Federal Judiciary: Improved Cost Savings Estimates Could Help Better Assess Cost Containment Efforts
Highlights
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
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.
Recommendations
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | To provide more reliable information for assessing the progress of its cost containment efforts and for informing judiciary and congressional oversight and decision making, the Director of AOUSC should develop a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved (i.e., that ensures that cost savings are calculated in an accurate and complete manner) for major cost containment initiatives (as determined by the judiciary). |
In November 2015, we found that the federal judiciary had implemented cost containment initiatives for over 10 years, but the judiciary did not fully know how much it had saved because it had not developed a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved. For example, we found that the judiciary's estimate of cost savings was primarily attributed to cost containment initiatives it had employed since fiscal year 2005 (nearly $1.5 billion, relative to projected costs), but the estimate (1) did not include all savings realized from cost containment initiatives, (2) included amounts that did not result from initiatives, (3) did not always include the costs associated with implementing initiatives, and (4) was not always supported by adequate documentation. To provide more reliable information for assessing the progress of its cost containment efforts and for informing congressional oversight and decision making, we recommended that the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AO) develop a reliable method for estimating cost savings achieved that ensures that cost savings are calculated in an accurate and complete manner. In January 2016, the Judicial Conference Budget Committee asked AO staff to lead a working group to examine major cost containment efforts and develop recommendations on how to proceed on improvements to the calculation and reporting of associated cost savings. The AO's working group developed definitions and guidelines for calculating cost savings achieved for judiciary staff to follow. In January 2019, the Judicial Conference Budget Committee approved the definitions and guidelines. According to AO staff, the definitions and guidelines are now in effect and apply to reporting data on any new cost containment initiatives and for reporting new data on existing cost-containment initiatives. We reviewed these definitions and guidelines and determined them to be sufficiently reliable. These actions should help the judiciary provide more reliable information for assessing the progress of its cost containment efforts and for informing judiciary and congressional oversight and decision making. Therefore, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | To provide more reliable information for assessing the progress of its cost containment efforts and for informing judiciary and congressional oversight and decision making, the Director of AOUSC should regularly report estimated cost savings achieved for major cost containment initiatives (as determined by the judiciary). |
In August 2019, the AOUSC liaison stated that AOUSC was developing a cost-containment reporting database for gathering and reporting cost savings data on key cost-containment measures from across the Judiciary, using the updated definitions and guidelines developed in response to recommendation 1. According to the AOUSC audit liaison, AOUSC finalized the database and cost-containment information is to be updated in the database by each November to be used to draft the cost-containment section(s) of the Judiciary's annual budget request submitted to Congress the following February. The AOUSC official further stated that the information contained in the Congressional Budget Request is to serve as an annual report of the Judiciary's key cost-containment efforts. In February 2020, the AOUSC published its FY 2021 Congressional Budget Request and in July 2020, the AOUSC audit liaison confirmed that AOUSC reports cost savings achieved for major cost-containment initiatives (as determined by the Judiciary) according to the guidelines and definitions developed, and using the methodology designed, in response to GAO's recommendations. We believe the AOUSC's actions address the intent of our recommendation. As a result, effective July 27, 2020, we are changing the status of this recommendation from "open" to "closed-implemented."
|