Detailed Information on the
United States Trustees Assessment

Conduct an internal study to identify factors associated with fraud, abuse, and error.

Develop and conduct a training needs assessment of field staff to inform curricula at the National Bankruptcy Training Institute.

Reviewing current performance targets after one year of the new legislation (effective 10/17/05) to make them more aggressive.

Developing at least one performance measure for new responsibilities assigned under the recently enacted legislation.

Continuing to develop a capacity for independent evaluations, either by re-focusing internal organizations or contracting for independent evaluations.

Develop a scientific peer review system for significant public reports.

Review and implement key recommendations from an independent review of the Credit Counseling and Debtor Education renewal and complaint process.

Conduct an internal review of the new debtor audit program and adjust material misstatements and criteria for exception audits.

Develop a peer evaluation program to conduct on-site assessments of field office operations.

Expand scope and depth of data integrity review for new and existing information systems.

Form a working group to develop guidance for the field regarding improving the quality of formal and informal civil enforcement actions.

Measure: Percent of assets paid to creditors in chapter 7 cases.

Explanation: Efforts to repay debt owed by chapter 7 debtors as compared to the cost of administering the case by a private trustee. Administrative expenses include trustee fees for overseeing the case and other costs associated with liquidating the debtor's assets. The data are aggregated on a nationwide basis and reported twice a year in January and July. Therefore, each fiscal year has at least a three month lag in reporting. It provides a direct comparison between how much it costs private trustees to administer chapter 7 cases and how much remains to be disbursed to creditors. A higher percentage denotes more efficient administration of chapter 7 debtors' assets. It is a long-term measure, since it can take 2 to 3 years to complete a case.

Measure: Number of civil enforcement adversary actions filed.

Explanation:Efforts to prevent fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system through the filing of a formal complaint with a bankruptcy court. This complaint seeks to deny or revoke a discharge of debt. It is the most serious civil remedy available to the Program in its effort to prevent fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system and is taken to resolve issues such as hidden assets, unreported income, and exaggerated expenses.

Measure: Percent of assets paid to creditors in chapter 13 cases.

Explanation:Efforts to repay debt owed by chapter 13 creditors as compared to the cost of administering the bankruptcy case by a private trustee. Administrative expenses include trustee fees for overseeing the case and managing payments to creditors. The data are aggregated on a nationwide basis and reported twice a year in January and July. Therefore, each fiscal year has at least a three month lag in reporting.

Measure: Success rate of civil adversary complaints filed.

Explanation:The success rate of civil adversary complaints is the percentage of complaints adjudicated in bankruptcy court that resulted in a ruling supporting the Program's complaint. A civil adversary complaint is a formal request filed with the bankruptcy court that asks the court to take action against a debtor. It is a direct measure of the Program's ability to prevail on the civil actions it pursues. The success rate is a function of Program staff knowledge and expertise in bringing appropriate actions against debtors engaged in fraud and abuse of the bankruptcy system.

Measure: Success in litigating means testing.

Explanation:This measure directly supports the enforcement of the bankruptcy laws and regulations pursuant to the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). BAPCPA required that all chapter 7 consumer debtors complete a form to calculate and compare their annual income to the state median income level. If a debtor is above the state median, there is a presumption that they have an ability to repay a portion of their debt (termed presumed abuse). The Program is authorized to pursue civil action against debtors with presumed abuse and to seek dismissal of the case. The success rate is a function of Program staff knowledge and expertise in bringing appropriate actions against debtors engaged in abuse of the bankruptcy system.

Measure: Number of 707(b) inquiries per successful outcome.

Explanation:The number of informal inquiries is compared to the number of successful outcomes. Inquiries made under 707(b)(2) and (b)(3) help the Program assess a debtor's eligibility for chapter 7 relief. If a debtor is above the state median and calculations show disposable income above a specified amount, there is a presumption of abuse. In many cases, this requires a debtor to either agree to convert their case to chapter 13 or dismiss (cancel) their chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. A successful outcome is defined as a conversion to a more appropriate bankruptcy chapter, a dismissal of the bankruptcy case, or a motion granted. The efficiency ratio is calculated by dividing the sum of all 707(b)(2) and (b)(3) inquiries made by the Program to debtors or their attorneys in a fiscal year by the number of successful outcomes relating to 707(b)(2) and (b)(3). A lower efficiency ratio suggests the Program is doing a better job of focusing staff effort (inquiries) on bankruptcy petitions requiring Program action. Some motions granted and inquiries resulting in voluntary conversions or dismissals were initiated in the prior fiscal year.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Overview: The United States Trustee Program (USTP) is the component of the Department of Justice that protects the integrity of the bankruptcy system. The Program's general mission is set forth in the Department of Justice's Strategic Plan: ""Protect the integrity and ensure the effective operation of the Nation's bankruptcy system."" The USTP Strategic Plan provides additional detail: "The U.S. Trustee Program's mission is to promote integrity and efficiency in the nation's bankruptcy system by enforcing bankruptcy laws, providing oversight of private trustees, and maintaining operational excellence." Background: The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 established the foundation for the nation's current federal bankruptcy system. The passage of the 1978 Act culminated a series of studies dating back to the 1920s of problems confronting the bankruptcy system. A Congressionally chartered Commission proposed the establishment of a new executive branch agency to handle the administrative aspects of bankruptcy cases, leaving judicial functions to be performed by the courts. The Commission specifically noted that such an agency was needed to ensure an efficient and fair bankruptcy system. A compromise bill was passed in 1977, leading to the creation of a pilot United States Trustee Program in 18 judicial districts and housed in the Department of Justice. Congress expanded the USTP nationwide in 1986 as a permanent program in the Department. On April 20, 2005, the President signed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which becomes effective on October 17, 2005. The purpose of the U.S. Trustee Program will remain the same. However, the new law authorizes increased funding and dramatically changes bankruptcy procedures, providing the Program with additional tools to more efficiently accomplish its purpose, and reducing abuse of the bankruptcy system.

Evidence: 1. United States Trustee Program's Strategic Plan, FY 2005-2010 (hard copy) and found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/StrategicPlanFY2005-2010.pdf 2. Department of Justice's Strategic Plan, FY 2003-2008 found at: www.usdoj.gov/jmd/mps/strategic2003-2008/index.html 3. S. 256, the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA), 109th Congress, 1st Session (as passed and engrossed by the Senate) found through Thomas at: thomas.loc.gov/

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

Explanation: Each year since 1996, over 1 million individuals and businesses have filed bankruptcy, with the number reaching more than 1.6 million in 2004. The bankruptcy caseload is now the largest in the federal courts. The bankruptcy system is susceptible not only to debtor fraud, but also to consumer fraud perpetrated by those preying upon persons who are in dire financial straits. Experience also shows that bankruptcy fraud often is linked to other crimes, such as mortgage fraud, tax fraud, and identity theft. Bankruptcy fraud and abuse - as well as ineffective and inefficient operations -- can undermine the integrity of the bankruptcy system and erode public confidence. In addition, the federal government often is the largest creditor in bankruptcy cases and suffers a monetary loss as a result of fraud. To correct and prevent these problems, the Program works to secure the just, speedy, and economical resolution of bankruptcy cases; monitors the conduct of parties and takes actions to ensure compliance with applicable laws and procedures; identifies and investigates bankruptcy fraud and abuse; and oversees administrative functions in bankruptcy cases. In recent years, the Program has expanded and enhanced its civil and criminal enforcement efforts.

Evidence: 1. US Trustee Program Annual Report of Significant Accomplishments, FY 2003; also found on the USTP website: www.usdoj.gov/ust/press/annualreport/ar2003.pdf 2. The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub.L. 95-598 Stat.2549(1978). 3. See evidence for Q. 4.5: Evaluation of the U.S. Trustee Pilot Program, Abt Associates (1983 & 1985). 4. See evidence for Q. 1.4: Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for the Department of Justice (NAPA) (1995).

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

Explanation: The Program enjoys a unique status. The Constituion authorizes the Congress to establish uniform bankruptcy laws. Congress created the USTP with the specific mandate to handle the administrative aspects of bankruptcy cases and to police the integrity of the nation's bankruptcy system. No state or local agencies share the duties of the USTP because the bankruptcy system is established under federal law -- the federal Bankruptcy Code. No other federal agency has responsibility to supervise the administrative aspects of the bankruptcy system. (Note: in Alabama and North Carolina, bankruptcy administrative responsibilities are carried out by court officials called Bankruptcy Administrators who do not participate in the UST Program.) In carrying out its responsibilities, the USTP works cooperatively with other authorities on criminal cases, attorney disbarment, or similar issues. The Program has distinct responsibilities and, although it does not have prosecutorial authority, it works cooperatively with law enforcement agencies in the investigation and prosecution of criminal bankruptcy fraud and related crimes. U.S. Trustees have a statutory duty to refer possible criminal conduct to the United States Attorney and to assist in prosecutions. USTP trial attorneys possess specialized bankruptcy experience and, in several instances, have been designated as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys to assist directly with prosecutions. The Program's criminal enforcement efforts have been spearheaded by the Criminal Enforcement Unit (CREU), created in June 2003, and include coordinated efforts with the law enforcement community, e.g., FBI, Internal Revenue Service, and Inspectors General at the Department of Housing and Urban Development, Department of Homeland Security, Social Security Administration, and Environmental Protection Agency, as well as with the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

Evidence: 1. 18 U.S.C. §3057(a) 2. 28 U.S.C. §586(a)(3) 3. Refer to Chapter 1: Introduction, D. Role of the U.S. Trustee, page 2 in the Chapter 11 Trustee Handbook at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/library/trusteelib.htm

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

Explanation: Comprehensive legislation to reform the bankruptcy system was passed in 2005. During its eight years of consideration of the legislation, Congress reviewed a wide body of information, including a 1995 study by the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), which presented various recommendations and structural options for the UST Program. The legislation addressed systemic weaknesses in the bankruptcy system that had been identified. For example, new consumer bankruptcies will require credit counseling and debtor education to help prevent future bankruptcies. New means testing and debtor audit requirements are designed to identify and prevent abuses. Chapter 11 business bankruptcy procedures are required to be more uniform and efficient. The legislation requires several new studies to assess the impact of these reforms. There is no current evidence that other approaches or mechanisms would be more efficient or effective to achieve the intended purpose.

Evidence: 1. See evidence for Q. 1.1, S 256 BAPCPA 2. Report by a Panel of the National Academy of Public Administration for the Department of Justice: Alternative Structures for the United States Trustee Program, NAPA, May 1995

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

Explanation: All citizens benefit when the nation has an effective, well-administered bankruptcy system. The Program's objectives include obtaining relief for honest filers and preventing abuse of the bankruptcy system. The orderly distribution of debtor asset and the provision of a "fresh start" for honest and deserving debtors are essential components of our national economy. USTP's statutory structure, which provides for 21 regions and 95 offices, ensures that program resources are distributed across the country. In addition, space is allocated in over 450 locations to conduct meetings with creditors in each case as, required under 11 U.S.C. § 341. USTP's regular collection and review of performance data, including bankruptcy caseloads by region, as well as civil and criminal enforcement workloads, ensures that Program resources are targeted to areas of gretaest need. Civil Enforcement: The National Civil Enforcement Initiative systematically redirects resources to Program priorities. These priorities include civilly prosecuting debtors who commit fraud while protecting consumer debtors, creditors, and others victimized by those who abuse the bankruptcy process. Each year, the number of actions taken against debtors have increased at a steady rate and the dollar amounts of debt prevented from being discharged have remained at record levels. Disgorgements and sanctions against bankruptcy petition preparers and attorneys also remain high. Criminal Enforcement: USTP's Criminal Enforcement Unit (CrEU) reviews statistical information to focus resources effectively, pursuant to the Department's and USTP's goal of vigorously detecting, investigating, and prosecuting bankruptcy fraud. Prosecutions in these targeted areas have risen since CrEU initiated this focused approach. Trustee Oversight: Bankruptcy cases in chapters 7, 12, and 13 are administered by private bankruptcy trustees appointed and supervised by the U.S. Trustee. Private trustees administer assets for the benefit of creditors and act in the best interest of creditors and the estate. USTP supervises private trustees to ensure bankruptcy cases are handled expeditiously and the return to creditors is maximized. The Program trains trustees and evaluates their overall performance, reviews their financial operations, ensures the effective administration of estate assets, and intervenes, when necessary, to prevent loss of estate assets. During FY 2003, the chapter 12 and chapter 13 trustees disbursed almost $4.5 billion. This was the largest number of chapter 7 assets cases closed in one year since the Program began keeping records in 1992. The Program has focused on streamlining its oversight activities for chapter 7 trustees while retaining effective supervision. For example, the Program streamlined its field examinations of private trustees operations and practices to give UST staff more flexibility in targeting specific trustee issues and situations. Further, the Program changed from the Office of Inspector General to independent CPA firms for conducting trustee audits to reduce costs while ensuring high audit quality.

Evidence: 1. Listing of the 21 Regions and 95 UST field offices may be found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/ustorg.htm 2. See evidence for Q. 1.2 - USTP Annual Report of Significant Accomplishments for FY 2003. 3. Significant Accomplishments Reporting System (SARS) - Summary for FY 2004 found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/statistics/stats-new/SARSHighlightsFY04.pdf 4. UST Field Examination General Procedures Checklist for Chapter 7 Trustees found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/library/chapter07/ch7lib.htm 5. UST Report: Audits and Field Exams - What You Should Know and How to Avoid Common Deficiencies, NABTalk, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2004.

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: The objective for the Program, documented as Strategic Objective 2.6, is to protect the integrity and ensure the effective operation of the nation's bankruptcy system. To accomplish this objective, USTP has identified two desired long-term outcomes for measurement: 1. Identify and prevent abuse in the bankruptcy system. 2. Administer debtor assets in the best interest of creditors. Measures for these desired outcomes include: 1. Civil enforcement actions undertaken to combat fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system and provide additional returns to creditors. Formal actions by the Program under §727 prevent the discharge of debt in cases where debtors have taken actions to abuse or defraud the bankruptcy system. Although the number of enforcement actions is output in nature, it goes to the heart of USTP's expanding effort to prevent and root out fraud and abuse. Formal actions almost always result in additional return to creditors, as well as create a deterrent effect, and are a reasonable proxy for program outcome. Measures that are more outcome in nature, such as the amount of debt not discharged because of civil enforcement actions, were considered but not adopted because large dollar cases could result in significant year-to-year differences and make setting annual targets difficult. 2a. Percentage of debtor assets/funds returned to creditors in chapter 7 cases. 2b. Percentage of debtor assets/funds returned to creditors in chapter 13 cases. These measures reflect the Program's success in returning to creditors those funds available from the bankruptcy estate in chapter 7 cases and by trust funds in chapter 13 cases. (The measure does not include chapter 12 amounts because until the new legislation, which becomes effective October 17, 2005, chapter 12 had not been permanently authorized.) The Program goal is to return the maximum amount possible, recognizing that certain legitimate expenses must be paid and that returning 100% of assets will never be possible. Funds not distributed to creditors may include private trustee compensation, professional fees, and other costs of administering the bankruptcy case.

Evidence: 1. United States Trustee Program's Strategic Plan, FY 2005-2010 found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/StrategicPlanFY2005-2010.pdf 2. See evidence for Q. 1.1 - Department of Justice's Strategic Plan, FY 2003-2008, page 2.74 3. See evidence for Q. 1.5 - USTP Significant Program Accomplishments, FY 2004.

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

Explanation: USTP's long term outcome measures reflect specific, quantifiable, and verifiable targets that are achievable. For the measure to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse through civil enforcement adversary actions, the Program has established an ambitious 2008 target reflecting an annual increase in such enforcement actions equal to 10% of the FY 2004 baseline. This target reflects the increased emphasis being placed on civil enforcement by the Program. The long-term targets for the percentage of assets returned to creditors in chapters 7 and 13 bankruptcy cases reflect the Program's continued efforts to ensure the efficiency and effectiveness of the bankruptcy system, yielding maximum returns to creditors. While both the 2004 actual and the 2008 target are below 100%, particularly for chapter 7 cases, by statute or local court rule certain expenses of bankruptcy cases must be paid from available funds. These assets are outside the control of the USTP and not available for payment to creditors. The Program believes that it is operating at a high performance level for distributing the assets under its control. In 2004, actuals significantly exceeded the targets. Under normal circumstances, the Program would re-evaluate its prevously published out-year targets to determine if more aggressive targets were appropriate. However, implementation of the recently enacted Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act, which takes effect Octotber 17, 2005, interjects a high degree of uncertainty regarding future operating performance. The UST is committed to re-assessing its performance targets after additional data are available, but no later than the end of calendar year 2006.

Evidence: 1. FY 2006 Budget (Performance Table-revised). 2. Summary of Chapter 7 Statistics and Chapter 13 Disbursements to Creditors Charts (Budget docs.)

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: USTP has three annual performance measures that are directly linked to the achievement of long-term goals. The first two annual measures mirror the long-term measures for the percent of assets returned to creditors in chapters 7 and 13 cases. Annual targets have been established for each year between the baseline year (2004) and the long-term goal (2008). The third annual performance measure tracks the success rate for civil enforcement adversary actions taken by the Program. While the Program does track the annual number of enforcement actions, which corresponds to the long-term goal, the success rate measure has been selected for PART reporting because a high success rate supports the validity of enforcement actions as an indicator of program results.

Evidence: 1. Portions of USTP annual budget justification (budget docs). 2. USTP FY 2006 Budget (Performance Table-revised). 3. Chart of Chapter 11 Unconfirmed Cases (revised).

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

Explanation: The Program has established baselines and targets for its three annual outcome measures (efficiency measures are reported in question 3.4). However, as noted in question 2.2, targets for the percentage of assets returned to creditors in chapter 7 and chapter 13 bankruptcy cases will be re-assessed after data are available from inplementation of the new Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act. The success rate for civil enforcement adversary actions is a new annual measure, with a very high success rate of 95% in 2004 set as the baseline. At this time there are insufficient data to project a higher level of success, so the targets for 2005 and 2006 maintain the 2004 level of performance. The UST will re-evaluate targets for this measure after more performance data are available.

Evidence: 1. FY 2006 Budget (Performance Table-revised). 2. Refer to evidence in 2.1 - USTP Significant Accomplishments Reports for FY 2001 and FY 2002.

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: Private Trustees: The private trustees who are appointed to administer cases under chapters 7, 12, and 13 are major partners in achieving USTP's annual and/or long term goals. The duties and responsibilities of private trustees are set forth in the Bankruptcy Code and Program Handbooks. Specific performance standards are contained within written trustee performance reviews, which are provided to the trustees. Trustee performance is evaluated against these standards on an annual basis for chapter 13 trustees and on a bi-annual or more frequent basis for chapter 7 and 12 trustees. Additional tools for evaluating trustee compliance are periodic audits performed by independent auditors and other types of reviews performed by UST staff. In addition, chapters 7 and 13 trustees have adopted a "Trustee Pledge of Excellence." The pledges are displayed to inform the public that the trustees are held to a standard of excellence in the administration of bankruptcy cases. Law Enforcement Community: USTP's partners include U.S. Attorneys' offices and various federal law enforcement agencies including, FBI, IRS Criminal Investigative Division, US Postal Inspection Service, and the Inspector General's Office of HUD. Working groups have been established in approximately 60 USTP field offices. While these working groups lack a formal structure, they provide a valuable service by facilitating information sharing and coordinating efforts to combat bankruptcy fraud. USTP also plays a leading role in the National Bankruptcy Fraud Working Group (NBFWG), which coordinates a national response to bankruptcy fraud issues. In addition to USTP, this group includes representatives of the USTP, DOJ Criminal Division Fraud Section, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, approximately 40 U.S. Attorneys' offices, FBI, IRS/CID, Department of Treasury Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, HUD, USPIS, VA, SEC, and FTC. Information Technology (IT) Contractors: USTP ensures that its IT contractors support program goals by only initiating IT projects that are consistent with the goals, and secondly, by including performance measures and other evaluative requirements in IT contracts to measure contractor performance. In the Spring of 2002, the USTP adopted an Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM) process, establishing an IT Advisory Group (ITAG) and an Executive Review Board (ERB) which ensures all IT initiatives are in line with USTP goals. In addition, in the fall of 2004, the USTP released its IT Strategic Plan for FY 2005 2010, and all IT projects are managed closely to ensure they are in line with that Plan.

Evidence: 1. Copies of Chapter 7 and 13 Evaluation Records found in Handbooks at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/library/trusteelib.htm 2. Chapter 13 Trustee Pledge of Excellence. 3. Chapter 7 Trustee Pledge of Excellence. 4. Documents setting policy and procedure for performance evaluations, audits, and field exams for chapters 7, 12 and 13 in Chapter 12 and 13 Trustee Handbooks - found at: http://www.usdoj.gov/ust/library/trusteelib.htm 5. September 28 and 30, 2004, emails from Chief Bankruptcy Judge John C. Ninfo II to Steven Dillingham re: C.A.R.E presentations. 6. USTP Information Technology Strategic Plan (Hard copy). 7. USTP IT Project Schedules and Timelines for FY 2005/2006. (Hard copy).

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 Program supports the use of independent evaluations to assess effectiveness. Descriptions of past evaluations are described below. These products do not satisfy all PART requirements, such as being fully independent and regularly scheduled. Also, several evaluations were somewhat dated. Therefore, while valuable efforts, no credit can be given for this question. The NAPA report contained major recommendations, including alternative organizational structures. The report findings included recognition of major achievements of USTP, including (a) enhanced integrity of the bankruptcy system; (b) improved case administration; and (c) competent professional staff and effective management controls. OIG Audit Report Number 03 17: In March 2003, the Department's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a review of USTP efforts to prevent bankruptcy fraud and abuse. NIJ Evaluation of Fraud, Abuse and Errors (on-going). A major external evaluation and study of bankruptcy system fraud, abuse and errors has begun under the auspices of the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the evaluation agency within the Department of Justice. The study will review literature and practices pertinent to bankruptcy fraud, abuse, and errors; review the results of the Program's pilot project on debtor audits; and identify promising approaches for preventing and responding to fraud, abuse, and errors in the bankruptcy system. Independent experts have been identified and consulted, and preliminary research is underway by Rand Corp. No results are yet available. This research and evaluation initiative will serve as a foundation for several new studies required by the recently enacted bankruptcy reforms. EOUST Conducted Evaluations Independent of Field Offices (annually and periodically): EOUST continuously and independently evaluates the results, performance and operations of the Program's 21 regions and 95 field offices. These evaluations use verified data collected by EOUST from field operations to evaluate field office performance and outcomes. Senior EOUST managers use the data to conduct formal reviews with U.S. Trustees for each region that include analyzing issues, trends, progress, and deficiencies. Summary reports are issued and evaluations assist in making decisions on the resource allocations, staffing, operations and personnel performance. External Bankruptcy System Evaluations: USTP is now facilitating two external evaluations of the workings of the bankruptcy system by academics. A California university study is examining ethnicity and entrepreneurship in bankruptcy. An academic study in Tennessee is examining how chapter 7 debtors generally are treated by the system. The findings will be totally independent and have not yet been completed. USTP is facilitating researcher visits to Section 341 meetings and the administration of surveys to debtors. Best Practices Evaluation: In October 2004, a former Attorney General and other experts provided views and evidence of Program's best practices regarding appointment of examiners in major corporate fraud cases.

Evidence: 1. OIG Audit Report 03-17 (2003) 2. GAO reports (1984,1992,1993) 3. NAPA study (1995) 4. NIJ study of fraud, abuse, and errors (on-going) 5. External evaluations of select issues in the bankruptcy system (on-going) 7. DOJ Accountability Reports (annual financial audits)

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: USTP budget requests provide a detailed analysis of the relationship between between resources (dollars and work years) and annual long-term performance measures. For each of the two main USTP activities -- enforcement and trustee administration -- the budget shows work years and funding, as well as the annual performance that could be realized with the resources requested. The budget includes all direct and indirect costs, with administrative and other overhead costs allocated based upon the direct labor hours for each of the two USTP activities.

Evidence: 1. Department of Justice FY 2006 budget request.

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

Explanation: In October 2004, the Program released its Strategic Plan for FY 2005--2010. The Plan describes the organization's ongoing transformation into a high performance, litigating component of the Department of Justice (DOJ), with growing capacities to fulfill its mission, including combating fraud and abuse in the bankruptcy system. Prior to FY 2002, the Program's primary focus was on providing administrative and regulatory oversight without a concerted and comprehensive program of enforcement through enhanced litigation efforts. The Plan reflects knowledge and ideas of the Program's leadership and employees, based upon experiences spanning the past quarter century. The Plan addresses the USTP vision and mission, and outlines a path for achieving results. The Plan includes goals for the Program that flow from the DOJ Strategic Plan. Program goals are linked to objectives and measures set forth in the President's Management Agenda and the Attorney General's 10 Management Initiatives. The alignment of goals and objectives, as well as strategies and tasks, reflects the directives of the President and Congress. The plan provides a roadmap for the future success of USTP in fulfilling its vital role in America's bankruptcy system. It is posted on the Program's Intranet and Internet. In addition, copies were provided to each Program employee. This is the Program's first comprehensive strategic plan in recent history and will be reviewed and revised on an annual basis by the senior management, coordinated by the EOUST Office of Research and Planning (ORP). In addition, ORP will track performance against the plan and will keep senior management informed as to developments and needed changes. Also, the Program has revised the Performance Work Plans (PWP) for each of its employees. Each PWP links critical performance elements to the Strategic Plan. In addition to the strategic plan, senior management at the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees, regularly meet to discuss planning and evaluation needs, as well as implementation efforts. These plans are shared and discussed at U.S. Trustees Meetings held throughout the year or as needed.

Evidence: 1. See evidence in Q. 1.1 -- United States Trustee Program's Strategic Plan, FY 2005-2010.

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: The Program maintains numerous databases to track regulatory, administrative, and litigation responsibilities, including tracking civil and criminal enforcement efforts and trustee oversight. Data quality is verified and used to identify and address performance needs. Reports are compiled throughout the year for each of the 95 offices and reviewed by the senior management with the U.S. Trustees. Signfiicant Accomplishments Reporting System (SARS): SARS was implemented in 2001 to capture accomplishments in civil enforcement, case administration, and special litigation results. It contains more than 100 data items. Data includes formal and informal actions taken, outcomes, and financial results of activities. This data is critical to tracking annual and long-term performance measures. Beginning in FY 2005, the data is provided quarterly. Criminal Enforcement Tracking System (CETS): CETS, a web-based automated reporting system for criminal referrals, was implemented in October 2004 and includes more relevant data than previous systems. Fee Information Collection System (FICS): Chapter 11 debtors pay quarterly fees which represent the largest source of USTP funding. FICS is used to facilitate the payment of these, and tracks the status of amounts owed and payments received. The system issues quarterly noticing and delinquency statements, processes daily electronic transmission of payments, and produces accounting and management reports. The FICS database also contains information on key events and time intervals in each case. This data is used in internal management reports. Chapter 7 Asset Cases: This database contains a record for each closed chapter 7 case in which the trustee collected and distributed funds to creditors. More than 40,000 asset cases are closed each year. This data is used by EOUST and field offices in monitoring case administration practices. Chapter 7 No Asset Case Database: For a five-year period, EOUST collected approximately 2,000 petitions from chapter 7 cases where the debtor had no assets. The data has been published in articles and used in assessing the impact of reforms. Chapter 13 Audited Annual Reports: Chapter 13 trustees submit reports each fiscal year detailing collections, payments to creditors, expenses, and outcomes of the trustees' assigned cases. Data is used to monitor performance and is posted on the Program's Internet and Intranet sites. Case Filing Statistics: This data is compiled by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC). AOUSC maintains official court filing statistics that are made public every three months, several weeks after the end of a reporting period. These statistics are used to assess the workload of USTP regions and offices, and as an indicator of the distribution of resources. USTP maintains historical caseload data by state on its Internet and Intranet sites. Professional Time Records: All Assistant U.S. Trustees, attorneys, analysts, and paralegals submit daily time reports on their activities which are compiled each quarter and covers 70 activity categories. This data is compiled in management reports updated quarterly for use by USTP managers in evaluating practices and staff performance. Other Databases: The USTP also maintains a number of additional databases, including enforcement actions against bankruptcy petition preparers, cases not assigned to trustees, and data regarding qualifications of trustees. These databases are used to monitor and improve performance.

Evidence: 1. Sample package of U.S.T regional and office data used in peer reviews w/EOUST including letter to the U.S. Trustee for Region 19 and response letter to the review - hard copy. 2. Reference evidence to Q. 2.6 - #4: Sample Management Review w/Materials from Region 19 Review; Sample of letter to U.S. Trustee following up on review; Sample response from U.S. Trustee regarding corrective actions. 3. UST Staffing allocation charts - hard copy.

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: Performance Management Program Improvements: Federal managers and program partners are regularly held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results. In 2004, USTP revised its Performance Management System for its Senior Executive Service (SES), all General Schedule (GS) employees, and managers in the field on the Administratively Determined (AD) Pay System. These changes are consistent with DOJ's plan approved by the Office of Personnel Management and meet the Human Capital requirements of the President's Management Agenda. The critical elements to employees' Performance Work PLans are linked to the Startegic Objectives identified in Goal 2.6 of the Department's Strategic Plan and the Program's Strategic Plan, thereby linking employee performance to Program performance. Last year, the Director certified to the Attorney General that new PWPs were in place for all SES managers and GS and AD managers reporting to SES managers. Awards: USTP uses performance awards and special act awards to recognize its highest performing employees. In 2004 and 2005, a separate "performance awards" budget, that is linked to the strategic plan, was established for the regions. In 2002, following the implementation of the USTP's National Civil Enforcement Initiative, the Director established a non-monetary Civil Enforcement Award to recognize individuals and offices that are particularly high performers. Management Reviews of the Regions: EOUST senior management conduct management reviews of the regions to assess progress in implementing USTP priorities, to identify issues, and to take corrective actions. Those reviews look at regional and office performance with respect to the Program's strategic objectives and goals. Trustee Supervision: The EOUST Office of Review and Oversight and the regions collect, analyze, and distribute relevant information to ensure trustees administer cases efficiently and effectively. This information includes caseload data, distribution statistics, and an analysis of audit and field exam findings. These data provide valuable information on caseload management and are directly linked to the Program's long-term outcome measures of Percentage of Payment to Creditors in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 cases. Chapter 13 trustees are required to submit annual budgets covering anticipated receipts, income, other revenue, disbursements, caseload, and personnel and administrative expenses. The trustee coordinator in each region reviews the budget to ensure it contains only actual and necessary expenses. EOUST reviews and approves appropriate trustee compensation. Reviews of Information Technology (IT) Performance: Contracts for IT projects provide contractors with clear guidance regarding expectations and accountability. In addition, the database development, network, and IT security services are individually competed to ensure selection of best qualified providers. The CIO and IT Division staff hold contractors accountable for meeting the requirements of the task order and the IT projects. Through meetings and status reports, project planning, and daily interaction, managers ensure that contractors meet Program goals. Processes incorporate quality assurance testing to ensure deliverables are of high quality and meet requirements.

Evidence: 1. U.S. Trustee Program Revised Performance Management Program (memo w/attachment). 2. Agenda from U.S. Trustee Meeting in Annapolis, May 2004 w/discussion re: revised performance management. 3. Power Point presentation for meetings of U.S. Trustees and regional staff re: revised performance management . 4. Certification to Attorney General re: revised workplans (memo w/attachments). 5. Sample SES Performance Work Plan w/chart breaking out responsibilities. 6. Sample Performance Work Plan for Assistant U.S. Trustee. 7. April 15, 2004 Award Allocation Memo. 8. October 26, 2004 Memorandum transmitting Awards Policy. 9. Minutes from U.S. Trustee meeting, December 2004, Portland, Ore. 10. List of offices and dates of Civil Enforcement Awards. 11. Refer to evidence in Q. 2.6 : Sample Management Review w/Materials from Region 19 Review; Sample of letter to U.S. Trustee following up on review; Sample response from U.S. Trustee regarding corrective actions; List of Management Review Meetings held during 2004; Questionnaire used to conduct administrative review w/Sample Report and Sample Response; List of regional purchase card holders, date of last procurement review, proposed schedule for next review; and Procurement Reports from Region 2 . 12. IT materials re: IT Investment Management; sample of UST JCON Support Desk; ITAG Proposed FY05 Schedule; JCON Deployment System Development Cycle Guide and FY 2005/2005 Priorities and Goals. 13. Caseload Data Call for Chapter 7 Trustees. 14. Percent Analysis of Chapter 7 Statistics. 15. Summary of Chapter 7 Statistics. 16. Chapter 13 Annual Report.

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

Explanation: Obligation of Funds: The USTP obligates funds in a timely manner for their intended purpose, as evidenced by the following reports and findings. DOJ Accountability Reports for Fiscal Years 2002 through 2004 show that the Offices/Boards/Divisions (including the USTP) obtained an unqualified audit opinion for FY 2001 through FY 2004. Audit scorecards from Justice Management Division/Finance Staff show the USTP has complied with policies and procedures that address the obligation of funds. The USTP's unobligated balances at the end of fiscal years are relatively low. For instance, in FY 2002, the carryover amount was $3,308,000 or 2.25% of the appropriated amount of $147,000,000; in FY 2003, the carryover amount was $6,052,000 or 3.88% of the appropriated amount of $155,736,000; and in FY 2004, the amount was $3,840,000 or 2.31% of the appropriated amount of $166,157,000. The USTP uses DOJ/JMD's Financial Management Information System (FMIS) and follows OMB and departmental procedures for financial reporting. The answer to Question 3.6 provides more detail on strong financial management processes. EOUST also conducts reviews of administrative functions in the field, reviewing compliance with USTP, Department, and government rules and regulations governing management, administrative services, invoice processing, property inventory, budget, travel, facilities, and security.

Evidence: 1. Accountability Reports for FY 2002, 2003( found at: www.usdoj.gov/ag/annualreports/ar2003/index.html) and FY 2004. 2. Justice Management Divison audit scorecards 3. Unobligated balances from operating budgets. 4. Comparison of President's Budget to USTP Spending Plan to USTP Report of Actual Obligation.

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: Data Collection and Reporting Systems for Targeting Resources and Documenting Results: USTP has implemented new processes and procedures to collect data on Program operations which is used to analyze its efficiencies and results. These data include the Significant Accomplishments Reporting System (SARS) and the Professional Time Records (see answer to question 3.1). These systems enable USTP to track staff time spent implementing the National Civil Enforcement Initiative, including litigation. The data collected provide verification that desired changes (e.g., enhanced enforcement activity) occurred, and the time spent on enforcement increased while time spent on non-priority activities decreased. Increased Utilization of Efficiency Measures: USTP employs a number of efficiency measures to track performance against inputs. One measure (used for both chapter 7 and chapter 11 cases) is the percentage of cases over 3 years old (the lower the percentage the more efficient UST is in closing out cases). Technology and Operational Improvements: Since 2002, the Program has utilized an Information Technology Investment Management (ITIM) process to ensure all IT initiatives are aligned with USTP goals, as well as to identify opportunities for using technology to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Program. Examples of recent technological enhancements are the increased use of video teleconferencing and digital recording equipment. Video conferencing equipment improves communications capability and reduces travel costs. Video teleconferencing (VTC) capability allows U.S. Trustees in the field to communicate effectively with Headquarters managers, and to conduct case related meetings. It also allows staff to participate in greatly expanded training opportunities. USTP is working with various courts to allow this technology to be used in court proceedings, which is particularly important when USTP offices are many miles from bankruptcy courts. During FY 2004, USTP acquired new digital recording technology to document its administrative meetings of creditors, which is expected to result in significant cost savings as well as improved accuracy. Trustee Performance Data: USTP uses numerous databases and statistical reports to measure the efficiency and cost effectiveness of bankruptcy case administration by private trustees (see answer to Question 3.2).

Evidence: 1. USTP FY 2004 and FY 2006 Budgets (Performance Tables) -- revised. 2. September 16, 2004 email from OMB approving USTP efficiency measure. 3. Table showing case-related use of video conference equipment by region. 4. Reference evidence in Q. 3.2 - #14 - 17 Caseload Data Call for Chapter 7 Trustees Percent Analysis of Chapter 7 Statistics; Summary of Chapter 7 Statistics; and Chapter 13 Annual Report. 5. Sept. 27, 2001 memo re: streamlining procedures for the oversight of chapter 7 estate administration. 6. 2004 revised standards for the review of Trustee Final Reports, Trustee Interim Reports, and Trustee Distribution Reports found on USTP website at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/library/trusteelib.htm

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Activities where USTP collaborates and coordinates with other programs include: working with courts on technology issues, coordinating sensitive criminal enforcement initiatives, and working with external groups in conducting/promoting financial education efforts. Court-Related Information Technology: The USTP interacts with the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) and local bankruptcy courts on matters relating to electronic case filing (ECF) and information technology. As a result, the Program has improved its ability to interface with the courts computer systems, which has greatly improved the transition to ECF, currently in 82 of the 94 bankruptcy courts. The interaction has enabled the Program to more efficiently download data daily from the courts. In addition, the Program participates on ECF working groups with representatives of the Department's Criminal Division and Justice Management Division, the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (a membership organization for chapter 7 trustees), and the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (a membership organization for chapter 13 trustees). Criminal Enforcement: USTP's participation in national and local working groups on bankruptcy fraud helps the Program carry out projects of national scope. In addition, the Program partners with several federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, SEC, FTC, IRS, Inspectors General, and various Department of Justice components. In October 2004, the Criminal Enforcement Unit assisted U.S. Attorneys' offices, as well several federal and state agencies, including the FBI, ATF, IRS-CI, HUD, USPIS, DHS, and HHS, in Operation Silver Screen, which packaged 17 separate prosecutions in which 21 defendants around the country were indicted on bankruptcy fraud related charges. Collectively, the cases involved the concealment of over $7 million in assets; illegal conduct by professionals; the use of false SSNs and false identities; the submission of forged documents; and various false and fraudulent statements in connection with bankruptcy petitions. Financial Literacy Education: USTP partners with bankruptcy judges and professional groups in voluntary financial education outreach activities at community and school levels. USTP initiated an outreach program that emphasizes the prevention of financial difficulties and includes highlighting and expanding knowledge of promising financial education approaches; providing basic financial education information through the USTP website and brochures; developing a process to facilitate financial education activities conducted by chapter 13 trustees; and participating in national, state, and local efforts to expand financial literacy. USTP will continue to partner with judges, trustees, professional groups, and organizations committed to improving citizen and consumer financial knowledge and practices. USTP coordinates its education outreach with the efforts of the multi-agency Financial Literacy and Education Commission. In addition, the Federal Judicial Center released a financial education video which included the Director, EOUST, and Judge John Ninfo, Chief Bankruptcy Judge, Rochester, NY.

Evidence: 1. Visit USTP's ECF webpage w/links to the AOUSC at : www.usdoj.gov/ust. 2. Concept Proposal for USTP: Automated Extraction of Data from Filed Bankruotcy Petitions and Schedules, Feb. 11, 2004. 3. Operation Silver Screen press release, October 28, 2004 found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/press/silver_screen_final_10-28-04.htm 4. JTN Video, Court to Court Braodcast w/C.A.R.E. segment, Jan. 2005. 5. Financial Education brochure found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/press/outreach/fin_ed_brochure.htm

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004 DOJ Performance and Accountability Reports show the OBDs obtained an unqualified audit opinion on their financial statements. Perfprmance on budget execution is tracked through the Quarterly Report on Budget Execution and Performance; for the second quarter of FY 2005, UST acheived green performance status on 5 of 7 performance measures. Audit scorecards from JMD/Finance Staff show that USTP has complied with policies and procedures that address the obligation of funds. The FY 2005 1st Quarter Interim Financial Audit Review reported an overall score of 95.52% (Green). The Interim Audit reviewed USTP's success in recording and reviewing financial transactions timely and accurately, and in improving internal control processes and procedures, including reducing erroneous or improper payments. Certification of the USTP Open Obligations Report, which analyzes the accuracy of open obligations, is performed quarterly. There have been relatively few inaccuracies in the status of obligations. USTP prepares Collections Reports and Debt Collection Improvement Act (DCIA) Reports, which are reviewed by senior management. Corrective actions are required to be undertaken by offices which have fallen significantly below national collection percentages. The Department achieved outstanding performance regarding Travel and Purchase Card delinquencies by maintaining a zero percent delinquency rate. The First Class Transportation Accommodations Report for USTP is submitted annually and shows minimal usage. USTP's strong financial management practices support the agency's goals, and are reflected in performance data. For example, the USTP's oversight of private trustees through review of fiduciary reports (including budgets to ensure that they contain only actual and necessary expenses) and audits of private trustees directly translates into the achievement of the targets for return of assets to creditors for chapter 7 and 13 creditors.

Evidence: 1. FY 2002, FY 2003, and FY 2004 DOJ Performance and Accountability Reports. 2. DOJ Finance Staff's Chart on Risk Ranking. 3. OBD - Status of Prior Year Notifications of Findings re: FICS 4. Revenue Analysis Report. 5. USTP Operating Plan 6. Certification of USTP Open Obligations Report. 7. Quarterly Report on Budget Execution and Performance. 8. Collections and DCIA Report. 9. Negative First Class Accommodations Report - email. 10. Special recognition for outstanding performance re: travel cards. 11. UST (OBD) Component Scorecard - Obligations; 1st Quarter Interim Audit Review FY 2005

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

Explanation: Management Reviews of the Regions: EOUST management teams conduct reviews of the regions to assess progress in implementing priorities, identification of issues, and need for corrective actions plans. Reviews are an essential tool for ensuring the consistent nationwide application of policies and procedures. Trustee Supervision: The EOUST Office of Review and Oversight and the regions collect, analyze, and distribute relevant information to ensure trustees administer cases efficiently and effectively. This information includes caseload data, asset distribution statistics, and an analysis of audit and field exam findings. These data provide valuable information on caseload management, and are directly linked to the Program's long-term outcome measures. Annual Financial Audits: USTP undergoes annual financial audits conducted by private audit firms. DOJ Accountability Reports show that the Offices, Boards, and Divisions obtained an unqualified audit opinion for FY 2001 through FY 2004. (See materials for 3.3.) Audit materials show that USTP completed actions to resolve all recommendations regarding a reportable weakness identified in FY 2002 for the Fee Information and Collection System (FICS).

Evidence: 1. Reference evidence in Q. 2.6 - #1: OIG Audit Report 03-17 w/ February 2, 2005 Status Report and Program's Response to OIG Audit Report. 2. OPM Review Findings (2004) 3. Reference evidence in Q. 2.6 : #4 - 9 - Sample Management Review w/Materials from Region 19 Review; Sample of letter to U.S. Trustee following up on review; Sample response from U.S. Trustee regarding corrective actions; List of Management Review Meetings held during 2004; Questionnaire used to conduct administrative review w/Sample Report and Sample Response; List of regional purchase card holders, date of last procurement review, proposed schedule for next review; Two sample Procurement Reports from Region 2; and Procurement Review re: Region 2 - memo dated 3/31/04

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

Explanation: USTP has demonstrated success in achieving its long-term performance goals identified in section 2. Strategic Goal 2.6 of the Department of Justice Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003 to 2008 includes the following targets for these measures: Return 54 percent of assets/funds to creditors in chapter 7 cases, and return 80 percent of assets/funds to creditors in chapter 13 cases. Although the targets were static in the Strategic Plan, i.e., did not increase, they were considered to reflect a high level of performance given that significant expenses against the assets were outside the control of the Program. Actual performance for 2003 and 2004 exceeded these targets, with USTP returning approximately 58 percent to chapter 7 creditors and 85 percent of funds to chapter 13 creditors. As noted in section 2, the Program has increased its long term targets published in the Strategic Plan to match the 2003/2004 performance level, and has committed to re-evaluating the long-term targets for possible further increases after the Program has one year of experience under the new Bankruptcy Act. In responding to the PART process, the Program adopted a new long-term outcome measure: Number of civil enforcement adversary actions filed (i.e., formal litigation to disapprove the discharge of debt). In FY 2004, the Program filed 1,056 complaints under § 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Using the FY 2004 actual performance as a baseline, the Program will target increasing the number of complaints filed each year by an amount equal to 10% of the baseline year. Extrapolating data through March 2005, 602 complaints have been filed (6% higher than the number filed during the same time period a year ago). Maintaining this pace through the end of FY 2005, the Program will file a total of 1204 complaints, compared to the target of 1,162. IT Strategic Plan, FY 2005 - 2010: In October 2004, the Program released its first IT Strategic Plan (Plan) which links to the Program's Strategic Plan and sets forth the IT long-term goals. The Plan also provides IT accomplishments for FY 2003 and FY 2004.

Evidence: 1. USTP FY 2006 Budget (Performance Table). 2. ABI article summarizing FY 2004 SARS data. 3. Bankruptcy Statistics (including SARS) found on UST website: UST. www.usdoj.gov/ust/pa-stats-new.htm 4. Annual Report of Significant Accomplishments found at: www.usdoj.gov/ust/press/annualreports.htm. 5. Reference evidence in Q. 2.5. - #5 - IT Strategic Plan, FY 2005-2010

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

Explanation: As noted in section 2, two of the annual performance goals track corresponding long term goals--percentage of assets returned to creditors for chapters 7 and 13 cases. The Program exceeded the annual targets for 2003 and 2004 This performance level was achieved despite the fact that workload increased by 18.7 percent over that period. The third annual measure -- the success rate for Civil Enforcement Performance -- complements the long-term measure for the number of enforcement actions taken. For 2004, the targeted success rate was 90%. The actual success rate was 95%. EOUST Information Technology (IT) Annual Accomplishments: Each year the short term and long term USTP IT performance goals are reviewed, defined, and updated as necessary. Senior USTP management reviews the status of meeting these goals periodically throughout the fiscal year. Annual accomplishments in IT are distributed at the IT Conference and included in the Program's Strategic Plan.

Evidence: 1. Reference Q. 4.1 - #1: USTP FY 2006 Budget (Performance Table) - revised. 2. Reference Q. 3.2 - #13: IT Goals FY 2003/2004 (chart) and IT Priorities and Goals FY 2005/2006 (chart).

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

Explanation: Efficiency measures relating to the timely disposition of chapters 7 and 13 bankruptcy cases have been reported in the PART. In a 1994 GAO Report on Bankruptcy Administration; Case Receipts Paid to Creditors and Professionals, (pgs. 15-16) analysis "found that at almost every level of case size, the longer a case took to close, the smaller the percentage of total receipts paid to creditors." Timely disposition of cases prevents assets from being depleted and provides prompt payment to creditors. If the Program makes efficient and effective use of its resources, no more than 3.5% of cases should to be older than 3 years. USTP performance data show that significant progress has been made in decreasing aging case percentages despite higher filing trends, thus demonstrating USTP's efficiency in administering the more than 1.5 million bankruptcy cases filed each year and ensuring that they proceed in a timely manner. In addition, the long-term and annual outcome measures relating to the return of assets to chapter 7 and chapter 13 creditors are also indicators of the cost-effectiveness of the Program's operations. The new annual outcome measure for the success rate of enforcement actions also is an indicator of the Program's efficient use of resources.

Evidence: 1. Refer to evidence in Q. 4.1:USTP FY 2006 Budget (Performance Table) - revised. 2. GAO Report: Bamkruptcy Administration: Case Receipts Paid to Creditors and Professionals, July 1994, (pgs. 15-16.)

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

Explanation: As explained in the answer to Question 1.3, the U.S. Constitution specifically provides that Congress "establish ... uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States." Accordingly, the Program performs a unique federal responsibility that is not shared or duplicated by any other agency or entity - state, local or private. By statute, the Program fulfills many of its direct administrative responsibilities through private trustees, in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code.

Evidence: Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution

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

Explanation: Periodic independent external evaluations of the Program include (1) EOUST sponsored evaluations (e.g., Abt Associates Inc.); (2) General Accounting Office (GAO); (3) the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA); (4) the Department of Justice Office of Inspector General (OIG); (5) EOUST independent evaluations of field/regional operations; and (6) Best Practices Evaluation. 1) Evaluations of EOUST Pilot Program (1983-1986). Positive USTP evaluations by the Abt Inc. Associates contributed to the establishment of a nationwide Program. (2) GAO Reports (1984, 1992 & 1993) Documented need for enhanced and consolidated national program; cited strengthened oversight. (3) NAPA Study (1995). The NAPA report contained major recommendations, including alternative organizational structures. The report findings included recognition of major achievements of USTP, including: (a) enhanced integrity of the bankruptcy system; (b) improved case administration; and (c) competent professional staff and effective management controls. (4) OIG Audit Report on "USTP Efforts to Prevent Bankruptcy Fraud and Abuse" (2003). This report examined the Program's efforts and accomplishments in preventing bankruptcy fraud and abuse - the focus and central goal of USTP. The audit findings substantiated Program initiatives to target fraud, and recommended their expansion. (5) EOUST Conducted Independent Evaluations of Field Offices (annually and periodically): EOUST continuously and independently evaluates the results, performance and operations of the Program's 21 regions and 95 field offices. These evaluations use verified data collected by EOUST from field operations to evaluate field office performance and outcomes. Senior EOUST managers use the data to conduct formal reviews with U.S. Trustees for each region that include analyzing issues, trends, progress, and deficiencies. Summary reports are issued and evaluations assist in making decisions on the resource allocations, staffing, operations and personnel performance. (6) Best Practices Evaluation. Former Attorney General and other experts provided views and evidence of Program's best practices regarding appointment of examiners in major corporate fraud cases.

Evidence: 1. NAPA Study (1995) 2. OIG Audit Report 03-17 (2003) 3. An Evaluation of the U.S. Trustee Pilot Program, Abt Associates, April 1983. 4. An Evaluation of the U.S. Trustee Pilot Program, Abt Associates, August 1985. 5. Report to the Attorney General and the Director, AOUSC, Greater Oversight and Guidance of Bankruptcy Process Needed, GAO, August 1984. 6. Bankruptcy Administration, Justification Lacking for Continuing Twp Parallel Programs, GAO, September, 1992. 7. Bankruptcy Trustees, Oversight Improved, But Extent of Trustee Fraud is Unknown, GAO, January 1993. 8. Sample Packet of EOUST Conducted Independent Evaluations of Field Offices - Region 10.