CRIME

TECHNOLOGY

Federal Assistance to

State and Local Law

Enforcement

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to The Honorable

Mike DeWine, U.S. Senate

June 1999

GAO/GGD-99-101

United States General Accounting Office General Government Division

Washington, D.C. 20548

Page 1

B-280998

June 7, 1999

The Honorable Mike DeWine

United States Senate

Dear Senator DeWine:

This report responds to your request for information about crime

technology assistance1

 provided by the federal government to state and

local law enforcement agencies. Specifically, for fiscal years 1996 through

1998, you requested that we identify the types and amounts of such

assistance provided by the Department of Justice, the Department of the

Treasury, and the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). Also,

as agreed with you, we categorized the assistance into three types: (1)

direct funding or grants; (2) access to support services and systems, such

as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Crime Information

Center; and (3) in-kind (no cost) transfers of equipment or other assets.

Identifiable crime technology assistance provided by Justice, Treasury,

and ONDCP to state and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal

years 1996 through 1998 totaled an estimated $1.2 billion, as table 1 shows.

This total is conservative because—given that these federal agencies are

not required to, and do not specifically track crime technology assistance

separately in their accounting systems—we included only amounts that

could be identified or reasonably estimated by agency officials or us. As

noted in table 1, this estimate was particularly conservative regarding

multipurpose grants, such as Byrne Formula Grants and Local Law

Enforcement Block Grants, which by design can be used for a variety of

purposes. Further, as also noted in table 1, regarding applicable support

services and systems, we did not include personnel costs.

 1

 In developing the information in this report, we defined “crime technology assistance” to include

federal programs and funding to support a broad array of activities, ranging from upgrading criminal

history records to establishing or improving fingerprint and ballistic identification systems (see app. I).

Results in Brief
B-280998

Page 2

Dollars in millions

Type of Assistance Amount

Direct single-purpose grants: Justice $ 255.1

Direct multipurpose grants: Justicea 746.3

Support services and systems: Justiceb 146.6

Support services and systems: Treasuryb 15.9

Technology transfers: ONDCP 13.0

Total $1,176.9 a

Funding estimates for some purpose areas in the Byrne Formula Grants Program are for 10 states

(the largest recipients); and, funding estimates for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program

are based on data voluntarily provided to Justice by substantially less than all grantees for only 2

fiscal years—i.e., about 60 percent of the 1996 grantees and about 10 percent of the 1997 grantees.

b

For most services and systems, federal agency officials made estimates by prorating operating costs

(excluding personnel costs) based on the number of queries or other usage measures.

Source: Summary of data presented in appendixes II through V.

The large majority of identified crime technology assistance to state and

local law enforcement agencies—$1.0 billion or about 85 percent of the

estimated $1.2 billion total during fiscal years 1996 through 1998—was

grants, all of which were administered by Justice. The three largest crime

technology assistance grants during the 3 fiscal years were the (1) Office

of Community Oriented Policing Services’ Making Officer Redeployment

Effective grants ($466.1 million), (2) Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Byrne

Formula Grants ($188.0 million), and (3) the Bureau of Justice Statistics’

National Criminal History Improvement Program ($147.2 million).

As table 1 shows, support services and systems was estimated to be the

second largest category of crime technology assistance provided to state

and local law enforcement agencies. In this category, Justice was the

major provider, with an estimated $146.6 million in assistance compared to

Treasury’s $15.9 million.

Regarding in-kind transfers, responses from the three agencies we

reviewed indicated that only ONDCP had an established, relevant program.

ONDCP’s technology transfer program totaled an estimated $13.0 million

in assistance during fiscal year 1998, the first year of the program’s

existence.

Although states and localities have traditionally held the major

responsibility for preventing and controlling crime in the United States, a

significant aspect of the federal government’s role has been its provision of

financial and other assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies.

Grants are the largest funding source of crime technology assistance to

state and local law enforcement agencies.

Table 1: Estimated Federal Funding for

Crime Technology Assistance, Fiscal

Years 1996 Through 1998

Background
B-280998

Page 3

Of the three agencies we reviewed, only Justice provided grants for crime

technology purposes. These grants fall into one of two categories: singlepurpose and multipurpose. Single-purpose grants were clearly or

completely for crime technology assistance. For example, the purpose of

the State Identification Systems Grant Program, which was authorized by

the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-132), is

to enable states to develop computerized identification systems that are

compatible and integrated with certain FBI databases.

Multipurpose grants can be used by state and local law enforcement

agencies for a number of purposes including, but not limited to, crime

technology. For example, the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-570)

established formula and discretionary grants to state and local law

enforcement agencies for addressing crime related to illegal drugs and

other purposes. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) expanded

the grant programs and named them the Edward Byrne Memorial State and

Local Law Enforcement Assistance Programs. Byrne programs are to be

used to improve criminal justice systems, to enhance anti-drug programs,

and for other purposes.

More recently, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of

1994 (P.L. 103-322) authorized $30.2 billion for law enforcement and crime

prevention measures. In addition to authorizing additional funding for

Byrne programs through fiscal year 2000, the 1994 Act established what is

known as the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services within

Justice and authorized $8.8 billion in related funding. Also, the Omnibus

Consolidated Rescissions and Appropriations Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-134)

provided funding for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program,

which provides funding to state and local governments to reduce crime

and improve public safety.

Nongrant federal assistance—such as providing state and local law

enforcement with access to support services and systems—may be

specifically authorized by legislation. For example, use of the Treasury

Department’s Federal Law Enforcement Training Center by units of state

and local government is authorized by P.L. 90-351, as amended.

There is no formal or standardized definition of “crime technology

assistance” used throughout the federal government. Therefore, for

purposes of this review, we developed a working definition and discussed

it with Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP officials, who indicated that the

definition was appropriate. Also, because there is no overall requirement

for agency accounting systems to track crime technology assistance, we

Scope and

Methodology
B-280998

Page 4

largely relied upon agency estimates. We did not fully or independently

verify the accuracy and reliability of the funding data provided by agency

officials. However, to help ensure data quality, among other steps, we (1)

obtained information on and reviewed the processes used by agency

officials to calculate the estimated amounts of crime technology assistance

and (2) compared agency responses to primary source documents and

attempted to reconcile any differences with agency officials. Also, as

mentioned above, the funding totals presented in this report are

conservative, especially regarding multipurpose grants. That is, because

agency accounting systems did not specifically track crime technology

assistance, we included only amounts that could be reasonably estimated

by agency officials or by our reviews of agency information.

Appendix I presents more details about our objectives, scope, and

methodology. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the

Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of

ONDCP. Justice’s, Treasury’s, and ONDCP’s oral and written comments

are discussed near the end of this letter. We performed our work from

August 1998 to April 1999 in accordance with generally accepted

government auditing standards.

As table 1 shows, for the three federal agencies we reviewed, singlepurpose grants ($255.1 million) and multipurpose grants ($746.3 million)

were the major type of crime technology assistance provided to state and

local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

We identified 13 relevant single-purpose grant programs. Of these, one

program—the National Criminal History Improvement Program—

represented about 58 percent of the $255.1 million total. This program,

funded at about $147.2 million for fiscal years 1996 through 1998, wholly

involved crime technology assistance in that its purpose is to help states

upgrade the quality and completeness of criminal history records and to

increase compatibility with and access to FBI criminal information

databases. The other 12 single-purpose grant programs represented about

42 percent ($107.9 million) of the $255.1 million total and included

programs such as a DNA Laboratory Improvement Program and the

National Sex Offender Registry.

We identified 10 multipurpose grant programs that had some purposes

involving crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement

agencies. Of these 10, the following 2 programs accounted for about 88

percent of the estimated $746.3 million total:

Grant Programs Were

the Major Type of

Federal Assistance
B-280998

Page 5

• Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grants ($466.1 million): This

program, administered by the Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services, allows law enforcement agencies to purchase equipment and

technology to help expand the time available for community policing by

current law enforcement officers.

• Byrne Formula Grant Program ($188.0 million): Three purpose areas in

this program—purpose areas 15(a), 15(b), and 25—specifically involved

crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies

during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Purpose area 15(a) is for improving

drug-control technology; purpose area 15(b) is for criminal justice

information systems (including a 5-percent set-aside for improving

criminal justice records); and purpose area 25 is for developing DNA

analysis capabilities.

The other eight multipurpose grant programs represented 12 percent

($92.2 million) of the estimated $746.3 million total funding through

multipurpose grants for crime technology assistance. Among many other

uses, grant recipients used these funds to develop (1) information

management systems for drug court programs and (2) integrated computer

systems for tracking domestic violence cases.

Appendix II provides more details about Justice’s single-purpose and

multipurpose grants that provided crime technology assistance to state

and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

The second largest category of estimated crime technology assistance, as

table 1 shows, was access to support services and systems provided by

Justice and Treasury. Of these two agencies, Justice was the more

significant provider, with an estimated $146.6 million in assistance to state

and local law enforcement agencies, or about 90 percent of the $162.5

million total during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

For these 3 fiscal years, about 62 percent of Justice’s $146.6 million in

assistance was attributable to 4 of the 21 relevant support services or

systems we identified:

• Regional Information Sharing Systems ($50.3 million): Funded by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, six regional criminal intelligence centers

provide state and local law enforcement with access to an Intelligence

Database Pointer, a National Gang Database, a secure intranet, and other

support services.

Justice and Treasury

Provided Access to

Support Services and

Systems
B-280998

Page 6

• Combined DNA Index System ($16.7 million): The FBI’s index system

contains DNA records of persons convicted of crimes. State and local

crime laboratories can use the system to store and match DNA records.

• Law Enforcement On-Line ($12.6 million): Managed by the FBI, this

intranet links the law enforcement community throughout the United

States and supports broad, immediate dissemination of information.

• National Crime Information Center ($11.1 million): Managed by the FBI,

this is the nation’s most extensive criminal justice information system. The

system’s largest file, the Interstate Identification Index, provides access to

millions of criminal history information records in state systems.

Justice’s other 17 support services and systems represented 38 percent

($55.9 million) of the agency’s $146.6 million total assistance in this

category. Two examples are (1) the Drug Enforcement Administration’s

National Drug Pointer Index, which has an automated response capability

to determine if a case suspect is under active investigation by a

participating law enforcement agency and (2) the National Institute of

Justice’s National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers,

which offer technology and information assistance to law enforcement and

corrections agencies by introducing promising technologies and providing

technology training.

Appendix III presents more detailed information about Justice’s support

services and systems that provided crime technology assistance to state

and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

Treasury’s support services and systems provided $15.9 million of

assistance during this period, as table 1 shows. This assistance involved a

total of 29 support services and systems. Of these, 14 were provided by one

Treasury component—the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

(ATF), which accounted for $13.4 million (84 percent) of Treasury’s $15.9

million total assistance in this category. Further, as indicated next, 3 of

ATF’s 14 services and systems accounted for about two-thirds of the ATF’s

support to state and local law enforcement:

• Arson/Explosives Incident System ($3.5 million): State and local agencies

are able to query the system for information about component parts, stolen

explosives, and device placement.

• Accelerant Detection Analysis ($2.7 million): This service involves the

laboratory analysis of fire debris to detect and identify flammable liquids

potentially used as accelerants in an incendiary fire.
B-280998

Page 7

• Firearms Tracing System ($2.5 million): The National Tracing Center

traces firearms (from the manufacturer to the retail purchaser) for law

enforcement agencies.

Treasury’s other 15 relevant support services and systems accounted for

the remaining 16 percent ($2.5 million) of the $15.9 million total assistance.

Two examples are (1) the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network’s

Project Gateway, which helps state and local law enforcement agencies

combat money laundering and other financial crimes and (2) the Secret

Service’s Questioned Document Branch, which maintains a forensic

information system for analyzing handwriting samples.

Appendix IV presents more detailed information about Treasury’s support

services and systems that provided crime technology assistance to state

and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

Based on information from Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP officials, we

specifically identified only one established, relevant in-kind transfer

program—i.e., an ONDCP technology transfer program that began in fiscal

year 1998. According to ONDCP officials, the program involved 18 projects

or systems that fit our definition of crime technology assistance, but only

15 of these were transferred to state and local law enforcement agencies in

fiscal year 1998. For that year, as table 1 shows, federal funding for the

transferred projects or systems totaled $13 million. Examples of

transferred technologies include (1) a vapor tracer device for detecting

and identifying small quantities of narcotics and explosives and (2) a

secure, miniaturized multichannel audio device for inconspicuous use

during covert operations. Appendix V provides further details about

ONDCP’s technology transfer program.

Justice and Treasury officials told us that their agencies routinely make

excess equipment available to other governmental and nongovernmental

users through the General Services Administration. However, the officials

said they had no readily available information regarding how much of the

excessed equipment was crime technology related and was subsequently

received by state and local law enforcement agencies. Similarly, General

Services Administration officials told us that their agency’s accounting

systems could not provide this type of information.

Treasury officials noted that there have been a few isolated or nonroutine

instances of direct transfers, as when the Secret Service directly excessed

In-Kind Transfer

Programs
B-280998

Page 8

some used automated data processing and communications equipment2 to

state and local law enforcement agencies in 1998. We did not include these

isolated or nonroutine transfers in the funding amounts presented in this

report.

Officials from Justice’s Office of Justice Programs and Office of Audit

Liaison met with us on May 13, 1999, and provided the following comments

on a draft of this report:

• In their written comments, Office of Justice Programs officials provided

several technical comments and clarifications, mostly centered on funding

amounts for certain National Institute of Justice programs presented in

table II.1 in appendix II. As appropriate, we made adjustments to table II.1

and also added some clarifying language to our scope and methodology

(app. I).

• The Director, Office of Audit Liaison, told us that the draft report had been

reviewed by officials in other relevant Justice components (including

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau and the Marshals Service) and

the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, and that these

officials had no comments.

Also, in written comments, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI,

and the Immigration and Naturalization Service suggested technical

comments and clarifications, which have been incorporated in this report

where appropriate.

Treasury officials met with us on May 12, 1999, and provided oral

comments. More specifically:

• ATF, Customs Service, Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network officials expressed agreement

with the information presented in the report.

• Secret Service officials had technical comments and clarifications, which

have been incorporated in this report where appropriate.

• A Treasury Office of Finance and Administration official indicated that,

although not in attendance at the May 12 meeting, IRS officials had

reviewed the draft report and had no comments.

 

2

 Secret Service officials told us that the original acquisition costs of this equipment totaled about

$535,000 but that no depreciated values have been calculated or assigned regarding the transfer.

Agency Comments and

Our Evaluation
B-280998

Page 9

On May 13, 1999, the Director of ONDCP’s Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center met with us and expressed agreement with the

information presented in the report. To provide additional perspective, he

suggested that appendix V reflect the fact that, as of December 1998, the 15

relevant ONDCP projects or systems involved a total of 202 recipient state

and local law enforcement agencies. We added this information to the

appendix.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after the

date of this letter. We are sending copies of this report to Senator Orrin G.

Hatch, Chairman, and Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Minority Member,

Senate Committee on the Judiciary; Representative Henry J. Hyde,

Chairman, and Representative John Conyers, Jr., Ranking Minority

Member, House Committee on the Judiciary; The Honorable Janet Reno,

Attorney General; The Honorable Robert E. Rubin, Secretary of the

Treasury; The Honorable Barry R. McCaffrey, Director of ONDCP; and The

Honorable Jacob Lew, Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies

will also be made available to others upon request.

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. If you or

your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me on (202)

512-8777.

Sincerely yours,

Richard M. Stana

Associate Director

Administration of Justice Issues
Page 10 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Contents

1 Letter

14

Objectives 14

Definition of “Crime Technology Assistance” 14

Overview of Scope and Methodology 14

Scope and Methodology Regarding Grant Programs 16

Scope and Methodology Regarding Support Services and

Systems

20

Scope and Methodology Regarding In-Kind Transfers 22

Data Accuracy and Reliability 23

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and

Methodology

24

Overview of Department of Justice Grant Programs 24

Descriptions of Justice Grant Programs 28

Appendix II

Crime Technology

Assistance (Grants)

Provided by the

Department of Justice

34

Overview of Department of Justice Support Services and

Systems

34

Descriptions of Justice’s Support Services and Systems 36

Appendix III

Crime Technology

Assistance (Support

Services and Systems)

Provided by the

Department of Justice

41

Overview of Department of the Treasury Support

Services and Systems

41

Descriptions of Treasury’s Support Services and Systems 42

Appendix IV

Crime Technology

Assistance (Support

Services and Systems)

Provided by the

Department of the

Treasury
Contents

Page 11 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

48

Mission of ONDCP’s Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center

48

Overview of Technology Transfer Pilot Program 48

Descriptions of Applicable Systems 49

Appendix V

Crime Technology

Assistance (In-Kind

Transfers) Provided by

the Office of National

Drug Control Policy

Appendix VI 52

Major Contributors to

This Report

Table 1: Estimated Federal Funding for Crime

Technology Assistance, Fiscal Years 1996 Through

1998

1

Table II.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of

Justice Single-Purpose Grants for Crime Technology

Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement

Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

25

Table II.2: Estimated Obligations of Department of

Justice Multipurpose Grants With Crime Technology as

a Permissible Use Provided to State and Local Law

Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

28

Table III.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of

Justice Support Services and Systems Provided to State

and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years

1996 Through 1998

35

Table IV.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of the

Treasury Support Services and Systems Provided to

State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal

Years 1996 Through 1998

41

Table V.1: ONDCP Crime Technology Assistance

Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement

Agencies, Fiscal Year 1998

48

Tables
Contents

Page 12 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Abbreviations

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms

CODIS Combined DNA Index System

CTAC Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service

INTERPOL International Criminal Police Organization

IRS Internal Revenue Service

MORE Making Officer Redeployment Effective

ONDCP Office of National Drug Control Policy

STOP Services Training Officers Prosecutors
Page 13 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 14 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Senator Mike DeWine requested that we identify crime technology

assistance provided by the federal government to state and local law

enforcement agencies. Specifically, for fiscal years 1996 through 1998,

Senator DeWine requested that we identify the types and amounts of such

assistance provided by the Departments of Justice and the Treasury and

the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP). As agreed with the

requester, we categorized the assistance into three types: (1) direct

funding or grants; (2) access to support services and systems, such as

automated criminal history records and forensics laboratories; and (3) inkind (no-cost) transfers of equipment or other assets.

Initially, we conducted a literature search to determine whether there was

a commonly accepted definition of “crime technology assistance.” Since

our search did not yield a definition, we developed our own by reviewing

(1) a then pending bill (S. 2022), which has since been enacted into law,1

related to crime technology assistance introduced by Senator DeWine

during the second session of the 105th Congress, and its legislative history;

(2) his request letter to us and subsequent discussions with his staff; (3)

the General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance, a reference source of federal assistance programs, including

crime control programs; and (4) Congressional Research Service reports

on federal crime control assistance.

Accordingly, our definition of crime technology assistance was the

following: “Any technology-related assistance provided to state and local

law enforcement agencies, including those of Indian tribes, for establishing

and/or improving (1) criminal justice history and/or information systems

and specialized support services or (2) the availability of and capabilities

to access such services and systems related to identification, information,

communications, and forensics.” We discussed this definition with Justice,

Treasury, and ONDCP officials, who indicated that the definition was

appropriate and would be helpful in their efforts to compile the requested

information.

To determine the types and amounts of crime technology-related

assistance for fiscal years 1996 to 1998, we reviewed (1) excerpts from the

Budget of the United States Government, Appendices and Analytical

Perspectives for fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000, (2) agencies’ fiscal year

budget requests, (3) appropriations acts, and (4) budget execution reports

provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Also, as noted above,

we reviewed the General Services Administration’s Catalog of Federal

 

1

 P.L. 105-251 (October 9, 1998).

Objectives

Definition of “Crime

Technology

Assistance”

Overview of Scope and

Methodology
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 15 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Domestic Assistance (annual editions for 1996 through 1998) and

Congressional Research Service reports on federal crime control

assistance.

We contacted the Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP components most likely

to provide crime technology-related assistance. Within Justice, we

contacted

• the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA);

• the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI);

• the Immigration and Naturalization Service;

• the INTERPOL - U.S. National Central Bureau;

• the U.S. Marshals Service;

• the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; and

• the Office of Justice Programs and its components (i.e., the Bureau of

Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the Drug Courts

Program Office, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Violence Against Women

Grants Office).

Within Treasury, we contacted

• the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF);

• the Customs Service;

• the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center;

• the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network;

• the Internal Revenue Service (IRS); and

• the Secret Service.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 16 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Within ONDCP, we contacted the Director of the Counterdrug Technology

Assessment Center.

From Justice, Treasury, and ONDCP, we obtained and reviewed relevant

program descriptions and related explanatory materials, such as catalogs

and program plans. Specifically, we reviewed (1) descriptions of grant

programs and support services and systems and (2) corresponding funding

data prepared by agency officials for this review.

Generally, in this report, our references to state and local law enforcement

agencies may include recipients of federal assistance in (1) the 50 states;

(2) the District of Columbia; (3) the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; and

(4) where applicable, the U.S. territories of American Samoa and Guam,

the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands.

During our review of grant programs, we identified many crime technology

projects that were funded by federal grants distributed to entities other

than state and local law enforcement agencies. These recipients included

federal agencies, private firms, colleges and universities, and others.

Specifically, under the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, 1

percent of authorized appropriations ($20 million per year) was for law

enforcement technologies. According to a National Institute of Justice

official, this 1-percent set-aside supported 153 projects during fiscal years

1996 through 1998; and, of this total, 145 projects involved grant funding in

which state or local law enforcement agencies did not participate in the

specific project at all. Therefore, we did not include grant funding for these

145 projects in the data tables presented in appendix II. However, the

other eight projects directly involved state or local law enforcement

agencies. For these eight projects, we included grant funding (a total of

$2,325,600) in table II.1.

We determined that, of the three agencies we reviewed, only Justice

provided direct grant funding to state and local law enforcement agencies

for crime technology assistance. Within Justice, the Office of Community

Oriented Policing Services and the Office of Justice Programs

administered the majority of grant programs that included crime

technology assistance. We divided crime technology assistance grants into

two categories--single-purpose grants and multipurpose grants.

We defined single-purpose grants as those that clearly or completely fell

within the definition of crime technology assistance. For single-purpose

Scope and

Methodology

Regarding Grant

Programs

Single-Purpose Grants
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 17 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

grants, Justice was able to identify applicable grants and specifically

quantify funding amounts (see table II.1 in app. II).

As table II.1 shows, the National Institute of Justice is one of Justice’s

components that provided crime technology assistance. The Institute’s

role includes allocating funds for certain research and development

projects that may directly or indirectly involve crime technology assistance

to state and local law enforcement agencies. For purposes of our review

and table II.1, we included the Institute’s research and development

project costs for only those projects wherein the Institute was able to

identify that a state or local law enforcement agency was directly involved

or partnered with private firms, companies, universities, or federal

agencies. In commenting on a draft of this report, National Institute of

Justice officials noted that:

• Such partnerships are difficult to identify and quantify unless the state or

local agency is a subgrantee, which is something that is not electronically

tracked by the Office of Justice Programs or the National Institute of

Justice.

• Also, there are inherent difficulties in using research and development

project costs to quantify direct benefits to state and local law enforcement

agencies. For instance, partnering arrangements can result in a diffusion

of funds among various entities, in contrast to grants made directly to a

state or local law enforcement agency. Also, direct benefits may not be

immediately realized given that research and development efforts may

involve extended time frames and/or may not result in practical

implementation.

In further commenting on a draft of this report, National Institute of

Justice officials emphasized that, in providing funding input for table II.1,

they focused on crime technology assistance that involved information

systems or information-sharing systems. The officials noted that the

Institute is involved in other crime technology-related projects--such as

concealed weapons detection systems and less-than-lethal technologies--

that were not included in the funding figures provided to us.

We defined multipurpose grants as those that could be used for two or

more purposes, including crime technology assistance. Since Justice did

not have a system to track crime technology assistance, it was unable to

determine the exact amount of crime technology assistance provided to

state and local law enforcement agencies through multipurpose grants.

Multipurpose Grants
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 18 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

However, in many cases, Justice officials were able to estimate the

portions or amounts of multipurpose grants that involved technology

assistance, as indicated in following sections and reflected in table II.2 in

appendix II.

Byrne Formula Grants may be used for a total of 26 purpose areas, 8 of

which could involve crime technology. According to the Bureau of Justice

Assistance, three of these eight purpose areas clearly consisted of crime

technology-related activities:

• Purpose area 15(a) was for improving drug-control technology.

• Purpose area 15(b) was for improving criminal justice information

systems.

• Purpose area 25 was for developing DNA analysis capabilities.

However, for the other five potentially relevant purpose areas, Justice was

unable to estimate the amounts of crime technology assistance provided

by the Byrne Formula Grants.2

 Therefore, regarding these 5 purpose areas,

we conducted a file review of Byrne Formula Grants to determine the

amount of crime technology assistance provided to the 10 states that

received the most Byrne Formula Grants funds during fiscal year 1998. The

10 states (California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New

York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas) received nearly half of all Byrne

Formula Grants funds during fiscal year 1998. Our findings concerning

these 10 states are not statistically projectable to the total universe of

recipients.

According to the Office of Justice Programs, one of seven purpose areas of

the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program involves crime

technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies. This

purpose area is entitled “equipment and technology” and includes both

traditional law enforcement equipment (such as guns, vests, and batons)

and crime technology. During fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the Office of

Justice Programs obligated approximately $628 million for equipment and

technology. Since the Office of Justice Programs did not specifically track

how funding was allocated in the equipment and technology purpose area,

it was unable to determine how much of the approximately $628 million

 

2

 The 5 potentially relevant purpose areas are numbers 6, 7, 9, 10, and 26. Purpose area 6 is for

improving the investigations of white-collar crime; purpose area 7 is for improving the operational

effectiveness of law enforcement; purpose area 9 is for enhancing financial investigative capabilities;

purpose area 10 is for improving the operational effectiveness of the courts; and purpose area 26 is for

developing antiterrorism training and procuring equipment.

Byrne Formula Grants

Local Law Enforcement Block

Grants Program
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 19 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

obligated for fiscal years 1996 through 1998 was for traditional law

enforcement equipment and how much was for crime technology.

Although the Office of Justice Programs does not specifically track crime

technology assistance provided through the Local Law Enforcement Block

Grants Program, it asked grantees to complete reports describing how

grantees expended equipment and technology funds. Grantees completing

the reports classified their equipment and technology expenditures into 10

subcategories, 5 of which were most likely to include expenditures for

crime technology,3

 according to the Office of Justice Programs. However,

since completion of the expenditure reports was not mandatory, at the

time of our review the Office of Justice Programs had received these

reports from only 60 percent of the 1996 grantees, about 10 percent of the

1997 grantees, and none of the 1998 grantees. The grantee expenditure

reports showed that approximately $63 million was obligated for

equipment and technology during fiscal years 1996 and 1997; and, of this

amount, about $33 million (or 52 percent) was for the 5 crime technologyrelated categories.

This office awarded three categories of grants under the Drug Court

Discretionary Grant Program: planning, implementation, and

enhancement. According to the Drug Courts Program Office, based on

experience to date, “enhancement” grants is the category most likely to

involve crime technology, especially grants for management information

systems.

The Office of Justice Programs conducted a word search for “crime

technology” of Drug Court Discretionary Grants. The word search

identified six Drug Court grants that involved crime technology. Office of

Justice Programs staff examined the six grants to determine how much

funding the grantees planned to allocate specifically for crime technology

purposes. Funding for these programs, three in fiscal year 1997 and three

in fiscal year 1998, is depicted in table II.2 in appendix II.

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services had four programs

that included funding for crime technology assistance: (1) Making Officer

Redeployment Effective (MORE), (2) Advancing Community Policing, (3)

Problem-Solving Partnerships, and (4) Community Policing to Combat

Domestic Violence. Under MORE, grant funds could be used for hiring

 3

 The Office of Justice Programs described the five relevant subcategories as: (1) communications

equipment, (2) lab/forensic/drug-testing equipment, (3) systems hardware, (4) software, and (5)

systems improvements.

Drug Courts Program Office

Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 20 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

civilian personnel or obtaining crime technology. However, for purposes of

our review, agency officials specifically excluded personnel funding and

identified the funding obligated for crime technology during fiscal years

1996 through 1998.

This Justice office administered two multipurpose grant programs that

could involve funding for crime technology: (1) Formula Grants for Law

Enforcement and Prosecution, also known as the STOP program, and (2)

Discretionary Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies.

The Office of Justice Programs conducted a word search for “crime

technology” that identified 4 STOP grants and 62 Grants to Encourage

Arrest Policies during fiscal years 1996 through 1998. The Office of Justice

Programs reviewed these grants to determine how much grantees planned

to specifically allocate for crime technology purposes.

For applicable support services and systems in Justice and Treasury, we

asked responsible officials to provide us with funding data regarding usage

related to meeting the needs of state and local law enforcement agencies.

That is, for criminal history databases, forensics laboratories, and other

crime technology-related services and systems, we wanted to know what

portions of the federal operating costs were used to support state and local

law enforcement. In response, Justice and Treasury officials provided us

with estimates for each applicable service and system. (See apps. III and

IV.)

Table III.1 in appendix III presents the 21 relevant Justice support services

and systems that we identified. For 15 of these services and systems--that

is, those provided by DEA, FBI, the Immigration and Naturalization

Service, and the INTERPOL-U.S. National Central Bureau--Justice officials

told us that in most cases they calculated funding estimates by prorating

total operating costs (excluding federal salaries and other personnel costs)

between federal and state/local law enforcement agencies based on the

number of queries or other usage measures.

Justice’s other six relevant support services and systems are under three

components--the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice

Statistics, and the National Institute of Justice--that are not directly

involved in conducting criminal investigations. According to Justice

officials, these services and systems were established explicitly to benefit

state and local law enforcement agencies. As such, the officials said that

Violence Against Women Grants

Office

Scope and

Methodology

Regarding Support

Services and Systems

Justice: 21 Support Services

and Systems
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 21 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

the funding figures provided to us represent total, nonprorated operating

costs (excluding personnel costs), even though federal law enforcement

agencies can be participants, as is the case with the Regional Information

Sharing Systems program.

Table IV.1 in appendix IV presents the 29 relevant Treasury support

services and systems that we identified. Personnel costs were not included

in any of the funding figures provided us by the Treasury Department

agencies.

ATF provided 14 of the 29 support services and systems to state and local

law enforcement. For 10 of these 14 support services and systems, ATF

prorated the obligated costs of crime technology assistance to state and

local law enforcement agencies. For the remaining four ATF support

services and systems, obligated costs were not prorated because all of

these costs supported state and local law enforcement.

The Customs Service provided one relevant support service and system,

the Treasury Enforcement Communications System, to state and local law

enforcement agencies. Customs prorated its expenditures based on the

number of state and local law enforcement transactions relative to the

total number of system transactions for each fiscal year from 1996 through

1998.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provided 2 of Treasury’s 29

support services and systems to state and local law enforcement agencies.

The Center calculated the actual costs of the two training programs

provided.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network provided one support service

and system--the Gateway System--to state and local law enforcement

agencies. Since the Gateway system was designed to help state and local

law enforcement agencies pursue criminal investigations, all obligations

during fiscal years 1996 through 1998 applied to state and local law

enforcement.

IRS’ National Forensic Laboratory supports criminal investigations related

to tax and financial statutes. However, the laboratory has few resources to

support state and local law enforcement and does so only under

exceptional circumstances. Although no precise records existed regarding

assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies, an IRS official

estimated that during fiscal years 1996 through 1998, the laboratory

incurred annual costs of less than $1,000.

Treasury: 29 Support

Services and Systems
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 22 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

The Secret Service provided 10 of Treasury’s 29 support services and

systems. The Secret Service prorated costs for eight of its support services

and systems and provided us full or actual costs for the other two

(Identification Branch Training and Operation Safe Kids).

Also, it should be noted that the support services and systems listed in

appendixes III and IV do not include certain multiagency intelligence

organizations, such as the El Paso Intelligence Center, which was

established to collect, process, and disseminate intelligence information

concerning illicit drug and currency movement, alien smuggling, weapons

trafficking, and related activity. The Center’s 15 federal members include

various Justice (e.g., DEA and FBI), Treasury (e.g., Customs Service and

IRS), and Department of Transportation (e.g., Coast Guard and the Federal

Aviation Administration) components; the Departments of the Interior and

State; and liaison agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency and the

Department of Defense. In addition, all 50 states are associate members.

The Center accepts queries from federal and state member agencies.

For their respective organizations, we asked officials at Justice, Treasury,

and ONDCP to identify any in-kind transfer programs that provided crime

technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies during

fiscal years 1996 through 1998. Responses from the three agencies

indicated that only ONDCP had an established, relevant in-kind transfer

program (see app. V).

Justice and Treasury officials told us that their agencies generally do not

directly transfer excess equipment--whether for crime technology or any

other purpose--to state and local law enforcement agencies. However,

Treasury officials noted that there have been a few isolated or nonroutine

instances whereby some equipment has been given directly to a state or

local law enforcement agency. For example, the officials noted that, during

fiscal year 1998:

• The Secret Service directly excessed about $535,000 worth of automated

data processing and communications equipment (based on original

acquisition cost) to state and local law enforcement agencies.

• The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network directly excessed 186 pieces

of computer equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies. The

original acquisition cost of this equipment was about $367,000.

• The Secret Service directly excessed two polygraph instruments (original

acquisition costs totaled about $8,900); one instrument was given to the St.

Joseph (MO) Police Department and the other to the Chicago (IL) Police

Department.

Other Federal Support Not

Included in Funding Tables

Scope and

Methodology

Regarding In-Kind

Transfers
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 23 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Also, Justice and Treasury officials told us their agencies routinely make

excess equipment available to other users through the General Services

Administration, which is to make dispositions in the following priority

order: (1) distribution to other federal agencies, (2) donation to state and

local agencies, (3) sale to the general public, and (4) donation to nonprofit

organizations through a state agency for surplus property. The Justice and

Treasury officials said they had no readily available information regarding

how much of the excessed equipment was crime technology related and

was subsequently received by state and local law enforcement agencies.

Similarly, General Services Administration officials told us that their

accounting systems could not provide this type of information.

Generally, we relied on funding information that agency officials provided

to us. Since agency accounting systems typically did not track crime

technology assistance, agency officials used a number of methods to

estimate crime technology assistance. For example, the Office of Justice

Programs had its program managers calculate how much crime technology

assistance was in the multipurpose grant programs.

We did not fully or independently verify the accuracy and reliability of the

funding data provided by agency officials. However, to help ensure the

overall quality of the funding data, we

• compared agency responses to primary source documents and attempted

to reconcile any differences with agency officials,

• obtained information on and reviewed the processes used by agency

officials to calculate the estimated amounts of crime technology

assistance, and

• compiled the program and funding information we obtained into matrices

and asked agency officials to verify the accuracy of this information.

Finally, we note that the funding figures presented in this report are

conservative, particularly regarding multipurpose grants, such as Byrne

Formula Grants and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, because we

included only amounts that could be reasonably estimated by agency

officials or by our reviews of agency information.

Data Accuracy and

Reliability
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants)

Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 24 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

This appendix presents information about the types and amounts of crime

technology-related grants provided by the Department of Justice to state

and local law enforcement agencies during fiscal years 1996 through1998.

Generally, as reflected in the following two sections, we categorized

applicable grants as being either single-purpose or multipurpose:

• Single-purpose grants are clearly for crime technology purposes--which

can include any number of a wide array of activities under the definition of

“crime technology assistance” provided in appendix I.

• Multipurpose grants, distributed funds that could be used by state and

local law enforcement agencies for a variety of purposes including, but not

limited to, crime technology assistance. Justice officials provided us with

estimates of the funding amounts related to crime technology assistance.

The last section in this appendix provides brief descriptions of applicable

grant programs.

Table II.1 shows the types and amounts of grants provided by Justice

components to state and local law enforcement to be used expressly for

crime technology-related purposes during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

Grants for these purposes totaled about $255.1 million for the 3-year

period.

Overview of

Department of Justice

Grant Programs

Single-Purpose Grant

Programs
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 25 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Dollars in thousands

Component and program 1996 1997 1998 Total

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Drugfire $2,166.9 $1,954.6 $945.3 $5,066.8

Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program:

Technical assistance and training allocation

0 2,103.2 9,843.8 11,947.0

National White Collar Crime Center 1.3 30.1 74.8 106.2

State Identification Systems Grants Program 0 8,300.0 9,908.0 18,208.0

 Subtotal $2,168.2 $12,387.9 $20,771.9 $35,328.0

Bureau of Justice Statistics

National Criminal History Improvement Program 48,895.0 48,048.0 50,230.0 147,173.0

National Sex Offender Registry 0 0 24,255.0 24,255.0

State Justice Statistics Program for Statistical

Analysis Centers

1,920.0 1,779.0 1,939.0 5,638.0

 Subtotal $50,815.0 $49,827.0 $76,424.0 $177,066.0

National Institute of Justice

Counterterrorism Technology Program 0 1,127.0 1,506.0 2,633.0

Crime Act 1-Percent Set-Aside (funded by Local

Law Enforcement Block Grants Program)

159.6 1,096.8 1,069.2 2,325.6

Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Programa 8,750.0 2,952.0 12,281.0 23,983.0

Science and Technology Programs (funds from the

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services)

3,331.7 0 0 3,331.7

Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information

Systemb

0 588.0 5,821.5 6,409.5

 Subtotal $12,241.3 $5,763.8 $20,677.7 $38,682.8

Office of Justice Programs

Improved Training and Technical Automation

Grants

4,062.2 0 0 4,062.2

Justice total $69,286.7 $67,978.7 $117,873.6 $255,139.0 a

The DNA Laboratory Improvement Program is a joint program with the FBI.

b

Fiscal year 1998 funding was based on a reimbursement from the Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services.

Source: GAO summary of data provided by Justice components.

Table II.2 shows estimates of the funding amounts involving crime

technology assistance in multipurpose grants for fiscal years 1996 through

1998. As shown, the funding totaled about $746.3 million for the 3 years.

However, for some of the grant programs, including the Byrne Formula

Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program, the

amounts shown in the table do not represent all of the applicable funding

Table II.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of Justice Single-Purpose Grants for Crime Technology Provided to State and

Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

Multipurpose Grant

Programs
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 26 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

involving crime technology. Rather, as indicated below, the amounts are

only a partial accounting.

State and local law enforcement agencies can use Byrne Formula Grant

funds for a total of 26 purpose areas. Sample uses include demandreduction education programs and improving corrections systems. Eight of

the 26 purpose areas could involve crime technology. According to the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, three of these eight purpose areas clearly

consist of crime technology-related activities (see app. I for more

information). The Bureau of Justice Assistance provided us with funding

amounts for these 3 purpose areas for all recipients, which totaled about

$183.0 million for the 3 fiscal years, as presented in table II.2.

However, because its accounting systems do not specifically track crime

technology assistance as a separate category, the Bureau of Justice

Assistance was unable to provide us with an estimate for the other five

purpose areas. Thus, for these five purpose areas, we reviewed grant files

at the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Due to time constraints, we limited

our review to the 10 states that received the largest amounts of Byrne

Formula Grant funding in fiscal year 1998. Collectively, these 10 states

received 48 percent of total Byrne Formula Grant funding in fiscal year

1998. For these 10 states, we reviewed grants files for fiscal years 1996,

1997, and 1998. The relevant funding for these five purpose areas (about

$5.0 million total for the 3 years) is also included in table II.2. An analysis

of grant files for the other 40 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S.

territories would likely result in a higher funding total.

As shown in table II.2, the funding figures for the Local Law Enforcement

Block Grants Program totaled about $32.7 million and are based on data

from about 60 percent of fiscal year 1996 grantees and about 10 percent of

fiscal year 1997 grantees. No data were available for fiscal year 1998. As

indicated below, a more thorough accounting would likely result in a

higher funding total for this grant program.

According to the Bureau of Justice Assistance, only one purpose area of

the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program involves crime

technology assistance--that is, the purpose area called “equipment and

technology.” However, by the Bureau’s definition, the “equipment” portion

of this purpose area does not constitute crime technology assistance.

Nonetheless, in response to our request, a Bureau of Justice Assistance

official said that the Bureau’s accounting systems could not differentiate

this portion of the purpose area from the “technology” portion.

Alternatively, the official provided us with the following information:

Byrne Formula Grants:

Complete Data for Some

Purpose Areas and Data for 10

States for Other Purpose Areas

Local Law Enforcement Block

Grants Program: Partial Data

from Grantees for Only 2 Years
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 27 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

• The equipment and technology purpose area has 10 subcategories. Of

these, five subcategories--i.e., those pertaining to systems improvements

(data linkage, criminal history records, etc.)--are most likely to include

expenditures related to crime technology.

• For these five subcategories, actual expenditure data have been reported

by some grantees for fiscal years 1996 and 1997. Specifically, based on

reports from about 60 percent of fiscal year 1996 grantees, actual

expenditures by these grantees for the five subcategories totaled about

$28.9 million in 1996. Based on reports from about 10 percent of fiscal year

1997 grantees, actual expenditures by these grantees for the five

subcategories totaled about $3.7 million. There has been no reporting by

fiscal year 1998 grantees.

Thus, for the five subcategories, the reported actual expenditures at the

time of our review totaled about $32.7 million, as reflected in table II.2.

From these same 1996 and 1997 grantees, the total expenditures reported

for all 10 subcategories at the time of our review was about $63.4 million.

The reported actual expenditures for the five crime technology-related

subcategories ($32.7 million) represent about 50 percent of the total

reported actual expenditures for the “equipment and technology” purpose

area ($63.4 million). During fiscal years 1996 to 1998, funds obligated for

this purpose area totaled about $628 million. However, the 50-percent

figure cannot be used to statistically project how much of this total

involved crime technology assistance during fiscal years 1996 through

1998.
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 28 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Dollars in thousands

Component and program 1996 1997 1998 Total

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Byrne Discretionary Grants $3,667.0 $1,313.0 $5,485.0 $10,465.0

Byrne Formula Grants

Purpose areas 15(a), 15(b), and 25a 60,536.0 62,196.0 60,273.0 183,005.0

Purpose areas 6,7,9,10, and 26b 337.5 3,033.8 1,585.6 4,956.9

Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Programc 28,936.8 3,745.1 Not estimated 32,681.9

 Subtotal $93,477.3 $70,287.9 $67,343.6 $231,108.8

Drug Courts Program Office

Drug Court Discretionary Grant Programd 0 190.6 726.3 916.9

Office of Community Oriented Policing

Services

Advancing Community Policing Grants 0 12,997.6 0 12,997.6

Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence

Grants

7,640.8 0 N/A 7,640.8

Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grants 126,937.1 115,581.7 223,532.6 466,051.4

Problem-Solving Partnerships 0 20,571.7 0 20,571.7

 Subtotal $134,577.9 $149,151.0 $223,532.6 $507,261.5

Violence Against Women Grants Office

Grants to Encourage Arrest Policiesd 5.7 5,953.0 974.0 6,932.7

STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grantsd 14.0 0 104.4 118.4

 Subtotal $19.7 $5,953.0 $1,078.4 $7,051.1

Justice total $228,074.9 $225,582.5 $292,680.9 $746,338.3 a

 The amounts shown represent funding for three purpose areas: Purpose area 15(a) is for improving

drug-control technology; purpose area 15(b) is for criminal justice information systems (including a 5-

percent set-aside for improving criminal justice records); and purpose area 25 is for developing DNA

analysis capabilities.

b

 The figures shown are based on our review of grant files for 10 states that received the largest

amount of Byrne Formula Grant funding. Funding for these 10 states represented approximately 48

percent of total Byrne funding for fiscal year 1998.

c

 The figures shown represent actual expenditures reported by 60 percent of the 1996 grantees and

10 percent of the 1997 grantees. At the time of our review, 1998 grantees had not reported.

d The figures shown are not obligations. Rather, they are planning amounts submitted by grantees

during the application process. The Office of Justice Programs ascertained these amounts by (1)

electronically conducting a word search (using the term “crime technology”) of applicable grant

programs and (2) manually reviewing those files identified by the word search.

Source: GAO summary of data provided by Justice components.

Brief descriptions of Justice’s single-purpose and multipurpose grant

programs are given next.

Table II.2: Estimated Obligations of Department of Justice Multipurpose Grants With Crime Technology as a Permissible Use

Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

Descriptions of Justice

Grant Programs
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 29 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Following are brief descriptions of the Justice single-purpose grants listed

in table II.1. The grant programs are grouped by the applicable Justice

component.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance provided the following grants for crime

technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies.

• Drugfire: This program consists of a “reimbursable agreement” from the

FBI under which the Bureau of Justice Assistance administers grants to

state and local law enforcement to purchase Drugfire software, equipment,

and training. Drugfire is a database system providing the ability to

exchange and compare images of fired ammunition casings and bullets.

The database is capable of connecting shootings based on a comparison

and matching of firearms-related evidence.

• Local Law Enforcement Block Grants - Technical Assistance and Training

Allocation: This allocation supports investigative personnel in using

surveillance equipment and information systems applications. The

program also provides for technology training.

• National White Collar Crime Center: The Center provides limited “case

funding” assistance to states and localities to track and investigate whitecollar crimes. The focus is on improving information-sharing capabilities in

multijurisdictional investigations.

• State Identification Systems Grants Program: These are formula grants to

states to develop computerized identification systems integrated with

FBI’s national identification databases. The FBI reimburses the Bureau of

Justice Assistance to administer programs to integrate state systems with

the national DNA database (CODIS), the National Crime Information

Center, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics provided the following grants for crime

technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies.

• National Criminal History Improvement Program: This program helps

states upgrade the quality and completeness of criminal records and

provides increased compatibility with and access to national crime

information databases. A priority is to ensure that state criminal history

records are complete and ready for access through the National Instant

Criminal Background Check System.

• National Sex Offender Registry: This is a component of the National

Criminal History Improvement Program but is separately funded. States

use funds to identify, collect, and disseminate information on sexual

Single-Purpose Grants

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Bureau of Justice Statistics
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 30 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

offenders within their jurisdictions. Funds are also available to enhance

state access to the FBI’s sex offender database.

• State Justice Statistics Program for Statistical Analysis Centers: This

program is designed to provide financial support to supplement state

funding of a central state criminal justice statistics capability to carry out

data collection and research that can benefit both the state and the nation.

Grants are awarded to state statistics centers for data collection and

analysis relating to identifiable themes, including technology-based

research focusing on the analysis and use of machine-readable criminal

history record data for tracking case-processing decisions, evaluation of

record systems management, or studies related to the use of records to

limit or control firearms acquisition by ineligible individuals.

The National Institute of Justice provided the following grants for crime

technology assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies.

• Counterterrorism Technology Program: This program assists state and

local law enforcement by developing technologies to combat terrorism and

improve public safety. The funding amounts presented in table II.1 are for

a project (the “InfoTech” project) to develop a technology to allow law

enforcement agencies to share information using their existing systems

and networks.

• Crime Act 1-Percent Set-Aside: Under the Local Law Enforcement Block

Grants Program, 1 percent ($20 million) per year--of the $2 billion annual

authorizations for fiscal years 1996 through 1998--were set aside for use by

the National Institute of Justice for new law enforcement technologies.

According to National Institute of Justice officials, this 1-percent set-aside

supported 153 projects during the 3 fiscal years; and, of this total, 8

projects directly benefited state or local law enforcement agencies.1

Funding for these eight projects (about $2,325,600) is reflected in table II.1.

• Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program: This program is for

improving the quality and availability of DNA analysis for law enforcement

identification, such as by expanding on-line capabilities with the national

DNA database.

• Science and Technology Programs: This broad grant category supports

research, development, and evaluation of approaches, techniques, and

systems to improve the criminal justice system. Funded by a transfer of

funds from the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, state and

local law enforcement grantees test and implement crime-fighting

technologies that serve a community policing function.

 

1

 Regarding the other 145 projects, as mentioned in appendix I, grant recipients were federal agencies,

private firms, colleges and universities, and others.

National Institute of Justice
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 31 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

• Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System: These grants can

be used to construct or improve state databases, build interface

capabilities with the overall information system, and help procure

hardware and consulting services.

Improved Training and Technical Automation Grants: This is a general

technology assistance program focusing on communications and

information integration. Grant purposes include improving

communications systems, establishing or improving ballistics

identification programs, increasing access to automated fingerprint

identification systems, and improving computerized collection of criminal

records. This program transferred funds for the FBI’s Law Enforcement

On-Line program in fiscal year 1996, which are reflected in table III.1.

Following are brief descriptions of Justice’s multipurpose grants listed in

table II.2. Multipurpose grants have numerous criminal justice purposes

established by law. State and local law enforcement can use the respective

funds for a number of activities, including crime technology. The grant

programs are grouped by the applicable Justice component.

• Byrne Discretionary Grants: These grants are authorized to be awarded to

state and local law enforcement, as well as private entities, for crime

control and violence prevention activities. The grant program focuses

specifically on education and training for criminal justice personnel,

technical assistance, multijurisdictional projects (e.g., state records

integration), and program demonstrations. Grants also support research

and development projects.

• Byrne Formula Grants: States receive federal funds to improve the

functioning of criminal justice systems. Amounts are based on a set

percentage (0.25) per state, with the remaining funds allocated based on

state population. Eligible uses of funds are categorized by 26 program

purpose areas. Of these, eight contain or could encompass crime

technology assistance. Three of these purpose areas--criminal justice

information systems, drug-control technology, and DNA analysis--are

singularly allocated for crime technology assistance. Included in the

criminal justice information systems purpose area is the 5 percent of Byrne

funds that states must allocate toward improving criminal justice records.

In the remaining five purpose areas, a portion of funds could potentially be

spent on crime technology.

• Local Law Enforcement Block Grants Program: General purpose law

enforcement grants are distributed directly to localities. The amounts are

determined by the number of violent crimes reported in the jurisdiction.

The program has seven broad purpose areas. Of those, one contains a

Office of Justice Programs

Multipurpose Grants

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 32 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

specific funding stream for procuring equipment and technology. Funds

cannot be used to purchase or lease tanks, fixed-wing aircraft, or other

large items without direct law enforcement uses.

Drug Court Discretionary Grant Program: This program provides financial

and technical assistance to states and localities to develop and implement

drug treatment courts that use a mix of treatment, testing, incentives, and

sanctions to remove nonviolent offenders from the cycle of substance

abuse and crime. Grant recipients can use funds to support the

development of information management systems and accompanying

software. Data sharing among drug courts is a primary focus.

• Advancing Community Policing: These grants assist state and local law

enforcement in further developing community policing infrastructures.

Grants can be used to purchase technology and equipment, statistical and

crime-mapping software, and training services. Also, grants can be used to

help law enforcement agencies overcome organizational obstacles and to

establish demonstration centers that model current community policing

methods.

• Community Policing to Combat Domestic Violence: These grants fund

innovative community policing efforts to curb domestic violence by

developing partnerships between law enforcement agencies and

community organizations.

• Making Officer Redeployment Effective Grants: This program serves a

broad purpose of increasing the deployment of law enforcement officers

devoted to community policing by expanding available officer time without

hiring new officers. Grants can be used to purchase equipment and

technology to free up community policing resources. Grants fund up to 75

percent of the cost of equipment and technology, with a 25-percent local

match.

• Problem-Solving Partnerships: These grants fund problem-solving

partnerships between police agencies and community organizations to

address persistent crime problems, such as drug dealing and other public

disorder problems. Grants can be used for technology training and

procurement of equipment.

• Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies: This grant program encourages states

and localities to increase law enforcement attention to domestic abuse.

Grants can support development of integrated computer tracking systems

as well as provide training for police to improve tracking of domestic

violence cases.

Drug Courts Program Office

Office of Community Oriented

Policing Services

Violence Against Women

Grants Office
Appendix II

Crime Technology Assistance (Grants) Provided by the Department of Justice

Page 33 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

• STOP Violence Against Women Formula Grants: These formula grants are

for creating a “coordinated, integrated” strategy involving all elements of

the criminal justice system to respond to violent crimes against women.

Broad program purposes include training for law enforcement and

developing and implementing “services” to effectively address violent

crimes against women.
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support

Services and Systems) Provided by the

Department of Justice

Page 34 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Department of Justice components provided crime technology assistance

in the form of access to and use of specialized support services and

systems. Table III.1 shows the specific types of assistance provided by the

Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, DEA, FBI, the

Immigration and Naturalization Service, the INTERPOL-U.S. National

Central Bureau, and the National Institute of Justice. As shown, regarding

support services and systems, Justice’s crime technology assistance to

state and local law enforcement agencies for fiscal years 1996 to 1998

totaled about $146.6 million. Marshals Service officials told us that their

organization did not have support services and systems that provided

crime technology assistance to state and local law enforcement.

The last section of this appendix provides brief descriptions of the support

services and systems presented in table III.1.

Overview of

Department of Justice

Support Services and

Systems
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of Justice

Page 35 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Dollars in thousands

Justice component Assistance 1996 1997 1998 Total

Bureau of Justice

Assistance National Cybercrime Training Partnership $ 0 $ 0 $ 3,278.0 $ 3,278.0

National White Collar Crime Center 864.3 1,822.1 2,400.6 5,087.0

Regional Information Sharing Systemsa 13,610.6 13,407.8 23,295.0 50,313.4

 Subtotal $14,474.9 $15,229.9 $28,973.6 $58,678.4

Bureau of Justice

Statistics National Incident-Based Reporting System 0 0 955.4 955.4

DEA

Forensic laboratory analysis for District of Columbia

Metropolitan Police 94.6 103.3 110.8 308.7

National Drug Pointer Index 0 45.0 35.5 80.5

Training 647.1 1,580.7 1,215.2 3,443.0

 Subtotal $741.7 $1729.0 $1,361.5 $3,832.2

FBI Combined DNA Index System 5,334.8 5,247.9 6,144.1 16,726.8

Computer Analysis Response Team 694.8 1,180.0 1,387.3 3,262.1

Criminal Justice Information

Services Wide Area Networkb 0 0 153.7 153.7

Express 0 0 20.8 20.8

Fingerprint Identification Programb 422.2 3,236.3 3,001.2 6,659.7

Identification Automated Systemb 401.6 644.0 1,042.4 2,088.0

Law Enforcement On-Line 4,932.8 200.0 7,500.0 12,632.8

National Crime Information Centerb 3,631.0 3,664.3 3,783.0 11,078.3

National Integrated Ballistics Information Network 1,476.3 1,424.4 2,712.5 5,613.2

Trainingc 407.5 569.3 628.5 1,605.3

 Subtotal $17,301.0 $16,166.2 $26,373.5 $59,840.7

INS Law Enforcement Support Center 1,177.2 583.6 1,656.1 3,416.9

INTERPOL -U.S.

National Central

Bureau State Liaison Program 654.0 583.0 773.0 2,010.0

National Institute of

Justice

National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology

Centers 2,598.4 3,954.5 4,747.5 11,300.4

Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information Systemd 0 2,705.6 3,840.2 6,545.8

 Subtotal $ 2,598.4 $ 6,660.1 $ 8,587.7 $17,846.2

Total $36,947.2 $40,951.8 $68,680.8 $146,579.8 a

The figures shown do not include program income (user fees)--about $3.2 million in total--collected

by the six centers during fiscal years 1996 through 1998.

b

The amounts shown are actual expenditures.

Table III.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of Justice Support Services and Systems Provided to State and Local Law

Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of Justice

Page 36 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

c

 Training consists of Forensic Services training (in obligations) and Criminal Justice Information

Services training (in expenditures).

 d Fiscal year 1997 funding was based on an earmark from the Local Law Enforcement Block Grants

Program. Fiscal year 1998 funding was based on an earmark on grant funds administered by the

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

Source: GAO summary of data provided by Justice components.

Following are brief descriptions of Justice’s crime technology assistance

programs listed in table III.1. The descriptions are based on information

that the Justice components provided to us. The services and systems are

grouped by the component providing them.

• National Cybercrime Training Partnership: To address the changing role of

computers and the Internet in the commission of crimes, the National

Cybercrime Training Partnership supports all levels of law enforcement

with “cyber-tools, research, and development.” The Partnership is

developing a nationwide communications network to serve law

enforcement by providing secure “interconnectivity” over the Internet.

Also, the Partnership focuses on training by (1) developing a cadre of

instructors capable of training law enforcement and (2) distributing

nontraditional modes of curricula, such as CD-ROMs, among other things.

In addition, the Partnership plans to serve as a clearinghouse for

information and experts available to law enforcement.

• National White Collar Crime Center: Headquartered in Richmond, VA, the

center maintains a national support system for state and local law

enforcement to facilitate multijurisdictional investigations of white-collar

and economic crimes. The center operates a training and research institute

that serves as a national resource for fighting economic crime.

• Regional Information Sharing Systems: Six regional criminal intelligence

centers focus on multijurisdictional criminal activities. Each center

operates in a mutually exclusive geographic area, a division designed to

more effectively support investigation and prosecution of regional crimes.

State and local law enforcement support services and systems include an

Intelligence Pointer Database, a National Gang Database (under

development), and a secure intranet. All six centers are electronically

connected, and state and local members (about 87 percent of total

membership as of December 31, 1997) are provided with access to the

secure intranet, which facilitates secure E-mail transmissions and access

to other databases. The centers also sponsor technical training

Descriptions of

Justice’s Support

Services and Systems

Bureau of Justice

Assistance
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of Justice

Page 37 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

conferences. Member jurisdictions can be assessed a nominal annual fee

that varies by center.

National Incident-Based Reporting System: This system represents the

next generation of crime data from federal, state, and local law

enforcement agencies. Designed to replace the Uniform Crime Reporting

Program initiated by the FBI in 1930, the development of the National

Incident-Based Reporting System represents a joint effort of the Bureau of

Justice Statistics and the FBI to encourage the presentation of higher

quality data on a wider variety of crimes. The Bureau of Justice Statistics

has played a significant role in fostering participation and developing

techniques to assist jurisdictions in conforming to program requirements.

Also, the Bureau of Justice Statistics funds the operation of a dedicated

website and the formulation of model analytic strategies.

DEA provided the following crime technology assistance to state and local

law enforcement agencies.

• Forensic laboratory analysis, District of Columbia Metropolitan Police:

One of eight forensic laboratories located throughout the United States,

the DEA’s Mid-Atlantic Laboratory provides forensic support to the

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police.

• National Drug Pointer Index: This system provides participating law

enforcement agencies with an automated response capability to determine

if a case suspect is under active investigation by any other participating

agency. If a match occurs, the system provides point-of-contact

information for each identified record. Simultaneously, the system notifies

each record owner that point-of-contact information has been released to

the entry maker for that particular target. If the search finds no matching

records, a negative response is returned.

• Training: DEA provided three training courses that were applicable to our

definition of crime technology assistance. The Clandestine Laboratory Unit

and the Specialized Training Unit both provided training on topics such as

how to use technological devices to assess risks presented by chemicals

found in laboratories. DEA also provided briefings to state and local law

enforcement personnel on the National Drug Pointer Index and its

benefits.

Bureau of Justice Statistics

Drug Enforcement

Administration
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of Justice

Page 38 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

The FBI Laboratory, which is one of the largest and most comprehensive

forensic laboratories in the world, and the FBI’s Criminal Justice

Information Services Division provided various support services and

systems to state and local law enforcement agencies.

• Combined DNA Index System: An index containing DNA records from

persons convicted of crimes. State and local crime laboratories are able to

store and match DNA records.

• Computer Analysis Response Team: Technical assistance regarding

computer technology and computer forensics is provided to federal as well

as state and local law enforcement agencies.

• Criminal Justice Information Wide Area Network: This network supports

the electronic capture, submission, processing, matching, storage, and

retrieval of both criminal and civil fingerprints received by the FBI for use

in the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification System

environment.

• Express: An explosives reference database, Express provides and

correlates information from bombing crime scenes and undetonated

explosive devices.

• Fingerprint Identification Program: An identification process that scans

fingerprint cards and captures fingerprint features for classification and

selects candidates for future manual comparison.

• Identification Automated System: A system containing the criminal history

records of persons arrested for the first time and reported to the FBI since

July 1974, as well as selected manual records that have been converted to

the automated system.

• Law Enforcement On-Line: As the intranet for the U.S. law enforcement

community, Law Enforcement On-Line links all levels of law enforcement

throughout the United States and supports broad, immediate

dissemination of information. Learning programs through electronic

sources are also delivered to local, state, and federal law enforcement

through this intranet.

• National Crime Information Center: This is the nation’s most extensive

computerized criminal justice information system. It consists of a central

computer at FBI headquarters, dedicated telecommunications lines, and a

coordinated network of federal and state criminal justice information

Federal Bureau of

Investigation
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of Justice

Page 39 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

systems. The center provides users with access to files on wanted

persons, stolen vehicles, and missing persons. The system’s largest file, the

Interstate Identification Index, provides access to millions of criminal

history information records contained in state systems.

• National Integrated Ballistics Information Network: A joint effort between

the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, this national

database computer system allows laboratories across the country to

exchange and compare images of fired ammunition casings. The images of

microscopic marks that result after a gun is fired are stored in this

database.

• Training: The FBI Laboratory and the Criminal Justice Information

Services Division’s Education/Training Services Unit provide training to

the law enforcement community. Forensic laboratory training includes a

variety of topics such as management of forensic and technical services;

identification and comparison of latent fingerprints; explosives detection;

postblast bombing investigations; and responding to and resolving the

scientific, forensic, and technical elements of incidents involving chemical,

biological, and nuclear materials.

The Criminal Justice Information Services Division provides training on,

among other things, the National Crime Information Center, Uniform

Crime Reports, and the Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification

System.

The Law Enforcement Support Center is accessible 24 hours a day to the

criminal justice community. The center provides state and local law

enforcement agencies with the ability to exchange information on the

immigration status of foreign-born suspects under arrest or investigation.

Information requests are submitted through the National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System. Upon receipt of an inquiry, the center

searches INS and other criminal databases and transmits the findings to

the requester. Also, the center provides an important source of

information to each state conducting firearms purchaser inquiries

stemming from the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Act).

State firearms points of contact may query the center on prospective gun

purchasers and receive a “proceed” or “deny” recommendation using the

disqualifying criteria mandated by the Brady Act.

Immigration and

Naturalization Service
Appendix III

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of Justice

Page 40 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

INTERPOL- U.S. National Central Bureau is a resource for state and local

law enforcement agencies to conduct international investigations. The

bureau is electronically connected through a secure network to the

national police agencies of 177 INTERPOL member countries and the

INTERPOL General Secretariat (headquarters) in Lyons, France. Also, the

bureau communicates with state offices that have liaisons responsible for

contacting foreign police. Coordination between the liaison offices and

member countries is maintained through the National Law Enforcement

Telecommunications System.

• National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Centers: The five

regional centers and one national center identify and evaluate available

technologies to determine law enforcement suitability, facilitate

public/private partnerships to develop new technologies, and provide

technology and information assistance to law enforcement and corrections

agencies by introducing promising new technologies and providing

technology training. According to a National Institute of Justice official,

while the centers do not directly transfer crime technology, they serve as

(1) brokers between crime technology manufacturers and state and local

jurisdictions and (2) an information resource for law enforcement

agencies.

• Southwest Border States Anti-Drug Information System: A secure law

enforcement information sharing system that connects intelligence

databases of four southwest border states (Arizona, California, New

Mexico, and Texas); the three Regional Information Sharing Systems

centers in that area; and the El Paso Intelligence Center. This system

provides for secure E-mail transmissions and includes a preestablished

query system. The system allows all participants to query the databases of

all other participants and is composed of an administrative web server that

offers key electronic services, such as providing agency contact

information and system usage statistics.

INTERPOL – U.S. National

Central Bureau

National Institute of Justice
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support

Services and Systems) Provided by the

Department of the Treasury

Page 41 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Department of the Treasury components provided crime technology

assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies in the form of

access to, and use of, specialized support services and systems, such as

computerized databases and forensics laboratories. Treasury components

also provided training on the use of technology-related equipment to state

and local law enforcement agencies. Table IV.1 shows the specific types of

crime technology assistance provided by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms; the Customs Service; the Federal Law Enforcement Training

Center; the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network; IRS; and the Secret

Service. As shown, Treasury’s crime technology assistance for fiscal years

1996 to 1998 totaled about $15.9 million.

The last section in this appendix provides brief descriptions of applicable

support services and systems.

Dollars in thousands

Treasury component Assistance 1996 1997 1998 Total

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms

Accelerant Detection Analysis $ 816.0 $639.0 $1,292.0 $2,747.0

Advanced Serial Case Management 46.0 37.0 58.0 141.0

Arson CD-ROM 0 0 375.0 375.0

Arson/Explosives Incident System 97.0 2,614.0 835.0 3,546.0

Consolidated Gang Database 4.0 0 0 4.0

Dipole Study 150.0 150.0 150.0 450.0

Electronic Facial Identification

Technique 15.0 15.0 15.0 45.0

Explosive Forensics 163.0 127.0 258.0 548.0

Federal Firearms License System 9.0 0 9.0 18.0

Firearms Tracing System 768.0 507.0 1,216.0 2,491.0

Integrated Ballistics Identification

System 0 499.0 902.0 1,401.0

National (Arson and Explosives)

Repository 0 243.0 243.0 486.0

National Response Team 250.0 250.0 250.0 750.0

Youth Crime Gun Interdiction

Initiative 0 255.0 150.0 405.0

 Subtotal $2,318.0 $5,336.0 $5,753.0 $13,407.0

Customs Service Treasury Enforcement

Communications System 1.2 1.6 1.7 4.5

Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center

Advanced Airborne Counterdrug

Operations Training Program 0 7.6 0 7.6

Airborne Counterdrug Operations

Training Program 30.7 46.0 76.8 153.5

Overview of

Department of the

Treasury Support

Services and Systems

Table IV.1: Estimated Obligations of Department of the Treasury Support Services and Systems Provided to State and Local

Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of the Treasury

Page 42 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Treasury component Assistance 1996 1997 1998 Total

 Subtotal $30.7 $53.6 $76.8 $161.1

Financial Crimes Enforcement

Network Project Gateway 472.7 621.6 518.3 1,612.6

Internal Revenue Service National Forensic Laboratory negligiblea negligiblea negligiblea negligiblea

Secret Service

Audio/Image Enhancement 1.2 1.3 2.8 5.3

Automated Fingerprint Identification

System 5.9 5.8 4.5 16.2

Cellular Tracking Project 0 0 65.0 65.0

Computer Forensic Support 0 40.0 220.0 260.0

Electronic Crimes Branch Support 60.0 30.0 20.0 110.0

Encryption 0 0 70.0 70.0

Identification Branch Training 21.8 33.3 9.1 64.2

“Operation Safe Kids” 0 15.4 5.1 20.5

Polygraph examinations 6.4 8.5 7.0 21.9

Questioned Document Branch 33.1 23.3 27.0 83.4

 Subtotal $128.4 $157.6 $430.5 $716.5

Total $2,951.0 $6,170.4 $6,780.3 $15,901.7 a

According to an IRS official, the cost of providing laboratory assistance was less than $1,000 per

year.

Source: GAO summary of data provided by Treasury components.

Following are brief descriptions of the Treasury’s crime technology

assistance programs listed in table IV.1. The descriptions are based on

information that the Treasury components provided to us. The services

and systems are grouped by the component providing them.

ATF provided the following types of crime technology assistance to state

and local law enforcement agencies:

• Accelerant Detection Analysis: The laboratory analysis of fire debris to

detect and identify flammable liquids potentially used as accelerants in an

incendiary fire. ATF has offered on-site training in fire debris analysis to

analysts from state and local laboratories and is currently assisting in fire

debris analysis training provided by the National Fire Safety Training

Center.

• Advanced Serial Case Management: A case management and lead-tracking

database designed to accept large volumes of data. The database analyzes

information to assist investigators in identifying trends, patterns, and

investigative leads for major federal or state incidents.

Descriptions of

Treasury’s Support

Services and Systems

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of the Treasury

Page 43 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

• Arson CD-ROM: An interactive training tool, the CD-ROM/virtual reality

training program is designed to elevate the overall investigative

competency levels of all fire investigators in the United States and

establish a consistent standard for fire investigation.

• Arson/Explosives Incident System: A clearinghouse for data collected from

several agencies. The system produces statistical and investigative data

that can be used real-time by arson and bomb investigators. State and

local agencies can query the system for things such as component parts,

stolen explosives, and device placement.

• Consolidated Gang Database: A database to track various types of

information about outlaw motorcycle gangs, street and ethnic gangs, and

antigovernment groups involved in criminal activity. Data are compiled

from ATF investigative reports and state and local law enforcement

agencies.

• Dipole Study: The Dipole Study is intended to assist state, local, and

federal explosives investigators and building designers. For courtroom

presentation purposes, the study produced a software package that will

allow investigators to support their theory of an explosion and explain

blast damage and fragmentary damage.

• Electronic Facial Identification Technique: A specialized software program

that allows operators to create composite sketches of suspected

perpetrators or unidentified persons who surface as suspects or potential

witnesses during an investigation.

• Explosive Forensics: Examination of debris collected at the scene of an

explosion or of suspected explosive material obtained from recovery or

undercover purchase.

• Federal Firearms License System: The primary objective of this system is

to produce a relational database of firearms and explosives licensing

information. This system allows users to search for licensing information.

On a semiannual basis, information is provided to state and local police

departments identifying the federal firearms licensees in their geographical

area of responsibility.

• Firearms Tracing System: The National Tracing Center traces firearms for

federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement agencies. The firearms

are traced from the manufacturer to the retail purchaser.

• Integrated Ballistics Identification System: A system that allows firearms

technicians to digitize and automatically correlate and compare bullet and

shell casing signatures. The equipment quickly provides investigators with

leads to solve greater numbers of crimes.

• National (Arson and Explosives) Repository: A database, the repository

contains information regarding arson incidents and the actual and

suspected criminal misuse of explosives throughout the United States.
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of the Treasury

Page 44 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

The information will be available for statistical analysis and research,

investigative leads, and intelligence.

• National Response Team: The National Response Team was established to

assist state and local police and fire departments in investigating largescale fires and explosions.

• Youth Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative: This initiative is a focused

component of the federal effort to combat firearms trafficking. Working

with state and local law enforcement agencies, the tracing of crime guns

provides leads to interdict the trafficking of firearms to youths and

juveniles. Among other things, this initiative makes ATF’s firearms trace

capabilities and data more accessible to state and local law enforcement

agencies.

The Treasury Enforcement Communications System has three programs

that provide crime technology-related assistance to state and local law

enforcement agencies:

• Diplomatic Licensing and Registration Program: Users may query vehicle

registration and drivers license information for persons and vehicles

licensed by the Department of State.

• Aircraft Registration and Tracking: Users may query information about

aircraft registered with the Federal Aviation Administration.

• Bank Secrecy Act Program: Provides information to state agencies

responsible for enforcing state money laundering statutes.

The Federal Law Enforcement Training Center provides two training

programs involving use of crime technology-related equipment:

• Advanced Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training Program: This

program provides students with the opportunity to use technical

equipment in darkness.

• Airborne Counterdrug Operations Training Program: This program teaches

students how to use equipment such as global positioning hand-held

devices and thermal imaging systems.

Customs Service

Federal Law Enforcement

Training Center
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of the Treasury

Page 45 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Project Gateway: Established to facilitate the exchange of Bank Secrecy

Act information with state and local law enforcement agencies.4 Gateway

incorporates custom-designed software to provide designated state

coordinators with rapid and direct on-line electronic access to Bank

Secrecy Act records, including suspicious activity reports.

National Forensic Laboratory: The laboratory primarily supports IRS

criminal investigations involving violations of federal tax law and related

financial crimes. According to IRS officials, a limited or negligible amount

of support (less than $1,000 per year) is provided to state and local law

enforcement. However, when provided, forensic support or assistance may

include (1) document and handwriting analyses, (2) polygraph

examinations, and (3) audio/video surveillance tape enhancements.

The Secret Service provided the following types of crime technology

assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies:

• Audio/Image Enhancement: Audio enhancements include 911 calls,

telephone answering machine recordings, court recordings, and gunfire

analysis. Image enhancements include images obtained from surveillance

cameras that recorded robberies of stores, banks, and ATMs, as well as

devices that recorded homicides in a variety of locations.

• Automated Fingerprint Identification System: This hybrid network of state

and local digitized fingerprint databases provides in excess of 20 million

fingerprint records to be searched by the Secret Service’s Identification

Branch.

• Cellular Tracking Project: Equipment is used to track cellular telephones.

The system is capable of identifying the suspect’s location. This system is

made available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies upon

request and, according to Secret Service officials, has proven to be very

successful in cases where state and local law enforcement officials have

requested this Secret Service equipment and expertise in murder,

carjacking, and kidnapping cases.

• Computer Forensic Support: Forensic examination of electronic evidence

is provided through the Electronic Crimes Special Agent Program. Special

agents, among other things, assist state and local law enforcement

 

4

 Enacted in 1970, the Bank Secrecy Act requires, among other things, financial institutions to maintain

records and report certain domestic currency transactions and cross-border transportation of

currency. One purpose of such records and reports was to create a paper trail for investigators’ use in

tracing illicit funds.

Financial Crimes

Enforcement Network

Internal Revenue

Service

Secret Service
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of the Treasury

Page 46 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

agencies in the examination of computers, computer systems, electronic

communication systems, telecommunication systems and devices,

electronic organizers, scanners, and other devices manufactured to

intercept or duplicate telecommunications services.

• Electronic Crimes Branch Support: This branch supports law enforcement

investigations involving computers, computer systems intrusions,

electronic communication systems, and telecommunication systems and

devices. Among the branch’s duties are the oversight of all

telecommunications and computer fraud cases; establishment and

operation of a forensic laboratory to process electronically stored data and

telecommunications devices; and coordination of training initiatives for

field office investigators, state and local police, and industry

representatives.

• Encryption: Assistance is provided to state and local law enforcement

agencies in decoding encrypted computer files.

• Identification Branch Training: This branch provides training to state and

local law enforcement agencies on appropriate methods for operating

computerized fingerprinting systems.

• Operation Safe Kids: This program is sponsored by the Secret Service at

the request of state and local law enforcement agencies. Operation Safe

Kids uses digital cameras and fingerprint scanning technology to provide

parents with a printed document that contains a photograph and

thumbprints of their child.

• Polygraph examinations: The Secret Service’s Polygraph Branch conducts

polygraph examinations regarding criminal activities ranging from

embezzlement to child molestation and homicide.

• Questioned Document Branch: Four branch sections (document

examination, instrumental analysis, document authentication, and

automated recognition) provide forensic science support. The branch

maintains three databases that can support state and local law

enforcement:

1. The Forensic Information System for Handwriting is a software

system where known and unknown writing samples are scanned,

digitized, and subjected to mathematical algorithms against authors

maintained in the database.
Appendix IV

Crime Technology Assistance (Support Services and Systems) Provided by the Department

of the Treasury

Page 47 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

2. The Watermark Collection database contains over 23,000 watermarks

enabling the identification of partial as well as complete watermarks.

This database is updated several times a year as the paper industry

submits new and updated watermarks.

3. The Ink Collection database contains over 7,500 inks dating back to

the 1920s. Chemical analysis of these inks allows for differentiation

and identification of the first date a particular entry could have been

made based on the first commercial availability date of the writing ink.

This database is updated yearly through submissions from the ink

industry.
Appendix V

Crime Technology Assistance (In-Kind

Transfers) Provided by the Office of National

Drug Control Policy

Page 48 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

ONDCP’s Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center (CTAC) was

established to serve as the central counterdrug enforcement research and

development organization of the U.S. government. CTAC was established

by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 (P.L. 101-

510), which amended the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 and placed CTAC

under the operating authority of the Director of ONDCP and required that

CTAC be headed by a Chief Scientist of Counterdrug Technology. 1

CTAC’s mission is to advance technologies that support the national drug

control goals by improving the effectiveness of law enforcement, drug

interdiction, and substance abuse treatment research. As part of its

mission, CTAC is to identify and define the scientific and technological

needs of federal, state, and local drug enforcement agencies. According to

ONDCP officials, in fiscal year 1998, CTAC implemented the Technology

Transfer Pilot Program to assist state and local law enforcement agencies.

According to ONDCP officials, for fiscal year 1998, the Technology

Transfer Pilot Program involved 18 projects or systems that fit our

definition of crime technology assistance. However, only 15 of these

projects or systems were transferred or provided to state and local law

enforcement agencies. According to the CTAC Director, as of December

1998, these 15 projects or systems involved a total of 202 recipient state

and local law enforcement agencies. As table V.1 shows, the fiscal year

1998 obligations for these 15 projects or systems totaled $13 million.

Dollars in thousands

Systems Provided Under the Technology Transfer Pilot

Program Obligations

Air-Ground Surveillance Management System $ 1,500.0

Body Worn 550.0

Borderline with VoiceBox System 1,750.0

Data Locator System 250.0

Drugwipe 150.0

GLADYSa 350.0

Mini-Buster Contraband Detector 1,300.0

Money Laundering Software 250.0

Signcutter $250.0

Small Look 850.0

Tactical Speech Collection and Analysis System 150.0

Thermal Imagers 1,500.0

Vapor Tracer 1,800.0

Video Stabilization System 200.0

 

1

Drug Control: Planned Actions Should Clarify Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center’s Impact

(GAO/GGD-98-28, Feb. 3, 1998).

Mission of ONDCP’s

Counterdrug

Technology

Assessment Center

Overview of

Technology Transfer

Pilot Program

Table V.1: ONDCP Crime Technology Assistance Provided to State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, Fiscal Year 1998
Appendix V

Crime Technology Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Page 49 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Systems Provided Under the Technology Transfer Pilot

Program Obligations

Wireless Interoperability System 1,400.0

Total $13,000.0

a According to an ONDCP official, GLADYS is not an acronym; rather, the system’s title is based upon

a fictional person’s name.

Source: GAO summary of data provided by ONDCP.

The Technology Transfer Pilot Program matched CTAC-sponsored systems

with state or local law enforcement agency requirements and arranged for

the transfer of those systems. In order to participate in the program, state

and local law enforcement agencies submitted letters and a completed

ONDCP questionnaire. When awarded, the recipients received a technical

team, training, and technical assistance that was directly related to the

technology product. The U.S. Army Electronic Proving Ground at Fort

Huachuca, AZ, assisted CTAC by managing the Technology Transfer Pilot

Program and providing engineering expertise in communications and

electronics.

The following are descriptions of the 15 CTAC crime technology assistance

systems (see table V.1) that were transferred to state and local law

enforcement agencies in fiscal year 1998.

• Air-Ground Surveillance Management System: This technology provides

the ability to track and locate both field units (friendly assets) and

suspects (targets) using a variety of remote sensors. Tracking and other

information is graphically displayed and archived on a moving map display

at the base station.

• Body Worn: A miniaturized audio device (body wire). The secure

multichannel transmitter, with voice privacy and low probability of

detection capabilities, can be worn inconspicuously during covert

operations.

• Borderline With Voicebox System: A telephone intercept monitoring and

recording system. The system digitally records telephone conversations,

faxes, and computer data, plus any short notes typed by the

monitor/operator. The recordings are then available for review and

transcription and use in investigations.

• Data Locator System: A software package that provides secure exchange

of electronic mail, database input and extraction, and police intelligence

analysis information over a standard internet connection.

• Drugwipe: A surface residue test kit that identifies trace amounts of

cannabis, cocaine, opiates, and amphetamines. Evidence of narcotic

materials is identified by color change.

Descriptions of

Applicable Systems
Appendix V

Crime Technology Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Page 50 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

• GLADYS: A computer-based system that uses telephone company billing

records to analyze cellular phone traffic.

• Mini-Buster Contraband Detector: A portable contraband detection kit. A

“Buster”detector indicates differences in density encountered when moved

across a surface. The kit includes an ultrasonic range finder that measures

distances up to 90 feet within 1-inch accuracy for detection of false walls

or bulkheads. The flexible fiber optic scope contains a portable light

source for remote viewing inside inaccessible spaces such as fuel tanks.

• Money Laundering Software: A software package used to detect suspicious

financial transactions. The software identifies underlying patterns and

trends associated with money laundering, including suspicious financial

transactions within complex data sources, such as state and bank activities

involving money transfers and currency exchanges.

• Signcutter: A system that tracks and locates vehicles using a tracking unit

based on Global Positioning System technology. The unit may be used to

track law enforcement vehicles or covertly track a “suspect” vehicle.

• Small Look: A miniaturized video surveillance system consisting of a

miniature, solid-state electronic camera system. It captures, processes, and

stores hundreds of digital picture images in nonvolatile memory.

• Tactical Speech Collection and Analysis System: A voice identification

system that can store up to 25 voice samples on the system’s hard drive.

• Thermal Imagers: An infrared imaging surveillance system that provides

night vision capabilities. Real-time video pictures are generated in all

lighting conditions when the unit senses heat.

• Vapor Tracer: A hand-held detection system, this device is capable of

detecting and identifying extremely small quantities of narcotics and

explosives. This system works by drawing a sample of vapor into the

detector where it is heated, ionized, and identified.

• Video Stabilization System: A surveillance video enhancement system.

The system is used to eliminate jitter and camera motion, typically

associated with surveillance video.

• Wireless Interoperability System: A computer-based interagency radio

communications switching system. Computer-aided switching technology

is used to connect numerous law enforcement agencies to a central radio

system console for the purpose of improving interagency communications

during counternarcotic investigations.

Although available in fiscal year 1998, three other crime technology-related

systems sponsored by ONDCP were not transferred to state and local law

enforcement agencies:
Appendix V

Crime Technology Assistance (In-Kind Transfers) Provided by the Office of National Drug

Control Policy

Page 51 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

• Secure Messaging and Investigative Information Transmission System: A

system using a secure web server to upload, search, and distribute images

using wireless transmission between field and police headquarters.

• Suspect Pointer Index Network: A relational database application to be

used for the entry, retention, and analysis of multimedia data, such as

images and text, supporting counterdrug operations, general case

investigations, and crime analysis requirements.

• Tactical Video Communication System: An analog communication system

for transmitting live video and audio from a forward area back to a

command post.
Appendix VI

Major Contributors to This Report

Page 52 GAO/GGD-99-101 Crime Technology

Danny R. Burton, Assistant Director

Mark A. Tremba, Evaluator-in-Charge

Seto J. Bagdoyan, Senior Evaluator

Chan My J. Battcher, Evaluator

Andrew B. Hoffman, Evaluator

David P. Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst

Denise M. Fantone, Assistant Director

Jan B. Montgomery, Assistant General Counsel

Geoffrey R. Hamilton, Senior Attorney

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional

copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address,

accompanied by a check or money order made out to the

Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more

copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Order by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax

number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.

To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past

30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A

recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these

lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100

(182062)