Federal Judiciary: Improvements Needed for Collecting Judges' Non-Case-Related Travel Information
Published: 2015-12-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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 non-generalizable sample of eight conferences, and interviewed judicial officials responsible for planning the conferences.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. For judges, travel for conferences, training, and meetings  is considered travel not directly related to adjudicating cases, or non- case-related (NCR) travel.
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. Further, as we reported in  November 2015, the judiciary has been affected by mandatory  sequestration cuts to its budget in fiscal year 2013 by $346 million, or by  about 5 percent. Current law requires government-wide limits in  discretionary appropriations through fiscal year 2021 and sequestration of  direct spending through fiscal year 2025. 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. 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  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. 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. 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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. Table 1 shows total and travel obligations for the  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).
subsections: section_title: Judges’ NCR Travel Policies
paragraphs: Judiciary travel regulations require judges to report their NCR travel.  Each judge must prepare and file a report disclosing the NCR travel  undertaken by the judge during the previous calendar year utilizing the  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.
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.
section_title: Judiciary Conferences and Associated Policies
paragraphs: 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. Circuit judicial conferences are authorized  to meet annually or biennially as determined by the chief judge of each  circuit. 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 judicial branch as authorized by statute. USSC conducts  conferences, including seminars and workshops related to federal  sentencing guidelines and training programs related to sentencing  education for judicial and probation personnel.
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.
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. 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. 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 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.
section_title: 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
subsections: section_title: Judges’ Reported Annual NCR Travel Costs Ranged from $7.2 Million to $10.2 Million for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2014
paragraphs: 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. 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. 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.
section_title: Collection of NCR Travel Data Does Not Allow AOUSC to Readily Identify Judiciary’s NCR Travel Costs
paragraphs: 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  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. 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’ Non- Case-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. By improving its travel-reporting system, AOUSC officials  would be able to better collect required NCR travel information from  judges and identify and report the costs to the judiciary of judges’ NCR  travel in response to congressional member requests.
section_title: The Judiciary Spent $11.5 Million on Conferences Costing over $100,000 and Followed Policies for Conference Planning and Administration
subsections: section_title: 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
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: The Judiciary Followed Its Policies for Conference Planning and Administration
paragraphs: 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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Cost Considerations
paragraphs: 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  provides 10 examples of such cost considerations. 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.
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.
section_title: Management Considerations and Internal Controls
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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  review and signed approval by senior managers and the FJC  Director.
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.
section_title: Conference Site Comparisons
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Comments on Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: List of Judiciary Conferences over $100,000, Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014
subsections: section_title: Fiscal year 2013
paragraphs: National Workshop for Magistrate Judges I  2013 Federal Judicial Center National Educational Conference for Bankruptcy  Court Clerks, Bankruptcy Administrators, Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerks,  and Bankruptcy Court Chief Deputy Clerks  2013 Federal Judicial Center National Educational Conference for District  Court Clerks, District Court Executives, and District Court Chief Deputy Clerks  Experienced Supervisors Seminar: Targeting Leadership Excellence  Leadership Development Program Concluding Workshop (Class XI)
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Administrative Office of the United States Courts
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: 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.