The United States Marshals Service Judicial Security Process

Evaluation and Inspections Report I-2007-010
September 2007
Office of the Inspector General

Appendix III
Results of the OIG’s Judicial Security
Inspector Survey

Introduction

  1. What level security clearance do you hold?

    2. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Top Secret 63 77
    Secret 18 22
    Don’t Know 1 1
    Total 82 100%

  2. Are you also a District Threat Investigator?

    3. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    No 35 43
    Yes 47 57
    Total 82 100%

  3. How many years have you been a District Threat Investigator for this district? (n=82)

    4. More than 3 years-34%, 3 years or less-5%, 2 years-1%, 1 year-5%, Less than 1 year-10%.

  4. Approximately how much of your time is spent investigating threats in a typical week?

    5. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    75% or more 0 0
    50% to 75% 1 1
    Between 25% and 50% 3 4
    25 % or less 41 50
    Non-DTIs 37 45
    Total 82 100%

  5. Did you attend the Protective Investigation Training Program held at FLETC during July and August?

    6. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    No 57 70
    Yes 25 30
    Total 82 100%

  6. How many years have you been the JSI for this district?

    7. Years of Experience as a JSI (n=82): More than 3 years-57%, 3 years or less-16%, 2 years-6%, 1 year-6%, Less than 1 year-15%.

  7. How many judges does your district currently provide protection for?

    8. The number of judges that district reported providing protection for ranged from 3 to 125.

  8. To whom do you offer security briefings? Check all that apply.

    9. Number of Districts Offering Security Briefings: Judges-82, Court Staff-74, Judges family-44, Other-34, None Offered-0.

  9. Approximately how many judges in your district have received a security briefing in the past 12 months?

    10. The number of judges that received a security briefing in the past 12 months ranged from 0 to 80.

  10. Approximately how many judges in your district have declined a security briefing in the past 12 months?

    11. The number of judges that declined a security briefing in the past 12 months ranged from 0 to 29.

  11. What is the most common reason given by judges for declining a security briefing in the past 12 months? Check one.

    12. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Insufficient threat 3 7
    No reason provided 14 35
    No time 10 25
    Security briefing is not useful 2 6
    Other 11 27
    Total 40 100%

  12. Approximately how many judges in your district have declined to provide a Judicial Personnel Profile?

    13. The number of judges that declined to provide a Judicial Personnel Profile ranged from 0 to 75. On average, six judges per district declined to provide one.

    Protective Details

  13. Who in your district primarily supervises protective details?

    14. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    US Marshal 0 0
    Chief DUSM 0 0
    Supervisory DUSM 5 6
    JSI 72 88
    Don't Know 4 5
    Other 1 1
    Total 82 100%

  14. Who in your district primarily coordinates with headquarters on resource requests for protective details over 72 hours?

    15. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    US Marshal 1 1
    Chief DUSM 8 11
    Supervisory DUSM 2 2
    JSI 65 79
    Don't Know 4 5
    Other 2 2
    Total 82 100%

    Office of Protective Intelligence

  15. In April 2006, USMS headquarters issued new directives on protective details and investigations, among others. Have you had the opportunity to review the new directives?

    16. USMS Directives (n=82): Yes-89%(73), No-6%(5), Not aware of new directives-5%(4).

  16. Please tell me how much you agree or disagree with the following statement: My district generally receives threat assessments from OPI in sufficient time to assist in conducting threat investigations.

    17. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Strongly Agree 23 28
    Agree 43 52
    No opinion 11 14
    Disagree 4 5
    Strongly Disagree 1 1
    Total 82 100%

  17. According to the new directives, OPI has 3 days to analyze expedited threats and 7 days to analyze standard threats. Is the 3-day time frame for expedited threats sufficient to assist you in conducting these types of threat investigations?

    18. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 45 55
    No 27 33
    Don’t Know 10 12
    Total 82 100%

  18. If no, what would be a sufficient timeframe for expedited threats?

    19. Suggested Timeframes Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Less than 1 day 1 4
    1 day 18 66
    2 days 8 30
    Total 27 100%

  19. Is the 7-day time frame for standard threats sufficient to assist you in conducting these types of threat investigations?

    20. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 60 73
    No 16 20
    Don’t Know 6 7
    Total 82 100%

  20. If no, what would be a sufficient timeframe for standard threats?

    21. Suggested Timeframes Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    5 days 7 44
    4 days 1 6
    3 days 5 31
    2 days 3 19
    Total 16 100%

  21. How useful is the Comparative Analysis score to your district in assessing threats?

    22. Comparative Analysis (n=82): Very useful-12%(10), somewhat useful-66%(54), not useful-9%(7), Don't know/No opinion-13%(11).

  22. Please explain your response to the previous question.

    23. The responses regarding the usefulness of the Comparative Analysis were grouped into 15 categories. The top five response categories were 1) views Comparative Analysis as another tool to make decisions; 2) general comment about Comparative Analysis not being useful; 3) respondents did not know how to interpret the score; 4) rely on information from the field more than Comparative Analysis score; and 5) use score to justify decisions to judges.

  23. In the past 12 months, has the Comparative Analysis score caused you to… Check all that apply.

    24. Possible Actions Taken Number of
    Responses
    Close an investigation? 14
    Re-open an investigation? 0
    Enhance a protective response? 6
    Discontinue a protective response? 4
    Confirm the investigator’s actions? 53
    Comparative Analysis score has had no impact 5

  24. How useful is the MOSAIC score to your district in assessing threats? (n=82)

    25. Very useful-6%(5), Somewhat useful-62%(51), Not useful-11%(3), Don't know/No opinion-21%(17).

  25. Please explain your response to the previous question.

    26. The responses regarding the usefulness of the MOSAIC were grouped into 14 categories. The top five response categories were 1) views MOSAIC as another tool to make decisions; 2) respondents did not know how to interpret the score; 3) rely on information from the field more than MOSAIC score; 4) use score to justify decisions to judges; and 5) general negative comment about MOSAIC.

  26. In the past 12 months, has the MOSAIC score caused you to… Check all that apply.

    27. Possible Actions Taken Number of
    Responses
    Close an investigation? 6
    Re-open an investigation? 1
    Enhance a protective response? 6
    Discontinue a protective response? 1
    Confirm the investigator’s actions? 49
    MOSAIC score has had no impact 19

  27. Have you received any TAVISS query results from OPI in the past 12 months?

    28. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 24 29
    No 40 49
    Don’t Know 18 22
    Total 82 100%

  28. How useful are the TAVISS query results to your investigations?

    29. TAVISS (n=24): Very useful-58%(14), Somewhat useful-38%(9), Not useful-0%, Don't know/No opinion-4%(1).

  29. Please explain your response to the previous question.

    30. The responses regarding the usefulness of TAVISS were grouped into 3 categories: 1) provides agency contacts; 2) overall positive comment; and 3) JSI had little knowledge of TAVISS.

  30. What other information does your district currently receive from OPI? Check all that apply.

    31. OPI Information Products (n=82): Threat advisories-80,Information Bulletins-80, Foreign travel briefs-59, Other-21, None-1, Don't know-2.

  31. How useful are the other information products from OPI we just listed to your investigations?

    32. Information Products (n=82): Very useful-45%(37), Somewhat useful-44%(36), Not useful-6%(5), Don't know/No opinion-4%(3), Not applicable-1%(1).

  32. Please explain your response to the previous question.

    33. The responses regarding the usefulness of the information products were grouped into 11 categories. The top five response categories were 1) overburden by amount of information provided by OPI; 2) information provided was not specific enough; 3) overall positive comment about the information products; 4) information serves as an alert to them; and 5) use information to keep judges and court family informed.

  33. What additional information do you need from OPI to better assist you in protecting the judiciary?

    34. JSIs identified a need in several areas that would assist them in protecting the judiciary. The responses were grouped into 9 categories and the top five response categories are: 1) nothing – overall positive comment about OPI; 2) summaries of threat information; 3) training (primarily on threat investigations); 4) more communication with districts; and 5) regionally focused bulletins, advisories, and local intelligence.

  34. Aside from reporting judicial threats for assessment, what other types of judicial security information does your district provide to OPI?

    35. The responses were grouped into 10 categories and the top five were: 1) no additional information provided to OPI; 2) information on high threat trials and courthouse incidents; 3) information on terrorist groups; 4) suspicious activity, subjects, and packages; and 5) other (i.e., background information).

    Threat Investigations

  35. Approximately how many threat investigations are currently open in your district?

    36. The responses to this question ranged from 0 to 100. On average, there were 7 open threat investigations per district.

  36. Please describe any working relationships—formal or informal—that your district has established with state or local law enforcement or state courts concerning the USMS’s judicial security mission.

    37. JSIs stated that they had good relationships with state and local law enforcement and state courts. Many participated on local task forces, conducted security seminars for state judges, or served a liaison for legal associations (e.g, ABA) in the area.

  37. Does your district generally contact the U.S. Attorneys Offices’ Intelligence Research Specialists during the course of threat investigations?

    38. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 30 37
    No 40 49
    Don’t Know 12 14
    Total 82 100%

  38. Is your district aware of any state and local law enforcement or court databases that contain information to assist the USMS in threat investigations?

    39. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 48 58
    No 22 27
    Don’t Know 12 15
    Total 82 100%

  39. Does your district routinely query these databases when investigating threats?

    40. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 43 52
    No 17 21
    Don’t Know 22 27
    Total 82 100%

  40. Does your district have direct access to these databases?

    41. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 34 42
    No 25 31
    Don’t Know 23 27
    Total 82 100%

  41. Who in your district is primarily responsible for entering threat information into WIN/JDIS/JDIS? Check one.

    42. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    JSI 13 16
    DTI 65 79
    Don’t Know 1 1
    Other 3 4
    Total 82 100%

  42. What percent of threat cases do you estimate district personnel enter into WIN/JDIS/JDIS?

    43. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    75% or more 63 77
    50-75% 5 6
    Between 25 and 50% 4 5
    25% or less 2 2
    Don’t Know 8 10
    Total 82 100%

  43. What is the most important factor that affects how quickly threat information is entered into WIN/JDIS/JDIS? Check one.

    44. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Staff workload 21 25
    Perceived severity of threat 41 50
    Date threat was reported to USMS 6 7
    Don’t Know 10 12
    Other 4 5
    Total 82 100%

    Director’s Initiatives

  44. Are you aware of an initiative to expand the use of TOG for judicial security operations?

    45. Aware of TOG Expansion (n=82): Yes-68%(56), No-32%(26).

  45. Who in your district normally requests assistance from TOG?

    46. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    US Marshal 1 1
    Chief DUSM 13 15
    Supervisory DUSM 2 3
    JSI 50 61
    DTI 9 11
    Don't Know 5 6
    Other 2 3
    Total 82 100%

  46. Has your district requested TOG assistance for judicial security at any time in the past 12 months?

    47. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 24 29
    No 54 66
    Don’t Know 4 5
    Total 82 100%

  47. If no, the district did not request TOG assistance because:

    48. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Not aware of TOG capabilities 2 4
    No need for TOG assistance 50 92
    Not aware of TOG availability 0 0
    Other 2 4
    Total 54 100%

  48. Are you aware of the Director’s recent initiative that created Rapid Deployment Teams (RDT) to assist districts in crisis situations involving judicial security?

    49. Rapid Deployment Teams (n=82): Yes-39%(32), No-55%(45), Don't know-6%(5).

  49. Who in your district would request RDT assistance?

    50. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    US Marshal 2 3
    Chief DUSM 32 39
    Supervisory DUSM 1 1
    JSI 35 43
    Don't Know 12 14
    Other 0 0
    Total 82 100%

  50. Has your district requested a Rapid Deployment Team at any time in the past 12 months?

    51. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Yes 1 1
    No 79 97
    Don’t Know 2 2
    Total 82 100%

  51. If no, the district did not request any RDT assistance because:

    52. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Not aware of RDT capabilities 3 4
    Not aware of RDT availability 23 29
    No need for RDT assistance 51 64
    Other 2 3
    Total 79 100%

    FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF)

  52. Does your district have a JTTF representative?

    53. JTTF Representation (n=82): Yes-63%(52), No-37%(30).

  53. If yes, is the representative a full-time or part-time member of the JTTF?

    54. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Full-time 18 35
    Part-time 31 59
    Don't Know 3 6
    Total 52 100%

  54. How much interaction or communication do you have with the JTTF representative?

    55. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Daily 26 50
    Weekly 12 23
    Less than once a month 3 6
    Monthly 4 8
    None 7 13
    Total 52 100%

  55. How would you rate the usefulness of your district having representation on the JTTF to the judicial security mission?

    56. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Not Useful 7 13
    Somewhat Useful 13 25
    Very Useful 22 43
    Don't Know/No opinion 10 19
    Total 52 100%

  56. How would you rate the overall usefulness of your district having representation on the JTTF?

    57. Response Choices Number of
    Responses     		Percentage
    Not Useful 2 4
    Somewhat Useful 13 25
    Very Useful 28 54
    Don't Know/No opinion 9 17
    Total 52 100%


« Previous Table of Contents Next »