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

Letter

Background

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).

Judges’ NCR Travel Policies

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.

Judiciary Conferences and Associated Policies

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.

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

Judges’ Reported Annual NCR Travel Costs Ranged from $7.2 Million to $10.2 Million for Fiscal Years 2003 through 2014

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.

Collection of NCR Travel Data Does Not Allow AOUSC to Readily Identify Judiciary’s NCR Travel Costs

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.

The Judiciary Spent $11.5 Million on Conferences Costing over $100,000 and Followed Policies for Conference Planning and Administration

The Judiciary Spent $11.5 Million on Conferences Costing over $100,000 in Fiscal Years 2013 and 2014, and Is Taking Steps to Improve Its Cost Reporting

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.

The Judiciary Followed Its Policies for Conference Planning and Administration

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.

Cost Considerations

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.

Management Considerations and Internal Controls

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.

Conference Site Comparisons

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendation for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments on Our Evaluation

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.

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

Fiscal year 2013

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)

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

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgements

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgements

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.