Director's Annual Report

Management Practices Improvements And Innovations

Long-Term Cost-Containment Strategy
AO Cost-Containment
Long-Range Planning Process
GAO Studies
Audits and Program Reviews
Process Redesign and Work Measurement Programs
Methods Analysis Program
Study on Alternatives for Providing Administrative Services
Identification of New Certifying Officers and Training
Bankruptcy Administrator Program
Bankruptcy Noticing Center
Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing
Juror Utilization
Jury Management System
Fees Review
Central Violations Bureau
Court Interpreting
Implementation of Legal Research
Containing Law Book Costs
Transition to New Omega Travel Management Center

Long-Term Cost-Containment Strategy

Throughout 2005, Administrative Office staff have supported the Conference Executive Committee and the Judicial Conference committees in applying long-term cost-containment initiatives to business practices. A steering group of senior AO executives met regularly to monitor progress. The AO has updated its long-range budget estimates to include the impact of cost-containment initiatives already implemented, as well as the impact of fiscal year 2005 and fiscal year 2006 appropriations received from Congress.

Supporting the Judiciary's cost-containment efforts is a top priority of the Administrative Office, along with a high priority effort to seek adequate funding from Congress. In 2005, the Judiciary made progress in implementing its Cost-Containment Strategy for the Federal Judiciary: 2005 and Beyond, which was approved by the Judicial Conference in September 2004. Cost-containment measures implemented to date have reduced budget requirements by over $80 million in the Judiciary's FY 2007 budget request. The cost-containment strategy includes six broad categories of initiatives related to space and facilities cost control, workforce efficiency, review of compensation costs, the effective use of technology, program changes, and adjustments to fees.

The committees of the Judicial Conference have continued to lead the implementation of cost-containment initiatives. The Executive Committee developed the strategy and has guided its use, and the Economy Subcommittee of the Budget Committee has actively monitored the progress of individual initiatives. Most of the work, however, has taken place at the level of the Judicial Conference committees and their staffs working with court advisory groups.

To date, initiatives that have already yielded savings include moratoria on space projects, reductions to probation and pretrial services work requirements, and productivity adjustments to court staffing formulas. Highlights of these measures follow, and are described further throughout this report.

AO Cost-Containment

The Administrative Office will continue to implement internal cost-control measures. Spending restrictions have been equal to or greater than restrictions in the courts. The Administrative Office's share of the Judiciary's appropriation has dropped from 2.8 percent in 1985 to 1.2 percent in 2005. All AO operations, projects, and functions have been examined to identify cost reductions.

Total Administrative Office staffing has not increased since 1995, while court staffing increased 19 percent. Vacancies are carefully managed to contain costs. For the past two years, the AO held open approximately 100 positions, or 10 percent of its total staff. Early-out retirements were offered to eligible employees in 2004 and 2005 to further reduce staffing costs.

During fiscal year 2005, cost-containment efforts and spending restrictions in effect during fiscal year 2004 were continued. All offices were required to operate at reduced staffing levels, and to scrutinize and fully justify requests to fill vacancies. Only limited travel and training were allowed, and orders for all other contracts, services, supplies, and equipment were kept to those essential to basic operations, and to supporting Judicial Conference committees, continuing court operations, and implementation of information technology projects previously approved.

Long-Range Planning Process

Chairs of Judicial Conference committees and members of the Executive Committee discussed strategic issues at planning meetings held in March and September. The meetings were led by the Executive Committee's planning coordinator, Chief Judge Michael Boudin. The discussions focused on broad trends and issues that cut across committee lines affecting the work, resources, and operation of the courts.

In light of long-range projections indicating a growing gap between needed funds and estimated available funds, the coordination of cost-containment initiatives has been a planning priority.

Government Accountability Office Studies

The GAO examines Judiciary operations and programs at the request of Congress. As the Judiciary's liaison to the GAO, the Administrative Office coordinates with Judicial Conference committees and the courts to respond to GAO's requests for information, and to review and comment on GAO draft reports. In fiscal year 2005, the Administrative Office was involved in 15 GAO studies. The most noteworthy of these studies involved the cost of courthouse construction projects; the Judiciary's ongoing proposal for rent relief; criminal debt collection; the Judicial Survivors Annuities System; and reporting on non-citizens identified during the juror qualifying process to voter registration officials.

Audits and Program Reviews

The Administrative Office conducts financial audits, program audits, reviews, assessments, and evaluations to promote effectiveness, efficiency, and economy in both AO and court operations. A comprehensive program of financial audits covering all court units is conducted on a four-year cycle for most courts, and on a 30-month cycle for larger courts. In 2005, the Administrative Office performed or contracted for 60 cyclical financial audits of the courts and 47 other financial audits, including Chapter 7 trustees, Criminal Justice Act grantees, and special audits such as audits to follow up on prior reviews, when there is a change of clerk, or when an audit of particular financial activities is requested by a court.

The Administrative Office continues to implement the analytical software program to its audit program for procurement, accountable property, travel, and payroll certification. Using the software streamlines the audit process, as it helps auditors perform significant work before visiting the courts.

Each year, onsite reviews of various kinds are conducted in the courts. Some offices have a comprehensive cyclical program of reviews. In other cases, reviews are done primarily at the request of individual court managers or chief judges for areas including jury administration; court reporting; clerk's office operations and management; human resources management; property management; procurement; and information technology operations, management and security. During fiscal year 2005 due to budget constraints, fewer reviews than usual were conducted, involving four district courts, eight bankruptcy courts, 21 federal defender organizations, and three probation and four pretrial services offices.

Process Redesign and Work Measurement Programs

Last year, the Judicial Conference approved the Process Redesign and Work Measurement Programs as part of the Judiciary's overall cost-containment strategy. As added impetus for these actions, the staffing formulas for district and bankruptcy clerks' offices needed to be updated to take into account the implementation of CM/ECF. By redesigning work flows to be more efficient, fewer resources may be required to perform the current work. The AO partnered with the courts to form work teams to review and re-engineer work processes. New staffing formulas will be proposed to Judicial Conference committees in summer 2006, and may be used for the FY 2007 budget allocation cycle.

The initial focus is on the district and bankruptcy courts, with plans to extend that focus to the appellate courts, once they are close to completing CM/ECF implementation.

Methods Analysis Program

Best practices for court operations are again being reviewed through the methods analysis program (MAP), which was reinstituted at the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on Judicial Resources. Court managers and staff comprise bankruptcy and district MAP working groups to identify more effective operational practices to make best use of limited resources. The Judiciary's intranet site, the J-Net, now features recommendations of the Bankruptcy MAP that all bankruptcy courts may adapt for local efficiencies. The Bankruptcy MAP now is focused on developing guidance related to the Bankruptcy Reform Act.

The District MAP working group identified best practices for several areas of criminal case processing in district clerks' offices: motions to vacate, set aside, or correct sentences pursuant to 28 USC § 2255; criminal case opening; judgement and commitment orders; and inter-district transfers. These best practices can be viewed on the Judiciary's intranet site. Modifications to CM/ECF software resulting from group recommendations will be implemented in Version 3.0. A new district MAP working group will review civil case processing next year.

Study on Alternatives for Providing Administrative Services Completed

The Study on Administrative Services has been completed. It was undertaken by the Administrative Office in 2003 in response to requests from the Judicial Conference's Budget and Judicial Resources committees. Goals of the study were to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of current federal court administrative service delivery systems and to recommend cost-effective alternatives based on an examination of how services are delivered in both the public and private sectors. The study focused on eight administrative areas: human resources; training; finance; budget; information technology; contracts and procurement; property management; and space and facilities. The study was conducted by an IBM team (made up of representatives from IBM, the Urban Institute, and the National Center for State Courts). The AO received the final report in September 2005, following a draft that was circulated Judiciary-wide for comments.

The report analyzes the current costs and resources devoted to providing administrative services and presents a number of alternatives for the Judiciary to consider to save costs. Various committees of the Judicial Conference will consider the policy implications raised by the report's findings and by subsequent court comments, and will discuss options for further action.

Identification of New Certifying Officers and Training

Over the past several years, the AO Director has designated certifying officers in appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts with the concurrence of the respective chief judges for those courts, in keeping with statutory authority and Judicial Conference policy.

With the appointment of additional certifying officers in each court unit, accountability will be fixed appropriately, redundant efforts and duplicated paper will be eliminated, and increased efficiencies will become possible. Feedback received from the courts that have already implemented certifying officers confirm these benefits. A mandatory two-day training program is a key component of the implementation. Educating a significant portion of the Judiciary in the principles of appropriations law has been a valuable byproduct of this program. At the close of fiscal year 2005, 88 districts and 10 circuits have implemented the certifying officer legislation.

Bankruptcy Administrator Program

The Bankruptcy Administrator (BA) offices in the six judicial districts of North Carolina and Alabama oversee the administration of bankruptcy cases, maintain a panel of private trustees, and monitor the transactions and conduct of parties in bankruptcy. During the past year the BA program saw 84,801 new cases filed, and collected fees that supplemented the Judiciary's general operating fund by $2,315,068.

The Administrative Office and the Federal Judicial Center jointly sponsored a workshop that provided an opportunity for BAs and staff to discuss their important responsibilities in implementing the requirements of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, and to share up-to-date information and practices.

The Bankruptcy Administrator Case Management System (BACMS), which is entering the design and development phase, will provide the BAs with an automated tool that combines information from various automated and manual entry inputs in a single repository segmented by BA district. BACMS will then support various automated tools through which both customized and standardized reports and forms can be produced. BACMS will reduce the amount of time and effort needed to acquire case data as well as support quality assurance and BA office auditing functions.

Bankruptcy Noticing Center

In FY 2005 the Bankruptcy Noticing Center (BNC) produced and mailed approximately 140 million bankruptcy notices, an increase of nearly 8 percent over the previous year. Under a contract managed by the Administrative Office, the BNC electronically retrieves data from participating courts' case management systems and automates the printing, addressing, batching, and mailing process. The center is able to generate notices at a fraction of the time and cost that would be required if produced by local courts. Since the program's inception in 1993, it has saved the Judiciary over $36 million and has improved service. Additional savings in postage are expected through internal cost control initiatives and other program enhancements made possible by recent federal bankruptcy rule and statutory changes.

Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing

The Electronic Bankruptcy Noticing program provides an innovative approach to bankruptcy noticing. It eliminates the production and mailing of traditional paper notices, and associated postage costs, while speeding public service. Available options include Internet e-mail and fax services, and Electronic Data Interchange for large volume notice recipients. In FY 2005, program use continued to increase over the previous fiscal years. Approximately 15 million notices were sent electronically, compared to 10 million transmitted the prior year. By the end of the FY 2005, over 12 percent of all notices sent through the Bankruptcy Noticing Center each day were being sent electronically. Participation in the electronic noticing program by creditors or other recipients is voluntary. Additional program growth is expected in the future through administrative and rules-based initiatives.

Juror Utilization

The federal Judiciary continued to improve juror management practices, and was able to sustain the trend from 2004 of decreasing the percentage of jurors reporting for jury service but not selected, serving or challenged (NSSC). The NSSC rate declined to 36.6 percent for the 12 months ended June 30, 2005, down from 37.7 percent for the 12 months ended June 30, 2004, and a peak of 40 percent for fiscal year 2003. These efforts have resulted in savings of approximately $425,000 and more than 5,800 potential jurors avoiding unnecessary trips to the courthouse. The Judicial Conference and the Administrative Office have made efficient juror utilization a high priority, and will continue to encourage courts to review their juror management practices to make better use of jurors.

Jury Management System

The Jury Management System (JMS) has been installed in 88 courts; three additional courts have requested that the JMS be installed in fiscal year 2006. In the coming year, the JMS will migrate from Solaris to a Linux operating system, utilizing the District CM/ECF Linux servers to host the local court's JMS database. Use of the District CM/ECF servers by JMS will save an estimated $1.9 million the first year, $4.5 million after five years, and $7.5 million after 10 years. A successful test of the Linux version of the JMS was completed in the Arizona Testing Center last year. A JMS Working Group has been reconstituted to review and prioritize remaining modification requests and to identify requirements for a national front-end web solution for completing qualification questionnaires online.

The JMS has proven to be an effective tool for juror management and juror utilization. In addition, the JMS has reduced the amount of staffing needed by the district courts to handle the petit jury function, saving approximately $13.3 million per year. At the end of fiscal year 2005, the Judiciary will have recouped in savings almost the entire development, implementation, and operation and maintenance costs for the JMS.

Fees Review

In June 2005, the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management (CACM) established a three-year time frame for the review of fees, when it modified its guiding principles. The revised principles reflect that fee increases may be needed to generate revenue and address budgetary shortfalls, but maintain that fees should not become excessive. So far, CACM fee proposals have resulted in an estimated $80 million in increased annual revenue for the Judiciary.

Central Violations Bureau

The Central Violations Bureau (CVB) provides participating U.S. district courts and federal law enforcement agencies with an efficient processing system for handling petty offenses and some misdemeanor cases initiated by a violation notice. During fiscal year 2005, the CVB processed almost 400,000 citations and collected $20 million in fines and forfeitures. The CVB fielded more than 250,000 telephone calls and e-mails from the public, courts, and law enforcement agencies.

During fiscal year 2005, the CVB implemented a $25 processing fee for each violation notice issued, which will offset the cost of operating the CVB, as well as the cost to the courts to administer these violations. The CVB drafted a new violation notice form and distributed the printing specifications to federal law enforcement agencies. With close CVB monitoring, the transition by the agencies is ongoing. Once fully implemented, the processing fee is expected to generate an estimated $7.5 million in additional revenue for the Judiciary on an annual basis.

Customers can now pay fees to the CVB using an external web site launched this past year and hosted by www.pay.gov. With the site, the CVB can accept payments 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

Court Interpreting

In fiscal year 2005, there was a 1.5 percent increase in the number of events requiring the use of interpreters in the courts. District courts reported that they used interpreters in 227,461 events, compared to 223,996 events reported in fiscal year 2004. The number of languages requiring interpretation rose from 106 in 2004 to 111 in 2005. Spanish (214,355 events) remains the most used language for interpreters in the courts, accounting for 94 percent of all reported events followed by Mandarin (1,792 events). Other frequently used languages in fiscal year 2005 were Portuguese (1,361 events); Arabic (1,250 events); Vietnamese (863 events); Korean (796 events); Cantonese (745 events); Russian (610 events); French (417 events); and Foochow (409 events).

Interpreter Certification. In fiscal year 2005, two new versions of the oral examination were developed, validated, and administered, creating a total of four versions of the written examination and four versions of the oral examination. The creation of these new test versions increases security and test validity. In August 2005, 367 examinees took the oral examination. Of these, 81 passed the two-part examination and are now Federally Certified Court Interpreters, for a total of 1,032 interpreters certified since the certification program began in 1980. An empirical analysis of test performance results in relation to data from the background questionnaire each candidate must complete is being performed to determine the extent to which personal history and experience characteristics correlate with written test performance and with actual interpreting ability.

Contract Court Interpreter Services Terms and Conditions. In fiscal year 2005, the Contract Court Interpreter Services Terms and Conditions document was implemented under a delegation of procurement authority from the Director to chief judges. As a result of their work with the contracting documents, court staff and contract court interpreters are more familiar with the Court Interpreters Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1827, and defendants are more likely to receive interpreting services from certified or professionally qualified interpreters. Interpreters who provide service in different districts are finding more consistent standards; courts and interpreters are protected by having terms settled before service is provided; and the funds in the centralized contract court interpreter general authorization account are more effectively managed.

National Court Interpreter Database. The Court Interpreters Act requires the Administrative Office to maintain a current master list of all court interpreters. Prior to 1999, this list was maintained on paper. 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 the courts. For each of the listed interpreters, the NCID indicates the language(s) interpreted, the certified or other rating for each language, and address and contact information. At the end of fiscal year 2005, the database contained the names of 880 active certified interpreters and 1,869 "otherwise qualified" interpreters in 103 languages.

Background Checks. In fiscal year 2005, courts began requesting background checks on contract court interpreters, in accordance with the Judicial Conference policy and procedures determined by the Office of Human Resources. To save money and reduce effort, contract court interpreters who provide interpreter services in more than one district are fingerprinted once during a two-year period. The NCID has been upgraded to track FBI fingerprint check requests, so that all courts can easily determine whether a background check has been initiated or completed in another district. Background check reports are housed in a secure area of the NCID server so that they can be viewed only by the court unit executive and designated seconds-in-command in each court in order for those court officials to make a suitability determination.

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 2005, TIP services were used in over 3,600 events in 40 languages. Spanish was used for 91 percent of the telephone interpreting events. There were 33 user courts in fiscal year 2005, including services from the provider courts to outlying divisional office locations within the district. The number of provider courts has increased from four in FY 2004 to seven in FY 2005, including the Central District of California, District of New Mexico, Southern District of Florida, District of Columbia, Northern District of Illinois, District of Rhode Island, and Southern District of California. Staff interpreters handled 65 percent of the telephone interpreting proceedings, and 35 percent of the proceedings were handled by contract interpreters. It is estimated that $1.1 million in travel and contract costs was saved as a result of the TIP program in fiscal year 2005, and $3.6 million over the life of the program.

Implementation of Legal Research

The Administrative Office awarded contracts to West and LexisNexis for computer-assisted legal research (CALR) services. The new contracts were effective October 1, 2004 and may be renewed annually at the Judiciary's option for up to 10 years, through FY 2014. These contracts were fully implemented during FY 2005.

The Westlaw and LexisNexis contracts provide unlimited access to all federal Judiciary users for a full range of legal, news/journals/business, and public records databases. The contracts guarantee uninterrupted availability of essential research services and significantly benefit the Judiciary by ensuring access to exclusive content on both Westlaw and LexisNexis.

With heightened security awareness in the federal Judiciary, a major focus has been online access to judges' personal information. Earlier this year, the Administrative Office directed both LexisNexis and West to remove judges' personal information from public information databases. Both vendors accomplished this during FY 2005. Administrative Office staff also worked with a major credit reporting agency to remove judges' personal information from its credit header. Work continues with the other two major credit reporting agencies to take similar action. These agencies are large resellers of public information records to other, third-party vendors.

Containing Law Book Costs

As one of the cost-containment initiatives approved by the Judicial Conference, Administrative Office staff have been working with the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management to identify further lawbooks cost savings. The Committee distributed a nationwide questionnaire to all judges about individual use of print case reporters. Based on the survey results, the Committee determined that lawbooks remain an essential resource for many judges. However, given the environment of reduced budgets, the Committee adopted several recommendations encouraging judges to only maintain subscriptions to print case reporters deemed essential to chambers and to give serious consideration to chambers' needs for law journals, law reviews, and treatises. In September 2005, the Judicial Conference approved these recommendations.

Transition to New Omega Travel Management Center

Effective October 1, 2005, Omega World Travel was selected as the new vendor for the Judiciary-wide Travel Management Center. Based on prior years' contract usage, it is anticipated that the Judiciary will recognize a savings of approximately $1 million annually for transaction fees related to the purchase of airline tickets.