NCJ Number
199385
Date Published
January 2003
Length
25 pages
Annotation
This report reviewed the accuracy of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) terrorism-related conviction statistics through the identification of how terrorism-related conviction statistics are developed and through the assessment of whether DOJ has sufficient management oversight and internal controls in place ensuring the accuracy of terrorism-related statistics.
Abstract
In response to allegations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) misrepresented terrorism statistics and that DOJ overstated the number of terrorism-related convictions, this report presents information on the criteria DOJ’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Executive Office for the U.S. Attorneys (EOUSA) used to clarify cases and the resulting convictions as terrorism-related prior to 2002; the effect, if any, the use of different classification systems had on the number of convictions classified as terrorism-related prior to 2000; the basis for the number of terrorism convictions in DOJ’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report; whether FBI case files contained documentation supporting its terrorism-related classifications; factors contributing to recent increases in terrorism-related conviction statistics; and whether DOJ has sufficient management oversight and internal controls in place to ensure the accuracy and reliability of terrorism-related statistics. It is important that the various U.S. Attorney Offices (USAO) accurately account for their efforts and not misclassify cases as terrorism-related that are not terrorism-related. Discrepancies discovered in the accuracy of fiscal year 2002 terrorism-related conviction statistics provided to EOUSA by USAO districts raise concerns on the overall quality and reliability of EOUSA terror-related conviction statistics. It is recommended that the U.S. Attorney General implement a formal system to oversee and validate the accuracy of case classification and conviction data entered. The system should entail edit checks of data entered, reconciliation of summary information verifying data completeness, and management review of output reports. Appendices I-III