	Reported Obligations for Fiscal Years 1996 Through 1998

DC Courts’ records indicated that total obligations in fiscal years 1996,  1997, and 1998 were $115.4, $119, and $126.3 million, respectively. Fiscal  year 1998 obligations reflect our adjustments, as discussed later, and are  not comparable to the prior years’ obligations. DC Courts’ Spending Plan

Upon receipt of its fiscal year 1998 appropriation, DC Courts was  responsible for developing a spending plan based on an appropriation that  was about $15.5 million less than it requested. DC Courts did not develop a  plan to ensure that its obligations did not exceed available resources. It  obligated throughout the year based on its expectation of receiving  additional funds. By the end of the fiscal year, DC Courts’ records showed that obligations  exceeded available resources by about $350,000. Specifically, its records  showed obligations of almost $122.2 million and funds received of about  $121.8 million. However, as I will now discuss, we found that adjustments  needed to be made to these amounts. The vouchers were approved by the presiding judges  or hearing commissioners in fiscal year 1998, and the obligations should  have been recorded in fiscal year 1998. However, DC Courts did not have authority to  spend this interest. As adjusted, DC Courts’ recorded obligations and available funding for  fiscal year 1998 would be $126.3 and $121 million, respectively, resulting in  a potential over-obligation of more than $5 million. The Anti-Deficiency  Act prohibits federal and DC government officials from making  expenditures or obligations in excess of amounts available in an  appropriation or fund unless otherwise authorized by law. In May  1998, OMB officials advised DC Courts to reduce non-personnel costs  instead of furloughing employees or closing the courts to avoid an Anti- Deficiency Act violation. DC Courts made the decision on July 24, 1998, to  defer payments for court-appointed attorneys for the remainder of the  fiscal year, and then used fiscal year 1999 appropriations to pay those  amounts. Processing of Payments to Court- Appointed Attorneys

Now I would like to discuss the payments that were made to court- appointed attorneys during fiscal year 1998 in terms of the process for  making such payments, and whether they were made promptly. We found that DC Courts processed vouchers for court-appointed  attorneys in accordance with its policies and procedures. However, its  procedures did not include time frames for making payments to court- appointed attorneys. A District law established the Crime Victims  Compensation Program under DC Courts jurisdiction prior to the  enactment of the Revitalization Act.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed the issues related to the District of Columbia (DC) Courts' financial operations for fiscal year (FY) 1998, focusing on: (1) identifying DC Courts' total obligations for fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998; (2) whether DC Courts had a spending plan for FY 1998, and whether it obligated funds consistent with available resources; (3) why payments to court-appointed attorneys were deferred between July and September 1998; and (4) whether DC Courts processed payments to court-appointed attorneys in accordance with policies and procedures.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) DC Courts experienced difficulties in planning and budgeting during this transition year; (2) DC Courts' records showed that it did not operate within its available resources, potentially in violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act; (3) GAO also identified a legal issue regarding the Crime Victims Compensation Program; (4) DC Courts' records indicated that total obligations in fiscal years 1996, 1997, and 1998 were $115.4, $119, and $126.3 million, respectively; (5) FY 1998 obligations reflect GAO's adjustments, and are not comparable to the prior years' obligations; (6) upon receipt of its FY 1998 appropriations, DC Courts was responsible for developing a spending plan based on an appropriation that was about $15.5 million less than it requested as a result of funding changes under the Revitalization Act and the FY 1998 appropriation act; (7) DC Courts did not develop such a plan or properly monitor spending to ensure that its obligations did not exceed available resources; (8) it obligated throughout the year based on its expectation of receiving additional funds; (9) by the end of the fiscal year, DC Courts' records showed obligations of almost $122.2 million and funds received of about $121.8 million; (10) however, GAO found that adjustments needed to be made to these amounts; (11) as adjusted, DC Courts' recorded obligations and available funding for FY 1998 would be $126.3 and $121 million, respectively; (12) thus, DC Courts potentially over-obligated available funds by more than $5 million; (13) the Anti-Deficiency Act prohibits federal and DC government officials from making expenditures or obligations in excess of amounts available in an appropriation or fund unless otherwise authorized by law; (14) to avoid an Anti-Deficiency Act violation, the DC Courts made the decision to defer payments for court-appointed attorneys for the remainder of the fiscal year, and then used FY 1999 appropriations to pay those amounts; (15) however, since the vouchers were approved by the presiding judges or hearing commissioners in FY 1998, the obligations should have been recorded in FY 1998; (16) DC Courts processed vouchers for court-appointed attorneys in accordance with its policies and procedures; and (17) however, its procedures did not include timeframes for making payments to court-appointed attorneys.