	Background

		Overview of the Federal Judiciary

The federal judiciary consists of the Supreme Court, regional circuit  courts of appeals, district courts, bankruptcy courts, as well as courts of  special jurisdiction including the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,  the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims.1 provides an overview of the district and bankruptcy courts. In 1986, a new statutory provision was added prohibiting the consolidation of the offices  of the district and bankruptcy clerks of court without the prior approval of  the Judicial Conference and Congress.further clarified the process for consolidation of clerks’ offices in the  district courts and bankruptcy courts, which was promulgated in the Guide  to Judiciary Policy. For example, different court units may  share a joint contract for telephone service, share individual staff, or  share space, among other arrangements. Few Districts Have Consolidated Clerks’ Offices, and Courts Are Sharing Services, but the Costs and Benefits Are Unclear

		Four Districts Have Consolidated Clerks’ Offices, and No Known Others Plan to Do So in the Future

Of the 91 federal judicial districts served by bankruptcy courts, 4 function  with consolidated district and bankruptcy clerks’ offices. The Judiciary Is Assessing and Considering Further Efforts to Share Services

Since the extent of cost savings and other benefits in courts with  consolidated clerks’ offices or shared services is unclear at this time,  AOUSC is assessing whether additional arrangements would be  beneficial. Because, according to AOUSC officials and court officials we  interviewed, consolidation of clerks’ offices in additional districts is  unlikely, AOUSC has focused on assessing whether shared services  results in cost savings, and its efforts are ongoing. In August 2011,  AOUSC began a study to determine the extent to which court units have  been sharing administrative services; what the results have been,  including any cost savings; and how courts may be able to contain costs  through sharing more services. For the study, AOUSC distributed surveys  to district and bankruptcy courts and probation and pretrial services  offices to collect data on the number of court units that are sharing  services and the number of court unit employees categorized as  performing administrative versus operational functions. AOUSC plans to use the data collected from these  surveys to conduct an analysis of the percentage of time devoted to  administrative work in court units that share services and consequently  whether there are associated cost savings with sharing services. According to officials, AOUSC is still analyzing the data and has drafted a  report from the study, which after further review, they anticipate providing  to the Judicial Conference’s Committee on the Budget in July 2013, but  they did not know when the report would be final. While AOUSC studies the potential cost savings, the Judicial Conference  continues to encourage shared services as a way to save money while  maintaining high-quality court services. In a 2012 hearing, the Chair of the  Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference stated that shared  administrative services would reduce the duplication caused by multiple  human resources, procurement, financial management, and information   The Chair also stated that  technology staffs in a single judicial district.shared administrative services would reduce staffing and overhead costs  and streamline the administrative process in the courts. However, AOUSC  officials said that these preliminary results did not take into account the  varying levels of shared services that courts have, since the self-reported  surveys did not ask for this information. As courts  consider whether to begin or increase shared services arrangements, the  results of AOUSC’s cost savings study will likely be important to help  determine whether shared services could result in savings or other  benefits. In addition to determining whether shared services could save money, as  courts consider how to reduce costs and meet decreasing budgets, the  results of AOUSC’s study could provide courts with information or  promising practices to aid in their decisions about sharing services in their  particular districts. For example, AOUSC officials said that after the study  is completed, they may conduct case studies of courts that, according to  the survey data, are sharing services and show an efficient use of  administrative staff, and disseminate information on these courts’  practices to all courts. For example, courts noted that they did not  have access to measures that would allow them to compare their staff  numbers and utilization with those of other similarly sized courts, such as  if their human resource staff numbers were at an optimal level. However, since the study is ongoing and subsequent case study  plans are not firm, it is too early to tell whether the results, the final report,  or subsequent AOUSC actions will provide this information. AOUSC stated that the judiciary’s  cost containment efforts, including sharing administrative services, will not  fully offset the effects of sequestration on the judiciary’s budget. We are sending copies of this report to the Judicial Conference, the  Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, and other  interested parties.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal judiciary has the critical responsibility for the fair and swift administration of justice in the United States. Like the rest of the federal government, the judiciary has been affected by decreasing federal resources, and is implementing and considering various cost containment initiatives, including sharing administrative services between district and bankruptcy courts, such as human resources, procurement, or financial management. In most federal judicial districts, the offices of the clerkresponsible for operational and administrative court functionsfor the district and bankruptcy courts are separate, but in a few districts, these have been consolidated into one clerks office.
GAO was requested to examine the potential savings from consolidating or sharing services between district and bankruptcy clerks offices. This report addresses (1) the steps the judiciary has taken to consolidate these clerks offices or share services between them and the costs and benefits of doing so, and (2) the extent to which the judiciary is assessing and considering further clerks office consolidations or shared services. GAO reviewed judicial guidance related to consolidation and shared services, budget documentation, surveys and data on the extent of shared services, and information on potential cost savings from 10 federal judicial districts, selected based on geography and size, and to include courts with consolidated and nonconsolidated clerks offices. GAO also interviewed court and judiciary officials. While the information and views obtained cannot be generalized, they provided insights.

What GAO Found

Few federal judicial districts have consolidated their court clerks' offices; courts are sharing services among the clerks' offices, but the costs and benefits are unclear. Four of the 91 districts served by bankruptcy courts have consolidated the clerks' offices of the district and bankruptcy courts. Court officials in districts that are not considering consolidation told GAO that they are not considering consolidation primarily because the bankruptcy courts in those districts did not want to give up their independence or risk the possibility that services would be prioritized in favor of the district court, and the courts did not have evidence of cost savings or other benefits that would make consolidation worthwhile. Officials from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (AOUSC), which provides a wide range of services to the federal judiciary, were not aware of other districts considering consolidation and noted that the consolidation process is complicated--for example, it requires congressional approval. The judiciary has taken steps to share administrative services as part of its cost containment initiatives, but the cost savings and operational benefits of sharing services are unclear. In an AOUSC survey, 154 of 283 court units--district courts, bankruptcy courts, and probation and pretrial services offices--reported that they are sharing services with other court units, though the extent of this sharing is unknown because the survey did not ask for this information. For example, sharing can comprise various methods, such as shared staff, shared contracts for service, or shared space. According to AOUSC officials, since staff expenses make up the majority of judiciary expenses, sharing staff and eliminating positions may be the most promising way to achieve cost savings through shared services. However, the ability to cut staff based on sharing services is dependent on the attributes of each district, including the level of staff utilization, and courts GAO spoke with did not provide documented evidence of cost savings or the lack thereof. Court opinions on the operational benefits from sharing services also varied. For example, court officials stated that sharing can provide opportunities for staff specialization and better-quality service, but can also negatively affect courts if services are not provided equitably.
In August 2011, AOUSC began a cost savings study on shared administrative services. AOUSC plans to use data collected from the courts to conduct an analysis of the percentage of time devoted to administrative work in court units that share services and consequently whether there are associated cost savings. AOUSC plans to provide a draft report from the study to the Budget Committee of the Judicial Conference--the conference is the judiciary's principal policy-making body--in July 2013, but did not know when the report would be final. In addition to determining whether shared services could save money, the results of the study could provide courts with information to aid in their decisions about sharing services. For example, AOUSC officials said that after the study is completed, they may conduct case studies of courts that are sharing services and disseminate information on these courts' practices. As courts consider whether to begin or increase shared services arrangements, the results of AOUSC's cost savings study will likely be important to help determine whether shared services could result in savings or other benefits. However, since the study is ongoing and case study plans are not firm, it is too early to tell whether the results, the final report, or subsequent AOUSC actions will provide this information.