Federal Judgeships: General Accuracy of District and Appellate Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures
Published: 2008-06-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Biennially, the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary's principal policymaking body, assesses the need for additional judges. The assessment is based on a variety of factors, but begins with quantitative case-related workload measures. This testimony focuses on (1) whether the judiciary's quantitative case-related workload measures from 1993 were reasonably accurate; and (2) the reasonableness of any proposed methodologies to update the 1993 workload measures. The comments in this testimony are based on a report GAO issued in May 2003.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In 2003, GAO reported that the 1993 district court case weights were reasonably accurate measures of the average time demands that a specific number and mix of cases filed in a district court could be expected to place on the district judges in that district. At the time of GAO's 2003 report, the Judicial Conference was using case weights approved in 1993 to assess the need for additional district court judgeships. The weights were based on data judges recorded about the actual in-court and out-of-court time spent on specific cases from filing to disposition. This methodology permitted the calculation of objective, statistical measures of the accuracy of the final case weights. In 2003, GAO reviewed the research design the Judicial Conference's Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics had approved for updating the 1993 district court case weights, and had two concerns about the design. First, the design assumed that the judicial time spent on a case could be accurately estimated by viewing the case as a set of individual tasks or events in the case. Information about event frequencies and, where available, time spent on the events would be extracted from existing databases and used to develop estimates of the judge-time spent on different types of cases. However, for event data, the research design proposed using data from two data bases that had yet to be integrated to obtain and analyze the data. Second, unlike the methodology used to develop the 1993 case weights, the design for updating the case weights included limited data on the time judges actually spent on specific types of cases. Specifically, the proposed design included data from judicial databases on the in-court time judges spent on different types of cases, but did not include collecting actual data on the noncourtroom time that judges spend on different types of cases. Instead, estimates of judges' noncourtroom time were derived from the structured, guided discussions of about 100 experienced judges meeting in 12 separate groups (one for each geographic circuit). Noncourtroom time was likely to represent the majority of judge time used to develop the revised case weights. The accuracy of case weights developed on such consensus data cannot be assessed using standard statistical methods, such as the calculation of standard errors. Thus, it would not be possible to objectively, statistically assess how accurate the new case weights are--weights on whose reasonable accuracy the Judicial Conference relies in assessing judgeship needs. The case-related workload measure for courts of appeals judges is adjusted case filings in which all cases are considered to take an equal amount of judge time except for pro se cases--those in which one or more of the parties is not represented by an attorney--which are discounted. In our 2003 review, we found no empirical basis on which to assess the accuracy of this workload measure. Although a number of alternatives to the adjusted filings measure have been considered, the Judicial Conference has been unable to agree on a different approach that could be applied to all courts of appeal.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to discuss our work on case- related workload measures for district court and courts of appeals judges.  My statement today is based on work completed and reported in 2003 and  is focused exclusively on these workload measures. We have no views on  the Judicial Conference’s pending request for additional judgeships.
Biennially, the Judicial Conference, the federal judiciary’s principal  policymaking body, assesses the judiciary’s needs for additional  judgeships. If the Conference determines that additional judgeships are  needed, it transmits a request to Congress identifying the number, type,  (courts of appeals, district court), and location of the judgeships it is  requesting.
In assessing the need for additional judgeships, the Judicial Conference  considers a variety of information, including responses to its biennial  survey of individual courts, temporary increases or decreases in case  filings and other factors specific to an individual court. However, the  Judicial Conference’s analysis begins with the quantitative case-related  workload measures it has adopted for the district courts and courts of  appeals—weighted case filings and adjusted case filings, respectively.  These two measures recognize, to different degrees, that the time demands  on judges are largely a function of both the number and complexity of the  cases on their dockets. Some types of cases may demand relatively little  time and others may require many hours of work. Generally, each case  filed in a district court is assigned a weight representing the average  amount of judge time the case is expected to require. The weights are  relative to one another; the higher the case weight, the greater the time the  case would be expected to require. For example, on average a case with a  relative weight of 2.0 would be expected to require twice as much judge  time as a case with a weight of 1.0. In the courts of appeals, all case filings  are weighted equally at 1.0, except for pro se case filings—those in which  one or both parties are not represented by an attorney—which are  discounted.
Using these measures, individual courts whose past case-related workload  meets the threshold established by the Judicial Conference may be  considered for additional judgeships. These thresholds are 430 weighted  case filings per authorized judgeship for district courts and 500 adjusted  case filings per three-judge panel of authorized judgeships for courts of  appeals (courts of appeals judges generally hear cases in rotating panels of  three judges each). Authorized judgeships are the total number of  judgeships authorized by statute for each district court and court of  appeals.
The Judicial Conference relies on these quantitative workload measures to  be reasonably accurate measures of judges’ case-related workload.  Whether these measures are reasonably accurate rests in turn on the  soundness of the methodology used to develop them. This statement  provides information on two of the objectives in our 2003 report: (1)  whether the judiciary’s quantitative case-related workload measures were  reasonably accurate measures of district judge and courts of appeals  judges’ case-related workload; and (2) the reasonableness of any proposed  methodologies to update the workload measures.  In this statement, we  discuss those two objectives first for district courts then for courts of  appeals.
Our 2003 report was based on the results of our review of documentation  provided by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) and the Administrative  Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC) on the history and development of the  case-related workload measures and interviews with officials in each  organization. The scope of our work did not include how the Judicial  Conference used these case-related workload measures to develop any  specific request for additional district and courts of appeals judgeships.  We conducted our performance audit in April and May 2003 in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards  require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Case Weights Are Intended to Measure Judicial Time Required to Handle Their Caseloads
paragraphs: The demands on judges’ time are largely a function of both the number  and complexity of the cases on their dockets. To measure the case-related  workload of district court judges, the Judicial Conference has adopted  weighted case filings. The purpose of the district court case weights was  to create a measure of the average judge time that a specific number and  mix of case filed in a district court would require. Importantly, the weights  were designed to be descriptive not prescriptive—that is, the weights were  designed to develop a measure of the national average amount of time that  judges actually spent on specific cases, not to develop a measure of how  much time judges should spend on various types of cases. Moreover, the  weights were designed to measure only case-related workload. Judges  have noncase-related duties and responsibilities, such as administrative  tasks, that are not reflected in the case weights.
With few exceptions, such as cases that are remanded to a district court  from the court of appeals, each civil and criminal case filed in a district  court is assigned a case weight. For example, in the 2004 case weights,  drug possession cases are weighted at 0.86 while civil copyright and  trademark cases are weighted at 2.12. The total annual weighted filings for  a district are determined by summing the case weight associated with all  the cases filed in the district during the year. A weighted case filings per  authorized judgeship is the total annual weighted filings divided by the  total number of authorized judgeships. For example, if a district had total  weighted filings of 4,600 and 10 authorized judgeships, its weighted filings  per authorized judgeships would be 460. The Judicial Conference uses  weighted filings of 430 or more per authorized judgeship as an indication  that a district may need additional judgeships. Thus, a district with 460  weighted filings per authorized judgeship could be considered for an  additional judgeship. However, the Judicial Conference does not consider  a district for additional judgeships, regardless of its weighted case filings,  if the district does not request any additional judgeships.
section_title: 1993 Case Weights Reasonably Accurate, But Accuracy of 2004 Case Weights Cannot Be Statistically Determined
paragraphs: In our 2003 report, we found the district court case weights approved in  1993 to be a reasonably accurate measure of the average time demands a  specific number and mix of cases filed in a district court could be  expected to place on the district judges in that court. The methodology  used to develop the weights used a valid sampling procedure, developed  weights based on actual case-related time recorded by judges from case  filings to disposition, and included a measure (standard errors) of the  statistical confidence in the final weight for each weighted case type.  Without such a measure, it is not possible to objectively assess the  accuracy of the final case weights.
At the time of our 2003 report, the Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of  the Judicial Conference’s Judicial Resources Committee had approved the  research design for revising the 1993 case weights, with a goal of having  new weights submitted to the Resources Committee for review in the  summer of 2004. The design for the new case weights relied on three  sources of data for specific types of cases: (1) data from automated  databases identifying the docketed events associated with the cases; (2)  data from automated sources on the time associated with courtroom  events for cases, such as trials or hearings; and (3) consensus of estimated  time data from structured, guided discussion among experienced judges  on the time associated with noncourtroom events for cases, such as  reading briefs or writing opinions.
According to the FJC, the Subcommittee wanted a study that could  produce case weights in a relatively short period of time without imposing  a substantial record-keeping burden on district judges. The FJC staff  provided the Subcommittee with information about various approaches to  case weighting, and the Subcommittee chose an event-based method—that  is, a method that used data on the number of and types of events, such as  trials and other evidentiary hearings, in a case. The design did not involve  the type of time study that was used to develop the 1993 case weights.  Although the proposed methodology appeared to offer the benefit of  reduced judicial burden (no time study data collection), potential cost  savings, and reduced calendar time to develop the new weights, we had  two areas of concern—the challenge of obtaining reliable, comparable  data from two different data systems for the analysis and the limited  collection of actual data on the time judges spend on cases.
First, the design assumed that judicial time spent on a given case could be  accurately estimated by viewing the case as a set of individual tasks or  events in the case. Information about event frequencies and, where  available, time spent on the events would be extracted from existing  administrative data bases and report and used to develop estimates of the  judge-time spent on different types of cases. For event data, the research  design proposed using data from two data bases (one of which was new  and had not been implemented in all district courts) that would have to be  integrated to obtain and analyze the event data. The FJC proposed  creating a technical advisory group to address this issue.
Second, the research design did not require judges to record time spent on  individual cases. Actual time data would be limited to that available from  existing data bases and reports on the time associated with courtroom  events and proceedings for different types of cases. However, a majority of  district judges’ time is spent on case-related work outside the courtroom.  The time required for noncourtroom events would be derived from  structured, guided discussion of groups of 8 to 13 experienced district  court judges in each of the 12 geographic circuits (about 100 judges in all).  The judges would develop estimates of the time required for different  events in different types of cases within each circuit using FJC-developed  “default values” as the reference point for developing their estimates.  These default values would be based in part on the existing case weights  and in part on other types of analyses. Following the meetings of the  judges in each circuit, a national group of 24 judges (2 from each circuit)  would consider the data form the 12 circuit groups and develop the new  weights.
The accuracy of judges’ time estimates is dependent upon the experience  and knowledge of the participating judges and the accuracy and reliability  of the judges’ recall about the average time required for different events in  different types of cases—about 150 if all the case types in the 1993 case  weights were used. These consensus data could not be used to calculate  statistical measures of the accuracy of the resulting case weights. Thus,  the planned methodology did not make it possible to objectively,  statistically assess how accurate the new case weights are—weights  whose accuracy the Judicial Conference relies upon in assessing judgeship  needs.
We noted that a time study conducted concurrently with the proposed  research methodology would be advisable to identify potential  shortcoming of the event-based methodology and to assess the relatively  accuracy of the case weights produced using that methodology. In the  absence of a concurrent time study, there would be no objective statistical  way to determine the accuracy of the case weights produced by the  proposed event-based methodology—a major difference with the  methodology used to develop the 1993 case weights.
section_title: Accuracy of Courts of Appeals Case-Related Workload Measure Cannot Be Assessed
paragraphs: The principal quantitative measure the Judicial Conference uses to assess  the need for additional courts of appeals judgeships is adjusted case  filings. The measure is based on data available from standard statistical  reports for the courts of appeals. The adjusted filings workload measure is  not based on any empirical data regarding the time that different types of  cases required of appellate judges.
The Judicial Conference’s policy is that courts of appeals with adjusted  case filings of 500 or more per three-judge panel may be considered for  one or more additional judgeships. Courts of appeals generally decide  cases using constantly rotating three-judge panels. Thus, if a court had 12  authorized judgeships, those judges could be assigned to four panels of  three judges each. In assessing judgeship needs for the courts of appeals,  the Conference may also consider factors other than adjusted filings, such  as the geography of the circuit or the median time from case filings to  disposition.
Essentially, the adjusted case filings workload measure counts all case  filings equally, with two exceptions. First, cases refilled and approved for  reinstatement are excluded from total case filings. Second, pro se cases— defined by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts as cases in which  one or both of the parties are not represented by an attorney—are  weighted at 0.33, or one-third as much as other cases, which are weighted  at 1.0. For example, a court with 600 total pro se case filings in a year  would be credited with 198 adjusted pro se case filings (600 x 0.33). Thus,  a court of appeals with 1,600 filings (excluding reinstatements)—600 pro  se cases and 1,000 non-pro se cases—would be credited with 1,198  adjusted case filings (198 discounted pro se cases plus 1,000 non-pro se  cases). If this court had 6 judges (allowing two panels of 3 judges each), it  would have 599 adjusted case filings per 3-judge panel, and, thus, under  Judicial Conference policy, could be considered for an additional  judgeship.
The current court of appeals workload measure represents an effort to  improve the previous measure. In our 1993 report on judgeship needs  assessment, we noted that the restraint of individual courts of appeals, not  the workload standards, seemed to have determined the actual number of  appellate judgeships the Judicial Conference requested. At the time the  current measure was developed and approved, using the new benchmark  of 500 adjusted case filings resulted in judgeship numbers that closely  approximated the judgeship needs of the majority of the courts of appeals,  as the judges of each court perceived them. The current courts of appeals  case-related workload measure principally reflects a policy decision using  historical data on filings and terminations. It is not based on empirical data  regarding the judge time that different types of cases may require. On the  basis of the documentation we reviewed for our 2003 report, we  determined that there is no empirical basis or assessing the potential  accuracy of adjusted case filings as a measure of case-related judge  workload.
subsections: section_title: Various Proposals Have Been Considered for Changing the Court of Appeals Workload Measure
paragraphs: In the past decade the Judicial Conference has considered a number of  proposals for developing a revised case-related workload measure for the  courts of appeals judges, but has been unable to reach a consensus on any  approach. As part of its assistance to the Conference in this effort, the FJC  in 2001 compiled a document that reviewed previous proposals to develop  some type of case weighting measure for the courts of appeals. Table 1  outlines some of these proposals and their advantages and disadvantages,  as identified by the FJC. Generally, methods that rely principally on  empirical data on actual case characteristics and judge behavior (e.g., time  spent on cases) are more appropriate than those that rely principally on  qualitative data because statistical methods can be used to estimate the  accuracy of the resulting workload measure.
We recognize that a methodology that provides greater empirical  assurance of a workload measure’s accuracy will require judges to  document how they spend their time on cases for at least a period of  weeks. However, we believe that the importance and cost of creating new  federal judgeships requires the best possible case-related workload data  using sound research methods to support the assessment of the need for  more judgeships.
section_title: Our 2003 Recommendations and the Judiciary’s Response
paragraphs: In our 2003 report we recommended that the Judicial Conference of the  United States    update the district court case weights using a methodology that  supports an objective, statistically reliable means of calculating the  accuracy of the resulting weights; and    develop a methodology for measuring the case-related workload of  courts of appeals judges that supports an objective, statistically reliable  means of calculating the accuracy of the resulting workload measures  and that addressed the special case characteristics of the Court of  Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Neither of these recommendations has been implemented.
With regard to our 2003 recommendation for updating the district court  case weights, the FJC agreed that the method used to develop the new  case weights would not permit the calculation of standard errors, but that  other methods could be used to assess the integrity of the resulting case  weight system. In response, we noted that the Delphi technique to be used  for developing out-of-court time estimates was most appropriate when  more precise analytical techniques were not feasible and the issue could  benefit from subjective judgments on a collective basis. More precise  techniques were available for developing the new case weights and were  to be used for developing new bankruptcy court case weights.
The methodology the Judicial Conference decided to begin in June 2002  for the revision of the bankruptcy case weights offered an approach that  could be usefully adopted for the revision of the district court case  weights. The bankruptcy court methodology used a two-phased approach.  First, new case weights would be developed based on the time data  recorded by bankruptcy judges for a period of weeks—a methodology  very similar to that used to develop the bankruptcy case weights that  existed in 2003 at the time of our report. The accuracy of the new case  weights could be assessed using standard errors. The second part  represents experimental research to determine if it is possible to make  future revisions of the weights without conducting a time study. The data  from the time study could be used to validate the feasibility of this  approach. If the research determined that this were possible, the case  weights could be updated more frequently with less cost than required by  a time study. We believe this approach would provide (1) more accurate  weighted case filings than the design developed and used for the  development of the 2004 district court case weights, and (2) a sounder  method of developing and testing the accuracy of case weights that were  developed without a time study.
With regard to our recommendation improving the case-related workload  measure for the courts of appeals, the Chair of the Committee on Judicial  Resources commented that the workload of the courts of appeals entails  important factors that have defied measurement, including significant  differences in case processing techniques. We recognize that there are  significant methodological challenges in developing a more precise  workload measure for the courts of appeals. However, using the data  available, neither we nor the Judicial Conference can assess the accuracy  of adjusted case filings as a measure of the case-related workload of  courts of appeals judges.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman, and I would be pleased to  respond to any questions you or other members of the Committee may  have.
section_title: Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this statement, please contact William O.  Jenkins Jr., Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, on (202) 512- 8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above the  following individuals from GAO’s Homeland Security and Justice Team  also made major contributors to this testimony: Ann Laffoon, Assistant  Director; John Vocino, Analyst-in-Charge, and Laura Kaskie,  Communications Analyst.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.