Federal Courthouse Construction
Preliminary Results Show Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Could Help Control Future Costs Gao ID: GAO-10-753T May 25, 2010The 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.
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.
GAO-10-753T, Federal Courthouse Construction: Preliminary Results Show Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Could Help Control Future Costs
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-753T
entitled 'Federal Courthouse Construction: Preliminary Results Show
Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom Sharing Could Help Control
Future Costs' which was released on May 25, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and
Emergency Management, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, May 25, 2010:
Federal Courthouse Construction:
Preliminary Results Show Better Planning, Oversight, and Courtroom
Sharing Could Help Control Future Costs:
Statement of Mark L. Goldstein, Director:
Physical Infrastructure Issues:
GAO-10-753T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-753T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency Management,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives.
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO developed draft recommendations related to GSA's oversight of
construction projects and the judiciary's planning and sharing of
courtrooms that GAO plans to finalize in its forthcoming report after
fully considering agency comments.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-753T] or key
components. For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202)
512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madam Chairwoman, Ranking Member, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today on the
preliminary results from our work related to the federal courthouse
construction program. Since the early 1990s, the General Services
Administration (GSA) and the federal judiciary (judiciary) have
undertaken a multibillion-dollar courthouse construction initiative
that has resulted in 66 new courthouses or annexes,[Footnote 1] with
29 additional projects in various stages of development. However,
rising costs and other federal budget priorities threaten to stall the
initiative. Over the last 15 years, we have raised concerns about
GSA's and the judiciary's process for planning new courthouses,
including concerns over limited controls and oversight over courthouse
construction costs.[Footnote 2] We have also raised questions about
the accuracy of the judiciary's long-term caseload projections--
projections used to estimate the number of judges that will be located
in new courthouses in 10 years, often under a policy that provided one
courtroom for each estimated judge. Furthermore, we and some members
of Congress have raised concerns that some courtrooms are
underutilized; that more courtrooms than needed have been, and
continue to be, constructed; and that increased courtroom sharing by
judges--an option that the judiciary studied for district courtrooms
in 2008[Footnote 3]--could reduce the number of new courtrooms needed
and therefore the size and cost of new courthouse projects. As a
result of this study, the judiciary recently established some new
policies that incorporate more sharing of courtrooms for senior judges
[Footnote 4] and magistrate judges.
Today, my testimony will provide, for the 33 federal courthouses
completed since 2000, preliminary results of our review of: (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. My statement is based on a draft report that is
currently out for agency comment and scheduled to be released on June
15, 2010. To address these objectives, we analyzed planning,
construction, and budget documents associated with all 33 federal
courthouses or major annexes completed from 2000 through March 2010.
(See table 5 in appendix I.) In addition, we selected seven of the
federal courthouses in our scope to analyze more closely as case
studies.[Footnote 5]
To estimate the cost of any extra courthouse space, we added together
any extra square footage we found through our analysis in objectives
(2) through (4). We then calculated the extra cost to construct, and
rent or operate and maintain this space based on a methodology we
validated with outside construction experts. To determine how the size
of courthouses compares with the authorized size, we compared each
courthouse's congressionally authorized gross square footage[Footnote
6] with the gross square footage of the courthouse as measured by
GSA's space measurement program. To learn how the judiciary's 10-year
judge estimates compared with the actual number of judges in service,
we compared the number of judges the judiciary estimated it would have
in each courthouse in 10 years to judiciary data showing the number of
judges or authorized vacancies located there. To learn more about the
level of courtroom sharing that the judiciary's data support, we used
the judiciary's 2008 district courtroom scheduling and use data to
model courtroom sharing scenarios and convened a panel of judicial
experts and judges about the challenges and opportunities related to
courtroom sharing. We conducted this performance audit from September
2008 to May 2010 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. A detailed discussion of our scope and methodology appears
in appendix I. Our findings are preliminary because the federal
judiciary and GSA have not yet commented on our draft report.
Background:
Federal courthouses vary in size and scope. While typically, one to
five district court judges are located in small-to medium-sized
courthouses, in several large metropolitan areas, 15 or more district
judges are located in a single courthouse. Courthouses may also
include space for appellate, bankruptcy, and magistrate judges, as
well as other tenants. There are 94 federal judicial districts--at
least 1 for each state--organized into 12 regional circuits.[Footnote
7]
The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts is an agency within the
judicial branch and serves as the central support entity for federal
courts under the supervision of the Judicial Conference. The Judicial
Conference of the United States, which serves as the judiciary's
principal policy-making body, periodically assesses the need for
additional judgeships for the nation's appellate, district, and
bankruptcy courts and recommends additional judgeships to Congress,
specifying the circuit or district for which the additional judgeship
is requested.
GSA and the judiciary plan new federal courthouses based on the
judiciary's estimated 10-year space requirements, which are based on
projections of each location's weighted filings.[Footnote 8] It then
uses this information to determine how many judges to plan for. Except
for appeals court judges, who sit on panels of three or more, the
judiciary requested one courtroom per estimated judge for courthouses
built from 2000 through 2009, although it occasionally planned for
senior judges to share courtrooms. The U.S. Courts Design Guide
(Design Guide) specifies the judiciary's space and design standards
for court-related elements of courthouse construction. In 1993, the
judiciary also developed a space planning program called AnyCourt to
determine the amount of court-related space the court will request for
a new courthouse based on Design Guide standards and estimated
staffing levels.
For courthouses that are selected for construction, GSA typically
submits two detailed project descriptions, or prospectuses, for
congressional authorization: one for site and design, and the other
for construction. These prospectuses outline the scope, size, and
estimated costs of the project at each of the two project phases, and
typically request authorization and funding to purchase the site and
design the building in the site and design prospectus--and to
construct the courthouse in the construction prospectus. Typically,
the total gross square footage of the courthouses depicted in the
construction prospectus or fact sheet is based factors that include
the judiciary's projected need for space, based on 10-year judge
estimates and the gross square footage reserved for building common
and other space, such as public lobbies and hallways, atriums,
elevators, and mechanical rooms. The amount of gross square footage
estimated for this space is based on GSA's specification that a
courthouse should be 67 percent efficient, meaning that 67 percent of
the total gross square footage, excluding parking, should consist of
tenant space (space assigned to the courts and other tenants[Footnote
9]) and the rest should be building common and other space.[Footnote
10]
Congressional committees authorize and Congress appropriates funds for
courthouse projects, often at both the design and construction phases.
Congressional authorizations of courthouse projects typically include
the gross square footage of the planned courthouse as described in the
prospectus and the funding requested. After funds have been
appropriated, GSA selects private-sector firms for the design and
construction work through a competitive procurement process. GSA also
manages the construction contract and oversees the work of the
construction contractor.
After courthouses are occupied, GSA charges each tenant agency,
including the judiciary, rent for the space it occupies and for its
respective share of common areas, including mechanical spaces. GSA
considers some space in buildings, such as vertical penetrations,
including the upper floors of atriums, non-rentable space. In fiscal
year 2009, the judiciary's rent payments totaled over $970 million.
The judiciary has sought to reduce the payments through requests for
rent exemptions from GSA and Congress and internal policy changes,
such as annually capping rent growth and validating rental rates.
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.[Footnote 11]
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,[Footnote 12] and the annual cost to rent,
operate, and maintain it is $51 million (see figure 1). More
specifically, the extra space and its causes are as follows:
* 1.7 million square feet caused by construction in excess of
congressional authorizations;
* 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.
Thirty-two of the 33 courthouses include extra space attributable to
at least one of these three causes and 19 have extra space
attributable to all three causes.
Figure 1: Extra Federal Courthouse Space Constructed Since 2000 and
the Estimated Construction and Annual Costs:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Courthouses built since 2000: 13 million gross square feet (GSF):
* 1.7 million extra square feet due to exceeding congressionally
authorized gross square footage;
* 887,000 extra square feet due to over-estimating number of judges;
* 946,000 extra square feet due to judges not sharing courtrooms.
3.56 million total extra square feet:
Costing an estimated:
$835 million to construct, and;
$51 million annually to rent, operate and maintain.
Sources: GAO analysis of GSA data.
Note: Numbers in figure 1 do not add up to the total due to rounding.
[End of figure]
In addition to the one-time construction cost increase, the extra
square footage in these 32 courthouses causes higher annual operations
and maintenance costs, which are largely passed on to the judiciary
and other tenants as rent. According to our analysis of the
judiciary's rent payments to GSA for these courthouses at fiscal year
2009 rental rates, the extra courtrooms and other judiciary space
increase the judiciary's annual rent payments by $40 million. In
addition, our analysis indicates that other extra space cost $11
million in fiscal year 2009 to operate and maintain.[Footnote 13]
Typically, operations and maintenance costs represent from 60 to 85
percent of the costs of a facility over its lifetime, while design and
construction costs represent about 5 to 10 percent of these costs.
[Footnote 14] Therefore, the ongoing operations and maintenance costs
for the extra square footage are likely to total considerably more in
the long run than the construction costs for this extra square footage.
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,[Footnote 15] and 15 of
the 33 courthouses exceed their congressionally authorized size by 10
percent or more. For example, the O'Connor Courthouse in Phoenix was
congressionally authorized at 555,810 gross square feet but is 831,604
gross square feet, an increase of 50 percent. As shown in figure 2,
altogether, these 27 courthouses have about 1.7 million more square
feet than authorized.
Figure 2: Extra Federal Courthouse Space Constructed Since 2000 Due to
Exceeding Congressionally Authorized Square Footage:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Courthouses built since 2000: 13 million gross square feet (GSF):
* 1.7 million extra square feet due to exceeding congressionally
authorized gross square footage.
Sources: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of figure]
On the other hand, as shown in figure 3, 6 of the 33 courthouses are
smaller than congressionally authorized.
Figure 3: Percentage Difference in Size of Federal Courthouses as
Congressionally Authorized and as Built:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
0-15 percent smaller than Congressionally authorized square footage:
Denver, Colorado;
Gulfport, Mississippi;
Laredo, Texas;
London, Kentucky;
Omaha, Nebraska;
Tallahassee, Florida.
0-9 percent larger than authorized:
Albany, Georgia;
Brooklyn, New York;
Cleveland, Ohio;
Columbia, South Carolina;
Greeneville, Tennessee;
Jacksonville, Florida;
Las Vegas, Nevada;
Montgomery, Alabama;
Seattle, Washington;
Tucson, Arizona;
Wheeling, West Virginia;
Youngstown, Ohio.
10-20 percent larger than authorized:
Cape Girardeau, Missouri;
Central Islip, New York;
Erie, Pennsylvania;
Eugene, Oregon;
Fresno, California;
Miami, Florida;
Richmond, Virginia;
Springfield, Massachusetts.
25 percent or more larger than authorized:
Corpus Christi, Texas;
Hammond, Indiana;
Little Rock, Arkansas;
Orlando, Florida;
Phoenix, Arizona;
St. Louis, Missouri;
Washington, D.C.
Source: GAO presentation of GSA data; Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
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.[Footnote 16] The total
project costs for 8 of these 12 courthouses increased by about 1 to 9
percent over the cost estimate provided to congressional authorizing
committees at the construction phase, while the total project costs
for four of these courthouses increased by about 10 to 21 percent over
the cost estimate provided to congressional authorizing committees at
the construction phase. While there is a statutory requirement that
GSA obtain advance approval from the Committees on Appropriations if
the expenditures for a project exceed the amount included in an
approved prospectus by more than 10 percent,[Footnote 17] there is no
statutory requirement for GSA to notify congressional authorizing or
appropriations committees if the size exceeds the congressionally
authorized square footage. While GSA sought approval from the
appropriations committees for the cost increases incurred for the 4
courthouses whose size and costs increased by about 10 percent or
more, GSA did not explain to these committees that the courthouses
were larger than authorized and therefore did not attribute any of the
cost increase to this difference. For example, the total project cost
of the Coyle U.S. Courthouse in Fresno, California, (about $133
million) was about $13 million over the estimate provided to
congressional authorizing committees before construction (an increase
of 11 percent), while the courthouse is about 16 percent larger than
its authorized gross square footage. In requesting approval from the
appropriations committees for additional funds for the Coyle U.S.
Courthouse, GSA stated that, among other things, additional funds were
needed for fireproofing and electrical and sewer line revisions--but
did not mention that the courthouse was 16 percent larger than
authorized. Because the construction costs of a building increase when
its gross square footage increases, the cost overruns for this
courthouse would have been smaller or might have been eliminated if
GSA had built the courthouse to meet the authorized square footage.
All seven courthouses we examined as case studies had increases in
size made up, at least in part, of increases in building common and
other space.[Footnote 18] Five of the seven courthouses also had
increases in tenant space. In all seven of the case study courthouses,
the increases in building common and other space were proportionally
larger than the increases in tenant space, leading to a lower
efficiency than GSA's target of 67 percent.[Footnote 19] Efficiency is
important because, for a given amount of tenant space, meeting the
efficiency target helps control a courthouse's gross square footage
and therefore its costs.[Footnote 20] In addition, for a given amount
of tenant space, meeting the efficiency target helps control a
courthouse's gross square footage and therefore its costs.[Footnote
21] See table 1.
Table 1: Square Footage Over Authorized and Efficiency of Seven
Courthouses:
Gross square footage over authorized:
Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.: 82,374;
Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California: 67,536;
D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 156,031;
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 20,075;
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 273,244;
Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 97,477;
Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri: 18,982.
Actual gross square footage, including parking:
Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.: 409,974;
Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California: 495,912;
D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 1,014,031;
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 439,817;
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 1,310,876;
Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 605,800;
Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri: 173,392.
Authorized gross square footage for construction, including parking:
Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.: 327,600;
Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California: 428,376;
D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 858,000;
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 419,742;
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 1,037,632;
Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 508,323;
Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri: 154,410.
Actual tenant space square footage[A]:
Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.: 188,955; (38,722 over
planned);
Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California: 278,654; (21,658 over
planned);
D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 416,827; (33,173 under
planned);
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 255,225; (2,285 over
planned);
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 671,050; (73,696 over
planned)[B];
Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 366,924; (46,924 over
planned);
Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri: 96,025; (998
under planned).
Actual building common and other space square footage[A]:
Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.: 149,628; (75,633 over
planned);
Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California: 173,157; (46,577 over
planned);
D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 468,411; (185,411 over
planned);
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 148,015; (23,433 over
planned);
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 518,006; (224,865 over
planned)[B];
Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 188,766; (44,443 over
planned);
Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri: 68,008;
(20,221 over planned).
Actual Efficiency:
Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.: 56%;
Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California: 62%;
D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 47%;
DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 63%;
Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 56%;
Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 66%;
Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri: 59%.
Source: GAO.
[A] The square footage for tenant space and building common and other
space does not include indoor parking and thus does not add up to the
actual gross square footage, which includes indoor parking.
[B] While the square footage to be used for tenant space and building
common and other space is not specifically congressionally authorized,
GSA provides congressional committees with plans it has developed with
the judiciary that show how much of the gross square footage not
including parking (which is congressionally authorized) is to be used
for tenant space, with the rest of the square footage planned for
building common and other space.
[End of table]
GSA Lacked Sufficient Oversight and Controls to Ensure That
Courthouses Were Planned and Built According to Authorized Size:
GSA lacked sufficient control activities to ensure that the 33
courthouses were constructed within the congressionally authorized
gross square footage, initially because it had not established a
consistent policy for how to measure gross 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. Moreover, GSA has not demonstrated it is enforcing this
policy because all 6 courthouses completed since 2007 exceed their
congressionally authorized size. According to GSA officials, the
agency did not focus on ensuring that the authorized gross square
footage was met in the design and construction of the courthouse until
2007, even though, according to GSA officials, controlling the gross
square footage of a building is important to controlling its
construction costs.
Lack of GSA Oversight Contributed to More Building Common Space Than
Planned:
All seven of the courthouses we examined in our case studies had
increases in building common and other space--such as mechanical
spaces and atriums--as compared with the square footage planned for
these spaces within the congressionally authorized gross square
footage. The percent increases over the planned space ranged from 19
percent to 102 percent. According to a GSA official, at times,
courthouses were designed to meet various design goals without an
attempt to limit the size of the building common or other space to the
square footage allotted in the plans provided to congressional
authorizing committees--and these spaces may have become larger to
serve a design goal as a result. For example, the building common and
other space in the Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis is 77 percent
larger than planned, and the courthouse has an efficiency of 56
percent. While we could not determine the cause of all of this
additional space, all courtroom floors of the St. Louis courthouse
have mechanical rooms near the courtrooms, and in total, the
mechanical space in the St. Louis courthouse takes up proportionally
more space than it does in the DeConcini U.S. Courthouse in Tucson,
Arizona. In addition, the Eagleton U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis has
two empty elevator shafts--rising all 33 floors--that were built but
are not used. Together, the mechanical space and the elevator shafts
bring the efficiency of the Eagleton U.S. Courthouse well below GSA's
target of 67 percent and limit the proportion of the building's total
space that contributes to mission-related activities. Moreover,
regional GSA officials stated that they were unaware until we told
them that the courthouse was larger and less efficient than authorized.
Another element of GSA's lack of oversight in this area was that GSA
did not ensure that the architect followed GSA's policies for how to
measure certain commonly included spaces, such as atriums. According
to GSA officials, a primary reason why the Limbaugh, Sr., U.S.
Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, and the Bryant U.S. Courthouse
Annex in Washington, D.C., exceeded their congressionally authorized
square footage is that the architect did not consider the upper atrium
levels as part of the gross square footage of the courthouse--in
conflict with GSA's standards for measuring atrium space. In GSA's
policy for determining a building's gross square footage, the atrium
space is counted on all floors because multifloor atriums increase a
building's volume and gross square footage and thus its costs.
However, according to GSA officials, GSA's practice in the early
2000s--when the Limbaugh, Sr., and Bryant Courthouses were under
design--was to rely on the architect to measure and validate the plans
for the courthouse, and GSA did not expect its regional or
headquarters officials to monitor or check whether the architect was
following GSA's policies. Although GSA officials emphasized that open
space for atriums would not cost as much as space completely built out
with floors, these officials also agreed that there are costs
associated with constructing and operating atrium space. In fact, the
2007 edition of the Design Guide, which reflects an effort to impose
tighter constraints on future space and facilities costs, emphasizes
that courthouses should have no more than one atrium.
A Lack of GSA Oversight Contributed to Some Courthouses Being Built
with Larger Tenant Spaces:
GSA's lack of focus on meeting authorized square footage also
contributed to increases in the size of tenant spaces in five of our
seven case study courthouses. For example, the Ferguson, Jr., U.S.
Courthouse in Miami has about 46,924 more square feet of tenant space
than planned. The district court has about 20,768 more square feet of
space in this courthouse than planned. Among other things, the 14
regular district courtrooms built in this courthouse are each about
2,800 square feet--17 percent larger than the Design Guide standard of
2,400 square feet--while the two special proceedings courtrooms on the
13th floor are each about 3,200 square feet, about 7 percent larger
than the Design Guide standard of 3,000 square feet. GSA officials
stated that courtroom space is among the most expensive of courthouse
spaces to construct and the Design Guide's criteria are in part meant
to help ensure that courthouses are built to be cost-effective as well
as functional.
In addition, some courthouses encompass more courtroom space than
planned because during the planning stages, neither the judiciary nor
GSA took into account the possibility that the design of the
courthouse could double the size of each courtroom.[Footnote 22]
Courthouses have been designed in various ways to address the height
requirement for courtroom ceilings. For example, in a collegial floor
plan, courtroom floors alternate with floors for judicial chambers and
other spaces that do not need higher ceilings, so that each floor can
be built to a height that is suitable for the rooms it contains.
However, because federal courthouses have typically been built with
judges' chambers on the same floors as the courtrooms, some
courthouses have courtrooms on floors designed to hold rooms with 10-
foot ceilings, and the ceiling of each courtroom is cut out so that
each courtroom takes up two floors. For example, Eagleton U.S.
Courthouse in St. Louis and the Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex in
Washington, D.C., were constructed with courtrooms that span two
floors. According to GSA's policy, when a courthouse is designed so
that a courtroom takes up two floors, the space on the second floor--
referred to as a tenant floor cut--is considered part of the gross
square footage of the building and--if it would otherwise be usable
space--is also considered to be court-occupied space. Therefore, in
this type of courthouse, each courtroom is counted as having double
the square footage of the courtroom floor. Although the extra square
footage in this type of courtroom is multistory space, like the extra
square footage in atriums, and therefore, according to GSA, costs less
than square footage that is completely built out, nevertheless there
are costs associated with this space.
Judiciary officials said that space planning is done well before they
know if they will need to incorporate additional space for tenant
floor cuts in courtrooms. Under the judiciary's current automated
space planning tool, AnyCourt, which the judiciary uses to determine
how much court-related space to request for a new courthouse, the
Design Guide's standard of 2,400 square feet is provided for each
district courtroom planned for a new courthouse. However, because the
gross square footage requirements that GSA identifies in the
prospectus to congressional committees are based on AnyCourt's output
for the amount of space needed by the courts, for courthouses designed
with district courtrooms that have tenant floor cuts, the AnyCourt
program identifies only half of the square footage the courtroom will
take up when calculating the courthouse's gross square footage
following GSA's standards. If GSA requests court space based on the
AnyCourt model, it therefore may not be requesting sufficient space
for courtrooms to account for courtrooms that are designed with tenant
floor cuts.
Recently, GSA Has Taken Some Steps to Improve Oversight of Courthouse
Size:
Recently, GSA has taken some steps to improve its oversight of the
courthouse construction process. In May 2009, GSA published a revised
space assignment policy to clarify and emphasize its policies on
counting the square footage of atriums and tenant floor cuts, among
other things. In addition, according to GSA officials, GSA established
a collaborative effort in 2008 between its Office of Design and
Construction and its Real Estate Portfolio Management to, among other
things, use data management software to ensure that GSA's space
guidelines are followed in the early planning phases of courthouse
projects. It is not yet clear whether these steps will establish
sufficient oversight to ensure that courthouses are planned and
constructed within the congressionally authorized square footage.
Estimated Space Needs Exceeded Actual Space Needs, Resulting in
Courthouses That Were Larger than Necessary:
Because the Judiciary Overestimated the Number of Judges, Courthouses
Have Much Extra Space After 10 Years:
Our analysis of construction plans for the 33 courthouses built since
2000 shows that 28 have reached or passed their 10-year planning
period[Footnote 23] and 23 of those 28 courthouses have fewer judges
than estimated.[Footnote 24] Overall, the judiciary has 119, or
approximately 26 percent, fewer judges than the 461 it estimated it
would have. As a result, these 23 courthouses have extra courtrooms,
chamber suites, and related support, building common, and other spaces
covering approximately 887,000 square feet (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Extra Federal Courthouse Space Constructed Since 2000 Due to
Overestimating the Number of Judges:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Courthouses built since 2000: 13 million gross square feet (GSF):
* 887,000 extra square feet due to over-estimating number of judges.
Sources: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of figure]
Six of the seven case study courthouses we reviewed have reached after
the end of their 10-year planning period and were designed for more
judges than they actually have.[Footnote 25] Table 2 compares the
estimated and actual numbers of judges for each of these courthouses
and the space consequences of overestimating the number of judges.
[Footnote 26]
Table 2: Comparison of 10-Year Judge Estimates and the Actual Number
of Judges After 10 Years or More for Case Study Courthouse Locations
and Related Space Consequences:
Year estimate was made:
Bryant Courthouse, Washington, D.C.: 2000;
Coyle Courthouse, Fresno, California: 2000;
D'Amato Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 1995;
DeConcini Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 1995;
Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 1994;
Ferguson Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 2000.
Ten-year judge estimate:
Bryant Courthouse, Washington, D.C.: 49;
Coyle Courthouse, Fresno, California: 18;
D'Amato Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 25;
DeConcini Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 15;
Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 29;
Ferguson Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 33.
Current judges including vacancies:
Bryant Courthouse, Washington, D.C.: 39;
Coyle Courthouse, Fresno, California: 10;
D'Amato Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 15;
DeConcini Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 12;
Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 20;
Ferguson Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 27.
Judges short of estimate:
Bryant Courthouse, Washington, D.C.: 10;
Coyle Courthouse, Fresno, California: 8;
D'Amato Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 10;
DeConcini Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 3;
Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 9;
Ferguson Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 6.
Estimated extra square footage built because of incorrect judge
estimates:
Bryant Courthouse, Washington, D.C.: 62,000;
Coyle Courthouse, Fresno, California: 52,000;
D'Amato Courthouse, Central Islip, N.Y.: 89,000;
DeConcini Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona: 25,000;
Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri: 76,000;
Ferguson Courthouse, Miami, Florida: 57,000.
Source: GAO.
Note: Our analysis includes judges who are located in the new
courthouse and authorized vacancies not covered by recalled judges.
[End of table]
Figure 5 illustrates two unassigned chamber suites in the Coyle
Courthouse in Fresno, California.
Figure 5: Unassigned Chamber Suites in the Coyle Courthouse in Fresno,
California:
[Refer to PDF for image: 2 photographs]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Judiciary Planning Overstated the Need for Space through Inaccurate
Caseload Projections and Allocations of Space for Visiting Judges:
Inaccurate caseload growth projections led the judiciary to estimate a
need for more judges, and subsequently overestimate the need for
space, for some courthouse projects. In a 1993 report, we questioned
the reliability of the caseload projection process the judiciary used.
[Footnote 27] 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.
However, judiciary officials at three of our site visit courthouses
indicated that the estimates used in planning for these courthouses
inadvertently overstated the growth in district case filings and,
hence, the need for additional judges. For example, for the Eagleton
Courthouse in St. Louis, judiciary officials said the district
estimated that it would need four additional district judges by 2004
to handle a high level of estimated growth in case filings; however,
that case filing growth never materialized and the Eagleton Courthouse
has the same number of authorized judges that it had in 1994 when the
estimates were made. Specifically, the Eastern District of Missouri,
in which the Eagleton Courthouse is located, had 3,182 case filings in
1994 and 3,241 case filings in 2008 (see figure 6).
Figure 6: Total District Court Case Filings for the Eastern District
of Missouri:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Year: 1994;
Total filings: 3,182.
Year: 1995;
Total filings: 3,081.
Year: 1996;
Total filings: 3,410.
Year: 1997;
Total filings: 3,346.
Year: 1998;
Total filings: 3,046.
Year: 1999;
Total filings: 2,871.
Year: 2000;
Total filings: 2,993.
Year: 2001;
Total filings: 2,949.
Year: 2002;
Total filings: 3,079.
Year: 2003;
Total filings: 3,010.
Year: 2004;
Total filings: 3,070.
Year: 2005;
Total filings: 3,564.
Year: 2006;
Total filings: 3,474.
Year: 2007;
Total filings: 3,415.
Year: 2008;
Total filings: 3,241.
Year: 2009;
Total filings: 3,501.
Source: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.
[End of figure]
The Judiciary's Method of Estimating Judges Does Not Account for
Uncertainty in When Judges Will Take Senior Status and in How Many New
Judgeships Will Be Authorized:
Limitations of the judiciary's 10-year judge estimates are also due,
in part, to the challenges associated with predicting how many judges
will be located in a courthouse in 10 years leading the judiciary to
overestimate how many judges it would have in courthouses after 10
years or more. Determining how many requested judgeships will be
authorized and how many judicial vacancies will be filled is also
challenging for several reasons. First, Congress has authorized fewer
positions than the judiciary has requested over the years. It has been
20 years since Congress passed comprehensive judgeship legislation.
Yet the judiciary did not incorporate historic trends into its
planning for new courthouses. Instead, it requested new courthouses
that could accommodate the number of judges it would have if all of
its estimated judgeships were approved, and some of the excess space
in new courthouses reflects the judiciary's receipt of fewer
judgeships than it requested. Problems with the reliability of the
weighted caseload data--the workload indicator that the judiciary uses
to decide when a new judge is needed--can undermine the credibility of
the judiciary's requests for new judgeships. For example, in a 2009
hearing, a member of Congress cited a lack of reliability in weighted
caseload to question if all of the requested judgeships are necessary.
In a 2008 report, we found that weighted caseload is not reliable
because its accuracy for district and appeals courts cannot be tested.
[Footnote 28]
A second challenge the judiciary faces in estimating how many judges
it will need for specific courthouses is that judgeships are requested
and thus authorized at the district or circuit levels as a whole,
rather than for a specific courthouse. Hence, it is hard to predict
which courthouses the additional judgeships requested in the Federal
Judgeship Act of 2009,[Footnote 29] if enacted, would be assigned to
if the positions were authorized. However, the judiciary's estimation
process does not take this uncertainty into account. For example, in
2009, the judiciary requested 18 judgeships for districts that contain
courthouses built since 2000, but not all of the judges for these
requested judgeships, if approved by Congress, would necessarily be
placed in those courthouses.
Low Levels of Use Show That Judges Could Share Courtrooms, Reducing
the Need for Future Courtrooms by More Than a Third:
Most courthouses constructed since 2000 have enough courtrooms for all
of the district and magistrate judges to have their own courtrooms.
Using the judiciary's data,[Footnote 30] 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.[Footnote 31] In total,
not building these courtrooms and their associated support, building
common, and other spaces would have reduced construction by
approximately 946,000 square feet[Footnote 32] (see figure 7).
Figure 7: Extra Federal Courthouse Space Constructed Since 2000 Due to
Judges Not Sharing Courtrooms:
[Refer to PDF for image: pie-chart]
Courthouses built since 2000: 13 million gross square feet (GSF):
* 946,000 extra square feet due to judges not sharing courtrooms.
Sources: GAO analysis of GSA data.
[End of figure]
According to the judiciary's data, courtrooms are used for case-
related proceedings only a quarter of the available time or less, on
average. Furthermore, no event was scheduled in courtrooms for half
the time or more, on average. Figure 8 illustrates the average daily
uses of courtrooms assigned to single district, senior district, or
magistrate judges.
Figure 8: Representation of an Average 8-Hour Day for a Courtroom by
Type of Judge as of July 2007:
[Refer to PDF for image: stacked vertical bar graph]
Type of courtroom: District Judge Courtroom;
Case proceeding: 1.9 hours;
Other use: 1 hour;
Event canceled or postponed: 1.2 hours;
No event scheduled: 3.9 hours.
Type of courtroom: Senior District Judge Courtroom;
Case proceeding: 1 hour;
Other use: 0.5 hour;
Event canceled or postponed: 0.5 hour;
No event scheduled: 6 hours.
Type of courtroom: Magistrate Judge Courtroom;
Case proceeding: 1.2 hours;
Other use: 0.7 hour;
Event canceled or postponed: 0.7 hour.
No event scheduled: 5.4 hours.
Source: GAO analysis of Judiciary data.
[End of figure]
These low levels of courtroom usage are consistent across courthouses
regardless of case filings. Specifically, the judiciary's data showed
no correlation between the number of weighted and unweighted cases
filed in a courthouse and the amount of time courtrooms are in use.
Although the judiciary uses weighed case filings as the measurement
criteria for requesting additional judgeships, this representation of
higher levels of activity does not translate into higher courtroom
usage rates, according to the judiciary's courtroom use data.
According to the data, courthouses located on the nation's border and
those with higher pending caseloads do make greater-than-average use
of their courtrooms, but other courthouses in the same districts
offset that higher use for district and senior district judges'
courtrooms.
Based on the low levels of use indicated by the judiciary's data, we
found that sharing is feasible in 27 of the 33 district courthouses
built since 2000 and could have resulted in the construction of 126
fewer courtrooms--40 percent of all district and magistrate courtrooms
in those courthouses.[Footnote 33] The Design Guide in place when
these courthouses were built encouraged judicial circuits to adopt
courtroom-sharing policies for senior judges. However, most of the
courthouses constructed since 2000 provided enough courtrooms for all
district and magistrate judges to have their own courtrooms.
The 2008 study by the judiciary states that the data collected during
the study could be used with computer modeling to determine how levels
of use might translate into potential sharing opportunities for
judges, but that such a determination was outside the scope of the
study. As a result, we applied generally accepted modeling techniques
to the judiciary's data to develop a computer model for sharing
courtrooms. The model ensures sufficient courtroom time for (1) all
case-related activities; (2) all time allotted to non-case-related
activities, such as preparation time, ceremonies, and educational
purposes; and (3) all events canceled or postponed within a week of
the event.
Under our model, the remainder of time remains unscheduled--
approximately 18 percent of the time for district courtrooms and 22
percent of the time for magistrate courtrooms on average. In this way,
our model includes substantial time when the courtroom is not in use
for case proceedings. Some non-case related events could be held
outside of normal business hours, and 60 percent of events are
canceled or postponed within 1 week of the event's original date,
according to the judiciary's data. Not allocating time in the model
for these purposes would create even more opportunity for sharing;
however, we chose to include these data, keep the model conservative,
and allow for unpredictability.
The judiciary's report also included a section of case studies based
on in-depth interviews with judges at courthouses where judges share
courtrooms. These interviews suggested that courtrooms can be shared
in two ways: (1) dedicated sharing, in which judges are assigned to
share specific courtrooms, and (2) centralized sharing, in which all
courtrooms are available for assignment to any judge based on need.
Our model shows the following possibilities for dedicated courtroom
sharing, with additional unscheduled time to spare. See table 3.
Table 3: Dedicated Courtroom-Sharing Possibilities Based on GAO Model:
Judges: 3 district judges;
Dedicated courtrooms needed: 2 district courtrooms.
Judges: 3 senior district judges;
Dedicated courtrooms needed: 1 district courtroom.
Judges: 1 district and 1 senior judge;
Dedicated courtrooms needed: 1 district courtroom.
Judges: 2 magistrate judges;
Dedicated courtrooms needed: 1 magistrate courtroom.
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Our model shows that centralized sharing further improves efficiency
by increasing the number of courtrooms each judge can access, whereas
in dedicated sharing judges only use the shared courtroom assigned to
them. We used the model to estimate how the courtrooms in one
courthouse could be shared both ways. Specifically, to illustrate the
increased efficiency of centralized sharing over dedicated sharing, we
applied the two types of sharing to the current district and
magistrate judges in the Ferguson Courthouse in Miami, Florida.
Currently, the Ferguson Courthouse has 26 courtrooms for 26 judges,
including 12 district judges, 3 senior district judges and 11
magistrate judges (two of whom are recalled). Under a dedicated
sharing model, the Ferguson Courthouse could accommodate these judges
in 15 courtrooms. Under a centralized sharing model, in which all
district judges have access to all district judge courtrooms and all
magistrate judges have access to all magistrate courtrooms, the number
of needed courtrooms is reduced to 14. Table 4 shows the levels of
sharing possible and the amount of space that could be eliminated for
all of our seven case study courthouses through centralized sharing.
Table 4: District, Senior, and Magistrate Judge Courtroom Sharing That
Could Occur in Selected Courthouses Based on the Judiciary's Data:
Courthouse: Bryant Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
District: 20; Magistrate: 3;
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 11;
Magistrate: 2;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 10;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 74,000.
Courthouse: Coyle Courthouse, Fresno, California;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
District: 3; Magistrate: 4[A];
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 2;
Magistrate: 2;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 3;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 20,000.
Courthouse: D'Amato Courthouse, Islip, N.Y.;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
Active District: 7; Magistrate: 4;
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 4;
Magistrate: 2;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 5;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 35,000.
Courthouse: DeConcini Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
Active District: 5; Magistrate: 7;
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 4;
Magistrate: 3;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 5;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 33,000.
Courthouse: Eagleton Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
Active District: 9; Magistrate: 6;
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 5;
Magistrate: 3;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 7;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 49,000.
Courthouse: Ferguson Courthouse, Miami, Florida;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
Active District: 15; Magistrate: 11;
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 9;
Magistrate: 5;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 12;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 83,000.
Courthouse: Limbaugh, Sr., Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri;
Current number of courtrooms by type with one courtroom per judge:
Active District: 2; Magistrate: 1;
Number of courtrooms needed under centralized sharing: District: 1;
Magistrate: 1;
Number of extra courtrooms under centralized sharing: 1;
Square footage of extra courtroom and associated support and public
spaces: 7,500.
Source: GAO analysis of the judiciary's data.
[A] There are 5 magistrate judges in the Coyle Courthouse, including 1
vacancy, but only 4 courtrooms. The model was run for 5 magistrate
judges, and the result was that there would need to be 2 magistrate
courtrooms--eliminating the need for 2 magistrate courtrooms.
[End of table]
Some Judges Said They Could Overcome the Challenges to Courtroom
Sharing:
We solicited expert views on the challenges related to courtroom
sharing through interviews with judges and court administrators on
site visits to courts with sharing experience and assistance from the
National Academy of Sciences in assembling a panel of judicial
experts.[Footnote 34] 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.
The primary concern judges cited was the possibility that a courtroom
might not be available. They stated that the certainty of having a
courtroom available encourages involved parties to resolve cases more
quickly. They further noted that courtroom sharing could be a
disservice to the public if it meant that an event had to be
rescheduled for lack of a courtroom; in that case, defendants,
attorneys, families and witnesses would also have to reschedule,
costing the public time and money. To address the concern that a
courtroom would not be available when needed, we programmed our model
to provide more courtroom time than necessary to conduct court
business. Most judges with experience sharing courtrooms agreed that
court staff must work harder than in nonsharing arrangements to
coordinate with judges and all involved parties to ensure that
everyone is in the correct courtroom at the correct time, but that
such coordination is possible as long as people remain flexible and
the lines of communication remain open.
Another concern about sharing courtrooms was how the court would
manage when judges have long trials. Judges noted that long trials
present logistical challenges requiring substantial coordination and
continuity, which could be difficult when sharing courtrooms. However,
when the number of total trials is averaged across the total number of
judges, each judge has approximately 15 trials per year, with the
median trial lasting 1 or 2 days. Hence, it is highly unlikely that
all judges in a courthouse will simultaneously have long trials. Also,
a centralized sharing arrangement would allow for those who need a
courtroom for multiple days to reserve one.
To address panelists' concern about sharing courtrooms between
district and magistrate judges, which stems in part from differences
in responsibilities that can affect courtroom design and could make
formal courtroom sharing inappropriate, our model separated district
and magistrate judges for sharing purposes, reducing the potential for
sharing that could occur through cross scheduling in courthouses with
both district and magistrate judges.
The Judiciary Has Taken Some Steps to Increase Sharing in Future
Courthouse Projects:
In 2008 and 2009, the Judicial Conference adopted sharing policies for
future courthouses under which senior district and magistrate judges
will share courtrooms at a rate of two judges per courtroom plus one
additional duty courtroom for courthouses with more than two
magistrate judges. Additionally, the conference recognized the greater
efficiencies available in courthouses with many courtrooms and
recommended that in courthouses with more than ten district judges,
district judges also share. Our model's application of the judiciary's
data shows that more sharing opportunities are available.
Specifically, sharing between district judges could be increased by
one-third in all but the largest courthouses by having three district
judges share two courtrooms in all-sized courthouses. Sharing between
senior district judges could also be increased by having three senior
judges--instead of two--share one courtroom. If implemented, these
opportunities could further reduce the need for courtrooms, thereby
decreasing the size of future courthouses.
To date, the Judicial Conference has made no recommendations for
bankruptcy judges to share courtrooms. However, the judiciary is
conducting a study for bankruptcy courtrooms similar to the 2008
district court study and expects to complete it in 2010.
Concluding Observations:
While it is too late to reduce the extra space in the 33 courthouses
constructed since 2000, for at least some of the 29 additional
courthouse projects underway and for all future courthouse
construction projects not yet begun, GSA and the judiciary have an
opportunity to align their courthouse planning and construction with
the judiciary's real need for space. Such changes would greatly reduce
construction, operations and maintenance, and rent costs. We have
draft recommendations related to GSA's oversight of courthouse
construction projects and the judiciary's planning and sharing of
courtrooms that we plan to finalize in our forthcoming report after
fully considering agency comments.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions
that you or the other Members of the subcommittee may have.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me on (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov. Contact points for
our offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this testimony.
Contact and Acknowledgments:
GAO staff who made major contributions to this testimony include Tammy
Conquest (Assistant Director), Keith Cunningham, Bess Eisenstadt,
Brandon Haller, William Jenkins, Susan Michal-Smith, Steve Rabinowitz,
Alwynne Wilbur, Jade Winfree, and Sarah Wood.
[End of section]
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. The 33 courthouses in our scope included the
courthouses in table 5.
Table 5: The 33 Courthouses Completed from 2000 through March 2010:
Year completed: 2000;
Courthouse:
1. George U.S. Courthouse, Las Vegas, Nevada;
2. Eagleton U.S. Courthouse, St. Louis, Missouri;
3. D'Amato U.S. Courthouse, Central Islip, New York;
4. DeConcini U.S. Courthouse, Tucson, Arizona;
5. Hruska U.S. Courthouse, Omaha, Nebraska;
6. U.S. Courthouse Annex, Tallahassee, Florida;
7. O'Connor U.S. Courthouse, Phoenix, Arizona.
Year completed: 2001;
Courthouse:
8. U.S. Courthouse, Corpus Christi, Texas;
9. Johnson U.S. Courthouse Annex, Montgomery, Alabama;
10. Quillen U.S. Courthouse, Greeneville, Tennessee.
Year completed: 2002;
Courthouse:
11. U.S. Courthouse Annex, London, Kentucky;
12. U.S. Courthouse, Hammond, Indiana;
13. King U.S. Courthouse, Albany, Georgia;
14. Stokes U.S. Courthouse, Cleveland, Ohio;
15. Jones Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, Youngstown, Ohio;
16. Simpson U.S. Courthouse, Jacksonville, Florida.
Year completed: 2003;
Courthouse:
17. Arraj U.S. Courthouse, Denver, Colorado;
18. Perry, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Columbia, South Carolina.
Year completed: 2004;
Courthouse:
19. Russell, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Gulfport, Mississippi;
20. Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse, Wheeling, West Virginia;
21. U.S. Courthouse Annex, Erie, Pennsylvania;
22. U.S. Courthouse, Laredo, Texas;
23. U.S. Courthouse, Seattle, Washington.
Year completed: 2005;
Courthouse:
24. Coyle U.S. Courthouse, Fresno, California.
Year completed: 2006;
Courthouse:
25. Bryant U.S. Courthouse Annex, Washington, D.C.;
26. Roosevelt U.S. Courthouse Annex, Brooklyn, New York;
27. Morse U.S. Courthouse, Eugene, Oregon.
Year completed: 2007;
Courthouse:
28. Arnold U.S. Courthouse Annex, Little Rock, Arkansas;
29. U.S. Courthouse Annex, Orlando, Florida;
30. Ferguson, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Miami, Florida;
31. Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse, Cape Girardeau, Missouri.
Year completed: 2008;
Courthouse:
32. Robinson, III, and Merhige, Jr., U.S. Courthouse, Richmond,
Virginia;
33. U.S. Courthouse, Springfield, Massachusetts.
Source: GSA.
[End of table]
To meet all four objectives, for each of the 33 courthouses in our
scope, we reviewed the site and design prospectuses, construction
prospectus, and other relevant fact sheets and housing plans provided
during the General Services Administration (GSA) to congressional
authorizing committees to support the request, as well as the
congressional authorizations provided at the construction phase of the
project. To understand how much square footage is allocated to
different types of courthouse space and the process for determining
how much space is requested for a new courthouse, we reviewed the 1997
and 2007 editions of the judiciary's Design Guide and examples of the
judiciary's space program model, AnyCourt, for those courthouse
projects in our scope for which an AnyCourt model had been developed.
We discussed verbally and in writing with GSA officials GSA's and the
judiciary's processes for planning and constructing courthouses, and
we requested and received written responses to questions related to
the judiciary's process for determining its space needs. We also
reviewed prior GAO work on courthouse construction and rent paid by
the judiciary to GSA, and we researched relevant laws. Furthermore, to
inform all four objectives, we selected 7 federal courthouses in our
scope to analyze more closely as case studies. We chose the 7 case
studies because they provided examples of courthouses are larger than
congressionally authorized. In addition, we chose these sites to
represent a wide distribution of courthouse sizes, dates of
completion, and geographical locations. Our analysis of courthouse
size and cost is based on data for all courthouses and major annexes
completed from 2000 through March 2010. The information specifically
from our site visits cannot be generalized to that population. These
case studies included the following courthouses: (1) Bryant U.S.
Courthouse Annex in Washington, D.C.; (2) Coyle U.S. Courthouse in
Fresno, California; (3) D'Amato U.S. Courthouse in Central Islip, New
York; (4) DeConcini U.S. Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona; (5) Eagleton
U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri; (6) Ferguson, Jr., U.S.
Courthouse in Miami, Florida; and (7) Limbaugh, Sr., U.S. Courthouse
in Cape Girardeau, Missouri. For these courthouses, we analyzed
blueprints labeled with size and tenant allocations for each space,
which we requested and received from GSA. For all of these courthouses
except the DeConcini Courthouse in Tucson, we visited the courthouse,
where we toured the facility and met with court officials, including
judges, circuit executives, and others involved in planning for
judicial space needs and requesting and using courthouse space; and we
met with GSA officials involved in planning, constructing, and
operating the courthouse. For the DeConcini Courthouse, we reviewed
workpapers from a prior GAO engagement that included a December 2005
visit to the Tucson courthouse that involved a tour of the courthouse
and discussions with court and GSA staff. During our meetings with
court officials, we discussed issues pertaining to all four of our
objectives, including the process for determining the size needed for
the courthouse, the planning and construction of the courthouse, and
the current uses of courthouse space, including courtrooms and
chambers. We also sought the officials' views on the potential for
more than one judge to share a courtroom.
In addition to these activities, we performed the following work
related to each specific objective:
To determine whether the courthouses contain extra space and any costs
related to it, we added together any extra square footage due to an
increase in the courthouse's gross square footage over the
congressional authorization, inaccurate judge estimates, and less
sharing than is supported by the judiciary's data, as described below
in the methodology for the other objectives. We consider the sum of
the extra space as calculated according to the method described in our
discussion of the following objectives to be the extra space for each
courthouse. We then discussed how to calculate an order of magnitude
estimate for the cost of increasing a courthouse's square footage with
construction experts within GAO, at the Construction Institute of
America, and at a private sector firm that specializes in developing
cost estimates for the construction of buildings. Based on these
conversations, we estimated the cost per square foot through the
following method:
* To determine the total construction cost of each courthouse, we
obtained from GSA the total net obligations, excluding claims, for
each of the 33 courthouses through September 11, 2009, and determined
that these data, which equal the total cost of each project as of
September 11, 2009, were sufficiently reliable for our purposes
through discussions with GSA officials and by reviewing information
related to the reliability of these data from a previous GAO
engagement. GSA officials told us that GSA could not break out the
construction costs from the total costs of courthouse projects.
Therefore, except for most annexes, we then subtracted from the total
project costs the estimates GSA had provided for site, design, and
management and inspection costs in its construction prospectuses to
congressional authorizing committees. We consider the resulting figure
to be an estimate for the total construction cost for each courthouse.
* We then calculated the construction cost per square foot by dividing
the construction cost of each courthouse, as calculated above, by the
gross square footage, as measured using GSA's measurement program,
ESmart, and reported by GSA, for each courthouse. For annex projects
that involved substantial work on older buildings, we used a different
method to determine the construction cost per square foot. GSA
officials told us that for those annexes that involved substantial
costs both to renovate an older building and to construct a new annex,
they could not separate the costs of work done on the annex from the
costs of any work done on the older building. Therefore, we used GSA's
estimated cost per square foot for constructing the annex, which was
reported in the construction prospectus, as our figure for the
construction cost per square foot.
* We then reduced the construction cost per square foot of each
courthouse or annex by 10 percent based on discussions with
construction experts to account for the economies of scale that cause
the construction cost per square foot to decrease slightly in larger
buildings.
* We removed the effect of inflation from the estimates by applying
two sources of information on annual increases in construction costs--
the Bureau of Economic Analysis's Office Construction Series for years
up through 2008 and the Global Insight Projections on Commercial
Construction Costs for 2009 to the present based on each courthouse's
completion date.
* Then, we multiplied the sum of the extra square footage by the
construction cost per square foot for each courthouse to estimate the
total construction cost implications for each courthouse.
To estimate the annual cost to rent or operate and maintain the extra
space, we took the following steps. To the extent practical, we
determined whether the cost of the extra space is directly passed on
to the judiciary as rent. If the cost of the space is passed on to the
judiciary as rent, such as for extra courtrooms, we calculated the
annual rental costs for the space to the judiciary. To do so, we
obtained information on the rent payments that the judiciary made to
GSA for fiscal year 2009, which we determined was reliable for our
purposes. Then, we multiplied the annual rent per square foot for each
courthouse by any extra square footage. If the costs of the space are
not directly passed on to the judiciary as rent (including the costs
of all the extra space, if any, due to construction above the
congressional authorization, which we did not attempt to allocate
between the judiciary, other tenants, and GSA), we calculated the
annual operations and maintenance costs of the space. To do so, we
obtained from GSA the total operations and maintenance costs for each
of the 33 courthouses for fiscal year 2009 and determined that these
data were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. For each courthouse,
we divided these costs by the actual gross square footage to come up
with an operations and maintenance cost per square foot. We then
multiplied the cost per square foot by any extra square feet. Finally,
we summed the extra operations and maintenance costs with the extra
rent costs for all 33 courthouses built since 2000.
To determine how the actual size of the courthouses compares with the
congressionally authorized size, we compared the congressionally
authorized gross square footage of each courthouse with the gross
square footage of the courthouse as measured by GSA's space
measurement program, ESmart. We determined that these data were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes through discussions with GSA
officials on practices and procedures for entering data into ESmart,
including GSA's efforts to ensure the reliability of these data. To
determine the extent to which a courthouse that exceeded its
authorized size by 10 percent or more had total project costs that
exceeded the total project cost estimate provided to the congressional
authorizing committees, we used the same information obtained from GSA
on the total net obligations (i.e., total project costs), excluding
claims, for each of these courthouses through September 11, 2009, as
described above. We compared the total project cost for each
courthouse to the total project cost estimate provided to the
congressional authorizing committees in the construction prospectus or
related fact sheets. We also examined GSA's communications to the
committees on appropriations for four courthouses that we found
exceeded the authorized size and estimated total budget by about 10
percent or more. To increase our understanding of how and why
courthouse size exceeds congressional authorized size, we reviewed
GSA's space measurement policy and guidance and discussed these
documents with GSA officials. We also discussed the reasons that some
courthouses are larger than congressionally authorized with GSA
headquarters and regional officials and reviewed written comments on
the size and space allocations for some of our case study courthouses.
In addition, for two of the case study courthouses, we contracted with
an engineer and architect to advise us on analyzing the extra space in
these courthouses.
To determine how courthouse space based on the judiciary's 10-year
estimates of number of judges compares with the actual number of
judges, we used courthouse planning documents to determine how many
judges the judiciary estimated it would have in each courthouse in 10
years. We then compared that estimate with the judiciary's data
showing how many judges are located there including authorized
vacancies identified for specific courthouses and interviewed
judiciary officials. We determined that these data were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes. To determine the effects of any
differences, we calculated how much excess space exists in courthouses
that were estimated to have more judges than are currently seated
there at least 10 years after the 10-year estimates were made. We also
discussed challenges associated with accurately estimating the number
of judges in a courthouse with judicial officials and analyzed
judiciary data where available.
To determine 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, we also
took the following steps: We created a simulation model to determine
the level of courtroom sharing supported by the data. The data used to
create the simulation model for courtroom usage were collected by the
Federal Judicial Center (FJC)--the research arm of the federal
judiciary--for its Report on the Usage of Federal District Court
Courtrooms, published in 2008. The data collected by FJC were a
stratified random sample of federal court districts to ensure a
nationally representative sample of courthouses--that is, FJC sampled
from small, medium, and large districts, as well as districts with
low, medium, and high weighted filings. Altogether, there were 23
randomly selected districts and 3 case study districts, which included
91 courthouses, 602 courtrooms, and every circuit except that of the
District of Columbia. The data sample was taken in 3-month increments
over a 6-month period in 2007 for a total of 63 federal workdays, by
trained court staff who recorded all courtroom usage, including
scheduled but unused time. These data were then verified against three
independently recorded sources of data about courtroom usage.
Specifically, the sample data were compared with JS-10 data routinely
recorded for courtroom events conducted by district judges, MJSTAR
data routinely recorded for courtroom events conducted by magistrate
judges, and data collected by independent observers in a randomly
selected subset of districts in the sample. We verified that these
methods were reliable and empirically sound for use in simulation
modeling.
To create a simulation model, we contracted for the services of a firm
with expertise in discrete event simulations modeling. This
engineering services and technology consulting firm uses advanced
computer modeling and visualization as well as other techniques to
maximize throughput, improve system flow, and reduce capital and
operating expenses. Working with the contractor, we discussed
assumptions made for the inputs of the model and verified the output
with in-house data experts. We designed this sharing model in
conjunction with a specialist in discrete event simulation and the
company that designed the simulation software to ensure that the model
conformed to generally accepted simulation modeling standards and was
reasonable for the federal court system. The model was also verified
with the creator of the software to ensure proper use and model
specification. Simulation is widely used in modeling any system where
there is competition for scarce resources. The goal of the model was
to determine how many courtrooms are required for courtroom
utilization rates similar to that recorded by FJC. This determination
is based on data for all courtroom use time collected by FJC,
including time when the courtroom was scheduled to be used but the
event was canceled within one week of the scheduled date.
The completed model allows, for each courthouse, user input of the
number and types of judges and courtrooms, and the output states
whether the utilization of the courtrooms exceeds the availability of
the courtrooms in the long run. When using the model to determine the
level of sharing possible at each courthouse based on scheduled
courtroom availability on weekdays from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., we
established a baseline of one courtroom per judge to the extent that
this sharing level exists at the 33 courthouses built since 2000. Then
we inputted the number of judges from each courthouse and determined
the smallest number of courtrooms needed for no backlog in court
proceedings.
To understand judges' views on the potential for, and problems
associated with, courtroom sharing, we contracted with the National
Academy of Sciences to convene a panel of judicial experts. This
panel, which consisted of seven federal judges, three state judges,
one judicial officer, one attorney, and one law professor and scholar,
discussed the challenges and limitations to courtroom sharing. Not all
panelists invited were able to attend the live panel, and these
panelists were individually contacted and interviewed separately. We
also conducted structured interviews either in person or via telephone
with 14 federal judges, 1 court staff member, 1 state judge, 2 D.C.
Superior Court judges, 1 lawyer, and 1 academic, during which we
discussed issues related to the challenges and opportunities
associated with courtroom sharing. Additionally, we used district
courtroom scheduling and use data to model courtroom sharing
scenarios. We determined that these courtroom data were sufficiently
reliable for our purposes by analyzing the data, reviewing the data
collection and validation methods, and interviewing staff who
collected and analyzed the data. Besides the 7 courthouses we selected
as case studies, we visited 2 district courthouses where courtroom
sharing has been used--the Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in Manhattan, New
York, and the Byrne U.S. Courthouse in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. In
addition, we visited the Roosevelt U.S. Courthouse Annex in Brooklyn,
New York, as an example of a courthouse with a collegial floor plan.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 to May 2010 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] An annex is an addition to an existing building.
[2] See, for example, GAO, Federal Courthouse Construction: More
Disciplined Approach Would Reduce Costs and Provide for Better
Decision-making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/T-GGD-96-19] (Washington, D.C.: Nov.
19, 1995) and GAO, Courthouse Construction: Information on Project
Cost and Size Changes Would Help to Enhance Oversight, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-673] (Washington, D.C., June, 30,
2005).
[3] An independent and comprehensive study of courtroom use in
district courts was conducted by the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) at
the request of the Judicial Conference of the United States, which,
after the study was completed, issued a report on the study. See
Judicial Conference of the United States, Report on the Usage of
Federal District Court Courtrooms, September 16, 2008. The study
served as a basis for the Judicial Conference's adoption of several
policy changes related to the sharing of courtrooms by judges, which
are described later in this report.
[4] District judges who are eligible to retire may continue to hear
cases on a full-or part-time basis as senior judges.
[5] The seven case study courthouses include the Bryant U.S.
Courthouse Annex in Washington, D.C.; the Coyle U.S. Courthouse in
Fresno, California; the D'Amato U.S. Courthouse in Central Islip, New
York; the DeConcini U.S. Courthouse in Tucson, Arizona; the Eagleton
U.S. Courthouse in St. Louis, Missouri; the Ferguson U.S. Courthouse
in Miami, Florida; and the Limbaugh, Sr. U.S. Courthouse in Cape
Girardeau, Missouri.
[6] Before Congress makes an appropriation for a proposed project, GSA
submits to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works detailed
project descriptions, called prospectuses, for authorization by these
committees when the proposed construction, alteration, or acquisition
of a building to be used as a public building exceeds a specified
threshold. For purposes of this testimony, we refer to these
committees as "authorizing committees" when discussing the submission
of the prospectuses and providing additional information relating to
prospectuses to these committees. Furthermore, for purposes of this
report, we refer to approval of these projects by these committees as
"congressional authorization." See 40 U.S.C. § 3307.
[7] Each district has a court of appeals whose jurisdiction includes
appeals from the district courts located within the circuit, as well
as appeals from decisions of federal administrative agencies.
[8] Weighted filings statistics account for the different amounts of
time district judges take to resolve various types of civil and
criminal actions. Types of civil cases or criminal defendants that
typically take an average amount of time to resolve each receive a
weight of approximately 1.0; for more time-consuming cases, higher
weights are assigned (e.g., a death-penalty habeas corpus case is
assigned a weight of 12.89); and cases demanding relatively little
time from judges receive lower weights (e.g., overpayment and recovery
cases, such as a defaulted student loan case, are assigned a weight of
0.10).
[9] For the purposes of this report, we are referring to space
assigned both to a specific tenant and to joint use as tenant space.
[10] In line with GSA's method of calculating efficiency, this
category includes the space GSA categorizes as building common, floor
common, and unmarketable space.
[11] We did not evaluate how much of the extra space was unused.
[12] The estimated construction cost of the extra space was $640
million in nominal (unadjusted) dollars. We adjusted for inflation
using a price index for construction costs from the Bureau of Economic
Analysis and Global Insights. We adjusted expenditures to 2010
constant dollars.
[13] We did not attempt to calculate the rent attributable to the
extra square footage due to exceeding congressionally authorized gross
square footage because some of this extra square footage is for
tenants other than the judiciary or occurs in building common or other
space, the costs of which are not directly passed on to the judiciary
in rent. We therefore calculated the annual operations and maintenance
costs for all extra space due to exceeding congressionally authorized
gross square footage and for the extra building common and other space
due to overestimating the number of judges and judges not sharing
courtrooms.
[14] The remaining lifetime costs include land acquisition, planning,
renewal/revitalizations, and disposal.
[15] For all 33 courthouses in our scope, we used the congressionally
authorized gross square footage for the construction of the
courthouse. We compared the authorized gross square footage, including
inside parking, with the actual gross square footage, including inside
parking.
[16] Three of these 15 courthouses had total project costs that were
at or slightly under the total project cost estimate provided to
congressional authorizing committees at the construction phase.
[17] See GSA's 2010 Fiscal Year Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 111-
117, Div. C. Title V, 123 Stat. 3034, 3187-3188 (2009). Every year
from fiscal year 1995 through fiscal year 2010, the GSA appropriations
act has contained this requirement except for fiscal year 1998, when
no appropriation was made for new construction or acquisition. For
fiscal years 1990 through 1994, the GSA appropriations acts stated
that these projects could not exceed their authorized cost by more
than 10 percent.
[18] For the purposes of this report, we are using the term building
common and other space to include GSA's categories of building common,
floor common, and unmarketable space and the term tenant space to
include GSA's categories of tenant space, joint use space, and vacant
space.
[19] In a building with 67 percent efficiency, 67 percent of the total
gross square footage, excluding parking, consists of tenant space and
the remainder consists of building common and other space.
[20] GSA defines the gross square footage of a building as the total
constructed area of a building, which includes tenant spaces and
building common and other spaces, such as lobbies and mechanical
rooms--as well as indoor parking.
[21] According to GSA, the 67 percent efficiency target is intended
for application to stand-alone new courthouses, and application to an
annex is impractical because of the need for connections between the
courthouse and the annex. However, we consider the efficiency of the
Bryant Annex to be relevant because in the plans for this annex
provided to congressional committees for authorization, GSA based its
request for total gross square footage on an annex that would be 67
percent efficient.
[22] Under the Design Guide standards in effect when these courthouses
were designed, courtroom ceilings were to be at least 16 feet high,
while judges' chambers and other court-related spaces did not have
ceiling height requirements. The ceilings of special proceedings
courtrooms and appellate en banc courtrooms (in which all the
circuit's judges sit together on a panel and decide a case) were to be
18 feet high.
[23] The judiciary makes the 10-year estimates during the planning
stages of new courthouses and major annexes. We did not include 5
courthouses in this section because they have not yet reached the end
of their 10-year planning period.
[24] Each of the five courthouses that met or exceeded their 10-year
estimates for judges projected increases of zero or one judge for
planning periods ending from 2004 to 2006.
[25] The Limbaugh, Sr., Courthouse in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, is not
included as a case study in this analysis because it has not reached
the end of its 10-year planning period.
[26] Extra space includes courtroom suites, ranging in size from 3,500
to 5,000 square feet, and chamber suites, ranging in size from 1,500
to 2,400 square feet, as specified in the Design Guide. Courtroom
space calculations include square footage for spaces that are
necessary for courtroom use, such as soundlocks (an entryway designed
to reduce sound), audiovisual storage space, and public waiting areas.
Additional spaces associated with courtrooms vary by courtroom type
and may include, among other things, coat closets, judges' conference
rooms, judges' robing rooms, exhibit storage spaces, and offices for
court reporters. In addition to the court space, these spaces require
a proportional allocation of additional public and mechanical spaces,
and judges are generally provided with secure, inside parking space in
new courthouses. These additional spaces are also not needed if
estimates exceed authorized judges.
[27] GAO, Federal Judiciary Space: Long-Range Planning Process Needs
Revision, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/GGD-93-132]
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 1993).
[28] GAO, Federal Judgeships: General Accuracy of District and
Appellate Judgeship Case-Related Workload Measures, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-928T] (Washington, D.C.: June 17,
2008).
[29] H.R. 3662, 111th Cong. (2009) and S. 1653, 111th Cong. (2009).
[30] Federal Judicial Center, The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. District
Courts: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court
Administration & Case Management (Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2008).
[31] Our model does not reduce the number of courtrooms in six
courthouses for the following reasons: four already had sharing
between judges and the model did not find increased sharing
possibilities and therefore imposed no reduction in courtrooms; one
has only one district and one magistrate judge; and one courthouse has
only bankruptcy judges and is out of our scope for district and
magistrate sharing opportunities.
[32] This number also includes the support spaces directly related to
a courtroom as applicable, such as jury rooms, evidence closets, and
lawyer conference rooms.
[33] Sharing was not possible in some courthouses because there were
only one or two district and/or magistrate judges.
[34] The panel consisted primarily of judges and included other
judicial experts with experience in or knowledge of courtroom sharing.
Judges who were chosen for the panel but were unable to take part in
the live discussion were contacted separately, and semistructured
interviews were conducted with them via telephone or in person.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
