	District Court Weighted Case Filings, as Approved, Are a Reasonably Accurate Measure of Case-Related Judge Workload

The demands upon judges’ time 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. 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  types of cases, not to develop a measure of how much time judges should  spend on specific types of cases. Overall, the weighted case filings, as approved in 1993, are a reasonably  accurate method of measuring the average judge time that a specific  number and mix of cases filed in a district court would require. The  methodology used to develop the case weights was reasonable. It used a  valid sampling procedure, developed weights based on actual case-related  time recorded by judges from case filing to disposition, and included a  measure (standard errors) of the statistical confidence in the final weight  for each weighted case type. Current Case Weights about 10 Years Old

The case weights are almost 10 years old, and the time data on which they  were based are as much as 15 years old. Changes since the case weights  were finalized in 1993, such as changes in the characteristics of cases filed  in federal district courts and in case management practices, may affect  how accurately the weights continue to reflect the time burden on district  court judges today. Concerns about the Research Design for Updating the District Court Case Weights

The Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics of the Judicial Conference’s  Committee on Judicial Resources has approved the research design for  revising the current case weights, with the goal of having new weights  submitted to the Resources Committee for review in the summer of   2004. Actual time data would be limited to that available  from existing reports on the time associated with courtroom events and  proceedings for different types of cases. The time  required for noncourtroom events would be derived from structured,  guided discussions of groups of 8 to 13 experienced district court judges in  each of the 12 geographic circuits (about 100 judges in all). Thus, it  will not be possible to objectively, statistically assess how accurate the  new case weights are—weights on whose accuracy the Judicial  Conference will rely in assessing judgeship needs in the future. Adjusted Case Filings: Accuracy of Courts of Appeals Case-Related Workload Measure Cannot Be Assessed

The principal workload measure that the Judicial Conference uses to  assess the need for additional courts of appeals judges is adjusted case  filings. We found that adjusted case filings are based on data available  from standard statistical reports for the courts of appeals. The measure is  not based on any empirical data about the judge time required by different  types of cases in the courts of appeals. On the  basis of the documentation we reviewed, we determined that there is no  empirical basis for assessing the potential accuracy of adjusted filings a  measure of case-related judge workload. Recommendations

In our 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 measure(s) and that  addresses the special case characteristics of the Court of Appeals for the  D.C. Appendix I: Quality Assurance Steps the Judiciary Takes to Ensure the Accuracy of Case Filing Data for Weighted Filings

Whether the district court case weights are a reasonably accurate measure  of district judge case-related workload is dependent upon two variables:  (1) the accuracy of the case weights themselves and (2) the accuracy of  classifying cases filed in district courts by the case type used for the case  weights. If case filings are inaccurately identified by case type, then the  weights are inaccurately calculated.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO appeared before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, House Committee on the Judiciary to discuss the results of our review and assessment of case-related workload measures for district court and courts of appeals judges. Biennially, the Judicial Conference of the United States, 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, or bankruptcy), and location of the judgeships it is requesting. In assessing the need for additional district and appellate court 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 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.

What GAO Found

GAO found that the district court weighted case filings, as approved in 1993, appear to be a reasonably accurate measure 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. The methodology used to develop the case weights was based on a valid sampling procedure, developed weights based on actual case-related time recorded by judges from case filing to disposition, and included a measure (standard errors) of the statistical confidence in the final weight for each weighted case type. The case weights, however, are about 10 years old, and the data on which the weights are based are as much as 15 years old. Changes since 1993, such as the characteristics of cases filed in federal district courts and changes in case management practices, may have affected whether the 1993 case weights continue to be a reasonably accurate measure of the average time burden on district court judges resulting from a specific volume and mix of cases. The Judicial Conference's Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics has approved a research design for updating the current case weights, and we have some concerns about that design. The design would include limited data on the time judges actually spend on specific types of cases. The proposed design would not include collecting actual data on the non-courtroom time that judges spend on different types of cases. Estimates of the non-courtroom time required for specific types of cases would be based on estimates derived from the structured, guided discussions of about 100 experienced judges meeting in 12 separate groups (one for each geographic circuit). 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. Adjusted case filings, the principal quantitative measure used to assess the case-related workload of courts of appeals judges, are based on available data from standard statistical reports from the courts of appeals. The measure is not based on any empirical data about the judge time required by different types of cases in the courts of appeals. The measure essentially assumes that all cases filed in the courts of appeals, with the exception of pro se cases--those in which one or both parties are not represented by an attorney--require the same amount of judge time. On the basis of the documentation we reviewed, there is no empirical basis on which to assess the accuracy of adjusted filings as a measure of case-related workload for courts of appeals judges. Whether the district court case weights are a reasonably accurate measure of district judge case-related workload is dependent upon two variables: (1) the accuracy of the case weights themselves and (2) the accuracy of classifying cases filed in district courts by the case type used for the case weights. If case filings are inaccurately identified by case type, then the weights are inaccurately calculated.