Priority 3: Efficiently and Effectively Managing Public Resources

Priority Description

The judiciary obtains its appropriations from Congress on an annual basis and often does not obtain the full amount requested. The judiciary must continue to be a good steward of the money it receives and effectively allocate and manage these funds. The judiciary also should continue to pursue cost containment initiatives to help reduce current and future costs without compromising the mission of the judiciary, including effectively and efficiently using appropriated funds. Cost-containment efforts also help the judiciary demonstrate to Congress that it is an effective steward of public resources, and that its requests for additional resources are well justified (Strategy 1.1).

The judiciary relies upon effective decision-making processes governing the allocation and use of judges, employees, facilities, and funds to ensure the best use of limited resources. These processes must respond to a federal court workload that varies across districts and over time. Developing, evaluating, publicizing, and implementing best practices assists courts and other judiciary organizations in addressing workload changes. Local courts have many operational and program management responsibilities in the judiciary’s decentralized governance structure, and the continued development of effective local practices must be encouraged. At the same time, the judiciary may also need to consider whether and to what extent certain practices should be adopted judiciary-wide. This plan includes two strategies to address this priority:

• 3.1:   Allocate and manage resources more efficiently and effectively.
• 3.2:   Allocate and manage resources to strengthen cybersecurity and the protection of judges, court employees, and the public at court facilities, and of judges and their families at other locations.

Strategy 3.1

Allocate and manage resources more efficiently and effectively.

Background and Commentary

The judiciary has worked to minimize judiciary costs, and has pursued several studies, initiatives, and reviews of judiciary policy. Cost containment remains a high priority, and the judiciary must challenge all court units to come together to seek common solutions to shared financial challenges. New initiatives to contain cost growth and make better use of resources are being implemented or are under consideration.

Court units throughout the judiciary have developed and implemented alternative approaches for carrying out their operational and administrative functions. These approaches have helped courts maintain the level and quality of services they deliver, and in many instances, have increased efficiencies and controlled costs associated with providing those services. Expansion of flexible sharing arrangements holds promise for increasing efficiency and is responsive to the diversity of local court cultures and administrative models. These arrangements can be encouraged by creating informational resources to help courts identify sharing opportunities, providing incentives, removing barriers to sharing, fostering a culture of sharing across and between court units, and actively working to address identified areas of institutional mistrust that impact the sharing of resources.

This strategy includes four goals. The first two increase the flexibility of the judiciary in matching resources to workload. The intent is to enable available judges and court employees to assist heavily burdened courts on a temporary basis and to reduce the barriers to such assistance. Supporting these goals is a third goal to ensure that the judiciary utilizes its networks, systems, and space in a manner that supports efficient operations. A fourth goal speaks to the critical need to maintain effective court operations and anticipate alternative delivery of services when disaster strikes.

Implementation Goals

3.1.a:   Make more effective use of judges to relieve overburdened and congested courts, expand ways to provide both short- and long-term assistance to districts and circuits with demonstrated needs for additional resources, and ensure the effective utilization of magistrate judge resources.

3.1.b:   Analyze and facilitate the implementation of organizational changes and business practices that make effective use of limited administrative and operational employees, without negatively impacting outcomes or mission, including continuing to explore sharing services across court units, while maintaining the safety of the public, the judiciary, and our employees.

3.1.c:   Manage the judiciary’s infrastructure in a manner that supports effective and efficient operations and provides a safe and secure environment.

3.1.d:   Plan for and respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, pandemics, and other physical threats in an effective manner.

Strategy 3.2

Allocate and manage resources to strengthen cybersecurity and the protection of judges, court employees, and the public at court facilities, and of judges and their families at other locations.

Background and Commentary

Judges must be able to perform their duties in an environment that ensures their personal safety and that of their families. The judiciary works closely with the U.S. Marshals Service to assess and improve the protection provided to courts and individuals. Threats extend beyond the handling of criminal cases, as violent acts have often involved pro se litigants and other parties to civil cases.

While judiciary standards for court facilities provide separate hallways and other design features to protect judges, many older court facilities require judges, court personnel, and jurors to use the same corridors, entrances, and exits as prisoners, criminal defendants, and others in custody.

Assuring safety in these facilities is particularly challenging. Protection for judges must also extend beyond court facilities and include commuting routes, travel destinations, and their homes. The judiciary has focused on raising awareness of security issues, assisting judges in taking steps to protect themselves while away from court facilities, and educating judges on how to minimize the availability of personal information on the internet. Similar security concerns apply to probation and pretrial services officers, who perform much of their work away from court facilities.

Assuring the integrity of electronic files and stored information is also essential to the security and independence of the judiciary.

The effective implementation of this strategy is linked to other efforts in this plan. Strategy 1.1 includes a goal to ensure that judiciary proceedings are conducted in secure facilities. In addition, Strategy 5.1 includes a goal to ensure that IT policies and practices provide effective security for court records and data, including confidential personal information.

Implementation Goals

3.2.a:   Improve the protection of judges, judiciary employees, and the public in all court facilities, as well as the protection of judges and judiciary employees at off-site judicial locations.

3.2.b:   Improve the protection of judges and their families at home and at non-judicial locations.

3.2.c:   Provide continued training to raise the awareness of judges and judiciary employees on a broad range of security topics.

3.2.d:   Improve the interior and exterior security of court facilities through the collaborative efforts of the judiciary, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Federal Protective Service, and the General Services Administration.

3.2.e:   Work with the U.S. Marshals Service and others to improve the collection, analysis, and dissemination of protective intelligence information concerning individual judges.

3.2.f:   Maintain the commitment to security training for probation and pretrial services officers.