Federal Law Enforcement: Information on Use of Investigation and
Arrest Statistics (19-MAR-04, GAO-04-411).
The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations
Authorization Act (P.L. 107-273) requires GAO to report on how
investigation and arrest statistics are reported and used by
federal law enforcement agencies. This report provides
information on (1) the guidance and procedures followed by
federal law enforcement agencies regarding counting
investigations and arrests, (2) how investigation and arrest
statistics are used, and (3) whether multiple agencies are
counting and reporting the same investigations and arrests. GAO
selected six agencies for review: the Drug Enforcement
Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S.
Marshals Service, the former U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service (USPIS).
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-411
ACCNO: A09508
TITLE: Federal Law Enforcement: Information on Use of
Investigation and Arrest Statistics
DATE: 03/19/2004
SUBJECT: Arrests
Crimes or offenses
Investigations by federal agencies
Reporting requirements
Law enforcement agencies
Statistical data
Interagency relations
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-411
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
March 2004
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Information on Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics
GAO-04-411
Highlights of GAO-04-411, a report to congressional requesters
The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act
(P.L. 107-273) requires GAO to report on how investigation and arrest
statistics are reported and used by federal law enforcement agencies. This
report provides information on (1) the guidance and procedures followed by
federal law enforcement agencies regarding counting investigations and
arrests, (2) how investigation and arrest statistics are used, and (3)
whether multiple agencies are counting and reporting the same
investigations and arrests. GAO selected six agencies for review: the Drug
Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), the U.S.
Marshals Service, the former U.S. Customs Service, and the U.S. Postal
Inspection Service (USPIS).
March 2004
FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
Information on Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics
Guidance and procedures for counting investigations, or cases, are
generally consistent among the six agencies GAO reviewed. Agencies pursue
investigations into crimes that have a nexus to their missions, such as
drug trafficking for the DEA, mail theft for USPIS, and illegal aliens for
the former INS. Once agents have made the decision to open a case, the
cases are to be reviewed and approved by a supervisor, and details of the
case are then entered into the agencies' case management tracking systems.
GAO also found agency guidance and procedures for counting arrests to be
generally consistent among all six agencies. In addition, the agencies
required supervisory review of the justifications for the arrests before
they were entered into the agencies' data tracking systems and officially
counted.
In general, agencies use investigation and arrest statistics as indicators
of agency work and as output measures in performance plans, budget
justifications, and testimonies. In some cases, these data are considered
in making promotion, bonus, and award determinations. However,
investigation and arrest statistics are not emphasized in any of these
activities, but are one of many factors that are considered.
All of the agencies GAO reviewed counted the same investigations and
arrests when more than one of them participated in the investigative and
arresting activities. This practice seems appropriate because many
investigations and arrests would not have occurred without the involvement
and cooperation of all the agencies that participated. If agencies were
not allowed to count investigations and arrests in which they
participated, agencies would be less likely to work together, cases would
be much smaller, and the desired disruption of high-level criminal
organizations would be hampered.
The Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and USPIS reviewed a
draft of this report and generally agreed with GAO's findings. Technical
comments were incorporated as appropriate.
Arrests for Federal Offenses, by Arresting Federal Law Enforcement Agency
Total arrests
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000 0
DEA FBI Marshals Service
Customs INS USPIS All other federal agencies
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-411.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Paul Jones at (202) 512-8777
or [email protected].
1998 (104,422) 1999 (109,857) 2000 (115,589) 2001 (118,896) 2002 (124,210)
Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics Compendium of Federal Justice
Statistics for Fiscal Years 1998 - 2001; Marshals Service Prisoner
Tracking System for Fiscal Year 2002.
Contents
Letter 1
Background 2
Results 4
Concluding Observations 9
Agency Comments 10
Appendix I Scope and Methodology
Appendix II Drug Enforcement Administration Profile 14
Counting Investigations and Arrests 14
Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 20
Appendix III FBI Profile 22
Counting Investigations and Arrests 22
Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 26
Appendix IV U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile 29
Counting Investigations and Arrests 29
Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 32
Appendix V U.S. Customs Service Profile 35
Counting Investigations and Arrests 35
Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 38
Appendix VI Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile 40
Counting Investigations and Arrests 40
Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 44
Appendix VII U.S. Marshals Service Profile 46
Counting Investigations and Arrests 46
Use of Investigation and Arrest Statistics 48
Appendix VIII Drug Trafficking Investigation 49
Appendix IX Child Pornography Investigation 52
Appendix X Counterterrorism Investigation
Appendix XI Comments from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Appendix XII GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 58
GAO Contacts 58 Staff Acknowledgments 58
Figures
Figure 1: Arrests for Federal Offenses, by Arresting Federal Law
Enforcement Agency 4 Figure 2: Investigations Closed-Fiscal Years
1998-2001 16 Figure 3: Total Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001 18 Figure 4:
Investigations Closed-Fiscal Years 1998-2001 23 Figure 5: Total
Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001 25 Figure 6: Investigations Closed-Fiscal
Years 1998-2001 30 Figure 7: Total Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001 31
Figure 8: Cases Closed-Fiscal Years 1998-2001 36 Figure 9: Total
Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998 to 2001 37 Table 10: Investigations Opened and
Closed and Arrests-Fiscal
Years 1998-2001 43 Figure 11: Warrants Closed by the Marshals Service and
by Other Agencies-Fiscal Years 1998-2002 47
Abbreviations
ASAC Assistant Special Agent in Charge
BJS Bureau of Justice Statistics
CAR Case Activity Report
CAST Case Status Subsystem
DEA Drug Enforcement Administration
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DSS Defendant Statistical System
FBI Federal Bureau of Investigation
FMP Field Management Plans
ICMS Investigations Case Management System
INS Immigration and Naturalization Service
ISRAA Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis Application
ISDBIS Inspection Service Database Information System
JTTF Joint Terrorism Task Force
PAS Performance Analysis System
PTS Prisoner Tracking System
SAC Special Agent in Charge
SOD Special Operations Division
TECS Treasury Enforcement Communications System
USPIS U.S. Postal Inspection Service
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to
reproduce this material separately.
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
March 19, 2004
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch
Chairman
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.
Chairman
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
Committee on the Judiciary
House of Representatives
Congress has expressed interest in issues concerning how federal law
enforcement agencies count investigations and arrests and about how the
pursuit of such statistics may be affecting agencies' priorities and
management and administrative practices. The issues include whether
multiple agencies are counting and reporting the same investigations and
arrests; whether agencies are using duplicative investigation and arrest
statistics to support their requests for more resources; and whether
agencies are using the statistics to support promotions, bonuses, and
other
awards for investigative personnel. Staff from your offices suggested that
additional information on the extent of agencies' reporting of duplicative
investigations and arrests would be helpful to them in making budgetary
or policy decisions.
The 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act1
required us to report on how investigation and arrest statistics are
reported and used by federal law enforcement agencies. After consulting
with your offices, we agreed that our objectives for this report would be
to
determine (1) what guidance and procedures are followed by federal law
enforcement agencies regarding counting investigations and arrests,
(2) how investigation and arrest statistics are used, and (3) whether
1P.L. 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002), section 11026.
multiple agencies are counting and reporting the same investigations and
arrests.
To address these objectives, we reviewed and analyzed data and
documentation and interviewed officials at six federal agencies that
perform investigations and arrest suspects. The agencies selected were the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and the U.S. Marshals
Service, all from the Department of Justice (Justice); the U.S. Customs
Service (Customs), from the Department of the Treasury; and the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service (USPIS).2 We selected DEA, FBI, Customs, INS,
and the Marshals Service because these agencies reported the highest
number of federal arrests, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics
(BJS) Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, 2000, the most recent
published report available at the time of our selection. We selected USPIS
because it reported the highest number of federal arrests from non-Justice
or non-Treasury agencies. We also reviewed information related to three
joint investigations involving several of the selected agencies to see how
they counted arrests while participating with other federal law
enforcement agencies.
We conducted our review between March 2003 and February 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Additional details
on our scope and methodology may be found in appendix I. Detailed
information on the six agencies' use of investigation and arrest
statistics can be found in appendixes II through VII. Detailed information
about the three investigations can be found in appendixes VIII through X.
Background
Investigations and arrests are core functions of all federal law
enforcement agencies. According to BJS, as of June 2000 (the latest
available information), 69 federal agencies employed 88,000 full-time law
2On March 1, 2003, functions of several border and security agencies,
including INS and Customs, were transferred into the Directorate of Border
and Transportation Security within the Department of Homeland Security. As
part of this transition, these agency functions were reorganized into the
Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Several primary program
areas comprise Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including customs and
immigration investigations. Because most of the investigation and arrest
activity reviewed for this study occurred prior to Homeland Security's
reorganization, for this report, we will refer to the former Customs and
INS agency structures.
enforcement officers.3 Of these, Justice employed more than half (58
percent) and the Department of the Treasury employed 21 percent. During
fiscal year 2001, according to BJS, these two agencies accounted for the
highest percentage of arrests for federal offenses, with 71 percent made
by Justice components and 12 percent by Treasury components. In addition,
state and local agencies made 4 percent of the arrests, and 7 percent of
the arrests were made after the suspects voluntarily reported to the
Marshals Service following a summons. The remaining 6 percent of the
arrests were made by other agencies or were undesignated in the
statistics.
Suspects arrested by federal agencies for federal crimes are transferred
to the custody of the Marshals Service for processing, transportation,and
detention. According to BJS, in 2001 the Marshals Service received 118,896
suspects from federal law enforcement agencies, including those the
Marshals arrested themselves. Of these arrests, 28 percent were for drug
offenses; 21 percent for immigration offenses, 16 percent for supervision
violations; 14 percent for property offenses (such as embezzlement,
forgery, burglary, and motor vehicle theft); 8 percent were for
public-order offenses;4 5 percent for weapons offenses; 4 percent for
violent offenses; and 3 percent to secure and safeguard a material
witness.
Figure 1 shows the number of suspects arrested only for federal offenses
for the agencies we reviewed. Some suspects arrested by federal agents are
transferred to state and local jurisdictions for prosecution for
nonfederal crimes. For example, according to BJS, in fiscal year 2001 DEA
arrested 11,778 suspects for federal offenses who were booked by the
Marshals Service. However, DEA's statistical reporting system recorded
over 35,000 arrests that same year; the additional suspects were turned
over to state and local authorities and were not booked through the
Marshals Service, according to BJS. Similarly, BJS reported that USPIS
arrested 1,226 suspects for federal offenses who were booked by the
Marshals Service in fiscal year 2001, while USPIS told us that they had
made 4,698 federal arrests that same year.
3Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, November 2003,
NCJ 201627.
4Public order offenses include offenses concerning tax law, perjury, and
racketeering and extortion.
Figure 1: Arrests for Federal Offenses, by Arresting Federal Law Enforcement
Agency
Total arrests 35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
DEA FBI Marshals Service
Customs INS USPIS All other federal agencies
Arresting agency
Year (total federal arrests)
1998 (104,422) 1999 (109,857) 2000 (115,589) 2001 (118,896) 2002 (124,210)
Source: BJS Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics for Fiscal Years 1998 -
2001; Marshals Service Prisoner Tracking System for Fiscal Year 2002.
Note: BJS statistics only include suspects arrested for federal offenses
who are booked by the Marshals Service. Agencies' arrest totals are higher
than those shown in figure 1.
Results
Guidance and Procedures for Counting Investigations and Arrests Are
Generally Consistent among Agencies
The guidance and procedures for counting investigations, or "cases" as
they are sometimes referred to, are generally consistent among the six
agencies we reviewed.5 Agencies pursue investigations into crimes that
have a nexus to their respective missions, such as drug trafficking for
DEA, mail theft for USPIS, and illegal aliens for INS. Generally,
according to their guidance and procedures, agencies open cases that
result from tips or leads received from confidential informants or other
sources, they may be invited to help in other agencies' cases, or they may
participate in task force investigations. Once the agents have made the
decision to open a case, the cases are to be reviewed and approved by a
supervisor, and details of the case are then entered into the agencies'
case management tracking systems and counted.
We also found agency guidance and procedures for counting arrests to be
generally consistent among all six agencies. That is, agents must be
directly involved in the arrest, assist other law enforcement personnel in
making the arrest, or provide information that leads to an arrest. For
example, according to DEA's Agents Manual, agents are to count drugrelated
arrests only when DEA is directly involved in the arrest. Similarly, USPIS
inspectors are to count arrests when physically present or providing
assistance. According to USPIS's Inspection Service Manual, inspectors are
to count an arrest when
o an inspector participated personally in making an arrest or
contributed significantly to an investigation resulting in an arrest made
by another law enforcement agency;
o an inspector's investigative efforts with another law enforcement
agency motivate and materially contribute to the identity and arrest of a
person for a postal crime event though the inspector was not present at
the time; or
o an inspector's investigation of a postal offense develops additional,
significant evidence that is brought to the prosecutor's attention that
leads to prosecution for an additional offense.
The determination of material contribution, as used in the Inspection Service
Manual, is left to the judgment of a supervisor. For example, according to USPIS
officials, if a postal inspector alerted the highway
5Some agencies refer to investigations as cases. For this report, we will
use investigations and cases interchangeably.
patrol to an individual suspected of mail theft, or if the inspector was
conducting an ongoing investigation on the suspect and the highway patrol
made the arrest, the arrest would be claimed by USPIS even though the
postal inspectors did not make the physical arrest.
The other agencies in our review used similar criteria for counting
arrests. In addition, the agencies required supervisory review of the
justifications for the arrests before they were entered into the agencies'
data tracking systems and officially counted.
In addition to their guidance and procedures for counting investigations
and arrests, three of the agencies in our review-DEA, FBI, and USPIS- have
an inspection process to, among other things, review the appropriateness
of investigations and arrests that are made. DEA, for example, told us
that its Inspections Division periodically validates a sample of arrests
and screens them for any type of questionable activity, such as "piggy
backing" arrests. According to a DEA official, piggy backing is when state
and local law enforcement agencies perform the investigative work and a
DEA agent goes along for the arrest, writes it up, and claims credit for
the arrest. The official said that the Inspections Division has
consistently found a very low percentage of questionable arrests, but that
a database of questionable arrests has not been accumulated. The official
gave one example from DEA's New York Field Office, where 2 or 3
questionable arrests out of over 8,000 were found. The official indicated
that questionable arrests are mostly isolated incidents and are not part
of any systemic problems. The official concluded that if questionable
arrests were found, those arrest statistics would be removed from the
agency database. FBI and USPIS officials said that no questionable arrests
were found during their reviews.
Investigation and Arrest Statistics Are Used for a Variety of Purposes
Agency officials with whom we spoke told us that investigation and arrest
statistics are used for many purposes, depending on the circumstances. In
general, the officials said that statistics serve as indicators of agency
work and as output measures in performance plans, budget justifications,
testimonies, and for some agencies, are considered in making promotion,
bonus, and award determinations. Officials at the agencies we reviewed
said that investigation and arrest statistics are not emphasized in any of
these activities, but are one of many factors that are considered when
reporting agency results or when making personnel decisions.
Agencies Reported Investigation and Arrest Statistics in Their Budget
Justifications, Congressional Testimonies, and Other Public Documents
We found that agencies generally reported investigation and arrest
statistics in their budget justifications, congressional testimonies,
and/or other public documents. These statistics, however, were not the
only criteria used as indicators of agency workload and productivity.
We reviewed FBI budget requests for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, for
example, and found numbers of investigations and arrests listed in the
documents, as well as numbers of indictments and convictions. DEA's budget
requests to Congress also included investigation and arrest statistics.
For example, in its fiscal year 2003 budget request, DEA reported on an
operation that resulted in 38 arrests, and a table in DEA's fiscal year
2004 budget request entitled "Domestic Enforcement" showed the number of
national/local investigations, investigations completed, and total
investigations.
Conversely, INS did not cite investigation and arrest statistics in its
budget justification documents. Investigation and arrest activities were
discussed, however, in the very broadest terms. For example, in its 2003
budget justification documentation, INS indicated that it would initiate
highpriority investigations, conduct asset seizures, and present
individuals for prosecution for alien smuggling-related violations to
disrupt the means and methods that facilitate alien smuggling. And, in its
2002 documentation, INS noted that, as a result of its efforts, many alien
smugglers, fraud organizations, and facilitators were arrested and
presented for prosecution; assets were seized; and aliens with a nexus to
organized crime, violent gangs, drug trafficking gangs, or who have
terrorist-related affiliations, were apprehended.
Concerning inclusion of arrest statistics in congressional testimony,
DEA's Administrator's testimonies to Congress on the agency's budget
requests often contained references to successful cases that resulted in
arrests. For example, in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, the
Administrator said that an operation resulted in 14 arrests. The
Administrator's testimony for fiscal year 2004 also included similar
examples, such as DEA disrupting 30 drug trafficking organizations and
dismantling 15 others. In addition, in congressional testimony on the
fiscal year 2002 budget request, the FBI Director said that overall,
during fiscal year 2000, FBI investigations contributed to the indictment
of over 19,000 individuals, the conviction of over 21,000 individuals, and
the arrest of more than 36,000 individuals.
As an example of using investigation statistics in public documents, on
September 2, 2003, DEA listed on its Web site 37 major operations that it
had been involved in from 1992 to 2003. Many of these listings detailed
major investigations involving joint operations with other federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies that resulted in disruptions and
dismantlement of narcotics trafficking operations and in numerous arrests.
In addition, many of the listings gave credit to the other participating
agencies for their work on the same cases.
Agency officials said, however, that the investigation and arrest
statistics are only one of many factors used as indicators of agency
workload and productivity and are not emphasized in reporting results of
agencies' workload performance. For example, DEA officials told us that
instead of pursuing numbers of investigations and arrests, their focus is
on
o targeting, disrupting, and dismantling major drug trafficking
organizations;
o working cooperatively and closely with other federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies; and
o making an impact on reducing the flow of narcotics and dangerous drugs
into the United States.
Numbers of Investigations and Arrests Are Used as Workload Indicators and,
to a Limited Extent, Used in Promotion, Bonus, and Award Decisions
Agency officials with whom we spoke told us that investigation and arrest
statistics are used as measures of productivity and indicators of workload
activity, but only to a limited extent in personnel management activities
such as promotions, bonuses, and awards. USPIS officials, for example,
said that investigation and arrest statistics are only one of many
indicators of an individual's performance and are not required for making
promotion and other personnel decisions. The knowledge, skills, and
abilities for promotion do not list "number of arrests" as a competency.
For example criteria for promotion to the manager level, GS-15, is based
on competencies including customer focus, interpersonal skills, problem
identification and analysis/decision making, strategic leadership, and
oral and written communication.
USPIS officials said that awards and bonuses are usually given for
performances above and beyond normal expectations, not just for making
arrests. An inspector or team, for example, that makes a large number of
arrests as culmination of an investigation could receive an award,
according to the officials.
The other agencies we reviewed generally followed similar criteria on the
use of investigation and arrest statistics in performance management
decisions as that described earlier by the USPIS officials. For example,
Multiple Agencies Count the Same Investigations and Arrests in Their
Individual Agency Databases and Reports
Concluding Observations
INS's promotion criteria considered such factors as job experience,
decision-making, managerial writing, and job simulation.
All of the agencies we reviewed counted the same investigations and
arrests when more than one of them participated in the investigative and
arresting activities. In two of the three reviews of joint investigations
that we performed, agencies reported that they each counted some of the
same arrestees involved in the investigations. (See apps. VIII and IX.)
Agency officials told us that they believe that this practice is
appropriate, because in their opinion, many investigations and arrests
would not have occurred without the involvement and cooperation of all the
agencies that participated. If agencies were not allowed to count
investigations and arrests in which they participated, the officials said
that agencies would be less likely to work together, cases would be much
smaller, and the desired disruption of high-level criminal organizations
would be hampered.
In general, the agency press releases and Web sites we reviewed gave
credit to one another when they jointly participated in major
investigations that resulted in a number of arrests. We found several
examples of this practice, but did not find any overall federal database
that would identify joint investigations and arrests that were conducted
by multiple federal law enforcement agencies. Several of the agencies'
internal databases, however, are capable of identifying joint
investigations and arrests, while others could possibly be so modified,
according to agency officials. For example, DEA's statistical database was
able to identify arrests made by DEA unilaterally, as well as those made
jointly with other federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, as
shown in figure 3.
Federal law enforcement agencies are in business to enforce the nation's
law and regulations, investigate the activities of criminal organizations,
and arrest individuals suspected of criminal activity. Increasingly,
federal law enforcement agencies do not pursue these activities in a
vacuum. All involved agencies do count the same investigations and arrests
resulting from joint operations, present these statistics in their public
documents and budget justifications, and consider their actions justified.
There is no central federal repository of joint investigations and arrests
conducted by the agencies we reviewed. Moreover, not all of the agencies
currently distinguish between unilateral and joint arrests and
investigations within their databases. Making this distinction may help
guide Congress when making budget decisions about these agencies. Also,
the agencies can provide, or if instructed, modify their databases to
reflect more refined
information. However, we did not evaluate what cost, if any, would be
associated with requiring agencies to do so.
Agency Comments We provided a draft copy of this report to Justice, DHS,
and USPIS. Justice and DHS indicated that they had no further comments on
our draft; however, technical clarifications were provided during our exit
meetings. USPIS agreed with our report's overall finding that federal law
enforcement agencies are generally consistent in the way they report and
make use of investigation and arrest statistics. However, USPIS provided
technical comments which we have incorporated, as appropriate. USPIS's
written comments are reproduced in appendix XI.
We are providing copies of this report to the Attorney General, the
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Postmaster General. We will also
make copies available to others on request. In addition, the report will
be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions regarding this report, please
contact Darryl W. Dutton at (213) 830-1086 or me at (202) 512-8777. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix XII.
Paul L. Jones Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Overall, to address our objectives, we selected six federal agencies that
perform investigations and arrest suspects. The agencies selected were the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI), and the U.S. Marshals Service from the Department of Justice
(Justice); the former U.S. Customs Service (Customs) and Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), now part of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS);1 and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS). We
selected DEA, FBI, Customs, INS, and the Marshals Service because these
agencies reported the highest number of federal arrests, according to the
Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) Compendium of Federal Justice
Statistics, 2000, the most recent data available at the time of our
selection. We selected USPIS because it reported the highest number of
federal arrests from non-Justice or non-Treasury agencies. In addition,
our review focused on fiscal years 1998 through 2001 as mandated by the
21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Act.2 Our review focused
on agencies' policies and procedures used to count investigations and
arrests, not on the number of investigations conducted and arrests made.
Therefore, we did not perform reliability assessments of data systems at
the selected agencies.
To identify the guidance and procedures followed by federal law
enforcement agencies regarding counting and reporting investigation and
arrest statistics, we reviewed agency mission statements, policies, and
applicable manuals concerning investigations and arrests. We also obtained
information about agency investigation and arrest statistical tracking
systems -for example, DEA's Case Status Subsystem; FBI's Integrated
Statistical Reporting and Analysis database; and USPIS's Inspection
Service Database Information System. We also obtained (1) overall
statistics of investigations and arrests by federal law enforcement
agencies compiled by BJS and used in its Compendium of Federal Justice
Statistics, for fiscal years 1998, 1999, 2000, and 2001, the latest
Compendium available at the time of our review, and (2) selected
1On March 1, 2003, functions of several border and security agencies,
including Customs and INS, were transferred into the Directorate of Border
and Transportation Security within DHS. As part of this transition, these
agency functions were reorganized into the Bureau of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement. Several primary program areas comprise Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, including customs and immigration investigations.
Because most of the investigation and arrest activity reviewed for this
study occurred prior to DHS's reorganization, for this report, we will
refer to the former Customs and INS agency structures.
2P.L. 107-273 (Nov. 2, 2002), section 11026.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Office of Inspector General and internal agency inspection reports
concerning the use of investigation and arrest statistics. We also
interviewed officials from each agency who were responsible for reporting,
compiling, analyzing, and disseminating investigation and arrest
statistics.
To determine how investigation and arrest statistics are used, we reviewed
selected agency budget justifications that were submitted to the Congress,
congressional testimonies used to justify congressional appropriations,
and internal agency manuals and policies for use of investigation and
arrest statistics. We also reviewed guidance on issues such as promotion,
bonus, and award criteria for agents and interviewed officials who used
investigation and arrest statistics in their administrative and management
systems. Our review was performed primarily at the agencies' headquarters
office in Washington, D.C. However, to obtain the perspective of field
staff regarding the use of investigation and arrest statistics for
administrative and management purposes, we spoke with key DEA, USPIS,
Customs, and Marshals Service staff at their Los Angeles offices.
To determine if multiple agencies are reporting the same investigations
and arrests, we obtained, when available, information from agency
statistical systems - such as DEA's Defendant Statistical System. We
wanted to know whether (1) other law enforcement agencies were involved in
investigations or arrests as part of joint investigations, and (2) the
individual agencies could be distinguished from each other. We searched
for and obtained from congressional testimony and agencies' Web sites
examples of major investigations involving more than one agency and
analyzed selected agency budget justifications (e.g., FBI and INS) and
performance reports to determine how investigation and arrest statistics
were reported to the Congress. We also interviewed agency officials and
obtained documents to explain the reasons for either counting or not
counting investigations and arrests when other federal, state, or local
law enforcement agencies were involved in the investigations.
We also conducted assessments of three joint investigations to determine
the extent to which agencies were or were not counting the same arrests: a
drug trafficking investigation, a child pornography investigation, and a
counterterrorism investigation. For the drug trafficking investigation, we
searched our selected agencies' Web sites, where available, for joint
operations and found Operation Marquis on DEA's Web site. Operation
Marquis was a DEA-led investigation that involved the FBI and several
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
other federal law enforcement agencies. We subsequently asked DEA and FBI
for lists of arrestees from Operation Marquis and matched them to
determine whether both agencies were counting the same arrestees. (See
app. VIII for additional information on Operation Marquis.) For the child
pornography case, we asked Customs whether it had a joint investigation
that included one of the other federal agencies among our selected
agencies. Customs recommended that we use Operation Bayou Blaster, which
also involved USPIS. Again, we asked both Customs and USPIS to provide us
with lists of arrestees associated with Operation Bayou Blaster. Customs
provided us with a list, but USPIS was unable to generate a list.3
Consequently, we asked USPIS to crosscheck its database to the list of
arrestees provided by Customs. (See app. IX for additional information on
the child pornography investigation.) For the counterterrorism joint
investigation, we discussed a Joint Terrorism Task Force operation with
FBI and INS officials. The FBI and INS provided us with names of arrestees
associated with the operation and included in agency arrest statistics for
comparison purposes. (See app. X for additional information on the
Counterterrorism Joint Task Force investigation.)
We conducted our work at selected agency headquarters in Washington D.C.,
and at DEA, USPIS, Customs, and Marshals Service offices in Los Angeles,
California.
3USPIS said that it did not consider Operation Bayou Blaster a "joint"
investigation, but provided assistance when requested by Customs. For this
reason, USPIS said it was unable to provide us with a list of arrestees
for this operation.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
Counting Investigations and Arrests
The Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) mission is to, among other
things,
o enforce the controlled substances laws and regulations of the United
States and
o investigate and prepare for the prosecution of major violators of
controlled substance laws operating at interstate and international
levels.
To perform its mission, in fiscal year 2003, DEA had a total of 9,629
employees including 4,680 special agents operating in 225 offices in the
United States and in 80 other offices throughout the world. DEA's budget
was $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2003.
A DEA investigation is referred to as a "case," and involves targeting
organizations or businesses suspected of illegal narcotics trafficking.
Any given case can include one or multiple organizations or individuals,
but it is counted only as one case.
o DEA's Case Status Subsystem (CAST) is the system used to track cases.
CAST identifies, among other things, the target (e.g., criminal
organization) of the case and whether other agencies are involved. When an
agent has sufficient cause to open a case, he or she enters general
information about the case into CAST, such as the file number, agent's
name, entity under investigation, date opened, and identification number.
DEA pursues investigations into drug trafficking organizations in several
ways. DEA special agents may open cases that result from tips or leads
received from confidential informants or other sources, may be invited to
help in other agencies' cases, and may participate in interagency task
force investigations. When DEA agents initiate their own cases, they may
also elicit help from other federal, state, and local law enforcement
agencies. Agents' cases are approved by a supervisor and are entered into
CAST.
DEA officials told us that their emphasis, instead of pursuing numbers of
investigations and arrests, is on
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
o targeting, disrupting,1 and dismantling2 major drug trafficking
organizations;
o working cooperatively and closely with other federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies; and
o making an impact on reducing the flow of narcotics and dangerous drugs
into the United States.
On September 2, 2003, DEA listed on its Web site 37 major operations that
it had been involved in from 1992 to 2003. Many of these listings detailed
major investigations involving joint operations with other federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies that resulted in disruptions and
dismantlement of narcotics trafficking operations and in numerous arrests.
In addition, many of the listings gave credit to the other participating
agencies for their work on the cases.
DEA provided us with the numbers of cases closed between fiscal years 1998
and 2001, including DEA unilateral cases and those performed jointly with
other law enforcement agencies as shown in figure 2.
1Disruption occurs when the normal effective operation of an identified
organization is significantly impacted so that it is temporarily unable to
conduct criminal operations for a significant period of time. The
disruption must be the result of an affirmative law enforcement action,
including, but not limited, to the arrest, indictment, and conviction of
the organization's leadership or a substantial seizure of the
organization's assets.
2Dismantlement occurs when an identified organization is eviscerated and
no longer capable of operating as a coordinated criminal enterprise. The
dismantlement must be the result of an affirmative law enforcement action,
including, but not limited, to the arrest, indictment, and conviction of
all or most of its principal leadership.
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
Figure 2: Investigations Closed-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
DEA investigations closed
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000 DEA unilateral
Joint with federal except FBI/ Customs INS referral Organized
Joint with FBI
Othera
Joint with Customs
Joint with state and local State and local task force Joint foreignCrime and
Drug Enforcement Task Force
Unilateral Joint with federal agencies Joint with state and or local Joint with
agencies foreign entities
Fiscal year (total)
1998 (19,192)
1999 (22,634)
2000 (22,163)
2001 (21,151)
aOther is the total of other federal agency referral, unknown, and missing
cases.
According to DEA's Agents Manual, agents are to claim (i.e., count)
drugrelated arrests only when DEA is directly involved in the arrest.
DEA's process for counting and recording arrests also includes having a
supervisory agent review and sign each Form 202, Personal History Report,
used to document personal information on each person arrested. By signing
the form, the DEA supervisor attests that DEA directly participated in the
arrest or, in the case of a foreign arrest, provided substantial
assistance. An Associate Deputy Chief, Office of Inspections, said that
DEA's decision about whether to count an arrest is contingent on several
factors, including a clear nexus to a drug offense, involvement of a
Source: DEA.
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
DEA informant or DEA monies, or the physical presence of DEA agents at the
time of the arrest, and/or a significant role by DEA agents.
DEA's Defendant Statistical System (DSS) tracks the number of arrests
counted by DEA. Each Form 202-there is one Form 202 for each person
arrested-is completed and the information entered into the DSS. An arrest
can only be entered in DSS once. When the Form 202 information is entered
into DSS, duplicate arrests, if any, will be identified and appropriate
divisions will be notified to fix the problems. In addition, DEA has a
manual system, the Drug Enforcement Arrest Log, which is used as a check
against arrests entered into DSS.
As with investigation statistics, DEA was able to provide us with numbers
of unilateral and joint arrests by fiscal year from 1998 to 2001. Figure 3
shows numbers of arrests and agencies that were involved in the arrests
but does not identify the agency(s) making the actual physical arrest.
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
Figure 3: Total Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
DEA arrests 13,000 12,000
11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
DEA Joint with INS referral Joint with Organized Joint with Joint with
State and Joint Othera unilateral federal FBI Crime and Customs state and
local task foreign except FBI/ Drug local force Customs Enforcement Task
Force
Unilateral Joint with federal agencies Joint with state and or local Joint
with
Source: DEA.
agencies foreign entities
Year (total)
1998 (37,328)
1999 (39,356)
2000 (38,904)
2001 (35,010)
aOther is the total of other federal agency referral, unknown, and missing
cases.
According to an Associate Deputy Chief, Office of Inspections, DEA
conducts on-site inspections about every 3 years in its domestic offices.
As part of the inspection, the division or office is assessed to determine
if it is successfully achieving DEA's objectives and priorities, including
a validation of claimed arrests.
Field Management Plans (FMP) are used in the inspections process. FMPs
describe the priorities set by the Special Agent in Charge (SAC) of a
field division to counter the field office's unique drug threats and
delineate the methods for accomplishing the agency's mission and
priorities. The FMP outlines major operations in the field division that
have been completed,
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
the number of major drug trafficking organizations disrupted or
dismantled, and other field division highlights. The Office of Inspections
assesses the field division's adherence to the FMP and its success in
achieving the goals in the FMP. Case files and the "appropriateness" of
arrests are also reviewed.
A DEA Office of Inspections official told us that periodically a sample of
arrests are validated and screened for appropriateness and for any type of
questionable activity, such as "piggy backing" arrests. Piggy backing is
when a state or local law enforcement agency does the investigative work
and DEA goes along for the arrest, writes it up, and claims credit for the
arrest. The official said that Inspections has consistently found a very
low percentage of questionable arrests at the offices reviewed, but they
do not accumulate or maintain a database of questionable arrests. The
official gave one example of the New York office, where 2 or 3
questionable arrests out of over 8,000 were found. The official indicated
that questionable arrests are mostly isolated incidents, and are not part
of any systemic problems. If questionable arrests are found, the officials
said that the arrest statistics would be removed from the agency database.
In another example, out of approximately 2,200 arrests made by the Los
Angeles office in 1999, the Office of Inspections found 16 that were
questionable. The Los Angeles SAC said the arrests were questionable
because the agents had not adequately documented DEA's participation in
the arrests to qualify for counting them. The Office of Inspections
finally judged only 3 of the 16 as not being justified. These 3 involved
cases where the Highway Patrol found drugs in suspects' vehicles and
called DEA out to establish probable cause to make the arrest. This is a
gray area, according to the SAC, and DEA must show significant
participation in order to claim the arrest. In the 3 cases, significant
participation was not shown, and the arrests were not allowed, according
to the SAC.
The SAC also said that in addition to the periodic Office of Inspection
evaluations, the Los Angeles office conducts its own yearly
selfinspections, including reviews of the appropriateness of claimed
arrests.
DEA officials also told us that it is appropriate for each participating
agency to claim the investigations and arrests that result from joint
operations. The officials said that if only one agency could claim the
investigations and arrests, agencies would not work together, cases would
be much smaller, and the desired outcome of disrupting major drug
trafficking organizations would not happen.
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
Use of Investigation
and Arrest Statistics
Overall, DEA officials said that investigation and arrest statistics serve
as indicators of agency work, to help determine whether or not something
is being accomplished. DEA Domestic Operations officials said that from a
managerial standpoint, DEA's focus is more on who and what priority target
organizations have been disrupted or dismantled. Statistical data are
useful, the Domestic Operations officials said, because they provide a
picture of activity; they are the evidence that validates the work
performed. DEA officials from the Evaluation and Planning Section said
investigations are DEA's top output measure and provide basic information
on workload. For example, if a group of 10 DEA agents and a supervisor had
only 7 arrests for a year, management would want to look at the group to
question its level of activity. It could be that the group was engaged in
a very long, complicated wiretap case, which would not lend itself to many
arrests. Arrests, however, would only be used as an indicator of activity,
according to a SAC and Assistant Special Agents in Charge (ASACs).
Investigation and arrest statistics are not used as performance indicators
in various DEA-related materials. For example, in Department of Justice
Performance Reports,3 we were unable to find any investigation and arrest
statistics related to DEA. DEA, however, did use numbers of investigations
and arrests in its budget justifications and congressional testimonies.
For example, in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, DEA reported on an
operation that resulted in 38 arrests. For the fiscal year 2004 budget
request, DEA also provided tables that included numbers of national and
local investigations, investigations completed, and total investigations.
According to a SAC and ASACs, investigation and arrest statistics are not
used for making agent promotion, award, and performance determinations.
The officials said that promotions, awards, and performance ratings are
based on many factors, such as levels of violator disruption; coordination
efforts with interagency task forces; cooperative activities with other
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies; and furthering DEA's
mission. For example, two GS-14 field office group supervisors told us
that statistics, particularly arrest statistics, do not play an important
part in promotions, bonuses, or other awards.
3FY 2001 Performance Report and FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan, FY
2003 Performance Plan; and FY 2002 Performance Report and FY 2003 Revised
Final Performance Plan, FY 2004 Performance Plan.
Appendix II: Drug Enforcement Administration Profile
Promotion criteria used to evaluate agents for promotion to GS-14 and
GS-15, for example, is based on the following competencies, which do not
include investigation and arrest statistics:
o acting as a model,
o gathering information and making judgments/decisions,
o interacting with others,
o monitoring and guiding, o oral communication, and
o planning and coordinating.
A DEA Career Board official told us that when looking for the
bestqualified applicant for a GS-14 or GS-15 position, a SAC could
consider investigation and/or arrest statistics. For example, if a
reference for the applicant is contacted, the reference may say that they
highly recommend the applicant because of the applicant's work on a
certain case.
A DEA official in Employee Relations said that awards and/or bonuses are
distributed based on performance or a special act. A special act could
include an agent's involvement on a significant arrest or drug seizure. An
agent's supervisor writes the justification for an award and/or bonus. The
division head and the Chief of Operations at DEA headquarters review the
justification.
DEA Domestic Operations officials said that performance evaluations that
are used as a basis for promotions may well indicate that an agent
"maintained a high level of cases" or "participated in several significant
cases," but performance decisions are not justified based on sheer numbers
alone. The two field office group supervisors also said that if DEA has
successful investigations, arrests will naturally follow but are not
emphasized in promotion, bonus, and other award decisions. Domestic
Operations officials also said that management's "tone at the top," which
is emphasized throughout DEA, is not on how many people were arrested, but
on what drug trafficking organizations were disrupted and dismantled.
Appendix III: FBI Profile
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) mission is to
o uphold the law through the investigation of violations of federal
criminal law;
o protect the United States from foreign intelligence and terrorist
activities; and
o provide leadership and law enforcement assistance to federal, state,
local,
Counting Investigations and Arrests
and international agencies.
As of January 31, 2002, approximately 11,000 special agents and 16,000
professional support personnel were located at the FBI's Washington, D.C.,
headquarters and in 56 field offices, approximately 400 satellite offices,
4 specialized field installations, and over 40 foreign liaison posts. The
FBI's budget was $4.6 billion in fiscal year 2003.
An FBI investigation is referred to as either preliminary or full field.
Officials of the Inspection Division told us that facts and circumstances
have to rise to a certain level to justify opening either type of
investigation and that the determination is somewhat judgmental. Full
field investigations are initiated when there is information that raises a
reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed. If the information
received is not deemed sufficient to predicate the opening of a full field
investigation, but is determined to warrant further inquiry on a limited
basis in order to determine the credibility of an allegation of criminal
activity and the need for a more in-depth investigative effort, a
preliminary investigation can be opened. The more sensitive
investigations, such as foreign counter intelligence, are usually opened
as preliminary investigations. Preliminary investigations can proceed to
full field investigations. The officials told us that the amount of
information needed to initiate an investigation is the same whether the
FBI is working alone or is involved in a joint investigation.
The Automated Case Support database is the FBI's overall case management
system that is used to capture information and data pertaining to each
investigation. An agent initiates an investigation, either an FBI
investigation or a joint investigation, by opening a hard copy
investigative file, using an Investigative Summary Form 302. A supervisor
must then approve the initiation. Information pertaining to the
investigation is subsequently entered into database.
Appendix III: FBI Profile
We asked the FBI to provide us with information on investigations closed
in fiscal years 1998-2001. The data provided included investigations
pertaining to drugs, violent crime, white-collar crime, counterterrorism,
counterintelligence, and cyber crime. These data are displayed in figure
4. Finance Division officials were unable to distinguish between
investigations performed solely by the FBI and those performed jointly
with other agencies because this information is not captured in the
database.
Figure 4: Investigations Closed-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
FBI investigations closed 90,000
84,244
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year
Source: FBI.
The FBI counts an arrest when the subject is taken into custody with a
warrant, complaint, or indictment or, if arrested for probable cause,
after the judicial paperwork is obtained. The FBI reports the arrest as
federal, local, or international.
o Federal arrests are those in which FBI agents acting alone or with
other law enforcement officers arrest the subject. The FBI does not count
the arrest if the subject of an FBI investigation is arrested by another
law enforcement agency without any assistance from the FBI. However, if
the arrest is part of an FBI-led task force, the FBI does count the arrest
even if no FBI agent is present.
Appendix III: FBI Profile
o Local arrests are those where the FBI supplied information or other
assistance to a local agency that significantly contributed to the
probable cause supporting an arrest warrant for an individual who was not
the subject of an FBI investigation, and FBI agents were not involved in
making the arrests.
o International arrests are those where the FBI supplied information or
other assistance to another country that significantly contributed to the
probable cause supporting an arrest warrant for an individual who either
was or was not the subject of an FBI investigation, and FBI agents were
not involved in making the arrests.
Arrests are reported on the Form FD-515, "Accomplishment Report." This
form captures such information as arrests, convictions, and the various
investigative techniques used in an investigation. The agent prepares the
FD-515; the supervisor reviews and approves the form, thereby attesting to
the arrest as a valid accomplishment. The field office then enters the
information into the Integrated Statistical Reporting and Analysis
Application (ISRAA) database. Arrests, as well as other accomplishments,
are to be entered into the system within 30 days. A variety of edit checks
are performed to help ensure the reliability of the data input into ISRAA,
and each field office completes an annual audit of the data.
We asked the FBI to provide us with information on arrests in fiscal years
1998-2001. These data are displayed in figure 5. While the participation
of other agencies is noted on the FD-515, this information is not entered
into ISRAA and, as a result, the FBI could not distinguish between arrests
made solely by the FBI and those made jointly with other agencies.
Appendix III: FBI Profile
Figure 5: Total Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
FBI arrests
28,000
26,000
24,000
22,000
20,000
400
200
0 1998 1999 2000 2001
(36,971) (36,053) (36,913) (29,448)
Fiscal year (total)
Federal Local International
Source: FBI.
In addition to the supervisory reviews of investigations and arrests
already noted, supervisory agents are to perform periodic investigative
file reviews on all investigations being worked by their agents. These
reviews occur about every 90 days for investigations led by experienced
agents and about every 30 days for investigations led by less experienced
agents. During these file reviews, supervisors are to monitor the progress
of investigations by reviewing investigative work completed; verifying
compliance with any applicable policies and procedures, including those
pertaining to any arrests that have been made; and assessing the validity
of continuing with the investigation. FBI officials also told us that
field offices' Assistant Special Agents-in-Charge periodically are to
check supervisory file reviews to ensure the adequacy of the review
process.
In addition, the FBI's Inspection Division is responsible for reviewing
FBI field offices and program divisions to ensure compliance with
applicable laws and regulations and the efficient and economical
management of resources. The Inspection Division is to inspect all FBI
units at least once
Appendix III: FBI Profile
Use of Investigation
and Arrest Statistics
every 3 years. An Inspection Division official told us that the division's
reviews include information pertaining to arrests and that, if it were
determined that an arrest had been inappropriately counted, action would
be taken, including correction of the data in ISRAA. The officials also
said that they had not found evidence of the inappropriate counting of
arrests over the period of our review, fiscal years 1998-2001.
Inspections Division officials told us that all agencies involved in a
joint investigation count investigations and arrests and that this is a
longstanding and accepted practice that is part of interagency
cooperation. If each agency involved could not count the statistics, there
would be more competition among agencies and less participation in joint
investigations, according to the officials.
Investigation and arrest statistics are used as indicators of the FBI's
work for a variety of purposes, including management of field offices. For
example, a field office's numbers for a particular type of crime might
spike upward. Finance Division officials said that if a spike occurred, a
determination would be made about what happened to account for the spike
and changes might be made in how the office performs investigations or
where it focuses its resources. The officials told us that field offices
use numbers of investigations and arrests as part of justifications for
resources, along with other factors such as the type of crimes
investigated by the office and whether there has been continual growth in
the numbers. Numbers alone are not determinative, however, according to
Inspection Division officials. The officials said that FBI headquarters
also looks at trends, where agents are placing their investigative
emphasis, political factors such as what legislation might be on the
horizon, and problems agents are encountering that might indicate a need
for new technology.
Investigation and arrest statistics are also used as performance
indicators in various FBI-related materials. For example, in Department of
Justice Performance Reports,1 the number of terrorism investigations is
reported, along with the number of related convictions. The FBI has also
used numbers of investigations and arrests, as well as indictments and
1FY 2001 Performance Report, FY 2002 Revised Final Performance Plan, FY
2003 Performance Plan; and FY 2002 Performance Report, FY 2003 Revised
Final Performance Plan, FY 2004 Performance Plan.
Appendix III: FBI Profile
convictions, in its budget requests and congressional testimonies. For
example, in the fiscal year 2003 request, fiscal years 2000 and 2001
actual numbers of investigations pending, opened, and closed are given,
along with numbers of arrests, indictments, and convictions. In addition,
in congressional testimony on the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the FBI
Director said that overall, during fiscal year 2000, FBI investigations
contributed to the indictment of over 19,000 individuals, the conviction
of over 21,000 individuals, and the arrest of more than 36,000
individuals.
Concerning performance management measures, an official from the Executive
Development and Selection Program told us that certain numbers of
investigations and arrests are not required for promotions, bonuses, or
awards. The official told us that the statistics are used only as
indicators of an agent's performance and that it is necessary to look at
the work behind the statistics. For example, an agent may have zero
arrests but be involved in a complex investigation that has not yet
resulted in arrests. Or, an agent may have a high number of arrests
resulting from relatively simple investigations.
Special agent promotions are scheduled at regular intervals from GS-10 or
GS-11 to GS-13 and are contingent upon the satisfactory work record of the
individual. Promotions to GS-14 and GS-15 are competitive, but the
official told us the vacancy announcements are not yet standardized.
Agents applying for promotion must describe how they meet each of the
qualifications listed on the announcement. A new system was implemented in
January 2004 that will emphasize competencies for each vacancy. The first
four competencies will be core competencies and the last three will be
specialized. For example, if the vacancy were in the counterterrorism
unit, experience with counterterrorism would be listed. When applying for
a promotion, an agent will complete a form and address his or her
education and training, pre-FBI experience, FBI background, and give two
examples of how he or she meets each of the required qualifications.
The official from the Executive Development and Selection Program said
that the quality of work experience, rather than quantity, is emphasized
in the promotion process. There is no baseline for the number of
investigations or arrests that an agent must demonstrate. There is no
place provided on the application for investigation or arrest statistics,
though officials said that an agent could provide these in the narrative
should he or she choose to do so. For example, an agent could indicate
that he or she demonstrated leadership by being the agent on 25
investigations resulting
Appendix III: FBI Profile
in 52 convictions; the agent could also discuss a specific investigation
as an example of leadership.
Agent performance is evaluated annually on seven critical elements (which
do not include investigation and arrest statistics) using a meets or does
not meet expectation system. A narrative justification is required only if
the agent does not meet expectations. The critical elements include the
following:
o investigating, decision making, and analyzing; o organizing,
planning, and coordinating;
o relating with others and providing professional service;
o acquiring, applying, and sharing job knowledge;
o maintaining high professional standards; and
o communicating orally and in writing.
An officer of the FBI Agents Association confirmed that investigation and
arrest statistics are not used in the performance appraisal process.
The official from the Executive Development and Selection Program told us
that a noteworthy accomplishment might be used as the basis for a special
award. The FBI uses its awards program to motivate employees to increase
productivity and creativity. To receive an award, an agent must be shown
to have significantly exceeded the requirements of his or her position.
Field offices can give awards differently. One office might give an award
for outstanding performance on one investigation. Another office might
give an award based on sustained success-for example, continuous,
outstanding performance with making arrests or obtaining convictions.
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile
Counting Investigations and Arrests
The U.S. Postal Inspection Service's (USPIS) mission is to protect the
U.S. Postal Service, its employees, and customers from criminal attack and
to protect the nation's mail system from criminal misuse.
In fiscal year 2003, USPIS had 1,955 Postal Inspectors operating in 18
field divisions in the United States with a budget of $521.7 million.
USPIS enforces over 200 federal laws in investigations of crimes that may
adversely affect or fraudulently use the U.S. mail, the postal system, or
postal employees. USPIS cases involve crimes that have a nexus to the
Postal Service. For example, postal-related violations including mail
theft, identity fraud, child exploitation, illegal drugs, and money
laundering are investigated by USPIS.
A USPIS investigation is referred to as a "case." To open a case, an
inspector fills out a request for case, Form 623. A Form 623 must be
approved and signed by a supervisor before a case is opened. The case is
then entered into the Inspection Service Database Information System
(ISDBIS). In the narrative section of Form 623, inspectors at their
discretion may note whether the case is a joint investigation and whether
any other agencies are involved; however, indicating whether a case is a
task force operation or whether other agencies are involved is optional. A
data entry operator will enter this information into the narrative section
of the case in ISDBIS, which cannot currently be retrieved to identify
USPIS cases alone or USPIS as part of a joint operation.
A USPIS official in the Information Technology Division, however, told us
that USPIS plans to launch a new database, which will be fully operational
in Fall 2004 and will identify cases as joint task force operations when
applicable and the other law enforcement agencies involved. However, it
would still be optional for inspectors to indicate whether a case is a
joint task force operation. The new system will be able to run reports
listing how many cases are joint task force cases and identify the
agencies that are participating. For example, a report could be generated
naming all cases USPIS is working on with the FBI.
USPIS provided us with numbers of cases closed from fiscal years 1998 to
2001, as shown in figure 6.
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile
Figure 6: Investigations Closed-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
USPIS investigations closed 45,000
42,228
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year
Source: USPIS.
According to USPIS's Inspection Service Manual, inspectors are to claim
(i.e., count) an arrest when
o an inspector participated personally in making an arrest or
contributed significantly to an investigation resulting in an arrest made
by another law enforcement agency;
o an inspector's investigative efforts with another law enforcement
agency motivate and materially contribute to the identity and arrest of a
person for a postal crime even though the inspector was not present at the
time; or
o an inspector's investigation of a postal offense develops additional,
significant evidence that is brought to the prosecutor's attention.
The determination of material contribution is left to the supervisor's
judgment. For example, if a postal inspector alerted the highway patrol to
an individual suspected of mail theft, or if the inspector was conducting
an ongoing investigation on the suspect and the highway patrol made the
arrest, the arrest would be claimed by USPIS even though postal inspectors
did not make the physical arrest.
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile
An inspector fills out a Case Activity Report (CAR) to report case
statistics and to summarize significant developments in the case,
including arrests. A supervisor must approve each CAR and the arrests
before entering into ISDBIS. After a CAR is submitted and entered into
ISDBIS by a data entry operator, a Case Summary Report is printed and sent
to the originating inspector to be verified for accuracy. ISDBIS tracks
the number of arrests counted by USPIS. Arrests made as a result of joint
operations are counted the same as those that result from investigations
involving USPIS only. ISDBIS currently cannot sort arrests made as a
result of joint operations and those in which only USPIS was involved.
According to an official in the Information Technology Division, the new
database, scheduled to be implemented early next year, can separate
arrests resulting from joint operations from those involving USPIS alone.
USPIS provided us with the total number of arrests made from fiscal years
1998 to 2001 as shown in figure 7.
Figure 7: Total Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
USPIS arrests 12,000 11,864
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year
Source: USPIS.
Prior to fiscal year 2003, USPIS had an Office of Inspections Division
that had overall responsibility for conducting quality assurance reviews
of field divisions and headquarters groups/divisions. As part of a USPIS
reorganization in fiscal year 2003, the quality assurance review
responsibility was assigned to the Strategic Planning and Performance
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile
Management Group at USPIS headquarters. A USPIS official in the Strategic
Planning and Management Group told us that the group is to review each
field office every 3 years for compliance to USPIS policies and
procedures. In addition, according to a Deputy Chief Inspector, USPIS
field offices are to conduct annual comprehensive self-assessments and
that the contents of case files are to be reviewed for accuracy during
that process. For example, arrests counted and hours worked on an
investigation are two items that are reviewed for accuracy. The official
said that overall, USPIS has found minimal problems with the accuracy of
its case files and has not found any problems with a specific USPIS field
division counting incorrect case and arrest statistics.
A Deputy Chief Inspector and an Assistant Chief Inspector told us that
double counting investigation and arrest data is acceptable and vital in
showing the results of USPIS efforts. For example, the officials said that
if arrests generated by a joint operation could be claimed by only one of
the involved agencies, turf battles would result. In addition, one agency
may end up "looking better than another." This would result in law
enforcement agencies refusing to work with one another and there would be
no more task forces, according to the officials. The officials also said
that task forces are needed because cases are often complex in nature, and
joining forces with other law enforcement agencies streamlines,
economizes, and makes operations more efficient.
Use of Investigation
and Arrest Statistics
A Deputy Chief Inspector and an Assistant Chief Inspector told us that
Inspectors in Charge of field divisions determine where resources are
needed by several indicators, including case and arrest statistics. They
told us that a "briefing book" is prepared monthly using case and arrest
data from ISDBIS. The briefing book contains an overview of each
functional area (i.e., fraud, dangerous mailings, and child exploitation)
and an analysis on whether USPIS is meeting its goals. The data in the
briefing book are shared with all field offices. The officials said that
looking at indicators and determining where employees are assigned is a
part of their management system.
A Deputy Chief Inspector also told us that investigation and arrest
statistics are used as indicators in performance measurement and planning.
The performance plan provides the basis for performance agreements, or
field division contracts, and an annual performance report. The
performance plan is divided into operational objectives that support
USPIS's strategic goals. Each operational objective has an indicator(s),
which measures how closely USPIS met the objective, and a target to meet
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile
in the upcoming fiscal year. Each field division is evaluated on its
results as measured against its objectives for each fiscal year; for
example:
o Operational objective: Identify and resolve domestic and international
in-transit mail theft.
o Indicators: Major domestic and international airport mail theft
problems resolved (arrests count towards resolving mail theft cases).
o Target: Thirty major domestic and international airport mail theft
problems resolved.
USPIS also issues an annual report of investigations, which is a document
on the fiscal year's activities, to the Postmaster General, the Postal
Service Board of Governors, and postal managers and employees. The report
details USPIS's investigative activities in criminal areas, such as mail
theft and robbery. The number of arrests and convictions in each criminal
area are also listed in the report.
USPIS officials also told us that data on an inspector's numbers of
investigations and arrests are not required for making promotion, bonus,
and award determinations. The knowledge, skills, and abilities
requirements for promotion to the GS-13 and GS-14 levels, for example, do
not list "number of arrests" as a competency. The officials said that
promotion criteria to the manager level, GS-15, is based on competencies,
including
o customer focus,
o interpersonal skills,
o problem identification and analysis/decision making,
o supervisory/management skills,
o strategic leadership,
o planning and organizing,
o project/program management, o oral communication,
o written communication,
o ability to work autonomously, and
o ability to be flexible in diverse situations.
USPIS officials said that awards and bonuses are usually given for
performances above and beyond normal expectations, not just for making
arrests. An inspector or team, for example, that makes a large number of
Appendix IV: U.S. Postal Inspection Service Profile
arrests as culmination of an investigation could receive an award for the
arrests, according to the officials.
Concerning inspector performance measurement, a Deputy Chief Inspector and
an Assistant Chief Inspector said that investigation and arrest statistics
are one of many indicators of an individual's performance. Performance
management focuses on linking an inspector's goals to national goals,
rather than on arrest quotas. Team leaders in the field are responsible
for helping individual inspectors set goals for the year through creating
a performance achievement plan.
A Deputy Chief Inspector told us that case and arrest data are not used in
their budget process. USPIS's budget is historically based-meaning it is
based on the previous year's budget. It is dependent on U.S. Postal
Service finances and is not subject to the congressional appropriations
process.
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile
The U.S. Customs Service was responsible for ensuring that all goods and
persons entering and exiting the United States did so legally and was to,
among other things,1
o assess and collect Customs duties, excise taxes, fees, and penalties
due on imported merchandise;
o interdict and seize contraband, including narcotics and illegal drugs;
and
o protect American business and labor and intellectual property rights by
Counting Investigations and Arrests
enforcing U.S. laws intended to prevent illegal trade practices.
To accomplish its mission, in fiscal year 2002, Customs had a workforce of
over 20,754 employees, 3,031 of which were Special Agent Criminal
Investigators. Customs' budget was $3.6 billion in fiscal year 2002.
From fiscal years 1998 to 2001, the terms investigations and cases meant
the same thing and were initiated by special agents working from
information received from various sources, tips, or confidential
informants. Cases could have also been initiated by other federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies requesting assistance or through joint
task force operations. Customs could also have requested other agencies'
assistance on its cases, and most cases did involve other federal, state,
and local law enforcement agencies, according to Customs Office of
Investigation officials.
Customs officials also said that in fiscal years 1998 to 2001, cases were
entered into the Case Management System within the Treasury Enforcement
Communications System (TECS) when agents, with first line supervisor's
approval, originated them.2 A case number was created, which included the
office identifier (e.g., Los Angeles), the type of case (e.g., money
laundering, narcotics, etc.), and information on how the case got
1On March 1, 2003, the functions of the U.S. Customs Service were
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. Because most of the
investigation and arrest activity reviewed for this study occurred before
the transfer, for this report, we will refer to the former Customs
structure, policies, and procedures.
2An Immigration and Customs Enforcement official said that TECS would
continue to be the case management system within the Department of
Homeland Security for the foreseeable future, at least until 2005 when a
new system under development is scheduled for roll out.
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile
started and who originated it. Other federal agency participation was
usually mentioned in the case summary, but was not identified in a
separate TECS field used for generating case statistics, according to the
officials.
As shown in figure 8, Customs provided us with the numbers of cases closed
between fiscal years 1998 and 2001.
Figure 8: Cases Closed-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
Customs investigations closed 35,000
31,174
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 1998 1999 2000 2001 Fiscal year
Source: U.S. Customs Service.
According to Customs officials, Customs agents could have counted an
arrest if they
o physically made the arrest;
o assisted in making the arrest; or
o discovered the violation, but the arrest was made by other law
enforcement officers.
During fiscal years 1998 to 2001, numbers of arrests were captured in TECS
when agents filled out Reports of Investigation and entered the details
into the system. Customs officials said that agents were to provide
details of their participation in the arrests in the case file. The
narrative
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile
was to be reviewed and approved by a first line supervisor before the
arrests would be counted. TECS data fields required agents to record
whether they were the arresting officers, and if a Customs agent was not
the arresting officer, then the arresting officer's name and agency was to
be input into the system. Customs agents would not count as an arrest the
stopping or detaining of an individual for questioning. Numbers of arrests
were not formally audited for questionable claims, and it was up to the
first and second line supervisors to check the integrity of the
investigations and subsequent arrests that were counted. Figure 9 shows
numbers of arrests and agencies that were involved in the arrests.
Figure 9: Total Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998 to 2001
Customs arrests 14,000
13,000
12,000
11,000
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0
1998 1999 2000 2001
(15,151) (15,694) (14,498) (14,275)
Fiscal year (total)
Customs unilateral
Joint with other federal agencies
Joint with state and local
Joint with foreign
Joint task force
Source: U.S. Customs Service.
Customs officials said that TECS data entry systems are to preclude two or
more Customs offices from claiming the same investigations or arrests, so
there was no double counting within Customs. Whether other agencies
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile
Use of Investigation
and Arrest Statistics
counted investigations and arrests that they worked on with Customs was
not clear to the officials, but they assumed that they did, and rightfully
so. The officials said that cooperation and trust in working together
would be destroyed if participating agencies were not allowed to count
investigations and arrests in which they participated.
From fiscal years 1998 to 2001, Customs officials told us that
investigation and arrest statistics were used as one way to measure
productivity. The officials said, however, that arrests were only one
element in a number of performance management measures, including numbers
of cases, seizures, indictments, prosecutions, and successful wiretaps,
for example, that were used to gauge an office's or agent's performance
throughout the year. Officials said that numbers of arrests were reported
from the field to headquarters twice a year as one way of showing what had
been accomplished. The statistics were readily available, according to the
officials, but special agents were not told that they did not have enough
arrests or would need to increase the number of their arrests.
According to Customs Human Resources officials, investigation and arrest
statistics were not used for special agent promotion purposes. The
officials said that promotions up to the journeyman level were based
primarily on the recommendation of first line supervisors. The journeyman
level was to the GS-12 level through 2000, but was raised to the GS-13
level beginning in 2001.
Before 2000, promotions beyond the journeyman level were competitive and
were based on applicants responding to a series of set questions regarding
the type, complexity, and variety of investigations, not the quantity of
investigations and arrests. The questions were weighted, a score was
generated, and a roster of applicants eligible for promotion was
developed. Beginning in 2000, Customs initiated the SA14 Promotion Test
System. This system was for promotion to the GS 14 level and included
three tests-critical thinking skills, job knowledge, and an assessment of
administrative and planning skills. Once the applicants had passed these
tests, they were further assessed through a structured interview, which
assessed additional leadership skills via situational questions about how
the applicants would handle the various situations. Customs officials said
that promotion to GS-15 is based on a merit promotion system, which used
knowledge, skills, and abilities that were developed for the specific
position.
Appendix V: U.S. Customs Service Profile
Also in fiscal years 1998 to 2001, Customs officials said that
investigation and arrest statistics were used to some degree in award and
bonus decisions, but so were other factors, such as successful court
appearances and prosecutions.
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile
The Immigration and Naturalization Service's (INS) primary mission was to
administer and enforce the nation's immigration laws.1 Among other things,
INS activities included
o determining the admissibility of persons seeking to enter the United
States through an inspections process,
o facilitating entry
o processing and granting immigration-related benefits,
o patrolling the borders,
o deterring and investigating illegal employment,
o providing information to employers and benefit providers to prevent
illicit employment or benefit receipt, and
o disrupting and dismantling organizations engaging in document and
benefit fraud and alien smuggling.
In addition, INS apprehended, detained, and removed aliens present in the
United States without lawful status and/or those who have violated U.S.
criminal laws. As individual aliens engaging in criminal activity and
organizations facilitating illegal immigration are often associated with
other criminal activity, INS also played a role in enforcing U.S. criminal
laws. To perform its mission, in fiscal year 2002, INS had a total of
36,117 employees with a budget of $6.2 billion. The mission was
accomplished through INS's operational offices located on the border, in
the interior, and overseas and through numerous special facilities (e.g.,
detention centers, applications processing centers, and national records
repository) throughout the United States.
INS's Investigations Division was the enforcement arm of the INS charged
with investigating violation of the criminal and administrative provisions
of the Immigration and Nationality Act and other related provisions of the
United States Code. For INS, the investigative case process began with the
receipt of a complaint or other lead by the Investigations Division that
provided a "reason to believe" that a violation of law may have occurred.
An investigation could have been opened as either a preliminary or a full
field investigation. In either case, supervisory approval was required to
initiate an investigation.
Counting Investigations and Arrests
1On March 1, 2003, the functions of the INS were transferred into the
Department of Homeland Security. Because most of the investigation and
arrest activity reviewed for this study occurred before the
reorganization, for this report, we will refer to the former INS agency
structure.
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile
A preliminary investigation was opened when a lead or allegation was not
sufficient enough to warrant a full investigation. In those instances,
limited investigative activities would have been conducted solely for the
purpose of providing enough additional information on which to make an
informed judgment as to appropriate disposition of the matter at hand.
Preliminary inquiries were ordinarily assigned for a period not to exceed
30 days. At the end of that period, a decision was to be made whether to
o close the investigation without further action,
o extend the inquiry for no more than an additional 30 days, or
o assign the matter for a full field investigation.
A full field investigation may have been opened on the basis of
sufficient,
articulable facts that were in existence at the time of initial review,
developed during the conduct of a preliminary inquiry, or assigned as a
headquarters-designated case.2 Full field investigations consisted of all
investigative or enforcement activities necessary to bring an
investigation
to its logical conclusion.
Under INS's Investigations Case Management System (ICMS),3 a
Form G-600 was prepared when an investigation was opened. The G-600
was basically an index card used to track and document the progress or
termination of investigations. Information about the investigation, such
as
the case number, date opened, agent assigned, etc., was initially recorded
on the G-600. Additional information would have been added to the G-600
as the investigation progressed. First line supervisors maintained the
G-600s for the investigations by agents in their units.
Each investigative unit (e.g., field office, port of entry, or border
patrol
office) prepared a detailed monthly report, called an Investigations
Activity Report of Field Operations (G-23 Report). The G-23 Report was a
2INS also had a category for "Auxiliary Investigations," which were
investigations done in one district's jurisdiction at the request of
another district. An investigation conducted under this situation must
have met the basic definition of an investigation, and a completed
auxiliary investigation was given the same status and credit as a full
field investigation.
3The ICMS was not a computer-based system; it was a hard copy, manual
documentation system. The Criminal Investigations Reporting System was
implemented in INS on October 1, 2002; it is a computer-based system that
replaced the ICMS for the initiating and tracking of cases.
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile
record of the number of cases opened or completed, the number of hours
worked, and the results of the investigations. The report was a matrix of
rows and columns, with the columns showing the number of cases received,
opened, completed, etc., and the rows showing the category of cases, for
example, trafficking, criminals, or employers. Hard copies of the G-23
Reports were maintained at the unit level and required supervisory
signature.
At the beginning of each month, the data from the G-23s for the previous
month were keyed into the Performance Analysis System (PAS). Each office
was to close out its monthly statistical reporting on the last working day
of each month. They then had 8 working days to consolidate the unit
workload counts into office level totals and key the data into PAS. After
the eighth day, the PAS system was to be locked down and no further data
entry would have been possible by the field offices. The data were
strictly numbers of activities and did not identify individual
investigations or agents.
As shown in figure 10, INS provided us with the number of investigations
opened and closed for fiscal years 1998 through 2001.
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile
Table 10: Investigations Opened and Closed and Arrests-Fiscal Years 1998-2001
INS investigations and arrests
150,000
125,000
100,000
75,000
50,000
25,000 0
Fiscal year 1998 1999 2000 2001
Investigations opened
(total) (132,098) (143,553) (139,991) (124,016)
Investigations closed
(total) (127,259) (138,341) (138,500) (123,617)
Arrests
(total) (121,427) (132,428) (135,598) (118,670)
Source: INS.
According to INS's manual, The Law of Arrest, Search, and Seizure for
Immigration Officers, an arrest occurred when a reasonable person in the
suspect's position would conclude that he or she was under arrest. An
arrest did not depend solely on whether the officer had announced that the
suspect was under arrest. An arrest was to be supported by probable cause
to believe that the person had committed an offense against the United
States. Probable cause is knowledge or trustworthy information of facts
and circumstances that would lead a reasonable, prudent person to believe
that an offense had been committed or was being committed by the person to
be arrested.
An INS officer was authorized to make arrests for both administrative
(civil) and criminal violations of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
According to INS officials, a Form I-213, Record of Deportable Alien, was
to be completed to record administrative arrests, which were the bulk of
INS arrests. A Form G-166, Report of Investigation was to be completed
when a criminal arrest was made. Supervisory review and signature at the
bottom of the forms verified that the arrest occurred.
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile
Use of Investigation
and Arrest Statistics
Arrests were counted and recorded into the PAS system in the same manner
as the investigations. That is, at the end of each month, a manual count
of the arrest forms would be made and then support staff would enter the
data into PAS.
Officials told us that INS's Office of Internal Audits conducted reviews
of investigation files. Each district office was to be reviewed about
every 3 years. For each district, a representative number of
investigations would be reviewed to determine whether INS policies and
procedures were followed and that all investigative documentation was
complete. While the purpose of these reviews was to ensure that INS
procedures were followed, an INS official said that the review could be
considered as verification that the documentation of the arrests were
valid and proper.
INS officials told us that, after the data have been entered into PAS,
INS's Operational Analysis Branch (OAB) printed out a Monthly Statistics
Report, which was distributed to INS upper level management. OAB also
printed a Workload Summary Report on a quarterly basis. According to INS
officials, the reports were an accounting of the work INS performed and
could have been used to assist in making resource allocations and staffing
decisions. The officials said that the data could also have been reviewed
to see if there were any trend indicators about shifts in criminal
activity.
INS Human Resources officials said that INS employee performance
evaluations were not based on investigation and arrest statistics. Rather,
employees were evaluated on how well they performed their jobs. INS agents
were evaluated annually, and their supervisor wrote up narratives about
how well an agent was performing. There were no set job elements that had
to be covered, and the supervisor determined what should be evaluated and
how well the agent was performing.
Concerning promotions, the Human Resources officials said that promotions
up to the journeyman level were based primarily on the recommendation of
first line supervisors. Promotions beyond the journeyman level were
competitive and based on a scored assessment, which covered the following
four critical factors:
o Job experience: This factor was worth 30 percent and described the
assignments the individual had had and other collateral duties.
Appendix VI: Immigration and Naturalization Service Profile
o Decision making: This factor was worth 30 percent and tested the
individual's decision-making process and problem solving abilities by
asking a series of questions about hypothetical situations.
o In-basket job simulation: This factor was worth 20 percent and tested
the individual's administrative skills in organizing work, setting
priorities, delegating work, etc. Individuals were given 45 minutes to
review a series of documents and then given 45 minutes to answer 50
questions about how to deal with certain events on the basis of the
documents they reviewed.
o Managerial writing: This factor was worth 20 percent and tested the
individual's writing skills and knowledge of proper grammar syntax,
paragraph structure, and report organization.
INS provided, via the Department of Justice, budget requests to Congress
each fiscal year. We reviewed INS's budget requests for fiscal years 2003
and 2002 to determine the extent, if any, investigation and arrest
statistics were used as justification for increase resources.
Investigation and arrest statistics were not used, in either table or
narrative forms, as a basis for justifying an increase in resources.
Investigation and arrest activities were discussed, however, but in the
very broadest terms, for example:
o "Although an eventual reduction in arrests is a primary indicator of
illegal entry attempts (and therefore deterrence), other critical
indicators include decrease in border related crime, decrease in
recidivism, shifting of illegal activity to non-traditional points of
entry and through non-traditional methods, increase smuggling fees,
increase in property values and commercial and public development along
the border, etc."
o "INS will initiate high priority investigations, conduct asset
seizures, and present individuals for prosecution for alien smuggling
related violations to disrupt the means and methods that facilitate alien
smuggling."
o "As a result of INS efforts, many alien smugglers, fraud
organizations, and facilitators were arrested and presented for
prosecution; assets were seized; and aliens with a nexus to organized
crime, violent gangs, drug trafficking gangs, or who have
terrorist-related affiliations, were apprehended."
Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile
The U.S. Marshals Service's mission is to protect the federal courts and
the judicial system, apprehend federal fugitives, and manage seized
assets. Regarding federal fugitives, the Marshals Service's
responsibilities are to
o locate and arrest federal fugitives, including prison escapees, bail
jumpers, and parole and probation violators;
o enforce bench warrants issued by federal judges and warrants issued at
the request of other federal agencies; and
o serve as the "booking agent" for suspects arrested for federal
offenses.
Counting Investigations and Arrests
To perform its mission, in fiscal year 2002, the Marshals Service had a
total of 4,134 employees, of which about 2,700 were U.S. Marshals and
Deputy U.S. Marshals. The Marshals Service's budget was $676.5 million in
fiscal year 2002. The Director, Deputy Director, and 94 U.S. Marshals
direct the activities of 95 district offices and personnel stationed at
more than 350 locations throughout the 50 states, Guam, Northern Mariana
Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.
For the Marshals Service, an investigation consists of locating and
arresting a federal fugitive. The Marshals Service initiates fugitive
investigations in response to two basic scenarios. In the first, an
individual has already been in the federal criminal justice system and has
subsequently become a fugitive. The fugitive may have failed to make a
court appearance, escaped from custody, or violated the terms of parole or
supervised release. In each of these instances, the court issues a warrant
and the Marshals Service is responsible for investigating, apprehending,
and arresting the fugitive. In the second scenario, another law
enforcement agency has investigated an individual, the individual has been
indicted and a warrant issued, and the agency requests that the Marshals
Service make the apprehension. Unlike other law enforcement agencies that
investigate the commission of a crime, the Marshals Service investigations
primarily consist of locating (tracking down) and arresting federal
fugitives.
The Marshals Service uses its Warrant Information Network to track the
number of fugitive warrants received and closed. The network is a
computer-based automated system that manages records and information
collected during investigations of fugitives. The system can also provide
data for analyses that are used to report information to Congress or for
management purposes, for example, to provide a listing of active warrants
Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile
for a specific offense or for a district or suboffice. Figure 11 shows the
number of warrants closed for fiscal years 1998-2001.
Figure 11: Warrants Closed by the Marshals Service and by Other
Agencies-Fiscal Years 1998-2002
Marshals warrants closed
40,000
35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0 1998 1999 2000 2001
(47,219) (53,991) (58,066) (59,251)
Fiscal year (total)
Closed by Marshals
Closed by other agencies
Source: U.S. Marshals Service.
The Marshals Service takes custody of all federal prisoners arrested by
all federal officials empowered to make arrests. The Marshals Service
Prisoner Tracking System (PTS) maintains a record of all suspects arrested
for federal offenses and booked by the Marshals Service. The Marshals
Service claims arrests on its workload statistics if a deputy marshal
actually makes the arrest, based on a federal fugitive warrant. If another
law enforcement agency brings a prisoner to the Marshals Service for
booking, that agency would be recorded as the arresting agency in the PTS.
When either a deputy marshal or an agent from another federal agency, such
as the DEA, FBI, or Customs Service, presents a federal prisoner for
booking by the Marshals Service, the following procedures are followed:
Appendix VII: U.S. Marshals Service Profile
o A Marshals Service Form 312 (Prisoner Personal History) is filled out,
and the prisoner is fingerprinted and photographed. The form contains
background information on the prisoner, the charges, case number, and
which agency brought the prisoner in for booking.
o The agent (e.g., DEA) that fills out the Marshals Service Form 312 is
called the lead agent and that agency will be credited with the arrest in
the PTS. Only one agency is listed as the arresting agency even though
many agencies may have participated in a joint operation through a task
force. However, there is a space for indicating whether the case was a
joint operation, but it is not mandatory to fill it out.
o The Form 312 information is entered into the PTS.
Use of Investigation
and Arrest Statistics
Marshals Service officials told us that investigation and arrest
statistics are used as workload measures; for example, to show how many
prisoners were produced for court appearances. With these statistics, they
said that they could show workload projections to justify budget requests.
The officials also said that investigation and arrest statistics are used
to manage programs, set policies, and allocate funds and positions. For
example, on the basis of an assessment of workload statistics, the number
of positions at a particular courthouse was decreased in fiscal year 2002.
Marshals Service officials also said that investigation and arrest
statistics are not used for making promotion, bonus, or award decisions.
Criteria that are considered for promotions, for example, include time in
grade, technical knowledge, analytical/problem solving ability, time
management, and interpersonal relationships. For higher grades, management
skills-including organization and planning, budget management, and human
resource management--are also considered for promotions.
Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation
We found Operation Marquis on the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA)
Web site when we searched for drug trafficking investigations involving
multiple federal law enforcement agencies. The Web site indicated that
Operation Marquis was coordinated by DEA's Special Operations Division
(SOD)-a joint Department of Justice (Justice), DEA, the Federal Bureaus of
Investigation (FBI), U.S. Customs Service (Customs), and the Internal
Revenue Service program-and was conducted in 1999, 2000, and 2001.
Attorneys from Justice's Criminal Division, and agents and analysts from
participating law enforcement agencies staffed the investigation.
Operation Marquis targeted a Mexico-based drug trafficking organization
responsible for putting tens of millions of dollars worth of cocaine and
marijuana on the streets of at least a dozen U.S. cities. According to
DEA's Web site, over 300 individuals were arrested as a result of the
operation. In addition to arrests, the investigation resulted in the
seizure of 8,645 kilograms of cocaine, 23,096 pounds of marijuana, 50
pounds of methamphetamine, and $13 million in U.S. currency.
On DEA's Web site, several Justice and Customs officials commented on the
success of Operation Marquis, including:
o "These law enforcement activities will have a measurable impact on
drug trafficking across our Southwest Border. The work completed in this
case emphasizes the importance of interagency cooperation in targeting and
investigating drug trafficking organizations."-from an FBI assistant
director.
o "This investigation demonstrates what can be achieved when law
enforcement efforts are coordinated and resources are pooled. Operation
Marquis shut down a sprawling criminal network that plagued communities
throughout the country."-from the then-Acting Customs Commissioner.
We asked DEA and the FBI to provide us with the names of individuals that
they had counted in their arrest statistics for Operation Marquis. Both
agencies independently generated a list of individuals they counted as
having been arrested as part of Operation Marquis. Specifically, DEA
counted 331 arrests and the FBI counted 154 arrests. After comparing the
lists, we were able to match eight names as having been counted as arrests
by each agency.
Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation
We also asked DEA and FBI officials whether they had been designated as
the lead or assist agency, how many special agents they had assigned
throughout the investigation and at various times during the progress of
the investigation, and whether their agents were physically present during
the arrests. In addition, we asked if the amount of time their agents
spent on the investigation could be determined.
DEA officials told us that the investigation was initiated through its SOD
and that DEA was the lead agency. DEA told us that there were about 46
lead criminal investigators assigned to Operation Marquis; however,
because their statistical data systems do not record such information, DEA
officials could not tell us whether DEA agents were present at the arrests
counted by DEA. A DEA official, however, did tell us that agents logged
217,937 work hours on investigations that comprised Operation Marquis.
FBI Criminal Investigation Division officials also told us that Operation
Marquis was a DEA-initiated investigation and that DEA was the lead
agency. Seven FBI field offices were involved: San Antonio, Houston,
Dallas, Memphis, Charlotte, Kansas City, and Little Rock. Because their
statistical data systems do not record such information, the FBI officials
said that there is no way to determine exactly how many agents
participated in some manner with Operation Marquis. However, they said SOD
investigations typically have two FBI staff coordinators assigned to an
investigation. In addition, each field office typically assigns one lead
agent, who works an investigation full-time, and possibly a co-case agent,
who would work the investigation part-time. There also could have been
several agents in any given field office working on or assisting with
parts of the investigation on a part-time basis, for example, helping to
setup or monitor a wiretap.
Also, because their statistical data systems do not record information by
operation, FBI officials said that there is no way to tell how many agents
participated in the physical arrest of individuals for Operation Marquis..
Usually, at least one or two FBI agents make or assist in an arrest, but
the officials could not tell us the role played by their agents with
regard to any of the individual arrests. Moreover, FBI officials could not
tell us how many hours agents spent on the investigation because agents do
not record their time by case number, but rather by the type of work
performed, such as bank robbery
We asked DEA and FBI officials whether, as a result of the numbers of
arrests, special agents were given awards, promotions, bonuses, etc. DEA
officials said that they did not know how many, if any, agents received
Appendix VIII: Drug Trafficking Investigation
awards, promotions, or bonuses for their work on Operation Marquis. The
FBI Criminal Investigation Division officials said they knew of no awards,
promotions, or bonuses given as a result of Operation Marquis.
Appendix IX: Child Pornography Investigation
A U.S. Customs Service (Customs) Special Agent in Lake Charles, Louisiana,
initiated Operation Bayou Blaster on October 1, 1994. The Customs agent
developed a plan to set up an undercover operation that targeted
individuals involved in the sexual exploitation of children via the
Internet. Customs and U.S. Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) officials
told us that a fake child pornography Web site was used to arrest
individuals who ordered material from the Web site. USPIS was asked to
participate by making some of the deliveries of the pornographic material,
but not all.
All operational and undercover activity related to Operation Bayou Blaster
ceased on February 23, 2001. Customs arrested 100 individuals through the
efforts of more than 400 special agents who were involved at various times
over the 6-year duration of the operation.
We asked Customs and USPIS to provide us with the names of individuals
included in agency arrest statistics for Operation Bayou Blaster. Customs
provided us with a list of the 100 individuals that were arrested, but
USPIS was not able to generate a list of arrests that resulted from
Operation Bayou Blaster. However, at our request, USPIS crosschecked its
database with the 100 names provided by Customs. USPIS was able to match
30 arrestees, who had the same dates of birth, year arrested, and location
arrested, in their database as the Customs list. USPIS officials noted
that USPIS was asked to assist on only 30 of the deliveries.
We also asked Customs and USPIS officials whether they had been designated
as the lead or assist agency, how many special agents they had assigned
throughout the operation and at various times during the progress of the
operation, whether their agents were physically present during the
arrests, and their roles in the arrests. In addition, we asked if the
amount of time their agents spent on the operation could be determined.
Customs officials said that Customs was the lead agency for the operation.
They told us that of the over 400 agents involved through the more than 6
years of the operation, many of them participated in the arrests. However,
because their statistical data systems do not capture such information,
they were unable to tell us whether the agents were physically present at
the arrests, or what exactly were their roles in the arrests. The
officials provided a list showing that Customs agents had charged over
78,000 hours to this operation.
USPIS officials told us that Customs was the lead agency for the
operation, and USPIS had no lead special agent for Operation Bayou
Blaster. The
Appendix IX: Child Pornography Investigation
officials said that Customs calls on USPIS all the time to assist in the
delivery of pornographic materials. A USPIS official said 20 inspectors
were involved with the 30 arrests claimed by USPIS; however, because their
statistical data systems do not capture such information, the official was
unable to say whether the inspectors were physically present at the
arrests or what role the inspectors played in the arrests. The official
told us that inspectors logged over 1,700 hours on Operation Bayou
Blaster.
We asked Customs and USPIS officials whether, as a result of the arrests,
special agents were given awards, promotions, bonuses, etc. As far as
Customs officials knew, there were no awards, promotions, or bonuses given
to the agents as a result of the Operation. The officials also said that
with the large number of Customs agents involved in the Operation, it
would be difficult to determine whether any awards, bonuses, or promotions
were a direct result of the Operation. USPIS officials could not tell us
if inspector participation in Operation Bayou Blaster resulted in any
awards, bonuses, or promotions.
Appendix X: Counterterrorism Investigation
We discussed a closed counterterrorism operation with Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) and Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS)
officials. Between October 11, 2001, and April 17, 2002, the Joint
Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) in New Orleans conducted this operation based
on information that a telephone number associated with one subject in the
United States had been contacted by a pay phone known to be used by the
Taliban/al Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Shortly after the operation began, an INS agent assigned to the JTTF was
asked to obtain INS files on six subjects to determine their immigration
status in the United States. It was found that the six subjects had been
released from INS custody while seeking asylum. As a result of reports of
suspicious activity, the INS district director decided to revoke their
paroles and, on January 12, 2002, the six individuals were taken back into
custody while their asylum applications or appeals were pending. At the
conclusion of their cases, four of the individuals were removed from the
country, and, as of February 6, 2004, two were being held for removal.
We asked the FBI and INS to provide us with the names of individuals
included in agency arrest statistics for this investigation. The FBI
provided us with a list of the six individuals whose arrests were included
in its statistics. INS provided us with a list of the six individuals, but
told us that even though these six individuals were taken into custody,
INS did not include them in agency arrest statistics because INS had
previously arrested these individuals in 1999; these arrests were counted
for statistical purposes at that time. Comparison of the lists of names
provided by the FBI and INS revealed that the six individuals arrested by
INS in 1999 and taken back into custody in 2002, and the six individuals
counted as arrests by the FBI in 2002, were the same six individuals.
While apprehending these individuals, FBI and INS agents encountered and
arrested two other aliens whose immigration documents were no longer
valid. INS counted these two subjects as arrests for, respectively, a
nonimmigrant overstaying his or her visa and illegal entry into the United
States.
We asked FBI and INS officials whether they had been designated as the
lead or assist agency, how many special agents they had assigned
throughout the operation and at various times during the progress of the
operation, and whether their agents were physically present during the
arrests. In addition, we asked if the amount of time their agents spent on
the operation could be determined.
Appendix X: Counterterrorism Investigation
FBI Counterterrorism Division officials told us that both the FBI and INS
initiated the operation, with the FBI taking the lead in the operation.
FBI officials said two FBI agents were assigned full-time and numerous
others helped with such matters as surveillance. The officials could not
tell us how many hours agents spent on the operation, since agents do not
record their time by operation, but rather by the type of work performed,
such as bank robbery.
INS officials also told us that the FBI initiated the operation and that
INS became involved when the FBI asked INS agents on the JTTF for their
assistance. INS officials told us that no INS agents were specifically
assigned to the operation; one of the two INS agents in the JTTF assisted
in this operation. After the apprehensions on January 12, 2002, the INS
agent assisted the FBI in the continued operation-checking the status of
other aliens whose names appeared in records, reviewing INS files,
assisting with interviews, etc. INS officials could not tell us how many
hours agents spent on the operation because agents do not record their
time by operation, but rather by the type of work performed.
FBI Counterterrorism Division officials said that both the FBI and INS
participated in the physical arrest of the six individuals; however, they
could not tell us the exact number of FBI agents present at the arrests.
INS officials also told us the same thing; that both the FBI and INS
participated in the apprehension of the six individuals. Specifically,
seven INS agents, two INS supervisory special agents, and four INS
deportation officers participated in the apprehension, according to the
officials.
We asked FBI and INS officials whether, as a result of the arrests,
special agents were given awards, promotions, bonuses, etc. FBI
Counterterrorism Division officials said two agents received $500 awards
for their performance on this operation. INS officials told us no INS
agents received awards for their participation in the operation.
Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Page 56 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement
Appendix XI: Comments from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service
Page 57 GAO-04-411 Federal Law Enforcement
Appendix XII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Staff Acknowledgments
(440180)
Paul Jones (202) 512-8777 Darryl Dutton (213) 830-1086
In addition to those named above, the following individuals contributed to
this report: Tim Outlaw, Doris Page, Carolyn Ikeda, Alison Heafitz,
Christine Davis, and Amy Bernstein.
GAO's Mission
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files.
To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order GAO Products"
heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out
to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D.C.
20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***