Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to the Table of Contents

Inspection of the Violent Crime Task Forces
in the Southern District of New York

Report Number I-2000-03


APPENDIX IV

U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for United States Attorneys
Office of the Director
Washington, DC 20530


Dec. 30, 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR:    Mary W. Demory
Assistant Inspector General for Inspections
Office of the Inspector General

FROM:   Mary H. Murgula
Director

SUBJECT:   IG's Report Regarding the Violent Crime Task Force Monies
Distributed to the Southern District of New York


Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft Inspector General (IG) report regarding the Violent Crime Task Force (VCTF) monies allocated to the Southern District of New York (SDNY). My staff has provided fairly extensive comments to you on an earlier draft of the report, which I am enclosing and endorsing by reference, as I believe they pertain to the version you have asked me to review. I also wish to endorse and concur in the comments that United States Attorney Mary Jo White has provided to you on your draft report.

Your report reflects a great deal of work on the part of your staff in examining the operations of the SDNY's VCTF program, and I appreciate the time and effort they devoted to this project. Our programs benefit from examination by outside groups like the IG, and we gain useful insights with each review.

The report makes two recommendations regarding the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA). The first is that EOUSA should establish procedures for monitoring the USAOs' adherence to the requirements of the VCTF guidance issued by EOUSA. As you know, EOUSA's Evaluation and Review Staff (EARS) conducts a very thorough examination of each U.S. Attorney's office (USAO) once every three years. Included in the EARS review is an examination of whether the USAO is adhering to the requirements of the VCTF guidance. Because the $15 million appropriated for the VCTF is nearly exhausted and we do not anticipate receiving any additional funding for Task Force activities, we believe it is impractical to develop new procedures or issue new guidance at this point. In all likelihood, the monies would be spent before the new guidance had time to influence the program. However, based on the findings in your report, I will send a separate memorandum to those USAOs with unspent VCTF monies reminding them of the importance of observing the guidance EOUSA has already issued and I will ask the EARS review teams to pay particular attention to this program as they conduct their district reviews.

The second recommendation is that EOUSA should issue guidance requiring the USAOs to appoint a representative to monitor the activities of each VCTF within their districts. Our existing guidance requires the districts to "maintain adequate controls and track the accomplishments of [the] task force(s)" (see Issuance VC95-O1, dated May 31,1995, page three.) As we have already stated, we do not think it is practical to issue new guidance this late in the life of the program. However, we will remind the districts of the importance of monitoring their Task Forces to ensure that they are using the funds for approved purposes.

Enclosure


U.S. Department of Justice
Executive Office for United States Attorneys

Resources Management and Planning Staff
Suite 8000, Bicentennial Building
600 E Street, NW  Washington, DC 20530
(202) 616-6886    FAX (202) 616-6649

Nov. 4, 1999

Ms. Mary D. Demory
Assistant Inspector General for Inspections
Office of the Inspector General
Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530

Dear Ms. Demory:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the "working draft" of the Inspector General's (IG's) report regarding the Violent Crime Task Force (VCTF) monies allocated to the Southern District of New York (SDNY) . In addition to concurring in the comments made by the SDNY, we would like to comment on the report's observations that are directed at the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA)

The Fiscal Year 1995 Appropriation Act provided EOUSA $15 million "to implement the Attorney General's Violent Crime Task Force Initiatives in the United States Attorney Offices... including the reasonable and necessary expenses of... State and local prosecutive and law enforcement agencies engaged in the investigation and prosecution of crimes of violence and drug trafficking crimes." The Senate Appropriations Committee Report provided further guidance that the funding was to cover costs "that include, but are not limited to, overtime for State and local law enforcement agents; leased space... office equipment and supplies... leased telephone lines, radios, and walkie-talkies; NCIC computer linkages; and the salaries of support staff." The Committee articulated the purpose of these funds when it stated that, "By providing resources to ensure the success of the Attorney General's violent crime initiative, the Committee is making an investment in reducing violent crime in neighborhoods throughout America.... [this initiative] will reduce the rate of crime and render our neighborhoods a safer place to live, work, and play."

In response to a solicitation for proposals from the United States Attorneys' offices (USAOs), EOUSA received over 190 Task Force proposals, totaling over $35 million. We had only $15 million to allocate to address those needs. To aid us in determining how best to allocate the limited funds Congress provided it was determined that a review committee would be established to assist EOUSA in sorting through the proposals, and selecting the ones that would be funded. As an aid to its work, the review committee established certain criteria that would guide its selection process. Certain categories of expenditures were ruled out, in large part simply to make the selection process more manageable.

The draft report is critical of the fact that EOUSA approved the SDNY's request to spend VCTF money on a system that the IG's staff considers a computer network, because in the original funding criteria the review committee determined that computer networks were not to be one of the things that would be funded. In point of fact, it is our sense that the committee members had general office management networks in mind, not operational, law enforcement computer systems, when they decided to exclude networks from funding. Notwithstanding this distinction, by focusing on this point, the report misses the larger point that these categories were never meant to be immovable pillars that would prevent agency discretion, but rather were intended to serve as guidelines to assist in the winnowing process among the many competing ideas.

The report also fails to appreciate a fundamental principle regarding agency discretion. The Director of EOUSA had wide discretion in determining how to spend the $15 million appropriation. The General Accounting Office has ruled numerous times that the determinations of an agency head as to what constitutes a "necessary expense" to accomplish the agency's mission are to be given wide latitude. In this case, the appropriation language stated simply that the funds were for the "reasonable and necessary expenses" of the VCTFs. It was up to the Director to determine what was reasonable and necessary. The Director was under no obligation to establish a review committee or articulate funding criteria that she would use to guide her selection decisions. These procedures were set up voluntarily by the Director, and were meant to serve as an aid to her decision making prerogatives, not to usurp them. The Director was free at any point to deviate from the original guidelines or committee recommendations if she determined that doing so would result in a more appropriate use of the funds. Yet, because the original funding criteria stipulated that computer "networks" (however one defines that very vague term) would not be funded, the report finds fault with the Director's decision to approve the SDNY project.

The report makes much of that fact that one or more unnamed committee members now say that had they more fully understood the system that was being proposed, they might have voted against the project. The SDNY was clear in its communications to EOUSA regarding the proposed mapping system. While the IG staff may feel that EOUSA provided less detail to the review committee than it should have, the committee members have always been free to ask for additional information on any of the proposed projects. In this case, the SDNY demonstrated the project to the Director and others and certainly would have provided the same demonstration or level of information to any or all of the committee members had they requested it. The indisputable facts are that the EOUSA Director had the authority to approve the project, she understood what the project involved, and she supported it. EOUSA recommended the project to the review committee, and the committee approved it.

Nor can there be any question that the SDNY VCTF funds were used to accomplish the purpose for which they were provided by Congress, that is, "to... reduce the rate of crime and render our neighborhoods a safer place to live, work, and play." Unfortunately, because the draft report focuses so much on whether the original procedures and decisions were followed rigidly, to the letter of the law, that it fails to understand the real function of the review committee and the funding criteria, it loses sight of the ultimate purpose of the VCTF program, and it fails to appreciate the Director's authority to make funding decisions regarding funds allotted to her.

The report makes only two specific recommendations directed at EOUSA. They are that EOUSA should establish procedures for monitoring the USAOs' adherence to the requirements of the VCTF guidance and that EOUSA should issue guidance requiring the USAOs to appoint a representative to monitor the activities of each VCTF within their districts. As we have stated in response to previous IG reports on VCTF activities of the USAOs, because this money is nearly exhausted and we do not anticipate receiving any additional funding for Task Force activities, we are not disposed to develop new procedures or issue new guidance at this point. The USAOs' Task Forces are already monitored as part of EOUSA's Evaluation and Review program. This review includes an examination of whether the USAOs are adhering to the requirements of the VCTF guidance. Based on the findings in your report, we will remind all USAOs of the importance of observing the guidance EOUSA has already issued and we will ask the review teams to pay particular attention to this aspect of their review. With regard to requiring all USAOs to appoint a person to monitor the activities of the Task Forces, we will encourage those districts with remaining VCTF funds to ensure that the Task Forces are using the funds for the purposes for which they were approved.

  Frank M. Kalder
Deputy Director for
Resource Management and Planning

Return to the USDOJ/OIG Home Page
Return to the Table of Contents