Security at the nation’s 424 federal courthouses is overseen by FPS, the Marshals Service, GSA, and AOUSC. Federal statutes and interagency agreements define these stakeholders’ roles and responsibilities for the protection and security of federal courthouses and persons within courthouses. FPS is the primary federal agency responsible for patrolling and protecting the perimeter of GSA-controlled facilities, including facilities housing federal court functions, and for enforcing federal laws and regulations in those facilities. Specifically, FPS has the authority to enforce federal laws and regulations aimed at protecting federally owned and leased properties and the persons on such property. FPS conducts its mission by providing security services through two types of activities: (1) physical security activities, such as conducting risk assessments of facilities and recommending risk-based countermeasures aimed at preventing incidents at facilities; and (2) law enforcement activities, such as responding to incidents, conducting criminal investigations, and exercising arrest authority. FPS charges customer agencies, such as the judiciary and Marshals Service, fees for the security services FPS provides. FPS charges federal agencies three fees: (1) a basic security fee, (2) a building-specific administrative fee, and (3) a security work authorization administrative fee. All customer agencies in GSA-controlled properties pay the basic annual security fee. Customer agencies in facilities for which FPS recommends specific countermeasures pay the building-specific administrative fee, along with the cost of the countermeasures. Customer agencies that request additional countermeasures pay the security work authorization administrative fee, along with the cost of the countermeasures. The Marshals Service, by law, has primary responsibility for the security of the federal judiciary, in either primary courthouses—where judicial and judicial-related space comprise at least 75 percent of the building—or multitenant facilities—including the safe conduct of court proceedings and the security of federal judges and court personnel. The Marshals Service is divided into 94 districts (with one U.S. Marshal for each district) to correspond with the 94 federal judicial districts. Security of federal courthouses is administered by the Marshals Service’s Judicial Security Division, whose mission is to ensure the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings and provide protection for federal judges, U.S. Attorneys, Assistant U.S. Attorneys, jurors, and other members of the federal court family. The Office of Courthouse Management has responsibility for, among other things, physical security and construction of all Marshals Service office, support, and special-purpose space. The Marshals Service receives both direct appropriations and funding transferred from the judiciary for its courthouse security activities. Judicial Services has oversight for programs funded by the AOUSC court security appropriation. This funding provides for the Court Security Officer (CSO) program, security equipment, and systems for space occupied by the judiciary and for Marshals Service employees. As the federal government’s landlord, GSA designs, builds, manages, and safeguards federal buildings, including courthouses. Under the Homeland Security Act of 2002, FPS was transferred to DHS along with FPS’s responsibility to perform law enforcement and related security functions for GSA buildings. However, GSA retained some responsibilities related to courthouse security. GSA continues to provide proposed plans for new construction and renovation of court space and for the installation of additional security systems and other security measures, such as fencing, lighting, and locks on doors. In response to a recommendation we made in 2005 and to enhance coordination with FPS, GSA established in 2006 the Building Security and Policy Division within the Public Buildings Service, where FPS once resided, to manage its security policy and implementation efforts, including its dealings with FPS. Additionally, GSA’s Center for Courthouse Programs is responsible for nationwide policy formulation and general management of new federal courthouse construction and the modernization of existing courthouses. In the judicial branch, both the Judicial Conference, which is the judiciary’s principal policy-making body concerned with the administration of the U.S. courts, and AOUSC, which is the central administrative support entity for the judicial branch, play a role in courthouse security. The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Security coordinates security issues involving the federal courts. For example, the committee monitors the protection of court facilities and proceedings, judicial officers, and court staff at federal court facilities and other locations, and makes policy recommendations to the Judicial Conference. Appropriations for security can be funded directly to the courts or transferred to the Marshals Service, which is responsible for administering judicial security consistent with the standards or guidelines agreed to by the Director of AOUSC and the Director of the Marshals Service. This represents a collaborative effort between the federal judiciary and DOJ to assist in securing the judicial process. Additionally, at the district level, federal judges have responsibilities in securing courthouses. For example, the court has the authority to, among other things, issue rules or orders regulating, restricting, or prohibiting items within or near the perimeter of any facility that has a courthouse. We have previously identified key practices both for enhancing collaboration among federal agencies and for facility protection. Regarding collaboration, we have identified a number of factors, such as leadership and trust and agreeing on roles and responsibilities, which are key to facilitating an effective collaborative relationship. We have used these practices in our prior work to evaluate collaboration between FPS and tenants in federal facilities and the Transportation Security Administration’s efforts to secure commercial airports, for example. We have also identified facility protection key practices from the collective practices of federal agencies and the private sector to provide a framework for guiding agencies’ protection efforts and addressing challenges. We have used the key practices to evaluate, for example, the efforts of FPS in protecting federal facilities, the Smithsonian Institution in protecting its museums, and the National Park Service in protecting national icons such as the Statue of Liberty. Courthouses—which house judicial proceedings and which many view as symbols of democracy and openness—have faced increasing security risks. DOJ data on potential threats against court personnel and individuals involved in the judicial process show a steady rise in recent years, adding to the concern of securing federal courthouses. (See figure 1.) AOUSC recognizes the symbolic nature of courthouses, and has stated that access to the courts is a core value in the American system of government and that courthouses are important symbols of the federal government in communities across the country. The Interagency Security Committee (ISC) ranks U.S. circuit, district, and bankruptcy courthouses as “very high”—the highest security level—because they are prominent symbols of U.S. power or authority. According to ISC, symbolic targets are attractive to foreign terrorists, as well as domestic antigovernment radicals. For example, case-related or antigovernment protests and demonstrations can occur outside courthouses, increasing possible security risks to the courthouses. Among our site visits, a court official at one location stated that, in one instance in March 2003, protesters outside the courthouse who were trying to avoid arrest broke a window and entered the official’s office, potentially putting the official and others at risk. With the increased number of potential threats against courthouses in recent years, the Marshals Service reports that threats from extremist groups exist, particularly at courthouses in certain locations. For example, at one courthouse we visited, FPS officials expressed concern about the presence of antigovernment persons and groups within the district. In part to better protect the courthouse from any person or group that may attack the courthouse, an area of raised terrain followed by an excavated area lined with rock which is not visible from a distance, was constructed between the courthouse and the road. Figure 2 illustrates the antivehicle barriers constructed to protect the courthouse. In addition to the symbolism of courthouses, the wide variety of civil and criminal cases that come before the federal judiciary include some that can pose increased security risks to federal courthouses, such as those involving domestic and international terrorism, domestic and international organized crime, extremist groups, gangs, and drug trafficking. At courthouses with these types of cases, federal stakeholders have implemented additional security measures. For example at one courthouse we visited, the Marshals Service stated that they implemented countermeasures to increase security in preparation for a major terrorist trial. These countermeasures included closing streets near the courthouse during the trial, erecting additional barriers, and having a uniformed guard presence 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The location of courthouses can contribute to security issues. In particular, court officials at one courthouse located near the Southwest border told us that they deal with a large number of immigration cases and cases that involve drug trafficking organizations. According to these officials, they can also have hundreds of defendants who have not previously been involved in U.S. court proceedings, making it difficult to obtain information on them. One judge at the courthouse noted that the Marshals Service took additional security measures, such as additional training and increased CSO presence as the judge entered and left the courthouse parking garage, to protect him after the Marshals Service received information from an informant that a drug-trafficking organization had threatened violence against the judge Further, according to the judiciary, criminal cases related to immigration offenses jumped nearly 60 percent from about 17,000 in 2006 to about 27,000 in 2010, and the number of defendants in those cases rose by about 55 percent over the same period to about 28,000 defendants. According to the AOUSC, the growth in immigration cases is mostly from filings addressing improper reentry by aliens and involving fraud and misuse of visa or entry permits in the five federal judicial districts located along the U.S. Southwest border. The Marshals Service noted that defendants can be violent or have extensive criminal histories. According to AOUSC, courthouses can play a significant role in urban redevelopment efforts.