Court Funding and Cost Containment
Containing costs in a time of limited budgets is a major judicial initiative. This page contains articles and other resources related to federal court funding and cost-containment efforts.
The federal Judiciary and the General Services Administration (GSA) are launching an important new dialogue on space and rent management, at a time when the U.S. government’s landlord and one of its largest tenants are both grappling with a new era of downsizing.
A probation office in Chicago has become the national "flagship" of a federal Judiciary initiative to shrink rent costs, by reimagining and downsizing the traditional office workplace.
In a space-cutting move that will save the judiciary more than $1 million a year in rent and security costs, the federal bankruptcy court in Miami is moving into a nearby district court building.
A representative of the Judicial Conference expressed strong concerns to Congress about the Judiciary’s long-term ability to carry out its functions under a no-growth federal budget.
Federal Judiciary leaders today received a report on the impact of reduced funding due to sequestration – which cut court staff and delayed cases – and a separate report on an aggressive multi-faceted strategy to reduce the costs of court space.
The hourly pay rates for lawyers who represent indigent defendants in federal criminal cases, which were temporarily reduced last year, have been restored, effective March 1, 2014.
In his year-end report, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that despite a decade of cost-cutting efforts, federal courts need help in overcoming budget damage caused by sequestration.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had a problem. With four appellate judges in its Philadelphia courthouse approaching senior status, there wasn’t enough room to construct chambers for the new judges who would fill their seats.
Four non-resident court facilities are being closed in the final months of 2013, as part of a continuing effort to reduce federal Judiciary expenses.
When two chief probation officers in neighboring states crossed district lines, the Judiciary saved money and personnel.