Audit of Legislative and Public Affairs Expenses in the Department of Justice

Audit Report 08-25
July 2008
Office of the Inspector General

Findings and Recommendations

I.       DOJ LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS EXPENSES AND STAFFING

OIG Legislative and Public Affairs Survey

The first objective of our audit was to identify DOJ agencies, offices, and divisions that performed significant legislative or public affairs functions in FY 2007. To accomplish this objective, we administered our survey to all 40 DOJ components and the 94 USAOs. The purpose of this survey was to obtain information on the legislative and public affairs functions at each component. The survey requested the following information of each component and USAO:

We received responses to our survey from each of the 40 DOJ components and 94 USAOs. Based on the component responses, we determined that 25 of the 40 DOJ components and 58 of the 94 USAOs performed significant legislative or public affairs functions during FY 2007.

Specifically, we found that:

OIG Legislative and Public Affairs Expense and Staffing Data Request

To obtain data for significant FY 2007 legislative and public affairs expenses and staffing within DOJ, we distributed a data request to each of the 25 components and 58 USAOs included in our audit. We also initially sent our expense and staffing data request to all 94 USAOs. However, we were informed that the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) could more readily access USAO expense data. As a result, we requested that all 94 USAOs provide the name, title, grade and series, and estimated amount of time spent on public affairs functions for staff performing these functions in FY 2007 since each USAO is required to have a media point of contact. Based on the responses provided, we identified 58 USAOs that reported staff that performed a significant amount of legislative or public affairs functions. EOUSA budget staff provided personnel and non-personnel expense data for staff performing significant legislative or public affairs functions at the 58 USAOs.

In each of the legislative and public affairs expense and staffing data requests, we requested that each component provide personnel and non‑personnel expense data. Obtaining consistent non-personnel expense data across the entire DOJ was difficult because: (1) different accounting systems are used; (2) components with legislative or public affairs offices used office codes, program codes, or organization codes to collect expenses; and (3) components without legislative or public affairs offices did not have office, program, or organization codes to capture expense data and were required to estimate the non-personnel expenses of individual staff performing these functions on a full‑time basis or as a collateral duty.

To obtain consistent types of expense data, we requested that the components report expenses using OMB object classes. A detailed description of the expense and staffing data request and the object classes used to obtain expense data is included in Appendix I.

FY 2007 Legislative and Public Affairs Expenses and Staffing Results

Based on the results of our legislative and public affairs expense and staffing data request and our analysis of the data provided by the components, we determined that for FY 2007 the 25 DOJ components and 58 USAOs performing significant legislative or public affairs functions reported expenses totaling $49.35 million.10 This included legislative affairs expenses of $16.19 million and public affairs expenses of $33.16 million, as shown in Table 6.

TABLE 6
FISCAL YEAR 2007 DOJ LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
EXPENSES BY OBJECT CLASS AND STAFFING POSITIONS11

OBJECT CLASS LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS
EXPENSES 		PUBLIC AFFAIRS
EXPENSES 		TOTAL
EXPENSES
11.1 FT Permanent $9,992,552 $20,052,590 $30,045,142
11.3 Other Than FT Permanent 65,026 332,939 397,965
11.5 Overtime 430,929 1,978,479 2,409,408
11.5 Awards/Bonuses 198,595 298,588 497,183
12.0 Personnel Benefits 2,885,826 7,088,872 9,974,698
Other Personnel Costs 50,692 35,660 86,35 2
TOTAL PERSONNEL COSTS $13,623,621 $29,787,127 $43,410,748
21.0 Travel 136,361 533,302 669,663
22.0 Transportation of Things 191,309 71,280 262,589
23.1 Space Charges 1,606,750 1,014,964 2,621,714
23.3 Communication, Rent, and Utilities 118,133 297,667 415,800
24.0 Printing 10,156 60,167 70,323
25.0 Other Contractual Services 275,420 861,991 1,137,411
26.0 Supplies and Materials 165,774 313,863 479,637
31.0 Equipment - Furniture 5,800 62,149 67,949
31.0 Equipment – All Other 58,018 158,677 216,695
Other Non-Personnel Costs 9 36 45
TOTAL NON-PERSONNEL COSTS $2,567,729 $3,374,095 $5,941,824
TOTAL COSTS $16,191,350 $33,161,223 $49,352,573
STAFFING POSITIONS      
Total Full-Time (Exclusive) Positions 110 193 303
Total Collateral Duty Positions 41 132 173
TOTAL POSITIONS 151 325 476
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

Of the $49.35 million in FY 2007 legislative and public affairs expenses reported, $43.41 million, or 88 percent, were for personnel costs and $5.94 million, or 12 percent were for non‑personnel costs. The majority of personnel costs were for full-time permanent salaries and employee benefits, and the majority of non-personnel costs were for space charges and other contractual services. As shown in Table 6, the components performing significant legislative or public affairs functions reported 476 staff executing these functions throughout FY 2007, including 151 staff performing legislative affairs functions and 325 staff performing public affairs functions on a full‑time basis or as significant collateral duty.12 We also identified the legislative and public affairs expenses by DOJ component, as shown in Table 7.

TABLE 7
FISCAL YEAR 2007 DOJ LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
EXPENSES BY COMPONENT

COMPONENT LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS EXPENSES 		PUBLIC AFFAIRS
EXPENSES 		COMBINED
EXPENSES
FBI $3,814,226 $11,953,630 $15,767,856
ATF 1,415,897 5,481,585 6,897,482
USAOs13 182,329 6,356,003 6,538,332
DEA 1,492,281 3,802,965 5,295,246
OLA 3,260,559 0 3,260,559
PAO 0 2,733,233 2,733,233
OLP 2,078,346 0 2,078,346
USMS 810,931 409,370 1,220,301
BOP 484,432 648,388 1,132,820
OJP 328,284 652,794 981,078
EOIR 648,081 320,774 968,855
JMD 688,920 0 688,920
COPS 276,850 192,550 469,400
EOUST 62,644 177,373 240,017
CRS 0 184,995 184,995
CRM 161,976 0 161,976
USNCB 0 160,257 160,257
CRT 96,958 17,369 114,327
ATR 50,731 58,080 108,811
OVW 72,116 11,857 83,973
OIP 82,793 0 82,793
TAX 67,616 0 67,616
NSD 59,890 0 59,890
ENRD 45,288 0 45,288
CIV 10,202 0 10,202
TOTAL $16,191,350 $33,161,223 $49,352,573
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

As shown in Table 7, the FBI, ATF, DEA and USAOs accounted for $34.5 million or 69.9 percent of the total DOJ legislative and public affairs expenses. However, legislative and public affairs expenses only accounted for 0.3 percent, 0.7 percent, 0.3 percent, and 0.4 percent of the FBI, ATF, DEA, and USAOs FY 2007 budgets, respectively. As also shown in Table 7, 15 components did not report any significant legislative or public affairs activities, which according to our methodology is one or more staff performing legislative or public affairs functions for an average of 25 percent or more of their time per week in FY 2007, during the period in which they were assigned to perform these functions. As a result, no legislative or public affairs expenses were reported for these components.

The DOJ components and USAOs included in our review reported 476 staff that performed significant legislative or public affairs functions throughout FY 2007. The 476 staff included 269 headquarters staff and 207 field office and USAO staff, as shown in Table 8.

TABLE 8
FISCAL YEAR 2007 DOJ LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
STAFFING BY COMPONENT

  LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS PUBLIC AFFAIRS COMBINED
COMPONENT HQ
STAFF 		FIELD
OFFICE
STAFF 		TOTAL HQ
STAFF 		FIELD
OFFICE
STAFF 		TOTAL TOTAL
FBI 32 0 32 42 82 124 156
USAOs 1 1 2 0 80 80 82
ATF 13 0 13 15 23 38 51
DEA 11 0 11 15 21 36 47
OLP 25 0 25 0 0 0 25
OLA 22 0 22 0 0 0 22
PAO 0 0 0 21 0 21 21
USMS 7 0 7 6 0 6 13
BOP 4 0 4 6 0 6 10
OJP 3 0 3 6 0 6 9
EOIR 5 0 5 2 0 2 7
JMD 7 0 7 0 0 0 7
COPS 4 0 4 1 0 1 5
CRM 3 0 3 0 0 0 3
CRT 2 0 2 1 0 1 3
ATR 1 0 1 1 0 1 2
EOUST 1 0 1 1 0 1 2
NSD 2 0 2 0 0 0 2
OIP 2 0 2 0 0 0 2
OVW 2 0 2 0 0 0 2
CIV 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
CRS 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
ENRD 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
TAX 1 0 1 0 0 0 1
USNCB 0 0 0 1 0 1 1
TOTAL 150 1 151 119 206 325 476
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

Appendix II includes detailed information on the legislative and public affairs expenses, staffing, and types of functions performed by the DOJ components and USAOs.

Appropriations Law – Staffing Restrictions

Since FY 1996, annual appropriation laws have placed specific restrictions on the number of staff permitted to perform legislative affairs functions for OLA and public affairs functions for PAO. The terms of these staffing restrictions have varied from FYs 1996 through 2007. During FY 2007, DOJ was funded by a series of continuing resolutions that carried forward certain FY 2006 positional requirements for OLA and PAO. Specifically, OLA was “not to exceed 26 permanent positions, 21 full-time equivalent work years...” and PAO was “not to exceed 17 permanent positions, 22 full-time equivalent work years....”14 The legislation further stated that “ the OLA and PAO may utilize, on a non‑reimbursable basis details of career employees within the ceilings provided.” In contrast to prior fiscal years, the FY 2008 appropriations law does not include any specific staffing ceilings related to OLA and PAO.15

Our review of FY 2007 OLA and PAO staffing levels indicates that OLA was within its permanent positions ceiling, and PAO was within its permanent positions and FTE ceilings as identified in the appropriations language. However, we found that OLA exceeded its 21 FTE ceiling by 2.8 FTE work years in FY 2007.

JMD, OLA, and PAO share the responsibility of ensuring compliance with the staffing ceilings mandated by the appropriations law. However, because of the limited size of OLA and PAO, JMD monitors OLA’s and PAO’s compliance with budget requirements. JMD disagrees with the OIG’s conclusion that OLA exceeded its FTE ceiling. According to JMD, OLA and PAO were within the staffing ceilings mandated by appropriations requirements.

Table 9 shows the OLA and PAO staffing ceilings, actual average daily permanent positions, and FTE work years for FY 2007. It includes our calculation of these numbers, as well as JMD’s calculations.

TABLE 9
ANALYSIS OF OLA AND PAO FISCAL YEAR 2007
PERMANENT POSITIONS AND FTES

  PERMANENT POSITIONS16 FTE WORK YEARS17
  CEILING OIG DAILY
AVERAGE 		JMD DAILY
AVERAGE 		CEILING OIG
ACTUAL 		JMD
ACTUAL
OLA 26 23.2 23.0 21 23.8 17.0
PAO 17 16.3 14.3 22 17.6 17.1
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

As detailed above, the appropriations language allowed OLA five more permanent positions than FTEs, while it allowed PAO five fewer permanent positions than FTEs. We noted that these were unusual allocations, because it allowed OLA 26 permanent positions but only 21 FTEs, and conversely allowed PAO only 17 permanent positions but 22 FTEs. Achieving these ceilings would require that OLA use a significant number of part‑time permanent staff, while PAO would be required to use a significant number of temporary or term staff.

According to OMB Circular A-11, non-reimbursable detailed staff are included in the providing component’s permanent positions and FTE ceilings; the receiving component, such as OLA and PAO, would not have to count such detailed personnel against their staffing levels. However, we believe the appropriations language clearly states that while OLA and PAO may utilize non‑reimbursable detailed staff, the use of such non‑reimbursable detailed staff must be within the permanent positions and FTE ceilings provided by the appropriations law. As a result, we used the specific terms of the appropriations language in our analysis, and we included all staff performing legislative affairs functions for OLA and all staff performing public affairs functions for PAO.18 However, we did not count any term staff in the permanent positions ceiling.

Office of Legislative Affairs Staffing

The 23.2 daily average permanent positions we calculated for OLA is reflective of the total number of staff that performed legislative affairs activities for OLA during FY 2007, excluding one term staff. Therefore, we concluded that OLA was within its 26 permanent positions ceiling.

Pursuant to OMB Circular A-11, non‑reimbursable detailed staff are not included in a receiving component’s permanent positions or FTE ceilings. However, the appropriations language specifically states that OLA may utilize, on a non‑reimbursable basis, career detailed staff “within the ceilings provided.” JMD officials believed that the appropriations language was intended to limit the number of staff performing legislative affairs functions for OLA. As a result, in a good faith effort to meet the intent of the appropriations language and contrary to standard budgeting practices, JMD included 9 of the 11 non ‑reimbursable staff detailed to OLA throughout FY 2007 in its calculations of OLA’s permanent positions. JMD did not include one non-career Schedule C staff in its calculations of OLA’s permanent positions because JMD interpreted the appropriations language to state that only career detailed staff should be included in the ceilings. Additionally, both the OIG and JMD did not include one term staff.

However, JMD did not include non-reimbursable detailed staff in its calculations of OLA’s FTEs. In calculating OLA’s FY 2007 FTEs, JMD followed OMB Circular A-11 and did not include the 11 non‑reimbursable detailed staff. JMD stated that including the detailed staff in the FTE ceiling would not make sense because an agency cannot have 26 permanent positions authorized and expect to stay within the 21 FTE ceiling, unless a significant number of staff were permanent part-time employees.

We do not agree with JMD’s methodology for calculating FTEs. We believe the appropriations language stating that OLA may utilize, on a non‑reimbursable basis, detailed staff “within the ceilings provided,” requires that non‑reimbursable detailed staff be included in both the permanent positions and FTE ceilings, not just the permanent positions ceiling. As a result, we included all 11 non‑reimbursable staff, including the non‑career Schedule C staff, detailed to OLA throughout FY 2007 in our calculations of OLA’s FTEs. We found that during FY 2007, OLA used 23.8 FTE work years, as shown in Table 10, which exceeded its 21 FTE ceiling by 2.8 FTE work years.

TABLE 10
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 OLA FTES

STAFF TYPE NO. OF
STAFF 		HOURS WORKED
OLA Staff 22 35,779
Detailed Staff – JMD 3 4,160
Detailed Staff – EOIR 2 4,160
Detailed Staff – COPS 1 2,080
Detailed Staff – OLP 1 1,024
Detailed Staff – EOUST 1 736
Detailed Staff – ENRD 1 696
Detailed Staff – CRM 1 656
Detailed Staff – CIV 1 120
Totals 33 49,411
FTEs 23.8
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

The permanent positions and FTEs calculated for OLA include 2 staff who were detailed to OLA from EOIR since FY 2001 on a non‑reimbursable basis. We found documentation showing that in July 2001 JMD requested that EOIR accept the reassignment of two attorneys from OLA to EOIR. JMD also requested that once EOIR accepted the reassignment of the two attorneys, EOIR should detail the attorneys back to OLA on a non‑reimbursable basis.

We determined that this JMD request came from its Consolidated Executive Office.19 We asked JMD officials to provide information on the purpose and intent of this request and whether there were similar arrangements with other components involving reassignment to a different component and instructions to detail the reassigned staff back to either OLA or PAO.

JMD officials responded that “individuals who were around at the time [of the detail] did mention that this process began after an earlier congressional mandate not to fund a [legislative affairs] office in Main DOJ.20 Unfortunately, we don’t have anything on that but that was the recollection.” JMD officials did not provide any further information related to this issue.

Office of Public Affairs Staffing

We found that PAO was within the FY 2007 FTE ceiling of 22 required by the appropriations language. The 17.6 FTE work years we calculated for PAO is reflective of the total number of staff that performed public affairs activities for PAO during FY 2007, including staff whose salaries and benefits were paid for by another component under a reimbursable agreement and term staff detailed to PAO on a non‑reimbursable basis. The 17.1 FTEs that JMD calculated include the 3 staff funded under a reimbursable agreement but does not include 3 term staff detailed to PAO throughout FY 2007.

Further, in our analysis of PAO’s permanent positions, we found that on a daily average during FY 2007 PAO used 16.3 permanent positions, which was within the 17 permanent positions ceiling. We included three PAO staff funded through agreements with the Criminal Division, Antitrust Division, and National Security Division in our analysis of PAO’s permanent positions ceiling. In our judgment, these staff fall under the definition of a permanent position since their appointments were for more than 1 year.21 Further, these staff are PAO employees.

In its calculations of PAO’s 14.3 permanent positions, JMD did not include the 3 staff whose salaries and benefits were funded through reimbursable agreements. According to JMD officials, when the salaries and benefits of staff within a component are paid for by another component through a reimbursable agreement, these staff are not counted in the permanent positions ceiling of either component. As a result, JMD did not include these staff in its calculations of PAO’s permanent positions. We do not agree with this methodology and included these staff in our calculations.

Our overall conclusion is that for FY 2007 OLA complied with its permanent positions ceiling, and PAO complied with its permanent positions and FTE ceilings. However, we also found that OLA exceeded its 21 FTE ceiling by 2.8 FTEs.

Analysis of Legislative and Public Affairs Personnel Expenses

In our audit, the personnel expenses provided by the 25 components and the 58 USAOs were based on actual expenses, primarily from the National Finance Center. Conversely, the non‑personnel expenses provided by the 25 components and the 58 USAOs were based on either actual or estimated amounts. Specifically:

As a result, although the personnel expenses were based on actual costs and were comparable among components, the non‑personnel expenses contained actual and estimated costs and were not as easily comparable among the components. Therefore, for the purpose of our comparative analysis of components’ legislative and public affairs expenses during FY 2007, we used personnel expenses only, which accounted for 88 percent of total expenses. The personnel expenses for the DOJ components and USAOs performing significant legislative and public affairs functions are shown in Table 11.22

TABLE 11
FISCAL YEAR 2007 LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS PERSONNEL
EXPENSES BY COMPONENT

COMPONENT LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS
PERSONNEL
EXPENSES 		PUBLIC AFFAIRS
PERSONNEL
EXPENSES 		COMBINED
PERSONNEL
EXPENSES
FBI $3,763,292 $11,570,450 $15,333,742
ATF 1,389,305 5,355,929 6,745,234
USAOs 151,566 5,008,627 5,160,193
DEA 1,321,621 3,353,697 4,675,318
OLA 2,045,555 0 2,045,555
PAO 0 1,933,899 1,933,899
OLP 1,372,362 0 1,372,362
USMS 767,597 354,037 1,121,634
BOP 469,029 606,880 1,075,909
OJP 309,571 630,940 940,511
EOIR 582,529 255,222 837,751
JMD 531,246 0 531,246
COPS 272,713 188,617 461,330
EOUST 62,644 163,169 225,813
CRS 0 172,490 172,490
CRM 158,258 0 158,258
USNCB 0 110,132 110,132
ATR 50,731 58,080 108,811
CRT 85,461 13,101 98,562
OVW 63,275 11,857 75,132
OIP 67,831 0 67,831
NSD 59,890 0 59,890
TAX 54,869 0 54,869
ENRD 34,074 0 34,074
CIV 10,202 0 10,202
Total $13,623,621 $29,787,127 $43,410,748
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

Legislative Affairs Personnel Expenses Analysis

For each of the 25 components and 58 USAOs, we analyzed personnel expenses for legislative affairs functions to identify those components with the highest expenses for FY 2007. We found that five components accounted for $9.89 million or 72.6 percent of DOJ’s $13.62 million total legislative affairs personnel expenses: (1) FBI, (2) OLA, (3) ATF, (4) OLP, and (5) DEA. Figure 1 depicts DOJ components’ and USAOs’ FY 2007 legislative affairs personnel expenses as a percentage of the overall DOJ legislative affairs personnel expenditures.

FIGURE 1
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
PERSONNEL EXPENSES23
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

FBI-$3.76/27.6%; BOP-$.47/3.4%; COPS-$.27/2.0%; JMD-$.53/3.9%; OJP-$.31/2.3%; OLP-$1.37/10.1%; OLA-$2.05/15.0%; USMS-$.77/5.6%; OTHER-$.65/4.8%; ATF-$1.39/10.2%; DEA-$1.32/9.7%; EOIR-$.58/4.3%; EOUSA/USAOs-$.15/1.1%.

Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

More detail about the legislative affairs activities of the top five components is provided below:

  1. FBI – The FBI reported FY 2007 legislative affairs personnel expenses of $3.76 million, which accounted for 27.6 percent of the total DOJ legislative affairs personnel expenses. The FBI’s legislative affairs functions generally consist of acting as the FBI’s primary liaison to Congress, particularly the nine primary Senate and House committees that oversee FBI funding and operations; vetting congressional materials such as proposed legislation, testimony, letters, reports and other materials; and preparing consolidated responses for transmittal to Congress. Responsibilities include keeping Congress informed about FBI activities, as well as responding to oversight inquiries, requests for documents and constituent matters. Legislative affairs functions were performed by 32 full-time FBI staff, of which 30 were at the FBI’s Office of Congressional Affairs and other headquarters sections, 1 was on detail to the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and 1 was on detail to the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

  2. OLA – OLA reported FY 2007 legislative affairs personnel expenses of $2.05 million, which accounted for 15 percent of the DOJ’s total legislative affairs personnel expenses. Legislative affairs functions were performed by 22 full-time OLA staff. Additionally, throughout FY 2007 11 staff were detailed to OLA on a non‑reimbursable basis from CIV, COPS, CRM, ENRD, EOIR, EOUST, JMD and OLP.24

  3. ATF – ATF reported FY 2007 legislative affairs personnel expenses of $1.39 million, which accounted for 10.2 percent of the total DOJ legislative affairs personnel expenses. ATF’s legislative affairs functions generally consist of acting as a liaison for communications between Congress and ATF, preparing and managing testimony for hearings, reviewing proposed legislation, and advising ATF management on legislative affairs. Legislative affairs function were performed by 13 full-time ATF staff, of which 11 were at ATF’s Office of Public and Governmental Affairs, 1 was on detail to the House Judiciary Committee, and 1 was on detail to the House Appropriations Committee.

  4. OLP – OLP reported FY 2007 legislative affairs personnel expenses of $1.37 million, which accounted for 10.1 percent of the total DOJ legislative affairs personnel expenses. OLP’s legislative affairs functions generally consist of developing and coordinating DOJ’s legislative proposals for transmission to Congress, assisting in preparing witnesses to testify before Congress, drafting congressional correspondence, and briefing congressional staff. Legislative affairs functions were performed by 19 OLP staff, 4 staff detailed from USAOs, and 1 staff detailed from the Civil Division. Additionally, 1 staff was detailed from OLP to OLA to perform legislative affairs functions on a full-time, non-reimbursable basis. Finally, JMD detailed one staff member to OLP on a non‑reimbursable basis.

  5. DEA – The DEA reported FY 2007 legislative affairs personnel expenses of $1.32 million, which accounted for 9.7 percent of the total DOJ legislative affairs personnel expenses. DEA’s legislative affairs functions generally consist of responding to congressional requests, ranging from member information requests, constituent information requests, and topic-specific briefing requests. Legislative affairs functions were performed by 11 DEA staff within the DEA’s Office of Congressional and Public Affairs and other headquarters sections. Of the 11 staff, 10 were full-time and 1 employee performed legislative affairs as a significant collateral duty.

Public Affairs Personnel Expenses Analysis

For each of the 25 components and 58 USAOs (combined), we also analyzed personnel expenses for public affairs functions to identify those components with the highest expenditures for FY 2007. We found that five components accounted for $27.22 million or 91.4 percent of DOJ’s $29.79 million in public affairs personnel expenses: (1) FBI, (2) ATF, (3) 58 USAOs, (4) DEA, and (5) PAO. Figure 2 depicts DOJ component and USAOs’ FY 2007 public affairs personnel expenses as a percentage of the overall DOJ public affairs personnel expenditures.

FIGURE 2
ANALYSIS OF FISCAL YEAR 2007 PUBLIC AFFAIRS PERSONNEL EXPENSES
(DOLLARS IN MILLIONS)

FBI-$11.57/38.8%; BOP-$.61/2.0%; COPS-$.19/0.6%; OJP-$.63/2.1%; PAO-$1.93/6.5%; USMS-$.35/1.2%; OTHER-$.53/1.8%; ATF-$5.36/18%; DEA-$3.35/11.3%; EOIR-$.26/0.9%; EOUSA/USAOs-$5.01/16.8%.

Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

More detail about the public affairs activities of the top five components is provided below:

  1. FBI – The FBI reported FY 2007 public affairs personnel expenses of $11.57 million, which accounted for 38.8 percent of the DOJ’s total public affairs personnel expenses. The FBI's public affairs functions consist of responding to media inquiries; providing regular briefings to the media; and educating the public about crime, terrorism, and FBI activities. Public affairs functions were performed by 124 FBI staff, consisting of 42 full‑time staff at the FBI’s Office of Public Affairs and other headquarters sections, and 82 staff located throughout the FBI’s 56 field offices. Of the 82 field office staff, the FBI reported that 23 exclusively performed public affairs activities while another 59 performed public affairs as a significant collateral duty.

  2. ATF – ATF reported FY 2007 public affairs personnel expenses of $5.36 million, which accounted for 18 percent of the total DOJ public affairs personnel expenses. ATF’s public affairs functions generally consist of providing information on its activities, priorities, and policies to the media and public. Public affairs functions were performed by 38 ATF staff consisting of 15 full-time staff at ATF’s Office of Public and Governmental Affairs and 23 full-time staff located at its field divisions.25

  3. EOUSA & 58 USAOs – The EOUSA and 58 USAOs reported FY 2007 public affairs personnel expenses of $5.01 million, which accounted for 16.8 percent of the total DOJ public affairs personnel expenses. The USAOs’ public affairs functions generally consist of issuing press releases, responding to press inquiries, and coordinating press conferences. Public affairs functions were performed by 80 USAO staff consisting of 29 full-time staff and 51 staff that performed public affairs as a significant collateral duty within the 58 USAOs that reported performing a significant amount of public affairs functions in FY 2007.

  4. DEA – The DEA reported FY 2007 public affairs personnel expenses of $3.35 million, which accounted for 11.3 percent of the total DOJ public affairs personnel expenses. The DEA’s public affairs functions generally consist of maintaining liaison with the media and the public. Public affairs functions were performed by 36 DEA staff consisting of 15 staff at the DEA’s Office of Congressional and Public Affairs (8 full‑time staff and 7 collateral duty staff) and 21 field office staff (9 full‑time staff and 12 collateral duty staff).

  5. PAO – The PAO reported FY 2007 public affairs personnel expenses of $1.93 million, which accounted for 6.5 percent of the total DOJ public affairs personnel expenses. The PAO generally serves as the principal point of contact for DOJ with the news media. Public affairs functions were performed by 21 full-time PAO staff; two of which were detailed to other agencies on a non-reimbursable basis for part of FY 2007, during which time they were not performing public affairs functions. In addition to the 21 PAO staff, one staff member was detailed to PAO on a non‑reimbursable basis from the ATR.

Detailed Staffing Arrangements and Reimbursable Agreements

As part of our legislative and public affairs expense and staffing data request, we asked components to provide information on the number of staff detailed to or from other components for legislative and public affairs purposes. Specifically, we asked for the origin and destination of the detailed staff, the length of detail, the type of legislative or public affairs functions performed, and whether the type of detail arrangement was non‑reimbursable or reimbursable.

A detail arrangement involves the temporary transfer of a staff member from one component to another. Specifically, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. § 3341 (2007), “the head of an Executive department or military department may detail employees among the bureaus and offices of his department, except employees who are required by law to be exclusively engaged on some specific work.” Details may be for not more than 120 days, but may be extended in increments up to 120 days. If the detail is non‑reimbursable, expenses associated with the position are paid from the providing component’s appropriation and the detailed staff remains, administratively, part of the providing component’s personnel. However, for the duration of the detail the detailed staff resides at and performs work for the recipient component. A reimbursable detail arrangement is similar, except the providing component is usually reimbursed by the recipient component for the personnel expenses associated with the detailed staff.26

Of the DOJ’s 476 legislative and public affairs staff, 24 were detailed during FY 2007, of which 18 were detailed on a non-reimbursable basis and 6 were detailed using a reimbursable agreement. Additionally, 22 of the 24 detailed staff performed legislative affairs functions and 2 staff performed public affairs functions. The detail arrangements, components, functions performed, and length of detail for each of the 24 detailed staff are shown in Table 12.

TABLE 12
FISCAL YEAR 2007 LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS
DETAIL ARRANGEMENTS

  TYPE OF DETAIL ARRANGEMENT PROVIDING COMPONENT RECIPIENT COMPONENT FUNCTION PERFORMED LENGTH OF DETAIL IN FY07
1 Non-Reimbursable ATR PAO Public Affairs 12 mo
2 Reimbursable OJP OVW Public Affairs 2 mo
3 Non-Reimbursable ENRD OLA Leg. Affairs 4 mo
4 Non-Reimbursable EOIR OLA Leg. Affairs 12 mo
5 Non-Reimbursable EOIR OLA Leg. Affairs 12 mo
6 Non-Reimbursable EOUST OLA Leg. Affairs 4 mo
7 Non-Reimbursable COPS OLA Leg. Affairs 12 mo
8 Non-Reimbursable JMD OLA Leg. Affairs 12 mo
9 Non-Reimbursable JMD OLA Leg. Affairs 10 mo
10 Non-Reimbursable JMD OLA Leg. Affairs 3 mo
11 Non-Reimbursable OLP OLA Leg. Affairs 6 mo
12 Non-Reimbursable CRM OLA Leg. Affairs 4 mo
13 Non-Reimbursable CIV OLA Leg. Affairs < 1 mo
14 Non-Reimbursable ATF House Judiciary Committee Leg. Affairs 4 mo
15 Non-Reimbursable ATF House Appropriations Committee Leg. Affairs 3 mo
16 Non-Reimbursable FBI ODNI27 Leg. Affairs 12 mo
17 Non-Reimbursable FBI HSGAC 27 Leg. Affairs 12 mo
18 Non-Reimbursable USAO District of Columbia House Judiciary Committee Leg. Affairs 6 mo
19 Non-Reimbursable JMD OLP Leg. Affairs 8 mo
20 Reimbursable Civil Division OLP Leg. Affairs 12 mo
21 Reimbursable USAO District of Massachusetts OLP Leg. Affairs 8 mo
22 Reimbursable USAO District of Vermont OLP Leg. Affairs < 1 mo
23 Reimbursable USAO Northern District of Indiana OLP Leg. Affairs 10 mo
24 Reimbursable USAO Eastern District of Wisconsin OLP Leg. Affairs 2 mo
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

Other Reimbursable Agreements

Reimbursable agreements are used when components provide services or goods to other components and involve the transfer of funds between the participating components. JMD provided us with three reimbursable agreements that were in effect during FY 2007, all involving staff performing public affairs. The agreements were for reimbursement of personnel expenses incurred by PAO staff that provided support in the areas of public affairs for the Criminal Division, Antitrust Division, and National Security Division. The reimbursable agreements are detailed in Table 13.

TABLE 13
FISCAL YEAR 2007 LEGISLATIVE AND PUBLIC
REIMBURSABLE AGREEMENTS

  BUYING
COMPONENT 		SELLING
COMPONENT		 LENGTH OF AGREEMENT
DURING FY 2007		 REIMBURSABLE
AGREEMENT
AMOUNT28
1 ATR PAO 12 mo $154,129
2 CRM PAO 12 mo 139,030
3 NSD PAO 10 mo 126,493
  TOTAL $419,652
Source: OIG data request of DOJ components on legislative and public affairs

Analysis of National Finance Center Public Affairs Staff List

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has a position classification series for public affairs staff titled General Schedule 1035, Public Affairs Specialist. OPM defines this series as:

responsible for administering, supervising, or performing work involved in establishing and maintaining mutual communication between federal agencies and the general public and various other pertinent publics including internal or external, foreign or domestic audiences. Positions in this series advise agency management on policy formulation and the potential public reaction to proposed policy, and identify and carry out the public communication requirements inherent in disseminating policy decisions.

We obtained a list of all GS-1035 personnel within DOJ during FY 2007 that was drawn from a National Finance Center personnel database. The list contained the names of 132 GS-1035 Public Affairs Specialist staff assigned to DOJ components as of September 30, 2007.29

We compared the list of GS-1035 Public Affairs Specialists to the public affairs expense and staffing data survey responses provided by the DOJ components included in the list to ensure that we had received expense and staffing data for all Public Affairs Specialists. As stated previously, the list contained 132 GS-1035 staff, from which we traced 100 staff back to the expense and staffing data provided by the components.30 However, we identified 32 GS-1035 Public Affairs Specialists staff that were not included in the expense and staffing data provided by the components in response to our survey. We therefore requested additional information from the components on the 32 GS-1035 Public Affairs Specialists staff and determined the following information.

There is no OPM classification series for legislative affairs staff, and therefore we could not obtain a list of staff performing legislative affairs functions from the National Finance Center. As a result, we could not perform a similar analysis of the legislative affairs expense and staffing information provided by the components and USAOs in response to our data request.

Conclusion

This audit identified the legislative and public affairs expenses and staffing within all DOJ components and USAOs. Based on a 100‑percent response to our survey, we identified 25 DOJ components and 58 USAOs who had at least one staff member who performed legislative or public affairs functions at least 25 percent each week on average in FY 2007, during the period in which they were assigned to perform these functions. These components and USAOs reported FY 2007 expenses totaling $49.35 million, which equates to 0.2 percent of the total DOJ FY 2007 budget. The FBI, ATF, DEA, and USAOs accounted for $34.5 million or 69.9 percent of the total DOJ legislative and public affairs expenses.

The 25 DOJ components and 58 USAOs also reported 476 staff performing legislative and public affairs functions throughout FY 2007, which consisted of 269 headquarters staff and 207 field office staff. The FBI, ATF, DEA, and USAOs accounted for 336 or 70.6 percent of the total DOJ staff performing these functions either full‑time or as significant collateral duty.

From our analysis of the legislative and public affairs expense and staffing data, overall we found that for FY 2007 OLA complied with its permanent positions ceiling, and PAO complied with its permanent positions and FTE ceilings. However, we also found that OLA’s exceeded its 21 FTE ceiling by 2.8 FTE work years.

Additionally, our analysis of DOJ personnel categorized as GS-1035 Public Affairs Specialists staff found five staff that were not included in the public affairs expense and staffing data reported by BOP, OJP, and the USAOs for the Southern District of Florida and District of Arizona. We notified the responsible components of the oversight and the five staff were subsequently included. We also determined other errors in personnel classifications related to Public Affairs Specialists.

Recommendations

We recommend JMD:

  1. Ensure that OLA complies with any future staffing restrictions mandated by appropriations law.

We recommend ATF:

  1. Update the OPM series classifications for a staff member who no longer performs public affairs functions.


Footnotes

  1. For the purposes of this audit, we defined “significant” as at least one staff performing legislative or public affairs functions for an average of 25 percent or more of their time per week in FY 2007, during the period in which they were assigned to perform these functions. We used the 25‑percent threshold to avoid capturing incidental, non‑recurring activities.

  2. Although the Civil Division was initially excluded from our legislative and public affairs expense and staffing data request, we subsequently identified and included legislative affairs expenses for this component. Specifically, during FY 2007 the Civil Division detailed 1 staff member to OLA on a non-reimbursable basis for a 12-month period that included the last month of FY 2007 and continued into FY 2008. During the period of the detail, this staff member performed legislative affairs exclusively and thus was included in the expense and staffing data for this report.

  3. Generally, our audit only included staff performing legislative or public affairs functions for an average of 25 percent or more of their time per week in FY 2007, during the period in which they were assigned to perform these functions. However, we included all staff funded by OLA and PAO, since these components are dedicated to performing legislative and public affairs functions, respectively.

  4. Throughout this report, differences in the total amounts are due to rounding. Additionally, differences in total percentages as compared to the sum of individual component percentages are due to rounding.

  5. It should be noted that the 476 staff performing legislative or public affairs functions does not equate to 476 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions. Because staff performing legislative or public affairs as a significant collateral duty were required to estimate a percentage of time performing these functions, we were unable to calculate FTEs.

  6. Throughout this report, we combined the total expenses and number of positions of the 58 USAOs and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys into one component, referred to as “USAOs.”

  7. Pub. L. No. 109-108 (2005), Science, State, Justice, Commerce, And Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006.

  8. Pub. L. No. 110-161 (2007), Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008.

  9. Our analysis of the actual number of permanent positions for OLA and PAO was based on the average number of onboard staff, including detailed staff, each day during FY 2007. We did not include temporary or term staff in our calculations of permanent positions.

  10. FTEs equal the total number of regular straight-time hours (i.e., not including overtime or holiday hours) worked by employees divided by the number of compensable hours applicable to each fiscal year (2,080 hours for FY 2007). Annual leave, sick leave, compensatory time off, and other approved leave categories are considered “hours worked” for purposes of defining FTEs.

  11. It should be noted that PAO had two staff that were detailed to other agencies on a non-reimbursable basis during FY 2007, during which time they were not performing public affairs functions. As a result, we did not include the period these staff were on detail in our calculations of permanent positions and FTEs.

  12. JMD’s Consolidated Executive Office provides administrative support in the areas of financial management, acquisition services, human resources liaison, voice and data communications, and facilities coordination to executives, managers, and employees of DOJ’s leadership offices, senior management offices, and selected JMD staffs.

  13. The congressional mandate refers to the appropriations law which placed restrictions on salaries and expenses and the number of positions and FTEs for DOJ components, discussed previously in our report.

  14. A permanent position is defined by 5 C.F.R. 531.403 as a “position filled by an employee whose appointment is not designated as temporary by law and does not have a definite time limitation of 1 year or less. ‘Permanent position’ includes a position to which an employee is promoted on a temporary or term basis for at least 1 year.”

  15. The estimated non-personnel expenses reported by the DOJ components and USAOs performing significant legislative and public affairs functions are shown in Appendix VI. The non-personnel expenses are provided for informational purposes only since these costs were not comparable among components.

  16. For reporting purposes, the “Other” consisted of the following 12 components: (1) ATR, (2) CIV, (3) CRM, (4) CRS, (5) CRT, (6) ENRD, (7) EOUST, (8) NSD, (9) OIP, (10) OVW, (11) TAX, and (12) USNCB INTERPOL.

  17. The expenses and staffing information associated with these positions were not included in OLA’s staffing and expense totals since the expense and staffing information for these positions were included by the components providing the detailees.

  18. ATF currently has 25 field divisions; however, during FY 2007 ATF only had 23 field divisions.

  19. There are also reimbursable detail arrangements in which the involved parties split the costs of the detail.

  20. ODNI is the acronym of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. HSGAC is the acronym used to reference the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (HSGAC).

  21. The actual expenses related to these reimbursable agreements were included in the expenses and staffing data reported by PAO because these reimbursable services were performed by permanent PAO staff.

  22. Our audit was not intended to assess the accuracy of the National Finance Center personnel database.

  23. The list included six additional staff that we identified and verified were not GS‑1035s during FY 2007. As a result, these staff were not included in our analysis.

  24. A detailed list of the 25 GS-1035 staff and related personnel expenses, by component and in total, are included in Appendix VII.

  25. The five staff that were not initially included in our public affairs expense and staffing data included two staff from OJP.


« Previous Table of Contents Next »