FEDERAL COURTHOUSE 

CONSTRUCTION

Nationwide Space and Cost 

Overages Also Apply to 

Miami Project

Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director 

Physical Infrastructures

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on 

Government Operations, Committee on 

Oversight and Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:30 p.m., EST

Friday, March 8, 2013

GAO-13-461T

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-461T, a testimony 

before Subcommittee on Government 

Operations, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

March 8, 2013

FEDERAL COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

Nationwide Space and Cost Overages Also Apply to 

Miami Project

Why GAO Did This Study

From 2000 to 2010, GSA and the 

judiciary coordinated to construct 33 

courthouses, including the Ferguson 

Courthouse that was completed in 

2008 at a cost of approximately $163 

million. However, rising costs and 

other budget priorities slowed the 

overall construction program. 

This statement discusses the Ferguson 

Courthouse and the other 32 federal 

courthouses completed from 2000 to 

March 2010, particularly (1) whether 

the courthouses contain extra space 

and any costs related to that space, (2) 

how the actual sizes of the 

courthouses compare with the 

congressionally authorized sizes, (3) 

how courthouses space based on the 

judiciary’s estimates compares with the 

actual number of judges, and (4) 

whether the level of courtroom sharing 

supported by data from the judiciary’s 

study could have changed the amount 

of space needed in these courthouses. 

This testimony is primarily based on 

GAO’s June 2010 report on federal 

courthouse construction. For the 2010 

report, GAO analyzed documents 

related to the 33 courthouses 

completed from 2000 to 2010.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommended that GSA 

establish controls to help ensure 

courthouses remain within their 

authorized size and that the judiciary 

should improve its estimation of future 

judgeships and expand courtroom 

sharing policies to reflect actual 

scheduling and use of district 

courtrooms. GSA and the judiciary 

agreed to implement these 

recommendations

What GAO Found

The Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse in Miami, Florida, along with the 

other 32 federal courthouses completed from 2000 to March 2010 include 3.56 

million square feet of extra space consisting of space that was constructed (1) 

above the congressionally authorized size, (2) because of overestimating the 

number of judges the courthouses would have, and (3) without planning for 

courtroom sharing among judges. Overall, this extra space represents about 9 

average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra space 

was $835 million in 2010 dollars, and the annual cost to rent, operate, and 

maintain it is $51 million. The Ferguson Courthouse specifically included 

approximately 238,000 extra square feet of space, which GAO estimated 

increased the construction cost by $48.5 million (in constant 2010 dollars) and an 

additional $3.5 million annually.

The Ferguson Courthouse, along with 26 others completed since 2000, exceed 

their congressionally authorized size by a total of about 1.7-million square feet. 

Specifically, the Ferguson Courthouse exceeds its authorized size by 97,477 

square feet because of judiciary and common spaces that are larger than the 

congressionally authorized plan. For example, the 16 courtrooms in the 

Ferguson Courthouse exceed judiciary standards by 7 to 17 percent. The 

General Services Administration (GSA) did not inform its oversight committees 

that the courthouses were larger than authorized and did not attribute any of the 

cost increase to this difference. However, there is no statutory requirement for 

GSA to notify congressional authorizing or appropriations committees if the size 

exceeds the congressionally authorized square footage.

The Ferguson Courthouse, along with 22 other courthouses have fewer judges 

than was estimated. The federal judiciary (judiciary) overestimated the number 

of judges that would be located in these courthouses, causing them to be 

approximately 887,000 square feet larger than necessary resulting in 

unnecessary construction and operating costs. In the Ferguson Courthouse, the 

judiciary estimated in 2000 that it would have 33 judges in Miami by 2010; it had 

27 at the time of GAO’s 2010 report. This 2000 estimate resulted in 57,000 extra 

square feet of space, including space for 2 courtrooms that were never finished.

Using the judiciary’s data, GAO designed a courtroom sharing model, which 

shows that there is enough unscheduled courtroom time for substantial 

courtroom sharing. Sharing could have reduced the number of courtrooms 

needed by 126 courtrooms in 27 of the courthouses built from 2000 to 2010—

about 40 percent of the total courtrooms constructed—covering about 946,000 

square feet. In Miami, GAO found that courtroom sharing would have allowed a 

reduction of 12 courtrooms covering 83,000 square feet. GAO’s 2010 findings, 

raise questions about whether the Ferguson Building needed to be constructed. 

Based on the number of judges located in Miami, the judiciary would need only 

17 courtrooms based on GAO’s sharing model, and there were already 29 

courtrooms in the judiciary’s existing buildings.

View GAO-13-461T. For more information, 

contact Mark Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or 

goldsteinm@gao.gov.
Page 1 GAO-13-461T 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here to discuss our work on federal courthouse 

construction and how it specifically relates to Miami, Florida. Since the 

early 1990s, the General Services Administration (GSA) and the federal 

judiciary (judiciary) have undertaken a multibillion-dollar courthouse 

construction initiative that to date has resulted in 78 new courthouses or 

annexes,1 with 16 additional projects in various stages of development. 

However, rising costs and other budget priorities have slowed the 

construction program. This testimony discusses the Wilkie D. Ferguson, 

Jr., U.S. Courthouse in Miami (the Ferguson Courthouse) among the 33 

federal courthouses completed from 2000 to March 2010, particularly (1) 

whether these courthouses contain extra space and any costs related to 

that space, (2) how the actual sizes of the courthouses compare with the 

congressionally authorized sizes, (3) how courthouse space based on the 

judiciary’s 10-year estimates of the number of judges compares with the 

actual number of judges, and (4) whether the level of courtroom sharing 

supported by data from the judiciary’s 2008 study of district courtroom 

sharing could have changed the amount of space needed in these 

courthouses.

This testimony is primarily based on our June 2010 report on federal 

courthouse construction.2 For our June 2010 report, we analyzed 

planning, construction, and budget documents associated with all 33 

federal courthouses or major annexes completed from 2000 through 

March 2010. In addition, we selected 7 of the federal courthouses in our 

scope to analyze more closely as case studies, including the Ferguson 

 

1 An annex is an addition to an existing building. For the purpose of this report, projects 

that include construction of an annex are considered new courthouse projects.

2 GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom 

Sharing Needed to Address Future Costs, GAO-10-417 (Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2010). We also updated the status of the courthouse construction initiative, Miami 

courthouses, and related GAO recommendations.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-461T 

Courthouse.3 We conducted that performance audit from September 2008 

to June 2010 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. More detail on our scope 

and methodology is available in the full report.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is an organization within the 

judicial branch that serves as the central support entity for federal courts, 

and is supervised by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The 

Judicial Conference serves as the judiciary’s principal policy-making body 

and recommends national policies and legislation, including 

recommending additional judgeships to Congress. The U.S. Courts 

Design Guide (Design Guide) specifies the judiciary’s criteria for 

designing new court facilities and sets the space and design standards for 

court-related elements of courthouse construction. In 1993, the judiciary 

also developed a space planning program called AnyCourt to determine 

the amount of court-related space the judiciary will request for a new 

courthouse based on Design Guide standards and estimated staffing 

levels. GSA and the judiciary plan new federal courthouses based on the 

judiciary’s estimated 10-year space requirements. For courthouses that 

are selected for construction, GSA typically submits two detailed project 

descriptions, or prospectuses, for congressional authorization: one for site 

and design and the other for construction. Prospectuses are submitted to 

the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and the House 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure for authorization.4 Once 

 

3 The seven case study courthouses include the Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex in 

Washington, D.C.; the Coyle U.S. Courthouse in Fresno, California; the D'Amato U.S. 

Courthouse in Central Islip, New York; the DeConcini U.S. Courthouse in Tucson, 

Arizona; the Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri; the Ferguson U.S. 

Courthouse in Miami, Florida; and the Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, 

Missouri. 

4 For purposes of this testimony, we refer to these committees as “authorizing 

committees” when discussing the submission of the prospectuses and providing additional 

information relating to prospectuses to these committees. Furthermore, for purposes of 

this testimony, we refer to approval of these projects by these committees as 

“congressional authorization.” See 40 U.S.C. § 3307.

Background 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-461T 

authorized, Congress can appropriate funds for courthouse projects, often 

at both the design and construction phases. GSA manages the 

construction contract and oversees the work of the construction 

contractor. After courthouses are occupied, GSA charges the judiciary 

and any other tenants rent for the occupied space and for their respective 

share of common areas.

In Miami, Florida, the judiciary is spread across several courthouses with 

a total of 43 courtrooms. Figure 1 illustrates the location and orientation of 

these buildings in downtown Miami.

• Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr. U.S. Courthouse. Constructed in 2008 at a 

cost of approximately $163 million, the courthouse has 14 finished 

courtrooms and unfinished space for 2 additional courtrooms that 

were never completed.

• James L. King Federal Justice Building. Constructed in 1993, the 

courthouse has 7 courtrooms and houses elements of the district and 

appellate courts along with other judiciary tenants.

• C. Clyde Atkins U.S. Courthouse. Constructed in 1983, the 

courthouse has 9 courtrooms.

• Claude Pepper Federal Building. Constructed in 1964, the courthouse 

has 3 courtrooms and houses other non-court-related federal tenants.

• David W. Dyer Federal Building and Courthouse. Constructed in 

1933, the courthouse has 10 courtrooms and has been vacant since 

2008.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-461T 

Figure 1: Location of Federal Judiciary Buildings in Downtown Miami, Florida
 

Page 5 GAO-13-461T 

Thirty-two of the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include 

extra space totaling 3.56 million square feet. Overall, this extra space 

amounts to about 9 average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to 

construct this extra space, in 2010 dollars, is $835 million.5 The extra 

space and its causes are as follows:

• 1.7-million square feet because of construction in excess of 

congressional authorizations;

• 887,000 square feet because the judiciary overestimated the number 

of judges the courthouses would have in 10 years; and

• 946,000 square feet because district and magistrate judges do not 

share courtrooms.6

In addition to higher construction costs, the extra square footage in these 

32 courthouses results in an additional $51 million in annual rent, 

operations, and maintenance costs. Based on our analysis of the 

judiciary’s rent payments to GSA for these courthouses at fiscal-year2009 rental rates, the extra courtrooms and other judiciary space increase 

the judiciary’s annual rent payments by $40 million. In addition, we 

estimated that the extra space cost $11 million in fiscal year 2009 to 

operate and maintain.7 Typically, operations and maintenance costs 

represent from 60 to 85 percent of the costs of a facility over its lifetime, 

while design and construction costs represent about 5 to 10 percent.8

Therefore, the ongoing operations and maintenance costs for the extra 

square footage are likely to total considerably more in the long run than 

the construction costs for this extra space.

 

5 The estimated construction cost of the extra space was $640 million in nominal 

(unadjusted) dollars. We adjusted for inflation, to constant 2010 dollars, using a price 

index for construction costs from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and Global Insight. 

6 Note: these numbers do not add to 3.56 million due to rounding. 

7 We did not attempt to calculate the rent attributable to the extra square footage due to 

exceeding congressionally authorized gross square footage because some of this extra 

square footage is for tenants other than the judiciary or occurs in building common or 

other space, the costs of which are not directly passed on to the judiciary in rent. We 

therefore calculated the annual operations and maintenance costs for all extra space due 

to exceeding congressionally authorized gross square footage and for the extra building 

common and other space due to overestimating the number of judges and judges not 

sharing courtrooms. 

8 The remaining lifetime costs include land acquisition, planning, renewal/revitalizations, 

and disposal. 

Extra Space in 

Courthouses Costs an 

Estimated $835 

Million in Constant 

2010 Dollars to 

Construct and Costs 

$51 Million Annually 

to Rent, Operate, and 

Maintain 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-461T 

The Ferguson Courthouse is an example that includes all three causes of 

extra space. It contains approximately 238,000 extra square feet of 

space, which we estimated increased the construction costs by $48.5 

million dollars in constant 2010 dollars and costs an additional $3.5 

million annually to rent, operate, and maintain. In addition to building the 

Ferguson Courthouse larger than necessary, the judiciary has abandoned 

the historic Dyer Courthouse, which has remained vacant since 2008, 

with its 10 courtrooms (see fig. 2). Considering the extent of the extra 

space built, it is unclear if the Ferguson Courthouse would have been 

necessary had the judiciary retained use of the Dyer Courthouse.

Figure 2: The Center Courtroom Entrance and Interior in the Dyer U.S. Courthouse

In response to our June 2010 report, GSA cited serious concerns with our 

methodology for determining the costs associated with the extra space. 

However, our methodology applied GSA’s policies and used data directly 

from original documents and sources, and our cost estimation 

methodology balanced higher and lower cost construction space to create 

a conservative estimate of the costs associated with the extra space in 

courthouses. We believe that our findings were presented in a fair and 

accurate way and illustrated how unnecessary construction creates both 

extra construction and ongoing costs that could affect future courthouse 

projects if they are similarly planned and constructed.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-461T 

According to GSA officials, controlling the gross square footage of a 

courthouse is the best way to control construction costs. However, as we 

reported in June 2010, 27 of the 33 federal courthouses constructed since 

2000 exceeded their congressionally authorized size,9 resulting in about 

1.7 million more square feet than authorized. Fifteen of the 33 

courthouses exceeded their congressionally authorized size by 10 

percent or more, including the Ferguson Courthouse. Congress 

authorized 508,323 gross square feet for the Ferguson Courthouse, but 

the actual size of the building is 605,800 gross square feet—97,477 

square feet above the authorized size.

Our 2010 report found that space constructed above congressionally 

authorized levels was primarily the result of extra judiciary and common 

space. For example, the Ferguson Courthouse has 47,000 more square 

feet of judiciary space—such as courtrooms and offices—and 44,443 

extra square feet of common space—such as lobbies and mechanical 

spaces—than in the congressionally authorized plan. Among other things, 

the 14 regular district courtrooms built in this courthouse are each about 

2,800 square feet, 17 percent larger than the Design Guide standard. The 

2 special proceedings courtrooms on the 13th floor are 3,200 square feet, 

or 7 percent larger than the Design Guide standard. GSA did not explain 

to its oversight committees that the courthouses were larger than 

authorized and did not attribute any of the cost increase to this difference. 

However, there is no statutory requirement for GSA to notify 

congressional authorizing or appropriations committees if the size 

exceeds the congressionally authorized square footage.

We also found in 2010 that GSA lacked sufficient controls to ensure that 

the 33 courthouses were constructed within the congressionally 

authorized gross square footage. Although GSA had established a policy 

for consistently measuring gross square footage by 2000, it had not 

ensured that its policy was understood and followed. According to GSA 

officials, until 2007, the agency did not focus on ensuring that the 

authorized gross square footage was met in the design and construction 

of courthouses.

 

9 For all 33 courthouses in our scope, we used the congressionally authorized gross 

square footage for the construction of the courthouse. We compared the authorized gross 

square footage, including inside parking, with the actual gross square footage, including 

inside parking. 

Most Courthouses 

Exceeded the 

Congressionally 

Authorized Size 

because of a Lack of 

GSA Oversight
 

Page 8 GAO-13-461T 

According to a GSA official, courthouses were designed, at times, to meet 

various design goals without an attempt to limit the size of the building’s 

common or other space to the square footage allotted in the plans 

provided to congressional authorizing committees. Thus, spaces may 

have become larger to serve a particular design goal. Another element of 

GSA’s lack of oversight in this area was that GSA relied on the architect 

to validate that the courthouse’s design was within the authorized gross 

square footage without ensuring that the architect followed GSA’s policies 

for how to measure certain commonly included spaces, such as atriums. 

Although GSA officials emphasized that open space for atriums would not 

cost as much as space completely built out with floors, these officials also 

agreed that there are costs associated with constructing and operating 

atrium space. Figure 3 illustrates the atrium in the Ferguson Courthouse.

Figure 3: Atrium in the Ferguson Courthouse in Miami, Florida
 

Page 9 GAO-13-461T 

Of the 33 courthouses built since 2000, 28 have reached or passed their 

10-year planning period and 23 of those 28 courthouses have fewer 

judges than estimated, including the Ferguson Courthouse. As we 

reported in June 2010, for these 28 courthouses, the judiciary has 119 

fewer judges than the 461 it estimated it would have, resulting in 

approximately 887,000 extra square feet. In the Ferguson Courthouse, 

the judiciary estimated in 2000 that it would have 33 judges in Miami by 

2010; it had 27 at the time of our report. This has resulted in 57,000 extra 

square feet of space, including space for 2 courtrooms that were never 

finished (see fig. 4).

Figure 4: One of Two Unfinished Courtrooms in the Ferguson Courthouse, as of 

2009

Estimated Space 

Needs Exceeded 

Actual Space Needs, 

Resulting in 

Courthouses That 

Were Larger than 

Necessary 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-461T 

We identified a variety of factors that led the judiciary to overestimate the 

number of judges it would have after 10 years, including:

• Inaccurate caseload growth projections: In a 1993 report, we 

questioned the reliability of the caseload projection process the 

judiciary used.10 For our 2010 report, we were not able to determine 

the degree to which inaccurate caseload projections contributed to 

inaccurate judge estimates because the judiciary did not retain the 

historic caseload projections used in planning the courthouses. 

Judiciary officials at three of the courthouses we visited indicated that 

the estimates used for courthouse planning had inadvertently 

overstated the growth in district case filings and, hence, the need for 

additional judges.

• Challenges predicting how many judges will be located in a 

courthouse in 10 years: It is difficult to predict when a judge will take a 

reduced caseload through senior status or leave the bench entirely. It 

is also difficult to project how many requested judgeships will be 

authorized, how many vacancies will be filled, and where new judges 

would be seated.

The judiciary pointed out that some extra space in courthouses exists 

because the judiciary did not receive all the new judge authorizations it 

requested. We recognize that some of the extra courtrooms reflect the 

historic trend that the judiciary has not received all the new authorized 

judges it has requested.

 

10GAO, Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs Revision, 

GAO/GGD-93-132 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1993). 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-461T 

Our June 2010 report concluded that courtroom sharing could have 

reduced the number of courtrooms needed in 27 of the 33 district 

courthouses built since 2000 by a total of 126 courtrooms—about 40 

percent of the total number of district and magistrate courtrooms 

constructed since 2000.11 In total, not building these courtrooms and 

associated other spaces would have reduced construction by 

approximately 946,000 square feet. GSA officials stated that courtroom 

space is among the most expensive of courthouse spaces to construct 

and that the Design Guide’s criteria are in part meant to help ensure that 

courthouses are built to be cost-effective as well as functional. In Miami, 

we found that courtroom sharing would have allowed a reduction of 12 

courtrooms covering 83,000 square feet. This raises questions about 

whether the Ferguson Building needed to be constructed. Based on the 

number of judges located in Miami, the judiciary would need only 17 

courtrooms based on our sharing model, and there were already 29 

courtrooms existing in the King, Atkins, Pepper, and Dyer buildings.

We also found that most courthouses constructed since 2000 have 

enough courtrooms for all of the district and magistrate judges to have 

their own courtrooms. According to the judiciary’s data, courtrooms are 

used for case-related proceedings only a quarter of the available time or 

less, on average.12 Using the judiciary’s data, we applied generally 

accepted modeling techniques to develop a computer model for sharing 

courtrooms. The model ensured sufficient courtroom time for all caserelated activities; all time allotted to noncase-related activities, such as 

preparation time, ceremonies, and educational purposes; and all events 

cancelled or postponed within a week of the event. During our interviews 

and discussions with experts on courtroom sharing, some judges 

remained skeptical of sharing and raised potential challenges to 

courtroom sharing, but other judges with sharing experience said they 

had overcome those challenges when necessary without postponing 

trials. The primary concern judges cited was the possibility that all 

courtrooms could be in use by other judges and a courtroom might not be 

 

11 Our analysis indicated that sharing would not reduce the number of courtrooms in six 

courthouses for the following reasons: four already had sharing between judges; one had 

only one district and one magistrate judge; and one courthouse had only bankruptcy 

judges and was out of our scope for district and magistrate sharing opportunities. 

12 Federal Judicial Center, The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. District Courts: A Report to the 

Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration & Case Management (Washington, 

D.C., July 18, 2008). 

Low Levels of Use 

Show That Judges 

Could Share 

Courtrooms, 

Reducing the Need for 

Future Courtrooms by 

More Than One-Third
 

Page 12 GAO-13-461T 

available. To address this concern, we programmed our model to provide 

more courtroom time than necessary to conduct court business. Another 

concern stated was that sharing courtrooms between district and 

magistrate judges was difficult because of differences in responsibilities 

and courtroom size. To address this concern, our model separately 

analyzed district and magistrate judges. After addressing judge concerns 

in these ways, the model showed the following courtroom sharing 

possibilities: 3 district judges could share 2 courtrooms, 3 senior judges 

could share 1 courtroom, and 2 magistrate judges could share 1 

courtroom with some courtroom time remaining available.

In 2008 and 2009, the Judicial Conference adopted sharing policies for 

future courthouses under which senior district and magistrate judges will 

share courtrooms at a rate of two judges per courtroom plus one 

additional courtroom for courthouses with more than two magistrate 

judges. Additionally, the conference recognized the greater efficiencies 

available in courthouses with many courtrooms and recommended, but 

did not mandate, that in courthouses with more than 10 district judges, 

district judges also share. Our model’s application of the judiciary’s data 

shows that more sharing opportunities are available.

The judiciary stated that at the time the 33 courthouses we reviewed were 

planned, the judiciary’s policy was for judges not to share courtrooms and 

that it would be more appropriate for us to apply that policy. Our 

congressional requesters specifically asked that we analyze how a 

courtroom sharing policy could have changed the amount of space 

needed in these courthouses. The judiciary also raised concerns with the 

assumptions and methodology used in developing the courtroom sharing 

model. Our model provides one option for developing a sharing policy 

based on actual time during which courtrooms are scheduled and used.

Our June 2010 report included recommendations that the Administrator of 

GSA take the following actions:

• Establish sufficient internal control activities to ensure that regional 

GSA officials understand and follow GSA’s space measurement 

policies throughout the planning and construction of courthouses. 

These control activities should allow for accurate comparisons of the 

size of a planned courthouse with the congressionally-authorized 

gross square footage throughout the design and construction process.

Prior 

Recommendations 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-461T 

• Report to congressional authorizing committees when the design of a 

courthouse exceeds the authorized size by more than 10 percent, 

including the reasons for the increase in size.

GSA and the judiciary agreed with one of our recommendations and 

expressed concerns with our methodology and key findings. GSA 

concurred with our recommendation to notify the appropriate 

congressional committees when the square footage increase exceeds the

maximum identified in the prospectus by 10 percent or more. GSA did not 

concur with our recommendation to establish internal controls to ensure 

that regional GSA officials understand and follow GSA’s space 

measurement policies throughout the planning and construction of 

courthouses, stating that their current controls and oversight were 

sufficient. Currently these recommendations remain unimplemented as 

there have not been any courthouses planned and completed since the 

recommendations were made.

We also recommended that the Director of the Administrative Office of the 

U.S. Courts, on behalf of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 

take the following three actions:

• Retain caseload projections for at least 10 years for use in analyzing 

their accuracy and incorporate additional factors into the judiciary’s 

10-year judge estimates, such as past trends in obtaining judgeships.

• Expand nationwide courtroom sharing policies to more fully reflect the 

actual scheduling and use of district courtrooms.

• Distribute information to judges on positive practices judges have 

used to overcome challenges to courtroom sharing.

The judiciary concurred with our recommendation to expand sharing 

policies based on a thorough and considered analysis of the data but 

raised concerns related to the applicability of our model as guidance for 

the judiciary’s system. The judiciary did not comment directly on its plans 

to retain caseload projections, but stated that it would continue to look for 

ways to improve its planning methodologies. Finally the judiciary did not 

provide comment on its intent to distribute information on the positive 

practices judges have used to overcome challenges to courtroom sharing. 

These recommendations also remain unimplemented at the current time.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-461T 

Chairman Mica, Ranking Member Connolly, and Members of the 

Subcommittee, this concludes our testimony. We are pleased to answer 

any questions you might have.

For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark L. 

Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact 

points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may 

be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key 

contributions to this testimony include Keith Cunningham (Assistant 

Director), Melissa Bodeau, and George Depaoli.

Contact Information

(543321)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.