Audit Objectives

The objectives of this audit were to:  (1) examine the accuracy and completeness of the data regarding USAO resource utilization and cases, as well as to assess the process by which personnel resources are allocated among USAOs; (2) determine the allocation and utilization of attorneys within USAOs; and (3) determine the changes in USAO casework from FY 2003 through FY 2007.

Scope and Methodology

We performed our audit in accordance with the Government Auditing Standards and included such tests of the records and procedures that we considered necessary to achieve the audit objectives.

To accomplish our objectives, we interviewed officials at EOUSA and reviewed empirical USAO resource allocation, resource utilization, and casework data.

Interviews

During the course of our review, we interviewed officials within the various sections of EOUSA, including the Director and Deputy Directors. Additionally, we spoke with USAO officials detailed to EOUSA; officials from the Northern District of Illinois, including the U.S. Attorney; and the U.S. Attorney from the Central District of Illinois. These interviews, as well as documentation obtained during these discussions, provided perspective on the resource-related and casework issues covered by our audit objectives. In total, we interviewed 44 EOUSA and USAO officials.

Resource and Casework Data

To assist in accomplishing our audit objectives, we analyzed data provided by EOUSA. Specifically, we conducted analyses of USAO resource allocation, resource utilization, and casework data. To examine the USAOs’ human resource utilization, we analyzed data from the USAOs’ time recordkeeping system – the USA-5 – for the period of FYs 2003 through 2007. This system captures the time of attorneys, paralegals, and support staff within each USAO. To examine the types and quantity of work handled by the USAOs during this same time period, we analyzed data from the USAOs’ case management system – LIONS.

Internal Controls and Compliance with Laws and Regulations

Our audit objectives were informational in nature. Our assessment of internal controls was limited to our review of USAO data contained in the USA-5 system and LIONS. As noted in the body of this report, we identified concerns with the accuracy and reliability of the data contained within these automated systems. While we believe that these issues may affect the analyses performed, we believe that the overall results presented have utility for looking at the USAOs as a whole to gain a basic understanding of the agency’s resource utilization and workload. We did not perform an independent, overall assessment of the reliability of the data in the USAOs’ automated systems. Further, we determined examining compliance with laws and regulations was not significant to our objectives.

Data Analysis

We performed analyses of USAO resource allocation, resource utilization, and casework data to identify trends and note significant changes in the USAOs’ operations from FY 2003 to FY 2007. In total, this data was comprised of 4,086,902 records.

USAO Human Resources

We conducted analyses of USAO resource allocation and utilization data.

Allocated Resource Levels

We used data maintained in the Resource Management and Planning Staff’s database to analyze the allocation of USAO resources.⁴⁸ EOUSA has tracked the specific areas to which positions have been allocated to district offices since 2000, such as counterterrorism and corporate fraud. Allocations made prior to 2000 are combined into a category entitled “general.” We obtained the attorney allocations of each USAO to the greatest level of detail available for each fiscal year of our review period, focusing on changes occurring between FYs 2003 and 2007. The total allocated attorney FTE data amounted to 5,818 records.

Resource Utilization Levels

Most USAO employees record their time into the USA-5 system, at a minimum, on a monthly basis.⁴⁹ When completing the USA-5, USAO personnel record either the actual number of hours worked or the percentage of hours worked (based on an 8-hour day) to USA-5 categories that are attributed to the type of function or duty being performed. For example, for any 8-hour day, an attorney might record that he worked 4 hours handling a civil rights case, 2 hours on a narcotics-related trial, and another 2 hours on criminal appeals. The data entered into the USA-5 is then converted into FTEs. However, the USA-5 data is only as valid as the information reported by USAO personnel. EOUSA considers the USA-5 system’s data to be the best way to assess the actual amount worked by USAO attorneys in specific prosecutorial areas.

During our review period, the USA-5A information was tracked separately and was not maintained in association with a particular USA‑5 category. As a result, the USA-5 data run associated with attorney regular time was provided in two text files, which we imported into two separate database files. These data runs contained a total of 351,430 records and contained information within 5 different fields. Each data run had the same fields. However, the category field within one of the data runs tracked time recorded to USA-5 categories, while the category field in the other data run indicated the USA-5A category used. Following is a listing of the fields used as part of our analyses:

Field Name	Field Description
•  District	2- or 3-character designation for USAO
•  Month-Year	Identifier of month and year to which record applies (mmm-yyyy format)
•  Category	USA-5 or USA-5A category code
•  Category Description	Description of USA-5 or USA-5A category
•  Attorney Permanent FTE	Number of attorney FTEs spent on a particular activity

We analyzed the resource utilization data by fiscal year. Since the data provided was according to month, we totaled the attorney FTEs for all months within each fiscal year for each USA-5 and USA-5A category. Next, we divided this total by 12 months to obtain the annualized average number of personnel working on a particular prosecutorial area in a given fiscal year.

Additionally, we found that EOUSA tracks attorney’s additional time separately, which is maintained in terms of hours. Therefore, we obtained another USA-5 data run associated with additional attorney hours, which was provided in two text files – one for the USA-5 categories and another for the USA-5A categories. These data runs, in total, amounted to 351,430 records, which we imported into 2 separate database files. As with the attorney regular time, each data run had the same fields and was tracked in the same way.

We also analyzed the additional resource utilization data by fiscal year. Since the data provided was in terms of hours, we totaled the additional attorney hours for all months within each fiscal year for each USA-5 and USA-5A category. Next, we divided each total by 2,080 hours to obtain the average number of personnel working on a particular prosecutorial area in a given fiscal year. This computation provided us with the reported number of FTEs involved in the various prosecutorial areas. Finally, to provide an overall evaluation of the number of attorney resources expended on various prosecutorial areas, we combined the results of the regular attorney FTEs with the additional attorney FTEs by USA-5 category and USA-5A category.

On-board Attorney Levels

We also attempted to analyze the actual number of on-board attorneys over the course of our review period. However, the on-board data provided by EOUSA was not consistent and contained anomalies. After we found that the initial data appeared illogical, we requested more detailed on-board data. However, our review of the new on-board attorney data provided by EOUSA continued to reveal inconsistencies and anomalies. For example, the data showed significant variations in the number of on-board attorneys within individual USAOs from pay period to pay period. EOUSA was unable to explain these variations but provided us with new data files containing on-board attorney information. We reviewed these new data files and continued to have questions surrounding the accuracy of the information. Given the concerns about the accuracy of the information in the various on-board data files provided, we did not include an on-board attorney analysis within our report.

USAO Casework

For our analyses of the USAO casework, we received various data runs from LIONS, focusing on matters referred, matters declined, cases filed, cases pending, and cases terminated from FY 2003 to FY 2007. The data runs were provided in text files and each one was imported into separate database files.

Matters Referred

The text file received on the matters referred to USAOs was imported into a database file and contained 979,213 records. The data was separated into the following fields:

Field Name	Field Description
•  Fiscal Year	The fiscal year of the matter
•  USAOID	Number that identifies all tables connected to a civil/criminal matter (USAO Number)
•  District	Code for the district handling the civil/criminal matter
•  Program Category (Criminal)	Code for the program category that further defines the type of criminal matter, e.g., Health Care Fraud
•  Cause of Action (Civil)	Code for the cause of action of the civil matter, e.g., COSL (Student Loan)
•  Received Date	Date when the civil/criminal matter was received in the USAO

Declinations

We received two separate text files for criminal matters declined by USAOs, one for immediate declinations and another for later declinations. After importing these files into two separate database files, we appended them and created one file for all declinations, which totaled 152,392 records. The data was separated into the following fields:

Field Name	Field Description
•  Fiscal Year	The fiscal year of the declination
•  USAOID	Number that identifies all tables connected to a criminal action (USAO Number)
•  District	Code for the district handling the criminal action
•  Program Category (Criminal)	Code for the program category that further defines the type of criminal action, e.g., Health Care Fraud
•  Declination Reason	Code that identifies the reason a criminal action was declined, e.g., JTRD (Jury Trial District Court)

Cases Filed

The text file received on the cases filed by USAOs was imported into a database file and contained 680,551 records. The data was separated into the following fields:

Field Name	Field Description
•  Fiscal Year	The fiscal year of the filed case
•  USAOID	Number that identifies all tables connected to a civil/criminal case (USAO Number)
•  District	Code for the district handling the civil/criminal case
•  Cause of Action (Civil)	Code for the cause of action of the civil case, e.g., COSL (Student Loan)
•  Program Category (Criminal)	Code for the program category that further defines the type of criminal case, e.g., Health Care Fraud
•  Filing Date	Date the instrument was filed in court
•  System Filing Date	Date that the filing date information was entered into LIONS

Cases Pending

The text file received on the cases pending at USAOs was imported into a database file and contained 910,347 records. The data was separated into the following fields:

Field Name	Field Description
•  Fiscal Year	The fiscal year of the filed case
•  USAOID	Number that identifies all tables connected to a civil/criminal case (USAO Number)
•  District	Code for the district handling the civil/criminal case
•  Cause of Action (Civil)	Code for the cause of action of the civil case, e.g., COSL (Student Loan)
•  Program Category (Criminal)	Code for the program category that further defines the type of criminal case, e.g., Health Care Fraud

Cases Terminated

The text file received on the cases terminated by USAOs was imported into a database file and contained 655,721 records. The data was separated into the same fields as the cases pending data.

Methodology for Analyses

According to an EOUSA official, each matter or case is assigned a unique USAOID within a particular district. However, multiple districts could have the same USAOID associated with their own particular matter or case. As a result, EOUSA examines both the USAOID and district fields to ensure that it accounts for all matters and cases handled by USAOs, including those matters and cases with the same USAOID but associated with different district offices. For purposes of our review, we created a unique USAOID field that combined the USAOID number with the district name for each of the casework data runs previously mentioned.

Further, within each data run, we separated the information into civil-related casework and criminal-related casework. To obtain all criminal-related records, we extracted the data according to the program category codes. Similarly, to obtain all civil-related records, we extracted the data according to the cause of action codes. It should be noted that the immediate and later declinations tracked within LIONS apply only to criminal matters. Therefore, we did not have to separate the declination data into criminal and civil declinations.

For the majority of our casework analyses, we reviewed the types and numbers of criminal matters referred to USAOs and determined if those matters were filed for prosecution, declined, or remained pending. To perform this analysis, we joined data from the matters referred database to the cases filed and declinations databases according to the unique USAOID field contained within each database. The results of this analysis showed the status of criminal matters referred to USAOs during a particular fiscal year. It did not show when a matter was actually filed for prosecution or declined. For example, our analyses may have revealed that between FYs 2003 and 2007, the USAOs filed 1,000 narcotics matters that were referred during FY 2003. Although these 1,000 matters were referred in FY 2003, they may not have all been filed during that fiscal year. Some of them may also have been filed in FYs 2004, 2005, 2006, or 2007. We were then able to compute the number of criminal matters that remained pending as of September 30, 2007, by subtracting the number of matters filed and declined from the matters referred during a given fiscal year.

To gain insight into the universe of pending matters in LIONS, we judgmentally selected a sample of 50 pending criminal matters from the 196,906 total pending criminal matters identified during our review period. We focused our sample on five prosecutorial areas: (1) immigration, (2) narcotics, (3) terrorism, (4) violent crime, and (5) white collar crime. Within each of these areas, we selected 10 pending matters and opted to choose 2 records from each fiscal year of our review period (FYs 2003 through 2007). Moreover, we decided to select no more than one record from a district office in a particular prosecutorial area and no more than two records per district office for our overall sample.

To determine the criminal and civil caseloads per attorney FTE, we relied upon the data run of pending cases and computed the total number of pending criminal and civil cases within each office as of the end of FY 2007. We then divided these totals by the total number of criminal and civil attorney FTEs (regular and additional) utilized within each office during FY 2007 as reflected in the USA-5.

We confined each of our casework analyses to the data we obtained from the LIONS system and did not review individual files to examine the actual level of effort expended on a single matter or case. Thus, if a matter was referred, declined, or filed for prosecution during a particular timeframe, we considered it to be reviewed during that period.