Audit of Department of Justice's Key Indicators

Audit Report 08-18
March 2008
Office of the Inspector General

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether each key indicator met the following criteria: (1) data collection and storage processes were complete and accurate, (2) data validation and verification processes were complete and accurate, and (3) data limitations provided by the agency were complete and accurate. We did not assess whether the key indicators were the best measures for DOJ.

We conducted our audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards. We included such tests as were necessary to accomplish the audit objectives. The audit generally covered FY 2006 data. However, in some instances when FY 2006 data was not available we included FY 2005 data. Our audit included 21 of the 28 key indicators listed in the FY 2006 PAR. The remaining seven key indicators were excluded because they were either discontinued or long‑term measures that were still in process at the time of our audit.

Audit work was conducted at JMD and the following 17 DOJ components that were responsible for reporting on the 21 key indicators included in our audit.

We obtained information on: laws, guidance, and regulations pertinent to our audit; the key indicator reporting and submission process; particular areas of concern to JMD; updates; and other key indicator information.

At each of the 17 components, we interviewed staff to:

Additionally, we reviewed policies, procedures, and other documentation related to data collection, storage, validation, verification, and limitations. We reviewed and compared the FY 2006 PAR and the 2008 Budget and Performance Summary. We also compared the key indicators reported in the FY 2006 PAR with each component’s supporting documentation to verify performance reported in the FY 2006 PAR and the 2008 Budget and Performance Summary and to identify any necessary enhancements for future reporting.

We also conducted audit work at the following Denver field offices: the FBI, DEA, USMS, and BOP. We reviewed the data collection, storage, validation, and verification processes at these agencies.

To achieve the audit’s objectives, we relied on the computer‑processed data contained in the computer systems collecting and storing the key indicator data for those included within the scope of our audit. We did not establish the reliability of this data because this was not within the scope of our audit objectives.

« Previous Table of Contents Next »