Program Management and Technology

After the Supreme Court ruling in Blakely v. U.S., the Sentencing Commission conducted hearings and a special Judiciary task force was developed to monitor the decision’s potential impact.

Juror Utilization

Nationally, the federal courts saw a positive change in the rate of jurors reporting for jury service but not selected, serving or challenged (NSSC). After peaking at 40 percent for fiscal year 2003, the percentage of jurors NSSC declined to 37.7 percent for the 12 months ended June 30, 2004 . The courts' efforts to improve juror utilization have resulted in savings of approximately $740,000 and more than 10,250 potential jurors not being brought into the courthouse unnecessarily. Continued efforts are underway in the Judiciary toward more efficient juror use.

Based on statistical trends for recent years, the Judiciary took several steps in FY 2004 to address the NSSC rate. At its December 2003 meeting, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management requested the Administrative Office to analyze how its juror-usage rates in district courts have changed over the preceding 10 years. The Committee, through its chair, Chief Judge John Lungstrum ( Kansas ) provided this information to each chief district judge and clerk of court, along with more general information regarding techniques to assist courts in improving their NSSC rates. The Committee also provided the chief circuit judges with the analyses of the districts within their respective circuits. As a result, a number of courts and circuits are looking at identifying and implementing better management techniques to improve juror utilization.

The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office consider efficient juror utilization to be a high priority and will continue the efforts to communicate its importance, encourage courts to review their juror management practices, and identify steps they can take to make better use of jurors.

Study of Alternatives for Providing Administrative Services

At the request of the Judicial Conference committees on the Budget and Judicial Resources, the Administrative Office in September 2003 selected an experienced federal contractor to independently and comprehensively study current approaches and possible alternatives for providing administrative services to the courts. The study is reviewing financial and budget operations, personnel administration, procurement, information technology services, training, property management, and space and facilities management.

Goals include improving the quality of administrative services, increasing operational efficiency and lowering costs, enhancing internal controls, and ensuring that key decision-making control remains at the local court level.

The contractor is reviewing how executive branch agencies, private organizations, and state court systems are structured and staffed to provide administrative support services, and comparing how services are delivered to the federal courts. They are gathering data through on-site visits, and interviews with judges, court staff, and senior Administrative Office staff. A final report with findings and recommendations is expected to be completed during 2005.

Interpreter Certification

In fiscal year 2004, much was achieved in the Spanish/English Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination project. A contractor developed, validated, and administered two new versions of the written examinations. There were 1,055 examinees who took the examination in August 2004.

A concurrent research study was conducted comparing the results of the oral examination portion of the Spanish/English Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination with the results of similar state court interpreter examinations. The results of the study clearly support the validity of the Spanish/English Federal Court Interpreter Certification Examination.

National Court Interpreter Database

The Court Interpreters Act requires the Administrative Office to maintain a current master list of all court interpreters. The National Court Interpreter Database (NCID) was made available on the J-Net in July 1999 to assist courts in locating court interpreters in a multitude of languages. The Administrative Office enters and updates all information on certified interpreters, and the courts enter and update data for “otherwise qualified” interpreters used in their courts. NCID contains information regarding the qualification criteria, language, state, and contact information for each of the listed interpreters. At the end of fiscal year 2004, the database contained the names of 883 active certified interpreters and 1,563 otherwise qualified interpreters in close to 100 languages.

Telephone Interpreting

The Telephone Interpreting Program (TIP) provides remote interpretation in short proceedings where certified or otherwise qualified court interpreters are not locally available. In fiscal year 2004, TIP services were used in over 3,200 events in 46 languages. Spanish was used for 90 percent of the telephone interpreting events. There were 33 user courts in fiscal year 2004, including services within districts to outlying court locations. The four courts that provide these services are the Central District of California, District of New Mexico, Southern District of Florida, and District of Columbia . Staff interpreters handled 67 percent of the telephone interpreting proceedings, and 33 percent of the proceedings were handled by contract interpreters. The total savings as a result of telephone interpreting in fiscal year 2004 are estimated in excess of $975,000.

Slip Opinion Printing Contracts

In the face of reduced funding for the Judiciary, staff renegotiated the prices for the production of slip opinions in several circuits. During FY 2004, both the Third and Eighth Circuits completely discontinued the printing of all opinions and instead now distribute opinions electronically. In light of projected funding constraints, other circuits are considering doing so.

Statistical Data Gathering and Reporting
New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics (NewSTATS)

The New Streamline Timely Access to Statistics (NewSTATS) project will provide the Judiciary with a modern, flexible relational database that will allow the Administrative Office and other authorized Judiciary users to access and use caseload statistics to produce reports, analysis, and research required to meet customer needs. NewSTATS will have the ability to capture judicial activity data; interact with other Judiciary systems, e.g. Defenders Services, Financial Accounting System, and Human Resources; and satisfy existing customer requirements while adapting to future needs.

The project has completed an alternatives analysis and is entering the design phase. NewSTATS' modern infrastructure will include an integrated enterprise database containing data currently residing in 12 legacy databases. It will include historical legacy data currently on tape, as well as magistrate caseload data.

In addition to providing more timely and user-friendly solutions to current reporting, analytic and research requirements, NewSTATS will employ business intelligence tools that will allow authorized users to fully utilize the collected data for strategic planning purposes.

District Court Statistical Needs

Recommendation 73 of the Long Range Plan for the Federal Courts called for a comprehensive review of the statistical data and information needs of the Judiciary. The first two phases of the review, which addressed appellate and bankruptcy data needs, were completed in recent years. The third phase, involving district court activity, is nearing completion. Under the guidance of the Judicial Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Judicial Statistics, Administrative Office staff are working to revise the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system as needed to collect the required district court data. New procedures for docketing court events have been developed for incorporation in CM/ECF in an upcoming release. Similarly, a number of data items that are currently recorded by the courts but not forwarded for inclusion in the national databases have been identified for addition in an upcoming release.

Tracking Case Trends

The Supreme Court’s decision in Blakely v. U.S. cast doubt on the constitutionality of the federal Sentencing Guidelines. A special task force of Administrative Office, Federal Judicial Center , and U.S. Sentencing Commission staff was established to monitor the decision's potential impact on sentencing practices in the federal courts, and the related effect on judicial administration and resources. AO staff are also providing support to the Judicial Conference's Criminal Law and Rules Committees as they assess possible sentencing policy alternatives and changes in criminal case procedures, in the event that the current sentencing guidelines are held invalid in whole or in part.

In an effort to assess the impact of this decision on federal court caseloads, Administrative Office staff have monitored monthly filings and dispositions in the appeals and district courts. The most significant impact of Blakely on federal court caseload is on 28 U.S.C. §2255, motions to vacate sentence filed in the district courts. The number of motions filed between June 24 and September 30, 2004 was 90 percent higher than those filed in the same period in 2003. The second significant impact is a 30 percent increase in filings of original proceedings in the courts of appeals, primarily caused by a 66 percent increase in the number of motions to file second or successive appeals with respect to habeas corpus petitions.

The impact of Blakely on terminated criminal cases in the district courts is less clear. A comparison between the three-month period ending September 30, 2003 , and the same period in 2004 shows that terminations declined by 1,093 defendants, from 22,703 to 21,610. However, because defendants are sentenced on average about three months after conviction, the Administrative Office had not received data on all defendants convicted between June 24 and September 30, 2004 , at the time this publication was prepared.

Case Management System/Electronic Case Files System (CM/ECF)

The federal courts continued their leadership in electronic filing for the legal community with major progress in the nationwide rollout of the Case Management / Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system. In fiscal year 2004, an additional 39 courts began implementation, bringing to 187 the number of courts using or preparing to use the system. That number includes all bankruptcy courts and all except three district courts. The appellate courts are scheduled to begin implementation early in fiscal year 2005.

The past year was also a period of great growth in live CM/ECF usage, as 41 more courts began live operation. The system is now in live use in 129 courts, including 76 bankruptcy, 51 district, the Court of International Trade, and the Court of Federal Claims. By the end of the year, more than 100,000 attorneys had made electronic filings over the Internet, and attorneys were providing more than 40 percent of the CM/ECF data entry. Monthly volumes had reached more than 130,000 case openings and 3.6 million docket entries. Similar growth is expected until the national rollout is completed in 2005.

For each of those 41 courts that completed implementation in 2004, the process was a joint effort with the AO that took about 10 months. The AO’s multi-disciplinary team assisted the judges, clerks, and staff with implementation by providing training and by offering guidance in the analysis of technology, business, legal and policy issues related to CM/ECF. The AO also provided continuing operational support for the courts using the system, and developed tools to aid in both implementation and operations.

Efforts in 2004 included a continued focus on judges’ needs, with publication of an updated CM/ECF Chambers Handbook. Guides were also published to help district court chambers with their statistical reporting requirements: the Guide to the CM/ECF Monthly Trials and Other Activity Report and the Guide to MJSTAR. And documents were produced relating to the use of CM/ECF in the appellate courts, including discussion of CM/ECF Appellate Model Rules. Also, at national meetings, all bankruptcy judges were given the opportunity to see demonstrations
of several court-developed systems that work with CM/ECF to perform calendar and order-processing functions.

In addition to the progress in implementation, there were significant gains made in CM/ECF technology development during the past year. New versions of both the bankruptcy and district products were developed to provide enhanced capabilities such as the new statistical reports, fee payment by credit card, and enhanced privacy options. Also, modifications were completed to enable transition to the judiciary’s new Linux operating system. There was extensive continued development of the appellate system, and that product entered the final testing phase.

Enhancements to CM/ECF will be a continuing process to ensure that the system keeps pace with advancing technology and provides the functionality that the courts need. Courts are already identifying new features and functions that can further extend the benefits of the system.

Electronic Public Access Program

The Electronic Public Access (EPA) Program facilitates and improves electronic public access to court information, in accordance with legislative and Judiciary policies, security requirements, and user demands. The EPA Program, as mandated by Congress, is funded entirely through user fees, set at a reasonable rate to cover expenses. The program generated approximately $37.4 million for the Judiciary in FY 2004. A significant portion of this revenue has funded the development and implementation of the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) systems. Congress recently authorized the Judiciary to use EPA fee revenue to fund CM/ECF operations and maintenance costs as well.

The Internet-based PACER system has become the predominant method for the Judiciary to provide public access to court information. The AO’s PACER Service Center provides the public and the Judiciary with registration, centralized billing, and technical support services. A recent review of the PACER Service Center conducted by SAI Corporation, an independent third-party contractor, rated the PACER Service Center operation above both industry and government standards for overall call-center performance. A survey of PACER users showed 94 percent of all respondents rated the PACER Service Center operation favorably.

Significant EPA Program Activities in FY 2004:

• Instant Registration Project
  PACER Service Center staff implemented an instant registration process. Users may register with a credit card online for nearly immediate registration and access. The system also includes automatic quarterly billing to credit cards. Any registered user may elect to participate in the automatic credit card billing program.
• Increased User Demand
  The PACER Service Center established over 100,000 new PACER accounts and there are now nearly 400,000 registered PACER users. Approximately 70 percent of these new registrations were made using the enhanced instant registration process.
• Security
  The EPA Program Office conducted two security posture assessments of the PACER-Net. These assessments assist the AO and the courts by maintaining the security of the Judiciary's public access systems.
• Interagency Agreement With the Department of Justice
  The Administrative Office renewed an interagency agreement with the Department of Justice (DOJ). Per the agreement, the AO bills the DOJ an annual subscription amount based upon its actual PACER usage for the 12-month period from July 1 through June 30 of the preceding fiscal year.
• Fee Increase
  User fees had remained unchanged since 1998. In order to meet increasing costs, the Judicial Conference approved a one-cent increase—from 7 cents per page to 8 cents per page—to the PACER Internet access fee, effective on January 1, 2005.

New Policy and Guidelines for Allowing Electronic Access

In September 2001, the Judicial Conference adopted a policy that generally permits remote public access to electronic case files in civil and bankruptcy cases, with the requirement that certain personal identifiers be redacted by the filer of a document. This policy stated that there would be no such access in criminal cases for a period of two years, while issues unique to criminal cases were studied in greater detail.

Following a pilot project and study, the Judicial Conference at its September 2003 session amended its earlier policy to allow remote public access to electronic criminal case file documents, on the same terms as public access to these documents at the courthouse. The Conference further determined that the personal data identifiers must be redacted by the filer of the document, whether the document is filed electronically or on paper for later conversion to electronic format, as follows: Social Security numbers to the last four digits; financial account numbers to the last four digits; names of minor children to the initials; dates of birth to the year; and home addresses to the city and state.

The Conference had delayed the effective date of this policy change until specific guidance on the implementation and operation of the new policy was developed.

The guidance and a model local rule addressing privacy and access to electronic criminal case files were developed by the Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, with support from AO staff, and approved by the Conference in March 2004. Required software changes to CM/ECF were made to accommodate the new policy and were provided the courts in September 2004 for testing. Electronic public access to criminal case files was made available November 1, 2004 .

Pilot Project Allowing Electronic Access to Court Transcripts

In September 2003, the Judicial Conference adopted a policy for future implementation that
requires those courts making documents electronically available to the public also to make available electronic transcripts of court proceedings, if such transcripts are otherwise prepared. The policy includes a process for redacting personal identifying information from transcripts in order to protect individual privacy, and requires it to be consistent with the Judicial Conference policy on privacy and public access to electronic case files. The Conference, however, decided to defer the effective date of the policy until it could consider a report from the Committee on Judicial Resources on the impact of the policy on court reporter compensation.

The Conference approved a pilot project to help assess the effect of the electronic transcripts policy in courts in the Southern District of Alabama, the District of Kansas, the District of Maine, the Eastern District of Missouri, and the District of Nebraska. These courts are reporting to the AO on each of their court reporters that details the number of transcripts ordered, the number of pages ordered, whether the order was an original or a copy, and the fee charged per transcript. Comparisons are being made with similar information for fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Following Conference approval of the implementation guidelines on remote public electronic access to criminal case files in March 2004, it is possible for the pilot courts to make electronic transcripts of criminal proceedings available to the public. The pilot project was continued through September 2005, to include criminal transcripts over a longer period of time. To date, the Administrative Office has received data on 534 transcripts, including 292 transcripts in criminal cases.

About The U.S. Courts | Newsroom | Library | Court Links | FAQs | Employment Opportunities | Contact Us | Search

This page is maintained by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts on behalf of the U.S. Courts.
The purpose of this site is to function as a clearinghouse for information from and about the Judicial Branch of the U.S. Government.

Privacy and Security Notices