Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship Request: 1993-1997 (Testimony,
09/22/97, GAO/T-GGD-97-183).

GAO discussed the federal judiciary's assessment of its bankruptcy
judgeship needs in the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles.

GAO found that: (1) the Judicial Conference's Bankruptcy Committee and
the Judicial Conference generally followed the Conference's process and
policies, and consistently applied the Conference's workload standards
in assessing individual districts' requests for additional judgeships;
(2) neither the Committtee nor the Conference approved any request for
additional judgeships from districts whose weighted case filings did not
meet the minimum standard; (3) the Bankruptcy Committee also asked that
districts requesting judgeships provide information on several factors,
other than weighted filings, that may affect their need for additional
judges; (4) according to officials at the Administrative Office of the
U.S. Courts (AOUSC), neither the Committee nor the Conference keeps
written documentation on how the available data were used in assessing
judgeship requests; (5) according to AOUSC, the use of such information
is inherently judgmental; (6) time devoted to noncase-related travel
could affect the time judges have to devote to individual cases; (7) in
assessing bankruptcy judges' workload, the Judicial Conference assumes
that a bankruptcy judge will spend, on average, about 30 percent of his
or her time-about 600 hours, or 75 work days per year-on noncase-related
matters; (8) GAO received information on non-case related travel from 80
of the 84 authorized judges in the 15 districts that would receive or
share one of the judgeships requested in 1997; (9) these 80 judges
reported a total of 416 noncase-related trips in 1995 and 403 in 1996,
and GAO calculated that they each traveled an average of 12.5 work days
for non case-related travel in each of these years; (10) about 98
percent of these trips were made to destinations within the United
States; (11) together, circuit or district meetings and activities,
Judicial Conference meetings and activities, and workshops, seminars,
and other activities sponsored by the AOUSC or the Federal Judicial
Center, accounted for about 66 percent of all trips and 74 percent of
all non-case related travel workdays in 1995; and (12) comparable
figures for 1996 were about 67 percent and about 73 percent,
respectively.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-97-183
     TITLE:  Federal Judiciary: Bankruptcy Judgeship Request: 1993-1997
      DATE:  09/22/97
   SUBJECT:  Travel
             Judges
             Bankruptcy
             Travel costs
             Human resources utilization
             Federal courts

             
******************************************************************
** 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.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Before the Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts
Committee on the Judiciary
U.S.  Senate

For Release on Delivery
Expected at 2:00 p.m.
on September 22, 1997

FEDERAL JUDICIARY - BANKRUPTCY
JUDGESHIP REQUESTS, 1993-1997

Statement of Richard M.  Stana
Acting Associate Director
Administration of Justice Issues
General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-183

GAO/GGD-97-183T


(188628)


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

  AOUSC - x
  FJC - x
  NACTT - x
  NCBJ - x
  NABT - x

FEDERAL JUDICIARY:  BANKRUPTCY
JUDGESHIP REQUESTS, 1993-1997
====================================================== Chapter Summary

The Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary's
principal policymaking body, is statutorily required to periodically
submit to Congress recommendations for new bankruptcy judgeships. 
Congress last approved new bankruptcy judgeships in 1992.  The
Judicial Conference has subsequently sent Congress recommendations
for additional bankruptcy judgeships in 1993, 1995, and 1997. 
Congress considered, but did not approve, the 1993 and 1995 requests,
and is currently considering the 1997 request.  In 1991, the Judicial
Conference established a process, with policies and weighted workload
standards, for assessing the need for additional bankruptcy judges. 
At the request of the Subcommittee, GAO reviewed the 1993, 1995, and
1997 assessment cycles.  GAO found that the Conference's Bankruptcy
Committee and the Judicial Conference generally followed the
Conference's process and policies.  The Committee and Conference
placed heaviest emphasis on whether the districts requesting
additional judgeships had a caseload that exceeded 1,500 weighted
filings per authorized judgeship.  Neither the Committee nor the
Conference approved any requests for additional judgeships from
districts whose weighted case filings did not meet this standard. 

The Bankruptcy Committee also asked that districts requesting
judgeships provide information on several factors, other than
weighted filings, that may affect their need for additional judges,
such as case management practices and the district's demographics and
economic conditions.  Most of these districts provided information on
at least four of these factors.  According to officials at the
Administrative Office of the U.S.  Courts (AOUSC), the use of such
information is inherently judgmental.  The judiciary keeps no
documentation on how the Bankruptcy Committee or Judicial Conference
used this nonstatistical information in assessing bankruptcy
districts' judgeship requests. 

The Subcommittee also asked GAO to obtain information for calendar
years 1995 and 1996 on bankruptcy judges' noncase-related
travel--travel not related to adjudicating specific cases.  Time
devoted to noncase-related travel could affect the time judges have
to devote to individual cases.  In assessing bankruptcy judges'
workload, the Judicial Conference assumes that a bankruptcy judge
will spend, on average, about 30 percent of his or her time--about
600 hours, or 75 work days per year--on noncase-related matters, such
as travel, training, administrative affairs, and general case
management activities that cannot be attributed to a specific case. 
GAO received information on noncase-related travel from 80 of the 84
authorized judges in the 15 districts that would receive or share one
of the judgeships requested in 1997.  These 80 judges reported a
total of 416 noncase-related trips in 1995 and 403 in 1996, and GAO
calculated that they each traveled an average of 12.5 work days in
each of these years.  About 98 percent of these trips were made to
destinations within the United States.  Together, circuit or district
meetings and activities; Judicial Conference meetings and activities;
and workshops, seminars, and other activities sponsored by the AOUSC
or the Federal Judicial Center (FJC), accounted for about 66 percent
of all trips and 74 percent of all travel workdays in 1995. 
Comparable figures for 1996 were about 67 percent and about 73
percent, respectively. 


FEDERAL JUDICIARY:  BANKRUPTCY
JUDGESHIP REQUESTS, 1993-1997
==================================================== Chapter Statement

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our review of
the federal judiciary's assessment of its bankruptcy judgeship needs
in the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles.  Limiting judgeship
requests to the number necessary is important because each bankruptcy
judgeship costs about $721,000 to establish and about $575,000 per
year to maintain.  At the same time, it is important that there be
sufficient bankruptcy judgeships to enable the bankruptcy courts to
adjudicate bankruptcy cases fairly and efficiently. 

Specifically, my testimony focuses on three principal issues:  (1)
the process, policies, and workload standards that the Judicial
Conference of the United States\1 used to assess the bankruptcy
districts' requests for additional bankruptcy judgeships; (2) how the
Judiciary applied its policies and workload standards across the
districts that requested bankruptcy judgeships; and (3) the extent of
noncase-related travel in 1995 and 1996 by bankruptcy judges in the
14 districts for which the Judicial Conference of the United States
has requested bankruptcy judgeships in 1997. 

In brief, we found that the Bankruptcy Committee and the Judicial
Conference generally followed the Judicial Conference's process and
policies and consistently applied the Conference's statistical
workload standards in assessing individual district's requests for
additional judgeships in 1993, 1995, and 1997.  For example, the
Bankruptcy Committee and Judicial Conference placed heaviest emphasis
on whether the districts requesting additional judgeships had a
caseload that exceeded 1,500 weighted filings per existing authorized
judgeship.  Neither the Committee nor the Conference approved any
request for additional judgeships from districts that did not meet
this minimum standard.  According to officials at the Administrative
Office of the U.S.  Courts (AOUSC), neither the Committee nor the
Judicial Conference keeps written documentation on how other
available data, such as case management practices or a district's
geography (travel distances between places of holding court), were
used in assessing districts' judgeship requests.  AOUSC officials
also stated that the use of data other than weighted case filings in
assessing judgeship needs is inherently judgmental. 

The amount of time judges use for noncase-related travel--travel that
is not related to adjudicating specific cases--could potentially
affect the amount of time judges have to devote to individual cases. 
In assessing a bankruptcy judge's workload, the Judicial Conference
assumes that a bankruptcy judge will spend, on average, about 30
percent of his or her time--about 600 hours, or 75 work days per
year--on noncase-related matters, such as travel, training,
administrative affairs, and general case management activities that
cannot be attributed to a specific case.  We received information on
noncase-related travel from 80 of the 84 authorized judges in the 15
districts that would receive or share 1 of the judgeships requested
in 1997.\2 These 80 judges reported a total of 416 noncase-related
trips in 1995 and 403 in 1996.  On the basis of the information
reported, we calculated that overall these judges each used an
average of 12.5 work days for noncase-related travel in each of these
years.  About 98 percent of these trips were made to destinations
within the United States.  Together, circuit or district meetings and
activities; Judicial Conference meetings and activities; and
workshops, seminars, and other activities sponsored by AOUSC or the
Federal Judicial Center (FJC), accounted for about 66 percent of all
noncase-related trips and about 74 percent of all noncase-related
travel workdays in 1995.  Comparable figures for 1996 were about 67
percent and about 73 percent, respectively.  In correspondence to the
Subcommittee Chairman on August 8, 1997, we provided more details
about these trips for each district.\3

Through AOUSC, we also surveyed the 13 authorized judges in the 4
districts with weighted filings of 1,500 or more during the 1997
assessment cycle that did not request judgeships.  The 12 judges in
these four districts (one position was vacant) reported a total of
177 noncase-related trips--75 in calendar year 1995 and 102 in
calendar year 1996.\4 Based on these reported data, we calculated
that the 12 judges spent a total of 178 workdays in 1995 and 258
workdays in 1996 on noncase-related travel.  This is a per judge
average of 14.8 workdays in 1995 and 21.5 workdays in 1996.  Overall,
about 23 percent of all trips in these two years were sponsored and
paid for by organizations other than the federal judiciary. 

To develop the information in this statement, we obtained
documentation from AOUSC on (1) the process, policies, and workload
standards the Judicial Conference has established for assessing the
need for bankruptcy judgeships; (2) how the process, policies, and
workload standards were used in the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment
cycles to determine the number of additional bankruptcy judgeships
needed and requested; and (3) the temporary assistance requested by
and provided to the districts that sought additional judgeships in
1993, 1995, and/or 1997.  Through AOUSC, we surveyed the 84 judges in
the 15 districts that would receive or share one of the bankruptcy
judgeships the Judicial Conference requested in 1997 to obtain
information on the judges' noncase-related travel in calendar years
1995 and 1996.  Through AOUSC, we also surveyed the 13 judges in the
4 districts with weighted filings of 1,500 or more in the 1997
assessment cycle that did not request additional judgeships to obtain
data on their noncase-related travel in calendar years 1995 and 1996. 
We did our work between March and August 1997 in Washington, D.C.,
and Dallas, TX, in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.  Details of our scope and methodology are
presented in appendix I. 


--------------------
\1 The Judicial Conference is the federal judiciary's principal
policymaking body.  It consists of 26 judges plus the Chief Justice
of the United States, who presides over the conference. 

\2 One additional judge responded, but did not provide information on
the dates of travel or paying organizations.  Thus, our analysis
excluded data from this judge. 

\3 Federal Judiciary:  Information on the Noncase-Related Travel of
Bankruptcy Judges in 14 Bankruptcy Districts (GAO/GGD-97-166R, Aug. 
8, 1997). 

\4 Although the Eastern District of Texas has two authorized
bankruptcy judgeships, one of the positions is vacant.  Currently,
the district is served by one permanent judge and one recalled judge. 
For comparability, we did not include the travel of the recalled
judge in our analysis because we did not request or use data for
recalled judges in the 15 districts for which we had previously
reported on bankruptcy judges' noncase-related travel. 


   THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY'S PROCESS
   FOR ASSESSING BANKRUPTCY
   JUDGESHIP NEEDS
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:1

Bankruptcy cases in the United States are filed in 1 of the 90
federal bankruptcy courts.  The Judicial Conference is statutorily
required to periodically submit to Congress recommendations for new
federal bankruptcy judgeships.  Congress last authorized new
bankruptcy judgeships in 1992.  Subsequently, the Conference has sent
recommendations for additional bankruptcy judgeships to Congress in
1993, 1995, and 1997.  Congress considered, but not approve, any new
judgeships from the 1993 and 1995 requests and is currently
considering the 1997 request.  To assist the Conference in advising
Congress on the need for additional judgeships, the Conference's
Committee on Administration of the Bankruptcy System (Bankruptcy
Committee) is to conduct periodic national judgeship surveys to
evaluate requests for additional bankruptcy judgeships.  In 1993,
1995, and 1997, the Bankruptcy Committee conducted its surveys and
analyses through its Subcommittee on Judgeships. 

In considering each district's bankruptcy judgeship request, the
Bankruptcy Committee may recommend to the Judicial Conference one of
seven options: 

  -- one or more permanent judgeships,

  -- a temporary judgeship,

  -- a combination of permanent and temporary judgeships,

  -- the conversion of a temporary judgeship to a permanent
     judgeship,

  -- the extension of the term of an existing temporary judgeship,

  -- a judgeship to be shared by two or more districts; or,

  -- no changes to the district's existing number and type of
     authorized judgeships. 

A permanent judgeship is a position that is statutorily added to the
bankruptcy district's current authorized total and remains authorized
until statutorily rescinded.\5 A temporary judgeship is a position
that is statutorily created and authorized for 5 years after a judge
is appointed to fill the temporary judgeship.  It is important to
note that it is the judgeship that is temporary, not the judge
appointed to fill the position.  The judge appointed to a temporary
judgeship serves the same full 14-year term as a colleague appointed
to fill a permanent position.  When a temporary judgeship's 5-year
authorization expires, the next vacancy to occur in the district
cannot be filled.  However, between the time that the temporary
judgeship expires and a vacancy occurs, it is possible for the
district to have more judges than authorized judgeships.  Converting
a district's existing temporary judgeship to a permanent judgeship
reclassifies an existing judgeship, rather than adding a judgeship to
a district's existing authorized total. 


--------------------
\5 Nationally, there are 326 authorized bankruptcy judgeships.  Each
of the 90 bankruptcy districts is statutorily authorized a specific
number of judgeships, which currently ranges from 1 to 21. 


      BASIC STEPS IN THE FORMAL
      ASSESSMENT PROCESS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:1.1

In 1991, the Judicial Conference established a process, with policies
and weighted workload standards, for reviewing bankruptcy judgeships. 
The formal process has 8 basic steps (see fig.  1) that, when fully
implemented, would take about 9 months to 1 year to complete.  As I
will discuss later in my testimony, this process was generally
followed in developing the Judicial Conference's 1993, 1995, and 1997
bankruptcy judgeship requests.  The eight basic steps in this formal
process are as follows: 

   Figure 1:  The Judicial
   Conference's Formal Process for
   Assessing Bankruptcy Judgeship
   Needs

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

1.  The Bankruptcy Committee requests that the chief judge of each
appellate, district, and bankruptcy court assess the need for
additional bankruptcy judgeships within their respective
jurisdictions based on the Judicial Conference's policies.  At the
same time, the Committee provides each bankruptcy court (or district)
information on its weighted filings per current authorized judgeship. 

2.  The bankruptcy and district courts provide their views on the
need for additional judges to their respective circuit judicial
councils.\6 The bankruptcy court also sends its views to the district
court.\7

3.  After reviewing the material provided by the bankruptcy and
district courts, the circuit judicial council forwards its
recommendations, which may differ from those of the bankruptcy and
district courts in the circuit, to the Bankruptcy Judges Division of
AOUSC, which serves as staff to the Bankruptcy Committee. 

4.  Under the direction of the Bankruptcy Committee's Subcommittee on
Judgeships, written mail surveys are sent to those districts for
which judgeships have been requested.  The Subcommittee on Judgeships
conducts an on-site survey whenever a district initially requests
additional judgeships.  When a district renews a request previously
approved by the Judicial Conference, but which Congress has not
approved, the Bankruptcy Committee determines whether to conduct
another survey.  The on-site survey team is to generally consist of a
bankruptcy judge member of the Bankruptcy Committee and staff of
AOUSC's Bankruptcy Judges Division.  The team interviews a variety of
court officials and local attorneys, and reviews court files,
dockets, and reports.  The survey team then prepares a written report
with a recommendation to the Subcommittee on Judgeships regarding the
bankruptcy court's judgeship request. 

5.  For each bankruptcy district requesting judgeships, the
Subcommittee on Judgeships reviews the district's judgeship request,
the district's completed mail survey, and the on-site survey report
(if done), then prepares a recommendation for the Bankruptcy
Committee on the district's judgeship request. 

6.  The Subcommittee sends its recommendations, along with the
applicable on-site survey reports (where done), to the circuit
councils, district courts, and bankruptcy courts in those circuits
and bankruptcy districts for which bankruptcy judges were requested. 
The circuit councils, district courts, and bankruptcy courts may
provide any comments they have on the Subcommittee's recommendations,
the survey report, and provide any other additional information they
believe is relevant to the judgeship requests in their circuit or
bankruptcy district.  The Subcommittee on Judgeships reviews these
comments, makes its final recommendation for each district, and sends
its recommendations and accompanying documentation to the Bankruptcy
Committee. 

7.  The Bankruptcy Committee reviews the mail survey, on-site survey
report (if done), any other accompanying documents, and the
Subcommittee on Judgeships' recommendations for each district, votes
on each request, and forwards its recommendations to the Judicial
Conference. 

8.  The Judicial Conference considers the Bankruptcy Committee's
recommendations, approves or alters the Committee's recommendations,
and forwards the Conference's final recommendations to Congress. 

In reviewing judgeship requests, the Bankruptcy Committee is to
consider a number of factors adopted by the Judicial Conference in
1991.  The first factor is weighted filings.  Based on the results of
a study of the time bankruptcy judges devoted to individual
categories of bankruptcy cases,\8 each case filed is assigned to 1 of
17 categories.  Each category is determined on the basis of the
bankruptcy chapter under which the case is filed, and within each
chapter, the dollar value of the debtor's assets or liabilities.\9 A
case weight is assigned to each of the 17 categories, representing
the average amount of judicial time the case would be expected to
require.  Generally, to be eligible for an additional judgeship, the
Judicial Conference expects a bankruptcy district to have a minimum
annual average of 1,500 weighted filings for each current authorized
judgeship.  To be eligible for a permanent judgeship, the Judicial
Conference's standard is that a district's weighted filings per
judgeship must be 1,500 or higher after adding any judgeships to the
district's existing judgeship total.  For example, a district with 5
judges could qualify for an additional permanent judgeship if its
weighted filings per judgeship would be at least 1,500 with 6
judgeships (its existing 5 plus the requested position).  If the
weighted filings per judgeship would drop below 1,500 with the
additional judgeship, the district could potentially qualify for a
temporary, but not permanent, judgeship. 

The Judicial Conference's policy recognizes that bankruptcy judges'
workloads may be affected by factors not captured in the most recent
report of weighted filings and states that the Bankruptcy Committee
is to consider a number of factors in addition to weighted filings. 
These factors include (1) the nature and mix of the court's caseload;
(2) historical caseload data and filing trends (generally, the most
recent 5-year period); (3) geographic, economic, and demographic
factors in the district;\10 (4) the effectiveness of the requesting
court's case management efforts;\11 (5) the availability of
alternative solutions and resources for handling the court's
workload, such as assistance from judges outside the district; (6)
the impact that approval of requested additional resources would have
on the court's per judgeship caseload; and (7) any other pertinent
factors.  The Bankruptcy Committee's written description of the
assessment process also recognized that (1) bankruptcy case filings
may fluctuate because they are dependent upon national and local
economic conditions, and (2) temporary fluctuations can often be
addressed by short-term resources, such as temporary assistance from
judges outside the district and the use of temporary law clerks. 

At its September 1996 meeting, the Judicial Conference approved a
change in the schedule for completing the biennial surveys for
evaluating judgeship needs for district courts, courts of appeals,
and bankruptcy courts.  Beginning in 1998, the surveys are generally
to be done in even-numbered years so that the Conference's
recommendations for additional judgeships can be delivered to
Congress in odd-numbered years.  This change is intended to permit
the judiciary to work with Congress on a judgeship bill over an
entire 2-year congressional term. 


--------------------
\6 Each of the 12 geographic circuits has a circuit council that
consists of an equal number of district and court of appeals judges
from the circuit.  Among other duties, the council is statutorily
charged with making all necessary and appropriate orders for the
effective and expeditious administration of justice within the
circuit. 

\7 Bankruptcy courts are under the general supervision of the
district court, which appoints the chief bankruptcy judge in each
district.  Both district courts and bankruptcy courts are organized
into 12 geographic circuits, headed by a court of appeals.  Each
circuit includes a number of district and bankruptcy courts. 

\8 The bankruptcy case weights were developed by the Federal Judicial
Center based on a 1988-1989 time study in which 272 bankruptcy judges
recorded the time they spent on specific cases.  The case weights
resulting from this study were approved by the Judicial Conference in
March 1991.  In evaluating the weighted caseload of the Southern
District of New York, the Committee in 1997 used a new method of
measuring the workload required for very large ("mega") chapter 11
cases that had been developed by the Federal Judicial Center and
approved by the Bankruptcy Committee.  The Southern District had an
unusually large number of such "mega" cases, which are defined as
"those involving extremely large assets, unusual public interest, a
high level of creditor involvement, complex debt, a significant
amount of related litigation, or a combination of such factors."

\9 Debtors may file for bankruptcy under one of several bankruptcy
chapters, as defined in the U.S.  Code, and report their assets and
debts on their filing forms.  The case weights are based on the value
of the debtor's stated assets in four of the five bankruptcy
categories and on the debtor's stated liabilities in the remaining
category.  Liabilities were used for this one category based on the
assumption that future earnings were the principal asset of debtors
who file under this category. 

\10 In describing the use of statistical factors other than weighted
filings, the Conference has noted that higher than average population
growth may be an indicator of increased future bankruptcies due to
more possible debtors, and a more dynamic economy. 

\11 According to the Conference's explanation of its policy, case
management issues may not be a major issue for courts that clearly
meet the statistical workload standard of 1,500 case-related hours
per judgeship.  However, for courts with lower workloads or courts
that use pending case loads as justification for their request, case
management issues would be explored as much as possible. 


   THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE
   GENERALLY FOLLOWED ITS PROCESS,
   POLICIES, AND WORKLOAD
   STANDARDS IN 1993, 1995, AND
   1997
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:2

In 1993, 1995, and 1997, the Bankruptcy Committee generally followed
the Judicial Conference's established process, policies, and workload
standards in assessing bankruptcy judgeship needs.  The Bankruptcy
Committee recommended to the Judicial Conference fewer judgeships
than districts requested or the circuit councils recommended. 
Overall, the Committee also recommended fewer permanent and more
temporary judgeships than were requested.  The Conference adopted the
Bankruptcy Committee's recommendations in each year, 1993, 1995, and
1997.  (See tables II.1 - II.3 in app.  II for additional details.)


      1993 ASSESSMENT PROCESS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.1

In 1993, 16 districts requested 22 additional judgeships (21
permanent and 1 temporary).  The Bankruptcy Committee's Subcommittee
on Judgeships conducted both a written mail survey and an on-site
survey of each of the 16 bankruptcy districts that requested one or
more additional judges.  The Bankruptcy Committee recommended 19
additional judgeships (13 permanent and 6 temporary) for 15 judicial
districts, and the Judicial Conference approved this recommendation
in September 1993.  The Bankruptcy Committee declined requests for 3
permanent judgeships and converted requests for 5 permanent
judgeships to temporary judgeships.  At its January and June 1994
meetings, the Bankruptcy Committee concluded that these 19 positions
were still needed based on weighted filings alone.  Congress did not
approve any judgeships from the Judicial Conference's 1993 request. 


      1995 ASSESSMENT PROCESS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.2

At its January 1995 meeting, the Committee, using more recent
statistical data, determined that some of the positions the Committee
had approved in 1993 and 1994 may no longer have been needed.  At
this meeting, the Committee also adopted new guidelines for
reassessing the additional judgeship positions that the Conference
had approved in 1993 and 1994.  Under the new guidelines, districts
whose previously approved requests were still pending before Congress
would be asked to reassess their need for these additional judgeship
positions and submit a statement to the Committee on whether or not
the positions were still needed.  The Committee considered a position
still needed, without a new survey, if the district's weighted
filings per authorized judgeship were 1,500 or more.  The Committee
retained the option to resurvey any district renewing its request for
additional judgeships whose weighted filings were below 1,500 per
authorized judgeship. 

The Bankruptcy Committee's Subcommittee on Judgeships conducted
on-site visits to each district for which an additional judgeship had
been approved in 1993, and whose case filings during 1994 fell below
1,500 weighted filings per authorized judgeship.  On the basis of
these surveys, the circuit judicial councils of the Fifth and Ninth
Circuits withdrew their requests for additional judgeships in the
Southern District of Mississippi and the District of Arizona,
respectively.  In five other districts, the Circuit Councils
reaffirmed their bankruptcy districts' requests for a total of six
judgeships.  However, the Bankruptcy Committee declined the requests
for these six judgeships.  Overall, the Bankruptcy Committee
recommended that the Judicial Conference reduce the number of
requested positions from 19 judgeships in 15 districts to 11
judgeships (including 6 temporary) in 8 districts.  The Conference
approved the Bankruptcy Committee's recommendation at its September
1995 meeting and transmitted it to Congress.  Congress did not
approve any judgeships from the Judicial Conference's 1995 request. 


      1997 ASSESSMENT PROCESS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.3

At its September 1996 meeting, the Judicial Conference approved a new
schedule for judgeship surveys.  As a result of this change and
because Congress had not approved the Conference's 1995 bankruptcy
judgeship request, the Bankruptcy Committee began an expedited survey
process in November 1996.  In January 1997, the Bankruptcy Committee
found that each of the 11 positions approved in 1995 continued to be
needed based on the weighted case filings as of September 30, 1996. 
The Committee also considered requests for 9 additional positions
(for a total of 20).\12 In each district, the weighted filings per
judgeship exceeded the 1,500 standard.  The Committee recommended to
the Judicial Conference 18 additional judgeships (including 11
temporary).  The Judicial Conference adopted the Committee's
recommendations and sent the Conference's judgeship request to
Congress.  The Conference's 1997 request is now pending before
Congress.  Table 1 provides an overview of the number of judgeships
requested and approved at each major step in the process in 1993,
1995, and 1997. 



                                     Table 1
                     
                     Results of the Federal Judiciary's 1993,
                       1995, and 1997 Bankruptcy Judgeship
                                Needs Assessments

                          1993 judgeship     1995 judgeship     1997 judgeship
                             requests           requests           requests
                         -----------------  -----------------  -----------------
                                    Number             Number             Number
                          Number        of   Number        of   Number        of
                              of  judgeshi       of  judgeshi       of  judgeshi
                          courts        ps   courts        ps   courts        ps
-----------------------  -------  --------  -------  --------  -------  --------
Initial bankruptcy            16  21P & 1T       14  13P & 5T       15     17P &
 court request                                                              3T\a
Approved by the               16  21P & 1T       \b        \b       \b        \b
 district court
Approved by the               16  20P & 2T       14  11P & 7T       15  17P & 4T
 Circuit Judicial
 Council
Supported by the              15  14P & 5T       \b        \b       \b        \b
 AOUSC survey
Approved by the               15  13P & 6T        8   5P & 6T       14      7P &
 Bankruptcy Committee                                                      11T\c
Approved by the               15  13P & 6T        8   5P & 6T       14      7P &
 Judicial Conference                                                       11T\c
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legend:  P = permanent judgeships; T = temporary judgeships. 

\a The Southern District of Mississippi requested that a survey be
performed to determine if any additional judgeships were warranted. 
Thus, while no specific request was made for additional judges, a
temporary judgeship was recommended by the Circuit Council and later
approved by the Bankruptcy Committee and the Judicial Conference. 

\b The last formal survey of all districts requesting additional
bankruptcy judges was conducted in 1993.  In 1995, there were
relatively few surveys.  Surveys were conducted only when the
requesting district made no request in 1993 or the requesting
district's weighted case filings were below 1,500.  In most
bankruptcy districts, the district reviewed its weighted case filings
data, and, if the filings met the 1,500 threshold, renewed its
request through its Circuit Judicial Council.  In 1997, a survey was
conducted for only one district.  Thus, there is little documentation
from the district courts and few surveys for 1995 and 1997.  As a
result, we did not attempt to include data for the district courts or
AOUSC surveys in the table because the data could be misleading. 

\c Includes the recommended extension of one temporary judgeship. 
This recommendation would not add a judgeship position, but it would
extend the duration of an existing temporary judgeship position. 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 


--------------------
\12 This number included five judgeships approved by the Conference
in 1993 but not in 1995; and four judgeships that had not been
requested in either 1993 or 1995. 


      WEIGHTED FILINGS STANDARD
      CONSISTENTLY APPLIED ACROSS
      DISTRICTS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.4

In our analysis, we found that in the 1993 and 1997 assessment
cycles, all of the districts requesting additional bankruptcy
judgeships--16 in 1993 and 15 in 1997--had weighted case filings over
1,500 per authorized judgeship prior to the addition of any
judgeships.  However, in the 1995 assessment cycle, 8 of the 14
requesting districts had weighted case filings per judgeship over
1,500; the remaining 6 districts had weighted case filings below
1,500.  (See table II.1 in app.  II.)

Our analysis also showed that the Judicial Conference approved
additional permanent bankruptcy judgeships only when the weighted
case filings would be 1,500 or more per judgeship after adding the
requested judgeship(s) to the district's current authorized number of
judgeships.  If the weighted case filings would drop below 1,500 per
judgeship after adding the requested judge(s), the Bankruptcy
Committee and the Conference approved a temporary judgeship or no
increase in judgeships.  In two districts, the Committee approved
both one permanent and one temporary judgeship--the Southern District
of New York in 1993, and the District of Maryland in 1997.  In these
two districts, the weighted workload was considered sufficiently high
after adding one permanent judgeship to merit another judgeship, but
not sufficiently high to merit a second permanent judgeship. 


      SOME DISTRICTS THAT MET THE
      MINIMUM WEIGHTED FILINGS
      STANDARD DID NOT REQUEST
      ADDITIONAL JUDGESHIPS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.5

Not all districts whose weighted case filings met the minimum
threshold of 1,500 weighted filings per authorized judgeship
requested additional judgeships in 1993, 1995, or 1997.  We found
that during the 1993 assessment cycle, 10 districts with weighted
case filings above 1,500 per authorized judgeship did not request
additional judges.  In 1995, four such districts did not request
additional judgeships; and, in 1997, five such districts did not. 
(See tables II.5-II.7 in app.  II.) However, one of the five
districts in 1997 was the Northern District of Mississippi, which is
to share the additional position requested for the Southern District
of Mississippi.  Conversely, in 1995, six districts whose weighted
filings were below 1,500 per authorized judgeship requested
additional judgeships.  None of these six districts' requests were
approved by the Bankruptcy Committee.  (See table II.3 in app.  II.)

We spoke to officials in the four districts that had more than 1,500
weighted case filings per authorized judgeship in 1997, but had not
asked for additional judgeships.\13 The officials in these four
districts told us that they had not requested any additional
judgeships because (1) one district was not aware that its weighted
case filings were at or above 1,500 per authorized judgeship; (2) one
district said it could handle the workload if the district's
temporary judgeship, scheduled to expire in October 1998, was
converted to a permanent judgeship;\14 and (3) the remaining two
districts currently share a judgeship and could not agree on how an
additional judgeship would be allocated between the two districts. 


--------------------
\13 We did not speak to officials in the Northern District of
Mississippi since that district is to share the additional judgeship
the Conference has requested for the Southern District of
Mississippi. 

\14 Converting an existing temporary judgeship to a permanent
judgeship reclassifies an existing judgeship.  It does not add a
judgeship for the district. 


      LITTLE DOCUMENTATION EXISTS
      ON THE EFFECT OF OTHER
      AVAILABLE DATA ON THE
      JUDICIAL CONFERENCE'S
      RECOMMENDATIONS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.6

The Judicial Conference's policy for assessing a bankruptcy
district's need for additional judgeships states that the Bankruptcy
Committee is to review a number of workload factors in addition to
weighted filings.  These factors include the nature and mix of the
bankruptcy district's workload; historical caseload data and filing
trends; geographic, economic, and demographic factors in the
district; the effectiveness of case management efforts; the
availability of alternative solutions and resources for handling the
district's workload; the impact that approval of requested additional
resources would have on the district's per judgeship caseload; and
any other pertinent factors.  The Bankruptcy Committee asked that
districts requesting additional judgeships address these factors
"with as much specificity as possible." A district could also provide
any additional information it thought relevant to its request. 

Most of the districts surveyed in 1993, 1995, and 1997 provided
information on at least four of these factors.  AOUSC officials said
they provided us with all the written information on these factors
that was available to the Bankruptcy Committee for its deliberations. 
AOUSC officials said that the use of this information in assessing
judgeship requests is inherently judgmental and that neither AOUSC
nor the Committee keeps minutes of the Committee's discussions
regarding individual districts.  Consequently, it was not possible to
determine from the documentation we received, how this information
was or was not used in assessing districts' bankruptcy judgeship
requests.  Nevertheless, none of the judgeship requests approved by
the Judicial Conference were in districts that did not meet the 1,500
weighted filings standard. 


      MOST DISTRICTS THAT
      REQUESTED ADDITIONAL JUDGES
      HAVE REQUESTED ASSISTANCE
      FROM VISITING AND RECALLED
      JUDGES
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:2.7

The Judicial Conference's policies encourage districts to use
visiting and recalled judges wherever possible as an alternative to
requesting additional judgeships.  For each district that requested
additional bankruptcy judgeships in the 1993, 1995, and/or 1997
assessment cycles, we requested information on whether the districts
had requested, received, and/or used assistance from visiting or
recalled judges.  The circuit executives for all 12 circuits provided
us documentation on each of the bankruptcy districts that had
requested and been assigned assistance from judges outside their
districts in each of those years.\15

However, the circuit executives did not have information on whether
and to what extent the districts actually used the assistance
available from visiting and recalled judges. 

Our analysis of this information showed that 18 of the 19 districts
that requested additional bankruptcy judges during 1993 to1997 had
requested assistance from judges outside their districts during this
period.  (See table II.4 in app.  II.) Only the Middle District of
Pennsylvania had not requested either visiting or recalled judges at
some time during the period from January 1, 1993, to June 1997.  Ten
of the 18 districts that requested assistance received intracircuit
assignments (judges from within their circuit) to provide assistance
with their caseloads.  None of the four districts in California
relied on intracircuit assignments.  These districts are in the Ninth
Circuit, which uses its own "workload equalization program" that
transfers cases from districts in the circuit with above-average
caseloads to districts in the circuit that have below-average
caseloads.  This program allows cases to be transferred rather than
judges.  According to the circuit, transferring cases minimizes both
the inconvenience to the parties involved as well as judges' travel
time and expenses. 

Six districts received intercircuit assignments (judges from outside
their circuits) to provide assistance with their caseloads.  Only
four of these six districts received both intracircuit and
intercircuit assignments of bankruptcy judges.  Eleven of the 18
districts that requested assistance had been assigned recalled judges
as a means to alleviate the heavy caseloads.\16


--------------------
\15 Our information for 1997 covers the period from January to June
1997. 

\16 A recalled judge is a retired bankruptcy judge who is recalled
for duty for a specific period of time, usually 1 year.  Some of the
recalled judges were assigned to more than one district at the same
time. 


   BANKRUPTCY JUDGES'
   NONCASE-RELATED TRAVEL IN
   CALENDAR YEARS 1995 AND 1996
   VARIED BY DISTRICT
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:3

Bankruptcy judges' travel can be categorized as case-related and
noncase-related.  Case-related travel is travel to work on specific
bankruptcy cases whether within a judge's district or in other
districts.  Noncase-related travel is travel that is not related to
adjudicating specific bankruptcy cases.  The amount of time devoted
to noncase-related travel could potentially affect the amount of time
judges have to devote to work on individual cases. 

In assessing bankruptcy judges' workloads, the Judicial Conference
assumes that each bankruptcy judge will spend, on average, about 30
percent of his or her time--about 600 hours, or 75 work days per
year--on matters that cannot be attributed to a specific case, such
as travel, training, court administration matters, and general case
management activities that cannot be attributed to a specific case. 
These 600 hours, or 75 work days, are in addition to the average of
1,500 hours or 187.5 workdays that each judge is assumed to spend
annually on work attributable to specific bankruptcy cases. 

Through AOUSC, we requested information on the noncase-related travel
of the judges in the 14 districts for which the Judicial Conference
requested judgeships in 1997, plus the Northern District of
Mississippi which is to share the position requested for the Southern
District of Mississippi.  We received information from 80 of the 84
judges in these districts judges on noncase-related travel in
calendar years 1995 and 1996.  These judges reported a total of 416
trips in 1995 and 403 trips in 1996.  On the basis of the data
reported, we calculated that these judges had an average of 12.5
noncase-related travel work days each year.\17 As shown in table 2,
there was a marked difference between the districts with the highest
and lowest average number of noncase-related trips per judge and
between the districts with the highest and lowest average number of
workdays per judge for noncase-related trips.  The reasons for these
differences were not apparent from our data. 



                                Table 2
                
                 Range in Number of Trips and Workdays
                per Judge for Noncase-Related Travel in
                 Calendar Years 1995 and 1996 in the 15
                   Districts for Which the Judiciary
                Requested Bankruptcy Judgeships in 1997

                                              District
                                              range        1995   1996
                                              ----------  -----  -----
Average number of noncase-related trips per   High          9.3   12.0
 judge
                                              Low           0.5    1.3
Average number of workdays per judge for      High         22.3   28.5
 noncase-related travel
                                              Low           1.5    5.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges' travel data. 

Together, circuit or district meetings and activities; Judicial
Conference meetings and activities; and AOUSC- or FJC-sponsored
workshops, seminars, or other activities accounted for about 66
percent of all noncase-related trips and about 74 percent of all
noncase-related travel workdays reported for 1995.  Comparable
figures for calendar year 1996 were about 67 percent and 73 percent,
respectively.  About 98 percent of the 819 trips were for
destinations within the United States.  Overall, about 34 percent of
all trips made in these two years were sponsored by organizations
other than the federal judiciary and were paid for by the judges
themselves or the sponsoring organizations. 


--------------------
\17 We identified workdays by excluding weekend days and federal
holidays in 1995 and 1996. 


      NONCASE-RELATED TRAVEL IN
      THE FOUR DISTRICTS WITH
      WEIGHTED FILINGS OF 1,500 OR
      MORE IN 1997 THAT DID NOT
      REQUEST JUDGESHIPS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:3.1

You requested that we also obtain information on the noncase-related
travel of the 13 authorized judges in the four districts with
weighted filings of 1,500 or more in 1997 that did not request
judgeships.  The 12 judges in these 4 districts (one position was
vacant) reported a total of 177 noncase-related trips--75 in calendar
year 1995 and 102 in calendar year 1996.\18 On the basis of these
reported data, we calculated that the 12 judges spent a total of 178
workdays in 1995 and 258 workdays in 1996 on noncase-related travel. 
This is a per judge average of 14.8 workdays in 1995 and 21.5
workdays in 1996. 

Together, circuit or district meetings and activities; Judicial
Conference meetings and activities; and AOUSC- or FJC-sponsored
workshops, seminars, or other activities accounted for 72 percent of
all noncase-related trips and about 79 percent of all noncase-related
travel workdays reported for 1995.  Comparable figures for calendar
year 1996 were about 80 percent and about 83 percent, respectively. 
All but 1 of the 177 trips reported were for destinations within the
United States.  Overall, about 23 percent of all trips made in these
2 years were sponsored and paid for by organizations other than the
federal judiciary.  (Additional details are in app.  II, tables II.8
- II.10.)

On September 18, 1997, we provided a draft of this statement to AOUSC
officials for comment.  On September 19, 1997, we met with AOUSC
officials to discuss their comments.  Overall, AOUSC officials said
they found the statement to be fair and accurate.  AOUSC suggested
that we change our description of the formal judgeship assessment
process to state that on-site surveys are always to be done when a
district made its initial request for additional judgeships, but are
not required when the district renews a previously-approved request
and district's weighted workload remained at or above 1,500 weighted
filings.  AOUSC provided a formal written support for this change,
and we incorporated the new language into our statement.  AOUSC
official also noted that judges' personal vacations were not included
in the average of 600 hours that bankruptcy judges are assumed to
spend on activities that cannot be attributed to a specific case.  We
also included several technical changes, as appropriate. 


--------------------
\18 Although the Eastern District of Texas has two authorized
bankruptcy judgeships, one of the positions is vacant.  Currently,
the district is served by one permanent judge and one recalled judge. 
For comparability, we did not include the travel of the recalled
judge in our analysis because we did not request or use data for
recalled judges in the 15 districts for which we had previously
reported on bankruptcy judges' noncase-related travel. 


------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:3.2

This concludes my prepared statement, Mr.  Chairman.  I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other members of the
Subcommittee may have. 


SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
=========================================================== Appendix I

To identify the process, policies, and standards the Judicial
Conference used to assess the need for additional bankruptcy
judgeships, we asked the Administrative Office of U.  S.  Courts
(AOUSC) to provide all available documentation on the Conference's
policies, process, and standards from 1993 through 1997, including
any changes that occurred during this period and the reasons for
those changes.  To determine how the process, policies, and standards
were applied during the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles, we
asked AOUSC to provide all available documentation for each step in
the process from the initial bankruptcy district request to the final
Judicial Conference decision.  With this documentation, we used a
structured data collection instrument to review how the Conference's
process, policies, and standards were applied to each bankruptcy
district's judgeship request in 1993, 1995, and 1997.  We also
interviewed AOUSC officials about how the process, policies, and
standards were used in the 1993, 1995, and 1997 assessment cycles. 

To determine which districts had requested and used temporary
assistance from recalled judges or judges outside their districts
from January 1993 to June 1997, we contacted each of the 12 circuit
executives.  AOUSC did not maintain these data, and the circuit
executives had no consistent data on the extent to which the
districts actually used the assistance available. 

To identify districts whose weighted case filings for each assessment
cycle--1993, 1995, 1997--were at least 1,500 per authorized
judgeship, but which did not request additional judgeships, we
obtained AOUSC data on weighted filings for each of the 90 bankruptcy
districts for each of those assessment cycles.  To determine why each
these districts did not request additional judgeships, we interviewed
AOUSC officials.  We also interviewed local court officials in the
four districts with weighted filings of 1,500 or more during the 1997
assessment cycle that did not request additional judgeships.\19

To identify the number, purpose, and destination of noncase-related
trips for the judges in each of the 14 districts for which the
Judicial Conference requested bankruptcy judgeships in 1997, through
the AOUSC we surveyed the judges in each district, plus the Northern
District of Mississippi, which is to share the judgeship requested
for the Southern District of Mississippi.  These 15 districts have a
total of 84 authorized judgeships, and we received responses from 81
judges.  However, one judge did not provide information on the dates
of each trip or the paying organization.  Thus, our analysis is based
on the responses of 80 judges.  We organized the reported trips into
five categories:  (1) judicial meetings and activities within the
district or circuit;\20 (2) workshops, seminars, and other activities
sponsored by AOUSC or the FJC; (3) meetings, conferences, and
seminars sponsored by the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges
(NCBJ), the National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees (NABT), or
the National Association of Chapter 13 Trustees (NACTT); (4) Judicial
Conference activities;\21 and (5) other.\22

We did not independently verify the data on weighted filings, nor the
information bankruptcy judges provided on their noncase-related
travel, including the dates, purpose, cost, destination, or paying
organization for each trip. 


--------------------
\19 We did not speak to officials in the Northern District of
Mississippi, because this district is to share the judgeship
requested for the Southern District of Mississippi. 

\20 This category includes trips to circuit conferences and circuit
committee meetings as well as bankruptcy judges meetings within the
circuit, either for a specific district or more than one district. 
We included such meetings in this category whether or not the listed
destinations were within the geographic boundaries of the district or
circuit. 

\21 This category included trips to attend meetings of Judicial
Conference committees or subcommittees. 

\22 This category included any activity not contained in the other
four categories.  It includes activities, such as meetings or
seminars sponsored by law schools, bar associations, civic
associations, executive branch agencies of the federal government, or
foreign governments. 


========================================================== Appendix II



                                                                      Table II.1
                                                       
                                                          Authorized Judgeships, Judgeships
                                                       Approved by the Judicial Conference, and
                                                         Weighted Case Filings for Bankruptcy
                                                       Courts Requesting Additional Judgeships,
                                                                 1993, 1995, and 1997

                                      Weighted                              Weighted                               Weighted
                                          case                 Weighted         case                  Weighted         case                  Weighted
                                       filings                     case      filings                      case      filings                      case
                                         prior   Number of      filings        prior    Number of      filings        prior    Number of      filings
                         Number of      to the      judges        after       to the       judges        after       to the       judges        after
                        authorized        1993    approved     the 1993         1995     approved     the 1995         1997     approved     the 1997
District                judgeships     request     in 1993      request      request      in 1995      request      request      in 1997      request
----------------------  ----------  ----------  ----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------
D.C.                             1       1,732           0        1,732          988          N/A          988        1,053          N/A        1,053
NY (E)                           6       1,904         1 P        1,632        1,675          1 T        1,436        1,753          1 T        1,487
NY (N)                           2       1,855         1 T        1,237      1,538\a          1 T      1,025\a        1,895          1 T        1,263
NY (S)                           9       1,916   1 P & 1 T        1,568        1,271            0        1,271      1,510\e          1 T      1,359\e
DE                               2         848         N/A          848          883          N/A          883        2,065          0\f        2,065
NJ                               8       1,894         1 P        1,684        1,648          1 T        1,465        1,748          1 P        1,554
PA (E)                           5       1,969         1 P        1,641        1,568          1 T        1,307        1,708          1 T        1,423
PA (M)                           2       1,595         N/A        1,595        1,816          N/A        1,816        1,525           1T        1,017
MD                               4       2,235         1 P        1,788        1,982          1 P        1,586        2,230    1 P & 1 T        1,487
VA (E)                           5       1,935         1 P        1,613      1,347\b            0      1,347\b        1,631          1 T        1,359
MS (S)                           2     1,781\c         1 T      1,336\c      1,324\c            0      1,324\c      1,646\c          1 T      1,234\c
MI (E)                           4       2,067         1 P        1,654      1,788\b          1 T      1,430\b        1,679          1 T        1,343
TN (W)                           4       1,968         N/A        1,968        1,984          N/A        1,984        2,345          1 P        1,876
AZ                               7       1,758         1 T        1,538        1,117          N/A        1,117        1,014          N/A        1,014
CA (C)                          21       2,144         4 P        1,801        1,795          4 P        1,508        1,940          4 P        1,630
CA (E)                           6       1,576         1 T        1,351      1,496\b          0\d      1,496\b        1,523          1 T        1,306
CA (N)                           9       1,828         1 P        1,645      1,490\b            0      1,490\b        1,403          N/A        1,403
CA (S)                           4       1,817         1 T        1,454      1,440\b            0      1,440\b        1,361          N/A        1,361
FL (S)                           5       1,965         1 P        1,638      1,502\b          1 T      1,251\b        1,584          1 T        1,320
=====================================================================================================================================================
Totals                          10         N/A  13 P & 6 T          N/A          N/A    5 P & 6 T          N/A          N/A   7 P & 11 T          N/A
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A = not applicable.  For entries for individual districts,
N/A indicates that the district did not request additional judgeships
in that assessment cycle.  For the total columns, it was not
meaningful to total the weighted filings workloads per authorized
judgeship for all districts

\a The weighted case filing data for the Northern District of New
York are as of June 30, 1995. 

\b Weighted case filing data for these districts are as of the end of
the calendar year preceding the request rather than the end of the
fiscal year preceding the request. 

\c Weighted case filing data are combined for the Northern and
Southern Districts of Mississippi since the additional judgeship is
to be shared by the two districts. 

\d The additional temporary judgeship initially approved for the
Eastern District of California was later withdrawn when the case
filings declined. 

\e The weighted case filings for the Southern District of New York
were computed using a 2-year average for "mega cases."

\f While no new judgeships were approved for the District of
Delaware, the Conference requested the extension of a temporary
judgeship. 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 



                                    Table II.2
                     
                       Results of the 1993, 1995, and 1997
                         Needs Assessments for Additional
                     Bankruptcy Judges, by Type of Judgeship

Initial                                Convert
requests                               temporary    Extension
and                                    to           of
subsequent   Permanent    Temporary    permanent    temporary    Total number
actions      judgeships   judgeships   judgeships   judgeships   of judges
-----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  ---------------
Initial
bankruptcy
court
request

1993         21           1            0            0            22

1995         13           5            0            0            18

1997         17           3\a          1\b          0            20\a

Approved by
the
district
court

1993         21           1            0            0            22

1995         N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A

1997         N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A

Approved by
the Circuit
Judicial
Council

1993         20           2            0            0            22

1995         11           7            0            0            18

1997         17           4            1\b          0            21

Supported
by the
AOUSC
survey

1993         14           5            0            0            19

1995         N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A

1997         N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A

Approved by
the
Bankruptcy
Committee

1993         13           6            0            0            19

1995         5            6            0            0            11

1997         7            11           0            1\b          18

Approved by
the
Judicial
Conference

1993         13           6            0            0            19

1995         5            6            0            0            11

1997         7            11           0            1\b          18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A indicates data were not sufficiently complete to be
meaningful.  The last formal survey of all districts requesting
additional bankruptcy judges was conducted in 1993.  In 1995 there
were relatively few surveys.  Surveys were conducted only when the
requesting district had made no request in 1993 or the requesting
district's weighted case filings were below 1,500.  In most
bankruptcy districts, the district reviewed its weighted case filings
data and, if the filings met the 1,500 threshold, renewed its request
through its Circuit Judicial Council.  Thus, there is little
documentation from the district courts and few surveys for 1995. 
Only one district was surveyed for the 1997 request.  As a result, we
did not attempt to include data for the district courts or AOUSC
surveys for 1995 and 1997 in the table because it could be
misleading. 

\a The Southern District of Mississippi did not ask for a specific
number of judges in 1997; rather the district requested that a survey
be conducted to determine if additional judgeships were warranted. 

\b These positions are not new judgeships; rather they are a change
in category for existing judgeships.  As a result, these positions do
not change the total number of judgeships approved. 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 



                                                                      Table II.3
                                                       
                                                        Data on the Results of the 1993, 1995,
                                                         and 1997 Bankruptcy Judgeships Needs
                                                       Assessments and the Resulting Changes in
                                                          Weighted Case Filings, by District

                                  Weighted
                                      case                                                                                                  Weighted
                                   filings                                   Approved by                                                        case
                                  prior to                    Approved by            the                   Approved by    Approved by  filings after
                                       the         Initial            the        Circuit   Supported by            the            the            the
                                 judgeship      bankruptcy       district       Judicial            the     Bankruptcy       Judicial      judgeship
District and year                 requests   court request          court        Council   AOUSC survey      Committee     Conference       approval
------------------------------  ----------  --------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------  -------------
D.C.
1993                                 1,732             1 P            1 P        1 P/T\a              0              0              0          1,732
1995                                   988               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            988
1997                                 1,053               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,053
NY (E)
1993                                 1,904             2 P            2 P            2 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,632
1995                                 1,675             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,436
1997                                 1,753             2 P            N/A            2 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,487
NY (N)
1993                                 1,855             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T            1 T          1,237
1995                               1,538\b             1 T            1 T            1 T            1 T            1 T            1 T        1,025\b
1997                                 1,895             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,263
NY (S)
1993                                 1,916       1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T          1,568
1995                                 1,271       1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T            1 T              0              0          1,271
1997                               1,510\c       1 P & 1 T            N/A      1 P & 1 T            N/A            1 T            1 T        1,359\c
DE
1993                                   848               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            848
1995                                   883               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            883
1997                                 2,065           1 T\d          1 T\d          1 T\d            0\e            0\e            0\c          2,065
NJ
1993                                 1,894             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,684
1995                                 1,648             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,465
1997                                 1,748             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 P            1 P          1,554
PA (E)
1993                                 1,969             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,641
1995                                 1,568             1 T              0            1 T            1 T            1 T            1 T          1,307
1997                                 1,708             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,423
PA (M)
1993                                 1,595               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,595
1995                                 1,816               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,816
1997                                 1,525             1 T            N/A            1 T            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,017
MD
1993                                 2,235             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,788
1995                                 1,982             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 P            1 P          1,586
1997                                 2,230             2 P            N/A            2 P            N/A      1 P & 1 T      1 P & 1 T          1,487
VA (E)
1993                                 1,935             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,613
1995                               1,347\f             1 P            1 P            1 P              0              0              0        1,347\f
1997                                 1,631             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,359
MS (S)
1993                               1,781\g             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T        1,336\g
1995                               1,324\g             1 P            N/D            1 T              0              0              0        1,324\g
1997                               1,646\g              \h             \h            1 T            N/A            1 T            1 T        1,234\g
MI (E)
1993                                 2,067             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,654
1995                               1,788\f             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T        1,430\f
1997                                 1,679             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,343
TN (W)
1993                                 1,968               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,968
1995                                 1,984               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,984
1997                                 2,345             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 P            1 P          1,876
AZ
1993                                 1,758             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T            1 T          1,538
1995                                 1,117               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,117
1997                                 1,014               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,014
CA (C)
1993                                 2,144             4 P            4 P            4 P            4 P            4 P            4 P          1,801
1995                                 1,795             4 P            N/A            4 P            N/A            4 P            4 P          1,508
1997                                 1,940             4 P            N/A            4 P            N/A            4 P            4 P          1,630
CA (E)
1993                                 1,576             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T            1 T          1,351
1995                               1,496\f             1 P            N/D            1 T            1 T              0              0        1,496\f
1997                                 1,523             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,306
CA (N)
1993                                 1,828             2 P            2 P            2 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,645
1995                               1,490\f             1 T            N/D            1 T            1 T              0              0        1,490\f
1997                                 1,403               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,403
CA (S)
1993                                 1,817             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T            1 T          1,454
1995                               1,440\f             1 T            1 T            1 T              0              0              0        1,440\f
1997                                 1,361               0            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A            N/A          1,361
FL (S)
1993                                 1,965             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P          1,638
1995                               1,502\f             1 P            1 P            1 P            1 P            1 T            1 T        1,251\f
1997                                 1,584             1 P            N/A            1 P            N/A            1 T            1 T          1,320
Totals
1993                                   N/A      21 P & 1 T     21 P & 1 T   20 P & 2 T\a     14 P & 5 T     13 P & 6 T     13 P & 6 T            N/A
1995                                   N/A      13 P & 5 T            N/A     11 P & 7 T            N/A      5 P & 6 T      5 P & 6 T            N/A
1997                                   N/A      17 P & 3 T            N/A     17 P & 4 T            N/A     7 P & 11 T     7 P & 11 T            N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legends

P = Permanent judgeship
T = Temporary judgeship
N/D = Not documented

Note 1:  N/A indicates data were not sufficiently complete to be
meaningful.  The last formal surveys of the districts requesting
additional bankruptcy judges were performed in 1993.  Only when the
requests were new (i.e., no survey had been performed since 1993) or
if the weighted case filings were below 1,500 were surveys conducted. 
In most districts, the bankruptcy courts reviewed the weighted case
filings data; and if the case filings were above the 1,500 threshold,
the courts would renew their request through their respective Circuit
Judicial Council.  Thus, there is little documentation from the
district courts and relatively few surveys were performed in 1995 or
1997.  As a result, we did not attempt to factor in the data for the
district courts or AOUSC surveys in these 2 years because the data
would be misleading. 

Note 2:  Based on guidance provided by AOUSC, unless documented
otherwise, all requests by the bankruptcy courts for additional
judgeships were assumed to be for permanent positions. 

\a The Circuit Judicial Council supported the request for an
additional judgeship but was unsure whether the judgeship should be a
temporary or permanent position.  In our analysis, we counted the
judgeship approved for D.C.  as a temporary judgeship. 

\b The weighted case filing data for the northern district of New
York are as current of June 30, 1995. 

\c The weighted case filings for the southern district of New York
were computed using a 2-year average for "mega cases."

\d Delaware also asked for a temporary judgeship to be converted to a
permanent judgeship. 

\e While no new judgeships were approved for Delaware, a temporary
judgeship was extended. 

\f Weighted case filing data for these districts are as current of
the end of the calendar year preceding the request, rather than the
end of the fiscal year preceding the request. 

\g Weighted case filing data are shown for the northern and southern
districts Mississippi combined since the additional judgeship is to
be shared by the two districts. 

\h Mississippi (Southern) did not ask for a specific number of judges
in 1997, rather the district requested that a survey be performed to
determine if any additional judgeships were warranted. 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 



                                    Table II.4
                     
                      Alternative Resources Assigned to and
                         Provided by Districts Requesting
                     Additional Bankruptcy Judgeships During
                       the Period January 1993 to June 1997

                                                       Resources provided by
                Resources assigned to district                district
             -------------------------------------  ----------------------------
                                                    Provided
                                                    judges to
                                                    other
                          Judges from  Judges from  districts    Provided judges
Circuit/     Recalled     within the   another      within the   to districts in
District     judges       circuit      circuit      circuit      other circuits
-----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  -----------  ---------------
D.C.                                   X                         X

Second

NY (E)       X            X

NY (N)       X            X            X

NY (S)       X            X            X

Third

DE                        X

NJ           X                                      X

PA (E)       X            X

PA (M)

Fourth

MD                        X            X                         X

VA (E)                    X            X

Fifth

MS (S)                    X                         X

Sixth

MI (E)                    X

TN (W)                    X                         X\a          X

Ninth

AZ           X            \b

CA (C)       X            \b

CA (E)       X            \b

CA (N)       X            \b

CA (S)       X            \b

Eleventh

FL (S)       X                         X
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Tennessee (Western) provided a judge for one case in Tennessee
(Middle) when all the judges in that district were disqualified. 

\b The Ninth Circuit uses the "work equalization program" in which
cases from districts with above-average caseloads are transferred to
districts with below-average caseloads.  According to the circuit,
this minimizes the inconvenience to the parties and reduces travel
expenses.  Because of this program, the cases within the Ninth
Circuit are transferred rather than using intracircuit assignments of
judges. 

Source:  GAO analysis of Circuit Executive data. 



                               Table II.5
                
                  Weighted Case Filings per Bankruptcy
                  Judgeship for 1993, in Rank Order by
                  District for Districts With Weighted
                   Case Filings at or Above 1,500 Per
                               Judgeship

                                                         Weighted case
                                           Number of           filings
                                          judgeships    per authorized
                                        requested in   judgeship as of
District                                        1993     June 30, 1993
--------------------------------------  ------------  ----------------
MA                                                 0             2,183
MD                                                 1             2,168
CA (C)                                             4             2,058
D.C.                                               1             2,052
MI (E)                                             1             2,025
NY (E)                                             2             1,993
NJ                                                 1             1,984
TN (W)                                             0             1,965
NY (N)                                             1             1,810
NY (S)                                             2             1,807
PA (M)                                             0             1,801
MS (N)                                           0\a             1,796
AL (N)                                             0             1,774
PA (E)                                             1             1,748
VA (E)                                             1             1,742
CA (S)                                             1             1,736
CA (E)                                             1             1,734
FL (S)                                             1             1,732
CA (N)                                             2             1,729
CT                                                 0             1,677
TX (N)                                             0             1,629
AZ                                                 1             1,623
GA (S)                                             0             1,610
TN (M)                                             0             1,560
RI                                                 0             1,540
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  All districts in bold type had weighted case filings of more
than 1,500 per judgeship but did not request additional judgeships. 

\a While Mississippi (Northern) did not request a judgeship, it was
to share the judgeship requested by Mississippi (Southern). 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 



                               Table II.6
                
                  Weighted Case Filings per Bankruptcy
                  Judgeship for 1995, in Rank Order by
                  District for Districts With Weighted
                   Case Filings at or Above 1,500 Per
                               Judgeship

                                                         Weighted case
                                           Number of           filings
                                          judgeships    per authorized
                                        requested in   judgeship as of
District                                        1995     June 30, 1995
--------------------------------------  ------------  ----------------
TN (W)                                             0             1,984
MD                                                 1             1,982
PA (M)                                             0             1,816
CA (C)                                             4             1,795
AL (N)                                             0             1,784
PA (E)                                             1             1,686
MI (E)                                             1             1,680
NY (E)                                             1             1,675
NJ                                                 1             1,648
MA                                                 0             1,556
NY (N)                                             1             1,538
FL (S)                                             1             1,506
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  All districts in bold type had weighted case filings of more
than 1,500 per judgeship but did not request additional judgeships. 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 



                               Table II.7
                
                  Weighted Case Filings per Bankruptcy
                  Judgeship for 1997, in Rank Order by
                  District for Districts With Weighted
                   Case Filings at or Above 1,500 Per
                               Judgeship

                                                         Weighted case
                                           Number of           filings
                                          judgeships    per authorized
                                        requested in   judgeship as of
District                                        1997     June 30, 1996
--------------------------------------  ------------  ----------------
TN (W)                                             1             2,345
MD                                                 2             2,230
DE                                                 1             2,065
CA (C)                                             4             1,940
NY (N)                                             1             1,895
MS (N) 0                                        \a 1              ,767
AL (N)                                             0             1,765
NJ                                                 1             1,748
NY (E)                                             2             1,735
PA (E)                                             1             1,708
GA (M)                                             0             1,691
MI (E)                                             1             1,679
GA (S)                                             0             1,674
VA (E)                                             1             1,631
TX (E)                                             0             1,615
MS (S)                                           0\b             1,585
FL (S)                                             1             1,584
PA (M)                                             1             1,525
CA (E)                                             1             1,523
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  All districts in bold type had weighted case filings of more
than 1,500 per judgeship but did not request additional judgeships. 

\a While Mississippi (Northern) did not request a judgeship, it was
to share the judgeship requested by Mississippi (Southern). 

\b Mississippi (Southern) did not ask for a specific number of judges
in 1997, rather the district requested that a survey be performed to
determine if any additional judgeships were warranted. 

Source:  GAO analysis of AOUSC data. 



                                    Table II.8
                     
                      Information on the Number Trips, Total
                       Travel Days, Total Workdays, and the
                      Purpose of Bankruptcy Judges' Noncase-
                       Related Trips in the Four Districts
                       Whose Weighted Filings Were 1,500 or
                      More But Did not Request Judgeships in
                            the 1997 Assessment Cycle

                                       Number of
                                          travel  Number of
District/number     Number of trips    days each  work days
of judges/year         each year            year  each year  Purpose
-----------------  -----------------  ----------  ---------  -------------------
Alabama                   20                  38         30  Circuit or district
 (Northern)                                                   meetings,
 6 judges                                                     activities
                          12                  55         48  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           2                  12          7  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                          15                  25         21  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1995 total                49                 130        106
                          25                  44         37  Circuit or district
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                          22                  90         84  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           1                   5          4  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                          15                  42         28  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1996 total                63                 181        153
Georgia                    4                  18         12  Circuit or district
 (Middle)\a                                                   meetings,
 2.5 judges                                                   activities
                          11                  45         36  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           1                   4          3  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1995 total                16                  67         51
Georgia (Middle)           4                  16         11  Circuit or district
 continued                                                    meetings,
                                                              activities
                          16                  54         48  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           3                  10          9  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1996 total                23                  80         68
Georgia                    3                  12          9  Circuit or district
 (Southern)\a                                                 meetings,
 2.5 judges                                                   activities
                           3                   5          3  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           1                   2          2  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1995 total                 7                  19         14
                           3                  12          7  Circuit or district
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           6                  14         12  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           1                   2          2  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1996 Total                10                  28         21
Texas                      1                   4          3  Circuit or district
 (Eastern)\b                                                  meetings,
 2 judges                                                     activities
                           0                   0          0  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           2                   6          4  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1995 total                 3                  10          7
                           1                   4          3  Circuit or district
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           5                  16         13  AOUSC or FJC
                                                              workshops,
                                                              seminars,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  NCBJ, NABT, or
                                                              NACTT conferences
                           0                   0          0  Judicial Conference
                                                              meetings,
                                                              activities
                           0                   0          0  Other (e.g., law
                                                              school seminars,
                                                              bar association
                                                              meetings)
1996 total                 6                  20         16
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a The Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia share a bankruptcy
judgeship.  The travel data for this shared judgeship are included in
the totals for the Middle District of Georgia. 

\b The Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy
judgeships, but one of the positions is vacant.  Currently, the
second judge in the district is a recalled judge.  Our analysis
excluded the travel data for the recalled judge because we did not
receive or report travel data for recalled judges in the 15 districts
for which we reported in our correspondence of August 8, 1997. 

Source:  GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges' travel data. 



                                    Table II.9
                     
                          Information on the Purpose and
                        Destinations of Bankruptcy Judges'
                        Noncase-Related Trips in the Four
                      Districts Whose Weighted Filings Were
                        1,500 or More But Did not Request
                     Judgeships in the 1997 Assessment Cycle

                        Number of
District/number of     trips each                         Destination (number of
judges/year                  year  Purpose                trips)
---------------------  ----------  ---------------------  ----------------------
Alabama (Northern)             20  Circuit or district    Birmingham, AL (7);
6 judges                           meetings, activities   Asheville, NC (4);
                                                          Tuscaloosa, AL (4);
                                                          Anniston, AL (4);
                                                          Amelia Island FL

                               12  AOUSC or FJC           Washington, D.C. (4);
                                   workshops, seminars,   San Antonio, TX (3);
                                   activities             Orlando, FL (2);
                                                          Boston, MA; Marina Del
                                                          Rey, CA; Clearwater,
                                                          FL

                                2  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   New Orleans, LA;
                                   conferences            Boston, MA

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                               15  Other (e.g., law       Birmingham, AL (6);
                                   school seminars, bar   Montgomery, AL (3);
                                   association meetings)  Washington, D.C. (2);
                                                          Talladega, AL; Troy,
                                                          AL; Perdido Beach, AL;
                                                          Orlando, FL

1995 total                     49                         N/A

                               25  Circuit or district    Birmingham, AL (9);
                                   meetings, activities   Panama City, FL (6);
                                                          Tuscaloosa, AL (4);
                                                          Decatur, AL (3);
                                                          Anniston, AL (3)

                               22  AOUSC or FJC           San Francisco, CA (7);
                                   workshops, seminars,   Atlanta, GA (6); San
                                   activities             Antonio, Tx (3);
                                                          Kansas City, MO (2);
                                                          Tempe, AZ; Mobile, AL;
                                                          Chicago, IL;
                                                          Philadelphia, PA

                                1  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   San Diego, CA
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                               15  Other (e.g., law       Perdido Beach, AL (4);
                                   school seminars, bar   Montgomery, AL (3);
                                   association meetings)  Birmingham, AL (2);
                                                          Hilton Head, SC; San
                                                          Antonio, TX; Orlando,
                                                          Florida; Tuskegee, AL;
                                                          San Francisco, CA;
                                                          Sofia, Bulgaria

1996 total                     63

Georgia (Middle)\a              4  Circuit or district    Asheville, NC (3);
2.5 judges                         meetings, activities   Amelia Island, FL

                               11  AOUSC or FJC           Boston, MA (3); San
                                   workshops, seminars,   Francisco, CA (2);
                                   activities             Washington, D.C. (2);
                                                          Amelia Island, FL; San
                                                          Antonio, TX; Atlanta,
                                                          GA; Augusta, GA

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                1  Other (e.g., law       San Francisco, CA
                                   school seminars, bar
                                   association meetings)

1995 total                     16

                                4  Circuit or district    Panama City, FL (3);
                                   meetings, activities   Ponte Vedra, FL

                               16  AOUSC or FJC           Chicago, IL (3); San
                                   workshops, seminars,   Antonio, TX (3);
                                   activities             Macon, GA (2); San
                                                          Francisco, CA;
                                                          Philadelphia, PA;
                                                          Washington, D.C.;
                                                          Savannah, GA; Amelia
                                                          Island, FL; Brunswick,
                                                          GA; Atlanta, GA;
                                                          Albany, GA

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                3  Other (e.g., law       Washington, D.C. (2);
                                   school seminars, bar   Santa Fe, NM
                                   association meetings)

1996 total                     23

Georgia (Southern)\a            3  Circuit or district    Asheville, NC (2);
2.5 judges                         meetings, activities   Amelia Island, FL

                                3  AOUSC or FJC           Amelia Island, FL (2);
                                   workshops, seminars,   Savannah, GA
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                1  Other (e.g., law       Atlanta, GA
                                   school seminars, bar
                                   association meetings)

1995 total                      7

Georgia (Southern)              3  Circuit or district    Panama City, FL (2);
continued                          meetings, activities   Ponte Vedra, FL

                                6  AOUSC or FJC           Amelia Island, FL (2);
                                   workshops, seminars,   San Francisco, CA;
                                   activities             Brunswick, GA;
                                                          Atlanta, GA; Savannah,
                                                          GA

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                1  Other (e.g., law       Brunswick, GA
                                   school seminars, bar
                                   association meetings)

1996 total                     10

Texas (Eastern)\b               1  Circuit or district    New Orleans, LA
2 judges                           meetings, activities

                                0  AOUSC or FJC           N/A
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                2  Other (e.g., law       Palm Beach, FL;
                                   school seminars, bar   Houston, TX
                                   association meetings)

1995 total                      3

                                1  Circuit or district    Ft. Worth, TX
                                   meetings, activities

                                5  AOUSC or FJC           Tyler, TX (2); San
                                   workshops, seminars,   Francisco, CA;
                                   activities             Washington, DC; San
                                                          Antonio, TX

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                0  Other (e.g., law       N/A
                                   school seminars, bar
                                   association meetings)

1996 total                      6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A = not applicable. 

\a The Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia share a bankruptcy
judgeship.  The travel data for this shared judgeship are included in
the totals for the Middle District of Georgia. 

\b The Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy
judgeships, but one of the positions is vacant.  Currently, the
second judge in the district is a recalled judge.  Our analysis
excluded the travel data for the recalled judge because we did not
receive or report travel data for recalled judges in the 15 districts
for which we reported in our correspondence of August 8, 1997. 

Source:  GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges' travel data. 



                                   Table II.10
                     
                      Information on the Purpose and Paying
                       Organizations for Bankruptcy Judges'
                        Noncase-Related Trips in the Four
                      Districts Whose Weighted Filings Were
                        1,500 or More But Did not Request
                     Judgeships in the 1997 Assessment Cycle

                        Number of
District/number of     trips each
judges/year                  year  Purpose                Paying organization
---------------------  ----------  ---------------------  ----------------------
Alabama (Northern)             20  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary (20)
6 judges                           meetings, activities

                               12  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (12)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                2  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   NCBJ endowment; NACTT
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                               15  Other (e.g., law       Arts Council (4);
                                   school seminars, bar   Univ. of Alabama Law
                                   association meetings)  School (3); Cumberland
                                                          School of Law (2);
                                                          Alabama Bar Assoc.
                                                          (2); U.S. AID (2);
                                                          Alabama Bankers;
                                                          American Bar Assoc.

1995 total                     49

                               25  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary (25)
                                   meetings, activities

                               22  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (22)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                1  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   NCBJ
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                               15  Other (e.g., law       Alabama State Bar (4);
                                   school seminars, bar   Arts Council (3);
                                   association meetings)  American Bar Assoc.
                                                          (2); Cumberland School
                                                          of Law (2); U.S. AID;
                                                          ABI; Alabama Courts;
                                                          Assoc. of Bankruptcy
                                                          Judicial Assts.

1996 total                     63

Georgia (Middle)\a              4  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary (4)
2.5 judges                         meetings, activities

                               11  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (11)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                1  Other (e.g., law       Norton Institute on
                                   school seminars, bar   Bankruptcy Law
                                   association meetings)

1995 total                     16

                                4  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary (4)
                                   meetings, activities

                               16  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (16)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                3  Other (e.g., law       NCBJ (2); National
                                   school seminars, bar   Bankruptcy Review
                                   association meetings)  Commission

1996 total                     23

Georgia (Southern)\a            3  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary (3)
2.5 judges                         meetings, activities

                                3  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (3)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                1  Other (e.g., law       Institute for
                                   school seminars, bar   Continuing Legal
                                   association meetings)  Education (ICLE) -
                                                          Georgia

1995 total                      7

Georgia (Southern)              3  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary (3)
continued                          meetings, activities

                                6  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (6)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                1  Other (e.g., law       Federal Judiciary
                                   school seminars, bar
                                   association meetings)

1996 total                     10

Texas (Eastern)\b               1  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary
2 judges                           meetings, activities

                                0  AOUSC or FJC           N/A
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                2  Other (e.g., law       State Bar of Texas;
                                   school seminars, bar   American College of
                                   association meetings)  Mortgage Attorneys

1995 total                      3

                                1  Circuit or district    Federal Judiciary
                                   meetings, activities

                                5  AOUSC or FJC           Federal Judiciary (5)
                                   workshops, seminars,
                                   activities

                                0  NCBJ, NABT, or NACTT   N/A
                                   conferences

                                0  Judicial Conference    N/A
                                   meetings, activities

                                0  Other (e.g., law       N/A
                                   school seminars, bar
                                   association meetings)

1996 total                      6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note:  N/A = not applicable. 

\a The Middle and Southern Districts of Georgia share a bankruptcy
judgeship.  The travel data for this shared judgeship are included in
the totals for the Middle District of Georgia. 

\b The Eastern District of Texas has two authorized bankruptcy
judgeships, but one of the positions is vacant.  Currently, the
second judge in the district is a recalled judge.  Our analysis
excluded the travel data for the recalled judge because we did not
receive or report travel data for recalled judges in the 15 districts
for which we reported in our correspondence of August 8, 1997. 

Source:  GAO analysis of bankruptcy judges' travel data. 


*** End of document. ***