The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, among other things, identified specific federal departments and agencies that are required to have IGs appointed by the president, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The act also requires each such IG to appoint an assistant inspector general for investigations to supervise the performance of investigative activities, including criminal investigations, relating to their agencies’ programs and operations. Although presidentially appointed IGs have the authority to conduct criminal investigations, the IGs have not been granted across-the-board statutory law enforcement authority. However, as the role of the presidentially appointed IGs in active investigations of criminal activity expanded, so too did their requests for deputation seeking the authority to make warrantless arrests, obtain and execute warrants, and carry firearms to reduce requests for assistance from other law enforcement personnel in dangerous situations. Subsequently, 23 presidentially appointed IGs’ criminal investigators received law enforcement authority through case- by-case deputation granted by the USMS. Under this process, the presidentially appointed IGs applied for deputation for each criminal investigator in each case where the need was anticipated. Upon completion of the case, the deputation and its accompanying law enforcement authority expired, and the process would start over again. In 1995, in an effort to reduce paperwork and excessive delays, certain presidentially appointed IGs began receiving 1-year deputation law enforcement authority for criminal investigators. Appendix I provides a list of the 23 deputized IGs who requested and received annual deputation. As of January 2001, these deputized IGs renew their law enforcement authority for a 3-year period, rather than annually. This process includes (1) requesting temporary law enforcement authority and obtaining approval from DOJ, (2) submitting a formal deputation application to DOJ, and (3) taking an oath. Deputized IGs’ criminal investigators must also adhere to the terms and conditions disclosed in a DOJ memorandum of understanding (MOU). The MOU is designed to provide DOJ guidance and oversight of IG criminal investigator training and conduct of criminal investigations. Although not passed, proposed legislation (S. 3144) was introduced during the 106th Congress, which would have, among other things, provided criminal investigators in specified IG offices (see appendix I) with certain statutory law enforcement authorities. Under this bill, deputized IGs would (1) no longer be required to renew their law enforcement authority through the USMS; and (2) obtain a statutory basis for carrying firearms, making certain types of warrantless arrests, and executing warrants. In addition, the bill contained provisions for oversight over the IGs. The bill, for example, provided for “peer reviews” of IGs by other IGs. (The results of such reviews would have been forwarded to the applicable IG and the Attorney General) and required DOJ’s continued oversight of IGs’ activities, such as involving the FBI when initiating certain criminal investigations. In addition, the Attorney General would have the authority, under certain conditions, to rescind or suspend such law enforcement authority of these IGs. To compare the similarities and differences between providing statutory authority and deputation, we examined MOUs, federal statutes, operating manuals, and other pertinent documents between the two groups of IGs. We also interviewed officials involved with the deputation program and/or related efforts to obtain statutory authority for the deputized IGs. This included officials in Washington, D.C., from the USMS, FBI, DOJ’s Criminal Division, OMB, and selected presidentially appointed IGs with deputation—HHS, GSA, DOJ IG, OPM, and the PCIE. In addition, we identified and interviewed three presidentially appointed IGs—USDA, DOD, TIGTA—having statutory authority comparable to the law enforcement authority granted to deputized IGs. We obtained perspectives and relevant documents related to their use of law enforcement authority. We compared the scope of law enforcement authority, supervision, and training of IG criminal investigators for both methods. To obtain views of deputized IGs on whether statutory authority would improve their investigative practices or impact their current jurisdictions, we surveyed and received responses from all 23 deputized IGs (see app. II for the questionnaire). To identify the cost and any savings that might result by switching from deputation to statutory authority, we reviewed congressional hearing documents and the CBO cost analysis associated with a recent legislative proposal. In addition, we interviewed officials from DOJ, OMB, CBO, and selected IGs to obtain applicable cost and savings information. We performed our work from May 2001 through May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Regardless of the origin of law enforcement authority—either through statutory authority or deputation, IGs’ scope of law enforcement authority, supervision, and training are similar. However, differences exist in the level of DOJ’s oversight given to the deputized IGs by DOJ. Whether under statute or deputation, IGs’ law enforcement authority is similar. Our comparative analysis revealed that IGs have comparable duties, practices, and standards regarding their (1) scope of law enforcement authority to make warrantless arrests, obtain and execute warrants, and carry firearms; (2) supervision of criminal investigators, which generally provides for day-to-day oversight by an agency official such as a special agent-in-charge; and (3) training standards. For example, IG criminal investigators with statutory authority and IG criminal investigators with deputation train together at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center located in Glynco, Georgia. The facility provides both groups the same basic training curriculum in matters such as firearms, search and seizure, and arrest procedures as well as criminal investigator-specialized training. We found differences in the level of DOJ oversight for IGs who are deputized by DOJ. Deputized IGs must renew their law enforcement authority every 3 years, while IGs with statutory authority do not have this requirement. DOJ established a process for granting and renewing deputation that allows its deputy attorney general, Criminal Division, FBI, and the USMS to review certain aspects of deputized IGs activities. The purpose of this process is to determine whether deputized IGs continue to meet standards for (1) keeping firearms skills current, (2) providing adequate training, and (3) coordinating with federal prosecutors and other federal law enforcement agencies. As part of DOJ’s deputation process, deputized IGs are required to report to DOJ annually on the results they achieved, as a condition for renewing their deputation. Table 1 summarizes the results achieved with deputation from 1998 through 2000 that we identified from deputized IG responses to our survey. Both DOJ and FBI officials told us that the reporting requirement is being re-evaluated, and DOJ said that it is outdated and no longer used as a condition for renewing deputized IGs’ law enforcement authority. Furthermore, DOJ said that no deputized IG has been denied its deputation renewal request. In addition, deputized IGs are required to notify the FBI when initiating certain criminal investigations as well as work jointly with the FBI on certain other sensitive investigations. The three presidentially appointed IGs with statutory authority do not have a specific statutory requirement to coordinate their investigations with the FBI. DOJ requires deputized IGs and the FBI to provide each other written notification involving areas of concurrent jurisdiction. The FBI has jurisdiction in all matters involving fraud against the federal government and jointly shares this jurisdiction with the deputized IGs in matters of fraud against each IG’s agency. DOJ also requires the FBI or another federal law enforcement agency to assist the deputized IGs when conducting specific types of sensitive investigations, such as court-ordered electronic surveillance. According to the FBI, the purpose of these requirements is to provide oversight in order to (1) place limits on the authority of the deputized IGs’ criminal investigators, and (2) help ensure compliance with applicable DOJ guidelines, and (3) address law enforcement coordination procedures for deputized IGs when conducting their criminal investigations. As requested, we obtained views of deputized IGs and other federal officials on certain matters related to statutory authority and deputation. We found that deputized IGs prefer statutory authority to deputation and most believed statutory authority would improve their investigative practices at least to some extent. Most deputized IGs also reported that statutory authority would have little impact on their current statutory jurisdictions. Other federal officials generally believed that the current deputation process has improved. DOJ has not yet settled on its position on providing law enforcement authority to deputized IGs under either method. OMB deferred the matter for DOJ’s consideration. Fifteen of the 23 deputized IGs reported that having statutory authority would improve their criminal investigative practices to at least some extent and 9 of these reported that statutory authority would improve their investigative practices to a great or very great extent. Three of these believed that practices would be improved because statutory authority would enhance their investigators status as fully authorized officers in the law enforcement community. Further, 20 of the 23 deputized IGs reported that granting statutory authority would change their current jurisdiction of authority to little or no extent. In July 2000, DOJ and OMB testified at congressional hearings in favor of a legislative proposal that would have granted statutory authority to specified IG offices. However, the issue is currently under review within the Administration, and DOJ has not yet settled on its position as of May 2002. FBI officials we interviewed said that the deputation process is a much better system of conferring law enforcement authority to the IGs because it provides greater flexibility for DOJ and appropriately places oversight responsibilities at the Attorney General level. The Attorney General has the authority to delegate these responsibilities to Justice entities including DOJ’s Criminal Division, FBI and USMS. The Attorney General has delegated this authority to USMS.