Justice Management: The Value of Oversight Has Been Demonstrated

GAO discussed the Department of Justice's (DOJ) budget for fiscal year (FY) 1992. GAO noted that as a result of GAO oversight: (1) the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and DOJ have taken actions to improve the INS management framework; (2) DOJ appointed debt collection officials to centralize its collection efforts, and issued a long-term strategy to manage civil debt collection more systematically; (3) state and local governments have taken action to implement the Bureau of Prison's modified computing standards, which could substantially reduce their requests for expansion funds; and (4) DOJ has taken some actions to implement improved internal controls over asset management and disposal, but program consolidation was still under consideration. In addition, GAO noted that: (1) DOJ lacked a well integrated case management system, and it has not taken all of the actions necessary to ensure adequate protection of its highly sensitive computer systems; and (2) Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and DOJ lack of cooperation, delays in providing routine management information, deletion of data from requested files, and denial of access to open cases limited GAO access to relevant or requested information. GAO believes that several DOJ management areas warranting congressional oversight include: (1) white collar crime; (2) how federal law enforcement agencies set their investigative priorities and measure their effectiveness; (3) DOJ response to general management recommendations; (4) the effectiveness of the Drug Enforcement Administration's war on drugs; and (5) FBI management practices.