This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-1050T 
entitled 'Federal Judgeships: The General Accuracy of District and 
Appellate Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures' which was released 
on October 1, 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. 

Statement for the Record, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 
Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Wednesday, September 30, 2009: 

Federal Judgeships: 

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

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

GAO-09-1050T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-09-1050T, a Statement for the Record before the 
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Administrative 
Oversight and the Courts. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Biennially, the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s principal 
policymaking body, assesses the need for additional judges. The 
assessment is based on a variety of factors, but begins with 
quantitative case-related workload measures. This statement focuses on 
(1) whether the judiciary’s quantitative case-related workload measures 
from 1993 were reasonably accurate; and (2) the reasonableness of any 
proposed methodologies to update the 1993 workload measures. This 
statement is based on work completed and reported in 2003 and discussed 
in testimony on June 17, 2008. 

What GAO Found: 

In 2003, GAO reported that the 1993 district court case weights were 
reasonably accurate measures of the average time demands that a 
specific number and mix of cases filed in a district court could be 
expected to place on the district judges in that district. At the time 
of GAO’s 2003 report, the Judicial Conference was using case weights 
approved in 1993 to assess the need for additional district court 
judgeships. The weights were based on data judges recorded about the 
actual in-court and out-of-court time spent on specific cases from 
filing to disposition. This methodology permitted the calculation of 
objective, statistical measures of the accuracy of the final case 
weights. 

In 2003, GAO reviewed the research design the Judicial Conference's 
Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics had approved for updating the 1993 
district court case weights, and had two concerns about the design. 
First, the design assumed that the judicial time spent on a case could 
be accurately estimated by viewing the case as a set of individual 
tasks or events in the case. Information about event frequencies and, 
where available, time spent on the events would be extracted from 
existing databases and used to develop estimates of the judge-time 
spent on different types of cases. However, for event data, the 
research design proposed using data from two data bases that had yet to 
be integrated to obtain and analyze the data. Second, unlike the 
methodology used to develop the 1993 case weights, the design for 
updating the case weights included limited data on the time judges 
actually spent on specific types of cases. Specifically, the proposed 
design included data from judicial databases on the in-court time 
judges spent on different types of cases, but did not include 
collecting actual data on the noncourtroom time that judges spend on 
different types of cases. Instead, estimates of judges’ noncourtroom 
time were derived from the structured, guided discussions of about 100 
experienced judges meeting in 12 separate groups (one for each 
geographic circuit). Noncourtroom time was likely to represent the 
majority of judge time used to develop the revised case weights. The 
accuracy of case weights developed on such consensus data cannot be 
assessed using standard statistical methods, such as the calculation of 
standard errors. Thus, it would not be possible to objectively, 
statistically assess how accurate the new case weights are—weights on 
whose reasonable accuracy the Judicial Conference relies in assessing 
judgeship needs. 

The case-related workload measure for courts of appeals judges is 
adjusted case filings in which all cases are considered to take an 
equal amount of judge time except for pro se cases—those in which one 
or more of the parties is not represented by an attorney—which are 
discounted. In our 2003 review, we found no empirical basis on which to 
assess the accuracy of this workload measure. Although a number of 
alternatives to the adjusted filings measure have been considered, the 
Judicial Conference has been unable to agree on a different approach 
that could be applied to all courts of appeal. 

What GAO Recommends: 

In 2003, GAO recommended that the Judicial Conference, among other 
things, develop a methodology for measuring the case-related workload 
of courts of appeals judges by using methodologies that support 
objective, statistically reliable means of calculating the accuracy of 
the weights and workload measures, respectively. The Conference 
disagreed and stated that, among other things, GAO’s report did not 
reflect the sophisticated methodology of the study and that the 
workloads of the courts of appeals entail important factors that have 
defied measurement. GAO believes the importance and costs of creating 
new judgeships requires the best possible case-related workload data to 
support the assessment of the need for more judges. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1050T] or key 
components. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr. at 
(202) 512-8757 or JenkinsWO@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on our work on case-related 
workload measures for district court and courts of appeals judges. My 
statement today is based on work completed and reported in 2003 
[Footnote 1] and discussed in testimony last year on June 17, 2008, 
[Footnote 2] and is focused exclusively on these workload measures. We 
have no views on the Judicial Conference's pending request for 
additional judgeships. 

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 court), and location of 
the judgeships it is requesting. 

In assessing the need for additional judgeships, the Judicial 
Conference considers a variety of information, including responses to 
its biennial survey of individual courts, temporary increases or 
decreases in case filings and other factors specific to an individual 
court. However, the Judicial Conference's analysis begins with the 
quantitative case-related workload measures it has adopted for the 
district courts and courts of appeals--weighted case filings and 
adjusted case filings, respectively. These two measures recognize, to 
different degrees, that the time demands on judges are largely a 
function of both the number and complexity of the cases on their 
dockets. Some types of cases may demand relatively little time and 
others may require many hours of work. Generally, each case filed in a 
district court is assigned a weight representing the average amount of 
judge time the case is expected to require. The weights are relative to 
one another; the higher the case weight, the greater the time the case 
would be expected to require. For example, on average a case with a 
relative weight of 2.0 would be expected to require twice as much judge 
time as a case with a weight of 1.0. In the courts of appeals, all case 
filings are weighted equally at 1.0, except for pro se case filings-- 
those in which one or both parties are not represented by an attorney--
which are discounted. 

Using these measures, individual courts whose past case-related 
workload meets the threshold established by the Judicial Conference may 
be considered for additional judgeships. These thresholds are 430 
weighted case filings per authorized judgeship for district courts and 
500 adjusted case filings per three-judge panel of authorized 
judgeships for courts of appeals (courts of appeals judges generally 
hear cases in rotating panels of three judges each).[Footnote 4] 
Authorized judgeships are the total number of judgeships authorized by 
statute for each district court and court of appeals. 

The Judicial Conference relies on these quantitative workload measures 
to be reasonably accurate measures of judges' case-related workload. 
Whether these measures are reasonably accurate rests in turn on the 
soundness of the methodology used to develop them. This statement 
provides information on two of the objectives in our 2003 report: (1) 
whether the judiciary's quantitative case-related workload measures 
were reasonably accurate measures of district judge and courts of 
appeals judges' case-related workload; and (2) the reasonableness of 
any proposed methodologies to update the workload measures. In this 
statement, we discuss those two objectives first for district courts 
then for courts of appeals. 

Our 2003 report was 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) on the history and development of the 
case-related workload measures and interviews with officials in each 
organization. The scope of our work did not include how the Judicial 
Conference used these case-related workload measures to develop any 
specific request for additional district and courts of appeals 
judgeships. We conducted our performance audit in April and May 2003 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Summary: 

District Courts. In 2003, we reported that the methodology used to 
develop the 1993 district court case weights resulted in reasonably 
accurate measures of the average time demands that a specific number 
and mix of cases filed in a district court could be expected to place 
on the district judges in that district. At the time of our 2003 
report, the Judicial Conference was using case weights approved in 1993 
to assess the need for additional district court judgeships. The 
weights were based on data judges recorded about the actual in-court 
and out-of-court time spent on specific cases from filing to 
disposition. This methodology permitted the calculation of objective, 
statistical measures of the accuracy of the final case weights (e.g., 
standard errors). 

In 2003 we reviewed the research design the Judicial Conference's 
Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics had approved for updating the 1993 
district court case weights, and had two principal concerns about the 
design. First was the challenge of collecting reliable, comparable data 
for the analysis on in-court events from two different automated data 
systems, one of which had not been implemented in all district courts. 
The FJC established a technical advisory group to work through this 
issue. Second, unlike the methodology used to develop the 1993 case 
weights, the design for updating these case weights included limited 
data on the time judges actually spent on specific types of cases. 
Specifically, the proposed design included data from judicial databases 
on the in-court time judges spent on different types of cases, but did 
not include collecting actual data on the noncourtroom time that judges 
spend on different types of cases. Instead, estimates of noncourtroom 
time would be based on estimates derived from the structured, guided 
discussions of about 100 experienced judges meeting in 12 separate 
groups (one for each geographic circuit). Noncourtroom time was likely 
to represent the majority of judge time used to develop the revised 
case weights. The accuracy of case weights developed on such consensus 
data cannot be assessed using standard statistical methods, such as the 
calculation of standard errors. As the Federal Judicial Center 
acknowledged in commenting on our 2003 report, it is not possible to 
objectively, statistically assess how accurate the new case weights 
are.[Footnote 5] 

Courts of Appeals. Adjusted case filings, used to measure the case- 
related workload of courts of appeals judges, are based on available 
data from standard statistical reports from the courts of appeals. 
Unlike the case weights used to measure district judge case-related 
workload, adjusted case filings are not based on any empirical data 
regarding the time that different types of cases required of courts of 
appeals judges. The adjusted filings workload measure basically assumes 
that all cases have an equal effect on judges' workload with the 
exception of pro se cases--those in which one or both parties are not 
represented by an attorney--which are weighted at 0.33, or one-third as 
much as all other cases, which are weighted at 1.0. On the basis of the 
documentation we reviewed, there is no empirical basis on which to base 
that assumption or on which to assess the accuracy of adjusted filings 
as a measure of case-related workload for courts of appeals judges. 
Although a number of alternatives to the adjusted filings measure have 
been considered, the Judicial Conference has not been able to agree on 
a different approach that could be applied to all courts of appeals. 

Case Weights Are Intended to Measure Judicial Time Required to Handle 
Their Caseloads: 

The demands on judges' time are largely a function of both the number 
and complexity of the cases on their dockets. To measure the case- 
related workload of district court judges, the Judicial Conference has 
adopted weighted case filings. The purpose of the district court case 
weights was to create a measure of the average judge time that a 
specific number and mix of case filed in a district court would 
require. Importantly, the weights were designed to be descriptive not 
prescriptive--that is, the weights were designed to develop a measure 
of the national average amount of time that judges actually spent on 
specific cases, not to develop a measure of how much time judges should 
spend on various types of cases. Moreover, the weights were designed to 
measure only case-related workload. Judges have noncase-related duties 
and responsibilities, such as administrative tasks, that are not 
reflected in the case weights. 

With few exceptions, such as cases that are remanded to a district 
court from the court of appeals, each civil and criminal case filed in 
a district court is assigned a case weight. For example, in the 2004 
case weights, drug possession cases are weighted at 0.86 while civil 
copyright and trademark cases are weighted at 2.12. The total annual 
weighted filings for a district are determined by summing the case 
weight associated with all the cases filed in the district during the 
year. A weighted case filings per authorized judgeship is the total 
annual weighted filings divided by the total number of authorized 
judgeships. For example, if a district had total weighted filings of 
4,600 and 10 authorized judgeships, its weighted filings per authorized 
judgeships would be 460. The Judicial Conference uses weighted filings 
of 430 or more per authorized judgeship as an indication that a 
district may need additional judgeships. Thus, a district with 460 
weighted filings per authorized judgeship could be considered for an 
additional judgeship. However, the Judicial Conference does not 
consider a district for additional judgeships, regardless of its 
weighted case filings, if the district does not request any additional 
judgeships. 

1993 Case Weights Reasonably Accurate, But Accuracy of 2004 Case 
Weights Cannot Be Statistically Determined: 

In our 2003 report, we found the district court case weights approved 
in 1993 to be a reasonably accurate measure of the average time demands 
a specific number and mix of cases filed in a district court could be 
expected to place on the district judges in that court. The methodology 
used to develop the weights used a valid sampling procedure, developed 
weights based on actual case-related time recorded by judges from case 
filings to disposition, and included a measure (standard errors) of the 
statistical confidence in the final weight for each weighted case type. 
Without such a measure, it is not possible to objectively assess the 
accuracy of the final case weights. 

At the time of our 2003 report, the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics 
of the Judicial Conference's Judicial Resources Committee had approved 
the research design for revising the 1993 case weights, with a goal of 
having new weights submitted to the Resources Committee for review in 
the summer of 2004. The design for the new case weights relied on three 
sources of data for specific types of cases: (1) data from automated 
databases identifying the docketed events associated with the cases; 
(2) data from automated sources on the time associated with courtroom 
events for cases, such as trials or hearings; and (3) consensus of 
estimated time data from structured, guided discussion among 
experienced judges on the time associated with noncourtroom events for 
cases, such as reading briefs or writing opinions. 

According to the FJC, the Subcommittee wanted a study that could 
produce case weights in a relatively short period of time without 
imposing a substantial record-keeping burden on district judges. The 
FJC staff provided the Subcommittee with information about various 
approaches to case weighting, and the Subcommittee chose an event-based 
method--that is, a method that used data on the number of and types of 
events, such as trials and other evidentiary hearings, in a case. The 
design did not involve the type of time study that was used to develop 
the 1993 case weights. Although the proposed methodology appeared to 
offer the benefit of reduced judicial burden (no time study data 
collection), potential cost savings, and reduced calendar time to 
develop the new weights, we had two areas of concern--the challenge of 
obtaining reliable, comparable data from two different data systems for 
the analysis and the limited collection of actual data on the time 
judges spend on cases. 

First, the design assumed that judicial time spent on a given case 
could be accurately estimated by viewing the case as a set of 
individual tasks or events in the case. Information about event 
frequencies and, where available, time spent on the events would be 
extracted from existing administrative data bases and report and used 
to develop estimates of the judge-time spent on different types of 
cases. For event data, the research design proposed using data from two 
data bases (one of which was new and had not been implemented in all 
district courts) that would have to be integrated to obtain and analyze 
the event data. The FJC proposed creating a technical advisory group to 
address this issue. 

Second, the research design did not require judges to record time spent 
on individual cases. Actual time data would be limited to that 
available from existing data bases and reports on the time associated 
with courtroom events and proceedings for different types of cases. 
However, a majority of district judges' time is spent on case-related 
work outside the courtroom. The time required for noncourtroom events 
would be derived from structured, guided discussion of groups of 8 to 
13 experienced district court judges in each of the 12 geographic 
circuits (about 100 judges in all). The judges would develop estimates 
of the time required for different events in different types of cases 
within each circuit using FJC-developed "default values" as the 
reference point for developing their estimates. These default values 
would be based in part on the existing case weights and in part on 
other types of analyses. Following the meetings of the judges in each 
circuit, a national group of 24 judges (2 from each circuit) would 
consider the data form the 12 circuit groups and develop the new 
weights. 

The accuracy of judges' time estimates is dependent upon the experience 
and knowledge of the participating judges and the accuracy and 
reliability of the judges' recall about the average time required for 
different events in different types of cases--about 150 if all the case 
types in the 1993 case weights were used. These consensus data could 
not be used to calculate statistical measures of the accuracy of the 
resulting case weights. Thus, the planned methodology did not make it 
possible to objectively, statistically assess how accurate the new case 
weights are--weights whose accuracy the Judicial Conference relies upon 
in assessing judgeship needs. 

We noted that a time study conducted concurrently with the proposed 
research methodology would be advisable to identify potential 
shortcoming of the event-based methodology and to assess the relatively 
accuracy of the case weights produced using that methodology. In the 
absence of a concurrent time study, there would be no objective 
statistical way to determine the accuracy of the case weights produced 
by the proposed event-based methodology--a major difference with the 
methodology used to develop the 1993 case weights. 

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

The principal quantitative measure the Judicial Conference uses to 
assess the need for additional courts of appeals judgeships is adjusted 
case filings. The measure is based on data available from standard 
statistical reports for the courts of appeals. The adjusted filings 
workload measure is not based on any empirical data regarding the time 
that different types of cases required of appellate judges. 

The Judicial Conference's policy is that courts of appeals with 
adjusted case filings of 500 or more per three-judge panel may be 
considered for one or more additional judgeships. Courts of appeals 
generally decide cases using constantly rotating three-judge panels. 
Thus, if a court had 12 authorized judgeships, those judges could be 
assigned to four panels of three judges each. In assessing judgeship 
needs for the courts of appeals, the Conference may also consider 
factors other than adjusted filings, such as the geography of the 
circuit or the median time from case filings to disposition.[Footnote 
6] 

Essentially, the adjusted case filings workload measure counts all case 
filings equally, with two exceptions. First, cases refilled and 
approved for reinstatement are excluded from total case filings. 
[Footnote 7] Second, pro se cases--defined by the Administrative Office 
of the U.S. Courts as cases in which one or both of the parties are not 
represented by an attorney--are weighted at 0.33, or one-third as much 
as other cases, which are weighted at 1.0. For example, a court with 
600 total pro se case filings in a year would be credited with 198 
adjusted pro se case filings (600 x 0.33). Thus, a court of appeals 
with 1,600 filings (excluding reinstatements)--600 pro se cases and 
1,000 non-pro se cases--would be credited with 1,198 adjusted case 
filings (198 discounted pro se cases plus 1,000 non-pro se cases). If 
this court had 6 judges (allowing two panels of 3 judges each), it 
would have 599 adjusted case filings per 3-judge panel, and, thus, 
under Judicial Conference policy, could be considered for an additional 
judgeship. 

The current court of appeals workload measure represents an effort to 
improve the previous measure. In our 1993 report on judgeship needs 
assessment, we noted that the restraint of individual courts of 
appeals, not the workload standards, seemed to have determined the 
actual number of appellate judgeships the Judicial Conference 
requested.[Footnote 8] At the time the current measure was developed 
and approved, using the new benchmark of 500 adjusted case filings 
resulted in judgeship numbers that closely approximated the judgeship 
needs of the majority of the courts of appeals, as the judges of each 
court perceived them. The current courts of appeals case-related 
workload measure principally reflects a policy decision using 
historical data on filings and terminations. It is not based on 
empirical data regarding the judge time that different types of cases 
may require. On the basis of the documentation we reviewed for our 2003 
report, we determined that there is no empirical basis or assessing the 
potential accuracy of adjusted case filings as a measure of case- 
related judge workload. 

Various Proposals Have Been Considered for Changing the Court of 
Appeals Workload Measure: 

In the past decade the Judicial Conference has considered a number of 
proposals for developing a revised case-related workload measure for 
the courts of appeals judges, but has been unable to reach a consensus 
on any approach. As part of its assistance to the Conference in this 
effort, the FJC in 2001 compiled a document that reviewed previous 
proposals to develop some type of case weighting measure for the courts 
of appeals. Table 1 outlines some of these proposals and their 
advantages and disadvantages, as identified by the FJC. Generally, 
methods that rely principally on empirical data on actual case 
characteristics and judge behavior (e.g., time spent on cases) are more 
appropriate than those that rely principally on qualitative data 
because statistical methods can be used to estimate the accuracy of the 
resulting workload measure. 

Table 1: Federal Judicial Conference Case Weighting Measure Proposals, 
2001: 

Proposal: 1. Estimation of case burden based on actual time required to 
process the case; 
Advantages: 
* The quantitative approach would be very thorough; 
* Empirically based data; 
Disadvantages: 
* Judges may not be amenable to the time-consuming task of recording 
the hours spent on individual cases; 
* Time spent gathering data could be used elsewhere. 

Proposal: 2. Estimate of case burden based on the assessment of burden 
of only "certain characteristics" from an already-existing data base of 
factors; 
Advantages: 
* Would not be very time-consuming for judges; 
* Would assess the frequencies of certain "factors"; 
* Analysis of an existing database would save time; 
* Can use a "wealth" of factors to get a big picture of the caseload 
burden; 
Disadvantages: 
* Difficult to agree on what factors to use; 
* Difficult to decide if presence and absence of factors is enough 
information; 
* Database and survey accuracy may be compromised. 

Proposal: 3. Normative assessment of cases to look qualitatively at the 
cases as a whole; 
Advantages: 
* Convenient to extract information from surveys or group discussions; 
Disadvantages: 
* Difficult to decide which factors to use; 
* Dependent upon the accuracy of judges' recall about the case; 
* Lack of empirically based data. 

Proposal: 4. Using multiple regression to use information about the 
proportional mix of cases with different defined characteristics in the 
different circuits to account for the differences in case termination 
level; 
Advantages: 
* Quantitative approach to determine factors to use; 
Disadvantages: 
* Use of a potentially incomplete model; 
* Inherent statistical limits; 
* Cannot assess appellate burdens on a national level. 

Proposal: 5. Using district court weights for the appellate system; 
Advantages: 
* Already available data; 
* Save time by using existing data; 
Disadvantages: 
* Little consistency between the two court systems; 
* Sacrifice accuracy. 

Proposal: 6. Tallying court opinions (published and unpublished); 
Advantages: 
* Most appellate judge work leads to production of appellate opinions 
in chambers; 
Disadvantages: 
* Necessary information cannot be obtained consistently. 

Proposal: 7. Sampling cases for approximately 3 months for a case-based 
study; 
Advantages: 
* Can project the results of 3 months of cases to the rest of the 
years; 
Disadvantages: 
* There is no way to anticipate possible sample sizes, so cannot make a 
statistical prediction. 

Source: FJC documentation. 

[End of table] 

We recognize that a methodology that provides greater empirical 
assurance of a workload measure's accuracy will require judges to 
document how they spend their time on cases for at least a period of 
weeks. However, we believe that the importance and cost of creating new 
federal judgeships requires the best possible case-related workload 
data using sound research methods to support the assessment of the need 
for more judgeships. 

Our 2003 Recommendations and the Judiciary's Response: 

In our 2003 report we recommended that the Judicial Conference of the 
United States: 

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

* develop a methodology for measuring the case-related workload of 
courts of appeals judges that supports an objective, statistically 
reliable means of calculating the accuracy of the resulting workload 
measures and that addressed the special case characteristics of the 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. 

Neither of these recommendations has been implemented. 

With regard to our 2003 recommendation for updating the district court 
case weights, the FJC agreed that the method used to develop the new 
case weights would not permit the calculation of standard errors, but 
that other methods could be used to assess the integrity of the 
resulting case weight system. In response, we noted that the Delphi 
technique to be used for developing out-of-court time estimates was 
most appropriate when more precise analytical techniques were not 
feasible and the issue could benefit from subjective judgments on a 
collective basis. More precise techniques were available for developing 
the new case weights and were to be used for developing new bankruptcy 
court case weights. 

The methodology the Judicial Conference decided to begin in June 2002 
for the revision of the bankruptcy case weights offered an approach 
that could be usefully adopted for the revision of the district court 
case weights.[Footnote 9] The bankruptcy court methodology used a two- 
phased approach. First, new case weights would be developed based on 
the time data recorded by bankruptcy judges for a period of weeks--a 
methodology very similar to that used to develop the bankruptcy case 
weights that existed in 2003 at the time of our report. The accuracy of 
the new case weights could be assessed using standard errors. The 
second part represents experimental research to determine if it is 
possible to make future revisions of the weights without conducting a 
time study. The data from the time study could be used to validate the 
feasibility of this approach. If the research determined that this were 
possible, the case weights could be updated more frequently with less 
cost than required by a time study. We believe this approach would 
provide (1) more accurate weighted case filings than the design 
developed and used for the development of the 2004 district court case 
weights, and (2) a sounder method of developing and testing the 
accuracy of case weights that were developed without a time study. 

With regard to our recommendation improving the case-related workload 
measure for the courts of appeals, the Chair of the Committee on 
Judicial Resources commented that the workload of the courts of appeals 
entails important factors that have defied measurement, including 
significant differences in case processing techniques. We recognize 
that there are significant methodological challenges in developing a 
more precise workload measure for the courts of appeals. However, using 
the data available, neither we nor the Judicial Conference can assess 
the accuracy of adjusted case filings as a measure of the case-related 
workload of courts of appeals judges. 

Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

For further information about this statement, please contact William O. 
Jenkins Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, on (202) 
512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Federal Judgeships: The General Accuracy of the Case-Related 
Workload Measures Used to Assess the Need for Additional District Court 
and Courts of Appeals Judgeships, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-788R] (Washington, D.C., May 30, 
2003). 

[2] GAO, Federal Judgeships: General Accuracy of District and Appellate 
Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-928T] (Washington, D.C., June 17, 
2008). 

[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] In the documentation accompanying its 2007 request for additional 
judgeship, the Judicial Conference notes that in 2004 it adopted a 
starting point of more than 430 weighted case filings per authorized 
judgeship with an additional judgeship. 

[5] We have not reviewed in detail the materials the FJC has posted on 
its Web site with regard to the methodology actually used to develop 
the revised case weights approved in 2004. However, those materials 
indicate that the FJC essentially followed the design we reviewed and 
that standard errors were not computed for the final weights. 

[6] At the time of our 2003 report, the FJC had suggested that adjusted 
case filings may not be an appropriate measure for the D.C. Circuit 
Court of Appeals, given the distinctive characteristics of the 
administrative agency appeals that were a major source of that court's 
caseload. Details on the FJC analysis for the D.C. Circuit can be found 
in our 2003 report: GAO, Federal Judgeships: The General Accuracy of 
the Case-Related Workload Measures Used to Assess the Need for 
Additional district Court and Courts of Appeals Judgeships, GAO-03-788R 
(Washington, D.C., May 30, 2003). 

[7] Such cases were dismissed for procedural defaults when originally 
filed, but "reinstated" to the court's calendar when the case was later 
refilled. The number of such cases, as a proportion of total case, is 
generally small. 

[8] GAO, Federal Judiciary: How the Judicial Conference Assesses the 
Need for More Judges, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-93-31] (Washington, D.C., Jan. 29, 
1993). 

[9] See GAO, 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). 

[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: