U.S. Table 1 shows total and travel obligations for the  judiciary from fiscal years 2003 through 2014. Judges’ NCR Travel Policies

Judiciary travel regulations require judges to report their NCR travel. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal judiciary consists of a system of courts that has the critical responsibility of ensuring the fair and swift administration of justice in the United States. Employees and judges within the judiciary travel for a variety purposes, including attending conferences for training and conducting judicial administration. For judges, travel not directly related to adjudicating cases has been termed NCR travel.
GAO was asked to review the judiciary's costs of judges' NCR travel and conferences. This report examines the following: (1) What has been the cost of judges' NCR travel from fiscal years 2003 through 2014 and to what extent does the judiciary collect information on its costs for judges' NCR travel? (2) How much did the judiciary spend on all conferences over $100,000 for its employees in fiscal years 2013 and 2014, and to what extent did selected conferences conform to judiciary policy on conferences? GAO analyzed judges' NCR travel data from fiscal years 2003 through 2014, reviewed procedures for collection of NCR travel information, and interviewed judiciary officials. GAO reviewed judiciary policy for conference planning and administration, information from a non-generalizable sample of eight conferences, and interviewed judicial officials responsible for planning the conferences.

What GAO Found

From fiscal years 2003 through 2014, judges have used a separate system to report their non-case-related (NCR) travel costs paid for by government and private sources. These NCR travel costs averaged $8.8 million per year. However, while the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) tracks the costs of all official travel in its accounting systems of record, the NCR system does not collect specific information on the direct costs to the federal judiciary for judges' NCR travel. GAO found that AOUSC's data collection system for judges' NCR travel information lacked controls to standardize responses to accurately record whether NCR travel was paid for by a court or judicial agency versus other federal agencies or private entities. As a result of these limitations in the NCR travel data, GAO was not able to determine the extent to which those reported costs were paid using judiciary funds rather than other federal or private sources. 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. According to the 2015 Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary, the judiciary must provide Congress timely and accurate information about issues affecting the administration of justice. By improving the system, AOUSC officials would be able to better collect required NCR travel information from judges and identify and report the judiciary's costs for judges' NCR travel in response to future congressional member requests.
The judiciary spent $11.5 million on 61 conferences costing over $100,000 in fiscal years 2013 and 2014. AOUSC began collecting information on judiciary conference spending across all courts and judicial agencies in fiscal year 2013 for conferences costing over $100,000. This information was used to develop publically available reports and indicated the judiciary spent $4.6 million in fiscal year 2013 and $6.9 million in fiscal year 2014 for conferences costing over $100,000.
The judiciary followed its policies for conference planning and administration. GAO sampled 8 conferences from the 61 conferences held in fiscal years 2013 and 2014 costing over $100,000 and determined the extent to which those conferences conformed to judiciary policy on conference planning and administration. GAO's results cannot be generalized to all conferences costing over $100,000 conducted by the judiciary, but do provide insight into the judiciary's compliance with its conference policies. Conference planners for the 8 conferences GAO sampled followed judiciary policy for conference planning and administration including (1) cost considerations— suggested strategies to reduce administrative, conferee travel, lodging, meeting room, and technology costs— (2) management considerations and internal controls: judiciary requirements for internal controls and management oversight of conference planning and implementation— and (3) conference site selection— a requirement to perform cost comparisons of at least two potential conference sites and document alternative sites considered and the rationale used for selecting the conference site.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends AOUSC improve its data collection system to collect and identify judges' NCR travel costs paid by the judiciary. AOUSC agreed with our recommendation.