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. 1993 Case Weights Reasonably Accurate, But Accuracy of 2004 Case Weights Cannot Be Statistically Determined

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 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. 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. Second, the research design did not require judges to record time spent on  individual 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). 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. Accuracy of Courts of Appeals Case-Related Workload Measure Cannot Be Assessed

The principal quantitative measure the Judicial Conference uses to assess  the need for additional courts of appeals judgeships is adjusted case  filings. The adjusted filings workload measure is  not based on any empirical data regarding the time that different types of  cases required of appellate judges. Various Proposals Have Been Considered for Changing the Court of Appeals Workload Measure

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. Our 2003 Recommendations and the Judiciary’s Response

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. 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.
Why GAO Did This Study

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 statement 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. This statement is based on work completed and reported in 2003 and discussed in testimony on June 17, 2008.

What GAO Found

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.