Federal Courthouse Construction: Nationwide Space and Cost Issues Are Applicable to L.A. Courthouse Project
Published: 2011-11-04T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: In 2000, as part of a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative, the judiciary requested and the General Services Administration (GSA) proposed building a new courthouse in Los Angeles to increase security, efficiency, and space--but construction never began. About $400 million was appropriated for the L.A. courthouse project. For this testimony, GAO was asked to report on (1) the status of the L.A. courthouse project, (2) challenges GAO has identified affecting federal courthouses nationwide, and (3) the extent to which these challenges are applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. This testimony is based on GAO-10-417 and GAO's other prior work on federal courthouses, during which GAO analyzed courthouse planning and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom sharing scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and others. In GAO-10-417 , GAO recommended that (1) GSA ensure that new courthouses are constructed within their authorized size or, if not, that congressional committees are notified, (2) the Judicial Conference of the United States retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year-judge planning, and (3) the Conference establish and use courtroom sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most of the recommendations, but expressed concerns with GAO's methodology and key findings. GAO continues to believe that its findings were well supported and developed using an appropriate methodology..
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO reported in 2008 that GSA spent about $33 million on design and site preparations for a new 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse, leaving about $366 million available for construction. However, project delays, unforeseen cost escalation, and low contractor interest had caused GSA to cancel the project in 2006 before any construction took place. GSA later identified other options for housing the L.A. Court, including constructing a smaller new courthouse (36 courtrooms) or using the existing courthouses--the Spring Street Courthouse and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. As GAO also reported, the estimated cost of the 36-courthouse option as of 2008 was over $1.1 billion, significantly higher than the current appropriation. The challenges that GAO has identified in recent reports on federal courthouses include increasing rent and extra operating, maintenance, and construction costs stemming from courthouses being built larger than necessary. For example, in 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual exemption from rent payments to GSA due to difficulties in paying for its increasing rent costs. GAO found in 2006 that these increasing rent costs were primarily due to increases in total courthouse space--and in 2010, GAO reported that more than a quarter of the new space in recently constructed courthouses is unneeded. Specifically, in the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, GAO found 3.56 million square feet of excess space. This extra space is a result of (1) courthouses exceeding the congressionally authorized size, (2) the number of judges in the courthouses being overestimated, and (3) not planning for judges to share courtrooms. In total, the extra space GAO identified is equal in square footage to about 9 average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the estimated annual cost to rent, operate and maintain it is $51 million. Each of the challenges GAO identified related to unnecessary space in courthouses completed since 2000 is applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. First, as GAO reported in 2008, GSA designed the L.A. Courthouse with 13 more courtrooms than congressionally authorized. This increase in size led to cost increases and delays. Second, in 2004, GAO found that the proposed courthouse was designed to provide courtrooms to accommodate the judiciary's estimate of 61 district and magistrate judges in the L.A. Court by 2011--which, as of October 2011, exceeds the actual number of such judges by 14. This disparity calls into question the space assumptions on which the original proposals were based. Third, the L.A. court was planning for less courtroom sharing than is possible. While in 2008 the judiciary favored an option proposed by GSA that provided for some sharing by senior judges, according to GAO's 2010 analysis, there is enough unscheduled time in courtrooms for three senior judges to share one courtroom, two magistrate judges to share one courtroom, and three district judges to share two courtrooms. In 2011, the judiciary also approved sharing for bankruptcy judges. Additional courtroom sharing could reduce the number of additional courtrooms needed for the L.A. courthouse, thereby increasing the potential options for housing the L.A. Court.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: We are pleased to be here to discuss our recent work on federal  courthouse construction issues and on the Los Angeles (L.A.) courthouse  in particular. Since the early 1990s, the General Services Administration  (GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have undertaken a multibillion- dollar courthouse construction initiative that by June 2010 had resulted in  66 new courthouses or annexes, with 29 additional projects in various  stages of development. However, rising costs and other federal budget  priorities threaten to stall the initiative. The L.A. courthouse is one of the  projects that has not been constructed, even though in fiscal year 2000,  the judiciary ranked Los Angeles, California, as its first priority for  courthouse construction. Currently, in downtown Los Angeles at one of  the nation’s busiest federal district courts (L.A. Court), the judiciary’s  operations are split between two buildings—the Spring Street Courthouse  and the Edward R. Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse. In 1996, the  judiciary concluded that the split created operational inefficiencies, that it  needed additional space in downtown Los Angeles, and that the Spring  Street building had obsolete building systems and poor security  conditions. The split court was a significant factor in the high priority  ranking given to the L.A. courthouse project. For example, according to  GSA officials, inefficiencies occur because the court’s operations are split  between these two buildings. GSA agreed in 2000 that the existing  buildings did not meet the court’s expansion and security requirements,  among other things. Accordingly, the judiciary requested and GSA  proposed building a new courthouse in downtown Los Angeles.
In July 2000, GSA was congressionally authorized to begin designing a  new courthouse in Los Angeles, and from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal  year 2005, Congress appropriated about $400 million for the project.
GSA initially estimated in 2000 that the L.A. Court could take occupancy  of a new courthouse in fiscal year 2006, but construction never began.  For this testimony, GAO was asked to address (1) the history and status  of the L.A. courthouse project, (2) challenges we have identified affecting  federal courthouses nationwide, and (3) the extent to which these  challenges are applicable to the L.A. courthouse project. This testimony is  based on GAO’s prior work on federal courthouses, for which we  analyzed courthouse planning and use data; reviewed relevant laws,  regulations, and project planning and budget documents; visited key sites  in Los Angeles and courthouses in many locations; analyzed selected  courthouses as case studies; modeled courtroom sharing scenarios;  contracted with the National Academy of Sciences to convene a panel of  judicial experts, and conducted structured interviews with numerous other  district and magistrate judges about the challenges and opportunities  related to courtroom sharing; analyzed nationwide judiciary rent data  generated from GSA’s billing system, and interviewed judges, GSA  officials, and others. This prior work was conducted from June 2004  through June 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. More detail on  our scope and methodology is available in the full reports on which this  testimony is based.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The judiciary pays rent annually to GSA for court-related space. In fiscal  year 2010, the judiciary’s rent payments totaled over $1 billion. The  judiciary’s rent payments are deposited into GSA’s Federal Buildings  Fund, a revolving fund used to finance GSA’s real property services,  including the construction and repair of federal facilities under GSA  control. Since fiscal year 1996, the judiciary has used a 5-year plan to  prioritize new courthouse construction projects, taking into account a  court’s projected need for space related to caseload and estimated  growth in the number of judges and staff, security concerns, and any  operational inefficiencies that may exist. Under current practices, GSA  and the judiciary plan new federal courthouses based on the judiciary’s  projected 10-year space requirements, which incorporate the judiciary’s  projections of how many judges it will need in 10 years.
The L.A. Court’s operations are currently split between two buildings—the  Spring Street Courthouse built in 1938 and the Roybal Federal Building  built in 1992. In 2008, we reported that the Spring Street building consists  of 32 courtrooms—11 of which do not meet the judiciary’s minimum  design standards for size—and did not meet the security needs of the  judiciary. The Roybal Federal Building consists of 34 courtrooms (10  district, 6 magistrate, and 18 bankruptcy). (See fig. 1.)
Since 2000, the construction of a new L.A. courthouse has been a top  priority for the judiciary because of problems perceived by the judiciary  related to the current buildings’ space, security, and operations. From  fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2005, Congress made three  appropriations for a new L.A. courthouse. Specifically, in fiscal year 2001,  Congress provided $35.25 million to acquire a site for and design a 41- courtroom building, and in fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated $50  million for construction of the new L.A. courthouse. In fiscal year 2005,  Congress appropriated an additional $314.4 million for the construction of  a new 41-courtroom building in Los Angeles, which Congress designated  to remain available until expended for construction of the previously  authorized L.A. courthouse.
section_title: L.A. Courthouse Project Cancelled After Delays and Increases in Estimated Costs
paragraphs: In our 2008 report, we found that GSA had spent $16.3 million designing  a new courthouse for the L.A. court and $16.9 million acquiring and  preparing a new site for it in downtown Los Angeles. In addition, we  reported that about $366.45 million remained appropriated for the  construction of a 41-courtroom L.A. courthouse.  Subsequent to the initial  design and site acquisition, we noted that the project experienced  substantial delays.  The project was delayed because GSA decided to  design a larger courthouse than congressionally authorized, GSA and the  judiciary disagreed over the project’s scope, costs escalated  unexpectedly, and there was low contractor interest in bidding on the  project.  We also reported that because of the delays, estimated costs for  housing the L.A. Court had nearly tripled to over $1.1 billion, rendering  the congressionally-authorized 41-courtroom courthouse unachievable  with current appropriations.  As a result of the delays and the increases in  estimated cost, in 2006, GSA cancelled the entire 41-courtroom  courthouse project for which Congress had appropriated funds.
By 2008, GSA was considering three options for a revised L.A. courthouse  project, which would have required balancing needs for courtroom space,  congressional approval, and additional estimated appropriations of up to  $733 million.  These options are summarized in Table 1.
The L.A. Court supported the first of these options—building a 36- courtroom, 45-chamber courthouse to house all district and senior judges  and adding 4 more courtrooms in the Roybal building to house all  magistrate and bankruptcy judges—but it was the most expensive,  pushing the total project costs to $1.1 billion at that time. While in 2008,  we took no position on the three options, it was clear that the process had  become deadlocked. Moreover, none of the options considered in 2008  would have solved the issue of a split court, as all involved using two  buildings to house the L.A. Court.
section_title: GAO Found Judiciary’s Rent Challenge Stems from Courthouses Having Unneeded Space with Higher Associated Costs
subsections: section_title: GAO Found That Increases in the Judiciary’s Rent Costs Were Primarily Due to Increases in Space and That Courthouses Have Significant Unneeded Space
paragraphs: In 2004, the judiciary requested a $483 million permanent, annual  exemption from rent payments to GSA because it was having difficulty  paying for its increasing rent costs. GSA denied this request. GAO found  in 2006 that the federal judiciary’s rental obligations to GSA for  courthouses had increased 27 percent from fiscal year 2000 through  fiscal year 2005, after controlling for inflation, and that these increasing  rent costs were primarily due to the judiciary’s simultaneous 19-percent  increase in space. Much of the net increase in space was in new  courthouses that the judiciary had taken occupancy of since 2000. In  2010, we found that the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000  include 3.56 million square feet of unneeded space—more than a quarter  of the space in courthouses completed since 2000.  This extra space  consists of space that was constructed as a result of (1) exceeding the  congressionally authorized size, (2) overestimating the number of judges  the courthouses would have, and (3) not planning for judges to share  courtrooms. Overall, this space is equal to the square footage of about 9  average-sized courthouses. The estimated cost to construct this extra  space, when adjusted to 2010 dollars, is $835 million, and the annual cost  to rent, operate, and maintain it is $51 million.
section_title: Most Federal Courthouses Constructed Since 2000 Exceed Authorized Size, Some by Substantial Amounts
paragraphs: In our 2010 report on federal courthouse construction, we found that 27 of  the 33 courthouses completed since 2000 exceeded their congressionally  authorized size by a total of 1.7 million square feet. Fifteen exceed their  congressionally authorized size by more than 10 percent, and 12 of these  15 also incurred total project costs that exceeded the estimates provided  to congressional committees. However, there is no statutory requirement  to notify congressional committees about size overages. According to our  analysis, a lack of oversight by GSA, including not ensuring its space  measurement policies were understood and followed, and a lack of focus  on building courthouses within the congressionally authorized size,  contributed to these size overages.
For example, all 7 of the courthouses we examined in case studies for  this 2010 report included more building common and other space—such  as mechanical spaces and atriums—than planned for within the  congressionally authorized gross square footage. The increase over the  planned space ranged from 19 percent to 102 percent. Regional GSA  officials involved in the planning and construction of several courthouses  we visited stated that they were unaware until we told them that the  courthouses were larger than authorized.
Further indicating a lack of oversight in this area, GSA relied on the  architect to validate that the courthouse’s design was within the  authorized gross square footage without ensuring that the architect  followed GSA’s policies on how to measure certain commonly included  spaces, such as atriums. Although GSA officials emphasized that open  space for atriums would not cost as much as space completely built out  with floors, these officials also agreed that there are costs associated with  constructing and operating atrium space. In fact, the 2007 edition of the  U.S. Courts Design Guide, which reflects an effort to impose tighter  constraints on future space and facilities costs, emphasizes that  courthouses should have no more than one atrium.
section_title: Because the Judiciary Overestimated the Number of Judges, Courthouses Have Much Extra Space after 10 Years
paragraphs: For 23 of 28 courthouses whose space was planned at least 10 years  ago, the judiciary overestimated the number of judges who would be  located in them, causing them to be larger and costlier than necessary.  Overall, the judiciary has 119, or approximately 26 percent, fewer judges  than the 461 it estimated it would have. This leaves the 23 courthouses  with extra courtrooms and chamber suites that, together, total  approximately 887,000 square feet of extra space. A variety of factors  contributed to the judiciary’s overestimates, including inaccurate caseload  projections, difficulties in projecting when judges would take senior status,  and long-standing difficulties in obtaining new authorizations and filling  vacancies. However, we found that the contribution of inaccurate  caseload projections to inaccurate estimates of how many judges would  be needed cannot be measured because the judiciary did not retain the  historic caseload projections used in planning the courthouses.
section_title: Low Levels of Use Show That Judges Could Share Courtrooms, Reducing the Need for Future Courtrooms by More than One-Third
paragraphs: According to our analysis of the judiciary’s data, courtrooms are used for  case-related proceedings only a quarter of the available time or less, on  average. Furthermore, no event (case related or otherwise) was  scheduled in courtrooms for half the time or more, on average. Using the  judiciary’s data, we designed a model for courtroom sharing, which shows  that there is enough unscheduled time for substantial courtroom sharing.  (For more information on our model, see app. I). Specifically, our model  shows that under dedicated sharing, in which judges are assigned to  share specific courtrooms, three district judges could share two  courtrooms, three senior judges could share one courtroom, and two  magistrate judges could share one courtroom with time to spare. This  level of sharing would reduce the number of courtrooms the judiciary  requires by a third for district judges and by more for senior district and  magistrate judges.
In our 2010 report, we found that dedicated sharing could have reduced  the number of courtrooms needed in courthouses built since 2000 by 126  courtrooms—about 40 percent of the total number—accounting for about  946,000 square feet of extra space. Furthermore, we found that another  type of courtroom sharing—centralized sharing, in which all courtrooms  are available for assignment to any judge based on need—improves  efficiency and could reduce the number of courtrooms needed even  further.
Some judges we consulted raised potential challenges to courtroom  sharing, such as uncertainty about courtroom availability, but others with  experience in sharing indicated they had overcome those challenges  when necessary and no trials were postponed. In 2008 and 2009, the  Judicial Conference adopted sharing policies for future courthouses under  which senior district and magistrate judges are to share courtrooms at a  rate of two judges per courtroom plus one additional duty courtroom for  courthouses with more than two magistrate judges. Additionally, the  conference recognized the greater efficiencies available in courthouses  with many courtrooms and recommended that in courthouses with more  than 10 district judges, district judges also share.
Our model’s application of the judiciary’s data shows that still more  sharing opportunities are available. Specifically, sharing between district  judges could be increased by one-third by having three district judges  share two courtrooms in courthouses of all sizes. Sharing could also be  increased by having three senior judges—instead of two—share one  courtroom. We found that, if implemented, these opportunities could  further reduce the need for courtrooms, thereby decreasing the size of  future courthouses.
section_title: GSA and the Judiciary Have an Opportunity to Align Courthouse Planning and Construction with the Judiciary’s Real Need for Space
paragraphs: In 2010, we concluded that, for at least some of the 29 courthouse  projects underway at that time and for all future courthouse construction  projects not yet begun, GSA and the judiciary have an opportunity to align  their courthouse planning and construction with the judiciary’s real need  for space. Such changes would reduce construction, operations and  maintenance, and rent costs. We recommended, among other things, that  GSA ensure that new courthouses are constructed within their authorized  size or that congressional committees are notified if authorized sizes are  going to be exceeded; that the Judicial Conference of the United States  retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of its 10-year-judge  planning; and that the Conference establish and use courtroom sharing  policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed  with most of the recommendations, but expressed concerns about our  methodology and key findings. We continue to believe that our findings  were well supported and developed using an appropriate methodology,   as explained in the report.
section_title: Challenges Related to Costs and Unneeded Space in Courthouses Are All Applicable to the L.A. Courthouse Project
paragraphs: The three causes of extra space—and the associated extra costs—in  courthouses that we identified in 2010 are all applicable to the L.A.  courthouse project. These causes, as described above, include (1)  exceeding the congressionally authorized size, (2) overestimating the  number of judges the courthouses would have, and (3) not planning for  courtroom sharing among judges.
In 2008, we reported that GSA’s decision to design a larger courthouse in  Los Angeles than was congressionally authorized had led to cost  increases and delays. The design of a new courthouse in Los Angeles  was congressionally authorized in 2000 and later funded based on a 41- courtroom, 1,016,300-square-foot GSA prospectus. GSA decided instead  to design a 54-courtroom, 1,279,650-square-foot building to meet the  judiciary’s long-term needs. A year and a half later, after conducting the  environmental assessments and purchasing the site for the new  courthouse, GSA informed Congress that it had designed a 54-courtroom  courthouse in a May 2003 proposal. However, the Office of Management  and Budget (OMB) rejected this proposal, according to GSA, and did not  include it in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2005. GSA then  designed a 41-courtroom building, but by the time it completed this effort,  the schedule for constructing the building had been delayed by 2 years,  according to a senior GSA official involved with the project.
With this delay, inflation pushed the project’s cost over budget, and GSA  needed to make further reductions to the courthouse in order to procure it  within the authorized and appropriated amounts. However, GSA and L.A.  Court officials were slow to reduce the project’s scope, which caused  additional delays and then necessitated additional reductions. For  example, GSA did not simplify the building-high atrium that was initially  envisioned for the new courthouse until January 2006, even though the  judiciary had repeatedly expressed concerns about the construction and  maintenance costs of the atrium since 2002. In our 2010 report, we found  that large atriums contributed to size overages in several courthouses  completed since 2000. Moreover, according to GSA officials in 2010,  GSA’s current policy on how to count the square footage of atriums and  its target for the percentage of space in a building that should be used for  tenant space (which does not include atriums) should make it difficult, if  not impossible, for a courthouse project to include large atriums spanning  many floors—although relatively modest atriums should still be feasible.
Second, overestimates of how many judges the L.A. Court would need led  to the design of a courthouse with more courtrooms than necessary.  Specifically, we reported in 2004 that the proposed L.A. courthouse was  designed to include courtrooms for 61 judges (47 current district and  magistrate judges and 14 additional judges expected by 2011), but in 2011,  the L.A. Court still has 47 district and magistrate judges—and none of the  14 additional judges that were expected. This outcome calls into question  the space assumptions that the original proposals were based on.
Third, in 2008 we reported that in planning for judges to share  courtrooms, the judiciary favored an option proposed by GSA that  provided for sharing by senior judges, but our 2010 analysis indicated that  further sharing was feasible and could reduce the size and cost of the  L.A. courthouse project. Specifically, GSA’s proposal to build a 36- courtroom, 45-chamber building and add 4 courtrooms to Roybal’s  existing 34 courtrooms—which GSA estimated at the time would cost  $1.1 billion, or $733.6 million more than Congress had already  appropriated—would have provided the L.A. Court with 74 courtrooms in  total—36 district courtrooms in the new building and 38 courtrooms (20  magistrate and 18 bankruptcy) in Roybal. The judiciary supported this  proposal in part, it said, because, with more chambers than courtrooms  included in the plan, it could fulfill its need for a larger building through  courtroom sharing among senior judges who would occupy the extra  chambers in the new building. In this option, the district and senior judges  would be housed in the new courthouse, while the magistrate and  bankruptcy judges would be housed in the Roybal building. As described  above, our model suggested that additional courtroom sharing would be  possible in a courthouse such as the L.A. courthouse, which could reduce  the number of courtrooms needed for this project, broadening the  potential options for housing the L.A. District Court.
Chairman Denham, Ranking Member Norton, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this concludes our testimony. We are pleased to answer  any questions you might have.
section_title: Contact Information
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact Mark L.  Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or by e-mail at goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this statement. Individuals making key  contributions to this testimony include Keith Cunningham, Assistant  Director, Susan Michal-Smith, and Alwynne Wilbur.
section_title: Appendix I: Additional Information on GAO’s Courtroom Sharing Model
paragraphs: To learn more about the level of courtroom sharing that the judiciary’s  data support, we used the judiciary’s 2008 district courtroom scheduling  and use data to create a simulation model to determine the level of  courtroom sharing supported by the data.
The data used to create the simulation model for courtroom usage were  collected by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC)—the research arm of the  federal judiciary—for its Report on the Usage of Federal District Court  Courtrooms, published in 2008. The data collected by FJC were a  stratified random sample of federal court districts to ensure a nationally  representative sample of courthouses—that is, FJC sampled from small,  medium, and large districts, as well as districts with low, medium, and  high weighted filings. Altogether, there were 23 randomly selected  districts and 3 case study districts, which included 91 courthouses, 602  courtrooms, and every circuit except that of the District of Columbia. The  data sample was taken in 3-month increments over a 6-month period in  2007 for a total of 63 federal workdays, by trained court staff who  recorded all courtroom usage, including scheduled but unused time.  These data were then verified against three independently recorded  sources of data about courtroom use. Specifically, the sample data were  compared with JS-10 data routinely recorded for courtroom events  conducted by district judges, MJSTAR data routinely recorded for  courtroom events conducted by magistrate judges, and data collected by  independent observers in a randomly selected subset of districts in the  sample. We verified that these methods were reliable and empirically  sound for use in simulation modeling.
Working with a contractor, we designed this sharing model in conjunction  with a specialist in discrete event simulation and the company that  designed the simulation software to ensure that the model conformed to  generally accepted simulation modeling standards and was reasonable  for the federal court system. Simulation is widely used in modeling any  system where there is competition for scarce resources. The goal of the  model was to determine how many courtrooms are required for courtroom  utilization rates similar to that recorded by FJC. This determination is  based on data for all courtroom use time collected by FJC, including time  when the courtroom was scheduled to be used but the event was  cancelled within one week of the scheduled date.
The completed model allows, for each courthouse, user input of the  number and types of judges and courtrooms, and the output states  whether the utilization of the courtrooms does not exceed the availability  of the courtrooms in the long run. When using the model to determine the  level of sharing possible at each courthouse based on scheduled  courtroom availability on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., we established  a baseline of one courtroom per judge to the extent that this sharing level  exists at the 33 courthouses built since 2000. In selecting the 8 a.m. to 6  p.m. time frame for courtroom scheduling, we used the courtroom  scheduling profile that judges currently use, reflecting the many uses and  flexibility needed for a courtroom. Judges stated that during trials  courtrooms may be needed by attorneys before trial times in order to set  up materials. This set up time was captured in the judiciary’s data; other  uses of a courtroom captured by the judiciary are time spent on  ceremonies, education, training, and maintenance. We differentiated  events and time in the model by grouping them as case-related events,  nonjudge-related events, and unused scheduled time, and we allotted  enough time for each of these events to occur without delay. Then we  entered the number of judges from each courthouse and determined the  fewest number of courtrooms needed for no backlog in court proceedings.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.