APPENDIX 1 - COURT SUPPORT STAFFING
. Appendix 1.1

This appendix discusses court support staffing for probation and 

pretrial offices, courts of appeals, and district and bankruptcy 

courts. It also includes workload used to help determine staffing 

requirements in the courts, and a program statement explaining 

the purpose of these programs. As reflected in the statistics 

provided below, the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant 

impact on judiciary workload in several different areas.

Probation and Pretrial Services

Table A-1.1 Probation and Pretrial Services Workload Indicators1

2019 Actual 

(% Change 

from Previous 

Yr.) 2

2020 Actual 

(% Change 

from Previous 

Yr.) 2

2021 Projected 

(% Change 

from Previous 

Yr.) 3

181,174 179,280 177,900

-1.3% -1.0% -0.8%

46,539 46,646 43,700

5.8% 0.2% -6.3%

98,627 83,839 78,500

8.4% -15.0% -6.4%

66,622 68,974 66,200

10.1% 3.5% -4.0%

Convicted Offenders 

Supervised in the 

Community

Charged Defendants 

Supervised in the 

Community

Investigative Reports 

Completed for Bail 

Determinations

Investigative Reports 

Completed for Sentencing 

Determinations

1/For 2019 through 2021, the number of convicted persons and charged defendants 

supervised in the community reflects persons initially received for supervision, under 

supervision for the entire period, or under supervision at the start of the period and 

closed. Persons with cases that fall in more than one of these three categories are 

counted only once. 

2/Actual data for 2019 and 2020 is based on the 12-month period ending June 30.

3/Estimates for 2021 are based on projections for the 12-month period ending June 30.

Probation and Pretrial Service Officers

Probation officers are federal law enforcement officers that 

protect the community. They work with persons under 

supervision “post-conviction,” after they are tried and found guilty 

of a federal crime and after they are released from prison. Using 

techniques grounded in social science research, otherwise known 

as evidence-based practices, probation officers work with persons 

under supervision to assist them in becoming contributing 

members of the community and leading crime-free lives. Officers 

assess each offender’s risk of recidivism; identify dynamic risk 

factors that, when addressed, affect the individual’s likelihood to 

engage in future criminal activity; and apply supervision 

interventions tailored to reduce risk. These interventions include 

helping persons under supervision to either reestablish, or secure 

for the first time, appropriate housing, employment, and legitimate 

community relationships. Officers also provide cognitive skills 

counseling and leverage programs offered by other federal 

agencies and local social service organizations. Probation officers 

make sure that persons under supervision comply with release 

conditions set by the court and address any issues that affect their 

ability to comply.

The officers monitor persons under supervision through phone 

calls and personal contacts and direct them to services that help 

offenders, including substance abuse or mental health treatment, 

medical care, training, and employment assistance. Without 

officers, the court would not be able to manage the risk that 

persons under supervision pose to individuals or the community 
Appendix 1.2

by verifying their locations and employment, monitoring their 

associates, restricting their travel, and taking actions to make sure 

they obey the law.

Pretrial services officers work with defendants after they are 

charged with federal crimes and while they are awaiting trial. 

They help ensure that defendants released to the community 

commit no crimes while awaiting trial and return to court as 

required. 

Both probation and pretrial services officers investigate 

defendants and persons under supervision for the court by 

gathering and verifying information about them. Their 

investigations involve interviews with defendants and persons 

under supervision to find out about their backgrounds, including 

family, education, employment, finances, physical and mental 

health, and alcohol or drug abuse. Officers perform criminal 

history record checks and interview other people who can provide 

helpful information, such as family members, employers, and law 

enforcement officials. They also review records, such as court, 

school, military, financial, and employment records. 

This information is used to produce a pretrial services report and 

presentence report. The pretrial services report recommends 

whether to release or detain the defendant before trial and 

addresses whether the defendant is likely to stay out of trouble and 

return to court as required. The presentence report recommends 

sentencing options under the federal sentencing guidelines,

addresses the offense’s impact on the victim, and determines the 

offender’s ability to pay fines and restitution. It also recommends 

release conditions for the court to impose to help structure the 

person under supervision’s movement and behavior in the

community. Release conditions are tailored to the individual. For 

example, the court may require that the person under supervision

get drug testing and treatment, find and keep a job, or be placed 

on location monitoring.

As explained in the Salaries and Expenses chapter, Department of 

Justice prosecution activity as well as the enactment and 

implementation of the First Step Act has had a significant impact 

on the workload of the probation and pretrial services program. 

Leading up to the pandemic, workload throughout the probation 

and pretrial services system was increasing due to the 

government’s prosecutorial practices and the early release of 

inmates as a result of the First Step Act (FSA). In the months 

since the pandemic began, workload has declined due to the 

pandemic; however, this workload is expected to return to prepandemic levels.
Appendix 1.3

Table A-1.2 Persons Under Supervision by Type of Supervision 1

Year Probation Supervised Release Parole BOP Custody Total

ACTUAL2 2010 22,707 101,701 2,089 145 126,642

2011 22,604 104,671 1,870 174 129,319

2012 22,419 108,528 1,664 174 132,785

2013 21,114 109,516 1,473 259 132,362

2014 19,903 111,076 1,373 245 132,597

2015 19,191 112,750 1,245 242 133,428

2016 18,275 118,318 1,140 149 137,882

2017 17,139 117,662 1,003 143 135,947

2018 15,740 114,278 920 98 131,036

2019 15,028 112,615 881 125 128,649

2020 13,192 113,226 823 439 127,680

ESTIMATED3 2021 13,400 114,000 800 500 128,700

1

Includes only those cases that are open for supervision based on the 12-month period ending June 30. 2

Actual data for 2010 through 2020 is based on the 12-month periods ending June 30.

3

Estimates for 2021 are based on projections for the 12-month period ending June 30.
Appendix 1.4

Table A-1.3 The Changing Supervision Population - Persons Under Supervision on Probation vs. Persons Under Supervision

Released from Prison

Year Total

ACTUAL2 2010 22,707 18% 103,935 82% 126,642

2011 22,604 17% 106,715 83% 129,319

2012 22,419 17% 110,366 83% 132,785

2013 21,114 16% 111,248 84% 132,362

2014 19,903 15% 112,694 85% 132,597

2015 19,191 14% 114,237 86% 133,428

2016 18,275 13% 119,607 87% 137,882

2017 17,139 13% 118,808 87% 135,947

2018 15,740 12% 115,296 88% 131,036

2019 15,028 12% 113,621 88% 128,649

2020 13,192 10% 114,488 90% 127,680

ESTIMATED3 2021 13,400 10% 115,300 90% 128,700

Offenders on Probation Offenders Released from Prison1

1

Includes terms of supervised release, parole, mandatory release, and military parole.

2

Actual data for 2010 through 2020 is based on the 12-month periods ending June 30.

3

Estimates for 2021 are based on projections for the 12-month period ending June 30.
Appendix 1.5

District Courts

Table A-1.4 Major District Court Workload Indicators1

Filings 2019 Actual 2020 Actual 2021 Estimate

73,012 64,853 67,400

8.6% -11.2% 3.9%

90,541 79,122 81,600

6.7% -12.6% 3.1%

293,520 421,082 354,000

4.4% 43.5% -15.9%

Criminal Case 

Filings

Criminal 

Defendants 

Filed

Civil Case 

Filings 2

1

Data for each year is for the 12-month period ending June 30. 2 The historically large numbers of civil filings in the 12-month 

period ending June 30, 2020 and projected for the 12-month period 

ending June 30, 2021 are mainly due to the multidistrict litigation 

Case 2885 (In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability 

Litigation) in the Northern District of Florida.

District Clerks

The clerks’ offices are the public business offices for the 

district courts and provide specific centralized management in 

case-related and logistical areas. Employees in clerks’ offices 

perform essential functions necessary for the operation of the 

courts, such as:

• attorney admissions to practice in the district;

• case intake, docketing of pleadings and motions;

• service of process, events scheduling, receipting and 

accounting for fees and fines collected;

• case tracking, provision of court reporting and court 

interpreting services;

• alternative dispute resolution programs;

• statistical reporting;

• training attorneys on the case management system 

(CM/ECF), and

• jury management.

All of these functions are essential elements in processing 

criminal cases and resolving civil cases. Public and private 

sector entities rely on effective case processing by the clerks’ 

offices. 

The proper functioning of the district court clerks’ offices 

enhances the efficiency of the offices of the U.S. Attorney, U.S. 

Marshals Service, Federal Public Defender, and Probation and 

Pretrial Services. Other participants, including litigants, 

attorneys, witnesses, court reporters, court interpreters, expert 

witnesses, the media, and jurors are also impacted by the 

effective operations of the clerks’ offices. To enable these 

court participants to work together effectively, the clerks’ office 

manages courtroom space, information technology services, 

audio and video systems, financial management, budget 

decentralization, personnel administration, and other 

administrative functions, as well as the support required in the 

courtroom for the proper functioning of proceedings. The 
Appendix 1.6

judicial system as a whole benefits from the professional 

management services provided by the clerks’ offices.

Court Interpreters

The district courts use both staff and contract court interpreters. 

Staff court interpreters serve in district courts with a substantial 

daily need for interpreting services. This is particularly true in 

courts along the border with Mexico and courts located in large 

metropolitan areas, where locating, scheduling, and contracting 

with court interpreters is not practical due to their frequent need 

for interpreting services.

Spanish is the most frequently needed language for interpreting 

events in the courts, comprising 97 percent of all reported 

interpreting events in FY 2020. In FY 2020, there were 

225,175 court events that required the services of an interpreter. 

Of those events, 218,749 were in Spanish.

Pro Se Law Clerks

The objective of the pro se law clerk program is to receive, 

prepare, and process civil complaints filed against the 

government by prisoners and other individuals without attorney 

representation. Pro se law clerks review complaints for 

procedural adequacy to permit judges to proceed with the 

disposition of the cases. This conserves judicial resources —

without pro se law clerks, district judges and magistrate judges 

would have to perform this work. The number of pro se law 

clerks is determined by a formula driven by prisoner petition 

filings. For the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020, there 

were 56,823 petitions filed. This represents a 4.4 percent 

increase from the 54,445 filings in statistical year 2019. This 

increase is due primarily to a rise in prisoner condition and civil 

rights petitions filed between 2019 and 2020. 

Death Penalty Law Clerks

Death penalty law clerks serve both as substantive legal 

resources to judges in death penalty habeas corpus matters, and 

as case management monitors, since capital cases are generally 

lengthy and involve numerous issues. The staffing formula for 

these positions provides credit for death penalty cases pending 

in federal court that are not stayed. Courts must have three 

pending death penalty cases to be eligible for a half-time 

position, and nine cases for a full-time position. For the 12-

month period ending June 30, 2020, there were 532 pending, 

unstayed death penalty cases in the district courts.

As explained in the Salaries and Expenses chapter, criminal 

case filings are, in part, influenced by the number of U.S. 

Attorneys and the emphasis placed on prosecution of offenses 

such as illegal immigration, drug crimes, and violations of 

firearms laws. Criminal filings were on pace to be higher than 

the previous year through March 2020. However, new 

criminal filings saw a significant decline in April and May 

2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic that resulted in an 

overall decrease for the entire year. On July 9, 2020, the 

Supreme Court held in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 591 U.S. __ 
Appendix 1.7

(2020), that land in northeastern Oklahoma reserved for the 

Creek Nation pursuant to the 1832 Treaty With the Creeks 

remains “Indian country” for purposes of the Major Crimes 

Act (MCA) because Congress has never expressly 

disestablished the reservation. District courts in Oklahoma 

expect significant increases in federal prosecutions stemming 

the Supreme Court’s McGirt v Oklahoma decision.

Civil case filings are driven by prisoner petitions, social 

security cases, U.S. plaintiff recovery cases, large-volume 

multi-district litigation cases, and diversity of citizenship 

cases1

. Also, civil case filings increased significantly from the 

previous year, due almost exclusively to a significant increase 

in tort actions filed in product liability and personal injury 

cases as part of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) Case No. 

2885 (In Re: 3M Combat Arms Earplug Products Liability 

Litigation) in the Northern District of Florida. The fluctuation 

caused by this MDL matter is reflected in the current caseload 

projections and new civil filings for product liability cases are 

expected to decrease significantly in 2021.

1 A district court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of 

citizenship when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, and is between parties not from the same state or country. 
Appendix 1.8

Percent 

Increase/

Decrease

2010 285,215 10.9% 78,213 3.8%

2011 289,630 1.5% 78,764 0.7%

2012 286,232 -1.2% 73,455 -6.7%

2013 283,087 -1.1% 69,642 -5.2%

2014 298,713 5.5% 64,027 -8.1%

2015 280,037 -6.3% 60,866 -4.9%

2016 290,430 3.7% 61,021 0.3%

2017 271,721 -6.4% 58,121 -4.8%

2018 281,202 3.5% 67,257 15.7%

2019 293,520 4.4% 73,012 8.6%

2020 421,082 43.5% 64,853 -11.2%

ESTIMATED 2 2021 354,000 -15.9% 67,400 3.9%

Year Social 

Security Diversity Prisoner Filings All Other Total

ACTUAL1 2010 13,725 104,703 51,748 115,039 285,215

2011 15,697 101,508 53,692 118,733 289,630

2012 17,043 94,568 53,606 121,015 286,232

2013 19,121 89,359 55,369 119,238 283,087

2014 19,530 102,568 62,402 114,213 298,713

2015 19,102 86,865 52,844 121,226 280,037

2016 18,407 83,170 70,863 117,990 290,430

2017 18,953 75,449 61,031 116,288 271,721

2018 19,115 89,018 53,626 119,443 281,202

2019 17,903 100,629 54,445 120,273 293,250

2020 18,259 234,084 56,823 111,916 421,082

ESTIMATED2 2021 29,500 162,900 54,900 106,700 354,000

Criminal 

Filings

Table A-1.6 Components of Civil Caseload 

Table A-1.5 Civil and Criminal Filings

Year Civil Filings

Percent 

Increase/ 

Decrease

ACTUAL1

1

Actual data for 2019 through 2020 is based on the 12-month periods ending June 30.

2

Estimates for 2021 are based on projections for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2020.
Appendix 1.9

Courts of Appeals and Circuit Units

Table A-1.7 Appellate Court Workload1

2019 

Actual

2020 

Actual

2021 

Estimate

-2.9% 2.6% 1.7%

Appeals Filings 47,783 49,044 49,900

1

For the 12-month periods ending June 30.

Circuit Executives

The principal responsibility of the circuit executive’s office is 

to act as the secretariat for the circuit’s judicial council and its 

committees, and in some circuits, for the court of appeals and 

its committees. In this capacity, the circuit executives’ offices 

participate in policy oversight and assist in many areas of 

circuit-wide importance. These include planning for the 

effective and efficient use of space and facilities, information 

technology, financial management and budget decentralization, 

and planning and organizing the circuit’s judicial conference. 

The circuit executives’ offices also provide vital administrative 

and logistical support to the courts of appeals, including 

information technology, procurement, budget management, and 

personnel administration.

Appellate Clerks

The clerks’ offices are the public business offices for the 

appellate courts and provide specific centralized management 

in case-related and logistical areas. Employees in clerks’ 

offices perform essential functions necessary for the operation 

of the courts, such as: 

• recording and maintaining all case filings, including 

public records and information needs;

• providing guidance to lawyers, litigants, and the public; 

• distributing case materials to judges for decisionmaking; and

• providing vital logistical support. 

The case-related workload of the clerks’ offices can fluctuate 

with changes in case filings. 

Case decisions in appellate courts are made either by panels of 

three judges or, in some instances, by an en banc court, where 

all the judges on the court review the case. Appellate judges 

reside in locations throughout the geographic area of a circuit. 

Appellate clerks’ offices are situated at the headquarters of the 

circuit, providing a central public business office for the 

judges, lawyers, litigants, and the public. Clerks’ offices 

receive case materials for filing, maintain the central files, and 

arrange for judges to convene in panels as necessary for case 

decisions. Inquiries about cases, procedures, and related 

matters are directed to the clerks’ offices. Materials are 

assembled, as appropriate, and dispatched to judges. Lawyers 

are advised of the schedule for decision-making. Decisions are 

made after oral argument hearings or submissions on briefs that 

are scheduled by the clerks’ offices. Decisions are filed in the 

clerks’ offices, which are then responsible for distribution of 
Appendix 1.10

the decisions to the parties and the public, including posting on 

court websites. 

Staff Attorneys

Staff attorneys generally perform legal research on all pro se 

cases, that is, cases where a party serves as his or her own 

counsel, most of which are filed by prisoners. In addition, they 

work on substantive and procedural motions, direct criminal 

appeals, death penalty cases, and cases that do not require oral 

argument. Staff attorneys screen cases and research complex 

legal issues for cases that may be scheduled for oral argument. 

Some staff attorneys also assist the court on fully counseled 

cases, providing legal research assistance and presenting 

recommendations to the judges. Staff attorneys also write 

memoranda in cases addressing jurisdictional issues that result

in disposition of the appeal. By drafting legal research 

memoranda that analyze the case issues and recommend 

appropriate disposition, staff attorneys assist judges in 

disposing of the appellate cases in a timely and efficient 

manner. 

Pro se cases represented 48.9 percent of national appellate 

filings in FY 2020. Staff attorneys preliminarily reviewing 

both pro se cases and substantive motions, as well as 

examining cases for jurisdictional defects, materially assists the 

judges and contributes to timely dispositions.

Circuit Mediators

Circuit mediators facilitate the disposition of cases on appeal 

through negotiated settlements, without appellate judicial 

involvement. Circuit mediators are skilled, seasoned lawyers 

who perform sensitive, confidential settlement work. The 

attorneys often are able to streamline or dispose of issues in 

cases not easily settled. Distinct from staff attorneys, circuit 

mediators promote the voluntary settlement or withdrawal of 

appeals without court action. The program conserves judicial 

resources and improves appellate case management.

Librarians

The national court library program is a network of 12 circuit 

headquarters libraries and 85 smaller satellite libraries, 

typically located in district courthouses. Although the library 

program falls administratively under the courts of appeals, 

court librarians serve and support the information and research 

needs of all federal courts and judges: appellate, district, 

magistrate, and bankruptcy. In addition to federal judges, 

library services are provided to tens of thousands of judiciary 

researchers, including law clerks and chambers staff, staff 

attorneys, mediators, clerks of court, probation and pretrial 

services personnel, and public defenders. Many court libraries 

also serve the public, including pro se litigants and bar 

association members.

Librarians deliver comprehensive research, reference, and 

instruction services, and procure and facilitate access to the 

most reliable, authoritative, accurate, and up-to-date research 
Appendix 1.11

resources. Library staff members also manage the acquisition 

and development of chambers’ legal resource collections.

To support the information needs of on-site personnel as well 

as remote users within their broad and geographically dispersed 

areas, court libraries implement digital communication 

technologies, deliver web-based training services, and provide 

comprehensive online access to research collections. 

Librarians design website and internet resources, develop 

online research guides, create current awareness services that 

push content directly to their users, and support the design and 

publication of court materials. Subject specialization and deep 

legal and jurisdictional expertise are required of court 

librarians, as well as the ability to support multidisciplinary 

research in economics, science, medicine, social sciences,

engineering, technology, and other business- and industryspecific fields.

Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Clerks

The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 requires that each circuit 

establish a Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) unless the 

judicial council of the circuit finds that either there are 

insufficient judicial resources in the circuit, or the 

establishment of a BAP would result in undue delay or 

increased cost to parties in bankruptcy cases. There are 

currently five BAPs nationally. A BAP is composed of 

bankruptcy judges within a circuit who are appointed by the 

circuit’s judicial council to decide, with the consent of all 

parties, appeals from bankruptcy court decisions. Even where 

a BAP exists, bankruptcy appeals may be heard by the district 

court, if a party so chooses. 

A BAP requires a minimum of four bankruptcy judges, each 

from a different district, because the legislation prohibits a 

bankruptcy judge from hearing an appeal that originated in the 

district for which he or she was appointed. The BAP clerks’ 

offices have support functions and responsibilities similar to 

the appellate clerks’ offices.

As explained in the Salaries and Expenses chapter, the 

judiciary currently projects that appellate case filings will 

increase in 2021, mainly due to projected increases in criminal 

appeals and other appeals, which would include bankruptcy 

appeals and administrative agency appeals. Administration

initiatives, legislative initiatives, and court decisions can have 

significant effects on some annual totals. 
Appendix 1.12

Bankruptcy Courts

Table A-1.8 Bankruptcy Court Workload1

2019 2020

Actual Actual

773,361 682,363 708,400

-0.3% -11.8% 3.8%

2021 

Estimate

Bankruptcy 

Filings

1

For the 12-month periods ending June 30.

Bankruptcy Clerks

The clerk’s office is responsible for administrative activities 

pertaining to processing bankruptcy case filings. Employees in 

clerks’ offices perform essential functions necessary for the 

operation of the courts, such as: 

• case tracking and scheduling, including the use of the 

case management system (CM/ECF);

• statistical reporting; and 

• receipting and accounting for fees and fines collected.

All of these functions are essential elements in processing 

bankruptcy cases. Public and private sector entities rely on 

effective bankruptcy case processing by the clerks’ offices. 

The bankruptcy court clerks’ offices facilitate processing cases, 

which helps individuals, attorneys, and businesses filing cases 

nationwide. To enable court participants to work together 

effectively, the clerks’ offices manage courtroom space, 

information technology services, audio and video systems, 

financial management, budget decentralization, personnel 

administration, and other administrative functions, as well as 

the support required in the courtroom for proceedings. 

The judicial system, and community as a whole, benefit from 

the professional management services provided by the 

bankruptcy clerks’ offices.

Bankruptcy Administrators

Nearly all bankruptcy cases are administered by an impartial 

case trustee. In most bankruptcy courts, case trustees are 

overseen by the United States Trustee Program, which is a 

component of the Department of Justice. The United States 

Trustee assigns trustees to cases, maintains and appoints the 

panel of trustees, monitors the conduct of parties in cases, 

oversees related administrative functions, and acts to ensure 

compliance with applicable laws and procedures. 

However, two states—Alabama and North Carolina—operate 

under a different structure. In each of the six bankruptcy 

districts within those two states, a bankruptcy administrator 

oversees case administration and performs the bulk of the 

duties required of United States Trustees. Bankruptcy 

administrators are employed and overseen by the judiciary but 

have virtually the same authority as a United States Trustee, 

with a few exceptions.

As explained in the Salaries and Expenses chapter, bankruptcy 

filings have decreased in each of the past several years, but the 

rate of decrease appeared to be leveling out prior to April 2020. 
Appendix 1.13

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, bankruptcy filings saw a 

pronounced decrease in April, May, and June 2020 compared 

to the same three-month period in 2019. This decrease led to 

an overall decrease for 2020. The judiciary is concerned that 

the pandemic may result in a significant and rapid increase in 

bankruptcy filings as the economy continues to be severely 

impacted. Because filing levels drive staffing needs in 

bankruptcy courts, such increases will result in additional 

workload impacts on bankruptcy courts. A sudden spike in 

filings may result in courts facing challenges in processing

these filings.
Appendix 1.14

Table A-1.9 Components of Bankruptcy Filings 

ACTUAL1 2010 1,133,320 15,035 424,242 1,572,597

2011 1,083,671 13,556 432,333 1,529,560

2012 914,015 11,664 385,949 1,311,628

2013 778,845 10,139 348,994 1,137,978

2014 669,976 8829 321,278 1,000,083

2015 568,679 7,112 303,945 879,736

2016 509,769 8,532 300,858 819,159

2017 489,011 7,628 299,398 796,037

2018 479,151 7,686 288,741 775,578

2019 479,043 7,683 286,635 773,361

2020 440,593 8,126 233,644 682,363

ESTIMATED2 2021 465,500 10,600 232,300 708,400

Chapter 7 Chapter 13 Total Chapters 9, 11, 

12, & 15 Year 

1

Actual data for 2010 through 2020 is based on the 12-month periods ending June 30.

2 Estimates for 2021 are based on projections for the 12-month period ending June 30.