Detailed Information on the
US Marshals Service - Apprehension of Fugitives Assessment

Develop a comprehensive assessment on where additional Regional Fugitive Task Forces and/or special apprehension operation might have the most impact. (Timeframe for completion pending further discussion with OMB examiner.)

Enhance the ability to identify, track, and share gang related intelligence. (Timeframe for completion pending further discussion with OMB examiner.)

Develop a long term strategy in support of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. (Timeframe for completion pending further discussion with OMB examiner.)

Measure: Number and Percent of primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared

Explanation: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. The percent cleared is calculated by taking the number of cleared fugitives divided by the sum of received fugitives (fugitives who had a warrant issued during the Fiscal Year) and On-hand fugitives (fugitives who had an active warrant at the beginning of the Fiscal Year).

Measure: Number of primary violent Federal felony and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared.

Explanation:A primary violent Federal or non-Federal felony fugitive is any individual who has a warrant (Federal or Non-Federal) 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.

Measure: Number of primary violent Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared.

Explanation:A primary violent Federal felony fugitive is any individual who 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. All fugitives reported in this measure are the primary apprehension responsibility of the USMS.

Measure: Number of violent state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared.

Explanation:A violent state and local felony fugitive is any individual who 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. This measure includes violent felony state and local fugitives who 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.

Measure: Number of primary violent Federal and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE.

Explanation:A primary violent Federal or violent non-Federal felony fugitive is any individual who 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. This measure includes violent felony state and local fugitives who were cleared in conjunction with state, local, and other Federal law enforcement assistance through USMS led task forces and warrant squads. Not all of these individuals are wanted for Federal charges. The total number of Primary violent Federal fugitives cleared and state and local violent felony fugitives cleared in a year is divided by the full-cost FTEs identified in the budget for the fugitive program. 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.

Measure: Number of primary Federal felony fugitives and state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE.

Explanation: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 budget for the fugitive program. 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.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the fugitive apprehension program is to investigate and apprehend all Federal fugitives identified by a warrant issued under the authority of the United States which fall under USMS apprehension responsibility. The program's purpose is also to create and run fugitive apprehension task forces with other Federal, state and local agencies in both congressionally funded Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs) and local District Fugitive Task Forces (DFTFs). These task forces prioritize on finding Federal fugitives as well as state and local Violent Offenders. The fugitive program also includes the Sex Offender apprehension program which assists other law enforcement agencies with the location and apprehension of non-compliant sex offenders as well as investigating and charging for violations of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

Evidence: The USMS has the authority to investigate and apprehend fugitives as indicated in: Title 28 U.S.C. 566 (e)(1) (B); Title 18 U.S.C. 3184, 28 C.F.R. 0.111 (q); the Attorney General's fugitive apprehension policy dated August 11, 1988; and, the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-544), The Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

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

Explanation: The program apprehends Federal, state, and local fugitives from justice, with focus on violent fugitives. The program also addresses the problem of non-compliant sex-offenders and violators of the Adam Walsh Act of 2006. Investigations carried out by Deputy U.S. Marshal led task forces and warrant squads in FY 2006 resulted in the apprehension of over 30,000 primary Federal fugitive felons, 55,000 state and local fugitives, and over 36,000 Federal, state and local violent felony fugitives. Over the past five years, USMS personnel apprehended more than 140,000 primary federal fugitive felons, over 200,000 state and local fugitives, and over 88,000 violent Federal, state and local felony fugitives.

Evidence: Investigative Service Division's Strategic Plan, OIG Audit Report (I-2005-008), USMS 15 Most Wanted List

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

Explanation: The USMS is the Federal government's lead agency for conducting and investigating cases that include escaped Federal prisoners; bond defaults; parole, probation, and supervised release violators; and other fugitives wanted on complaints or indictments. Additionally, the USMS is the lead agency in locating and apprehending sex offenders who violate sex offender registration requirements. The USMS ensures that it does not cross jurisdictions or engage in duplicative investigative operations by entering into MOU's and task forces with other Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies that clearly outline each agencies responsibilities. These MOU's are based on the Attorney General's 1988 fugitive apprehension policy which establishes the rules of the USMS, DEA, and FBI, "without unnecessary duplication of effort."

Evidence: The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-544) established permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces consisting of Federal, state and local law enforcement in designated regions of the U.S. to be managed by the USMS. The USMS currently has 6 congressionally funded Regional Fugitive Task Forces (RFTFs); in addition to 85 District Fugitive Task Forces (DFTFs). The USMS also has MOUs with numerous Federal agencies giving them the authority to hunt other federal Fugitives avoiding duplication of effort across agencies. The USMS has congressionally funded foreign field offices in Mexico, Dominican Republic, and Jamaica. This presence enables the USMS to apprehend fugitives that have fled the borders of the U.S. and bring them back to this country to face justice, ensuring that there is no safe haven for those that commit crimes against the United States. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006.

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

Explanation: The USMS fugitive program is uniquely designed to address the fugitive problem and execute warrants in a safe and cost-effective manner. The USMS uses a combination of fugitive apprehension strategies to ensure the most efficient application of resources. These strategies include RFTFs and DFTFs, Federal And Local Cops Organized Nationally (FALCON) Operations (a week-long, intense coordination of Federal, state, and local law enforcement led by the USMS to apprehend violent fugitives) technical surveillance (provided by the Technical Operations Group) such as wiretapping, video and audio surveillance, aerial surveillance and electronic tracking. A recent OIG report found that the use of task forces with state and local participation has been able to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of the USMS in meeting the programs purpose.

Evidence: The USMS has established internal policies to ensure that fugitive task force operations are conducted efficiently and effectively. These policies are outlined in the Standard Operating Procedures for Regional Fugitive Task Forces and District Fugitive Task Forces. There is also standardized training for Task Force Officers and RFTF Management.

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

Explanation: All resources received by this program are expended in the apprehension of fugitive felons. The USMS operates in 94 judicial districts throughout the United States. They rely on input from each district office, as well as coordination with state and local law enforcement organizations through district and regional task forces, to ensure that their fugitive apprehension efforts are best targeted to meet the needs of each district. In addition, there is daily and ongoing coordination between the Investigative Services Division, other headquarters divisions, other Federal law enforcement organizations and state and local law enforcement organizations to improve overall performance and avoid duplication of effort. Recently, the program office has increased its focus on the apprehension of violent fugitives, directing resources where they will have the greatest impact on public safety.

Evidence: OIG Audit report I-2005-008. The program has several units (HQ and field) that work together to apprehend Federal fugitive felons. The Domestic Investigations Branch (DIB) gives investigative advice and analysis to USMS district offices and regional fugitive task forces; coordinates high priority cases; oversees district's task force participation; reviews district's compliance with HQ performance plans; creates policies and procedures for fugitive investigations; and authorizes informant payments. The International Investigations Branch (IIB) is responsible for the development and implementation of USMS policies and procedures that relate to extra-territorial investigations, foreign fugitives, extraditions, and USMS relations with other countries. The Sex Offender Investigative Operations Branch (SOIB) coordinates investigations and other matters related to sex offenses and the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. The Technical Operations Group (TOG) provides electronic surveillance; advises districts about appropriate surveillance techniques; assists in preparing court orders requesting electronic surveillance; and analyzes information obtained through electronic surveillance. The Criminal Information Branch (CIB) gives tactical and strategic information to the districts for older cases whose leads have been exhausted and maintains the Warrant Information Network (WIN) system. In the six regional fugitive task forces and local district warrant squads and task forces, investigators on specialized warrant squads work with state and local law enforcement to apprehend fugitives.

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 developed two long-term, meaningful performance measures that represent its mission. These include the Number and Percent of primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared and the Number of violent federal felony and non-federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. The long term target for the program is to increase the percentage of federal fugitives apprehended or cleared to 56% by the year 2012.

Evidence: Primary federal felony fugitives are fugitives in which the USMS has sole apprehension responsibility. Violent fugitives are comprised of individuals who are wanted for a violent felony offense or have a violent offense (offenses) in their criminal history, be it a Federal, state or local offense. OIG Audit (I-2005-008), MOU samples, Title 28 U.S.C. 566 (e)(1) (B); Title 18 U.S.C. 3184, 28 C.F.R. 0.111 (q); the Attorney General's fugitive apprehension policy dated August 11, 1988; and, the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-544).

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

Explanation: The USMS has recently changed its long term measures to better meet its program goals by focusing on violent and primary federal fugitives. Together, these measures will help to ensure that the efforts of the USMS will focus on the "worst of the worst" to have the largest impact on public safety. USMS has set ambitious, quantitative targets for both measures that will be assessed against their 2006 apprehension data. The 2006 apprehension data was selected as a baseline so that the program will be able to assess its progress towards its targets with the new performance measures.

Evidence: PART Proposed Program Performance Measures. The USMS has established two long-term measures with ambitious targets. The first measure is Number and Percent of primary Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. The target for this measure is 33,192 (55%) fugitives cleared by 2012. The second measure is Number of primary violent Federal felony and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. The USMS has set 43,250 fugitives apprehended or cleared by 2012 as the target for this measure. The number of fugitives continues to increase, outpacing the resources available for apprehension. Despite this increase, the USMS continues to increase fugitives cleared targets for both of its long term measures. The USMS has implemented annual efficiency measures that will allow it to meet its long term targets with limited additional resources. Additionally, though the USMS will be receiving a significant influx of new fugitive workload through the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006, long term fugitive cleared performance targets continue to increase steadily.

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 four annual performance measures that contribute to the long-term outcome goal. The measures include two output measures: the number of primary violent Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared and the number of violent state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. The program also has two annual efficiency measures: the number of primary violent Federal felony and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE and number of primary Federal felony fugitives and state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE. The annual output measures allow the program to measure their progress towards their long term goals on an annual basis while the annual efficiency measures allow the program to assess whether efficiency improvements are being made that will allow the program to reach its long term targets. These performance measures are more meaningful indicators that the Fugitive Investigation program is fulfilling its purpose.

Evidence: The USMS has identified specific annual performance goals and targets which are outcome oriented and emphasize the focus on apprehension of primary violent Federal felony and violent state and local felony fugitives. OIG Audit Report (I-2005-008), the Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-544).

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

Explanation: Responding to suggestions from an external review, the USMS has changed its annual performance measures to more accurately measure progress in achieving the long term goals of the program. USMS has set ambitious, quantitative targets for all annual measures that will be assessed against 2006 data. The 2006 data was selected as a baseline so that the program will be able to assess its progress towards its targets with the new performance measures.

Evidence: District performance is tracked on a monthly basis and reports are generated from the Warrant Information Network system. The USMS reports its annual measures as part of the President's Budget request and will be reported in PARTWeb. The USMS has established a baseline of 10,675 primary violent Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared and a target of 13,700 for 2010, 24,752 violent state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared and a target of 27,752 for 2010, 27 primary violent Federal and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE and a target of 29 for 2010, and 63 primary felony fugitives and state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE and a target of 66 for 2010. The latter two measures' baselines are from 2005 due to the Decision Unit restructuring initiative in the 2007 President's Budget. Additionally, 2006 is used for the baseline year for number of violent state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared. This is due to a data validation initiative that occurred in 2005 which resulted in more accurate data entry of state and local offender information. Decision Unit restructuring document, Assistant Director Memo titled "Review of Fugitive Apprehension Program"

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 has six Congressionally funded Regional Fugitive Task Forces as well as 85 local district task forces. Each task force includes other Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies working together under the guidance and leadership of the USMS to capture fugitives. The other agencies all sign Memorandums of Understanding and agree that the USMS will lead the task force, and decide which cases to investigate. They all agree that the USMS will supervise and lead day-to-day Task Force operations, and will handle scheduling, training, assignments and case investigative decisions and delegations. Mechanisms are in place to ensure participating agencies are performing per the MOU. For example, the MOU for RFTF agencies states that a "Task Force Advisory Committee, consisting of representatives of each participating agency, shall meet and confer as necessary to review and address issues concerning the Task Force." Additionally, the MOU for DFTFs outlines procedures for resolving any operational problems that may occur within the DFTF. Any changes to MOU's must be vetted through the Office of General Counsel and the USMS.

Evidence: The USMS enters into memorandums of understanding (MOUs) which delegate primary apprehension responsibility from the designated agency to the USMS. The participating agencies agree that the USMS will determine which state and local cases will be accepted and investigated by the task force. All participating agencies are explained that the USMS has specific goals regarding the apprehension of Federal fugitives, and the apprehension of violent offenders both for federal as well as state and local cases. By signing the MOU and being a part of the USMS led task force, all participating Federal, state and local agencies are partners of the USMS, and work toward the stated goals of the particular task force of which they are members. Collectively, the task forces work towards the overall program goals of the USMS fugitive apprehension mission.

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 USMS has been reviewed by outside agencies such as the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and independent financial management audiences. In addition to the OIG audits of 1995 and 2000, the USMS fugitive program has had two independent and quality audits in the past 4 years by the Department of Justice, Office of Inspector General's Office (OIG). These audits evaluated the program's effectiveness and relevance to the fugitive mission. In 2004, the OIG did an audit of the Review of the USMS Apprehension of Violent Fugitives (I-2005-008). Using an encompassing methodology of staff interviews, surveys, and database analyses, the audit made determinations about the program's goals and effectiveness. Certain issues were raised by the OIG and the USMS responded immediately to adjust program goals regarding the apprehension of violent offenders. Districts and task forces were ordered to begin focusing their investigative efforts towards violent offenders, and the Violent Offenders Performance Measure was created and has been available so Headquarters, districts and task forces can monitor their performance and progress in this specific area. In 2006 the OIG did an audit of the Coordination of the Department of Justice Task Force Investigations. A large part of this audit focused on how the USMS Task Forces coordinated their efforts with other DOJ investigative agencies regarding the investigations to apprehend fugitives. The Regional and local district task forces make up a large portion of the USMS' Fugitive Investigations Program, and this audit specifically detailed how the USMS coordinates and works with other Federal agencies to avoid the duplication of effort and assure correct arrest statistics. While independent groups like GAO and the DOJ OIG will conduct evaluations of the program, they are not conducted at regular intervals and the scope of these reports varies.

Evidence: OIG audit reports: I-2000-02, A-98-34, I-94-04, I-2005-008, OIG Report "Review of Task Force Coordination, A-2005-011 Status Report for the Components."

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: With submission of the FY 2009 President's Budget to Congress, the USMS will have its new annual and long-term performance goals in its official budget request documents. As in the past, budget submissions will 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. The USMS currently displays direct and indirect costs by program to display full program costs

Evidence: In response to the Administration's commitment to move towards a performance-based budget, the USMS restructured its decision units as part of its FY 2007 President's Budget request to Congress. Decision Unit restructuring document, FY 2008 Fugitive Apprehension performance table from President's Budget.

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

Explanation: The Fugitive Apprehension program recently created a Strategic Plan for 2006 - 2010. This plan serves as a guide for the future growth and operation of the USMS' statutory investigative mission. The goals and objectives in this plan are specifically linked to the goals identified within the Department of Justice's Strategic Plan. Fugitive program leadership assembled in July of 2005, to begin developing the strategic plan that would serve as the guide for the future operation of the U.S. Marshals Service's statutory investigative mission. The initial meeting resulted in the establishment of several standing committees charged with the responsibility of reviewing, updating, and modifying the plan throughout its five year term. The fugitive program's goals and objectives are specifically linked to the goals identified within the USMS Strategic Plan covering the period 2006-2010. These goals and objectives are included in a comprehensive agency document that encompasses all of the USMS mission areas. In 2006, another Strategic Planning Meeting was held to assess the progress of the previous year's 5 year plan, to make necessary adjustments and to address new and challenging issues that had arisen since the initial plan's development. As part of this planning process, the fugitive apprehension program has refined its performance measures to be more meaningfully representative of its fugitive workload. When the strategic plan is updated, changes will be made to fully incorporate the refined measures. More strategic planning meetings will be scheduled as needs arise with the ever changing and growing aspects of the fugitive investigative mission. The USMS has also recently implemented Strategic Advancement Forums, in which the fugitive apprehension program participates. These regularly scheduled forums are designed to inform the Director, Deputy Director and Assistant Directors of program progress towards meeting the strategic goals and objectives stated in the USMS Strategic Plan. This process holds programs leaders accountable for their progress in a public forum and also allows for coordination among divisions to assist each other in achieving goals and objectives.

Evidence: Investigative Services Division's (ISD) Strategic Plan, USMS Strategic Plan, ISD Strategic Planning meeting agenda, Strategic Advancement Forum document.

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 Warrant Information Network (WIN) system tracks the number and status of felony and non-felony warrants and provides descriptive information on federal fugitive felons. Information is updated daily as it pertains to fugitive biographical and case investigative information and arrests are immediately recorded in the WIN system. Since the WIN system is immediately updated with fugitive arrest information, any performance measure evaluation when run is current, timely and credible. Districts and task forces may evaluate current program performance or run historical measures to verify increases or decreases over time. This current and reliable information allows HQ and districts to assess and evaluate their fugitive apprehension program, and assists them in adjusting and prioritizing to meet the overall USMS fugitive apprehension goals. Data from the WIN system is also used to set baselines and ambitious targets for all of the programs performance measures. While all data on Federal fugitives is entered into the WIN system, the program does not require that all apprehension data from state and local partners be entered into the system. State and local warrant data is not always entered into WIN initially, but sometimes is entered only when the fugitive is either apprehended or cleared. Because of this, the USMS is not able to accurately track for performance purposes the number of state and local warrants that are pursued by the program.

Evidence: Investigative Service Division's Monthly Investigator, Warrant and Fugitive Clearance Performance Measure Report, Entrance letter for OIG Audit on DOJ Key Indicators (Final report of this audit is expected at the end of FY07).

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: The Assistant Director for the Investigative Services Division is evaluated on an annual basis and held accountable for the results of the fugitive apprehension program. In 2006, the USMS established quarterly Strategic Advancement Forums to create a formalized public forum for program managers to report on and respond to program performance and progress towards the accomplishment of each programs' strategic goals. To date, three Strategic Advancement Forums have been held. Additionally, task force supervisors are held accountable for their performance in apprehending violent fugitives by HQ Senior Inspectors who track task force performance. Moreover, mechanisms are in place that allow HQ to hold U.S. Marshals accountable for their district level spending. Finally, MOU's outline requirements of program partner accountability. Partners on local District and Regional Fugitive Task Forces enter into MOUs with the USMS regarding fugitive apprehension goals and strategies. However, at this time the program does not collect sufficient performance data from program partners to hold them accountable based on performance data and their contribution to the program's goals.

Evidence: ISD's AD elements for performance appraisal, USMS Policy 8.3 (DEA warrants). 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. Districts, local, and Regional Fugitive Task Forces can be held accountable for lack of performance based on fugitive apprehension statistics published in the monthly report or based on performance measure reports. Funding to pay for state and local task force member overtime on local and district task forces, as well as budget allotments for Regional Fugitive Task Forces can be adjusted if districts or task forces are falling below set performance measure standards.

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

Explanation: Project code budgeting 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 FY06 and consistently has a limited amount of unobligated balances remaining at the end of each year.

Evidence: Opinion page from Cotton and Company, OIG closeout letter for audit 04-02, SF-133 Report on Budget Execution for FY 2006.

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 USMS actively monitors district clearance of violent fugitives and has established two efficiency measures. They are: Number of primary violent Federal and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE and Number of primary Federal felony fugitives and state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE. The fugitive apprehension program maintained its level of efficiency with the former measure from 2005 to 2006 and was more efficient in the latter measure within the same time period. In addition, any state and local agency must enter into a memorandum of understanding with the USMS regarding how workload is assigned, how personnel are supervised, how data is entered into automated systems, and how equipment is shared. Additionally, the USMS is currently enhancing the Justice Detainee Information System (JDIS), which will combine all USMS fugitive and detainee databases. These enhancements will allow for USMS to track individuals from when a warrant is received to when they are no longer in USMS custody. This will reduce reentry of basic offender data between data systems, enabling increased efficiencies. Improvements to this system in the last two years include: 1) modifying calculations for Performance Measure Report based on new reporting requirements, 2) creating a new module to track the details of any district/regional task force in which the USMS is involved, and 3) creating a performance measures report on violent offenders. Currently, the system allows for Districts to share intelligence and create collateral leads that are more efficient than prior version of automated systems.

Evidence: MOU's with agencies, List of completed System Change Requests (SCR's) for JDIS.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The USMS works closely with other Federal agencies, as well as state and local law enforcement in its pursuit of fugitives. MOU's are created between Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to outline responsibilities in order to ensure there is no duplication of effort.

Evidence: The USMS is the lead agency in 85 fugitive task forces across the country involving Federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. This collaboration has resulted in 55,000 state and local fugitives cleared in FY06. Through the use of the task forces involving state and local agencies, fugitive apprehension efforts are vastly improved as leads can be investigated almost instantly by having an officer available in close proximity to the lead's location. MOUs with Federal, state and local agencies.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The USMS provides a detailed spending plan to Congress. The USMS also notifies Congress of changes in potential spending, 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. The audit also revealed two material weaknesses and found that the USMS's financial management systems did not comply with the requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996.

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.

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

Explanation: In response the to the 2005 OIG audit on the USMS Fugitive Apprehension Program, Senior inspectors monitor district performance in regards to apprehension of violent fugitives. Districts that do not meet the violent fugitive apprehension target receive inquiries by HQ based Senior Inspectors to determine the reason for not meeting this threshold. Headquarters Inspectors then work with the District to determine methods for achieving the target and continue to monitor closely until the target is reached. If the target is still not obtained, site visits and additional training are conducted. Finally, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's) have been developed for RFTF's and DFTF's. These SOP's detail the mission of these task forces, how to enter and monitor data, and policies and procedures unique to task forces. Additionally, headquarters publishes a monthly report comparing the number of warrants cleared by district. At USMS regional fugitive conferences, headquarters brings warrant supervisors from all district offices together to present and discuss "best practices." The goal is to share information about fugitive investigation and surveillance techniques. Finally, the fugitive apprehension program has also created the Chief Investigative Advisory Board (CIAB) which is comprised of Chief Deputies from throughout the nation. This Board meets twice a year to discuss and vote on any changes in policies and procedures that may be proposed by the Districts and Headquarters. This Board is designed to facilitate open communication between the field and Headquarters.

Evidence: OIG Audit (I-2005-008).Monthly reports comparing district warrant workload, and regional USMS fugitive conferences help improve management of the program. Warrant and Fugitive Clearance Performance Measures Report. Standard Operating Procedures for RFTFs and DFTFs.

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

Explanation: The USMS continues to make progress toward its long range goal of apprehending fugitives, particularly violent fugitives and executing Federal warrants. The number of Federal violent fugitives apprehended or cleared has increased 17% from FY2002 to FY2006. Additionally, the USMS has increased the number of state and local fugitives apprehended by 6% or more each year since 2002. The USMS updated their performance measures in FY2006 to better target resources and achieve the program's purpose, therefore they have not been able to demonstrate past progress towards these long term goals. However, based on mid year FY2007 data, they should meet their targets for both new long term measures this year. In prior performance measure reporting, the USMS has continually apprehended or cleared more Class 1 fugitives each year.

Evidence: The USMS has cleared 18,964 violent fugitives in FY2002, 21,693 in FY 2003, 27,300 in FY 2004, 36,243 in FY 2005, and 37,250 in FY 2006. FY2008 President's Budget fugitive apprehension performance table,OIG Audit Report (I-2005-008), FALCON I, II, and III press releases.

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

Explanation: The USMS monitors program and task force progress monthly, in addition to reporting on a quarterly basis primary performance measure information to DOJ. The fugitive apprehension program has recently established new annual performance measures and goals that better represent its mission focus of apprehending violent fugitives and has shown increased success on these measures. For example, the Number of primary violent Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared increased 17% from 2002 to 2006, the number of violent state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared approximately tripled from 2002 to 2006, the number of primary violent Federal felony and violent non-Federal felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE was maintained at 27 from 2005 to 2006, and number of primary Federal felony fugitives and state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE increased from 63 to 65 during the same time period. The USMS updated their performance measures in FY2006 to better target resources and achieve the program's purpose, therefore they have not been able to demonstrate past progress in achieving their annual goals. However, based on mid year FY2007 data, they are on track to meet their annual goals this year.

Evidence: FY2008 President's Budgets fugitive apprehension performance table, Quarterly Status Report EOY 2006.

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

Explanation: The USMS' former efficiency measure was "Class 1 warrants cleared per full cost FTE." This measure has been modified into more meaningful performance measures which more accurately capture the primary workload and focus of the fugitive program, the Attorney General and Congressional priorities. The two new measures are Number of primary violent Federal fugitives and violent non-Federal apprehended per full cost FTE and Number of primary Federal felony fugitives and state and local felony fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE. The baseline for the former measure is 27 and the baseline for the latter measure is 63. By increasing the number of fugitives apprehended or cleared per full cost FTE, the USMS can capture more fugitives with the same resources. Because the USMS have changed their efficiency measures, they do not have full year data to show that they are meeting the target levels, but they have demonstrated improvements in prior years and are on pace to surpass their FY 07 targets. The increase in efficiency can be attributed in large part to the increased coordination with state and local law enforcement organizations through both district and regional task forces and large scale efforts like the FALCON operation.

Evidence: FY2007 and FY2008 President's Budget Fugitive Apprehension performance tables.

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

Explanation: From FY2002 to FY2006, the USMS each year arrested a larger percentage of violent fugitives in which the USMS has primary execution authority compared to the percentage of arrests of violent fugitives by other Federal agencies in which other Federal law enforcement agencies had primary execution authority. For example, in FY2006 the USMS arrested 90% of violent fugitives under its execution authority, 10% more than the second most successful DOJ Federal law enforcement agency.

Evidence: The Presidential Threat Protection Act of 2000 (P.L. 106-544) gave the USMS the authority to establish permanent Fugitive Apprehension Task Forces consisting of Federal, state and local law enforcement. Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006. MOUs with other agencies, WIN data comparing USMS arrest of violent fugitives versus other Federal law enforcement agencies.

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

Explanation: The USMS is subjected to independent evaluations by the OIG and GAO. The fugitive apprehension program underwent an OIG audit in FY2004 and FY2005. In July, 2005, the report was issued. The OIG reported that "the performance of the USMS in apprehending violent fugitives improved significantly from FY2001 to FY2004. During that period, the USMS increased the number of violent fugitives apprehended by 51%. We also found that the USMS became more efficient in apprehending violent fugitives." In FY2006, the fugitive apprehension program underwent yet another OIG audit on USMS Task Force coordination with other DOJ investigative agencies. The USMS is currently awaiting a DOJ OIG audit report that examined USMS Task Forces coordination with other DOJ investigative agencies regarding the investigations to apprehend fugitives.

Evidence: OIG audit report I 2005-008, OIG Report "Review of Task Force Coordination, A-2005-011 Status Report for the Components", The draft report for the OIG audit on USMS Task Force coordination with other DOJ investigative agencies is expected to be submitted to the USMS for comment by FY 2007.