FEDERAL 

JUDICIARY

The Administrative 

Office of the U.S. 

Courts Should Ensure 

Financial Disclosure 

Redaction Reports 

Are Submitted to 

Congress Annually

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2018

GAO-18-406

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-406, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2018

FEDERAL JUDICIARY

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Should 

Ensure Financial Disclosure Redaction Reports Are 

Submitted to Congress Annually

What GAO Found

The Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s principle policy-making body,

developed an electronic filing system, guidance, and a compliance process to

help ensure judicial officials file financial disclosure reports that adhere to 

applicable laws and regulations, and data provided by the Administrative Office 

of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) show that more than 4,000 reports were required to 

be filed annually from 2012 through 2016. According to AOUSC officials, as of 

March 2018, all financial disclosure reports required to be filed from 2012 

through 2016 were filed, except for one in 2015 and one in 2016. AOUSC 

officials are working with the filers to ensure these reports will be filed. 

The Judicial Conference established procedures for responding to requests for 

copies of financial disclosure reports, and the number of reports released has 

varied. From 2012 through 2016, AOUSC annually received, on average, about

70 requests for copies of judicial officials’ reports and released approximately 

16,000 reports during this time. Each request can vary—from a request for a 

single judicial official’s report to a request for multiple judicial officials’ reports. 

From 2012 through 2016, a small percentage of judicial officials requested 

redactions from their financial disclosure reports. On average, 3.2 percent of 

financial disclosure reports filed included a redaction request and about 85 

percent of those requests were granted. Of the information requested to be 

redacted, about 76 percent was related to the unsecured location of a judicial 

official’s spouse, child, or residence. AOUSC is required by federal law to submit 

annual reports to Congress on use of the judicial redaction authority, such as the 

number of reports with redactions and types of information redacted, but AOUSC 

has not consistently submitted the reports on an annual basis in recent years. 

GAO found that AOUSC does not have a formal process for preparing and 

submitting the reports to Congress. Implementing a more formal process, with 

specified steps and timeframes, would better position AOUSC to provide 

Congress with more timely reports.

Types of Information Requested to be Redacted from Judicial Officials’ Financial Disclosure 

Reports, by Percent, Calendar Years 2012 through 2016

View GAO-18-406. For more information, 

contact Gretta L. Goodwin at (202) 512-8777

or goodwing@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Ethics in Government Act of 

1978, as amended, federal judges and 

certain judicial employees must file 

financial disclosure reports that can be 

made available to the public. Federal 

law accounts for the potential security 

risks of the judiciary and authorizes the 

redaction of information from judicial 

officials’ reports if the Judicial 

Conference, in consultation with the 

United States Marshals Service

(USMS), finds that revealing certain 

information could endanger judicial 

officials or members of their families.

This report addresses the following for 

calendar years 2012 through 2016, the 

most recent years for which full data 

were available: (1) Actions taken by 

the Judicial Conference to ensure 

judicial officials file financial disclosure 

reports, and the number of reports 

filed; (2) The judiciary’s compliance 

with procedures for responding to 

requests for financial disclosure reports 

and the number of reports released; 

and (3) The number of redaction 

requests made, the types of 

information requested to be redacted, 

and the judiciary’s consistency in 

reporting results to Congress in a 

timely manner. 

GAO interviewed AOUSC and USMS 

officials, reviewed relevant laws and 

guidance, and analyzed data on 

redaction requests.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that AOUSC 

develop and implement a formal 

process, with steps and timeframes, to 

better ensure that required annual

reports are submitted to Congress

within the following year. AOUSC 

concurred with the recommendation.
Page i GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Letter 1

Background 5

The Judicial Conference Has Developed Procedures to Ensure 

Judicial Officials File Financial Disclosure Reports, and More 

Than 4,000 Reports Are Filed Annually 11

The Judiciary is Complying with Procedures for Responding to 

Requests for Financial Disclosure Reports and the Number of 

Reports Released Has Varied from 2012 through 2016 14

Few Judicial Officials Requested Redactions and They Pertained 

Mostly to the Unsecured Location of Family Members, but the 

Judiciary Has Not Reported Redaction Results to Congress in a 

Timely Manner 15

Conclusions 21

Recommendation for Executive Action 21

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 22

Appendix I Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Form AO 10 Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016 24

Appendix II Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Form AO 10A Used for 

Requesting Copies of Judicial Officials’ Financial 30

Appendix III Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 32

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements 34

Tables

Table1: Types of Financial Disclosure Reports Required to be 

Filed by Judicial Officialsa and Their Associated 

Requirements 6

Table 2: Number and Types of Financial Disclosure Reports 

Required to be Filed by Judges and Judicial Employees, 

Calendar Years 2012 through 2016 12

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Table 3: Number of Financial Disclosure Report Requests 

Received and Released to the Public, Calendar Years 

2012 through 2016 14

Table 4: Number and Percentage of Redaction Requests 

Compared to Financial Disclosure Reports Required to be 

Filed by Judicial Officials,a Calendar Years 2012 through 

2016 16

Table 5: Totals and 5-Year Averages of Redaction Requests for 

Judicial Officialsa

, Calendar Years 2012 through 2016 16

Table 6: Dates the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

Submitted Annual Redaction Reports to Congress, 

Calendar Years 2012 through 2016 19

Figures

Figure 1: Flowchart of the Judicial Conference’s Process for 

Adjudicating Redaction Requests and Requests for 

Copies of Financial Disclosure Reports 9

Figure 2: Results for the Financial Disclosure Reports That 

Included Redaction Requests, Calendar Years 2012 

through 2016 17

Figure 3: Types of Information Requested to be Redacted from 

Financial Disclosure Reports, by Percent, Calendar 

Years 2012 through 2016 18

Abbreviations

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

FiDO Financial Disclosure Online Filing System

JEFS Judiciary Electronic Filing System

USMS United States Marshals Service

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-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 31, 2018

Congressional Requesters:

Under the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, federal judges 

and certain judicial employees, like similar officials in the legislative and 

executive branches of government, must file annual financial disclosure 

reports that can be made available to the public.1 These reports help 

preserve and promote the integrity of public officials and institutions by 

disclosing financial information, but may also include information that 

could compromise the safety of these officials and their families. 

According to the United States Marshals Service (USMS), judicial officials 

received 2,357 threats and inappropriate communications in fiscal year 

2016 alone.2

Federal law accounts for the potential security risks faced by members of 

the federal judiciary (judiciary) and authorizes the redaction of personal 

and sensitive information from financial disclosure reports that could 

endanger these officials or members of their families.3 Potential risks to 

judicial officials could be general or specific. General risks include 

revealing the unsecured location of a judicial official, a spouse’s place of 

employment, or a child’s school. Specific threats could include the 

potential for kidnapping or extortion, or a threat of violence against a 

judge by a former defendant or litigant. For example, in 2012, a federal 

 1

5 U.S.C. app. §§ 101-111. For purposes of this report, we refer to federal judges and 

judicial employees who are required to file as separate groups in some sections and refer 

to both groups, collectively, as “judicial officials.” All federal judges are required to file 

financial disclosure reports and when using the term “judges” in this report, it includes 

judges appointed pursuant to Article III of the Constitution (e.g., district court judges) and 

non-Article III judges (e.g., bankruptcy judges and magistrate judges). However, not all 

judicial employees are required to file a financial disclosure report: only those authorized 

to perform adjudicatory functions with respect to judiciary proceedings or those in a 

position that meets a certain income threshold (120 percent of the minimum rate for GS15 of the General Schedule). §§ 109(8), (10).

2

USMS, a federal law enforcement agency in the Department of Justice, has been 

responsible for protecting the federal judicial process since 1789. Among other things, 

USMS ensures the safe and secure conduct of judicial proceedings; provides protection 

for federal judges, other court officials, witnesses, and jurors; and assess, investigates, 

and responds to threats against the judiciary. USMS also apprehends federal fugitives, 

manages and sells seized assets acquired by criminals through illegal activities, and 

operates the Witness Security Program, among other things. 

3

5 U.S.C. app. § 105(b)(3). 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

judge requested that certain information be redacted from his financial 

disclosure report after an inmate convicted of threatening to kill the judge 

was released from prison and requested a copy of the judge’s report, as 

well as information on the judge’s home security system. The law that 

authorizes the judiciary to redact financial disclosure reports also requires 

it to submit annual reports on the operation of its redaction authority to 

specified congressional committees.4 Reports should include information 

on the total number of financial disclosure reports with redactions and the 

types of information redacted, among other things.

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary’s 

principle policy-making body, is responsible for implementing the 

judiciary’s redaction authority in a manner that provides the intended 

safety measures without compromising timely public access to judicial 

officials’ financial disclosure reports. In light of the importance of 

balancing these goals, you asked us to review the process for filing 

financial disclosure reports and requesting redactions of information from 

those reports, and to provide data on the numbers and types of 

information being redacted. This report addresses the following 

questions:

(1) What actions has the Judicial Conference taken to ensure that judicial 

officials are complying with the requirement to file financial disclosure 

reports and how many reports have been filed each year from 2012 

through 2016?

(2) Is the judiciary complying with procedures for responding to requests 

for judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports and how many reports has 

the judiciary released each year from 2012 through 2016?

(3) During the period from 2012 through 2016, how many redaction 

requests did judicial officials make, what types of information did they 

request be redacted, and did the judiciary consistently report the results 

of judicial officials’ redaction requests to Congress in a timely manner?

 4

5 U.S.C. app. § 105(b)(3)(C). Congressional committees of jurisdiction refer to the 

committees designated by statute to receive such reports. These include the Committees 

on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and Senate, the Senate Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, and the House Committee on Oversight 

and Government Reform. Id.
Page 3 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

To examine the actions the Judicial Conference has taken on financial 

disclosure report filing and the reports filed, we interviewed officials from 

the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) on their processes 

for ensuring that judicial officials file financial disclosure reports, and the 

extent to which reports required to be filed were, in fact, filed.5 We 

reviewed key policy and guidance documents related to these processes, 

including Guide to Judiciary Policy, Filing Instructions for Judicial Officers 

and Employees, and a Step by Step Guide for the Preparation and 

Electronic Filing of Financial Disclosure Reports; and we reviewed 

relevant laws related to financial disclosure reports, such as the Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978 and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989. We also 

reviewed data included in AOUSC’s annual redaction request reports and 

data provided to us by AOUSC on the number of reports required to be 

filed and the number of reports filed every year for calendar years 2012 

through 2016—the 5 most recent years for which full data were available 

at the time of our review.

To examine the judiciary’s compliance with procedures for responding to 

requests for financial disclosure reports and the number of reports 

released each year from 2012 through 2016, we interviewed AOUSC 

officials on their processes for responding to requests and the numbers of 

requests received each year. We reviewed relevant documentation, such 

as the guidance that dictates the process for responding to requests. We 

reviewed data included in AOUSC’s annual redaction request reports and 

data provided by AOUSC on the number of requests received per year for 

calendar years 2012 through 2016.

To determine how many and what types of information judicial officials 

requested be redacted from 2012 through 2016, and whether the judiciary 

has consistently reported results of judicial officials’ redaction requests to 

Congress in a timely manner, we interviewed AOUSC officials on the 

redaction request process. We also interviewed USMS officials on the 

security consultation process and how they coordinate with AOUSC on 

redaction requests. Additionally, we requested documentation for all 

redaction requests made by judicial officials during the two months of 

September and October for each year from 2012 through 2016, of which 

there were 45 such requests. In return, AOUSC provided us with all 

relevant documentation for these 45 redaction requests that were made 

 5

AOUSC is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad range of legislative, 

legal, financial, technology, management, administrative, and program support services to 

federal courts. It also provides staff support and counsel to the Judicial Conference. 
Page 4 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

during this time period. We also requested and received the AOUSC 

database that contains data on all redaction requests received from 

calendar years 2012 through 2016. We reviewed and analyzed the 45 

redaction requests and compared the data in these case files to the 

information contained in AOUSC’s redaction database and we 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for our reporting 

purposes. We then analyzed data from the AOUSC database on 

redaction requests to determine the number of redaction requests that 

were granted (in whole or in part) or denied; as well as the type of 

information that judicial officials requested be redacted from their financial 

disclosure reports from calendar years 2012 through 2016. In order to 

categorize the type of information requested to be redacted from judicial 

officials’ financial disclosure reports, two GAO analysts independently 

reviewed the description of the redaction requests and the related section 

of the financial disclosure reports as contained in the AOUSC database 

and reached consensus on which of seven different categories to place 

the redaction requests—full report; unsecured location of spouse, child, or 

residence; asset names; asset value; gifts; reimbursement; or other. In 

those cases where the description of the information redacted was too 

vague, or did not easily fit into one of the remaining categories, we placed 

it in the “other” category. Using the AOUSC redaction request database 

and data provided on the total number of reports required to be filed, we 

also determined the percentage of judges and other judicial employees 

who had requested redactions from their financial disclosure reports each 

year, as well as the types of information requested to be redacted, by 

percent. Finally, to determine whether the judiciary consistently reported 

results of judicial officials’ redaction requests to Congress in a timely 

manner, we interviewed relevant AOUSC staff, reviewed available 

guidance on the procedures for gathering information and producing the 

annual reports, and requested copies of the annual redaction reports for 

2012 through 2016. AOUSC staff could not locate annual reports for 

calendar years 2013 and 2014. We contacted staff from two 

congressional committees of jurisdiction to request copies of the missing 

reports and they also could not locate the reports.

We conducted this performance audit from May 2017 to May 2018 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.
Page 5 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

The Judicial Conference of the United States is the national policy-making 

body of the federal courts. The Chief Justice of the United States is the 

presiding officer of the Judicial Conference. The Conference operates 

through a network of 20 committees, including the Committee on 

Financial Disclosure. The Judicial Conference delegated authority to 

redact information from a financial disclosure report to the Committee on 

Financial Disclosure. Upon request from a judicial official, the committee, 

in consultation with the USMS, redacts the information when it decides 

that revealing such personal or sensitive information could endanger the 

judicial official or a member of his or her family. Responsibilities of the 

Committee on Financial Disclosure include reviewing reports filed, 

adjudicating requests for redactions of information from the report, 

approving and modifying reporting forms and instructions, and monitoring 

the release of reports to ensure compliance with statute and the 

committee’s guidance. The Judicial Conference of the United States is 

responsible for implementing the judiciary’s redaction authority in a 

manner that provides judicial officials with the intended security measures 

without compromising timely public access to judicial officials’ financial 

disclosure reports.

AOUSC is the agency within the judicial branch that provides a broad 

range of legislative, legal, financial, technology, management, 

administrative, and program support services to federal courts. It is 

responsible for carrying out Judicial Conference policies, and one of its 

primary responsibilities is to provide staff support and counsel to the 

Judicial Conference and its committees, including the Committee on 

Financial Disclosure. The Director of AOUSC serves as the Secretary to

the Judicial Conference and is an ex officio member of the Executive 

Committee.

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, requires specified 

judicial, legislative, and executive branch officials to file annual financial 

disclosure reports in the spring of each year.6 These reports include 

financial information for the previous calendar year. Financial disclosure 

 6

5 U.S.C. app. §§ 101-111.

Background

Purpose and Structure of 

the Judicial Conference 

and AOUSC

Legislative Basis for Filing 

Financial Disclosure 

Reports
Page 6 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

reports are made up of nine parts—positions, agreements, noninvestment income, reimbursements, gifts, liabilities, investments and 

trusts, explanatory comments, and certification and signature. (See 

appendix I for a copy of a blank annual financial disclosure report).

In addition to filing an annual report, covered judicial officials are required 

to file financial disclosure reports when nominated (nomination report); 

within 30 days of taking office (initial report); and within 30 days of leaving 

their position (final report)—see table 1.

Table1: Types of Financial Disclosure Reports Required to be Filed by Judicial Officialsa and Their Associated Requirements

Type of financial disclosure 

report

Requirements

Annual Any individual who is a judicial officerb or judicial employeec during any calendar year and performs 

the duties of his or her position or office for a period in excess of 60 days in that calendar year must 

file a financial disclosure report. Reports are due on or before May 15 of the following year. 

Nomination An individual nominated to a position, which requires the advice and consent of the Senate, must file 

a financial disclosure report within 5 days of the transmittal by the President to the Senate. An 

individual whom the President or President-elect has publicly announced that he or she intends to 

nominate to a position may file the financial disclosure report at any time after the public 

announcement, but no later than 5 days after the transmittal of the nomination to the Senate. 

Initial Judicial officers and judicial employees are required to file a financial disclosure report within 30 days 

of assuming the position or within 30 days of receiving notification from the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Courts, whichever is later. 

Final A judicial officer or judicial employee must file a financial disclosure report on or before the 30th day 

after separation from employment, or a reduction in base salary to below the reporting threshold. 

However, if within 30 days of such termination the individual assumes employment in another position 

or office for which a public report is required to be filed, no final report is required. 

Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  GAO-18-406

Note: The requirements in this table are the updated requirements, as reflected in the Guide to 

Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2, Ch. D, February 2018.

a

For the purposes of this report, we use the term “judicial officials” to refer to judicial officers and 

judicial employees collectively. We also use the term judges for judicial officers.

b

Judicial officers include Justices of the Supreme Court, judges of the United States courts of 

appeals, United States district courts, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Court of International 

Trade, Tax Court, Court of Federal Claims, Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, and United States 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

c

Judicial employees include any employee of the federal judiciary, of the Tax Court, of the United 

States Sentencing Commission, of the Court of Federal Claims, of the Court of Appeals for Veterans 

Claims, or of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, who: (1) is not a judicial officer 

and who is authorized to perform adjudicatory functions with respect to proceedings in the judicial 

branch; or (2) occupies a position for which the rate of basic pay is equal to or greater than 120 

percent of the minimum rate of basic pay payable for the GS-15 of the General Schedule.
Page 7 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Federal law also requires that copies of judicial officials’ financial 

disclosure reports be made available, upon written request, to members 

of the public.7 Judicial officials may request that certain information be 

redacted before their financial disclosure reports are sent to the 

requesting individuals.

The judiciary’s authority to redact information from financial disclosure 

reports was established in 1998 and was initially authorized for a 3-year 

period.8 That legislation also instituted an annual congressional reporting 

requirement for the judiciary on the operation of the redaction authority.9

Over the past 20 years, the judiciary’s redaction authority and reporting 

requirement have been successively reauthorized for various periods of 

time, but have lapsed on occasion.10 The authority was most recently 

reauthorized on March 23, 2018 through the end of 2027.11

According to AOUSC officials, while the redaction authority lapsed, the 

Committee on Financial Disclosure did not grant any new redaction 

 7

5 U.S.C. app. § 105.

8

Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act of 1998, Pub. L. No. 105-318, § 7, 112 

Stat. 3007, 3011-12. 

9

Id. Additional information required to be contained in the report was added in 2007, 

Judicial Disclosure Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 110-24, § 3(b), 121 Stat. 100, 100-01 

(2007), and additional committees to which the report must be submitted were added in 

2012, Pub. L. No. 112-84, 125 Stat. 1870 (2012).

10Most of the lapses were relatively short, with reauthorization taking place in January 

following the expiration at the end of the prior calendar year. The longest period of lapse in 

judicial redaction authority was between December 31, 2005, when the authorization 

expired, and May 3, 2007, when it was reauthorized.

11Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-141, Div. M, tit. VI. In July 2017, 

bills were introduced in both the House of Representative and the Senate to extend the 

judiciary’s authority to redact financial disclosure reports. H.R. 3229, which passed the 

House of Representatives on September 27, 2017, also had an extension of the redaction 

authority to 2027, and S. 1584, which was reported favorably by the Senate Homeland 

Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on October 16, 2017, would have made the 

redaction authority permanent. Prior House-passed amendments to the redaction 

authority would have made it permanent, but the Senate-passed versions extended the 

authority for specific time periods. See, e.g., H.R. 660, § 102, 110th Cong. (2007), which 

became the Court Security Improvement Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-177, § 104, 121 

Stat. 2534, 2535 (2008).

Legislative Basis for 

Judicial Redaction 

Authority
Page 8 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

requests, but it did grant requests to continue redactions that were 

approved prior to December 31, 2017.12

The Judicial Conference, through its Committee on Financial Disclosure, 

has developed a multistep process for reviewing federal judges’ requests 

for redactions of information from their financial disclosure reports and 

requests for copies of these reports, as shown in figure 1. While the 

committee encourages judicial officials to request redactions at the time 

they file their financial disclosure reports, AOUSC officials stated that 

most redaction requests were made after judicial officials were notified 

that copies of their reports had been requested.

 12The law provided that the redaction authority expired on December 31, 2017, and 

applied to filings through calendar year 2017. Pub. L. No. 112-84, § 1. 

The Judiciary’s Process 

for Adjudicating Redaction 

Requests and Responding 

to Requests for Copies of 

Financial Disclosure 

Reports
Page 9 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Figure 1: Flowchart of the Judicial Conference’s Process for Adjudicating Redaction Requests and Requests for Copies of 

Financial Disclosure Reports

A judicial official may request a redaction of information when his or her

financial disclosure report is filed or after receiving a notification of a 
Page 10 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

request for a copy of his or her financial disclosure report. When 

requesting a redaction, the judicial official must state specifically what 

information is sought to be redacted and the justification for the redaction. 

The Committee on Financial Disclosure will determine, in consultation 

with the USMS, if the information could endanger the judicial official or an 

immediate family member. For redaction requests involving information 

pertaining to the unsecured location of (1) a spouse’s employer, (2) a 

child’s school, or (3) a primary or secondary residence, a separate 

security consultation is not required based on an agreement AOUSC 

reached with the USMS memorialized in a 2004 letter that, in essence, 

serves as a security consultation.13 For all other types of information 

requested to be redacted, a further USMS security consultation is 

required.

Taking into account the information provided by the judicial officials, as 

well as results from the USMS security consultations, members of the 

Subcommittee on Public Access and Security, a subcommittee under the 

Committee on Financial Disclosure, decide—by majority vote—to either 

grant (in whole or in part) or deny each redaction request. Such 

redactions are good until the end of the calendar year in which they are 

granted. The Committee on Financial Disclosure notifies the judicial 

official if the information requested to be redacted has been granted, 

granted in part, or denied. Judicial officials can appeal a redaction 

decision; however, according to AOUSC officials, there were no appeals 

from 2012 through 2016, the time period covered by our review.

 13In 2004, GAO recommended that USMS develop and implement procedures to ensure 

that it responds to all consultation requests from the Judicial Conference (GAO-04-696NI). 

In response to this recommendation, USMS issued a letter to AOUSC in December 2004 

which states that information pertaining to the location of a spouse’s place of employment 

or the location of a child’s school, as well as secondary residences, should generally not 

be disclosed. As a result, if a redaction request falls into one of these three pre-identified 

categories, AOUSC forwards the redaction request directly to the Committee on Financial 

Disclosure for a vote, and does not need to send a request for a security consultation to 

USMS.
Page 11 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

The Judicial Conference’s Committee on Financial Disclosure has 

developed an electronic report filing system, written guidance, and a 

compliance process to help ensure judicial officials file their financial 

disclosure reports. Specifically, in 2011, AOUSC switched from having 

judicial officials file financial disclosure reports in hard copy to electronic 

filing through an online electronic depository, Financial Disclosure Online 

Filing System (FiDO). AOUSC also uses a separate internal electronic 

database (LEGO) to track compliance with financial disclosure report 

filings.14 LEGO contains the entire database of judicial filers, including 

what reports should be filed, the dates financial disclosure reports are 

due, and which are in process. The Committee on Financial Disclosure 

stated in September 2014 that FiDO had been upgraded, but committee 

members continued to experience limitations with the system. For 

example, according to AOUSC officials, FiDO does not keep track of 

which reports are in process or when they are due. Accordingly, the 

committee members authorized an assessment to look for an alternative 

system that would meet their needs and, by 2016, had selected software 

currently being used by the government to be customized for the 

judiciary. According to AOUSC officials, the plan is for the Judiciary 

Electronic Filing System (JEFS) to replace both FiDO and LEGO and be 

used for filing financial disclosure reports and tracking compliance with 

filing requirements beginning in 2019.

The Committee on Financial Disclosure also provides guidance to judicial 

officials to ensure that financial disclosure reports are filed correctly. The 

types of guidance provided include the Guide to Judiciary Policy, Filing 

Instructions for Judicial Officers and Employees, and a Step by Step 

Guide for the Preparation and Electronic Filing of Financial Disclosure 

Reports. Additionally, members of the Committee on Financial Disclosure 

are to review each filed financial disclosure report to confirm that required 

items have been sufficiently reported and that the filer is in compliance 

with applicable laws and regulations. In addition, for some sections, 

members of the committee will compare information provided in a filed 

report with what was reported in a prior year’s report to ensure the 

information reported is accurate and consistent.

The Committee on Financial Disclosure also provides guidance on the 

process to be followed if a judicial official fails to file a required financial 

 14According to AOUSC officials, “LEGO” is the name of the internal electronic system but 

is not an acronym. 

The Judicial 

Conference Has 

Developed 

Procedures to Ensure 

Judicial Officials File 

Financial Disclosure 

Reports, and More 

Than 4,000 Reports 

Are Filed Annually
Page 12 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

disclosure report. Specifically, the Guide to Judiciary Policy states that a 

late filing fee of $200 will be assessed if a report is filed more than 30 

days after the report is due. Further, the Chairman of the Committee on 

Financial Disclosure is to write a letter to any noncompliant filer.

In addition to the guidance described above, in 2013, the Committee on 

Financial Disclosure reported that it would establish specific procedures 

for securing filer compliance with all reporting requirements and the late 

filing assessments. In 2014, the Committee reported on the successful 

implementation of these new policies. Part of this effort included 

developing templates for three successive communications that are to be 

provided to a noncompliant filer. The communications reflect a 

progressively increasing level of urgency in language and content, 

culminating in explicit warnings that if a noncompliant filer does not 

comply, the matter can be referred to the Attorney General.

From calendar years 2012 through 2016, more than 4,000 financial 

disclosure reports were required to be filed each year by judicial officials, 

as shown in table 2.15 Most of the reports filed were annual reports.

Table 2: Number and Types of Financial Disclosure Reports Required to be Filed by Judges and Judicial Employees, Calendar 

Years 2012 through 2016

Calendar year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Reports required to be filed by judges

Annual reports 2,233 2,240 2,244 2,229 2,188

Initial reports 47 53 83 54 35

Nomination reports 109 116 39 32 74

Final reports 70 74 105 90 87

Total reports required to be filed by judges 2,459 2,483 2,471 2,405 2,384

Reports required to be filed by judicial employees

Annual reports 1,922 1,813 1,716 1,597 1,557

 15AOUSC reports the number of reports required to be filed and not the actual numbers of 

reports filed. According to AOUSC officials, the number of reports required to be filed in 

one calendar year might differ from the number of reports actually filed in the same year 

because of how reports are counted. For example, when a judicial official files an 

amendment to a report, it is counted as a different report filed, and therefore would be 

double counted. 
Page 13 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Calendar year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Initial reports 100 54 96 154 107

Nomination reports 1 0 0 1 1

Final reports 179 179 148 135 149

Total reports required to be filed by judicial employees 2,202 2,046 1,960 1,887 1,814

Total reports required to be filed by judicial officialsa 4,661 4,529 4,431 4,292 4,198

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  GAO-18-406

a

For the purposes of this report, we refer to federal judges and judicial employees who are required to 

file a financial report collectively as “judicial officials.”

According to AOUSC officials, as of March 2018, all annual financial 

disclosure reports required to be filed from calendar years 2012 through 

2016 were filed, except for one for calendar year 2015.16 Additionally, all 

nominee and initial financial disclosure reports required to be filed during 

this time period were filed, and all but one final financial disclosure report, 

for calendar year 2016, were filed. The AOUSC officials stated that the 

remaining final report is still pending and the compliance process is being 

followed to ensure the report will be filed.

 16AOUSC officials stated that this was a unique case due to the complexity of the financial 

disclosure report and that they have been working with the filer in order to complete the 

report. The officials added that the filer already filed his 2016 annual financial disclosure 

report.
Page 14 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

The judiciary is complying with the Judicial Conference’s Guide to 

Judiciary Policy (Volume 2, Part D, Chapters 3-4), which sets forth the 

process for releasing financial disclosure reports. First, members of the 

public may request financial disclosure reports by submitting Form AO 

10A (see appendix II for a blank copy of the Form AO 10A). The 

Committee on Financial Disclosure notifies the judicial official that a Form 

AO 10A has been received and provides the official with a copy. At that 

time, the judicial official has up to 10 days to decide whether or not to 

request that information from the financial disclosure report be redacted. 

Once the members of the Subcommittee on Public Access and Security 

have reviewed any redaction requests and any accompanying USMS 

security consultation results, the members vote on whether or not to grant 

redactions and then forward the results to AOUSC staff for final 

processing. In March 2017, the Judicial Conference approved the release 

of financial disclosure reports by electronic storage device free of charge 

in order to expedite the release of requested reports. As a result, once 

AOUSC staff receive the redaction decisions from the Subcommittee, 

AOUSC staff are to ensure that approved redactions are made to the 

financial disclosure reports, and then download the reports to electronic 

storage devices to mail to the requesting parties.

The AOUSC received, on average, about 70 requests for copies of 

judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports each year from calendar 

years 2012 through 2016 using the AO 10A request form. The form can 

include a request for the financial disclosure report of one judicial official, 

or for multiple judicial officials. Additionally, the form could include a 

request for multiple years of financial disclosure reports. Based on the AO 

Form 10As received from calendar years 2012 through 2016, AOUSC 

released approximately 16,000 financial disclosure reports. The number 

of financial disclosure reports released each year varied during this time 

period, as shown in table 3.

Table 3: Number of Financial Disclosure Report Requests Received and Released to the Public, Calendar Years 2012 through 

2016

Calendar year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of Form AO 10As received 67 63 79 68 75

Total number of financial disclosure reports released to the public 3,702 5,162 4,254 2,685 193

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  GAO-18-406

Note: One Form AO 10A could include a request for the financial disclosure report of a single judicial 

official or for multiple judicial officials. A request could also include a request for more than one year’s 

worth of financial disclosure reports for the same individual. As a result, the number of financial 

The Judiciary is 

Complying with 

Procedures for 

Responding to 

Requests for 

Financial Disclosure 

Reports and the 

Number of Reports 

Released Has Varied 

from 2012 through 

2016
Page 15 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

disclosure reports released to the public in one year could be greater than the number of financial 

disclosure reports filed in the same year.

According to AOUSC officials, the number of financial disclosure reports 

released each year varies based on the number of requests received and 

the time of year the requests are submitted. For example, a requester 

might submit a Form AO 10A late in the calendar year and the requested 

reports could be released the following calendar year based on how long 

it takes to process the request.17 AOUSC officials noted that there are two 

organizations that have requested copies of the financial disclosure 

reports for all federal judges every year. In 2016 AOUSC received the 

requests late in the year and, therefore, were not able to release the 

reports until 2017.

The number of judicial officials who requested redactions represents a 

small percentage of the total number of financial disclosure reports filed in 

recent years. As shown in table 4, the number of redaction requests 

ranged from a low of 112 in 2014 to a high of 162 in 2012 and 2015.

 17AOUSC officials stated that the process of redaction does not add significantly to the 

time required to respond to a request for a financial disclosure report. However, requests 

for a large volume of reports to a single requester generally take longer to process. 

Few Judicial Officials 

Requested 

Redactions and They 

Pertained Mostly to 

the Unsecured 

Location of Family 

Members, but the 

Judiciary Has Not 

Reported Redaction 

Results to Congress 

in a Timely Manner

On Average, 3.2 Percent 

of Judicial Officials 

Requested Redactions 

from 2012 through 2016
Page 16 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Table 4: Number and Percentage of Redaction Requests Compared to Financial Disclosure Reports Required to be Filed by 

Judicial Officials,a Calendar Years 2012 through 2016

Calendar year

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Number of reports required to be filed by judges 2,459 2,483 2,471 2,405 2,384

Number of redaction requests for judges 159 146 111 161 134

Percentage of judges’ reports with redaction requests 6.5% 5.9% 4.5% 6.7% 5.6%

Number of reports required to be filed by judicial employees 2,202 2,046 1,960 1,887 1,814

Number of redaction requests for judicial employees 3 0 1 1 0

Percentage of judicial employees’ reports with redaction requests 0.1% 0.0% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%

Number of reports required to be filed by judicial officials 4,661 4,529 4,431 4,292 4,198

Number of redaction requests for judicial officials 162 146 112 162 134

Percentage of judicial officials’ reports with redaction requests 3.5% 3.2% 2.5% 3.8% 3.2%

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  GAO-18-406

a

For the purposes of this report, we refer to federal judges and judicial employees who are required to 

file a financial report collectively as “judicial officials.”

For calendar years 2012 through 2016, there were a total of 716 requests 

for redaction of information from judicial officials’ financial disclosure 

reports—711 from judges and 5 from judicial employees—with a yearly 

average of about 143 redaction requests. In particular, for calendar years 

2012 through 2016, judicial officials’ redaction requests accounted for, on 

average, 3.2 percent of the total financial disclosure reports filed during 

this time period, as shown in table 5. When we segregated the results by 

judges and judicial employees, we found that, on average, 5.8 percent of 

judges requested redactions compared to 0.1 percent of judicial 

employees over the 5 year time period.

Table 5: Totals and 5-Year Averages of Redaction Requests for Judicial Officialsa, 

Calendar Years 2012 through 2016

5-year total 5-year average 

Number of redaction requests for judges 711 5.8%

Number of redaction requests for judicial 

employees

5 0.1%

Number of redaction requests for judicial officials 716 3.2%

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  GAO-18-406

a

For the purposes of this report, we refer to federal judges and judicial employees who are required to 

file a financial report collectively as “judicial officials.”
Page 17 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Of the 3.2 percent of financial disclosure reports that included redaction 

requests made from 2012 through 2016, on average, about 85 percent 

were granted, 3 percent were partially granted, and 12 percent were 

denied, as seen in figure 2.

Figure 2: Results for the Financial Disclosure Reports That Included Redaction 

Requests, Calendar Years 2012 through 2016

We analyzed AOUSC data on redaction requests made from calendar 

years 2012 through 2016 by type of information requested to be redacted 

and found that the majority (about 76 percent) of the requested redactions 

pertained to information related to the unsecured location of a judicial 

official or an immediate family member.18 The next biggest category of 

information requested to be redacted was the “other” category, with 10.4 

percent.19 Three categories—asset value, gifts, and reimbursement—

 18Judges and judicial employees may have requested redactions involving more than one 

category as part of the same request. For example, a judge may have requested the 

redaction of two categories—e.g., asset names and place of spouse’s employer—as part 

of the same request. For purposes of our analysis, we counted this as two redaction 

requests—one for each category. As a result, the number of redaction requests by 

category is greater than the number of actual redaction requests.

19The “other” category includes information that was requested to be redacted that did not 

easily fit into one of the remaining categories, based on information found in AOUSC’s 

redaction request database. For example, information described as “name of organization”

or “agreement” did not provide enough information for us to be able to place it in one of 

the designated categories. 

Most Redaction Requests 

Pertained to the 

Unsecured Location of a 

Judicial Official or 

Immediate Family Member
Page 18 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

each accounted for less than 1 percent of the redaction requests, as 

shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Types of Information Requested to be Redacted from Financial Disclosure 

Reports, by Percent, Calendar Years 2012 through 2016

a

Reimbursements are any payment to cover travel-related expenses, other than gifts. Examples of 

reportable reimbursements include seminars or judges’ association meetings where expenses (travel, 

lodging, food, etc.) are paid by a nongovernmental organization or private party.

b

Asset values are the values of reportable assets such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or bank 

accounts that have a fair market value in excess of $1,000, or from which the filer has received 

income in excess of $200 during the reporting period.

c

Gifts are a payment, advance, forbearance, deposit of money, or anything of value received by the 

filer, spouse, or dependent children from any source other than a relative. Information on gifts 

aggregating more than $375 in value must be reported (this amount increased to $390 starting in 

2017). Examples of gifts include tickets to an event where the value of the tickets exceeds $375, or 

an honorary membership to an organization that would otherwise charge for the membership. A 

judicial official is not to solicit a gift from a person who is seeking official action from or doing business 

with the court, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or 

nonperformance of the judicial official’s duties.

d

Asset names are the names of reportable assets such as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, or bank 

accounts.

e

Other includes types of information requested to be redacted that did not easily fit into one of the 

remaining categories, based on the description of the information found in the Administrative Office of 

the U.S. Court’s redaction request database. For example, information described as “name of 

organization” or “agreement” did not provide enough information for us to be able to place it in one of 

the designated categories.
Page 19 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

We requested copies of the annual redaction reports submitted to 

Congress for calendar years 2012 through 2016 and determined that 

AOUSC had not submitted the annual redaction reports to congressional 

committees of jurisdiction in a timely manner. Specifically, we found that 

AOUSC submitted the annual report covering 2012 in May 2014 and 

submitted four annual reports (for calendar years 2013 through 2016) in 

February and August of 2017, as shown in table 6. For the 2013 and 

2014 annual reports, AOUSC prepared and submitted them to the 

congressional committees of jurisdiction after we asked for them.

Table 6: Dates the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts Submitted Annual 

Redaction Reports to Congress, Calendar Years 2012 through 2016

Calendar year of annual report Date report was submitted to Congress

2012 May 7, 2014

2013a August 9, 2017

2014a August 9, 2017

2015 February 21, 2017

2016 February 28, 2017

Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts  GAO-18-406

a

During the course of this review, when we initially requested copies of the annual reports for 

calendar years 2012 through 2016, AOUSC officials were unable to locate the reports for calendar 

years 2013 and 2014. We contacted the committees of jurisdiction in the Senate (Judiciary and 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committees) and neither of these committees could 

find any record of having received the annual reports for 2013 and 2014. Given the lack of 

documentation on the annual reports for 2013 and 2014, AOUSC subsequently developed the annual 

reports for calendar years 2013 and 2014 and submitted them to the congressional committees of 

jurisdiction on August 9, 2017.

AOUSC officials told us that they could not find evidence that they had 

submitted the annual reports for calendar years 2013 and 2014 to the 

committees of jurisdiction in a timely manner. However, AOUSC staff sent 

a 5-year report to congressional committees of jurisdiction in March 2017 

that included information on redaction requests and results for calendar 

years 2012 through 2016. Thus, the congressional committees of 

jurisdiction had received no reports from AOUSC on redaction requests 

and results from May 2014 to February 2017. While the Ethics in 

Government Act of 1978, as amended, does not set a specific submission 

date, it requires that AOUSC submit an annual report (i.e., occurring once 

every year) to congressional committees of jurisdiction on the operation of 

the judiciary’s redaction authority. As shown in table 8 above, AOUSC did 

not submit an annual report every year, and there was an interval of 

almost three years (from May 2014 to February 2017) in which there is no 

record of AOUSC providing any annual redaction reports to Congress.

AOUSC Has Not 

Submitted Required 

Annual Redaction Reports 

to Congress in a Timely 

Manner
Page 20 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

AOUSC officials stated that although there are no reporting time frames 

specified in legislation for preparing and submitting the reports to the 

congressional committees of jurisdiction (other than annual submission), 

beginning in 2016, AOUSC staff began to work on preparing the redaction 

report for the previous year by February of the following year. The 

AOUSC officials acknowledged, though, that they have not implemented 

a formal process, with designated steps and time frames, to ensure they 

consistently produce the annual redaction reports in a timely manner. The 

AOUSC officials also stated that since 2013, the Financial Disclosure 

Office—the office responsible for preparing the reports—had experienced 

a series of changes in management, as well as staff turnover in key 

positions, which contributed to the inconsistent process for developing 

and completing the annual redaction reports in a timely manner. Given 

that AOUSC experienced staff turnover in the past, and could experience 

it in the future, it is important that AOUSC has the necessary controls in 

place to overcome staffing issues and ensure that it consistently prepares 

and submits the annual redaction reports to the committees in a timely 

manner.

Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government state that 

management should implement control activities by documenting 

responsibilities through policies for each unit.20 With guidance from 

management, each unit determines the policies necessary to achieve the 

desired objectives. Management should also define objectives in specific 

terms so they are understood at all levels. This involves clearly defining 

what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and 

the time frames for achievement. AOUSC officials stated that the annual 

reports cannot be compiled until after the close of the previous calendar 

year and after all data have been reviewed. While this is true, without a 

formal process for ensuring that staff complete the reports in a timely 

manner, there are no assurances that the process will consistently occur 

on a regular schedule, or at all. Implementing a more formal process, with 

specified steps and time frames, would ensure staff are fully informed of 

their responsibilities and allow AOUSC to be better positioned to provide 

the congressional committees of jurisdiction with timely redaction reports 

that can be used to conduct oversight of the federal judiciary’s use of its 

redaction authority.

 20GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sep. 10, 2014). 
Page 21 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

The Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as amended, serves the public 

interest by providing access to selected information from financial 

disclosure reports filed by judicial officials that could represent conflicts of 

interest for these officials. At the same time, the law accounts for the 

security threats faced by judicial officials and grants the judiciary authority 

to redact personal and sensitive information from their financial disclosure 

reports if a finding is made that the release of the information could 

endanger these officials or members of their families. Thus, the Judicial 

Conference has a responsibility to balance the goals of safeguarding 

judicial officials’ information and providing timely public access. The 

Judicial Conference developed a compliance process to ensure judicial 

officials were filing financial disclosure reports that adhere to applicable 

laws and regulations, and also had procedures in place to ensure the 

public had access to copies of judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports 

when requested. While the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, as 

amended, provides the Judicial Conference with authority to redact 

information that could pose a security threat to judicial officials, this 

authority has been used sparingly. From 2012 through 2016, about 3.2 

percent of financial disclosure reports included a redaction request and 

about 85 percent of those were approved. Nevertheless, the law requires 

AOUSC to submit an annual report to congressional committees of 

jurisdiction on the operation of the judiciary’s redaction authority, including 

information on the total number of reports with redactions and the types of 

information redacted. Our review of available guidance and 

documentation shows that AOUSC has not implemented a formal process 

for producing annual redaction reports and has not submitted these 

reports to Congress in a timely manner. Implementing a more formal 

process, with specified steps and timeframes, would allow AOUSC to be 

better positioned to provide congressional committees of jurisdiction with 

the required annual redaction reports that can be used to conduct 

oversight of the federal judiciary’s use of its redaction authority. This is 

particularly important given that Congress recently passed an extension 

to the judiciary’s redaction authority through the end of 2027.

The Director of AOUSC should develop and implement a formal process, 

with specified steps and associated time frames, to better ensure that 

required annual redaction reports are completed and submitted to 

Congress within the following year.

Conclusions

Recommendation for 

Executive Action
Page 22 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

In April 2018, we requested comments on a draft of this report from DOJ, 

USMS, and AOUSC. Neither DOJ nor USMS had any comments. 

AOUSC provided technical comments, which we have incorporated into 

the report, as appropriate. In particular, based on AOUSC comments, we 

amended the report title to provide greater clarity into the subject matter 

of the report and added additional text to the conclusions section to better 

address all aspects of the report’s findings. In addition to its technical 

comments, AOUSC provided an official letter for inclusion in the report, 

which can be seen in appendix III. In its letter, AOUSC stated it concurred 

with the recommendation and will determine how best to implement a 

more formalized process to better ensure it can submit annual redaction 

reports to Congress in a timely manner.

We are sending copies of this report to the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts, the Attorney General, the United States Marshals Service, 

selected congressional committees, and other interested parties. In 

addition, this report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 

on the last page of this report. Key contributions to this reported are listed 

in appendix III.

Gretta L. Goodwin

Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 23 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

List of Requesters

The Honorable Tom Carper

United States Senate

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

United States Senate

The Honorable James Lankford

United States Senate

The Honorable Patrick Leahy

United States Senate

The Honorable Claire McCaskill

United States Senate
Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016

Page 24 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016
Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016

Page 25 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016

Page 26 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016

Page 27 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016

Page 28 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix I: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10: Blank Financial 

Disclosure Report for Calendar Year 2016

Page 29 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix II: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10A Used for Requesting 

Copies of Judicial Officials’ Financial

Page 30 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Appendix II: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10A Used for Requesting 

Copies of Judicial Officials’ Financial 
Appendix II: Administrative Office of the U.S. 

Courts Form AO 10A Used for Requesting 

Copies of Judicial Officials’ Financial

Page 31 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Page 32 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

Page 33 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

Page 34 GAO-18-406 Financial Disclosure Compliance

Gretta L. Goodwin, (202) 512-8777 or goodwing@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Christopher Conrad (Assistant 

Director) and Valerie Kasindi (Analyst-in-Charge) managed this 

assignment. Kristiana Moore, Dominick Dale, Melissa Hargy, Eric 

Hauswirth, Amanda Miller, Jerry Sandau, and Janet Temko-Blinder made 

key contributions to this report.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgements

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(102048)
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 (https://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 https://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, https://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.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

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

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

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@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

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

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

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.