FEDERAL JUDICIARY

Efforts to Consolidate 

and Share Services 

between District and 

Bankruptcy Clerks’ 

Offices

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Financial Services and General 

Government, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

June 2013

GAO-13-531

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-531, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial 

Services and General Government, 

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

June 2013

FEDERAL JUDICIARY

Efforts to Consolidate and Share Services between 

District and Bankruptcy Clerks’ Offices 

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal judiciary has the critical 

responsibility for the fair and swift 

administration of justice in the United 

States. Like the rest of the federal 

government, the judiciary has been 

affected by decreasing federal 

resources, and is implementing and 

considering various cost containment 

initiatives, including sharing

administrative services between district 

and bankruptcy courts, such as human 

resources, procurement, or financial

management. In most federal judicial 

districts, the offices of the clerk—

responsible for operational and 

administrative court functions—for the 

district and bankruptcy courts are 

separate, but in a few districts, these 

have been consolidated into one 

clerk’s office. 

GAO was requested to examine the 

potential savings from consolidating or 

sharing services between district and 

bankruptcy clerks’ offices. This report 

addresses (1) the steps the judiciary 

has taken to consolidate these clerks’ 

offices or share services between them

and the costs and benefits of doing so, 

and (2) the extent to which the judiciary 

is assessing and considering further

clerks’ office consolidations or shared 

services. GAO reviewed judicial 

guidance related to consolidation and 

shared services, budget 

documentation, surveys and data on 

the extent of shared services, and 

information on potential cost savings 

from 10 federal judicial districts, 

selected based on geography and size, 

and to include courts with consolidated 

and nonconsolidated clerks’ offices. 

GAO also interviewed court and 

judiciary officials. While the information 

and views obtained cannot be 

generalized, they provided insights. 

What GAO Found

Few federal judicial districts have consolidated their court clerks’ offices; courts 

are sharing services among the clerks’ offices, but the costs and benefits are 

unclear. Four of the 91 districts served by bankruptcy courts have consolidated 

the clerks’ offices of the district and bankruptcy courts. Court officials in districts 

that are not considering consolidation told GAO that they are not considering 

consolidation primarily because the bankruptcy courts in those districts did not 

want to give up their independence or risk the possibility that services would be 

prioritized in favor of the district court, and the courts did not have evidence of 

cost savings or other benefits that would make consolidation worthwhile. Officials 

from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), which provides a 

wide range of services to the federal judiciary, were not aware of other districts 

considering consolidation and noted that the consolidation process is 

complicated—for example, it requires congressional approval. The judiciary has 

taken steps to share administrative services as part of its cost containment 

initiatives, but the cost savings and operational benefits of sharing services are 

unclear. In an AOUSC survey, 154 of 283 court units—district courts, bankruptcy 

courts, and probation and pretrial services offices—reported that they are sharing 

services with other court units, though the extent of this sharing is unknown

because the survey did not ask for this information. For example, sharing can 

comprise various methods, such as shared staff, shared contracts for service, or 

shared space. According to AOUSC officials, since staff expenses make up the 

majority of judiciary expenses, sharing staff and eliminating positions may be the 

most promising way to achieve cost savings through shared services. However, 

the ability to cut staff based on sharing services is dependent on the attributes of 

each district, including the level of staff utilization, and courts GAO spoke with did 

not provide documented evidence of cost savings or the lack thereof. Court 

opinions on the operational benefits from sharing services also varied. For 

example, court officials stated that sharing can provide opportunities for staff 

specialization and better-quality service, but can also negatively affect courts if 

services are not provided equitably.

In August 2011, AOUSC began a cost savings study on shared administrative 

services. AOUSC plans to use data collected from the courts to conduct an 

analysis of the percentage of time devoted to administrative work in court units 

that share services and consequently whether there are associated cost savings.

AOUSC plans to provide a draft report from the study to the Budget Committee of 

the Judicial Conference—the conference is the judiciary’s principal policy-making 

body—in July 2013, but did not know when the report would be final. In addition 

to determining whether shared services could save money, the results of the 

study could provide courts with information to aid in their decisions about sharing 

services. For example, AOUSC officials said that after the study is completed, 

they may conduct case studies of courts that are sharing services and 

disseminate information on these courts’ practices. As courts consider whether to 

begin or increase shared services arrangements, the results of AOUSC’s cost 

savings study will likely be important to help determine whether shared services 

could result in savings or other benefits. However, since the study is ongoing and 

case study plans are not firm, it is too early to tell whether the results, the final 

report, or subsequent AOUSC actions will provide this information.

View GAO-13-531. For more information, 

contact David C. Maurer at (202) 512-9627 or 

maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Letter 1 

Background 5

Few Districts Have Consolidated Clerks’ Offices, and Courts Are 

Sharing Services, but the Costs and Benefits Are Unclear 12

The Judiciary Is Assessing and Considering Further Efforts to 

Share Services 22

Agency Comments 25

Appendix I Comments from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 27

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 29

Tables

Table 1: Size of District and Bankruptcy Courts by Number of 

Authorized Judgeships 7

Table 2: Date Consolidation of Clerks’ Offices Began in the Four 

Judicial Districts 13

Table 3: Various Court Shared Services Examples from GAO 

Interviews 17

Figures

Figure 1: Overview of the United States District and Bankruptcy 

Courts 5

Figure 2: Personnel Funding and Staffing Levels for District and 

Bankruptcy Court Clerks’ Offices for Fiscal Years 2011 

through 2013 8

Figure 3: Overview of the Consolidation Process for District and 

Bankruptcy Clerks’ Offices 11

Figure 4: Sample Organizational Charts for Various Clerk’s Office 

Models 14

Figure 5: Court Units That Reported Sharing Services as of Fiscal 

Year 2011 16

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Abbreviation

AOUSC Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

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.
Page 1 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 13, 2013

The Honorable Ander Crenshaw

Chairman

Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The federal judiciary has the critical responsibility of the fair and swift 

administration of justice in the United States and handles all federal civil, 

criminal, and bankruptcy cases throughout the country. The judiciary, like 

the rest of the federal government, has been affected by decreasing 

federal resources, and has been identifying and implementing options for 

saving money and increasing efficiency. The judiciary’s budget increased 

by less than 1 percent in fiscal years 2011 and 2012, with a fiscal year 

2012 budget of $6.97 billion. For fiscal year 2013, the judiciary is 

operating under a continuing resolution that generally appropriates funds 

based on fiscal year 2012 levels, and the judiciary must accommodate an 

additional 5 percent reduction to all nonexempt appropriations accounts 

based on the March 1, 2013, sequestration.1

 

1

For fiscal year 2013, Congress and the President did not enact a regular appropriations 

act for the federal judiciary; thus the judiciary is operating under a continuing resolution for 

the remainder of the fiscal year that generally appropriates funds based on fiscal year 

2012 levels. See Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013, Pub. L. 

No. 113-6, div. F., tit. I, § 1101. The law provided for a funding level for Defender Services 

in excess of the fiscal year 2012 enacted amount. Id. § 1311. In addition, in accordance 

with section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act, as 

amended, 2 U.S.C. § 901a, the President ordered a sequestration on March 1, 2013, 

which applied a 5 percent reduction to all nonexempt appropriations accounts, and must 

be accommodated by the end of the fiscal year.

In recent years, the judiciary 

has considered and implemented various cost containment strategies to 

meet the demand for judicial services with limited increases in resources 

while seeking to avoid delays in cases and other negative consequences 

that could result when funding for court services is diminished. According 

to judiciary documentation, cost containment efforts designed to reduce 

the judiciary’s budget have included limiting growth in space rental costs 

and a new pay policy for employees, among others. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

An additional cost containment initiative is the implementation of shared 

administrative services between district and bankruptcy courts, such as 

sharing human resources, procurement, or finance staff, among other 

functions.2

You requested that we examine the potential savings that could be 

generated if district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices were consolidated or 

shared services, the process required to consolidate them or share 

services, and the associated impact that consolidation or shared services 

could have on court operations. This report addresses

The clerks’ offices for both the district and bankruptcy courts 

are the primary administrative bodies within the districts and are 

responsible for operational tasks such as docketing case-related 

paperwork, among others, and administrative functions. In most federal 

judicial districts, the offices of the clerk of court for the district and 

bankruptcy courts are separate, but in a few districts, these functions 

have been consolidated into one clerk’s office for the entire district. 

Consolidation in these districts has raised questions about the potential 

savings achieved and benefits gained from this structure, as well as 

efforts to share administrative services between clerks’ offices.

1. the steps the judiciary has taken to consolidate district and bankruptcy 

clerks’ offices or share services between them, and the costs and 

benefits of doing so, and

2. the extent to which the judiciary is assessing and considering further 

clerks’ office consolidations or shared services.

To address our objectives, we reviewed the statutory requirement and 

judicial guidance related to the consolidation of clerks’ offices and shared 

administrative services, as well as judiciary budget documentation from 

fiscal years 2011 through 2013. Specifically, to address the first objective, 

we reviewed documentation from federal district and bankruptcy courts on 

estimates of cost savings related to consolidation and shared services, 

and court consolidation and shared services plans, where available. We 

also reviewed reports on consolidation and shared services to determine 

the extent of consolidation and sharing and gain additional perspectives 

 

2

Shared services can include both administrative services, such as human resources, and 

operational services, such as case docketing. The judiciary’s cost containment initiative 

focuses on shared administrative services, though some courts share operational services 

as well. This report focuses primarily on shared administrative services, with occasional 

references to shared operational services.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

on potential cost savings and benefits. In addition, we interviewed officials 

within the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC)—which 

provides a wide range of services for the federal judiciary—about the 

extent of consolidation and sharing in the courts. Further, we analyzed 

data from AOUSC’s cost savings study on courts’ sharing arrangements 

to determine the extent of sharing. We assessed the reliability of these 

data by, for example, discussing missing and excluded data with officials 

and reviewing to ensure that all court districts were included in the data, 

and determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of 

this report. We obtained views and information on consolidation and 

shared services, including potential cost savings and operational benefits, 

from 20 federal district and bankruptcy courts in 10 judicial districts, 

selected based on geography and size, and to include courts with 

consolidated and nonconsolidated clerks’ offices.3 While the views and 

information obtained from these courts cannot be generalized to all 

judicial districts, they provided key insights across a range of different 

types of districts. In each of the districts with a consolidated clerk’s office, 

we met with the chief judges of the district and bankruptcy courts—who 

have primary responsibility for the administration of their courts—and the 

clerk of court.4 In each of the other districts, we met with the chief judges 

of the district and bankruptcy courts and the clerks of the district and 

bankruptcy courts. In several locations—including five judicial districts—

we also met with the probation and pretrial services chief, probation chief, 

or pretrial services chief to obtain the perspectives of other court units 

within the districts.5

 

3

These districts included the Central District of California, the District of Arizona, the 

District of the District of Columbia, the District of Idaho, the District of Kansas, the Eastern 

District of Pennsylvania, the Northern District of Georgia, the Southern District of 

California, the Southern District of Texas, and the Western District of Missouri.

Overall, from these 10 districts, we met with 10 chief 

district judges, 10 chief bankruptcy judges, 4 clerks of court serving both 

the district and bankruptcy courts in a consolidated district, 6 clerks of the 

district court, 6 clerks of the bankruptcy court, 1 chief of probation and 

4

In the District of the District of Columbia, the bankruptcy court has only one bankruptcy 

judge, who has primary responsibility for the administration of the bankruptcy court.

5

In most federal judicial districts, the probation and pretrial services offices are combined 

into one office with one chief. In the remaining districts, the offices are separate with two 

chiefs. The district courts, bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services offices 

are referred to as court units.
 

Page 4 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

pretrial services, 4 probation chiefs, and 3 pretrial services chiefs.6

Further, we met with two court clerks’ associations, representing district 

and bankruptcy court clerks, to obtain a national perspective on 

consolidation and shared services, including potential cost savings and 

the benefits of consolidation and shared services.7

To address the second objective, we also reviewed survey questions and 

data from AOUSC’s cost savings study. We interviewed program officials 

within AOUSC about its cost savings study and staffing formulas. In 

addition, we interviewed the Chair of the Committee on Court 

Administration and Case Management of the Judicial Conference of the 

United States (Judicial Conference) to determine its perspective on the 

potential for cost savings and benefits from consolidation and shared 

services and the extent to which these models are being encouraged 

throughout the judiciary.8

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 to June 2013 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.

Further, we obtained views and information on 

potential cost savings and operational benefits from 20 federal district and 

bankruptcy courts in 10 judicial districts, as previously mentioned.

 

6

We also met with 1 additional court official in a district clerk’s office at the request of the 

clerk.

7

The two associations were the Federal Court Clerks Association, which provided the 

perspective of district clerks for this review, and the National Conference of Bankruptcy 

Clerks, which provided the perspective of bankruptcy clerks. These associations were 

selected based on their longevity and their representation of federal clerks of court.

8

The Judicial Conference is the federal judiciary’s principal policy-making body.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, regional circuit 

courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, as well as courts of 

special jurisdiction including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 

the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims.9

Figure 1: Overview of the United States District and Bankruptcy Courts

Figure 

1 provides an overview of the district and bankruptcy courts.

 

9

The federal judiciary’s budget is funded as part of the Financial Services and General 

Government Appropriations Act and also includes entities such as the United States 

Sentencing Commission and AOUSC, among others.

Background 

Overview of the 

Federal Judiciary
 

Page 6 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Note: This figure represents only the portion of the judicial branch that is discussed in this report. Of 

the 94 federal judicial districts, 91 are served by bankruptcy courts. In the remaining 3—the Virgin 

Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands—the judges of the district courts also serve as the 

bankruptcy judges. In Arkansas, the bankruptcy judges serve both the Eastern and Western Districts, 

so there are 90 bankruptcy courts that serve 91 districts.

There are 94 federal judicial districts—at least 1 for each state—

organized into 12 regional circuits. Each judicial district is served by at 

least one district court location, and 91 are served by a U.S. bankruptcy 

court in one or more locations—a separate unit of the district court.10

District courts are the trial courts of the federal court system and, within 

limits set by Congress and the Constitution, have jurisdiction to hear 

nearly all categories of federal cases, including both civil and criminal 

matters. Bankruptcy courts handle bankruptcy cases—federal court 

proceedings designed to help both individuals and businesses eliminate 

debts they cannot fully repay as well as help creditors receive payment in 

an equitable manner.

District courts also have probation and pretrial services offices to assist 

the courts in the fair administration of justice and protect the community. 

As shown in figure 1, AOUSC within the judicial branch provides a wide 

range of services for the federal judiciary. The Judicial Conference 

supervises the Director of AOUSC, is the principal policy-making body for 

the federal judiciary, and recommends national policies and legislation on 

all aspects of federal judicial administration.

11 Pursuant to the U.S. Constitution, district court 

judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate,12

and have life tenure.13

 

10In three districts, which are territories of the United States—the Virgin Islands, Guam, 

and the Northern Mariana Islands—the judges of the district courts also serve as the 

bankruptcy judges. 28 U.S.C. § 152(a)(4). In Arkansas, the bankruptcy judges serve both 

the Eastern and Western Districts. 28 U.S.C. § 152(a)(2). So, there are 90 bankruptcy 

courts that serve 91 districts.

Bankruptcy judges are appointed by the court of 

11Congress vested original jurisdiction over all bankruptcy cases in the U.S. District Court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). Congress also provided that the district court could refer all cases in 

bankruptcy and any and all proceedings arising under, in, or related to cases in 

bankruptcy, to the bankruptcy court. 28 U.S.C. § 157(a). Some claims, however, must be 

adjudicated by the district court, even if they arise in a bankruptcy proceeding, such as 

those that involve both the bankruptcy code and other federal laws regulating 

organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce, or state law matters. See 28 

U.S.C. § 157(d); Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011).

12U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2.

13U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1.
 

Page 7 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

appeals of the circuit in which the district is located and serve 14-year 

terms.14 District courts and bankruptcy courts can have courthouses in 

multiple cities in 1 district. In addition, within one city, district courts and 

bankruptcy courts can be colocated in the same building or can be 

located in separate buildings. District courts and bankruptcy courts vary in 

size as shown by the number of authorized judgeships in table 1. The 

clerks’ offices of individual courts have varying numbers of staff, from 7 to 

268 for district courts and from 10 to 266 for bankruptcy courts, with more 

than half of the clerks’ offices staffed with under 50 people and the vast 

majority staffed with under 100 people.15

Table 1: Size of District and Bankruptcy Courts by Number of Authorized Judgeships 

Total number 

of courts

1-2 

judgeships

3-5 

judgeships

6-9 

judgeships

10-16

judgeships

17-28 

judgeships

Number of district courts 94 9 41 20 17 7 

Number of bankruptcy courts 90 41 35 12 1 1 

Source: GAO analysis of judiciary information.

Note: Judicial vacancies result in the actual number of judges being lower than the authorized 

number of judgeships in a judicial district.

Funding for the clerks’ offices of federal district and bankruptcy courts is 

appropriated under the account for “court of appeals, district courts, and 

other judicial services—salaries and expenses.”16

 

1428 U.S.C. § 152(a)(1).

This account makes up 

the majority of the judiciary’s budget—approximately $5 billion in fiscal 

year 2011 and $5.02 billion in fiscal year 2012, with a fiscal year 2013 

budget of about $4.78 billion after the effect of the sequester is taken into 

account. As shown in figure 2, funding allocated from this account for the 

clerks’ offices staff of the district and bankruptcy courts decreased from 

fiscal year 2011 to 2013. During this time period, the clerks’ offices’ staff 

numbers were reduced in the bankruptcy courts—from 4,515 to 3,896 

15Clerk’s office staff numbers represent the total of onboard staff, which may be lower 

than authorized staff levels, and are based on the most recently compiled information from 

the judiciary’s human resources management information system—as of June 30, 2012, 

for district courts and January 27, 2013, for bankruptcy courts.

16Within the “court of appeals, district courts, and other judicial services” account there are 

separate appropriations for salaries and expenses, defender services, fees of jurors and 

commissioners, and court security.
 

Page 8 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

staff as of April 2013—and were reduced in the district courts—from 

6,225 to 5,755 staff as of April 2013.

Figure 2: Personnel Funding and Staffing Levels for District and Bankruptcy Court 

Clerks’ Offices for Fiscal Years 2011 through 2013

Notes: The number of onboard staff may be lower than the number of full-time-equivalent staff. In 

addition, the budget numbers are not adjusted for inflation.

a

According to judiciary information, fiscal year 2013 budget and staff numbers are estimates as of 

April 2013.

Prior to the passage of the Bankruptcy Act of 197817

 

17Pub. L. No. 95-598, 92 Stat. 2549. The act became effective October 1, 1979.

federal district courts 

employed a system whereby “referees” were appointed by the district 

court judges to serve as administrators for bankruptcy cases. 

Recognizing that this system was designed in 1898—with the last major 

overhaul in 1938—and that, among other things, there had been a steady 

Consolidation and 

Shared Services
 

Page 9 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

growth in the number of bankruptcies leading to great stresses and 

strains in the bankruptcy system, after almost 10 years of study and 

investigation, Congress passed a comprehensive revision of the 

bankruptcy laws.18 The 1978 act established U.S. bankruptcy courts in 

each federal judicial district and gave them the authority to hire their own 

clerks and other staff, among other significant changes to the bankruptcy 

code.19 Subsequently, in response to Northern Pipeline Construction Co. 

v. Marathon Pipe Line Co.,

20 in which the Supreme Court declared 

unconstitutional the grant of bankruptcy court jurisdiction to independent 

courts composed of judges who did not have life tenure and the other 

protections of Article III of the Constitution, Congress passed the 

Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984.21 This law 

established bankruptcy courts as units of each district court and also 

authorized the bankruptcy judges in a district to appoint a clerk of the 

bankruptcy court, upon a certification of need to the judicial council of the 

circuit involved and to the Director of AOUSC.22

Once established, the bankruptcy courts began hiring their own clerks of 

court to oversee the bankruptcy court clerks’ offices.23

 

18See S. REP. NO. 95-989, at 2-3 (1978). The Senate Report accompanying the law also 

noted that the bankruptcy referee has gradually taken over the prime responsibility for the 

operation of the system from the federal district judges. Id. at 5789. Similarly, when 

establishing a commission to study the bankruptcy laws in 1970, Congress noted that the 

number of bankruptcies had increased more than 1,000 percent annually in the previous 

20 years, and more than one-fourth of the referees had problems arising in their 

administration of the existing Bankruptcy Act, among other things. Pub. L. No. 91-354, 84 

Stat. 468 (1970).

In 1986, a new 

statutory provision was added prohibiting the consolidation of the offices 

of the district and bankruptcy clerks of court without the prior approval of 

19See Pub. L. No. 95-598, tit. II, § 233(a), 92 Stat. at 2665-67 (previously codified at 28 

U.S.C. § 771) (providing authority to each bankruptcy court to appoint a clerk).

20458 U.S. 50 (1982).

21Pub. L. No. 98-353, 98 Stat. 333.

22Id. tit. I, § 104(a), 98 Stat. at 336, 339 (codified at 28 U.S.C. §§ 151, 156(b)).

23The effective date of the sections concerning the bankruptcy court and bankruptcy clerk 

of the 1978 act was originally April 1, 1984, but was postponed several times and 

ultimately replaced by provisions of the 1984 act. See generally B-217236, May 22, 1985

(describing changes to provisions related to bankruptcy clerks).
 

Page 10 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

the Judicial Conference and Congress.24

The Guide to Judiciary Policy also details the process for seeking 

approval for consolidation. According to the policy, the district and 

bankruptcy courts are to conduct a cost-benefit and programmatic study 

of the proposed consolidation to describe the expected programmatic and 

financial impacts of the consolidation and demonstrate that the 

consolidation will result in cost savings without decreasing quality of 

service. The chief district judge and chief bankruptcy judge then are to 

submit the consolidation proposal, including the cost-benefit and 

programmatic information, to the circuit judicial council for consideration, 

and as shown in figure 3, the proposal is to then be considered and 

approved by the Judicial Conference and Congress.

In 1998, the Judicial Conference 

further clarified the process for consolidation of clerks’ offices in the 

district courts and bankruptcy courts, which was promulgated in the Guide 

to Judiciary Policy. The policy states that the voluntary consent of both 

the district and bankruptcy courts is necessary before combining or 

merging functions of the district and bankruptcy court clerks’ offices.

 

24Bankruptcy Judges, United States Trustees, and Family Farmer Bankruptcy Act of 1986, 

Pub. L. No. 99-554, § 103, 100 Stat. 3088, 3090 (codified at 28 U.S.C. § 156(d)). 

According to the sponsor of the amendment adding this provision, the reason for the 

approval process prior to consolidation was “because there is sometimes a slight conflict 

between the clerks of the bankruptcy courts and the clerks of the U.S. district courts”;

however, the approval process would “not prohibit the uniting of these offices and the real 

cost benefits to be had.” 132 Cong. Rec. S5640 (1986) (statement of Senator DeConcini).
 

Page 11 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Figure 3: Overview of the Consolidation Process for District and Bankruptcy Clerks’ 

Offices 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

a

When the district and bankruptcy courts of the District of Columbia requested congressional approval 

to consolidate their clerks’ offices in 2006, the Judicial Conference notified congressional leadership 

and the chairs and ranking members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees that the 

consolidation would be deemed approved by Congress unless objections were received within 90 

days. Absent objection from Congress, the clerks’ offices were consolidated.

Although full consolidation of clerks’ offices is a multistep process 

culminating in Judicial Conference and congressional approval, district 

and bankruptcy clerks’ offices are allowed to share administrative 

services provided by the clerks’ offices without undergoing such formal 

approval. For example, the sharing of services may be initiated by a 

memorandum of agreement between a district and a bankruptcy court or 

may be an informal arrangement. Like full consolidation, however, 

pursuant to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, the sharing of services that falls 

short of consolidation requires the voluntary consent of both the district 

and bankruptcy courts. In addition, shared services may occur across 

district lines, between, for example, two bankruptcy courts in two separate 

districts. Shared services can include administrative or operational 

services in a variety of formats. For example, different court units may 

share a joint contract for telephone service, share individual staff, or 

share space, among other arrangements.

Of the 91 federal judicial districts served by bankruptcy courts, 4 function 

with consolidated district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices. Three of the 4 

districts consolidated clerks’ offices in the mid-1980s, and the fourth court 

consolidated in 2006, as shown in table 2.

Few Districts Have 

Consolidated Clerks’ 

Offices, and Courts 

Are Sharing Services, 

but the Costs and 

Benefits Are Unclear

Four Districts Have 

Consolidated Clerks’ 

Offices, and No Known 

Others Plan to Do So in the 

Future 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Table 2: Date Consolidation of Clerks’ Offices Began in the Four Judicial Districts 

District Consolidation year

District of Idaho 1985

Southern District of Texas 1985 

Western District of Missouri 1986 

District of the District of Columbia 2006

Source: GAO analysis.

Consolidation of clerks’ offices generally results in one clerk of court 

serving both the district and bankruptcy courts.25

 

25According to the Guide to Judiciary Policy, a proposed reorganization of the district and 

bankruptcy clerks’ offices will be considered a consolidation if (1) it affects the bankruptcy 

court’s authority to appoint a clerk or the clerk’s authority to appoint and remove deputy 

clerks, or (2) the bankruptcy court determines that a clerk is no longer required and 

bankruptcy functions are merged into the district clerk’s office, or (3) all administrative 

functions are merged under the control of one unit executive.

The districts with 

consolidated clerks’ offices have varying management structures, such as 

managers or chiefs with responsibilities for operational or administrative 

functions, or cross-trained staff who serve both courts. Figure 4 shows a 

sample of an organizational chart for a district with a consolidated clerk’s 

office, compared with districts with two separate clerks’ offices that do 

and do not share administrative services.
 

Page 14 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Figure 4: Sample Organizational Charts for Various Clerk’s Office Models

Note: These organizational charts are meant to be illustrative, do not represent specific districts, and 

do not include all the functions of the district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices. Each represents one of 

various possible ways of organizing staff within clerks’ offices. Although positions in the charts may 

have the same names, this does not mean that a duplication of effort necessarily exists. In addition, in 

some courts, multiple functions (e.g., human resources and facilities) may be performed by one 

individual.

Court officials in the 4 districts with consolidated clerks’ offices stated that 

they are generally satisfied with the consolidated arrangements, and the 

court officials noted that colocation, collaboration, collegiality, and a 

respectful court culture are factors in making consolidation work well. 

Since each federal court is unique, and only 4 districts have consolidated 

clerks’ offices, it is difficult to draw conclusions about what type of court is 

best suited for consolidation. For example, the district and bankruptcy 

courts in these 4 districts vary in size, with both small and large courts. 

Three of these courts have been consolidated for over 25 years, so it is 

difficult to determine the effect of consolidation—whether it has resulted in 

cost savings or other operational benefits, such as increased quality of 

service. According to court officials, these courts consolidated their clerks’ 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

offices for a variety of reasons, including the departure of the bankruptcy 

clerk and a desire to increase efficiency. The District of Columbia 

consolidated more recently and, of the four consolidated courts, is the 

only court that was subject to the statutory congressional approval 

requirement as a prerequisite to consolidation. According to the clerk of 

court and chief district judge, the District of Columbia consolidated clerks’ 

offices because the bankruptcy clerk was retiring and it was an opportune 

time to consider consolidation. In addition, the District of Columbia has 1 

bankruptcy judge, but 15 district court judges, so the bankruptcy court’s 

resource demands on the clerk’s office upon consolidation were going to 

be minimal compared with those of the district court. According to the 

bankruptcy judge, this was a factor in the decision to consolidate the 

clerks’ offices. However, none of the districts with consolidated clerks’ 

offices provided documentation of actual cost savings or other operational 

benefits from consolidation.

Court officials we interviewed in the 6 other districts stated that they were 

not considering consolidation at this time. This was primarily because

• the bankruptcy courts did not want to give up their independence or 

risk the possibility that services provided by the clerk’s office would be 

prioritized in favor of the district court because of the hierarchy of the

court system, and

• the courts did not have evidence of cost savings or other benefits that 

would make consolidation worthwhile.

Moreover, AOUSC officials were not aware of additional courts 

considering consolidation of their clerks’ offices. They also noted that the 

process required to consolidate clerks’ offices is complicated—since it 

requires a joint plan from the district and bankruptcy courts and Judicial 

Conference and congressional approval.

The judiciary has taken steps to share administrative services between 

the clerks’ offices—while maintaining the autonomy of each clerk’s 

office—as part of its cost containment initiatives that began in 2004. One 

of the seven issues outlined in the September 2010 Strategic Plan for the 

Federal Judiciary is the effective and efficient management of public 

resources. This issue lists three goals, one of which is to facilitate the 

sharing of administrative staff and services within courts and, where 

appropriate, across organizational boundaries. At the Judicial Conference 

session in September 2012, the Committee on Court Administration and 

Case Management recommended that the Judicial Conference request 

Courts Are Sharing 

Administrative Services 

as a Cost Containment 

Initiative, but the Costs 

and Benefits Are Unclear
 

Page 16 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

individual court units within each district to work together to adopt a 

shared administrative services plan and provide the plans to the 

committee by February 15, 2013, and the Judicial Conference approved 

the committee’s recommendation. AOUSC officials reported that all 94 

federal judicial districts submitted plans. AOUSC is now reviewing and 

summarizing the plans and expects to complete this process in June 

2013. AOUSC officials stated that, according to their review of the plans 

so far, the majority of the plans stated that court officials met with each 

other to discuss the possibility of sharing services and determined that 

they plan to share services as the need arises. In addition, officials stated 

that some districts’ plans stated that they are not planning to share 

services, and some said that they are already sharing a lot of services.

As shown in figure 5, according to an AOUSC survey, many court units—

district courts, bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services 

offices—report that they are sharing services with other court units in a 

variety of ways, though the extent of this sharing is unclear. Specifically, 

each instance of sharing reported could represent a significant or minimal 

effort to share, ranging from sharing, for example, a human resources 

staff person to a contract for telephone service to a training room.

Figure 5: Court Units That Reported Sharing Services as of Fiscal Year 2011

Notes: The district court, bankruptcy court, and probation and pretrial services offices are referred to 

as court units. From the surveys sent to 299 court units, AOUSC received responses from 283 court 

units. The surveys asked whether court units were in a “substantial sharing relationship,” which 

AOUSC defined as one or more of the following: a written agreement, administrative order, reported 

on the web, requires joint procurements with other units, requires one or more parties to transfer 

funds to pay for services, or requires shared management of administrative staff. The extent of the 

sharing was not requested, so the range of what constitutes a substantial sharing relationship could 

vary widely.

a

The specific areas of sharing do not add up to the total number of court units sharing services, since 

individual court units may share in multiple areas.
 

Page 17 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

There are a variety of ways that courts can share services with varying 

degrees of integration and reliance on other court units, including the 

following examples in table 3 from officials we interviewed in various 

districts.

Table 3: Various Court Shared Services Examples from GAO Interviews

Area of sharing Examples from court unit officials interviewed

Sharing administrative 

staff, who perform functions 

for multiple court units

• The district court and the probation and pretrial services office share a director for 

administrative services and plan to share a human resources staff person with the bankruptcy 

court in the future.

• The district court shares a space and facilities staff person and a mail clerk with the probation 

office, and provides information technology networking for the probation office.

• The district court pays the hourly wages of a staff person—for time spent performing 

information technology services remotely—from a district court in another circuit.

Sharing technology 

programs and support

• The bankruptcy courts share technology programs and support with other bankruptcy courts in 

administrative and operational areas, such as automated case-processing applications, a 

leave-tracking application, and a training database.

Sharing utility services • The bankruptcy court supports the phone system used by the probation office.

• The district and bankruptcy courts share a telephone system.

Sharing training resources • The district and bankruptcy courts participate together in district-wide events such as diversity 

events and sexual harassment training.

Sharing building

responsibilities and 

other responsibilities

• The district and bankruptcy courts share a continuity-of-operations plan and emergency 

preparedness functions.

• The district court processes all payments and writes all of the checks for the district court, 

bankruptcy court, probation office, pretrial services office, and the circuit court.

• The district and bankruptcy courts serve as each other’s employee dispute resolution officials 

and internal auditors.

• The district and bankruptcy courts share some procurement responsibilities.

Source: GAO analysis of court information.

Although many courts are participating in various shared services 

arrangements, the extent to which they provide cost savings or other 

benefits is unclear. According to AOUSC officials and representatives 

from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks, since staff salaries 

make up the majority of judiciary expenses, substantial savings from 

shared services would need to come from sharing some staff and 

eliminating other staff positions. For example, although sharing telephone 

service or making purchases jointly with another court unit could build 

economies of scale and save some money, these are minor expenses 

and will not result in large savings. Further, 21 of 36 chief judges and 

clerks of court we spoke with from consolidated courts, district courts, and 

bankruptcy courts stated that the way consolidation or shared services 

would save money would be through reducing staff. Further, 

representatives from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks stated 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

that the primary way consolidating staff into one department or sharing 

administrative staff with other court units would save money would be if 

staff were underutilized or if there were redundancies in employee 

positions that would allow staff to be eliminated. However, court officials 

from nonconsolidated courts we spoke with, including those with and 

without shared services, stated that their court units were already 

appropriately staffed, were understaffed, or their staff did not have free 

time to take on additional responsibilities for other court units, and they 

could not eliminate any positions without reducing the service provided to 

the courts. For example, one court official we interviewed stated that the 

court had to eliminate various positions because of budget cuts in the last 

fiscal year and that the number of staff was already at a minimal level 

necessary to complete the court’s workload.

Moreover, court officials, as well as representatives from the National 

Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks, said that combining fully utilized staff 

into one office would not reduce the workload or make staff more 

effective, and that sharing services between departments that are already 

fully utilizing staff would not produce cost savings. More specifically, 

representatives from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks stated 

that sharing services would succeed if there are underutilized 

administrative staff who have time for additional work, but since court 

budgets have been reduced in recent years, there are very few court staff 

with such extra time. Additionally, a chief bankruptcy judge in one district 

that we interviewed stated that the court units in the district were 

operating with a lean staff and have not filled staff positions when 

employees leave, so there is not extra staff time to take over other duties 

for another court unit. In this context, sharing services would not be likely 

to save money. Similarly, one chief district judge stated that combining 

administrative staff into one department would not be effective at saving 

costs; rather, the courts need to make sure they have an appropriate 

number of staff for their individual workloads. Further, several officials we 

interviewed, including officials from district courts, bankruptcy courts, and 

probation and pretrial services offices, and representatives from the 

National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks, mentioned that if courts 

combined administrative staff into one large unit, it was possible that the 

court would have to hire an additional manager to supervise the larger 

number of people in the administrative unit. The National Conference of 

Bankruptcy Clerks representatives further stated that it is possible that 

broader responsibilities of shared staff could lead to upward 

reclassification of positions, which may result in higher costs.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

However, some court officials reported that sharing services by sharing 

staff between clerks’ offices has saved money. For example, three out of 

the four consolidated courts we spoke to, as well as two courts that share 

services out of the six other courts we spoke with, reported that they had 

saved costs by eliminating positions and saving the cost of those salaries, 

but these courts did not provide documented evidence of the savings, 

and, in the case of some of the consolidated courts, since they have been 

consolidated for so long, it is difficult for them to quantify the effects of 

consolidation. Court officials from these districts stated that by sharing 

administrative services, their staff have been able to specialize, better 

serve the courts, and save salaries. Further, 20 out of 36 chief judges and 

clerks of court we spoke with from consolidated courts, district courts, and 

bankruptcy courts, and representatives from the Federal Court Clerks 

Association, stated that smaller courts with only a few judges may have 

more opportunities for cost savings from sharing administrative services 

because they do not already have the economies of scale that larger 

courts have. In smaller courts, officials said that administrative staff 

typically serve fewer court employees, and therefore could be utilized 

more efficiently if they provided services to more than one court unit. 

However, in small or large courts, the opportunity for such arrangements 

actually reducing costs can be dependent on the unique attributes of each 

district, including the level of staff utilization and the workload.

None of the courts we met with provided documented evidence to show 

whether shared services resulted in cost savings, though the courts in at 

least 2 of the 10 districts we spoke to have attempted to determine 

whether sharing services would save money. For example, in 1 district, 

one court unit executive we interviewed said that the district’s bankruptcy 

court, district court, and probation and pretrial services offices have 

discussed potentially sharing resources to determine whether cost 

savings would result. They looked at their staffing ratios and found that if 

one court unit’s staff provided administrative services for the other court 

units, they would not have sufficient staff to complete the work. For 

example, pretrial services in this district has one human resources staff 

member per 100 court employees, and if the staffs were combined such 

that that one human resources staff member had to serve more people, 

that person could not complete the duties of the position.

In another district, one chief district judge we interviewed told us that 

there was a discussion of all the possible sharing arrangements in the 

district with the chief bankruptcy judge, district and bankruptcy clerks, and 

probation and pretrial services chiefs. They decided that sharing would 

not be a good option because the court units’ staff did not have extra time 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

to take on additional duties and if they combined the administrative 

departments, they would need to hire or promote additional staff with 

expertise to manage the administrative functions for each of the court 

units. Further, the bankruptcy clerk compared the administrative staff 

expenditures between the clerk’s district and estimates from another 

district that shares services, and determined that the sharing district did 

not save a significant amount in comparison with the clerk’s district. After 

discussing various possible sharing scenarios, the chief district judge said 

that the officials were convinced that sharing services would not save 

money in their district, although they did agree to a policy to examine 

whether there is an opportunity to save money through sharing before 

replacing staff who leave. The chief bankruptcy judge in this same district 

further stated that an analysis of cost savings needs to be a court-bycourt evaluation because there are so many possible differences between 

the courts that can affect a comparison of cost savings between courts, 

such as locality pay and tenure of employees. According to AOUSC 

officials, documenting such savings is also difficult because court 

workloads and budgets change over time and isolating the specific impact 

of the sharing arrangement can be challenging. In addition, staffing 

arrangements can change over time, and it is possible for one position to 

be eliminated through a sharing arrangement, but other positions could 

be created as a result. For example, in a court with a consolidated clerk’s 

office, the elimination of one clerk of court position may require the hiring 

of an additional chief deputy clerk to handle the workload of the 

eliminated position.

In addition to varying opinions on cost savings, court officials’ opinions 

varied on the potential for other operational benefits to sharing services. 

One clerk from a district court that shares services stated that sharing 

administrative services results in having a larger pool of staff to help out 

when problems arise and promotes more cooperation between court 

units. Similarly, two district clerks we interviewed said sharing 

administrative services in smaller courts could allow staff to specialize 

and provide better-quality service to the courts. Another court official we 

interviewed said that shared administrative services improves the 

consistency of the district’s policies and procedures between the court 

units, enhances trust between court units, eliminates duplication of 

services, and results in greater transparency in staffing and financial 

decisions. Other court officials said that sharing staff allowed the clerks’ 

offices to provide better support to the smaller courthouses within a 

district, since those locations were not fully staffed.
 

Page 21 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

However, 15 out of 44 court officials we interviewed from consolidated, 

district, and bankruptcy courts, and both associations we spoke with, 

expressed concern about sharing services between the district and 

bankruptcy courts, since the functions of the two courts are so different, 

especially for operational functions such as docketing and case 

administration. However, 11 out of 36 chief judges and clerks of court 

from consolidated, district, and bankruptcy courts, and both associations 

we spoke with, stated that for administrative functions, such as human 

resources or procurement, these differences would not negatively affect 

work quality. Officials we spoke with from both bankruptcy and district 

courts, and representatives from the National Conference of Bankruptcy 

Clerks, were particularly concerned about sharing information technology 

services between courts because the bankruptcy case process is very 

reliant on various automated technology tools. For example, seven chief 

judges and clerks of the bankruptcy courts we spoke with, one chief judge 

and four clerks of the district courts we spoke with, and representatives 

from the National Conference of Bankruptcy Clerks, said that sharing 

information technology staff would negatively affect the functioning of the 

bankruptcy court. One chief bankruptcy judge elaborated that such 

sharing can negatively affect courts if services are not provided 

equitably—for example, if services for the district court are prioritized over 

those for the bankruptcy court. One district court clerk explained that 

while the district court can function without information technology 

services, the bankruptcy court comes to a standstill if there is a problem 

with its information technology systems because the bankruptcy court is 

so reliant on electronic case processing. The official stated that with this 

in mind, bankruptcy courts need dedicated information technology staff 

who can respond quickly to problems. However, officials from the four 

consolidated courts said that they had few difficulties sharing information 

technology administration between court units.

To assist the courts in making decisions about implementing shared 

services arrangements, in February 2012, the Budget and Finance 

Advisory Council at AOUSC published a guidebook to provide information 

to courts on sharing administrative services. According to the guidebook, 

it is intended to serve as a guide, not judiciary policy, to help courts 

understand the challenges of sharing services, build enthusiasm for 

shared services arrangements, and provide a blueprint for how courts can 

proceed with sharing services. The guidebook provides suggestions on 

several ways that courts can share administrative services, provides a 

checklist for sharing services, and presents potential challenges to 

sharing services as well as examples of how particular courts addressed 

the challenges. Among other things, the guidebook lists the potential 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

advantages of sharing administrative services, such as allowing 

administrative staff to specialize in one area and develop expertise, 

maximizing volume buying, and serving as a management tool by 

streamlining administrative functions.

Since the extent of cost savings and other benefits in courts with 

consolidated clerks’ offices or shared services is unclear at this time, 

AOUSC is assessing whether additional arrangements would be 

beneficial. Because, according to AOUSC officials and court officials we 

interviewed, consolidation of clerks’ offices in additional districts is 

unlikely, AOUSC has focused on assessing whether shared services 

results in cost savings, and its efforts are ongoing. In August 2011, 

AOUSC began a study to determine the extent to which court units have 

been sharing administrative services; what the results have been, 

including any cost savings; and how courts may be able to contain costs 

through sharing more services. For the study, AOUSC distributed surveys 

to district and bankruptcy courts and probation and pretrial services 

offices to collect data on the number of court units that are sharing 

services and the number of court unit employees categorized as 

performing administrative versus operational functions.26

As previously discussed, the first survey asked the court units to report 

whether they had a substantial sharing arrangement with other court 

units.27

 

26Administrative functions in the survey included information technology, human 

resources, finance, budget, contracts and procurement, space and facilities, and 

education and training. There was also an option labeled “other” for court units to indicate 

that they were participating in a sharing arrangement that was not captured by one of 

these seven areas.

The responses indicated that over half of the court units that 

responded to the survey are involved in some sort of sharing 

arrangement, although the extent of the sharing was not requested, so 

the range of what constitutes a substantial sharing relationship could vary 

27From the surveys sent to 299 court units, AOUSC received responses from 283 court 

units, of which 154 reported that they were sharing at least one service. The surveys 

asked whether court units were in a “substantial sharing relationship,” which AOUSC 

defined as one or more of the following: a written agreement, administrative order, 

reported on the web, requires joint procurements with other units, requires one or more 

parties to transfer funds to pay for services, or requires shared management of 

administrative staff.

The Judiciary Is 

Assessing and 

Considering Further 

Efforts to Share 

Services 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

widely—for example, from sharing a contract for telephone service to 

sharing a human resources staff person to sharing a training room.

The second survey requested information from the court units about the 

breakdown of their administrative and operational employees, and how 

much time staff spend on administrative tasks. For example, court unit 

employees are sometimes cross-trained in both operational and 

administrative positions, or in some cases they work in more than one 

administrative area. AOUSC plans to use the data collected from these 

surveys to conduct an analysis of the percentage of time devoted to 

administrative work in court units that share services and consequently 

whether there are associated cost savings with sharing services. 

According to officials, AOUSC is still analyzing the data and has drafted a 

report from the study, which after further review, they anticipate providing 

to the Judicial Conference’s Committee on the Budget in July 2013, but 

they did not know when the report would be final.

While AOUSC studies the potential cost savings, the Judicial Conference 

continues to encourage shared services as a way to save money while 

maintaining high-quality court services. In a 2012 hearing, the Chair of the 

Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference stated that shared 

administrative services would reduce the duplication caused by multiple 

human resources, procurement, financial management, and information 

technology staffs in a single judicial district.28

The Judicial Conference specified the administrative areas considered 

suitable for sharing, including human resources, education and training, 

finance, budget, information technology, property management, contracts 

The Chair also stated that 

shared administrative services would reduce staffing and overhead costs 

and streamline the administrative process in the courts. Furthermore, in 

September 2012, the Judicial Conference approved a revised bankruptcy 

court staffing formula that included an assumption that shared services 

will save money and reduce staffing needs. The staffing formula, which is 

developed by AOUSC and approved by the Judicial Conference, 

determines the number of staff that individual clerks’ offices need. The 

revised staffing formula has resulted in lower staffing allocations and 

decreased funding for the courts. 

 

28Fiscal 2013 Appropriations: Financial Services: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Fin.

Servs. and Gen. Gov’t of the H. Comm. on Appropriations, 112th Cong. 1 (2012) 

(statement of Julia S. Gibbons, chair, Judicial Conference of the United States).
 

Page 24 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

and procurement, space and facilities, mail room management, and 

continuity of operations and emergency planning. According to the Chair 

of the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Court Administration and Case 

Management, the Judicial Conference identified these areas as 

administrative functions, and determined that administrative functions are 

conducive to sharing. According to judiciary documentation, the staffing 

formula reductions are to be rolled out over the next several years based 

on the assumption of gradual increases in shared services in these 

administrative areas, with full sharing of information technology functions, 

for example, anticipated in fiscal year 2016. However, AOUSC officials 

stated that the total dollar amount of the budget savings from the 

reduction in the staffing formula was not yet known. Further, according to 

AOUSC officials, the district court staffing formulas are still being 

calculated, but will likely include reductions based on shared 

administrative services.

AOUSC officials stated that some court units have told them anecdotally 

that they have saved money through sharing administrative services, and 

preliminary results from the cost savings study indicate that courts with at 

least one shared services arrangement operated with fewer 

administrative staff per court employee than courts that did not report 

sharing services, thus potentially saving resources. However, AOUSC

officials said that these preliminary results did not take into account the 

varying levels of shared services that courts have, since the self-reported

surveys did not ask for this information.

Further, AOUSC officials stated that there are multiple factors that could 

play a role in the efficiency of court operations, such as the size of the 

court, as well as local management practices, and that the study was not 

able to isolate the potential savings associated with shared services. 

Moreover, AOUSC’s guidebook for courts on shared administrative 

services states that sharing services will not necessarily result in 

immediate redundancies and therefore opportunities to reduce staff, and 

thus does not suggest that sharing will produce cost savings. As courts 

consider whether to begin or increase shared services arrangements, the 

results of AOUSC’s cost savings study will likely be important to help 

determine whether shared services could result in savings or other 

benefits. However, since the study is ongoing, it is too early to tell 

whether the results or the final report will provide this information.

In addition to determining whether shared services could save money, as 

courts consider how to reduce costs and meet decreasing budgets, the 

results of AOUSC’s study could provide courts with information or 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

promising practices to aid in their decisions about sharing services in their 

particular districts. For example, AOUSC officials said that after the study 

is completed, they may conduct case studies of courts that, according to 

the survey data, are sharing services and show an efficient use of 

administrative staff, and disseminate information on these courts’ 

practices to all courts. Several court officials we interviewed stated that 

they would like AOUSC to provide such information as they consider 

whether to share services. For example, courts noted that they did not 

have access to measures that would allow them to compare their staff 

numbers and utilization with those of other similarly sized courts, such as 

if their human resource staff numbers were at an optimal level. Since 

each court is unique, such ratios could be different for courts of different 

sizes and could take into account the unique functions and operations of 

district and bankruptcy courts, as well as other factors. In addition, 

several court officials we interviewed described a promising practice that 

could be useful to other courts, stating that they had agreed with the other 

court officials in their district to consult with each other when a vacancy 

arose to determine whether the lost functions could be performed through 

a shared services arrangement without hiring new staff. The results of the 

study and subsequent case studies could provide useful information that 

courts can use in assessing whether shared services would be beneficial 

in their particular districts and whether to implement additional shared 

services. However, since the study is ongoing and subsequent case study 

plans are not firm, it is too early to tell whether the results, the final report, 

or subsequent AOUSC actions will provide this information.

We provided a draft of this report to AOUSC on May 15, 2013, for review 

and comment. On June 5, 2013, AOUSC provided written comments, 

which are reprinted in appendix I. AOUSC underscored the financial 

challenges facing the federal courts because of budget reductions and 

sequestration, and its hope that sharing administrative services will help 

control costs and improve services. AOUSC stated that the judiciary’s 

cost containment efforts, including sharing administrative services, will not 

fully offset the effects of sequestration on the judiciary’s budget. AOUSC 

also provided us with technical comments, which we considered and 

incorporated into the report where appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Judicial Conference, the 

Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and other 

interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on 

the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

Agency Comments
 

Page 26 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II. 

Sincerely yours,

David C. Maurer

Director

Homeland Security and Justice Issues
Appendix I: Comments from the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts

Page 27 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

Appendix I: Comments from the 

Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
Appendix I: Comments from the Administrative 

Office of the U.S. Courts

Page 28 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 29 GAO-13-531 Court Clerks

David C. Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, William O. Jenkins, Jr. (Director);

Chris Currie (Assistant Director); Samantha Carter; Brendan 

Kretzschmar; Jean Orland; and Rebecca Kuhlmann Taylor made 

significant contributions to the report. Also contributing to this report were 

Benjamin A. Bolitzer, Keith B. Cunningham, Elizabeth H. Curda, 

Katherine M. Davis, Eric D. Hauswirth, Judith Kordahl, Amanda K. Miller, 

and Janet G. Temko.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(441098)
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.