Federal Judgeships: General Accuracy of District and Appellate	 
Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures (24-JUN-03,		 
GAO-03-937T).							 
                                                                 
GAO appeared before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property, House Committee on the Judiciary to	 
discuss the results of our review and assessment of case-related 
workload measures for district court and courts of appeals	 
judges. Biennially, the Judicial Conference of the United States,
the federal judiciary's principal policymaking body, assesses the
judiciary's needs for additional judgeships. 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 assessing the need for additional district  
and appellate court judgeships, the Judicial Conference considers
a variety of information, including responses to its biennial	 
survey of individual courts, temporary increases or decreases in 
case filings, and other factors specific to an individual court. 
However, the Conference's analysis begins with the quantitative  
case-related workload measures it has adopted for the district	 
courts and courts of appeals--weighted case filings and adjusted 
case filings, respectively. These two measures recognize, to	 
different degrees, that the time demands on judges 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.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-937T					        
    ACCNO:   A07327						        
  TITLE:     Federal Judgeships: General Accuracy of District and     
Appellate Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures		 
     DATE:   06/24/2003 
  SUBJECT:   Hiring policies					 
	     Judges						 
	     Labor force					 
	     Policy evaluation					 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Work measurement					 

******************************************************************
** 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-03-937T

Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and
Intellectual Property, Committee on the Judiciary, House of
Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 2: 00 p. m. EDT Tuesday, June 24,
2003 FEDERAL JUDGESHIPS

General Accuracy of District and Appellate Judgeship Case- Related
Workload Measures

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

GAO- 03- 937T

Page 2 GAO- 03- 937T

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here
today to discuss the results of our review and assessment of case- related
workload measures for district court and courts of appeals judges. 1
Biennially, the Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal
judiciary*s principal policymaking body, assesses the judiciary*s needs
for additional judgeships. 2 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 assessing the need for additional
district and appellate court judgeships, the Judicial Conference considers
a variety of information, including responses to its biennial survey of
individual courts, temporary increases or decreases in case filings, and
other factors specific to an individual court. However, the Conference*s
analysis begins with the quantitative case- related workload measures it
has adopted for the district courts and courts of appeals* weighted case
filings and adjusted case filings, respectively. These two measures
recognize, to different degrees, that the time demands on judges 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.

My statement is based on our recent report, which you requested, on the
relative accuracy of weighted case filings and adjusted case filings as a
measure of the case- related workload of district and courts of appeals
judges, respectively. 3 Whether weighted case filings and adjusted case
filings are reasonably accurate measures of case- related judge workload
rests on the soundness of the methodology used to develop these

1 We recently testified on the methodology used to develop the case-
related workload measure for bankruptcy judges. See U. S. General
Accounting Office, Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a
Measure of Judges* Case- Related Workload,

GAO- 03- 789T (Washington, D. C.: May 22, 2003). This testimony is
available on GAO*s Web site at www. gao. gov. 2 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.

3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Federal Judgeships: The General
Accuracy of the CaseRelated Workload Measures Used to Assess the Need for
Additional District Court and Courts of Appeals Judgeships, GAO- 03- 788R
(Washington, D. C.: May 30, 2003). This report is available on GAO*s Web
site at www. gao. gov.

Page 3 GAO- 03- 937T

measures. My statement and our report are 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. The scope of our work did not include how
the Judicial Conference used these case- related workload measures to
develop its current judgeship request for district court and courts of
appeals judgeships. My statement includes the following major points:

 The district court weighted case filings, as approved in 1993, appear to
be a reasonably accurate measure of the average time demands that a
specific number and mix of cases filed in a district court could be
expected to place on the district judges in that district. The methodology
used to develop the case weights was based on a valid sampling procedure,
developed weights based on actual case- related time recorded by judges
from case filing to disposition, and included a measure (standard errors)
of the statistical confidence in the final weight for each weighted case
type.

 The case weights, however, are about 10 years old, and the data on which
the weights are based are as much as 15 years old. Changes since 1993,
such as the characteristics of cases filed in federal district courts and

changes in case management practices, may have affected whether the 1993
case weights continue to be a reasonably accurate measure of the average
time burden on district court judges resulting from a specific volume and
mix of cases.

 The Judicial Conference*s Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics has
approved a research design for updating the current case weights, and we
have some concerns about that design. The design would include limited
data on the time judges actually spend on specific types of cases. The
proposed design would not include collecting actual data on the
noncourtroom time that judges spend on different types of cases. Estimates
of the noncourtroom time required for specific types of cases would be
based on estimates derived from the structured, guided discussions of
about 100 experienced judges meeting in 12 separate groups (one for each
geographic circuit). These noncourtroom time estimates are likely to
represent the majority of judge time used to develop the new case weights.
The accuracy of case weights developed on such

consensus data cannot be assessed using standard statistical methods, such
as the calculation of standard errors. Thus, it would not be possible to
objectively, statistically assess how accurate the new case weights are*
weights on whose reasonable accuracy the Judicial Conference will rely in
assessing judgeship needs in the future.

Page 4 GAO- 03- 937T

 Adjusted case filings, the principal quantitative measure used to assess
the case- related workload of courts of appeals judges, are based on
available data from standard statistical reports from the courts of
appeals. The measure is not based on any empirical data about the judge
time required by different types of cases in the courts of appeals. The
measure essentially assumes that all cases filed in the courts of appeals,
with the exception of pro se cases* those in which one or both parties are
not represented by an attorney* require the same amount of judge time. On
the basis of the documentation we reviewed, there is no empirical basis on
which to assess the accuracy of adjusted filings as a measure of
caserelated

workload for courts of appeals judges.  Whether the district court case
weights are a reasonably accurate measure

of district judge case- related workload is dependent upon two variables:
(1) the accuracy of the case weights themselves and (2) the accuracy of
classifying cases filed in district courts by the case type used for the
case weights. If case filings are inaccurately identified by case type,
then the weights are inaccurately calculated. Because there are fewer
categories used in the courts of appeals workload measure, there is
greater margin for error. AOUSC said that its staff took a number of steps
to ensure that individual cases were assigned to the appropriate
caseweight category. These are described in appendix 1. We did not
evaluate how effective these measures may be in ensuring data accuracy.
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.
To measure the case- related workload of district court judges, the
Judicial Conference has adopted weighted case filings. The purpose of the
district

court case weights was to create a measure of the average judge time that
a specific number and mix of cases filed in a district court would
require. Importantly, the weights were designed to be descriptive not
prescriptive* that is, the weights were designed to develop a measure of
the national average amount of time that judges actually spent on specific
types of cases, not to develop a measure of how much time judges should

spend on specific types of cases. Moreover, the weights were designed to
measure only case- related judge workload. Judges have noncase- related
duties and responsibilities, such as administrative tasks, that are not
reflected in the case weights.

With few exceptions, such as cases that are remanded to a district court
from the courts of appeals, each civil and criminal case filed in a
district District Court

Weighted Case Filings, as Approved, Are a Reasonably Accurate Measure of
Case- Related Judge Workload

Page 5 GAO- 03- 937T

court is assigned a case weight. Each case filed in a district court is
assigned a case weight based on the subject matter of the case. The weight
of the overall average case is 1.0. All other weights were established

relative to this national average case. Thus, a case with a weight of 0.5
would be expected to require on average about half as much judge time as
the national average case, and a case with a value of 2.0 would be

expected to require on average about twice as much judge time as the
national average case. Case weights for criminal felony defendants are
applied on a per defendant basis. 4 For example, the case weight for
heroin/ cocaine distribution is 2.27. If such a case involved two
defendants, the court would be credited with a weight of 4.54* two times
the assigned case weight of 2.27. Of course, the actual amount of time a
judge may

spend on any specific case may be more or less than the national average
for that type of case. Total weighted filings for a district are
determined by summing the case weights associated with all the cases filed
in the district during the year. Weighted case filings per authorized
judgeship* is the total annual weighted filings divided by the total
number of authorized judgeships for the district. For example, if a
district had total weighted filings of 4,600 and 10 authorized judgeships,
its weighted filings per authorized judgeship would be 460. The Judicial
Conference uses weighted filings of 430 or more per authorized judgeship
as an indication that a district may need one or more additional
judgeships. Thus, a district with 460 weighted filings per authorized
judgeship could be considered for an additional judgeship.

The Judicial Conference approved the use of the current district court
case weights in 1993. The weights are based on a *case- tracking time
study,* conducted between 1987 and 1993, in which judges recorded the

amount of time spent on each of their cases included in the study. The
study included about 8,100 civil cases and about 4,200 criminal cases.
Overall, the weighted case filings, as approved in 1993, are a reasonably
accurate method of measuring the average judge time that a specific number
and mix of cases filed in a district court would require. The methodology
used to develop the case weights was reasonable. It used a valid sampling
procedure, developed weights based on actual case- related time recorded
by judges from case filing to disposition, and included a

4 The weights do not include nonfelony criminal cases, which are generally
the responsibility of magistrate, not district, judges.

Page 6 GAO- 03- 937T

measure (standard errors) of the statistical confidence in the final
weight for each weighted case type. The case weights are almost 10 years
old, and the time data on which they were based are as much as 15 years
old. Changes since the case weights were finalized in 1993, such as
changes in the characteristics of cases filed in federal district courts
and in case management practices, may affect how accurately the weights
continue to reflect the time burden on district court judges today. For
example, since 1993, new civil causes of action (such as telemarketing
issues) and criminal offenses (such as new terrorism offenses) needed to
be accommodated within the existing caseweight structure. According to FJC
officials, where the new cause of action or criminal offense is similar to
an existing case- weight type, the weight for the closest case type is
assigned. Where the new cause of action or criminal offense is clearly
different from any existing case- weight category, the weight assigned is
that for either *all other* civil cases or *all other* criminal cases.

The Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Judicial Conference*s
Committee on Judicial Resources has approved the research design for
revising the current case weights, with the goal of having new weights
submitted to the Resources Committee for review in the summer of 2004. The
design for the new case weights relies on three sources of data for
specific types of cases: (1) data from automated databases identifying the
docketed events associated with cases; (2) data from automated sources on
the time associated with courtroom events for cases, such as trials or
hearings; and (3) estimated time data from structured, guided discussion
among experienced judges on the time associated with

noncourtroom events for cases, such as reading briefs or writing opinions.
Although the proposed methodology appears to offer the benefit of reduced
judicial burden (no time study data collection), potential cost savings,
and reduced calendar time to develop the new weights, we have two
principal concerns about the research design* the challenge of obtaining
reliable, comparable data from two different automated data systems for
the analysis and the limited collection of actual data on the time judges
spend on cases.

The design assumes that judicial time spent on a given case can be
accurately estimated by viewing the case as a set of individual tasks or
events in the case. Information about event frequencies and, where
available, time spent on the events would be extracted from existing
Current Case Weights

about 10 Years Old Concerns about the Research Design for Updating the
District Court Case Weights

Page 7 GAO- 03- 937T

administrative data bases and reports and then used to develop estimates
of the judge- time spent on different types of cases. For event data, the
research design proposes using data from new technology (the Case

Management/ Electronic Case Filing System) that is currently being
introduced into the court system for recording case management
information. However, not all courts have implemented the new system, and
data from the existing and new systems will have to be integrated to
obtain and analyze the event data. FJC researchers, who would conduct the
research, recognize the challenges this poses and have developed a
strategy for addressing the issues, which includes forming a technical
advisory group from FJC, the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts,
and individual courts to develop a method of reliably extracting and
integrating data from the two case management systems for analysis.

Second, the research design does not require judges to record time spent
on individual cases. Actual time data would be limited to that available
from existing reports on the time associated with courtroom events and
proceedings for different types of cases. However, a majority of district
judges* time is spent on case- related work outside the courtroom. The
time required for noncourtroom events would be derived from structured,
guided discussions of groups of 8 to 13 experienced district court judges
in each of the 12 geographic circuits (about 100 judges in all). The
judges

would develop estimates of the time required for different events in
different types of cases within each circuit, using FJC- developed
*default values* as the reference point for developing their estimates.
These default

values would be based in part on the existing case weights and in part on
other types of analyses. Following the meetings of the judges in each
circuit, a national group of 24 judges (2 from each circuit) would
consider the data from the 12 circuit groups and develop the new weights.
The accuracy of judges* time estimates is dependent upon the experience
and knowledge of the participating judges and the accuracy and reliability
of the judges* recall about the time required for different events in
different types of cases* about 150 if all the case types in the current
case weights were used. These consensus data cannot be used to calculate
statistical measures of the accuracy of the resulting case weights. Thus,
it will not be possible to objectively, statistically assess how accurate
the new case weights are* weights on whose accuracy the Judicial
Conference will rely in assessing judgeship needs in the future.

A time study conducted concurrently with the proposed research methodology
would be advisable to identify potential shortcomings of the event- based
methodology and to assess the relative accuracy of the case

Page 8 GAO- 03- 937T

weights produced using that methodology. In the absence of a concurrent
time study, there would be no objective statistical way to determine the
accuracy of the case weights produced by the proposed event- based
methodology.

The principal workload measure that the Judicial Conference uses to assess
the need for additional courts of appeals judges is adjusted case filings.
We found that adjusted case filings are based on data available from
standard statistical reports for the courts of appeals. The measure is not
based on any empirical data about the judge time required by different
types of cases in the courts of appeals.

The Judicial Conference*s policy is that courts of appeals with adjusted
case filings of 500 or more per three- judge panel may be considered for
one or more additional judgeships. Courts of appeals generally decide
cases using constantly rotating three- judge panels. Thus, if a court had

12 authorized judgeships, those judges could be assigned to four panels of
three judges each. In assessing judgeship needs for the courts of appeals,
the Conference may also consider factors other than adjusted case filings,

such as the geography of the circuit or the median time from case filings
to dispositions. Adjusted case filings are used for 11 of the 12 courts of
appeals. It is not used for the Court of Appeals for the D. C. Circuit. A
FJC study of that court*s workload determined that adjusted case filings
were not an appropriate means of measuring the court*s judgeship needs.
The court had a high proportion of administrative agency appeals that
occurred almost exclusively in the Court of Appeals for D. C. and were
more burdensome than other types of cases in several respects* e. g., more
independently represented participants per case, more briefs filed per
case, and a higher rate of case consolidation. 5 Essentially, the adjusted
case filings workload measure counts all case

filings equally, with two exceptions. First, cases refiled and approved
for reinstatement are excluded from total case filings. 6 Second, two-
thirds of

5 The Conference did not request any judgeships in 2003 for the D. C.
Court of Appeals. 6 Such cases were dismissed for procedural defaults when
originally filed, but *reinstated* to the court*s calendar when the case
was later refiled. The number of such cases, as a proportion of total
cases, is generally small. Adjusted Case Filings:

Accuracy of Courts of Appeals Case- Related Workload Measure Cannot Be
Assessed

Page 9 GAO- 03- 937T

pro se cases* defined by the Administrative Office as cases in which one
or both of the parties are not represented by an attorney* are deducted
from total case filings (that is, they are effectively weighted at 0.33).
For example, a court with 600 total pro se filings in a fiscal year would
be credited with 198 adjusted pro se case filings (600 x 0.33). The
remaining nonpro se cases would be weighted at 1.0 each. Thus, a court of
appeals with 1,600 case filings (excluding reinstatements)* 600 pro se
cases and 1,000 nonpro se cases* would be credited with 1,198 adjusted
case filings

(198 discounted pro se cases plus 1,000 nonpro se cases). If this court
had 6 judges (allow two panels of 3 judges each), it would have 599
adjusted case filings per 3- judge panel, and, thus, under Judicial
Conference policy,

could be considered for an additional judgeship. The current court of
appeals workload measure represents an effort to improve the previous
measure. In our 1993 report on judgeship needs assessment, we noted that
the restraint of individual courts of appeals, not the workload standard,
seemed to have determined the actual number of

appellate judgeships the Judicial Conference requested. 7 At the time the
current measure was developed and approved, using the new benchmark of 500
adjusted case filings resulted in judgeship numbers that closely
approximated the judgeship needs of the majority of the courts of appeals,
as the judges of each court perceived them. The current courts of appeals
case- related workload measure principally reflects a policy decision
using

historical data on filings and terminations. It is not based on empirical
data regarding the judge time that different types of cases may require.
On the basis of the documentation we reviewed, we determined that there is
no empirical basis for assessing the potential accuracy of adjusted
filings a measure of case- related judge workload.

In our report, we recommended that the Judicial Conference of the United
States

 update the district court case weights using a methodology that supports
an objective, statistically reliable means of calculating the accuracy of
the resulting weights; and

7 U. S. General Accounting Office, Federal Judiciary: How the Judicial
Conference Assesses the Need for More Judges, GAO/ GGD- 93- 31
(Washington, D. C.: Jan. 29, 1993). Recommendations

Page 10 GAO- 03- 937T  develop a methodology for measuring the case-
related workload of courts of appeals judges that supports an objective,
statistically reliable means of

calculating the accuracy of the resulting workload measure( s) and that
addresses the special case characteristics of the Court of Appeals for the
D. C. Circuit.

In a May 27, 2003, letter to GAO, the Chair of the Committee on Judicial
Resources said that the development of the new case weights will use
substantial data already collected and that our report did not reflect the
sophisticated methodology the FJC had designed for the study nor
acknowledge the substantial increased costs and time involved in a time
study that was likely to offer little or no added value for the
investment. The letter also noted that the workloads of the courts of
appeals entail important factors that have defied measurement, including
the significant differences in the courts* case processing techniques. The
Deputy Director of FJC, in a May 27, 2003, letter agreed that the
estimated data on

noncourtroom judge time in the new study would not permit the calculation
of standard errors. However, the integrity of the resulting case- weight
system could still be evaluated on the basis of adherence to the
procedures that will be used to gather the data and promote their
reliability.

We believe that our analysis and recommendations are sound and that the
importance and costs of creating new Article III federal judgeships
requires the best possible case- related workload data to support the
assessment of the need for more judgeships.

That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or other Members of the Subcommittee may have.

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

Acknowledgments

Page 11 GAO- 03- 937T

Whether the district court case weights are a reasonably accurate measure
of district judge case- related workload is dependent upon two variables:
(1) the accuracy of the case weights themselves and (2) the accuracy of
classifying cases filed in district courts by the case type used for the
case weights. If case filings are inaccurately identified by case type,
then the weights are inaccurately calculated. Because there are fewer
categories used in the courts of appeals workload measure, there is
greater margin for error. The database for the courts of appeals should
accurately identify (1) pro se cases, (2) reinstated cases, and (3) all
cases not in the first two categories.

All current records related to civil and criminal filings that are
reported to the Administrative Office of the U. S. Courts (AOUSC) and used
for the district court case weights are generated by the automated case
management systems in the district 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:

 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 district 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. Appendix I:
Quality Assurance Steps the

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

Page 12 GAO- 03- 937T

 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.  Detailed and extensive statistical reporting guidance is
provided to courts for reporting civil and criminal statistics. This
guidance includes

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

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

AOUSC did not identify any audits to test the accuracy of district court
case filings or any other efforts to verify the accuracy of its electronic
data by comparing the electronic data to *hard copy* case records for
district

courts. Within the limited time for our review, AOUSC was unable to obtain
information from individual courts to include in its responses. We have no
information on how effective the procedures AOUSC described may be in
ensuring that the data in the automated databases were accurate and
reliable means of assigning weights to district court case filings.

(440223)
*** End of document. ***