Accessible Version

FEDERAL

JUDICIARY 

Improvements 

Needed for Collecting 

Judges' Non-CaseRelated Travel 

Information

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

the Judiciary, U.S. Senate

December 2015

GAO-16-70

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-70, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. 

Senate

December 2015

FEDERAL JUDICIARY

Improvements Needed for Collecting Judges' NonCase-Related Travel Information

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal judiciary consists of a 

system of courts that has the critical 

responsibility of ensuring the fair and 

swift administration of justice in the 

United States. Employees and judges 

within the judiciary travel for a variety 

purposes, including attending 

conferences for training and 

conducting judicial administration. For 

judges, travel not directly related to 

adjudicating cases has been termed 

NCR travel. 

GAO was asked to review the 

judiciary’s costs of judges’ NCR travel 

and conferences. This report examines

the following: (1) What has been the 

cost of judges’ NCR travel from fiscal 

years 2003 through 2014 and to what 

extent does the judiciary collect 

information on its costs for judges’ 

NCR travel? (2) How much did the 

judiciary spend on all conferences 

over $100,000 for its employees in 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and to 

what extent did selected conferences 

conform to judiciary policy on 

conferences? GAO analyzed judges’ 

NCR travel data from fiscal years 2003 

through 2014, reviewed procedures for 

collection of NCR travel information, 

and interviewed judiciary officials. GAO 

reviewed judiciary policy for 

conference planning and 

administration, information from a nongeneralizable sample of eight 

conferences, and interviewed judicial 

officials responsible for planning the 

conferences. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends AOUSC improve its 

data collection system to collect and 

identify judges’ NCR travel costs paid 

by the judiciary. AOUSC agreed with 

our recommendation.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2003 through 2014, judges have used a separate system to 

report their non-case-related (NCR) travel costs paid for by government and 

private sources. These NCR travel costs averaged $8.8 million per year. 

However, while the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) tracks the 

costs of all official travel in its accounting systems of record, the NCR system 

does not collect specific information on the direct costs to the federal judiciary for 

judges’ NCR travel. GAO found that AOUSC’s data collection system for judges’ 

NCR travel information lacked controls to standardize responses to accurately 

record whether NCR travel was paid for by a court or judicial agency versus other 

federal agencies or private entities. As a result of these limitations in the NCR 

travel data, GAO was not able to determine the extent to which those reported 

costs were paid using judiciary funds rather than other federal or private sources. 

According to AOUSC officials, as of November 2015, AOUSC has not decided to 

change the way the Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel Reporting System collects 

judges’ NCR travel information, but is considering making improvements to the 

system to better collect judges’ NCR travel information, including collecting the 

judiciary’s costs of judges’ NCR travel. According to the 2015 Strategic Plan for 

the Federal Judiciary, the judiciary must provide Congress timely and accurate 

information about issues affecting the administration of justice. By improving the 

system, AOUSC officials would be able to better collect required NCR travel 

information from judges and identify and report the judiciary’s costs for judges’ 

NCR travel in response to future congressional member requests.

The judiciary spent $11.5 million on 61 conferences costing over $100,000 in 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014. AOUSC began collecting information on judiciary 

conference spending across all courts and judicial agencies in fiscal year 2013 

for conferences costing over $100,000. This information was used to develop 

publically available reports and indicated the judiciary spent $4.6 million in fiscal 

year 2013 and $6.9 million in fiscal year 2014 for conferences costing over 

$100,000. 

The judiciary followed its policies for conference planning and administration. 

GAO sampled 8 conferences from the 61 conferences held in fiscal years 2013 

and 2014 costing over $100,000 and determined the extent to which those 

conferences conformed to judiciary policy on conference planning and 

administration. GAO’s results cannot be generalized to all conferences costing 

over $100,000 conducted by the judiciary, but do provide insight into the 

judiciary’s compliance with its conference policies. Conference planners for the 8

conferences GAO sampled followed judiciary policy for conference planning and 

administration including (1) cost considerations— suggested strategies to reduce 

administrative, conferee travel, lodging, meeting room, and technology costs—

(2) management considerations and internal controls: judiciary requirements for 

internal controls and management oversight of conference planning and 

implementation— and (3) conference site selection— a requirement to perform 

cost comparisons of at least two potential conference sites and document 

alternative sites considered and the rationale used for selecting the conference 

site. 

View GAO-16-70. For more information, 

contact David Maurer at (202) 512-8777 or 

maurerd@gao.gov.
Letter 1

Page i GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Background 4

Judges’ Reported NCR Travel Costs Averaged $8.8 Million per 

Year, but AOUSC Does Not Collect Specific Information on the 

Direct Costs to the Judiciary 8

The Judiciary Spent $11.5 Million on Conferences Costing over 

$100,000 and Followed Policies for Conference Planning and 

Administration 11

Conclusions 17

Recommendation for Executive Action 17

Agency Comments on Our Evaluation 17

Appendix I: List of Judiciary Conferences over $100,000, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014 19

Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts 21

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 23

GAO Contacts 23

Staff Acknowledgements 23

Appendix IV: Accessible Data 24

Agency Comment Letter 24

Tables

Table 1: Judiciary Total and Travel Obligations, Fiscal Years 2003 to 

2014 (Dollars in thousands) 5

Table 2: Characteristics of GAO Sample of 8 Judiciary Conferences 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Abbreviations:

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

APE authorization for project expenditures 

BCA Budget Control Act of 2011

BOC budget object classification

FJC Federal Judicial Center 

NCR non-case-related

TDY temporary duty

USSC U.S. Sentencing Commission

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

December 16, 2015

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Committee on the Judiciary

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The federal judiciary consists of a system of courts that has the critical 

responsibility of ensuring the fair and swift administration of justice in the 

United States and handles all federal civil, criminal, and bankruptcy cases 

and review of administrative agency cases throughout the country. The 

judiciary also includes several agencies and judicial bodies that provide 

for its administration, self-governance, research, education, and training. 

Judiciary employees and judges travel to fulfill their case-related duties, 

and they also travel to attend conferences for a variety of purposes such 

as employee orientation, training, and meetings to conduct judicial 

administration.1 For judges, travel for conferences, training, and meetings is 

considered travel not directly related to adjudicating cases, or non-case-related 

(NCR) travel.2

As we reported in June 2013, the judiciary has been affected by 

decreasing resources, and has been identifying and implementing options 

for saving money and increasing efficiency.3 Further, as we reported in 

November 2015, the judiciary has been affected by mandatory sequestration cuts 

 

1For the purposes of this report, a “conference” is defined as a meeting, retreat, seminar, 

symposium, event, or training that involves attendee travel.

2According to Administrative Office of U.S. Courts (AOUSC) officials, all judiciary-funded travel, 

whether for judicial administration, attendance at judiciary-sponsored educational or other 

conference, or relating to a specific case, is considered by the judiciary as essential, 

business-related travel. Further, although the judiciary considers these travel purposes 

essential to the conduct of its business, it has been asked by some in Congress to 

separately track and report these categories of travel as a matter of interest to Congress. 

For this limited purpose the judiciary has defined “non-case-related” in the Guide to 

Judiciary Policy’s Travel Regulations for Justices and Judges.

3GAO, Federal Judiciary: Efforts to Consolidate and Share Services between District and 

Bankruptcy Clerks’ Offices, GAO-13-531 (Washington, D.C.: June 13, 2013).

Letter
to its budget in fiscal year 2013 by $346 million, or by about 5 percent.

Page 2 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

4

Current law requires government-wide limits in discretionary appropriations 

through fiscal year 2021 and sequestration of direct spending through fiscal year 

2025.5 With the judiciary’s decrease in resources, Members of Congress have 

questioned the appropriateness of the judiciary’s costs of travel and 

conferences, such as judiciary conferences that have been held at resorts 

in Maui, Hawaii, in 2012 and Colorado Springs, Colorado, in 2013.

This report addresses the following questions: (1) What has been the cost 

of judges’ NCR travel from fiscal years 2003 through 2014, and to what 

extent does the judiciary collect information on its costs for judges’ NCR 

travel? (2) How much did the judiciary spend on all conferences over 

$100,000 for its employees in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and to what 

extent did selected conferences conform to judiciary policy on 

conferences?

To determine the costs of judges’ NCR travel, we analyzed data on 

judges’ NCR travel from fiscal years 2003 through 2014, a time period for 

which data were available on the costs of judges’ NCR travel. To 

determine the reliability of judges’ NCR travel data, we conducted data 

testing, interviewed judiciary officials responsible for collecting and 

maintaining the data, and reviewed related documentation such as user 

guides. We determined that some of these data were sufficiently reliable 

to provide an average and range of reported NCR travel costs over fiscal 

years 2003 through 2014, but have limitations discussed later in the 

report. We assessed our findings related to the judiciary’s collection and 

management practices of judges’ NCR travel data against standards in 

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

6 Although the 

judiciary is not required by law to abide by the Standards for Internal

Control, the management controls described in the Standards for Internal 

 

4GAO, Federal Judiciary: Improved Cost Estimates Could Help Better Assess Cost Containment 

Efforts, GAO-16-97 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 10, 2015)

5The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) establishes discretionary spending limits through 

fiscal year 2021. 2 U.S.C. § 901. If Congress and the President enact appropriations that 

exceed these discretionary spending limits, there will be an after session sequestration to 

eliminate the breach. The BCA, as amended, also imposes a sequestration process of 

discretionary appropriations through fiscal year 2021 and of direct spending through fiscal 

year 2025. 2 U.S.C. § 901a.

6GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, DC: November 1999). 
Control are consistent with the management practices of leading 

organizations.

To determine the judiciary’s costs associated with conferences costing 

over $100,000, we obtained, reviewed, and analyzed available

information on the judiciary’s conference costs; specifically, reports on 

conferences costing over $100,000 for fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

Page 3 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

7 To 

determine the reliability of data included in these reports, we interviewed 

judiciary officials responsible for developing the reports and reviewed 

documentation such as instructions for tracking conference costs and 

user manuals for financial systems. We found these data were sufficiently 

reliable for our reporting purposes. To determine the extent to which 

conferences conformed to judiciary policy, we reviewed judiciary policies 

and relevant laws and statutes, and interviewed judiciary officials.8 We 

also selected a sample of eight conferences costing over $100,000 

conducted in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, including a random sample of 

four circuit judicial conferences, and four other kinds of conferences 

based on a non-generalizable sample considering factors such as cost 

per person. For each sample conference, we interviewed judiciary 

officials and reviewed supporting information, which included cost 

comparisons, budget information, documentation of the rationale for the 

conference site selection, lists of cost-saving actions, and documentation 

for internal controls required in judiciary guidance for conference 

oversight and approval by senior judiciary officials. To determine the 

extent to which conference organizers considered various judiciary cost 

and management practices, we analyzed written responses from 

organizers of each conference about how they considered 40 different 

cost and management factors suggested in the guidance, and whether 

they had the documentation required by judiciary policy. Our observations 

among the eight conferences sampled are not generalizable to all 

conferences conducted by the judiciary, but do provide insights into how 

conference planners followed policy.

 

7AOUSC, Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 19, Ch. 9, Meeting and Planning Administration

(Washington, D.C.: March 17, 2015) or judiciary policy for conference planning and 

administration specifies reporting requirements for all judiciary conferences costing over 

$100,000, which began in fiscal year 2013. 

8Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 19, Ch. 9 Meeting and Planning Administration.
We conducted this performance audit from February 2015 to December 

2015 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The judiciary’s system of courts consists of the Supreme Court, 12 

regional circuit courts of appeals, 94 district courts, and 91 bankruptcy 

courts, as well as courts of special jurisdiction and including the Court of 

Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Court of International Trade, and the 

Court of Federal Claims. The judiciary also includes the following 

agencies:

· Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC): provides a 

variety of support services to U.S. courts, including administrative, 

technological and legal services.

· Federal Judicial Center (FJC): an independent agency within the 

judiciary that provides research and evaluation of judicial 

operation and provides education and training.

· U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC): an independent agency 

within the judiciary that provides education and training on 

sentencing, and promulgates sentencing policies, practices, and 

guidelines for the federal criminal justice system.

From fiscal years 2003 through 2014, judiciary obligations for travel 

ranged from $45.3 million to $82.8 million, or 0.72 to 1.16 percent of total 

judiciary obligations.

Page 4 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

9 Table 1 shows total and travel obligations for the 

 

9The judiciary uses an obligational accounting system to control, monitor, and report on the status 

of its budgetary resources and budget object classifications (BOC) as a framework for categorizing 

obligations. An obligation is a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of an agency 

for the payment of goods or services received. An agency incurs an obligation, for 

example, when it places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, purchases services, or 

takes other actions that require the government to make payments to the public or from 

one government account to another. See GAO, A Glossary of Terms Used in the Federal 

Budget Process, GAO-05-734SP (Washington, D.C.: September 2005). BOCs are a 

system of obligations that presents obligations by items or services purchased by the 

federal government, including travel. The BOC category for travel includes travel and 

transportation costs of government employees and other persons who, while in an 

authorized travel status, are to be paid by the government either directly or by reimbursing 

the traveler, see Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-11, section 83.6 

(2015).These travel obligation amounts do not include travel costs for jurors. 

Background
judiciary from fiscal years 2003 through 2014. During the fiscal year 2013 

sequestration, judiciary obligations for travel decreased from $66.3 

million, which had been the obligation in fiscal year 2012, to $50.2 million 

(a decrease of approximately 24 percent). This decrease in the travel 

obligations is consistent with an overall decrease in the total judiciary 

obligations during the fiscal year 2013 sequestration (from $7.3 billion in 

fiscal year 2012 to $6.9 billion in fiscal year 2013).

Table 1: Judiciary Total and Travel Obligations, Fiscal Years 2003 to 2014 

Page 5 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

(Dollars in thousands) 

Fiscal year Total obligation Travel obligation

Percentage of travel 

from total obligations

2003 $5,159,222 $50,410 0.98%

2004 $5,479,107 $45,395 0.83%

2005 $5,651,595 $50,624 0.90%

2006 $5,955,453 $62,663 1.05%

2007 $6,223,172 $60,997 0.98%

2008 $6,487,519 $74,268 1.14%

2009 $6,788,760 $77,609 1.14%

2010 $7,174,198 $82,880 1.16%

2011 $7,326,902 $75,743 1.03%

2012 $7,251,129 $66,332 0.91%

2013 $6,931,386 $50,220 0.72%

2014 $7,143,120 $58,038 0.81%

Source: GAO analysis of judiciary data. | GAO-16-70

Note: The term obligation refers to a definite commitment that creates a legal liability of an agency for 

the payment of goods or services received. Travel obligations shown above exclude travel costs for 

jurors.

Judiciary travel regulations require judges to report their NCR travel.10

Each judge must prepare and file a report disclosing the NCR travel 

undertaken by the judge during the previous calendar year utilizing the 

 

10According to the Guide to Judiciary Policy’s Travel Regulations for Justices and Judges, NCR 

travel means travel undertaken by a judge (1) that is not directly related to any case or cases 

assigned to the judge; (2) that involves judicial administration, training, education, and extrajudicial activities as permitted by law and encouraged by the Code of Conduct for United 

States Judges; and (3) for which the necessary transportation, lodging, and miscellaneous 

expenses incurred by the judge are paid for directly or by reimbursement to the judge, by 

another person, an organization, or an agency of the federal government. 

Judges’ NCR Travel 

Policies
Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel Reporting System. This system, which 

is administered by AOUSC, requires judges to report the details about 

their NCR travel, specifically dates of travel, total expense or cost of 

travel, name of sponsor of travel or funder, sources of funds expended for 

travel, and purpose of NCR travel. Judges’ NCR travel, in some 

instances, may be paid for by entities other than the judiciary; for 

example, agencies within the executive branch or private organizations to 

support extrajudicial activities.

Page 6 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

11

According to AOUSC officials, the judiciary implemented reporting 

requirements for judges’ NCR travel in response to periodic congressional 

requests AOUSC received related to judges’ NCR travel. As directed by 

the Judicial Conference of the United States, AOUSC amended its travel 

regulations for judges in 1999 to include a requirement for judges to 

annually report instances of NCR travel. According to AOUSC officials, 

since the inception of the Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel Reporting 

System in 1999, NCR travel data have been used on four occasions as 

the source of information to respond to specific inquiries from Members of 

Congress about certain conferences or specific courts.

Courts and judicial agencies conduct conferences provided for by statute. 

The Judicial Conference of the United States is statutorily required to 

meet annually, but may meet as many times as the Chief Justice of the 

United States may designate.12 Circuit judicial conferences are authorized to 

meet annually or biennially as determined by the chief judge of each circuit.13

The purpose of a circuit judicial conference is to consider the business of 

courts and administration of justice within that circuit. FJC conducts 

conferences for continuing education and training for personnel of the 

 

11According to Canon 4 of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, a judge may engage in

extrajudicial activities, including law-related pursuits and civic, charitable, educational, 

religious, social, financial, fiduciary, and governmental activities, and may speak, write, 

lecture, and teach on both law-related and nonlegal subjects. A judge may accept 

compensation and reimbursement of expenses for the law-related and extrajudicial 

activities and is required to make financial disclosures, including disclosures of gifts and 

other things of value, including travel expenses. 

1228 U.S.C. § 331; The Judicial Conference of the United States, a body of 27 judges over 

which the Chief Justice of the United States presides, is the judiciary’s principal 

policymaking body and operates through a network of committees created to address and 

advise on a wide variety of subjects such as judicial salaries and benefits, budget, and 

court administration.

1328 U.S.C. § 333.

Judiciary Conferences and 

Associated Policies
judicial branch as authorized by statute.

Page 7 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

14 USSC conducts conferences, 

including seminars and workshops related to federal sentencing 

guidelines and training programs related to sentencing education for 

judicial and probation personnel.15

Unlike executive branch agencies, courts and judicial agencies are 

generally not subject to executive branch regulations, memorandums, or 

circulars that may apply to conference spending. However, AOUSC 

promulgates conference planning and administration policies for the 

judiciary, through the direction of the Judicial Conference of the United 

States, based in part on executive branch policies.16

The Judicial Conference of the United States issued changes to its 

conference policies in 2012 similar to policies recently enacted by the 

executive branch to implement cost savings.17 The new policy is generally 

patterned after policies and practices adopted by executive branch agencies,

including a memorandum issued by the Office of Management and Budget 

directing executive branch agencies to report on conference spending and reduce 

travel expenditures.18 Judiciary conference planning and administration policy 

also states that each judicial entity must issue annually a publically available 

report on each conference costing over $100,000, including information such as 

the number of attendees paid for by the judiciary and cost of the 

 

1428 U.S.C. § 620(b)(3).

1528 U.S.C. § 995(a)(17), (18).

16Judges and employees within the judicial branch are also not subject to the General Services 

Administration’s Federal Travel Regulation or memorandums and circulars issued by 

Office of Management and Budget for travel spending. 41 C.F.R. § 301-1.1 provides that 

for purposes of temporary duty (TDY) allowances an “agency” does not include an office, 

agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch. However, AOUSC promulgates 

travel regulations for judiciary employees and judges based in part on travel regulations 

for the executive branch as authorized by statute. The Director of AOUSC, with the 

approval of the Judicial Conference of the United States, promulgates travel regulations 

under 5 U.S.C. § 5707(a), 28 U.S.C. §§ 456 and 604(a)(7). 

17Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol.19, Ch. 9. Meeting and Planning Administration (March 17, 

2015). The policies related to planning and administration of meetings or conferences 

were established by the Judicial Conference, pursuant to the authority conferred by 5 

U.S.C. § 5707(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 604 and were adopted in May 2012 and amended in 

September 2012 (JCUS-SEP 12, p. 5). 

18Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum M-12-12, Promoting Efficient Spending to 

Support Agency Operations (Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2012).
conference to the government or judiciary. Judiciary conference planning 

and administration policy also states that conference planners must 

consider minimizing meeting-related costs and adopt procedures to 

ensure the standards set forth in this policy are met. The policy includes 

the following specific guidance considerations and requirements:

· Cost considerations: suggested consideration of various cost-saving 

practices such as securing the lowest conferee travel, lodging, 

meeting room, administrative, and technology costs.

· Management considerations and internal controls: required 

documentation of basic internal controls of management oversight 

and approval of conference planning, and suggested additional 

management considerations.

· Conference site comparisons: required conference planners to 

perform cost comparisons of at least two potential conference sites 

and maintain written documentation of their rationale for site selection.

Page 8 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Judges’ Reported 

NCR Travel Costs 

Averaged $8.8 Million 

per Year, but AOUSC 

Does Not Collect 

Specific Information 

on the Direct Costs to 

the Judiciary
Annual NCR travel costs averaged $8.8 million per year, with a range of 

$7.2 million to $10.2 million for fiscal years 2003 through 2014.

Page 9 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

19 We also 

found the annual NCR travel costs reported specifically for judiciary-associated 

conferences averaged $5.9 million, or 67 percent of average total annual 

NCR travel costs, with a range of $4.9 million to $6.8 million for fiscal 

years 2003 through 2014.20 On the basis of our review of the NCR travel data 

and statements made by AOUSC officials, we found NCR travel data were 

sufficiently reliable to report on the average and range of judges’ reported 

NCR travel costs across fiscal years 2003 through 2014. However, 

because of limitations we identified in the data in the NCR travel-reporting 

system, we were not able to determine the extent to which those reported 

costs were paid using judiciary funds rather than other federal or private 

sources as discussed below.

While AOUSC tracks the costs of all official travel paid for by the judiciary 

in its accounting system of record, AOUSC’s NCR travel-reporting system 

does not collect judges’ information in a way that enables it to determine 

the costs to the judiciary rather than to private entities and other federal 

agencies. Judiciary Travel Regulations for United States Justices and 

Judges specify annual NCR reporting requirements for judges and 

justices, which include reporting the name of funder and type of funds to 

support each instance of NCR travel. We found that data fields for 

entering information in the Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel Reporting 

System about the name of funder of NCR travel lacked controls to

standardize responses. Specifically, when users entered data on the 

name of the funder of NCR travel, they did not consistently record 

whether NCR travel was paid for by a court or judicial agency versus 

other federal agencies or private entities. In addition, when 

reporting/entering information about the type of funds used for NCR 

travel, users could not record whether NCR travel was paid for using 

judiciary funds versus other funding sources because the system requires 

 

19All values for NCR travel costs are presented in unadjusted dollar amounts. 

20According to AOUSC officials, judiciary-associated conferences are defined by the following 

categories in Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel Reporting System: Circuit judicial conferences; 

Court governance or administrative/managerial meetings; Federal Judicial Center educational 

seminar or program; Meeting of circuit judicial council or committees; Meeting of U.S. 

Judicial Conference or committees; and Meeting sponsored by the Administrative Office of 

U.S. Courts, Federal Judicial Center, U.S. Sentencing Commission, or Judicial Panel on 

Multidistrict Litigation. 

Judges’ Reported Annual 

NCR Travel Costs Ranged 

from $7.2 Million to $10.2

Million for Fiscal Years 

2003 through 2014

Collection of NCR Travel 

Data Does Not Allow 

AOUSC to Readily Identify 

Judiciary’s NCR Travel 

Costs
the user to choose from the following three options to identify the type of 

funds used to pay for judges’ NCR travel: federal, mixed, and private. 

Since the federal category could encompass judiciary, legislative, and 

executive branch entities, this data field does not allow AOUSC to readily 

identify or report the NCR travel costs paid using judiciary funds.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government states that 

internal controls are integral for effective information technology 

management to ensure useful, reliable, and continuous recording and 

communication of information.

Page 10 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

21 Such controls may include systems 

controls that standardize data entry so the data are useful for reporting 

purposes. For NCR travel data, AOUSC could improve the Judges’ NonCase-Related Travel Reporting System to allow collection of cost 

information directly attributable to the judiciary. By implementing controls, 

for example, to standardize responses regarding the name of the funder, 

AOUSC could more readily determine which entity, including judiciary 

entities, paid for an instance of NCR travel. In addition, by revising the 

categories for type of funds to account for judiciary funds, AOUSC could 

more easily identify instances of NCR travel that are being paid for with 

judiciary funds.

According to AOUSC officials, as of November 2015, AOUSC has not 

decided to change the way the Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel 

Reporting System collects judges’ NCR travel information, but is 

considering making improvements to the system to better collect judges’ 

NCR travel information, including collecting the judiciary’s costs of judges’ 

NCR travel. AOUSC officials also stated that any specific options it may 

develop for changing the Judges’ Non-Case-Related Travel Reporting 

System will be submitted to the Judicial Conference of the United States 

for consideration. According to the 2015 Strategic Plan for the Federal 

Judiciary, Issue 6, the Judiciary’s Relationships with the Other Branches 

of Government, the judiciary must provide Congress timely and accurate 

information about issues affecting the administration of justice and 

demonstrate that the judiciary has a comprehensive system of oversight 

and review.22 By improving its travel-reporting system, AOUSC officials would 

be able to better collect required NCR travel information from judges and 

 

21GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

22Judicial Conference of the United States, Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary (Washington, 

D.C.: September 2015).
identify and report the costs to the judiciary of judges’ NCR travel in response 

to congressional member requests.

Page 11 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

In accordance with judiciary policy on conference planning and 

administration, AOUSC issued publically available reports on conferences 

spending across all courts and judicial agencies for fiscal years 2013 and 

2014 for conferences costing over $100,000.23 These reports indicated that 

the judiciary spent $11.5 million on 61 conferences costing over $100,000 in 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014. Specifically, the judiciary spent $4.6 million in 

fiscal year 2013 and $6.9 million in fiscal year 2014 for these 

conferences. For more information about the conferences listed in the 

fiscal year 2013 and 2104 conference reports, see appendix I.

According to AOUSC officials, they are taking steps to improve their 

procedures for developing the publically available annual report on 

judiciary conferences costing over $100,000. AOUSC initially published 

the fiscal years 2013 and 2014 conference reports in October 2014 and 

April 2015, respectively. AOUSC subsequently revised both reports in 

September 2015 in response to errors it discovered in the original reports. 

The initial conference reports published by AOUSC contained errors in 

their required reporting information for number of attendees paid for by 

the judiciary, cost of the conference to the government or judiciary, and 

number of reportable conferences. For example, the initial reports 

published by AOUSC for fiscal years 2013 and 2014 conferences did not 

include approximately $300,000 in conference costs paid for by the 

 

23Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 19 Ch. 9, Meeting Planning and Administration

The Judiciary Spent 

$11.5 Million on 

Conferences Costing 

over $100,000 and 

Followed Policies for 

Conference Planning 

and Administration

The Judiciary Spent $11.5 

Million on Conferences 

Costing over $100,000 in 

Fiscal Years 2013 and 

2014, and Is Taking Steps 

to Improve Its Cost 

Reporting
judiciary. AOUSC officials told us these costs were omitted because of 

errors in how AOUSC utilized financial databases for purposes of 

reporting its annual conference costs, and how judiciary employees 

tracked conference expenses, including the number of attendees for 

inclusion in its publically available conference reports. According to 

AOUSC officials, it has developed and implemented new procedures for 

how to correctly utilize financial databases for the development of the 

fiscal year 2015 publically available conference report. Additionally, 

officials said for fiscal year 2016, they will issue revised guidance to 

conference planners within the judiciary for how to correctly enter 

pertinent data to better track the number of attendees and conference 

costs for the annual reports.

We sampled 8 conferences held in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 costing 

over $100,000. The total cost from judiciary appropriated funds for these 

conferences ranged from $182,733 to $305,607. For more information 

about the 8 conferences we sampled, see table 2. Our results cannot be 

generalized to all conferences costing over $100,000 conducted by the 

judiciary. However, our analysis provides insights into the judiciary’s 

compliance with its conference policies.

Table 2: Characteristics of GAO Sample of 8 Judiciary Conferences 

Page 12 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

The Judiciary Followed Its 

Policies for Conference 

Planning and 

Administration

Conference name

Duration 

(days)

Total 

number of 

attendeesa

Total cost from 

judiciary 

appropriated 

Funds

Total cost 

from 

conference 

registration 

fees

Percentage

cost from 

conference 

registration 

fees Total cost

2013 11th Circuit Judicial Conference 5 779 $243,872b$128,957 35% $372,829

2013 4th Circuit Judicial Conference 4 1,500 $191,193b$198,975 51% $390,168

2014 2nd Circuit Judicial Conference 3 750 $182,733b,c $217,139 54% $399,872

2014 8th Circuit Judicial Conference 3 745 $194,427b,c $86,680 31% $281,107

2014 Sex Offender Supervision 

Management Conferenced

3 299 $305,607b,c N/A N/A $305,607

2013 Federal Judicial Center National 

Educational Conference for Bankruptcy 

Court Employeese

4 174 $239,825,b,c N/A N/A $239,825

2013 Federal Judicial Center National 

Workshop for Bankruptcy Judges I

3 179 $243,321b,c N/A N/A $243,321

2014 U.S. Sentencing Commission 

National Seminar on the Federal 

Sentencing Guidelines

3 1,008 $272,796b,c,f N/A N/A $272,796
Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information | GAO-16-70

Notes: Attendees of all four circuit judicial conferences sampled by GAO included people who were 

not judiciary employees and judges, such as private and state government attorneys and guests. 

According to judiciary officials, each circuit court sampled by GAO collected registration fees of $200 

to $550 from non-judiciary attendees to pay for conference-related expenses of the circuit judicial 

conferences. According to Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) officials, under longstanding practice circuit courts have collected fees for conference registration under 28 U.S.C. § 333, 

which provides for the court of appeals for each circuit to provide for “representation and active 

participation at such conference by members of the bar of such circuit.” AOUSC officials also stated 

that the percentage of total cost funded by conference registration fees is affected by cost of travel, 

registration fee rate and who is charged a fee, and decisions made by each circuit chief judge about 

the degree to which nonappropriated funds will be used to fund any of the conference expenses, 

other than travel by judiciary employees.

a

Total number of attendees includes attendees whose travel costs were paid out of judiciary travel 

funds and others whose travel costs were paid for through other sources. For that reason, the total 

number of attendees listed in the table may differ from the number of attendees listed in the 

judiciary’s fiscal years 2013 and 2014 Judiciary Conferences That Cost More than $100,000 reports, 

which list only the number of attendees whose travel costs were paid for out of judiciary travel funds.

b

Judiciary appropriated funds were used to pay for travel and subsistence expenses of judiciary 

employees and judges.

c

Judiciary appropriated funds were used to pay for conference-related expenses such as meeting 

room costs and audiovisual equipment.

d

This conference was jointly sponsored by AOUSC and the Eastern District of Missouri Probation 

Office.

e

Full title of the conference is 2013 Federal Judicial Center National Educational Conference for 

Bankruptcy Court Clerks, Bankruptcy Administrators, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerks, and 

Bankruptcy Court Chief Deputy Clerks.

f

The cost shown reflects the cost to the U.S. Sentencing Commission only. Additional costs for travel 

and substance expenses for attendees from courts and judicial entities totaled $595,544. 

The 8 conferences we sampled followed judiciary policy guidance for 

conference planning and administration including cost considerations, 

management considerations and internal controls, and site selection. 

Judiciary policy guidance states, among other things, that each 

organization must adopt internal controls and procedures to ensure the 

standards set forth in this policy are met. These judiciary internal control 

standards require documentation of management oversight, but other 

management factors are suggested to be considered by planners, as 

appropriate for their conference.

The 8 conferences we sampled complied with judiciary policy for 

minimizing the cost of meetings. Judiciary policy for conference planning 

and administration states that in planning meetings, consideration must 

be given to minimizing the meeting costs incurred by the government, and 

Page 13 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Cost Considerations
provides 10 examples of such cost considerations.

Page 14 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

24 Officials who planned 

the 8 conferences we sampled provided examples of how they considered these 

various cost considerations and employed various strategies to reduce 

administrative, conferee travel, lodging, meeting room, and technology 

costs. For example:

· Attendees’ common carrier expenses: The sponsors of the 2014 

USSC Seminar on Sentencing Guidelines kept common carrier costs 

down by identifying the venue that had the greatest number of 

potential attendees within driving distance.25

· Cost of hotel rooms and meeting room costs: Officials who planned 

the Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conferences and 

2013 FJC National Workshop for Bankruptcy Judges negotiated hotel 

and conference price concessions to achieve hotel and meeting room 

discounts. Planners of the Second Circuit Judicial Conference 

negotiated with the prospective hotel to not be charged for meeting 

rooms because their room block filled the hotel.

· Printing costs: Officials who planned the Second, Eighth, and 

Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conferences reduced printing costs through 

a variety of initiatives, such as printing materials themselves, utilizing 

the Government Publishing Office, and using web-based material or 

flash drives for registration and conference materials. USSC and FJC 

inaugurated a smart phone application that allowed attendees to find 

conference information on their phones rather than relying on hard 

copy handouts and used on-line applications, syllabi, course 

materials, and agendas. Planners for the 2014 Sex Offender 

Supervision Management Conference communicated all notifications 

and event information through the Internet — there were no mailing 

costs.

 

24These examples of potential cost considerations included (1) attendees common carrier expenses; 

(2) attendees’ ground transportation expenses; (3) cost of hotel rooms; (4) applicable locality 

subsistence allowance; (5) catering costs; (6) service charges, commissions, sales taxes, 

and gratuities; (7) meeting room costs and set-up charges; (8) printing and mailing costs; 

(9) other meeting related charges such as equipment rental; and (10) computer and 

telephone access fees. 

25According to the General Services Administration, common carrier transportation includes, for 

example, aircraft, train, bus, ship, or other transit system.
Conference planners for all 8 conferences we sampled complied with 

judiciary requirements for internal controls and management oversight, 

including consideration of, as appropriate, 15 specific strategies 

suggested by judiciary policy.

Page 15 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

26 Some of these strategies overlap with the 

requirements for cost and site selection considerations, described 

previously and in the rest of this section. Judiciary guidance for 

conferences requires management oversight of conference planning but 

suggested other management factors be considered as appropriate. In 

addition, meetings costing over $100,000 also are required to be 

approved by agency leadership in advance.27

Officials who planned the 8 conferences provided us the required 

documentation of management oversight and approval by the appropriate 

senior managers. For example:

· Planners for the Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuit Judicial 

Conferences, as well as the Sex Offender Supervision Management 

Conference, provided documentation, largely in the form of e-mails

generated by the Meeting and Event Planning and Reporting Tool, 

showing review and approval by the AOUSC Director and Deputy 

Director.

· For both of the FJC conferences, the National Workshop for 

Bankruptcy Judges, and the National Educational Conference for 

Bankruptcy Court Employees, officials provided documentation of 

 

26Judiciary guidance stated that, generally, subject to the rule of reason, planners should do 

the following: (1) comply with procurement regulations, (2) perform cost comparisons with 

at least two potential meeting sites, (3) manage the number of participants, (4) chose a 

location that minimizes travel costs, (5) keep lodging costs reasonable and avoid the 

appearance of extravagance, (6) minimize the need for rental cars, (7) consider holding 

the meeting near relatively inexpensive restaurants, (8) consider the aggregate cost of 

meals, (9) consider arranging the meeting schedule to enable off-site dining, (10) consider 

if the meeting could be held in a government space, (11) make effective use of tax 

exemptions, (12) consider alternatives to in-person meetings, (13) maintain written 

documentation of alternatives considered and the selection rationale used, (14) follow 

judiciary gift regulations, and (15) avoid all appearance of conflict of interest. 

27Any single meeting or event with aggregate costs in excess of $100,000 must be approved in 

advance by: the Director of AOUSC or Director’s designee, the Director of FJC or 

Director’s designee; or the Chair of USSC or the Chair’s designee. 

Management Considerations 

and Internal Controls
review and signed approval by senior managers and the FJC 

Director.

Page 16 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

28

· Officials for 2014 USSC National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing 

Guidelines reported that they consulted with the Chair of the 

commission at all stages of the seminar planning and provided 

supporting documentation.

Both judiciary guidance and written responses from all 8 conference 

planners underscored the importance of site comparisons when planning 

a conference. On the basis of our review, conference planners for the 8 

conferences we sampled performed cost comparisons of at least two 

potential conference sites and provided documentation of the alternative 

sites considered and the rationale used for selecting the conference site 

as required. For example:

· 2013 Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference: Officials compared site and 

hotel options for their judicial conference by calculating the costs of 

transportation and lodging across different cities located within their 

region to determine which site had the lowest overall travel and hotel 

costs for judiciary attendees.

· 2014 Sex Offender Management Conference: Officials chose a 

centralized meeting location within driving distance of a majority of the 

attendees, thus reducing the travel costs for federal probation officers 

attending the conference.

· 2014 USSC National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: 

USSC officials minimized travel costs by tabulating the number of 

probation officers within 2.5 hours’ driving distance of several 

 

28Officials for the 2013 FJC National Workshop for Bankruptcy Judges and the 2013 FJC National 

Educational Conference for Bankruptcy Court Employees provided us with their 

authorization for project expenditures (APE) form which outlined the program purpose, site 

selection rationale and other key information. This form documented the educational 

objectives of the conference and the rationale for holding an in-person conference. It 

contained the required certification confirming that site and hotel selection were in 

compliance with chapter 9 of judiciary guidance. It broke out the various costs associated 

with the conference and estimated the total costs to be paid by other entities. Officials also 

provided a conference expense worksheet that further itemized estimated lodging, 

subsistence, travel, and other meeting-related costs. The conference plans were approved 

with leadership signatures of the completed APE. The FJC finance office uses the 

approved APE estimated costs to project expenditures. We interviewed officials about 

these documents, and received written clarifications.

Conference Site Comparisons
prospective venues. They held the conference in Philadelphia after 

determining it was more convenient than other cities for the greatest 

number of probation officers.

· FJC conferences: Planners provided a written summary of their site 

and hotel selection rationale and documented that the program leader 

had confirmed that the selection process was in compliance with 

judiciary policy.

Throughout the year, judges engage in NCR travel for judicial 

administration conferences and training that are not directly associated 

with adjudicating cases. Collecting information on this category of travel 

spending is important to the judiciary for maintaining the quality of 

information required under its policies and for congressional oversight. 

Specifically, taking steps to improve AOUSC’s travel cost collection 

system would help the judiciary collect and readily identify the costs of 

judges’ NCR travel that are paid by the judiciary. Strengthening the 

system would also better enable the judiciary respond to congressional 

requests for such information.

To better report information to Members of Congress on judiciary NCR 

travel costs, the Director of AOUSC should improve its data collection 

system to collect and identify NCR travel costs paid by the judiciary.

We provided a draft report to AOUSC, the Federal Judicial Center, and 

the U.S. Sentencing Commission for review and comment. AOUSC 

concurred with our recommendation and provided written comments, 

which are printed in full in appendix II. These agencies also provided 

technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate. In its comment 

letter, AOUSC stated it agreed with our recommendation that it should 

enhance its reporting mechanisms to better distinguish certain travel that 

is funded by the judiciary from that funded by other government agencies. 

It stated that the judiciary has already adopted the change we 

recommended and is planning to add a new functionality in the judges’ 

non-case-related travel reporting tool. AOUSC also stated that it was

pleased that GAO has found that the judiciary has followed applicable 

policies and procedures with regard to the travel studied in this report. 

Page 17 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

on Our Evaluation
We are sending copies of this report to the Judicial Conference of the 

United States, the Directors of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

and Federal Judicial Center, Staff Director of the U.S. Sentencing 

Commission, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is 

available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

Page 18 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202) 512-

8777 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. GAO staff who made significant contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

David C. Maurer Director

Homeland Security and Justice
Appendix I: List of Judiciary Conferences over 

$100,000, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014

Page 19 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Fiscal year Conference name

Total cost from judiciary 

appropriated funds

2013 Multidistrict Litigations Transferee Judges’ Conference $172,421

2013 Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest Wave 2 Orientation $124,612

2013 Eleventh Circuit Judicial Conference $243,872

2013 Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest Supervisor Training $149,456

2013 Fourth Circuit Judicial Conference $191,193

2013 Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference $127,055

2013 Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest Southwest Regional Training $165,725

2013 Tenth Circuit Judicial Conference $168,808

2013 2012 National Sentencing Policy Institute $267,350

2013 Phase II Orientation Seminar for Newly Appointed U.S. Magistrate Judges $136,975

2013 Experienced Supervisors Seminar: Targeting Leadership Excellence $115,253

2013 Phase II Orientation for Newly Appointed District Judges $124,564

2013 National Workshop for Bankruptcy Judges I $243,321

2013 The Leadership Role of the Chief District Judge/Conference for Chief Judges 

of United States District Courts

$168,889

2013 National Workshop for Magistrate Judges I $251,529

2013 2013 Federal Judicial Center National Educational Conference for Bankruptcy 

Court Clerks, Bankruptcy Administrators, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerks, 

and Bankruptcy Court Chief Deputy Clerks

$239,825

2013 2013 Federal Judicial Center National Educational Conference for District 

Court Clerks, District Court Executives, and District Court Chief Deputy Clerks

$235,358

2013 Experienced Supervisors Seminar: Targeting Leadership Excellence $129,635

2013 Leadership Development Program Concluding Workshop (Class XI) $128,575

2013 Experienced Supervisors Seminar: Targeting Leadership Excellence $113,136

2013 Workshop for the Article III Judges of the Ninth Circuit $141,096

2013 National Workshop for Magistrate Judges II $342,977

2013 National Workshop for Bankruptcy Judges II $209,788

2013 New Supervisors’ Development Program $186,885

2013 National Conference for Pro Se Law Clerks $122,914

2013 Economic Crime Symposium $129,452

2014 Multidistrict Litigations Transferee Judges’ Conference $169,725

2014 Panel Attorney District Representatives Conference $113,536

2014 U.S. Courts VMware User Group/Conference $145,336

2014 Federal Criminal Justice Act Trial Skills Academy $151,144

2014 2014 Computer Systems Administrator Training Conference $159,667

2014 Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference $299,325

2014 Third Circuit Judicial Conference $113,488

2014 Advanced Federal Defender and Capital Habeas Unit Seminars $417,118

Appendix I: List of Judiciary Conferences 

over $100,000, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014
Appendix I: List of Judiciary Conferences over 

$100,000, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014

Page 20 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Fiscal year Conference name

Total cost from judiciary 

appropriated funds

2014 Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest Coach Training $177,453

2014 Second Circuit Judicial Conference $182,733

2014 Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest Orientation-Wave Three $171,073

2014 Arizona District Probation Conference $121,543

2014 Ninth Circuit Technology User Group Conference $202,592

2014 Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference $194,427

2014 2014 Conference for Federal Defender Administrative Officers $112,344

2014 Automation Trainers’ Community of Practice Conference $201,348

2014 Sex Offender Supervision Management Conference $305,607

2014 Data Collection for Violence Indicators Study $161,293

2014 Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Rearrest Lead Coaches Conference $205,272

2014 Phase II Orientation for Magistrate Judges $111,821

2014 Experienced Supervisors Seminar: Targeting Leadership Excellence $142,610

2014 Experienced Supervisors Seminar: Targeting Leadership Excellence $136,463

2014 Phase II Orientation for District Judges $129,471

2014 The Leadership Role of the Chief District Judge/Conference for Chief Judges 

of United States District Courts

$198,827

2014 National Workshop for Magistrate Judges I $179,800

2014 National Workshop for District Judges I $297,749

2014 National Conference for Appellate Staff Attorneys $106,202

2014 Conference for Chief Bankruptcy Judges $117,421

2014 Leadership Development Program Class XII $108,508

2014 Federal Court Leadership Program: Phase Five Workshop and Recognition 

Ceremony

$110,299

2014 National Workshop for Magistrate Judges II $341,244

2014 New Supervisors’ Development Program-Tier 2 $226,485

2014 National Workshop for Bankruptcy Judges $466,673

2014 National Workshop for District Judges II $340,602

2014 National Seminar on the Federal Sentencing Guidelines $272,796

Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information. | GAO-16-70
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts

Page 21 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts
Appendix II: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the United States 

Courts

Page 22 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 
Appendix III: GAO Contact and 

Staff Acknowledgements

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-8777 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Glenn Davis (Assistant Director), 

Daniel Rodriguez, Carl Potenzieri, Jennifer Bryant, Kathleen Donovan, 

Susan Hsu, Tracey King, Amanda Miller, and Janet Temko-Blinder made 

key contributions to this report.

Page 23 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

GAO Contacts

Staff 

Acknowledgements
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

Page 24 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES COURTS

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20544

December 4, 2015

Mr. David C. Maurer, Director

Homeland Security and Justice

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

Dear Mr. Maurer:

The Federal Judiciary has received and reviewed the draft report related 

to the study on Federal Judiciary Travel Expenses (#441277), entitled: 

FEDERAL JUDICIARY: Improvements Needed for Collecting Judges' 

Non-Case Related Travel Information (GA0-16- 70). We are pleased that 

the GAO has found that the Judiciary has followed applicable policies and 

procedures with regard to the travel studied in this report. GAO's 

recommendation is that one of the Judiciary's several reporting 

mechanisms for certain kinds of travel could be enhanced by additional 

tracking of the source of funds used for such travel. Specifically, GAO's 

recommendation was to add a new requirement to one of our reporting 

mechanisms to distinguish certain travel that is funded by the Judiciary 

from that funded by other government agencies. The Judicia1y has 

already adopted the change recommended by GAO and will add a new 

functionality in the judges' "non-case related" travel reporting tool.

Appendix IV: Accessible Data

(441277)

Agency Comment 

Letter

Text of Appendix II: 

Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the 

United States Courts

Page 1
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

We are also pleased that GAO's report found no substantive concerns 

with the Judiciary's travel spending, nor flaws in the Judiciary's 

accounting system. The Judiciary employs methodical accounting, 

financial, and auditing procedures to track all spending accurately, 

including the cost of travel by judges and staff, and to ensure careful 

stewardship of taxpayer money. The Judiciary carefully tracks travel 

expenditures for governance and education in the same manner as all 

other travel expenditures, via its official accounting system of record. 

These costs are part of the information we provide to the congressional 

appropriations committees. The Judiciary shared information with GAO 

from its accounting system for this study, detailing the exact amounts 

spent by the Judiciary on all travel.

As footnoted in the report, the Judiciary considers all judiciary-funded 

travel, including travel for judicial administration and educational 

purposes, to be official business travel, and therefore we have not 

segregated that travel from travel directly assignable to a particular case 

in our accounting system of record. The Judiciary, however, recognizes 

the importance of responding to congressional inquiries, and so we have 

separately tracked judicial administration and educational travel in 

response to occasional inquiries from members of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee through the judges' "non-case related" travel reporting tool.1

GAO's report provides cost data establishing that all travel spending is 

currently Jess than one percent of all judiciary spending. Judges' "noncase related travel" is an even smaller fraction (approximately one tenth 

of one percent), and a portion of this was funded by other government 

agencies. The new GAO recommendation we are implementing focuses 

on this small portion of travel costs and will better track the sources of 

funding for travel.

The Judiciary takes its stewardship role most seriously and will continue 

to monitor and regulate the costs of official travel. We remain fully 

committed to providing Congress with the most accurate information 

available to document our spending.

Sincerely,

James C. Duff

Director

Page 25 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 

Page 2
Appendix IV: Accessible Data

1 The Judicial Conference adopted the term "non-case related travel" for 

this particular responding purpose, but the term may be misleading and 

may imply that such travel is not essential merely because it is not 

assignable to a particular case. In fact, this type of travel is typically 

essential and "relates" to adjudicating cases because it involves judicial 

administration and education.

Page 26 GAO-16-70 Federal Judiciary 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

PleasrintoRecyldPapr.