GSA and the  judiciary plan new federal courthouses based on the judiciary’s estimated  10-year judge and space requirements. Extra Space in Courthouses Cost an Estimated $835 Million in Constant 2010 Dollars to Construct and $51 Million Annually to Rent, Operate, and Maintain

Thirty-two of the 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include  extra square feet of space, totaling 3.56 million square feet—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. 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 the Congressionally Authorized Size Due to a Lack of Oversight by GSA

Twenty-seven of the 33 federal courthouses constructed since 2000 exceed  their congressionally authorized size, resulting in about 1.7 million more  square feet than authorized. Twelve of the 15 courthouses that exceeded 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. However, there is no statutory  requirement for GSA to notify congressional authorizing or appropriations  committees if the size exceeds the congressionally authorized square  footage. GSA established a policy for measuring gross square  footage by 2000, but has not ensured that this space measurement policy  was understood and followed. For these 28 courthouses, the judiciary has 119, or  approximately 26 percent, fewer judges than the 461 it estimated it would  have, resulting in approximately 887,000 extra square feet. We identified a variety of factors  that led the judiciary to overestimate the number of judges it would have  after 10 years, which include:  Inaccurate caseload growth projections: In a 1993 report, we questioned  the reliability of the caseload projection process the judiciary used. 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. Low Levels of Use Show That Judges Could Share Courtrooms, Reducing the Need for Future Courtrooms by More than One-Third

Our analysis indicates that courtroom sharing could have reduced 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. The model shows the  following courtroom sharing possibilities: 3 district judges could share 2  courtrooms, 3 senior judges could share 1 courtroom, and 2 magistrate  judges could share 1 courtroom with time to spare. During our interviews and convening of an expert panel on courtroom  sharing, some judges remained skeptical of sharing and raised potential  challenges to courtroom sharing, but other judges with sharing experience  said they have overcome those challenges when necessary without  postponing trials. Our model’s application of the judiciary’s data shows that more sharing  opportunities are available. Our  congressional requesters specifically asked that we consider how a  courtroom sharing policy could have changed the amount of space needed  in these courthouses. Our model  provides one option for developing a sharing policy based on actual time  during which courtrooms are scheduled and used. This extra space exists because the courthouses, as built, are larger than  those congressionally authorized; contain space for more judges than are  in the courthouses at least 10 years after the space was planned, and, for  the most part, were not planned with a view toward judges sharing  courtrooms. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most of the recommendations, but  expressed concerns with GAO’s methodology and key findings.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal judiciary (judiciary) and the General Services Administration (GSA) are in the midst of a multi-billion dollar courthouse construction initiative, which has faced rising construction costs. For 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000, GAO examined (1) whether they contained 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. This testimony is based on GAO's June 2010 report; for that report, GAO analyzed courthouse planning and use data, visited courthouses, modeled courtroom sharing scenarios, and interviewed judges, GSA officials, and others.

What GAO Found

The 33 federal courthouses completed since 2000 include 3.56 million square feet of extra space consisting 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. However, there is no requirement to notify congressional committees about size overages. A lack of oversight by GSA, including not ensuring its space measurement policies were followed and a lack of focus on building courthouses within the congressionally authorized size, contributed to these size overages. For 23 of 28 courthouses whose space planning occurred at least 10 years ago, the judiciary overestimated the number of judges that 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. 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 courtroom 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 of extra space. Judges raised potential challenges to courtroom sharing, such as uncertainty about courtroom availability, but those with courtroom sharing experience 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. The recommendations in GAO's related report include: GSA should (1) ensure courthouses are within their authorized size or provide notification when designed spaced exceeds authorized space (2) retain caseload projections to improve the accuracy of 10-year judge planning; and (3) establish and use courtroom sharing policies based on scheduling and use data. GSA and the judiciary agreed with most recommendations, but expressed concerns with GAO's methodology and key findings. GAO believes these to be sound, as explained in the report.