The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, 12 geographic circuit courts of appeals, 94 district courts, 91 bankruptcy courts, the Court of International Trade, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Court of Federal Claims. The federal judiciary’s fiscal year 1996 budget is about $3.3 billion, and on September 30, 1995, it employed about 28,000 persons. For fiscal year 1997, the federal judiciary has requested congressional approval of a budget of about $3.6 billion, including a staff of about 31,000. Governance of the federal judiciary is substantially decentralized. The Judicial Conference of the United States, a body of 27 judges over which the Chief Justice of the United States presides, is the federal judiciary’s principal policymaking body. The Conference’s statutory responsibilities include considering administrative problems of the courts and making recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business. The Conference conducts its work principally through about 25 committees. In September 1993, the Judicial Conference established within its Budget Committee an Economy Subcommittee and charged it with reviewing judiciary operations to achieve greater fiscal responsibility, accountability, and efficiency. Created by Congress in 1939, AOUSC provides a wide range of administrative, legal, and program support services to the federal courts, including budgeting, space and facilities, automation, statistical analysis and reports, financial audit, and program and management evaluation. The AOUSC Director serves as the administrative officer for the courts under the supervision and direction of the Judicial Conference. AOUSC’s staff supports the work of the Conference and its committees, including the Economy Subcommittee. AOUSC provides analyses and recommendations on resource allocations to the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, which has final authority for resource allocations. Authorized by the same statute that created AOUSC, each of the 12 geographic judicial circuits has a judicial council with the authority to issue all necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice within their circuits. Within each circuit, the Circuit Executive, whose duties vary by circuit, may have responsibility for conducting studies of the business and administration of the courts within the circuit. Neither Congress nor the Judicial Conference has formally charged chief judges with overall responsibility for the administration of their courts. Nevertheless, according to AOUSC, the chief judges of the appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts are generally expected to exercise whatever administrative authority is necessary for the effective and efficient operation of their individual courts. AOUSC program reviews, including on-site reviews of local court operations, are only one means by which the federal judiciary may assess its highly decentralized operations. The Judicial Conference of the United States, the circuit judicial councils, the chief judge of each court, and court unit executives, such as Chief Probation Officers or clerks of court, may all request AOUSC studies and support or initiate their own reviews and assessments. Such studies may be undertaken by AOUSC staff alone, in conjunction with staff from local courts, or by outside experts and consultants, such as the National Academy of Public Administration. Our work focused on AOUSC’s reviews and assessments, principally on-site reviews of local court operations. The organization of this oversight function within AOUSC has varied since responsibility for court audits and disbursement of judicial funds was transferred from the Department of Justice to AOUSC in 1975. After this transfer, AOUSC created an audit unit to perform routine, cyclical financial audits and management reviews of the courts. Before 1985, this unit reviewed the finances and programs of the courts. Several AOUSC auditors, management analysts, and attorneys conducted the reviews, visiting a district for about 2 to 3 weeks interviewing court personnel and reviewing records. Following an exit conference, the review team prepared a report that usually included recommendations. In 1985, AOUSC placed the financial and program review functions on different review cycles. Soon after the current AOUSC Director’s appointment in July 1985, Chief Justice Warren E. Burger established a committee of four judges to study AOUSC and provide advice on improving the agency. According to the AOUSC Director, judges and court officials whom the committee surveyed said AOUSC was too bureaucratic and controlling in its relationship with the courts. At about the same time, judges were telling the AOUSC Director that AOUSC’s management review process should be more sensitive to matters that are “exclusively the concern of the courts.” In 1988, the AOUSC Director discontinued the Office of Audit and Review, created an Office of Audit to conduct court financial reviews; delegated program review responsibilities to the program units; and established an evaluation unit, now known as the Office of Program Assessment (OPA), to oversee and coordinate program review efforts and to carry out special reviews and investigations. AOUSC’s Office of Audit is to conduct routine, cyclical financial reviews and oversee the work of contract financial auditors. Virtually all AOUSC offices have conducted reviews, special studies, evaluations, and surveys, which varied considerably by functional area. These reviews, often undertaken at the request of individual courts, have covered such issues as costs, budgets, spending, workload, outputs, and program implementation results. Some reviews have resulted in recommendations for improvements in such areas as processes and practices and the use of resources or technology. In responding to your request, our objective was to review AOUSC’s program assessment and efficiency promotion efforts regarding federal court operations. These operations include such court functions as the clerks of court offices, probation and pretrial services, judicial chambers management support, and statistical reporting. Generally, our review focused on AOUSC oversight activities conducted during fiscal years 1992 through 1994. Our approach was threefold. First, we met with top-level AOUSC officials and were briefed on AOUSC’s oversight and management assistance activities. We also met with managers from AOUSC program divisions that conducted program reviews and provided assistance to local courts to discuss oversight and management assistance functions and activities. Senior AOUSC management officials attended most of our meetings with managers from AOUSC’s program divisions. We reviewed manuals and other documentation on the operations and responsibilities of AOUSC’s management and program offices and divisions and AOUSC’s assessment and efficiency promotion activities. Second, using data maintained by the OPA, we identified 376 on-site reviews (excluding financial audits, judgeship surveys, and other nonprogrammatic reviews) conducted by selected program divisionsduring fiscal years 1992 through 1994 and requested reports on all of them. However, 244 of the reviews listed either did not result in written reports, were erroneous entries, had reports that AOUSC could not locate, were duplicate entries in OPA’s data, were never completed, or had reports that were still in draft form when we requested them. In the end, we reviewed 93 of the 132 written reports available to determine how the process followed in these reviews compared to generally accepted government auditing standards. We used a data collection instrument to systematically collect information from the program review reports, including the office that conducted the review, the person or persons who initiated the review and why, issues addressed, problems noted, efficient and effective practices identified, recommendations made, information available on the implementation of any recommendations, and standards and guidelines used for identifying problems and/or efficient and effective practices. Finally, we interviewed judges and court officials from a selection of appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts plus probation offices in a judgmentally selected cross-section of courts of different sizes in three regions of the country—the Northeast, Midwest, and South. We determined court unit size on the basis of fiscal year 1993 workload. For appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts, we used cases filed (rounded to the nearest hundred) as our measure of workload. For probation offices we used the total number of persons under supervision in each probation office (rounded to the nearest hundred). We also interviewed the chairs of four Judicial Conference committees: the Committee on the AOUSC (current and former chairs), the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Committee on Judicial Resources, and the Budget Committee’s Economy Subcommittee (one of the co-chairs). We did our work primarily in Washington, D.C., between October 1994 and March 1996 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. One or more senior AOUSC officials monitored our discussions with Judicial Conference Committee chairs and most of our meetings with the assistant directors of AOUSC’s program offices; however, we believe we were able to independently obtain needed information from the chairs and assistant directors. We obtained written comments from AOUSC on a draft of this report. Its comments are evaluated in this letter and are reprinted in full in appendix II. The need to keep costs down in an era of budgetary constraints has focused attention on the judiciary’s processes to ensure that it is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible. Program and financial reviews are one means of providing judges and managers information on the efficiency and effectiveness of court operations. To ensure that the information from these reviews is reliable, it is important that those conducting the reviews follow generally accepted government auditing standards. From 1988 until 1995, AOUSC’s program review process was decentralized and unstructured and did not always follow these standards. In November 1995, OPA issued written standards for conducting program assessments that, with two exceptions relating to reviewer independence and preparation of reports, track the generally accepted government auditing standards. Certain laws, regulations, and contracts require auditors who audit federal organizations, programs, activities, and functions to follow the generally accepted government auditing standards promulgated by the Comptroller General. The federal judiciary is not specifically required by statute to follow these auditing standards. AOUSC’s Office of Audit, which conducts financial audits, has chosen to follow the standards and also requires its contract auditors to do so. However, prior to November 1995, AOUSC had not prescribed uniform standards for its nonfinancial review activities. The generally accepted government auditing standards are broad statements of auditors’ responsibilities. They relate to both financial and performance audits and include general standards, which relate to the qualifications of the staff, the audit organization’s and the individual auditor’s independence, the exercise of due professional care in conducting the audit and in preparing related reports, and the presence of quality controls; fieldwork standards, which relate to the planning and supervision of the actual work, examination of compliance with laws and regulations, an understanding of management controls in place, and the quality of the evidence gathered during the audit; and reporting standards, which relate to the requirement for written reports and recommendations, the timeliness and contents of reports, the way in which reports are presented, and the distribution of reports. Although the judiciary is not specifically required by statute to follow the generally accepted government auditing standards, AOUSC has followed these standards for its financial audits. AOUSC officials told us they believed the standards were generally appropriate for nonfinancial reviews as well. AOUSC’s financial audit responsibilities are assigned by statute and follow the generally accepted government auditing standards. Until November 1995, however, AOUSC did not require its program offices and divisions to follow standards similar to the generally accepted government auditing standards in conducting program reviews. Each office and division had wide latitude to determine how it would review local court operations, the standards it would use during a review, and whether it would produce a written report. Program units adopted a variety of review approaches, ranging from conducting regular program reviews to having no identifiable review functions. The basic approach for most divisions and offices was one of consultation, with most reviews done at the request of the local court. The generally accepted government auditing standards require that a written report be prepared to communicate the results of the review to all who could act on the report’s recommendations. According to OPA data, 376 program reviews were conducted during fiscal years 1992 through 1994. However, according to OPA officials, only 132 of these resulted in written reports. Of these 132 written reports, 90 (68 percent) were prepared by the Federal Corrections and Supervision Division. One unit, the Contract and Services Division, did not produce reports as a matter of policy. According to OPA data, this division undertook 104 reviews during the 3-year period we reviewed, and it neither required nor produced written reports on the results of its reviews. A 1993 OPA assessment of the Division’s review process noted that its lack of written review results deprived current and successor division management and staff of valuable information about court practices that could help them identify trends, evaluate the success of program changes, and propose new initiatives. In contrast, the Federal Corrections and Supervision Division scheduled routine reviews of probation and pretrial offices, compared their performance to written policies and standards, and produced written reports of the reviews about 90 percent of the time. During the period of our review, AOUSC had no requirement that program units follow up on the implementation of any recommendations made to local courts. We found that follow-up on recommendations was inconsistent. Although the Federal Corrections and Supervision Division generally tracked the implementation of recommendations, most other divisions did not. AOUSC cannot compel a local court to comply with its recommendations. One court resisted upgrading its telephone system for 10 years because it preferred to acquire its system from a specific vendor in a sole-source procurement. AOUSC would not approve a noncompetitive procurement but neither did it require the court to upgrade its costly system, with the court remaining on an expensive lease. The court has only recently replaced its telephone system through a competitive procurement. AOUSC estimated that the new system would save about $133,000 per year. If the new system’s future annual savings had been achieved during the 10 years of the disagreement, the local court and, thus, the judiciary, could have avoided about $1 million in costs. AOUSC officials said such an impasse is unlikely to recur in today’s budget environment. Recognizing that its decentralized review process had resulted in reviews of uneven coverage and quality, AOUSC, through OPA, issued standards in November 1995 for conducting program assessments that, with two exceptions, track the generally accepted government auditing standards. The new standards require some type of written record of the results of any review and require follow-up of any reported significant findings and recommendations. OPA also issued a study guide to help AOUSC program unit staff select court units for review and conduct the reviews, and OPA plans to provide training on the new standards to AOUSC personnel in 1996. Finally, AOUSC has directed each program division to develop and share with OPA an internal assessment plan and to provide OPA with a copy of all assessment reports. However, the new OPA standards do not appear to adequately cover two issues in the generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General: independence of the reviewer and preparation of formal reports. Concerning organizational independence, the generally accepted standards state that program reviewers should be organizationally located outside the staff or line management function of the unit being reviewed. OPA’s standards call for review team members to be organizationally independent only “to the extent feasible.” In commenting on the standard, OPA adds that in cases where a review team is not organizationally independent, consideration should be given by management to having a peer review team evaluate the report prior to its issuance. Concerning preparation of formal reports, the generally accepted standard is that reviewers are to prepare written reports communicating the results of each review. The standard points out that written reports (1) communicate the results of reviews to officials at all levels of government, (2) make the results less susceptible to misunderstanding, (3) make the results available for public inspection, and (4) facilitate follow-up to determine whether appropriate corrective actions have been taken. OPA’s standards, however, allow for formal and informal reports, such as trip reports or memoranda to the files. The OPA standards state that management should require formal reports only when the reviewed organization requests one, significant findings are discovered during the review, or follow-up is required on any of the significant findings and recommendations. Copies of each completed report are to be sent to OPA, which is to summarize them for the Administrative Office Committee of the Judicial Conference and as appropriate for senior management of AOUSC. AOUSC has begun to coordinate its review activities. OPA has established a network of 35 program review officers within AOUSC, which is to meet every 1 to 3 months to discuss assessment issues. These officers are also to serve as focal points for reviews within their respective AOUSC program areas. During fiscal year 1996, AOUSC’s automated travel software is to be modified to permit OPA to monitor on-site visits by AOUSC program units, including information on the purpose of the trips and the locations to be visited. OPA has also initiated a series of “triage” visits to local courts in which a team visits for 2 to 3 days to discuss local operations and AOUSC’s relationship to the local court. The goal is to provide broad coverage of court operations and to ensure that program and administrative division reviews are complemented by broader based surveys and reviews. Selection criteria include (1) locations having comparatively low recent review activity by the key program areas; (2) statistical indicators, such as the presence of unusually high- or low-cost operations, unusual workload patterns or case mix, or case dispositions substantially different from national averages; (3) change of chief judge; (4) change of court clerk; (5) geographical factors; and (6) special request and others. Prior to these visits, OPA is to develop a profile of the court by collecting a variety of workload and budgetary data on the local court, plus copies of prior reviews by AOUSC units. From these triage reports, OPA plans to develop a catalogue of common issues. As of May 1, 1996, OPA had completed triage reviews of six district courts and had two reviews under way. These actions, if consistently implemented, should help address many of the weaknesses in the previous program review process. However, AOUSC standards fall short of the generally accepted auditing standards in that they do not require (1) program assessors to be independent of the unit they are assessing or (2) that assessment reports be distributed to all officials who can act on the findings and recommendations. As an effort to reduce spending, in fiscal year 1996 the federal judiciary requested funding for only 86 percent of the staff it estimated would be needed to handle the expected workload. AOUSC officials estimated that the judiciary’s appropriation for salaries and expenses request of about $2.6 billion would have been $139 million higher if the judiciary had requested funds to staff expected workload at 100 percent of staff needed, as determined by staffing formulas. To assist the various courts and administrative units in operating within this constrained budget, the judiciary has established two complementary focal points for identifying, disseminating, and incorporating more efficient ways of doing business. First, in 1993 the Judicial Conference established an Economy Subcommittee within its Budget Committee to (1) review the judiciary’s budget submission, (2) initiate and pursue studies about ways to economize while continuing to provide a consistently high quality of justice, and (3) be an “honest broker” of ideas relative to economy and efficiency. Second, at about the same time, the Conference’s Judicial Resources Committee and Economy Subcommittee directed AOUSC to undertake a comprehensive review of its work measurement methodology for court staffing to determine how greater efficiencies might be incorporated into the methodology. The Economy Subcommittee is a successor to the District Court Efficiencies Task Force. In 1992, at the request of the Judicial Resources Committee, AOUSC established the task force when it identified wide variations in the work processes and use of staff in district court clerks’ offices. In April 1993, the task force, composed of judges and court unit executives, developed a list of potentially efficient practices that were circulated to all district court chief judges for consideration and possible adoption. This list addressed such areas as jury and personnel management, and space and facilities. In coordination with the Judicial Conference’s various program committees, the Economy Subcommittee has sponsored studies to identify better practices. AOUSC created a support office for the Subcommittee, which has compiled a database of better practices, such as cost containment ideas, including those identified by the District Court Efficiencies Task Force. However, the database can be accessed only by the support office staff. Thus, to use the database to identify ideas about how to operate more efficiently, local courts must make a specific request. The Economy Subcommittee is also to serve as a critical reviewer of the budget requests of the program areas represented by each Judicial Conference committee, such as Defender Services or Automation and Technology. Although the Subcommittee can use these reviews as an opportunity to encourage the adoption of more efficient practice, it cannot require their adoption. The Judicial Resources Committee, in conjunction with the Economy Subcommittee, directed AOUSC to undertake a comprehensive program to ensure that greater efficiencies are incorporated in the staffing formulas, which are based on a work measurement methodology. In response, in 1994, a group of court unit executives, working with AOUSC, undertook a study that resulted in the creation of the methods analysis program (MAP).Managed by the Analytical Services Office (ASO), the program analyzes workload flows, processes, and methods in order to identify better, more efficient practices. For each organization reviewed (such as the clerk of court or probation office), ASO is to develop an overall analysis of the functions performed (such as case intake in the clerk of court office) and a detailed documentation and analysis of the work processes used to accomplish that function. The goal is to identify tasks that can be eliminated, transferred, or done more efficiently. The program includes incentives for local court units to adopt the better practices identified by the analysis. After a better practice has been identified and approved, courts will be encouraged, but not required, to adopt it. After several years, the staffing formula used to allocate staff to local courts is to be revised to reflect the effect of the better practices. To encourage immediate adoption of any practices that reduce costs, local courts may keep a portion of any savings they achieve through adoption of the practices. ASO began applying the program with probation offices and plans to review all the major functions of appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts. It recently completed a study of the case opening function in district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices. According to AOUSC officials, there are a variety of other ways in which information on better practices may be shared within the judiciary. For example, judges and other court personnel may share information on better practices in national and regional meetings, such as the meetings of AOUSC advisory groups, which include personnel from local courts. Internal publications, such as the Federal Court Management Report, training programs, and electronic bulletin boards, may also be used to highlight suggestions and findings. AOUSC’s role in the oversight of court operations is part of the broader structure of court management and governance. Through its support of the Judicial Conference and its committees, and the provision of guidance and advice to court units throughout the nation, AOUSC can provide a national, comparative perspective on court operations. Through its recommended budget allocations, AOUSC can also help to encourage the adoption of efficient practices throughout the federal judiciary. Until recently, AOUSC’s program review approach lacked structure, written guidance, and a central, accurate, and current repository of reviews and reports. The changes being implemented by AOUSC—establishment of a network of program review officers, publication of a study guide, identification of courts and program units to be visited, and revised standards for conducting program reviews—should, if properly implemented, address many of the oversight weaknesses noted above. However, the standards do not completely track the generally accepted government auditing standards issued by the Comptroller General. OPA’s standards allow AOUSC program and court staff to review programs they are responsible for administering. This is inconsistent with the generally accepted standard. OPA’s standards permit reviews to be performed by less-than-independent teams subject to a peer review. However, this approach may not be sufficient to overcome a potential perception of reviewer bias by knowledgeable third parties. OPA standards also allow “managers” to decide whether formal reports are to be issued after program reviews are conducted. This, too, is inconsistent with the generally accepted standard. OPA standards do not ensure that all review team findings will be documented and made available to judiciary officials who can act on them. AOUSC’s previous efforts at internal oversight lacked structure; the recent changes proposed by OPA represent not only a significant improvement but also a significant change in the way oversight has been conducted within AOUSC. Therefore, it would be prudent to monitor how the review officials and program units are implementing the revised system and operating under the new standards. The judiciary’s efforts to identify efficient practices and encourage their adoption by local court units seem appropriate. Many of these efforts are relatively recent and evidence is not yet available for measuring the extent of success. A key measure in this regard will be the number of local courts and program units that adopt “better practices” and either reduce or avoid increasing their budgets. To help ensure that AOUSC’s program assessments meet generally accepted auditing standards, we recommend that the Director of AOUSC direct OPA to amend those standards to provide greater assurance against a potential perception of reviewer bias by knowledgeable third parties and greater assurance that all review team findings will be documented and reported to judiciary officials who can act on them, and check each AOUSC division’s compliance with both its plan for conducting program assessments and the standards and study guide for conducting those assessments. AOUSC provided written comments on a draft of this report, which are printed in full in appendix II. AOUSC said that it agrees with the report’s recommendations and intends to “adopt them without reservation.” AOUSC’s written comments also discuss AOUSC activities that were outside the scope of this review. AOUSC provided technical comments separately, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the Chairman of your Subcommittee, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Members of other relevant House and Senate Committees with oversight and appropriations responsibilities for the federal judiciary, and the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. This report was prepared under the direction of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director. Other major contributors are listed in appendix III. If you have any questions about this report, please call me on (202) 512-8777. AOUSC provides a broad spectrum of management, administrative, and program support to the federal courts. AOUSC’s executive staff, which oversees the provision of this support, comprises the Director and two associate directors—an Associate Director who is also General Counsel, and an Associate Director of Management and Operations. The Associate Director and General Counsel supervised the Office of General Counsel (OGC) which provides legal counsel and services to the AOUSC Director and staff, the Judicial Conference and its committees, and to judges and other court officials. Among other services, OGC arranges legal representation for judges and court officials sued in their official capacity and represents AOUSC in bid protests and other administrative litigation. OGC also responds to judges, court officials, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the general public regarding legal inquiries relating to court operations. AOUSC has five management offices—the Office of Audit; Office of Management Coordination; Office of Program Assessment; Office of Judicial Conference Executive Secretariat; and the Office of Congressional, External and Public Affairs. The Office of Audit (OA) is responsible for the conduct of comprehensive financial audits of the courts’ financial operations and systems. This office (1) provides guidance and oversight for the routine, cyclical financial audits performed by an outside contractor at each court every 2-1/2 years. The office is also responsible for special audits, such as those conducted for a change in accountable officer,and for audits of the central financial systems that support all of the courts. The Office of Audit periodically summarizes the results of individual audit reports to identify recurring and systemic problems. The Office of Management Coordination (OMC) provides general management and policy analysis support to the AOUSC Director and the Associate Director, Management and Operations, by conducting studies and providing advice on management, planning, organization, and publications. OMC is also responsible for coordinating and monitoring management improvement efforts agencywide in an effort to enhance organizational performance. In addition, OMC provides staff support and assistance to the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administrative Office. OMC coordinates AOUSC responses to committee recommendations and to suggestions or complaints from judicial officers directed to the committee. The Office of Program Assessment (OPA) is responsible for overseeing and monitoring the review and assessment processes for judiciary programs and operations by providing assistance to AOUSC program offices and divisions conducting reviews of court operations and by establishing and maintaining information reporting systems for these reviews. OPA is also responsible for monitoring AOUSC’s management controls program, which has been established to try to maximize the use of resources and to safeguard assets. In addition, OPA coordinates or conducts special reviews, evaluations, or investigations as requested. The Office of Judicial Conference Executive Secretariat (OJCES) provides staff support and assistance in planning and preparing official records of Judicial Conference meetings. OJCES also provides staff support and assistance to the Judicial Conference’s Executive Committee. In addition, OJCES is responsible for ensuring that AOUSC units provide effective staff support for Judicial Conference committees. The Office of Congressional, External and Public Affairs (OCEPA) is responsible for both the performance and the coordination of activities that involve the relationships of the federal judiciary with Congress, the executive branch, state government entities, the media, bar associations, other legal groups, and the public. OCEPA develops, presents, and promotes legislative initiatives approved by the Judicial Conference; prepares or coordinates responses to all policy or legislative inquiries from Congress; and identifies and monitors congressional activity that might have a major impact upon the federal judiciary. In addition to the five management offices, AOUSC has six broad program offices—the Office of Automation and Technology; the Office of Court Programs; the Office of Facilities, Security and Administrative Services; the Office of Finance and Budget; the Office of Human Resources and Statistics; and the Office of Judges Programs. The Office of Information and Technology (OAT) includes seven offices and divisions, plus two training and support centers. OAT is responsible for the implementation of automated data processing, office automation, and information systems in the judiciary. OAT’s responsibilities include assisting in the formation of the judiciary’s automation plans and budgets, developing and implementing court automated systems, providing liaison services to help ensure that the needs of automation users are met, and overseeing and reporting on the use of the Judiciary Automation Fund. The Office of Court Programs’ (OCP) six offices and divisions are responsible for overseeing and supporting the judiciary’s clerks’ offices, court reporters, court interpreters, librarians, staff and conference attorneys, federal public defenders, and probation and pretrial services officers. OCP also is charged with facilitating the development of Judicial Conference policies regarding court administration, defender services, and probation and pretrial services; providing guidance to the courts by preparing procedural manuals; and conducting on-site reviews of court operations. The Court Administration divisions conduct Post Automation Reviews (PARs) in individual courts, and the Federal Corrections and Supervision Division conducts reviews of the Probation and Pretrial Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS) in individual probation and pretrial services offices. The Defender Services Division provides administrative support for and analyses of Defender Services workload and costs. The responsibilities of the Office of Facilities, Security and Administrative Services’ (OFSAS) six offices and divisions include security plans and operations (in coordination with the U.S. Marshals Service), procurement, property management, printing, nonautomation contracting, space and facilities, and relocation and travel functions. OFSAS provides security advice to the courts, develops procurement regulations, and assists courts in meeting their space needs. The office is also responsible for providing administrative support and services to AOUSC, including personnel services and management of the Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building. Recently renamed, it was formerly called the Office of Automation and Technology. The Office of Finance and Budget’s (OFB) five offices and divisions are responsible for conducting financial and budgetary analyses of judiciary programs, establishing fiscal and accounting policies for the judiciary, and coordinating the development of the judiciary’s budget request to Congress. Through its Economy Subcommittee Support Office, OFB is responsible for coordinating efforts to improve efficiency and economy in court administration. In addition, OFB is responsible for developing the work measurement formulas used to staff the offices of court clerks and probation pretrial offices and produces judicial impact statements that analyze the potential and actual effects of legislation on the judiciary. The Office of Human Resources and Statistics’ (OHRS) four offices and divisions are responsible for overseeing and managing the judiciary’s human resources and statistics functions, including the administration of personnel, payroll, retirement, and insurance programs. The Analytical Services Office is responsible for studying court work methods in an effort to improve operational efficiency through the judiciary’s new Methods Analysis Program. OHRS also develops training policies for AOUSC and court personnel, administers the new Court Personnel Management System, and analyzes and disseminates court workload data through its Statistics Division. The Office of Judges Programs’ (OJP) five offices and divisions provide administrative services to circuit, district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges; conduct court surveys to determine the need for additional magistrate and bankruptcy judges; make recommendations regarding long-range planning for the judiciary; and provide staff support for several Judicial Conference committees, such as the Committee on Rules, Practice, and Procedure. OJP also provides technical assistance in chambers and case management, organizes orientation programs for new judges, and assists the Federal Judicial Center in planning and conducting training seminars. James R. Bradley, Senior Evaluator Dana L. DiPrima, Evaluator Rudolf F. Plessing, Senior Evaluator Lucine M. Willis, Evaluator The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts' (AOUSC) assessment of local court operations, focusing on whether AOUSC is promoting efficient administrative practices within the judiciary. GAO found that: (1) AOUSC issued uniform written standards for nonfinancial program reviews in November 1995; (2) most of the reviews requested for fiscal years 1992 through 1994 were not conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards, contained incomplete reports, were not distributed properly, and did not indicate appropriate corrective actions; (3) AOUSC created a network of 35 program review officers that serve as focal points and advisors for review and assessment activities within AOUSC; (4) the Office of Program Assessment (OPA) has initiated a series of court visits to better identify program units needing additional oversight; (5) OPA does not require its program reviewers to be independent of the units they are assessing or to prepare formal reports for each program review; (6) AOUSC has created a program that achieves savings by systematically identifying better, more efficient practices; and (7) it is too early to determine whether the program is having an impact on operational costs.