Report to Congressional Requesters

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

March 2004 FEDERAL LAW 

ENFORCEMENT 

Information on Use of 

Investigation and 

Arrest Statistics 

GAO-04-411 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-411.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Paul Jones at 

(202) 512-8777 or jonesp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-411, a report to 

congressional requesters 

March 2004

FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT

Information on Use of Investigation and 

Arrest Statistics 

Guidance and procedures for counting investigations, or cases, are generally 

consistent among the six agencies GAO reviewed. Agencies pursue 

investigations into crimes that have a nexus to their missions, such as drug 

trafficking for the DEA, mail theft for USPIS, and illegal aliens for the former 

INS. Once agents have made the decision to open a case, the cases are to be 

reviewed and approved by a supervisor, and details of the case are then 

entered into the agencies’ case management tracking systems. GAO also 

found agency guidance and procedures for counting arrests to be generally 

consistent among all six agencies. In addition, the agencies required 

supervisory review of the justifications for the arrests before they were 

entered into the agencies’ data tracking systems and officially counted. 

In general, agencies use investigation and arrest statistics as indicators of 

agency work and as output measures in performance plans, budget 

justifications, and testimonies. In some cases, these data are considered in 

making promotion, bonus, and award determinations. However, 

investigation and arrest statistics are not emphasized in any of these 

activities, but are one of many factors that are considered. 

All of the agencies GAO reviewed counted the same investigations and 

arrests when more than one of them participated in the investigative and 

arresting activities. This practice seems appropriate because many 

investigations and arrests would not have occurred without the involvement 

and cooperation of all the agencies that participated. If agencies were not 

allowed to count investigations and arrests in which they participated, 

agencies would be less likely to work together, cases would be much 

smaller, and the desired disruption of high-level criminal organizations 

would be hampered. 

The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and USPIS reviewed a 

draft of this report and generally agreed with GAO’s findings. Technical 

comments were incorporated as appropriate. 

Arrests for Federal Offenses, by Arresting Federal Law Enforcement Agency 

Total arrests

1998 (104,422)

1999 (109,857)

2000 (115,589)

2001 (118,896)

2002 (124,210)

DEA FBI Marshals

Service

Customs INS USPIS All other

federal

agencies

Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2001; Marshals Service

Prisoner Tracking System for Fiscal Year 2002.

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

The 21st Century Department of 

Justice Appropriations 

Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273) 

requires GAO to report on how 

investigation and arrest statistics 

are reported and used by federal 

law enforcement agencies. This 

report provides information on 

(1) the guidance and procedures 

followed by federal law 

enforcement agencies regarding 

counting investigations and arrests, 

(2) how investigation and arrest 

statistics are used, and (3) whether 

multiple agencies are counting and 

reporting the same investigations 

and arrests. GAO selected six 

agencies for review: the Drug 

Enforcement Administration 

(DEA), the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), the former 

Immigration and Naturalization 

Service (INS), the U.S. Marshals 

Service, the former U.S. Customs 

Service, and the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service (USPIS). 
Page i GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Letter 1

Background 2

Results 4

Concluding Observations 9

Agency Comments 10

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 11 

Appendix II Drug Enforcement Administration Profile 14 

Counting Investigations and Arrests 14

Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 20

Appendix III FBI Profile 22 

Counting Investigations and Arrests 22

Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 26

Appendix IV U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile 29 

Counting Investigations and Arrests 29

Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 32

Appendix V U.S. Customs Service Profile 35 

Counting Investigations and Arrests 35

Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 38

Appendix VI Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile 40 

Counting Investigations and Arrests 40

Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 44

Appendix VII U.S. Marshals Service Profile 46 

Counting Investigations and Arrests 46

Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 48

Appendix VIII Drug Trafficking Investigation 49 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Appendix IX Child Pornography Investigation 52 

Appendix X Counterterrorism Investigation 54 

Appendix XI Comments from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service 56 

Appendix XII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 58 

GAO Contacts 58

Staff Acknowledgments 58

Figures 

Figure 1: Arrests for Federal Offenses, by Arresting Federal Law 

Enforcement Agency 4

Figure 2: Investigations Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 16

Figure 3: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 18

Figure 4: Investigations Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 23

Figure 5: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 25

Figure 6: Investigations Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 30

Figure 7: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 31

Figure 8: Cases Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 36

Figure 9: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998 to 2001 37

Table 10: Investigations Opened and Closed and Arrests—Fiscal 

Years 1998-2001 43

Figure 11: Warrants Closed by the Marshals Service and by Other 

Agencies—Fiscal Years 1998-2002 47
Page iii GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Abbreviations 

ASAC Assistant Special Agent in Charge 

BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics 

CAR Case Activity Report 

CAST Case Status Subsystem 

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DSS Defendant Statistical System 

FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation 

FMP Field Management Plans 

ICMS Investigations Case Management System 

INS Immigration and Naturalization Service 

ISRAA Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application 

ISDBIS Inspection Service Database Information System 

JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force 

PAS Performance Analysis System 

PTS Prisoner Tracking System 

SAC Special Agent in Charge 

SOD Special Operations Division 

TECS Treasury Enforcement Communications System 

USPIS U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 
Page 1 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

March 19, 2004 

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 

Chairman 

The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

Congress has expressed interest in issues concerning how federal law 

enforcement agencies count investigations and arrests and about how the 

pursuit of such statistics may be affecting agencies’ priorities and 

management and administrative practices. The issues include whether 

multiple agencies are counting and reporting the same investigations and 

arrests; whether agencies are using duplicative investigation and arrest 

statistics to support their requests for more resources; and whether 

agencies are using the statistics to support promotions, bonuses, and other 

awards for investigative personnel. Staff from your offices suggested that 

additional information on the extent of agencies’ reporting of duplicative 

investigations and arrests would be helpful to them in making budgetary 

or policy decisions. 

The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act1

required us to report on how investigation and arrest statistics are 

reported and used by federal law enforcement agencies. After consulting 

with your offices, we agreed that our objectives for this report would be to 

determine (1) what guidance and procedures are followed by federal law 

enforcement agencies regarding counting investigations and arrests, 

(2) how investigation and arrest statistics are used, and (3) whether 

 1

P.L. 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002), section 11026. 

United States General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

multiple agencies are counting and reporting the same investigations and 

arrests. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed data and 

documentation and interviewed officials at six federal agencies that 

perform investigations and arrest suspects. The agencies selected were the 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the 

U.S. Marshals Service, all from the Department of Justice (Justice); the 

U.S. Customs Service (Customs), from the Department of the Treasury; 

and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS).2

 We selected DEA, FBI, 

Customs, INS, and the Marshals Service because these agencies reported 

the highest number of federal arrests, according to the Bureau of Justice 

Statistics (BJS) Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2000, the 

most recent published report available at the time of our selection. We 

selected USPIS because it reported the highest number of federal arrests 

from non-Justice or non-Treasury agencies. We also reviewed information 

related to three joint investigations involving several of the selected 

agencies to see how they counted arrests while participating with other 

federal law enforcement agencies. 

We conducted our review between March 2003 and February 2004 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Additional details on our scope and methodology may be found in 

appendix I. Detailed information on the six agencies’ use of investigation 

and arrest statistics can be found in appendixes II through VII. Detailed 

information about the three investigations can be found in appendixes VIII 

through X. 

Investigations and arrests are core functions of all federal law 

enforcement agencies. According to BJS, as of June 2000 (the latest 

available information), 69 federal agencies employed 88,000 full-time law 

 2

On March 1, 2003, functions of several border and security agencies, including INS and 

Customs, were transferred into the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security 

within the Department of Homeland Security. As part of this transition, these agency 

functions were reorganized into the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. 

Several primary program areas comprise Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including 

customs and immigration investigations. Because most of the investigation and arrest 

activity reviewed for this study occurred prior to Homeland Security’s reorganization, for 

this report, we will refer to the former Customs and INS agency structures. 

Background 
Page 3 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

enforcement officers.3 Of these, Justice employed more than half (58 

percent) and the Department of the Treasury employed 21 percent. During 

fiscal year 2001, according to BJS, these two agencies accounted for the 

highest percentage of arrests for federal offenses, with 71 percent made by 

Justice components and 12 percent by Treasury components. In addition, 

state and local agencies made 4 percent of the arrests, and 7 percent of the 

arrests were made after the suspects voluntarily reported to the Marshals 

Service following a summons. The remaining 6 percent of the arrests were 

made by other agencies or were undesignated in the statistics. 

Suspects arrested by federal agencies for federal crimes are transferred to 

the custody of the Marshals Service for processing, transportation,and 

detention. According to BJS, in 2001 the Marshals Service received 118,896 

suspects from federal law enforcement agencies, including those the 

Marshals arrested themselves. Of these arrests, 28 percent were for drug 

offenses; 21 percent for immigration offenses, 16 percent for supervision 

violations; 14 percent for property offenses (such as embezzlement, 

forgery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft); 8 percent were for public-order 

offenses;4

 5 percent for weapons offenses; 4 percent for violent offenses; 

and 3 percent to secure and safeguard a material witness. 

Figure 1 shows the number of suspects arrested only for federal offenses 

for the agencies we reviewed. Some suspects arrested by federal agents 

are transferred to state and local jurisdictions for prosecution for 

nonfederal crimes. For example, according to BJS, in fiscal year 2001 DEA 

arrested 11,778 suspects for federal offenses who were booked by the 

Marshals Service. However, DEA’s statistical reporting system recorded 

over 35,000 arrests that same year; the additional suspects were turned 

over to state and local authorities and were not booked through the 

Marshals Service, according to BJS. Similarly, BJS reported that USPIS 

arrested 1,226 suspects for federal offenses who were booked by the 

Marshals Service in fiscal year 2001, while USPIS told us that they had 

made 4,698 federal arrests that same year. 

 3

Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice 

Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2003, NCJ 201627. 

4

Public order offenses include offenses concerning tax law, perjury, and racketeering and 

extortion. 
Page 4 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Figure 1: Arrests for Federal Offenses, by Arresting Federal Law Enforcement Agency 

Note: BJS statistics only include suspects arrested for federal offenses who are booked by the 

Marshals Service. Agencies’ arrest totals are higher than those shown in figure 1. 

Results 

Total arrests

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Arresting agency

1998 (104,422)

1999 (109,857)

2000 (115,589)

2001 (118,896)

2002 (124,210)

DEA FBI Marshals

Service

Customs INS USPIS All other federal

agencies

Source: BJS Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2001; Marshals Service Prisoner Tracking System for Fiscal Year 2002.

Year (total federal arrests)
Page 5 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The guidance and procedures for counting investigations, or “cases” as 

they are sometimes referred to, are generally consistent among the six 

agencies we reviewed.5

 Agencies pursue investigations into crimes that 

have a nexus to their respective missions, such as drug trafficking for 

DEA, mail theft for USPIS, and illegal aliens for INS. Generally, according 

to their guidance and procedures, agencies open cases that result from tips 

or leads received from confidential informants or other sources, they may 

be invited to help in other agencies’ cases, or they may participate in task 

force investigations. Once the agents have made the decision to open a 

case, the cases are to be reviewed and approved by a supervisor, and 

details of the case are then entered into the agencies’ case management 

tracking systems and counted. 

We also found agency guidance and procedures for counting arrests to be 

generally consistent among all six agencies. That is, agents must be 

directly involved in the arrest, assist other law enforcement personnel in 

making the arrest, or provide information that leads to an arrest. For 

example, according to DEA’s Agents Manual, agents are to count drugrelated arrests only when DEA is directly involved in the arrest. Similarly, 

USPIS inspectors are to count arrests when physically present or 

providing assistance. According to USPIS’s Inspection Service Manual, 

inspectors are to count an arrest when 

• an inspector participated personally in making an arrest or contributed 

significantly to an investigation resulting in an arrest made by another law 

enforcement agency; 

• an inspector’s investigative efforts with another law enforcement agency 

motivate and materially contribute to the identity and arrest of a person 

for a postal crime event though the inspector was not present at the time; 

or 

• an inspector’s investigation of a postal offense develops additional, 

significant evidence that is brought to the prosecutor’s attention that leads 

to prosecution for an additional offense. 

The determination of material contribution, as used in the Inspection 

Service Manual, is left to the judgment of a supervisor. For example, 

according to USPIS officials, if a postal inspector alerted the highway 

 5

Some agencies refer to investigations as cases. For this report, we will use investigations 

and cases interchangeably. 

Guidance and Procedures 

for Counting Investigations 

and Arrests Are Generally 

Consistent among 

Agencies 
Page 6 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

patrol to an individual suspected of mail theft, or if the inspector was 

conducting an ongoing investigation on the suspect and the highway patrol 

made the arrest, the arrest would be claimed by USPIS even though the 

postal inspectors did not make the physical arrest. 

The other agencies in our review used similar criteria for counting arrests. 

In addition, the agencies required supervisory review of the justifications 

for the arrests before they were entered into the agencies’ data tracking 

systems and officially counted. 

In addition to their guidance and procedures for counting investigations 

and arrests, three of the agencies in our review—DEA, FBI, and USPIS—

have an inspection process to, among other things, review the 

appropriateness of investigations and arrests that are made. DEA, for 

example, told us that its Inspections Division periodically validates a 

sample of arrests and screens them for any type of questionable activity, 

such as “piggy backing” arrests. According to a DEA official, piggy backing 

is when state and local law enforcement agencies perform the 

investigative work and a DEA agent goes along for the arrest, writes it up, 

and claims credit for the arrest. The official said that the Inspections 

Division has consistently found a very low percentage of questionable 

arrests, but that a database of questionable arrests has not been 

accumulated. The official gave one example from DEA’s New York Field 

Office, where 2 or 3 questionable arrests out of over 8,000 were found. The 

official indicated that questionable arrests are mostly isolated incidents 

and are not part of any systemic problems. The official concluded that if 

questionable arrests were found, those arrest statistics would be removed 

from the agency database. FBI and USPIS officials said that no 

questionable arrests were found during their reviews. 

Agency officials with whom we spoke told us that investigation and arrest 

statistics are used for many purposes, depending on the circumstances. In 

general, the officials said that statistics serve as indicators of agency work 

and as output measures in performance plans, budget justifications, 

testimonies, and for some agencies, are considered in making promotion, 

bonus, and award determinations. Officials at the agencies we reviewed 

said that investigation and arrest statistics are not emphasized in any of 

these activities, but are one of many factors that are considered when 

reporting agency results or when making personnel decisions. 

Investigation and Arrest 

Statistics Are Used for a 

Variety of Purposes 
Page 7 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

We found that agencies generally reported investigation and arrest 

statistics in their budget justifications, congressional testimonies, and/or 

other public documents. These statistics, however, were not the only 

criteria used as indicators of agency workload and productivity. 

We reviewed FBI budget requests for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, for 

example, and found numbers of investigations and arrests listed in the 

documents, as well as numbers of indictments and convictions. DEA’s 

budget requests to Congress also included investigation and arrest 

statistics. For example, in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, DEA 

reported on an operation that resulted in 38 arrests, and a table in DEA’s 

fiscal year 2004 budget request entitled “Domestic Enforcement” showed 

the number of national/local investigations, investigations completed, and 

total investigations. 

Conversely, INS did not cite investigation and arrest statistics in its budget 

justification documents. Investigation and arrest activities were discussed, 

however, in the very broadest terms. For example, in its 2003 budget 

justification documentation, INS indicated that it would initiate highpriority investigations, conduct asset seizures, and present individuals for 

prosecution for alien smuggling-related violations to disrupt the means 

and methods that facilitate alien smuggling. And, in its 2002 

documentation, INS noted that, as a result of its efforts, many alien 

smugglers, fraud organizations, and facilitators were arrested and 

presented for prosecution; assets were seized; and aliens with a nexus to 

organized crime, violent gangs, drug trafficking gangs, or who have 

terrorist-related affiliations, were apprehended. 

Concerning inclusion of arrest statistics in congressional testimony, DEA’s 

Administrator’s testimonies to Congress on the agency’s budget requests 

often contained references to successful cases that resulted in arrests. For 

example, in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the Administrator said that 

an operation resulted in 14 arrests. The Administrator’s testimony for 

fiscal year 2004 also included similar examples, such as DEA disrupting 30 

drug trafficking organizations and dismantling 15 others. In addition, in 

congressional testimony on the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the FBI 

Director said that overall, during fiscal year 2000, FBI investigations 

contributed to the indictment of over 19,000 individuals, the conviction of 

over 21,000 individuals, and the arrest of more than 36,000 individuals. 

As an example of using investigation statistics in public documents, on 

September 2, 2003, DEA listed on its Web site 37 major operations that it 

had been involved in from 1992 to 2003. Many of these listings detailed 

Agencies Reported 

Investigation and Arrest 

Statistics in Their Budget 

Justifications, Congressional 

Testimonies, and Other Public 

Documents 
Page 8 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

major investigations involving joint operations with other federal, state, 

and local law enforcement agencies that resulted in disruptions and 

dismantlement of narcotics trafficking operations and in numerous 

arrests. In addition, many of the listings gave credit to the other 

participating agencies for their work on the same cases. 

Agency officials said, however, that the investigation and arrest statistics 

are only one of many factors used as indicators of agency workload and 

productivity and are not emphasized in reporting results of agencies’ 

workload performance. For example, DEA officials told us that instead of 

pursuing numbers of investigations and arrests, their focus is on 

• targeting, disrupting, and dismantling major drug trafficking organizations; 

• working cooperatively and closely with other federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies; and 

• making an impact on reducing the flow of narcotics and dangerous drugs 

into the United States. 

Agency officials with whom we spoke told us that investigation and arrest 

statistics are used as measures of productivity and indicators of workload 

activity, but only to a limited extent in personnel management activities 

such as promotions, bonuses, and awards. USPIS officials, for example, 

said that investigation and arrest statistics are only one of many indicators 

of an individual’s performance and are not required for making promotion 

and other personnel decisions. The knowledge, skills, and abilities for 

promotion do not list “number of arrests” as a competency. For example 

criteria for promotion to the manager level, GS-15, is based on 

competencies including customer focus, interpersonal skills, problem 

identification and analysis/decision making, strategic leadership, and oral 

and written communication. 

USPIS officials said that awards and bonuses are usually given for 

performances above and beyond normal expectations, not just for making 

arrests. An inspector or team, for example, that makes a large number of 

arrests as culmination of an investigation could receive an award, 

according to the officials. 

The other agencies we reviewed generally followed similar criteria on the 

use of investigation and arrest statistics in performance management 

decisions as that described earlier by the USPIS officials. For example, 

Numbers of Investigations and 

Arrests Are Used as Workload 

Indicators and, to a Limited 

Extent, Used in Promotion, 

Bonus, and Award Decisions 
Page 9 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

INS’s promotion criteria considered such factors as job experience, 

decision-making, managerial writing, and job simulation. 

All of the agencies we reviewed counted the same investigations and 

arrests when more than one of them participated in the investigative and 

arresting activities. In two of the three reviews of joint investigations that 

we performed, agencies reported that they each counted some of the same 

arrestees involved in the investigations. (See apps. VIII and IX.) Agency 

officials told us that they believe that this practice is appropriate, because 

in their opinion, many investigations and arrests would not have occurred 

without the involvement and cooperation of all the agencies that 

participated. If agencies were not allowed to count investigations and 

arrests in which they participated, the officials said that agencies would be 

less likely to work together, cases would be much smaller, and the desired 

disruption of high-level criminal organizations would be hampered. 

In general, the agency press releases and Web sites we reviewed gave 

credit to one another when they jointly participated in major 

investigations that resulted in a number of arrests. We found several 

examples of this practice, but did not find any overall federal database that 

would identify joint investigations and arrests that were conducted by 

multiple federal law enforcement agencies. Several of the agencies’ 

internal databases, however, are capable of identifying joint investigations 

and arrests, while others could possibly be so modified, according to 

agency officials. For example, DEA’s statistical database was able to 

identify arrests made by DEA unilaterally, as well as those made jointly 

with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as shown in 

figure 3. 

Federal law enforcement agencies are in business to enforce the nation’s 

law and regulations, investigate the activities of criminal organizations, 

and arrest individuals suspected of criminal activity. Increasingly, federal 

law enforcement agencies do not pursue these activities in a vacuum. All 

involved agencies do count the same investigations and arrests resulting 

from joint operations, present these statistics in their public documents 

and budget justifications, and consider their actions justified. There is no 

central federal repository of joint investigations and arrests conducted by 

the agencies we reviewed. Moreover, not all of the agencies currently 

distinguish between unilateral and joint arrests and investigations within 

their databases. Making this distinction may help guide Congress when 

making budget decisions about these agencies. Also, the agencies can 

provide, or if instructed, modify their databases to reflect more refined 

Multiple Agencies Count 

the Same Investigations 

and Arrests in Their 

Individual Agency 

Databases and Reports 

Concluding 

Observations 
Page 10 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

information. However, we did not evaluate what cost, if any, would be 

associated with requiring agencies to do so. 

We provided a draft copy of this report to Justice, DHS, and USPIS. 

Justice and DHS indicated that they had no further comments on our draft; 

however, technical clarifications were provided during our exit meetings. 

USPIS agreed with our report’s overall finding that federal law 

enforcement agencies are generally consistent in the way they report and 

make use of investigation and arrest statistics. However, USPIS provided 

technical comments which we have incorporated, as appropriate. USPIS’s 

written comments are reproduced in appendix XI. 

We are providing copies of this report to the Attorney General, the 

Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postmaster General. We will also 

make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will be 

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

If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact Darryl W. Dutton at (213) 830-1086 or me at (202) 512-8777. Key 

contributors to this report are listed in appendix XII. 

Paul L. Jones 

Director, Homeland Security 

 and Justice Issues 

Agency Comments 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 11 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Overall, to address our objectives, we selected six federal agencies that 

perform investigations and arrest suspects. The agencies selected were the 

Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI), and the U.S. Marshals Service from the Department of 

Justice (Justice); the former U.S. Customs Service (Customs) and 

Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Department 

of Homeland Security (DHS);1

 and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

(USPIS). We selected DEA, FBI, Customs, INS, and the Marshals Service 

because these agencies reported the highest number of federal arrests, 

according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Compendium of 

Federal Justice Statistics, 2000, the most recent data available at the time 

of our selection. We selected USPIS because it reported the highest 

number of federal arrests from non-Justice or non-Treasury agencies. In 

addition, our review focused on fiscal years 1998 through 2001 as 

mandated by the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Act.2

Our review focused on agencies’ policies and procedures used to count 

investigations and arrests, not on the number of investigations conducted 

and arrests made. Therefore, we did not perform reliability assessments of 

data systems at the selected agencies. 

To identify the guidance and procedures followed by federal law 

enforcement agencies regarding counting and reporting investigation and 

arrest statistics, we reviewed agency mission statements, policies, and 

applicable manuals concerning investigations and arrests. We also 

obtained information about agency investigation and arrest statistical 

tracking systems –for example, DEA’s Case Status Subsystem; FBI’s 

Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis database; and USPIS’s 

Inspection Service Database Information System. We also obtained 

(1) overall statistics of investigations and arrests by federal law 

enforcement agencies compiled by BJS and used in its Compendium of 

Federal Justice Statistics, for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, the 

latest Compendium available at the time of our review, and (2) selected 

 1

On March 1, 2003, functions of several border and security agencies, including Customs 

and INS, were transferred into the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security 

within DHS. As part of this transition, these agency functions were reorganized into the 

Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Several primary program areas 

comprise Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including customs and immigration 

investigations. Because most of the investigation and arrest activity reviewed for this study 

occurred prior to DHS’s reorganization, for this report, we will refer to the former Customs 

and INS agency structures. 

2

P.L. 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002), section 11026. 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 12 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Office of Inspector General and internal agency inspection reports 

concerning the use of investigation and arrest statistics. We also 

interviewed officials from each agency who were responsible for 

reporting, compiling, analyzing, and disseminating investigation and arrest 

statistics. 

To determine how investigation and arrest statistics are used, we reviewed 

selected agency budget justifications that were submitted to the Congress, 

congressional testimonies used to justify congressional appropriations, 

and internal agency manuals and policies for use of investigation and 

arrest statistics. We also reviewed guidance on issues such as promotion, 

bonus, and award criteria for agents and interviewed officials who used 

investigation and arrest statistics in their administrative and management 

systems. Our review was performed primarily at the agencies’ 

headquarters office in Washington, D.C. However, to obtain the 

perspective of field staff regarding the use of investigation and arrest 

statistics for administrative and management purposes, we spoke with key 

DEA, USPIS, Customs, and Marshals Service staff at their Los Angeles 

offices. 

To determine if multiple agencies are reporting the same investigations 

and arrests, we obtained, when available, information from agency 

statistical systems – such as DEA’s Defendant Statistical System. We 

wanted to know whether (1) other law enforcement agencies were 

involved in investigations or arrests as part of joint investigations, and 

(2) the individual agencies could be distinguished from each other. We 

searched for and obtained from congressional testimony and agencies’ 

Web sites examples of major investigations involving more than one 

agency and analyzed selected agency budget justifications (e.g., FBI and 

INS) and performance reports to determine how investigation and arrest 

statistics were reported to the Congress. We also interviewed agency 

officials and obtained documents to explain the reasons for either 

counting or not counting investigations and arrests when other federal, 

state, or local law enforcement agencies were involved in the 

investigations. 

We also conducted assessments of three joint investigations to determine 

the extent to which agencies were or were not counting the same arrests: a 

drug trafficking investigation, a child pornography investigation, and a 

counterterrorism investigation. For the drug trafficking investigation, we 

searched our selected agencies’ Web sites, where available, for joint 

operations and found Operation Marquis on DEA’s Web site. Operation 

Marquis was a DEA-led investigation that involved the FBI and several 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 13 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

other federal law enforcement agencies. We subsequently asked DEA and 

FBI for lists of arrestees from Operation Marquis and matched them to 

determine whether both agencies were counting the same arrestees. (See 

app. VIII for additional information on Operation Marquis.) For the child 

pornography case, we asked Customs whether it had a joint investigation 

that included one of the other federal agencies among our selected 

agencies. Customs recommended that we use Operation Bayou Blaster, 

which also involved USPIS. Again, we asked both Customs and USPIS to 

provide us with lists of arrestees associated with Operation Bayou Blaster. 

Customs provided us with a list, but USPIS was unable to generate a list.3

Consequently, we asked USPIS to crosscheck its database to the list of 

arrestees provided by Customs. (See app. IX for additional information on 

the child pornography investigation.) For the counterterrorism joint 

investigation, we discussed a Joint Terrorism Task Force operation with 

FBI and INS officials. The FBI and INS provided us with names of 

arrestees associated with the operation and included in agency arrest 

statistics for comparison purposes. (See app. X for additional information 

on the Counterterrorism Joint Task Force investigation.) 

We conducted our work at selected agency headquarters in Washington 

D.C., and at DEA, USPIS, Customs, and Marshals Service offices in Los 

Angeles, California. 

 3

USPIS said that it did not consider Operation Bayou Blaster a “joint” investigation, but 

provided assistance when requested by Customs. For this reason, USPIS said it was unable 

to provide us with a list of arrestees for this operation. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Page 14 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 14 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The Drug Enforcement Administration’s (DEA) mission is to, among other 

things, 

• enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United 

States and 

• investigate and prepare for the prosecution of major violators of 

controlled substance laws operating at interstate and international levels. 

To perform its mission, in fiscal year 2003, DEA had a total of 9,629 

employees including 4,680 special agents operating in 225 offices in the 

United States and in 80 other offices throughout the world. DEA’s budget 

was $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2003. 

A DEA investigation is referred to as a “case,” and involves targeting 

organizations or businesses suspected of illegal narcotics trafficking. Any 

given case can include one or multiple organizations or individuals, but it 

is counted only as one case. 

• DEA’s Case Status Subsystem (CAST) is the system used to track cases. 

CAST identifies, among other things, the target (e.g., criminal 

organization) of the case and whether other agencies are involved. When 

an agent has sufficient cause to open a case, he or she enters general 

information about the case into CAST, such as the file number, agent’s 

name, entity under investigation, date opened, and identification number. 

DEA pursues investigations into drug trafficking organizations in several 

ways. DEA special agents may open cases that result from tips or leads 

received from confidential informants or other sources, may be invited to 

help in other agencies’ cases, and may participate in interagency task force 

investigations. When DEA agents initiate their own cases, they may also 

elicit help from other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. 

Agents’ cases are approved by a supervisor and are entered into CAST. 

DEA officials told us that their emphasis, instead of pursuing numbers of 

investigations and arrests, is on 

Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Counting 

Investigations and 

Arrests 
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 15 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

• targeting, disrupting,1 and dismantling2 major drug trafficking 

organizations; 

• working cooperatively and closely with other federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies; and 

• making an impact on reducing the flow of narcotics and dangerous drugs 

into the United States. 

On September 2, 2003, DEA listed on its Web site 37 major operations that 

it had been involved in from 1992 to 2003. Many of these listings detailed 

major investigations involving joint operations with other federal, state, 

and local law enforcement agencies that resulted in disruptions and 

dismantlement of narcotics trafficking operations and in numerous 

arrests. In addition, many of the listings gave credit to the other 

participating agencies for their work on the cases. 

DEA provided us with the numbers of cases closed between fiscal years 

1998 and 2001, including DEA unilateral cases and those performed jointly 

with other law enforcement agencies as shown in figure 2. 

 1

Disruption occurs when the normal effective operation of an identified organization is 

significantly impacted so that it is temporarily unable to conduct criminal operations for a 

significant period of time. The disruption must be the result of an affirmative law 

enforcement action, including, but not limited, to the arrest, indictment, and conviction of 

the organization’s leadership or a substantial seizure of the organization’s assets. 

2

Dismantlement occurs when an identified organization is eviscerated and no longer 

capable of operating as a coordinated criminal enterprise. The dismantlement must be the 

result of an affirmative law enforcement action, including, but not limited, to the arrest, 

indictment, and conviction of all or most of its principal leadership. 
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 16 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Figure 2: Investigations Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

a

Other is the total of other federal agency referral, unknown, and missing cases. 

According to DEA’s Agents Manual, agents are to claim (i.e., count) drugrelated arrests only when DEA is directly involved in the arrest. DEA’s 

process for counting and recording arrests also includes having a 

supervisory agent review and sign each Form 202, Personal History 

Report, used to document personal information on each person arrested. 

By signing the form, the DEA supervisor attests that DEA directly 

participated in the arrest or, in the case of a foreign arrest, provided 

substantial assistance. An Associate Deputy Chief, Office of Inspections, 

said that DEA’s decision about whether to count an arrest is contingent on 

several factors, including a clear nexus to a drug offense, involvement of a 

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

Joint with 

federal 

except FBI/

Customs

INS referral Organized 

Crime and 

Drug 

Enforcement 

Task Force

Joint with 

Customs

Joint with 

state and 

local

State and 

local task 

force

Joint 

foreign

DEA 

unilateral

Joint with 

FBI

Othera

Unilateral Joint with federal agencies Joint with state and or local 

agencies

Joint with 

foreign 

entities

1998 (19,192)

1999 (22,634)

2000 (22,163)

2001 (21,151)

Source: DEA.

DEA investigations closed

Fiscal year (total)
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 17 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

DEA informant or DEA monies, or the physical presence of DEA agents at 

the time of the arrest, and/or a significant role by DEA agents. 

DEA’s Defendant Statistical System (DSS) tracks the number of arrests 

counted by DEA. Each Form 202—there is one Form 202 for each person 

arrested—is completed and the information entered into the DSS. An 

arrest can only be entered in DSS once. When the Form 202 information is 

entered into DSS, duplicate arrests, if any, will be identified and 

appropriate divisions will be notified to fix the problems. In addition, DEA 

has a manual system, the Drug Enforcement Arrest Log, which is used as a 

check against arrests entered into DSS. 

As with investigation statistics, DEA was able to provide us with numbers 

of unilateral and joint arrests by fiscal year from 1998 to 2001. Figure 3 

shows numbers of arrests and agencies that were involved in the arrests 

but does not identify the agency(s) making the actual physical arrest. 
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 18 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Figure 3: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

a

Other is the total of other federal agency referral, unknown, and missing cases. 

According to an Associate Deputy Chief, Office of Inspections, DEA 

conducts on-site inspections about every 3 years in its domestic offices. As 

part of the inspection, the division or office is assessed to determine if it is 

successfully achieving DEA’s objectives and priorities, including a 

validation of claimed arrests. 

Field Management Plans (FMP) are used in the inspections process. FMPs 

describe the priorities set by the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of a field 

division to counter the field office’s unique drug threats and delineate the 

methods for accomplishing the agency’s mission and priorities. The FMP 

outlines major operations in the field division that have been completed, 

Joint with 

federal 

except FBI/

Customs

Joint 

foreign

INS referral Joint with 

Customs

Joint with 

state and 

local

State and 

local task 

force

Organized 

Crime and 

Drug 

Enforcement 

Task Force

DEA arrests

0

500

1,500

2,000

2,500

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

11,000

12,000

13,000

DEA 

unilateral

Joint with 

FBI

Othera

1998 (37,328)

1999 (39,356)

2000 (38,904)

2001 (35,010)

Year (total)

Source: DEA.

1,000

Unilateral Joint with federal agencies Joint with state and or local 

agencies

Joint with 

foreign 

entities
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 19 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

the number of major drug trafficking organizations disrupted or 

dismantled, and other field division highlights. The Office of Inspections 

assesses the field division’s adherence to the FMP and its success in 

achieving the goals in the FMP. Case files and the “appropriateness” of 

arrests are also reviewed. 

A DEA Office of Inspections official told us that periodically a sample of 

arrests are validated and screened for appropriateness and for any type of 

questionable activity, such as “piggy backing” arrests. Piggy backing is 

when a state or local law enforcement agency does the investigative work 

and DEA goes along for the arrest, writes it up, and claims credit for the 

arrest. The official said that Inspections has consistently found a very low 

percentage of questionable arrests at the offices reviewed, but they do not 

accumulate or maintain a database of questionable arrests. The official 

gave one example of the New York office, where 2 or 3 questionable 

arrests out of over 8,000 were found. The official indicated that 

questionable arrests are mostly isolated incidents, and are not part of any 

systemic problems. If questionable arrests are found, the officials said that 

the arrest statistics would be removed from the agency database. 

In another example, out of approximately 2,200 arrests made by the Los 

Angeles office in 1999, the Office of Inspections found 16 that were 

questionable. The Los Angeles SAC said the arrests were questionable 

because the agents had not adequately documented DEA’s participation in 

the arrests to qualify for counting them. The Office of Inspections finally 

judged only 3 of the 16 as not being justified. These 3 involved cases where 

the Highway Patrol found drugs in suspects’ vehicles and called DEA out 

to establish probable cause to make the arrest. This is a gray area, 

according to the SAC, and DEA must show significant participation in 

order to claim the arrest. In the 3 cases, significant participation was not 

shown, and the arrests were not allowed, according to the SAC. 

The SAC also said that in addition to the periodic Office of Inspection 

evaluations, the Los Angeles office conducts its own yearly selfinspections, including reviews of the appropriateness of claimed arrests. 

DEA officials also told us that it is appropriate for each participating 

agency to claim the investigations and arrests that result from joint 

operations. The officials said that if only one agency could claim the 

investigations and arrests, agencies would not work together, cases would 

be much smaller, and the desired outcome of disrupting major drug 

trafficking organizations would not happen. 
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 20 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Overall, DEA officials said that investigation and arrest statistics serve as 

indicators of agency work, to help determine whether or not something is 

being accomplished. DEA Domestic Operations officials said that from a 

managerial standpoint, DEA’s focus is more on who and what priority 

target organizations have been disrupted or dismantled. Statistical data are 

useful, the Domestic Operations officials said, because they provide a 

picture of activity; they are the evidence that validates the work 

performed. DEA officials from the Evaluation and Planning Section said 

investigations are DEA’s top output measure and provide basic 

information on workload. For example, if a group of 10 DEA agents and a 

supervisor had only 7 arrests for a year, management would want to look 

at the group to question its level of activity. It could be that the group was 

engaged in a very long, complicated wiretap case, which would not lend 

itself to many arrests. Arrests, however, would only be used as an 

indicator of activity, according to a SAC and Assistant Special Agents in 

Charge (ASACs). 

Investigation and arrest statistics are not used as performance indicators 

in various DEA-related materials. For example, in Department of Justice 

Performance Reports,3

 we were unable to find any investigation and arrest 

statistics related to DEA. DEA, however, did use numbers of investigations 

and arrests in its budget justifications and congressional testimonies. For 

example, in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, DEA reported on an 

operation that resulted in 38 arrests. For the fiscal year 2004 budget 

request, DEA also provided tables that included numbers of national and 

local investigations, investigations completed, and total investigations. 

According to a SAC and ASACs, investigation and arrest statistics are not 

used for making agent promotion, award, and performance 

determinations. The officials said that promotions, awards, and 

performance ratings are based on many factors, such as levels of violator 

disruption; coordination efforts with interagency task forces; cooperative 

activities with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; 

and furthering DEA’s mission. For example, two GS-14 field office group 

supervisors told us that statistics, particularly arrest statistics, do not play 

an important part in promotions, bonuses, or other awards. 

 3

FY 2001 Performance Report and FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan, FY 2003 

Performance Plan; and FY 2002 Performance Report and FY 2003 Revised Final 

Performance Plan, FY 2004 Performance Plan. 

Use of Investigation 

and Arrest Statistics 
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement 

Administration Profile 

Page 21 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Promotion criteria used to evaluate agents for promotion to GS-14 and 

GS-15, for example, is based on the following competencies, which do not 

include investigation and arrest statistics: 

• acting as a model, 

• gathering information and making judgments/decisions, 

• interacting with others, 

• monitoring and guiding, 

• oral communication, and 

• planning and coordinating. 

A DEA Career Board official told us that when looking for the bestqualified applicant for a GS-14 or GS-15 position, a SAC could consider 

investigation and/or arrest statistics. For example, if a reference for the 

applicant is contacted, the reference may say that they highly recommend 

the applicant because of the applicant’s work on a certain case. 

A DEA official in Employee Relations said that awards and/or bonuses are 

distributed based on performance or a special act. A special act could 

include an agent’s involvement on a significant arrest or drug seizure. An 

agent’s supervisor writes the justification for an award and/or bonus. The 

division head and the Chief of Operations at DEA headquarters review the 

justification. 

DEA Domestic Operations officials said that performance evaluations that 

are used as a basis for promotions may well indicate that an agent 

“maintained a high level of cases” or “participated in several significant 

cases,” but performance decisions are not justified based on sheer 

numbers alone. The two field office group supervisors also said that if 

DEA has successful investigations, arrests will naturally follow but are not 

emphasized in promotion, bonus, and other award decisions. Domestic 

Operations officials also said that management’s “tone at the top,” which is 

emphasized throughout DEA, is not on how many people were arrested, 

but on what drug trafficking organizations were disrupted and dismantled. 
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 22 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) mission is to 

• uphold the law through the investigation of violations of federal criminal 

law; 

• protect the United States from foreign intelligence and terrorist activities; 

and 

• provide leadership and law enforcement assistance to federal, state, local, 

and international agencies. 

As of January 31, 2002, approximately 11,000 special agents and 16,000 

professional support personnel were located at the FBI’s Washington, 

D.C., headquarters and in 56 field offices, approximately 400 satellite 

offices, 4 specialized field installations, and over 40 foreign liaison posts. 

The FBI’s budget was $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2003. 

An FBI investigation is referred to as either preliminary or full field. 

Officials of the Inspection Division told us that facts and circumstances 

have to rise to a certain level to justify opening either type of investigation 

and that the determination is somewhat judgmental. Full field 

investigations are initiated when there is information that raises a 

reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If the information 

received is not deemed sufficient to predicate the opening of a full field 

investigation, but is determined to warrant further inquiry on a limited 

basis in order to determine the credibility of an allegation of criminal 

activity and the need for a more in-depth investigative effort, a preliminary 

investigation can be opened. The more sensitive investigations, such as 

foreign counter intelligence, are usually opened as preliminary 

investigations. Preliminary investigations can proceed to full field 

investigations. The officials told us that the amount of information needed 

to initiate an investigation is the same whether the FBI is working alone or 

is involved in a joint investigation. 

The Automated Case Support database is the FBI’s overall case 

management system that is used to capture information and data 

pertaining to each investigation. An agent initiates an investigation, either 

an FBI investigation or a joint investigation, by opening a hard copy 

investigative file, using an Investigative Summary Form 302. A supervisor 

must then approve the initiation. Information pertaining to the 

investigation is subsequently entered into database. 

Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Counting 

Investigations and 

Arrests 
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 23 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

We asked the FBI to provide us with information on investigations closed 

in fiscal years 1998-2001. The data provided included investigations 

pertaining to drugs, violent crime, white-collar crime, counterterrorism, 

counterintelligence, and cyber crime. These data are displayed in figure 4. 

Finance Division officials were unable to distinguish between 

investigations performed solely by the FBI and those performed jointly 

with other agencies because this information is not captured in the 

database. 

Figure 4: Investigations Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

The FBI counts an arrest when the subject is taken into custody with a 

warrant, complaint, or indictment or, if arrested for probable cause, after 

the judicial paperwork is obtained. The FBI reports the arrest as federal, 

local, or international. 

• Federal arrests are those in which FBI agents acting alone or with other 

law enforcement officers arrest the subject. The FBI does not count the 

arrest if the subject of an FBI investigation is arrested by another law 

enforcement agency without any assistance from the FBI. However, if the 

arrest is part of an FBI-led task force, the FBI does count the arrest even if 

no FBI agent is present. 

FBI investigations closed

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

84,244

81,242 80,904

73,928

Source: FBI.
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 24 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

• Local arrests are those where the FBI supplied information or other 

assistance to a local agency that significantly contributed to the probable 

cause supporting an arrest warrant for an individual who was not the 

subject of an FBI investigation, and FBI agents were not involved in 

making the arrests. 

• International arrests are those where the FBI supplied information or 

other assistance to another country that significantly contributed to the 

probable cause supporting an arrest warrant for an individual who either 

was or was not the subject of an FBI investigation, and FBI agents were 

not involved in making the arrests. 

Arrests are reported on the Form FD-515, “Accomplishment Report.” This 

form captures such information as arrests, convictions, and the various 

investigative techniques used in an investigation. The agent prepares the 

FD-515; the supervisor reviews and approves the form, thereby attesting to 

the arrest as a valid accomplishment. The field office then enters the 

information into the Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis 

Application (ISRAA) database. Arrests, as well as other accomplishments, 

are to be entered into the system within 30 days. A variety of edit checks 

are performed to help ensure the reliability of the data input into ISRAA, 

and each field office completes an annual audit of the data. 

We asked the FBI to provide us with information on arrests in fiscal years 

1998-2001. These data are displayed in figure 5. While the participation of 

other agencies is noted on the FD-515, this information is not entered into 

ISRAA and, as a result, the FBI could not distinguish between arrests made 

solely by the FBI and those made jointly with other agencies. 
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 25 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Figure 5: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

In addition to the supervisory reviews of investigations and arrests already 

noted, supervisory agents are to perform periodic investigative file reviews 

on all investigations being worked by their agents. These reviews occur 

about every 90 days for investigations led by experienced agents and about 

every 30 days for investigations led by less experienced agents. During 

these file reviews, supervisors are to monitor the progress of 

investigations by reviewing investigative work completed; verifying 

compliance with any applicable policies and procedures, including those 

pertaining to any arrests that have been made; and assessing the validity of 

continuing with the investigation. FBI officials also told us that field 

offices’ Assistant Special Agents-in-Charge periodically are to check 

supervisory file reviews to ensure the adequacy of the review process. 

In addition, the FBI’s Inspection Division is responsible for reviewing FBI 

field offices and program divisions to ensure compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations and the efficient and economical management of 

resources. The Inspection Division is to inspect all FBI units at least once 

FBI arrests

0

1998

(36,971)

1999

(36,053)

2000

(36,913)

2001

(29,448)

Fiscal year (total)

Federal

Local

International

Source: FBI.

200

400

8,000

10,000

12,000

20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 26 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

every 3 years. An Inspection Division official told us that the division’s 

reviews include information pertaining to arrests and that, if it were 

determined that an arrest had been inappropriately counted, action would 

be taken, including correction of the data in ISRAA. The officials also said 

that they had not found evidence of the inappropriate counting of arrests 

over the period of our review, fiscal years 1998-2001. 

Inspections Division officials told us that all agencies involved in a joint 

investigation count investigations and arrests and that this is a longstanding and accepted practice that is part of interagency cooperation. If 

each agency involved could not count the statistics, there would be more 

competition among agencies and less participation in joint investigations, 

according to the officials. 

Investigation and arrest statistics are used as indicators of the FBI’s work 

for a variety of purposes, including management of field offices. For 

example, a field office’s numbers for a particular type of crime might spike 

upward. Finance Division officials said that if a spike occurred, a 

determination would be made about what happened to account for the 

spike and changes might be made in how the office performs 

investigations or where it focuses its resources. The officials told us that 

field offices use numbers of investigations and arrests as part of 

justifications for resources, along with other factors such as the type of 

crimes investigated by the office and whether there has been continual 

growth in the numbers. Numbers alone are not determinative, however, 

according to Inspection Division officials. The officials said that FBI 

headquarters also looks at trends, where agents are placing their 

investigative emphasis, political factors such as what legislation might be 

on the horizon, and problems agents are encountering that might indicate 

a need for new technology. 

Investigation and arrest statistics are also used as performance indicators 

in various FBI-related materials. For example, in Department of Justice 

Performance Reports,1

 the number of terrorism investigations is reported, 

along with the number of related convictions. The FBI has also used 

numbers of investigations and arrests, as well as indictments and 

 1

FY 2001 Performance Report, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan, FY 2003 

Performance Plan; and FY 2002 Performance Report, FY 2003 Revised Final 

Performance Plan, FY 2004 Performance Plan. 

Use of Investigation 

and Arrest Statistics 
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 27 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

convictions, in its budget requests and congressional testimonies. For 

example, in the fiscal year 2003 request, fiscal years 2000 and 2001 actual 

numbers of investigations pending, opened, and closed are given, along 

with numbers of arrests, indictments, and convictions. In addition, in 

congressional testimony on the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the FBI 

Director said that overall, during fiscal year 2000, FBI investigations 

contributed to the indictment of over 19,000 individuals, the conviction of 

over 21,000 individuals, and the arrest of more than 36,000 individuals. 

Concerning performance management measures, an official from the 

Executive Development and Selection Program told us that certain 

numbers of investigations and arrests are not required for promotions, 

bonuses, or awards. The official told us that the statistics are used only as 

indicators of an agent’s performance and that it is necessary to look at the 

work behind the statistics. For example, an agent may have zero arrests 

but be involved in a complex investigation that has not yet resulted in 

arrests. Or, an agent may have a high number of arrests resulting from 

relatively simple investigations. 

Special agent promotions are scheduled at regular intervals from GS-10 or 

GS-11 to GS-13 and are contingent upon the satisfactory work record of 

the individual. Promotions to GS-14 and GS-15 are competitive, but the 

official told us the vacancy announcements are not yet standardized. 

Agents applying for promotion must describe how they meet each of the 

qualifications listed on the announcement. A new system was 

implemented in January 2004 that will emphasize competencies for each 

vacancy. The first four competencies will be core competencies and the 

last three will be specialized. For example, if the vacancy were in the 

counterterrorism unit, experience with counterterrorism would be listed. 

When applying for a promotion, an agent will complete a form and address 

his or her education and training, pre-FBI experience, FBI background, 

and give two examples of how he or she meets each of the required 

qualifications. 

The official from the Executive Development and Selection Program said 

that the quality of work experience, rather than quantity, is emphasized in 

the promotion process. There is no baseline for the number of 

investigations or arrests that an agent must demonstrate. There is no place 

provided on the application for investigation or arrest statistics, though 

officials said that an agent could provide these in the narrative should he 

or she choose to do so. For example, an agent could indicate that he or she 

demonstrated leadership by being the agent on 25 investigations resulting 
Appendix III: FBI Profile 

Page 28 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

in 52 convictions; the agent could also discuss a specific investigation as 

an example of leadership. 

Agent performance is evaluated annually on seven critical elements 

(which do not include investigation and arrest statistics) using a meets or 

does not meet expectation system. A narrative justification is required 

only if the agent does not meet expectations. The critical elements include 

the following: 

• investigating, decision making, and analyzing; 

• organizing, planning, and coordinating; 

• relating with others and providing professional service; 

• acquiring, applying, and sharing job knowledge; 

• maintaining high professional standards; and 

• communicating orally and in writing. 

An officer of the FBI Agents Association confirmed that investigation and 

arrest statistics are not used in the performance appraisal process. 

The official from the Executive Development and Selection Program told 

us that a noteworthy accomplishment might be used as the basis for a 

special award. The FBI uses its awards program to motivate employees to 

increase productivity and creativity. To receive an award, an agent must 

be shown to have significantly exceeded the requirements of his or her 

position. Field offices can give awards differently. One office might give an 

award for outstanding performance on one investigation. Another office 

might give an award based on sustained success—for example, 

continuous, outstanding performance with making arrests or obtaining 

convictions. 
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Page 29 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s (USPIS) mission is to protect the U.S. 

Postal Service, its employees, and customers from criminal attack and to 

protect the nation’s mail system from criminal misuse. 

In fiscal year 2003, USPIS had 1,955 Postal Inspectors operating in 18 field 

divisions in the United States with a budget of $521.7 million. 

USPIS enforces over 200 federal laws in investigations of crimes that may 

adversely affect or fraudulently use the U.S. mail, the postal system, or 

postal employees. USPIS cases involve crimes that have a nexus to the 

Postal Service. For example, postal-related violations including mail theft, 

identity fraud, child exploitation, illegal drugs, and money laundering are 

investigated by USPIS. 

A USPIS investigation is referred to as a “case.” To open a case, an 

inspector fills out a request for case, Form 623. A Form 623 must be 

approved and signed by a supervisor before a case is opened. The case is 

then entered into the Inspection Service Database Information System 

(ISDBIS). In the narrative section of Form 623, inspectors at their 

discretion may note whether the case is a joint investigation and whether 

any other agencies are involved; however, indicating whether a case is a 

task force operation or whether other agencies are involved is optional. A 

data entry operator will enter this information into the narrative section of 

the case in ISDBIS, which cannot currently be retrieved to identify USPIS 

cases alone or USPIS as part of a joint operation. 

A USPIS official in the Information Technology Division, however, told us 

that USPIS plans to launch a new database, which will be fully operational 

in Fall 2004 and will identify cases as joint task force operations when 

applicable and the other law enforcement agencies involved. However, it 

would still be optional for inspectors to indicate whether a case is a joint 

task force operation. The new system will be able to run reports listing 

how many cases are joint task force cases and identify the agencies that 

are participating. For example, a report could be generated naming all 

cases USPIS is working on with the FBI. 

USPIS provided us with numbers of cases closed from fiscal years 1998 to 

2001, as shown in figure 6. 

Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Counting 

Investigations and 

Arrests 
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Page 30 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Figure 6: Investigations Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

According to USPIS’s Inspection Service Manual, inspectors are to claim 

(i.e., count) an arrest when 

• an inspector participated personally in making an arrest or contributed 

significantly to an investigation resulting in an arrest made by another law 

enforcement agency; 

• an inspector’s investigative efforts with another law enforcement agency 

motivate and materially contribute to the identity and arrest of a person 

for a postal crime even though the inspector was not present at the time; 

or 

• an inspector’s investigation of a postal offense develops additional, 

significant evidence that is brought to the prosecutor’s attention. 

The determination of material contribution is left to the supervisor’s 

judgment. For example, if a postal inspector alerted the highway patrol to 

an individual suspected of mail theft, or if the inspector was conducting an 

ongoing investigation on the suspect and the highway patrol made the 

arrest, the arrest would be claimed by USPIS even though postal 

inspectors did not make the physical arrest. 

USPIS investigations closed

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

32,356

42,228

26,846

24,589

Source: USPIS.
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Page 31 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

An inspector fills out a Case Activity Report (CAR) to report case statistics 

and to summarize significant developments in the case, including arrests. 

A supervisor must approve each CAR and the arrests before entering into 

ISDBIS. After a CAR is submitted and entered into ISDBIS by a data entry 

operator, a Case Summary Report is printed and sent to the originating 

inspector to be verified for accuracy. ISDBIS tracks the number of arrests 

counted by USPIS. Arrests made as a result of joint operations are counted 

the same as those that result from investigations involving USPIS only. 

ISDBIS currently cannot sort arrests made as a result of joint operations 

and those in which only USPIS was involved. According to an official in 

the Information Technology Division, the new database, scheduled to be 

implemented early next year, can separate arrests resulting from joint 

operations from those involving USPIS alone. 

USPIS provided us with the total number of arrests made from fiscal years 

1998 to 2001 as shown in figure 7. 

Figure 7: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

Prior to fiscal year 2003, USPIS had an Office of Inspections Division that 

had overall responsibility for conducting quality assurance reviews of field 

divisions and headquarters groups/divisions. As part of a USPIS 

reorganization in fiscal year 2003, the quality assurance review 

responsibility was assigned to the Strategic Planning and Performance 

USPIS arrests

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

10,069 10,364

11,282

11,864

Source: USPIS.
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Page 32 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Management Group at USPIS headquarters. A USPIS official in the 

Strategic Planning and Management Group told us that the group is to 

review each field office every 3 years for compliance to USPIS policies and 

procedures. In addition, according to a Deputy Chief Inspector, USPIS 

field offices are to conduct annual comprehensive self-assessments and 

that the contents of case files are to be reviewed for accuracy during that 

process. For example, arrests counted and hours worked on an 

investigation are two items that are reviewed for accuracy. The official 

said that overall, USPIS has found minimal problems with the accuracy of 

its case files and has not found any problems with a specific USPIS field 

division counting incorrect case and arrest statistics. 

A Deputy Chief Inspector and an Assistant Chief Inspector told us that 

double counting investigation and arrest data is acceptable and vital in 

showing the results of USPIS efforts. For example, the officials said that if 

arrests generated by a joint operation could be claimed by only one of the 

involved agencies, turf battles would result. In addition, one agency may 

end up “looking better than another.” This would result in law 

enforcement agencies refusing to work with one another and there would 

be no more task forces, according to the officials. The officials also said 

that task forces are needed because cases are often complex in nature, 

and joining forces with other law enforcement agencies streamlines, 

economizes, and makes operations more efficient. 

A Deputy Chief Inspector and an Assistant Chief Inspector told us that 

Inspectors in Charge of field divisions determine where resources are 

needed by several indicators, including case and arrest statistics. They told 

us that a “briefing book” is prepared monthly using case and arrest data 

from ISDBIS. The briefing book contains an overview of each functional 

area (i.e., fraud, dangerous mailings, and child exploitation) and an 

analysis on whether USPIS is meeting its goals. The data in the briefing 

book are shared with all field offices. The officials said that looking at 

indicators and determining where employees are assigned is a part of their 

management system. 

A Deputy Chief Inspector also told us that investigation and arrest 

statistics are used as indicators in performance measurement and 

planning. The performance plan provides the basis for performance 

agreements, or field division contracts, and an annual performance report. 

The performance plan is divided into operational objectives that support 

USPIS’s strategic goals. Each operational objective has an indicator(s), 

which measures how closely USPIS met the objective, and a target to meet 

Use of Investigation 

and Arrest Statistics 
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Page 33 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

in the upcoming fiscal year. Each field division is evaluated on its results 

as measured against its objectives for each fiscal year; for example: 

• Operational objective: Identify and resolve domestic and international 

in-transit mail theft. 

• Indicators: Major domestic and international airport mail theft problems 

resolved (arrests count towards resolving mail theft cases). 

• Target: Thirty major domestic and international airport mail theft 

problems resolved. 

USPIS also issues an annual report of investigations, which is a document 

on the fiscal year’s activities, to the Postmaster General, the Postal Service 

Board of Governors, and postal managers and employees. The report 

details USPIS’s investigative activities in criminal areas, such as mail theft 

and robbery. The number of arrests and convictions in each criminal area 

are also listed in the report. 

USPIS officials also told us that data on an inspector’s numbers of 

investigations and arrests are not required for making promotion, bonus, 

and award determinations. The knowledge, skills, and abilities 

requirements for promotion to the GS-13 and GS-14 levels, for example, do 

not list “number of arrests” as a competency. The officials said that 

promotion criteria to the manager level, GS-15, is based on competencies, 

including 

• customer focus, 

• interpersonal skills, 

• problem identification and analysis/decision making, 

• supervisory/management skills, 

• strategic leadership, 

• planning and organizing, 

• project/program management, 

• oral communication, 

• written communication, 

• ability to work autonomously, and 

• ability to be flexible in diverse situations. 

USPIS officials said that awards and bonuses are usually given for 

performances above and beyond normal expectations, not just for making 

arrests. An inspector or team, for example, that makes a large number of 
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service 

Profile 

Page 34 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

arrests as culmination of an investigation could receive an award for the 

arrests, according to the officials. 

Concerning inspector performance measurement, a Deputy Chief 

Inspector and an Assistant Chief Inspector said that investigation and 

arrest statistics are one of many indicators of an individual’s performance. 

Performance management focuses on linking an inspector’s goals to 

national goals, rather than on arrest quotas. Team leaders in the field are 

responsible for helping individual inspectors set goals for the year through 

creating a performance achievement plan. 

A Deputy Chief Inspector told us that case and arrest data are not used in 

their budget process. USPIS’s budget is historically based—meaning it is 

based on the previous year’s budget. It is dependent on U.S. Postal Service 

finances and is not subject to the congressional appropriations process. 
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile 

Page 35 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The U.S. Customs Service was responsible for ensuring that all goods and 

persons entering and exiting the United States did so legally and was to, 

among other things,1

• assess and collect Customs duties, excise taxes, fees, and penalties due on 

imported merchandise; 

• interdict and seize contraband, including narcotics and illegal drugs; and 

• protect American business and labor and intellectual property rights by 

enforcing U.S. laws intended to prevent illegal trade practices. 

To accomplish its mission, in fiscal year 2002, Customs had a workforce of 

over 20,754 employees, 3,031 of which were Special Agent Criminal 

Investigators. Customs’ budget was $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2002. 

From fiscal years 1998 to 2001, the terms investigations and cases meant 

the same thing and were initiated by special agents working from 

information received from various sources, tips, or confidential 

informants. Cases could have also been initiated by other federal, state, 

and local law enforcement agencies requesting assistance or through joint 

task force operations. Customs could also have requested other agencies’ 

assistance on its cases, and most cases did involve other federal, state, and 

local law enforcement agencies, according to Customs Office of 

Investigation officials. 

Customs officials also said that in fiscal years 1998 to 2001, cases were 

entered into the Case Management System within the Treasury 

Enforcement Communications System (TECS) when agents, with first line 

supervisor’s approval, originated them.2

 A case number was created, which 

included the office identifier (e.g., Los Angeles), the type of case (e.g., 

money laundering, narcotics, etc.), and information on how the case got 

 1

On March 1, 2003, the functions of the U.S. Customs Service were transferred to the 

Department of Homeland Security. Because most of the investigation and arrest activity 

reviewed for this study occurred before the transfer, for this report, we will refer to the 

former Customs structure, policies, and procedures. 

2

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said that TECS would continue to be 

the case management system within the Department of Homeland Security for the 

foreseeable future, at least until 2005 when a new system under development is scheduled 

for roll out. 

Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile 

Counting 

Investigations and 

Arrests 
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile 

Page 36 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

started and who originated it. Other federal agency participation was 

usually mentioned in the case summary, but was not identified in a 

separate TECS field used for generating case statistics, according to the 

officials. 

As shown in figure 8, Customs provided us with the numbers of cases 

closed between fiscal years 1998 and 2001. 

Figure 8: Cases Closed—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

According to Customs officials, Customs agents could have counted an 

arrest if they 

• physically made the arrest; 

• assisted in making the arrest; or 

• discovered the violation, but the arrest was made by other law 

enforcement officers. 

During fiscal years 1998 to 2001, numbers of arrests were captured in 

TECS when agents filled out Reports of Investigation and entered the 

details into the system. Customs officials said that agents were to provide 

details of their participation in the arrests in the case file. The narrative 

Customs investigations closed

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

1998 1999 2000 2001

Fiscal year

20,144

22,763

31,174

25,692

Source: U.S. Customs Service.
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile 

Page 37 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

was to be reviewed and approved by a first line supervisor before the 

arrests would be counted. TECS data fields required agents to record 

whether they were the arresting officers, and if a Customs agent was not 

the arresting officer, then the arresting officer’s name and agency was to 

be input into the system. Customs agents would not count as an arrest the 

stopping or detaining of an individual for questioning. Numbers of arrests 

were not formally audited for questionable claims, and it was up to the 

first and second line supervisors to check the integrity of the 

investigations and subsequent arrests that were counted. Figure 9 shows 

numbers of arrests and agencies that were involved in the arrests. 

Figure 9: Total Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998 to 2001 

Customs officials said that TECS data entry systems are to preclude two or 

more Customs offices from claiming the same investigations or arrests, so 

there was no double counting within Customs. Whether other agencies 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1998

(15,151)

1999

(15,694)

2000

(14,498)

2001

(14,275)

Fiscal year (total)

Customs unilateral

Joint with other federal agencies

Joint with state and local

Joint with foreign

Joint task force

Source: U.S. Customs Service.

11,000

12,000

13,000

14,000

Customs arrests
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile 

Page 38 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

counted investigations and arrests that they worked on with Customs was 

not clear to the officials, but they assumed that they did, and rightfully so. 

The officials said that cooperation and trust in working together would be 

destroyed if participating agencies were not allowed to count 

investigations and arrests in which they participated. 

From fiscal years 1998 to 2001, Customs officials told us that investigation 

and arrest statistics were used as one way to measure productivity. The 

officials said, however, that arrests were only one element in a number of 

performance management measures, including numbers of cases, seizures, 

indictments, prosecutions, and successful wiretaps, for example, that were 

used to gauge an office’s or agent’s performance throughout the year. 

Officials said that numbers of arrests were reported from the field to 

headquarters twice a year as one way of showing what had been 

accomplished. The statistics were readily available, according to the 

officials, but special agents were not told that they did not have enough 

arrests or would need to increase the number of their arrests. 

According to Customs Human Resources officials, investigation and arrest 

statistics were not used for special agent promotion purposes. The 

officials said that promotions up to the journeyman level were based 

primarily on the recommendation of first line supervisors. The journeyman 

level was to the GS-12 level through 2000, but was raised to the GS-13 level 

beginning in 2001. 

Before 2000, promotions beyond the journeyman level were competitive 

and were based on applicants responding to a series of set questions 

regarding the type, complexity, and variety of investigations, not the 

quantity of investigations and arrests. The questions were weighted, a 

score was generated, and a roster of applicants eligible for promotion was 

developed. Beginning in 2000, Customs initiated the SA14 Promotion Test 

System. This system was for promotion to the GS 14 level and included 

three tests—critical thinking skills, job knowledge, and an assessment of 

administrative and planning skills. Once the applicants had passed these 

tests, they were further assessed through a structured interview, which 

assessed additional leadership skills via situational questions about how 

the applicants would handle the various situations. Customs officials said 

that promotion to GS-15 is based on a merit promotion system, which used 

knowledge, skills, and abilities that were developed for the specific 

position. 

Use of Investigation 

and Arrest Statistics 
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile 

Page 39 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Also in fiscal years 1998 to 2001, Customs officials said that investigation 

and arrest statistics were used to some degree in award and bonus 

decisions, but so were other factors, such as successful court appearances 

and prosecutions. 
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Page 40 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The Immigration and Naturalization Service’s (INS) primary mission was 

to administer and enforce the nation’s immigration laws.1

 Among other 

things, INS activities included 

• determining the admissibility of persons seeking to enter the United States 

through an inspections process, 

• facilitating entry 

• processing and granting immigration-related benefits, 

• patrolling the borders, 

• deterring and investigating illegal employment, 

• providing information to employers and benefit providers to prevent illicit 

employment or benefit receipt, and 

• disrupting and dismantling organizations engaging in document and 

benefit fraud and alien smuggling. 

In addition, INS apprehended, detained, and removed aliens present in the 

United States without lawful status and/or those who have violated U.S. 

criminal laws. As individual aliens engaging in criminal activity and 

organizations facilitating illegal immigration are often associated with 

other criminal activity, INS also played a role in enforcing U.S. criminal 

laws. To perform its mission, in fiscal year 2002, INS had a total of 36,117 

employees with a budget of $6.2 billion. The mission was accomplished 

through INS’s operational offices located on the border, in the interior, and 

overseas and through numerous special facilities (e.g., detention centers, 

applications processing centers, and national records repository) 

throughout the United States. 

INS’s Investigations Division was the enforcement arm of the INS charged 

with investigating violation of the criminal and administrative provisions 

of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other related provisions of the 

United States Code. For INS, the investigative case process began with the 

receipt of a complaint or other lead by the Investigations Division that 

provided a “reason to believe” that a violation of law may have occurred. 

An investigation could have been opened as either a preliminary or a full 

field investigation. In either case, supervisory approval was required to 

initiate an investigation. 

 1

On March 1, 2003, the functions of the INS were transferred into the Department of 

Homeland Security. Because most of the investigation and arrest activity reviewed for this 

study occurred before the reorganization, for this report, we will refer to the former INS 

agency structure. 

Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Counting 

Investigations and 

Arrests 
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Page 41 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

A preliminary investigation was opened when a lead or allegation was not 

sufficient enough to warrant a full investigation. In those instances, limited 

investigative activities would have been conducted solely for the purpose 

of providing enough additional information on which to make an informed 

judgment as to appropriate disposition of the matter at hand. Preliminary 

inquiries were ordinarily assigned for a period not to exceed 30 days. At 

the end of that period, a decision was to be made whether to 

• close the investigation without further action, 

• extend the inquiry for no more than an additional 30 days, or 

• assign the matter for a full field investigation. 

A full field investigation may have been opened on the basis of sufficient, 

articulable facts that were in existence at the time of initial review, 

developed during the conduct of a preliminary inquiry, or assigned as a 

headquarters-designated case.2

 Full field investigations consisted of all 

investigative or enforcement activities necessary to bring an investigation 

to its logical conclusion. 

Under INS’s Investigations Case Management System (ICMS),3

 a 

Form G-600 was prepared when an investigation was opened. The G-600 

was basically an index card used to track and document the progress or 

termination of investigations. Information about the investigation, such as 

the case number, date opened, agent assigned, etc., was initially recorded 

on the G-600. Additional information would have been added to the G-600 

as the investigation progressed. First line supervisors maintained the 

G-600s for the investigations by agents in their units. 

Each investigative unit (e.g., field office, port of entry, or border patrol 

office) prepared a detailed monthly report, called an Investigations 

Activity Report of Field Operations (G-23 Report). The G-23 Report was a 

 2

INS also had a category for “Auxiliary Investigations,” which were investigations done in 

one district’s jurisdiction at the request of another district. An investigation conducted 

under this situation must have met the basic definition of an investigation, and a completed 

auxiliary investigation was given the same status and credit as a full field investigation. 

3

The ICMS was not a computer-based system; it was a hard copy, manual documentation 

system. The Criminal Investigations Reporting System was implemented in INS on October 

1, 2002; it is a computer-based system that replaced the ICMS for the initiating and tracking 

of cases. 
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Page 42 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

record of the number of cases opened or completed, the number of hours 

worked, and the results of the investigations. The report was a matrix of 

rows and columns, with the columns showing the number of cases 

received, opened, completed, etc., and the rows showing the category of 

cases, for example, trafficking, criminals, or employers. Hard copies of the 

G-23 Reports were maintained at the unit level and required supervisory 

signature. 

At the beginning of each month, the data from the G-23s for the previous 

month were keyed into the Performance Analysis System (PAS). Each 

office was to close out its monthly statistical reporting on the last working 

day of each month. They then had 8 working days to consolidate the unit 

workload counts into office level totals and key the data into PAS. After 

the eighth day, the PAS system was to be locked down and no further data 

entry would have been possible by the field offices. The data were strictly 

numbers of activities and did not identify individual investigations or 

agents. 

As shown in figure 10, INS provided us with the number of investigations 

opened and closed for fiscal years 1998 through 2001. 
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Page 43 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Table 10: Investigations Opened and Closed and Arrests—Fiscal Years 1998-2001 

According to INS’s manual, The Law of Arrest, Search, and Seizure for 

Immigration Officers, an arrest occurred when a reasonable person in the 

suspect’s position would conclude that he or she was under arrest. An 

arrest did not depend solely on whether the officer had announced that 

the suspect was under arrest. An arrest was to be supported by probable 

cause to believe that the person had committed an offense against the 

United States. Probable cause is knowledge or trustworthy information of 

facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable, prudent person to 

believe that an offense had been committed or was being committed by 

the person to be arrested. 

An INS officer was authorized to make arrests for both administrative 

(civil) and criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

According to INS officials, a Form I-213, Record of Deportable Alien, was 

to be completed to record administrative arrests, which were the bulk of 

INS arrests. A Form G-166, Report of Investigation was to be completed 

when a criminal arrest was made. Supervisory review and signature at the 

bottom of the forms verified that the arrest occurred. 

INS investigations and arrests

0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000

125,000

150,000

Fiscal year 1998 1999 2000 2001

Source: INS.

Investigations opened

(total) (132,098) (143,553) (139,991) (124,016)

Investigations closed

(total) (127,259) (138,341) (138,500) (123,617)

Arrests

(total) (121,427) (132,428) (135,598) (118,670)
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Page 44 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Arrests were counted and recorded into the PAS system in the same 

manner as the investigations. That is, at the end of each month, a manual 

count of the arrest forms would be made and then support staff would 

enter the data into PAS. 

Officials told us that INS’s Office of Internal Audits conducted reviews of 

investigation files. Each district office was to be reviewed about every 3 

years. For each district, a representative number of investigations would 

be reviewed to determine whether INS policies and procedures were 

followed and that all investigative documentation was complete. While the 

purpose of these reviews was to ensure that INS procedures were 

followed, an INS official said that the review could be considered as 

verification that the documentation of the arrests were valid and proper. 

INS officials told us that, after the data have been entered into PAS, INS’s 

Operational Analysis Branch (OAB) printed out a Monthly Statistics 

Report, which was distributed to INS upper level management. OAB also 

printed a Workload Summary Report on a quarterly basis. According to 

INS officials, the reports were an accounting of the work INS performed 

and could have been used to assist in making resource allocations and 

staffing decisions. The officials said that the data could also have been 

reviewed to see if there were any trend indicators about shifts in criminal 

activity. 

INS Human Resources officials said that INS employee performance 

evaluations were not based on investigation and arrest statistics. Rather, 

employees were evaluated on how well they performed their jobs. INS 

agents were evaluated annually, and their supervisor wrote up narratives 

about how well an agent was performing. There were no set job elements 

that had to be covered, and the supervisor determined what should be 

evaluated and how well the agent was performing. 

Concerning promotions, the Human Resources officials said that 

promotions up to the journeyman level were based primarily on the 

recommendation of first line supervisors. Promotions beyond the 

journeyman level were competitive and based on a scored assessment, 

which covered the following four critical factors: 

• Job experience: This factor was worth 30 percent and described the 

assignments the individual had had and other collateral duties. 

Use of Investigation 

and Arrest Statistics 
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization 

Service Profile 

Page 45 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

• Decision making: This factor was worth 30 percent and tested the 

individual’s decision-making process and problem solving abilities by 

asking a series of questions about hypothetical situations. 

• In-basket job simulation: This factor was worth 20 percent and tested 

the individual’s administrative skills in organizing work, setting priorities, 

delegating work, etc. Individuals were given 45 minutes to review a series 

of documents and then given 45 minutes to answer 50 questions about 

how to deal with certain events on the basis of the documents they 

reviewed. 

• Managerial writing: This factor was worth 20 percent and tested the 

individual’s writing skills and knowledge of proper grammar syntax, 

paragraph structure, and report organization. 

INS provided, via the Department of Justice, budget requests to Congress 

each fiscal year. We reviewed INS’s budget requests for fiscal years 2003 

and 2002 to determine the extent, if any, investigation and arrest statistics 

were used as justification for increase resources. Investigation and arrest 

statistics were not used, in either table or narrative forms, as a basis for 

justifying an increase in resources. Investigation and arrest activities were 

discussed, however, but in the very broadest terms, for example: 

• “Although an eventual reduction in arrests is a primary indicator of illegal 

entry attempts (and therefore deterrence), other critical indicators include 

decrease in border related crime, decrease in recidivism, shifting of illegal 

activity to non-traditional points of entry and through non-traditional 

methods, increase smuggling fees, increase in property values and 

commercial and public development along the border, etc.” 

• “INS will initiate high priority investigations, conduct asset seizures, and 

present individuals for prosecution for alien smuggling related violations 

to disrupt the means and methods that facilitate alien smuggling.” 

• “As a result of INS efforts, many alien smugglers, fraud organizations, and 

facilitators were arrested and presented for prosecution; assets were 

seized; and aliens with a nexus to organized crime, violent gangs, drug 

trafficking gangs, or who have terrorist-related affiliations, were 

apprehended.” 
Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile 

Page 46 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

The U.S. Marshals Service’s mission is to protect the federal courts and the 

judicial system, apprehend federal fugitives, and manage seized assets. 

Regarding federal fugitives, the Marshals Service’s responsibilities are to 

• locate and arrest federal fugitives, including prison escapees, bail jumpers, 

and parole and probation violators; 

• enforce bench warrants issued by federal judges and warrants issued at 

the request of other federal agencies; and 

• serve as the “booking agent” for suspects arrested for federal offenses. 

To perform its mission, in fiscal year 2002, the Marshals Service had a total 

of 4,134 employees, of which about 2,700 were U.S. Marshals and Deputy 

U.S. Marshals. The Marshals Service’s budget was $676.5 million in fiscal 

year 2002. The Director, Deputy Director, and 94 U.S. Marshals direct the 

activities of 95 district offices and personnel stationed at more than 350 

locations throughout the 50 states, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. 

For the Marshals Service, an investigation consists of locating and 

arresting a federal fugitive. The Marshals Service initiates fugitive 

investigations in response to two basic scenarios. In the first, an individual 

has already been in the federal criminal justice system and has 

subsequently become a fugitive. The fugitive may have failed to make a 

court appearance, escaped from custody, or violated the terms of parole or 

supervised release. In each of these instances, the court issues a warrant 

and the Marshals Service is responsible for investigating, apprehending, 

and arresting the fugitive. In the second scenario, another law 

enforcement agency has investigated an individual, the individual has been 

indicted and a warrant issued, and the agency requests that the Marshals 

Service make the apprehension. Unlike other law enforcement agencies 

that investigate the commission of a crime, the Marshals Service 

investigations primarily consist of locating (tracking down) and arresting 

federal fugitives. 

The Marshals Service uses its Warrant Information Network to track the 

number of fugitive warrants received and closed. The network is a 

computer-based automated system that manages records and information 

collected during investigations of fugitives. The system can also provide 

data for analyses that are used to report information to Congress or for 

management purposes, for example, to provide a listing of active warrants 

Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile 

Counting 

Investigations and 

Arrests 
Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile 

Page 47 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

for a specific offense or for a district or suboffice. Figure 11 shows the 

number of warrants closed for fiscal years 1998-2001. 

Figure 11: Warrants Closed by the Marshals Service and by Other Agencies—Fiscal 

Years 1998-2002 

The Marshals Service takes custody of all federal prisoners arrested by all 

federal officials empowered to make arrests. The Marshals Service 

Prisoner Tracking System (PTS) maintains a record of all suspects 

arrested for federal offenses and booked by the Marshals Service. The 

Marshals Service claims arrests on its workload statistics if a deputy 

marshal actually makes the arrest, based on a federal fugitive warrant. If 

another law enforcement agency brings a prisoner to the Marshals Service 

for booking, that agency would be recorded as the arresting agency in the 

PTS. 

When either a deputy marshal or an agent from another federal agency, 

such as the DEA, FBI, or Customs Service, presents a federal prisoner for 

booking by the Marshals Service, the following procedures are followed: 

Marshals warrants closed

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

1998

(47,219)

1999

(53,991)

2000

(58,066)

2001

(59,251)

Fiscal year (total)

Closed by Marshals

Closed by other agencies

Source: U.S. Marshals Service.
Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile 

Page 48 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

• A Marshals Service Form 312 (Prisoner Personal History) is filled out, and 

the prisoner is fingerprinted and photographed. The form contains 

background information on the prisoner, the charges, case number, and 

which agency brought the prisoner in for booking. 

• The agent (e.g., DEA) that fills out the Marshals Service Form 312 is called 

the lead agent and that agency will be credited with the arrest in the PTS. 

Only one agency is listed as the arresting agency even though many 

agencies may have participated in a joint operation through a task force. 

However, there is a space for indicating whether the case was a joint 

operation, but it is not mandatory to fill it out. 

• The Form 312 information is entered into the PTS. 

Marshals Service officials told us that investigation and arrest statistics are 

used as workload measures; for example, to show how many prisoners 

were produced for court appearances. With these statistics, they said that 

they could show workload projections to justify budget requests. The 

officials also said that investigation and arrest statistics are used to 

manage programs, set policies, and allocate funds and positions. For 

example, on the basis of an assessment of workload statistics, the number 

of positions at a particular courthouse was decreased in fiscal year 2002. 

Marshals Service officials also said that investigation and arrest statistics 

are not used for making promotion, bonus, or award decisions. Criteria 

that are considered for promotions, for example, include time in grade, 

technical knowledge, analytical/problem solving ability, time management, 

and interpersonal relationships. For higher grades, management skills-- 

including organization and planning, budget management, and human 

resource management--are also considered for promotions. 

Use of Investigation 

and Arrest Statistics 
Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation 

Page 49 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

We found Operation Marquis on the Drug Enforcement Administration’s 

(DEA) Web site when we searched for drug trafficking investigations 

involving multiple federal law enforcement agencies. The Web site 

indicated that Operation Marquis was coordinated by DEA’s Special 

Operations Division (SOD)—a joint Department of Justice (Justice), DEA, 

the Federal Bureaus of Investigation (FBI), U.S. Customs Service 

(Customs), and the Internal Revenue Service program—and was 

conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001. Attorneys from Justice’s Criminal 

Division, and agents and analysts from participating law enforcement 

agencies staffed the investigation. 

Operation Marquis targeted a Mexico-based drug trafficking organization 

responsible for putting tens of millions of dollars worth of cocaine and 

marijuana on the streets of at least a dozen U.S. cities. According to DEA’s 

Web site, over 300 individuals were arrested as a result of the operation. In 

addition to arrests, the investigation resulted in the seizure of 8,645 

kilograms of cocaine, 23,096 pounds of marijuana, 50 pounds of 

methamphetamine, and $13 million in U.S. currency. 

On DEA’s Web site, several Justice and Customs officials commented on 

the success of Operation Marquis, including: 

• “These law enforcement activities will have a measurable impact on drug 

trafficking across our Southwest Border. The work completed in this case 

emphasizes the importance of interagency cooperation in targeting and 

investigating drug trafficking organizations.”—from an FBI assistant 

director. 

• “This investigation demonstrates what can be achieved when law 

enforcement efforts are coordinated and resources are pooled. Operation 

Marquis shut down a sprawling criminal network that plagued 

communities throughout the country.”—from the then-Acting Customs 

Commissioner. 

We asked DEA and the FBI to provide us with the names of individuals 

that they had counted in their arrest statistics for Operation Marquis. Both 

agencies independently generated a list of individuals they counted as 

having been arrested as part of Operation Marquis. Specifically, DEA 

counted 331 arrests and the FBI counted 154 arrests. After comparing the 

lists, we were able to match eight names as having been counted as arrests 

by each agency. 

Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation 
Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation 

Page 50 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

We also asked DEA and FBI officials whether they had been designated as 

the lead or assist agency, how many special agents they had assigned 

throughout the investigation and at various times during the progress of 

the investigation, and whether their agents were physically present during 

the arrests. In addition, we asked if the amount of time their agents spent 

on the investigation could be determined. 

DEA officials told us that the investigation was initiated through its SOD 

and that DEA was the lead agency. DEA told us that there were about 46 

lead criminal investigators assigned to Operation Marquis; however, 

because their statistical data systems do not record such information, DEA 

officials could not tell us whether DEA agents were present at the arrests 

counted by DEA. A DEA official, however, did tell us that agents logged 

217,937 work hours on investigations that comprised Operation Marquis. 

FBI Criminal Investigation Division officials also told us that Operation 

Marquis was a DEA-initiated investigation and that DEA was the lead 

agency. Seven FBI field offices were involved: San Antonio, Houston, 

Dallas, Memphis, Charlotte, Kansas City, and Little Rock. Because their 

statistical data systems do not record such information, the FBI officials 

said that there is no way to determine exactly how many agents 

participated in some manner with Operation Marquis. However, they said 

SOD investigations typically have two FBI staff coordinators assigned to 

an investigation. In addition, each field office typically assigns one lead 

agent, who works an investigation full-time, and possibly a co-case agent, 

who would work the investigation part-time. There also could have been 

several agents in any given field office working on or assisting with parts 

of the investigation on a part-time basis, for example, helping to setup or 

monitor a wiretap. 

Also, because their statistical data systems do not record information by 

operation, FBI officials said that there is no way to tell how many agents 

participated in the physical arrest of individuals for Operation Marquis.. 

Usually, at least one or two FBI agents make or assist in an arrest, but the 

officials could not tell us the role played by their agents with regard to any 

of the individual arrests. Moreover, FBI officials could not tell us how 

many hours agents spent on the investigation because agents do not 

record their time by case number, but rather by the type of work 

performed, such as bank robbery 

We asked DEA and FBI officials whether, as a result of the numbers of 

arrests, special agents were given awards, promotions, bonuses, etc. DEA 

officials said that they did not know how many, if any, agents received 
Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation 

Page 51 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

awards, promotions, or bonuses for their work on Operation Marquis. The 

FBI Criminal Investigation Division officials said they knew of no awards, 

promotions, or bonuses given as a result of Operation Marquis. 
Appendix IX: Child Pornography Investigation 

Page 52 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

A U.S. Customs Service (Customs) Special Agent in Lake Charles, 

Louisiana, initiated Operation Bayou Blaster on October 1, 1994. The 

Customs agent developed a plan to set up an undercover operation that 

targeted individuals involved in the sexual exploitation of children via the 

Internet. Customs and U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) officials told 

us that a fake child pornography Web site was used to arrest individuals 

who ordered material from the Web site. USPIS was asked to participate 

by making some of the deliveries of the pornographic material, but not all. 

All operational and undercover activity related to Operation Bayou Blaster 

ceased on February 23, 2001. Customs arrested 100 individuals through the 

efforts of more than 400 special agents who were involved at various times 

over the 6-year duration of the operation. 

We asked Customs and USPIS to provide us with the names of individuals 

included in agency arrest statistics for Operation Bayou Blaster. Customs 

provided us with a list of the 100 individuals that were arrested, but USPIS 

was not able to generate a list of arrests that resulted from Operation 

Bayou Blaster. However, at our request, USPIS crosschecked its database 

with the 100 names provided by Customs. USPIS was able to match 30 

arrestees, who had the same dates of birth, year arrested, and location 

arrested, in their database as the Customs list. USPIS officials noted that 

USPIS was asked to assist on only 30 of the deliveries. 

We also asked Customs and USPIS officials whether they had been 

designated as the lead or assist agency, how many special agents they had 

assigned throughout the operation and at various times during the 

progress of the operation, whether their agents were physically present 

during the arrests, and their roles in the arrests. In addition, we asked if 

the amount of time their agents spent on the operation could be 

determined. 

Customs officials said that Customs was the lead agency for the operation. 

They told us that of the over 400 agents involved through the more than 6 

years of the operation, many of them participated in the arrests. However, 

because their statistical data systems do not capture such information, 

they were unable to tell us whether the agents were physically present at 

the arrests, or what exactly were their roles in the arrests. The officials 

provided a list showing that Customs agents had charged over 78,000 

hours to this operation. 

USPIS officials told us that Customs was the lead agency for the operation, 

and USPIS had no lead special agent for Operation Bayou Blaster. The 

Appendix IX: Child Pornography 

Investigation 
Appendix IX: Child Pornography Investigation 

Page 53 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

officials said that Customs calls on USPIS all the time to assist in the 

delivery of pornographic materials. A USPIS official said 20 inspectors 

were involved with the 30 arrests claimed by USPIS; however, because 

their statistical data systems do not capture such information, the official 

was unable to say whether the inspectors were physically present at the 

arrests or what role the inspectors played in the arrests. The official told 

us that inspectors logged over 1,700 hours on Operation Bayou Blaster. 

We asked Customs and USPIS officials whether, as a result of the arrests, 

special agents were given awards, promotions, bonuses, etc. As far as 

Customs officials knew, there were no awards, promotions, or bonuses 

given to the agents as a result of the Operation. The officials also said that 

with the large number of Customs agents involved in the Operation, it 

would be difficult to determine whether any awards, bonuses, or 

promotions were a direct result of the Operation. USPIS officials could not 

tell us if inspector participation in Operation Bayou Blaster resulted in any 

awards, bonuses, or promotions. 
Appendix X: Counterterrorism Investigation 

Page 54 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

We discussed a closed counterterrorism operation with Federal Bureau of 

Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) 

officials. Between October 11, 2001, and April 17, 2002, the Joint Terrorism 

Task Force (JTTF) in New Orleans conducted this operation based on 

information that a telephone number associated with one subject in the 

United States had been contacted by a pay phone known to be used by the 

Taliban/al Qaeda in Afghanistan. 

Shortly after the operation began, an INS agent assigned to the JTTF was 

asked to obtain INS files on six subjects to determine their immigration 

status in the United States. It was found that the six subjects had been 

released from INS custody while seeking asylum. As a result of reports of 

suspicious activity, the INS district director decided to revoke their 

paroles and, on January 12, 2002, the six individuals were taken back into 

custody while their asylum applications or appeals were pending. At the 

conclusion of their cases, four of the individuals were removed from the 

country, and, as of February 6, 2004, two were being held for removal. 

We asked the FBI and INS to provide us with the names of individuals 

included in agency arrest statistics for this investigation. The FBI provided 

us with a list of the six individuals whose arrests were included in its 

statistics. INS provided us with a list of the six individuals, but told us that 

even though these six individuals were taken into custody, INS did not 

include them in agency arrest statistics because INS had previously 

arrested these individuals in 1999; these arrests were counted for 

statistical purposes at that time. Comparison of the lists of names provided 

by the FBI and INS revealed that the six individuals arrested by INS in 

1999 and taken back into custody in 2002, and the six individuals counted 

as arrests by the FBI in 2002, were the same six individuals. 

While apprehending these individuals, FBI and INS agents encountered 

and arrested two other aliens whose immigration documents were no 

longer valid. INS counted these two subjects as arrests for, respectively, a 

nonimmigrant overstaying his or her visa and illegal entry into the United 

States. 

We asked FBI and INS officials whether they had been designated as the 

lead or assist agency, how many special agents they had assigned 

throughout the operation and at various times during the progress of the 

operation, and whether their agents were physically present during the 

arrests. In addition, we asked if the amount of time their agents spent on 

the operation could be determined. 

Appendix X: Counterterrorism Investigation 
Appendix X: Counterterrorism Investigation 

Page 55 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

FBI Counterterrorism Division officials told us that both the FBI and INS 

initiated the operation, with the FBI taking the lead in the operation. FBI 

officials said two FBI agents were assigned full-time and numerous others 

helped with such matters as surveillance. The officials could not tell us 

how many hours agents spent on the operation, since agents do not record 

their time by operation, but rather by the type of work performed, such as 

bank robbery. 

INS officials also told us that the FBI initiated the operation and that INS 

became involved when the FBI asked INS agents on the JTTF for their 

assistance. INS officials told us that no INS agents were specifically 

assigned to the operation; one of the two INS agents in the JTTF assisted 

in this operation. After the apprehensions on January 12, 2002, the INS 

agent assisted the FBI in the continued operation—checking the status of 

other aliens whose names appeared in records, reviewing INS files, 

assisting with interviews, etc. INS officials could not tell us how many 

hours agents spent on the operation because agents do not record their 

time by operation, but rather by the type of work performed. 

FBI Counterterrorism Division officials said that both the FBI and INS 

participated in the physical arrest of the six individuals; however, they 

could not tell us the exact number of FBI agents present at the arrests. INS 

officials also told us the same thing; that both the FBI and INS participated 

in the apprehension of the six individuals. Specifically, seven INS agents, 

two INS supervisory special agents, and four INS deportation officers 

participated in the apprehension, according to the officials. 

We asked FBI and INS officials whether, as a result of the arrests, special 

agents were given awards, promotions, bonuses, etc. FBI 

Counterterrorism Division officials said two agents received $500 awards 

for their performance on this operation. INS officials told us no INS agents 

received awards for their participation in the operation. 
Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service 

Page 56 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service 
Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service 

Page 57 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 
Appendix XII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 58 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement 

Paul Jones (202) 512-8777 

Darryl Dutton (213) 830-1086 

In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed to 

this report: Tim Outlaw, Doris Page, Carolyn Ikeda, Alison Heafitz, 

Christine Davis, and Amy Bernstein. 

Appendix XII: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(440180) 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs