Established in 1979 as part of INS’s intelligence program, FDL’s mission is to provide a variety of forensic and intelligence services to INS and other federal, state, local agencies, and foreign governments. FDL’s library of international travel and identity documents, the largest such library in the Western Hemisphere and possibly the world according to FDL officials, helps document examiners determine the authenticity of a document through comparison with valid exemplars. FDL is organized into forensic and intelligence sections. The forensic section consists of forensic scientists — including document examiners and fingerprint specialists — who have completed extensive training and have been certified by a professional association within their field. Among other activities, examiners study handwriting, fingerprints, digital evidence, stamps, and seals; attempt to restore obliterated or altered documents; examine suspected counterfeit documents to identify forgeries or alterations; and process evidence submitted to the laboratory to develop latent fingerprints. In addition, examiners testify as expert witnesses in judicial proceedings and provide technical advice and assistance in developing major cases involving fraudulent documents. In general, FDL’s intelligence section provides technical advice to domestic and foreign government officials on the authenticity of travel and identity documents and collaborates with these government officials to combat illegal immigration and international document fraud. The intelligence section operates during extended hours 7 days a week. Among their other activities, intelligence officers (1) conduct training programs on fraudulent document detection for immigration officers and other government officials; (2) produce document intelligence alerts, which are color photo bulletins that depict recently encountered fraudulent documents; (3) update and maintain FDL’s library of document exemplars, and (4) provide information on a real-time basis to inquiries from INS field offices using the Image Retrieval Terminal (IRT) and Photophones. Photophones allow two users to simultaneously view an image and are used by FDL to respond to questions about suspect travel documents. They are based on a tele-imagery system that integrates a computer, video camera, printer, and a display monitor, each of which is connected to a telephone. Using the video camera, a user can capture a high-resolution image of a document, photograph, or fingerprint and transmit the image to any other photophone through a regular telephone line in approximately 20 seconds. The following steps are to occur in FDL’s processing of forensic cases: (1) FDL receives the initial request for examination of evidence and enters preliminary information on the request (defined by FDL as a “case”) into its Forensic Automated Case and Evidence Tracking System (FACETS) database; (2) depending on the type of case, FDL assigns the case to one or more specialists. A document case is assigned by country of origin of the evidence to the examiner with the greatest knowledge of that country; a case requiring fingerprint analysis is assigned to a fingerprint specialist; a case requiring intelligence analysis, such as producing photographic slides comparing a suspect document to an exemplar, is assigned to an intelligence officer for examination; (3) the examiner(s) analyze the evidence and prepare a report of findings; (4) the case findings undergo an administrative review by a supervisor and, in some cases, a technical review by a peer; and (5) when the case is complete, FDL closes the case in FACETS, packages the evidence, and returns it with a report on the case to the requester. Figure 1 shows a comparison microscope, which forensic examiners use to compare microscopic elements of two documents side-by-side. Each microscope is connected to the computer monitor, allowing images of the two documents to be displayed for the examiner. Intelligence officers in FDL’s intelligence section receive different types of requests for assistance. For the majority of their work, intelligence officers are asked to provide real-time responses to requests for information. These requests include Photophone and IRT inquiries, as well as requests for other assistance (e.g., requests to query other agencies’ databases or check an exemplar in FDL’s library). Intelligence officers may also be asked to respond to longer-term requests, such as developing training materials on document fraud detection. In these instances, the intelligence officer is to bring the request to the evidence technician and the request is to be logged into FACETS as an intelligence case. Finally, an intelligence officer may work collaboratively with a forensic examiner when a case involves both an intelligence and a forensic component (e.g., when a document is examined both for authenticity and to determine if it may be part of a document fraud scheme). Appendix I contains a flow chart of how cases are processed at FDL. We reviewed the work and workload of FDL and identified factors that have affected FDL’s ability to perform its mission in a timely manner, particularly with respect to FDL’s forensic examination of documents. Specifically, we addressed the following questions in this report: What were FDL’s budget, staffing, and workload in fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001? What key factors have affected FDL’s ability to carry out its mission in a timely and efficient manner? We reviewed FDL policies and procedures and directly observed case processing steps conducted by FDL forensic document examiners and intelligence officers. To describe FDL’s workload, budget, and staffing levels, we interviewed officials at FDL, INS headquarters, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). We obtained workload data from FDL’s FACETS database showing the number and types of cases received and completed, and the number of cases pending for fiscal years 1997 to 2001. We also reviewed FDL’s budget requests and allocations for fiscal years 1999 to 2001. To identify key factors that affect FDL’s performance, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials at FDL; INS headquarters; INS district counsel offices in Los Angeles, New York, and Miami; the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR); and the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors. We did not independently verify the reliability and accuracy of workload data provided by FDL. Through discussions with FDL officials, we learned that FDL conducts some checks on the data in FACETS. These include (1) periodic reviews of the database for typing and format errors; (2) automatic checks for certain data fields, such as date fields, that prevent the entry of inaccurate information; and (3) semiannual audits of open cases at FDL, during which each case is physically accounted for and the case information is verified against the data recorded in FACETS. Our analyses of FDL’s workload data indicated that the data were generally valid and useful for understanding trends in FDL’s workload. However, we identified discrepancies between FDL’s pending caseload statistics and our estimates of the size of the pending caseload based on other FDL data provided to us. FDL officials agreed with our methodology for calculating its annual pending caseload and were able to account for some of the difference between the two sets of numbers. FDL provided data on withdrawn cases for fiscal years 1999 through 2001 indicating that these cases accounted for a portion of the discrepancy. However, the gap between their figures and ours was not completely closed, and we point this out in table 3. We conducted our work between June 2001 and February 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. FDL’s budget was about $4.1 million in fiscal year 2001, about 15 percent higher than in fiscal year 1999 (see table 1). This increase was due largely to increases in the salaries and benefits for permanent INS staff who were transferred to FDL and for contractor staff—both of which were funded from other INS programs. As shown in table 1, there was a nearly twofold increase in both the salaries and benefits for staff who were transferred to FDL (from about $174,000 to about $490,000) and in funding for contractor staff (from about $134,000 to about $363,000). In fiscal year 2001, FDL’s total staff level was 35 full-time equivalent staff, up from FDL’s fiscal year 1999 level of 31 full-time equivalent staff. From fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2001, FDL increased its full-time equivalent forensic examiner staff by about two FTE’s and its intelligence officers by about three FTEs. In fiscal year 2001, there were three document examiner trainees at FDL who were enrolled in FDL’s in-house training program but were not yet independently working on cases. Table 2 presents FDL’s staffing levels by type of position for fiscal years 1999 through 2001. Subsequent to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, INS submitted an emergency supplemental appropriation request to Congress that included 31 additional positions and technology enhancements totaling about $7.5 million for FDL. In January 2002, Congress enacted the Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States Act (P.L. 107-117). FDL was provided the additional 31 positions and about $8 million from this appropriation. The total number of forensic cases that FDL received and completedincreased from fiscal years 1997 through 1999 and decreased from fiscal years 1999 through 2001. In contrast, the number of forensic cases pending at the beginning of each year increased between 1999 and 2001. In an effort to ensure that certain types of cases received priority attention by FDL forensic examiners, INS established four categories of priorities in 1999. Cases involving individuals held in INS custody and criminals were designated as FDL’s two highest priorities. Notwithstanding the new priority system, FDL’s pending and overdue caseload for custody and criminal cases were higher in fiscal year 2001 than in fiscal year 2000. FDL’s intelligence work is multifaceted, involving responding to requests for information, providing training for other government officials, and issuing document alerts.