Advanced search Help
Searching for terms: EXACT: "United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division" in: publisher
Clear all search criteria
Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).
-
Review of the Drug Enforcement Administration's El Paso Intelligence Center
"When it was established in 1974, Evaluation and Inspections Division (EPIC) focused primarily on Mexican heroin traffickers and illegal alien and weapon smugglers. EPIC's focus today is broader, providing an intelligence resource that targets a wider range of criminal activity. EPIC's mission has evolved in response to a shift in focus to Southwest border smuggling and associated violence, and the need for improved collaboration and timely information sharing among law enforcement and intelligence agencies. EPIC currently hosts representatives from 21 different agencies and provides information to over 19,000 law enforcement officers and analysts who are approved EPIC users. This review by the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examined the roles and functions of EPIC and its analysis and dissemination of intelligence in support of federal, state, and local law enforcement investigations and interdiction operations. In this review, we interviewed representatives of investigative agencies that obtain intelligence from EPIC. We also conducted site visits at EPIC and several law enforcement agencies along the Southwest border and elsewhere, analyzed EPIC data and its performance measures, and reviewed U.S. national counter-drug strategy and policy materials. In addition, we administered a nationwide survey of EPIC users to obtain their perspectives on EPIC's products and services."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2010-06
-
Review of the Protection of the Judiciary and the United States Attorneys
"Threats and inappropriate communications to federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) have increased dramatically during the past several years, growing from 592 in fiscal year (FY) 2003 to 1,278 in FY 2008. Overall, during this 6-year period, there were 5,744 threats directed at these federal officials. United States Marshals Service (USMS) district offices have primary responsibility for ensuring the safety and security of federal judicial proceedings and protecting the more than 2,000 federal judges and approximately 5,250 other federal court officials, including U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs. Three other Department of Justice components - the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA), United States Attorneys' Offices (USAO), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) - are also involved in responding to these threats. [...] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to examine the USMS's response to threats made against federal judges and the USMS's, EOUSA's, and USAOs' handling of threats against U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs. This is the third OIG review to examine the protection of federal court officials. In this review, we examined the role and responsibilities of USMS district offices, procedures that USMS district offices employ to assess and respond to threats, and the roles of EOUSA and the USAOs in the protection of the U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs. Our review examined the 1,587 threats reported during FY 2007 and FY 2008. In addition, we conducted a detailed examination of 26 threats in four judicial districts that we visited."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2009-12
-
Department of Justice's Terrorism Task Forces
"In this review, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) assessed the role and operations of these terrorism task forces and councils. We examined whether the task forces and councils were achieving their purposes; whether gaps, duplication, and overlap existed in counterterrorism coverage; and how the performance of the task forces and councils is measured. We collected information through interviews of senior Department officials, task force and council managers and members, and state and local law enforcement officials; a survey of task force managers and members; document reviews; and direct observation of task force and council activities."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2005-06
-
Review of the Department's Anti-Gang Intelligence and Coordination Centers
"The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to examine the intelligence and coordination activities of NGIC [National Gang Intelligence Center] and GangTECC [Gang Targeting, Enforcement, and Coordinating Center] (the Centers), and to assess the effectiveness of their contributions to the Department's anti-gang initiatives. Specifically, we examined whether the Centers provide comprehensive gang intelligence and coordination services to enhance gang investigations and prosecutions in the field. In addition, we assessed the effectiveness of the Department's management and co-location of the Centers. [...] Our review found that, after almost 3 years of operation, NGIC and GangTECC still have not made a significant impact on the Department's anti-gang activities. Despite being located in the same office suite, both NGIC and GangTECC are not effectively collaborating and are not sharing gang-related information. Most importantly, NGIC has not established a gang information database for collecting and disseminating gang intelligence as directed by statute. NGIC is perceived as predominately an FBI organization, and it has not developed the capability to effectively share gang intelligence and information with other law enforcement organizations. In contrast, we found that GangTECC has no budget and lacks the resources to carry out its mission. We also found that the Criminal Division has not filled an attorney position at GangTECC that is intended to enable it to provide guidance to law enforcement officials conducting gang investigations and prosecutions. [...] As a result of the above, NGIC and GangTECC are not effectively providing investigators and prosecutors with 'one-stop shopping' for gang information and assistance, and they are not contributing significantly to the Department's anti-gang initiatives."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2009-11-13
-
Review of the USMS Office of Internal Investigations
"In this review, the Department of Justice (Department) Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examined the operation of the United States Marshals Service's (USMS) unit that is responsible for the processing and investigation of allegations of employee misconduct. This unit - the Office of Internal Investigations (OII) - is a part of the USMS's Office of Inspection. The OIG focused on OII's investigation of allegations of employee misconduct, OII's staffing, and the USMS's management and support of OII. We found that from fiscal year (FY) 2004 to FY 2009, OII did not meet its 90-day standard for completing misconduct investigations in 51 percent (499) of the cases it closed. Of the 499 investigations that exceeded the standard, 52 (10 percent) took over 9 months, and 18 of those took more than a year to complete. Further, we found that OII is increasingly unable to keep up with its workload. We concluded that OII has not met its timeliness standard for completing misconduct investigations primarily because of persistent understaffing. During our review period, OII had only three of its seven investigator positions filled. [...] We also found that Deputy U.S. Marshals generally lack interest in applying for OII investigator positions."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2010-03
-
Review of the Department's Preparation to Respond to a WMD Incident
"The use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), whether by a hostile nation, a terrorist group, or an individual, poses a potentially serious threat to the United States. [...] The federal government has taken various steps to prepare to meet that threat. [...] The National Response Framework established a comprehensive approach for a unified national response to natural and man-made disasters, including WMD incidents. The National Response Framework directs the Attorney General to appoint a Senior Federal Law Enforcement Official to coordinate and direct federal law enforcement support activities related to a critical incident. Further, the National Response Framework includes annexes called Emergency Support Functions (ESF) that assign specific responsibilities to federal agencies in the event of a disaster. Under the National Response Framework, the Department of Justice (Department or DOJ) is assigned by ESF-13 the responsibility for coordinating federal law enforcement activities in response to a critical incident, such as a WMD attack, and for ensuring public safety and security in the event an incident overwhelms state and local law enforcement. This review evaluated the readiness of the Department and its components to respond to a potential WMD incident. In addition, we examined the readiness of Department components' field offices in the National Capital Region (NCR) to respond in a coordinated way to a WMD incident. Our review found that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has taken appropriate steps to prepare to respond to a potential WMD attack. [...] However, we concluded that the Department of Justice as a whole and components within the Department have not implemented adequate WMD response plans. As a result, the Department is not fully prepared to provide a coordinated response to a WMD incident."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2010-05
-
Review of ATF's Explosives Inspection Program
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) conducts qualification inspections of applicants for new explosives licenses or permits, as well as compliance inspections of current license and permit holders ('licensees') to ensure that they are following federal explosives laws and regulations. Since 2003, the 'Safe Explosives Act' (SEA) has required ATF to inspect every licensee's explosives storage facilities ('SEA compliance inspection') at least once every 3 years as part of the license and permit renewal process. The purpose of this Office of the Inspector General (OIG) review was to examine how effectively and efficiently ATF conducts these inspections and how it uses the information gathered during the inspections to identify trends in the explosives industry that would allow it to improve its inspection program."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2013-04
-
Review of ATF's Federal Firearms Licensee Inspection Program
"The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) enforces federal firearms laws, in part, by issuing federal firearms licenses, by conducting regulatory inspections of the more than 123,500 Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL), and by conducting criminal investigations of FFL violations. In a July 2004 review, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) concluded that ATF's Inspection Program was not fully effective in ensuring that FFLs comply with federal firearms laws because inspections were infrequent and of inconsistent quality, and follow-up inspections and adverse actions had been sporadic. Also, ATF did not conduct in-person inspections on all applicants before licensing them to sell guns. In this follow-up of the OIG's 2004 review, we assess ATF's FFL Inspection Program and its ability to effectively enforce federal firearms laws."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2013-04
-
Drug Enforcement Administration's Adjudication of Registrant Actions
"The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administers a provision of the 'Controlled Substances Act of 1970' requiring registration with the DEA by businesses that import, export, manufacture, or distribute controlled substances; health care practitioners entitled to dispense, administer, or prescribe controlled pharmaceuticals; and pharmacies entitled to fill prescriptions. If the DEA finds a registrant or applicant has violated the Controlled Substances Act, it may issue an order to show cause why registration should not be revoked, suspended, or denied. If the violation poses an imminent threat to public health or safety, the DEA may issue an immediate suspension order, which deprives the registrant of the right to deal in controlled substances immediately. Orders to show cause and immediate suspension orders are collectively known as 'registrant actions.' After receiving notice of a registrant action, the registrant may either allow the DEA Administrator (the Administrator) to issue a final decision or request a hearing through the DEA's Office of Administrative Law Judges. If the registrant requests a hearing, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) will issue a recommended decision to the Administrator. The Administrator then issues a final decision by adopting, modifying, or rejecting the ALJ's recommended decision. The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) examined the adjudicative process followed by the DEA, the timeliness of that adjudicative process between 2008 and 2012, and the impact of any delays on registrants, the public, and on the DEA itself."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division
2014-05
-
Review of the Protection of the Judiciary and the United States Attorneys: December 2009 [Redacted]
"Threats and inappropriate communications to federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, and Assistant U.S. Attorneys (AUSA) have increased dramatically during the past several years, growing from 592 in fiscal year (FY) 2003 to 1,278 in FY 2008. Overall, during this 6-year period, there were 5,744 threats directed at these federal officials. [...] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted this review to examine the USMS's response to threats made against federal judges and the USMS's [United States Marshals Service], EOUSA's [Executive Office for United States Attorneys], and USAOs' [United States Attorneys Office] handling of threats against U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs. This is the third OIG review to examine the protection of federal court officials. In this review, we examined the role and responsibilities of USMS district offices, procedures that USMS district offices employ to assess and respond to threats, and the roles of EOUSA and the USAOs in the protection of the U.S. Attorneys and AUSAs. Our review examined the 1,587 threats reported during FY 2007 and FY 2008. In addition, we conducted a detailed examination of 26 threats in four judicial districts that we visited."
United States. Department of Justice. Evaluation and Inspections Division; United States. Department of Justice. Office of the Inspector General
2009-12
1
