Extra Space in Courthouses Cost an Estimated $835 Million in Constant 2010 Dollars to Construct and $51 Million Annually to Rent, Operate, and Maintain

The 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include 3.56 million  square feet of extra space—28 percent of the total 12.76 million square feet  constructed. The extra square footage consists of space that was  constructed above the congressionally authorized size, due to  overestimating the number of judges the courthouses would have, and  without planning for courtroom sharing among judges. Overall, this  space represents 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 (see   fig. More specifically, the extra space and its causes are as follows:    1.7 million square feet caused by construction in excess of congressional    887,000 extra square feet caused by the judiciary overestimating the  number of judges the courthouses would have in 10 years; and   946,000 extra square feet caused by district and magistrate judges not  sharing courtrooms. Most Courthouses Exceed Congressionally Authorized Size Due to a Lack of Oversight by GSA

		Most Courthouses Constructed Since 2000 Exceed Authorized Size, Some by Substantial Amounts

Twenty seven of the 33 federal courthouses constructed since 2000 exceed  their congressionally authorized size, and 15 of the 33 courthouses  exceed their congressionally authorized size by 10 percent or more. Twelve of the 15 courthouses that exceed the congressionally authorized  gross square footage by 10 percent or more also had total project costs  that exceeded the total project cost estimate provided to congressional  authorizing committees. Overall, the  judiciary has 119, or approximately 26 percent, fewer judges than the 461  it estimated it would have. For this  report, we were not able to determine the degree to which inaccurate  caseload projections contributed to inaccurate judge estimates because  the judiciary did not retain the historic caseload projections used in  planning the courthouses. Using  the judiciary’s data, we designed a model for courtroom sharing that  shows that judges could share courtrooms at a high enough level to reduce  the number of courtrooms needed in 27 of the 33 district courthouses built  since 2000 by a total of 126 courtrooms—about 40 percent of the total  number of district and magistrate courtrooms constructed since 2000. While some judges  remained skeptical that courtroom sharing among district judges could  work on a permanent basis, judges with experience in sharing courtrooms  said that they overcame the challenges when necessary and trials were  never postponed because of sharing. Our model’s application of the judiciary’s data shows that more sharing  opportunities are available. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

For the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, we examined   (1) whether the courthouses contain extra space and any costs related to  it, (2) how the actual size of the courthouses compares with the  congressionally authorized size, (3) how courthouse space based on the  judiciary’s 10-year estimates of judges compares with the actual number of  judges; and (4) whether the level of courtroom sharing supported by data  from the judiciary’s 2008 study of district courtroom sharing could have  changed the amount of space needed in these courthouses. Additionally, we used  district courtroom scheduling and use data to model courtroom sharing  scenarios.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal judiciary and the General Services Administration (GSA) are in the midst of a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative, which began in the early 1990s and has since faced rising construction costs. As requested, for 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, GAO examined (1) whether they contain extra space and any costs related to it, (2) how their actual size compares with the congressionally authorized size, (3) how their space based on the judiciary's 10-year estimates of judges compares with the actual number of judges, and (4) whether the level of courtroom sharing supported by the judiciary's data could have changed the amount of space needed in these courthouses. GAO analyzed courthouse planning and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom sharing scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and other experts. The findings in this testimony are preliminary because the federal judiciary and GSA are still in the process of commenting on GAO's draft report and did not provide comments on this testimony.

What GAO Found

The 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include 3.56 million square feet of extra space--28 percent of the total 12.76 million square feet constructed. The extra square footage consists of space that was constructed (1) above the congressionally authorized size, (2) due to overestimating the number of judges the courthouses would have, and (3) without planning for courtroom sharing among judges. Overall, this space represents 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. Twenty seven of the 33 courthouses completed since 2000 exceed 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 had total project costs that exceeded the estimates provided to congressional committees--8 by less than 10 percent and 4 by 10 to 21 percent. There is no requirement to notify congressional committees about size overages, as is required for cost overages of more than 10 percent. A lack of oversight by GSA, including a lack of focus on not exceeding the congressionally authorized size, contributed to these size overages. The judiciary overestimated the number of judges that would be located in 23 of 28 courthouses whose space planning occurred at least 10 years ago, 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. A variety of factors contributed to the judiciary's overestimates, including inaccurate caseload projections and long-standing difficulties in obtaining new authorizations. However, the degree to which inaccurate caseload projections contributed to inaccurate judge estimates cannot be measured because the judiciary did not retain the historic caseload projections used in planning the courthouses. Using the judiciary's data, GAO designed a model for courtroom sharing, which shows that there is enough unscheduled time for substantial courtroom sharing. Sharing could have reduced the number of courtrooms needed in courthouses built since 2000 by 126 courtrooms--about 40 percent of the total number--covering about 946,000 square feet. Some judges GAO consulted raised potential challenges to courtroom sharing, such as uncertainty about courtroom availability, but others indicated they overcame those challenges when necessary, and no trials were postponed. The judiciary has adopted policies for future sharing for senior and magistrate judges, but GAO's analysis shows that additional sharing opportunities are available. For example, GAO's courtroom sharing model shows that there is sufficient unscheduled time for 3 district judges to share 2 courtrooms and 3 senior judges to share 1 courtroom.