Texas – Eastern 362 330 91.16% 14 3.87% 18 Texas – Northern 1,532 958 62.53% 58 3.79% 516 Texas – Southern 64,071 18,400 28.72% 84 0.13% 45,587 Texas – Western 15,925 11,375 71.43% 47 0.30% 4,503 Utah 1,143 1,094 95.71% 13 1.14% 36 Vermont 173 130 75.14% 12 6.94% 31 Virgin Islands 574 533 92.86% 2 0.35% 39 Virginia – Eastern 739 544 73.61% 64 8.66% 131 Virginia – Western 19 18 94.74% 1 5.26% 0 Washington – Eastern 736 659 89.54% 45 6.11% 32 Washington – Western 589 416 70.63% 36 6.11% 137 West Virginia – Northern 30 24 80.00% 0 0.00% 6 
- 108 - 

CRIMINAL IMMIGRATION CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDIN

West Virginia – Southern 18 11 61.11% 2 11.11% 5 Wisconsin – Eastern 185 138 74.59% 22 11.89% 25 Wisconsin – Western 63 55 87.30% 7 11.11% 1 Wyoming 169 131 77.51% 4 2.37% 34 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 109 - 

PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Alabama – Middle 14 9 64.29% 2 14.29% 3 Alabama – Northern 80 37 46.25% 23 28.75% 20 Alabama – Southern 15 4 26.67% 8 53.33% 3 Alaska 22 9 40.91% 7 31.82% 6 Arizona 129 27 20.93% 58 44.96% 44 Arkansas – Eastern 50 10 20.00% 21 42.00% 19 Arkansas – Western 5 1 20.00% 1 20.00% 3 California – Central 156 66 42.31% 50 32.05% 40 California – Eastern 228 77 33.77% 45 19.74% 106 California – Northern 88 16 18.18% 29 32.95% 43 California – Southern 42 13 30.95% 14 33.33% 15 Colorado 39 18 46.15% 11 28.21% 10 Connecticut 40 19 47.50% 11 27.50% 10 Delaware 26 8 30.77% 7 26.92% 11 District of Columbia 232 71 30.60% 98 42.24% 63 Florida – Middle 111 27 24.32% 41 36.94% 43 Florida – Northern 58 15 25.86% 20 34.48% 23 Florida – Southern 114 44 38.60% 34 29.82% 36 Georgia – Middle 30 12 40.00% 5 16.67% 13 Georgia – Northern 97 40 41.24% 27 27.84% 30 Georgia – Southern 17 3 17.65% 4 23.53% 10 Guam 33 7 21.21% 17 51.52% 9 Hawaii 40 19 47.50% 10 25.00% 11 Idaho 16 3 18.75% 8 50.00% 5 Illinois – Central 45 8 17.78% 26 57.78% 11 Illinois – Northern 88 36 40.91% 16 18.18% 36 Illinois – Southern 40 15 37.50% 15 37.50% 10 
- 110 - 

PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Indiana – Northern 53 28 52.83% 14 26.42% 11 Indiana – Southern 17 3 17.65% 7 41.18% 7 Iowa – Northern 2 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 Iowa – Southern 16 4 25.00% 6 37.50% 6 Kansas 17 6 35.29% 9 52.94% 2 Kentucky – Eastern 43 17 39.53% 8 18.60% 18 Kentucky – Western 22 2 9.09% 11 50.00% 9 Louisiana – Eastern 92 40 43.48% 24 26.09% 28 Louisiana – Middle 25 8 32.00% 4 16.00% 13 Louisiana – Western 38 12 31.58% 18 47.37% 8 Maine 8 1 12.50% 3 37.50% 4 Maryland 126 51 40.48% 46 36.51% 29 Massachusetts 230 57 24.78% 108 46.96% 65 Michigan – Eastern 110 33 30.00% 23 20.91% 54 Michigan – Western 50 32 64.00% 10 20.00% 8 Minnesota 29 4 13.79% 12 41.38% 13 Mississippi – Northern 35 15 42.86% 10 28.57% 10 Mississippi – Southern 70 17 24.29% 23 32.86% 30 Missouri – Eastern 78 24 30.77% 20 25.64% 34 Missouri – Western 40 13 32.50% 18 45.00% 9 Montana 49 31 63.27% 6 12.24% 12 Nebraska 28 8 28.57% 7 25.00% 13 Nevada 22 6 27.27% 10 45.45% 6 New Hampshire 13 7 53.85% 1 7.69% 5 New Jersey 407 186 45.70% 79 19.41% 142 New Mexico 43 14 32.56% 15 34.88% 14 New York – Eastern 173 80 46.24% 25 14.45% 68 New York – Northern 38 7 18.42% 16 42.11% 15 New York – Southern 143 51 35.66% 35 24.48% 57 New York – Western 69 11 15.94% 30 43.48% 28 North Carolina - Eastern 78 30 38.46% 18 23.08% 30 
- 111 - 

PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

North Carolina – Middle 6 0 0.00% 3 50.00% 3 North Carolina – Western 30 11 36.67% 10 33.33% 9 North Dakota 33 18 54.55% 14 42.42% 1 Ohio – Northern 135 49 36.30% 44 32.59% 42 Ohio – Southern 47 12 25.53% 20 42.55% 15 Oklahoma – Eastern 17 4 23.53% 4 23.53% 9 Oklahoma – Northern 14 4 28.57% 3 21.43% 7 Oklahoma – Western 44 23 52.27% 13 29.55% 8 Oregon 31 9 29.03% 12 38.71% 10 Pennsylvania – Eastern 103 45 43.69% 27 26.21% 31 Pennsylvania – Middle 41 17 41.46% 7 17.07% 17 Pennsylvania – Western 37 9 24.32% 19 51.35% 9 Puerto Rico 85 32 37.65% 35 41.18% 18 Rhode Island 29 4 13.79% 12 41.38% 13 South Carolina 36 18 50.00% 8 22.22% 10 South Dakota 10 3 30.00% 5 50.00% 2 Tennessee – Eastern 35 21 60.00% 8 22.86% 6 Tennessee – Middle 44 14 31.82% 15 34.09% 15 Tennessee – Western 51 25 49.02% 13 25.49% 13 Texas – Eastern 23 8 34.78% 11 47.83% 4 Texas – Northern 95 27 28.42% 37 38.95% 31 Texas – Southern 143 45 31.47% 45 31.47% 53 Texas – Western 66 20 30.30% 22 33.33% 24 Utah 23 10 43.48% 5 21.74% 8 Vermont 13 3 23.08% 7 53.85% 3 Virgin Islands 49 17 34.69% 18 36.73% 14 Virginia – Eastern 164 57 34.76% 54 32.93% 53 Virginia – Western 30 11 36.67% 13 43.33% 6 Washington – Eastern 22 6 27.27% 6 27.27% 10 Washington – Western 46 12 26.09% 14 30.43% 20 West Virginia – Northern 9 2 22.22% 6 66.67% 1 
- 112 - 

PUBLIC CORRUPTION CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

West Virginia – Southern 55 12 21.82% 27 49.09% 16 Wisconsin – Eastern 33 17 51.52% 8 24.24% 8 Wisconsin – Western 21 4 19.05% 7 33.33% 10 Wyoming 18 6 33.33% 7 38.89% 5 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 113 - 

ORGANIZED CRIME CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FY 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Alabama – Middle 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Alabama – Northern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Alabama – Southern 2 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 Alaska 6 1 16.67% 3 50.00% 2 Arizona 2 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 Arkansas – Eastern 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 Arkansas – Western 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A California – Central 40 19 47.50% 11 27.50% 10 California – Eastern 6 3 50.00% 2 33.33% 1 California – Northern 95 28 29.47% 33 34.74% 34 California – Southern 9 1 11.11% 4 44.44% 4 Colorado 27 17 62.96% 7 25.93% 3 Connecticut 53 37 69.81% 8 15.09% 8 Delaware 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A District of Columbia 6 3 50.00% 0 0.00% 3 Florida – Middle 60 31 51.67% 14 23.33% 15 Florida – Northern 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Florida – Southern 44 22 50.00% 6 13.64% 16 Georgia – Middle 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Georgia – Northern 45 32 71.11% 9 20.00% 4 Georgia – Southern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Guam 2 1 50.00% 0 0.00% 1 Hawaii 29 16 55.17% 1 3.45% 12 Idaho 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Illinois – Central 5 1 20.00% 1 20.00% 3 Illinois – Northern 61 14 22.95% 9 14.75% 38 Illinois – Southern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 
- 114 - 

ORGANIZED CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBE

PENDIN

Indiana – Northern 6 1 16.67% 0 0.00% 5 Indiana – Southern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Iowa – Northern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Iowa – Southern 2 0 0.00% 1 50.00% 1 Kansas 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 Kentucky – Eastern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Kentucky – Western 3 1 33.33% 2 66.67% 0 Louisiana – Eastern 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 Louisiana – Middle 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Louisiana – Western 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 Maine 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Maryland 27 16 59.26% 8 29.63% 3 Massachusetts 177 100 56.50% 19 10.73% 58 Michigan – Eastern 40 15 37.50% 0 0.00% 25 Michigan – Western 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Minnesota 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mississippi – Northern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mississippi – Southern 4 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 Missouri – Eastern 20 6 30.00% 4 20.00% 10 Missouri – Western 38 14 36.84% 10 26.32% 14 Montana 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 Nebraska 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Nevada 44 20 45.45% 11 25.00% 13 New Hampshire 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% 0 New Jersey 131 61 46.56% 15 11.45% 55 New Mexico 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 New York – Eastern 258 112 43.41% 49 18.99% 97 New York – Northern 11 6 54.55% 2 18.18% 3 New York – Southern 190 125 65.79% 12 6.32% 53 New York – Western 69 40 57.97% 7 10.14% 22 North Carolina - Eastern 16 3 18.75% 11 68.75% 2 
- 115 - 

ORGANIZED CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBE

PENDIN

North Carolina – Middle 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A North Carolina – Western 6 3 50.00% 3 50.00% 0 North Dakota 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 Ohio – Northern 64 36 56.25% 20 31.25% 8 Ohio – Southern 10 2 20.00% 3 30.00% 5 Oklahoma – Eastern 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 Oklahoma – Northern 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Oklahoma – Western 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 Oregon 9 2 22.22% 2 22.22% 5 Pennsylvania – Eastern 99 55 55.56% 19 19.19% 25 Pennsylvania – Middle 2 1 50.00% 1 50.00% 0 Pennsylvania – Western 24 19 79.17% 4 16.67% 1 Puerto Rico 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Rhode Island 4 3 75.00% 1 25.00% 0 South Carolina 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A South Dakota 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Tennessee – Eastern 8 7 87.50% 1 12.50% 0 Tennessee – Middle 2 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 Tennessee – Western 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 Texas – Eastern 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Texas – Northern 3 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 Texas – Southern 29 12 41.38% 5 17.24% 12 Texas – Western 3 1 33.33% 1 33.33% 1 Utah 6 4 66.67% 2 33.33% 0 Vermont 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Virgin Islands 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Virginia – Eastern 8 3 37.50% 2 25.00% 3 Virginia – Western 1 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 1 Washington – Eastern 9 0 0.00% 9 100.00% 0 Washington – Western 16 8 50.00% 2 12.50% 6 West Virginia – Northern 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 
- 116 - 

ORGANIZED CRIME CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBE

PENDIN

West Virginia – Southern 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Wisconsin – Eastern 6 5 83.33% 1 16.67% 0 Wisconsin – Western 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Wyoming 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 117 - 

CIVIL RIGHTS CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Alabama – Middle 6 0 0.00% 5 83.33% 1 Alabama – Northern 40 3 7.50% 33 82.50% 4 Alabama – Southern 7 1 14.29% 6 85.71% 0 Alaska 28 1 3.57% 18 64.29% 9 Arizona 51 4 7.84% 25 49.02% 22 Arkansas – Eastern 56 7 12.50% 41 73.21% 8 Arkansas – Western 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 California – Central 336 18 5.36% 264 78.57% 54 California – Eastern 30 3 10.00% 18 60.00% 9 California – Northern 48 5 10.42% 29 60.42% 14 California – Southern 41 5 12.20% 31 75.61% 5 Colorado 12 1 8.33% 4 33.33% 7 Connecticut 22 2 9.09% 15 68.18% 5 Delaware 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 District of Columbia 745 6 0.81% 656 88.05% 83 Florida – Middle 104 11 10.58% 58 55.77% 35 Florida – Northern 31 8 25.81% 15 48.39% 8 Florida – Southern 40 5 12.50% 21 52.50% 14 Georgia – Middle 39 2 5.13% 23 58.97% 14 Georgia – Northern 45 8 17.78% 28 62.22% 9 Georgia – Southern 9 2 22.22% 3 33.33% 4 Guam 6 2 33.33% 2 33.33% 2 Hawaii 19 6 31.58% 8 42.11% 5 Idaho 52 1 1.92% 47 90.38% 4 Illinois – Central 12 3 25.00% 8 66.67% 1 Illinois – Northern 33 5 15.15% 22 66.67% 6 Illinois – Southern 29 4 13.79% 17 58.62% 8 
- 118 - 

CIVIL RIGHTS CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBE

PENDIN

Indiana – Northern 15 3 20.00% 3 20.00% 9 Indiana – Southern 28 2 7.14% 23 82.14% 3 Iowa – Northern 11 0 0.00% 11 100.00% 0 Iowa – Southern 4 0 0.00% 4 100.00% 0 Kansas 12 1 8.33% 8 66.67% 3 Kentucky – Eastern 29 6 20.69% 17 58.62% 6 Kentucky – Western 22 1 4.55% 17 77.27% 4 Louisiana – Eastern 55 3 5.45% 32 58.18% 20 Louisiana – Middle 29 0 0.00% 21 72.41% 8 Louisiana – Western 112 6 5.36% 86 76.79% 20 Maine 26 0 0.00% 20 76.92% 6 Maryland 17 4 23.53% 12 70.59% 1 Massachusetts 82 4 4.88% 63 76.83% 15 Michigan – Eastern 107 7 6.54% 80 74.77% 20 Michigan – Western 4 1 25.00% 3 75.00% 0 Minnesota 11 3 27.27% 3 27.27% 5 Mississippi – Northern 63 4 6.35% 47 74.60% 12 Mississippi – Southern 125 13 10.40% 102 81.60% 10 Missouri – Eastern 37 7 18.92% 12 32.43% 18 Missouri – Western 27 4 14.81% 9 33.33% 14 Montana 10 0 0.00% 6 60.00% 4 Nebraska 19 2 10.53% 17 89.47% 0 Nevada 32 6 18.75% 18 56.25% 8 New Hampshire 4 0 0.00% 2 50.00% 2 New Jersey 31 11 35.48% 9 29.03% 11 New Mexico 34 1 2.94% 30 88.24% 3 New York – Eastern 54 18 33.33% 14 25.93% 22 New York – Northern 61 1 1.64% 30 49.18% 30 New York – Southern 10 2 20.00% 4 40.00% 4 New York – Western 38 2 5.26% 17 44.74% 19 North Carolina - Eastern 20 6 30.00% 7 35.00% 7 
- 119 - 

CIVIL RIGHTS CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBE

PENDIN

North Carolina – Middle 5 0 0.00% 4 80.00% 1 North Carolina – Western 10 4 40.00% 3 30.00% 3 North Dakota 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Ohio – Northern 75 6 8.00% 31 41.33% 38 Ohio – Southern 20 3 15.00% 7 35.00% 10 Oklahoma – Eastern 8 1 12.50% 4 50.00% 3 Oklahoma – Northern 6 1 16.67% 5 83.33% 0 Oklahoma – Western 10 0 0.00% 9 90.00% 1 Oregon 39 5 12.82% 27 69.23% 7 Pennsylvania – Eastern 15 3 20.00% 7 46.67% 5 Pennsylvania – Middle 19 0 0.00% 10 52.63% 9 Pennsylvania – Western 64 0 0.00% 57 89.06% 7 Puerto Rico 4 1 25.00% 0 0.00% 3 Rhode Island 15 1 6.67% 13 86.67% 1 South Carolina 70 2 2.86% 44 62.86% 24 South Dakota 5 0 0.00% 5 100.00% 0 Tennessee – Eastern 35 9 25.71% 23 65.71% 3 Tennessee – Middle 28 9 32.14% 11 39.29% 8 Tennessee – Western 34 10 29.41% 12 35.29% 12 Texas – Eastern 118 4 3.39% 83 70.34% 31 Texas – Northern 133 4 3.01% 85 63.91% 44 Texas – Southern 225 13 5.78% 132 58.67% 80 Texas – Western 48 11 22.92% 30 62.50% 7 Utah 19 2 10.53% 6 31.58% 11 Vermont 2 0 0.00% 2 100.00% 0 Virgin Islands 10 0 0.00% 3 30.00% 7 Virginia – Eastern 94 4 4.26% 61 64.89% 29 Virginia – Western 31 5 16.13% 7 22.58% 19 Washington – Eastern 12 0 0.00% 8 66.67% 4 Washington – Western 65 5 7.69% 36 55.38% 24 West Virginia – Northern 11 0 0.00% 10 90.91% 1 
- 120 - 

CIVIL RIGHTS CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

% 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

% 

DECLINED

NUMBE

PENDIN

West Virginia – Southern 92 2 2.17% 73 79.35% 17 Wisconsin – Eastern 34 5 14.71% 24 70.59% 5 Wisconsin – Western 12 0 0.00% 7 58.33% 5 Wyoming 1 0 0.00% 1 100.00% 0 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 121 - 

ALL OTHER CRIMINAL CASEWORK 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Alabama – Middle 685 190 27.74% 110 16.06% 385 Alabama – Northern 1,037 370 35.68% 176 16.97% 491 Alabama – Southern 425 200 47.06% 124 29.18% 101 Alaska 837 185 22.10% 241 28.79% 411 Arizona 3,333 1,437 43.11% 622 18.66% 1,274 Arkansas – Eastern 723 311 43.02% 261 36.10% 151 Arkansas – Western 440 150 34.09% 89 20.23% 201 California – Central 5,186 1,613 31.10% 357 6.88% 3,216 California – Eastern 1,910 663 34.71% 331 17.33% 916 California – Northern 2,279 575 25.23% 454 19.92% 1,250 California – Southern 1,192 373 31.29% 62 5.20% 757 Colorado 965 287 29.74% 240 24.87% 438 Connecticut 712 226 31.74% 231 32.44% 255 Delaware 284 54 19.01% 109 38.38% 121 District of Columbia 687 216 31.44% 291 42.36% 180 Florida – Middle 2,562 745 29.08% 979 38.21% 838 Florida – Northern 674 211 31.31% 119 17.66% 344 Florida – Southern 2,778 1,113 40.06% 325 11.70% 1,340 Georgia – Middle 1,325 170 12.83% 117 8.83% 1,038 Georgia – Northern 1,691 444 26.26% 183 10.82% 1,064 Georgia – Southern 2,142 266 12.42% 132 6.16% 1,744 Guam 285 136 47.72% 63 22.11% 86 Hawaii 1,462 164 11.22% 240 16.42% 1,058 Idaho 658 200 30.40% 255 38.75% 203 Illinois – Central 780 571 73.21% 118 15.13% 91 Illinois – Northern 1,487 522 35.10% 373 25.08% 592 Illinois – Southern 409 199 48.66% 133 32.52% 77 
- 122 - 

ALL OTHER CRIMINAL CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

Indiana – Northern 477 233 48.85% 120 25.16% 124 Indiana – Southern 586 253 43.17% 205 34.98% 128 Iowa – Northern 335 155 46.27% 77 22.99% 103 Iowa – Southern 316 176 55.70% 76 24.05% 64 Kansas 582 341 58.59% 107 18.38% 134 Kentucky – Eastern 1,054 682 64.71% 150 14.23% 222 Kentucky – Western 844 201 23.82% 181 21.45% 462 Louisiana – Eastern 600 213 35.50% 122 20.33% 265 Louisiana – Middle 496 252 50.81% 62 12.50% 182 Louisiana – Western 3,015 327 10.85% 162 5.37% 2,526 Maine 353 130 36.83% 143 40.51% 80 Maryland 797 290 36.39% 182 22.84% 325 Massachusetts 956 375 39.23% 205 21.44% 376 Michigan – Eastern 1,374 376 27.37% 250 18.20% 748 Michigan – Western 649 253 38.98% 172 26.50% 224 Minnesota 521 212 40.69% 165 31.67% 144 Mississippi – Northern 324 124 38.27% 97 29.94% 103 Mississippi – Southern 945 355 37.57% 126 13.33% 464 Missouri – Eastern 1,291 708 54.84% 288 22.31% 295 Missouri – Western 1,152 319 27.69% 231 20.05% 602 Montana 710 400 56.34% 157 22.11% 153 Nebraska 432 228 52.78% 92 21.30% 112 Nevada 2,426 392 16.16% 266 10.96% 1,768 New Hampshire 444 203 45.72% 121 27.25% 120 New Jersey 1,778 546 30.71% 382 21.48% 850 New Mexico 855 381 44.56% 265 30.99% 209 New York – Eastern 2,855 1,243 43.54% 560 19.61% 1,052 New York – Northern 1,597 540 33.81% 246 15.40% 811 New York – Southern 3,703 1,396 37.70% 616 16.64% 1,691 New York – Western 875 274 31.31% 257 29.37% 344 North Carolina - Eastern 965 305 31.61% 426 44.15% 234 
- 123 - 

ALL OTHER CRIMINAL CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

North Carolina – Middle 367 211 57.49% 112 30.52% 44 North Carolina – Western 634 279 44.01% 140 22.08% 215 North Dakota 394 189 47.97% 142 36.04% 63 Ohio – Northern 1,377 435 31.59% 308 22.37% 634 Ohio – Southern 1,486 434 29.21% 197 13.26% 855 Oklahoma – Eastern 224 93 41.52% 58 25.89% 73 Oklahoma – Northern 302 164 54.30% 68 22.52% 70 Oklahoma – Western 1,402 241 17.19% 162 11.55% 999 Oregon 1,279 502 39.25% 249 19.47% 528 Pennsylvania – Eastern 756 341 45.11% 225 29.76% 190 Pennsylvania – Middle 1,071 419 39.12% 264 24.65% 388 Pennsylvania – Western 897 362 40.36% 405 45.15% 130 Puerto Rico 848 311 36.67% 219 25.83% 318 Rhode Island 227 69 30.40% 97 42.73% 61 South Carolina 1,202 718 59.73% 262 21.80% 222 South Dakota 1,416 644 45.48% 601 42.44% 171 Tennessee – Eastern 884 284 32.13% 152 17.19% 448 Tennessee – Middle 329 118 35.87% 107 32.52% 104 Tennessee – Western 724 437 60.36% 107 14.78% 180 Texas – Eastern 1,127 554 49.16% 357 31.68% 216 Texas – Northern 1,782 818 45.90% 558 31.31% 406 Texas – Southern 2,077 1,067 51.37% 397 19.11% 613 Texas – Western 4,878 1,018 20.87% 466 9.55% 3,394 Utah 1,058 462 43.67% 239 22.59% 357 Vermont 182 62 34.07% 75 41.21% 45 Virgin Islands 170 62 36.47% 34 20.00% 74 Virginia – Eastern 15,822 829 5.24% 675 4.27% 14,318 Virginia – Western 3,375 321 9.51% 159 4.71% 2,895 Washington – Eastern 619 317 51.21% 158 25.53% 144 Washington – Western 3,852 582 15.11% 324 8.41% 2,946 West Virginia – Northern 329 126 38.30% 134 40.73% 69 
- 124 - 

ALL OTHER CRIMINAL CASEWORK

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT 

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER

FILED

PERCENT

FILED

NUMBER 

DECLINED

PERCENT 

DECLINED

NUMBER 

PENDING

West Virginia – Southern 567 170 29.98% 212 37.39% 185 Wisconsin – Eastern 517 204 39.46% 164 31.72% 149 Wisconsin – Western 432 122 28.24% 124 28.70% 186 Wyoming 3,689 209 5.67% 113 3.06% 3,367 Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
- 125 - 

CIVIL MATTERS BY USAO 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 THROUGH 2007 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

PENDING

PERCEN

PENDIN

Alabama – Middle 2,363 2,007 84.93% 356 15.07% Alabama – Northern 5,397 5,161 95.63% 236 4.37% Alabama – Southern 2,255 2,165 96.01% 90 3.99% Alaska 695 543 78.13% 152 21.87% Arizona 4,859 3,901 80.28% 958 19.72% Arkansas – Eastern 3,912 3,794 96.98% 118 3.02% Arkansas – Western 2,456 2,429 98.90% 27 1.10% California – Central 16,668 14,465 86.78% 2,203 13.22% California – Eastern 4,975 4,532 91.10% 443 8.90% California – Northern 5,754 4,386 76.23% 1,368 23.77% California – Southern 4,059 3,224 79.43% 835 20.57% Colorado 5,552 4,856 87.46% 696 12.54% Connecticut 5,534 4,897 88.49% 637 11.51% Delaware 2,377 2,002 84.22% 375 15.78% District of Columbia 5,899 4,407 74.71% 1,492 25.29% Florida – Middle 17,355 16,402 94.51% 953 5.49% Florida – Northern 3,104 2,856 92.01% 248 7.99% Florida – Southern 11,832 10,097 85.34% 1,735 14.66% Georgia – Middle 2,580 2,462 95.43% 118 4.57% Georgia – Northern 7,108 6,164 86.72% 944 13.28% Georgia – Southern 5,791 5,389 93.06% 402 6.94% Guam 258 182 70.54% 76 29.46% Hawaii 1,189 995 83.68% 194 16.32% Idaho 1,272 915 71.93% 357 28.07% Illinois – Central 2,352 2,262 96.17% 90 3.83% Illinois – Northern 11,177 10,281 91.98% 896 8.02% Illinois – Southern 2,483 1,791 72.13% 692 27.87% 
- 126 - 

CIVIL CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT OFFICE

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

PENDING

PERCEN

PENDIN

Indiana – Northern 3,853 3,728 96.76% 125 3.24% Indiana – Southern 5,623 5,325 94.70% 298 5.30% Iowa – Northern 2,411 2,093 86.81% 318 13.19% Iowa – Southern 2,523 2,371 93.98% 152 6.02% Kansas 6,167 5,976 96.90% 191 3.10% Kentucky – Eastern 7,267 6,817 93.81% 450 6.19% Kentucky – Western 4,810 4,469 92.91% 341 7.09% Louisiana – Eastern 2,481 2,135 86.05% 346 13.95% Louisiana – Middle 1,280 993 77.58% 287 22.42% Louisiana – Western 3,857 3,680 95.41% 177 4.59% Maine 1,541 1,352 87.74% 189 12.26% Maryland 4,912 3,889 79.17% 1,023 20.83% Massachusetts 4,114 3,402 82.69% 712 17.31% Michigan – Eastern 6,065 5,271 86.91% 794 13.09% Michigan – Western 2,904 2,686 92.49% 218 7.51% Minnesota 3,836 3,419 89.13% 417 10.87% Mississippi – Northern 1,536 1,398 91.02% 138 8.98% Mississippi – Southern 1,854 1,659 89.48% 195 10.52% Missouri – Eastern 2,834 2,347 82.82% 487 17.18% Missouri – Western 4,052 3,728 92.00% 324 8.00% Montana 1,226 1,119 91.27% 107 8.73% Nebraska 2,230 1,971 88.39% 259 11.61% Nevada 1,801 1,230 68.30% 571 31.70% New Hampshire 1,171 983 83.95% 188 16.05% New Jersey 12,216 10,930 89.47% 1,286 10.53% New Mexico 3,258 3,059 93.89% 199 6.11% New York – Eastern 11,196 10,727 95.81% 469 4.19% New York – Northern 5,789 5,554 95.94% 235 4.06% New York – Southern 8,731 7,231 82.82% 1,500 17.18% New York – Western 6,905 6,294 91.15% 611 8.85% North Carolina - Eastern 4,987 4,639 93.02% 348 6.98% 
- 127 - 

CIVIL CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT OFFICE

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

PENDING

PERCEN

PENDIN

North Carolina – Middle 1,753 1,615 92.13% 138 7.87% North Carolina – Western 1,940 1,569 80.88% 371 19.12% North Dakota 972 896 92.18% 76 7.82% Ohio – Northern 14,920 12,125 81.27% 2,795 18.73% Ohio – Southern 12,144 10,991 90.51% 1,153 9.49% Oklahoma – Eastern 1,709 1,655 96.84% 54 3.16% Oklahoma – Northern 2,565 2,408 93.88% 157 6.12% Oklahoma – Western 5,267 4,892 92.88% 375 7.12% Oregon 5,001 4,572 91.42% 429 8.58% Pennsylvania – Eastern 4,855 4,195 86.41% 660 13.59% Pennsylvania – Middle 5,073 4,122 81.25% 951 18.75% Pennsylvania – Western 6,060 5,617 92.69% 443 7.31% Puerto Rico 4,210 3,504 83.23% 706 16.77% Rhode Island 912 734 80.48% 178 19.52% South Carolina 10,670 9,031 84.64% 1,639 15.36% South Dakota 1,286 1,092 84.91% 194 15.09% Tennessee – Eastern 2,514 2,352 93.56% 162 6.44% Tennessee – Middle 1,545 1,337 86.54% 208 13.46% Tennessee – Western 3,756 3,555 94.65% 201 5.35% Texas – Eastern 5,253 5,088 96.86% 165 3.14% Texas – Northern 7,546 6,423 85.12% 1,123 14.88% Texas – Southern 10,044 9,123 90.83% 921 9.17% Texas – Western 8,806 7,487 85.02% 1,319 14.98% Utah 1,706 1,368 80.19% 338 19.81% Vermont 1,228 1,018 82.90% 210 17.10% Virgin Islands 317 242 76.34% 75 23.66% Virginia – Eastern 6,474 5,198 80.29% 1,276 19.71% Virginia – Western 2,802 2,726 97.29% 76 2.71% Washington – Eastern 1,772 1,587 89.56% 185 10.44% Washington – Western 5,422 4,925 90.83% 497 9.17% West Virginia – Northern 1,348 1,214 90.06% 134 9.94% 
- 128 - 

CIVIL CASEWORK 

(As of September 30, 2007)

DISTRICT

MATTERS 

REFERRED 

FYs 2003-2007

NUMBER 

FILED

PERCENT 

FILED

NUMBER 

PENDING

PERCEN

PENDIN

West Virginia – Southern 2,324 2,101 90.40% 223 9.60% Wisconsin – Eastern 6,017 5,791 96.24% 226 3.76% Wisconsin – Western 3,018 2,703 89.56% 315 10.44% Wyoming 623 535 85.87% 88 14.13% Source: OIG analysis of LIONS data
 APPENDIX XXI 

- 129 - 

CASELOADS PER ATTORNEY FTE 

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASELOADS PER ATTORNEY FTE 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 AND 2007

CRIMINAL CIVIL DISTRICT 

FY 2003 FY 2007 FY 2003 FY 2007 

DISTRICT 

SIZE 

Alabama – Middle 16.21 18.93 103.45 97.37 Small 

Alabama – Northern 13.78 13.63 77.27 86.50 Large 

Alabama – Southern 14.31 23.20 76.93 64.16 Small 

Alaska 11.32 7.21 34.93 36.20 Small 

Arizona 37.55 55.63 48.33 71.83 Extra-Large 

Arkansas – Eastern 14.18 25.35 727.14 112.36 Medium 

Arkansas – Western 14.74 19.69 206.13 97.49 Small 

California – Central 13.18 18.20 83.36 79.17 Extra-Large 

California – Eastern 26.49 27.60 65.76 78.42 Large 

California – Northern 18.49 18.66 48.23 53.32 Extra-Large 

California – Southern 25.19 29.30 36.85 37.00 Extra-Large 

Colorado 17.49 16.04 62.01 97.93 Large 

Connecticut 9.64 10.05 138.86 79.80 Large 

Delaware 11.76 16.75 199.29 378.61 Small 

District of Columbia 3.45 3.01 44.59 43.36 Extra-Large 

Florida – Middle 21.12 24.29 210.46 294.58 Extra-Large 

Florida – Northern 13.99 15.93 103.81 115.22 Medium 

Florida – Southern 21.48 23.89 139.46 83.48 Extra-Large 

Georgia – Middle 14.86 19.38 76.00 73.36 Medium 

Georgia – Northern 14.04 13.42 77.47 72.39 Large 

Georgia – Southern 12.86 17.49 69.42 68.27 Medium 

Guam 24.37 28.59 58.61 39.90 Small 

Hawaii 24.58 15.23 76.66 57.77 Medium 

Idaho 15.15 13.43 31.06 36.07 Small 

Illinois – Central 30.26 22.03 89.20 102.83 Medium 

Illinois – Northern 12.97 13.68 183.98 175.89 Extra-Large 

Illinois – Southern 9.92 10.12 53.06 58.40 Medium 

Indiana – Northern 12.42 17.66 95.08 100.96 Medium 

Indiana – Southern 10.60 10.24 148.34 162.13 Medium 

Iowa – Northern 24.84 16.90 86.76 106.61 Small 

Iowa – Southern 16.84 27.26 64.06 86.56 Small 

Kansas 23.60 30.21 75.10 72.16 Medium 

Kentucky – Eastern 12.88 12.58 169.54 154.61 Medium 

Kentucky – Western 11.70 16.61 109.95 98.72 Medium 

Louisiana – Eastern 8.79 12.34 46.42 50.86 Large 

Louisiana – Middle 21.57 21.64 53.45 58.69 Small 

Louisiana – Western 10.32 13.19 71.42 73.36 Medium 

Maine 11.26 8.92 102.01 95.67 Small 

Maryland 12.15 13.66 108.77 115.78 Large 

Massachusetts 9.59 9.59 50.05 82.02 Extra-Large 
 APPENDIX XXI 

- 130 - 

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASELOADS PER ATTORNEY FTE 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 AND 2007

CRIMINAL CIVIL DISTRICT 

FY 2003 FY 2007 FY 2003 FY 2007 

DISTRICT 

SIZE 

Michigan – Eastern 13.43 12.43 57.03 66.69 Extra-Large 

Michigan – Western 11.15 15.00 299.61 256.78 Medium 

Minnesota 12.71 17.15 61.00 66.00 Large 

Mississippi – Northern 8.89 13.84 45.06 48.66 Small 

Mississippi – Southern 16.30 16.42 54.32 62.83 Medium 

Missouri – Eastern 13.76 15.09 46.57 61.24 Large 

Missouri – Western 15.48 18.58 68.92 53.58 Large 

Montana 26.19 25.01 54.83 39.27 Small 

Nebraska 32.89 30.98 43.84 45.97 Medium 

Nevada 29.61 24.48 42.93 46.72 Large 

New Hampshire 15.70 19.28 28.61 30.00 Small 

New Jersey 11.42 12.64 262.80 386.91 Extra-Large 

New Mexico 33.70 35.36 61.33 45.45 Large 

New York – Eastern 20.56 29.64 123.09 121.32 Extra-Large 

New York – Northern 19.78 20.73 288.86 447.34 Medium 

New York – Southern 24.45 30.63 123.94 96.12 Extra-Large 

New York – Western 13.58 16.39 225.56 308.06 Large 

North Carolina - Eastern 16.47 19.19 115.46 118.12 Medium 

North Carolina – Middle 12.47 19.28 77.49 62.06 Small 

North Carolina – Western 20.03 39.44 64.97 44.66 Medium 

North Dakota 10.56 12.40 67.57 33.53 Small 

Ohio – Northern 9.15 9.67 182.04 248.83 Large 

Ohio – Southern 11.31 13.67 152.87 249.80 Large 

Oklahoma – Eastern 10.62 6.69 155.93 89.22 Small 

Oklahoma – Northern 10.82 9.47 86.69 129.67 Medium 

Oklahoma – Western 7.39 9.80 102.52 41.94 Medium 

Oregon 25.87 26.65 79.07 108.48 Large 

Pennsylvania – Eastern 10.62 11.65 55.82 49.54 Extra-Large 

Pennsylvania – Middle 21.19 28.85 130.59 53.35 Medium 

Pennsylvania – Western 14.57 19.32 190.78 71.76 Large 

Puerto Rico 12.55 17.04 116.63 79.52 Large 

Rhode Island 6.61 6.15 79.38 129.83 Small 

South Carolina 28.32 30.03 158.84 186.79 Large 

South Dakota 14.71 21.73 48.38 50.26 Medium 

Tennessee – Eastern 18.00 16.85 231.24 249.80 Medium 

Tennessee – Middle 21.89 16.06 164.85 72.97 Medium 

Tennessee – Western 20.60 26.92 98.63 134.82 Medium 

Texas – Eastern 15.27 19.37 130.77 91.63 Large 

Texas – Northern 19.59 15.99 55.53 53.37 Large 

Texas – Southern 37.59 40.31 83.64 174.11 Extra-Large 

Texas – Western 44.87 50.74 137.89 179.90 Extra-Large 

Utah 25.11 27.84 38.06 43.44 Medium 

Vermont 18.47 23.26 36.14 32.08 Small 

Virgin Islands 10.04 14.61 55.73 62.43 Small 
 APPENDIX XXI 

- 131 - 

CRIMINAL AND CIVIL CASELOADS PER ATTORNEY FTE 

FISCAL YEARS 2003 AND 2007

CRIMINAL CIVIL DISTRICT 

FY 2003 FY 2007 FY 2003 FY 2007 

DISTRICT 

SIZE 

Virginia – Eastern 11.71 12.20 34.81 26.69 Extra-Large 

Virginia – Western 19.02 18.08 215.64 98.61 Small 

Washington – Eastern 30.92 29.74 85.25 52.92 Medium 

Washington – Western 11.23 13.50 133.68 102.57 Large 

West Virginia – Northern 9.91 24.39 63.20 68.35 Small 

West Virginia – Southern 10.69 9.23 118.49 104.96 Medium 

Wisconsin – Eastern 10.61 14.59 125.60 145.44 Medium 

Wisconsin – Western 11.24 11.14 108.09 188.85 Small 

Wyoming 18.22 17.02 58.50 69.90 Small 
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 132 -

EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR U.S. ATTORNEYS RESPONSE 

U.S. Department of Justice

Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

Office of the Director

Main Justice Building, Room 2261 (202) 514-2121

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20530

MEMORANDUM

DATE: October 16, 2008 

TO: Raymond J. Beaudet 

Assistant Inspector General for Audit

FROM: Kenneth E. Melson 

Director 

Executive Office for United States Attorneys 

SUBJECT: Response to OIG’s Report Entitled: Resource Management of United States 

Attorneys’ Offices

This memorandum is submitted by the Executive Office for United States 

Attorneys (EOUSA) in response to the audit report by the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) entitled, “Resource Management of United States Attorneys’ Offices.” 

EOUSA appreciates the significant work and effort that the OIG put into this 

review, as well as the important issues addressed in the report. American taxpayers have 

a right to the continued efficient and effective use of funds when it comes to the 

enforcement of federal criminal and civil laws. It is in this spirit that EOUSA has 

reviewed the OIG’s report and accepts, and will endeavor to carry out to the best of its 

ability, OIG’s recommendations. 
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 133 -

As an initial matter, it is important to note the unique nature of the relationship 

between EOUSA and the United States Attorneys’ Offices (USAOs), and the status of 

EOUSA/USAO as a component within the Department of Justice. 

Unlike most other DOJ components, EOUSA and the USAOs do not constitute a 

single hierarchical organization with a headquarters office directing policy decisions and 

resource management. Rather, each United States Attorney (USA) is the chief law 

enforcement officer in his or her district. Each USA, unless serving in an acting or 

interim capacity, is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. As a holder 

of high office, the USA is afforded significant discretion to manage his or her office 

according to locally perceived priorities and needs, albeit within the umbrella of 

overarching Departmental priorities. The 94 USAOs vary in size from 20 employees to 

over 800 employees. Each office has a unique identity and local “office cultures” vary 

greatly. 

It is in this context that EOUSA interacts with the USAOs to “[p]rovide general 

executive assistance and supervision to the offices of the U.S. Attorneys.” 28 C.F.R. § 

0.22. A primary part of EOUSA’s role is to allocate to each USAO its annual resources 

and budget. When allocating new FTE among USAOs, EOUSA makes its own initial 

assessment based on case data, USA-5 data, and other factors. But EOUSA has sought, 

and will continue to seek, input from the United States Attorneys as part of the resource 

allocation process. 

EOUSA can and does track both the allocation of resources to USAOs, as well as 

the utilization of those resources by individual USAOs. The re-allocation of resources 

from one USAO to another, that is, moving FTEs from one office to another, has 

traditionally proven difficult to effect, given the desire by individual USAs to maintain or 

increase, but not to decrease, the level of FTEs within that office. 

As the OIG report noted, EOUSA has taken recent, further steps to effectuate 

more flexible resource allocation. In particular, EOUSA has allocated most of the 

Congressionally authorized FY 2008 FTE in the form of two-year term positions. 

EOUSA will assess the effectiveness of these term positions at the close of FY 2009 and 

2010. The USAOs will be on notice that if these positions are better utilized in other 

districts, they are subject to removal. We note that, while term positions form part of the 

solution for more flexible resource allocation, term positions are not without drawbacks, 

as they can create significant tension within a small office as the term position 

incumbents vie for permanent slots. 

The report also states that several districts exceeded their annual FTE allocation. 

We note that virtually all of these cases arose as a result of EOUSA’s policy that allowed 

districts to hire a full time, permanent employee to replace employees who were placed 

on temporary details. These new hires were subjected to a “next vacancy” provision, 
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 134 - 

which meant that the district would be allowed to exceed its allocation until the next 

attorney vacancy occurred in the district. 

Over the past few years, EOUSA has generally avoided the use of “next vacancy” 

slots and, instead, provides term attorney positions to fill vacancies created by temporary 

details. This policy has reduced the likelihood that districts will exceed their allocations 

for a significant period of time. 

With regard to OIG’s findings concerning deficiencies in the USA-5 time system 

and the LIONS data system, EOUSA welcomes this review as an opportunity to make 

improvements in these areas. Better and more frequent data entry at the USAO level will 

enhance the reliability of the data. 

While better data is a key factor in better resource allocation, it is also important to 

note the sensitivities surrounding the use of “matters investigated” and “cases filed” as a 

measure of efficiency and productivity in a USAO. The investigation of cases and the 

filing of charges is indeed an objective measure of work done in a USAO, and such 

statistics will continue to form an important part of how resources are allocated. 

However, case statistics can never form the ultimate criteria for resource allocation 

because the goal of a USAO and the Department of Justice is to do justice, and it may be 

that not filing a case or forbearing from taking action is the appropriate course in any 

given case. Too much emphasis on case filings alone may lead to a charge of “bounty 

hunting.” Thus, EOUSA will appropriately balance case statistics with other measures, 

including time spent as billed under the USA-5 system, to evaluate resource allocation. 

Recommendations

EOUSA will endeavor to implement all of the below recommendations to the best 

of its ability. We believe that each of the recommendations is intended to help enhance 

EOUSA’s ability to better identify trends in resource utilization, and thereby allow 

EOUSA to better allocate those resources. In some cases the recommendation will be 

relatively simple to implement, and we hope such recommendations will prove effective. 

In other cases, as discussed below, the recommendation will likely prove more 

challenging to implement. 

1. Establish a standardized process for tracking time to cases involving multiple 

offenses to more accurately reflect attorney utilization. 

EOUSA agrees that implementation of such a system as envisioned in this 

recommendation could advance EOUSA’s ability to identify actual resource utilization. 
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 135 - 

However, parsing out the amount time that should be attributed to a particular issue or 

count in an investigation, indictment, or trial is not without its complexities. For 

instance, time spent investigating underlying facts that ultimately lead to a firearms, 

narcotics, and immigration charge in a single case might, in hindsight, be billed to all 

three areas of time equally. But should the time be billed before knowing what the 

ultimate charges will be? While a system delineating such determinations can be created 

and implemented, it must be simple and not unduly complicated or it will not be utilized. 

Such simplification will likely reduce its accuracy. EOUSA is presently assessing the 

best way to carry out this recommendation. 

2. Implement a policy requiring USAO personnel to record time in the USA-5 system 

on at least a weekly basis, as well as to record all time to a USA-5A category 

when such a category is available. 

EOUSA agrees that more timely entry of data into the USA-5 system will improve 

the accuracy and utility of the USA-5 data. EOUSA would like to receive and assess 

feedback from the USAOs as to how often AUSAs will realistically input their time into 

the USA-5 system. EOUSA agrees to make recording of time in the USA-5A system 

mandatory. 

3. Develop a more user friendly electronic form for USAO personnel to report their 

time in the USA05 system. 

EOUSA agrees to develop and implement a more user friendly electronic form for 

entry of time into the USA-5 system. 

4. Implement a standardized approach among USAOs for categorizing cases within 

LIONS and the USAOs’ new case management system - Litigation Case 

Management System. 

EOUSA will endeavor to implement this recommendation, although it is 

inherently difficult to carry out. EOUSA already has numerous, well defined LIONS 

program category codes. Each USAO currently applies the same LIONS program 

category code definitions. Application of these codes to individual cases, however, 

necessarily requires some degree of interpretation. There are legitimate disagreements as 

to whether a particular code does or does not apply to a given case. For instance, should 

a case that prosecutes hacking into a university computer system be labeled as a 

“computer fraud” case or a “national security/critical infrastructure” case? Should a case 

against an alien entering the country with drugs be labeled as a narcotics case or an 

immigration case? The USAOs are presently permitted to label cases with up to three 
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 136 - 

different LIONS codes. EOUSA will, in any event, attempt to delineate a default coding 

for those commonly charged cases where coding issues might arise. 

5. Ensure that “reopened” cases are not reflected in the statistical reports in the 

fiscal years in which the cases were reopened. 

EOUSA agrees to ensure that reopened cases are not reflected in the statistical 

reports in the fiscal years in which the cases were reopened. 

6. More closely monitor the casework data transmitted by USAOs to ensure it is 

accurate and complete. 

EOUSA agrees to more closely monitor the LIONS casework transmitted by 

USAOs to ensure it is accurate and complete. 

7. Re-emphasize to the USAOs the importance of utilization and casework data, how 

the data is used, and the necessity of accurately capturing this data. 

EOUSA agrees to re-emphasize to the USAOs the importance of utilization and 

casework data, how the data is used, and the necessity of accurately capturing this data. 

8. Examine the current staffing levels of USAOs, and develop methods to reallocate 

resources among USAOs. 

EOUSA is in the process of examining the current staffing levels of USAOs, and 

will continue to do so. EOUSA will also endeavor to implement to the best of its ability 

the recommendation to develop a method to reallocate resources among USAOs. This 

latter recommendation is inherently difficult, however, as the report makes clear, given 

the reluctance of individual USAOs to part with FTE. 

9. Perform comprehensive assessments on a regular basis of the number of attorneys 

utilized on specific types of matters within each USAO, including a comparison to 

where the resources were allocated.
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 137 - 

EOUSA has begun the process of creating program assessments for key program 

areas that would review attorney utilization, as measured by USA-5 time as well as other 

factors. EOUSA expects to produce assessment results at the end of the current fiscal 

year. In anticipation of these assessments, as they relate to the new term positions that 

have been allocated, USAOs will be on notice of the criteria on which the new positions 

will be assessed. Each program area will be assessed according to specific criteria. 

Some areas, such as immigration prosecutions, will rely on traditional factors such as 

time according to USA-5 as well as cases filed, according to LIONS. Other areas, such 

as health care fraud, will not utilize a “cases filed” measure, because such measures are 

not relevant for prosecutions that typically take years to build. 

 

10. Ensure that a comprehensive review of each USAO’s casework is performed 

annually, including a comparison of data maintained in individual LIONS 

databases to the information reflected in the National LIONS. 

EOUSA understands that the data in the LIONS database needs to be as reliable 

and accurate as possible. EOUSA agrees to look for ways to increase the effectiveness 

and comprehensiveness of case data reviews, which are presently undertaken bi-annually 

by each USAO. EOUSA staff does not and cannot review the LIONS entries from 

individual districts to compare them to data entries in the national LIONS. In FY 2008, 

there were well over 300,000 civil and criminal case and matter entries within the 

national LIONS system. It simply is not feasible for EOUSA staff to review these entries 

individually. 

EOUSA continues to closely investigate the results of the 50 case survey that is 

the subject of the discussion on pages 40 and 41 in the report. As indicated in the report, 

EOUSA did identify a problem with the transmission of case data during the last 12 hours 

of a given fiscal year and the first 12 hours of the subsequent fiscal year. That issue 

affects a very limited number of cases and EOUSA has now solved the problem going 

forward. More importantly, EOUSA does not now believe that this data transmission 

issue affected any of the 50 cases involved in the survey and discussed in the text. 

Rather, EOUSA is currently investigating a basic premise of the 50 case survey, namely, 

whether the cases chosen by OIG were in fact reported as pending in national LIONS. 

As part of the survey, districts were told that certain cases were showing as pending in 

national LIONS. These cases were pulled from the “raw data” in the national LIONS 

system, but may not have been reported as pending in national LIONS due to the 

operation of certain business rules within the LIONS system. Some districts reported that 

these cases were showing in their local LIONS database as closed, not pending. If, 

however, the case was not in fact reported as pending in national LIONS, then the results 

of the survey would need to be re-assessed. EOUSA will report further to OIG once it 

has had a complete opportunity to review the data used for the survey. EOUSA will 
 APPENDIX XXII 

- 138 - 

work assiduously to eliminate any data discrepancies that it can confirm in the LIONS 

system. 
 APPENDIX XXIII 

- 139 - 

OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ANALYSIS AND 

SUMMARY OF ACTIONS NECESSARY TO CLOSE THE REPORT 

 The OIG provided a draft of this audit report to EOUSA. EOUSA’s 

response is incorporated as Appendix XXII of this final report. EOUSA stated 

that it agreed with all 10 of our recommendations. Based on EOUSA’s 

response, the OIG considers the report resolved. The OIG’s analysis and 

summary of actions necessary to close the report is presented below. 

Status of Recommendations 

1. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to establish a 

standardized process for recording time to cases involving multiple 

offenses to more accurately reflect attorney utilization. Specifically, 

EOUSA stated that implementing this recommendation could advance 

its ability to identify actual resource utilization data. However, EOUSA 

also stated that attorneys are not always able to record time to various 

prosecutorial areas because the ultimate charges on cases are not 

always defined when the attorneys begin working on the matters. As 

a result, EOUSA stated that it is continuing to assess the best way to 

implement this recommendation. 

To close this recommendation, please provide us with EOUSA’s plans 

to develop a standardized process for recording time to multiple 

offenses. In addition, once developed, please provide evidence that 

the process has been implemented and the USAOs have been trained 

on this new process. 

2. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to implement 

a policy requiring USAO personnel to record time in the USA-5 system 

on at least a weekly basis, as well as to record all time to a USA-5A 

category when such a category is available. EOUSA stated that 

requiring more timely entry of data into the USA-5 system will 

improve the accuracy and utility of utilization data. To assist in 

establishing such a requirement, EOUSA stated that it intends to 

obtain feedback from the USAOs to determine how often AUSAs 

should input their time into the USA-5 system. EOUSA further stated 

that it will make recording of time to a USA-5A category mandatory. 

To close this recommendation, please provide evidence that a policy 

requiring USAO personnel to record time on at least a weekly basis 

has been implemented and communicated to the USAOs. Further, 

please provide documentation that all personnel have been informed 
 APPENDIX XXIII 

- 140 - 

that the use of the USA-5A categories is mandatory and evidence that 

the use of the USA-5A categories has increased. 

3. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to develop a 

more user-friendly electronic form for USAO personnel to report their 

time in the USA-5 system. 

To close this recommendation, please provide us with the new, more 

user-friendly electronic USA-5 form and evidence that the new form is 

being used throughout the USAOs. 

4. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to implement 

a standardized approach among USAOs for categorizing cases within 

LIONS and the USAOs’ new case management system – Litigation 

Case Management System. EOUSA stated that each USAO currently 

uses the same LIONS program category code definitions and that 

each USAO can currently categorize a case with up to three different 

LIONS codes. However, EOUSA further stated that it will be difficult 

to fully implement a standardized process because the categorization 

of cases requires some degree of interpretation. Nonetheless, EOUSA 

stated that it would attempt to develop a standardized categorization 

scheme for those commonly charged cases where coding issues might 

arise. 

To close this recommendation, please provide documentation that 

shows EOUSA’s identification of cases in which coding issues 

commonly arise. In addition, please provide documentation 

explaining how these cases should be coded and evidence that this 

information has been disseminated to each USAO. 

5. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to ensure 

that “reopened” cases are not reflected in the statistical reports in the 

fiscal years in which the cases were reopened. To close this 

recommendation, please provide evidence that a process has been 

developed and implemented that prevents reopened cases from being 

included as new case filings in the fiscal years in which the cases were 

reopened. 

6. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to more 

closely monitor the LIONS casework transmitted by USAOs to ensure 

that it is accurate and complete. To close this recommendation, 

please provide documentation detailing EOUSA’s process of 

monitoring LIONS casework data transmitted by USAOs, which should 

include an assessment of information contained in mandatory fields, 
 APPENDIX XXIII 

- 141 - 

as well as an evaluation on the completeness of data provided by 

each USAO. 

 

7. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to reemphasize to the USAOs the importance of utilization and casework 

data, how the data is used, and the necessity of accurately capturing 

this data. To close this recommendation, please provide evidence 

that USAOs have been notified about the uses of USAO utilization and 

casework data and instructed on the importance of accurately 

reporting this information. 

8. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to examine 

the current staffing levels of USAOs and develop methods to 

reallocate resources among USAOs. In its response, EOUSA stated 

that it is currently examining and will continue to examine the current 

staffing levels of USAOs. EOUSA also commented that it will attempt 

to develop, to the best of its ability, a method for reallocating 

resources among USAOs. 

To close this recommendation, please provide evidence of EOUSA’s 

efforts to examine the staffing levels of USAOs. In addition, please 

provide documentation on EOUSA’s efforts to develop methods for 

reallocating USAO resources, as well as the results of any reallocation 

implementation efforts. 

9. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to perform 

regular, comprehensive assessments of the number of attorneys 

utilized on specific types of matters within each USAO, including a 

comparison to where the resources were allocated. EOUSA stated 

that it has begun creating a process for reviewing attorney resource 

utilization in key program areas. EOUSA further stated that this 

process includes the use of USA-5 data and other factors in making its 

assessment and expects to have the results of these assessments by 

the end of FY 2009. In addition, EOUSA stated that each USAO will 

be informed of the criteria for which new positions will be assessed 

and that the criteria will vary depending on the particular program 

area. 

To close this recommendation, please provide evidence of the 

attorney utilization assessments being performed by EOUSA, including 

the assessment results, once available, and any corrective actions 

taken based upon these results. In addition, please provide 

documentation of the specific criteria used for allocating new positions 

to USAOs during FY 2009. 
 APPENDIX XXIII 

- 142 - 

10. Resolved. EOUSA concurred with our recommendation to ensure 

that a comprehensive review of each USAO’s casework is performed 

annually, including a comparison of the data maintained in individual 

district LIONS databases to the information reflected in the National 

LIONS. EOUSA stated that it will endeavor to develop processes for 

increasing the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of case data 

reviews, which are currently performed biannually by each USAO. 

EOUSA stated, however, that it does not and cannot review individual 

data records in local district LIONS databases for comparison to those 

records maintained in the National LIONS because the universe of 

records is too voluminous. EOUSA further commented that it is 

continuing to review the 50 pending matters that were discussed in 

Chapter 4 of our report. In particular, EOUSA stated that it is 

reviewing the matters to determine the cause of the data 

discrepancies identified during our review, will further report to the 

OIG once it completes this review, and will then take necessary 

corrective action to resolve the problems. 

To close this recommendation, please provide evidence that EOUSA is 

performing comprehensive casework reviews of each USAO, including 

the number and types of cases handled by individual USAOs, as well 

as the processes developed for improving the effectiveness and 

comprehensiveness of the case data reviews. Additionally, please 

provide information on EOUSA’s efforts to develop a feasible process 

to compare data maintained in individual district LIONS databases to 

the information reflected in the National LIONS, possibly on a sample 

basis. Further, please provide an update on EOUSA’s review of our 

sample of 50 pending matters, including the causes of the identified 

data discrepancies and any corrective actions taken.