Detailed Information on the
US Attorneys Assessment

Reassessing the allocation of new resources at a macro level to balance the caseloads for attorneys across the country.

Addressing any concerns relating to internal controls for the Legal Information Online Network Systems (LIONS) for case tracking and reporting.

Developing an expanded management training program focusing on core leadership and management competencies to improve agency effectiveness.

Implement an expanded review of the declination process in the USAs.

Enhance the performance measurement and accountability of the USAOs.

Review common administrative functions in the USAOs, such as budget, accounting, procurement, and human resources in an effort to create efficiencies.

Measure: Percent of criminal cases favorably resolved

Explanation:Cases favorably resolved includes those cases that resulted in court judgments favorable to the government, as well as settlements and plea agreements.

Measure: Percent of civil cases favorably resolved

Explanation:Cases favorably resolved includes those cases that resulted in court judgments favorable to the government, as well as settlements and plea agreements

Measure: Percent of collectible criminal debt collected

Explanation:The higher the percentage of criminal debt collected, the larger the amount of money available to recompense victims. Vigorous enforcement of criminal debt ensures that defendants are held accountable and upholds the rule of law.

Measure: Percent of civil collectible debt collected

Explanation:The higher the percentage of civil debt collected, the larger the amount of money available to recompense victims. Enforcement of civil debt upholds the rule of law and holds defendants accountable. NEED TO CONFIRM THIS LANGUAGE.

Measure: Overhead vs. Mission costs

Explanation:This calculates the percentage of the USA budget that is spent on overhead, compared to what is spent directly on the mission.

Measure: Total number of civil judgments and settlements

Explanation:The total number of civil judgments and settlements/pleas in favor of the US and against the US.

Measure: Number of judgments and settlements/pleas in favor of the US

Explanation:The total number of judgments and settlements or pleas that are in favor of the US.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The United States Attorneys (USAs) serve as the nation's principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. The USAs are appointed by, and serve at the discretion of, the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. The USAs report to the Attorney General through the Deputy Attorney General. Each USA serves as the chief federal law enforcement officer within his/her judicial district and, as such, is responsible for the prosecution of criminal cases brought by the federal government, the litigation and defense of civil cases in which the United States is a party, the handling of criminal and civil appellate cases before the United States Court of Appeals, and the collection of civil and criminal debts owed the federal government which are administratively uncollectible.

Evidence: Tab 1 - From the United States Code Annotated Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part II. Department of Justice, Chapter 35. United States Attorneys, Section 547. Duties: "Except as otherwise provided by law, each Untied States attorney, within his district shall - (1) prosecute for all offenses against the United States; (2) prosecute or defend, for the Government, all civil actions, suits or proceedings in which the United States is concerned; (3) appear in behalf of the defendants in all civil actions, suits or proceedings pending in his district against collectors, or other officers of the revenue or customs for any act done by them or for the recovery of any money exacted by or paid to these officers, and by them paid into the Treasury; (4) institute and prosecute proceedings for the collection of fines, penalties, and forfeitures incurred for violation of any revenue law, unless satisfied on investigation that justice does not require the proceedings; and (5) make such reports as the Attorney General may direct;" Tab 2 - Map of the United States' Judicial Districts/United States Attorneys' Offices; Tab 3 - USAOs Mission Statement at www.usdoj.gov/usao/offices/mission.html; Tab 4 - DOJ Mission Statement at www.usdoj.gov/02organizations.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The USAs are responsible for the vast majority of criminal cases brought by the federal government, the litigation and defense of civil cases in which the government is a party, the handling of criminal and civil appellate cases before United States Courts of Appeal, and the collection of civil and criminal debts. USAs investigate and prosecute a wide range of criminal activities, including international and domestic terrorism, child exploitation and obscenity, gangs, drug enforcement, immigration, identify theft, corporate fraud, firearms and violent crime, public corruption and organized crime, and criminal civil rights enforcement. Many of these cases are extremely complex, involving multiple defendants. USAs handled 130,769 criminal cases in FY 2006. Cases are referred by all federal investigative agencies including the FBI, DEA, ATF, Postal, Customs, Secret Service, and ICE, as well as state and local law enforcement. USAs initiate cases to assert and protect the interests of the United States, known as affirmative civil litigation. These cases include the enforcement of civil rights laws, representing the government's interests in bankruptcy actions, and recouping money and recovering damages resulting from federal program and other fraud. USAs also represent the government in lawsuits filed against the United States, known as defensive civil litigation. These cases are not discretionary and cannot be delegated. Examples include tort suits brought by those alleging suffering as a result of government action; adjudication of Social Security disability claims; alleged contract violations; habeas corpus petitions; and race, sex, and age discrimination actions. In all other civil case designations, the government can be either the plaintiff or the defendant, and, in many cases, the government is a third-party to a suit. USAs handled 183,403 civil cases in FY 2006. USAs are also responsible for collecting both criminal and civil debt owed the government. In FY 2006, USAs collected $1.52 billion in criminal debt and $3.72 billion in civil debt. At the close of FY 2006, there was an inventory of $11.4 billion in outstanding, collectible criminal debt and an inventory of $3.4 billion in outstanding civil debt. The large number of cases filed by and against the government in judicial districts around the nation demonstrates the continuing need for highly skilled, district-based attorneys. Advances in technology and changing demographics continue to result in new types of crimes and litigation. Without a competent cadre of attorneys to enforce and defend federal laws, the rule of law could be compromised. In addition, the United States could find itself liable for millions (or more) of dollars, which would directly impact efforts to fund basic government operations.

Evidence: Tab 5 - from The Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics (www.albany.edu/sourcebook/), specifically Tables 3.106.2004 (Estimated number and rate of offenses known to police 1960 to 2004), 2.33.2005 (Attitudes toward level of crime in the U.S.), 2.41 (Respondents indicating too little is spent on selected problems in this country) and Tab 6 - from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, the Preliminary 2006 Report (www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelim06/index.html) for data indicating the continuing large volume of crimes being committed nationwide; Tab 7 - the United States Attorneys' Annual Statistical Report Fiscal Year 2005 at (www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2005/05statrpt.pdf) and Tab 8 - workload indicators from the USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf .

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The organizational structure, policies, and practices of the USAs are designed to avoid duplication and redundancy with other federal, state and local efforts. Each USA primarily prosecutes and defends cases arising within his/her district, referred by federal investigative agencies (FBI, DEA, ATF, etc.) as well as by state and local law enforcement. In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the USAs focus on large-scale, multi-jurisdictional activity that cannot be prosecuted effectively by any single state or local authority, with well-established procedures and lines of communication. Also, USAs are often better equipped than local prosecutors to handle emerging criminal activities, frequently driven by technology, such as child exploitation and obscenity on the internet or instances where the severity of the crime warrants it. The division of responsibility within DOJ for litigation is determined by statute, regulation, Attorney General (AG) and Deputy Attorney General (DAG) directive, United States Attorneys' Manual (USAM) provisions, and historical practice. In contrast, the Divisions of the General Legal Activities (GLA) are centralized in Washington, D.C., each focusing on particular areas of the law. The various litigating divisions of the GLA evolved in the first half of the 20th century in response to changes in law and business. The Divisions take the lead on specialized cases, allowing USAs to devote more time and attention to their districts and to mission cases and thereby improving efficiency DOJ-wide. Between the United States Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) and the General Legal Activities (GLA) there are extensive standards that guide the activities of each component to avoid redundancy and to target cases toward the component best able to handle the litigation and any unexpected challenges. Criminal investigations and prosecutions handled totally or partially by other DOJ components are coordinated through the USAOs for grand jury utilization, and investigative and logistical support. Since state, local, and private parties cannot prosecute federal criminal cases, there is no redundancy with these efforts.

Evidence: Tab 9 - from the United States Code Annotated Title 28. Judiciary and Judicial Procedure, Part II. DOJ, Chapter 31. The Attorney General, Section 516. Conduct of litigation reserved to the DOJ: "Except as otherwise authorized by law, the conduct of litigation in which the United States, an agency, or officer thereof is a party, or is interested, and securing evidence therefor, is reserved to the Officers of the Department of Justice, under the direction of the Attorney General." Tab 10 - from the Code of Federal Regulations Currentness Title 28. Judicial Administration, Chapter I. Department of Justice, Part 0. Organization of the Department of Justice, Subpart CC. Jurisdictional Disagreements, Section 0.195. Procedure with respect to jurisdictional disagreements: "Any disagreement between or among heads of the organizational units as to their respective jurisdictions shall be resolved by the Attorney General, who may, if he so desires, issue an order in the number series disposing of the matter." The USAM provides standards for consultation, notification, delegation, within DOJ; in particular: Tab 11 - 1-1.100 Purpose, Tab 12 - 4-1.300 Division of Responsibility Between the Civil Division and the USAs for the Handling of Civil Litigation and 4-1.310 Direct Referral Cases, and Tab 13 - 9-2.000 Authority of the U.S. in Criminal Division Matters/Prior Approvals. For entire manual, see link at www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The United States Constitution and the Judiciary Act of 1789 define the organizational structure of the USAs. (See Section 1.1 above for more detail.) For over 200 years, federal legislation has increased the number of judicial districts, as the population has increased, and the number of USAs and United States Attorneys' Offices (USAOs) has been set accordingly. This decentralized organizational structure serves to appropriately and effectively meet the need to provide professional legal services on behalf of the United States that are closely tied to and tailored by the distinct characteristics of each federal judicial district. USAOs are either co-located with the federal courthouses or in close proximity, allowing for the effective use of attorney time. USAs maximize finite resources by focusing on the priorities defined in the Attorney General's Strategic Plan, their unique district needs, and their statutorily mandated responsibilities. An order of the Attorney General in 1953 established the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) to provide executive assistance and coordinating functions for the USAs. EOUSA is located in Washington, DC in close proximity to the Divisions of the General Legal Activities and the Attorney General.

Evidence: There is no evidence demonstrating major flaws in the design. In fact, the design has stood the test of time and debates within Congress, with specialized Divisions being established within the DOJ as the need arose to provide substantive expertise in certain areas, to supplement the USAs. Tab 14 - See the organizational chart of the DOJ at www.usdoj.gov/dojorg.htm and organizational charts for each of the litigating divisions: Tab 15 - Antitrust at www.usdoj.gov/atr/org.htm, Tab 16 - Civil at www.usdoj.gov/civil/brochure/organizational/orgchart4.htm, Tab 17 - Civil Rights at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/orgcharts/crt.pdf, Tab 18 - Criminal at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/orgcharts/crm.pdf, Tab 19 - ENRD at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/enrd.htm#orgchart, Tab 20 - National Security at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/orgcharts.nsd.pdf, Tab 21 - Tax at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/tax.htm#orgchart, and evidence cited in Section 1.1.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The USAs work in 94 judicial districts throughout the country to ensure the law is enforced, those who commit crimes are held accountable, the public fisc is protected, overall crime is reduced and public safety is enhanced. Each USA primarily prosecutes and defends cases in his/her district and each USA is constantly assessing and reviewing the needs of their particular district to ensure they are effectively targeting resources to address issues unique to their geographic area. Several factors further ensure that each USA is responsive to the unique needs of his/her district: (1) All United States Attorneys must reside in the district of their appointment; (2) All Assistant United States Attorneys must reside in the district of their appointment or within 25 miles thereof; (3) Each United States Attorney's Office (USAO) has a Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee (LECC) established in the district specifically to improve communications between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; to provide training; and to facilitate cooperative efforts by acting as a liaison between the USAO and the community; (4) Each USAO has at least one Victim Witness Coordinator, responsible for ensuring that innocent victims of all crime have their rights upheld, have their dignity and privacy respected, and are treated with fairness; and (5) Districts also have specific initiatives and programs, such as Weed and Seed, Project Safe Childhood, etc. which target particular problem areas. In addition, each USAO receives its own budget allocation from EOUSA to be managed to support the priorities and operations of the district, permitting the redirection of resources to match changing needs. Overall DOJ/USAO priorities are set forth in the DOJ Strategic Plan 2003 - 2008 and the USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission. At a macro level, the EOUSA has not addressed the disproportionate growth in cases in some regions of the country, particularly in the southwestern districts. EOUSA have been reluctant to shift personnel and resources to balance the caseloads for attorneys across the country so that they can better serve their individual districts.

Evidence: Tab 22 - USAM Title 3 EOUSA, 3-2.130 (USA Residence) and Tab 23 - 3-2.200 (Assistant United States Attorneys) spell out the residency requirements. Tab 24 - 3-7.100 (LECC/Victim Witness History and Overview) documents the AG's 1981 order requiring the establishment of the LECC in each district and the various Acts setting forth victim witness requirements at www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam. Information concerning Tab 25 - Project Safe Childhood is available at www.projectsafechildhood.gov/ and Tab 26 - Weed & Seed can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ccdo/ws/welcome.html. Additional evidence and information can be found in Tab 27 - The DOJ Strategic Plan 2003-2008 at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2003-2008/pdf.html, and in the Tab 28 - USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: As described in section 1.1, the USAs serve as the nation's principal litigators. The desired outcome of the USAs' mission is to achieve settlements--pleas or judgments in favor of the government. This, in turn, upholds the rule of law, holds criminals accountable, protects the public fisc, and aids in reducing overall crimes and increasing public safety. USAOs can directly measure achievement of the desired outcome using two long-term outcome measures: percentage of criminal cases favorably resolved and favorable resolution of civil cases. These two measures are included in the U.S. Attorneys= Performance Budget Submission to Congress and the Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). For the criminal programs, the measure is designed to capture resolution of cases based on total defendants terminated and total defendants guilty. For the civil programs, the long-term measure for percentage of cases favorably resolved is designed to capture case resolution that includes those cases that resulted in court judgments favorable to the government as well as settlements.

Evidence: Tab 29 - Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report, 2006. www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/2006par.pdf Caseload data is taken from the USAs' central case management system (LIONS - Legal Information Office Network System) which contains district information on matters, cases, and appeals. Data is entered by docket clerks and then reviewed by supervisory attorneys and used in case reviews with AUSAs, generally once a quarter. USAs are required to sign and submit bi-annual case data certifications; Tab 30 - USAP 3-16.130.001(M) is a copy of the case certification procedures; Tab 31 - A sample of overall criminal and civil case data for one district generated by the LIONS= case management system is provided. In addition to the overall caseload data, data is available for specific caseload areas such as immigration, drugs, organized crime, white collar crime, and violent crime.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: As described in 2.1, the USAs have set both baselines and targets for long term outcome goals. The USA baselines and targets are being re-set at 90 percent of criminal cases favorably resolved and 80 percent for civil cases favorably resolved. Both targets are held constant but, due to internal and external circumstances, the targets are still ambitious. These long term measures are significantly affected by factors such as case complexity and changes in criminal activity. For example, gang violence is now a problem in every state, no longer an issue just in large cities. Gangs are involved in drug distribution at both the wholesale and street levels and may have a presence across multiple jurisdictions (i.e., MS-13 has members in Northern Virginia, New York, California, Texas, Oregon and Nebraska). Criminal activity is driven by technology: Child exploitation and identify theft, among other crimes, have proliferated due to the Internet. The FBI reports seeing organized, economic crime on the Internet that did not even exist just a few years ago, requiring different skills sets. Finally, downturns in the economy usually result in increases in crime. Setting higher targets would not be practical, since the favorable resolution rate for criminal cases is already almost 92 percent. A higher target might encourage USAs to take on those cases they believe can be won simply in order to achieve the target. The USAs do not want to achieve caseload goals at the expense of doing justice. In addition, a long term efficiency measure examines overhead costs vs. mission costs, and compares the cost of accomplishing the overall mission of litigation to the cost of supporting the mission. The purpose of this measure is to provide an indicator as to whether the USAs are efficiently accomplishing their mission by decreasing the percentage of overhead costs over time.

Evidence: Tab 32 - The USA's Annual Statistical Report for FY 2005, www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/foiamanuals.html, which shows case program data; Tab 33 - USAs Annual Performance Budget, Submission to Congress at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf, which discusses case complexity and emerging criminal activity.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The USAs can directly measure achievement of the desired outcome using its annual performance goals: the percentage of criminal cases resolved in favor of the government and the percentage of civil cases resolved in favor of the government. By tracking the achievement of the long term measure on an annual basis, USAs can clearly measure progress toward meeting long term goals. Beginning in FY 2008 the USAs will collect and report debt collection information as both an annual and long term measure of program performance. Also, the USAs efficiency measure, overhead costs vs. mission costs, is measured and reported annually to ensure that the USAs are on track to meet their long term targets. These annual performance measures represent the primary mission of the USAs to successfully prosecute criminal and civil cases. In addition to the aforementioned measures, the program also has two annual output measures that are used to calculate the long term outcome measures of percent of criminal and civil cases favorably resolved.

Evidence: Tab 34 - USA's Performance Tables in the USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf; Tab 35 - DOJ Performance and Accountability Report, 2006 at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/2006par.pdf.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Baseline data for the annual performance measures was set in FY 2003 and is derived from the Legal Information Office Network System (LIONS) case management system. The annual performance measures are directly tied to the established long-term measures. As previously described, the long-term measures have exceptionally ambitious targets and have been held constant despite increases in case complexity. However, there has been a decrease in the number of cases filed for both criminal and civil litigation and an increase in the number of pending cases. A major reason for this trend is the growing number of vacant FTE in USAOs. Even with the number of cases handled per attorney increasing over the past several years, USAs have not been able to keep up with the number of matters referred. In addition, the mix and type of cases referred has changed, becoming more complex, costly, and time-consuming to prosecute. International terrorism cases and Internet-related crimes often require extensive travel and costly discovery procedures for evidence. Foreign travel by AUSAs is often necessary to interview witnesses and gather evidence in the pre- and post-indictment stages. The cost of foreign travel is exacerbated by difficulties encountered in arranging the cooperation of foreign intelligence services. In addition, certain depositions of foreign witnesses require the USAO to pay the travel costs for the AUSA, the defendant (if not in custody), the defense attorney, the interpreter, and stenographer. The GLA divisions have similar challenges stemming from advances in technology and ever increasing levels of internationalization, even though the GLA targets are set at 90% and 80%.

Evidence: Tab 36 - The USA's Annual Statistical Report for FY 2005, www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/foiamanuals.html, which shows case program data; Tab 37 - USAs Annual Performance Budget, Submission to Congress at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf, which discusses case complexity and emerging criminal activity.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The USAs principal partners within the Justice Department are the General Legal Activities (GLA) components who share the same long-term outcome measures. The shared commitment to these goals is reflected in the PART, the Department=s Performance and Accountability Report (PAR), the Department's annual budget submission, and DOJ=s Strategic Plan. USAs also work with other federal enforcement agencies, receiving most of their criminal referrals or matters from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, the United States Secret Service, and others. Collaborative efforts are undertaken with state and local partners where USAs play the key role as conveners. There are a variety of long-term liaisons in place including: Law Enforcement Committee Coordination, Anti-Terrorism Advisory Councils, Project Safe Neighborhoods, and Project Safe Childhood. Each of these requires local strategic plans, reports and data that contribute to performance measurement. USAs also work with state and local task force partners in programs such as Weed and Seed. USAO representatives often co-chair the Weed and Seed Steering Committee, assist with planning and developing the initial Weed and Seed strategy, and oversee the law enforcement strategy. Departmental guidance in implementing Project Safe Childhood recommends that USAs include in each district=s strategic plan the protocols for handling child exploitation leads and cases in order to investigate and prosecute cases. Cooperation and shared resources are often accomplished by using Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), reimbursable agreements, task forces and other collaborative efforts. Our federal, state, and local law enforcement partners share our commitment to deter and prosecute criminal behavior.

Evidence: Tab 38 - The Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2006, at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/2006par.pdf, shows USA outcome measures as well as those for GLA partners; Tab 39 - USA Annual Statistical Report for FY 2005 at www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/foiamanuals.html; Tab 40 - U.S. Department of Justice Report, Project Safe Childhood: Protecting Children from Online Exploitation and Abuse, May 2006 at www.projectsafechildhood.gov/guide.htm, see local strategic planning requirements on page 24.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Director of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) is required under 28 CFR Part 0.22 to evaluate performance, make appropriate reports and take corrective action. EOUSA fulfills this requirement and its responsibilities under the Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act and OMB Circular No. A-123 through the Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS) and EOUSA's internal controls function. EARS is led by an Assistant Director (AUSA). The EOUSA Chief Operating Officer (COO) has responsibility for the internal controls function and serves as the liaison to the General Accountability Office (GAO) and Office of the Inspector General (OIG). Internal Controls includes the United States Attorneys' Procedures (USAPs); the District and Management Assistance program (DMA); and the Red Flags follow-up program. The COO also coordinates with GAO and OIG on audits - audits of the Southwest Border Initiative and of computer security are currently being done. While evaluations are made by internal groups at the direction of the EARS and by external groups like the DOJ OIG and GAO, they are not conducted on a regular basis and have varying degrees of independence and scope. The OIG and GAO reports are conducted infrequently and are often narrowly focused on one aspect of the program. The internal reviews conducted by the EARS staff are also narrowly focused, evaluating individual offices instead of taking a broader look at the program as a whole, and lack independence.

Evidence: Tab 41 - 28 CFR Part 0.22; Tab 42 - EOUSA Organization Chart www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/manual/orgcharts/eousa.pdf; Tab 43 - List of USAPs; Tab 44 - District and Management and Assistance description; Tab 45 - Red Flags; Tab 46 - 2007 Evaluation Schedule; Tab 47 - ARS Work Documents; Tab 48 - Legal Evaluators Handbook TOC; Tab 49 - Administrative Evaluators Handbook TOC; Tab 50 - Legal Evaluators Handbook Ch.2 - Pre-evaluation Materials; Tab 51 - Legal Evaluators Handbook Ch. 7 - Interview Guides; Tab 52 - Legal Evaluator Handbook Ch. 5 - EOUSA Management Goals, Measures, and Standards.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The United States Attorneys' budget requests are aligned with the Department's Strategic Goals. Discussion in the USA performance budget explicitly ties resources to caseload data and the ability to achieve program results. The primary outcome measures of favorable resolution of criminal and civil cases are directly linked to the number of on-board AUSA FTE. The Performance Resource Tables in the Performance Budget Submission to Congress show the allocation of resources tied to a specific level of performance. The tie between resources and performance outcomes is made for the prior year, current year, and budget year so that the reader can evaluate the change in performance that is "bought" for each change in resources. The budget requests also present resource needs in a complete and transparent manner. This includes the presentation of reimbursable resources and overhead/administrative costs.

Evidence: Tab 53 - The USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf includes evidence of the relationship between performance goals and resources as does Tab 54 - USAs Annual Statistical Report for FY 2005 at www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2005/05statrpt.pdf ; Tab 55 - LIONS criminal and civil caseload data from FY 2003 - FY 2006.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: In Spring 2007, the Department of Justice completed a new Strategic Plan for fiscal years 2007-2012 to replace the existing FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan. USAs play key roles in two of these DOJ goals by: Preventing terrorism and promoting the Nation=s Security; and preventing crime, enforcing federal laws, and representing the rights and interests of the people. USAOs are required to develop local strategic plans which reflect the goals of the DOJ strategic plan and establish goals and objectives for prevention and prosecution efforts to implement specific programs, such as Project Safe Childhood, Project Safe Neighborhoods, and District Gang Initiatives. A number of USAOs have also developed district-wide strategic plans. In the Spring of 2007 an EOUSA-wide strategic plan is being finalized. In order to meet their program purpose in an effective and efficient manner, the USAs have developed and implemented several new annual and long term measures. These measures are in addition to their primary measures regarding the prosecution of civil and criminal cases and focus on the collection of debt and the efficient use of limited resources for prosecution. The implementation of these measures shows an improvement in the strategic planning of the USAs and will contribute to the achievement of the programs long term goals.

Evidence: Tab 56 - Department of Justice Strategic Plan FY 2003-2008 at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2003-2008; Tab 57 - EARS guidance for conducting evaluations has been revised to include a section entitled "Strategic Plan and District Priorities." Under the new guidelines, evaluators are asked to interview key USA managers about various aspects of USA operations, including strategic planning and priority issues; Tab 58 - U.S. Department of Justice Report, Project Safe Childhood: Protecting Children from Online Exploitation and Abuse, May 2006 at www.projectsafechildhood.gov/guide.htm, see local strategic planning requirements on page 24; Tab 59 - USAP 3-4.430.001(M) USAs= Performance Evaluation Handbook.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: A recent OIG report found that the USA's Legal Information Online Network System (LIONS), a database that permits USAOs to compile, maintain, and track information relating to cases, had not established effective internal controls to verify the accuracy of data. This resulted in inaccurate reporting of data for all 11 statistics related to terrorism prosecutions.

Evidence: Tab 60 - Alcatraz/LIONS Manual excerpt, USA-5 Manual excerpt, TALON Manual excerpt; Tab 61 - Bi-Annual LIONS Case Certification Requirement; Tab 62 - Data Analysis Staff Home Page; Tab 63 - DOJ Report, Project Safe Childhood: Protecting Children from Online Exploitation and Abuse, May 2006 at www.safechildhood.gov/guide/htm, see sections on local strategic planning and accountability reporting on pages 25 to 29; Tab 64 - Project Safe Neighborhoods: Strategic Interventions, Gun Prosecution Case Screening: Case Study 1 by various academic experts, available at www.psn.gov/pubs/pdf/PSN-casestudy1.pdf; Tab 65 - USAs Annual Statistical Report Year 2005 at www.usdoj.gov/usao/reading_room/reports/asr2005/05statrpt.pdf; and Tab 66 - USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: On June 30, 2004 the Attorney General transmitted decisions on the SES Performance-based Pay System to OPM and OMB with the Human Capital report, including a generic work plan for all Departmental SES members, with an accompanying performance "contract" that must explicitly relate to the Department's, the President's or the Attorney General's defined goals. The only SES positions within the USA program are in the Executive Office; all attorneys, including attorney managers, are covered under an Administratively Determined Pay system. However, by December 30, 2004, each USA had certified that all employees in his/her district, including all senior managers serving as Division and Section Chiefs (with the exception of the USA - see note below), were on work plans with links to the DOJ Strategic Plan and to the President's Management Agenda (PMA). Starting in 2005, performance appraisal guidance required Results and Expected Outcomes (REOs) for every employee for each performance plan element where there was a link to an objective or goal in a strategic plan. These REOs are specific work accomplishments expected by the end of the appraisal period which must be met in conjunction with defined performance element standards. The new guidance also specified that, in order to receive an overall outstanding rating, more than 50% of the performance elements must be rated at the outstanding level AND at least one element linked to organizational goals and initiatives must also be rated at the outstanding level. EOUSA developed generic model work plans with links for criminal, civil and appellate AUSAs, for supervisory civil and criminal AUSAs and for senior litigation counsel and made them available to districts on the intranet. EOUSA also updated the Performance Appraisal Handbook (USAP 3-4.430.001) to reflect these requirements and to stress the need for ensuring that employee performance is effectively tied to organizational goals and objectives and that performance management activities should promote workforce effectiveness in achieving organizational goals and objectives. The USAs key partner, the GLA, similarly certified on December 30, 2004 that work plans were in place with required links to the President's and the AG's defined goals. As of September 2005, DOJ had achieved green status on the PMA Scorecard for its Strategic Management of Human Capital. Other program partners outside the USAOs, for example those involved in Project Safe Neighborhood, are required to develop strategic plans and then to report regularly against those plans. One final note, Presidential Appointees, such as the USAs, are specifically NOT covered under US Code Title 5 Chapter 43. Congress has established that their performance cannot be evaluated under Title 5 and no explicit provision has been made for their evaluation.

Evidence: Tab 67 - USAP 3-4.430.001(M) Performance Evaluation Handbook; Tab 68 - DOJ 1200.1 Performance Management for SES Employees; Tab 69 - Sample Work Plans for Supervisory Attorneys and Attorneys with Links; Tab 70 - DOJ Performance and Accountability Report, IV - 3 and IV-4 at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/p4/p03.pdf ; Tab 71 - PMA Scorecard (September 30, 2005) at www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/fy05q4-scorecard.pdf ; Tab 72 - 5 USC 43 (Section 4301 - 4302) showing the exemption for "an individual appointed by the President."

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Over the past five years, the USA program has not had significant un-obligated funds remaining at the end of the fiscal year. Each United States Attorney's Office receives an annual fiscal year budget allocation from EOUSA. The USA, with his/her senior management team, then prepares an operating plan, projecting obligations and expenditures for the district for the year by object class/type of expenditure. This operating plan must be submitted to and approved by EOUSA. Each USAO then manages its budget based on this plan, making use of the online Departmental Financial Management Information System (FMIS 2+) and its modules. FMIS2+ provides automated controls to ensure accurate reporting of financial information through standard edits, validation of funds availability; multiple levels of system access, transaction authorization and approval authority; prepayment examination; and numerous diagnostic and standard reports. USAOs adhere to the EOUSA Financial Management Handbook and additionally have district-specific procedures in place. These require timely obligation and monthly reconciliations, which review all obligations for accuracy and continued viability. An EOUSA Budget Analyst is assigned to monitor and support each district and generally reviews that district's accounts and communicates with the district at least weekly. Every quarter, USAOs must submit to EOUSA a review of spending and projections for the remainder of the year. Each USA must also certify, quarterly, that all obligations have been reviewed and are valid. EOUSA Budget Analysts report regularly to the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) concerning the status of each district's budget, noting anything unusual. In addition, every quarter, EOUSA's Financial Audit Staff selects a sample of 20 obligations from 10 districts (200 total obligations), tests those against 15 internal controls, and completes a scorecard showing red-yellow-green status. Monies provided to non-federal partners are included in all the above procedures. For all reimbursable funding, monthly billings and a Quarterly Statement of Unbilled Earnings are required. Additional proof of timely and appropriate obligations of funds includes the consistent clean audits, starting in 2001 and continuing through 2006, showing that obligations are accurate and proper.

Evidence: Tab 73 - FMIS 2+ Functional Requirements, excerpt discussing controls; Tab 74 - EOUSA Financial Manual TOC; Tab 75 - USAs Quarterly Certification of Funds; Tab 76 - DOJ PAR 2006, Part III - Financial Section for evidence of clean audits at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/P3/p03.pdf; Tab 77 - Scorecard Criteria showing requirement for description of goods/services and that the obligation has been timely monitored.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: In recent years, EOUSA and the USAOs have increased efficiency and cost effectiveness in a variety of areas. In the procurement area, all USAOs consistently follow the requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR), including appropriately competing all requirements that exceed the micro-purchase threshold of $3,000 and using GSA Schedules and mandatory sources. EOUSA establishes competitive contracts for some services, such as printers, personal digital assistants (PDAs), and USAOs also take advantage of DOJ and other agencies' competitive contracts for services, such as online legal research, litigation support, applications development, mail room operations, photocopying, and records management. In the library, a librarians' working group identified a "core collection" to assist USAOs in reducing items on annual title reports and a member of that group drafted the USAP that institutes best practices for controlling costs and access to computer assisted legal research, including federal court Electronic Case Files (ECF). This has resulted in savings of approximately $2 million without reducing service. Long term technology investments are subject to the USAOs Investment Review Board, the DOJ Information Technology review process, and OMB capital investment review. USAP 3-16.100.001 ensures that investments in information technology are consistent with the USAO Strategic IT plan and enterprise and security architecture. It outlines a process for submitting Statements of Need to the Chief Information Officer, EOUSA for consideration and analysis. Technology refreshment - replacing employee workstations and computer room servers on a three year cycle - is managed centrally, including bulk purchasing and rollouts. By using several teams to accomplish the rollouts, EOUSA ensures maximum efficiency, with no learning curve and standard procedures. In the most recent workstations replacement, laptops with docking stations were provided to all AUSAs to allow them to continue to work when on travel or at home. In 2006, EOUSA completed conversion to the DOJ-wide area network, called JUTNET, and implemented two initiatives to provide improved secure access in the event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. Many USAOs have also provided Blackberry or other PDAs to attorneys so that they can access their email and calendars readily even while in the courthouse. EOUSA and most USAOs have also taken advantage of technology enhancements and have been adding scanning capability to most copiers. At least one USAO has taken advantage of the document scanning capabilities of the FBI, for FBI-referred matters, and EOUSA is moving to create a central document scanning and document processing operation co-located with the National Advocacy Center to support all USAOs. Scanning case documents permits attorneys and paralegals to review documents online, reduces the need for multiple paper copies and large file rooms, and simplifies document production to opponents through production of a CD of the documents. EOUSA is also actively participating in the DOJ-wide implementation of the Litigation Case Management System line of business initiative. USAOs have one efficiency measure that compares the cost of accomplishing the overall mission of litigation to providing overhead support. Targets were established for fiscal year 2006 and data was first reported in the Fall of 2006.

Evidence: Tab 78 - USAP 3-16.700.001 (M) Contract Litigation Support Services showing procedure for making use of DOJ "mega" contracts with CACI, Labat-Anderson, and Lockheed Martin as one example of competitive sourcing; Tab 79 - USAP 3-16.000.001 (M) Computer Assisted Legal Research (CALR) outlining roles and responsibilities, etc.; Tab 80 - USAP 3-16.100.001(M) IT Investments: Statement of Need and IT Alignment; Tab 81 - Litigation Case Management System documentation showing establishment of a project management office to manage "the successful acquisition and implementation of a single core litigation case management system??to reduce operational costs and to act as a unified law firm by effectively and appropriately sharing information."

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The USAs collaborate and coordinate effectively with other related programs in a range of contexts. The closest partners are the litigating divisions of the General Legal Activities (GLA), who share responsibility for federal litigation with the USAs. Collaboration between these two programs is guided by provisions in the United States Attorney's Manual (USAM), regulations, Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General directives, and past practice. (See section 1.3 for more information.) Successful collaboration is reflected in the DOJ Performance and Accountability Report and in numerous DOJ press releases. USAs maintain close and productive relationships with both client and federal law enforcement and investigative agencies, generally accomplished through regular meetings. USAs also participate in multiple task forces addressing specific subject areas. Membership in the task forces can vary in size and scope and can include federal, state and local representatives. There are also multi-jurisdictional and cross-cutting task forces/groups established to address issues that are regional in nature and not confined to a particular judicial district. USAs also collaborate with communities and community groups in their local liaison function and as part of certain initiatives, such as Project Safe Neighborhoods.

Evidence: Tab 82 - DOJ PAR 2006 Part II (II-1 to II-19); Tab 83 - Selected DOJ Press Releases: "Cali Cartel Leaders Plead Guilty to Drug and Money Laundering Conspiracy Charges," (9/26/06) resulting from collaboration among the United States Attorneys' Offices in the Southern Districts of both Florida and New York, the DEA, the Department of Homeland Security, the DOJ Criminal Division, the U.S. Marshals Service, South Florida High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area task force, the Columbian Police and the Columbian Fiscalia (the Office of the Prosecutor General); "Gang Members Sentenced to Life In Federal Prison for Assaults and Murders of African-Americans," (11/20/06 resulting from collaboration among the FBI, the Loa Angeles Police Department, the U. S. Attorney's Office for Central California and the DOJ Civil Rights Division; "Florida Man Convicted for Child Exploitation," (2/22/07) resulting from collaboration among the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the DOJ Criminal Division, the FBI, and the West Midlands Police Department in the United Kingdom; "Boeing to Pay U.S. Record $615 Million to Resolve Fraud Allegations," (6/30/06) resulting from collaboration among the U. S. Attorney's Offices for the Eastern District of Virginia and the Central District of California, the DOD OIG, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and its Space and Missile Systems Center at Los Angeles Air Base, the Defense Criminal Investigations Service, the NASA OIG, the DOJ Civil Division all available at www.usdoj.gov/03press/03_1_1.html; Tab 84 - Project Safe Neighborhoods home page at www.psn.gov.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The DOJ financial management system used by the USAs and the GLA is in compliance with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act (FFMIA). The USAs have continued to receive an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements, starting in 2001 and including most recently fiscal year 2006, with no material internal control weaknesses found (as part of the Offices, Boards and Divisions or OBDs within the DOJ). These audits are conducted by KPMG LLP under the direction of the DOJ OIG. Procedures are in place to ensure that payments are made properly for the intended purpose and that financial information is accurate and timely. USAOs adhere to the EOUSA Financial Management Handbook and, additionally, have district-specific financial management procedures in place. EOUSA Budget Analysts regularly monitor and review district accounts, USAOs must provide a quarterly review of expenditures and projections, and each USA must certify each quarter that all obligations have been reviewed and are valid.

Evidence: Tab 85 - DOJ Performance and Accountability Report 2006 Part III at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/P3/p03.pdf

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The USA Program focuses on management improvement on a number of levels. Its commitment to the President's Management Agenda is reflected in the status report provided in Part IV of the 2006 PAR, which shows, among other things, that the USAs had no material weaknesses and met financial statement reporting deadlines. Specific examples are the linking, for all employees, of work plans to the goals in the DOJ Strategic Plan and IT systems 100% compliance with the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA). The Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS) recently enhanced its focus on effective management, establishing benchmarks and drafting new work plans, a new management survey, new questionnaires, and new interview guides to incorporate new goals, measures, and management standards. Each USAO undergoes a thorough EARS evaluation every four years that conducts reviews of internal management controls to prevent waste, loss, unauthorized use, or misappropriation as required under Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA), provides on-site management assessments and assistance, and results in a written report that is provided to the USAO and to the Deputy Attorney General. Feedback from these evaluations - approximately 24 are conducted each year - assists in planning, implementation of improvements, and provides information about the work being performed in offices around the country. EOUSA also enhanced its District and Management Assistance Program (DMA). The DMA has responsibility for the Red Flag Program, District Assistance, Operational Analysis, Administrative Officer (AO) Basic Training, an AO Mentoring Program, a New AO Program, and a Financial Litigation Assistance Program - all geared towards improved effectiveness. The Chief Financial Officer has also established an Audit and Review Staff which conducts randomly selected audits of obligations and actively participates in EARS evaluations, the Justice Management Division's "mock audits" and the independent Federal financial audit.

Evidence: Tab 86 - DOJ FY 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, Part III Financial Section, III-5 to III - 7 at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/P3/p05.pdf ; Tab 87 - Part IV - Management Section, IV- 1 to IV-11 at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/P4/p01.pdf; Tab 88 - USAP 3-4.250.002(M) EOUSA Organizational Goal Setting showing requirement for annual organizational goals and linked staff performance standards; Tab 89 - Evaluation and Review Staff mission statement; Tab 90 - EARS USAO Management Survey, Excerpts; Tab 91 - EARS Administrative Evaluator Management Review Work Plan excerpt; Tab 92 - USAP 3-3.000-001(M) District and Management Assistance Program showing DMA responsibility for coordinating assistance through the Administrative Officer (AO) Assistance Program, Basic AO Training, the AO Mentor Program, the Financial Litigation Assistance Program, and EARS follow-up assistance to ensure effective performance of management functions; Tab 93 - EOUSA Acquisition Staff Quality Service Plan; Tab 94 - NAC 2007 Course Calendar showing management classes given approximately once a month.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Both the U. S. Attorneys and the litigating components of the General Legal Activities (GLA) have long-term and annual performance measures that are the same (i.e., the long-term measure is also tracked on an annual basis). As such, meeting the annual goals constitutes progress in achieving the long-term goals as well. For both programs, the performance measures focus on the favorable resolution of cases: One measures the percentage of criminal cases favorably resolved and the other measures favorable resolution of civil cases. The target for the first of these two metrics, measuring favorable resolution of criminal cases, was met in 2006. During the two preceding years, the target was missed, but only very slightly. However, to illustrate how ambitious this target is and how difficult to achieve given the nature, complexity, and volume of the cases the USAs handle, the GLA set 90% as its target for criminal cases favorably resolved and state and local prosecutors report merely 80% as the highest rate for criminal convictions. Given that the USA and the GLA share responsibility for handling criminal cases, the long-term and annual targets for both are being conformed to 90%. During the same period, the percentage of civil cases favorably resolved fell slightly short of the USA target. The USA and the GLA also share responsibility for handling civil cases; therefore, the long-term and annual targets for both are being conformed to a demanding 80%. In comparison, State and local prosecutors report civil rates of 53% (jury) and 65% (Judge). It should also be noted that many civil cases are defensive and not discretionary - the USAs must defend the government.

Evidence: Tab 95 -USA Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf ,pages 21 and 44, Performance Measure Tables for Criminal and Civil; Tab 96 - USA Annual Statistical Report 2006 (not yet posted); Tab 97 - Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Criminal Case Processing Statistics for Felony defendants at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cases.htm; Tab 98 - BJS Civil Justice Statistics Summary Findings, State Courts at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: As described in 4.1, the percentage of criminal and civil cases favorably resolved serve both as long-term and annual performance measures for the USAs and its primary partner, the litigating components of the GLA. For criminal cases, the annual target was met in 2006 but was missed very slightly in 2004 and 2005. During the same period, the percentage of civil cases favorably resolved fell slightly short of the USA target. However, the USA data exceeded - for both criminal and civil cases - the 90% and 80% targets set for the GLA and the USA is revising its targets to come in line with the consolidated DOJ targets. Additionally, our program partners, the litigating components of the GLA, consistently meet each of its annual and long-term measures. The Department of Justice does not target numbers of judgments or settlements due to the possibility it could be perceived as "bounty hunting." The two annual output measures - Number of Total Judgments and Settlements and Number of Judgments and Settlements in Favor of the U.S. - do not have targets and are used to compute the long-term and annual civil metric measuring the favorable resolution of civil cases. The USA established an annual efficiency measure comparing the cost of overhead to the cost of accomplishing the litigation mission of the organization. A 28.8% target was set for 2006, with similar targets for the subsequent three years (28.9%, 28.8%, 28.7%). For the first reporting year, USA missed its target slightly with a rate of 29.1%. On examination, the reason for this is that some uncontrollable overhead costs are rising faster than anticipated. The USA is currently taking several steps to increase efficiency so that this target will be met in future years.

Evidence: Tab 99 -USA Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf, pages 21 and 44, Performance Measure Tables for Criminal and Civil; Tab 100 - USA Annual Statistical Report 2006 (not yet posted); Tab 101 - Department of Justice Performance and Accountability Report, FY 2006 at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/2006par.pdf

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: Over each of the past three years the USA program has become increasingly cost effective. In fact, by FY 2006, some USAOs were operating within an overall budget that was less than their personnel budget in FY 2004. The Office of Management and Budget (OM&B) Subcommittee - made up of U.S. Attorneys - of the Attorney General's Advisory Council (AGAC) and the Chair of the Administrative Officer's Working Group (AOWG) developed and aggregated lists of cost-saving measures, which were then distributed to each USAO, posted on the Intranet, and discussed in monthly conference calls. Some examples included utilizing online legal research services rather than purchasing hard copies; limiting orders for real time and hourly transcripts of proceedings; closely scrutinizing translation orders; reducing video and data communication lines; minimizing travel; reducing office space and delaying renovations; and postponing expenditures on infrastructure for physical security and information technology. The Chief Financial Officer also started providing to all USAs a ranked comparison of expenditures based on the actual cost per on board FTE (i.e., overtime, payroll, awards, library costs), among like size offices, to encourage each office to carefully scrutinize its expenses. Given that 71% of the USA program is spent on payroll and benefits, EOUSA sought and received approval from OPM for Voluntary Early Retirement Authority to re-structure the USA community's workforce. Attorney vacancies have then been backfilled at entry level salaries, with a goal of no more than $75,000 per year, and support staff positions at entry level grades, thereby lowering the average FTE cost to fill additional previously unfunded FTE. USAOs took advantage of this flexibility and often hired two attorneys at $75,000 or less to replace one attorney making $142,900. Approximately 40% of new attorney hires over the past two years have been at or below the $75,000 level and 70% have been below the $100,000 level. As described in 4.2, EOUSA developed an efficiency measure that compares overhead to mission costs. The overhead costs are those that are not directly attributable to mission-related cases, matters, oversight, and policy. These include staff costs for support functions for finance, human resources, and security, as well as rent, equipment, supplies and printing. This measure was developed as a result of recommendations from a DOJ working group. In FY 2006, the first year for which a target was established, the USAs reported spending 29.1% of the its budget on overhead compared to the target of 28.8% - a shortfall of only three tenths of one percent. This compares favorably with the results achieved in FY 2005 and FY 2006 by the DOJ Criminal Division=s efficiency measure of the ratio of administrative support costs to program costs (target set at 69% and actuals reported at 69%, 69.6% and 70.27% in fiscal years 2004 thru 2006). USA data for FY 2007 will be analyzed to determine the validity of the overhead target.

Evidence: Tab 102 - Posted List of Costing Saving Measures, February 2006; Tab 103 - FY 2006 Chart Showing USA Budget Distribution; Tab 104 - Methodology for the USA overhead vs. mission efficiency measure.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The USA program performance is most logically and meaningfully compared to DOJ's other major litigating program, the General Legal Activities (GLA), which includes the Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Criminal, Environment and Natural Resources, and Tax Divisions. Both the GLA and the USAs share two important measures: the percent of criminal and the percent of civil cases favorably resolved. Looking first at the criminal case measure: In each of the past four years, both the GLA and USAs achieved approximately a 92% success rate for criminal cases favorably resolved. The USAs handle a larger volume and wider range of types of cases than do the litigating divisions. Therefore, the USA is adjusting its target to conform with the consolidated DOJ target of 90% for criminal cases. For the civil case measure, the GLA and the USAs achieved a success rate of over 80%. The USA is adjusting its target to conform to the consolidated DOJ target of 80% for civil cases. It is interesting to note that for the GLA and the USAs, the percent of favorable resolutions of civil cases declined in each of the past three years due to a decrease in the number of affirmative civil cases filed and a huge increase in immigration cases. Civil affirmative cases are favorably resolved at a much higher percentage rate than non-discretionary civil defensive cases: a decrease in affirmative civil cases results in an overall decrease in the percent of civil cases favorably resolved. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) collects and posts state and local related data. It summarizes felony conviction rates for 56,146 felony cases filed in State courts for the 75 largest counties as follows: 64% for drug trafficking, 66% for burglary, 68% for motor vehicle theft, 73% for driving related offenses, and 80% for murder. This suggests that a GLA/USA target of 90% is aggressive and performance that exceeds that target compares very favorably to non-federal programs. BJS data shows civil conviction rates for tort, contract and real property trials of cases filed in State court for the 75 largest counties were 53% for the plaintiff with a jury and 65% for the plaintiff for a bench trial (judge only). This, too suggests, that GLA/USA rates compare very well to the non-federal arena. In addition to this data, the USAs continue to receive a clean audit opinion with no material weaknesses, to achieve green on the President's Management Initiative scorecard in all except one area for current status and green in all areas showing progress, and to have a comprehensive evaluation program that assesses performance and recommends improvements.

Evidence: Tab 105 - USAs Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf/22_usa.pdf, pages 21 and 44, Performance Measure Tables for Criminal and Civil; Tab 106 - BJS Criminal Case Processing Statistics for Felony defendants at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/cases.htm; Tab 107 - BJS Civil Justice Statistics Summary Findings, State Courts at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm; Tab 108 - DOJ Performance and Accountability Report, 2006, Part III - Financial Section for evidence of a clean audit opinion at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/P3/p05.pdf ; Tab 109 - Executive Branch Management Scorecard as of 12/31/2006 at www.whitehouse.gov/results/agenda/fy07q1-scorecard.pdf.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The USA Program is effective and achieving results, as is demonstrated by a number of evaluations and audits that look at various aspects of the program, together with case management data and performance measures. The independent federal financial audit conducted annually by KPMG LLP indicates that the USA program is effective, receiving an unqualified audit opinion with no materials weaknesses for four years in a row. Two other audits, the Justice Management Division "mock audit" and compliance audits conducted by the EOUSA Resource Management and Planning Audit and Review Staff as part of the EARS program, also support these findings. The EARS program indicates and ensures that the USAs are effective and achieving results. Follow-up visits and return evaluations consistently show that USAOs have resolved noted problems and have improved overall management and performance. For example, the late FY 2000 evaluation of one very large district documented significant problems in the financial area; these were reported as well on the way to being corrected in the early FY 2002 follow-up visit and were noted as resolved in the FY 2004 evaluation. The scope of the EARS evaluations is very broad: The evaluations of 24 USAOs conducted every year report in detail on whether individual offices are well managed, effective and accomplishing their goals and objectives. Extensive pre-evaluation materials, a highly structured evaluation format and guidelines, and comprehensive interviews ensure that nothing is missed. Every year, EARS makes over 1,200 recommendations/findings. Each USAO takes corrective action, verified by follow-up evaluators, prior to the issuance of the final report of its evaluation. Any disputed findings are included in the official final report, provided to the Deputy Attorney General (DAG) for information and resolution. The quality of each EARS evaluator is ensured through nomination by the U.S. Attorney, training at the NAC, and selection by the EARS staff. Another reflection of the success and effectiveness of EARS is attested to by the fact that other organizations have modeled their own programs on it, including the U.S. Trustees, the Executive Office for Immigration Review, and the Federal Public Defenders Office, as well as the fact that return EARS document improvements. Both DOJ's OIG and GAO regularly conduct targeted audits, often cutting across components or examining a particular program area rather than evaluating all USAs. This strategy more accurately assesses program/initiative effectiveness. For example, in 2007, the OIG reported on DOJ internal controls over terrorism reporting (involving USAs, the FBI, the Criminal Division, etc.) and in 2005, reported on USAOs use of intelligence research specialists. In both, the OIG identified improvements that could be made. For GAO or the OIG to conduct regular audits of all 94 USAOs would require staffing and budget increases. During the period from 10/1/2005 to 3/31/2007, GAO prepared 52 reports on the DOJ. None of these focused specifically on USAs, but generally addressed cross-cutting issues such enterprise architecture, for which the DOJ received high marks. Case management data indicate that the USAOs with approximately 10,000 employees handle at least as many criminal and civil cases as the 78,000 state and local prosecutors and support staff nationwide, with a significantly higher percentage of favorable resolutions. Regardless of the increases in the number of cases or the changing nature of the cases, the percentage of favorable resolutions remains high for both civil and criminal cases, due to the dedication of USAO employees and to increased efficiencies nationwide and locally. The USAs continue to achieve the results included as performance and accountability measures as well as the results that are their mission.

Evidence: Tab 110 - DOJ Performance and Accountability Report 2006 at www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/pr2006/P3/p05.pdf, especially pages I-10 to 17 and III-5 thru 7; Tab 111 - EARS Legal Evaluator Handbook, Chapter III - Conducting the Evaluation, which includes statement such as: "Case management reports and statistical reports are very helpful in meeting the objective to evaluate the USAOs workload and determine whether the USAO ahs adequate systems in place to determine whether its AUSAs' workloads are being timely and adequately addressed." and "The primary purpose of the evaluation is to improve legal management in the USAO;" Tab 112 - EARS Legal Evaluators Handbook, Chapter 4 - The Role of the Team Leader, Sample Significant Observations Report, which provides direction to "Include here an overall assessment of the management of the office, morale, agency and judicial relations;" Tab 113 - OIG home page and listing of reports on EOUSA at www.usdoj.gov/iog/reports/index.htm; Tab 114 - GAO home page, listing of DOJ reports at www.gao.gov; Tab 115 - State and local case data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, Bulletin - Prosecutors in State Courts, 2005, available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/psc05.htm; Tab 116 - USA Annual Performance Budget, Congressional Submission at www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/pdf22_usa.pdf, Pages 21 and 44