Detailed Information on the
US Marshals Service- Protection of the Judicial Process Assessment

The program is expanding access to judicial threat information and similar resources maintained by other federal, state and local law enforcement entities.

The program is evaluating the feasibility of taking over perimeter security at primary courthouses from a partner law enforcement agency.

Measure: Number of interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate security

Explanation: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.

Measure: Number of prisoner escapes from USMS custody, outside of the courtroom

Explanation: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.

Measure: Assaults against funded protected federal witnesses

Explanation: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.

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

Explanation: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.

Measure: Assaults against Federal judges

Explanation:An assault is an attempt to inflict bodily harm

Measure: Number of court productions/escapes

Explanation: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.

Measure: Percentage/Number of potential threats assessed by the USMS Threat Management Center in one business day or less

Explanation: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.

Measure: Cost avoided due to Medical Claim repricing

Explanation: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.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose and mission of the United States Marshals Service (USMS) is to protect the Federal courts and ensure the effective operation of the judicial system. This includes protecting Federal judges and government witnesses, and processing and transporting prisoners for court and other proceedings in direct support of the Federal Judiciary.

Evidence: The USMS was created by Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789 (Section 27), the same legislation that established the Federal Judiciary. Title 28 U.S.C. 566(a) specifies that the "primary role of the United States Marshals Service to provide for the security and to obey, execute, and enforce all orders of the United States District Courts, the United States Courts of Appeals and the Court of International Trade." In addition, 28 CFR § 0.111 (d) includes one of the functions as: "Administration and implementation of courtroom security requirements for the Federal judiciary."

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The USMS provides security and support to members of the Federal Judiciary and other court officials to ensure the safe and efficient operation of the judicial process. The USMS also ensures Federal detainees are produced for court proceedings in a safe, secure, and timely manner.

Evidence: There are more than 55,000 detainees in USMS custody on any given day. These detainees are present for all court-ordered appearances, meetings with attorneys, and medical appointments without interupption. In FY 2007, the USMS conducted over 661,000 detainee productions for court without any assaults against judicial members. USMS FY07 Annual Report. FY09 USMS President's budget.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The USMS has the unique and sole responsibility of providing security for members of the U.S. District Courts, U.S. Courts of Appeals, the Court of International Trade, the U.S. Tax Court, the Deputy Attorney General, the Director of Office of National Drug Control Policy and the Supreme Court Justices of the U.S..

Evidence: The USMS has 342 Deputy U.S. Marshals (DUSMs) designated as District Threat Investigators (DTIs) in the 94 districts. The primary goal of the DTI is to devise and implement a threat management strategy to mitigate any potential risk to a protectee. Additionally, the USMS has 118 Judicial Security Inspectors (JSIs) in each of the 94 federal judicial districts and 12 circuit courts who supervise DTIs investigative work, assist in planning for high threat trials and events, conduct security briefings and training for members of the judiciary, and act as the USMS contracting officer's technical representative for the Court Security Officer (CSO) contract to monitor compliance and performance standards in their respective districts. The USMS employs 3,944 CSOs to assist in the mission of protecting the members of the federal judiciary. USMS FY 07 Annual Report. OIG Report I-2007-010.

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The USMS judicial security program is uniquely designed to provide safety and security to all federal judiciary participants. The USMS uses several strategies to ensure the well being of its protectees. These include: district based JSIs, Office of Protective Operations Inspectors, DTI's, the investigative and intelligence products generated by the Office of Protective Intelligence (OPI), participation in the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), utilization of technical surveillance conducted by the Technical Operations Group (TOG), coordination through the Threat Management Center (TMC), and the creation of the Home Intrusion Alarm Program.

Evidence: In order to be more effective and efficient in responding to threats made to the federal judiciary, the Judicial Security Division (JSD) undertook a structural reorganization in November, 2006. This reorganization reassigned and reallocated current staff, assigned additional staff, and redesignated components comprising the JSD. This new structure allows for a more streamlined approach to investigate and abate threats to the Federal judiciary. Additionally, the USMS has established performance measures to ensure protective operations are conducted efficiently and effectively. USMS also procures and manages security systems and contract guards for GSA-controlled facilities, and USMS also controls the level of access at all GSA-managed facilities housing judicial officers. USMS coordinates security responsibilities with the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) and the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS). USMS recently began performing FPS duties in 7 U.S. Courthouses as part of a pilot project, and is evaluating the efficacy of performing these additional functions. The purpose of this pilot is to explore the possibility of the USMS providing all site specific security services where court activities occupy at least 75% of rentable space. In essence the goal is to have the USMS provide all security where the primary occupants of the building are the U.S. Courts. The goal of the program is to eliminate equipment duplications and system incompatibilities, streamline guard services and post orders and provide clearer accountability. The USMS will conduct an evaluation at the end of the pilot program to determine the program's effect on workload and how successful the pilot program was at providing appropriate security. A survey will also be given to all Federal court officials at each site to gauge their satisfaction with the USMS in this role and address any issues or concerns. All results from these evaluations will be shared with the AOUSC. FY09 USMS President's Budget. Testimony by Circuit Court Judge Gibbons.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The majority of resources are for front line operational personnel to ensure the safe and effective operation of USMS activities. In 2005, the USMS used funding to increase staffing, construct the Threat Management Center, and install home intrusion detection systems for Federal judges.

Evidence: H.R. 1268 (Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005) designated funding to the USMS for "increased judicial security outside of courthouse facilities." To date, the USMS has installed over 1,800 security systems in Federal judiciary residences. This funding, in addition to USMS resources, was also used to establish the Office of Protective Intelligence. FY08 and FY09 President's Budget.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: The USMS has three long term outcome measures in place since FY2003. These include: the number of interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate security, number of prisoner escapes from USMS custody outside of the courtroom, and the number of assaults against funded protected federal witnesses. Together, these measures support DOJ Strategic Goal 3 of ensuring the fair and efficient administration of justice.

Evidence: The number of interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate security measure is a DOJ Key performance indicator and was recently subjected to an OIG review, with no recommendations given for changing this measure. FY09 USMS President's Budget. Audit Report 08-18.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The USMS has set the target of zero for all of its long term measures for the next 5 years. These ambitious targets highlight the USMS's pursuit of zero court interuptions, zero assaults on federal judges, and zero escapes in the federal justice process.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's Budget

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The USMS has several specific annual performance measures that highlight judicial protection mission. These include: the number of potential threats to members of the judicial process investigated, assaults against federal judges, and the number of escapes from court productions.All measures have been in place since FY2002.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's Budget

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The USMS has set zero as the target for the number of assaults against federal judges, zero escapes from 688,000 court productions in FY09, and a more than 15% increase in investigated potential threats to members of the judicial process from FY07 to FY09. All annual measures have either shown improvement or matched the baseline year of FY2003.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's Budget

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The USMS employed 3,944 CSOs and over 1,800 District Security Officers (DSOs) in 2007 that assisted DUSMs in achieving the protection of the judicial process mission. CSOs and DSOs are contract employees that are utilized by the districts. Each CSO and DSO has stipulated in his or her contract the agency standards and performance goals that they must meet and maintain in order to retain their position. Additionally, the USMS is involved in JTTFs, which assist in providing intelligence about potential threats to Judiciary members. The USMS has 78 personnel affiliated with JTTFs. For physical security, the USMS partners with GSA and the private sector to renovate Federal courthouse facilities. To ensure that projects are completed in compliance with established security standards, the USMS inspects all renovation projects during and after construction. The USMS has been attempting to incorporate performance standards in GSA renovation contracts. Until this is done, all errors are documented and reported to GSA, who in turn report them to the firm under contract to renovate the facility.

Evidence: Sample CSO Contract. DSO Statement of Work. JSIs oversee CSO performance to ensure their work supports the achievement of USMS goals while U.S. Marshals, or their designee, oversees DSO performance. All CSOs and DSOs are informed of the USMS goals regarding the protection of the courtroom and personnel. By signing the contract and working under USMS personnel, all CSOs and DSOs are partners of the USMS, and work toward the stated goal of protecting the judiciary, in particular to ensure that there are zero assaults against the participants of the judicial process and zero prisoner escapes.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The protection of the judiciary and the judicial process mission has been the subject to regular Government Accountability Office (GAO) and DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluations. In particular, the OIG conducted a comprehensive audit of the judicial process mission in 2004 and a follow up audit again in 2007 using survey data, field interviews, and analyses of USMS data. The scope of these evaluations was to assess the USMS's capability to collect, analyze, and disseminate information and intelligence related to protecting the judiciary, along with its ability to assess threats and determine appropriate measures to protect members of the judiciary during high-threat trials and while they are away from the courthouse.These reports included examining the USMS ability to assess and respond to threats to the federal judiciary, the use of contract guards, protection of the judicial process abroad, and courthouse construction.

Evidence: List of Audits (OIG I-2004-004, A-2006-007, I-2007-008, GAO "US Counternarcotics Assistance efforts under Plan Colombia, " GAO " U.S assistance to Secure the Pakistan/Afghanistan Border")

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The USMS has its protection of the judicial process annual and long-term performance goals in its official budget request documents. Budget submissions relate annual and long term performance targets and resources through the performance tables. Within the tables can be found a clear transparent nexus between increases in funding, FTE and performance, particularly due to the addition of a "program change" column the FY04 President's Budget. The USMS currently displays direct and indirect costs by program to display full program costs. The USMS also achieves transparency in its budget requests by explicitly outlining how initiatives will impact performance. Additionally the budget submission includes a narrative section in each decision unit entitled "Performance Plan and Report for Outcomes" which provides additional discussion of performance reported in the performance tables section.

Evidence: In response to the Administration's desire for a mission-based budget that ties performance with resources and at the same time provides Congress with sufficient detail, the USMS restructured, and Congress enacted, the new decision units as part of the FY08 process. New Decision Units displayed in the FY 2009 USMS President's Budget.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The USMS's Judicial Security Division recently created a Strategic Plan for 2007 - 2011. This plan serves as a guide for the future growth and operation of the USMS's statutory protection of the judicial process mission. The goals and objectives in this plan are specifically linked to the goals identified within the Department of Justice's Strategic Plan and the USMS Strategic Plan. In response to OIG Audit I-2004-004, the USMS addressed several strategic planning deficiencies, including ensuring all threats are assessed with established time frames, establishing a threat management center, increased participation in JTTFs, revision of the Judicial Security Division Briefing Book and the Offsite Security Booklet for Judicial Officers to establish risk-based standards, and requiring after-action reports for high-threat trials and protective details. In response to OIG Audit I-2007-010, the USMS has created a formal plan detailing a new workload tracking system, created a USMS Protective Investigations File in the FBI-run National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, and has procured a link analysis tool that will assist in the identification of potential threats.

Evidence: JSD Strategic Plan, USMS Strategic Plan, OIG I-2004-004 Close out letter, Judicial Security Division Briefing Book, USMS Director Memo to OIG, and the Offsite Security Booklet for Judicial Officers.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The USMS routinely collects information for management and performance improvement from the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS), Prisoner Tracking System (PTS), the CSO Monthly Activity Report, Monthly CSO Statistical Report, and the National Security Survey (conducted every 3 years). The USMS uses these data to enhance and adjust judiciary security practices in an attempt to streamline/refine work methods to achieve economies of scale and efficiency of operations, and in managing the program effectively and resolving areas of deficiency, as necessary and appropriate. For example, the OPI annually reviews threat workload data received by the districts and re-adjusts accordingly Intelligence Research analyst staffing levels in order to ensure responses to districts occur within the timeframe target set by OPI. The OPI looks to make this workload review a semi-annual process in the near future. Also, with the establishment of the JSI program, issues and concerns raised by the Federal court officials can be resolved in a more customer oriented manner. JSIs are senior deputies that operate as a primary liaison with the Judiciary in every district office. Issues that cannot be resolved through this avenue are addressed by Judicial Operations personnel at USMS headquarters. Another mechanism of customer feedback is the regular AOUSC security meetings in which the judiciary has an open forum to discuss any problems or issues with security provided by the USMS. Baselines and Targets are based on an examination of prior year data to establish reasonable starting figures and ambitious targets based on continuous improvement. In areas where specific prior year information is not available, as in the case of the new performance measure Percentage/Number of potential threats assessed by the USMS Threat Management Center in one business day or less, program managers examine program capabilities and assess complexity of workload to estimate a reasonable baseline and project accordingly future year targets.

Evidence: Workload, workload accomplishment, time utilization, and surveys are used to manage and improve performance. For example, the USMS reviews monthly district obligations for prisoner housing to detect any over or under spending of funds. Districts that meet this criterion are notified and monitored until discrepancies are resolved. Federal Prisoner Detention Status of Funds meeting document, Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS) monthly jail bill report, the CSO Monthly Activity Report, Monthly CSO Statistical Reports, and the National Security Survey.

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: On June 30, 2004 the Attorney General transmitted decisions on the SES Performance-based Pay System to OPM and OMB with the Human Capital report, including a generic work plan for all Departmental SES members, with an accompanying performance "contract" that must explicitly relate to the Department's, the President's or the Attorney General's defined goals. Starting in 2005, performance appraisal guidance required Results and Expected Outcomes (REOs) for every employee for each performance plan element where there was a link to an objective or goal in a strategic plan. These REOs are specific work accomplishments expected by the end of the appraisal period which must be met in conjunction with defined performance element standards. Additionally, CSOs and DSOs are also held accountable by their performance as stipulated in their contracts, which is overseen by the district's JSI or U.S. Marshal, or designee, respectively. Contracts with companies supplying CSOs are reviewed annually to ascertain whether contract agreements are being upheld and whether to renew the contract for an additional year.

Evidence: Sample CSO contract. DSO Statement of Work. SES Performance Evaluation. In the SES performance evaluation, element one requires the Assistant Director to "Clearly and timely identify applicable goals, deliverables, and results to achieve the Department's Strategic Goals, the President's Management Agenda, the Attorney General's Management Goals, the Component's Strategic or Operating Plan (with direct ties to the Department's Plan) and/or the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Plan.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: A new project code budgeting process was implemented by the USMS as a result of a recommendation made by DOJ OIG in their 2002 & 2003 Budget Execution audit. This budgeting allows for the tracking of changes, obligations, and expenditures to the budget estimates included in congressional spending instructions. This is a permanent budget execution system that can incorporate changes that may be imposed by Congress on the execution of appropriated funds. Additionally, the USMS received "Unqualified Opinions" in its yearly financial audit for the last 6 years by independent, private auditors. These audits focused on whether financial statements are free of material misstatement, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in financial statements, and assessed the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management. Additionally, the USMS reported less than 1 percent in unobligated balances in FY07 and consistently has a limited amount of unobligated balances remaining at the end of each year.

Evidence: FY 2007 Audited Financial Statements (prepared by Cotton and Company LLP), OIG closeout letter for audit 04-02, SF-133 Report on Budget Execution for FY 2007.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The cost avoidance due to medical claim repricing measure allows the USMS to track cost avoidance in the medical billing process. The USMS has set a FY 2009 target of $64 million for cost avoidance due to this repricing process. The percentage and number of potential threats assessed by the USMS Threat Management Center in one business day or less is a new measure implemented in FY2007 in order to replace the measures "Percentage/Number of "expedited" potential threats analyzed by HQ in 3 business days or less" and Percentage/Number of "standard" potential threats analyzed by HQ in 7 business days or less." The new measure is intended to improve efficiency reporting by dramatically reducing the time frame involved for threat assessment. Also, the USMS holds a competitive bidding process for all CSO contracts to be awarded to determine which company will provide the USMS with the highest quality of contract personnel in the most cost effective manner. Similarly, as stipulated by USMS policy, contracting officers should conduct market research in accordance with FAR Part 10 to determine the amount of the Independent Government Price Estimate for DSO's hourly rates.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's Budget. CSO contract cost comparison documentation. USMS Policy 9.3.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The USMS partners with other Federal, state and local agencies (including the Department of Homeland Security) to protect the Judiciary, the court family, and the environment of Federal court facilities. A recent example of this coordination is a series of meetings both in Washington, D.C and on the Border itself between the USMS, Office of the Federal Detention Trustee, U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Courts, and Border Patrol regarding the implementation of "secure border initiatives" by Border Patrol in the five Southwest border districts. Agreements were reached on what could be implemented, at what time, and in how many places. Coordination continues on this important situation due to the very real potential to overwhelm the USMS and the Federal courts through large increases in prisoners received into federal custody. The USMS also collaborates and coordinates, as necessary, to combat the threat of terrorism against America through its involvement in FBI-led JTTFs. The USMS currently has 78 personnel affiliated with JTTFs. The USMS also collaborates with the FBI to assess and investigate inappropriate communications against judges. The FBI has the responsibility for investigating threats for the purpose of prosecution while the USMS conducts protective investigations that focus on rendering the person making the threat harmless, regardless of the possibility for prosecution. The two agencies regularly share intelligence information to assist in each other's mission.

Evidence: The USMS works with the FBI, DEA, ICE, ATF, GSA, AOUSC, U.S. Attorneys and other law enforcement counterparts to provide security throughout the United States to ensure that the judicial process is carried out in a safe, secure and uninterrupted manner.Within the USMS, Headquarters and District entities collaborate on a constant basis to achieve its mission. For example, the OPI Threat Management Center produces intelligence reports that disseminate information to districts about persons making the threats or potentially volatile situations. Districts use this information to begin investigation cases, assign investigative personnel, and determine how best to share intelligence and updates on the case.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The USMS notifies Congress of changes in affected resources, through reprogrammings, notifications, and Congressional relocation reports. Through detailed tracking of funds the USMS has received "Unqualified Opinions" in its yearly financial audit for the last 6 years by independent, private auditors. These audits focused on whether financial statements are free of material misstatement, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in financial statements, and assessments of the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management.

Evidence: The USMS has developed systems that allow funds to be fully tracked and reported. These systems are designed to track funds by object classification or mission activity. The Agency's time reporting system tracks time spent per mission activity and is tied to the payroll system. This enables managers to track funds at the most detailed level. Once managers have this information, they can assess full program costs or program activity costs for isolated special investigations or task force efforts. Audit report from Cotton and Company. Congressional Relocation Report.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: In response to the OIG I-2004-004, the JSD implemented several strategies to address its management deficiencies. JSD has established the OPI and has increased its staffing from 9 personnel to 20 personnel. OPI has 24 hours a day, 7 days a week coverage by a Duty Inspector and has developed a Threat Management Center to allow for more effective threat analysis and response. Additionally, the USMS has continued to offer training for JSIs and DUSMs. Ten Protective Investigations Training Program (PITP) classes have been conducted in the last 5 years, with almost 500 DUSMs and JSIs attending. Moreover, 210 Inspectors and DUSMs attended the Judicial Security Protection Training Conference in 2005, receiving protective investigations and operative training. A strategic plan for years 2007-2011 for judicial security was developed. Finally, in response to OIG Audit 05-24, the USMS developed policy that outlines management practices for supervising DSOs.

Evidence: PITP training schedule, Judicial Security Protection Training Conference manual, Judicial Security Division Briefing Book. JSD Strategic Plan. USMS policy 9.3.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The USMS has met its target of zero "interrupted judicial proceedings due to inadequate security" and "number of prisoner escapes from USMS custody outside of the courtroom" three out of the last 5 years. The USMS has never exceeded 2 interrupted proceedings in any year in an average of over 615,000 court productions a year. The USMS has also never had more than 2 escapes in a year. The USMS has never had an assault against a federally funded protected witness out of over 17,000 witness security program participants in relation to the zero "assaults against funded protected witnesses" target. The USMS will continue to set the ambitious target of zero assaults and escapes for these measures to meet its core commitment of ensuring that the judicial process operates smoothly, without interruption or fear of intimidation.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's budget

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: From FY 02 to FY07, the USMS has met its targets of zero for the number of assaults against federal judges and number of court escapes inside the courtroom, and has more than doubled the number of potential threats investigated (from 565 to 1,145).

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's budget

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The USMS has continued to show improved efficiencies in its judicial protection program. Since the inception of the "cost avoidance due to repricing" measure in FY05, the USMS has avoided an ever increasing amount of costs. In 2005 costs avoided were $43 million. In 2006, costs avoided were $50 million. In 2007, costs avoided were just under $57 million. In 2007, the USMS exceeded its target for this measure by almost $2 million. In total, $150 million in costs were avoided due to medical claim repricing. The USMS has also increased the number of prisoners processed per DUSM FTE from 1,478 in FY05 to 1,704 in FY07, a 15% increase. Additionally, the USMS is refining its threat investigation performance measure which will establish a more ambitious efficiency standard of assessing potential threats within one business day or less, as opposed to the previous 3 and 7 day assessment measure.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's budget

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The USMS is the federal government's primary agency responsible for safeguarding the federal courts and all its participants. To this end, the USMS was tasked by the State Department to head the establishment of the judicial protection program in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the Combined Security Transition Command (CSTC). This function is typically that of the State Department, however, USMS expertise in this area, and its success in a similar mission in Colombia (as noted in the Interagency Agreement between the Department of State and Department of Justice), was deemed essential for this massive undertaking. Moreover, unlike the tragic event that occurred in Georgia State Court at the Fulton County courthouse in Atlanta in 2005, in which a judge and two bystanders were killed by a criminal defendant, the USMS's has never had a judge killed while on the bench in its 219 year history.

Evidence: FY09 USMS President's budget, Iraq and Afghanistan news reports, Interagency Agreement between the Department of State and Department of Justice.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: OIG report I-2007-010 found that since OIG report I-2004-04, the USMS "has implemented several security measures to protect the federal judiciary." These include implementing a home alarm program for federal judges, in addition to enhancing its relationship with TOG and developing a Rapid Deployment Team program to support the judicial security mission. This report also found that 87% of the federal judges surveyed (n = 686) were satisfied with the performance of the USMS in protecting the federal judiciary and that a majority of judges were satisfied with the USMS judicial security personnel assigned to their district. Additionally, the report cited that the USMS eliminated its backlog of pending threat assessments in March of 2007 and improved its capacity for working with classified information.

Evidence: OIG report I-2007-010: Appendix V, OIG report I-2004-04,