Vol. 37, Number 2 —February 2005

Cost of Federal Protective Services too High for Judiciary

Since 1999, the cost of security-related services provided by the Federal Protective Services in federal court facilities increased by more than 25 percent per year. Now, as part of the Judiciary’s cost-containment initiative, courts are being asked to curtail existing FPS services, which in many cases appear to duplicate services provided by the U.S. Marshals through the Judiciary-funded Court Security Officer program. Additionally, no funding will be available for any new requests associated with FPS contract guards and coverage. The reduction will not affect court security.

“Because Court Security Officers are already on-site,” said Judge Jane Roth (3 rd Cir.), chair of the Judicial Conference Committee on Security and Facilities, “FPS contract guard services can be reduced at these facilities without affecting the ability of the district’s U.S. Marshal to provide adequate court security.”

Roth’s Committee has oversight in this area and is seeking to control security costs while maintaining adequate court security.

Billings to the Judiciary for FPS services have grown from about $19 million in fiscal year 1999 to over $79 million in FY 2005. Action is required because Congress appropriated only $58 million to cover these services in FY 2005.The Conference’s Executive and Budget Committees have expressed concerns about rising FPS costs.

“We are currently receiving bills from FPS,” Roth wrote to all chief judges in January 2005, “that are almost 40 percent higher than those we received last year, and the FY 2005 appropriation for court security does not provide sufficient funds to pay these bills.”

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the transfer of the FPS from the General Services Administration to the Department of Homeland Security, rising FPS administrative costs, and the higher cost of guard services across the country were factors in the increase. Initially, some security services were funded directly by FPS from a supplemental security appropriation provided by Congress after the 9-11 attacks. These supplemental funds have been exhausted and FPS now has passed those costs on to building occupants—in this case, to the Judiciary.

“Apparently,” said Roth, “this has been done in some instances without any notification to the Judiciary or discussion about the need for this supplemental security.”

To achieve the required savings and to avoid cutbacks in other areas of the Judiciary’s budget, Roth advised chief judges, with the approval of the Judicial Conference Executive Committee, that it will be necessary to roll back FPS security charges to the FY 2003 level. The Committee on Security and Facilities has urged chief judges and the local districts’ court security committees to be involved in any reductions.

“Unless we begin to reduce FPS contract guard costs immediately,” Roth warned, “ we will be forced . . . to pay for these expenses from funding provided by Congress for court security officers and/or security equipment.” Congress also may direct the Judiciary to transfer funds out of the already constrained Salaries and Expenses account—further reducing funds for court staffing. In FY 2004, budget constraints in the Salaries and Expenses account resulted in a 6 percent reduction in the number of Judiciary employees nationwide.