COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and ExpensesSUMMARY STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT REQUIREMENTS Mandatory 

Fiscal Year 2019 Salaries and Expenses Assumed Appropriation $415,125,000 Fiscal Year 2019 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Assumed Appropriation $0 

Total, Fiscal Year 2019 Assumed Appropriation $415,125,000 

Fiscal Year 2020 Salaries and Expenses Appropriation Request $421,843,000 Fiscal Year 2020 Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund Appropriation Request $0 

Total, Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriation Request $421,843,000 Requested Increase from Fiscal Year 2019 Assumed Appropriation $6,718,000 

APPROPRIATION LANGUAGECOURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS, AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICESSALARIES AND EXPENSES

 For the salaries of judges of the United States Court of Federal Claims, magistrate judges, and all other officers and employees of the Federal Judiciary not otherwise specifically provided expenses of the courts, and the purchase, rental, repair, and cleaning of uniforms for Probation and Pretrial Services Office staff, as authorized by law, [$5,154,461,000]$5,383,970,000 (inclof firearms and ammunition); of which not to exceed $27,817,000 shall remain available until expended for space alteration projects and for furniture and furnishings related to new space alconstruction projects. In addition, there are appropriated such sums as may be necessary under current law for the salaries of circuit and district judges (including judges of the territorial courts of the United Stjudges, and justices and judges retired from office or from regular active service. In addition, for expenses of the United States Court of Federal Claims associated with processing cases under the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-660), no[$8,475,000]$9,012,000 to be appropriated from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund.(H.R. 6147 - Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2019, updated to reflect the judiciary's fiscal year 2019 assumed appropriation)
Fiscal Year 2020 Resource Requirements:

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount 

 415,125 1,789 26,081 5,777,421 

 

 - - - (184,650) 

 

 415,125 1,789 26,081 5,592,771 

 

 Estimated FY 2019 fee collections........................................................................ - - - (204,835) 

 

 Assumed carryforward balances from FY 2018 and prior years into FY 2019..................... - - - (225,000) 

 

Fiscal Year 2019 Assumed Appropriation (includes Vaccine Injury Fund)..................... 1,789 415,125 26,081 5,162,936 

 

FISCAL YEAR 2020

Fiscal Year 2019 Assumed Available Resources (includes Vaccine Injury Fund)...............

(Dollar amounts in thousands)

Mandatory Discretionary

SUMMARY OF REQUEST 

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Fiscal Year 2019 Assumed Obligations (includes Vaccine Injury Fund)...........................

 Non-appropriated sources of funding.............................................................. FY 2018 Encumbered Carryforward ........................................................................
FTEs Amount FTEs Amount 

Page Fiscal Year 2019 Base Assumed Appropriation (including Vaccine Injury Fund)............... 415,125 1,789 26,081 5,162,936 

 

Adjustments to Base to Maintain Current Services:

A. Judges

4.31 1. Pay and benefit cost adjustments 4.31 1,453 - - 485 

 

4.31 992 - - 490 

 

4.32 1,321 - - 2,315 

 

4.32 1,905 8 41 5,854 

4.33 923 4 13 1,597 

4.34 124 1 2 281 

B. Court Personnel and Programs

4.36 5. Pay and benefit cost adjustments4.36 - - - 16,031 

 

4.36 - - - 25,432 

 

4.36 - - - 5,690 

 

4.36 - - - 58,326 

 

4.37 - - - 13,050 

 

4.37

 - - - 28,170 

 

 b. Benefits increases.......................................................................................

2. Increase in average number of filled Article III judgeships (8 judge FTE/41 staff FTE).... a. Annualization of assumed 2019 pay adjustment (1.9% for three months)..................... a. Annualization of assumed 2019 pay adjustment (1.4% for three months).....................4. Increase in average number of filled bankruptcy judgeships (1 judge FTE/2 staff FTE) ...... c. Federal Employee Retirement System adjustment...................................................

Mandatory Discretionary 

 e. One more compensable day...........................................................................

 decline in non-appropriated funds ........................................................................6. Funding necessary to maintain FY 2019 service levels due to anticipated  d. Federal Employee Retirement System adjustment................................................3. Increase in average number of senior judges (4 judge FTE/13 staff FTE)........................... b. Promotions and within-grade increases............................................................... c. Benefits increases.........................................................................................
Page C. Other Adjustments

FTEs Amount FTEs Amount 

4.38 - - - 18,352 

 

4.38 - - - 537 

 

4.384.39 - - - 936 

 

4.39 - - - 36,356 

 

4.39 - - - (4,000) 

 

4.39 - - - (4,639) 

 

4.42 - - - (2,719) 

 

4.424.42 - - - 15,551 

 

4.42 - - - (13,385) 

 

4.43 - - - (1,700) 

 

 6,718 13 56 203,010 

 

 421,843 1,802 26,137 5,365,946 

 

Program Changes:

4.43 12. New FY 2020 full-time magistrate judges and staff (6 new judgeships/

 6 FTE and 18 staff FTE)................................................................................. - - 24 6,031 

 

4.44 - - (42) (5,234) 

 

4.45 - - - 2,784 

 

4.45 - - - 1,723 

 

4.46 - - - 21,732 

 

 - - (18) 27,036 

 

 421,843 1,802 26,119 5,392,982 

 

 6,718 13 38 230,046 

 

 Financing the Fiscal Year 2020 Request:

 421,843 1,802 26,119 5,392,982 

 

4.46 - - - 201,665 

 

4.48 - - - 200,000 

Total Estimated Obligations, Fiscal Year 2020......................................................... 421,843 1,802 26,119 5,794,647 

 

17. Estimated FY 2020 fee collections.....................................................................18. Anticipated unencumbered carryforward from FY 2019............................................. Total Current Services Appropriation Required................................................Total Appropriation Request, Fiscal Year 2020.........................................................Total Fiscal Year 2020 Appropriation Request.........................................................Total Appropriation Increase, Fiscal Year 2019 to Fiscal Year 2020..............................16. Infrastructure costs for new courthouse construction projects .......................................13. FY 2020 court support staffing due to workload changes..........................................

Mandatory Discretionary

15. Upgrade to the Payroll Projection System............................................................ b. Inflationary adjustment to the GSA space rental base costs.......................................

10. Evidence-based practices non-recurring costs......................................................... c. Contractor conversion savings........................................................................ Subtotal, Program Increases........................................................................ Subtotal, Adjustments to Base to Maintain Current Services................................. d. Other space-related adjustments..................................................................... b. Probation and Pretrial Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS) non-recurring costs...11. Information technology requirements .................................................................. a. Continued implementation of ongoing information technology projects......................14. Financial Disclosure Reporting System replacement................................................

7. Inflationary and miscellaneous adjustments............................................................

 c. Reduction associated with Space Reduction Program.......................................9. GSA space rental and related services8. Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund adjustment................................................ a. New space to be delivered in FY 2020...............................................................
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Assumed Obligations 

Activity ($000) Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. D

Appeals 679,921 29,057 708,978 688,106 76,965 765,071 

 

District 2,587,410 110,574 2,697,984 2,618,557 292,887 2,911,444 

 

Bankruptcy 819,545 35,024 854,569 829,411 92,770 922,181 

 

Probation/Pretrial 1,416,459 60,533 1,476,992 1,433,511 160,339 1,593,850 

 

Total Obligations 5,503,336 235,187 5,738,523 5,569,586 622,960 6,192,546 

 

 Encumbered Carryforward 1 - - - - (184,650) (184,650) 

 

Revised Obligations 5,503,336 235,187 5,738,523 5,569,586 438,310 6,007,896 

 

Fee Availability (211,324) (211,324) (204,835) (204,835) 

Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (8,230) (8,230) (8,475) (8,475) Prior Year Recoveries (18,327) (18,327)Unobligated Balance, Start of Year: Unencumbered Fee Carryforward (208,869) (208,869) (225,000) (225,000)  Encumbered Fee Carryforward (140,738) (140,738) Information Technology Funds (24,879) (24,879) (44,961) (44,961) S&E No-Year Funds (8,362) (8,362) (11,612) (11,612)

Unobligated Balance, End of Year: Encumbered Funds into Following Year 92,140 92,140

 Fee Carryforward into Following Year 225,000 225,000 200,000 200,000

 Information Technology Funds 44,961 44,961 S&E No-Year Funds 11,612 11,612 Other Adjustments 11,829 11,829 56,573 56,573

Anticipated Financial Plan Savings (200,000) (200,000)

Available Appropriation (Direct) 5,503,336 - 5,503,336 5,569,586 - 5,569,586 

 

Appropriation (Direct) 5,503,336 - 5,503,336 5,569,586 - 5,569,586 

 

Mandatory 404,275 415,125 

Discretionary 5,099,061 5,154,461 

1\ FY 2019 Encumbered Carryforward includes $80.9 million in slipped requirements from the Judiciary Information Technology Fund. See table 11.3 in Chapter 11, Judiciary Inform
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

Obligations by Budget Object Class ($000)

FY 2018 Actuals FY 2019 Assumed Obligations 

Description ($000) Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Direct Offsetting Coll. Total Oblig. Dir

1100 Personnel compensation 2, 109,820 569,783 2,679,603 2,641,991 295,507 2,937,498 2

 

1200 Personnel benefits 37,228 871,140 908,368 878,082 98,214 976,296 

 

1300 Benefits for former personnel 8,177 349 8,526 9,313 1,042 10,355 

 

2100 Travel 65,130 2,783 67,913 68,460 7,657 76,117 

 

2200 Transportation of Things 4,362 186 4,548 4,484 502 4,986 

 

2310 Rental payments to GSA 1,000,039 42,737 1,042,776 943,420 105,522 1,048,942 

 

2320 Rental payments to others 34,668 1,482 36,150 40,022 4,477 44,499 

 

2330 Communications, utilities & misc 4,940 115,594 120,534 118,257 13,227 131,484 

 

2400 Printing and reproduction 6,786 290 7,076 7,201 805 8,006 

 

2500 Other services 614,252 26,250 640,502 638,000 71,360 709,360 

 

2600 Supplies and materials 17,273 738 18,011 19,161 2,143 21,304 

 

3100 Equipment 196,134 8,382 204,516 201,195 22,504 223,699 

 

 235,187 5,503,336 5,738,523 5,569,586 622,960 6,192,546 5

 

 - - - - (184,650) (184,650) 

 

 235,187 5,503,336 5,738,523 5,569,586 438,310 6,007,896 5

 

Total Obligations Encumbered CarryforwardRevised Obligations
FY 2019 Assumed FY 2020 

No. of 

Authorized 

Judgeships

Compensation 

($000)

No. of 

Authorized 

Judgeships

Compensation 

($000)

Increa

($00

Circuit Judgeships 167 37,959 167 38,984 1

District Judgeships 677 131,696 677 134,325 2

Senior/Retired Judgeships 163,844 162,719 1

Bankruptcy Judgeships 348 82,751 347 84,690 1

 Total 1,192 415,125 1,191 421,843 6

COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Summary of Mandatory Obligations
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Summary of Personnel Compensation and Benefits by Activity

FY 2020

Actual Adj. to Base Total Re

FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE Amount FTE 

Program ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Appeals

Judges -

Article III Judges

Active 158 36,728 155 37,959 2 1,025 - - 157 

Senior 106 26,537 110 26,135 1 175 - - 111 

Retired 27 6,317 31 7,477 - 95 - - 31 

Court Staff 

Article III Judges' Staff 1,081 110,736 1,122 118,598 10 5,434 - - 1,132 

Circuit Executives 273 39,017 298 45,110 - 1,588 (4) (381) 294 

Clerks Offices 605 65,166 616 72,262 - 2,546 (8) (599) 608 

Staff and Preargument Attorneys 568 81,294 536 85,717 - 3,019 (4) (621) 532 

Librarians 214 25,358 217 28,154 - 991 3 232 220 Bankruptcy Appellate Panels 12 1,667 12 1,863 66 - 1 38 13 

Total Appeals 3,044 392,821 3,098 423,274 13 14,939 (13) (1,331) 3,098 

District

Judges 

Article III Judges 

Active 552 127,426 569 131,696 6 2,629 - - 575 

Senior 457 105,722 473 107,595 3 750 - - 476 

Retired 101 21,490 117 21,512 - 105 - - 117 

Magistrate Judges 557 133,503 559 135,337 - 3,274 6 1,475 565 

Court of Federal Claims Judges 18 2,501 16 3,140 - 15 16 

Court Staff 

Article III Judges' Staff 2,807 320,003 2,868 336,902 36 14,691 - - 2,904 

Magistrate Judges' Staff 1,082 140,308 1,085 144,783 - 5,071 18 1,858 1,103 

Federal Claims Judges' Staff 46 5,213 53 6,116 - 213 - - 53 

Clerks Offices 5,693 619,762 5,703 677,366 - 23,845 8 622 5,711 

Pro Se and death penalty 464 76,274 485 81,668 - 2,875 (17) (2,817) 468 

Court Reporters 675 86,133 676 94,122 8 4,276 (8) (816) 676 

Court Interpreters 95 16,040 86 16,118 - 568 - - 86 

Total District 12,546 1,654,375 12,690 1,756,355 53 58,310 7 322 12,750 

Bankruptcy 

Judges

Bankruptcy Judges 332 80,055 334 82,751 1 1,939 - - 335 

Court Staff 

Bankruptcy Judges' Staff 678 86,254 693 90,016 2 3,307 - - 695 

Clerks 3,034 343,194 3,044 358,183 - 13,038 (18) (1,393) 3,027 

Bankruptcy Administrators 46 6,155 46 6,281 144 - - - 46 

Total Bankruptcy 4,090 515,658 4,116 537,231 3 18,428 (18) (1,393) 4,102 

Probation/Pretrial Services 1,025,118 7,954 7,965 1,100,464 - 38,791 5 501 7,970 

Total Judges 540,279 2,306 2,365 553,603 13 10,006 6 1,475 2,384 

Total Chambers 738,788 6,159 6,305 778,082 48 31,590 1 (959) 6,354 Total Court Staff 2,308,904 19,169 19,200 2,485,639 8 88,872 (25) (2,417) 19,183 

GRAND TOTAL 27,634 3,587,971 27,870 3,817,324 69 130,469 (18) (1,901) 27,921 

Workload Adj.

FY 2018

Assumed

FY 2019
COURTS OF APPEALS, DISTRICT COURTS AND OTHER JUDICIAL SERVICES

Salaries and Expenses

Relation of Obligations to Outlays ($000)

FY 2018 

Actual

FY 2019 

Assumed 

Obligations

FY 2020 

Request

Total Obligations 5,738,523 6,192,546 6,216,490 Obligated balance, start of year 199,322 153,672 163,354 Change in uncollected payments (51,320) - - Obligated balance, end of year (153,672) (163,354) (166,471) 

Total Outlays 5,732,853 6,182,864 6,213,373 

Less offsetting from:  Fee Collections and Other Carryforward (138,858) (126,742) (186,433)  Use of JITF No-Year Balance (24,879) (44,961) Vaccine Injury Trust Fund (8,362) (8,475) (9,012)

Net Outlays 5,560,754 6,002,686 6,017,928 
GENERAL OVERVIEW 

The judiciary performs a core government function that is a pillar of our democratic system of government. The the judiciary’s work is dictated by the functions assigned to it by the Constitution and by statute. The judiciary mcriminal, bankruptcy, civil, and appellate cases that are filed with the courts and must protect the community by 

defendants awaiting trial and persons under supervision on post-conviction release. The rulings of the federal courts protect the rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes. The district courts, courts of appeals, bankruptcprobation and pretrial services offices all work to ensure a fair and independent judicial process. 

The fiscal year (FY) 2020 appropriations request for the courts’ Salaries and Expenses account totals $5,814,825operation of the courts. The request includes $421,843,000 in mandatory appropriations and $5,392,982,000 in dappropriations. Specifically, this request funds appropriations for the salaries, benefits, and other operating expesupporting personnel for the United States courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, Court of Federal and pretrial services offices. The request also funds the judiciary’s national information technology (IT) initiativoperations supporting the business functions of the courts. The FY 2020 request for the Salaries and Expenses account supports the operations of the courts at a current servprogram changes for six new magistrate judges and associated support staff, changes in court support staff due to workload estimates, the development of a new Financial Disclosure Reporting System, upgrades to the judiciarySystem, and infrastructure costs associated with new courthouse construction projects. This account makes up approximately 70 percent of the judiciary’s total appropriations request and supports abouincluding judges, chambers staff, and court support staff positions in clerk of court and probation and pretrial serthroughout the United States in 652 federally owned and leased court buildings and facilities (these data exclude Organizations, which are discussed in Section 5). 
District Courts 

The district courts are responsible for administering justice in civil and criminal cases under federal jurisdiction i

throughout the United States and its territories. The public benefits from effective and efficient district courts by 

defendants processed through the criminal justice system and by having civil disputes resolved quickly and fairlyThe number of criminal defendants, the mix of civil cases, amount of juror activity, and the number of authorized courts to make staffing adjustments indicated by the district court staffing formulas, which are based primarily on cases and the number of judges supported. Criminal Case Filings Criminal case filings are, in part, influenced by the number of U.S. Attorneys and the emphasis placed on prosecsuch as illegal immigration, drug crimes, and violations of firearms laws. At the same time that the current Admimplemented new prosecution policies, national criminal caseload has increased. As shown on Table 4.1 on page month period ending June 30, 2018, criminal cases filed increased by 15.7 percent from the previous year. Defenincreased 12.8 percent for the same 12-month period. In particular, district courts along the Southwest border haof 19.2 percent as of June 30, 2018, in criminal defendants. The national increase in criminal case activity is exp2019, with a 9.0 percent projected increase in criminal case filings and a 6.9 percent increase in criminal defenda

Regardless of a district court’s location, the time-sensitive nature of criminal cases, due to statutory deadlines in Act, multiple hearings for defendants (i.e., initial appearances, arraignments, and pleas in the early stages alone), interpreter services, highlight the importance of the courts receiving adequate staffing resources. 
Civil Case Filings Civil case filings are driven by prisoner petitions, social security cases, U.S. plaintiff recovery cases, large-volumlitigation cases, and diversity of citizenship cases1. As shown on Table 4.1 on page 4.16, for the 12-month perio2018, civil case filings increased 3.5 percent from the previous year due primarily to a significant increase in tort healthcare and pharmaceutical cases. Projections for 2019 show civil case filing activity remaining close to 2018 0.5 percent decrease projected. To prevent delays in civil case processing and disposition, district courts need adtheir civil case workload. 

Appellate Courts 

The 94 judicial districts are organized into 12 regional circuits, each of which has a United States court of appealcourt is responsible for hearing appeals from the district courts and the bankruptcy appellate panel (if one exists) circuit, as well as appeals from certain federal administrative agencies and, in limited situations, direct appeals frcourts. The appellate courts also have original jurisdiction in some categories of cases, such as petitions for Writ second or successive habeas corpus petitions, and petitions for Writ of Prohibition. A party has the right to appein which a district court enters a final judgment. When an appeal is filed, a court of appeals reviews the decision proceedings in the lower court or administrative agency. The court of appeals affirms, reverses, or remands the c

original court. The court of appeals will issue a written order or opinion in each case. Appeals from the courts otaken to the United States Supreme Court, which, unlike the courts of appeals, generally has discretion over the ncases it hears. The Supreme Court must hear and decide cases over which it has original and exclusive jurisdicti§ 1251). The Supreme Court can decline to hear a case, remand cases to the court of appeals, or decide to affirm 

of appeals. 

1 A district court has subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exc

costs, and is between parties not from the same state or country. 
Appellate Case Filings As shown on Table 4.1 on page 4.16, for the 12-month period ending June 30, 2018, the number of appeals filed from the previous year. The judiciary currently projects that appellate case filings will remain relatively stable in percent increase projected. However, administration initiatives, legislative initiatives, and court decisions can haon some annual totals, thus causing greater-than-normal volatility. For example, filings of administrative agency between 2003 and 2006 due to appeals of decisions by the Board of Immigration Appeals in the Justice Departmbranch’s efforts to address the backlog of immigration cases. Any significant administrative initiatives or legisla

cause similar unexpected changes in filings within circuit courts during 2019. 

Bankruptcy Courts 

Bankruptcy courts exercise jurisdiction over bankruptcy cases and proceedings, pursuant to statute and by referencourts. The Bankruptcy Code is set forth at Title 11 of the U.S. Code, and it provides different chapters under wbankruptcy. A key purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide an orderly and equitable process for debtors to with creditors. Through the bankruptcy courts, the legal system protects business and individual debtors, as well intended by law. Bankruptcy Case Filings Bankruptcy filings have decreased in the past several years, but the rate of decline is slowing. As shown on Tablfilings for the 12-month period ending June 30 decreased by 12.0 percent in 2015, 6.9 percent in 2016, 2.8 percenpercent in 2018. The judiciary currently projects a further decline of 2.4 percent in 2019, for a total of 757,100 bfilings.Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Cases Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code allows for liquidation of a debtor’s nonexempt assets to pay back creditors as Individuals and business entities (with certain exceptions) may file bankruptcy under Chapter 7. The bankruptcy to handle 467,500 new chapter 7 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2019, approximately 11,650 (2.4 than in the previous year. 
Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code offers businesses the opportunity to reorganize or liquidate in an orderly manmay file bankruptcy under Chapter 11, when they are ineligible to file under Chapter 13 due to its debt limitationcases, bankruptcy courts are directly involved in reviewing and approving complicated business reorganization p

focusing on the goal of achieving a benefit for all interested parties. The bankruptcy courts are expected to hand11 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2019, a decrease of 7.6 percent from 2018. Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Cases Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code assists individual debtors who have regular income to adjust their debts with

Under such a plan, debtors can save their homes from foreclosure by allowing them to catch up past-due paymencourts are expected to handle 282,500 new chapter 13 cases during the 12-month period ending June 2019, a decfrom 2018. 

Probation and Pretrial Services Program 

The federal probation and pretrial services program assist the federal courts in the fair administration of justice. services officers provide the courts with in-depth and objective pretrial services and presentence reports. Pretrial investigate defendants and recommend to the judge whether there are conditions that would reasonably assure thappearance in court and protect the community while the defendants’ cases are pending disposition, as set forth u§ 3142. Probation officers investigate persons convicted of federal crimes and recommend to the judge a sentencfactors set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553. The courts rely on those reports to make release and sentencing decisions, an

notify the litigants of all relevant release and sentencing issues. The presentence reports are also used by the U.Sto locate assets to be seized for any fines, restitution, or assessments ordered, while the Federal Bureau of Prisonpresentence reports to guide its handling of offenders sentenced to incarceration. Probation and pretrial services officers also support public safety by supervising defendants and persons under suthe community. Many persons under supervision on post-conviction supervision lack adequate life skills to transcommunity smoothly. Officers help persons under supervision to either re-establish, or secure for the first time, 

employment, and legitimate community relationships. They provide life skills counseling and leverage programfederal agencies and local social service organizations. Successful supervision requires persons under supervisio
only the original factors that contributed to their criminal behavior, but institutionalization, alienation from famil

other consequences of a lengthy prison term. Throughout the country, officers are securing resources for persons 

cultivating employment prospects, and developing collaborative relationships with a wide variety of organizationaim to assist in the transition of persons under supervision back into the community. Where the court deems it appropriate, the client’s location and activities can be monitored electronically through systems and other technologies. Similarly, the court may authorize drug testing, restrict travel, or prohibit associ

individuals. In higher risk cases, courts can order the persons under supervision to undergo polygraph examinatiwarrantless searches and seizures by probation officers. 

Probation and Pretrial Services Workload Probation and pretrial services workload is dictated by prosecutions brought by U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and the nreleased to supervision by the BOP. For the past several years, prosecutorial policies at the Justice Department htotal criminal filings in recent years and, therefore, reduced workload in some probation and pretrial categories, wprojected to remain stable or reflect minimal workload increases. However, this trend changed in 2018. As noted above in the discussion of criminal filing and as shown on Table the 12-month period ending June 30, 2018, criminal filings and the number of criminal defendants charged increCriminal filings increased by 15.7 percent and criminal defendants charged increased by 12.8 percent. Similarlypretrial services cases activated increased in 2018 by 12.2 percent. For the 12-month period ending June 30, 2019, the judiciary projects a 5.0 percent increase in pretrial cases activpretrial supervision, and an increase of 5.6 percent in presentence reports due to greater immigration prosecutionactivities associated with new defendants under pretrial supervision are decreasing, and the projected number of conviction probation supervision at some point during 2019 is projected to decrease 3.5 percent, from 2018 to 20
Table 4.1 Comparison of Judiciary Workload Factors 

Criminal Filings 69,642 64,027 60,866 61,021 58,121 Year-to-Year Change: -5.2% -8.1% -4.9% 0.3% -4.8% Criminal Defendants Filed 91,812 84,017 79,154 79,968 75,235 Year-to-Year Change: -5.3% -8.5% -5.8% 1.0% -5.9% Probation: Persons Under Supervision 132,362 132,597 133,428 137,882 135,947 Year-to-Year Change: -0.3% 0.2% 0.6% 3.3% -1.4% Pretrial Services: Cases Activated 102,457 98,122 90,588 88,140 82,265 Year-to-Year Change: -3.2% -4.2% -7.7% -2.7% -6.7% Bankruptcy Filings 1,137,978 1,000,083 879,736 819,159 796,037 Year-to-Year Change: -13.2% -12.1% -12.0% -6.9% -2.8% Appellate Filings 56,360 55,260 53,032 60,099 52,028 Year-to-Year Change: -2.3% -2.0% -4.0% 13.3% -13.4% Civil Filings 283,087 298,713 280,037 290,430 271,721 Year-to-Year Change: -1.1% 5.5% -6.3% 3.7% -6.4% 

WORKLOAD FACTOR

12 months 

ending June 30, 

2015 Actual

12 months 

ending June 30, 

2013 Actual

12 months 

ending June 30, 

2014 Actual

12 months 

ending June 30, 

2016 Actual

12 months 

ending June 30, 

2017 Actuals
FISCAL YEAR 2019 APPROPRIATIONS ASSUMPTION 

In the absence of enacted full year FY 2019 appropriations, the judiciary made assumptions to construct a FY 20The judiciary built the FY 2020 budget request for Salaries and Expenses assuming a FY 2019 appropriation of $

which is equal to the FY 2019 Senate mark. This FY 2019 assumed appropriation of $5,162,936,000, combined unobligated carryforward balances from FY 2018 and FY 2019 projected fee revenue, funds priority FY 2019 pa

adjustments to base. In addition, the FY 2019 assumed appropriation also funds ongoing cybersecurity requirem

resources for ongoing courthouse construction projects, and the funding needed to shift some previously fee-fund

Access requirements to this account, consistent with a March 2018 federal court ruling. For bill language, the judiciary used the language from H.R. 6147, the House-passed FY 2019 Financial Services 

Government (FSGG) appropriations bill, updated with the assumed funding level as described above, as the close

eventual enacted FY 2019 appropriations language. After full-year FY 2019 appropriations are enacted, the judiciary will re-estimate its FY 2020 budget request and Appropriations Committees any changes to FY 2020 appropriations requirements and language.

SIGNIFICANT ISSUES 

Southwest Border The district courts located along the Southwest Border continue to manage a tremendous number of criminal cas

judicial districts (Arizona, California-Southern, New Mexico, Texas-Southern, and Texas-Western) accounted foall felony defendants in district courts nationwide in 2018. These district courts have been impacted by the incre

filings resulting from the administration’s enforcement policy. The Administrative Office (AO) convened a conference in El Paso, TX, in June 2018, with participants from all districts. District judges, magistrate judges, federal defenders, chief probation and pretrial services officers, and discussed how best to deal with the logistical and case management challenges of processing such cases. Furtherworked with Department of Justice officials to establish a Task Force on Southwest Border to identify and collab

arising from increased immigration caseloads along the Southwest Border. Issues discussed at its first meeting in D.C. included locating family members separated from individuals being prosecuted in federal district court, retu
documents and other critical property before deportation, interpretation issues, and improved communication on 

criminal case filings so resource needs can be anticipated. A follow up meeting was held in September 2018, in 

The judiciary has been able to handle the growth in criminal cases along these border courts within existing resou

request does not include additional funding explicitly due to this surge. Impact of Sentencing Reform Legislation (First Step Act of 2018) In December 2018, the President signed into law sentencing reform legislation, the First Step Act of 2018 (the AThe law retroactively applies the reduced penalties under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010. It is estimated that at the custody of the BOP may be eligible to file motions for early release. Furthermore, the bill eases mandatory m

offenses, which will lead to shorter prison sentences and thus the release of inmates earlier than anticipated into t

system. In addition, the Act creates a process for certain inmates to earn credits towards early release from prisoinmates to complete remaining portions of their sentences in the community. The Act unequivocally imposes a burden upon the federal probation system by requiring officers to supervise BOconfinement or in residential re-entry centers earlier than previously planned or by requiring officers to supervise supervised release in the community earlier than previously planned and, thus, additional funding will be necessa

workload. The judiciary is currently analyzing the impact of this new law. The FY 2020 request does not include additionalack of available data on the precise number of cases impacted by the Act’s provisions and uncertainty about the implementation of its portions of the new early release system. Given the scope of the new law, however, additioyears almost certainly will be necessary. Cybersecurity Cybersecurity continues to be a top administrative priority of the judiciary. The judiciary’s data communication underlying infrastructure are vulnerable to a wide range of risks stemming from both physical and cyber threats. 

attackers exploit vulnerabilities and are continually developing new capabilities to steal information and disrupt, 

the delivery of essential services. From January through September 2018, there were more than 50 million attackblocked as a result of the judiciary’s cybersecurity efforts. In FY 2018, the judiciary obligated $71.3 million for 
cybersecurity enhancements and operations, including improved internet firewall services, increased deployment systems log management, increased use of patch and asset management software and appliances, increased threaheightened security of administrative systems. The judiciary continues to strengthen its cybersecurity posture in enhancements for vulnerability scanning services and expansion of its security assessment programs for the coursystems. Recently, the judiciary implemented a new policy requiring each court unit and federal defender organiAO, to conduct an IT self-assessment “scorecard” each calendar year. The results of these self-assessments will judiciary’s cybersecurity strategy and investments in future years. In the interim, the judiciary requests $68.8 mi

Expenses to continue its cybersecurity efforts in FY 2020. For additional information on the judiciary’s cybersecplease see Section 11, Judiciary Information Technology Fund. Electronic Public Access Requirements Shift to S&E Revenue generated by fees for the use of the judiciary’s Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) sys

support the judiciary’s Electronic Public Access program for the past several decades. In recent years, these reveto approximately $145 million annually. In a lawsuit, NVLSP v. U.S., plaintiffs challenged the legality of PACER charged fees exceed the costs of maintaining PACER in violation of the E-Government Act. On March 31, 2018

court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that Electronic Public Access fees should be limited to funding the margin

PACER and affirmed that the judiciary may use Electronic Public Access fees for the judiciary’s Case Managem

Filing (CM/ECF) system and bankruptcy noticing, as well as infrastructure costs associated with each of these sycourt also found that several other Electronic Public Access expenses, including courtroom technology, eJuror, anotification system, were insufficiently linked to information on the federal court’s CM/ECF docketing system. Department filed an interlocutory appeal on the judiciary’s behalf, and the appeal is currently pending with the C

the Federal Circuit. To prevent potential future exposure as the appeal moves forward, the costs associated with deemed impermissible by the court’s ruling were provisionally transitioned to the Salaries and Expenses (S&E) aof Electronic Public Access receipts beginning in FY 2018. Given the importance of these programs, the judiciafrom the S&E appropriation for these activities in FY 2019. This approach will continue until there is a final resactions impacting the Electronic Public Access fees. Consistent with longstanding practice, the judiciary will coElectronic Public Access funds for the CM/ECF system, Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing among other appropriat

information on the Electronic Public Access program, see Appendix 2 - Electronic Public Access Program. 
Evidence-Based PracticesThe FY 2020 request includes $10.0 million to continue implementation of evidence-based practices in supervisiprobation and pretrial services program. Evidence-based practices in community corrections is the conscientious 

evidence currently available to inform decisions about the supervision of individuals as well as the design and depractices to achieve maximum and measurable reductions in recidivism. In the judiciary, the implementation of practices has taken several forms. Risk Assessment: The Post-Conviction Risk Assessment (PCRA) is used by officers to classify the risk level of p

supervision and identify the criminogenic needs that, if addressed, could reduce the person under supervision’s ri

Changes to PCRA include adding a violence assessment, which will help officers identify persons on supervision 

risk of committing a violent offense. The transition to this tool, PCRA 2.0, was completed in June 2017. The toabilities of officers to prioritize their casework and direct resources to those persons under supervision that pose harm in the community. Probation and pretrial services offices are using the tool appropriately to target services 

(i.e., individuals who pose a greater risk of recidivism and violence). For example, in FY 2018, the average treatlow risk persons under supervision was $1,152, while it was $3,565 for high risk persons under supervision. Cognitive Behavior Therapy Curricula: In addition to risk assessment, the probation and pretrial services progra

expanding the availability of cognitive-behavioral therapy programming by developing a series of curricula that 

criminogenic needs of persons under supervision: antisocial thinking patterns, social networks, substance abuse, employment deficits. An additional curriculum is being developed to address violent tendencies exhibited by som

supervision. During the fourth quarter of FY 2016, AO staff awarded a national contract to the University of CinInstitute (UCCI) to develop curricula for four audiences (treatment providers, officers, clients, and clients’ familiof criminogenic need. Two pilot districts provided feedback on the curricula, which was incorporated into the finUCCI delivered the final curricula to the AO in October 2018. Implementation is currently focused on developinnational trainers. Additionally, the AO is engaged in a research study to evaluate initial outcomes. There are eig

serving as research sites. These sites are engaged in Criminogenic Needs and Violence Curriculum skill develop

are supported by UCCI. Data collection will commence following skill development. The AO plans to begin locthis effort in FY 2020. 
Staff Training Aimed at Reducing Re-Arrest (STARR): Evidence-based core correctional practices are also being STARR program. The training includes a discussion of the theory of core correctional practices, a demonstration 

exercises, and an opportunity for officers to practice each skill and receive feedback. Training and implementaticomponents of this effort. Both components occur in successive groups (or “waves”) of districts. Wave 1 (whic

in 14 districts), Wave 2 (which includes 23 offices in 22 districts), and Wave 3 (which includes 27 offices in 25 dthe implementation process. Wave 4 (which includes 28 offices in 27 districts) began in early November 2016 w

pretrial services chiefs and key personnel attended an AO-led orientation conference. Training for all participatinin FYs 2019 and 2020. Thirteen STARR training events and three STARR skill refresher training events are sch2019. Additional trainings are planned for FY 2020 including three skill refresher trainings and support for all dSTARR implementation. The recidivism rate for persons under federal supervision, after statistically controlling for the fact that persons ulevels have increased over time, has been declining and is well below that reported for most individuals within st

from April 2014 (which explored recidivism patterns of federal prisoners released from 2005 to 2010), showed thpercent of federal persons under supervision are re-arrested within three years of commencing their terms of supe

slightly more than two-thirds of state prisoners released in 2005 were re-arrested within three years. The positive recidivism coincides with investments made in the federal probation and pretrial services system, including the cbecome evidence-based. The judiciary will continue to collect data on the implementation of evidence-based prapersons under supervision’s progress and measuring revocation and re-offense rates and will provide such data to 

available. Probation and Pretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS) Stabilization and Replacement In recent years, the information technology applications supporting the probation and pretrial services (“PPS”) sy

significant problems with reliability and performance. There are more than 30 applications that work together wPretrial Services Automated Case Tracking System (PACTS) to enable probation and pretrial services offices to 

duties. These applications, along with PACTS, have experienced recurring outages and slowdowns, which impeofficers and staff to access crucial case file information. The lack of immediate access to data on defendants and 

supervision jeopardizes officer safety, increases the risk to public safety, causes delays in providing services to cagencies, and interferes with measuring outcomes and monitoring information required to determine workload crbudget and staffing needs. 
The AO has developed a two-step plan to ensure the reliability and performance of PACTS and the PPS applicatto stabilize PACTS while a replacement system is developed and deployed. The stabilization phase, which began 

positive results by reducing the number of outages and system recovery time when outages occur. Funding has afor this first step. The second step is to develop a replacement system for PACTS with commercial off-the-shelf products as well aconfigurable platform solution. Based on comments received from interested vendors and concerns raised within decided to engage in several pre-solicitation activities aimed at reducing the cost of the project, improving the quapplication, and gaining additional insight into the level of effort and project risk before moving forward with a f

Currently, the AO is drafting a Request for Proposal, clarifying security requirements, and developing an overall 

(i.e., the process of evaluating bids and testing products to determine the best value for the government) and is pl

this in the Spring of 2019. In addition, the AO also issued a contract to the National Center for State Courts to demigration strategy, eliminate duplicate data fields, and ensure consistency across databases. These activities will establish clear requirements, mitigate risks, contain project costs, and improve the quality of the new applicationThe original estimated cost of developing the replacement system was approximately $24.5 million, as reported iFY 2019 budget request. However, pre-solicitation activities over the last year also included the completion of agovernment cost evaluation of the PACTS replacement system. The evaluation estimates that total development 

replacement are expected to exceed original estimates. Several factors increased the cost estimate, including (1) integration with legacy PPS applications and other non-judiciary applications, (2) lack of clarity early in the procscope of data migration, and (3) lack of specificity about the testing, training, and implementation efforts. Given the potential scope of this project, the AO is developing a multi-year funding strategy, in which the judiciaadditional funding over several fiscal years (just as the judiciary has sought funding over several years for the ph

systems program in in the Court Security account). No additional funding is being requested for PACTS replace

a project plan and a new funding strategy is finalized. (See page 4.42 for information about non-recurring certain 
New Courthouse Infrastructure In FY 2016, Congress provided $948 million in funding to the General Services Administration (GSA) for the cocourthouses, as prioritized by the judiciary’s September 2015 Courthouse Project Priorities (CPP) list. These res

the top eight courthouse projects on that CPP plan, including: Nashville, Tennessee; Toledo, Ohio; Charlotte, No

Moines, Iowa; Greenville, South Carolina; Anniston, Alabama; Savannah, Georgia; and San Antonio, Texas. Paprovided for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the ninth project on that CPP list. In addition, $53 million was appropria

construction and acquisition of facilities that are joint U.S. courthouses and federal buildings in Greenville, Miss

Vermont. Although the construction of new courthouses and annexes is funded by GSA, the judiciary is responsible for a vinfrastructure that is needed to ensure that new facilities will be fully functional at the time that major constructiothose courthouse projects that were funded in FY 2016, this FY 2020 request includes $21.7 million to fund furntechnology, and other space-related infrastructure costs required during the design and construction of the new co

Remaining funding requirements for the full functionality and operations of the new courthouses will be included 

requests. In FY 2018, Congress provided the remaining funding necessary to complete the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, projeas well as funding for two additional projects: Huntsville, Alabama ($110.0 million) and Fort Lauderdale, FloridBoth the Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale projects received congressional authorization on February 5, 2019. Jud

infrastructure costs associated with the courthouse projects in Huntsville and Fort Lauderdale are still being deveincluded in future funding requests. Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building Façade The Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building (TMFJB) in Washington, D.C. is several blocks from the U.S

the AO, Federal Judicial Center, Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, and U.S. Sentencing Commission. Th

Capitol (AOC) is responsible for maintaining the building. In 2015, the AOC determined that the entire façade of the TMFJB may require repair or replacement to address srelated to cracks in the façade caused by faulty construction. Although the building’s construction contractor is o
these faults, that firm was sold and reorganized pursuant to a bankruptcy proceeding and the liability was discharAOC lacks legal recourse and funding for the repairs must be provided via the appropriations process. The judiciary funded a façade protection project and Phase 1 of the façade replacement project in FY 2016. Phasof all stone panels from the main entry plaza. Using the results of Phase 1, which is currently scheduled for com2020, future phases may include removal and reinstallation of some or all façade stone from the remaining three A total of $10 million was provided in FY 2018 and an additional $10 million was requested in FY 2019 to compcontinue into Phase 2 of this project. The FY 2020 request includes $10 million in base funding to continue the f

project. Throughout this project, the safety of all TMFJB occupants and the public has been and will remain the top prior

AO have taken steps to ensure maximum protection, which included relocating the Child Development Center pltemporary location, installing safety scaffolding on the 2nd Street entrance, installing interim protective netting fo

and cordoning off walkways around the building. 

COST CONTAINMENT 

Judiciary Space Footprint Reduction Program Space reduction has been one of the judiciary’s major cost-containment initiatives. The national space reduction percent set by the Judicial Conference in September 2013 is equivalent to a total reduction of 870,305 usable squof the end of September 2018 – the deadline for meeting the three percent goal--approximately 1.1 million USF oremoved from the judiciary’s rent bill, with all circuits meeting and exceeding their space reduction goals. There

has exceeded its national space reduction goal by approximately 27 percent, resulting in approximately $36 milli

avoidance. This net reduction is comprised of space released to the General Services Administration (GSA), less since the baseline was set. Since 2013, the judiciary has achieved an estimated $105 million in cumulative rent a

2 This target is prorated among the circuits based on the square footage occupied by each, taking into consideration the amoun

to the circuit under the current version of the U.S. Courts Design Guide. The target excludes: new courthouse construction, renovation

approved by Congress, and is contingent upon the judiciary having access to funding to analyze, design, and implement space reduction

policy is the square footage of total space holdings within each circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 13, p. 32). 
reduction. Over the five years of the program, the judiciary has worked collaboratively with the GSA to ensure tdeadlines have been met, including removing the space and rent charged from the rent bills. Compliance with the No Net New Policy Although the three percent national space reduction target was achieved, courts now face the challenge of maintawith another Judicial Conference-approved cost-containment initiative, the No Net New policy. This policy requ

in square footage within a circuit needs to be offset by an equivalent reduction in square footage identified within 

year.3 As courts expand their workforces, judges take senior status, and new judges are appointed, demand will i

particularly chambers space required for new judges. As a result, circuits need to improve the utilization rates of 

that they do not expand their space footprints. For this reason, the FY 2020 budget request includes $20 million needed to offset space increases in order to maintain compliance with the No Net New policy. Work Measurement The judiciary has employed work measurement since 1970 to determine its staffing requirements, and to provide allocate staffing resources equitably across court types and individual court units. Though the methodology has years, work measurement’s primary purpose remains to bring an empirically-based and practical approach to staf

The staffing formulas estimate the number of staff required to perform the work of judiciary units, which include 

offices, district courts, bankruptcy courts, probation and pretrial services offices, and federal defender organizatioformulas define both administrative and operational staffing requirements of each judiciary unit. Although the judiciary has used work measurement for several decades, the current emphasis on workforce analycontainment has increased the importance of work measurement as one of the more effective management tools ajudiciary. The judiciary updates the staffing formulas, generally at five-year intervals, to incorporate efficiencies information technology initiatives, best practices, and other process improvements, including shared administratiwork measurement methodology uses a combination of statistical modeling and other measurement techniques to 

3 The No Net New policy is subject to the following exclusions: new courthouse construction, renovation, or alterations proje

The baseline for this policy is the square footage of total space holdings within each circuit as of the beginning of FY 2013 (JCUS-SEP 

p. 29). 
precisely the courts’ full staffing requirements. The staffing formulas rely on verifiable data from the courts and timekeeping measurement by the AO. The current work measurement process emphasizes alignment of staffing resources with required workload as thdetermining staff size. The process attempts to answer three basic questions: 

1) What tasks do court staff perform? 2) How often (frequency) do the tasks occur? 3) How long, in labor hours expended, does it take to produce a required product or perform a required task? 

In FY 2018, the judiciary completed a work measurement study on district clerks’ offices. An updated district clformula is in use for the FY 2019 allocations and was used to develop the staffing requirements included in the Frequest. In FY 2019, the judiciary is updating the staffing formula for bankruptcy administrators and for appellaoffices. The judiciary anticipates completion of these formulas in time to incorporate the outcomes into its FY 2FY 2021 budget request. Additionally, in FY 2019, the judiciary will complete the data collection phase for a stadevelopment update for the probation and pretrial services offices. The judiciary anticipates completion of this fincorporate the outcomes into its FY 2021 financial plan and FY 2022 budget request. 

Shared Administrative Services and Alternative Organizational Models Building on earlier efforts to encourage efficiencies and cost-containment through shared administrative servicesConference has established an initiative to develop and evaluate various organizational models that may be adopThese models include: (1) “vertical” consolidation of district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices within a district; (2) 

consolidation of bankruptcy clerks’ offices across districts; and (3) shared administrative services models, which 

range of ideas (including inter-district, intra-district, and regional or national service centers.) The judiciary has practical information for the courts considering consolidation and/or shared administrative services. This inform

various sharing arrangements courts have developed to deliver administrative services, identifies issues to considsharing arrangements, assesses the effect of sharing arrangement, and provides resource materials. At the local lthroughout the country have implemented a significant number of voluntary shared administrative services arranpractices have helped to reduce costs without sacrificing efficiency or quality of service to judges and the public. 
Bankruptcy Courts Horizontal Consolidation Pilot On March 15, 2016, the Judicial Conference approved a horizontal consolidation pilot project. The horizontal cobased on three-year voluntary sharing arrangements between two or more bankruptcy courts regarding all serviceclerks’ offices. The judiciary identified four districts (two sharing arrangements) and is working to identify addi

maximum of six districts (three sharing arrangements), absent exigent circumstances. The Federal Judicial Cente

to determine whether horizontal consolidation of bankruptcy clerks’ offices could produce savings in the level of and/or personnel for those offices without decreasing services provided to judges, the bar, and the public, and be 

effective alternative to potential vertical consolidation. The Federal Judicial Center will prepare a final report evwithin one year after its conclusion. Two pairs of courts—the United States Bankruptcy Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Iowa and th

Bankruptcy Courts for the Districts of North Dakota and South Dakota—have enrolled in the pilot. Pursuant to t

memoranda of understanding between both pairs of courts, the sharing of services would be triggered by the retir

two bankruptcy clerks of court. Therefore, when the bankruptcy clerk of court in the Southern District of Iowa r2017, the bankruptcy clerk of court for the Northern District of Iowa was appointed to serve also as the bankrupt

the Southern District of Iowa. Similarly, when the bankruptcy clerk of court in the District of North Dakota retirclerk of court for the District of South Dakota was appointed to serve also as the bankruptcy clerk of court for thDakota, effective May 1, 2018. 

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RECOMMENDATIONS 

The narrative found here satisfies the 31 U.S.C. § 720(b)(2) requirement to inform the House and Senate Appropon actions taken in response to Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommendations. GAO Study on Financial Disclosure and Redaction Reports Report. On May 31, 2018, GAO issued a report entitled: FEDERAL JUDICIARY: The Administrative Office of Should Ensure Financial Disclosure Redaction Reports Are Submitted to Congress Annually (GAO-18-406). Th

by Senator Charles Grassley (R-IA), Chair, and Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Member, of the Senate Committeand Senators Tom Carper (D-DE), Member, and James Lankford (R-OK), Chair, Senate Committee on Homelan
Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal Management, following-up on an earlieon financial disclosure procedures. Issues Examined. GAO’s report examined three areas: (1) the actions taken to ensure that judicial officials are corequirement to file financial disclosure reports and the number of reports filed each year from 2012 through 2016with procedures for responding to requests for judicial officials’ financial disclosure reports and the number of re

year from 2012 through 2016; and (3) the number and type of redaction requests made, and whether the Judiciary reported the results of judicial officials’ redaction requests to Congress in a timely manner. 

Recommendation. GAO’s report noted that the Judicial Conference has developed guidance, processes, and syst

compliance with applicable law and regulations regarding financial disclosure. The report contained one recommThe Director should develop and implement a formal process, with specified steps and associated time frames, to 

required annual redaction reports are completed and submitted to Congress within the following year.AO Action. Since the publication of GAO’s report, all required reports have been now submitted to Congress on 

AO has addressed the timeliness of the annual redaction report with internal deadlines and improved practices. T

Conference Committee on Financial Disclosure set a deadline of March 30 of each year for the submission of the 

deadline was formalized on September 20, 2018 in the Guide to Judiciary Policy and the Financial Disclosure Re

updated on www.uscourts.gov. The AO is awaiting confirmation from GAO that this fully addresses GAO’s recmatter has been closed. GAO Study on the Justice for All Reauthorization Act of 2016 Report. On February 2, 2018, GAO issued a report entitled: FEDERAL CRIMINAL RESTITUTION: Most Debt 

Oversight of Collections Could Be Improved (GAO-18-203). This was one of two studies required by the Justice Reauthorization Act of 2016 (Pub. L. No: 114-324). Issues Examined. GAO’s report, which involved the Department of Justice as well as the Judiciary, including thStates Sentencing Commission (Commission), examined three areas: (1) the extent and amount of restitution the requested for eligible federal criminal cases in fiscal years 2014 through 2016; (2) the amount of restitution federshow ordered and collected; and (3) best practices identified for requesting, ordering, and collecting restitution. 
Recommendation. The findings and recommendations focused on the Department of Justice’s collection efforts, found that in certain cases restitution was not ordered but no additional information explaining the reason was fodata. The report included one recommendation directed to judiciary officials, including the AO and the CommisCommission data on the reasons restitution was not ordered are incomplete. Additionally, if warranted based on judiciary officials should take action to ensure Commission data records include all required information for orde

AO Action. Though legitimate reasons may exist for these omissions on the Statement of Reasons forms, used by 

information to the Commission to aid in its data collection requirement, the Judicial Conference Committee on C

conjunction with the Commission, concluded that publication of this report provided an opportunity to remind alsentencing proceedings that completion of these forms, and in particular Part VII relating to restitution, can help 

Commission receive all data necessary to fulfill its statutory mission. On July 2, 2018, a memorandum from the Committee on Criminal Law and the Acting Chair of the Commission was broadcast to all district and magistrate 

clerks, and probation officers providing information about this study. In addition, the Criminal Law Committee 

are working together to update guidance and training materials on the Statement of Reasons form. 
FISCAL YEAR 2020 REQUEST 

The FY 2020 discretionary appropriation request for the Salaries and Expenses account totals $5,393.0 million, including $9.0 million for requirements funded from the Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund. The judiciary also requires $421.8 million for requirements funded from mandatory appropriations. The FY 2020 discretionary request is a 4.5 percent increase over the FY 2019 assumed discretionary appropriation level of $5,162.9 million. In addition to appropriated funds, the Salaries and Expenses account utilizes other funding sources to offset its appropriation requirements, including current year fee collections, carryover of fee balances from the prior year, and no-year appropriation balances (excluding encumbered carryforward). The judiciary projects that these sources of non-appropriated funds will total $401.7 million in FY 2020, $28.2 million less than the $429.8 million expected to be utilized in FY 2019. Total Requested Discretionary Appropriation Increases: $230,046,000Total Mandatory Appropriation Increases: $6,718,000 

JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGES

The changes in the FY 2020 budget request are divided into two sections: adjustments to base and program increases. 

Adjustments to base totaling $209.7 millirequested change) are for: 

 an increase to mandatory appropri

costs for judges and costs associatfilled Article III judgeships, bankrsenior judges (+$6.7 million); 

 an increase in personnel costs for 

magistrate judges, chambers staff, support staff (+$121.8 million); 

 an increase in chambers staff to su

III and bankruptcy judgeships and related costs (+$7.7 million); 

 financing adjustments to replace n

sources of funds with appropriated (+$28.2 million); 

 inflationary and miscellaneous adj

(+$18.4 million); 

 an increase for personnel and relat

Vaccine Injury Compensation Tru(+$0.5 million); 

 A net increase for General Service

(GSA) rent and related costs (+$2

 a decrease for non-recurring costs 

Evidence-Based Practices (-$2.7 m
 a net increase for information technology requirements 

(+$0.5 million). 

Program changes totaling $27.0 million (11 percent of the requested change) are for: 

 six new magistrate judges and associated staff 

($6.0 million); 

 net change in court support staffing due to workload 

changes (-$5.2 million); 

 replacing the judiciary’s Financial Disclosure Reporting 

System ($2.8 million); 

 upgrading the judiciary’s payroll projection system 

($1.7 million); and 

 infrastructure costs associated with new courthouse 

construction projects ($21.7 million). 

ADJUSTMENTS TO BASE TO MAINTAIN CURRENT SERVICESThe following provides information and justification for each of the adjustments to base for the Salaries and Expenses account. This section is divided into three subsections: judges, court personnel and programs, and other adjustments. Each line item is identified in this section by a number that corresponds to the line items in the FY 2020 Resource Requirements section on pages 4.3 - 4.4. 

A. JUDGES AND ASSOCIATED STA1 . Pay and benefit cost adjustments  a. Annualization of assumed 20Requested Discretionary Increase: $48

Mandatory Increase: $1,453,000 The requested increase provides for the an

assumed 2019 pay adjustment associated Cost Index (ECI) adjustment. Based on tappropriation action to date, federal pay rassumed to increase by 1.4 percent, effect2019. The requested increase provides fomonths (from October 2019 to December 2019 pay increase in FY 2020. (If Congr

not enact a 2019 pay adjustment for federif one is provided at a rate different than 1the judiciary will revise this line item in iestimate.) 

b. Benefits increases 

Requested Discretionary Increase: $49Mandatory Increase: $992,000 The requested amount includes $1.0 millirate increases in Federal Employee Group 

(FEGLI) for qualified judges with Option 
coverage (additional coverage above the basic FEGLI coverage) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 604(a)(5). Also, an increase of $0.5 million in health benefit payments is required based on Office of Personnel Management estimates that health benefit premium contributions will increase by an average of 1.2 percent both in January 2019 and January 2020. The requested increase annualizes the 2019 premium increase and includes a nine-month provision for the anticipated for FY 2020. This requested increase also includes FICA benefit payments.  c. FERS adjustment Requested Discretionary Increase: $2,315,000Mandatory Increase: $1,321,000 Consistent with guidance from the Office of Management and Budget, funds are requested for an increase in the agency contribution rate to Federal Employee Retirement System (FERS) plans for FY 2020. For most employees, the agency contribution rate will increase from 13.7 percent to 16.0 percent. Any FERS increase is in accordance with revised estimates of the cost of providing benefits by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability System. 

2. Increase in average number of filled A

Requested Discretionary Increase: $5,8Mandatory Increase: $1,905,000 In FY 2019, the judiciary anticipates that of the 844 authorized Article III appellate 

judgeships will be filled. Based on the hipatterns, the judiciary projects 40 judges wduring FY 2020, offset by 32 active judgestatus or retire. As a result, the FY 2020 funding for 732 Article III appellate and djudgeships, a net increase of 8 FTE above This request also includes funding for 24 courtroom deputies, 5 secretaries, and 6 cassociated with the increase of 8 judges’ FThis line item includes $1.9 million for thbenefits of judges, $3.4 million for the salsupporting staff, and $2.5 million for supplaw books, furniture, travel, supplies, and 
Table 4.3 Active Article III Judgeship Vacancies and FTEs* 

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized Article 

III Judgeships

Average 

Vacancies

Avg. Number of 

Active Judges

2014 844 94 7502015 844 57 7872016 844 64 7802017 844 89 7532018 844 140 704

Estimates

2019 844 120 7242020 844 112 732

* For FY 2014-2018, data is as of the start of the fiscal year. The number of authorized judgeships excludes the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and includes territorial courts. 3. Increase in average number of senior judges Requested Discretionary Increase: $1,597,000 FTE: 13 Mandatory Increase: $923,000 FTE: 4 Funding is requested in FY 2020 for a net increase of four senior judge FTE and associated chambers staff. The request includes $0.9 million for the salaries and benefits of judges, $1.2 million for the salaries and benefits of supporting staff (5 law clerks, 3 secretaries, 3 courtroom deputies, and 2 court reporters) and approximately $0.4 million for supporting costs such as law books, furniture, travel, supplies, and equipment. Table 4.4 provides the historical levels of senior judges. Under federal law, an Article III judge has three options when leaving active service. 28 U.S.C. § 371(a) allows the judge to retire from office and receive an annuity for life equal to the 

salary in effect at the date of retirement. allows the judge to retire on disability grothat the judge receives the salary of the ofserving 10 years. 28 U.S.C. § 371(b) allo

senior status and to retain the office, but r

active service. Senior status allows the jurendering substantial judicial service for a notwithstanding his or her retirement. Table 4.4 Article III Senior Judgeship FTEs *Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 371- 373. For FY 2014start of the fiscal year. Currently, there are 212 U.S. Court of ApDistrict Court judges eligible to take senioFY 2019, the judiciary projects 45 judges and an additional 31 judges will become eFor FY 2020, the judiciary estimates that judges will either take senior status or retiretired judges will leave the judiciary’s pa

2014 5512015 5572016 5642017 5622018 576

Estimates

2019 5832020 587

Avg. Number of Senior 

Judges * Fiscal Year
FY 2020 budget request reflects a net increase of four senior judge FTE. 4. Increase in average number of filled bankruptcy judgeships Requested Discretionary Increase: $281,000 FTE: 2 Mandatory Increase: $124,000 FTE: 1 The judiciary projects a total of 334 FTE (including recalled bankruptcy judges) for the 348 authorized bankruptcy judgeships will be funded in FY 2019. Based on historical patterns, it is anticipated that one additional judgeship will be filled during FY 2020, increasing the average number of filled bankruptcy judgeships to 335 FTE in FY 2020. This request also funds 1 law clerk and 1 courtroom deputy associated with the increase of 1 bankruptcy judge FTE. 
Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000) Positions FTE ($000) Posit

167 155 37,959 167 157 38,984677 569 131,696 677 575 134,325

731 162,719 735 163,844

348 334 82,751 347 335 84,690

16 16 3,140 

624 559 135,337 

1,192 1,789 415,125 1,191 1,802 421,843 640 575 138,477 

1 Includes territorial judges2 FTE include recalled bankruptcy judges3 FTE includes recalled court of federal claims judges4 FTE includes part-time and recalled magistrate judges

Table 4.6 U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judges Table 4.7 Bankruptcy Judges (excludes recalled) Table 4.8 Magistr

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized 

Court of Fed. 

Claims 

Average 

Vacancies

Avg. No. 

Active 

Judges

Fiscal 

Year

Authorized 

Bankruptcy 

Judgeships

Avg. 

Vacancies

Avg. No 

Active 

Judges

Fiscal 

Year

Author

MagisJudges

2014 16 6 10 2014 349 19 330 2014 532015 16 4 12 2015 349 21 328 2015 532016 16 6 10 2016 349 19 330 2016 532017 16 6 10 2017 349 21 328 2017 532018 16 7 9 2018 350 28 322 2018 53

Estimates Estimates Estimates

2019 16 8 8 2019 348 19 329 2019 542020 16 8 8 2020 347 17 330 2020 54

 FY 2020

Table 4.5 Summary of Judicial OfficersBankruptcy Judgeships2U.S. Court of Federal Claims3Magistrate Judgeships4

FY 2019 

Article III & Bankruptcy Judges (Mandatory Costs) Claims & Magistrate 

FY 2019

Total Appellate JudgeshipsDistrict Judgeships1Senior/Retired
B. COURT PERSONNEL AND PROGRAMS5. Pay and benefit cost adjustments 

 a. Annualization of assumed January 2019 pay adjustment

Requested Increase: $16,031,000

The requested increase provides for the annualized costs of an assumed 2019 pay adjustment for Employment Cost Index (ECI) adjustment, and locality pay. Based on the FY 2019 appropriation action to date, federal pay rates are assumed to increase by an average of 1.9 percent, effective as of January 2019. The requested increase provides for the cost of three months (from October 2019 to December 2019) of the assumed 2019 pay increase in FY 2020. (If Congress ultimately does not enact a 2019 pay adjustment for federal civilian workers, or if one is provided at a rate different than 1.9 percent, the judiciary will revise this line item in its FY 2020 budget reestimate.) 

b. Promotions and within-grade increases 

Requested Increase: $25,432,000 The requested increase provides for promotions and withingrade increases for personnel. The salary plan for judicial support personnel provides for periodic within-grade increases for staff who receive at least a satisfactory performance rating. 

 c. Benefits increases Requested Increase: $5,690,000 An increase in health benefit payments corequired. Based on information from the Management, health benefit premium conprojected to increase by an average of 1.2 January 2019 and January 2020. The reqannualizes the 2019 premium increase anmonth provision for the increase anticipatBased on information from the Social Secan additional $1.4 million is also requesteincrease in employer contributions to the and Disability Insurance (OASDI) portion The salary cap for OASDI increased from $132,900 in January 2019. The requested pay the agency contribution for three mon d. FERS adjustment Requested Increase: $58,326,000 Consistent with guidance from the Office Budget, funds are requested for an increacontribution rate to Federal Employee Re(FERS) plans for FY 2020. For most empcontribution rate will increase from 13.7 p
percent. Any FERS increase is in accordance with revised estimates of the cost of providing benefits by the Board of Actuaries of the Civil Service Retirement and Disability System.  e. One more compensable day Requested Increase: $13,050,000There is one more compensable day in FY 2020 than in FY 2019. The requested increase funds personnel compensation and benefits associated with one more compensable day. 6. Funding necessary to maintain FY 2019 service levels due to an anticipated decline in non-appropriated funds Requested Increase: $28,170,000 In addition to appropriations from Congress, the judiciary relies on other funding sources to finance its requirements. These non-appropriated funds include current year fee collections, carryforward of fee balances from the prior year, no-year appropriation balances, and Judiciary Information Technology Fund balances. The use of these funds allows the judiciary to reduce its appropriations request on a dollar-fordollar basis. The judiciary’s FY 2020 discretionary appropriation request of $5.4 billion reflects a projected availability of $401.7 million in these non-appropriated funds. Without these funds, the judiciary’s request in discretionary appropriations would have totaled approximately $5.8 billion. 

While the use of these funds benefits the jthe need for appropriated funds), the amofluctuate year-to-year due to changes in fichanges in unobligated balances from pri

non-appropriated funds in the budget year 

appropriated funds in the prior year, the bappropriations request can be reduced fur

total non-appropriated funds in the budge

the total non-appropriated funds in the priappropriations are needed to replace those appropriated funds in order to maintain a of obligations. The FY 2019 obligation level assumes neprior-year carryforward from FY 2018 totThe FY 2020 request estimates that fee co

year carryforward will total $401.7 millio$28.2 million from the $429.8 million avaThis is displayed in Table 4.8 on page 4.3requests appropriated funds for FY 2020 

appropriated funds to maintain the same lprovided in FY 2019. The judiciary’s estappropriated funds typically fluctuate durAO staff will update the appropriations suchanges in non-appropriated funding leve
Table 4.8 Non-Appropriated Sources of Funding 

Fee Collections 204,835 201,665 (3,170)Other Carryforward 225,000 200,000 (25,000)Total, NonAppropriated Sources of Funding, Excluding Slippage

429,835 401,665 (28,170)

Dollars in Thousands FY 2019 Estimated FY 2020 Request Difference

C. OTHER ADJUSTMENTS 7. Inflationary and miscellaneous adjustments Requested Increase: $18,352,000 The judiciary is projecting an inflationary increase of 2.0 percent in FY 2020. This request funds inflationary increases for operating expenses such as travel, communications, printing, contractual services, supplies and materials, furniture and equipment, and other minor miscellaneous adjustments. 8. Vaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund adjustment Requested Increase: $537,000 The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 (42 U.S.C. § 300aa) created a special fund to pay judgments awarded under the Act. This legislation also created the Office of Special Masters within the United States Court of Federal 

Claims to hear vaccine injury cases, and fup to eight special masters may be appoinThe special masters’ expenditures are reimjudiciary for Vaccine Injury Act cases froup under the Act. For FY 2020, the judiciary requests $9.0 mVaccine Injury Compensation Trust Fund$537,000 above the amount assumed to bTrust Fund in FY 2019. The increase is dpay inflationary adjustments. 9. GSA space rental and related servicesRequested Increase: $28,653,000The judiciary requests a net increase of $2FY 2020 for GSA rent and related serviceis made up of: 

(a) new space to be delivered in FY 2(b) inflationary adjustments to the GS

costs (+$36.4 million), 

(c) reduction for Space Reduction Pro

million), and 

(d) other space-related adjustments (-

Table 4.9 on page 4.40 summarizes the fuGSA space rental costs. 
a. New space to be delivered in FY 2020 

Requested Increase: $936,000In FY 2019, the judiciary anticipates there will be a net increase of 50,891 rentable square feet related to projects to be occupied by the courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services offices. The requested increase of $0.9 million is based on projected occupancy dates and rental rates provided by GSA. Table 4.10 on page 4.41 identifies major projects that GSA plans to complete in FY 2020.  b. Inflationary adjustments to the GSA space rental base costs Requested Increase: $36,356,000This request represents a 3.47 percent inflationary increase in the cost of GSA space rental and maintenance of facilities occupied by the courts in FY 2020. This increase is based on rent estimates prepared by GSA and provided to the judiciary. 

c. Reduction associated with Space Reduction 

Program Requested Decrease: -$4,000,000 A net cost savings of $4.0 million is estimated to be achieved in FY 2020 associated with the Space Reduction Program. This brings total annual rental cost savings associated with the Space Reduction Program to $36 million. 

 d. Other space-related adjustmeRequested Decrease: -$4,639,000A net adjustment of -$4,639,000 is requirincluding an increase in tenant improvemmaintenance, and alterations (+$2.0 milliodue to more refined FY 2019 rent requireand a decrease in furniture (-$2.0 million)
Table 4.9 GSA Space Rental Increase 

Fiscal Year 2019 Base: Square Feet of Space Avg. Cost per Square Ft.

Space occupied at start of year: 39,237,036 Adjustments to FY 2019 base Estimated savings due to reduction in footprint Estimated new space to be delivered in FY 2019 Total, Fiscal Year 2019 39,237,036 $26.Fiscal Year 2020 Adjustments:  Increase for estimated inflation (3.47 percent)  Estimated savings due to reduction in footprint -300,000  Annualization of new space assigned in FY 2019 Subtotal, FY 2020 with Annualized FY 2019 New Space 38,937,036 $27.Space to be delivered in fiscal year 2020:  Courthouse Construction – Swing Space for New Courthouses  Estimated new space to be delivered in FY 2020 50,891 Total, Fiscal Year 2020 Budget Request 38,987,929 $27.Fiscal Year 2020 Increase 

 *The fiscal year average cost per square foot includes the annualization of rent costs for space added in the succeeding fiscal year. 
Table 4.10 Space to be delivered in FY 2020 - Prospectus projects, displayed in order of GSA estimated delive

City State 

Net Rentable 

Square Feet to 

be Delivered 

Estimated 

Occupancy 

Date 

Fiscal Year 2019 

Rent Cost New 

Space 

Fiscal Year 2020 

Rent Cost 

T

Pensacola FL 50,891 10/1/19 $0 $936,377 

Total 50,891 $0 $936,377 
10. Evidence-Based Practices non-recurring costs Requested Decrease: -$2,719,000 A decrease of $2.7 million is requested for non-recurring costs associated with STARR training (-$1.1 million), the development of standardized curricula materials (-$1.5 million), and the development of new supervision standards training (-$0.1 million). 11. Information Technology Requirements Requested Net Increase: $466,000  a. Continued implementation of ongoing 

information technology projects

Requested Increase: $15,551,000A net increase of $15.6 million is requested for the Information Technology (IT) program for current operations and system maintenance to the judiciary’s integrated financial management, human resources, rent and property management systems; telecommunications; case management systems; cybersecurity capabilities; and infrastructure support for national IT applications. 

The judiciary continues to implement prosupport the IT needs of the courts. The IT judiciary to operate and maintain its inforinfrastructure, products, projects, and serv

essential to the judicial process and the op

courts. 

A more detailed description of the judiciabe found in section 11 of this submission, Information Technology Fund.”  b. Probation and Pretrial Autom

System (PACTS)

Requested Decrease: -$13,385,000A decrease of $13.4 million is requested fcosts associated with the Probation and PTracking System (PACTS). This decrease the judiciary is currently revising the PACprogram plan and total cost estimate. Untnew plan and cost estimate have been finafunding for this system is not needed. 
 c. Contractor conversion savingsRequested Decrease: -$1,700,000A decrease of $1.7 million is requested for contractor conversions to permanent federal employees. Following a reassessment in FY 2017 of functions contractors of the AO perform, the AO is proceeding to implement a third round of contractor conversions, a process that began in 2012 as a part of the AO’s cost-containment efforts. The goal is to improve project/program management contract operations, as well as save money by converting more expensive contractor positions to less expensive government ones. In this third round of contractor conversions, 114 total contractor conversions are planned and all are scheduled to be completed by the end of FY 2020. (For more information, see section 8 of this submission the “Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts”, pages 8.11 and 8.17.) This requested decrease represents the FY 2020 net savings from this third round of conversions. 

PROGRAM INCREASES12. New FY 2020 full-time magistrate juRequested Increase: $6,031,421 The judiciary requests an additional $6.0 additional magistrate judge positions (6 F(18 FTE), and associated operating costs. critical need for these positions, they have thus, a full-year’s funding is assumed for judge positions in FY 2020. Table 4.11 Cost of Additional Magistrate 

Position

New Full-Time Magistrate Judges Supporting Personnel 1Operating Expenses Total 2
The Judicial Conference authorizes new magistrate judge positions based upon an individualized showing of need by the requesting district courts. The Conference takes into account all relevant factors in its deliberations on magistrate judge position requests, including the number and locations of authorized district judges. In evaluating requests for full-time magistrate judge positions, the Conference generally considers: the comparative need of the district judges for the assistance of magistrate judges and the overall workload of the district court; the commitment of the court to the effective utilization of magistrate judges; and the availability of sufficient work of the type that the district judges wish to assign to magistrate judges to justify the authorization of additional full-time positions. Consideration is also given to the geographical areas and population to be served, convenience to the public and bar, the rights of criminal defendants to prompt court proceedings, the number and extent of federally administered lands in the district, transportation and communication facilities, and other pertinent local conditions. As an alternative to authorizing additional full-time magistrate judge positions, the feasibility of using recalled magistrate judges may be explored with individual district courts in response to their requests for additional magistrate judge positions. 

Based on the criteria described above, in Judicial Conference has authorized six ad

judge positions in the following locations

 District of Delaware at Wilming

 District of New Jersey: one at N

Trenton and one at Trenton or C

 Western District of Texas at Au Northern District of Illinois: one 

one at Chicago (accelerated) 

13. FY 2020 Court Support Staffing due Requested Decrease: -$5,234,000 The judiciary requests a net program decrstaff (-42 FTE) in appellate, bankruptcy, dand pretrial services offices in FY 2020 in changes in case filings. The judiciary alsfor court reporters and pro se law clerks aclerks. The judiciary updated the court reformula resulting in a decrease to the numneeded to support the district courts. The clerks is determined by formulas primarilpetition filings. The judiciary has recentlformulas for pro se law clerks and death p
resulting in the decrease. Some staffing formulas use caseload data for multiple years so, depending on the formula, a single year increase or decrease in workload will not necessarily result in a corresponding increase or decrease in formula results. Table 4.12 Fiscal Year 2020 Staffing Changes 

Appellate -13 ($1,331)Bankruptcy -18 (1,393)District 8 622 Probation/Pretrial 5 501 Court Reporters -8 (816)Pro Se and Death Penalty Law Clerk -16 (2,817)

Total -42 ($5,234)Program Fiscal Year 2020 FTE Dollars in Thousands

14. Financial Disclosure Reporting SystRequested Increase: $2,784,000 The judiciary requests a program increase the Financial Disclosure System Moderniwill be replacing the judiciary’s current fisystem, the Financial Disclosure Online R(FiDO). FiDO is highly inefficient and in replacement. The current architecture of concerns about the system’s security and underlying architecture is outdated and at The planned new online system will contijudiciary’s compliance with the Ethics in 1978, which requires designated personneincome, outside income, assets, investmenof the judiciary. This funding will enablimplementation of the system in FY 202015. Upgrade the Payroll Projection SRequested Increase: $1,723,000 The judiciary requests $1.7 million to upgpayroll projection system (iPPS) architectcurrent level of operations and meet perfo
for judiciary-wide adoption. The iPPS is a vital budgeting tool used throughout the courts nationwide to track and project personnel costs, project payroll expenditures for the current and future fiscal years, reconcile pay period costs, and offer "What-if" analysis to support courts in decision-making. The current system is very difficult and costly to maintain, and the application’s architecture is outdated. The increased funding for iPPS will allow the application to be migrated to a more stable and supportable platform and architecture, as well as integrating improved reporting tools to the system.This funding will enable development and implementation in FY 2020. 16. Infrastructure Costs for New Courthouse Construction Projects Requested Increase: $21,732,000 GSA’s construction costs associated with eight major new courthouse projects were funded in FY 2016, but the judiciary is responsible for a number of ancillary infrastructure costs associated with the construction of these facilities. This request includes a total net increase of $21.7 million over the assumed FY 2019 level for a total FY 2020 investment in new courthouse infrastructure of $29.3 million. 

This net increase is comprised of $14.0 mand $6.5 million for other services associcourthouse construction projects. This reincrease of $1.6 million in costs associateprocure temporary swing space for judicirenovation of the new courthouse projects move is necessary while the current courtrenovated, and a decrease of $0.4 million requirements. 

FINANCING THE FISCAL YEAR 20

17. Estimated FY 2020 Fee CollectionsEstimated funds available: $201,665,00Congress has authorized the judiciary to cand bankruptcy filings as well as fees for services, including registry account adminmiscellaneous court case administration cfees collected by the courts are deposited maintained by the Department of Treasurreimburse judiciary accounts for expenses are available without fiscal year limitationestimates that $201.7 million in revenue fwill be available in FY 2020 to finance re
Salaries and Expenses account, a decrease of $3.2 million from the $204.8 million estimated to be available in FY 2019. Table 4.13 lists offsetting receipts from collections by type and displays the amounts collected in FY 2018. Estimates for FY 2019 and FY 2020 are also provided. The judiciary will continue to monitor filings and other collections throughout FY 2019 and will advise appropriations subcommittee staffs of changes to these estimates. 

Table 4.13 Offsetting Receipts from Collectio

Fees

Subtotal, Fees 222,446 

Type of Collection and SourceTOTAL TO SALARIES & EXPENSESRegistry Administration Fees 2,452 Fee allocation to Admin. Office3

FY 2018 

Actual 

Collections 

($000s)

FY 

Est

Col

($

Bankruptcy Filing and Misc. Fees 1

Civil Filing and Misc. Fees 2Central Violations Bureau Fees Immigration Adjudication and Naturalization Fees 5,719

211,324 

-11,122 

140,649

68,835

4,791

1 Includes statutory bankruptcy filing fees and bankrupt2 Includes statutory civil filing fees and appellate court miscellaneous fees.3 Based on Judicial Conference policy, up to five percenbe used to support Administrative Office requirements. 
18. Anticipated Unencumbered Carryforward from FY 2019 Estimated funds available: $200,000,000The judiciary estimates that $200.0 million will be available through anticipated savings in FY 2019 to carry forward into FY 2020 and offset the FY 2020 appropriation request for the Salaries and Expenses account. Savings generally become available due to fewer than projected Article III judicial confirmations, resulting in salary and benefit savings for associated staff; slippages in GSA space delivery schedules that reduce space rental and furniture expenses; and unobligated funds returned from the nearly 400 court units throughout the judiciary. The judiciary will advise appropriations subcommittee staffs of changes to this estimate.