SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Scope
We assessed the effectiveness of AIS services within the USMS. We conducted our fieldwork at USMS Headquarters. We performed site reviews at 20 district offices or suboffices located throughout the United States. The review period was October 1, 1991 through September 30, 1995.
Methodology
We performed the audit in accordance with generally accepted government audit standards. To accomplish the audit we: (1) interviewed responsible officials; (2) reviewed processes used for AIS acquisitions; (3) reviewed the implementation of MARSHALS, WIN, and PTS; (4) reviewed MARSHALS computer security procedures related to District and suboffice operations; and (5) interviewed USMS officials regarding the USMS's data processing environment including hardware, software, and operating costs. We also developed a survey which is described in Appendix IV.
We reviewed the USMS AIS planning process through interviews with individual program managers from operating divisions. We also interviewed representatives of the JMD Systems Policy Staff. We used DOJ Order 2830.1D Automated Information System Policies, and associated JMD publication Automated Information Systems (AIS) Planning Methodology as criteria for assessing the USMS AIS planning process. Additionally, we reviewed the USMS AIS Strategic Plan 1993 through 1997 and Tactical Plan 1993 through 1995 by interviewing specific program managers and project leaders to learn the status (progress toward full achievement) of the individual AIS system described in the plans. Finally, we interviewed USMS Information Services Division personnel and other program managers.
USMS AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
Automated Booking Station: designed to maintain prisoner data, capturing and printing of mugshots, and latent capture of fingerprint data for submittal to the FBI in a single automated process. Scanners are used for fingerprints and video cameras are used for photo images, which are digitized and stored electronically.
Automated Management and Personnel System (AMPS): designed to be used for electronic mail, entering and tracking the status of projects assigned to the Human Resource Staff, correspondence tracking, personnel action tracking, medical tracking and disciplinary case tracking.
Centralized Prisoner Database: contains all active prisoners in the custody of the USMS in all network PTS districts. The prisoner data is downloaded from such districts each day.
Correspondence Tracking System: the Office of Policy and Communications uses this system to track correspondence from Congress and other Executive agencies.
Debt Collection System: the Office of Special Services uses the system for recording information on debt collection endeavors and collections from 12 pilot districts.
Decision Support System: provides management with three types of functional reports: processes (recurring statistical reports showing unusual changes in workload, resource utilization, or performance); district and program profiles with an emphasis on management controls; and open formats to address events and issues in federal law enforcement that may affect the USMS.
District Time Utilization System: captures time utilization data for district employees and guards.
Financial Management Information System: the official financial management system of DOJ used to integrate the various accounting systems of the Department.
Financial Management System: used to support decision-making regarding the allocation of resources, the monitoring of operating plans, and the preparation of budget estimates.
APPENDIX II(CONT)
USMS AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
General Counsel Case Tracking System: maintains brief synopses of the cases by case number, case name, or description and permits modification or deletion of information handled by the Office of General Counsel.
Inventory Management/Hand Receipt System: an accountable property system used by the USMS. Property custodians in district offices and divisions are responsible for the system.
Information Services Division Help Desk Tracking System: used to track calls to the Help Desk. The database stores information and generates reports that can be used to improve both the efficiency and the timeliness of the support staff's response to computer hardware and software problems at Headquarters and in the district offices.
Jail Contract Management System: used by the Prisoner Operations Division to maintain records of contracts between the USMS and jails used to house prisoners in USMS custody. Data is collected and stored at Headquarters and is available to district offices.
Jail Inspection Scheduling System: used by the Prisoner Operations Division to identify the status of annual jail inspections and jails that are part of the Cooperative Agreement Program.
Marshals Automated Resources to Support Headquarters and Local Systems (MARSHALS): included acquiring data processing, network, and communication hardware and installing it in USMS district offices and suboffices in order to set up local area networks.
Prisoner Tracking System (PTS): the replacement for the Prisoner Population Management System (PPMS). PTS supports the handling of Federal prisoners in the USMS district offices and suboffices.
Procurement Automation Project: allows the Small Purchases Branch personnel to create purchase orders.
Project Tracking System: designed to track the status of all projects.
APPENDIX II(CONT)
USMS AUTOMATED SYSTEMS
Security Clearance Tracking System: the system used to monitor the Badge and Card Clearance process for USMS personnel and applicants was enhanced to include record keeping on all badges, credentials, and access cards issued to USMS personnel.
Seized Assets Management System (SAMS): supports the USMS Asset Forfeiture Program by tracking asset forfeitures. The system is being phased out and will be replaced by the Department's Consolidated Asset Tracking System.
Subscriber Services to Financial Data: used by USMS inspectors to locate persons and organizations in debt to the U.S. Government and to identify and locate their assets.
Threat Intelligence Computer System: used by the Threats Analysis Division to support investigative and analytical operations.
Warrant Information Network (WIN): supports the handling of Class I & II warrants, which include escape and rescue statutes, bond default violators, parole violators, probation violators, bench warrants, and warrants from agencies without the powers of arrest in USMS district offices and sub-offices. It provides automated recording and tracking of federal warrants and their associated fugitives, along with the capabilities of suspending and closing warrants, database queries, and report generation for district and program management.
Workflow Automation Project (WAP): geared to review the current personnel system processes and work flows to identify potentials for automation. Part of the effort would modify and enhance the Automated Management and Personnel System, the Deputy Applicant Recruiting and Tracking System, the Merit Promotion Database, and the Automation of the Official Personnel Folders.
PRIOR REPORTS
The USMS information systems have been the subject of several prior reviews and audits.
· A 1989 JMD Audit Staff special audit of the USMS noted that required AIS planning was non-existent, fragmented AIS responsibility hindered knowledge and control of projects, and significant delays occurred in implementing projects.
· A 1990 OIG audit report on management of seized and forfeited assets in the Department noted significant weaknesses in the USMS' automated systems for managing seized assets.
· A 1993 OIG audit report on the USMS responsibilities under the Witness Security Program noted that the Witness Security Division needed a computer system capable of providing information necessary to adequately administer its program
· A 1993 OIG inspection of the USMS Office of Inspections' program for handling allegations of misconduct noted that the Investigations Division had acted to enhance the limited capabilities of its data processing system to support the investigations program.
· A 1994 OIG audit of the USMS maintenance and disposal of seized assets noted significant errors and omissions of data in the Seized Assets Management System database.
· A 1994 OIG audit of Computer Security Controls at the USMS noted that computer security training had not been completed as required and all required risk analyses and contingency plans had not been completed.
· A 1995 review by the JMD Systems Policy Staff noted that the USMS did not have a method of tracking its expenditures by project or by AIS authority, both of which are necessary for proper management of resources.
· A 1995 review by the JMD Computer and Telecommunications Security Staff noted that the roles and responsibilities for computer security were not clearly defined and all necessary contingency plans were not completed.
USMS AIS USERS SURVEY RESULTS
We surveyed 3,568 USMS field employees to obtain their perspectives on management of
AIS. We received 898 responses (25 percent). The figures below represent the responses to
the question in the appropriate boxes. The percentages indicate the percentage of the
total who responded to each question in the category.
TRAINING
| In general, indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following: | Strongly |
Somewhat |
Neither |
Somewhat |
Strongly |
No Basis to Judge |
| a. Training in the use of the USMS M-Net system has been adequate to perform my job. |
37 4.1% |
171 19.0% |
106 11.8% |
166 18.5% |
239 26.6% |
179 20% |
| b. Training in the use of specific USMS computer applications (WIN, PTS, FMIS, WordPerfect, etc.) has been adequate to perform my job. | 62 6.9% |
247 27.5% |
65 7.2% |
217 24.2% |
262 29.2% |
45 5.0% |
| c. Training by Information Services Division (ISD) in the use of the computer system would help me to perform my job better and more efficiently. | 476 53.0% |
212 23.6% |
89 9.9% |
15 1.7% |
27 3.0% |
79 8.8% |
| d. All district office personnel who perform similar tasks were trained by ISD (or a contracted representative) when the M-Net system was initially installed. | 31 3.4% |
104 11.6% |
95 10.6% |
106 11.8% |
262 29.2% |
300 33.4% |
| e. A limited amount of computer training in both M-Net and specific applications would benefit me in performing my job. | 430 47.9% |
289 32.2% |
68 7.6% |
21 2.3% |
17 1.9% |
73 8.1% |
| f. Periodic refresher training would update and refresh my understanding of USMS computer systems. | 557 62.0% |
234 26.1% |
60 6.7% |
11 1.2% |
10 1.1% |
26 2.9% |
APPENDIX IV (CONT)
UTILIZATION
| Please indicate the extent to which you use the following USMS automated systems in your work: | Frequently Use |
Occasionally Use |
Rarely Use |
Never Use |
Not Familiar |
| a. Seized Asset Management (SAM) | 119 13.3% |
80 8.9% |
115 12.8% |
379 42.2% |
205 22.8% |
| b. Prisoner Tracking System (PTS) | 394 43.9% |
221 24.6% |
98 10.9% |
127 14.1% |
58 6.5% |
| c. Warrant Information Network (WIN) | 150 16.7% |
139 15.5% |
97 10.8% |
299 33.3% |
213 23.7% |
| 1-Accessed through M-Net | 91 10.1% |
91 10.1% |
48 5.4% |
151 16.8% |
517 57.6% |
| 2-Accessed through Modem | 102 11.4% |
90 10.0% |
39 4.3% |
167 18.6% |
500 55.7% |
| d. FMIS | 164 18.3% |
71 7.9% |
66 7.3% |
300 33.4% |
297 33.1% |
| e. Word Perfect | 649 72.3% |
150 16.7% |
34 3.8% |
37 4.1% |
28 3.1% |
| f. E-Mail | 341 38.0% |
205 22.8% |
124 13.8% |
138 15.4% |
90 10.0% |
| g. File Transfers | 71 7.9% |
62 6.9% |
92 10.2% |
295 32.9% |
378 42.1% |
APPENDIX IV (CONT)
ISD HELP DESK
| Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements: | Strongly |
Somewhat |
Neither |
Somewhat |
Strongly |
No Basis to |
| a. I have been satisfied with the speed of the Help Desk response to questions I have asked. | 52 5.8% |
136 15.1% |
102 11.4% |
104 11.6% |
141 15.7% |
363 40.4% |
| b. I have been satisfied with the technical responses from Help Desk Personnel. | 66 7.4% |
152 16.9% |
100 11.1% |
107 11.9% |
106 11.8% |
367 40.9% |
| c. I feel free to ask questions of the Help Desk concerning USMS automated systems (both network and specific applications). | 123 13.7% |
169 18.8% |
129 14.4% |
71 7.9% |
70 7.8% |
336 37.4% |
| d. I avoid calling the Help Desk because of poor experiences in the past. | 107 11.9% |
124 13.8% |
140 15.6% |
55 6.1% |
102 11.4% |
370 41.2% |
| e. I avoid calling the Help Desk because technical information is difficult to communicate by telephone. | 62 6.9% |
110 12.3% |
178 19.8% |
80 8.9% |
105 11.7% |
363 40.4% |
| f. I would prefer to have an ISD computer professional come to the office to help me and to work on computer problems. | 304 33.9% |
171 19.0% |
151 16.8% |
32 3.6% |
28 3.1% |
212 23.6% |
| g. The quality of Help Desk services has improved over the past six months. | 43 4.8% |
99 11.0% |
220 24.5% |
28 3.1% |
44 4.9% |
464 51.7% |
| h. The quality of Help Desk services has remained the same over the past six months. | 24 2.7% |
62 6.9% |
252 28.1% |
47 5.2% |
48 5.4% |
465 51.8% |
| i. The quality of Help Desk services has declined over the past six months. | 14 1.6% |
22 2.4% |
268 29.8% |
50 5.6% |
68 7.6% |
476 53.0% |
APPENDIX IV (CONT)
SENIOR SYSTEMS ADMINISTRATORS (SSA)
| Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. | Strongly |
Somewhat |
Neither Agree nor |
Somewhat |
Strongly |
No |
| a. I know who the senior systems administrator (SSA) is for this district office (or sub-office), and how to contact him/her with a computer problem. | 369 41.1% |
111 12.4% |
38 4.2% |
36 4.0% |
179 19.9% |
165 18.4% |
| b. The SSA for this district travels to this district office routinely. | 135 15.0% |
66 7.4% |
79 8.8% |
61 6.8% |
290 32.3% |
267 29.7% |
| c. The quality of SSA services has improved over the past six months. | 98 10.9% |
77 8.6% |
200 22.3% |
41 4.5% |
131 14.6% |
351 39.1% |
| e. The quality of SSA services has remained the same over the past six months. | 86 9.6% |
78 8.7% |
237 26.4% |
46 5.1% |
69 7.7% |
382 42.5% |
| f. The quality of SSA services has declined over the past six months. | 21 2.4% |
27 3.0% |
258 28.7% |
64 7.1% |
122 13.6% |
406 45.2% |
| g. I have been satisfied with the speed of the SSA's response to my questions. | 174 19.4% |
124 13.8% |
116 12.9% |
58 6.5% |
89 9.9% |
337 37.5% |
COMPUTER KNOWLEDGE
|
#####