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. Generally, our review focused on AOUSC oversight activities conducted during fiscal years 1992 through 1994. 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. 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. 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. 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. This, too, is inconsistent with the generally accepted standard. The judiciary’s efforts to identify efficient practices and encourage their adoption by local court units seem appropriate.
Why GAO Did This Study

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.

What GAO Found

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.