U.S. Courts: The Judiciary Should Improve Its Policies on Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Investigations
Fast Facts
The federal judiciary investigates fraud, waste, and abuse allegations to hold its judges and staff accountable for their conduct as government officials and managers of public resources.
But federal judiciary policies for addressing alleged fraud, waste, and abuse don't fully align with investigative best practices on establishing documented procedures and ensuring independence. For example, investigations are referred to the same unit from which the allegations originated—raising concern about independence and transparency.
We recommended that an independent office be created to carry out the judiciary's fraud, waste, and abuse program.
Highlights
What GAO Found
The federal judiciary's policies for addressing allegations of fraud, waste, and abuse do not fully align with leading investigative guidance on establishing documented procedures and ensuring independence. For example:
- The judiciary's policies do not require all components with responsibility for addressing fraud, waste, and abuse allegations to establish relevant documented procedures. The policies encourage, but do not require, court units and federal public defender organizations to establish a process for resolving fraud, waste, and abuse allegations. The policies also do not require these components to document the process they establish. Officials in the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts attributed the lack of a requirement to document these processes to the chief judge of a court having the authority and responsibility for ensuring that such allegations are appropriately addressed. However, the lack of such a requirement increases the likelihood that components are not documenting their processes and that process inconsistencies exist among components.
- The judiciary's policies do not ensure independence in investigations. By policy, the Administrative Office is to refer allegations to the component from which they originated (e.g., allegations about a court are to be referred to the chief judge of the court and addressed by local procedures). In such instances, nothing in documented policy prohibits individuals from being assigned to investigate employees with whom they have a close relationship, which raises concerns about independence in the investigations.
The Judiciary's Referral Process for a Court Employee's Fraud, Waste, or Abuse Allegation
Establishing an independent entity to carry out the judiciary's fraud, waste, and abuse program would help to address threats to independence in such investigations. However, Administrative Office officials stated that the judiciary believes establishing such an entity would interfere with the internal governance and independence of the judicial branch. Such an entity would not have to interfere with this branch's independence. Instead, the entity—which could be an office—could be located within the Administrative Office but outside of its reporting structure. This would help to reduce threats to its independence and help ensure accountability over the judiciary's operations.
Why GAO Did This Study
The federal judiciary consists of a system of courts that is responsible for ensuring the fair administration of justice. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts provides support services (e.g., legal, IT) to federal courts.
The judiciary's fraud, waste, and abuse investigation program is intended to help hold judiciary staff responsible for their conduct as government officials and for the management of public resources. Management of this program is decentralized, with the Administrative Office and components throughout the judicial branch (e.g., courts) having various responsibilities.
GAO was asked to review the federal judiciary's policies for addressing fraud, waste, and abuse. This report evaluates the extent to which the judiciary's policies for addressing fraud, waste, and abuse align with leading investigative guidance, among other things. To do so, GAO assessed documentation and interviewed Administrative Office officials to compare judicial policies against leading investigative practices identified by the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency.
Recommendations
GAO is making eight recommendations, including that the Administrative Office establish an independent office to carry out the judiciary's fraud, waste, and abuse program. The Administrative Office said it would consider the recommendations as part of its efforts to further develop the program. As discussed in the report, GAO maintains the recommendations are appropriate and necessary.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should work with the Judicial Conference to ensure that all relevant judicial components with responsibility for addressing fraud, waste, and abuse allegations have established documented processes for addressing such allegations. (Recommendation 1) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that the AO was planning to establish a fraud, waste, and abuse working group comprised of judges and judiciary executives. They expected this working group to be responsible for drafting policies and model procedures for court units and federal public defender organizations. The officials also expected the working group to begin meeting in early 2024. However, as of August 2024, the agency had not yet provided documentation demonstrating that this working group had been established. It was also unclear when all relevant judicial components with responsibility for addressing fraud, waste, and abuse allegations would establish such processes, as we recommended. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should track, or otherwise ensure that AO is aware of, the documented processes that relevant judicial components have established to address fraud, waste, and abuse allegations. (Recommendation 2) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that AO was planning to establish a fraud, waste, and abuse working group comprised of judges and judiciary executives. They expected this working group to begin meeting in early 2024. The officials further stated that, once convened, the working group will consider approaches to track documented fraud, waste, and abuse processes at the local level. However, as of August 2024, the agency had not yet provided documentation about the working group. It was also unclear when the agency would track, or otherwise ensure that the AO is aware of, the documented processes that relevant judicial components have established to address fraud, waste, and abuse allegations, as we recommended. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should analyze the consistency among the documented processes that relevant judicial components have established to address fraud, waste, and abuse allegations. (Recommendation 3) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that the AO was planning to establish a fraud, waste, and abuse working group comprised of judges and judiciary executives. They expected this working group to begin meeting in early 2024. The officials further stated that, once convened, the working group will consider various approaches to ensure consistency in application of fraud, waste, and abuse policy and procedures. However, as of August 2024, the agency had not yet provided documentation about the working group. It was also unclear when the agency would analyze the consistency among the documented processes that relevant judicial components have established to address fraud, waste, and abuse allegations, as we recommended. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should establish an independent office within AO to carry out the judiciary's fraud, waste, and abuse program and to investigate and resolve fraud, waste, or abuse allegations regarding AO staff and operations. The Director should also ensure that this office does not have other responsibilities outside of fraud, waste, and abuse investigations that create the perception of management participation threats to independence in investigations. (Recommendation 4) |
In October 2023, agency officials stated that AO is recruiting a fraud, waste, and abuse investigator who will not have responsibilities outside of fraud, waste, and abuse investigations. The officials added that judicial policy would be updated to reflect the independent nature of the position. However, as of August 2024, the agency had not yet provided documentation demonstrating that it had hired such an investigator. It was also unclear when judicial policy would be updated to reflect the independent nature of the position. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should work with the Judicial Conference to identify and implement, as appropriate, solutions for ensuring relevant judicial branch components conduct independent fraud, waste, and abuse investigations. (Recommendation 5) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that the AO was planning to establish a fraud, waste, and abuse working group comprised of judges and judiciary executives. They expected this working group to begin meeting in early 2024. The officials further stated that, once convened, the working group will consider policies and procedures for conducting fraud, waste, and abuse investigations to ensure that such investigations are conducted independently. However, as of August 2024, the agency had not yet provided documentation about the working group. It was also unclear when the working group would identify--and the agency would implement, as appropriate--solutions for ensuring relevant judicial branch components conduct independent fraud, waste, and abuse investigations, as we recommended. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to address this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should update the agency's fraud, waste, and abuse policy and procedures, as appropriate, to provide specific details on how to conduct and document investigations, in alignment with leading investigative guidance. As part of this update, the Director should develop written guidance that specifies what allegation and investigative data should be tracked, and where and how it should be tracked. (Recommendation 6) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that AO staff will draft investigation policies and procedures for the Judicial Conference Committee on Audits and Administrative Office Accountability to consider. The officials added that this committee would then make any necessary recommendations to the Judicial Conference. In addition, the officials stated that AO was planning to establish a fraud, waste, and abuse working group comprised of judges and judiciary executives. They expected this working group to begin meeting in early 2024. The officials stated that, once convened, this working group will draft written guidance specifying what fraud, waste, and abuse allegation and investigation data should be tracked and how it should be tracked. However, the officials did not provide a time frame for when this would occur. We will continue to follow up with the agency on its efforts to implement this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should consider potential solutions for storing fraud, waste, and abuse allegation data and implement a solution that allows for the efficient and effective analysis of these data. (Recommendation 7) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that there were not any in-house software solutions that would ensure the confidentiality of the fraud, waste, and abuse process. They added that the agency also did not have funding available for the procurement of new software. The officials stated that the agency's current system for tracking allegation data would be updated to include recommendations made by the fraud, waste, and abuse working group that was expected to be established in early 2024. We will continue to follow-up on the agency's efforts to implement this recommendation.
|
| Administrative Office of the United States Courts | The Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should analyze the fraud, waste, and abuse allegation and investigation data reported to AO to identify patterns and trends. (Recommendation 8) |
In its comments on our draft report, the Administrative Office (AO) did not explicitly agree or disagree with this recommendation. In October 2023, agency officials stated that the role of the AAOA Committee had been expanded so that the Committee receives all final fraud, waste, and abuse reports. In addition, the officials stated that, at the Committee's biannual meetings, it receives summary briefings on pending cases, including multiple allegations arising out of the same court unit. However, as of August 2023, it was unclear whether AO had fully analyzed the fraud, waste, and abuse allegation and investigation data reported to the agency to identify patterns and trends, as we recommended. We will continue to follow-up with the agency on its efforts to implement this recommendation.
|