**United States Marshals Service**

**FY 2009 Performance Budget**

**Congressional Submission**

**Salaries and Expenses Appropriation**

![](media/image1.png)

**February 2008**

**Table of Contents**

[I. Overview for the United States Marshals Service
1](#__RefHeading___Toc187564085)

[II. Summary of Program Changes 10](#__RefHeading___Toc187564086)

[III. Appropriations Language and Analysis of Appropriations Language
11](#__RefHeading___Toc187564087)

[IV. Decision Unit Justification 13](#__RefHeading___Toc187564088)

[**A. Judicial and Courthouse Security**
13](#__RefHeading___Toc187564089)

[1**.** Program Description 13](#__RefHeading___Toc187564090)

[2. Performance Tables 15](#__RefHeading___Toc187564091)

[3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies
21](#__RefHeading___Toc187564092)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
21](#__RefHeading___Toc187564093)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 22](#__RefHeading___Toc187564094)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
22](#__RefHeading___Toc187564095)

[**B. Fugitive Apprehension** 24](#__RefHeading___Toc187564096)

[1. Program Description 24](#__RefHeading___Toc187564097)

[2. Performance Tables 27](#__RefHeading___Toc187564098)

[3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies
33](#__RefHeading___Toc187564099)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
34](#__RefHeading___Toc187564100)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 36](#__RefHeading___Toc187564101)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
37](#__RefHeading___Toc187564102)

[**C. Prisoner Security and Transportation**
39](#__RefHeading___Toc187564103)

[1. Program Description 39](#__RefHeading___Toc187564104)

[2. Performance Tables 41](#__RefHeading___Toc187564105)

[3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies
45](#__RefHeading___Toc187564106)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
45](#__RefHeading___Toc187564107)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 45](#__RefHeading___Toc187564108)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
46](#refheading___toc187564109)

[**D. Protection of Witnesses** 54](#__RefHeading___Toc187564110)

[1. Program Description 54](#program-description)

[2. Performance Tables 56](#performance-tables)

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

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
59](#__RefHeading___Toc187564114)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 59](#__RefHeading___Toc187564115)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
59](#__RefHeading___Toc187564116)

[**E. Operations Support** 60](#__RefHeading___Toc187564117)

[1. Program Description 60](#__RefHeading___Toc187564118)

[2. Performance Tables 62](#__RefHeading___Toc187564119)

[3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies
65](#__RefHeading___Toc187564120)

[a. Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes
65](#__RefHeading___Toc187564121)

[b. Strategies to Accomplish Outcomes 65](#__RefHeading___Toc187564122)

[c. Results of Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews
65](#__RefHeading___Toc187564123)

[V. E-Gov Initiatives 66](#__RefHeading___Toc187564124)

[VI. Exhibits 68](#__RefHeading___Toc187564125)

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 2007 Availability

G. Crosswalk of 2008 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 Evaluation
(Not

Applicable)

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564085 .anchor}**I. Overview for the United
States Marshals Service**

**A. Introduction**

The United States Marshals Service (USMS) ensures the functioning of 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, executing court orders and arrest
warrants, apprehending fugitives, and seizing forfeited property. All
USMS duties and responsibilities emanate from this core mission.
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/2009justification/]{.underline}**.

For FY 2009, the USMS requests a total of 4,644 positions, 4,523 FTE
(excluding reimbursable FTE), and \$933.117 million. Of this amount,
**73 positions (52 Deputy Marshals), 37 FTE, and \$12.746 million** are
program enhancements to address Southwest Border enforcement.

**B. Organizational History**

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

The early Marshals had duties beyond those 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 United States Marshals Service 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 its Director appointed by the President. 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.

The role of the U.S. Marshals has had a profound impact on the history
of this country since the time when America was expanding across the
continent into the western territories. With changes in prosecutorial
emphasis over time, the mission of the USMS has transitioned as well. In
more recent history, law enforcement emphasis has shifted with changing
social mandates. Examples include:

-   In the 1960s, Deputy Marshals provided security and escorted Ruby
    Bridges and James Meredith to school following federal court orders
    requiring segregated Southern schools and colleges 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 immigrants illegally entering the U.S. skyrocketed
    in the 1990s, the USMS experienced huge prisoner and fugitive
    workload growth along the Southwest Border, and is currently
    anticipating further increases as additional immigration legislation
    is implemented.

-   With more resources dedicated to apprehending and prosecuting
    suspected terrorists, the USMS strives to meet the increasing
    demands for high-level security required for many violent criminal
    and terrorist-related court proceedings.

-   The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 (P.L.
    109-248) strengthened federal penalties by making the failure to
    register as a sex offender a federal offense. This Act directs the
    USMS to "assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending sex
    offenders who violate sex offender registry requirements." This law
    marks an important step forward in the efforts to protect children
    from sexual and other violent crimes.

**C. USMS Budget**

In the FY 2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress provided the
USMS with

\$866.523 million of which \$864.219 million was provided in the
Salaries and Expenses (S&E) appropriation and \$2.304 million in the
Construction appropriation. Of this amount, 133 positions including 130
Deputy Marshals, 67 FTE, and \$32.077 million were program enhancements
to address critical needs related to judicial threat intelligence and
investigations, high-threat trial security, and Southwest Border
enforcement.

In addition to these direct resources, the USMS also receives
reimbursable and other indirect resources from a variety of sources.
Some of the larger sources include:

-   The Office of the Federal Detention Trustee (OFDT) provides funding
    for housing, transportation via the Justice Prisoner and Alien
    Transportation System (JPATS), medical care, and other expenses
    related to federal detainees;

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

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

-   The Fees and Expenses of Witnesses (FEW) appropriation provides
    funding for securing and relocating protected witnesses; and

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

The U.S. Marshals Service S&E budget is divided into five decision
units. These decision units contain the personnel and funds associated
with the following missions:

-   **Judicial and Courthouse Security** -- protects federal judges,
    jurors and other members of the federal judiciary.  This mission is
    accomplished by anticipating and deterring threats to the judiciary,
    and the continuous development and employment of innovative
    protective techniques;

-   **Fugitive Apprehension** -- conducts investigations involving:
    escaped federal prisoners; probation, parole and bond default
    violators; and fugitives based on warrants generated during drug
    investigations;

-   **Prisoner Security and Transportation** -- moves prisoners between
    judicial districts, correctional institutions and foreign countries;

-   **Protection of Witnesses** -- provides for the security, health and
    safety of government witnesses and their immediate dependents whose
    lives are in danger as a result of their testimony against drug
    traffickers, terrorists, organized crime members and other major
    criminals; and

-   **Operations Support** -- conducts special assignments and security
    missions in situations involving crisis response, homeland security
    and other national emergencies.

**D. Strategic Goals**

The USMS mission supports all three goals within the DOJ Strategic Plan.
Goal I is to "Prevent Terrorism and Promote the Nation's Security."
Objective 1.2 is to "Strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter, and
respond to terrorist incidents." The USMS supports this objective by:

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

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

Goal II is to "Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent the
Rights and Interests of the American People." Objective 2.3 is to
"Prevent, suppress, and intervene in crimes against children." Objective
2.4 is to "Reduce the threat, trafficking, use, and related violence of
illegal drugs." The USMS supports these objectives by:

-   Participating on the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces
    (OCDETF). The USMS has 41 reimbursable positions and 41 reimbursable
    FTEs dedicated to OCDETF. **An additional 6 Deputy Marshals, 3 FTE,
    and \$1.714 million are requested as part of OCDETF's FY 2009
    President's Budget Request.**

-   Enforcing the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

Goal III is to "Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of
Justice." The majority of USMS resources are devoted to support Goal
III. Objective 3.1 is to "Protect judges, witnesses, and other
participants in federal proceedings, and ensure the appearance of
criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement." Objective
3.2 is to "Ensure the apprehension of fugitives from justice.\" 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;

-   Operating and maintaining the fleet of aircraft and ground
    transportation assets that comprise the Justice Prisoner and Alien
    Transportation System (JPATS);

-   Protecting witnesses who provide testimony on behalf of the US
    Government; and

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

The Program Assessment Rating Tool (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
in FY 2003 to the Salaries and Expenses portions of the USMS' Protection
of the Judicial Process[^1] and Fugitive Apprehension programs, and each
program was rated as "Adequate." Since then, the USMS has worked toward
improving strategic planning, program management, and program results
documentation. The Fugitive Apprehension program was reviewed again in
FY 2007 and its rating was increased to "Moderately Effective." 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 recent USMS
activities 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); "Prevent Crime, Enforce Federal Laws, and Represent
    the Rights and Interests of the American People" (DOJ Goal II); and
    "Ensure the Fair and Efficient Administration of Justice" (DOJ Goal
    III).

**Strategic Management of Human Capital**

-   The USMS is committed to hiring the best and most diverse workforce.
    The Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP)[^2] streamlines the
    recruitment and interview phase when hiring Deputy U.S. Marshals.
    Over 1,200 interviews were conducted in 12 districts during April
    and May 2007.  This task required the dedicated resources of 110
    interviewers from several districts and divisions.  The USMS
    internet site has been updated to include information regarding the
    FCIP.  Specifically, visitors to the Career Opportunities link are
    able to review answers to frequently asked FCIP questions and obtain
    contact information for FCIP recruiters.

-   The Administrative Officer (AO) Development Program was established
    in February 2006 to develop training and certification standards for
    district AO's. The group has identified the policy and legal
    requirements that require certification. Four AO training sessions
    were conducted in FY 2007 and additional certification training is
    planned in FY 2008.

-   In FY 2007, the USMS initiated the Deputy Marshal Conversion program
    to train all Deputy Marshals in the GS-082 job series so that they
    obtain the skills necessary to convert into the GS-1811 job series.
    Conversion is contingent upon successful completion of training at
    the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center. Six training classes
    were held in FY 2007 and 210 Deputy Marshals have been converted to
    Criminal Investigators with an additional 45 currently in training.
    Additional classes will be conducted in FY 2008 and FY 2009 until
    the incumbent population of Deputy Marshals is converted.

-   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
    relying on a pass/fail rating criterion, the new system uses a
    four-level evaluation method, recognizing degrees of employee
    performance from "Unacceptable" through "Successful" and "Excellent"
    to "Outstanding". In addition, 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 and their supervisors involved in the process
    of planning, tracking, and reporting on how they have contributed to
    fulfill USMS, DOJ, and the Administration's goals.

**Competitive Sourcing**

-   During the fourth quarter of FY 2007, the USMS competitively
    reviewed 20 positions through a streamlined A-76 study process. The
    review included the development of performance work statements and
    making recommendations for employing the most efficient organization
    in functions to include reception services; correspondence
    preparation and processing; and office operations, general
    administrative, clerical, financial, and program support.

**Improved Financial Performance**

-   In FY 2008, one-third of all USMS district offices are planned to
    migrate to the USMS STARS accounting system. A dozen pilot sites are
    in test mode. STARS is an improvement over the legacy Financial
    Management System (FMS) used by districts because it: enables funds
    control; provides accrual accounting capability; allows automated
    warehousing of prompt payments; and eliminates several manual
    processes involving appropriations mapping.

-   In FY 2007, the USMS established the Financial Management Steering
    Committee to maximize the use of available financial resources by
    addressing short term needs while positioning the USMS for long term
    improvement. This Committee acts in an advisory capacity to assist
    the Director and Deputy Director in making recommendations to
    achieve the established goals of the agency, the Administration, and
    Congress.

-   The USMS established an internal controls team to address the
    findings contained in the most recent audit of financial statements.
    The team works with human resource, information technology, budget,
    and finance personnel to establish tasks and milestones relating to
    resolving all material weaknesses and reportable conditions.

-   In 2006, 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.

**Expanded Electronic Government**

-   During FY 2008, the USMS plans to replace its existing automated
    travel system with a new interface. Test sites including fugitive
    task force Deputy Marshals have been identified because these
    employees have the most extensive and complicated travel vouchers.

-   Information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence
    communities is essential. Efforts are well underway to unite the
    various USMS law enforcement systems into a modern, web-enabled
    application -- the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS). JDIS
    contains vital operational and intelligence information, facilitates
    data sharing with other entities under the auspices of the DOJ Law
    Enforcement Information Sharing Program (LEISP), and enables prompt
    identification and analysis of links between various personnel and
    incidents to avoid or avert situations in which a judge, prisoner,
    or Deputy Marshal is at risk. The capability to use JDIS data will
    be augmented through access to other federal systems including the
    DOJ Joint Automated Booking System (JABS); the OFDT E-Designate
    system; the FBI Regional Data Exchange (R-DEx) system, the DHS
    Disaster Management Interoperability Services (DMIS) system, various
    state and local data systems, the National Center for Missing and
    Exploited Children sex offender registries, and commercially
    available databases such as LexisNexis and ChoicePoint.

-   The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act
    of 1996 allows the Social Security Administration (SSA) to disclose
    SSA data to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) when a Title XVI
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI) beneficiary is the subject of 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 2007, this electronic partnership led
    to 104 fugitive arrests and saved the SSA almost \$1 million.

**Faith-Based and Community Integration**

-   In August 2005, the USMS launched a unique fugitive apprehension
    initiative called Fugitive Safe Surrender. With the support of local
    spiritual leaders, fugitives surrendered, were processed, and
    received initial court appearances in a non-threatening environment
    provided by the Mount Sinai Baptist Church in Cleveland, Ohio. That
    four-day effort resulted in the peaceful surrender of 850 fugitives,
    including 340 fugitive felons. This initial success has led to
    additional Fugitive Safe Surrender initiatives including those
    conducted in Phoenix, Arizona (November 2006); Indianapolis, Indiana
    (April 2007); Akron, Ohio (July 2007); Nashville and Memphis,
    Tennessee (August and September 2007); and Washington, DC (November
    2007). Since its inception, nearly 6,500 individuals, including
    1,449 felons, have turned themselves in to the Fugitive Safe
    Surrender program. Ten additional cities are planned in the future
    based on funding availability and warrant workload.

-   The USMS participates in DOJ's Gang Resistance Education and
    Training (GREAT) Program, a school-based, certified law enforcement
    officer-instructed classroom initiative to prevent youth crime,
    violence and gang involvement while developing a positive
    relationship among law enforcement, families, and youth. The
    involvement of the Marshals Service in the GREAT Program began in
    Cleveland, Ohio and based in part on the outcomes of that effort
    (including a 13% decrease in violence as reported by GREAT families)
    the Program is being expanded on a national level. Five cities have
    been identified to serve as pilots for this initiative: Jersey City,
    New Jersey; Rochester, New York; Kansas City, Missouri; New Orleans,
    Louisiana; and Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

**F. Challenges**

USMS mission responsibilities continue to grow, making effective
planning essential to accomplish the workload and meet all expectations.
These challenges fall into two broad categories:

**External Challenges**

New federal law enforcement initiatives and efficiencies yield a larger
number of arrests, and each federal arrest leads to additional workload
for the USMS because the USMS maintains custody of all arrested
individuals for the duration of a trial. According to data from the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts[^3], in the decade between FY
1997 and FY 2006 the number of criminal cases filed in federal courts
rose 34%. Immigration case filings rose 145% during this period, with
the five federal districts along the Southwest Border seeing an increase
of 182%. In FY 2006, these five districts accounted for 70% of all
immigration cases in the US, up from 60% at the beginning of the decade.
During this time, drug-related case filings increased by 41% and there
was also a 153% increase in the number of cases related to firearms and
explosives.

When the FBI shifted its focus to anti-terrorism efforts in the wake of
the September 11, 2001 attacks, investigations targeting illegal drugs,
organized crime, and white-collar crime were reduced. As a result, the
USMS filled this gap with intensified efforts to coordinate with state
and local police to apprehend fugitives, particularly those involved in
gang-related violent crime and crimes against children. Programs
targeting gang and gun violence include the Violent Crimes Impact Teams,
Project Safe Neighborhoods, GangTECC, and the Youth Crime Gun
Interdiction Initiative.

In addition, terrorists and criminals are using increasingly
sophisticated technologies to threaten, subvert, and undermine the
judicial process. Adoption of secure wireless technologies is required
to support an increasingly mobile USMS workforce, which includes task
forces, tactical and special operations groups, judicial and witness
security inspectors, and personnel deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
other foreign locales. Robust information technology (IT) infrastructure
systems and applications are required to keep pace with new and
expanding government information sharing and communications initiatives
such as the Justice Unified Telecommunications Network (JUTNET) and
Joint Automated Booking Stations (JABS).

**Internal Challenges**

The USMS must maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of its programs
to address increasing workload. The USMS must also ensure that effective
business processes and reliable financial systems are in place to
efficiently and responsibly manage limited resources. Toward that end,
the USMS has worked to address material weaknesses identified in annual
financial management audits. Significant strides have been made to
improve fiscal accountability and system/data integrity including:

-   Appropriately segregating duties;

-   Monitoring user activity through review of unalterable logs;

-   Applying more stringent access controls;

-   Enhancing system backup and restoration capabilities; and

-   Deploying automated tools to comply with federal IT security
    requirements.

After audits by the OIG, GAO and independent auditors noted material
weaknesses or nonconformance in a number of aspects of financial control
and assurance in previous years, the USMS placed a focused emphasis on
addressing and correcting the conditions allowing these weaknesses to
occur. The Director included as one of his *Director's Top Priorities*
in FY 2007 the goal of "reduc\[ing\] financial audit findings and
reportable conditions to zero." This priority was reinforced in the
September 2006 "USMS Strategic Plan Update" and also in the Deputy
Director's February 2007 memorandum "USMS FY 2007 Internal Controls
Instructions" which laid out a number of procedures for all Assistant
Directors to follow in implementing enhanced internal control and
financial management measures.

This increased emphasis on improving the internal controls environment
led to changes in financial management, information technology, human
resources, and other administrative areas. For example, a new, more
secure wide area network was deployed covering more than 370 locations
and several enhancements were made to JDIS. Electronic self-audit
checklists were developed for human resource and administrative
functions to allow for a significant increase in the number of district
reviews that can be conducted in a given year.

Much of the progress noted above was achieved through a more effective
leveraging of technology, and the USMS has made significant progress in
developing its IT infrastructure despite limited resources in recent
years.

Over the last several years, USMS offices in the five Southwest Border
districts have seen their workloads increase due to enhanced immigration
enforcement efforts. Since 2001, Congress has appropriated funds to DHS
allowing for a near doubling of the number of border patrol agents from
approximately 9,000 in 2001 to over 18,000 in FY 2008. This increase in
the number of border agents has contributed to a 168% increase in
prisoners received by the USMS from the Border Patrol in that same
period. Additionally, zero-tolerance and other prosecution initiatives
have also contributed to an increase in USMS workload via an increase in
the daily prisoner population and required prisoner productions.

One of the key challenges facing the USMS is to expeditiously bring
these additional resources online. In addition to conducting the hiring
and background investigation process and requisite training for new
employees, bringing new Deputy Marshals and administrative staff on
board will also require a variety of procurement actions, from office
equipment and supplies to vehicles, IT and communications devices, and
personal protective gear. District offices may also require some
physical rearrangement or renovation in order to accommodate additional
personnel and equipment in existing space.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564086 .anchor}**II. Summary of Program
Changes**

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

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

  Southwest     Resources to improve courthouse      73         37        \$12,746     46
  Border        security and effectively manage the                                    
  Enforcement   administrative workload in Southwest                                   
                Border districts.                                                      

  **Total                                            **73**     **37**    **12,746**   
  Program                                                                              
  Change**                                                                             
  ------------- ------------------------------------ ---------- --------- ------------ ----------

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564087 .anchor}**III. Appropriations Language
and Analysis of Appropriations Language**

**Appropriations Language**

The FY 2009 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,
\[\$849,219,000\] *[\$933,117,000]{.underline}*; of which not to exceed
\$6,000 shall be available for official reception and representation
expenses; of which not to exceed \$4,000,000 shall be for information
technology systems and shall remain available until expended; of which
not less than \$\[11,653,000\] *[\$12,625,000]{.underline}* shall be
available for the costs of courthouse security equipment, including
furnishings, relocations, and telephone systems and cabling, and shall
remain available until expended\[.\]; *[and of which not less than
\$2,304,000 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.]{.underline}*

\[For an additional amount for \`United States Marshals Service,
Salaries and Expenses\', \$15,000,000 shall be for border security and
immigration enforcement along the Southwest border: *Provided,* That the
amount provided by this paragraph is designated as described in section
5 (in the matter preceding division A of this consolidated Act).\]

**Analysis of Appropriations Language**

No substantive changes proposed.

This page left intentionally blank.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564088 .anchor}**IV. Decision Unit
Justification**

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564089 .anchor}**A. Judicial and Courthouse
Security**

+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| Judicial and Courthouse Security --   | Perm. | FTE   | Amount\     |
|                                       | Pos.  |       | (\$000)     |
| TOTAL                                 |       |       |             |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2007 Enacted                          | 1,791 | 1,758 | \$336,064   |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2007 Supplementals                    | 0     | 0     | 2,750       |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2007 Enacted w/Supplementals          | 1,791 | 1,758 | 338,814     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2008 Enacted                          | 1,787 | 1,715 | 357,342     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| Adjustments to Base                   | 50    | 89    | 20,469      |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2009 Current Services                 | 1,837 | 1,804 | 377,811     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2009 Program Increases                | 0     | 0     | 0           |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| 2009 Request                          | 1,837 | 1,804 | 377,811     |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+
| Total Change 2008-2009                | 50    | 89    | \$20,469    |
+---------------------------------------+-------+-------+-------------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564090 .anchor}**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 based on risks and
threat levels, 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 precautions 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 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 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 involves the systematic discovery,
> collection, and assessment of available information. The investigation
> is to determine a suspect=s true intent, motive, and ability to harm
> 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.

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 assist 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 in areas not
patrolled by FPS; and screening mail and packages.

In addition to maintaining physical security of federal courthouses, the
USMS also installs and maintains 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564091 .anchor}**2. Performance Tables**

![](media/image2.wmf){width="9.189583333333333in"
height="6.749305555555556in"}

**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 any
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 any activity of a suspicious nature. 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 harm 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\. The USMS National Security Survey (NSS) has been administered three
times: 1999, 2002, and 2006. In the most recent survey, results were
based on 329 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 2006, 29 percent of the facilities
surveyed met the minimum security requirements showing a 23 percent
increase in enhanced security over 7 years.

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 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 analysis purposes. 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. 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.

8\. When the USMS Threat Management Center is notified about an
inappropriate communication by a district office, multiple record checks
of law enforcement data systems are made, investigative recommendations
utilizing the Behavior Base Methodology are offered;

investigative analysis is initiated, and an investigative report is
provided to the district within one business day. The law enforcement
data systems reviewed include the USMS Justice Detainee Information
System (JDIS), the FBI National Crime Information Center (NCIC), the FBI
National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (NLETS), the US
Secret Service Targeted Violence Information Sharing System (TAVISS) and
the BOP SENTRY.

[Outcome:]{.underline}

9\. The number of interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate
security reflects proceedings that required either removing 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 2007 Program Performance.**

The USMS did not investigate as many potential threats to members of the
judicial process due to a shift in categorizing mass mailing threats.
Instead of multiple protective investigations being initiated all across
the country for the same IC/Threat sent by a perpetrator, when the USMS
recognizes a mass mailing trend, it publishes Alert Notices or
Information Bulletins and asks districts to canvass their protectees.
For the sake of investigative and analytical efficiency, these mass
mailing threats are recorded as one potential threat.

Due to the re-categorization of mass mailing threats and a one week
delay in opening the Threat Management Center, the USMS was unable to
meet its target for the Percentage/Number of potential threats assessed
by the USMS Threat Management Center in one business day or less.

Though the USMS achieved its target of investigating 100% of expedited
cases within 3 business days or less, it did not receive as many
expedited threats as predicted. This was the result of enhanced turn
around time on all potential threats by the Office of Protective
Intelligence, making the need for distinguishing types of potential
threats to speed up Headquarters analysis unnecessary.

The USMS was unable to meet its FY 2007 target of zero judicial
proceedings interrupted due to inadequate security because of two
courtroom incidents. During both of these incidents, Deputy U.S.
Marshals (DUSMs) were attempting to escort defendants who were recently
placed into USMS custody by the presiding judge out of the courtroom
when the defendants became non-compliant. In both situations, the DUSMs
gave several unsuccessful verbal warnings instructing the individuals to
comply. Brief physical altercations ensued and support from other agency
law enforcement personnel in the vicinity was required in order to gain
control of the defendants. At no time during either incident were the
public or the courtroom personnel in any physical danger, nor did either
judge leave the bench.

**C. Factors Affecting Selection of FY 2008 and FY 2009 Plans.\
**

Proposed legislation affecting Court Security Improvement along with
zero tolerance prosecutorial initiatives along the Southwest Border
increases USMS workload. It is critical that the USMS operates
effectively and efficiently 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. 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. District personnel are
critical to maintaining judicial security for all proceedings.

![](media/image3.wmf){width="8.995833333333334in"
height="5.539583333333334in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564092 .anchor}**3. Performance, Resources, and
Strategies**

The Judicial and Courthouse Security decision unit supports the
Department's Strategic Goals I: Prevent Terrorism and Promote the
Nation\'s Security; and Strategic Goal III: Ensure the Fair and
Efficient Operation of the Federal Justice System. Within these goals,
the resources specifically address DOJ Strategic Objective: 1.2 --
Strengthen partnerships to prevent, deter, and respond to terrorist
incidents; and 3.1 -- 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564093 .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: 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 2007, there were two interrupted judicial proceedings in the
courtroom. At no time during either incident was the public or courtroom
personnel in any physical danger, or did either judge leave the bench.
By definition of this outcome measure, the USMS counts these incidents
as "interruptions" because additional Deputy Marshals were called upon
to provide security to guarantee the safety of the courtroom
participants.

One performance measure is assaults against federal judges. The
performance target is always zero assaults. In FY 2007, the USMS met
this target. Another performance measure is percent of federal
courthouse facilities meeting minimum security standards. The USMS
National Security Survey (NSS) has been administered three times: 1999,
2002, and 2006. In the most recent survey, results were based on 329
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 2006, 29 percent of the facilities surveyed
met the minimum security requirements showing a 23 percent increase in
enhanced security over 7 years.

The 2006 National Security Survey showed dramatic improvement in
electronic security in USMS-controlled space nationwide. Results show
critical improvements in the following major security areas:

-   49% have enclosed vehicle sallyports (43% in 2002, 28% in 1999);

-   66% have adequate cells in the main detention area (61% in 2002, 48%
    in 1999);

-   33% have an adequate number of courtroom holding cells (30% in 2002,
    18% in 1999);

-   87% have monitoring capability in the main detention area (80% in
    2002, 68% in 1999);

-   47% have an adequate number of prisoner/attorney interview rooms
    (42% in 2002, 30% in 1999); and

-   46% have secure prisoner elevators (35% in 2002, 24% in 1999).

    []{#__RefHeading___Toc187564094 .anchor}**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 temporary
assignment of Deputy Marshals from one district to another 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 a proceeding starts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564095 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

In 2003, the Judicial and Courthouse Security program was reviewed under
the PART process and received a rating of "Adequate." As a result of the
PART assessment, the Administration, working with the USMS developed
three recommendations to improve the program. First, the USMS should
develop a forward looking court security resource needs assessment plan
in conjunction with the courts. To achieve this, the USMS and the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 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. A Judicial Security strategic planning committee was created
to develop a five year strategic plan, which has since been published.
Another recommendation as a result of this PART evaluation was that the
USMS increase off-site and personal security of the judiciary by
increasing residential security surveys. To this end, the USMS has
completed 100% of its Home Intrusion Detection System installations and
has conducted 1,750 residential security surveys. The USMS conducted 134
residential security surveys in FY 2007.

The final recommendation given was that the USMS budget provides a level
of funding that maintains a current services level of judicial
protection and protection for high threat, high security trials. This
recommendation has been completed.

During FY 2008, OMB and the USMS will initiate a PART review of the
Judicial and Courthouse Security area again. It is anticipated that the
USMS will improve over the initial review.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564096 .anchor}**B. Fugitive Apprehension**

+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Fugitive Apprehension---TOTAL           | Perm. | FTE  | Amount    |
|                                         | Pos.  |      |           |
|                                         |       |      | (\$000)   |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Enacted                            | 1,491 | 1    | \$262,058 |
|                                         |       | ,464 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Supplementals                      | 0     | 0    | 0         |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Enacted w/Supplementals            | 1,491 | 1    | 262,058   |
|                                         |       | ,464 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2008 Enacted                            | 1,379 | 1    | 273,448   |
|                                         |       | ,352 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Adjustments to Base                     | 45    | 45   | 15,617    |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2009 Current Services                   | 1,424 | 1    | 289,065   |
|                                         |       | ,397 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2009 Program Increases                  | 1     | 1    | 336       |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2009 Request                            | 1,425 | 1    | 289,401   |
|                                         |       | ,398 |           |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Total Change 2008-2009                  | 46    | 46   | \$15,953  |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564097 .anchor}**1. Program Description**

The **Fugitive Apprehension** decision unit includes domestic and
international fugitive investigations, technical operations, criminal
information analysis, and special deputations to support fugitive
investigations, extraditions and deportations of fugitives, sex offender
investigations, service of process, and the seizure of assets.

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).
The 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. In 1985, The USMS established its Major Case Fugitive Program
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 tend to be career criminals whose histories
of violence pose a significant threat to public safety. Current and past
fugitives targeted by this program include murderers, violent gang
members, sex offenders, major drug kingpins, organized crime figures,
and individuals wanted for high-profile financial crimes.

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." Using that authority,
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 collected 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\
FY 2006, an RFTF was approved for the Gulf Coast Region, bringing the
total number of RFTFs to six. As part of the USMS Strategic Plan, the
USMS has identified 12 more regions where RFTFs could be beneficial.

With the recent addition of the Southern Maine Violent Fugitive Task
Force and the Guam Fugitive Task Force, the USMS sponsors 87
district-managed, multi-agency task forces throughout the country that
focus their investigative efforts on fugitives wanted for federal, state
and local crimes of violence, including sex offenders, gang members, and
drug traffickers. Funding for these task forces is often granted through
initiatives such as the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area and Project
Safe Neighborhoods programs.

As a result of the enactment of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and
Safety Act of 2006 (Public Law 109-248), the USMS established the Sex
Offender Apprehension Program (SOAP) in August 2006. The Adam Walsh Act
states that "In order to protect the public from sex offenders and
offenders against children ..." the "Attorney General shall use the
resources of Federal law enforcement, including the United States
Marshals Service, to assist jurisdictions in locating and apprehending
sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements." The
USMS is the lead law enforcement agency responsible for investigating
sex offender registration violations under the Act. The USMS has three
distinct missions pursuant to the Act, including: (1) assisting state,
local, tribal, and territorial authorities in the location and
apprehension of non-compliant sex offenders; (2) investigating
violations of 18 USC § 2250 and related offenses; and (3) assisting in
the identification and location of sex offenders relocated as a result
of a major disaster. The USMS carries out its duties in partnership with
state, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement authorities and
works closely with the National Center for Missing and Exploited
Children. SOAP activities also support Project Safe Childhood.

The USMS also supports its fugitive mission through the use of
state-of-the art surveillance equipment and specially trained
investigators 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 tracks and
traces various types of cellular and land-based communications initiated
by fugitives. In addition, analysts provide tactical and strategic
expertise in fugitive investigations. The USMS also 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
multiple state and local task forces around the country.

In addition to domestic fugitive investigations, 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 of International Affairs, the Department of
State, foreign governments, U.S. Embassies, and USMS district offices.
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 USMS administers the DOJ Asset Forfeiture Program (AFP), which 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:
strip criminals of their ill-gotten gains, improve law enforcement
cooperation; and enhance law enforcement through equitable revenue
sharing. The USMS manages and disposes of the assets seized and
forfeited by participating federal law enforcement agencies (including
DEA, FBI, ATF, FDA, and US Postal Inspection Service) and US Attorneys
nationwide, and is funded from two different sources to accomplish this
mission. The administrative personnel are paid through the DOJ Assets
Forfeiture Fund (AFF) on a reimbursable basis while Deputy Marshals'
salaries and benefits are funded from the USMS S&E appropriation.

The USMS conducts 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 and administrative employees, at the headquarters and district
level, conduct pre-seizure planning with other law enforcement
components, execute court orders, and assist in the physical seizure and
security of the assets. A national cadre of USMS employees,
administrative and operational, manages and disposes of all assets
seized for forfeiture by utilizing successful procedures employed by the
private sector. The USMS AFP ensures that all seized properties are
carefully inventoried, appraised, and maintained. Once the assets are
forfeited, the USMS ensures that they are disposed of in a timely and
commercially sound manner. Upon forfeiture of the assets, USMS
administrative personnel complete the disposal process by sharing the
equity with participating state and local law enforcement agencies.

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 would be more difficult to dispose
of in a timely manner.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564098 .anchor}**2. Performance Tables**

![](media/image4.wmf){width="8.98125in" height="6.667361111111111in"}

![](media/image5.wmf){width="8.990277777777777in"
height="5.445833333333334in"}

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

[Workload]{.underline}:

1\. A primary federal felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS
has primary apprehension responsibility. These include escapes from
federal custody, supervisory violations, Provisional Warrants issued at
the request of foreign governments, warrants issued by other federal
agencies that do not have arrest power, and other federal law
enforcement agencies\' warrants that are referred to the USMS for
apprehension responsibility. Wanted fugitives include all fugitives
wanted by the USMS at the beginning of the fiscal year, plus all
fugitive cases received by the USMS throughout the fiscal year.

2\. 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}:

1\. A primary violent federal felony fugitive is any individual that has
a warrant where the offense code, or the original offense code (for
those wanted for supervisory violations), is for Non-Negligent Homicide,
Rape, Aggravated Assault, or Robbery, or if the fugitive has an arrest
or conviction in their criminal history for any of these 4 crimes, or if
the fugitive is designated by the DEA as a violent offender. Also, all
sex offenses as defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006, as well as violations of sex offender registration laws,
are considered violent crime. All fugitives reported in this measure are
the primary apprehension responsibility of the USMS.

2\. A violent state and local felony fugitive is any individual that has
a warrant where the offense code or the original offense code (for those
wanted for supervisory violations) is for Non-Negligent Homicide, Rape,
Aggravated Assault, or Robbery, or if the fugitive has an arrest or
conviction in their criminal history for any of these 4 crimes, or if
the fugitive is designated by the DEA as a violent offender. Also, all
sex offenses as defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act of 2006, as well as violations of sex offender registration laws,
are considered violent crime. This measure includes violent felony state
and local fugitives that were cleared in conjunction with state, local,
and other federal law enforcement assistance through USMS-led task
forces and warrant squads. These individuals are not wanted for federal
charges.

3\. The total number of primary violent federal fugitives cleared, and
state and local violent felony fugitives cleared through USMS-led task
forces and warrant squads in a year, is divided by the full-cost FTEs
identified 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 included so that the complete
effort involved with fugitive apprehension is displayed.

4\. A primary federal felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS
has primary apprehension responsibility. These include escapes from
federal custody, supervisory violations, Provisional Warrants issued at
the request of foreign governments, warrants

issued by other federal agencies that do not have arrest power, and
other federal law enforcement agencies\' warrants that are referred to
the USMS for apprehension responsibility. A fugitive is considered
cleared if the fugitive is arrested, has a detainer issued, or the

warrant is dismissed. A state and local felony fugitive is a fugitive
with a state or local felony warrant. The total number of primary
federal felony fugitives cleared and state and local felony fugitives
cleared through USMS-led task forces and warrant squads, in a

year, is divided by the full-cost FTEs identified 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 included so that the complete effort involved
with fugitive apprehension is displayed.

5.b. The number listed for "cash" signifies the total separate cash
assets in USMS custody.

5.c. "Other" assets include such items as: business, business inventory,
financial instruments, aircraft, jewelry, vessels, vehicles, heavy
machinery, and other assets.

6\. 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.

7\. 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}

8\. This measure combines measures 1 and 2 to provide the total of
violent fugitive apprehended or cleared.

9\. This measure reports the number and percentage of primary federal
felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. The percent cleared is
calculated by taking the number of cleared fugitives divided by the sum
of received fugitives (fugitives that had a warrant issued during the
fiscal year) and on-hand fugitives (fugitives that had an active warrant
at the beginning of the fiscal year).

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2007 Program Performance.**

The USMS missed its target for the number of primary violent Federal
felony fugitives apprehended or cleared by less than one percent of the
target figure. The FY 2008 target for this measure was not modified
because the difference between the FY 2007 target and actual was not
significant. The Fugitive Apprehension Program has recently established
new annual performance measures and goals that better represent the USMS
mission focus of apprehending violent fugitives. These new measures were
developed in conjunction with DOJ and OMB during the 2007 update of the
OMB Program Assessment and Rating Tool (PART).

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 USMS did not achieve its goal for the percent of real property
assets sold at 85% or more of its fair market value and percent of real
property assets disposed within one year of receipt of the forfeiture
documentation due to the slowing real estate market. Market forces not
only increased the length of time it took to sell real property but also
had a negative impact on real property prices.

The USMS did not receive as many Class 1 warrants as expected for the
fiscal year. Specifically, throughout various quarters, less Federal
Probation violation, Parole violation, bond violation and warrants
received by agencies without arresting power were received. This
resulted in more backlog cases to be worked, which are inherently more
difficult to clear as investigative leads become sparse on old cases.

Though the USMS captured more Class 2 felony fugitives than the previous
fiscal year, with the addition of the sex offender mission and the
increased focus on capturing more serious fugitives such as violent
fugitives, less emphasis is being placed on the apprehension of
non-violent and non-felony fugitives, many involved in misdemeanor and
traffic offenses. USMS prioritizes pursuit of the most violent and
highest-risk fugitives.

The USMS did not receive as many Class 1 warrants as predicted and
therefore was unable to meet the target for the number of\
Class 1 warrants cleared per full cost FTE.

**C. Factors Affecting FY 2008 and FY 2009 Plans.**

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. Increases in
court operations personnel are commensurate with workload increases to
ensure fugitive investigators continued support of court operations.
This will ensure fugitives are apprehended. The effectiveness of
specific FALCON operations 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/image6.wmf){width="8.990972222222222in"
height="5.098611111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564099 .anchor}**3. Performance, Resources, and
Strategies**

The Fugitive Apprehension decision unit contributes to the Department's
Strategic Goal II: Prevent Crime, Enforce Laws, and Represent the Rights
and Interests of the American People; and Goal III: Ensure the Fair and
Efficient Administration of Justice. Within these goals, the decision
unit's resources specifically address two of the Department's Strategic
Objectives: Objective 2.3 - Prevent, suppress, and intervene in crimes
against children; and Objective 3.2 -- Ensure the apprehension of
fugitives from justice**.**

The USMS has primary jurisdiction to conduct and investigate fugitive
matters involving escaped federal prisoners, probation, parole, bond
default violators, warrants generated by Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) referred for USMS investigation, warrants referred by other
federal law enforcement agencies, warrants referred by state and local
agencies through USMS-led District and Regional Fugitive Task Forces,
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.

![](media/image7.wmf){width="6.497222222222222in"
height="2.6118055555555557in"}

**Data Definition:** All fugitives reported in this measure are the
primary apprehension responsibility of the USMS. A primary federal
felony fugitive has a warrant(s) in which the USMS has primary
apprehension responsibility. These include escapes from federal custody,
supervisory violations, Provisional Warrants issued at the request of
foreign governments, warrants issued by other federal agencies that do
not have arrest power, and other federal law enforcement agencies\'
warrants that are referred to the USMS for apprehension responsibility.
A fugitive is considered cleared if the fugitive is arrested, has a
detainer issued, or the warrant is dismissed.

**Data Collection and Storage:** Data is maintained in the Warrant
Information Network system (WIN) which is a module within the Justice
Detainee Information System (JDIS). WIN data is entered by Deputy U.S.
Marshals. Upon receiving a warrant, Deputy U.S. Marshals access the
National Crime Information Center (NCIC) through WIN to look for
previous criminal information. WIN data is stored centrally at USMS
headquarters, is accessible to all 94 districts, and is updated as new
information is collected.

**Data Validation and Verification:** Warrant and fugitive data is
verified by a random sampling of NCIC records generated by the FBI. The
USMS coordinates with district offices to verify that warrants are
validated against the signed paper records. The USMS then forwards the
validated records back to NCIC.

**Data Limitations:** This data is accessible to all 94 districts and is
updated as new information is collected. There may be a lag in the
reporting of data.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564100 .anchor}

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

As illustrated in the preceding Performance and Resources Table, one
performance outcome measure for this decision unit is: "number of
primary violent federal and violent non-federal felony 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. The warrants covered by both
of these measures include: non-negligent homicide, rape, aggravated
assault, or robbery, or if there was an arrest or conviction in the
fugitive's record for any of these offenses, or for any sex offense as
defined in the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act. Another
performance outcome measure is: "number and percent of primary federal
felony fugitives apprehended or cleared."

The USMS has changed its fugitive apprehension key indicator measures to
"Number and Percent of primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or
cleared." This was a result of the Office of Management and Budget's
Performance and Assessment Rating Tool (PART) evaluation of the fugitive
apprehension program. This measure more accurately reflects the primary
mission of the fugitive apprehension program. The prior key indicator
included cases in which the USMS was not the primary apprehending agency
and also fugitives wanted for less serious crimes (e.g. traffic
violations). The current measures address these shortcomings by focusing
on cases in which the USMS has primary arresting authority and cases
that arguably have a greater impact on public safety, making them a
priority of USMS fugitive apprehension efforts.

For FY 2007, the USMS apprehended or cleared 33,437 federal felony
fugitives, or 55 percent of all federal felony fugitives. The USMS
surpassed the targeted level of 54 percent primary federal felony
fugitives apprehended or cleared in FY 2007 by one percent and expects
to achieve the targeted 54 percent in FY 2008. The USMS also apprehended
or cleared 46,659 violent federal and non-federal felony fugitives. In
FY 2009, the USMS is targeting 55 percent, or 32,870 federal felony
fugitives apprehended or cleared, and 43,752 violent federal and
non-federal fugitives.

In FY 2007, the USMS RFTFs cleared 37 percent more violent state and
local fugitive felons. The increase is attributed to the opening of the
sixth RFTF in the Gulf Coast region. The USMS is directing its
investigative efforts toward reducing the number of violent crimes,
which include 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 USMS' six RFTFs enable Deputy Marshals to
target and capture more dangerous fugitives.

The USMS meets their fugitive apprehension goals by conducting
FALCON[^4] operations with the help of federal, state, and local agency
partners.

  ----------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **Operation FALCON Arrests**                              

                                **FY 2005**   **FY 2006**   **FY 2007**

  Sex Offenders Arrested        1,102         783           2,201

  Total Felony Fugitive Arrests 9,037         9,000         17,139
  ----------------------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

Also in FY 2007, Fugitive Safe Surrender, a faith-based initiative, was
conducted in Phoenix, Arizona, Indianapolis, Indiana, Akron, Ohio, and
Nashville and Memphis, Tennessee. FY 2008 has started with a 3-day
initiative in Washington, DC that resulted in 530 fugitive surrenders.
Since the start of this initiative in FY 2006, USMS, local law
enforcement, and religious leaders have led a very successful fugitive
apprehension initiative resulting in the peaceful surrender of nearly
6,500 fugitives at local churches, including 1,449 felons. 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 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 first
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). In FY 2007,
the USMS disposed on 18,262 assets, a 4 percent increase over FY 2006.

The USMS anticipates assuming responsibility for assets seized by the
ATF by the end of March 2008. 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 USMS anticipates that this level of asset
disposal can be sustained in FY 2008 and FY 2009.

The second performance measure is the percent of real property assets
sold at 85 percent or more of their fair market value. The target
performance levels are 83 percent in FY 2008 and 83 percent in FY 2009.
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 USMS targeted 82 percent but only 78
percent of real property assets sold at this amount. This is symptomatic
of the national trend in depressed real estate sales.

The third performance measure is the percent of real property assets
disposed of within one year of receipt of the forfeiture documentation.
The target performance levels are 82 percent in\
FY 2008, and 82 percent in FY 2009*.* 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. The USMS target was 82 percent
but the actual performance was 78 percent disposed in one year. The
likely reason for the longer time frame is due to the longer time real
property stayed on the market for sale.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564101 .anchor}**b. Strategies to Accomplish
Outcomes**

During FY 2007, the USMS, with guidance and direction from the DOJ
Criminal Division, issued interim legal and investigative guidelines to
investigate violations of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety
Act. The USMS is establishing contacts with state registries to
coordinate efforts to identify non-compliant sex offenders and has
purchased licenses from two vendors for commercially available database
services and software to assist in identifying, investigating, locating,
apprehending, and prosecuting non-compliant sex offenders. The USMS is
also coordinating its enforcement efforts with the Department of
Homeland Security's Operation Predator, primarily through the Law
Enforcement Support Center in Burlington, Vermont, to ensure that alien
sex offenders arrested by the USMS are referred to DHS for potential
removal proceedings.

TOG investigators provided critical assistance on 10,068 surveillance
operations in FY 2007 targeting 2,510 cases, a 42 percent increase over
FY 2006. TOG supported regional and circuit judicial conferences and
other national special security events. TOG further increased
performance in communication interoperability and encryption by
providing over 1,000 hours of training to operational personnel, as well
as classified briefings and/or training in technical operations for
Congressional Appropriations Committees, Director of the Administrative
Office of the US Courts, and prosecutors and investigators from across
the country. TOG signed on as a founding endorser of the Joint
Communications Access Project (JCAP), a collaborative effort across
major federal, state, county, and municipal technical investigative
agencies to address high cost, access, standards, bandwidth, storage,
buffering, decryption, and filtering issues associated with broadband
and multi-access point roving data intercepts and other highly
specialized aspects of electronic communications exploitation. By
leveraging existing intercept capabilities, networks and experience,
JCAP's goal is to demonstrate cooperative accomplishments at reduced
cost without the requirement for a central electronic surveillance
office.

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 three countries in 2003, the 249 FY 2007
extraditions and deportations represent a 135 percent increase over FY
2003.

The USMS is also responsible for approximately 90 percent of all
Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force (OCDETF) fugitive
investigations. The 39 USMS OCDETF inspectors and 2 analysts are working
diligently with district Deputy Marshals and other law enforcement
agencies to clear over 5,000 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       **FY       **FY       **FY       **FY       **FY
               2002**     2003**     2004**     2005**     2006**     2007**

  No. Cleared  2,724      2,278      3,232      3,562      3,577      3,339
  ------------ ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------

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, the USMS was the first federal agency to utilize online
auctions as one method of asset disposition in support of the
President's Federal Asset Sales initiatives. The USMS utilizes online
sites to successfully sell many types of assets, including real
property, vehicles, and collectibles which helps ensure assets are sold
at or near fair market value.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564102 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The Fugitive Apprehension program was reviewed under the PART process in
FY 2003 and was re-evaluated in FY 2007. In the most recent evaluation,
the program achieved a rating of "Moderately Effective." Three
recommendations were made as a result of this evaluation. First, the
USMS should pursue developing a comprehensive assessment of where
additional Regional Fugitive Task Forces and/or special apprehension
operations might have the most impact. To address this, the USMS has
identified twelve (12) regions where, if funding is available, the
addition of a Regional Fugitive Task Force would make the greatest
impact. The USMS uses crime trend assessments to determine where
Regional Fugitive Task Forces will have the greatest efficacy.
Additionally, the USMS plans to continue utilizing innovative special
apprehension programs such as FALCON (Federal And Local Cops Organized
Nationally) which will target fugitives in concert with the priorities
of the Attorney General.

Second, the USMS should enhance its ability to identify, track, and
share gang related intelligence. The USMS has begun to address this
recommendation by placing a criminal investigator at the DOJ Gang
Targeting, Enforcement Coordination Center, to better coordinate the
apprehension of fugitive gang members. The USMS also participates in
OneDOJ, a database that collects investigative information from all DOJ
components as part of a de-confliction process. Additionally, other DOJ
components have access to USMS investigative material related to wanted
gang members.

Finally, the USMS should develop a long term strategy in support of the
Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. Since the enactment
of the Act, the USMS has initiated several strategies by utilizing
existing fugitive task forces, establishing the Sex Offender
Investigations Branch, assigning a full time liaison to the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and designating Sex Offender
Investigative Coordinators in each of the 94 judicial districts.
Finally, subject to the availability of funds, the strategy includes the
development of the National Sex Offender Targeting Center (NSOTC), an
intelligence and operations center supporting the identification,
investigation, location, apprehension, and prosecution of non-compliant
sex offenders. The NSOTC would operate in partnership with the National
Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) and other concerned
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564103 .anchor}**C. Prisoner Security and
Transportation**

+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Prisoner Security and Transportation   | Perm.   | FTE     | Amount  |
| --TOTAL                                | Pos.    |         |         |
|                                        |         |         | (\$000) |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2007 Enacted                           | 898     | 882     | \$      |
|                                        |         |         | 159,145 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2007 Supplementals                     | 0       | 0       | 0       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2007 Enacted w/Supplementals           | 898     | 882     | 159,145 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2008 Enacted                           | 886     | 843     | 171,971 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Adjustments to Base                    | 50      | 77      | 13,816  |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2009 Current Services                  | 936     | 920     | 185,787 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2009 Program Increases                 | 72      | 36      | 12,410  |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2009 Request                           | 1,008   | 956     | 198,197 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Total Change 2008-2009                 | 122     | 113     | \       |
|                                        |         |         | $26,226 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

### 

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564104 .anchor}**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
USMS custody, a Deputy Marshal is required to "process" that prisoner.
Processing consists of interviewing the prisoner to gather personal,
arrest, prosecution, and medical information; fingerprinting the
prisoner; photographing the prisoner; preparing an inventory of any
received prisoner property; entering/placing the data and records into
the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS) and the prisoner file;
and sending the electronic fingerprint information to the FBI to store
in its IAFIS fingerprint system. 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 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.
Prior to entrance into the cellblock, Deputy Marshals search prisoners
and 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 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 jails to have 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 proceedings, 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.

Occasionally, district offices are required to use air transportation
other than the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS).
For example, in Alaska it is necessary to fly prisoners due to lack of
road access in many areas. Another example is 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, 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 facilities 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564105 .anchor}**2. Performance Tables**

![](media/image8.wmf){width="9.004166666666666in"
height="5.260416666666667in"}

**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 prisoners 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 2007 Program Performance.**

The USMS did not meet its target for number of prisoners moved in
support of prisoner productions due to fewer prisoners being received
than anticipated. This was caused by fewer requirements to move
prisoners than anticipated.

Future federal court proceedings are increasing as are the number of
judges and locations where proceedings are held, particularly on the
Southwest Border. 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 2008 and FY 2009 Plans.**

Proposed legislation affecting Court Security Improvement along with
zero tolerance prosecutorial initiatives along the Southwest Border
increases USMS workload. Deputy Marshals are the functional backbone of
the agency because they provide direct service to the federal courts.
Many of these prisoners are violent or have extensive criminal
histories. Deputy Marshals must produce them for various proceedings on
a daily basis.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="8.988888888888889in"
height="2.5819444444444444in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564106 .anchor}**3. Performance, Resources, and
Strategies**

The Prisoner Security and Transportation decision unit supports the
Department's Strategic Goal III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation
of the Federal Justice System. Within this goal, the resources
specifically address DOJ Strategic Objective 3.1 -- 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
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 humane and provide adequate security.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564107 .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. In FY 2007,
no prisoners escaped. One performance measure is the number of prisoners
moved in support of prisoner productions. The performance target is to
ensure that each prisoner securely arrives at each court appearance,
attorney meeting, or medical visit. The actual number of prisoner
productions is driven by the requirements of the judges and AOUSC and
estimated targets are based on historical data. In FY 2007, the USMS
moved 738,802 prisoners in support of 860,856 prisoner productions.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564108 .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. Courts personnel to determine which prisoners are required for
    appearances;

-   BOP personnel to arrange for prisoner designation and transportation
    after sentencing;

-   U.S. Border Patrol, FBI, DEA, ATF, and other federal, state, and
    local agency personnel to arrange for initial appearances, custody
    transfer, and booking; and

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

    []{#refheading___toc187564109 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
    Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The resources for the Prisoner Security and Transportation program were
reviewed in 2003. Status updates to the PART recommendations are covered
in the Judicial and Courthouse Security decision unit.

**Program Increase**

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

Budget Decision Unit: [Prisoner Security and Transportation, Fugitive
Apprehension]{.underline}

Strategic Goal & Objectives: [DOJ Strategic Goal III, Objectives 3.1 and
3.3]{.underline}

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

Component Ranking of Item: [1 of 1]{.underline}

Program Increase: Positions [73]{.underline} Agt [52]{.underline} FTE
[37]{.underline} Dollars [\$12,746,000]{.underline}

Description of Item

The USMS requests 73 positions (52 Deputy Marshals), 37 FTE, and
\$12,746,000 to manage the increasing workload along the Southwest
Border (SWB) as follows:

-   72 positions, (51 Deputy Marshals), 36 FTE, and \$10,338,000 to
    staff SWB district offices to improve courthouse security and
    effectively manage the administrative workload generated by zero
    tolerance prosecutorial initiatives;

-   \$2,072,000 for additional leased prisoner transport vehicles; and

-   1 position (1 Deputy Marshal), 1 FTE, and \$336,000 to manage the
    extradition workload at the USMS Mexico City foreign field office.

[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 USMS
presence reduces the potential for violence and injury among detainees
or against detention and courtroom personnel in these locations.

With increased illegal immigrant apprehension along the Southwest Border
caused by border security enhancements, the USMS has become more
efficient and effective to manage the increasing workload with existing
resources to protect judicial personnel and safely transport and secure
federal detainees. Total USMS prisoner productions in SWB districts
increased by 3 percent from FY 2005 to FY 2006 (compared to a 1 percent
increase in all other districts) and by 9 percent from FY 2006 to FY
2007 (compared to a 2 percent increase in all other districts). In
addition, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has
increased their number of aliens detained per year from 95,000 in FY
2001 to 283,000 in FY 2006. (FY 2007 ICE data is not available at this
time.) Many of them are criminal aliens charged for assault, sexual
assault, and drug violations. All criminal aliens are remanded to the
custody of the USMS.

Zero tolerance prosecutorial operations, such as "Operation Streamline,"
are having a severe impact on USMS workload. Under Operation Streamline,
all illegal aliens, including those from countries Other than Mexico
(OTM's), are prosecuted in federal court and sentenced to jail. In the
Del Rio sector, the conviction rate exceeds 90 percent. This is a
dramatic change from the "catch and release" strategy in prior years.
After arrest by the Border Patrol, illegal aliens are remanded to USMS
custody while undergoing criminal proceedings. The Border Patrol is
already planning similar enforcement operations in other sectors along
the Southwest Border including Laredo, Yuma, and Tucson Sectors. Without
a significant investment in personnel resources, the USMS will be unable
to handle the court, transportation of detainees, alien property
management, security, and administrative caseload generated from Border
Patrol arrests.

Beyond the increased enforcement efforts by DHS, the USMS' workload is
also growing due to other agencies' new initiatives targeting the SWB
such as the following:

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

-   The Office of the National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) has
    identified the Southwest Border Counternarcotics Strategy
    implementation as a top priority that the Department should support.
    The success of this program and other drug-control initiatives
    significantly impact the USMS workload in Southwest Border
    districts.

**District Staffing**

The USMS requests 72 positions, 36 FTE, and \$10,338,000 for additional
staff in Southwest Border districts to manage the increasing workload.
Hiring additional Border Patrol agents in FY 2007 and FY 2008 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,
prisoner transportation and management.

Southwest Border districts have already expressed concern about the
difficulties they face because of the heightened apprehension of illegal
immigrants within their districts. In a district survey, the Chief
Deputy of the Southern District of Texas succinctly explained the
security impact caused by these detainees:

> "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. In the latest district survey, the Acting
Chief in the Southern District of California states:

> "An expected change in prosecutorial philosophy regarding immigration
> cases could have a dramatic impact on S/CA workload in the next 12 to
> 24 months. Unlike other Southwest border districts, the U.S. Attorney
> has been prosecuting only serious felony cases. This philosophy has
> kept the prisoner population and court productions from increasing
> over the last few years. Thousands of cases that at one time would
> have been prosecuted in the district are going uncharged or, in the
> case of many narcotics cases, being referred to state court. There are
> indications that the USAO \[Office of U.S. Attorneys\] may give in to
> increasing political pressure to dramatically increase prosecutions of
> border related crimes. This change in prosecutions could immediately
> overwhelm \[sic.\] district prisoner housing and manpower resources."

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 requested administrative personnel would provide district offices
with administrative personnel for prisoner support. These personnel
would:

-   Ensure that prisoner files and records are entered into the Prisoner
    Tracking System (PTS) including tuberculosis (TB) test dates and
    test results,

-   Liaison with jail staff to ensure that prisoners receive TB tests
    within 14 days of entering USMS custody,

-   Create and maintain procurement files for the guard contracts,

-   Assist headquarters personnel in managing prisoner medical care by
    recording/tracking outside medical procedures in PTS and by liaising
    with the staff of local medical facilities as needed,

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Arrange with jails for prisoner pickup for court appearances,

-   Arrange to have prisoner meals available for prisoners in the
    cell-blocks,

-   Enter prisoner records into the PTS,

-   Ensure that jail staff test prisoners for TB and that any follow-up
    actions are taken for prisoners with positive TB tests,

-   Coordinate with the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System
    (JPATS) and the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) when prisoners are
    transferred to another district or agency, and

-   Create and maintain contract files for guards.

**Vehicles**

The USMS requests \$2,072,000 for leased prisoner transport vehicles.
While maintaining the ongoing productive tempo of USMS operations,
vehicle replacement funding has been adversely impacted by rescissions.
In FY 2007, the USMS leased 281 prisoner transport vehicles nationwide
for \$1,945,000 per year. The USMS leases prisoner vans through the
General Services Administration (GSA) to ensure that these vehicles do
not accumulate high mileage. GSA tailors these leases to cover heavy
usage as well as the costs of fuel and routine maintenance. Due to heavy
wear and tear demanded from a prisoner van, the need for reliable and
secure transport vehicles, and GSA replacement standards, the USMS
replaces these vans prior to the mileage reaching 60,000 miles. Based on
a three-year replacement cycle, leasing is more cost effective than
purchasing these vans. To transport increased number of SWB detainees to
and from court, the USMS requires additional funding for the required
vehicle leases.

**Fugitive Apprehension in Mexico City**

The USMS requests one Deputy Marshal, one FTE, and \$336,000 to manage
international fugitive apprehension and extradition in Mexico.
Currently, the USMS Mexico City office has 3 Deputy Marshals. Increasing
numbers of the violent MS-13 gang members are crossing international
borders to conduct illegal activities and avoid apprehension. The USMS
violent fugitive workload in Mexico has been increasing.

Impact on Performance (Relationship of Increase to Strategic Goals)

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

-   DOJ Strategic Objective 3.1: 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 table displays the prisoner population increase
experienced in Southwest Border districts:

+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Southwest Border | **FY 2000     | **FY 2007     | *             |
| District**         | Average Daily | Average**     | *Percentage** |
|                    | Prisoner      |               |               |
|                    | Population**  | **Daily       | **Increase**  |
|                    |               | Prisoner**    |               |
|                    |               |               |               |
|                    |               | *             |               |
|                    |               | *Population** |               |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Arizona            | 2,272         | 4,413         | 94%           |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Southern           | 1,888         | 1,944         | 3%            |
| California         |               |               |               |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| New Mexico         | 890           | 1,824         | 105%          |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Southern Texas     | 2,411         | 4,703         | 95%           |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| Western Texas      | 3,076         | 5,238         | 70%           |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+
| **Total**          | **10,537**    | **18,122**    | **72%**       |
+--------------------+---------------+---------------+---------------+

The following table illustrates the dramatic workload growth of
prisoners between FY 2000 and FY 2007. From 1996 to 2006, the USMS
allocated 258 of 635 (41 percent) additional positions to SWB districts,
where the workload has more than doubled. The percentage of USMS
prisoners produced by SWB districts continues to grow and, if stricter
immigration standards are enacted and enforced, this percentage would
significantly increase.

  ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------
  **Prisoner       **FY 2001**   **FY 2002**   **FY 2003**   **FY 2004**   **FY 2005**   **FY 2006**   **FY 2007**
  Productions**                                                                                        

  Southwest Border 195,871       201,628       224,064       265,930       264,592       272,473       296,216

  Rest of USMS\*   385,655       403,126       438,739       464,574       493,643       490,401       482,242

  **Total USMS\*** **581,526**   **604,754**   **662,803**   **730,509**   **758,243**   **762,874**   **778,458**

  Percentage of    33.68%        33.34%        33.81%        36.40%        34.90%        35.72%        38.05%
  USMS productions                                                                                     
  handled by                                                                                           
  Southwest Border                                                                                     
  Districts                                                                                            

  *\*Excludes                                                                                          
  productions of                                                                                       
  the District of                                                                                      
  Columbia                                                                                             
  Superior Court.*                                                                                     
  ---------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- ------------- -------------

The following chart displays the increase in USMS workload due to Border
Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests from FY
1991 through FY 2006. The data used is the number of USMS prisoners
received whose record reflected the Border Patrols as arresting agency.

![](media/image10.wmf){width="6.247916666666667in"
height="4.345138888888889in"}

The USMS Mexico City Foreign Field Office is responsible for
extra-territorial fugitive investigation, foreign fugitive apprehension,
extradition, and international law enforcement training. In FY 2007,
Mexico City office opened 147 new cases, closed 246 cases, arrested 110
fugitives, extradited 54 fugitives, and returned 39 foreign fugitives to
Mexico which demonstrates the effectiveness of investing USMS resources
in Mexico. An additional Deputy Marshal will assist the others in
clearing the 624 currently open cases and 99 outstanding provisional
arrest warrants.

*\*Projected on 1^st^ quarter actual of 61.*

**Funding**

Base Funding

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 6%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 8%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2007-enacted-wsupps" class="heading">FY 2007
Enacted (w/supps)</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2008-enacted" class="heading">FY 2008
Enacted</p></td>
<td colspan="4"><p id="fy-2009-current-services" class="heading">FY 2009
Current Services</p></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>Agt/</p>
<p>Atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>($000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>Agt/</p>
<p>Atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>($000)</td>
<td>Pos</td>
<td><p>Agt/</p>
<p>atty</p></td>
<td>FTE</td>
<td>($000)</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>605</td>
<td>491</td>
<td>567</td>
<td>$57,032</td>
<td>705</td>
<td>591</td>
<td>617</td>
<td>$73,380</td>
<td>705</td>
<td>591</td>
<td>667</td>
<td>$79,814</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

[Personnel Increase Cost Summary]{.underline}

+------------+-------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Type of    | Modular     | Number   | FY 2009       | FY 2010       |
| Position   | Cost        | of       |               |               |
|            |             |          | Request       | Net           |
|            | per         | P        | (\$000)       | Annualization |
|            | Position    | ositions |               |               |
|            | (\$000)     |          |               | (change from  |
|            |             | R        |               | 2009)         |
|            |             | equested |               |               |
|            |             |          |               | (\$000)       |
+------------+-------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Deputy     | \$171       | 51       | \$8,725       | \$268         |
| Marshal    |             |          |               |               |
+------------+-------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Admi       | 66          | 21       | 1,382         | 908           |
| nistrative |             |          |               |               |
+------------+-------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Deputy     | 336         | 1        | 336           | 13            |
| Marshal    |             |          |               |               |
| (Mexico)   |             |          |               |               |
+------------+-------------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Total      |             | 73       | 10,443        | 1,189         |
| Personnel  |             |          |               |               |
+------------+-------------+----------+---------------+---------------+

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

+---------------+----------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Non-Personnel | Unit     | Quantity | FY 2009       | FY 2010       |
| Item          | Cost     |          |               |               |
|               |          |          | Request       | Net           |
|               |          |          | (\$000)       | Annualization |
|               |          |          |               |               |
|               |          |          |               | (change from  |
|               |          |          |               | 2009)         |
|               |          |          |               |               |
|               |          |          |               | (\$000)       |
+---------------+----------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Leased        | NA       | NA       | \$2,072       | 0             |
| Vehicles for  |          |          |               |               |
| Prisoner      |          |          |               |               |
| Transport     |          |          |               |               |
+---------------+----------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Prisoner      | NA       | NA       | 231           | 0             |
| Restraints    |          |          |               |               |
+---------------+----------+----------+---------------+---------------+
| Total         |          |          | 2,303         | 0             |
| Personnel     |          |          |               |               |
+---------------+----------+----------+---------------+---------------+

Total Request for this Item

+------------+----+------+-----+-----------+----------+--------------+
|            | P  | Agt/ | FTE | Personnel | Non-P    | Total        |
|            | os | Atty |     |           | ersonnel |              |
|            |    |      |     | (\$000)   |          | (\$000)      |
|            |    |      |     |           | (\$000)  |              |
+------------+----+------+-----+-----------+----------+--------------+
| Current    | 7  | 591  | 667 | \$76,077  | \$3,737  | \$79,814     |
| Services   | 05 |      |     |           |          |              |
+------------+----+------+-----+-----------+----------+--------------+
| Increases  | 73 | 52   | 37  | 10,443    | 2,303    | 12,746       |
+------------+----+------+-----+-----------+----------+--------------+
| Grand      | 7  | 643  | 704 | 86,520    | 6,040    | 92,560       |
| Total      | 78 |      |     |           |          |              |
+------------+----+------+-----+-----------+----------+--------------+

Note: The current services level reflects all resources in the five
Southwest Border districts.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564110 .anchor}**D. Protection of Witnesses**

+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Protection of Witnesses---TOTAL        | Perm.   | FTE     | Amount  |
|                                        | Pos.    |         |         |
|                                        |         |         | (\$000) |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2007 Enacted                           | 209     | 205     | \       |
|                                        |         |         | $28,911 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2007 Supplementals                     | 0       | 0       | 0       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2007 Enacted w/Supplementals           | 209     | 205     | 28,911  |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2008 Enacted                           | 194     | 190     | 29,889  |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Adjustments to Base                    | 7       | 7       | 2,135   |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2009 Current Services                  | 201     | 197     | 32,024  |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2009 Program Increases                 | 0       | 0       | 0       |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| 2009 Request                           | 201     | 197     | 32,024  |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+
| Total Change 2008-2009                 | 7       | 7       | \$2,135 |
+----------------------------------------+---------+---------+---------+

### 1. Program Description

The **Protection of Witnesses** is managed by the Witness Security
Program (WSP) which 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. After the
bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, the WSP was 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 the entry of witnesses into the program. The
Bureau of Prisons (BOP) protects witnesses incarcerated in federal
prison facilities. The USMS protects civilian 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 become 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, vehicles for WSP deputy Marshals, and maintenance/repair
of safe sites.

Since its inception, the USMS has protected, relocated, and given new
identities to more than 8,000 witnesses and over 9,700 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.

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. \
\
No program participant who follows security guidelines has ever been
harmed by the individuals or organizations they testified against while
under the protection of the Marshals Service.

### 2. Performance Tables

![](media/image11.wmf){width="8.98263888888889in" height="4.4875in"}

**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 2007 Program Performance.**

The actual for FY 2007 was incorrectly reported in the Appendix of the
Budget of the United States for the measure "Total Witness Security
Program Participants." The correct number is reported in this table.

The USMS does 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.

**C. Factors Affecting FY 2008 and FY 2009 Plans.**

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/image12.wmf){width="9.004166666666666in"
height="1.5416666666666667in"}

### 3. Performance, Resources, and Strategies

The Protection of Witnesses decision unit supports the Department's
Strategic Goal III: Ensure the Fair and Efficient Operation of the
Federal Justice System. Within this goal, the resources specifically
address DOJ Strategic Objective 3.1 -- Protect judges, witnesses, and
other participants in federal proceedings and ensure the appearance of
criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or confinement.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564114 .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 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. In FY 2007, there were no assaults,
continuing the USMS' unblemished record for witness security.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564115 .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
funds are spent appropriately, security is not compromised, and program
participants are not assaulted.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564116 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The resources for the Protection of Witnesses program were reviewed in
2003. Status updates to the PART recommendations are covered in the
Judicial and Courthouse Security decision unit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564117 .anchor}**E. Operations Support**

+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Operations Support---TOTAL              | Perm. | FTE  | Amount    |
|                                         | Pos.  |      |           |
|                                         |       |      | (\$000)   |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Enacted                            | 249   | 244  | \$32,738  |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Supplementals                      | 0     | 0    | 3,700     |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2007 Enacted w/Supplementals            | 249   | 244  | 36,438    |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2008 Enacted                            | 167   | 162  | 33,873    |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Adjustments to Base                     | 6     | 6    | 1,811     |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2009 Current Services                   | 173   | 168  | 35,684    |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2009 Program Increases                  | 0     | 0    | 0         |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| 2009 Request                            | 173   | 168  | 35,684    |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+
| Total Change 2008-2009                  | 6     | 6    | \$1,811   |
+-----------------------------------------+-------+------+-----------+

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564118 .anchor}**1. Program Description**

The **Operations Support** decision unit is comprised of: the Special
Operations Group; the Office of Emergency Management (including the
Emergency Operations and Communications Center), 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 between 80
and 100 Deputy Marshals who perform SOG duties on a collateral-duty
basis. When a SOG mission is declared, Deputy Marshals are called up
from their home districts and deployed in teams. Each team consists of
sniper/observers, breachers, evasive drivers, scuba-trained waterborne
personnel, high-risk entry personnel, and personnel trained in less
lethal techniques and equipment. The SOGTC also trains other USMS
personnel and other federal, state, local, and foreign law enforcement
personnel on a space-available basis.

In addition to these basic duties, SOG members have been deployed to
Iraq and Afghanistan in support of DOJ initiatives in Operation Iraqi
Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom. Enhancing security of the
courts, judiciary, and witnesses has been SOG's focus in these arenas.
SOG Deputy Marshals have also been deployed, and continue to be
deployed, domestically and internationally in support of other national
interests, many of which involve national security.

**Office of Emergency Management**

The Office of Emergency Management (OEM) is the primary point of contact
when the USMS is involved in sensitive and classified missions. The OEM
has primary responsibility over the agency's actions involving homeland
security, national emergencies, and domestic crises, and it ensures the
USMS continuity of operations during emergency situations. The OEM has
oversight for numerous emergency management programs including:
Strategic National Stockpile Security Operations, the Explosive
Detection Program, USMS National Emergency and Regional Response Plan,
USMS Security Program, the Communications Center, the Emergency
Operations Center, Incident Management Teams, Peer Support Program and
its Critical Incident Management Teams, and Continuity of Government
(COG)/ Continuity of Operations (COOP) Programs.

All USMS 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 Center. The 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 Directives, Executive Orders,
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, reduce
operational disruptions, identify USMS personnel to perform emergency
functions, plan for the protection of employees, and designate
leadership lines of succession.

**District Affairs**

Headquarters may provide supplemental staffing to support extraordinary
events by drawing upon available resources from all USMS districts.
These events are typically physical security and recovery operations
associated with natural disasters and civil disturbances. 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.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564119 .anchor}**2. Performance Tables**

![](media/image13.wmf){width="8.996527777777779in"
height="4.372916666666667in"}

**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 at least 48
hours prior to the beginning of the planned event.

**B. Factors Affecting FY 2007 Program Performance.**

Beginning in FY 2007, the USMS began deploying Deputy Marshals to
Afghanistan to secure the Afghanistan judicial complex. The deployed
operational personnel 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). These USMS personnel 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.

Additional SOG deputies are performing 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 2008 and FY 2009 Plans.**

The request reflects an anticipated increase in high-threat trials
involving gang members and terrorists to ensure additional SOG
deployments necessary for district 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.

![](media/image14.wmf){width="8.990972222222222in"
height="2.026388888888889in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564120 .anchor}**3. Performance, Resources, and
Strategies**

The Operations Support decision unit supports the Department's Strategic
Goal III: 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: 3.1- "Protect
judges, witnesses, and other participants in Federal proceedings, and
ensure the appearance of criminal defendants for judicial proceedings or
confinement."

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564121 .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 designated by the Attorney
General. The USMS also successfully protected the Strategic National
Stockpile (SNS),[^5] continued to advance the USMS ability to respond to
an emergency by instituting the Continuity of Operations
(COOP)/Continuation of Government (COG) programs, and participated in
several national interagency training exercises[^6]. 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. In
FY 2007, the USMS conducted 59 emergency operations and in all cases
deployed SOG personnel within 48 hours of a declared emergency.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564122 .anchor}**b. Strategies to Accomplish
Outcomes**

The USMS deploys personnel and equipment in support of extraordinary
district requirements, ensuring adequate resources are provided to
maintain the integrity of the judicial process. 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 operational 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 or respond to terrorist activities. For FY 2008, the USMS
anticipates that 55 situations will require an emergency response and
that the 48-hour response time will be met. For FY 2009, the USMS
anticipates an increase to 70 situations due to the increased workload
associated with the SNS.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564123 .anchor}**c. Results of Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART) Reviews**

The resources for Operations Support were reviewed in 2003. Status
updates to the PART recommendations are covered in the Judicial and
Courthouse Security decision unit.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564124 .anchor}**V. E-Gov Initiatives**

The Justice Department is fully committed to the President's Management
Agenda (PMA) and the E-Government initiatives that are integral to
achieving the objectives of the PMA. The E-Government initiatives serve
citizens, business, and federal employees by delivering high quality
services more efficiently at a lower price. The Department is in varying
stages of implementing E-Government solutions and services including
initiatives focused on integrating government wide transactions,
processes, standards adoption, and consolidation of administrative
systems that are necessary tools for agency administration, but are not
core to DOJ's mission. To ensure that DOJ obtains value from the various
initiatives, the Department actively participates in the governance
bodies that direct the initiatives and we communicate regularly with the
other federal agencies that are serving as the "Managing Partners" to
ensure that the initiatives meet the needs of the Department and its
customers. Working with other agencies to implement common or
consolidated solutions helps DOJ reduce funding requirements for
administrative and public-facing systems, thereby allowing DOJ to focus
more of its scarce resources on higher priority, mission related needs.
DOJ's modest contributions to the Administration's E-Government projects
will facilitate achievement of this objective.

**A. Funding and Costs**

The Department of Justice participates in the following E-Government
initiatives and Lines of Business:

  --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------
  Business Gateway      E-Travel          Integrated        Case Management
                                          Acquisition       LoB
                                          Environment       

  Disaster Assistance   Federal Asset     IAE - Loans &     Geospatial LoB
  Improvement Plan      Sales             Grants - Dunn &   
                                          Bradstreet        

  Disaster Assist.      Geospatial        Financial Mgmt.   Budget
  Improvement Plan -    One-Stop          Consolidated LoB  Formulation and
  Capacity Surge                                            Execution LoB

  E-Authentication      GovBenefits.gov   Human Resources   IT
                                          LoB               Infrastructure
                                                            LoB

  E-Rulemaking          Grants.gov        Grants Management 
                                          LoB               
  --------------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------

The Department of Justice E-Government expenses -- i.e. DOJ's share of
e-Gov initiatives managed by other federal agencies -- are paid for from
the Department's Working Capital Fund. These costs, along with other
internal E-Government related expenses (oversight and administrative
expenses such as salaries, rent, etc.) are reimbursed by the components
to the WCF. As such, the USMS E-Government reimbursement to the WCF is
\$275,000 for FY2008. The anticipated USMS e-Government reimbursement to
WCF is \$350,000 for FY2009.

**B. Benefits**

The USMS established baseline cost estimates for each IT investment
being (or planned to be) modified, replaced, or retired due to the
Department's use of an E-Government or Line of Business initiative. The
USMS is measuring actual costs of these investments on an ongoing basis.
As the USMS completes migrations to common solutions provided by an
E-Government or Line of Business initiative, the USMS expects to realize
cost savings or avoidance through retirement or replacement of legacy
systems and/or decreased operational costs once these initiatives have
been fully implemented.

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc187564125 .anchor}**VI. Exhibits**

[^1]: Beginning with the FY 2008 enacted appropriation, the USMS
    decision unit structure renamed the "Protection of the Judicial
    Process" activity to "Judicial and Courthouse Security."

[^2]: Executive Order 13162 established the FCIP in July 2000 to help
    agencies develop hiring strategies intended to provide a steady
    stream of high-potential individuals who can be converted to
    permanent appointment in the competitive service.

[^3]: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, "A Decade of Change in
    the Federal Courts Caseload: Fiscal Years 1997-2006", [The Third
    Branch]{.underline}, Vol. 39, Number 11, November 2007

[^4]: FALCON is the acronym for "Federal and Local Cops Organized
    Nationally."

[^5]: The USMS has a reimbursable agreement with the Department of
    Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control
    and Prevention (CDC) to provide security for the SNS.

[^6]: These exercises included the Congressionally-mandated Top
    Officials exercise in April 2005, Operation Pinnacle in June 2005,
    and the 2007 Title Globe exercise series.