In fiscal year 2014, the judiciary’s rent  payments to GSA totaled over $1 billion. However, we  found that the judiciary does not fully know how much it has saved as a  result of these efforts because it has not developed a reliable method for  estimating cost savings achieved by major cost containment initiative. Furthermore, court and defender organization officials we interviewed  identified efforts to achieve cost savings and efficiencies over the past 10  fiscal years. However, according to our analysis of available  documentation and discussions with judiciary officials, the $1.5 billion cost  savings estimate has limited reliability because the estimate does not  include all savings realized, includes savings not attributable to cost  containment initiatives, does not always include the costs associated with  implementing initiatives, and was not always supported by adequate  documentation. Information technology cost savings estimate—The $89 million  estimated savings resulting from information technology (IT) initiatives  has limitations because AOUSC officials did not include all potential  cost savings achieved or all costs to implement the initiatives. For example, the officials acknowledged that  $291 million of the $538 million in space- and facilities-related savings  resulted from lower than anticipated rent inflation and was not the result  of judiciary actions. We reviewed the judiciary’s annual congressional budget justifications for  fiscal years 2010 through 2016 and confirmed that congressional budget  justifications did not consistently report information on cost containment  initiatives or the estimated cost savings realized from the initiatives. The Judiciary Imposed Emergency Measures and Has Identified Negative Effects of the 2013 Sequestration and 2014 Lapse in Appropriations on Judiciary Personnel and Operations

		The Judiciary Began Preparing for Sequestration in 2012 and Imposed Emergency Measures

According to AOUSC and court officials we interviewed, the judiciary’s  cost containment initiatives helped to prepare the judiciary for potential  budget reductions, but the judiciary still needed to impose a set of  emergency measures to achieve the $346 million in budget cuts caused  by the 2013 sequestration and faced some planning challenges. AOUSC officials stated that some  courts cut hours of operation, closed 1 day per week, or chose not to hear  criminal cases every other Friday. Reduced court staff and implemented furloughs—AOUSC officials  stated that one of the most significant effects of the 2013  sequestration was the continuing loss of court staff through attrition,  including buyouts and voluntary early retirements, among other  actions. According to GAO analysis of judiciary data, in the 12 months  following sequestration, total onboard full-time equivalent staff in  federal courts nationwide declined by nearly 1,600 full-time equivalent  staff—or by approximately 8 percent. See figure 9 for the total number of  onboard full-time equivalent staff in federal defender organizations as  of the end of fiscal years 2010 to 2014. Reduced services to the public—Officials we interviewed  representing 6 of 12 circuit courts, 1 district court, and 2 of 4 defender  organizations reported that they reduced court services to the public,  such as reducing the number of hours open to the public, as a result  of sequestration. Recommendations

To provide more reliable information for assessing the progress of its cost  containment efforts and for informing judiciary and congressional  oversight and decision making, we recommend that the Director of  AOUSC take the following two actions for major cost containment  initiatives (as determined by the judiciary):  develop a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved (i.e., that ensures that cost savings are calculated in an accurate and complete manner); and regularly report estimated cost savings achieved. Specifically, the draft report identifies and describes the judiciary’s long- range budget planning process and strategic policy documents, such as  the Cost Containment Strategy for the Federal Judiciary: 2005 and  Beyond, among others, as mechanisms the judiciary uses to identify  opportunities for cost savings and efficiencies and describes several  examples of the cost containment initiatives that the judiciary has  undertaken in the past 10 years, including a list of multiple examples of  the judiciary’s cost containment initiatives in all categories in appendix III.
Why GAO Did This Study

In March 2013, the President ordered spending reductions, known as sequestration, across the federal government. As a result, the federal judiciary's resources were reduced by about $346 million over the remainder of fiscal year 2013. The judiciary has been affected by decreasing federal resources, such as the sequestration, and has been implementing various cost containment initiatives.
GAO was asked to evaluate judiciary cost savings actions and the effects of the 2013 sequestration. This report examines, among other things, (1) judiciary actions to achieve cost savings and efficiencies, and the extent to which the judiciary has estimated cost savings; and (2) judiciary actions to implement the 2013 sequestration and any effects from these actions on judiciary personnel and operations.
GAO analyzed relevant judiciary documents and collected information from and interviewed judiciary officials in all 12 regional circuit courts and the district court, bankruptcy court, and federal defender organization in four judicial districts, selected to obtain a diverse group of districts on the basis of funding level, among other factors.

What GAO Found

The federal judiciary has implemented cost containment initiatives for over 10 years, but the judiciary does not fully know how much it has saved because it has not developed a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved. For example, GAO found that the judiciary's estimate of cost savings primarily attributed to cost containment initiatives since fiscal year 2005—nearly $1.5 billion, relative to projected costs—does not include all savings realized from cost containment initiatives, includes amounts that did not result from initiatives, does not always include the costs associated with implementing initiatives, and was not always supported by adequate documentation. Examples of cost-saving initiatives are establishing rent budget caps and providing incentives to courts for work efficiency. Judiciary officials confirmed, for example, that $291 million of the $538 million in space and facilities estimated savings is the result of lower than anticipated rent inflation. Also, an estimated $89 million in savings resulting from information technology (IT) initiatives did not include all savings (such as savings from an IT-based solution to manage and administer the jury function) or provide adequate documentation of costs to implement the initiatives. Judiciary officials stated that they discuss cost containment initiatives in the judiciary's congressional budget justifications, among other documents. GAO analyzed the judiciary's congressional budget justifications and found that these documents did not consistently report information on cost savings achieved for major initiatives. Reliable information on and reporting of estimated cost savings achieved for major initiatives could help the judiciary better assess the progress of its initiatives and help inform congressional oversight and decision making.
The judiciary imposed emergency measures in response to the 2013 sequestration and has identified negative effects of the sequestration on the judiciary. Examples of emergency measures were postponing and reducing payments to private attorneys representing individuals who cannot afford counsel in criminal cases. One of the most significant effects of sequestration cited by judiciary officials was continued court staff loss. According to GAO analysis of judiciary data, in the 12 months following sequestration, total onboard court full-time equivalent staff declined by nearly 1,600—or about 8 percent (see fig.). Also, over 3,600 court and defender organization staff were furloughed in fiscal year 2013. Funding for expenses such as drug abuse treatment for offenders was reduced by 20 percent. Further, according to judiciary officials, some courts and defender organizations reduced services, such as closing 1 day per week.
Total Onboard Court Full-Time Equivalent Staff, as of End of Fiscal Years 2010 to 2014

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) take the following two actions for major cost containment initiatives: (1) develop a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved, and (2) regularly report estimated cost savings achieved. AOUSC said it will seriously consider GAO's recommendations.