This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-789T
entitled 'Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a Measure
of Judges' Case-Related Workload' which was released on May 22, 2003.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, Committee
on the Judiciary, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, May 22, 2003:
Federal Bankruptcy Judges:
Weighted Case Filings as a Measure of Judges' Case-Related Workload:
Statement of William Jenkins, Jr., Director
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
GAO-03-789T:
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our review and
assessment of bankruptcy court-weighted case filings, the workload
measure the Judicial Conference first considers in assessing the need
for additional bankruptcy judgeships. Weighted filings are a
statistical measure of the estimated judge time that specific types of
bankruptcy cases are expected to take. For example, a business chapter
7 bankruptcy case with assets of $50,000 to $499,999 is expected to
take about twice as much judge time as a nonbusiness chapter 7 case
with assets of $50,000 to $499,999. You asked us to assess whether
weighted case filings are a reasonable means of measuring bankruptcy
judges' case-related workload and to assess the methodology of any
proposal to update the current case weights.
My statement today focuses on the weighted case filings as a measure of
case-related bankruptcy judge workload. My testimony is based on the
results of our review of documentation provided by the Federal Judicial
Center (FJC) and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)
and interviews with officials in each organization. My statement
includes the following major points:
* The time demands on bankruptcy judges are largely a function of the
number and complexity of the cases on their dockets. Not all cases
necessarily take the same amount of judge time. Some types of cases may
take more judge time than others.
* In assessing the need for new bankruptcy judgeships, the Judicial
Conference relies on the weighted case filings to be a reasonably
accurate measure of case-related bankruptcy judge workload. Whether
weighted case filings are a reasonably accurate workload measure rests
in turn on the soundness of the methodology used to develop the case
weights.
* On the basis of the documentation provided for our review and
discussions with FJC and AOUSC officials, we concluded that weighted
case filings, as approved by the Judicial Conference in 1991 and
amended in 1996, are likely to be a reasonably accurate means of
measuring the case-related workload of bankruptcy judges.
* The original case weights are now about 12 years old and were based
on time data that are now about 15 years old. Changes in the
intervening years in such factors as case characteristics and case
management practices may have affected whether the case weights
continue to be a reasonably accurate measure of case-related judge
workload. Some of these changes may have increased the time demands on
bankruptcy judges and others reduced time demands. To the extent that
the case weights may now understate or overstate time demands on
bankruptcy judges, the weights could potentially result in the Judicial
Conference understating or overstating the need for new bankruptcy
judgeships. The Judicial Conference's Committee on the Administration
of the Bankruptcy System has approved a revision of the current weights
whose methodological design is reasonable.
* The accuracy of the case weights is also dependent upon accurately
assigning each case filed in each bankruptcy court to the appropriate
case weight category. AOUSC said that its staff took a number of steps
to ensure that individual cases were assigned to the appropriate case
weight category. These are described in appendix I. We did not evaluate
how effective these measures may be in ensuring data accuracy.
Background:
Biennially, the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's principal
policymaking body, assesses the judiciary's needs for additional
judgeships.[Footnote 1] If the Conference determines that additional
judgeships are needed, it transmits a request to Congress identifying
the number, type (courts of appeals, district, or bankruptcy), and
location of the judgeships it is requesting. In 2003, the Judicial
Conference sent to Congress requests for 93 new judgeships--11 for the
courts of appeals, 46 for the district courts, and 36 for the
bankruptcy courts.
The demands upon judges' time are largely a function of both the number
and complexity of the cases on their dockets. Some types of cases may
demand relatively little time, and others may require many hours of
work. The federal judiciary has developed workload measures for
bankruptcy judges to estimate the national average amount of a judge's
time that different types of cases may require. Individual judges may
actually spend more or less time than this average on specific cases
within each type--such as personal chapter 7 bankruptcy cases with
assets of less than $50,000 or chapter 13 cases with liabilities of
$50,000 or more (see app. II).
In assessing the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships in a
bankruptcy court, the Judicial Conference first considers the court's
weighted case filings. The Judicial Conference has established 1,500
annual weighted case filings per authorized judgeship as an indicator
of a bankruptcy court's potential need for additional judgeships. This
represents about 1,500 annual hours of case-related judge time. The
Conference's policy for assessing bankruptcy judgeship needs recognizes
that judges' workloads may be affected by factors not captured in the
bankruptcy-weighted case filings. Examples of such factors include
historical caseload data and filing trends; geographic, economic, and
demographic factors in the bankruptcy district; and the availability of
alternative solutions and resources for handling a court's workload,
such as assistance from judges outside the district. However, our
analysis focused solely on the weighted case filings workload measure.
Each case filed in a bankruptcy court is assigned a case weight. The
case weight statistically represents the national average amount of
judicial time, in hours, each type of bankruptcy case would be expected
to require. The case weights are based on a 1988-1989 study in which
bankruptcy judges completed diaries on how many hours they spent on
specific types of cases and noncase-related work. Total annual weighted
case filings for any specific bankruptcy court is the sum of the
weights associated with each of the cases filed in the court in a year.
Total annual weighted case filings per judgeship represent the
estimated average amount of judge time that would be required to
complete the cases filed in a specific bankruptcy court in a year.
Weighted case filings per judgeship is the total weighted filings
divided by the number of authorized judgeships. For example, if a
bankruptcy court had 5,100 weighted case filings and three authorized
judgeships, the weighted case filings per judgeship would be 1,700.
Because this exceeds the 1,500 threshold, the Judicial Conference would
consider this court for an additional judgeship. However, it should be
noted that the Judicial Conference's policy is to consider additional
judgeships only for those courts that request them. Thus, if a court
would otherwise be eligible for an additional judgeship, but did not
request one, the Judicial Conference would not request a judgeship for
that court.
How the Case Weights Were Developed:
The Federal Judicial Center (FJC) developed the weights, adopted by the
Judicial Conference in 1991, based on a 1988-1989 time study in which
272 bankruptcy judges (97 percent of all bankruptcy judge in those
years) recorded the time they spent on specific cases for a 10-week
period. Unlike the District Court time study, whose goal was to follow
each sample case from filing to disposition--a "case tracking" study--
this study was a "diary study" in which judges recorded in a time diary
the hours spent on each case in the study and for other judicial work
for the 10-week period. This period of time may or may not have covered
the entire life of the case from filing through disposition. Appendix
III includes a more detailed comparison of case-tracking and diary time
studies as methods of capturing judge time spent on specific cases.
The case weights were developed using a two-step process.[Footnote 2]
First, time data were collected from 272 judges (97 percent of the
total of 280 bankruptcy judges at the time of the study). The judges
recorded the time they spent on a sample of cases and other judgeship
work over a 10-week period. The judges were subdivided into five groups
and the recording time period for each group was staggered over a 1-
year period. Second, the researchers assessed the relative impact on
judicial workload of different types of cases--that is, which types of
cases seemed to take more or less time--and developed individual case
weights for specific case categories. The basic case weight
computations involved calculating the average amount of time spent on
cases of each type during each month of their life. These averages were
then summed to determine the total amount of time for each case type.
Once the case weights had been created, total weighted case filings
were calculated for each bankruptcy court. Then, weighted caseloads
were transformed into initial estimates of required judgeships. These
initial estimates were adjusted to account for factors other than those
covered by the case weight calculation, such as the court's case
management practices and the time required to travel to divisional
offices. After all adjustments, the study concluded that bankruptcy
judges spent about 1,280 hours annually on direct case-related work and
an average of 660 hours on matters not directly related to specific
cases (e.g., on court and chambers administration, work-related travel,
and other matters related to the judicial role).
When it approved the case weights in 1991, the Judicial Conference
stated that it expected that in addition to other judicial duties, a
bankruptcy court should have at least 1,500 annual case-related hours
per judgeship to justify additional judgeships. The federal work year
is 2,080 hours per year, based on a 40-hour work week. Assuming that
judges spent 1,500 hours annually on cases, there would remain 580
hours for federal holidays, annual leave, training, and noncase-related
administrative tasks. Of course, the actual time that individual judges
spend on case-related and non case-related work will vary.
Assessment of Case Weight Methodology:
Overall, the methodology used to develop the bankruptcy case weights
appears to be reasonable. The methodology included a valid sampling
strategy, a very high participation rate among bankruptcy judges, and a
reasonable means of adjusting for such factors as missing data. A
notable strength of the methodology was the high participation rate by
judges--97 percent of the bankruptcy judges at the time of the study.
Thus, participating judges represented almost the entire universe of
bankruptcy judges that could be included. The sampling period was not
limited to a single time of year, thus minimizing potential bias due to
variations in case filings by time of year. FJC researchers
systematically used the reported time data to develop the case weights
and made an effort to address all known limitations in the data. In
computing the case weights, assumptions, and adjustments needed to be
made to account for time data that were not linked to specific cases,
missing data, and other factors. Both the assumptions and the methods
used to make these adjustments appeared to be reasonable. It is
important to note that the case weights were designed to estimate the
impact of case filings on the workload of bankruptcy judges. Noncase-
related time demands, such as time spent on court administration tasks,
are not included in the case weights. The Judicial Conference focuses
its analysis of the need for additional judges primarily on the demands
that result from caseload, not noncase-related tasks and
responsibilities.
Potential limitations of the methodology included the possibility of
judges using different standards and definitions to record their time.
Although the judges had written instructions on how to record their
time, judges may have varied in how they interpreted case-related and
noncase-related hours. To the extent this occurred, it may have
resulted in the recording of noncomparable time data among judges.
Because some cases require longer calendar time to complete than
others, not all cases in the sample were completed at the end of the 10
weeks in which judges recorded their time. In particular, the study
captured only a small portion of the total time required for very large
business bankruptcies. Where the cases were not completed, it was
necessary to estimate the judge time that would have been required to
complete the case. However, the method used to make these estimates was
also reasonable.
Amending the Case Weights--"Mega" Chapter 11 Cases:
The size and time demands of chapter 11 business bankruptcies vary
considerably. The bankruptcy case weights, which the Judicial
Conference approved for use in 1991, included a weight of 11.234 hours
for chapter 11 business filings involving $1 million or more and a
weight of 4.021 hours for chapter 11 business filings with assets
between $50,000 and $99,999.
In 1996, a new method was used for measuring the workload required for
very large ("mega") chapter 11 business cases. This measure was also
developed by the FJC and approved by the Judicial Conference's
Bankruptcy Committee. The mega cases were defined as "those involving
extremely large assets, unusual public interest, a high level of
creditor involvement, complex debt, a significant amount of related
litigation, or a combination of such factors." The Administrative
Office of the U.S. Courts defines mega chapter 11 cases as a single
case or set of jointly administered or consolidated cases that involve
$100 million or more in assets and 1,000 or more creditors. Mega
chapter 11 cases are distinct from other large chapter 11 cases in that
they generally involve a larger number of associated filings and extend
over a longer period of time.
The 1991 case weights did not fully reflect the judge time required for
these very large, complex bankruptcy filings. The weighting scheme was
a particular problem for the Southern District of New York and the
District of Delaware, both of which have a high number of mega cases.
At the time of the 1988-1989 bankruptcy time study, the highest value
for chapter 11 cases in the bankruptcy administrative database was $1
million or more. Subsequently, changes were made to the database, which
now includes several subcategories for cases above $1 million, the
highest being $100 million and above. Also, the time study estimated
the judge time required by cases for the first 22 months after the case
was filed, a period which may not have encompassed the entire calendar
time required to dispose of the case. Both of these factors contributed
to the inability to create case weights for the mega chapter 11 cases.
Beginning in 1996, the adjustment of weighted case filings to account
for mega chapter 11 cases was implemented in the two districts where
most of these cases have been filed--first in the Southern District of
New York and later in the District of Delaware. FJC's research
suggested there was no clear linear relationship between asset size and
judge time in mega chapter 11 cases. Instead, FJC selected an
adjustment method using data routinely collected on docketed events in
bankruptcy cases, such as docketed hearings. The method used to adjust
the case weights for mega chapter 11 cases consists of a preliminary
weighted caseload computation, followed by a ratio adjustment step. The
preliminary weighted caseload is the sum of the bankruptcy case weights
for each case filing associated with the mega chapter 11 cases. For
example, if a mega case consisted of two consolidated cases, one with
assets of between $50,000 and $99,999 (weight: 4.021) and one with
assets greater than $1 million (weight: 11.234), the preliminary case
weight would be 15.255 (4.021 plus 11.234). In the Southern District of
New York, this preliminary case weight is adjusted by the ratio of
docketed events per weighted case-hour for mega chapter 11 cases to the
docketed events per weighted case-:
hour for nonmega chapter 11 cases involving more than $1 million in
assets.[Footnote 3] In the District of Delaware, where mega chapter 11
cases tended to have a larger number of consolidated filings, several
ranges of the number of associated filings are used to classify mega
chapter 11 cases. For each range, a separate docketing ratio adjustment
is calculated in the same manner as it is for the District of Southern
New York. In both districts, the final step is to report these
calculations over a period of several years and use the average value
across the years as the adjusted weighted caseload for mega chapter 11
cases. The purpose of this final step is to moderate the effect of
fluctuations in the number of mega chapter 11 cases filed from year to
year.
Assessment of Mega Case Weighting Method:
The methodology used to adjust the weighted caseload for mega chapter
11 cases, specifically the ratio adjustment step, cannot be thoroughly
assessed because there are no objective time data to use for
comparison. The FJC selected this methodology after extensive research
on other possible methods. The overall strategy of applying a ratio
adjustment using auxiliary information, followed by use of a multiyear
average, is a reasonable approach.
Research Design for Updating the Bankruptcy Case Weights:
In June 2002, the Judicial Conference Committee on the Administration
of the Bankruptcy System decided to begin a study to create new
bankruptcy case weights. The preliminary design for the study has a
two-phase structure. In the first phase, a diary time study would be
conducted, and the time study data would be used to develop new case
weights. In the second phase, research is planned to assess whether it
is possible to develop "event profiles" that would allow future
updating of the weights without the necessity of conducting a time
study for each update. Future updating of the weights could include
revision of case weight values and/or developing case weights for new
case categories. The data from the time study can be used to validate
the feasibility of the new approach.
The preliminary design for the study appears to be reasonable. In the
first phase, new weights would be constructed using objective data from
the time study. The second part represents experimental research to
determine if it is possible to make revisions to the weights in the
future without the requirement of conducting a time study. If the
research determines this is possible, it would be possible to update
the case weights more frequently with less cost than required by a time
study.
If enacted, it is likely that the bankruptcy reform legislation passed
by the House of Representatives would probably affect the time
bankruptcy judges would need to devote to personal bankruptcy cases.
Personal bankruptcy filings accounted for 97 percent of the total
1,547,669 bankruptcy filings in fiscal year 2002. Currently, the great
majority of those who file for personal bankruptcy (70 percent in
fiscal year 2002), file under chapter 7, in which their eligible debts
are discharged. Under the terms of the proposed legislation, a greater
proportion of those who file for personal bankruptcy will be required
to file under chapter 13 and enter into a 5-year debt repayment plan.
If the bankruptcy reform is enacted during the course of the new
bankruptcy time study, FJC officials said they would recommend halting
the time study and allowing some period for the implementation of the
new law before restarting the study. Because personal bankruptcy
filings represent the vast majority of bankruptcy filings, this seems
to be a prudent plan.
Conclusions:
On the basis of the documentation provided for our review and
discussions with FJC and AOUSC officials, we concluded that weighted
case filings, as approved by the Judicial Conference in 1991 and
amended in 1996, was a reasonably accurate means of measuring the case-
related workload of bankruptcy judges. The 1991 bankruptcy case
weights--which cover all but mega chapter 11 business filings--are now
about 12 years old, and the data on which they were based are about 15
years old. Changes since 1991 in such factors as case characteristics
and case management may have affected whether the weights continue to
be a reasonable measure of case-related bankruptcy judge workload. The
design for revising the current bankruptcy case weights seems
reasonable. The new weights would be based on the same type of
objective time data as are the current weights, and the time data from
the new bankruptcy case weight study can be used to validate the
feasibility of using an event-based approach for future updates of the
weights.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, I would be pleased
to answer any questions that you or other members of the Subcommittee
may have.
Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information regarding this testimony, please contact
William Jenkins, Jr., at (202) 512-8777. Individuals making key
contributions to this testimony included David Alexander, Kriti
Bhandari, Chris Moriarity, and R. Rochelle Burns.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Quality Assurance Steps the Judiciary Takes to Ensure the
Accuracy of Case Filing Data for Weighted Filings:
All current records related to bankruptcy filings that are reported to
the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and used for the
bankruptcy court case weights are generated by the automated case
management systems in the bankruptcy courts. Filings records are
generated monthly and transmitted to AOUSC for inclusion in its
national database. On a quarterly basis, AOUSC summarizes and compiles
the records into published tables, and for given periods, these tables
serve as the basis for the weighted caseload determinations.
In responses to written questions, AOUSC described numerous steps taken
to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the filings data, including
the following[Footnote 4]:
* Built-in, automated quality control edits are done when data are
entered electronically at the court level. The edits are intended to
ensure that obvious errors are not entered into a local court's
database. Examples of the types of errors screened for are the district
office in which the case was filed, the U.S. Code title and section of
the filing, and the judge code. Most bankruptcy courts have staff
responsible for data quality control.
* A second set of automated quality control edits are used by AOUSC
when transferring data from the court level to its national database.
These edits screen for missing or invalid codes that are not screened
for at the court level, such as dates of case events, the type of
proceeding, and the type of case. Records that fail one or more checks
are not added to the national database and are returned electronically
to the originating court for correction and resubmission.
* Monthly listings of all records added to the national database are
sent electronically to the involved courts for verification.
* Courts' monthly and quarterly case filings are monitored regularly to
identify and verify significant increases or decreases from the normal
monthly or annual totals.
* Tables on case filings are published on the Judiciary's intranet for
review by the courts.
* Detailed and extensive statistical reporting guidance is provided to
courts for reporting bankruptcy statistics. This guidance includes
information on general reporting requirements, data entry procedures,
and data processing and reporting programs.
* Periodic training sessions are conducted for bankruptcy court staff
on measures and techniques associated with data quality control
procedures.
In addition to the quality control procedures listed above, AOUSC
indicated that an audit was performed in 1997 by Clifton Gunderson
L.L.C., a certified public accounting firm, to test the accuracy of the
bankruptcy statistical data maintained by bankruptcy courts and the
AOUSC. The firm compared individual case records in 11 courts
nationwide with data in the national database for cases filed in 1993,
1994, and 1995 for completeness and accuracy. Excluding problems in one
district, the overall match rate of all statistical data elements
captured exceeded 97 percent, and the fields with most mismatches were
not relevant to the bankruptcy weighted caseload. AOUSC was unaware of
any other efforts to verify the accuracy electronic data to "hard copy"
case records for bankruptcy courts. AOUSC noted that it did not have
time to seek detailed information from the individual bankruptcy courts
on this issue within the short time available to respond to our
questions.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Bankruptcy Case Weights and Confidence Intervals for All
Cases Except "Mega" Chapter 11 Business Filings:
Type of case: Chapter 7--Business:
Type of case: Assets less than $50,000; Case weight in hours: 0.335;
Confidence interval: 0.312 - 0.359.
Type of case: Assets $50,000-$499,999; Case weight in hours: 0.413;
Confidence interval: 0.382 - 0.444.
Type of case: Assets greater than $499,999; Case weight in hours:
1.704; Confidence interval: 1.426 - 1.982.
Type of case: Chapter 7--Nonbusiness:
Type of case: Assets less than $50,000; Case weight in hours: 0.089;
Confidence interval: 0.079 - 0.099.
Type of case: Assets $50,000-$499,999; Case weight in hours: 0.160;
Confidence interval: 0.144 - 0.176.
Type of case: Assets greater than $499,999; Case weight in hours:
0.302; Confidence interval: 0.239 - 0.365.
Type of case: Chapter 11:
Type of case: Assets less than $50,000; Case weight in hours: 5.372;
Confidence interval: 5.054 - 5.690.
Type of case: Assets $50,000-$99,999; Case weight in hours: 4.021;
Confidence interval: 3.692 - 4.350.
Type of case: Assets $100,000-$499,999; Case weight in hours: 4.285;
Confidence interval: 3.991 - 4.579.
Type of case: Assets $500,000-$999,999; Case weight in hours: 5.143;
Confidence interval: 4.769 - 5.517.
Type of case: Assets of $1 million or more; Case weight in hours:
11.234; Confidence interval: 10.397 - 12.071.
Type of case: Chapter 12; Case weight in hours: 4.040; Confidence
interval: 3.558 - 4.522.
Type of case: Chapter 13:
Type of case: Liabilities less than $50,000; Case weight in hours:
0.310; Confidence interval: 0.269 - 0.351.
Type of case: Liabilities at least $50,000; Case weight in hours:
0.457; Confidence interval: 0.410 - 0.504.
Type of case: Other cases; Case weight in hours: 0.194; Confidence
interval: 0.074 - 0.314.
Type of case: Adversary proceedings; Case weight in hours: [Empty];
Confidence interval: [Empty].
Type of case: Dischargeability; Case weight in hours: 1.346; Confidence
interval: 1.232 - 1.460.
Type of case: Other; Case weight in hours: 2.016; Confidence interval:
1.722 - 2.310.
Source: Federal Judicial Center.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II:I Measuring Judicial Workload Using the Collection of Time
Study Data:
The current Bankruptcy Court and District Court workload measures were
developed using data collected from time studies. The District Court
time study took place between 1987 and 1993, and the Bankruptcy Court
time study took place between 1988 and 1989. Different procedures were
used in these two time studies. The Bankruptcy Court time study
protocol is an example of a "diary" study, where judges recorded time
and activity details for all of their official business over a 10 week
period. The District Court time study protocol is an example of a
"case-tracking" study, where a sample of cases were selected, and all
judges who worked on a given sample case recorded the amount of time
they spent on the case. Time studies, in general, have the substantial
benefit of providing quantitative information that can be used to
create objective and defensible measures of judicial workload, along
with the capability to provide estimates of the uncertainty in the
measures.
Estimating Judge Time in Diary and Case Tracking Studies:
At the conclusion of a case-tracking study, total time spent on each
sample case closed during the study period is readily available by
summing the recorded times spent on the case by each judge who worked
on the case. For a given case type, the summed recorded times can be
averaged to obtain an estimate of the average judicial time per case
for that case type.
For a diary study, however, it is necessary to make estimates of
judicial workload for all cases that were not both opened and closed
during the data collection period. This estimation step requires
information from the caseload database, and thus the accuracy of
estimates depends in part on the accuracy of the caseload data. Two
kinds of information are required from the caseload database: case type
and length of time the case has been open.
With the diary approach, the total judicial time that is required for
lengthy case types is estimated by combining "snap shots" of the time
required by such cases of different ages. Thus, in theory, reducing
accurate weights for lengthy case types is not problematic. In
practice, however, difficulties may be encountered. For example, in the
1988-1989 bankruptcy time study, the asset and liability information
for cases older than 22 months was inadequate and appropriate
adjustments had to be made. In addition, difficulties may arise if only
a small number of cases of the lengthy type are in the system. This is
an issue FJC said it is considering as it finalizes how to assess the
judicial work associated with mega cases in the upcoming bankruptcy
case-weighting study.
Comparing Case-Tracking Studies and Diary Studies:
Each study type has advantages and disadvantages. The following
outlines the similarities and differences in terms of burden,
timeliness of data collection, post-data collection steps, accuracy,
and comprehensiveness.
Burden on Participants:
Each study type places burden on judicial personnel during data
collection. It is not clear that one study type is less burdensome than
the other. The diary study procedure requires more concentrated effort,
but data are collected for a shorter period of time.
Timeliness of Data Collection:
Data collection for a diary study can be completed more quickly than
for a case-tracking study.
Post Data Collection Steps:
More effort is needed to convert diary study data to judicial workload
estimates than case tracking study data. Also, the accuracy of
estimates from diary study data depends in part on the accuracy and
objectivity of the information in the caseload database.
Data Accuracy:
It is not clear that one study type collects more accurate data than
the other study type. Some of the Bankruptcy Court case-related time
study data could not be linked to a specific case type due to
misreporting errors and/or errors in the caseload database. Some error
of this type likely is unavoidable because of the requirement to record
all time rather than record time for specific cases only. However, it
is plausible that a diary study collects higher quality data, on
average, because all official time is to be recorded during the study
period; judicial personnel become accustomed to recording their time.
In contrast, the data quality for a case-tracking study could decline
over the study's length; for example, after a substantial proportion of
the sample cases are closed, judicial personnel could become less
accustomed to recording time on the remaining open cases.
Comprehensiveness and Efficiency:
In theory, a case-tracking study collects more comprehensive
information about judicial effort on a given case than a diary study,
because data for a sampled case almost always are collected over the
duration of the case. (Data collection may be terminated for a few
cases that remain open, or are reopened, many years after initial
filing.) For case types that simultaneously stay open for a long period
and require a substantial amount of judicial effort, it is possible
that a diary study would not be able to produce suitable estimates of
judicial workload due to a lack of data.
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Chief Justice of the United States presides over the
Conference, which consists of the chief judges of the 13 courts of
appeals, a district judge from each of the 12 geographic circuits, and
the chief judge of the Court of International Trade. The Conference
meets twice a year.
[2] The methodology is described in detail in Gordon Bermant, Patricia
Lombard, and Elizabeth Wiggins, A Day in the Life: The Federal Judicial
Center's 1988-1989 Bankruptcy Court Time Study, American Bankruptcy Law
Journal, Vol. 65 (Lexington, SC: 1991).
[3] This determines "how the level of docketing in mega cases differs
from the docketing in non-mega cases of one million dollars or more."
[4] Given the limited time for our review, AOUSC was unable to obtain
input to our questions on data quality control procedures from
individual courts.