This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-808T
entitled 'Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Measuring Judges' Case-Related
Workload' which was released on June 16, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
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, House
Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 11:00 a.m. EDT:
June 16, 2009:
Federal Bankruptcy Judges:
Measuring Judges' Case-Related Workload:
Statement of William Jenkins, Jr., Director:
Homeland Security and Justice:
GAO-09-808T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-808T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Commercial and Administrative Law, House Committee on the Judiciary.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Judicial Conference of the United States, the federal judiciary’s
principal policymaking body, uses 1,500 annual weighted case filings
per authorized judgeship (judgeship position) in a bankruptcy court as
an indicator of the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships for that
court. 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.
In May 2003 GAO testified on whether weighted case filings were a
reasonably accurate measure of the case-related workload of bankruptcy
judges. The accuracy of weighted case filings rests in turn on the
soundness of the methodology used to develop them.
GAO’s work focused on whether the methodologies used to develop the
current case weights and to revise and update those weights were likely
to result in reasonably accurate measures of bankruptcy judges’ case-
related workload.
This statement is based on GAO’s May 2003 testimony on weighted case
filings as a measure of bankruptcy judges’ case-related workload and
documentation provided by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) in June
2009 on subsequent efforts to update the current weighted filings
measure.
What GAO Found:
In May 2003 GAO reported that the methodology used to develop the case-
related workload measure for federal bankruptcy judges—weighted case
filings—were likely to result in reasonably accurate workload measures.
The current study to revise those weights, begun in 2008, uses the same
methodology as the study used to develop the current case weights and,
as designed, is also likely to result in reasonably accurate workload
measures.
* The time demands on bankruptcy judges are largely a function of the
number and complexity of the cases on their dockets, with some cases
taking more time than others. To measure these differences, the
Judicial Conference uses weighted case filings, which are a statistical
measure of the average estimated judge time that specific types of
bankruptcy cases are expected to take. Each case filed is assigned a
weight, and the total weight of all cases filed in a bankruptcy court
divided by the number of judgeships for that court provides a measure
of the total average case-related workload per judgeship.
* 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 the
weighted filings are reasonably accurate depends in turn upon 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 Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
officials, GAO concluded in 2003 that the case weights, as approved by
the Judicial Conference in 1991 and 1996, were likely to be reasonably
accurate.
* The original case weights are now 18 years old. Changes in the
intervening years in case characteristics, case management practices,
and the implementation of new statutory or procedural requirements,
such as the many changes in 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act, may have affected the continued accuracy of
the current case weights.
* To the extent that the case weights now understate or overstate the
total time demands on bankruptcy judges, use of the weights could
potentially result in the Judicial Conference understating or
overstating the need for additional bankruptcy judgeships.
* In 2008, the Federal Judicial Center began a study to revise the
current case weights that is designed to collect data on the time
bankruptcy judges spend on cases filed during 5, 10-week data
collection periods from May 2008 through May 2009. Each active and
recalled bankruptcy judge is to participate during one of the five
reporting periods. This study design permits the development of new
case weights based on the same type of objective time data as the
current weights, which we found to be reasonable.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-808T] or key
components. For more information, contact William Jenkins, Jr. at 202-
512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our 2003 review
and assessment of bankruptcy court weighted case filings, the workload
measure the Judicial Conference first considers in assessing the need
for additional bankruptcy judges.[Footnote 1] My statement today also
briefly discusses the judiciary's ongoing study to update the current
bankruptcy case weights.
Weighted filings are a statistical measure of the estimated average
amount of 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. We assessed whether weighted case filings were a
reasonable means of measuring bankruptcy judges' case-related workload
and assessed the methodology of proposals to update the current case
weights.
My statement today is based on the results of our 2003 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 as well as selected updates conducted in
June 2009. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. In summary, 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, were likely to be a reasonably accurate means of
measuring the case-related workload of bankruptcy judges.
* The original case weights are now about 18 years old and were based
on time data that are now about 21 years old. Changes in the
intervening years in such factors as case characteristics, case
management practices, or new statutory and procedural requirements,
such as the implementation of the 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and
Consumer Protection Act (the Bankruptcy Reform Act),[Footnote 2] 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 may
have 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, a
study currently underway, whose methodological design is essentially
identical to that used to develop the current case weights--a
methodology we concluded in 2003 was 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 steps 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 3] 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.
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 appendix 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 judges 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 4]
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 5] 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.
2002 and 2008 Research Designs 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 had 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 was planned to assess the
possibility of developing "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 could be used to validate
the feasibility of the new approach.The preliminary design for this
study appeared to be reasonable. In the first phase, new weights would
be constructed using objective data from the time study. The second
part represented experimental research to determine if it would be
possible to make future revisions to the weights without the
requirement of conducting a time study. If the research determined this
were possible, it would then be possible to update the case weights
more frequently with less cost than required by a time study.
If bankruptcy reform were enacted during the course of the new
bankruptcy time study, FJC officials said they would recommend halting
the time study and allowing some period of time for the implementation
of the new law before restarting the study. This was a prudent plan
because the law had many provisions affecting personal bankruptcy
filings and personal bankruptcy filings represent the vast majority of
bankruptcy filings. The FJC did begin collecting data for new case
weights in 2005, but terminated the effort soon after the Bankruptcy
Reform Act was enacted.
It is possible, indeed likely, that the Bankruptcy Reform Act's many
new provisions have affected the time that bankruptcy judges spend on
cases. For example, there are new objections that can be filed that
require hearings. These include a U.S. Trustee's objection to the
debtor's exemption from credit counseling certification. Under the
Bankruptcy Reform Act, debtors who file for bankruptcy are required to
complete credit counseling prior to filing. The extent to which new
provisions in the Bankruptcy Reform Act affect bankruptcy judges
workload depends, of course, on the frequency with which they are
invoked and the time it takes to address them.
Although nonbusiness (personal) bankruptcy filings accounted for more
than 96 percent of total bankruptcy filings both before and after the
implementation of the Bankruptcy Reform Act, the Act initially had a
dramatic effect on bankruptcy filings. Total personal bankruptcy
filings in 2004 were 1,563,145 and in calendar years 2005 were almost a
half million higher at 2,039,214. By contrast, in calendar year 2006,
the first full calendar year after the Bankruptcy Reform Act became
effective, personal bankruptcy filings were 597,965--a drop of about 71
percent compared to 2005 filings and about 62 percent compared to 2004
filings. Personal bankruptcy filings have since grown to 1,153,412 in
the 12 month period ending March 31, 2009. Thus, it was prudent for the
FJC to suspend its 2005 time study because it would likely take some
time for the filings under the new law to normalize, and there would
inevitably be issues about the law's implementation that would need to
be addressed.
The FJC has again initiated a new case weight study that includes data
collected over 5 10-week reporting periods from May 2008 through May
2009. This study, like its predecessors, is a time study in which
participating bankruptcy judges record the time they spend on cases and
other judicial activities during their assigned reporting period. Each
active and recalled bankruptcy judge is to participate during one of
the 5 reporting periods. The FJC has dropped the second part of the
2002 design, which was to collect assess whether an event-based
approach could be used to more frequently update the case weights. The
FJC said that the experience in the 2005 study indicated that the
supplemental information about judges' time reports--which was very
detailed and keyed to specific case events--was the most burdensome to
provide. These data elements were not included in the 2008 study in
order to simplify the process, reduce the burden on judges, and
contribute to keeping judges' participation rate in the 2008 study
high, since 125 judges had already participated in the 2005 study and
would be asked again to participate in the 2008 study. Moreover, the
FJC said that the information from the suspended 2005 study provides
the necessary foundation for the exploratory work on the event-based
method, which the FJC still intends to do:
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement, I would be pleased
to respond to 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, Leyla Kazaz,
and Geoffrey Hamilton.
[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 6]:
* 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; Assets less than $50,000;
Case weight in hours: 0.335;
Confidence interval: 0.312 - 0.359.
Type of case: Chapter 7--Business; Assets $50,000-$499,999;
Case weight in hours: 0.413;
Confidence interval: 0.382 - 0.444.
Type of case: Chapter 7--Business; Assets greater than $499,999;
Case weight in hours: 1.704;
Confidence interval: 1.426 - 1.982.
Type of case: Chapter 7--Nonbusiness; Assets less than $50,000;
Case weight in hours: 0.089;
Confidence interval: 0.079 - 0.099.
Type of case: Chapter 7--Nonbusiness; Assets $50,000-$499,999;
Case weight in hours: 0.160;
Confidence interval: 0.144 - 0.176.
Type of case: Chapter 7--Nonbusiness; Assets greater than $499,999;
Case weight in hours: 0.302;
Confidence interval: 0.239 - 0.365.
Type of case: Chapter 11; Assets less than $50,000;
Case weight in hours: 5.372;
Confidence interval: 5.054 - 5.690.
Type of case: Chapter 11; Assets $50,000-$99,999;
Case weight in hours: 4.021;
Confidence interval: 3.692 - 4.350.
Type of case: Chapter 11; Assets $100,000-$499,999;
Case weight in hours: 4.285;
Confidence interval: 3.991 - 4.579.
Type of case: Chapter 11; Assets $500,000-$999,999;
Case weight in hours: 5.143;
Confidence interval: 4.769 - 5.517.
Type of case: Chapter 11; 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; Liabilities less than $50,000;
Case weight in hours: 0.310;
Confidence interval: 0.269 - 0.351.
Type of case: Chapter 13; Liabilities at least $50,000;
Case weight in hours: 0.457;
Confidence interval: 0.410 - 0.504.
Type of case: Other cases; Adversary proceedings; Dischargeability;
Case weight in hours: 1.346;
Confidence interval: 1.232 - 1.460.
Type of case: Other cases; Adversary proceedings; Other;
Case weight in hours: 2.016;
Confidence interval: 1.722 - 2.310.
Source: Federal Judicial Center.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: 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.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Federal Bankruptcy Judges: Weighted Case Filings as a Measure of
Judges' Case-Related Workload, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-789T] (Washington, D.C., May 22,
2003).
[2] Pub. L. No. 109-8, 119 Stat. 23 (2005).
[3] 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.
[4] 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).
[5] This determines "how the level of docketing in mega cases differs
from the docketing in non-mega cases of one million dollars or more."
[6] Given the limited time for our review, AOUSC was unable to obtain
input to our questions on data quality control procedures from
individual courts.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548: