The Federal Judiciary: Observations on Selected Issues (Briefing Report,
09/18/95, GAO/GGD-95-236BR).

This briefing report reviews operations of the federal judiciary. GAO
provides information on (1) the appropriations, expenditures, and
functions of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and Federal
Judicial Center, including any substantial duplication in their
functions and services; (2) the costs of Federal Judicial Center
education and training programs, including the potential savings that
could results from eliminating all such programs except for the training
and the education of new district judges; (3) the annual number and cost
of meetings of the Judicial Conference and its committees, circuit
judicial conferences, and circuit judicial councils; and (4) the cost,
by circuit, of any circuit task forces on gender, racial, and ethnic
bias, and the process used to select any executive directors for the
task forces. GAO also assesses the methodological soundness of circuit
task force reports that were at least in final draft.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-95-236BR
     TITLE:  The Federal Judiciary: Observations on Selected Issues
      DATE:  09/18/95
   SUBJECT:  Budget authority
             Federal courts
             Appropriated funds
             Cost analysis
             Judges
             Internal controls
             Financial management
             Education or training
             Budget obligations
             Offsetting collections
IDENTIFIER:  Judiciary Automation Fund
             
**************************************************************************
* This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a GAO        *
* report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,       *
* headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major divisions and subdivisions *
* of the text, such as Chapters, Sections, and Appendixes, are           *
* identified by double and single lines.  The numbers on the right end   *
* of these lines indicate the position of each of the subsections in the *
* document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the page       *
* numbers of the printed 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.                                          *
*                                                                        *
* A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO Document    *
* Distribution Facility by calling (202) 512-6000, by faxing your        *
* request to (301) 258-4066, or by writing to P.O. Box 6015,             *
* Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015. We are unable to accept electronic orders *
* for printed documents at this time.                                    *
**************************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Briefing Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S.  Senate

September 1995

THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY -
OBSERVATIONS ON SELECTED ISSUES

GAO/GGD-95-236BR

Selected Issues

(188623)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  ABA - American Bar Association
  AOUSC - Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts
  CJRA - Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990
  FJC - Federal Judicial Center

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-261800

September 18, 1995

The Honorable Charles E.  Grassley
Chairman, Subcommittee on Administrative
 Oversight and the Courts
Committee on the Judiciary
United States Senate

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

This briefing report responds to your May 4, 1995, request that we
review various aspects of the federal judiciary's operations. 
Specifically, you asked us to provide information on (1) the
appropriations, expenditures, and functions of the Administrative
Office of the U.S.  Courts (AOUSC) and Federal Judicial Center (FJC),
including any substantial duplication in AOUSC and FJC functions and
services; (2) the costs of FJC education and training programs,
including the potential savings that could result from eliminating
all such programs except for the training and education of new
district judges; (3) the annual number and cost of meetings of the
Judicial Conference and its committees, circuit judicial conferences,
and circuit judicial councils; and (4) the cost, by circuit, of any
circuit task forces on gender, racial, and/or ethnic bias, and the
process used to select any executive directors for the task forces. 
You also asked us to assess the methodological soundness of any
circuit task force reports that were at least in final draft.  As
agreed with your office, we will provide in a separate product our
analysis of the Ninth Circuit report, published in 1993, and the
final drafts of the two District of Columbia Circuit reports. 

BACKGROUND

The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, 12 regional
circuit courts of appeals, the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit, 94 district courts, 91 bankruptcy courts, the Court of
International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims.  The Judicial
Conference of the United States, a body of 27 judges over which the
Chief Justice of the United States presides, is the judiciary's
principal policymaking body and does most of its work through about
25 committees.  The AOUSC, operating under the direction and
supervision of the Conference, provides a wide range of
administrative, legal, and program support to the courts, including
budgeting, space and facilities, automation, statistical analysis and
reports, financial audit, and management evaluation.  FJC, the
judiciary's research and education agency, operates under the
direction of its own eight-member board, which has two permanent
members, the Director of the AOUSC and the Chief Justice, who chairs
the board.  By statute, AOUSC and FJC have some similar
responsibilities in supporting and evaluating court operations and
supporting implementation and evaluation of the Civil Justice Reform
Act of 1990.\1

Regionally, each of the 12 circuits has a circuit judicial
conference, chaired by the chief judge of the circuit, whose purpose
is to provide a forum for judges and members of the bar to exchange
ideas and discuss the administration of the courts in the circuit. 
Each circuit also has a judicial council of the circuit, also chaired
by the chief judge of the circuit, which is charged with making all
necessary and appropriate orders for the effective and expeditious
administration of justice within the circuit. 

RESULTS IN BRIEF

The operations of AOUSC and FJC are funded by a combination of
appropriations and offsetting collections.  Total AOUSC budget
authority rose from $68.4 million in fiscal year 1992 to about $81.2
million in fiscal year 1995.\2 Of this total, appropriations
accounted for $44.7 million (65 percent) in fiscal year 1992 and
$47.5 million (58 percent) in fiscal year 1995.  Funds available from
offsetting collections, principally the Judiciary Automation Fund,\3
accounted for the remainder of funds available.  In each fiscal year
1992 through 1994, total AOUSC obligations equaled the total funds
available. 

Total FJC budget authority declined from about $19.2 million in
fiscal year 1992 to about $19 million in fiscal year 1995. 
Appropriations accounted for $17.8 million (93 percent) in fiscal
year 1992 and about $18.8 million (99 percent) in fiscal year 1995.\4
The FJC's offsetting collections are derived from other judicial
appropriation accounts and the FJC Foundation, which may accept
donations to finance FJC programs.  FJC obligations equaled funds
available in each fiscal year from 1992 through 1994. 

To determine whether duplication of effort exists between AOUSC and
FJC, we focused on the delivery of services.  First, we identified
functions that overlapped the responsibilities of each agency and
selected for further analysis three functions that encompassed
virtually all of FJC's services--(1) education and training, (2)
research, and (3) automation.  Next, recognizing that the existence
of overlapping functions does not necessarily equate to a duplication
of effort in the delivery of services, we analyzed the customer
services provided by each agency within these three functions to
identify duplication of effort, if any, that existed.  For example,
we reviewed AOUSC and FJC training materials and curricula for new
judges to determine if AOUSC and FJC covered the same topics and
material (they did not). 

We found little actual duplication of activities or services within
the overlapping functions we examined.  For example, while each
agency provides training to court clerks, probation officers, and new
judges, the objectives and topics of each agency's training appeared
to be distinct.  Given our time constraints, our analysis focused on
duplication of effort in the delivery of services and did not include
a detailed assessment of whether efficiencies could be achieved from
consolidating the administration of overlapping functions in AOUSC or
FJC. 

FJC estimated it spent about $3 million on district judge
orientation, education and training in fiscal year 1994.  Of this
total about $500,000 was spent on training and orientation of newly
appointed district court judges and another $2.5 million on district
judge seminars and workshops.  All 70 district judges appointed in
fiscal year 1994 attended a FJC orientation program for new district
judges and 42 attended at least one nonorientation program during
their first year on the bench.\5

If all FJC functions in 1994 had been abolished except for new
district judge orientation, up to about $18 million of FJC's $18.5
million fiscal year 1994 appropriation could have been saved. 
However, to the extent that AOUSC increased its training and
education programs for district court or other judges, it would
probably incur additional costs unless it reduced or eliminated some
of its current activities.  In addition, these savings assume that
none of FJC's other functions would be transferred to any other
federal judiciary organization.  FJC, for example, currently conducts
research on a variety of topics, plus orientation, training, and
continuing education for chief district court judges; court of
appeals, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges; probation and pretrial
service officers; federal public defenders; and other court
personnel. 

In fiscal year 1995, FJC estimated it will spend about $6.2 million
on workshops and conferences for court of appeals, district,
magistrate, and bankruptcy judges and court staff.  These estimated
costs include travel and per diem, space rental (when used), and
faculty honoraria but exclude the costs of producing and mailing
FJC-furnished materials used for training and education, such as
manuals, videos, curricula packages, and interactive materials such
as compact discs with read-only memories (CD-ROMs).  (See briefing
section II.)

In calendar year 1993, the total estimated cost of 2 Judicial
Conference sessions and 54 meetings of the Conference's approximately
25 committees was about $893,000.  The estimated calendar year 1994
cost of 2 Conference sessions and 59 committee meetings was about
$1,069,000.  Normally, Conference committees meet twice a year. 
However, in calendar years 1993 and 1994, the Long-Range Planning
Committee met 11 times while preparing the draft long-range plan for
the federal courts, which was presented to the Conference for review
in March 1995.  (See briefing section I.)

In fiscal year 1993, 8 of the 12 regional circuits\6 held circuit
conferences at a total estimated cost of $1,083,000.  In fiscal year
1994, 8 of the 12 circuits held conferences at a total estimated cost
of $972,000.  (See briefing section IV.)

In fiscal year 1993, the 12 regional circuits held 25 circuit council
meetings at a total estimated cost of $55,000.  In fiscal year 1994,
the regional circuits held 32 circuit council meetings at a total
estimated cost of $67,000.  According to the circuits, many of the
regional circuit council meetings were held at little or no
additional cost while the council members were assembled for the
circuit judicial conference or other regular court business.  (See
briefing section IV.)

As of June 1, 1995, 10 of the 12 circuits had established task forces
on gender, racial, and/or ethnic bias\7 and had spent a total of
about $667,000.  Of this total, about $562,000 (84 percent) was spent
by the D.C.  Circuit, which had completed final drafts of its
studies, and the Ninth Circuit, which had published its study in
final form.  (See briefing section V.)

Five of the 10 circuits that established bias task forces had hired
or appointed executive directors as of June 1, 1995.  Four of the
five were chosen by competitive selection from applicants who
responded to a position advertisement.  The remaining director was
appointed and will serve pro bono (without pay).  The Tenth Circuit
had advertised for but not hired an executive director.  The current
Executive Director for the D.C.  Circuit was unanimously selected by
the task force members.\8 (See briefing section V.)

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

We used the Budget Appendix and the judiciary's congressional budget
submissions for fiscal years 1994 through 1996 to identify
appropriations and obligations for AOUSC and FJC for fiscal years
1992 through 1996 (estimates for fiscal years 1995 and 1996).  We
agreed with the Subcommittee to review appropriations and obligations
for these fiscal years because 1992 through 1994 were the fiscal
years for which the most recent actual budget data were available. 
The Budget Appendix figures for fiscal year 1995 are estimated, and
for 1996, they are the amounts included in the congressional budget
request. 

To determine whether there was duplication in AOUSC and FJC services,
we reviewed documents provided by each organization, including annual
reports; organizational manuals; memoranda of understanding regarding
automation and education and training; listings of research projects,
publications, and training courses; training course curricula; and
orientation materials for new judges.  We also interviewed officials
within each organization, including the directors of AOUSC and FJC;
the two most recent former directors of FJC; heads of AOUSC and FJC
operating units that appeared to have overlapping responsibilities;
and judges recommended by AOUSC and FJC officials as knowledgeable
and of diverse viewpoints on the subject of AOUSC and FJC overlap and
duplication. 

We sent a questionnaire to the circuit executive in each of the 12
geographic circuit courts of appeals to obtain data on (1) the number
of circuit conference and council meetings and their cost; (2) the
number of circuits with gender, ethnic, and/or racial bias task
forces, and the costs of such task forces as of June 1, 1995; (3) the
tasks undertaken by each task force as of June 1, 1995; and (4) those
circuits that had hired or appointed an executive director for their
task force as of June 1, 1995.  For those districts with executive
directors, we sent memorandums requesting information on the process
used to select the executive director and on the persons who made the
final hiring decision.  In our questionnaire, circuits were asked--if
they did not provide actual costs--to provide the assumptions and
methods used for any cost estimates.  This information is provided,
as appropriate, in the more detailed cost data shown in the
appendixes. 

See appendix I for more details of our objectives, scope, and
methodology. 

We did our work primarily in Washington, D.C., between May and July
1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. 

AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR EVALUATION

We requested comments from AOUSC and FJC on a draft of the report. 
AOUSC provided no comments on the report's conclusions, but did
provide technical clarifications, including those AOUSC received from
the Circuit Executives, which we incorporated into the report where
appropriate. 

FJC provided written comments dated August 18, 1995.  FJC emphasized
that "the presence of overlap--agencies performing 'similar'
activities--in no way means that duplication is also present" and
that any waste, and, therefore, any potential savings would arise
from duplication of activities, not simply overlap.  FJC agreed with
the report's conclusion that there was little overall duplication in
the services provided by the FJC and AOUSC.  FJC also proposed
technical changes and clarifications which we included in the report
where appropriate.  FJC's written comments are printed in full in
appendix VI. 


--------------------
\1 The Act (P.L.101-650) required each district court to develop and
implement a civil justice expense and delay reduction plan. 

\2 All figures are expressed in current dollars. 

\3 For a description of the Judiciary Automation Fund and its uses,
see Judiciary Automation Fund:  Reauthorization Should Be Linked to
Better Planning and Reporting (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-94-176, June 30, 1994). 

\4 The decline in offsetting collections is primarily the result of a
change in appropriations.  Beginning in fiscal year 1994 Congress
appropriated directly to FJC about $1 million for training of new
court personnel that had previously been appropriated to the
judiciary's salaries and expenses account for this purpose and
subsequently transferred to FJC. 

\5 Attendance at either the orientation or nonorientation program may
not necessarily have occurred in fiscal year 1994. 

\6 The federal courts of appeals are organized into 12 regional
circuit courts of appeals plus the Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.  Our work focused on the 12 regional circuits. 

\7 The Eleventh Circuit has established an ad hoc committee rather
than formal task force and hired a part-time consultant rather than
an executive director. 

\8 The D.C.  Circuit has had two directors.  Both were unanimously
selected by the members of the Circuit's Task Force from applicants
who responded to position announcements. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :0.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Chair and Ranking
Minority Member of the House Committee on the Judiciary; the Chair
and Ranking Minority Members of the House and Senate Subcommittees on
Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies,
Committee on Appropriations; the AOUSC Director; the FJC Director;
members of FJC's Board; members of the Judicial Conference of the
U.S.; and the Circuit Executives of each of the 12 regional circuit
courts of appeals.  Copies will also be made available to others upon
request. 

The major contributors to this briefing report are listed in appendix
VII.  If you have any questions about this report, please call me on
(202) 512-8777. 

Sincerely yours,

Norman J.  Rabkin
Director, Administration of
 Justice Issues


Briefing Section I THE FEDERAL
JUDICIARY
============================================================== Letter 


   FEDERAL JUDICIAL ADMINISTRATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  AOUSC.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      FEDERAL JUDICIAL
      ADMINISTRATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :1.1

The judicial branch of the federal government consists of the Supreme
Court, 12 circuit courts of appeals, 94 district courts, 91
bankruptcy courts, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the
Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims.  (The
geographic boundaries of the 12 regional circuits are shown in
appendix II.)

The federal judiciary includes several agencies and judicial bodies
that provide for its administration, self-governance, research,
education, and training.  At the national level, these include the
Judicial Conference of the United States and its committees, the
Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts (AOUSC), and the Federal
Judicial Center (FJC).  (See briefing section II for more information
on the AOUSC and FJC.) Regionally, they include the circuit judicial
conferences, each of which includes all the active appellate,
district, and bankruptcy judges of the circuit,\9 and the circuit
judicial councils, whose membership each circuit may designate within
statutory requirements.  See briefing section IV for more information
on the judicial councils and conferences of the circuits. 



--------------------
\9 Membership by statute includes all active judges.  Senior judges,
those who have retired from active status and may take a reduced
caseload, are not statutory members of the Conference nor required to
attend its meetings. 


   JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
   UNITED STATES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE
      UNITED STATES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :2.1

At the judiciary's request, the Congress created the Judicial
Conference in 1922.\10 The Conference is the primary policymaking
body for the federal judiciary.  The Chief Justice of the United
States, who presides at sessions of the Conference, also designates
the time and place of Conference meetings.  The other Conference
members include the chief judge of each of the 12 regional circuit
courts of appeals, the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit, a district judge from each regional circuit, and the
Chief Judge of the Court of International Trade.  The district judges
of the Conference are chosen for 3-year terms by the circuit and
district judges of their circuit at the meetings of their individual
circuit conferences.  The Judicial Conference is statutorily required
to meet annually but may meet as many times as the Chief Justice
deems necessary.  It currently meets twice a year. 

The Conference's responsibilities include:  (1) considering policy
issues that affect the federal courts; (2) making suggestions and
recommendations to the various courts to promote uniformity of
management procedures and the expeditious conduct of court business;
(3) making legislative recommendations to Congress, including the
need for additional judgeships; (4) proposing amendments to the
federal rules of practice and procedures; (5) making intercircuit
assignment of judges; (6) considering administrative problems of the
courts; (7) and providing supervision and direction for the AOUSC
Director.\11

The Conference works in large part through its committees and
subcommittees, which study and make recommendations to the Conference
on a wide range of issues.  For example, Conference committees have
prepared for the Conference's consideration an automation plan, a
design guide for court construction, and the Proposed Long-Range Plan
for the Federal Courts. 



--------------------
\10 The Conference's membership and general responsibilities are
found at 28 U.S.C.331. 

\11 This responsibility of the Conference is found at 28 U.S.C.  604. 


   1993 AND 1994 JUDICIAL
   CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND
   COMMITTEE MEETINGS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  AOUSC estimates.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      1993 AND 1994 JUDICIAL
      CONFERENCE SESSIONS AND
      COMMITTEE MEETINGS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

In calendar year 1993, the Judicial Conference of the United States
held two sessions at an estimated cost of $68,883.  The Conference
also held two sessions in calendar year 1994 at a slightly higher
estimated cost of $70,584.\12

The approximately 25 Judicial Conference committees met 54 times in
1993 at an estimated cost of $824,734 and 59 times in 1994 at an
estimated cost of $998,415.\13 Total estimated costs for committee
meetings in 1993 and 1994 were $1.8 million.  Normally, committees
meet twice a year, but in these years the Committee on Long-Range
Planning met 11 times to prepare the Proposed Long-Range Plan for the
Federal Courts submitted to the Judicial Conference in March 1995. 

Briefing Section II

--------------------
\12 AOUSC estimated these costs using actual expenses for one
Conference session. 

\13 AOUSC estimated total costs for Conference committee meetings
based on the actual expenses of one meeting for each of four
committees, including the costs of all judges and staff who attended
the committee meeting.  These costs were used to calculate an average
cost per meeting for each committee participant during calendar years
1993 and 1994, excluding any nominal and incidental expenses of local
participants.  The total estimated cost for meetings held each year
is based on this average cost per participant times the total number
of participants in each calendar year.  The four committees were (1)
Court Administration and Case Management, (2) Judicial Resources, (3)
Administration of the Magistrate Judges System, and (4)
Administration of the Bankruptcy System.  All four committees include
representatives from each of the 12 circuits with the exception of
the Committee on the Administration of the Magistrate Judges System,
which has no representative from the D.C.  Circuit. 


AOUSC AND FJC FUNCTIONS,
OBLIGATIONS, AND OPERATIONS
============================================================== Letter 


   ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
   U.S.  COURTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE
      U.S.  COURTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

At the request of the judiciary, Congress created AOUSC in 1939.\14
Prior to that time, administrative support of the courts was the
responsibility of the Department of Justice.  The functions and
responsibilities of AOUSC are primarily vested in the director, who
may delegate them to the deputy director or others.  The Director of
AOUSC operates under the direction of the Judicial Conference, serves
as the Secretary to the Judicial Conference, appoints AOUSC staff,
and directs the operations of AOUSC.  The Chief Justice of the United
States appoints the AOUSC director after consulting with the Judicial
Conference and may also remove the Director after consulting with the
Conference. 

AOUSC is principally responsible for (1) supporting and carrying out
the policies of the Judicial Conference and its committees; and (2)
providing staff support to the Conference; (3) providing
administrative and program support to the courts of appeals, district
courts (including their probation/pretrial offices), bankruptcy
courts, and federal defender offices throughout the United States,
Puerto Rico, the U.S.  Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana
Islands.  AOUSC services and responsibilities include supporting the
development of the judiciary's budget and allocating funds to local
court units; developing automation systems; providing space and
facilities for local court units; performing financial audits of
local court units; providing legal analyses, statistical analyses and
reporting; and performing program and management reviews and
analyses.  AOUSC also trains local court units in a variety of
administrative functions, including personnel, budgeting, financial
control, and space and facilities management. 



--------------------
\14 The statutory responsibilities and structure of AOUSC are found
at 28 U.S.C.601-612. 


   AOUSC COLLECTIONS,
   APPROPRIATIONS, AND
   OBLIGATIONS, FYS 1992-1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  Offsetting collections
   are derived from (1) other
   judiciary appropriation
   accounts, including salaries
   and expenses, defender
   services, court security, and
   the Judiciary Automation Fund;
   (2) funds appropriated to the
   Department of Justice for
   independent counsels; and (3)
   business-type fee collections
   made by the courts (as
   authorized by P.L.  101-162).

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Budget Appendixes ,
   fiscal years 1994 to 1996.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      AOUSC COLLECTIONS,
      APPROPRIATIONS, AND
      OBLIGATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :5.1

Funded by offsetting collections and appropriations, AOUSC saw its
offsetting collections increase 42 percent, from nearly $24 million
in fiscal year 1992 to about $33 million in fiscal year 1995. 
AOUSC's appropriations increased 6 percent in this period, from about
$45 million to about $48 million.  AOUSC's obligations, as shown in
the Budget Appendix, increased 19 percent during this period, from
about $68 million in fiscal year 1992 to an estimated $81 million in
fiscal year 1995.  See appendix III for more detail on AOUSC's budget
and obligations. 



   FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      FEDERAL JUDICIAL CENTER
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

At the request of the Judicial Conference,\15 Congress in 1967
created the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) as the judiciary's agency
for continuing education and research.\16 Unlike AOUSC, whose
director is directly answerable to the Chief Justice and the Judicial
Conference, FJC is quasi-independent.  FJC has its own eight-member
board, of which the Chief Justice, who serves as chair, and the AOUSC
director are permanent members.  The other six board members--two
appellate, three district, and one bankruptcy judge--are elected by
the Judicial Conference for nonrenewable 4-year terms.  By statute,
the nonpermanent members of the board may not be members of the
Judicial Conference and, by Conference policy, are not usually
members of Conference committees.  The board appoints the FJC
director and deputy director, and provides general oversight.  The
director and deputy director serve at the pleasure of the board.  Six
of the seven FJC directors have been judges.  The current director is
a district judge. 



--------------------
\15 The Conference proposed a center to be "established" in AOUSC
with its own board which would appoint and could remove the center
director and would fix the director's duties.  The center director
would report to the board and not the AOUSC director. 

\16 The basic structure and statutory responsibilities of FJC are
found at 28 U.S.C.620-629. 


   THE FJC'S DUTIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      THE FJC'S DUTIES
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :7.1

The FJC's statutory duties fall into three broad categories:  (1)
conducting research on the federal courts, (2) making recommendations
to improve the administration and management of the federal courts,
and (3) developing education and training for judicial branch
personnel and others whose participation would improve court
operations, such as mediators and arbitrators.  FJC undertakes
research projects on behalf of the Judicial Conference, its
committees, individual courts or circuits, Congress in a few cases,
and, on its own initiative occasionally on such topics as case
management, long-range planning, the Civil Justice Reform Act, and
the impact of changes in rules of procedure or organizational
structure.  The FJC provides training for judges and court staff in
such areas as case management, legislation and rules of procedure,
and managerial team building (e.g., for new chief judges and their
clerks, for new chief probation officers).  This training is provided
through formal classroom instruction, videos, curriculum packages
used by individual courts in their own training, and interactive
materials, such as compact discs with read-only memories (CD-ROMs). 
FJC develops and distributes manuals on such topics as case
management and litigation as well as videos and interactive training
programs for court personnel. 

By statute, AOUSC provides accounting, disbursing, auditing and other
fiscal services for FJC.\17



--------------------
\17 28 U.S.C.  628. 


   FJC COLLECTIONS,
   APPROPRIATIONS, AND
   OBLIGATIONS, FYS 1992-1996
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Note:  Offsetting collections
   are derived from (1) other
   federal judiciary
   appropriations accounts; and
   (2)the Judicial Center
   Foundation, which may accept
   private contributions to
   support FJC programs. 

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  Budget Appendixes ,
   fiscal years 1994 to 1996.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      FJC APPROPRIATIONS,
      COLLECTIONS, AND OBLIGATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1

FJC is funded by offsetting collections and appropriations.  FJC's
offsetting collections declined 88 percent, from nearly $1.4 million
in fiscal year 1992 to only about $163,000 in fiscal year 1995.  The
decline in offsetting collections is primarily the result of a change
in appropriations.  In fiscal years 1992 and 1993, Congress
appropriated about $1 million annually to the judiciary's salaries
and expenses account for FJC training of new court personnel.  During
the fiscal year, these funds were transferred to FJC and recorded as
offsetting collections by FJC.  Beginning in fiscal year 1994,
Congress appropriated these funds directly to FJC. 

FJC's appropriations increased 6 percent in this period, from about
$18 million to about $19 million.  FJC's obligations ranged from
about $18.4 million to about $19.1 million during this period.  See
appendix III for more detail on FJC's budget and obligations. 



   FJC DISTRICT JUDGE EDUCATION
   COSTS, FISCAL YEAR 1994
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :9



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  FJC.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      FJC DISTRICT JUDGE EDUCATION
      COSTS, FISCAL YEAR 1994
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :9.1

In fiscal year 1994, FJC spent about $493,000 on orientation for
newly appointed district judges and an additional $2,514,000 on
district judge seminars and workshops, which newly appointed district
judges--defined as those in their first year on the bench--may
attend.  All 70 district judges appointed in fiscal year 1994
attended a FJC orientation program for new district judges and 42
attended at least one nonorientation seminar or workshop in their
first year on the bench.\18 The costs reported by FJC included the
costs of mailing materials to judges; shipping materials to training
sites outside of Washington, D.C.; travel costs; FJC staff costs for
designing and conducting the training, producing videos, manuals, and
other materials used in the education and orientation; and general
administrative direct and indirect costs.  See appendix III for more
information on FJC's 1994 orientation and education budget. 



--------------------
\18 Attendance at either the orientation or nonorientation program
may not necessarily have occurred in fiscal year 1994. 


   SOME OVERLAP IN FUNCTIONS BUT
   NOT NECESSARILY DUPLICATION OF
   SERVICES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      SOME OVERLAP IN FUNCTIONS
      BUT NOT NECESSARILY
      DUPLICATION OF SERVICES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :10.1

Upon initial examination, some broad AOUSC and FJC functions, such as
research and training and education, and to a lesser extent
automation, appeared to be substantially similar (overlapping). 
However, the existence of overlapping functions does not necessarily
equate to a duplication of services within those functions.  We
examined the services AOUSC and FJC provided in each overlapping
function to identify duplicative services, if any.  We found very
little actual duplication of services. 



   AOUSC AND FJC AGREEMENTS ON
   ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      AOUSC AND FJC AGREEMENTS ON
      ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :11.1

In some broad overlapping functions, AOUSC and FJC have entered into
agreements primarily intended to define specific agency roles and
responsibilities with the goal of avoiding duplication of activities
and services in the areas covered by the agreements.  For example, a
1992 agreement sets out specific responsibilities regarding
automation and assigns to AOUSC the primary judiciary-wide roles,
including design, testing, procurement, implementation, and
evaluation.  A similar April 1993 agreement covers education and
training.  Under this agreement, for example, FJC is responsible for
educating judges and court staff on legal issues and court and case
management, while AOUSC is responsible for ensuring proper
performance of the many administrative and operational duties
delegated to the courts by AOUSC.  The agreement also calls for full
interagency communication, coordination, and exchange of information. 

In December of 1994, the agencies established the Joint Court
Education and Training Advisory Committee, which is intended to
assist the agencies in identifying long-term training needs,
coordinating training, and avoiding duplication.  There is no formal,
written agreement concerning research.  Officials of both agencies
told us no such agreement was needed. 



   LITTLE DUPLICATION IN TRAINING
   AND EDUCATION PROGRAMS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      LITTLE DUPLICATION IN
      TRAINING AND EDUCATION
      PROGRAMS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :12.1

We focused much of our review on training, education, and research
because both agencies conduct extensive training, education, and
studies of various issues.  Our review of training curricula and
course materials revealed very little duplication in the services or
activities each agency provided in these areas. 

AOUSC and FJC have extensive training and education programs.  Much
of this training is distinct.  AOUSC, for example, provides training
in areas of AOUSC responsibility such as personnel, budget, and space
and facilities.  FJC does not provide training in these areas.  In
some cases, such as the orientation for new judges, the training
seemed initially to be similar but on closer examination proved not
to be.  AOUSC, for example, provides a 1-day orientation covering a
variety of issues focusing on AOUSC's administrative, judicial, and
Judicial Conference support functions and services; judicial
security, pay, and benefits; and the hiring of personal staff.  FJC
provides two orientations for new judges--a 5-day course based
largely on FJC video presentations and discussions with an
experienced judge followed later, in the judge's first year, by a 5--
day class that features a variety of speakers and panel discussions. 
FJC's orientation focuses primarily on issues of judicial
decisionmaking; federal jurisdiction, law, and procedure; the federal
sentencing guidelines; and case management. 



   LITTLE DUPLICATION IN
   EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND
   RESEARCH
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      LITTLE DUPLICATION IN
      EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS AND
      RESEARCH
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :13.1

We found that FJC and AOUSC provided a variety of educational and
reference materials for judges and court staff, but we found
virtually no duplication in the subject matter of the materials we
reviewed.  FJC educational materials generally focus on such topics
as rules of procedure and case management.  For example, FJC has
recently published the third edition of its Manual on Complex
Litigation (1995).  AOUSC education materials, such as the book on
Senior Status and Retirement for Article III Judges (1994), focus
primarily on judicial benefits, administrative support, and other
AOUSC responsibilities.  In some areas, developing these materials is
a joint effort or there is substantial cooperation, such as the
recently completed Case Management Manual for United States
Bankruptcy Judges (1995). 

We defined research broadly to include any empirical studies of court
policies, operating procedures, and/or technologies, or of the impact
of changing one or more of these policies, procedures, and/or
technologies.  We found AOUSC and FJC studies in the areas of
automation and technology, bankruptcy, implementation and evaluation
of the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990, court administration, and
work measurement.  However, we found virtually no duplication in the
specific topics of the studies done in these areas.  FJC work
measurement studies, for example, have focused on judges, while AOUSC
studies have focused on court staff.  AOUSC and FJC methodologies
used in such studies are also different and distinct.  The CJRA
statute creates similar FJC and AOUSC responsibilities, which the
agencies have divided and generally coordinated closely. 


   AOUSC AND FJC OFFICIALS
   DISAGREED AS TO WHETHER
   FUNCTIONS OVERLAP
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      AOUSC AND FJC OFFICIALS
      DISAGREED ABOUT WHETHER
      FUNCTIONS OVERLAPPED OR SOME
      SERVICES WERE DUPLICATIVE
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :14.1

Senior AOUSC and FJC management fundamentally disagreed on the
extent, nature, and effect of functional and program overlap between
the two agencies.  Senior AOUSC management told us that although 100
percent of FJC's functions are also performed by AOUSC, only about 15
percent of AOUSC's functions overlap with those of FJC.  These
officials also believe there is significant duplication and waste in
such functions as automation, planning, training, and staffing
Judicial Conference committees.  Senior AOUSC managers said that
significant savings--perhaps as much as half of the FJC's fiscal year
1996 budget request--could be achieved by eliminating FJC and
transferring its necessary functions to AOUSC. 

FJC senior management, however, said that while the two agencies
share a common mission--supporting the administration of justice in
the federal courts--each agency performs distinctly different
functions.  They maintained that although there may be overlap in
some functions, actual duplication is virtually nonexistent.  FJC
senior officials offer several reasons in support of this view. 
First, they note that there is little duplication in the statutory
responsibilities of the two agencies.  Second, at the highest levels
of the judiciary there are means of coordinating activities of the
two agencies and avoiding substantial duplication.  The Chief Justice
and the AOUSC director, for example, are permanent members of the FJC
board.  At the operational level, interagency agreements, committees,
and normal cooperation help to avoid duplication.  In addition, FJC
officials argue that because FJC has little administrative overhead,
few savings would result from merging FJC into AOUSC unless specific
FJC or AOUSC functions were substantially reduced or eliminated
entirely. 



   JUDGES HAD A VARIETY OF
   OPINIONS ABOUT THE AGENCIES'
   ROLES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      JUDGES HAD A VARIETY OF
      OPINIONS ABOUT THE AGENCIES'
      ROLES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :15.1

The AOUSC and FJC gave us the names of judges to contact who had
diverse views on the subject of AOUSC and FJC roles and
duplication.\19 The nine current judges and one former judge with
whom we spoke had varying opinions regarding the roles of AOUSC and
FJC, agency coordination, and the continued need for two separate
judicial support agencies.  Some judges argued that it is essential
to retain FJC as a separate and independent organization within the
judiciary.  A former FJC Director said that if FJC's functions were
transferred to AOUSC, research and nonjudicial training and education
would not receive the same priority, visibility, and support they now
do.  Instead, resources for these activities would probably be
reallocated to daily operational needs, particularly in an era of
scarce resources.  Some judges, including former FJC directors and
board members, argued that FJC's independence was critical for
providing diverse views on major policy issues before the courts. 

Conversely, other judges we interviewed, including past and current
members of the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administrative
Office, believed that having two agencies with responsibilities for
some of the same general functions was confusing and wasteful.  They
mentioned that some type of consolidation could achieve substantial
cost savings and efficiencies and would avoid "friction" between the
two agencies and ensure that the judiciary speaks with one voice on
major policy issues.  They also believed that judicial conference
committees could be better served by a consolidation.  Some judges
who support consolidation have also been critical of some recent FJC
research projects, which they do not believe have served the
judiciary well. 

Briefing Section III

--------------------
\19 We requested the names of judges with diverse views, not a
representative sample of judges. 


PRIOR STUDIES OF FJC AND AOUSC
RESPONSIBILITIES
============================================================== Letter 


   TWO 1990 STUDIES EXAMINED AOUSC
   AND FJC RESPONSIBILITIES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :16



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      TWO 1990 STUDIES EXAMINED
      AOUSC AND FJC
      RESPONSIBILITIES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :16.1

Several studies have examined FJC and AOUSC roles and relationships. 
In April 1990, the Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee
recommended enhanced roles and increased funding for both agencies. 

In April 1990, the Chief Judge of the Fifth Circuit, who was also the
Chairmen of the Judicial Conference's Executive Committee, wrote a
letter to the Chief Justice expressing concerns about the working
relationships between AOUSC and FJC in automation, training, and
research.  Also in April 1990, a staff report prepared by AOUSC for
the same chief judge noted that the separation of the two agencies
had led to "unfocused, uncoordinated, and, at times
counter-productive efforts." The report stated there were conflicts
and coordination problems in such areas as automation, training,
research, workforce planning, and publications. 



   A 1991 STUDY EXAMINED THE
   AGENCIES' RELATIONSHIP
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :17



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      A 1991 STUDY EXAMINED THE
      RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FJC AND
      AOUSC
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :17.1

In February 1991, the Chief Justice created an ad hoc committee to
study the relationship between FJC and AOUSC and to make
recommendations consistent with the two agencies' enabling statutes. 
The Committee included the Chief Justice plus four judges and
examined six areas:  (1) automation and technology, (2) staffing and
research support for judicial conference committees, (3) budget, (4)
education and training, (5) legislative affairs, and (6)
communications and liaisons.  The Committee's September 1991 report,
approved by the Judicial Conference and FJC Board, made a number of
recommendations for improved coordination between AOUSC and FJC,
particularly in the areas of automation, research, and training.  In
1992 and 1993, AOUSC and FJC entered into agreements regarding
automation and education and training, as previously discussed, for
the purpose of avoiding duplication and encouraging coordination. 

The Committee found that AOUSC and FJC each had unique capacities for
staffing and research support to Judicial Conference committees.  The
Committee recommended that administrative staff assistance to
Conference committees remain with AOUSC and that FJC direct its
resources to (1) innovative as well as applied research, (2)
education and training for the Judiciary, and (3) on request from
Conference committees, providing consulting and program review and
evaluation. 

Although the Committee found a perceived tension between the concepts
of FJC as an independent judicial branch entity and the Judiciary as
a united group speaking with one voice to Congress, it stated that
FJC's role as an independent research and development agency is not
incompatible with the Conference's role as the Judiciary's
policymaking body.  The Committee recommended that as the Conference
develops policy, FJC should have complete independence to explore
ideas and proposals and to make evaluations, whether or not FJC's
findings comport generally with the findings of AOUSC or the Judicial
Conference.  At the same time, the report stated that the conclusions
and proposals of the Judicial Conference represent the view of the
Judiciary branch on all matters and should be respected as such by
all members of the Judiciary, AOUSC, and FJC when dealing with
members of Congress. 



   A 1995 STUDY PROPOSED A LONG
   RANGE PLAN FOR THE JUDICIARY
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :18



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      A 1995 STUDY RECOMMENDED
      CONTINUED SEPARATION OF
      AOUSC AND FJC
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :18.1

Recommendation 48 of the Proposed Long-Range Plan for the Federal
Courts (March 1995) supported the continued separation of the two
agencies and their missions.  Two members of the Judicial Conference
requested further review of this recommendation.\20

The Executive Committee of the Conference conducted a review and at
its August 1995 meeting tentatively approved for Conference
consideration the following language for Recommendation 48: 

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts and the Federal
Judicial Center should retain their separate institutional status and
respective missions.  The officially-adopted policies of the Judicial
Conference represent the view of the judicial branch on all matters
and should be respected as such by the Administrative Office and the
Federal Judicial Center when dealing with members of Congress or the
executive branch. 

Briefing Section IV

--------------------
\20 The proposed long-range plan contained 101 recommendations.  One
or more Conference members requested further substantive study of 38
of these recommendations. 


JUDICIAL CONFERENCES AND COUNCILS
OF THE CIRCUITS
============================================================== Letter 


   PURPOSE OF CIRCUIT JUDICIAL
   CONFERENCES AND COUNCILS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :19



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      PURPOSE OF CIRCUIT JUDICIAL
      COUNCILS AND CONFERENCES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :19.1

Each circuit has a circuit conference.  The primary function of the
conference is to provide a forum for judges and members of the bar to
discuss the administration of the courts in their circuits through an
exchange of ideas and suggestions.  Unlike the circuit council, the
conference is not designed to exercise administrative authority over
the courts in the circuit.  By statute, each circuit court of appeals
must, by its rules, provide for the representation and active
participation at such conferences by members of the bar of the
circuit. 

The councils are charged with making "all necessary and appropriate
orders for the effective and expeditious administration of justice
within [the] circuit." By statute, "all judicial officers and
employees of the circuit shall promptly carry into effect all orders
of the judicial council." However, regular business of the courts
need not be referred to the council unless "an impediment to justice
is involved." The circuit councils may also appoint a circuit
executive for the circuit, and each of the 12 regional circuit
councils has done so.  The circuit executive's duties are defined by
the council. 



   CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
   MEMBERSHIP
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :20



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
      MEMBERSHIP
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :20.1

Chaired by the chief judge of the circuit (who is the chief judge of
the court of appeals for the circuit), members include all active
circuit, district, and bankruptcy judges in the circuit.\21



--------------------
\21 The membership and functions of the Circuit Conferences are found
at 28 U.S.C.  333. 


   CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
   MEETINGS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :21



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
      MEETINGS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :21.1

Circuit judicial conferences are statutorily required to meet every 2
years but may meet annually.  The chief judge of the circuit selects
the meeting location.  Conference members must attend unless excused
by the chief judge, and members of the bar in the circuit may attend. 
Senior judges and magistrate judges, while not statutory members of
the Conference, may attend Conference meetings, and many do.  Topics
included are generally determined by a conference agenda committee. 
In fiscal years 1993 and 1994, conference meetings ranged from 2 to 4
days. 



   CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
   MEETINGS IN FISCAL YEARS 1993
   AND 1994
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :22



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO survey of Circuit
   Executives.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
      MEETINGS IN FISCAL YEARS
      1993 AND 1994
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :22.1

Our survey of Circuit Executives indicated that Circuit conferences
met 17 times in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 for a total cost of $2.05
million.  In 1993, there were nine conference meetings.  Only the
First Circuit met more than once, although its two meetings were
almost one year apart--in November 1992 and September 1993.  Four
circuits--the Second, Tenth, Eleventh, and D.C.--did not meet at all
in 1993.  Meeting costs ranged from $43,454 to $287,237.  Five of
these conferences cost less than $100,000, and only one cost more
than $200,000. 

In 1994, eight circuits held one meeting each.  Four circuits--the
First, Third, Sixth, and Eighth--did not meet at all.  Meetings costs
ranged from $29,418 to $257,589.  Four meetings cost less than
$100,000 each, and two exceeded $200,000. 

See appendix IV for more detail on Circuit Judicial Conference
meetings in fiscal years 1993 and 1994. 



   CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
   MEMBERSHIP
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :23



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
      MEMBERSHIP
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :23.1

Authorized by the same statute that created AOUSC, the Administrative
Office Act of 1939, each of the 12 geographic judicial circuits has a
judicial council consisting of equal numbers of active court of
appeals and district judges, plus the Chief Judge of the Circuit, who
is the presiding officer.\22

Each circuit may determine the number of members on its council, and
membership in each circuit varies from 9 to 21.  The circuit's active
judges vote to establish members' terms.  The chief judge may appoint
members to serve the remainder of the term of a council member who
dies, resigns, retires, or becomes disabled. 



--------------------
\22 The membership and functions of the circuit councils are found at
28 U.S.C.  332.  When the councils were created in 1939, membership
was limited to circuit court of appeals judges. 


   CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
   MEETINGS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :24



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
      MEETINGS
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :24.1

Circuit judicial councils are statutorily required to meet twice a
year.  Unlimited voluntary meetings may be held.  The circuit chief
judge selects the meeting location.  Unless excused by the circuit
chief judge, council members must attend. 



   CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
   MEETINGS IN FISCAL YEARS 1993
   AND 1994
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :25



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  GAO survey of Circuit
   Executives.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
      MEETINGS IN FISCAL YEARS
      1993 AND 1994
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :25.1

According to the Circuit Executives surveyed, circuit councils met 57
times in fiscal years 1993 and 1994 for a total cost of $122,504.  In
1993, there were 25 council meetings.  Four circuits met more than
twice.  Meeting costs ranged from $0 to $7,990.  Twelve meetings cost
less than $1,000, and five meetings cost more than $6,000. 

In 1994, circuit councils met 32 times.  Five councils met more than
twice.  Meeting costs ranged from $0 to $8,645.  Fifteen meetings
cost less than $1,000, and two exceeded $6,000. 

See appendix IV for more detail on Circuit Judicial Council meetings
in fiscal years 1993 and 1994. 


Briefing Section V RACIAL, ETHNIC,
AND GENDER BIAS TASK FORCES
============================================================== Letter 


   ORIGINATION OF THE BIAS TASK
   FORCES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :26



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      ORIGINATION OF THE TASK
      FORCES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :26.1

A 1990 Report of the Federal Courts Study Committee concluded that
much was already known about bias in courts from state studies.  The
report concluded that rather than additional studies, the best means
of preventing and dealing with gender, ethnic, and racial bias in the
federal courts was through education.  The report encouraged FJC and
the circuit conferences to continue and expand their educational
efforts in this area.  However, in August 1990, in response to a
request from its Lawyer Representatives Coordinating Committee, the
Ninth Circuit created a Gender Bias Task Force charged with
"conducting a study of gender in the Ninth Circuit, reporting to the
conference about its findings, and making recommendations to respond
to any problems." Also in 1990, the Judicial Council for the D.C. 
Circuit created a Task Force on Gender, Race, and Ethnic Bias to
determine whether and to what extent gender, race, and ethnicity
affect the operations and proceedings of the federal courts of the
D.C.  Circuit.  This task force was created, in part, as a result of
the recommendations of the Study Committee on Gender Bias in the
District of Columbia Courts of the District of Columbia Bar. 

In 1991, the American Bar Association (ABA) adopted a resolution
supporting studies of the "existence, if any, of racial, ethnic, and
gender bias in the federal judicial systems and the extent to which
bias may affect litigants, witnesses, attorneys, and all those who
work in the judicial branch."



   ORIGINATION OF THE BIAS TASK
   FORCES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :27



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      ORIGINATION OF THE TASK
      FORCES
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :27.1

In March 1993, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a
resolution endorsing a proposed provision in the 1994 crime bill
encouraging studies of gender bias in the federal courts.  In March
1995, the Conference approved a resolution encouraging circuit
studies also of bias based on race or other invidious discrimination,
and the need for any additional education programs. 

In August 1993, the Report of the National Commission on Judicial
Discipline and Removal recommended that each circuit that had not
already done so conduct a study (or studies) of judicial misconduct
involving bias based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, and
ethnic or national origin. 

In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (P.L. 
103-322, sec.  40421(a)) encouraged circuit councils to conduct
studies of the instances, if any, of gender bias in their respective
circuits and to implement recommended reforms.  The statute
designated AOUSC to act as a clearinghouse to disseminate any reports
and materials issued by the gender bias task forces.  In carrying out
its responsibilities under the statute, FJC may include in its
education programs, including training for new judges, information on
issues related to gender bias and may prepare materials necessary to
implement its responsibilities under the statute.  The statute
authorized fiscal year 1996 appropriations of $500,000 for the
judiciary's salaries and expenses account to carry out the studies,
and $100,000 each for the AOUSC and FJC accounts to carry out their
responsibilities. 

The FJC has conducted some training and in March 1995 issued a
research guide which is intended to assist those circuits that chose
to study the role of gender in the federal courts to avoid common
research pitfalls.  The guide does not advocate task force creation
or any particular approach, but describes the benefits and
limitations of a range of research methods that might be used.  AOUSC
has helped circuits with funding for task force activities, and its
Equal Employment Opportunity and Special Projects Office has
responsibility for coordination of judiciary gender bias activities. 



   BIAS TASK FORCES ESTABLISHED AS
   OF JUNE 1, 1995
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :28



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      TASK FORCES ESTABLISHED AS
      OF JUNE 1, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :28.1

Replies to our survey of Circuit Executives indicated that as of June
1, 1995, 9 of the 12 circuits had established task forces on gender,
racial, and/or ethnic bias.  The Fourth and Fifth circuits had not
established task forces, and the Eleventh Circuit said that it had
established an ad hoc committee instead of a task force to study
bias.  Two circuits, the Sixth and Ninth, had established two task
forces each, one on gender bias and one on racial/ethnic bias. 

In all of the circuits except the Ninth, the task forces were
established by the circuit council.  In the Ninth Circuit, the
Circuit Conference established its two task forces. 

The task forces were established between June 1990 and November 1994. 
The D.C.  Circuit established the first one, and the most recent one
was established by the Sixth Circuit.  Four circuits established task
forces in 1993.  See appendix V for the dates each circuit task force
was established. 



   TASK FORCE COST AND ACTIVITIES
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :29



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      TASK FORCE COST AND
      ACTIVITIES AS OF JUNE 1,
      1995
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :29.1

We asked the judiciary to provide us with the total costs for task
force activities as of June 1, 1995.  According to the responses, the
total costs for the task forces ranged from $890 in the Seventh
circuit to about $260,900 in the D.C.  circuit and $300,900 in the
Ninth Circuit.\23 Total cost of all the task forces was $666,812. 

Most of the task forces reported that they had selected members, and
over half had started drafting their study's research design and
gathering data.  Beyond that, the First, Second, Eighth, and
Eleventh\24 circuits had started analyzing data; the D.C.  circuit
was revising its draft report; and the Ninth circuit had completed
its final report.  See appendix V for information on task force costs
and activities by circuit. 



--------------------
\23 In its study report, the Ninth Circuit acknowledges the
assistance it received from a wide variety of volunteers and
volunteer working groups. 

\24 The Eleventh circuit has begun analyzing the results of a survey
of judges and attorneys (public and private) in the circuit, but is
planning to conduct additional surveys of federal court staff, and
possibly jurors. 


   TASK FORCE EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS
----------------------------------------------------------- Letter :30



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



      TASK FORCE EXECUTIVE
      DIRECTORS AS OF JUNE 1, 1995
--------------------------------------------------------- Letter :30.1

Our survey of Circuit Executives showed that as of June 1, 1995, five
circuits had hired executive directors for their task forces and five
had not.  These executive directors were hired between December 1992
and February 1995.  The D.C.  circuit task force, which hired first,
has had two executive directors; the first reported for work in
December 1992, and the current executive director reported for work
in January 1995.  The Eighth circuit hired its executive director
most recently, in February 1995. 

Four circuits filled their executive director positions
competitively.  The Second Circuit has appointed an executive
director who will serve pro bono (without pay).  The two executive
directors for the D.C.  circuit were selected unanimously by the task
force members from those who responded to position advertisements. 
The Tenth circuit had advertised for but not hired an executive
director.  The Eleventh circuit hired a part-time consultant rather
than an executive director.  See appendix V for information by
circuit on task force executive directors. 


OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts asked us to provide information on (1) the
appropriations and expenditures of the Administrative Office of the
United States Courts (AOUSC) and Federal Judicial Center (FJC); (2)
AOUSC and FJC programs, if any, that are duplicative or offer
substantially the same services; (3) the savings that could result
from abolishing all FJC programs except for the training of new
district court judges; (4) the annual cost of workshops and
conferences sponsored by FJC; (5) the annual number and cost of the
meetings of the Judicial Conference and its committees; (6) the cost
by circuit of each judicial circuit's conferences and council
meetings; (7) the cost by circuit of any circuit task forces on
gender, racial, and/or ethnic bias; and (8) the process used to
select any executive directors of the task forces.  The Chairman also
asked us to assess the methodological soundness of the task force
reports that have been circulated in final draft.  As agreed with the
Chairman's office, we will provide our assessment in a separate
product. 

We used the Budget Appendix and the judiciary's congressional budget
submissions for fiscal years 1994 through 1996 to identify
appropriations and obligations for AOUSC and FJC for fiscal years
1992 through 1996.  We agreed with the Subcommittee to review
appropriations and obligations for these fiscal years because 1992
through 1994 were the fiscal years for which the most recent actual
budget data were available.  The Budget Appendix figures for fiscal
year 1995 are estimated, and for 1996 they are the requested amounts. 

To determine whether there was duplication in the programs and
activities of AOUSC and FJC, we reviewed the statutory
responsibilities of each agency and documents provided by each
organization, including memoranda on prior studies of FJC and AOUSC
overlap and coordination; memoranda prepared for us during the course
of this review; annual reports; organizational manuals; memoranda of
understanding regarding automation and education and training;
listings of research projects, publications and training courses;
copies of publications by each agency when the topics of those
publication appeared to be similar; and training course curricula and
orientation materials for judges.  We also interviewed officials
within each organization, including the directors of the AOUSC and
FJC; the two most recent former directors of the FJC; heads of AOUSC
and FJC operating units that appeared to have overlapping
responsibilities; and nine current judges and one former judge
recommended by both AOUSC and FJC officials as knowledgeable and of
diverse viewpoints on the subject AOUSC and FJC overlap and
duplication. 

To review the issue of overlap and duplication between AOUSC and FJC,
we first identified functions, such as education and training, in
which AOUSC and FJC both provided services to the judicial branch. 
To determine if there was actual duplication of services within these
functions, and, thus, any potential budgetary savings, we reviewed
the services of each agency within these overlapping functions.  For
example, we reviewed training materials and curricula to determine if
there was duplication in AOUSC and FJC orientation and training for
new district court judges.  We focused solely on the existence of
such overlap and duplication.  We did not examine the desirability of
having FJC or AOUSC provide all services in areas where we found
overlap, but not duplication, or in which we found actual
duplication.  Nor did we examine the efficiency of each agency's
operations.  Although we reviewed the joint memoranda of
understanding between FJC and AOUSC, we could not, in the time
available, determine if those agreements were followed for every
single activity covered by them.\25 We reviewed the cost data AOUSC
and FJC provided, including the assumptions used for any cost
estimates but did not independently validate those data. 

We determined the total cost of FJC workshops and seminars as well as
the cost of orientation and training for new district judges.  We
reviewed FJC cost estimates and memorandums prepared for us and
discussed the basis for the estimates with those who prepared them
but did not validate the financial data provided. 

We sent a questionnaire to the circuit executive in each of the 12
regional circuit courts of appeals to obtain data on (1) the number
of circuit conference and council meetings and their cost; (2) the
number of circuits with gender, ethnic, and/or racial bias task
forces, and the costs of such task forces as of June 1, 1995; (3) the
tasks undertaken by each task force as of June 1, 1995; and (4) those
circuits that had hired or appointed an executive director for their
task force as of June 1, 1995.  For those districts with executive
directors, we sent a memorandum requesting information on the process
used to select the executive director, and the persons who made the
final hiring decision.  In our questionnaire, circuits were asked, if
they did not provide actual costs, to provide the assumptions and
methods used for any cost estimates.  This information is provided,
as necessary, in the more detailed cost data shown in the appendixes. 
We also called the circuit executives to clarify any questions we had
on the responses to the questionnaires. 

We requested comments from AOUSC and FJC.  AOUSC provided no comments
on the report's conclusions, but did provide technical
clarifications, including those AOUSC received from the Circuit
Executives, which we incorporated into the report where appropriate. 
FJC provided official written comments which are discussed in the
letter and printed in full in appendix VI. 

We did our work primarily in Washington, D.C., between May and July
1995 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. 


--------------------
\25 For example, the memorandum on education and training provides
that AOUSC will normally turn to FJC first for "advice on the most
cost-effective education techniques, prototype curriculum design, and
preparation of education materials." Conversely, the memorandum calls
for FJC to turn to AOUSC for advice on "required administrative and
management practices." We did not determine if such consultations
occurred in every case in which it may have been appropriate under
the memorandum. 


THE 13 FEDERAL CIRCUITS
========================================================== Appendix II



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

   Source:  AOUSC.

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)


AOUSC AND FJC BUDGETS, FISCAL
YEARS 1992 THROUGH 1996
========================================================= Appendix III



                                   Table III.1
                     
                      AOUSC's Budget, Fiscal Years 1992-1996

                              (Dollars in thousands)

Financ
ing
and
obliga
tions
by
activi                                             Percent
ty and                                Estimate    change\a               Percent
object    Actual    Actual    Actual      d FY    FY 1992-   Request   change FY
class    FY 1992   FY 1993   FY 1994      1995        1995   FY 1996   1995-1996
------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------
Financing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approp   $44,681   $45,100   $44,900   $47,500          6%   $53,445         13%
 riati
 ons
Offset    23,702    26,326    27,481    33,703          42    32,226          -4
 ting
 colle
 ction
 s
================================================================================
Total    $68,383   $71,426   $72,381   $81,203         19%   $85,671          6%

Obligations by direct program and object class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Execut     3,432     4,689     4,473     4,773          39     5,566          17
 ive
 direc
 tion\
 b
Admini    21,047    19,279        \c        \c                    \c
 strat
 ion
 and
 human
 resou
 rces
Financ     8,208     8,947        \c        \c                    \c
 e,
 budge
 t,
 progr
 am
 analy
 sis
Automa     2,456     2,442     2,183     2,510           2     2,850          14
 tion
 and
 techn
 ology
Court      6,022     5,857     5,416     6,037           0     6,706          11
 progr
 am
Judges     3,516     3,886     3,735     4,098          17     4,522          10
 progr
 ams
Human         \c        \c    13,872     8,675                10,481          21
 resou
 rces
 and
 stati
 stics
Facili        \c        \c     9,547    14,654                15,806           8
 ties,
 secur
 ity
 and
 admin
 istra
 tive
 servi
 ces
Financ        \c        \c     5,674     6,753                 7,514          11
 e and
 budge
 t
================================================================================
Subtot   $44,681   $45,100   $44,900  $ 47,500          6%   $53,445         13%
 al
 direc
 t
 progr
 am

Reimbursable program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court     23,702    26,326    27,481    33,703          42    32,226          -4
 autom
 ation
 suppo
 rt
================================================================================
Total    $68,383   $71,426   $72,381   $81,203          19    85,671           6
 direct
 and
 reimb
 ursab
 le
 progr
 am

Object class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Person
 nel
 compe
 nsati
 on
Full-     29,938    30,168    30,840    34,540          15    38,626          12
 time
 perma
 nent
Other        719       713       824       876          22       980          12
 than
 full-
 time
 perma
 nent
Other        561       392       577        66         -88        73          11
 perso
 nnel
 compe
 nsati
 on
================================================================================
Total    $31,218   $31,273   $32,241   $35,482         14%   $39,679         12%
 perso
 nnel
 compe
 nsati
 on
Civili     5,294     5,580     5,809     6,600          25     7,595          15
 an
 perso
 nnel
 benef
 its
Benefi        \c        \c        74        35                    35           0
 ts
 for
 forme
 r
 perso
 nnel
Travel     1,061       789       728       901         -15       932           3
 and
 trans
 porta
 tion
 of
 perso
 ns
Transp        77        70        55        60         -22        62           3
 ortat
 ion
 of
 thing
 s
Rental     4,386       355       316       313         -93       322           3
 payme
 nts
 to
 Gener
 al
 Servi
 ces
 Admin
 istra
 tion
Rental        \c     1,738        \c        \c                    \c
 payme
 nts
 to
 other
 s
Commun       525       666     2,396       949          81       987           4
 icati
 ons,
 utili
 ties,
 and
 misce
 llane
 ous
 charg
 es
Printi        94        93        72        86          -9        89           3
 ng
 and
 repro
 ducti
 on
Other        575     3,257     2,139     2,094         264     2,300          10
 servi
 ces
Suppli       639       303       379       465         -27       481           3
 es
 and
 mater
 ials
Equipm       803       976       691       515         -36       963          87
 ent
Insura         9        \c        \c        \c                    \c
 nce
 claim
 s
 and
 indem
 nitie
 s
================================================================================
Subtot   $44,681   $45,100   $44,900   $47,500          6%   $53,445         13%
 al
 oblig
 ation
 s by
 objec
 t
 class
Reimbu    23,702    26,326    27,481    33,703          42    32,226          -4
 rsable
 oblig
 ation
 s
================================================================================
Total    $68,383   $71,426   $72,381   $81,203         19%   $85,671          6%
 by
 objec
 t
 class

Personnel summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-        615       654       635       693          13       708           2
 time
 equiv
 alent
 emplo
 yment
 (FTE)
FTE of         3        \c        \c        \c                    \c
 overt
 ime
 and
 holid
 ay
 hours
Reimbu       219       265       279       296          35       301           2
 rsabl
 e:
 total
 compe
 nsabl
 e
 worky
 ears
 (FTE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percent change is based on current dollars, unadjusted for
inflation. 

\b According to AOUSC, in fiscal year 1993 the Office of Audit was
transferred from the office of Finance, Budget and Program Analysis
to Executive Direction.  For fiscal year 1996, AOUSC has requested 5
additional positions for the Office of Audit. 

\c Categories changed during the period covered in the table.  This
category was not included in this fiscal year. 

Source:  Budget Appendixes, fiscal years 1994 through 1996. 




                                   Table III.2
                     
                       FJC's Budget, Fiscal Years 1992-1996

                              (Dollars in thousands)

Financ
ing
and
obliga
tions
by
activi                                             Percent
ty and                                Estimate    change\a               Percent
object    Actual    Actual    Actual      d FY    FY 1992-   Request   change FY
class    FY 1992   FY 1993   FY 1994      1995        1995   FY 1996   1995-1996
------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ----------  --------  ----------
Financing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approp   $17,795   $17,500   $18,450   $18,828          6%    20,771         10%
 riati
 ons
Offset     1,378     1,210       161       163         -88        30         -82
 ting
 colle
 ction
 s\b
================================================================================
Total    $19,173   $18,710   $18,611   $18,991         -1%    20,801         10%

Obligations by program activity
and object class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Direct and reimbursable program
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Admini     4,776     4,226     3,557     3,401         -29     3,581           5
 strat
 ion
 and
 suppo
 rt
 servi
 ces
Educat     9,265     9,466    10,903    11,405          23    12,657          11
 ion
 and
 train
 ing
Resear     3,754     3,808     3,822     4,127          10     4,533          10
 ch
 and
 techn
 ology
================================================================================
Subtot    17,795    17,500    18,282    18,933           6    20,771          10
 al
 direc
 t
 progr
 am
Reimbu     1,378     1,210       161       163         -88        30         -82
 rsable
 progr
 am
================================================================================
Total    $19,173   $18,710   $18,443   $19,096        0%\b   $20,801          9%
 direct
 and
 reimb
 ursab
 le
 progr
 am\c

Object class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personnel compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-      5,541     6,399     7,041     7,687          39     8,148           6
 time
 perma
 nent
Other        860       850       907       990          15     1,049           6
 than
 full-
 time
 perma
 nent
================================================================================
Total     $6,401    $7,249    $7,948    $8,677         36%    $9,197           6
 perso
 nnel
 compe
 nsati
 on
Civili     1,441     1,688     1,896     2,067          43     2,344          13
 an
 perso
 nnel
 benef
 its
Travel     4,376     4,346     5,015     5,201          19     6,143          18
 and
 trans
 porta
 tion
 of
 perso
 ns
Transp       125        72        67        86         -31        89           3
 ortat
 ion
 of
 thing
 s
Rental       895        29        28        29         -97        30           3
 payme
 nts
 to
 Gener
 al
 Servi
 ces
 Admin
 istra
 tion
Rental        \c       490       507        \c           0        \c           0
 payme
 nts
 to
 other
 s
Commun     1,100       415       381       520         -53       542           4
 icati
 ons,
 utili
 ties,
 and
 misce
 llane
 ous
 charg
 es
Printi       108       107       103        85         -21        88           4
 ng
 and
 repro
 ducti
 on
Other      1,437     1,034       888       857        -40%       883           3
 servi
 ces
Suppli       830     1,007       687       866          4%       892           3
 es
 and
 mater
 ials
Equipm     1,082     1,063       762       545        -50%       563           3
 ent
 (incl
 uding
 libra
 ry)
================================================================================
Subtot   $17,795   $17,500   $18,282   $18,933          6%   420,771         10%
 al
 objec
 t
 class
Reimbu     1,378     1,210       161       163        -88%        30         -82
 rsable
 oblig
 ation
 s
================================================================================
Total    $19,173   $18,710   $18,443   $19,096       0%\\b   $20,801          9%
 object
 class

Personnel summary
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-        141       158       178       178         26%       178          0%
 time
 equiv
 alent
 emplo
 yment
 (FTE)
Reimbu         1        \d        \d        \d          0%        \d          0%
 rsabl
 e:
 total
 compe
 nsabl
 e
 worky
 ears
 (FTE)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Percent change is based on current dollars, unadjusted for
inflation. 

\b The sharp decline in offsetting collections in fiscal year 1994 is
the result of a change in Congress appropriations for the training of
new court personnel.  In fiscal years 1992 and 1993, Congress
appropriated about $1 million annually to the judiciary's salaries
and expenses for such training, and the monies were transferred to
FJC.  Beginning in fiscal year 1994, Congress appropriated the funds
for training new court personnel directly to FJC. 

\c Declined less than 0.5 percent. 

\d Some categories were changed during the period covered by the
table.  This category was not included in this fiscal year. 

Source:  Budget Appendixes, fiscal years 1994 through 1996. 



                              Table III.3
                
                Functions Supported by FJC Expenditures
                  Classified in the Budget Appendix as
                    Administrative, Fiscal Year 1995

                                                Percentage  Percentage
                                                    of FJC   of Admin.
Function                    Budget    Position      Budget      Budget
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
Direct support of education and research programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FJC education center\a     $27,000                      \b         .8%
Property management\c       41,000                      \b         1.2
Educational                742,000                     3.9        21.8
 materials\d
Center-wide              1,349,000                     7.2        39.7
 program support
 Costs\e
======================================================================
Subtotal                $2,159,000           6       11.1%       63.5%
History Office:            415,000           6         2.2        12.2
 Interjudicial
 Affairs Office
Office of Director and     314,000           3         1.7         9.2
 Deputy Director\f
Personnel and              512,000           7         2.7        15.1
 financial
 management\g
======================================================================
Total                   $3,400,000          22       17.7%      100.0%
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Includes facilities scheduling and set-up, audio-visual services
for FJC, AOUSC, U.S.  Sentencing Commission and others. 

\b Less than 0.5 percent. 

\c Includes functions under a delegation of authority from the AOUSC
director. 

\d Includes audio and video tapes; written materials for training
programs; media items, such as blank cassettes; media and automation
equipment. 

\e Includes utilities; supplies; furniture/equipment;
telecommunications, postage, phone; copier maintenance; temporary
services; health unit costs for the Thurgood Marshall Federal
Judicial Building where FJC and AOUSC are housed; automation
supplies, software, hardware, network items.  (Personnel costs for
computer maintenance budgeted in Planning and Technology Division.)

\f Positions and cost exclude the current FJC Director, a district
judge whose salary is paid by the judiciary's salaries and expenses
appropriation, not FJC's appropriation. 

\g By statute, AOUSC provides accounting, disbursing, auditing, and
other financial services to FJC. 

Source:  FJC data. 



                              Table III.4
                
                FJC Budget by Division, Fiscal Year 1995

Division                          Budget      Positions    Vacancies\g
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Judicial education\a          $3,270,000             16              2
Court education\b              5,957,000             41              7
Publications and media\c       2,073,000             31              1
Research\d                     2,251,000             29              1
Planning and technology\e      1,876,000             19              3
Administration\f               3,401,000             22              1
======================================================================
Totals                       $18,828,000            158             15
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Provides orientation and continuing education programs for
circuit, district, magistrate, and bankruptcy judges; court
attorneys; and federal defenders. 

\b Provides orientation for newly appointed probation and pretrial
services officers and continuing education--primarily in management,
supervision, and selected skills--to court employees. 

\c Produces video and audio tapes, publications, and periodical
services that serve the FJC's education and research functions and
edits reports and periodicals of other divisions. 

\d Provides analysis, evaluation, and information to inform court and
case-management policy decisions of Judicial Conference and its
committees, the courts, and Congress. 

\e Develops and enhances FJC-wide automated support services;
analyzes and develops emerging technologies that do not fall within
the broader scope of AOUSC's automation development efforts; provides
planning advice and support to Conference committees and the courts. 

\f FJC director and deputy director, financial, personnel, and
administrative services, and FJC Interjudicial Affairs Office,
Federal Judicial History Office, and pension of a former director. 

\g As of May 25, 1995. 

Source:  FJC data. 



                              Table III.5
                
                  FJC Training and Education Programs,
                     Direct Costs, Fiscal Year 1995

                               Number of      Number of      Estimated
                                programs   participants        costs\a
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
Judicial Education Division Programs\b
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit and district                  25          1,347     $1,782,000
 judges
Bankruptcy judges                      7            398        452,000
Magistrate judges                      5            360        426,000
Combined groups                       32            700        180,000
Legal staff                            2             79         64,000
======================================================================
Subtotal                              71          2,884     $2,904,000

Court Education Division Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
National                              38          1,773     $1,709,000
Regional                               8            412        261,000
Pilots and training
 for trainers                         33            782        461,000
Programs in district                 874         17,650        836,000
======================================================================
Subtotal\c                           953         20,617     $3,267,000
Total Funded by                    1,024         23,501      6,171,000
 FJC
Funded by Defender
 Services\d                            5            843        700,000
======================================================================
Total                              1,029         24,344     $6,871,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Direct costs only.  Costs include travel, subsistence, faculty
honoraria, meeting room and audio visual equipment rental (if
needed), but exclude salary costs of FJC staff, costs for training
supplies and reproduction, and transportation costs for materials
used in programs held outside Washington, D.C. 

\b Total for Judicial Education Division includes funds from the
Federal Judicial Center Foundation that were donated for support of
training on scientific evidence ($250,000), financial statement
workshops ($131,000), and sending 37 court personnel to a National
Center for State Courts/State Justice Institute conference on racial
and ethnic bias in the courts ($37,000).  The Foundation monies for
training on scientific evidence were from a $1 million Carnegie
Foundation grant that was paid in installments. 

\c Total for Court Education Division includes reimbursements from
AOUSC of $50,000 for a program on managing the technical
professional, and $19,000 for a workshop to help court unit managers
administer the downsizing process. 

\d Under an agreement with AOUSC, the FJC arranges and provides, but
does not fund, training for Federal Defenders and their staffs.  The
amount shown is an FJC estimate of the costs paid from the Defender
Services appropriation (including travel costs), but not transferred
to FJC, to support this training.  In addition, AOUSC has transferred
$70,000 from the Defender Services appropriation to FJC to reimburse
FJC for its costs for program design and administration. 

Source:  FJC data. 



                              Table III.6
                
                Fiscal Year 1994 Federal Judicial Center
                 Costs of Education for District Judges
                  and Orientation for Newly Appointed
                            District Judges

                                                             Total all
                                                              district
                               New judge     Continuing          judge
Category of expense          orientation    education\a      education
-------------------------  -------------  -------------  =============
Distribution of                  $14,000             $0        $14,000
 preliminary materials\b
Travel costs\c                   175,000        998,000      1,173,000
Staff costs\d                    143,000        437,000        580,000
Video production-staff            69,000         11,000         80,000
 costs\e
Publications-staff                    \g        533,000        533,000
 costs\f
======================================================================
Subtotals                       $401,000     $1,979,000     $2,380,000
General administrative            92,000        535,000        627,000
 direct/indirect costs\h
======================================================================
Total                           $493,000     $2,514,000     $3,007,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Continuing education programs are open to all district judges,
including new judges (those in their first year on the bench). 

\b Mostly personnel costs for packaging materials for mailing to
newly appointed judges. 

\c Includes transportation, per diem, room rental. 

\d Estimated staff costs (salaries and benefits) for planning and
presenting seminars and workshops. 

\e FJC-produced videos are used in new judge orientation and some
education seminars.  FJC estimates a 4-year average life for such
videos.  Costs reflect one-fourth of production costs of videos
currently used for district judge education, excluding supplies and
materials. 

\f Estimated FJC staff costs of writing, editing, producing
educational materials used primarily for district court judges. 
According to FJC, this figure may not fully reflect Research Division
staff time.  It reflects costs of materials that are continuously
updated and revised. 

\g According to FJC, only one publication, a photocopied pamphlet, is
specifically produced for new judges.  However, FJC officials said
that new judges receive annotated outlines to accompany the FJC
videos used for new judge orientation, and that new judges, as well
as their more experienced colleagues, receive FJC manuals and
reference works, such as the Benchbook for United States District
Judges. 

\h Includes costs of supplies (including video tapes), equipment,
copying, shipping, and general administrative support. 

Source:  FJC data. 


CIRCUIT JUDICIAL CONFERENCE AND
COUNCIL MEETINGS
========================================================== Appendix IV



                               Table IV.1
                
                  Number and Cost of Circuit Judicial
                 Conference Meetings, Fiscal Years 1993
                                and 1994


                        Number of               Number of
Circuit                 meetings        Cost\a  meetings        Cost\a
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
First\b                 2              $55,540  None                 0
                                        43,454

Second                  None                 0  1              $83,193

Third                   1               86,311  None

Fourth                  1               90,827  1              108,957

Fifth                   1              114,979  1              144,801

Sixth                   1              186,036  None                 0

Seventh                 1               56,366  1               53,572

Eighth                  1              161,777  None

Ninth                   1              287,237  1              257,589

Tenth                   None                 0  1               86,268

Eleventh                None                 0  1              208,460

D.C.                    None                 0  1               29,418

======================================================================
Total                   9           $1,082,527  8             $972,258
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Costs were rounded to the nearest dollar. 

\b The meetings in fiscal year 1993 were almost one year
apart--November 1992 and September 1993. 

Source:  GAO Survey of Circuit Executives. 



                               Table IV.2
                
                  Number and Cost of Circuit Judicial
                Council Meetings, Fiscal Years 1993 and
                                  1994


                         Number of               Number of
Circuit                   meetings        Cost    meetings        Cost
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  ----------
First                            4      $1,159           1      $1,517
                                         1,002
                                           446
                                           225
Second                           2       1,175           2       1,175
                                         2,248                     0\a
Third                            2       648\b           2         0\b
                                         935\b                 79.00\b
Fourth                           2         0\a           3       1,498
                                         2,070                     0\a
                                                                 1,752
Fifth                            1     7,561\c           2       5,938
                                                               8,645\c
Sixth                            1         0\a           2       5,682
                                                                 5,193
Seventh                          2       1,046           5       1,052
                                           0\a                   1,376
                                                                   874
                                                                   0\d
                                                                   0\d
Eighth                           1        0 \a           1    5,251 \e
Ninth                            3       5,303           4       4,395
                                         6,274                     0\g
                                       2,498\f                   5,082
                                                               2,610\f
Tenth                            1       1,832           3       2,550
                                                                   0\h
                                                                   0\a
Eleventh                         3     7,990\i           2     7,640\i
                                       6,200\i                   5,150
                                       7,610\i
D.C.;                            4         0\j           5         0\j
                                           0\j                     0\j
                                           0\j                     0\j
                                           0\j                     0\j
                                                                   0\j
======================================================================
Total                           25     $55,047          32     $67,458
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Council indicated that its meeting was held in conjunction
with the Circuit Conference and no additional costs were incurred. 

\b The Circuit indicated costs were limited because the Circuit
Council meeting was held in conjunction with an en banc session of
the Court of Appeals. 

\c The Council meeting was held in conjunction with an en banc
session of the Court of Appeals. 

\d One Circuit Council meeting was held in conjunction with the
Circuit Conference and another was held in conjunction with a judges
workshop. 

\e According to the Eighth Circuit Executive, the cost included
travel expenses only for the district, magistrate, and bankruptcy
judges; the circuit judges were there for a regular session of the
court. 

\f The Council meeting was held in conjunction with the Circuit
Conference.  Costs reflect one day's per diem for council members. 

\g The Circuit indicated that this meeting was held in conjunction
with a judges workshop. 

\h The Circuit indicated that this meeting was held in conjunction
with an en banc session of the Court of Appeals, and the district and
magistrate judges participated by phone. 

\i The Circuit Council meeting was held in conjunction with other
court activity.  Costs included the Circuit Executive's time in
support of the meeting and the costs of preparing materials. 

\j All courts in the D.C.  Circuit are located within the same
federal courthouse in Washington, D.C., and the Circuit Council
meetings were held in the courthouse. 

Source:  GAO Survey of Circuit Executives. 


BIAS TASK FORCES
=========================================================== Appendix V



                               Table V.1
                
                Establishment of Circuit Task Forces as
                            of June 1, 1995


                      Circuit
Circui                Confere  Circuit  Date the task force was
ts      Yes     No    nce      Council  established
------  ------  ----  -------  -------  ------------------------------
D.C.    X                      X        06/14/90

1       X                      X        01/12/94

2       X                      X        10/12/93

3       X                      X        06/29/94

4\a             X

5\a             X

6\b     X                      X        11/30/94

7       X                      X        10/14/93

8       X                      X        12/06/93

9\c     X             X                 02/91

                                        02/94

10      X                      X        04/15/94

11\d            X              X        02/16/93
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The fourth and fifth circuits had not established a task force on
gender, racial, and/or ethnic bias. 

\b The Sixth Circuit Judicial Council has voted to establish two task
forces--a task force on gender bias in the courts and a task force on
racial/ethnic bias in the courts--to operate under supervision of a
joint steering committee. 

\c The Ninth Circuit formed two separate task forces.  The Gender
Bias Task Force was established in February 1991, and the Racial,
Religious and Ethnic Fairness Task Force was established in February
1994. 

\d The Eleventh Circuit Judicial Council has created an ad hoc
committee rather than a formal task force. 

Source:  GAO Survey of Circuit Executives. 



                                                                      Table V.2
                                                       
                                                        Circuit Task Forces on Gender, Racial,
                                                        and/or Ethnic Bias, Their Total Cost,
                                                       and Activities Undertaken as of June 1,
                                                                         1995


Activities          D.C.      1         2         3         4         5         6         7         8         9\a        9\a       10        11\b
------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------  ---------  --------  --------  --------
Cost                $260,874  $27,439   $3,000    $36,955   N/A       N/A       0         $890\c    $26,054   $185,428\  $115,513  $1,119    $9,540
                                                                                                              d

Selection of        X         X         X         X                             N/A       X         X         X          X         X
members

Started drafting    X         X         X         X                                       X         X                    X
research design

Completed           X                   X                                                                     X          X
research
design

Started data        X         X         X                                                           X                    X
gathering

Completed data      X                                                                                         X
gathering

Started analyzing   X                   X                                                                                X
data

Completed data      X                                                                                         X
analysis

Started drafting    X
report

Reviewing draft     X
report

Revising draft      X
report

Completed report                                                                                              X\e

Other                                                                                                                                        X\f
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend

NA = not applicable. 

\a According to the Ninth Circuit Executive, the Ninth Circuit
Conference established two separate task forces, the Gender Bias Task
Force and the Racial, Religious, and Ethnic Fairness Task Force. 

\b According to the Eleventh Circuit Executive, the Eleventh Circuit
Judicial Council established an ad hoc committee rather than a formal
task force. 

\c Total excludes the cost of travel and per diem for two FJC staff
who attended a 1-day meeting in Chicago. 

\d The Ninth Circuit Task Force report notes that the task force
received assistance from a number of volunteer work groups and
individuals. 

\e According to the Ninth Circuit Executive, the final report on
gender bias was issued in July 1993.  The task force conducted its
work between February 1991 and August 1993 and was then disbanded. 

\f According to the Eleventh Circuit Executive, a consultant is
reviewing the results of a survey of judges and attorneys within the
Circuit.  The Circuit plans to send questionnaires to federal court
personnel and is considering having jurors fill out questionnaires as
they complete their juror service. 

Source:  GAO Survey of Circuit Executives. 



                               Table V.3
                
                  Executive Directors for Circuit Bias
                 Task Forces Hired or Appointed by June
                  1, 1995, Including Selection Process
                                  Used


                                          Date the
                                          executiv
                                          e
                                          director
Circuits              Yes       No        hired     Yes       No
--------------------  --------  --------  --------  --------  --------
D.C.                  X\a                 12/07/    X
                                          92 and
                                          01/03/
                                          95

1                     X                   02/13/    X
                                          95

2                     X                   02/07/              X\b
                                          94

3                     X                   12/12/    X
                                          94

4\c

5\c

6                               X\d

7                               X

8                     X                   02/27/    X
                                          95

9                               X                             N/A

10                              X                   X\e

11\f                            X                             X

----------------------------------------------------------------------
N/A = Not applicable. 

\a The Task Force in the D.C.  Circuit has had two Executive
Directors.  The hiring dates shown are the dates each reported for
work. 

\b The Second Circuit Task Force appointed its Executive Director,
who will perform her duties pro bono. 

\c The fourth and fifth circuits had not established a task force on
gender, racial, and/or ethnic bias. 

\d The sixth circuit's joint steering committee will conduct the task
forces and is now selecting its members.  An executive director will
then be selected and the task forces will be formed. 

\e The Tenth Circuit Executive indicated that the circuit had
advertised for but not hired an executive director. 

\f According to the Eleventh Circuit Executive, the Circuit Judicial
Council has created an ad hoc committee rather than a formal task
force and has hired a part-time consultant rather than a formal
executive director. 

Source:  GAO Survey of Circuit Executives. 




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL
CENTER
=========================================================== Appendix V



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS
BRIEFING REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII

GENERAL GOVERNMENT DIVISION,
WASHINGTON, D.C. 

William O.  Jenkins, Jr., Assistant Director, Administration of
Justice Issues
Douglas M.  Sloane, Assistant Director, Design, Methodology, and
 Technical Assistance
Barry J.  Seltser, Assistant Director, Design, Methodology, and
Technical
 Assistance
David B.  Alexander, Senior Social Science Analyst, Design,
Methodology,
 and Technical Assistance
Lou V.  B.  Smith, Evaluator
Pamela V.  Williams, Communications Analyst

NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE

Rudolf F.  Plessing, Evaluator-in-Charge

DETROIT FIELD OFFICE

Robert R.  Readler, Senior Evaluator

*** End of document. ***