|
TRAC maintains a series of databases which track
activities of federal prosecutors. Coverage extends
from 1974 onward for each U.S. Attorney office. The
data are transactional in nature.
Both civil and criminal activities are tracked.
Information is
included about each referral received by federal
prosecutors, where it comes from, the
suspects/potential defendants or parties included, the
criminal charges or civil cause of action
involved and how the referral is ultimately
disposed of.
Tracking of criminal matters starts at the point of
referral from a federal, state, or local
investigatory agency recommending federal criminal
prosecution and follows the referral through to
ultimate disposition. Referrals which federal
prosecutors decline to prosecute, as well as
referrals which are prosecuted, are covered.
Civil
matters tracked can involve referrals prior to any court filing, or be referred after court litigation has
commenced (for example, when a federal agency or official has been sued).
The main source for this series is the case
management system maintained by the Executive
Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) of the
U.S. Justice Department. EOUSA tracks the
activities of federal prosecutors in each of the
U.S. Attorney offices. Following centralized
standards and using prescribed database systems,
each U.S. Attorney's office is required to maintain
detailed computerized records on its workload (see
United States Attorneys' Manual Chapter 7,
3-7.110 (1992) and 3-16.000
(1998)). Ensuring accuracy of this information
is an explicit responsibility of each U.S.
Attorney. As part of the procedures implementing
this responsibility, the United States Attorneys,
or alternatively each Division Chief with the
district, must "personally certify the accuracy of
their data as of December 31 and June 30 of each
year." [U.S. Department of Justice, EOUSA Resource
Manual, 135 Continuous Case Management Data Quality
Improvement Plan 10/03/97]
Each month, each U.S. Attorney office furnishes
extracts from each office's
computerized record system on its activities to the
national office where they are combined into a
national database, various validity checks are run,
and internal management reports are generated
summarizing each office's activities. The summary
reports are furnished to each U.S. Attorney.
Discrepancies uncovered during these edit checks
are reported to the field and corrections are
requested. At the end of each fiscal year, a final
set of perfected tape files are generated. These
are then used to generate statistics summarizing
the activities of federal prosecutors for both
internal and external audiences. This central
source is used for responding to requests for
statistical information from Congress, OMB, as well
as from the Attorney General.
Since 1974, a number of significant
transformations have taken place both in computer
technology and in agency computer and database
systems. These have affected how the Justice
Department tracks the activities of each U.S.
Attorney's office. Prior to 1998, district offices
used different case management systems which varied
in how matters were tracked and on which specific items
of information were maintained. Over time, changes have
also occurred in the information recorded by each office. Even when
the same field has been present throughout the
period, the specific codes used to classify
information have often evolved. For example, on the
criminal files, information on sentences was not
centrally collected prior to fiscal year 1992.
While the "criminal lead charge" has been recorded
throughout the period, the use of categories for
Justice Department criminal program areas and civil causes of action only began to be
recorded in the early eighties. These program
category and cause of action codes have also undergone some evolution
over time as new categories were defined and old
ones discontinued. To what extent multiple criminal charges
are separately tracked, and how they are associated
with separate counts, has also evolved during this
period.
Further, not every information item in the
centrally maintained databases are "required"
fields; some are optional. In general, dates of
referral, prosecution or court filing, and disposition along with
referral agency, criminal lead charge, criminal program category or civil cause of action,
disposition type, reason or outcome are required
and with rare exception present in the files.
Because district database systems varied prior to
1998, some optional fields were not even present in
all district information systems.
In tracking the criminal workload, a separate
record is generally maintained for each defendant
so that information specific to that defendant
concerning processing and outcome is recorded. The
centralized files exclude petty offenses. Since
1980, offices are required to maintain information
on criminal referrals received which were "immediately
declined." Prior to 1980, this was not required.
Only defendants involved in "matters" and "cases"
were tracked. (See discussion of these specialized
terms in
Understanding the Terminology which Agencies
Use.) Criminal immediate declination files include fewer
fields of information. Also up until 1998, a
separate record was not maintained for each
potential defendant or suspect in an immediate
declination, although, the number of suspects
involved was recorded.
In tracking the civil workload, generally a separate record is opened only for each case rather than party.
Thus, unlike the situation with criminal which summarizes these data on a per-defendant basis, statistics for
civil enforcement are calculated on a per-case basis. It is also true that the civil referral-by-referral data sometimes contain additional records when there are multiple parties.
When two or more participants are involved in the same civil action and the relief requested differs for the
participants, a separate record may be opened for each party. And in lands civil actions, a separate file may be opened for each tract. About 25% of the cases track information on multiple parties, with 5% of the cases tracking information on three or more parties.
Because of the natural delay between the
occurrence of an event and its recording in the
agency's database, two parallel sets of date fields
are kept. The first is the actual date -- such as
for when the referral is received, the case is
filed, or the disposition occurs ("event" date). The second is the
recording date -- when the event was added to the
computer system ("reporting" date). The Justice Department uses the
date the event was added to the computer system to
classify whether the event occurred during a given
fiscal year. This may result in events which took
place prior to the fiscal year in question, being
listed in the current year's file. Users can access
monthly data on TRACFED by either the event or reporting date.
While these federal prosecutorial databases have
some limitations and specific problem areas, on the
whole TRAC's analyses have generally found the criminal data
to be of relatively high quality as compared with
other government administrative data sources. For
example, the counts produced on a national level
for federal prosecutions and convictions for tax
fraud and drug offenses generally mirror the counts
independently published by the Administrative
Office of the United States Courts. (See
federal tax prosecutions and
federal drug prosecutions). Much less is known about the quality of the civil data.
TRAC has noted several areas where some caution in
using these data is warranted:
-
Criminal Immediate Declinations. The first area of
concern is in the recording of immediate
declinations versus matters. Problems have been
observed in the reliability of information
recorded, and in the consistency of recording
practices over time as well as between district
offices. Special caution should therefore be
exercised in relying upon statistical series
which include these reports. (Note: because civil immediate
declinations were not recorded at all until very recently
they are currently not included in the database.)
First, there is inherent subjectivity in what
gets recorded as a referral, particularly when
it is immediately declined. Further, U.S.
Attorney accounting practices appear to vary --
both among district offices and over time --
regarding which referrals are recorded and,
when recorded, whether they are classified as
an immediate declination or a matter. Finally,
because district offices maintain these records
as a "case management" tool, less attention may
be given to the recording of these receipts
(i.e., immediate declinations) since -- by
definition -- these referrals never enter into
their workload. Indeed, prior to 1980 they were
not tracked at all.
For whatever reason, the number of immediate
declinations recorded by the U.S. Attorneys has
declined sharply since 1980. Increasingly, the
referrals that are recorded at all are being
treated as matters, even when they are
subsequently declined. Some caution is
therefore warranted when comparing referral
counts. Because of these concerns, TRAC has not
combined immediate declinations with later
declinations in its counts prior to 1986. Users
should also note that there was an unusual
decrease (-18%) nationally in the number of
recorded immediate declinations between fiscal
1995 and fiscal 1996. The number of matters
recorded as received -- as distinct from
immediate declinations -- also declined but to
a lesser extent (-3%) between fiscal 1995 and
fiscal 1996. Finally, because of major changes
in recording systems between 1991 and 1992 and
1997 and 1998 conclusions based upon
comparisons across these time periods also
should be carefully scrutinized.
-
Magistrate Court Cases. A second area of
concern is in the accuracy of recording of
information on criminal defendants prosecuted in U.S.
magistrate courts, and in general in the
recording of the specific "court type." The
database files maintained centrally treat
magistrate prosecutions in a fundamentally
different way than prosecutions before federal
district judges.
TRAC has noted apparent inconsistencies in the
coverage and coding of information for these
records. For example, the EOUSA generally
counts as a magistrate court prosecution any
matter with a magistrate court entry in the
"court type" field. Yet sometimes the
disposition field indicates that the matter was
declined, not prosecuted. Some offices may
record preliminary appearances in magistrate
court as if they were the filing of a
prosecution when they are not and central
systems may not always succeed in screening out
these preliminary proceedings from their
magistrate case prosecution counts. Because
fewer information items are recorded on
magistrate cases, it is often difficult to
reconcile these inconsistencies. At other
times, the record indicates that the matter was
not taken to court, but a guilty disposition is
shown along with specific sentence information.
Under these circumstances, EOUSA treats the
referral as a district court prosecution
whether it is or not.
These internal inconsistencies raise questions
as to how reliably and accurately magistrate
matters are being tracked. Magistrate records
make up only a relatively small proportion
(around 10%) of total matters. However, these
problem areas could be significant for
particular categories of offenses or offenders,
or for a particular district in a given year.
Changes incorporated into the new 1998 data
systems were designed to correct many of these
deficiencies. Thus, it is hoped that current
data should become more reliable.
-
Incomplete Tracking between Years and
Offices. A third area of concern is the
incomplete tracking of referrals between years
and offices.
Disappearing cases. The Justice
Department's central system maintains a
separate file for each year. Cases not yet
disposed of at the end of the year (ending
inventory) should by definition be part of the
beginning inventory for the next year's file.
This is not always the case. By the Justice
Department's own counts, in the aggregate about
5 percent of criminal prosecutions in district court
which are pending at the end of the year simply
disappear and do not show up as part of the
beginning inventory at the start of the
following year -- thus, their disposition is
apparently never recorded. (The problem is
larger for criminal matters in magistrate courts --
where in aggregate about 15 percent of these
court cases pending at the end of one fiscal
year disappear from the beginning inventory for
the following year.) A partial explanation
given by EOUSA staff for these discrepancies is
that to provide an incentive for prompt
reporting of dispositions by districts, when a
district neglects to report a disposition for
several years the referral is deleted from the
database without formally crediting the
disposition to the district. This leads to some
undercount in dispositions as well as potential
bias when assessing their composition since
late reporting may be more common with certain
kinds of dispositions than others.
Transfers between districts. There is a
further problem in tracking cases which
transfer between districts. Separate tracking
numbers are maintained in each district. When a
new referral comes in, even when it is a
transfer from a different district, a new
matter or case file is opened. This can lead to
some double-counting nationally since the
matter or case was already separately counted
in the originating district. Transfers also
present an issue of how they should be most
appropriately treated in the originating
districts statistics. Should a transfer out at
the referral stage be treated the same as a any
decision not to prosecute, or at the court
stage the same as any other type of
"dismissal?"
In theory, transfers in and out of districts
should balance and this double counting could
be eliminated. This would be possible only if
matters closed by "transfer out" from districts
equaled the number opened by "transfer in" to
receiving districts. But these counts don't
match. According to EOUSA staff, often cases
recorded as closed through transfer never shows
up in receiving districts' workloads.
Effectively, a "transfer out" often is a final
disposition of the matter. In part for this
reason, long standing EOUSA practices have not
distinguished transfers from other types of
referral dispositions in their counts.
Transfers, however, are relatively modest in
number usually accounting for less than 3
percent of criminal dispositions in any year. However,
transfers could be significant for particular
categories of offenses or offenders, or for a
particular district in a given year.
-
Recording of Criminal Fines. A fourth area of
concern is the recording of information on fine
amounts. Recorded amounts appear on average lower
than would be expected. Historically, the U.S.
Attorney Offices have been responsible for
tracking unpaid fines. While amounts entered
should reflect the total fine rather than the
amount which has not been paid at the time of
case closure, this may not always be the case.
TRAC has been unable to obtain any clear
definition from the Executive Office for U.S.
Attorneys of what explains apparent recording
discrepancies.
-
Recording of Civil Outcomes. A fifth area of
concern is the recording of information about civil
outcomes. The diversity of remedies sought in civil
cases makes recording of outcome particularly problematic.
Any system which tries to reduce this diversity into a
simple coding system will loose important detail. Also because of this complexity
there is more ambiguity in the definition of these
codes. (Which party prevailed, for example, where most but not all remedies sought were granted,
or where monetary claims were made and the sum granted was sizable but not the entire amount sought?) Thus, inherently there is considerable subjectively
in the recording of outcome.
In this database there is a further problem of missing information about outcome.
While relief requested and granted are required fields,
information is still frequently missing (particularly with the relief granted field
and for the supplemental records on additional parties). For all of these
reasons, a user should exercise caution when interpreting outcome
measures from the civil datdabase.
-
Data System Transition Periods. Finally,
reliability and validity problems often accompany
periods when large scale data system changes take
place. During the nineties, two major conversions
occurred in federal prosecutor databases. Not
only did recording practices changed at these
times, but as is typical in any large-scale data
base conversion, special transition problems were
encountered which affect the data quality.
Special caution is therefore advised in making
comparisons spanning these particular time
periods.
1991-1992 Period: As part of the
preparations leading up to the data conversion,
during 1991 the Executive Office for United
States Attorneys initiated "Operation Garbage
Out." This process required a review to ensure
correct and current information [Statistical
Report, USAO Fiscal Year 1991, p. 7]. During
this process instances came to light where the
status of a referral had not been properly
updated in the database. Some of these changes
were then counted as occurring in fiscal year
1991 when they had in fact taken place in
previous years. Figures for 1991 therefore may
be unusually high because of this database
cleanup effort.
1997-1998 Period: A second transition
in district data systems occurred during 1997
and 1998. For the first time, all districts
adopted a single uniform database system.
Significant changes also occurred in what
information was being tracked and how it was
recorded. Beginning in fiscal year 1998, for example,
information on civil debt collection cases generally is no longer included in
the civil caseload data. (The civil debt collections matters which are no longer included "are claims
of a normal and routine nature, such as Department of
Education student loan defaults, Veterans Administration
benefit overpayments, etc. in which litigation normally is
not contested and usually results in a judgment being
entered.")
Major difficulties were also encountered
during the conversion. In addition, problems
were encountered in consistently mapping these
new data structures used in the field to the unchanged file
systems maintained centrally by the EOUSA in
Washington.
No large database tracking system, however, is ever
perfect. The challenges are enormous. According to
the 1996 annual report of the Executive Office for
United States Attorneys an interagency Data
Reconciliation Working Group from the Department of
Justice, the Administrative Office of the United
States Courts, and the United States Sentencing
Commission was formed to work for greater consistency
in the way Federal criminal agencies capture and
report information. The initial findings of this
group in identifying data differences was issued
"Comparing Case Processing Statistics" in August 1996 with a
followup report in April 1998.
Finally, the Justice Department has funded
record-by-record matching of the criminal administrative
data bases from federal prosecutors with those
maintained by the federal courts and other
entities. These comparisons undertaken by
independent outside scholars under contract with
the government have resulted in a number of
publications from the Justice Department's Bureau
of Justice Statistics. See, for example,
"Compendium of Federal Justice Statistics for 1996"
(1/99 - NCJ 172849) and earlier reports in this
series. Because these researchers worked under
contract, they had access to all fields of
information, including those providing the names
and other identifying details on each defendant.
This allowed them to do record-by-record matchups
between the two systems. More than one group of
outside researchers have been involved in this
research program over the years. No fundamental
problems with the integrity of data in either data
system have been reported.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, Syracuse
University
Copyright 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002
|
