Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a Measure of 
Judges' Case-Related Workload (22-MAY-03, GAO-03-789T). 	 
                                                                 
This testimony discusses the results of our review and assessment
of bankruptcy court-weighted case filings, the workload measure  
the Judicial Conference first considers in assessing the need for
additional bankruptcy judgeships. Weighted filings are a	 
statistical measure of the estimated judge time that specific	 
types of bankruptcy cases are expected to take. Congress asked us
to assess whether weighted case filings are a reasonable means of
measuring bankruptcy judges' case-related workload and to assess 
the methodology of any proposal to update the current case	 
weights.							 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-789T					        
    ACCNO:   A06941						        
  TITLE:     Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a    
Measure of Judges' Case-Related Workload			 
     DATE:   05/22/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Bankruptcy 					 
	     Courtroom proceedings				 
	     Judges						 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-789T

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law,
Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 11: 00 a. m. EDT Thursday, May 22,
2003 FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY

JUDGES Weighted Case Filings as a Measure of Judges' CaseRelated Workload

Statement of William Jenkins, Jr., Director Homeland Security and Justice
Issues

GAO- 03- 789T

This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

Page 1 GAO- 03- 789T Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am
pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our review and

assessment of bankruptcy court- weighted case filings, the workload
measure the Judicial Conference first considers in assessing the need for
additional bankruptcy judgeships. Weighted filings are a statistical
measure of the estimated judge time that specific types of bankruptcy
cases are expected to take. For example, a business chapter 7 bankruptcy
case with assets of $50,000 to $499,999 is expected to take about twice as

much judge time as a nonbusiness chapter 7 case with assets of $50,000 to
$499, 999. You asked us to assess whether weighted case filings are a
reasonable means of measuring bankruptcy judges* case- related workload
and to assess the methodology of any proposal to update the current case
weights.

My statement today focuses on the weighted case filings as a measure of
case- related bankruptcy judge workload. My testimony is based on the
results of our review of documentation provided by the Federal Judicial
Center (FJC) and the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts (AOUSC) and
interviews with officials in each organization. My statement includes the
following major points:

 The time demands on bankruptcy judges are largely a function of the
number and complexity of the cases on their dockets. Not all cases
necessarily take the same amount of judge time. Some types of cases may
take more judge time than others.

 In assessing the need for new bankruptcy judgeships, the Judicial
Conference relies on the weighted case filings to be a reasonably accurate
measure of case- related bankruptcy judge workload. Whether weighted case
filings are a reasonably accurate workload measure rests in turn on the
soundness of the methodology used to develop the case weights.  On the
basis of the documentation provided for our review and

discussions with FJC and AOUSC officials, we concluded that weighted case
filings, as approved by the Judicial Conference in 1991 and amended in
1996, are likely to be a reasonably accurate means of measuring the case-
related workload of bankruptcy judges.

 The original case weights are now about 12 years old and were based on
time data that are now about 15 years old. Changes in the intervening
years in such factors as case characteristics and case

Page 2 GAO- 03- 789T management practices may have affected whether the
case weights continue to be a reasonably accurate measure of case- related
judge

workload. Some of these changes may have increased the time demands on
bankruptcy judges and others reduced time demands. To the extent that the
case weights may now understate or overstate time demands on bankruptcy
judges, the weights could potentially result in the Judicial Conference
understating or overstating the need for new bankruptcy judgeships. The
Judicial Conference*s Committee on the Administration of the Bankruptcy
System has approved a revision of the current weights whose methodological
design is reasonable.

 The accuracy of the case weights is also dependent upon accurately
assigning each case filed in each bankruptcy court to the appropriate case
weight category. AOUSC said that its staff took a number of steps to
ensure that individual cases were assigned to the appropriate case weight
category. These are described in appendix I. We did not

evaluate how effective these measures may be in ensuring data accuracy.

Biennially, the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary*s principal
policymaking body, assesses the judiciary*s needs for additional
judgeships. 1 If the Conference determines that additional judgeships are
needed, it transmits a request to Congress identifying the number, type
(courts of appeals, district, or bankruptcy), and location of the
judgeships it is requesting. In 2003, the Judicial Conference sent to
Congress requests

for 93 new judgeships* 11 for the courts of appeals, 46 for the district
courts, and 36 for the bankruptcy courts.

The demands upon judges* time are largely a function of both the number
and complexity of the cases on their dockets. Some types of cases may
demand relatively little time, and others may require many hours of work.
The federal judiciary has developed workload measures for bankruptcy
judges to estimate the national average amount of a judge*s time that
different types of cases may require. Individual judges may actually spend
more or less time than this average on specific cases within each type*
such as personal chapter 7 bankruptcy cases with assets of less than
$50,000 or chapter 13 cases with liabilities of $50,000 or more (see app.
II). 1 The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the
Conference, which consists of the

chief judges of the 13 courts of appeals, a district judge from each of
the 12 geographic circuits, and the chief judge of the Court of
International Trade. The Conference meets twice a year. Background

Page 3 GAO- 03- 789T In assessing the need for additional bankruptcy
judgeships in a bankruptcy court, the Judicial Conference first considers
the court*s weighted case

filings. The Judicial Conference has established 1,500 annual weighted
case filings per authorized judgeship as an indicator of a bankruptcy
court*s potential need for additional judgeships. This represents about
1,500 annual hours of case- related judge time. The Conference*s policy
for assessing bankruptcy judgeship needs recognizes that judges* workloads
may be affected by factors not captured in the bankruptcy- weighted case
filings. Examples of such factors include historical caseload data and
filing trends; geographic, economic, and demographic factors in the
bankruptcy district; and the availability of alternative solutions and
resources for handling a court*s workload, such as assistance from judges
outside the district. However, our analysis focused solely on the weighted
case filings workload measure.

Each case filed in a bankruptcy court is assigned a case weight. The case
weight statistically represents the national average amount of judicial
time, in hours, each type of bankruptcy case would be expected to require.
The case weights are based on a 1988- 1989 study in which bankruptcy
judges completed diaries on how many hours they spent on specific types of
cases and noncase- related work. Total annual weighted case filings for

any specific bankruptcy court is the sum of the weights associated with
each of the cases filed in the court in a year. Total annual weighted case
filings per judgeship represent the estimated average amount of judge time
that would be required to complete the cases filed in a specific
bankruptcy

court in a year. Weighted case filings per judgeship is the total weighted
filings divided by the number of authorized judgeships. For example, if a
bankruptcy court had 5,100 weighted case filings and three authorized
judgeships, the weighted case filings per judgeship would be 1,700.
Because this exceeds the 1,500 threshold, the Judicial Conference would
consider this court for an additional judgeship. However, it should be
noted that the Judicial Conference*s policy is to consider additional
judgeships only for those courts that request them. Thus, if a court would
otherwise be eligible for an additional judgeship, but did not request
one, the Judicial Conference

would not request a judgeship for that court. The Federal Judicial Center
(FJC) developed the weights, adopted by the Judicial Conference in 1991,
based on a 1988- 1989 time study in which 272 bankruptcy judges (97
percent of all bankruptcy judge in those years)

recorded the time they spent on specific cases for a 10- week period. How
the Case Weights Were Developed

Page 4 GAO- 03- 789T Unlike the District Court time study, whose goal was
to follow each sample case from filing to disposition* a *case tracking*
study* this study

was a *diary study* in which judges recorded in a time diary the hours
spent on each case in the study and for other judicial work for the 10-
week period. This period of time may or may not have covered the entire
life of the case from filing through disposition. Appendix III includes a
more detailed comparison of case- tracking and diary time studies as
methods of capturing judge time spent on specific cases.

The case weights were developed using a two- step process. 2 First, time
data were collected from 272 judges (97 percent of the total of 280
bankruptcy judges at the time of the study). The judges recorded the time

they spent on a sample of cases and other judgeship work over a 10- week
period. The judges were subdivided into five groups and the recording time
period for each group was staggered over a 1- year period. Second, the
researchers assessed the relative impact on judicial workload of different
types of cases* that is, which types of cases seemed to take more or less
time* and developed individual case weights for specific case categories.
The basic case weight computations involved calculating the average amount
of time spent on cases of each type during each month of their life.

These averages were then summed to determine the total amount of time for
each case type.

Once the case weights had been created, total weighted case filings were
calculated for each bankruptcy court. Then, weighted caseloads were
transformed into initial estimates of required judgeships. These initial
estimates were adjusted to account for factors other than those covered by
the case weight calculation, such as the court*s case management practices
and the time required to travel to divisional offices. After all
adjustments, the study concluded that bankruptcy judges spent about 1,280
hours annually on direct case- related work and an average of 660 hours on
matters not directly related to specific cases (e. g., on court and
chambers administration, work- related travel, and other matters related
to the judicial role).

When it approved the case weights in 1991, the Judicial Conference stated
that it expected that in addition to other judicial duties, a bankruptcy
court 2 The methodology is described in detail in Gordon Bermant, Patricia
Lombard, and Elizabeth Wiggins, A Day in the Life: The Federal Judicial
Center*s 1988- 1989 Bankruptcy Court Time Study, American Bankruptcy Law
Journal, Vol. 65 (Lexington, SC: 1991).

Page 5 GAO- 03- 789T should have at least 1,500 annual case- related hours
per judgeship to justify additional judgeships. The federal work year is
2,080 hours per

year, based on a 40- hour work week. Assuming that judges spent 1,500
hours annually on cases, there would remain 580 hours for federal
holidays, annual leave, training, and noncase- related administrative
tasks. Of course, the actual time that individual judges spend on case-
related and non case- related work will vary.

Overall, the methodology used to develop the bankruptcy case weights
appears to be reasonable. The methodology included a valid sampling
strategy, a very high participation rate among bankruptcy judges, and a
reasonable means of adjusting for such factors as missing data. A notable
strength of the methodology was the high participation rate by judges* 97
percent of the bankruptcy judges at the time of the study. Thus,
participating judges represented almost the entire universe of bankruptcy
judges that could be included. The sampling period was not limited to a
single time of year, thus minimizing potential bias due to variations in
case filings by time of year. FJC researchers systematically used the
reported time data to develop the case weights and made an effort to
address all known limitations in the data. In computing the case weights,
assumptions, and adjustments needed to be made to account for time data

that were not linked to specific cases, missing data, and other factors.
Both the assumptions and the methods used to make these adjustments
appeared to be reasonable. It is important to note that the case weights
were designed to estimate the impact of case filings on the workload of
bankruptcy judges. Noncase- related time demands, such as time spent on
court administration tasks, are not included in the case weights. The
Judicial Conference focuses its analysis of the need for additional judges
primarily on the demands that result from caseload, not noncase- related
tasks and responsibilities.

Potential limitations of the methodology included the possibility of
judges using different standards and definitions to record their time.
Although the judges had written instructions on how to record their time,
judges may have varied in how they interpreted case- related and noncase-
related hours. To the extent this occurred, it may have resulted in the
recording of noncomparable time data among judges. Because some cases
require

longer calendar time to complete than others, not all cases in the sample
were completed at the end of the 10 weeks in which judges recorded their
time. In particular, the study captured only a small portion of the total
time

required for very large business bankruptcies. Where the cases were not
completed, it was necessary to estimate the judge time that would have
Assessment of Case

Weight Methodology

Page 6 GAO- 03- 789T been required to complete the case. However, the
method used to make these estimates was also reasonable. The size and time
demands of chapter 11 business bankruptcies vary

considerably. The bankruptcy case weights, which the Judicial Conference
approved for use in 1991, included a weight of 11. 234 hours for chapter
11 business filings involving $1 million or more and a weight of 4.021
hours

for chapter 11 business filings with assets between $50,000 and $99,999.
In 1996, a new method was used for measuring the workload required for
very large (* mega*) chapter 11 business cases. This measure was also
developed by the FJC and approved by the Judicial Conference*s Bankruptcy
Committee. The mega cases were defined as *those involving extremely large
assets, unusual public interest, a high level of creditor

involvement, complex debt, a significant amount of related litigation, or
a combination of such factors.* The Administrative Office of the U. S.
Courts defines mega chapter 11 cases as a single case or set of jointly
administered or consolidated cases that involve $100 million or more in
assets and 1,000 or more creditors. Mega chapter 11 cases are distinct
from other large chapter 11 cases in that they generally involve a larger
number of associated filings and extend over a longer period of time.

The 1991 case weights did not fully reflect the judge time required for
these very large, complex bankruptcy filings. The weighting scheme was a
particular problem for the Southern District of New York and the District
of Delaware, both of which have a high number of mega cases. At the time
of the 1988- 1989 bankruptcy time study, the highest value for chapter 11
cases in the bankruptcy administrative database was $1 million or more.

Subsequently, changes were made to the database, which now includes
several subcategories for cases above $1 million, the highest being $100
million and above. Also, the time study estimated the judge time required
by cases for the first 22 months after the case was filed, a period which
may not have encompassed the entire calendar time required to dispose of
the case. Both of these factors contributed to the inability to create
case weights for the mega chapter 11 cases.

Beginning in 1996, the adjustment of weighted case filings to account for
mega chapter 11 cases was implemented in the two districts where most of
these cases have been filed* first in the Southern District of New York
and later in the District of Delaware. FJC*s research suggested there was
no clear linear relationship between asset size and judge time in mega
chapter 11 cases. Instead, FJC selected an adjustment method using data
routinely collected on docketed events in bankruptcy cases, such as
docketed Amending the Case

Weights** Mega* Chapter 11 Cases

Page 7 GAO- 03- 789T hearings. The method used to adjust the case weights
for mega chapter 11 cases consists of a preliminary weighted caseload
computation, followed

by a ratio adjustment step. The preliminary weighted caseload is the sum
of the bankruptcy case weights for each case filing associated with the
mega chapter 11 cases. For example, if a mega case consisted of two
consolidated cases, one with assets of between $50,000 and $99,999
(weight: 4.021) and one with assets greater than $1 million (weight:
11.234), the preliminary case weight would be 15.255 (4.021 plus 11.234).
In the Southern District of New York, this preliminary case weight is
adjusted by the ratio of docketed events per weighted case- hour for mega
chapter 11 cases to the docketed events per weighted case-

hour for nonmega chapter 11 cases involving more than $1 million in
assets. 3 In the District of Delaware, where mega chapter 11 cases tended
to have a larger number of consolidated filings, several ranges of the
number

of associated filings are used to classify mega chapter 11 cases. For each
range, a separate docketing ratio adjustment is calculated in the same
manner as it is for the District of Southern New York. In both districts,
the

final step is to report these calculations over a period of several years
and use the average value across the years as the adjusted weighted
caseload for mega chapter 11 cases. The purpose of this final step is to
moderate

the effect of fluctuations in the number of mega chapter 11 cases filed
from year to year.

The methodology used to adjust the weighted caseload for mega chapter 11
cases, specifically the ratio adjustment step, cannot be thoroughly
assessed because there are no objective time data to use for comparison.
The FJC selected this methodology after extensive research on other
possible methods. The overall strategy of applying a ratio adjustment
using auxiliary information, followed by use of a multiyear average, is a
reasonable approach.

3 This determines *how the level of docketing in mega cases differs from
the docketing in non- mega cases of one million dollars or more.*
Assessment of Mega Case

Weighting Method

Page 8 GAO- 03- 789T In June 2002, the Judicial Conference Committee on
the Administration of the Bankruptcy System decided to begin a study to
create new bankruptcy

case weights. The preliminary design for the study has a two- phase
structure. In the first phase, a diary time study would be conducted, and
the time study data would be used to develop new case weights. In the
second phase, research is planned to assess whether it is possible to
develop *event profiles* that would allow future updating of the weights
without the necessity of conducting a time study for each update. Future
updating of the weights could include revision of case weight values and/
or developing case weights for new case categories. The data from the time
study can be used to validate the feasibility of the new approach.

The preliminary design for the study appears to be reasonable. In the
first phase, new weights would be constructed using objective data from
the time study. The second part represents experimental research to
determine if it is possible to make revisions to the weights in the future
without the requirement of conducting a time study. If the research
determines this is possible, it would be possible to update the case
weights more frequently with less cost than required by a time study.

If enacted, it is likely that the bankruptcy reform legislation passed by
the House of Representatives would probably affect the time bankruptcy
judges would need to devote to personal bankruptcy cases. Personal
bankruptcy filings accounted for 97 percent of the total 1,547,669
bankruptcy filings in fiscal year 2002. Currently, the great majority of
those who file for personal bankruptcy (70 percent in fiscal year 2002),
file under chapter 7, in which their eligible debts are discharged. Under
the terms of the proposed legislation, a greater proportion of those who
file for personal bankruptcy will be required to file under chapter 13 and
enter into a 5- year debt repayment plan. If the bankruptcy reform is
enacted during the course of the new bankruptcy time study, FJC officials
said they would recommend halting the time study and allowing some period
for the implementation of the new law before restarting the study. Because
personal bankruptcy filings represent the vast majority of bankruptcy
filings, this seems to be a prudent plan.

On the basis of the documentation provided for our review and discussions
with FJC and AOUSC officials, we concluded that weighted case filings, as
approved by the Judicial Conference in 1991 and amended in 1996, was a
reasonably accurate means of measuring the case- related workload of
bankruptcy judges. The 1991 bankruptcy case weights* which cover all but
mega chapter 11 business filings* are now about 12 Research Design for

Updating the Bankruptcy Case Weights Conclusions

Page 9 GAO- 03- 789T years old, and the data on which they were based are
about 15 years old. Changes since 1991 in such factors as case
characteristics and case management may have affected whether the weights
continue to be a

reasonable measure of case- related bankruptcy judge workload. The design
for revising the current bankruptcy case weights seems reasonable. The new
weights would be based on the same type of objective time data as are the
current weights, and the time data from the new bankruptcy case weight
study can be used to validate the feasibility of using an eventbased
approach for future updates of the weights. Mr. Chairman, this concludes
my prepared statement, I would be pleased to answer any questions that you
or other members of the Subcommittee

may have. For further information regarding this testimony, please contact
William Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512- 8777. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included David Alexander, Kriti Bhandari,
Chris Moriarity, and R. Rochelle Burns. Contacts and

Acknowledgments

Page 10 GAO- 03- 789T All current records related to bankruptcy filings
that are reported to the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts and
used for the bankruptcy court

case weights are generated by the automated case management systems in the
bankruptcy courts. Filings records are generated monthly and transmitted
to AOUSC for inclusion in its national database. On a quarterly basis,
AOUSC summarizes and compiles the records into published tables, and for
given periods, these tables serve as the basis for the weighted

caseload determinations. In responses to written questions, AOUSC
described numerous steps taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of
the filings data, including the following 1 :

 Built- in, automated quality control edits are done when data are
entered electronically at the court level. The edits are intended to
ensure that obvious errors are not entered into a local court*s database.
Examples of the types of errors screened for are the district office in
which the case was filed, the U. S. Code title and section of the filing,
and the judge code. Most bankruptcy courts have staff responsible for data
quality control.

 A second set of automated quality control edits are used by AOUSC when
transferring data from the court level to its national database. These
edits screen for missing or invalid codes that are not screened for at the
court level, such as dates of case events, the type of proceeding, and the
type of case. Records that fail one or more checks are not added to the
national database and are returned electronically to the originating court
for correction and resubmission.

 Monthly listings of all records added to the national database are sent
electronically to the involved courts for verification.

 Courts* monthly and quarterly case filings are monitored regularly to
identify and verify significant increases or decreases from the normal
monthly or annual totals.  Tables on case filings are published on the
Judiciary*s intranet for

review by the courts. 1 Given the limited time for our review, AOUSC was
unable to obtain input to our questions on data quality control procedures
from individual courts. Appendix I: Quality Assurance Steps the

Judiciary Takes to Ensure the Accuracy of Case Filing Data for Weighted
Filings

Page 11 GAO- 03- 789T  Detailed and extensive statistical reporting
guidance is provided to courts for reporting bankruptcy statistics. This
guidance includes

information on general reporting requirements, data entry procedures, and
data processing and reporting programs.

 Periodic training sessions are conducted for bankruptcy court staff on
measures and techniques associated with data quality control procedures.

In addition to the quality control procedures listed above, AOUSC
indicated that an audit was performed in 1997 by Clifton Gunderson L. L.
C., a certified public accounting firm, to test the accuracy of the
bankruptcy statistical data maintained by bankruptcy courts and the AOUSC.
The firm

compared individual case records in 11 courts nationwide with data in the
national database for cases filed in 1993, 1994, and 1995 for completeness
and accuracy. Excluding problems in one district, the overall match rate
of all statistical data elements captured exceeded 97 percent, and the
fields with most mismatches were not relevant to the bankruptcy weighted
caseload. AOUSC was unaware of any other efforts to verify the accuracy
electronic data to *hard copy* case records for bankruptcy courts. AOUSC
noted that it did not have time to seek detailed information from the
individual bankruptcy courts on this issue within the short time available
to respond to our questions.

Page 12 GAO- 03- 789T Type of case Case weight in hours Confidence
interval Chapter 7* Business Assets less than $50,000 0.335 0.312 - 0.359

Assets $50,000-$ 499,999 0.413 0.382 - 0.444 Assets greater than $499,999
1.704 1.426 * 1.982

Chapter 7* Nonbusiness Assets less than $50,000 0.089 0.079 - 0.099 Assets
$50,000-$ 499,999 0.160 0.144 - 0.176 Assets greater than $499,999 0.302
0.239 * 0.365

Chapter 11 Assets less than $50,000 5.372 5.054 * 5.690 Assets $50,000-$
99,999 4.021 3.692 * 4.350 Assets $100,000-$ 499,999 4.285 3.991 * 4.579
Assets $500,000-$ 999,999 5.143 4.769 * 5.517 Assets of $1 million or more
11.234 10.397 * 12.071

Chapter 12 4.040 3.558 * 4.522

Chapter 13 Liabilities less than $50,000 0.310 0.269 - 0.351 Liabilities
at least $50,000 0.457 0.410 - 0.504

Other cases 0.194 0.074 - 0.314

Adversary proceedings Dischargeability 1.346 1.232 * 1.460 Other 2.016
1.722 * 2.310 Source: Federal Judicial Center.

Appendix II: Bankruptcy Case Weights and Confidence Intervals for All
Cases Except *Mega* Chapter 11 Business Filings

Page 13 GAO- 03- 789T The current Bankruptcy Court and District Court
workload measures were developed using data collected from time studies.
The District Court time study took place between 1987 and 1993, and the
Bankruptcy Court time

study took place between 1988 and 1989. Different procedures were used in
these two time studies. The Bankruptcy Court time study protocol is an
example of a *diary* study, where judges recorded time and activity
details

for all of their official business over a 10 week period. The District
Court time study protocol is an example of a *case- tracking* study, where
a sample of cases were selected, and all judges who worked on a given
sample case recorded the amount of time they spent on the case. Time
studies, in general, have the substantial benefit of providing
quantitative information that can be used to create objective and
defensible measures

of judicial workload, along with the capability to provide estimates of
the uncertainty in the measures.

At the conclusion of a case- tracking study, total time spent on each
sample case closed during the study period is readily available by summing
the recorded times spent on the case by each judge who worked on the case.
For a given case type, the summed recorded times can be averaged to obtain
an estimate of the average judicial time per case for that case type.

For a diary study, however, it is necessary to make estimates of judicial
workload for all cases that were not both opened and closed during the
data collection period. This estimation step requires information from the
caseload database, and thus the accuracy of estimates depends in part on
the accuracy of the caseload data. Two kinds of information are required
from the caseload database: case type and length of time the case has been
open.

With the diary approach, the total judicial time that is required for
lengthy case types is estimated by combining *snap shots* of the time
required by such cases of different ages. Thus, in theory, reducing
accurate weights for lengthy case types is not problematic. In practice,
however, difficulties may be encountered. For example, in the 1988- 1989
bankruptcy time study, the asset and liability information for cases older
than 22 months was inadequate and appropriate adjustments had to be made.
In addition, difficulties may arise if only a small number of cases of the
lengthy type are in the system. This is an issue FJC said it is
considering as it finalizes how to assess the judicial work associated
with mega cases in the upcoming bankruptcy case- weighting study. Appendix
III: Measuring Judicial Workload

Using the Collection of Time Study Data Estimating Judge Time in Diary and
Case Tracking Studies

Page 14 GAO- 03- 789T Each study type has advantages and disadvantages.
The following outlines the similarities and differences in terms of
burden, timeliness of data collection, post- data collection steps,
accuracy, and comprehensiveness.

Each study type places burden on judicial personnel during data
collection. It is not clear that one study type is less burdensome than
the other. The diary study procedure requires more concentrated effort,
but data are collected for a shorter period of time.

Data collection for a diary study can be completed more quickly than for a
case- tracking study.

More effort is needed to convert diary study data to judicial workload
estimates than case tracking study data. Also, the accuracy of estimates
from diary study data depends in part on the accuracy and objectivity of
the information in the caseload database.

It is not clear that one study type collects more accurate data than the
other study type. Some of the Bankruptcy Court case- related time study
data could not be linked to a specific case type due to misreporting
errors and/ or errors in the caseload database. Some error of this type
likely is unavoidable because of the requirement to record all time rather
than record time for specific cases only. However, it is plausible that a
diary study collects higher quality data, on average, because all official
time is to

be recorded during the study period; judicial personnel become accustomed
to recording their time. In contrast, the data quality for a casetracking
study could decline over the study*s length; for example, after a
substantial proportion of the sample cases are closed, judicial personnel
could become less accustomed to recording time on the remaining open
cases.

In theory, a case- tracking study collects more comprehensive information
about judicial effort on a given case than a diary study, because data for
a sampled case almost always are collected over the duration of the case.
(Data collection may be terminated for a few cases that remain open, or

are reopened, many years after initial filing.) For case types that
Comparing CaseTracking

Studies and Diary Studies

Burden on Participants Timeliness of Data Collection

Post Data Collection Steps Data Accuracy

Comprehensiveness and Efficiency

Page 15 GAO- 03- 789T simultaneously stay open for a long period and
require a substantial amount of judicial effort, it is possible that a
diary study would not be able to produce suitable estimates of judicial
workload due to a lack of data. (440200)

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm
of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
documents in their entirety, including charts and other graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail

this list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select
*Subscribe to daily E- mail alert for newly released products* under the
GAO Reports heading.

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to: U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D. C. 20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000

TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax: (202) 512- 6061

Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202)
512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800

U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.
C. 20548 GAO*s Mission Obtaining Copies of

GAO Reports and Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs Public Affairs
*** End of document. ***