Our objectives were to evaluate whether the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) had: 1) developed an adequate strategic goal and objectives that were consistent with the Department's strategic goals and objectives, 2) established performance indicators for all the decision units included in its budget requests, and 3) established an effective system of controls to collect, analyze, and report data related to its performance indicators. We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and included such tests as were considered necessary to accomplish our objectives. Our audit concentrated on, but was not limited to, the period October 1, 2000, through May 28, 2003.

We performed audit work at the DEA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. and at its field divisions in Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and New York. At these locations, we determined if the:

• DEA had developed an adequate strategic goal and objectives. To perform this test, we obtained the DEA's FY 2001-2006 Strategic Plan and proposed FY 2003-2008 Strategic Plan and the Department's FY 2001-2006 Strategic Plan. We then compared the strategic goal and objectives in the DEA's plan to the strategic goals and objectives in the Department's plan to ensure the DEA's goal and objectives were consistent with those of the Department. We also reviewed the DEA's goal and objectives to determine if they were quantitative, directly measurable, or assessment-based as required by Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11 to allow for a future assessment of whether the goal and objectives were being achieved.
• DEA had developed performance indicators for each decision unit included in its budget requests. To perform this test, we obtained the DEA's FY 2003 and FY 2004 budget submissions. We then reviewed the budgets to determine if the DEA reported performance indicators for the decision units included in the budget requests and reported performance results for each performance indicator.
• DEA established specific criteria for the selection of priority targets. To complete this test, we interviewed the responsible DEA personnel for the 248 FY 2001 priority target organizations reported for the five field divisions we reviewed to determine what criteria they used to establish the organizations as priority targets. We also interviewed DEA Headquarters officials to determine whether they had issued criteria for selecting priority targets.
• DEA established specific criteria to decide whether a priority target organization should be classified as disrupted or dismantled. To complete this test, we interviewed the responsible DEA personnel for the 41 FY 2001 priority target organizations reported as disrupted and dismantled for the five field divisions we reviewed to determine what criteria they used to classify the organizations as either disrupted or dismantled. We also interviewed DEA Headquarters officials to determine whether they had issued criteria for classifying priority target organizations as either disrupted or dismantled.
• DEA had developed an effective system to collect, track, and report performance data related to its performance indicators. To perform this test, we interviewed officials from the DEA and reviewed the PTARRS training manuals and the system data from the PTARRS and manual spreadsheet applications used to collect, track, and report performance data related to its performance indicators. We then requested that the DEA field division personnel log into the PTARRS application to demonstrate the system controls, as well as how they ensure the priority target information reported in PTARRS is complete and accurate.
• DEA had established procedures to verify the data related to its performance indicators. To perform this test, we reviewed the user guide and training manuals and reviewed the controls and procedures in place for tracking investigative cases in PTARRS. We then requested the DEA field division personnel log into the PTARRS application to demonstrate the system controls, as well as how they ensure the priority target information reported in PTARRS is complete and accurate. We also obtained the accreditation package that was used to evaluate the PTARRS to determine if the DEA had evaluated the risks and controls in place within the system.
• DEA accurately reported priority target performance data for FY 2001.¹⁴ To perform this test, we obtained the list of FY 2001 priority target organizations entered into the DEA's manual spreadsheet application. The DEA identified 726 FY 2001 priority targets. From that list, we identified the 248 FY 2001 priority target organizations associated with five selected field divisions (Atlanta, Chicago, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and New York). We then either physically verified the priority target organizations to the case files (for priority target organization investigations managed by the field division visited) or requested that the respective field division sub-office certify the priority target organizations investigated as priority targets (for priority target organization investigations managed by the field division sub-offices) to determine the reliability and accuracy of the performance data reported in the PTARRS. In addition, we obtained the list of FY 2001 disrupted and dismantled priority target organizations reported in the manual spreadsheet application for the same five selected field divisions. The DEA identified 100 priority target organizations disrupted and dismantled in FY 2001. From that list, we identified 41 disrupted or dismantled priority target organizations in the five selected field divisions. We then interviewed the DEA personnel responsible for investigating those organizations to confirm whether those targets were disrupted or dismantled, and to determine the impact the targets had on the United States. We also had the DEA personnel provide details from the case files of the outcome of the investigations such as the number of individuals arrested and convicted and the assets seized.
• DEA established reasonable priority target goals in its FY 2003 and FY 2004 congressional budget requests. To complete this test, we reviewed the actual and planned priority target performance data reported in the DEA's budget requests. We then interviewed DEA personnel to discuss the bases for those goals to determine if the DEA's performance goals were reasonable.

14. Because agency budget requests are prepared well in advance of the fiscal year they fund, the budgets contain actual performance results for the period two fiscal years prior to the budget year. Consequently, an agency's FY 2003 budget includes actual performance results for FY 2001 and its FY 2004 budget contains actual performance results for FY 2002.