**United States Marshals Service**

**FY 2008 Performance Budget**

**Salaries and Expenses Appropriation**

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.13125in" height="3.129166666666667in"}

**January 2007**

**Table of Contents**

[I. Overview for the United States Marshals Service
1](#__RefHeading___Toc156122094)

[II. Summary of Program Changes 9](#ii.-summary-of-program-changes)

[III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language
11](#__RefHeading___Toc156122096)

[IV. Decision Unit Justification 13](#__RefHeading___Toc156122097)

[A. Judicial and Courthouse Security
13](#a.-judicial-and-courthouse-security)

[*1. Program Description* 13](#program-description)

[*2. Performance Tables* 15](#__RefHeading___Toc156122100)

[*3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies*
21](#performance-resources-and-strategies)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
21](#a.-performance-plan-and-report-for-outcomes)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes
22](#b.-strategies-to-accomplish-outcomes)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
30](#c.-results-of-program-assessment-rating-tool-part-reviews)

[B. Fugitive Apprehension 32](#b.-fugitive-apprehension)

[*1. Program Description* 32](#__RefHeading___Toc156122106)

[*2. Performance Tables* 35](#refheading___toc156122107)

[*3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies*
41](#__RefHeading___Toc156122109)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
41](#__RefHeading___Toc156122110)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 44](#__RefHeading___Toc156122111)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
48](#refheading___toc156122112)

[C. Prisoner Security and Transportation
49](#c.-prisoner-security-and-transportation)

[*1. Program Description* 49](#program-description-1)

[*2. Performance Tables* 51](#__RefHeading___Toc156122115)

[*3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies*
56](#performance-resources-and-strategies-1)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
56](#__RefHeading___Toc156122117)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 56](#__RefHeading___Toc156122118)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
61](#__RefHeading___Toc156122119)

[D. Protection of Witnesses 62](#d.-protection-of-witnesses)

[*1. Program Description* 62](#program-description-2)

[*2. Performance Tables* 64](#__RefHeading___Toc156122122)

[*3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies*
67](#performance-resources-and-strategies-2)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
67](#__RefHeading___Toc156122124)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 67](#__RefHeading___Toc156122125)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
67](#__RefHeading___Toc156122126)

[E. Operations Support 68](#__RefHeading___Toc156122127)

[*1. Program Description* 68](#__RefHeading___Toc156122128)

[*2. Performance Tables* 70](#__RefHeading___Toc156122129)

[*3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies*
73](#__RefHeading___Toc156122130)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
73](#__RefHeading___Toc156122131)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 73](#__RefHeading___Toc156122132)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
74](#__RefHeading___Toc156122133)

**V. Exhibits**

A. Organizational Chart

B. Summary of Requirements

C. Program Increases by Decision Unit

D. Resources by DOJ Strategic Goal/Objective

E. Justification for Base Adjustments

F. Crosswalk of 2006 Availability

G. Crosswalk of 2007 Availability

H. Summary of Reimbursable Resources

I. Detail of Permanent Positions by Category

J. Financial Analysis of Program Increases/Offsets

K. Summary of Requirements by Grade

L. Summary of Requirements by Object Class

M. Status of Congressionally Requested Studies, Reports, and Evaluations

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122094 .anchor}**I. Overview for the United
States Marshals Service**

**A. Introduction**

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) protects the federal judicial
process by: protecting members of the judicial family (judges,
attorneys, witnesses, and jurors), providing physical security in
courthouses, safeguarding witnesses, transporting and producing
prisoners for court proceedings, apprehending fugitives, and seizing
forfeited property. All USMS duties and responsibilities emanate from
this core mission. Beginning in FY 2007, electronic copies of the
Department of Justice's congressional budget justifications and Capital
Asset Plan and Business Case exhibits can be viewed or downloaded from
the Internet using the Internet address:
**[http://www.usdoj.gov/jmd/2008justification/]{.underline}**.

For FY 2008, the USMS requests a total of 4,486 positions including
3,299 Deputy Marshals, 4,331 FTE (excluding reimbursable FTE), and
\$899.875 million. Of this amount, **140 positions (113 Deputy
Marshals), 70 FTE, and \$25.717 million** are program enhancements to
address critical needs related to: judicial threat intelligence and
investigations, high threat trial security, the Adam Walsh Child
Protection and Safety Act, and Southwest Border enforcement. Current
services positions and FTEs by specific program within each decision
unit reflect estimates that may be changed once final staffing decisions
have been determined.

**B. Organizational History**

The Judiciary Act of 1789 established the original 13 judicial districts
with a Marshal for each district. President Washington nominated the
first Marshals and the Senate confirmed them on September 26, 1789. Each
Marshal was invested with the following rights and responsibilities: to
attend federal courts, including the Supreme Court when sitting in his
district; to execute all lawful precepts directed by the U.S.
government; to command assistance and appoint deputies as needed to
serve a four-year appointment; and to take an oath of office.

The early Marshals had duties that fall outside of the responsibilities
of present-day Marshals, such as taking the census and serving as
collection and disbursal agents for the federal court system. Until
1896, Marshals did not receive salaries. They were compensated from fees
collected for performing their official duties.

The Attorney General began supervising the Marshals in 1861. The
Department of Justice (DOJ) was created in 1870 and the Marshals have
been under DOJ's purview since that time. The first organization to
supervise Marshals nationwide, the Executive Office for United States
Marshals, was established in 1956 by the Deputy Attorney General. DOJ
Order 415-69 established the USMS on May 12, 1969. On November 18, 1988,
the USMS was officially established as a bureau within the Department
under the authority and direction of the Attorney General with a
presidentially-appointed Director. Prior to 1988, the Director of the
USMS was appointed by the Attorney General. The most recent headquarters
organizational chart is displayed in Exhibit A.

As prosecutorial emphasis has changed over the years, the USMS mission
has transitioned as well. The role of the U.S. Marshals has had a
profound impact on this country since the time when America was
expanding across the continent into the western territories. In more
recent history, law enforcement emphasis shifted with changing social
mandates. In the 1960s, Deputy Marshals escorted Ruby Bridges and James
Meredith to school when federal courts ordered segregated Southern
schools to integrate. In 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA)
was created resulting in a greater focus on drug-related arrests. The
USMS immediately faced rapidly increasing numbers of drug-related
detainees, protected witnesses, and fugitives.

As the number of illegal immigrants entering America skyrocketed in the
1990s, the USMS has experienced huge prisoner and fugitive workload
growth along the Southwest Border, and is anticipating further increases
as new legislation is implemented. As more resources are dedicated to
apprehending suspected terrorists, the USMS strives to meet the
increasing demands for high-level security required for many violent
criminal and terrorist-related court proceedings.

**C. USMS Budget**

In FY 2006, Congress provided \$801.672 million to the USMS of which
\$792.903 million was provided in the Salaries and Expenses (S&E)
appropriation and \$8.769 million to the Construction appropriation.[^1]
In addition to these direct resources, the USMS also receives
reimbursable resources from a variety of sources. A complete listing of
reimbursable resources is displayed in Exhibit H. Some of the larger
sources include:

-   The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) for prisoner
    housing and other expenses related to federal detainees;

-   The Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) for
    administering the Judicial Facility Security Program;

-   The Assets Forfeiture Fund (AFF) for managing and disposing of
    seized assets;

-   The Fees and Expenses of Witnesses (FEW) appropriation for providing
    security and relocation services to protected witnesses; and

-   The Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) for
    apprehending major drug case fugitives.

For FY 2007, the USMS requested a total of 4,704 positions, 4,865 FTE
(including 279 reimbursable FTE), and \$825.924 million. Of this amount,
66 positions (28 Deputy Marshals), 33 FTE, and \$13.619 million were
program enhancements to address critical needs related to judicial
security, information technology, and audited financial statements. Also
included were program offsets totaling (\$9.414) million for a net
program change of 66 positions (28 Deputy Marshals), 33 FTE, and \$4.205
million above the current services level.

**D. Strategic Goals**

The USMS mission supports Goals I, II, and IV of the DOJ Strategic Plan.
Goal I is to "prevent terrorism and promote the nation's security."
Objective 1.1 is to "prevent, disrupt, and defeat terrorist operations
before they occur." The USMS supports this objective by:

-   Conducting threat assessments and addressing incoming threats or
    inappropriate communications made against members of the judicial
    family.

-   Assigning Deputy Marshals to FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces to work
    terrorism cases and share information that may be critical for the
    protection of the federal judiciary.

Goal II is to "enforce federal laws and represent the rights and
interests of the American people." Objective 2.1 is to "reduce the
threat, incidence, and prevalence of violent crime, including crimes
against children." Objective 2.2 is to "reduce the threat, trafficking,
use, and related violence of illegal drugs." The USMS supports this
objective by:

-   Participating on the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
    (OCDETF). The USMS has 41 reimbursable positions and 36 reimbursable
    workyears dedicated to OCDETF.

Goal IV is to "ensure the fair and efficient operation of the federal
justice system." The vast majority of USMS resources are devoted to
support Goal IV. Objective 4.1 is to "protect judges, witnesses, and
other participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of
criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement." Objective
4.2 is to "ensure the apprehension of fugitives.\" Objective 4.3 is to
"provide for the safe, secure, and humane confinement of detained
persons awaiting trial, and/or sentencing." The USMS supports these
objectives by:

-   Protecting judges, prosecutors, and other participants in the
    Federal judicial system.

-   Securing Federal court facilities and renovating courthouses to meet
    security standards.

-   Investigating and apprehending federal, state, and local fugitives.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Transporting prisoners to court-ordered proceedings.

-   Protecting government witnesses who provide testimony on behalf of
    the US Government.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Providing tactical support for any AG-directed mission including
    natural disasters.

In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reviewed USMS
effectiveness by using the PART process. The PART was designed to
evaluate federal programs in the areas of: program purpose and design,
strategic planning, program management, and program results.

The PART was applied to the USMS' Protection of the Judicial Process[^2]
program and Fugitive Apprehension program. Specific concerns regarding
the lack of regular and independent program evaluation and the
interaction between the USMS and program partners led to specific
recommendations from OMB. The USMS has worked toward resolving these
matters and is continuing to improve strategic planning, program
management, and program results documentation. Specific details on the
PART results are contained in section IV, "Decision Unit Justification."

**E. President's Management Agenda (PMA)**

The President's Management Agenda reflects this Administration's
initiatives to promote improvement in the management and performance of
the federal government. The following sections highlight USMS activities
over the last two years to support the five PMA goals.

**Budget and Performance Integration**

-   In January 2006, the USMS published the *United States Marshals
    Strategic Plan 2006 - 2010*. The Strategic Plan's vision, mission,
    and goals are congruent with, and supportive of, the DOJ Strategic
    Plan goals to: "Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security"
    (DOJ Goal I); "Enforce Federal Laws and Represent the Rights and
    Interests of the American People" (DOJ Goal II); and "Ensure the
    Fair and Efficient Operations of the Federal Justice System" (DOJ
    Goal IV).

-   In FY 2005, the DOJ-OIG reviewed the fugitive apprehension program
    (from\
    FY 2001 to FY 2004). The auditors acknowledged that the USMS
    provided "a more effective approach to apprehending violent
    fugitives" and that Regional Fugitive Task Force (RFTF) districts
    "achieved greater increases in their efficiency at apprehending
    violent fugitives." The number of violent fugitives apprehended
    increased by 51 percent.[^3] As a violent crime reduction strategy,
    the Marshals Service initiated Operation FALCON II in April 2006 in
    the western half of the United States and FALCON III in October 2006
    in the eastern half. During FALCON II, the USMS and its federal,
    state, and local counterparts arrested over 9,000 fugitives (93%
    with prior criminal history) of which 783 were unregistered sex
    offenders. FALCON III resulted in the arrest of 10,733 fugitives,
    including 1,659 sex offenders, 971 of whom were not in compliance
    with their registration requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Also in FY 2005, the USMS received congressional acknowledgment that
    the fugitive apprehension program has linked budget with
    performance. The Conference Report (H.Rpt. 108-792) accompanying the
    2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L.\
    108-447) states:

> "The conferees are aware that the USMS arrest statistics far exceed
> other Federal law enforcement agencies. The conferees also understand
> that the statistical success, in terms of the number of Federal,
> state, and local warrants closed, has coincided with the on-going
> development of the regional fugitive task forces, showing **a benefit
> of linking performance with budget."**

**Strategic Management of Human Capital**

-   During FY 2006, the USMS is further improving accountability by
    establishing "Unit Performance Plans" that set forth specific plans
    and objectives for each organizational "unit" level, with employees
    involved in the process of planning, tracking, and reporting on how
    they have contributed to fulfill USMS, DOJ, and the Administration's
    goals.

-   The Administrative Officer (AO) Development Program working group
    was established in February 2006 to develop training and
    certification standards for district AOs. The group has convened to
    identify the policy and legal requirements that require
    certification. The program is expected to be in place during FY
    2007.

-   In FY 2006, the USMS reconfigured the employee performance
    management system to ensure that every employee is linked to the
    USMS mission and understands his/her contribution. Rather than
    pass/fail rating criteria, the new system recognizes outstanding
    employee performance using a four-level evaluation criteria.

**Competitive Sourcing**

The USMS's efficient use of contract services includes the following
actions:

-   Employed nearly 4,000 court security officers through regional
    contracts the last two years.

-   Disposed of seized assets using contract vendors and web-based
    auction sites.

-   Performed 80 percent of information technology support and over 50
    percent of centralized financial management functions using private
    sector contractors in\
    FY 2006.

-   Hired over 2,400 guards on personal service contracts[^4] to
    transport prisoners and work in the prisoner cellblocks.
    Collectively these guards worked the equivalent of 381 FTE[^5] in FY
    2006.

**Improved Financial Performance**

-   The USMS established an internal controls team to address the
    findings and recommendations contained in the most recent audit of
    financial statements. The team is responsible for working with human
    resource, information technology, budget, and finance personnel to
    establish tasks and milestones to resolve all material weaknesses
    and reportable conditions. The Director approved 32 recommendations
    of the Resource Allocation Advisory Board for USMS positions and
    financial resource allocations on November 17, 2006. The Financial
    Management Working Group met in November and established their list
    of priorities to address. The Human Resource Working Group will meet
    in January 2007 to discuss recruiting and position controls.

-   The USMS implemented a web-based program called PCIS (Purchase Card
    Information System) to improve the accuracy of tracking obligations
    and making vendor payments for all 94 districts centrally from USMS
    headquarters.

-   The USMS implemented e-Travel Service in 90 percent of headquarters
    sites. This cost-saving initiative enables employees to make travel
    arrangements through a web-based application.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The USMS initiated a "split pay" program for credit card purchases.
    Upon receipt of an employee voucher, the USMS will remit electronic
    payment to the credit card company for 80 percent of the full travel
    cost (lodging, transportation, car rental), with the remaining
    amount sent directly to employee bank accounts (for meals and
    incidental expenses.) This project has been implemented to increase
    the speed of payments to avoid paying late fees.

**Expanded Electronic Government**

-   The USMS extended Joint Automated Booking Station (JABS) service to
    federal agencies outside DOJ. Now, other federal law enforcement
    officers can use JABS to transmit fingerprint images to the FBI's
    criminal database, maintain a repository of common offender
    information to identify arrestees, eliminate the repetitive booking
    of offenders, and reduce threats to law enforcement officials and
    the public by identifying offenders rapidly and positively. Since
    the inception of the new work process, the USMS processes an average
    of 300 interagency bookings per month.

-   The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
    of 1996 allowed the Social Security Administration (SSA) to disclose
    SSA data to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when a Title XVI
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiary has an open warrant.
    The SSA Office of Inspector General provides a helpful electronic
    service to the USMS New York/New Jersey RFTF with quick and
    efficient references to a large volume of fugitive felons that match
    the SSA database. In FY 2006, this electronic partnership led to 102
    fugitive arrests and saved the SSA over \$1.44 million.

**Faith-Based and Community Integration**

-   The USMS, with the Support of the Assistant Attorney General for
    Justice Programs, implemented several Fugitive Safe Surrender
    initiatives. In August 2005, the Northern District of Ohio initiated
    a unique fugitive apprehension strategy that produced the peaceful
    surrender of 850 fugitives, including 350 fugitive felons. Through
    the persuasive powers of local religious leaders, the fugitive
    surrenders, were processed, and received initial court appearances
    in a non-threatening environment provided by the Mount Sinai Baptist
    Church in Cleveland, Ohio. The USMS conducted another Fugitive Safe
    Surrender in Phoenix, Arizona during November 2006, resulting in the
    peaceful surrender of approximately 1,500 fugitives, 350 of them
    felons.

**F. Challenges**

The USMS mission remains constant, but the challenges facing the agency
are mounting and make it difficult to accomplish the workload and meet
all expectations. These challenges fall into two broad categories:

**External Challenges**

For FY 2007, Customs and Border Protection received an additional
\$379.602 million to hire 1,500 additional Border Patrol agents.
Appropriated resources that accompany the authorizing legislation must
demonstrate a balance between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and
DOJ components. Criminal aliens apprehended by DHS are prosecuted
through the federal criminal justice system and have a direct and
unquestionable workload impact on the USMS, Bureau of Prisons, Office of
the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT), and U.S. Attorneys.

Many state and local jails are being filled up with their own prisoners,
leaving little room to house federal detainees. As local jail space
decreases and the number of federal detention beds remain relatively
constant, the cost of housing federal detainees increases. The OFDT and
USMS must continue to work collaboratively to address the growing
detention costs and the associated costs to transport and guard
prisoners who are housed far away from courthouses.

When the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) shifted its focus to
anti-terrorism efforts, investigations targeting illegal drugs,
organized crime, and white-collar crime were significantly reduced. As a
result, the USMS has intensified efforts to coordinate with state and
local police to catch fugitives, particularly those involved in
gang-related violent crime.

New federal law enforcement initiatives and efficiencies yield a larger
number of criminal prisoners to be tried by the courts. Programs
targeting gang and gun violence include the Violent Crimes Impact Teams,
Project Safe Neighborhoods, GangTECC, and the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative, and these programs increase the number of
arrests in those crime categories. In addition, the Attorney General
lists protection of children from trafficking and other forms of
exploitation as a Departmental priority. To protect the community, each
suspect tried in connection with these charges is in USMS custody for
the duration of the trial.

The recent passage of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
(P.L. 109-248) ensures that the USMS will play a large role in the
apprehension of sex offenders. The Act designates sex offenders who fail
to meet registration requirements as federal felony fugitives.
Furthermore, it directs the Attorney General to use the resources of
Federal law enforcement, including the USMS, to assist jurisdictions in
locating and apprehending these fugitives.

**Internal Challenges**

In this environment of limited budgetary growth, the USMS must maximize
existing resources where possible to address workload growth. For
example the USMS must:

-   Improve information sharing and communication capabilities between
    the districts and headquarters offices as well as between the USMS
    and other law enforcement agencies;

-   Develop suitable performance measures to link performance with
    resource consumption;

-   Determine and maintain the most effective mix between available
    technological and personnel resources;

-   Find ways to shift available resources among districts, and
    reprogram when necessary, to match workload requirements;

-   Continue to train existing employees and attract new ones to replace
    workers that leave the agency; and,

-   Address future requirements based on the number of federal detainees
    and the number of high-threat trials both of which have growth
    trends that are extremely difficult to predict.

# 

# II**. Summary of Program Changes**

  ---------------- ----------------------------- ---------- --------- -------------- ----------
  **Item Name**    **Description**                                                   **Page**

                                                 **Pos.**   **FTE**   **Dollars      
                                                                      (\$000)**      

  Judicial Threat  Resources to strengthen the   16         8         \$5,257        22
  Intelligence and USMS' ability to analyze and                                      
  Investigations   investigate threats against                                       
                   the judiciary in a timely                                         
                   manner.                                                           

  High Threat      Resources to increase         17         9         5,153          27
  Trial Security   security for high threat                                          
                   trials to protect judicial                                        
                   officials, courtroom                                              
                   participants, the public, and                                     
                   USMS personnel.                                                   

  Adam Walsh Child Resources to implement the    54         27        7,845          45
  Protection and   Adam Walsh Child Protection                                       
  Safety Act       and Safety Act.                                                   

  Southwest Border Resources to manage the       53         26        7,462          57
  Enforcement      increased workload caused by                                      
                   stricter immigration                                              
                   enforcement.                                                      

  **Total Program                                **140**    **70**    **\$25,717**   
  Change**                                                                           
  ---------------- ----------------------------- ---------- --------- -------------- ----------

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

This page intentionally left blank

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122096 .anchor}**III. Appropriations Language
and Analysis of Appropriations Language**

## 

**Appropriations Language**

The 2008 Budget request includes proposed changes in the appropriations
language listed and explained below. New language is *[italicized and
underlined]{.underline}*, and language proposed for deletion is
bracketed.

United States Marshals Service

Salaries and Expenses

*[For necessary expenses of the United States Marshals Service,
\[\$825,924,000\] \$899,975,000; of which not to exceed \$6,000 shall be
available for official reception and representation expenses; of which
\$4,000,000 for information technology systems shall remain available
until expended; of which not less than \[\$11,425,000\] \$12,397,000
shall be available for the costs of courthouse security equipment,
including furnishings, relocations, and telephone system and cabling,
and shall remain available until expended; and of which not less than
\[\$1,282,000\] \$2,451,000 shall be available until expended for
construction in space controlled, occupied or utilized by the United
States Marshals Service for prisoner holding and related support space
\[in United States courthouses and Federal
buildings\].]{.underline}*[^6]

**Analysis of Appropriations Language**

Number range CHAPTERThe current language is ambiguous as it relates to
the use of construction funds for USMS space other than "in United
States courthouses and Federal buildings." It would appear that the term
"Federal building" would include USMS leased space in a private
building, however, current appropriations language is not explicit and
subject to interpretation. Deleting reference to the type of building
structure eliminates such ambiguity.

Attempting to provide an exhaustive list of all the types of building
structures is unnecessarily limiting. The USMS has space in United
States courthouses, Federal buildings leased through GSA,
privately-owned buildings leased through GSA, government-owned buildings
leased through state and local municipalities, and courthouse space
controlled by the D.C. government which is not considered a Federal
entity.

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

This page intentionally left blank

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122097 .anchor}**IV. Decision Unit
Justification**

## A. Judicial and Courthouse Security

  --------------------------------------- --------- --------- -------------
  Judicial and Courthouse Security        Perm.     FTE       Amount\
  Process TOTAL                           Pos.                (\$000)

  2006 Enacted w/Rescissions and          1,828     1,790     324,434
  Supplementals                                               

  2007 Estimate                           1,890     1,841     352,384

  Adjustments to Base and Technical       \(144\)   \(120\)   12,361
  Adjustments                                                 

  2008 Current Services                   1,746     1,721     364,745

  2008 Program Increases                  57        29        12,167

  2008 Offsets                            ...       ...       ...

  2008 Request                            1,803     1,750     376,912

  Total Change 2007-2008                  \(87\)    \(91\)    \$24,528
  --------------------------------------- --------- --------- -------------

### 1. Program Description

**Judicial and Courthouse Security** encompasses personnel security
(security protective detail for a judge or prosecutor) and building
security (security equipment to monitor and protect a federal courthouse
facility). Judicial security also includes maintaining security of
prisoners in custody during court proceedings. Deputy Marshals are
assigned to 94 judicial districts (93 federal districts and the Superior
Court for the District of Columbia) to protect the federal judicial
system which handles a variety of cases including domestic and
international terrorists, domestic and international organized criminal
organizations, drug trafficking, gangs, and extremist groups. The USMS
determines the level of security required for high-threat situations by
assessing the threat level, developing security plans, and assigning the
commensurate security resources required to maintain a safe environment.

High-security, high-profile events require extensive operational
planning and support from specially trained and equipped personnel due
to the potential for additional terrorist attacks, threats from
extremist groups, the intense media attention, the general public's
concerns, and global interest of these events. The complexity and threat
levels associated with these cases require additional Deputy Marshals
for all aspects of USMS work.

Each judicial district and the 12 circuit courts are assigned a Judicial
Security Inspector. These inspectors are Senior-level Deputy Marshals
that have experience in every aspect of judicial security. The Judicial
Security Inspectors improve the USMS' ability to provide security due to
their special experience in evaluating security precaution and
procedures in federal courthouses. The inspectors assist with off-site
security for judges, prosecutors, and other protectees. They also act as
the USMS liaison with the Federal Protective Service (FPS) and the
federal judiciary.

In March 2005, the Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) was
established using existing USMS headquarters resources. Additional
resources were provided through the Emergency Supplemental Appropriation
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief of 2005
(P.L. 109-13). OPI's mission is to review and analyze intelligence and
information relating to the safety and security of members of the
judiciary and USMS protectees. Pertinent information obtained is
disseminated to districts so appropriate measures can be put into place
to protect the judicial process.

> The USMS and FBI work together to assess and investigate all
> inappropriate communications received. The FBI has responsibility for
> investigating threats for the purpose of prosecution. The USMS
> conducts protective investigations that focus on rendering the
> threatener harmless, regardless of the possibility for prosecution.
> The protective investigation is a systematic discovery, collection,
> and assessment of available information. The investigation is to
> determine a suspect=s true intent, motive, and ability to pose a
> threat to the targeted individual. The investigation includes a plan
> to render the suspect harmless with no risk to the targeted
> individual. These investigations are the USMS' highest priority due to
> the potential risk to the targeted individual. On April 19, 2005, the
> USMS in conjunction with the FBI, arrested a Queens man (Wazir Khan)
> for threatening to kill a federal judge and to destroy the Cadman
> Plaza courthouse in downtown Brooklyn. This arrest was due to the
> joint investigation by the USMS and FBI.

The USMS also manages the Court Security Officer (CSO) Program, funded
through the Court Security Appropriation from the Judiciary. There are
approximately 4,000 CSOs who are responsible for assisting Deputy
Marshals and the FPS with building security. Their duties include:
monitoring security systems; responding to duress alarms; screening
visitors at building entrances; controlling access to garages; providing
perimeter security; and screening mail and packages.

In addition to maintaining physical security, the USMS is also
responsible for installing and maintaining electronic security systems
in USMS-controlled space and developing and implementing security system
installation plans to protect new and renovated courthouses. This is
critical to the safety of judicial officials, courtroom participants,
the general public, and USMS personnel. USMS-controlled space includes
holding cells adjacent to courtrooms, prisoner/attorney interview rooms,
cellblocks, vehicle sallyports, prisoner elevators, USMS office space,
and special purpose space. Cameras, duress alarms, remote door openers
and all other security devices improve the security presence in
prisoner-movement areas. When incidents occur, the USMS is equipped to
record events, monitor personnel and prisoners, send additional staff to
secure the situation, and identify situations requiring a tactical
response.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="8.708333333333334in"
height="6.492361111111111in"}

**A. Definition of Terms or explanations for Indicators:**

[Workload:]{.underline}

1\. Court prisoner productions are the number of times prisoners are
produced for judicial proceedings.

2\. A potential threat is any explicit or implied communication with
intent to assault, intimidate, or interfere with the federal judicial
process which includes judges, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors, court
staff, or their families. The communication may be written, oral, or an
activity of a suspicious nature.

[Performance Measures:]{.underline}

> 1\. A potential threat is any explicit or implied communication with
> intent to assault, intimidate, or interfere with the federal judicial
> process which includes judges, prosecutors, witnesses, jurors, court
> staff, or their families. The communication may be written, oral, or
> an activity of a suspicious nature. The USMS uses a computer-aided
> threat analysis program to determine the risk level of potential
> threats. All communications are investigated by both headquarters and
> the district offices and may lead to a protective detail. The USMS and
> FBI work together on all potential threats received. The USMS conducts
> protective investigations that focus on rendering the threatener
> harmless, regardless of the possibility for prosecution. The FBI has
> responsibility for investigating threats for the purpose of
> prosecution. The protective investigation is a systematic collection,
> and assessment of available information. The investigation is to
> determine a suspect=s true intent, motive, and ability to pose a
> threat to the targeted individual. The investigation includes a plan
> to render the suspect harmless with no risk to the targeted
> individual. These investigations are the USMS' highest priority due to
> the potential risk to the targeted individual.
>
> 2\. A protective detail is a security assignment where a judge, or
> another member of the judicial system, is protected outside the
> courthouse. Protective details also involve security assignments for
> court-related events (such as sequestered juries or judicial
> conferences). Typically, personal security details are either 24
> hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week, or are door-to-door (leave home until
> return home, or leave home until arrive at work), for the duration of
> a high-threat trial, a judicial conference, or other high profile
> event warranting extra security. Additionally, Supreme Court Justice
> details are usually provided by a senior inspector whenever a Justice
> travels outside of the Washington, D.C. area. The Justices frequently
> deliver speeches at public events around the country requiring
> protection from the airport to the site of the speech, up to 24-hour
> protection details. Security details for events are set at one of four
> levels: (Level 1) on-site security is already in place and no USMS
> personnel are required; (Level 2) on-site security detail is to be
> provided by the host district due to a determination of an anticipated
> security risk that presents opportunities for disruption and violence;
> (Level 3) a senior inspector supervises the security when the number
> of judges in attendance is significant, the location of the event is
> in an unsecured facility or in a dangerous area, and/or the nature of
> the event presents opportunities for disruption and violence; or
> (Level 4) a Supreme Court Justice or a significant number of judges
> are in attendance and the anticipated security risk is determined to
> present substantial opportunities for disruption and violence.

3\. Based on the National Security Survey, the percent of total
courthouse facilities with prisoner movement space meeting minimally
acceptable security standards. Security criteria were developed based on
the "U.S. Courts Design Guide," USMS "Requirements and Specifications
for Special Purpose and Support Space Manual," and the "Vulnerability
Assessment for Federal Facilities." The USMS surveyed 345 facilities
that have prisoner movement areas requiring security. Of the 345
facilities, 280 did not meet minimum USMS specifications for courthouse
facility security. The results of the next Nationwide Security Survey
are expected to be published in March, 2007.

4\. An assault is an attempt to inflict bodily harm.

5\. Court productions are the number of times prisoners are produced for
any type of judicial proceeding. Any escapes during a court production
(in the court room) are included here.

6\. Any potential threat directed toward a USMS protectee is given the
highest priority and investigated immediately by a Deputy Marshal
(GS-1811) in the field. Based upon the Deputy Marshal's preliminary
findings, and in conjunction with district management, the threat risk
is classified into one of two categories: "Expedite" or "Standard". This
categorization is for the purposes of analysis. The investigative report
is sent to the Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI) at Headquarters
while the investigation continues in the district. In some cases, the
district has already initiated a protective detail. Upon receipt of the
written report from the field, OPI immediately conducts an initial
review and analysis, begins queries of USMS databases and databases of
other law enforcement agencies, and applies the appropriate analytical
tools available at Headquarters. OPI then prioritizes and completes the
process with computer-aided threat analysis software. A protective
investigation classified as "Expedite" requires the OPI to have all
analysis completed and reported back to the investigating district(s)
within three business days. To be classified as "Expedite" it must meet
one or more of the following criterion: the district has initiated a
protective detail based on the "perceived" threat level; a suspect has
approached a protectee's residence; other unsettling behavior has been
observed at other locations; property has been vandalized; or a person
is suspected of monitoring a USMS protected facility. When potential
threats are from persons documented as being associated with terrorist
organizations, or from individuals or groups that have a documented
history of violence against the judicial process, they are also
designated as "Expedite."

7\. A protective investigation is classified as "Standard" requires the
OPI to have all analysis completed and reported back to the
investigating district(s) within seven business days. To be classified
as "Standard" it must meet one or more of the following criterion:
incarcerated persons with no known outside resources; persons who appear
to be communicating from outside the continental United States with no
known domestic resources; or individuals who express a sense of outrage
at the outcome of a court proceeding.

[Outcome:]{.underline}

8\. The number of interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate
security reflects proceedings that required either removal of the judge
from the courtroom or the addition of Deputy Marshals to control the
situation. An "interruption" occurs when a judge is removed as a result
of a potentially dangerous incident and/or where proceedings are
suspended until the USMS calls on additional deputies to guarantee the
safety of the judge, witnesses, and other participants.

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2006 Program Performance.**

Headquarters failed to meet its target of analyzing 100% of expedited
threats by two cases. One of the "expedited" threats that was not
analyzed in the stated time frame was a result of analyses software not
being able to be accessed due to IT problems. This issue has been
resolved and the threat was analyzed within the "standard" time. The
second was a result of the time lapse of information received from the
field regarding FBI reports and polygraph results. Additionally, due to
lengthy security clearance processes, analysts that were intended to
have been on-board earlier in the Fiscal Year did not start until the
end of the Fiscal Year, affecting the number

of "standard" threats that could be completed within 7 days.

Federal court proceedings are increasing as are the number of judges and
locations where proceedings are held. The USMS must aggressively pursue
security improvements to ensure the safe operation of federal
proceedings. The added security requirements of terrorist-related and
other high-threat trials require that the security systems stay in
continuous operation.

The USMS must maintain continuity of operations through backup
communication links and backup servers outside the Washington D.C.
metropolitan area. Continuity must be ensured via equipment and software
to perform penetration testing and port scans, monitor systems to detect
intrusions, test contingency plans, guarantee the adequacy and
effectiveness of system access controls, and enforce change control
procedures.

**C. Factors Affecting Selection of FY 2007 and FY 2008 Plans.**

To more accurately reflect current trends, 2007 and 2008 targets for the
following have been adjusted based on 2006 actual data:

Potential Threats to members of the judicial process: Total
Investigated;

Protective Details Provided;

Number of Court Productions;

Percentage/Number of "expedited" potential threats analyzed by
headquarters in 3 business days or less;

Percentage/Number of "standard" potential threats analyzed by
headquarters in 7 business days or less;

Proposed legislation affecting Court Security Improvement along with
Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation will have a profound and
lasting effect on the USMS workload. Without adequate resources, the
USMS may be unable to provide the highest possible security for the
federal judicial process. Deputy Marshals are the functional backbone of
the agency because they provide direct service to the federal courts.
Our districts handle large numbers of prisoners each year. Many of these
prisoners are violent and/or have extensive criminal histories. Deputy
Marshals must produce them for criminal court proceedings on a daily
basis. Maintaining judicial security for all proceedings is our highest
priority. Without additional district personnel, security may be
compromised. It is vital that the USMS obtain additional resources to
ensure that events, like the Chicago and Atlanta county court tragedies
that occurred in 2005, do not occur. The USMS will make every attempt to
meet these targets even if program increases are not appropriated. The
true impact of not receiving the program enhancements will manifest
itself in the level of safety and security maintained during productions
and the inability to produce prisoners for scheduled appearances in a
timely manner.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="8.990972222222222in"
height="4.451388888888889in"}

### 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

The Judicial and Courthouse Security decision unit supports the
Department's Strategic Goal IV: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation
of the Federal Justice System. Within this goal, the resources
specifically address DOJ Strategic Objective: 4.1 -- Protect judges,
witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings and ensure the
appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or
confinement.

The USMS maintains the integrity of the federal judicial system by: 1)
ensuring that U.S. Courthouses, federal buildings, and leased facilities
occupied by the federal judiciary and the USMS are secure and safe from
intrusion by individuals and technological devices designed to disrupt
the judicial process; 2) guaranteeing that federal judges, magistrate
judges, attorneys, defendants, witnesses, jurors, and others can
participate in uninterrupted court proceedings;\
3) assessing inappropriate communications and providing protective
details to federal judges or other members of the judicial system;\
4) maintaining the custody, protection, and security of prisoners and
the safety of material witnesses for appearance in court proceedings;
and

5\) limiting opportunities for criminals to tamper with evidence or use
intimidation, extortion, or bribery to corrupt judicial proceedings.

#### a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes

As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, the
performance outcome measure for this decision unit is: number of
interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate security. The judge
will be removed during any potentially dangerous incident and
proceedings will be suspended until the USMS can ensure the safety of
the judge, attorneys, witnesses, jurors, and other participants. In FY
2006, the USMS met the target of zero interrupted judicial proceedings
due to inadequate security.

One performance measure is: assaults against federal judges. The
performance target is always zero assaults. In FY 2006, the USMS met
this target.

Another performance measure is: percent of federal courthouse facilities
meeting minimum security standards. The USMS surveys courthouse
facilities every three years. The first two National Security Surveys
(NSS) were completed in 1999 and 2002. Currently the third NSS is being
conducted with final results to be published in 2007. The 2002 survey
results were based on 345 facilities having prisoner movement areas.
Each facility was evaluated according to the USMS "Requirements and
Specifications for Special Purpose and Support Space Manual," the "U.S.
Courts Design Guide," and the "Vulnerability Assessment for Federal
Facilities." The security of each facility was graded on a 100 point
scale, with 80 points being the score that met minimum security
requirements. In the initial 1999 survey, only 6 percent of the
facilities surveyed met the minimum security requirements. In 2002, 19
percent of the facilities surveyed met the minimum security requirements
showing a 13 percent increase in enhanced security over 3 years.

The 2002 National Security Survey showed dramatic improvement in
electronic security in USMS-controlled space nationwide. Results show
critical improvements in the following major security areas:

-   43% have enclosed vehicle sallyports (28% in 1999);

-   61% have adequate cells in the main detention area (48% in 1999);

-   30% have an adequate number of courtroom holding cells (18% in
    1999);

-   80% have monitoring capability in the main detention area (68% in
    1999);

-   42% have an adequate number of prisoner/attorney interview rooms
    (30% in 1999); and

-   35% have secure prisoner elevators (24% in 1999).

#### b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes

During high-risk, high-threat trials dealing with domestic and
international terrorist-related and domestic and international organized
criminal proceedings, the USMS security requirements increase. The USMS
assesses the threat level at all high-threat proceedings, develops
security plans, and assigns the commensurate security resources required
to maintain a safe environment, including the possible assignment of
Deputy Marshals into the district to enhance security. Where a
proceeding is deemed high-risk, the USMS district staff and Judicial
Security Inspectors develop an operational plan well in advance of when
proceeding starts.

**Program Increases**

**Item Name: [Judicial Threat Intelligence and
Investigations]{.underline}**

Budget Decision Units: [Judicial and Courthouse Security, Fugitive
Apprehension, Prisoner Security & Transportatin, Protection of
Witnesses, Operations Support]{.underline}

Strategic Goals & Objectives: [DOJ Strategic Goal IV, Objective
4.1]{.underline}

Organizational Program: [U.S. Marshals Service]{.underline}

Program Increase: Positions [16]{.underline} Agents [15]{.underline} FTE
[8]{.underline} Dollars [\$5,257,000]{.underline}

[Description of Item]{.underline}

The USMS requests 16 positions (15 Deputy Marshals), 8 FTE, and
\$5,257,000 to strengthen its ability to analyze and investigate threats
against the judiciary and to adequately provide judicial and courtroom
security for judicial officials, courtroom participants, the public, and
USMS personnel. This initiative addresses the following areas:

-   10 positions (10 Deputy Marshals), 5 FTE, and \$1,662,000 for
    District Threat Investigators;

-   \$2,705,000 for voice/data communications enhancements;

-   6 positions (5 Deputy Marshals), 3 FTE, and \$890,000 for Technical
    Operations Group (TOG) support to Judicial Security.

[Justification]{.underline}

The attitude of American citizens towards the judicial process has
changed as evidenced by the increased threats to federal judges
throughout the country. In February 2005, a litigant murdered a judge's
husband and mother in retaliation for a civil court ruling. Although
there was no expressed threat, these murders underscore the fact that
every case, criminal and civil, could turn violent. In 2005, the
controversy surrounding the Terri Schiavo case also demonstrated that
judges can easily be targeted for their rulings on social issues. In
April 2006, a Warrior, Alabama man was arrested after he threatened to
"blow the head off" a federal judge after the judge had put him in jail
for contempt during a civil case. Factors such as these have made the
job of protecting the judicial process much more difficult.

Potential threats against judicial participants are not always obvious.
Because of this, Deputy Marshals must be constantly alert and aware of
the judicial environment. Threats not only come from detainees in
custody but can come from the general public attending trials. The
number of threats reported has increased 553% from 201 in 1996 to 1,111
threats reported in 2006. In\
FY 2006, the USMS conducted 1,111 threat investigations, a 17 percent
increase over 2005.  As the number of threat investigations has grown,
the complexity in obtaining relevant data about many cases has
increased. In November 2006 for example, the USMS was advised of three
threatening telephone calls made to the U.S. Attorney in the District of
Minnesota.  The calls were made by an individual who has a history of
violent crime.  In the process of establishing the ongoing protective
and intelligence investigation and security measures, the USMS learned
that other law enforcement agencies were aware of earlier threats from
this same individual, but the information had not been shared in a
timely manner. While the FBI had initiated a criminal investigation, the
lack of a parallel USMS protective investigation may have ended in
tragedy. 

On November 8, 2006, Derrick Shareef's name first appeared in a
classified document dealing with on-going threats produced by the FBI
and the item containing information about Shareef was rated as the most
urgent item in that day's report. After the USMS received the report, it
was learned that it included information that Shareef had threatened the
Federal Judiciary. Approximately one month later, Shareef was arrested
by the FBI for attempting to attack people at a shopping mall with hand
grenades and small arms. Additionally, according to the FBI affidavit,
Shareef was quoted as saying "I want to smoke a Judge," a reference
meaning he wanted to kill a judge.

To keep pace with this increase in threats and to promote interagency
communication, the USMS requests 10 Deputy Marshals, 5 FTE, and
\$1,662,000 to staff the most critical districts with full-time District
Threat Investigators. Currently, the district office must take a Deputy
from other assigned duties, such as courtroom security or fugitive
apprehension, to investigate each threat to judicial participants. The
dedicated threat investigators would be a key asset in reducing the
backlog of over 2,700 threats that are currently unevaluated, require
monitoring, or lack sufficient information to close the case.

The key link in being able to disseminate threats and other pertinent
information quickly is the USMS' network infrastructure. As noted in the
Department of Justice's IT Strategic Plan, telecommunications is a
pivotal part of any infrastructure and an essential tool for enabling
information sharing.

The USMS network infrastructure is currently a hodgepodge of several
different networks. This makes support problematic. Further, obsolete
routing equipment has led to security vulnerabilities, including an
inability to encrypt communications -- a serious problem noted in
several DOJ OIG audit reports. To alleviate this situation, the USMS
requests \$2,705,000 to be used for increased network costs.

Full migration to the Justice Unified Telecommunications Network
(JUTNET) will resolve these negative audit findings. JUTNET will
increase USMS network bandwidth at most field sites, thereby improving
the performance of current and planned Information Technology (IT)
systems, such as E-Designate, Justice Virtual University (JVU), Browser
Based Consolidated Asset Tracking System, and the Justice Detainee
Information System (JDIS). Additionally it will provide for a secure,
fully encrypted communications environment.

The Marshals Service currently spends \$5,300,000 on recurring network
charges; however, this amount is insufficient to pay the additional
JUTNET charges. JUTNET is a managed service network, and although the
costs for USMS are higher, there are notable benefits to be derived from
JUTNET, including greater security and facilitated information sharing.
Further, network bandwidth demands are increasing exponentially.
Doubling of capacity is projected over the next 2-3 years due to the
deployment of new, web-based applications such as the Office of Federal
Detention Trustee's e-Designate system, browser-based Consolidated Asset
Tracking Systems (CATS), the merging of voice and data communications
that enable the use of Voice Over Internet Protocol (VOIP), and the
expanded use of Video Teleconferencing (VTC) as a means of monitoring
courthouses and producing witnesses and detainees virtually. Through the
use of VTC, detainees participate in court proceeding through closed
circuit television resulting in greater security and a more expeditious
and cost-effective method of producing detainees for court.

The USMS requests 6 positions (5 Deputy Marshals), 3 FTE, and \$890,000
to track and intercept wireless communications, electronic mail, and
other internet-based communications that are sent to threaten the
security of the judiciary. For years, our Technical Operations Group
(TOG) has developed surveillance expertise using highly sophisticated
technology to investigate and apprehend fugitives. Similar expertise and
technology must be established on a permanent basis for judicial
security so that we can provide an enhanced level of security at judges'
residences, courthouses, and off-site conferences. The number of threats
and protective operations has grown at a pace which greatly exceeds our
resources. Technical Operations Group inspectors currently travel an
average of 60 nights a year and often deny requests for support because
of limited resources.

The requested TOG positions will consist of specially trained
investigators and an analyst utilizing the most sophisticated
technologies available to enhance judicial security. TOG will
incorporate advanced technology measures deemed necessary by current and
evolving threat conditions. These positions provide dedicated additional
resources to investigate and analyze threats against the judiciary. TOG
currently provides assistance for the protection of federal judges and
prosecutors on an intermittent basis as its existing workforce also
strongly supports violent fugitive apprehension efforts.

The type of specialized assistance provided by TOG is concentrated in a
select group of highly trained inspectors. Their skill set enables them
to provide surveillance capabilities that are not otherwise available to
district Deputy Marshals. In April 2005, Judge A. Howard Matz of the
Central District of California received a threatening telephone call
from an unknown male. The Judge reported the call to the district
Marshal, who in turn contacted the TOG's Western Regional Office. TOG
was able to determine the telephone number from which the threatening
call was placed, and upon further investigation, determine the identity
and name of the person who had placed the call.

In yet another case, TOG was asked to assist the U.S. Marshal for the
Eastern District of New York when Judge Raymond J. Dearie received two
calls threatening his life. Later, a call was placed to 911 and a local
television station claiming that there was a bomb in the courthouse
where Judge Dearie works. Judge Dearie was already under a protective
detail because a letter with white powder had been sent to him. The FBI,
already involved in the threat investigation, informed TOG that there
were approximately 30 suspects. TOG determined that the origin of the
calls was a prepaid cell phone. Through TOG's analysis, the FBI learned
the location from which the phone was used and was able to determine
where the phone was purchased. TOG learned through a store security
video that Wazir Khan, the son of a criminal defendant soon to be tried
before Judge Dearie, owned the phones and was subsequently arrested for
the threats. As these examples show, TOG plays a valuable role in the
protection of the federal judiciary.

This TOG position enhancement would establish dedicated judiciary threat
investigations support at existing Regional Technical Operations Centers
(RTOC) in the following locations: Los Angeles, Houston, Atlanta,
Chicago, Washington DC, and New York.

Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic Goals)

This request supports DOJ Strategic Goal IV, Objective 4.1 to "protect
judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and
ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or
confinement." The requested funding would directly support the
strategies to achieve the objectives as stated in the DOJ Strategic Plan
for FY 2003-2008 and impact USMS performance standards as follows:

*Monitor, assess, and investigate threats made against judges, court
personnel, witnesses, and victims to stop or deter potential violence*
-- With additional Deputy Marshals in district offices, the USMS will
have increased ability to assess and investigate potential threats
against judicial participants. The primary performance measure will be
to increase the number of threats investigated and to reduce the amount
of time it takes to detect, analyze, and investigate threats and to
eliminate the backlog of threats against the judiciary. The number of
threats reported has increased 553% from 201 in 1996 to 1111 threats
reported in 2006.

In FY 2006, the TOG conducted over 7,100 surveillance operations for
over 2,900 cases, an increase of 6% from FY 2005. These operations lead
to the arrest of over 2,300 suspects, an increase of 5% from FY2005. It
is anticipated that with increased the surveillance capabilities
requested, the arrest rate will increase.

**Funding**

[Base Funding]{.underline}

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 5%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 15%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2006-enacted" class="heading">FY 2006
Enacted</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2007-estimate" class="heading">FY 2007
Estimate</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2008-presidents-budget-current-services"
class="heading">FY 2008 President’s Budget<br />
Current Services</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>$16,543</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>$16,556</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>0</td>
<td>5</td>
<td>$16,570</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Note: Base funding for this initiative only includes FTE and funding for
voice/network communications. The USMS does not have base funding for
District Threat Inspectors.

[Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Type of Position          | Modular    | Number of  | FY 2008       |
|                           | Cost       |            |               |
|                           |            | Positions  | Request       |
|                           | per        |            | (\$000)       |
|                           | Position   | Requested  |               |
|                           | (\$000)    |            |               |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Deputy Marshal            | \$166      | 15         | \$2,493       |
| (GS-0082-07)              |            |            |               |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Administrative (GS-XXX-9) | 59         | 1          | 59            |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Total Personnel           |            | 16         | \$2,552       |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+

Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary

+--------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------------+
| Non-Personnel Item       | Unit Cost   | Quantity  | FY 2008        |
|                          |             |           | Request        |
|                          |             |           |                |
|                          |             |           | (\$000)        |
+--------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------------+
| Recurring Network        |             |           | \$2,705        |
| Charges                  |             |           |                |
+--------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------------+
| Total Non-Personnel      |             |           | \$2,705        |
+--------------------------+-------------+-----------+----------------+

Total Request for this Item

+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+---------+--------------+
|           | Pos | Agt  | FTE | P        | Non-Pe  | Total        |
|           |     |      |     | ersonnel | rsonnel |              |
|           |     |      |     |          |         | (\$000)      |
|           |     |      |     | (\$000)  | (\$000) |              |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+---------+--------------+
| Current   | 5   | ...  | 5   | \$890    | \       | \$16,570     |
| Services  |     |      |     |          | $15,680 |              |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+---------+--------------+
| Increases | 16  | 15   | 8   | 2,552    | 2,705   | 5,257        |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+---------+--------------+
| Grand     | 21  | 15   | 13  | \$3,442  | \       | \$21,827     |
| Total     |     |      |     |          | $18,385 |              |
+-----------+-----+------+-----+----------+---------+--------------+

**Item Name: [High Threat Trial Security]{.underline}**

Budget Decision Unit: [Judicial and Courthouse Security]{.underline}

Strategic Goals & Objectives: [DOJ Strategic Goal IV, Objective
4.1]{.underline}

Organizational Program: [U.S. Marshals Service]{.underline}

Program Increase: Positions [17]{.underline} Agents [15]{.underline} FTE
[9]{.underline} Dollars [\$5,153,000]{.underline}

Description of Item

The USMS requests 17 positions (15 Deputy Marshals), 9 FTE, and
\$5,153,000 to strengthen security for high-threat trials. The USMS must
provide adequate judicial and courtroom security to ensure the safety of
judicial officials, courtroom participants, the public, and USMS
personnel. This initiative addresses the following areas:

-   14 positions (12 Deputy Marshals), 7 FTE, and \$3,281,000 for
    cellblock security enhancements for separatees;

-   3 positions (3 Deputy Marshals), 2 FTE, and \$900,000 for Supreme
    Court Protective Details;

-   \$972,000 for nationwide security maintenance contract increases;

[Justification]{.underline}

The USMS is responsible for protecting the participants in the federal
judicial process including judges, attorneys, witnesses, court
personnel, the general public, and in-custody prisoners. USMS workload
associated with judicial and courthouse security has significantly
increased in the last five years due to the changing national security
environment. The events of September 11, 2001 have dramatically impacted
the nation's awareness of its vulnerability to terrorist attack. This
awareness has increased the required security levels at all federal
courthouses, especially during high-threat trials. High-threat trials
generally involve international or domestic terrorist, drug kingpins,
violent gang members, organized crime figures, or defendants in civil
matters with a high degree of notoriety. The Zacarias Moussaoui trial in
Virginia and the Aryan Nation trial in California highlight the extreme
measures, such as additional personnel, use of armored vehicles and
establishment of security perimeters around courthouses that the USMS
must perform in order to secure the trial participants from internal and
external threats.

In addition to providing for a secure courtroom environment, the USMS
must also take special precautions with the prisoners themselves. The
USMS requests 14 positions, 7 FTE, and \$3,281,000 for cellblock
security enhancements. The USMS segregates prisoners who need special
handling from the general population of USMS detainees. Two of these
special handling indicators are security risk prisoners and prisoners
who require being separate from other prisoners for various reasons.
Prisoners are flagged as security risk for various reasons such as a
history of violence, potential of violence from the public, as in the
case of Moussaoui, or risk of escape. Prisoners are flagged with a
separation warning for reasons such as testifying against another
prisoner, their life is in danger if left in general population, or for
gang affiliation. This is a growing problem because of the increase in
gang membership within the prison population. Both security risk and
separatee cases typically require additional Deputy Marshals to assist
with the handling of the prisoner, especially during trial when
restraints are not commonly allowed.

In FY 2005, the USMS recorded 151,908 productions with a separation
warning and/or security risk indicator out of 751,329 total productions
including D.C. Superior Court. This represents a 26% increase from FY
2000. The USMS forecasts, using ARIMA (Auto Regressive Integrated Moving
Average) time series model, an additional 17.7% increase in both types
of cases by 2008 (26,820 additional productions). Within the amount
requested, \$1,169,000 is for additional cellblock security enhancements
to ensure the safety of the prisoners and USMS personnel. Funding
requested would provide for additional video monitoring equipment within
the cellblock spaces. In the 2002 National Security Survey Report (NSSR)
which evaluates prisoner movement and Marshals Service-occupied areas,
lack of video monitoring equipment was cited as a major concern for
courthouses receiving a failing score. The 2002 NSSR reported that only
19% of the courthouses had a satisfactory score. The results from the
next NSSR are expected in March 2007.

One of the USMS most important missions in providing judicial security
is protecting the U.S. Supreme Court Justices. The USMS protects the
Supreme Court Justices when they travel outside of the Washington, DC
area. Recent confirmation hearings and controversial decisions have
increased their visibility in the public eye, and staged protests at
both private and public functions have increased the demand for USMS
protective details. In FY 2005, the USMS provided 200 protection details
to the Justices. FY 2006 has seen an 80% increase in Supreme Court
Justice Protective Details over FY 2005. In addition to the sitting
Supreme Court Justices, Chief Justice Roberts has asked that protection
be provided for retired Justice O'Connor due to threats she has
received. Security details for Justice protection require a minimum
three Deputy Marshals. If there are special considerations, such a
potential threat, large gathering, or demonstration, the staffing would
increase proportionally to the increased potential for problems or
threats. Due to the increase in the number of protection details along
with an additional protectee, the USMS is requesting 3 Deputy Marshals,
2 FTE, and \$900,000 to cover increased travel and overtime expenses for
the Supreme Court Justice Protection Detail.

A critical element of providing security for judicial personnel as well
as detainees in USMS custody is the electronic security systems
installed in over 400 locations throughout the nation. Maintenance for
all electronic security systems installed in USMS-controlled spaces is
provided through a nationwide contract. All security equipment is added
to the nationwide service contract as soon as the one-year warranty has
expired. This ensures that any repair or equipment replacement is made
within hours and that preventative maintenance is performed to ensure
continuous operation. The type of equipment included in this contract
includes electronic locks, cameras, and consoles. The current contract
price for this nationwide security system maintenance is \$4,800,000.
The contract price for the same service in FY 2008 is estimated to be
\$5,772,000. The USMS is requesting \$972,000 to fund increased contract
prices to maintain the current electronic security systems capability.

Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic Goals)

This request supports DOJ Strategic Goal IV, Objective 4.1 to "protect
judges, witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings, and
ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or
confinement." The requested funding would directly support the
strategies to achieve the objectives as stated in the DOJ Strategic Plan
for FYs 2003-2008 as well as USMS performance measures as follows:

*Monitor, assess, and investigate threats made against judges, court
personnel, witnesses, and victims to stop or deter potential violence*
-- In FY 2005 the USMS recorded 151,908 productions with a separation
warning and/or security risk indicator. This represents a 26% increase
from\
FY 2000. The USMS forecasts an additional 17.7% increase in both types
of cases by FY 2008 (26,820 additional productions). The 2002 National
Security Survey reported that only 19% of the courthouses survey
received a passing score. Additional personnel and funding for cellblock
security equipment is anticipated to make a significant impact on the
next reassessment. The additional resources requested would allow the
USMS to directly impact the number of high threat and emergency
situations supported through special operations and assignments. Also,
an increase is foreseen in the percentage of deployments of special
operations/assignments staff or resources before a planned event or
within 48 hours of an unforeseen emergency.

**Funding**

Base Funding

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 13%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 14%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2006-enacted-1" class="heading">FY 2006
Enacted</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2007-estimate-1" class="heading">FY 2007
Estimate</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2008-presidents-budget-current-services-1"
class="heading">FY 2008 President’s Budget<br />
Current Services</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>$(000)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>…</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>$4,800</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>$4,800</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>…</td>
<td>$4,800</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Note: Base funding includes the nationwide security contract base.

[Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Type of Position          | Modular    | Number of  | FY 2008       |
|                           | Cost       |            |               |
|                           |            | Positions  | Request       |
|                           | per        |            | (\$000)       |
|                           | Position   | Requested  |               |
|                           | (\$000)    |            |               |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Deputy Marshal            | \$166      | 15         | \$2,493       |
| (GS-0082-7)               |            |            |               |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Administrative (GS-XXX-9) | 59         | 2          | 118           |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+
| Total Personnel           |            | 17         | \$2,612       |
+---------------------------+------------+------------+---------------+

Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary

+-------------------------------+-----------+--------+----------------+
| Non-Personnel Item            | Unit Cost | Qu     | FY 2008        |
|                               |           | antity | Request        |
|                               |           |        |                |
|                               |           |        | (\$000)        |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------+----------------+
| Cellblock security            |           |        | \$1,169        |
| enhancements                  |           |        |                |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------+----------------+
| Supreme Court protective      |           |        | 400            |
| detail travel and overtime    |           |        |                |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------+----------------+
| Nationwide security           |           |        | 972            |
| maintenance                   |           |        |                |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------+----------------+
| Total Non-Personnel           |           |        | \$2,541        |
+-------------------------------+-----------+--------+----------------+

Total Request for this Item

+------------+------+------+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
|            | Pos  | Agt  | FTE | Personnel | Non-P    | Total      |
|            |      |      |     |           | ersonnel |            |
|            |      |      |     | (\$000)   |          | (\$000)    |
|            |      |      |     |           | (\$000)  |            |
+------------+------+------+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| Current    | ...  | ...  | ... | ...       | \$4,800  | \$4,800    |
| Services   |      |      |     |           |          |            |
+------------+------+------+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| Increases  | 17   | 15   | 9   | 2,612     | 2,541    | 5,153      |
+------------+------+------+-----+-----------+----------+------------+
| Grand      | 17   | 15   | 9   | \$2,612   | \$7,341  | \$9,953    |
| Total      |      |      |     |           |          |            |
+------------+------+------+-----+-----------+----------+------------+

#### c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews

In 2003, the Judicial and Courthouse Security (formerly the Protection
of the Judicial Process) program was reviewed under the PART process and
received a score of 66 out of a possible 100 points. The table below
displays the PART score by section:

  ---------------------------------- ---------------- --------------------
  **Section**                        **USMS Score**   **Maximum Score**

  Program Purpose & Design           16               20

  Strategic Planning                 6                10

  Program Management                 17               20

  Program Results                    27               50

  **Total Program Score**            **66**           **100**
  ---------------------------------- ---------------- --------------------

As a result of the PART assessment, the Administration, working with the
USMS, has developed the following recommendations to improve the
program.

1.  Improve off-site and personal security of the judiciary by
    increasing residential security surveys.

2.  Develop a forward looking court security resource needs assessment
    plan in conjunction with the courts.

3.  Maintain a current services level of judicial protection and
    protection for high threat, high security terrorist trials.

The USMS improved off-site security for judges in FY 2006 by conducting
more than 1616 surveys of judicial residences along with ADT in order to
effectively prepare for the installation of Home Intrusion Detection
Systems. These surveys support the completion of the Judicial Personnel
Profile, which details information needed related to judges and their
families in case of emergency, as well as ultimately the installation of
residential security systems. The Home Intrusion Detection Systems
Program is a multi-million dollar effort to improve the residential
security of judicial officers who chose to participate. To date, we have
installed over 1250 residential security systems in participating
judicial officer's residences.

The USMS and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) have
collaboratively developed new planning methods of conducting long range
court security resource needs assessments. Standing committees have been
established by the Judicial Conference of the United States (JCUS)
geared toward the development of long range plans for judicial issues,
to include security. The USMS has direct involvement with these
committees through policy level officials (Director, Deputy Director,
and Assistant Directors) and Judicial Security Division (JSD)
management. These officials participate in periodic meetings, held in
Washington and in various Judicial Circuits, to assess future resource
requirements and identify mechanisms to secure those resources. Specific
issue working groups created by JCUS Committees include representatives
of USMS and JSD program managers. In March of 2006, a Court Security
Officer (CSO) Advisory Group was created. This advisory group includes
six USMS employees with extensive experience in judicial security
working together with AOUSC staff to discuss policy matters on how CSOs
could be best utilized, with recommendations being developed for both
AOUSC and USMS. The USMS has provided AOUSC with resource needs in the
Judiciary\'s FY 2008 Court Security appropriation request. The USMS
continues to work with AOUSC throughout the FY 2007, FY 2008 and future
budget processes.

The USMS continues to protect the judicial process and ensure the
efficient operation of the U.S. Courts by producing prisoners for court
appearances and securing courthouses. The USMS has not had an assault on
a member of the federal judicial process while in a courthouse facility.

## B. Fugitive Apprehension

+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Fugitive Apprehension---TOTAL           | Perm. | FTE  | Amount    |
|                                         | Pos.  |      |           |
|                                         |       |      | (\$000)   |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2006 Enacted w/ Rescissions &           | 1,414 | 1    | 241,900   |
| Supplementals                           |       | ,365 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Estimate                           | 1,423 | 1    | 259,370   |
|                                         |       | ,397 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Adjustments to Base and Technical       | \(    | \(1  | 15,542    |
| Adjustments                             | 109\) | 04\) |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2008 Current Services                   | 1,314 | 1    | 274,912   |
|                                         |       | ,293 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2008 Program Increases                  | 54    | 27   | 8,663     |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2008 Offsets                            | ...   | ...  | ...       |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2008 Request                            | 1,368 | 1    | 283,575   |
|                                         |       | ,320 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Total Change 2007-2008                  | \     | \(   | \$24,205  |
|                                         | (55\) | 77\) |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122106 .anchor}**1. Program Description**

The **Fugitive Apprehension** decision unit includes domestic and
international fugitive investigations, electronic surveillance and
technical operations to support fugitive investigations, extraditions
and deportations of fugitives, service of process, and the subsequent
seizure of assets related to the fugitive investigations.

The USMS is authorized to locate and apprehend federal, state, and local
fugitives both within and outside the U.S. under 28 USC 566(e)(1)(B).
Number range CHAPTERThe USMS has a long history of providing assistance
and expertise to other law enforcement agencies in support of fugitive
investigations. The broad scope and responsibilities of the USMS
concerning the location and apprehension of federal, state, local, and
foreign fugitives is detailed in a series of federal laws, rules,
regulations, Department of Justice policies, Office of Legal Counsel
opinions, and memoranda of understanding with other federal law
enforcement agencies

The USMS established the 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Program in 1983 in an
effort to prioritize the investigation and apprehension of high-profile
offenders who are considered to be some of the country's most dangerous
fugitives. These offenders tend to be career criminals with histories of
violence or whose offenses pose a significant threat to public safety.
Current and past fugitives in this program include murderers, violent
gang members, sex offenders, major drug kingpins, organized crime
figures, and individuals wanted for high-profile financial crimes.

The USMS established its Major Case Fugitive Program in 1985 in an
effort to supplement the successful 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Program.
Much like the 15 Most Wanted Fugitive Program, the Major Case Fugitive
Program prioritizes the investigation and apprehension of high-profile
offenders who are considered to be some of the country's most dangerous
individuals. These offenders also tend to be career criminals with
histories of violence or whose offenses pose a significant threat to
public safety. All escapes from custody are automatically elevated to
Major Case status.

The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 directed the Attorney
General, "upon consultation with appropriate Department of Justice and
Department of the Treasury law enforcement components, to establish
permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces consisting of Federal,
state, and local law enforcement authorities in designated regions of
the United States, to be directed and coordinated by the USMS, for the
purpose of locating and apprehending fugitives."

The USMS created Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) to locate and
apprehend the most violent fugitives and to assist in high-profile
investigations that identify criminal activities for future state and
federal prosecutions. The investigative information cultivated by the
USMS leads to the development of new sources, new case referrals, and
the acquisition of information and intelligence that supports both
criminal investigations and new fugitive cases. In FY 2002, the USMS
established two RFTFs in New York/New Jersey and Pacific Southwest
regions. Three additional RFTFs were established during FY 2003 and FY
2004 in the Great Lakes, Southeast and Capital Area regions. In the FY
2006 enacted appropriation, an RFTF was approved for the Gulf Coast
Region, bringing the total number of RFTFs to six.

Additionally, the USMS sponsors 92 district-managed, multi-agency task
forces throughout the U.S., focusing investigative efforts on fugitives
wanted for federal, state and local crimes of violence and drug
trafficking. Funding for these task forces is often granted through
initiatives such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and Project
Safe Neighborhoods programs.

The USMS also supports its fugitive mission through the use of
state-of-the art surveillance equipment and specially trained
investigators that are part of the USMS Technical Operations Group
(TOG). The USMS provides investigative support such as telephone
monitoring, electronic tracking and audio‑video recording. With the use
of this technologically-advanced investigative equipment, the USMS is
able to track and trace various types of cellular and land-based
communications initiated by fugitives. In addition, analysts provide
tactical and strategic expertise in support of fugitive investigations.
The USMS maintains its own central law enforcement computer system, the
Warrant Information Network (WIN), which is instrumental in maintaining
criminal investigative operations nationwide. In addition, the USMS
enhances fugitive investigative efforts through data exchange with other
agencies, such as the Social Security Administration, the DEA, the
Department of Agriculture, the Department of Defense, the Department of
State, and a variety of state and local task forces around the country.

In addition to domestic fugitive investigations and pursuant to U.S.
Code and Public Law, the USMS is responsible for conducting nearly all
extraditions of fugitives to the United States from foreign countries
and for supporting extraditions to foreign countries from the United
States. The complexities of international extraditions require constant
coordination and communication with the Department of Justice Office
International Affairs, the Department of State, foreign governments,
U.S. Embassies, and USMS District Offices. Through this coordination,
the USMS International Investigations Branch has accomplished a 100
percent increase in extradition and deportation missions from 2002 to
2006. As a member of Interpol, the USMS works with foreign law
enforcement officials and cooperates with the Department of State, and
other U.S. law enforcement agencies in foreign locations to investigate,
apprehend and extradite American and foreign fugitives both in the U.S.
and abroad. The USMS established foreign field offices in 2003 at the
U.S. Embassies in Jamaica, Dominican Republic, and Mexico. The
extradition/deportation missions performed in these locations have risen
300 percent from 2003 to 2006.

Number range CHAPTERThe USMS Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP) is one of
DOJ's most potent weapons against criminal organizations including
complex drug organizations, terrorist networks, organized crime, and
money laundering groups. The three goals of the AFP are to: enforce the
law, improve law enforcement cooperation at the federal and state
levels, and use the proceeds of forfeited assets to improve law
enforcement. The AFP is funded from two different sources. The first,
seizure, involves pre-seizure planning which is the process of
determining the assets to be targeted for forfeiture and executing court
orders for seizures or taking physical custody of assets. Deputy
Marshals conduct pre-seizure planning with other law enforcement
components, execute court orders, and physically seize and secure the
assets. Administrative personnel from both district and headquarters are
also involved with pre-seizure planning; these personnel are paid
through the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Fund (AFF) on a reimbursable basis,
while Deputy Marshals' salaries and benefits are funded from the USMS
S&E appropriation. The second, management and disposal of properties,
consists of ensuring that all seized properties are carefully
inventoried, appraised, maintained, and disposed. Administrative
personnel establish contracts with private sector vendors and memoranda
of understanding with other federal agencies to ensure that property is
properly maintained pending forfeiture action. Upon forfeiture of the
assets, USMS administrative personnel complete the disposal process by
sharing the equity with state and local law enforcement.

The USMS provides seized assets property management services to other
federal agencies, including the DEA, FBI, U.S. Postal Inspection
Service, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Once the assets are forfeited,
the USMS ensures that they are disposed of in a timely and
commercially-sound manner. Operational and administrative coordination
within the agency and with other law enforcement agencies is critical to
program success. Without a coordinated asset seizure and property
management system, assets would fall into disrepair, lose value, and be
more difficult to dispose of in a timely manner.

![](media/image8.wmf){width="9.79375in" height="5.353472222222222in"}

![](media/image9.wmf){width="8.93125in" height="3.6881944444444446in"}

[]{#refheading___toc156122107 .anchor}**A. Definition of Terms or
explanations for Indicators:**

[Workload]{.underline}:

1\. Class I warrants consist of warrants received plus those warrants
that are still active as of the end of the prior fiscal year. This class
includes all federal felony warrants for arrest for which the USMS has
primary apprehension responsibility including warrants for escape,
failure to appear, violation of conditions of release, violation of
parole, violation of probation, and Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) warrants.

2\. & 3. Class II felony warrants consist of felony warrants for arrest
for which another law enforcement agency has primary apprehension
responsibility. Class II non-felony (misdemeanor and traffic) warrants
are those that the USMS has primary apprehension responsibility. Class
II felony and Class II non-felony warrants are comprised of warrants
received plus those warrants that are still active as of the end of the
prior fiscal year.

4\. The number of assets seized includes those seized by the USMS and
other participants in the DOJ forfeiture program (including DEA, FBI,
FDA, USDA, U.S. Postal Inspection Service) plus assets transferred into
USMS custody.

[Performance Measures]{.underline}:

1A. A fugitive is considered apprehended by arrest, surrender, directed
arrest, arrest by another agency, dismissal, or taking custody after a
detainment order is lodged. 1A (1). Class I fugitives are federal felony
fugitives for which the USMS has primary apprehension responsibility
including individuals wanted for escape, failure to appear, violation of
conditions of release, violation of parole, violation of probation, and
DEA warrants. 1A (2). Class II fugitives consists of felony fugitives
wanted for arrest for which another law enforcement agency has primary
apprehension responsibility. 1A(3). Class II non-felony fugitives
consist of misdemeanor and traffic fugitives for which the USMS has
primary apprehension responsibility.

2\. This measure includes state and local fugitives that were cleared in
conjunction with state, local, and other federal law enforcement
assistance.

3\. The goal of this efficiency measure is to track how efficient the
USMS fugitive apprehension program is in bringing federal felons to
justice. The total number of Class I warrants cleared in a year is
divided by the full-cost FTEs reported in the Fugitive Apprehension
Decision Unit. A full-cost FTE is comprised of two portions: the FTE
associated with investigations and apprehension and the prorated portion
of overhead FTE that support the Deputy Marshals. Overhead FTE (as in
procurement, budget, management, human resources, and network support)
is prorated so that the complete effort involved with fugitive
apprehension is displayed.

4.c. "Other" assets include such items as: business, business inventory,
financial instruments, aircraft, jewelry, vessels, vehicles, heavy
machinery, and other assets. The number listed for "cash" signify the
total separate cash assets in USMS custody.

5\. The percent of real property assets that sold for more than 85
percent of their fair market value is based on the total number of real
property assets sold in the fiscal year. If a real property asset is not
sold after the one-year benchmark, the price may be adjusted to expedite
the sale. However, if the price was not reduced after the one-year
period, and has not sold at 85 percent or more of its fair market value,
the property may stay in the inventory for more than one year.

6\. The time frame set by the USMS for disposal of real property is 12
months (365 days) based on the best practices of the real estate
industry.

[Outcome:]{.underline}

7\. This measure includes: physical arrest, directed arrest, surrender,
dismissal, arrest by other agency, or when a fugitive is taken into
custody on a detainment order. This outcome measure includes Class I,
Class II felony, and Class II non-felony fugitives.

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2006 Program Performance.**

The number of Class I Fugitives received did not increase at the same
rate as in previous fiscal years. As a result, in order to meet the
target of fugitives cleared for this measure the USMS had to clear more
of its backlog. Because it is harder to clear older cases than newer
cases, the USMS was unable to meet the Class I target. This also
impacted the target for Class I warrants cleared per full-cost FTE.
However, the USMS did clear more fugitives from 2005 to 2006. The USMS
continued to shift its resources to focus on violent fugitive
apprehension. This shift negatively affected the overall number of class
I fugitives cleared.

Trends show a decline in Class 2 Felony Fugitives cleared from several
Federal agencies, particularly the FBI. This could be a result of the
FBI\'s continuing shift of investigative resources to counter-terrorism.
However, even though the target was not met there were still more
fugitives cleared from 2005 to 2006 in this category.

Though the USMS missed the target for Class II Non-Felony Fugitives
cleared, it increased the number of fugitives apprehended over last year
by almost 10%, which is significant considering the low investigative
priority of this offender category. Additionally misdemeanor cases
received decreased by almost 3,000. As a result, in order to meet the
target for this measure the USMS had to clear more of its backlog.
Because it is harder to clear older cases than newer cases, the USMS was
unable to meet the Class II target.

State and Local figures did not meet target expectation for FY 2006
because operation FALCON was split between 2006 and 2007. The original
target anticipated the operation occurring entirely in FY 2006.

The Percent/Total of total fugitives apprehended or cleared target was
not met due to the reasons cited above in regards to Class 1, Class 2
Felony, and Class 2 Non-Felony Fugitives.

The number of real property, cash, and other assets disposed did not
meet target expectations because the National Jewelry Contract was
re-competed and then delayed in a protest action that resulted in a
significant reduction in the number of disposals of Jewelry, Fine Arts
and Collectables (all in the "other" category). In addition, the
National On-Line Sales contract was not awarded during FY 2006. Any
district that had the procurement authority was authorized to issue
procurement actions directly with the On-Line Sales web company, but the
National procurement vehicle was not in place. This resulted in a
reduction in the number of assets advertised and sold on the On-Line
Sales site. Assets commonly sold on this site included real property,
jewelry, collectables, and high value and/or collectable vehicles.

The USMS is diligently working to establish the Gulf Coast Regional
Fugitive Task Force (GCRFTF), the sixth USMS Regional Fugitive Task
Force. The GCRFTF will have a total of seven locations in Mississippi
and Alabama. Much effort is required to procure and outfit office spaces
and to negotiate the numerous federal, state, and local cooperation
agreements to maximize coordinated fugitive apprehension.

**C. Factors Affecting FY 2007 and FY 2008 Plans.**

To more accurately reflect current trends, FY07 and FY08 targets for the
following have been adjusted based on FY 06 actual data:

Number of federal fugitives Apprehended or Cleared (Class 1, Class2
Felony, Class 2 Non-Felony;

State and Local fugitive cases cleared; and,

Number of assets disposed (Real property, cash, other).

The "Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act" was signed into law by
President Bush on July 27, 2006, the 25^th^ anniversary of Adam's
abduction and murder. The Act makes it a federal felony for convicted
sex offenders to fail to register with their local authorities. The USMS
was designated by the Act as the agency to lead the national effort to
track down and arrest these fugitive felons. The USMS is in the process
of developing suitable performance measures.

The ability of the USMS to keep pace with court operations, to include
prisoner transportation, security, and productions, will directly impact
the effectiveness of the Fugitive Apprehension Program. If the agency
does not obtain increases in court operations personnel commensurate
with the workload increases, then fugitive investigators will continue
to be pulled off cases to help support court operations. This will
ultimately result in fewer fugitives apprehended. The effectiveness of
FALCON III and IV in FY 2007 and the continuation of city sites
conducting Fugitive Safe Surrender operations will have significant
impact on the number of fugitives apprehended.

![](media/image10.wmf){width="9.789583333333333in" height="5.18125in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122109 .anchor}**3. Performance, Resources, and
Strategies**

The Fugitive Apprehension decision unit contributes to the Department's
Strategic Goal IV: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation of the
Federal Justice System. Within this goal, the decision unit's resources
specifically address two of the Department's Strategic Objectives:\
4.1- Protect judges, witnesses, and other participants in Federal
proceedings, and ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for
judicial proceedings or confinement and Objective:\
4.2 -- Ensure the apprehension of fugitives from justice**.**

The USMS is the federal government's primary agency for apprehending
fugitives and has primary jurisdiction to investigate fugitive matters
involving escaped federal prisoners, probation, parole, bond default
violators, warrants generated by DEA investigations and certain other
related felony cases. The USMS is authorized to investigate such
fugitive matters, both within and outside the United States, as directed
by the Attorney General, although this authorization is not to be
construed to interfere with or supersede the authority of other federal
agencies or bureaus. The U.S. Marshals are unique in that, when
executing the laws of the United States within a state, they may
exercise the same powers which a sheriff of the state may exercise. This
authority provides the U. S. Marshals with the tools of both a
first-tier federal law enforcement officer and the state sheriff. The
USMS possesses the authority to enforce the Fugitive Felon Act and, as a
result of its broad statutory authority, may assist state and local
agencies in their fugitive missions even in the absence of interstate or
other extra-jurisdictional flight.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122110 .anchor}**a. Performance Plan and Report
for Outcomes**

As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, the
performance outcome measure for this decision unit is: "percent/number
of total federal fugitives apprehended or cleared." This includes
physical arrest, directed arrest, surrender, dismissal, arrest by
another agency, or when a fugitive is taken into custody on a detainment
order. For\
FY 2006, the USMS cleared 80,055 federal fugitives, or 46 percent of all
federal fugitives. This consists of 39,469 Class I fugitive felons
cleared, 29,512 Class II fugitive felons, and 11,074 Class II non-felony
fugitives. In FY 2008, the USMS is targeting 48 percent, or 87,565
federal fugitives apprehended or cleared.

Class II non-felony warrants consist of misdemeanor offenses such as
public disorder, speeding, and other traffic citations that occur on
federal property (typically military bases and national parks.) If the
fine is not paid, a bench warrant is issued, but is often difficult to
execute because the violator is no longer in the issuing district. For
example, military personnel might be transferred overseas or vacationers
have returned home, whereupon the pursuit of these violators is cost
prohibitive.

The USMS is directing its investigative efforts toward reducing the
number of violent crimes, which included terrorist activities, organized
crime, drugs, and gang violence. Through the RFTFs, state and local
agencies have a more direct way to track down their highest priority
fugitives, many of whom are violent repeat offenders. The five RFTFs
enabled the USMS to improve its ability to target and capture more
dangerous fugitives, resulting in a 8 percent increase in state and
local fugitive felons cleared from FY 2005 to FY 2006. Also, the USMS
apprehended or cleared over 77,000 federal fugitives in FY 2005 and over
80,000 in FY 2006. The enacted FY 2006 appropriation included an RFTF in
the Gulf Coast Region with 37 positions, and an additional 12 positions
were approved for the existing RFTFs.

The USMS expects to achieve the targeted level of 47 percent federal
fugitives cleared in\
FY 2007 and 48 percent in FY 2008. The USMS will pursue this goal
through efforts such as Operation FALCON[^7] IV, a repeat of Operation
FALCON, which was the largest fugitive operation ever undertaken by any
law enforcement agency in the United States. During a one-week period in
FY 2005, USMS led task forces along with hundreds of federal, state, and
local agency partners, arrested 9,037 felony fugitives, including 1,102
sex offenders. During Operation FALCON II in April 2006, the USMS and
its federal, state, and local counterparts arrested over 9,000 fugitives
(93% with prior criminal history) of which 783 were unregistered sex
offenders. Operation FALCON III in October 2006 resulted in the arrest
of 10,733 fugitives, including 1,659 sex offenders, 971 of whom were not
in compliance with their registration requirements. Also, Fugitive Safe
Surrender, a faith-based initiative, was conducted in Cleveland, Ohio,
whereby USMS, local law enforcement, and religious leaders led a very
successful fugitive apprehension initiative that resulted in the
peaceful surrender of 850 fugitives, including 350 felons, at a local
church. The program did not provide amnesty, but encouraged fugitives to
surrender under circumstances that guaranteed their safety and the
safety of the surrounding community. The results are pending for the
follow-on Fugitive Safe Surrender initiative conducted in Phoenix, AZ.

The performance measure is: Fugitives Apprehended or Cleared. The USMS
accomplished the following level of performance in FY 2006 and set the
following target level of performance for FY 2007 and FY 2008:

  -------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------
  **Cleared**                            **FY 2006  **FY 2007  **FY 2008
                                         Actual**   Target**   Target**

  Class I                                39,469     42,323     44,460

  Class II Felony                        29,512     31,356     31,851

  Class II Non-felony                    11,074     11,484     11,254

  Total                                  80,055     85,163     87,565

  **Outcome**                                                  

  Fugitives Apprehended or Cleared       80,055     85,163     87,565

  Percent Total Fugitives Apprehended or 46         47         48
  Cleared                                                      
  -------------------------------------- ---------- ---------- ----------

As illustrated in the Performance and Resources Table, the performance
outcome measure for AFP is the number of crime organizations that were
dismantled. This outcome is a DOJ-level outcome reported by the DEA and
FBI. The USMS AFP has intermediate performance measures that focus on
achieving DOJ AFP outcome "to dismantle criminal organizations."

The actual performance in the number of assets disposed is largely
dependent upon the number of assets seized and forfeited by the
participants in the DOJ AFP. The USMS should have a proportionate number
of assets in custody at the close of each fiscal year. The performance
measure is the number of assets disposed of in the following asset
categories: a) real property; b) cash; and c) other (i.e., businesses,
business inventory, financial instruments, and personal property such as
vehicles, vessels, aircraft and firearms). The established performance
actuals and target levels of each asset type for each fiscal year are as
follows:

  ------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------
  **Disposed**              **2006 Actual   **2007 Target   **2008 Target
                            Assets**        Assets**        Assets**

  Real Property             538             545             550

  Cash                      10,693          10,750          10,900

  Other                     6,368           6,400           6,475
  ------------------------- --------------- --------------- ---------------

Additionally, the effects of Hurricane Katrina caused the USMS to place
a moratorium on the disposal of real property and personal property
(cars, boats, RVs, etc.) due to hurricane relief efforts. Some assets
were removed from the disposal lists and are now on loan to the USMS and
other agencies that lost cars and other items to the storm. Because of
these factors, asset seizure and disposal targets for FY 2006 were
adjusted.

The USMS anticipates assuming responsibility for assets seized by the
ATF in FY 2006 and FY 2007. Further, it is anticipated that the number
of asset seizures by the remaining DOJ components will increase with the
commitment of resources by all DOJ components. DOJ has a number of new
initiatives which will result in an increase in forfeiture actions which
will increase the pre-seizure, seizure, management, and disposition
workload of the USMS.

The second performance measure is the percent of real property assets
sold at 85 percent or more of their fair market value. The actual
performance and target levels are 83 percent in FY 2006, 83 percent in
FY 2007, and 83 percent in FY 2008. The percent of real property assets
that sold for more than 85 percent of their fair market value is based
on the total number of real property assets sold in the fiscal year.

The third performance measure is the percent of real property assets
disposed of within one year of receipt of the forfeiture documentation.
The actual performance and target levels are 82 percent in FY 2006, 82
percent in FY 2007, and 82 percent in FY 2008*.* The time frame set by
the USMS for disposal of real property is 12 months (365 days) based on
the best practices of the real estate industry.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122111 .anchor}**b. Strategies to Accomplish
Outcomes**

The USMS established RFTFs in prioritized locations based on
open-warrant workload data. In FY 2006, the USMS received an additional
12 positions for the existing RFTFs and 37 positions to establish an
RFTF in the Gulf Coast Region. These positions will allow the USMS to
apprehend more fugitives.

During FY 2006, TOG investigators provided critical assistance on 7,107
surveillance operations with 2,912 cases targeted. Of those cases, 2,310
resulted in arrests for a 79% arrest rate and a\
6 percent arrest total increase over FY 2005.

The USMS foreign field offices in Mexico, Jamaica, and the Dominican
Republic, continue to improve communication for extraditions, coordinate
the investigation of leads in neighboring countries, and initiate host
country investigations in the United States. Since the placement of
senior Deputy Marshals in these countries, there has been dramatic
success in fugitive apprehensions.

The USMS is also responsible for approximately 90 percent of all
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) fugitive
investigations. The 38 USMS OCDETF inspectors work diligently with
district Deputy Marshals and other law enforcement agencies to clear
OCDETF warrants, bringing many drug-related and organized crime felons
to justice. The USMS assisted in clearing the following number of OCDETF
warrants:

  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------
  **USMS                                                       
  OCDETF                                                       
  Warrants**                                                   

               **FY 2002** **FY 2003** **FY 2004** **FY 2005** **FY 2006**

  No. Cleared  2,724       2,278       3,232       3,562       3,594
  ------------ ----------- ----------- ----------- ----------- -----------

The USMS plans to fill 3 vacant OCDETF positions, bringing the total to
its authorized 41 positions. These additional positions are expected to
make substantial progress in clearing over 5,000 open OCDETF warrants.

In an effort to continue to improve efficiencies and cost effectiveness
of the Assets Forfeiture Program, the USMS has implemented national
contracting initiatives for specific asset types (such as real property,
jewelry, weapons, and electronic equipment). In support of the
President's Management Agenda and the initiative to expand E-Government
mandating the use of Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), the USMS has
completed the implementation of EFT of Equitable Sharing in all
districts and is implementing other financial management initiatives
such as EFT of seized currency, and EFT receipt of proceeds of sale.
Installation of check clearing technology in district offices is also in
progress. This technology will be utilized to process checks from many
different sources, including checks that are delivered by the federal
seizing agencies.

Furthermore, in support of the President's Federal Asset Sales
initiatives, the USMS was the first federal agency to utilize online
auctions as one method of asset disposition. The FY 2004 Federal Asset
Sales' Office of Management and Budget (Exhibit 300) acknowledged the
USMS as one of the federal agencies that "have incorporated an efficient
Internet-based, open "e-cry" auction model (e-market) into their
solution." The USMS was also acknowledged by IBM[^8] as one of the few
successful federal agencies to use online technology. The USMS utilizes
online sites to successfully sell many types of assets, including real
property, vehicles, and collectibles.

**Program Increases**

**Item Name: [Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act]{.underline}**

Budget Decision Unit: [Fugitive Apprehension]{.underline}

Strategic Goal & Objectives: [DOJ Strategic Goal IV, Objective
4.2]{.underline}

Organizational Program: [U.S. Marshals Service]{.underline}

Program Increase: Positions [54]{.underline} Agents [43]{.underline} FTE
[27]{.underline} Dollars [\$7,845,000]{.underline}

Description of Item

The USMS requests 54 positions (43 Deputy Marshals), 27 FTE, and
\$7,845,000 to support the enforcement of required sex offender
registration as per Section 142 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act (P.L.109-248).

-   54 positions (43 Deputy Marshals), 27 FTE, and \$7,845,000 to begin
    staffing areas of the country with large numbers of non-compliant
    sex offenders, and to staff a National Sex Offender Targeting Center
    in partnership with National Center for Missing and Exploited
    Children (NCMEC).

Justification

The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act was signed into law by
the President on July 27, 2006, the 25^th^ anniversary of Adam's
abduction and murder. Under certain circumstances, the Act makes it a
federal felony if convicted sex offenders fail to register or keep their
registration current with their local jurisdictions. The USMS was
designated as the lead agency to investigate violations of the Act, and
to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial jurisdictions in
locating and apprehending non-compliant sex offenders.

Estimates from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
(NCMEC) indicate that there are almost 600,000 registered sex offenders
in the United States, and as many as 100,000 non-compliant sex
offenders. The USMS will play a critical role in the investigation,
location, apprehension, and prosecution of non-compliant sex offenders.
Key law enforcement provisions of the Act pertaining to the USMS are:

-   Establishes a new federal felony offense for sex offenders who fail
    to register or update their registration information;

-   Requires the USMS to assist jurisdictions in locating and
    apprehending sex offenders who violate their registration
    requirements;

-   Requires the Attorney General to provide assistance to jurisdictions
    in the identification and location of a sex offender relocated as a
    result of a major disaster.

The Department of Justice and the USMS are currently working on the
details concerning the implementation of the Act, including how to
proceed with federal investigations and prosecutions.

At the moment, the USMS is assisting state and local jurisdictions in
locating and apprehending fugitive sex offenders, both within and
outside of the United States, through its existing network of district
and regional fugitive task forces and its foreign field offices. The
USMS has also begun training its personnel and investigating a limited
number of violations of the Act. Pending the availability of resources,
the USMS will also establish a National Sex Offender Targeting Center
(in partnership with NCMEC) to assist in identifying and prioritizing
non-compliant sex offenders, especially offenders against children, and
to provide analytical support to federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies.

[Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic
Goals)]{.underline}

This request directly ties to DOJ Strategic Goal IV, Objective 4.2 to
"ensure the apprehension of fugitives from justice." The requested
resources will be applied to assist jurisdictions in identifying,
investigating, apprehending, and assisting in the prosecution of
non-compliant sex offenders, especially offenders against children. The
USMS has already taken steps to update database services and software
that will assist with this mission; established contacts with state
registries to identify non-compliant sex offenders; and begun training
its personnel to investigate violations of this act. These actions will
lay the foundation for the USMS to achieve the Department's goal of
preventing, suppressing, and intervening in crimes against children.

In the July 2005 Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General
(OIG) [Review of the United States Marshals Service's Apprehension of
Violent Fugitives]{.underline}, the OIG stated "*The performance of the
USMS in apprehending violent fugitives improved significantly from FY
2001 to FY 2004. During that period, the USMS increased the number of
violent fugitives apprehended by 51 percent. We also found that the USMS
became more efficient in apprehending violent fugitives."* Specific
performance measures tied to this Act are being developed.

The mission of fugitive apprehension directly supports DOJ's strategy to
achieve the objective as stated in DOJ's Strategic Plan for FYs
2007-2012: "Focus on apprehending Most Wanted and Major Case fugitives."
An investment in the apprehension of unregistered sex offenders is
necessary so that the USMS may focus its proven ability towards
protecting our children from sexual predators. The absence of dedicated
personnel to investigate these crimes will mean that fewer sex offenders
(including offenders against children) will be prosecuted in federal
court.

**Funding**

Base Funding

  --------- ----- ----- --------- ---------- ----- ----- --------- ------------- ----- ----- ---------
  FY 2006                         FY 2007                          FY 2008                   
  Enacted                         Estimate                         President's               
                                                                   Budget                    
                                                                   Current                   
                                                                   Services                  

  Pos       Agt   FTE   Dollars   Pos        Agt   FTE   Dollars   Pos           Agt   FTE   Dollars
                        (\$000)                          (\$000)                             (\$000)

  ...       ...   ...   ...       ...        ...   ...   ...       ...           ...   ...   ...
  --------- ----- ----- --------- ---------- ----- ----- --------- ------------- ----- ----- ---------

[Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Type of Position          | Modular     | Number of     | FY 2008   |
|                           | Cost        |               |           |
|                           |             | Positions     | Request   |
|                           | Per         |               | (\$000)   |
|                           | Position    | Requested     |           |
|                           | (\$000)     |               |           |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Deputy Marshals           | \$166       | 43            | \$7,146   |
| (GS-082-7)                |             |               |           |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Administrative (GS-XXX-9) | 59          | 11            | 650       |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Total Personnel           | ...         | 54            | \$7,796   |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+

[Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Type of Item              | Unit        | Quantity      | FY 2008   |
|                           |             |               |           |
|                           |             |               | Request   |
|                           |             |               | (\$000)   |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Equipment                 | ...         | ...           | \$49      |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+
| Total Non-Personnel       | ...         | ...           | \$49      |
+---------------------------+-------------+---------------+-----------+

Total Request for this Item

  ------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----------- --------------- ----------
  Item                      Pos   Agt   FTE   Personnel   Non-Personnel   Total
                                              (\$000)     (\$000)         (\$000)

  Current Services          ...   ...   ...   ...         ...             ...

  Sex Offender Apprehension 54    43    27    \$7,796     \$49            \$7,845

  Grand Total               54    43    27    \$7,796     \$49            \$7,845
  ------------------------- ----- ----- ----- ----------- --------------- ----------

[]{#refheading___toc156122112 .anchor}**c. Results of Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The Fugitive Apprehension program was reviewed under the PART process in
FY 2003. This program received a score of 63 out of a possible 100
points. As a result of the PART assessment, the Administration made the
following recommendations to improve the program.

1.  Conduct routine and periodic independent evaluation of the fugitive
    apprehension program.

2.  Incorporate findings and recommendations from evaluations into a
    revised strategic plan and mission statement.

3.  Program partners that delegate primary apprehension responsibility
    to the USMS will be required to commit to the fugitive apprehension
    program performance goals, targets, costs, and schedules.

4.  Maintain a current services level warrants cleared and federal
    fugitives apprehended.

The USMS has completed its Strategic plans, both for the agency and more
specifically for the Fugitive Program. These plans incorporated findings
and recommendations from the most recent fugitive program review by the
OIG in FY 2005.

Regarding Federal program partners, the USMS has completed a draft
revision of the DOJ policy on fugitive apprehension, including review by
the Advisory Board. The USMS is working with other DOJ agencies to
discuss the proposed revision. The USMS will work with the Attorney
General's staff and Deputy Attorney General's staff to revise the DOJ
policy on fugitive apprehension. Additionally, The USMS has entered into
a formal MOU with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and
Explosives (ATF) for fugitive apprehension of ATF fugitives.

The Fugitive Apprehension program is scheduled to undergo the PART
review during FY 2007.

## C. Prisoner Security and Transportation

+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| Prisoner Security and Transportation  | Perm.   | FTE  | Amount      |
| --TOTAL                               | Pos.    |      |             |
|                                       |         |      | (\$000)     |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| 2006 Enacted w/ Rescissions &         | 958     | 926  | 180,633     |
| Supplementals                         |         |      |             |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| 2007 Estimate                         | 964     | 929  | 162,619     |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| Adjustments to Base                   | \(73\)  | \(   | 9,444       |
|                                       |         | 70\) |             |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| 2008 Current Services                 | 891     | 859  | 172,063     |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| 2008 Program Increases                | 29      | 14   | 4,706       |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| 2008 Request                          | 920     | 873  | 176,769     |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+
| Total Change 2007-2008                | \(44\)  | \(   | 14,150      |
|                                       |         | 56\) |             |
+---------------------------------------+---------+------+-------------+

### 1. Program Description

**Prisoner Security and Transportation** is made up of the following
activities: processing prisoners in the cellblock, securing the
cellblock area, transporting prisoners by ground or air, and inspecting
jails used to house federal detainees. As each prisoner is placed into
the USMS' custody, a Deputy Marshal is required to "process" that
prisoner. Processing consists of interviewing the prisoner to gather the
available personal, arrest, prosecution, and medical information;
fingerprinting the prisoner; photographing the prisoner; preparing an
inventory of any received prisoner property; entering/placing the
collected data and records into the Justice Detainee Information System
(JDIS) and the prisoner file; and sending the fingerprint information to
the FBI to store in its Integrated Automated Fingerprint Identification
System (IAFIS) fingerprint system, either electronically through the use
of a Joint Automated Booking Station (JABS) station, or manually, if a
JABS station has not yet been implemented in that district office. Using
this system, the USMS is able to efficiently track the prisoner as
he/she proceeds through the system.

The cellblock is the secured area for holding prisoners in the
courthouse before and after they are scheduled to appear in their court
proceeding. Deputy Marshals follow strict safety protocols in the
cellblocks to ensure the safety of USMS employees and members of the
judicial process. A minimum of two Deputy Marshals are required to be
present when cells are unlocked or entered, when prisoners are moved
into or out of the cellblock or holding cell areas, when prisoners of
the opposite sex are being handled, or when meals are being served.
Female and juvenile prisoners must be separated by sight and sound from
adult male prisoners within the cellblock. Deputy Marshals must observe
the prisoners at least every thirty minutes and must count them every
eight hours. Deputy Marshals must minimize the amount of time that
prisoners who exhibit violent behavior or signs of possible drug
overdose, severe mental disorder, or suicidal tendencies are held in the
cellblock and closely monitor them during that time. Deputy Marshals
provide meals to prisoners if held in the cellblock during normal lunch
or dinner hours. Deputy Marshals must search prisoners prior to entrance
into the cellblock as well as any court clothing provided by Public
Defenders to ensure that prisoners and their property are free of
contraband.

The USMS is also responsible for transporting prisoners to and from
judicial proceedings. Some jails that house prisoners agree to transport
prisoners to and from the courthouse at specified rates (which are added
to the monthly housing bills); however, most transportation of prisoners
is done by Deputy Marshals. Deputy Marshals arrange with the jails to
have the needed prisoners ready to be transported, search the prisoner
prior to transport, and properly restrain the prisoners during
transportation.

In addition to transporting prisoners to and from the courthouse, Deputy
Marshals also transport prisoners between detention facilities for
attorney visits, to medical appointments when necessary, and to their
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) facility upon designation after sentencing. As
prisoners progress through their court procedures, districts often move
prisoners from one detention facility to another. This is done for a
variety of reasons: to locate a prisoner closer or farther from the
courthouse, to accommodate the housing limitations at detention
facilities, to take advantage of lower-cost jails which may be further
from the courthouse, to place prisoners at facilities better equipped to
deal with any medical requirements, or to remove a prisoner from other
prisoners due to conflict or litigation concerns with other prisoners.
When prisoners are wanted in more than one district, Deputy Marshals
transport the prisoner to the requesting district upon completion of the
court process in the home district.

The USMS is also responsible for transporting sentenced prisoners to
their designated BOP facility, primarily through Justice Prisoner and
Alien Transportation System (JPATS) because of the long distances
typically involved. Occasionally, district offices are required to use
air transportation other than the JPATS. For example, in Alaska it is
more effective to fly prisoners due to lack of road access in many
areas. Another example is the transportation of a seriously-ill
prisoner. Receiving prisoners into custody, processing them through the
cellblock, and transporting them are labor-intensive activities.
Producing prisoners for court and detention related activities requires
the USMS to partner with the U.S. Courts (USC), Probation and Pretrial
Service Offices, BOP, U.S. Attorneys (USA), and a variety of law
enforcement agencies. Though the oversight and funding of federal
detention resides with the DOJ Office of the Federal Detention Trustee
(OFDT), the USMS remains responsible for day-to-day processing and
confinement of detainees in its custody.

To ensure that prisoners are being confined securely and humanely,
Deputy Marshals inspect state and local detention facility annually.
Additionally, inspections are required before the USMS enters into an
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with a facility to house prisoners or
upon completion of major changes in operations or physical structure of
any facility already being used. The USMS trains Deputy Marshals on the
standard conditions of confinement. After an inspection, the Deputy
Marshal briefs a detention facility officer on the findings and prepares
a written report. Detention facility inspections enable the districts
and headquarters to identify problem areas early and identify facilities
that provide the best value.

![](media/image13.wmf){width="9.19375in" height="4.4625in"}

**A. Definition of Terms or explanations for Indicators:**

[Workload:]{.underline}

1\. Prisoners received are the number of prisoners taken into USMS
custody.

2\. Prisoner productions are the number of times prisoners are produced
for judicial proceedings, meetings with attorneys, or transported for
medical care, between offices and between detention facilities.

[Performance Measures:]{.underline}

> 1\. The costs avoided due to medical claim repricing is the difference
> between the full-price of medical care and the reduced cost of the
> same care when the lower Medicare/Medicaid rates are applied to the
> medical bills.

2\. The number of prisoner moved in support of prisoner productions is
the number of prisoners that had to be transported from one physical
location to another throughout the year for all types of productions.

> 3\. This measure compares the time reported by Deputy Marshals
> performing prisoner processing activities such as: searching the
> prisoner, database entry of prisoner information, fingerprinting,
> photographing, property inventory and storage, and submission of
> fingerprint records to the FBI. Through implementation of technology
> such as the automated booking systems and OFDT's
>
> e-Designate application, the USMS anticipates greater efficiencies
> over time. This measure will be impacted by the ability of the USMS to
> continue implementation of technology systems throughout its district
> offices.

[Outcome:]{.underline}

4\. Prisoner escapes from USMS custody outside of the courtroom include
escapes made during the following times: while being transported (for
court productions, medical visits, moves between sub-offices or
detention facilities), while being held in the cellblock area waiting
for the court procedure, and while meeting with attorneys. Any escapes
during transportation, or while in USMS custody within the cellblock
area or courthouse are included here.

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2006 Program Performance.**

The medical savings target was not completely met due to the transfer of
medical claims from the USMS to BOP for MDC Brooklyn, NY as part of the
interagency medical consolidation program initiative. Under that
program, responsibility for the payment of medical claims and guard
services is transferred from the USMS to the BOP. Therefore that
workload and any associated savings would be reflected in BOP budget
submissions. While the transfer took place in May, 2005, the full impact
on USMS medical savings projections would be in FY 2006.

In the escape that occurred from USMS custody outside of the courtroom,
a prisoner that had been transported by the District of Columbia
Department of Corrections to the DC Superior Courthouse was able to
secret himself beneath one of the transport buses during the unloading
process in the USMS prisoner receiving bay. The prisoner was able to
cling to the underside of the transport bus as it left the courthouse.
The bus had traveled about one city block when the prisoner fell (or
jumped) and was struck by the bus and other vehicles. He was pronounced
dead at the scene. At no time was the public in danger during the escape
and no injuries to other persons occurred.

Federal court proceedings are increasing as are the number of judges and
locations where proceedings are held. The USMS must aggressively pursue
security improvements to ensure the safe operation of federal
proceedings. The added security requirements of terrorist-related and
other high-threat trials require that the security systems stay in
continuous operation.

The USMS must maintain continuity of operations through backup
communication links and backup servers outside the Washington D.C.
metropolitan area. Continuity must be ensured via equipment and software
to perform penetration testing and port scans, monitor systems to detect
intrusions, test contingency plans, guarantee the adequacy and
effectiveness of system access controls, and enforce change control
procedures.

**C. Factors Affecting Selection of FY 2007 and FY 2008 Plans.**

To more accurately reflect current trends, the following FY07 and FY08
targets for Cost Avoidance due to Medical Repricing have been adjusted
based on FY06 actual data:

-   FY 2007 target - \$55,041,254

-   FY 2008 target - \$61,735,630

To more accurately reflect current trends, FY07 and FY08 targets for
Number of Prisoners Moved in Support of Prisoner Productions have been
adjusted based on FY06 actual data.

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation will have a tremendous
impact on the USMS, particularly on the five Southwest Border districts.
Adding thousands of Border Patrol Agents will swamp the federal court
system with pre-trial detainees.

In FY 2007, the USMS is transferring \$27,935,000 to the OFDT for
prisoner movements. With this transfer, the OFDT assumes responsibility
for funding all prisoner moves, both JPATS and non-JPATS. The transfer
consists of two parts: \$22,685,000 is the anticipated cost for JPATS
air transportation and \$5,250,000 is the anticipated costs for the
non-JPATS transportation. The non-

JPATS funding covers district expenses for Deputy Marshals' overtime,
travel, fuel for USMS vehicles, and private air charters. This portion
of funding enables the 94 USMS districts to transport prisoners to meet
the JPATS airlift or to transport prisoners among districts when using
JPATS aircraft is cost-prohibitive.

Without adequate resources, the USMS may be unable to provide the
highest possible prisoner security and transportation in support of the
federal judicial process. Deputy Marshals are the functional backbone of
the agency because they provide direct service to the federal courts.
Our districts handle large numbers of prisoners each year. Most of these
prisoners are violent or have extensive criminal histories. Deputy
Marshals must produce them for criminal court proceedings on a daily
basis. The USMS will make every attempt to meet these targets even if
program increases are not appropriated. The true impact of not receiving
the program enhancements will manifest itself in the level of safety and
security maintained during productions and the inability to produce
rrisoners for scheduled appearances in a timely manner.

![](media/image14.wmf){width="8.999305555555555in" height="2.11875in"}

### 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

The Prisoner Security and Transportation decision unit supports the
Department's Strategic Goal IV: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation
of the Federal Justice System. Within this goal, the resources
specifically address DOJ Strategic Objective: 4.1 -- Protect judges,
witnesses, and other participants in federal proceedings and ensure the
appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or
confinement.

Number range CHAPTERThe USMS maintains the integrity of the federal
judicial system by maintaining the custody, protection, and security of
prisoners and ensuring that criminal defendants appear for judicial
proceedings. The USMS is required to transport prisoners to court
proceedings, medical visits, and attorney meetings. Efficient management
of detention resources necessitates that the USMS continuously analyze
the court's need for prisoners in relation to detention facility
location and cost. This evaluation results in prisoners being moved to
various detention facilities as their cases progress through the
judicial process. Prisoners are moved to closer facilities when they are
often needed to appear. Prisoners are moved to more distant facilities
(which are often less costly) as their need to appear in court
decreases. Another duty of the USMS is the review of utilized detention
facilities to ensure that conditions of confinement are human and
provide adequate security.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122117 .anchor}a. Performance Plan and Report
for Outcomes

As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, the
performance outcome measure for this decision unit is the number of
prisoner escapes from USMS custody outside of the courtroom.

The USMS had one escape in FY 2006 from USMS custody outside of the
courtroom. A prisoner that had been transported by the District of
Columbia Department of Corrections to the DC Superior Courthouse was
able to secret himself beneath one of the transport buses during the
unloading process in the USMS prisoner receiving bay. The prisoner was
able to cling to the underside of the transport bus as it left the
courthouse. The bus had traveled about one city block when the prisoner
fell (or jumped) and was struck by the bus and other vehicles. He was
subsequently pronounced dead at the scene. At no time was the public in
any actual danger during the escape and no injuries to other persons
occurred.

In 2006, the USMS met its target efficiency measure of prisoners
processed per Deputy Marshal FTE. The target was 1,500 prisoners
processed per Deputy Marshal FTE and the USMS processed 1,551 prisoners
per Deputy FTE.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122118 .anchor}**b. Strategies to Accomplish
Outcomes**

To efficiently secure and transport prisoners requires that USMS
personnel work closely with many other agencies, such as:

-   U.S. Court personnel to determine which prisoners are required for
    appearances each day;

-   BOP personnel to arrange for designation once prisoners have been
    sentenced;

-   FBI, DEA, ATF, and other federal, state, and local agency personnel
    to conduct custody transfer; and

-   Detention facility personnel to arrange for prisoners to be ready
    for transport as needed.

**Program Increases**

**Item Name: [Southwest Border Enforcement]{.underline}**

Budget Decision Units: [Judicial and Courthouse Security; Prisoner
Security and Transportation]{.underline}

Strategic Goals & Objectives: [DOJ Strategic Objective 4.1]{.underline}

Organizational Program: [U.S. Marshals Service]{.underline}

Program Increase: Positions [53]{.underline} Agents [40]{.underline} FTE
[26]{.underline} Dollars [\$7,462,000]{.underline}

Description of Item

Due to the increased emphasis on curbing illegal immigration, the USMS
requests 53 positions (40 Deputy Marshals), 26 FTE, and \$7,462,000 for
Southwest Border Enforcement.

[Justification]{.underline}

The USMS is responsible for protecting and securing federal detainees
before, during, and after their judicial proceedings. Transporting
prisoners from detention facilities, escorting prisoners from the
cellblocks and holding cells to the courtroom, and physically securing
the courtroom are all part of this labor intensive process. The
potential for violence and injury among detainees or against detention
and courtroom personnel in these locations and situations is greatly
heightened when USMS presence is limited.

With the recent calls for increased illegal immigrant apprehension along
the Southwest Border, the USMS will be faced with an increasingly
limited amount of personnel to successfully achieve its mission of
protecting and securing federal detainees and judicial personnel, and of
safely transporting those detainees. Border Patrol figures show that the
number of arrests along the Southwest Border increased by 22% (930,000
to 1.14 million) from 2002 to 2004 with no signs of this trend abating.
Other noteworthy figures include:

-   The FY 2007 enacted appropriation for the Department of Homeland
    Security included \$380 million to hire 1,500 additional Border
    Patrol agents.

-   The USMS is included in the federal, state, and local Border
    Enforcement and Security Task Force (BEST), which will focus on
    combating Southwest Border violence.

-   The Senate Judiciary Committee's Immigration Proposal would increase
    the amount of Border Patrol Agents by 14,000 by 2011.

Hiring additional Border Patrol Agents, as enacted in the FY 2007
Appropriation, will inevitably lead to a significant increase in illegal
immigrant arrests which will be transferred into USMS custody. These
detainees will not only fill detention beds, but will also require
court, medical, and legal productions at a much greater rate than
currently experienced. The burden of ensuring that these productions are
safe and secure will fall on USMS personnel. Additionally, other USMS
workload will be generated in areas such as fugitive apprehension,
service of legal process, and prisoner transportation.

Southwest Border districts have already expressed concern about the
difficulties they face because of the heightened apprehension of illegal
immigrants within their districts. In the most recent district survey,
the Chief Deputy of the Southern District of Texas stated:

> "The increasing numbers of persons being arrested for illegal entry in
> the Southwest Border is alarming. Of these individuals, we know very
> little about past criminal behavior, gang affiliation, and/or
> propensity for violence. In the past fiscal year, we have held over 15
> members of the MS-13 (Mara-Salvatrucha) gang pending prosecution, some
> of which are wanted in South American countries for mass murders.
> These individuals require a higher level of security when being housed
> and handled for court productions."

Changes in judicial processing within Southwest Border districts have
also increased USMS workload. The Western District of Texas noted that
the U.S. Attorney "has initiated prosecution of Other Than Mexican
(OTM's) illegal aliens, a population that was previously not detained."
Prior to this initiative, the OTM aliens were given a notice to appear
in court. The USMS is now responsible for detaining and producing them
for their court appearances which significantly increases USMS workload.

Using FY 2004 figures, the average Border Patrol apprehension rate was
121 illegal immigrant apprehensions per agent. A recent Congressional
Research Service report for Congress entitled "Border Security: The Role
of the U.S. Border Patrol" cited that "Today, about 90% of USBP agents
are deployed along the Southwest Border with Mexico\..." Assuming that
90% of the 1,500 Border Patrol agents received in FY 2007 are assigned
to the Southwest Border, and also assuming a consistent Border Patrol
agent apprehension rate, this will result in an approximate annual
increase of 163,350 illegal immigrant arrests that will produce 8,868
more detainees. This influx of detainees will greatly increase several
USMS workload areas, including booking detainees, court/medical/legal
productions, detainee transportation, and fugitive investigations. By
comparing USMS Deputy Marshal staffing in the Southwest Border districts
to the Border Patrol arrest data, and adjusting for the increased
arrests that would be generated, the USMS requests 53 positions (40
Deputy Marshals), 26 FTE, and \$7,462,000 in Southwest Border districts
to address the inevitable increase in courthouse security and prisoner
production workload. Non-personnel funding of \$46,000 is also requested
for physical security equipment in prisoner holding and movement areas.

The increased arrests of illegal immigrants not only impact the USMS
operational workload but also the administrative workload. Since 1994,
the administrative staff in Southwest Border districts has not increased
relative to prisoner population increases. Technological improvements
have improved employee productivity, but the prisoner workload has still
outpaced the available staffing. Many Southwest Border districts are
forced to pull Deputy Marshals into administrative duties because
prisoner detention requires constant record keeping. Every time a
prisoner is moved, needs medical care, or is sentenced, a prisoner
record has to be updated. Many prisoner records have to be requested
from other agencies and consolidated into one package for the BOP. If
records are not updated, a prisoner may remain longer than necessary in
USMS custody thereby increasing detention costs. The following table
displays the prisoner population increase experienced in Southwest
Border districts:

  ----------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------
  **District**      **FY 2000 Average     **FY 2006 Average     **Percentage
                    Daily Prisoner        Daily Prisoner        Increase**
                    Population**          Population**          

  Arizona           2,272                 4,189                 84%

  Southern          1,888                 1,670                 (12%)\*
  California                                                    

  New Mexico        890                   2,049                 130%

  Southern Texas    2,411                 5,761                 139%

  Western Texas     3,076                 5,037                 64%

  **Total**         **10,537**            **18,706**            **78%**
  ----------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------

\*It is assumed that increased law enforcement efforts at reducing
illegal immigration in Southern California caused a shift in immigration
patterns to easier-to-cross states.

Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic Goals)

By providing more Deputy Marshals for the increasing needs of judicial
security, additional administrative personnel that will allow existing
deputy positions to focus on security, and a more dependable vehicle
fleet to transport deputies and prisoners, this initiative directly
promotes the accomplishment of the following DOJ and USMS strategic
goals and objectives:

-   DOJ Strategic Objective 4.1: Protect judges, witnesses, and other
    participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of
    criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement.

-   USMS Strategic Goal 1, Objective 1.2: Ensure that court employees
    and the public have an environment where they can feel safe and
    secure within judicial facilities.

The following statistics show how the workload growth from prisoners
received and prisoners produced occurred after Operation Gatekeeper.
From 1996 to 2006, the USMS allocated 258 of 635 (41 percent) additional
positions to Southwest Border districts, where the workload has more
than doubled. The five Southwest Border districts, 5 percent of the USMS
district total, handle a large percentage of the total USMS prisoner
workload. Combined, these five districts received 71,338 prisoners and
produced 272,446 prisoners in FY 2006. This is 37 percent of all
prisoners received and 36 percent of all prisoners produced agency-wide.

+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| *     |       |       |       |   | **   |       |       |       |
| *Pris |       |       |       |   | Pris |       |       |       |
| oners |       |       |       |   | oner |       |       |       |
| Recei |       |       |       |   | P    |       |       |       |
| ved** |       |       |       |   | rodu |       |       |       |
|       |       |       |       |   | ctio |       |       |       |
| **    |       |       |       |   | ns** |       |       |       |
| (excl |       |       |       |   |      |       |       |       |
| uding |       |       |       |   | **(e |       |       |       |
| DC    |       |       |       |   | xclu |       |       |       |
| Sup   |       |       |       |   | ding |       |       |       |
| erior |       |       |       |   | DC   |       |       |       |
| Cou   |       |       |       |   | Supe |       |       |       |
| rt)** |       |       |       |   | rior |       |       |       |
|       |       |       |       |   | Cour |       |       |       |
|       |       |       |       |   | t)** |       |       |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
|       | **SWB | *     | **Pe  |   |      | **SWB | *     | **Pe  |
|       | To    | *USMS | rcent |   |      | To    | *USMS | rcent |
|       | tal** | To    | SWB** |   |      | tal** | To    | SWB** |
|       |       | tal** |       |   |      |       | tal** |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **1   | 2     | 11    | 21%   |   | **19 | 9     | 40    | 22%   |
| 996** | 4,750 | 6,549 |       |   | 96** | 1,384 | 7,287 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **1   | 2     | 12    | 24%   |   | **19 | 11    | 44    | 27%   |
| 997** | 9,432 | 5,025 |       |   | 97** | 9,830 | 7,206 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **1   | 3     | 13    | 27%   |   | **19 | 15    | 50    | 30%   |
| 998** | 7,849 | 9,300 |       |   | 98** | 3,416 | 7,411 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **1   | 4     | 14    | 29%   |   | **19 | 18    | 54    | 34%   |
| 999** | 1,951 | 6,795 |       |   | 99** | 2,330 | 3,199 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 4     | 15    | 29%   |   | **20 | 19    | 57    | 34%   |
| 000** | 5,065 | 5,179 |       |   | 00** | 6,579 | 6,488 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 4     | 15    | 29%   |   | **20 | 19    | 58    | 34%   |
| 001** | 6,161 | 7,117 |       |   | 01** | 5,871 | 1,526 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 4     | 16    | 30%   |   | **20 | 20    | 60    | 33%   |
| 002** | 7,735 | 1,601 |       |   | 02** | 1,628 | 4,754 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 5     | 16    | 30%   |   | **20 | 22    | 66    | 34%   |
| 003** | 0,869 | 9,957 |       |   | 03** | 4,064 | 2,803 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 6     | 18    | 35%   |   | **20 | 26    | 73    | 36%   |
| 004** | 4,112 | 4,038 |       |   | 04** | 5,935 | 0,509 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 6     | 18    | 34%   |   | **20 | 26    | 75    | 35%   |
| 005** | 2,580 | 6,475 |       |   | 05** | 4,600 | 8,243 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+
| **2   | 7     | 19    | 37%   |   | **20 | 27    | 76    | 36%   |
| 006** | 1,338 | 2,030 |       |   | 06** | 2,446 | 2,874 |       |
+-------+-------+-------+-------+---+------+-------+-------+-------+

**\
Funding**

Base Funding

<table style="width:100%;">
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2006-enacted-2" class="heading">FY 2006
Enacted</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2007-estimate-2" class="heading">FY 2007
Estimate</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2008-presidents-budget-current-services-2"
class="heading">FY 2008 President’s Budget Current Services</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>($000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>($000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td>Agt</td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>($000)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>615</td>
<td>501</td>
<td>615</td>
<td>$51,260</td>
<td>627</td>
<td>510</td>
<td>627</td>
<td>$52,625</td>
<td>627</td>
<td>510</td>
<td>627</td>
<td>$53,780</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Note: Base resources reflect staff, operating, and vehicle expenses of
the five Southwest Border districts.

[Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Type of Position       | Modular Cost | Number of    | FY 2008      |
|                        |              |              |              |
|                        | per Position | Positions    | Request      |
|                        | (\$000)      |              | (\$000)      |
|                        |              | Requested    |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Deputy Marshal         | \$166        | 40           | \$6,648      |
| (GS-082-7)             |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Administrative         | 59           | 13           | 768          |
| (GS-XXX-9)             |              |              |              |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+
| Total Personnel        |              | 53           | \$7,416      |
+------------------------+--------------+--------------+--------------+

Non-Personnel Increase Cost Summary

+----------------------------+-------+-------+-----------------------+
| Non-Personnel Item         | Unit  | Qua   | FY 2008 Request       |
|                            | Cost  | ntity |                       |
|                            |       |       | (\$000)               |
+----------------------------+-------+-------+-----------------------+
| Electronic Security        | ...   | ...   | \$46                  |
| Equipment                  |       |       |                       |
+----------------------------+-------+-------+-----------------------+
| Total Non-Personnel        |       |       | 46                    |
+----------------------------+-------+-------+-----------------------+

Total Request for this Item

+------------------+-----+-------+-----+--------+----------+-------+
|                  | Pos | Agt   | FTE | Per    | Non-P    | Total |
|                  |     |       |     | sonnel | ersonnel |       |
|                  |     |       |     |        |          | (\    |
|                  |     |       |     | (      | (\$000)  | $000) |
|                  |     |       |     | \$000) |          |       |
+------------------+-----+-------+-----+--------+----------+-------+
| Current Services | 627 | 510   | 627 | \$     | \$3,178  | \$5   |
|                  |     |       |     | 50,602 |          | 3,780 |
+------------------+-----+-------+-----+--------+----------+-------+
| Increases        | 53  | 40    | 26  | 7,416  | 46       | 7,462 |
+------------------+-----+-------+-----+--------+----------+-------+
| Grand Total      | 684 | 555   | 656 | \$     | \$4,948  | \$6   |
|                  |     |       |     | 58,827 |          | 3,775 |
+------------------+-----+-------+-----+--------+----------+-------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122119 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The resources for the Prisoner Security and Transportation program were
reviewed as part of the Protection of the Judicial Process decision unit
(in the prior three decision unit structure) in 2003. Status updates to
the PART recommendations are covered in the Judicial and Courthouse
Security decision unit.

## D**. Protection of Witnesses**

+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| Protection of Witnesses -- TOTAL       | Perm. | FTE  | Amount      |
|                                        | Pos.  |      |             |
|                                        |       |      | (\$000)     |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| 2006 Enacted w/ Rescissions and        | 213   | 213  | \$25,195    |
| Supplementals                          |       |      |             |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| 2007 Estimate                          | 213   | 213  | 27,612      |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| Adjustments to Base and Technical      | \     | \(   | 2,153       |
| Adjustments                            | (16\) | 16\) |             |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| 2008 Current Services                  | 197   | 197  | 29,765      |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| 2008 Program Increases                 | ...   | ...  | 85          |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| 2008 Request                           | 197   | 197  | 29,850      |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+
| Total Change 2007-2008                 | \     | \(   | 2,238       |
|                                        | (16\) | 16\) |             |
+----------------------------------------+-------+------+-------------+

### 1. Program Description

The Witness Security Program (WSP) was established by the Organized
Crime Control Act of 1970 and amended by the Comprehensive Crime Control
Act of 1984. This program provides protection for government witnesses
whose lives are threatened as a result of their testimony against drug
traffickers, terrorists, organized crime members, and other major
criminals. The WSP provides physical security during the trial
proceedings as well as assistance to create new identities and relocate
witnesses and their families after the trial. Although it was initially
established in the 1970's to protect witnesses against Mafia
organizations, the WSP was later expanded to include witnesses against
drug traffickers. Since the initial bombing of the World Trade Center in
1993, the WSP has again expanded to include witnesses testifying against
terrorist organizations.

Three Department of Justice components work collaboratively to
administer the WSP. The Criminal Division's Office of Enforcement
Operations (OEO) authorizes witnesses into the program and determines
the witnesses' involvement with the cases for which they entered the
program. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) maintains custody of witnesses who
are incarcerated in federal prison facilities. The USMS protects
witnesses and their families, relocates them to a secure location,
provides them with new identities, and assists them with housing,
medical care, job training, and employment until the participants are
self-sufficient.

Two different appropriations fund the USMS portion of the WSP. The USMS
S&E appropriation funds the salaries, benefits, and the day-to-day
operating expenses (such as utilities, supplies, and equipment) for USMS
personnel who administer the WSP. The Fees and Expenses of Witnesses
(FEW) appropriation funds the expenses related to witness subsistence
and relocation.

Since its inception, the USMS has protected, relocated, and given new
identities to more than 7,500 witnesses and over 9,500 family members.
The successful operation of this program is widely recognized as
providing a unique and valuable tool in the government\'s war against
major criminal conspirators and organized crime. Since the program\'s
inception, the government has obtained an overall conviction rate of 89
percent as a result of protected witnesses\' testimonies.

In both criminal and civil matters involving protected witnesses, the
USMS fully cooperates with local law enforcement and court authorities
in bringing witnesses to justice or in having them fulfill their legal
responsibilities. A recidivism study in 2004 found that less than 12.7
percent of protected witnesses with criminal histories are arrested and
charged after joining the program which was significantly lower than the
national average of 67.5 percent. \
\
No program participant who follows security guidelines has ever been
harmed by the people or organizations they testified against while under
the protection of the Marshals Service.

![](media/image15.wmf){width="8.993055555555555in" height="3.825in"}

**A. Definition of Terms or explanations for Indicators:**

[Workload:]{.underline}

1\. New witnesses received are the number of witnesses accepted into the
Witness Security Program.

2\. Total Witness Security Program participants are the total number of
participants, including immediate family members, currently in the
program.

[Performance Measures:]{.underline}

> 1\. A witness production is defined as travel of a protected witness
> away from the relocation area for court testimony, non-court related
> travel, video teleconferencing, neutral sites, child visitations, and
> documentation productions.

[Outcome:]{.underline}

2\. The number of assaults against funded protected federal witnesses
reflects the number of attacks on witnesses authorized for program
participation that are receiving subsistence and housing expenses.

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2006 Program Performance.**

An increase of new witnesses was anticipated due to the Program being
made available to selected local jurisdictions. However, the actual
numbers have not approached the projected target. This trend could
change and Office of Enforcement Operations (OEO) in DOJ's Criminal
Division has extended the availability of the Program to more local
jurisdiction in the past few months. On a general note, we do not
control new case authorizations. It is OEO that authorizes new cases.
Likewise, productions are also difficult to predict. Production activity
by nature is responsive to requests of prosecutors and requires approval
of OEO.

In FY 2006, Congress appropriated 1 new inspector which will further
increase the security offered to program participants.

**C. Factors Affecting FY 2007 and FY 2008 Plans.**

To more accurately reflect current trends, FY07 and FY08 targets for
Number of Protected Witness Productions have been adjusted based on FY06
actual data.

The increase in high-threat trials involving gang members has increased
the number of WSP participants who have gang affiliation. This trend is
expected to continue as the Administration's priorities continue to
focus on anti-gang enforcement.

![](media/image16.wmf){width="8.994444444444444in"
height="1.2979166666666666in"}

### 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

The Protection of Witnesses decision unit supports the Department's
Strategic Goal IV: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation of the
Federal Justice System. Within this goal, the resources specifically
address DOJ Strategic Objective: 4.1 -- Protect judges, witnesses, and
other participants in federal proceedings and ensure the appearance of
criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement.

Number range CHAPTERThe USMS maintains the integrity of the federal
judicial system by: 1) ensuring that U.S. Courthouses, federal
buildings, and leased facilities occupied by the federal judiciary and
the USMS are secure and safe from intrusion by individuals and
technological devices designed to disrupt the judicial process; 2)
guaranteeing that federal judges, magistrate judges, attorneys,
defendants, witnesses, jurors, and others can participate in
uninterrupted court proceedings; 3) assessing inappropriate
communications and providing protective details to federal judges or
other members of the judicial system; 4) maintaining the custody,
protection, and security of prisoners and the safety of material
witnesses for appearance in court proceedings; and

5\) limiting opportunities for criminals to tamper with evidence or use
intimidation, extortion, or bribery to corrupt judicial proceedings.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122124 .anchor}a. Performance Plan and Report
for Outcomes

As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, the
performance outcome measure for this decision unit is the number of
assaults against funded protected federal witnesses. The number of
assaults against protected federal witnesses reflects the number of
attacks on witnesses authorized for program participation that are
receiving subsistence and housing expenses. For FY 2006, the USMS met
the target of zero assaults.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122125 .anchor}**b. Strategies to Accomplish
Outcomes**

As the number of participants increases, the USMS workload for the
Witness Security Program's inspectors and administrative staff will
increase. These employees will take on greater workload to ensure that
program participants are not assaulted.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122126 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The resources for the Protection of Witnesses program were reviewed as
part of the Protection of the Judicial Process decision unit (in the
prior three decision unit structure) in 2003. Status updates to the PART
recommendations are covered in the Judicial and Courthouse Security
decision unit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122127 .anchor}**E. Operations Support**

+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| **Operations Support - Total**      | **Perm. | *      | *         |
|                                     | Pos.**  | *FTE** | *Amount** |
|                                     |         |        |           |
|                                     |         |        | **        |
|                                     |         |        | (\$000)** |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| 2006 Enacted w/Rescissions &        | 212     | 205    | \$29,510  |
| Supplementals                       |         |        |           |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| 2007 Estimate                       | 214     | 206    | 30,589    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| Adjustments to Base and Technical   | \(16\)  | \(15\) | 2,084     |
| Adjustments                         |         |        |           |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| 2008 Current Services               | 198     | 191    | 32,673    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| 2008 Program Increases              | ...     | ...    | 96        |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| 2008 Offsets                        | ...     | ...    | ...       |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| 2008 Request                        | 198     | 191    | 32,769    |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+
| **Total Change 2007-2008**          | *       | **     | **        |
|                                     | *(16)** | (15)** | \$2,180** |
+-------------------------------------+---------+--------+-----------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122128 .anchor}**1. Program Description**

The **Operations Support** decision unit is comprised of four major
areas: the Special Operations Group; the Office of Emergency Management,
including the Emergency Operations and Communications Center; the Office
of Inspections; and District Affairs.

**Special Operations Group (SOG)**

Created in 1971, the SOG is a specially trained and equipped tactical
unit deployed in high-risk/sensitive law enforcement situations,
national emergencies, civil disorders, and natural disasters. The
Special Operations Group Tactical Center (SOGTC) is located at Camp
Beauregard in Pineville, Louisiana. In addition to the full-time
operational and administrative personnel at SOGTC, there are 80 to 100
Deputy Marshals who perform SOG duties on a collateral-duty basis. When
a SOG mission is declared, both full-time and collateral-duty Deputy
Marshals are deployed in teams. Each team consists of precision
marksmen, breachers, tactical drivers, scuba-trained personnel, entry
personnel, and personnel trained in less lethal techniques and
equipment. The SOGTC also trains federal, state, local, and foreign law
enforcement personnel on a space-available basis.

**Office of Emergency Management**

The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) has oversight for numerous
emergency management programs including: the Explosive Canine Detection
Program, USMS National Emergency and Regional Response Plan, USMS
Security Program (including Headquarters Security); and Continuity of
Government (COG)/ Continuity of Operations (COOP) Programs. Additional
security support is provided by OEM to the Centers for Disease Control
on a cost reimbursable basis.

Operational missions are coordinated through the USMS Communications
Center and the Emergency Operations Center. The Communications Center
operates 24 hours-a-day, 7 days-a-week to ensure inter-agency and
intra-agency flow of communication. The Center provides informational
assistance to Deputy Marshals in the field who are tracking fugitives,
developing leads, and confirming warrants. The Center is also a focal
point for all incoming and outgoing classified information relevant to
the USMS. All significant incidents such as: shootings in the line of
duty, employee injury or death, assaults/attempted assaults of a USMS
protectee, deaths of prisoners in USMS custody, escapes of federal
prisoners, major arrests, and district emergencies, are reported to the
Communications Center. The Communications Center then notifies the
appropriate personnel and districts and ensures that the proper action
is taken.

The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated and used during
emergency incidents involving a coordinated agency-wide response. This
includes responses under the Federal Government's National Response
Plan. In the fall of 2005, the EOC was activated for 2 months to
coordinate the deployment of approximately 600 USMS personnel to assist
in the response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita along the Gulf Coast. The
EOC is a critical element to ensure coordination and oversight of USMS
deployments to emergencies, particularly when there are other government
agencies involved.

OEM ensures that the USMS has a viable Continuity of Operations (COOP)
plan in place as directed in Presidential Directive, Executive Order,
and Federal Preparedness Circular (FPC) 65. OEM works closely with other
federal agencies to ensure that a comprehensive program is in place and
provides necessary direction to: continue essential functions, reduces
operational disruptions, identifies USMS personnel to perform emergency
functions, plans for the protection of employees, and designates
leadership lines of succession.

**Office of Inspections**

The USMS Office of Inspections is comprised of Internal Investigations
and the Audit Office. This organization is structured to conduct
internal reviews of agency programs and processes for compliance with
established laws, Departmental policies and procedures, and USMS
directives. The structure also enhances the agency's response to DOJ and
external audits because there is one central point of contact to respond
to requests for information.

The Office of Inspections conducts periodic program or district
compliance inspections to ensure conformity with applicable laws,
regulations, policies, and procedures while identifying weaknesses in
financial or administrative internal controls. Approximately 6 districts
or program areas are reviewed each fiscal year.

The Office also ensures that complaints or allegations involving
mismanagement, misconduct, or illegal acts are investigated. Moreover,
the Office identifies programs that are "exemplary" and promotes their
recognition and replication.

**District Affairs**

Headquarters may provide supplemental staffing to support extraordinary
events by drawing upon available resources from all USMS districts.
These events are typically high-threat trials and protective details. A
Deputy Marshal may be required to work an approved assignment, either
within or outside his or her official duty station. Employees are
selected within each district and approved assignments are staffed and
equipped to minimize significant disruption to normal district
activities.

![](media/image17.wmf){width="8.997222222222222in"
height="3.535416666666667in"}

**A. Definition of Terms or Explanation of Indicators:**

[Performance Measures]{.underline}:

1\. This represents the number of times a special occurrence or event
happened where special operations and assignment resources and/or staff
were deployed in response.

2\. The USMS strives for a consistent timely response to unforeseen
emergencies and planned events. The percentage of deployments applies in
cases where the request for assistance reaches headquarters special
assignments or SOG staff at least 48 hours prior to the beginning of the
planned event.

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2006 Program Performance.**

Sixteen SOG deputies are performing 6-month temporary duty rotations in
Baghdad, Iraq assisting with and providing training for judicial and
witness security. Although these assignments enhance the USMS response
to a high-threat foreign location, they deplete the available
specially-trained deputies for domestic emergency response.

**C. Factors Affecting Selection of FY 2007 and FY 2008 Plans.**

The increase in high-threat trials involving gang members and terrorists
will require additional SOG deployments so that districts have enough
staff to provide security. Training SOG Deputy Marshals is critical
because they do not work together on a day-to-day basis. For example,
during the Moussaoui trial in Alexandria, Virginia, SOG Deputy Marshals
were deployed from their home districts to the Eastern District of
Virginia. They spent weeks working together providing sniper coverage,
motorcade support, prisoner security, and courtroom security. These SOG
Deputies came from California, Texas, Ohio, Oklahoma, and other states.
Only during their scheduled sustainment training at SOGTC do these
Deputy Marshals come together to train and work together as a unit. If
the USMS does not obtain sufficient training and equipment resources,
then SOG's mission readiness may be compromised.

Beginning in FY 2007, the USMS will begin deploying Deputy Marshals to
Afghanistan to secure the Afghanistan judicial complex. The deployed mix
of administrative and operational personnel will train and equip a
Judicial and Witness Security Protection Unit of the Counter Narcotic
Police of Afghanistan, a necessary component in the development of the
Criminal Justice Task Force and Central Narcotics Tribunal (CNT). USMS
personnel will ensure that the new Counter Narcotic Justice Center is
physically secure and that witnesses in sensitive, high-level cases to
be tried by the CNT are protected from threat and harm.

![](media/image18.wmf){width="8.993055555555555in"
height="2.0861111111111112in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122130 .anchor}**3. Performance, Resources, and
Strategies**

The Operations Support decision unit supports the Department's Strategic
Goal IV: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation of the Federal Justice
System. Within this Goal, the decision unit's resources specifically
address one of the Department's Strategic Objectives: 4.1- "Protect
judges, witnesses, and other participants in Federal proceedings, and
ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or
confinement."

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122131 .anchor}**a. Performance Plan and Report
for Outcomes**

The USMS strives to provide effective assistance to all levels of
government during emergencies and disasters and at times of heightened
law enforcement requirements. The USMS is able to deploy its Deputy
Marshal workforce to any national emergency designed by the Attorney
General.

The USMS also successfully protected the Strategic National Stockpile
(SNS),[^9] continued to advance the USMS ability to respond to an
emergency by instituting the Continuity of Operations
(COOP)/Continuation of Government (COG) programs,[^10] and participated
in several national interagency training exercises.[^11] The USMS
reviews programs and procedures to ensure that missions are accomplished
according to governing laws and DOJ policies, and coordinates external
reviews for the same purpose.

Government authority and continuity of operation of the federal justice
system must be maintained during emergencies. Professionalism of the
USMS will increase through standardization of operations support,
improved operational data management, and reduction of audit findings.
Cost effectiveness will also be improved in overall program area.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122132 .anchor}**b. Strategies to Accomplish
Outcomes**

The USMS will attempt to increase and improve the capability to deploy
personnel and equipment in support of extraordinary district
requirements, ensuring adequate resources are provided to maintain the
integrity of the judicial process in a timely manner by deploying
resources in response to requests before any planned event or within 48
hours of an unforeseen emergency.

The USMS will attempt to: improve its capability to deploy personnel and
equipment in response to terrorist acts, natural disasters, and other
external missions directed by the Attorney General; maintain small and
large aircraft readiness for efficient movement of people and equipment;
and coordinate efforts and increase communication lines between the
Strategic National Stockpile Security Operations Unit and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to insure adequate dissemination of
intelligence information to thwart terrorist activities.

The USMS will ensure compliance with laws and regulations and assure
effective internal controls are in place to prevent fraud, waste, abuse,
and mismanagement by implementing an annual Headquarters and district
"Self-Assessment Guide" covering all areas of performance and internal
controls, whereby managers sign and submit a "Certificate of Compliance"
and "Corrective Action Plans" (including weakness identified and target
dates for completion) to the Office of Inspection within 60 days of
receipt. A target total of 6 district performance reviews and program
performance and internal control reviews will be conducted each year,
with reports issued within 60 calendar days of a site visit. Quarterly
reports will be provided to the Director and Deputy Director no later
than 30 calendar days following the end of each quarter on major areas
of concern, significant progress and plans, and specific actions taken
to correct and prevent repeat problems.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc156122133 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The resources for Operations Support were reviewed as part of the
Protection of the Judicial Process decision unit (in the prior three
decision unit structure) in 2003. Status updates to the PART
recommendations are covered in the Judicial and Courthouse Security
decision unit.

## 

[^1]: Amounts include: direct appropriations and the DOJ rescission of
    0.28% (P.L. 109-108), plus funds derived from the Emergency
    Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on
    Terror, and Hurricane Recovery (P.L. 109-234), and the
    Government-wide rescission of 1.0% (P.L. 109-148).

[^2]: Beginning with the FY 2007 President's Budget, the USMS decision
    unit structure renamed the "Protection of the Judicial Process"
    activity to "Judicial and Courthouse Security."

[^3]: Results documented in the DOJ-OIG report, *Review of the United
    States Marshals Service's Apprehension of Violent Fugitives*,
    (I-1005-008) July 2005.

[^4]: The total reflects guards funded from the USMS S&E, Detention
    Trustee, and JPATS Revolving Fund.

[^5]: The 381 guard FTE includes: 213 funded from S&E; 24 FTE funded
    from the Detention Trustee; and 144 FTE funded from JPATS Revolving
    Fund.

[^6]: The FY 2008 President's Budget uses the FY 2007 President's Budget
    language as a base so all language is presented as new.

[^7]: FALCON is the acronym for "Federal and Local Cops Organized
    Nationally."

[^8]: The November 2004 report issued by the IBM Center for the Business
    of Government: "Government Garage Sales: Online Auctions as Tools
    for Asset Management"

[^9]: The USMS completed its third year and continued to fulfill all its
    obligations under the Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of
    Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention (CDC).

[^10]: The COOP program is designed to ensure the continuation of USMS
    missions when an emergency affects the Headquarters building. The
    COG program is designed to maintain the government of the United
    States during a national emergency.

[^11]: These exercises included the Congressionally-mandated Top
    Officials exercise in April 2005, Operation Pinnacle in June 2005,
    and the Title Globe exercise series.