October 26, 2021


News Network

As Pandemic Lingers, Courts Lean Into Virtual Technology

26 min read
<div>As the coronavirus (COVID-19) has dragged on, a small number of courts have begun conducting virtual bench trials and even virtual civil jury trials in which jurors work from home. Here is a review of ways courts are using electronic communications to deliver justice during the pandemic.</div>

Main content

Middle District of Florida virtual trial

As she started a civil jury trial in early October, Judge Marsha J. Pechman looked across her federal courtroom in Seattle, Washington. It was completely empty.

The litigants and their lawyers beamed in via video. So did her law clerks, and the court reporter tasked with transcribing the trial. Most strikingly, the eight jurors deciding the case also were participating by video from their homes.

Since the pandemic first closed many courts, one of the most significant adjustments made by federal courts has involved the use of electronic communications. Under provisions of the CARES Act, a COVID-19 relief law passed last March, federal courts began conducting routine procedural hearings, such as first appearances for criminal defendants, by telephone and video hookups.

As the coronavirus (COVID-19) has dragged on, a small number of courts have adapted electronic proceedings to meet more challenging situations. Several courts have conducted virtual bench trials, which do not require a jury. In a few cases, courts holding high-profile hearings have needed to stretch virtual technology to accommodate large numbers of listeners. In perhaps the most ambitious experiment yet, the Western District of Washington recently began holding all-virtual jury trials in civil lawsuits.

“Video jury trials are a tool that can be used, and it’s a tool we need to use unless we are going to be backed up forever and ever,” said Pechman, who has heard four virtual civil jury trials in recent months. “It has worked better than my initial expectations, all the way around. The jurors have been very, very diligent. They’ve cleared themselves of distractions and worked hard to pay attention.” 

Electronic proceedings also have shown vulnerabilities. In one of Pechman’s trials, proceedings were suspended when a windstorm cut some jurors’ internet connections. And during a high-profile election case in Pennsylvania, a telephone outage interrupted audience audio.

Overall, however, judges said the virtual proceedings were fair and efficient.

“I think it worked just as well as in person,” said U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, of the District of Massachusetts, who has conducted two non-jury trials that brought together witnesses from multiple countries. “The convenience of not having to travel here was enormous. Absolutely it was an effective way to deliver justice.”

At least five courts have scheduled virtual civil jury trials, with jurors serving from home. In addition to the Western District of Washington, the Middle District of Florida and the District of Minnesota have conducted virtual civil jury trials. In the Districts of Kansas and Rhode Island, litigants settled their disputes before virtual jury trials began.

“It flowed seamlessly from jury selection through deliberations,” said Judge Mary S. Scriven, of the Middle District of Florida, who presided over a five-day all-video civil trial in late January. “I would do it again in a heartbeat. There were no more glitches than are typically seen in an in-person trial.”

Other courts have adopted a mix of tactics. In the District of Connecticut, jury members in one civil case were selected virtually from home but then came to court for an in-person trial.

The following are examples of how some courts have used electronics to deliver justice in more complex court situations.

Bench Trials in Boston

Bench trials are one of the simplest forms of federal trials because they do not require juries. In addition to deciding questions of law and procedure, the judge also determines the verdict.

But before Judge Indira Talwani conducted two bench trials in late August, her court in Boston had to use an entirely new technical structure to support trials with witnesses testifying from other continents. In one, an international child custody dispute, a parent would be participating from Armenia, while a separate business dispute involved possible witnesses from London and China.

District Judge Indira Talwani, District of Massachusetts

“I issued a protocol of procedures,” Talwani said. “I didn’t want everyone there and not having checked their bandwidth, and things like that. So my courtroom deputy played a critical role in doing a test run with everyone.”

Pretrial conferences also gave participants a chance to test the system. In addition to witnesses, the court had to connect Armenian interpreters into the child-custody case. Because the online video service had a translation function, listeners could choose to follow the trial in English, Armenian, or hear both languages.

The child custody dispute went smoothly, except for one hitch.

“The father who was making his custody claim was sitting with a well-positioned photograph of him and his daughter on the desk. That would not have happened in the courtroom,” Talwani said. “That’s a lesson I’ve learned. The witnesses need to be encouraged to appear as if they were on the witness stand and not think of it as an opportunity to color the proceeding.”

The makeshift virtual format had significant pros and a few cons, Talwani said. On the negative side, litigants can’t see each other in person, but in both cases she heard, the opposing sides knew each other well, reducing that concern.

On the plus side, seeing the full faces of witnesses on a screen 18 inches away, instead of viewing them at an angle in the witness box, provided a better view.

The biggest advantage was convenience for participants.

“For these parties, the difference of not having to travel here was enormous,” Talwani said. “To be able to do all of that without everyone having to spend the travel time worked very well. If people are cost conscious, it would make a huge difference.”

Virtual Civil Trials in Seattle and Florida

A senior judge for the Western District of Washington, Marsha Pechman first conducted a virtual bench trial in June. Her immediate takeaway: “I was stunned by how well it went off.”

When Pechman began to draft a manual for judges and lawyers on virtual bench trials, Chief Judge Richard Martinez asked her to expand her focus to include virtual jury trials, in which jurors would hear the case from home using virtual technology. The request forced her to consider legal and technical questions that literally had no precedent in the federal Judiciary.

Senior Judge Marsha J. Pechman, Western District of Washington

“I had the Ninth Circuit librarians look for case law, and the answer is, there’s nothing out there,” Pechman said. “We only found a few futuristic articles by legal scholars.”

As she and other judges looked more closely, they concluded that while criminal trials probably needed to be conducted in person, because defendants have a constitutional right to confront their accusers, lawyers already were allowed to take civil depositions by video. The court decided that civil jury cases would stand up to any appeals.

Assembling virtual juries raised additional questions. Pechman was especially worried that the requirement to use computer equipment might skew the jury pool, reducing the number of elderly and low-income jurors. The court made provisions to train jurors without computer skills, and to lend computers to those who lacked suitable equipment. 

In the four virtual jury trials she has conducted, Pechman was surprised to find that it was easier to assemble diverse juries. For some jurors, not having to travel a hundred miles or more to a federal courthouse was a major advantage.

In one case, a windstorm temporarily knocked out a juror’s connections. But, Pechman noted, in-person trials also experience disruptions, such as jurors getting delayed in traffic. The jurors deliberated virtually, rendering million-dollar-plus verdicts in two cases, and deciding in favor of the defendant in a third. A fourth case ended in a settlement after eight days of trial.

“I debriefed each of the jurors. We asked if you feel like you can pay attention while you’re sitting in your own home. The jurors overwhelmingly said yes,” Pechman said. “I know the lawyers would say this guy was sitting in his laundry room, and this lady was sitting on her bed, but the point is, we invaded their house, and they found the best space they could in order to pay attention.”

Judge Mary S. Scriven, Middle District of Florida

Pechman has shared her experiences and resource materials with other courts. Judge Scriven, of the Middle District of Florida, “only slightly modified” a handbook provided by the Western District of Washington in setting up her trial, an insurance case.

“The jurors commented that they appreciated the ability to see the exhibits and see and hear the witnesses clearly because everything was magnified on the screen,” Scriven said. “We even had a doctor/fact witness appear in full COVID-19 protective gear from the hallway of the hospital where she worked.”

Virtual Media Access in Pennsylvania

Perhaps the greatest stress test of virtual courtroom technology occurred in November, when an election law case in Williamsport, Pennsylvania, attracted national attention.

Under the CARES Act, which was passed by Congress early in the pandemic, federal courts were permitted to conduct most court proceedings by telephone and video hookups. In an unprecedented step, the federal Judiciary ensured the constitutional guarantee of public trials by making call-in lines available to the media and public, not just lawyers and litigants, in almost all federal proceedings.

In routine cases, that has posed little if any strain on federal courts. The Middle District of Pennsylvania, for instance, relied on WebEx technology with a call-in capacity of 200 to 300 listeners. But with the filing of Trump v. Boockvar, which challenged Pennsylvania’s presidential voting results, the court knew it needed more lines, but it wasn’t clear how many.

Concerned that national organizations might circulate online hearing information, potentially flooding the call-in lines and blocking access to some reporters, the court initially boosted its capacity to 4,000 listeners, and then raised it to 8,000 the morning of the hearing.

“This was clearly not a time for half measures. You either go big or go home,” said Chief Judge John E. Jones III.

For more than an hour, the system seemed to hold. Most or all of the 8,000 lines were in use, accommodating a far greater audience than normally could listen in, and the hearing was proceeding without incident. Then an AT&T server failed, plunging the public audio into silence.

Chief Judge John E. Jones III, left, and Clerk of Court Peter J. Welsh, Middle District of Pennsylvania

“It was an unbelievably stressful time,” said Peter J. Welsh, Clerk of Court for the Middle District. “When we realized it wasn’t just a few lines, we called AT&T, and they said they could fix it in five minutes. Five minutes turned to 10, and then 15. We notified the courtroom deputy.”

By the time U.S. District Judge Matthew W. Brann called a recess, the hearing had proceeded 25 minutes without public audio. Once repaired, the AT&T audio performed without incident for the rest of the hearing. The court addressed the audio gap by posting a transcript of the proceeding on its website, and Jones also issued a public statement.

“The transcript went a long way toward cleaning things up,” Jones said. “People wanted to know what they missed and what had happened. They had to have some account of it.”

Even with the audio interruption, Jones believes the public and media benefited from increased access.

“Despite the hiccup of the dropped lines, members of the press thought that on balance, the court did do a good job,” Jones said. “It may have been imperfect, but it was still awfully effective under the circumstances.”

Moving Forward

The long-term role of electronic court proceedings remains unclear. While virtual trials in civil cases remain a rarity, a Feb. 5 how-to seminar hosted by the Western District of Washington attracted more than 900 participants from more than 60 district courts.

Under the CARES Act, the Judiciary will end most electronic proceedings once the pandemic emergency is declared over. Until then, judges agreed in interviews, telephone and virtual hookups will play an important role in moving cases forward.

Read the Series

This is the fifth in a series of articles about how federal courts are working to recover from the COVID-19 crisis.

Chief Judge John R. Tunheim, of the District of Minnesota, said virtual civil trials are likely to be needed even after more people receive vaccinations. That is because anti-COVID-19 measures, such as plexiglass barriers and social distancing, will greatly reduce courtroom capacity, and criminal cases must be tried in person.

“We will only have one courtroom in Minneapolis and one in St. Paul for trials,” Tunheim said, “so the ability to do civil trials virtually while we catch up on our criminal trial backlog will be very helpful.”

And despite inevitable wobbles, judges said virtual strategies have preserved the essentials of justice during the nation’s worst health crisis in a century.

“I have no backlog. Every single case I had set in 2020 got tried in 2020,” Pechman said of her virtual civil jury trials. “I tell my fellow judges this may be the only way the wheels of justice will still turn.”

Jones was pleased that a critical case proceeded without delay, but also without sacrificing public access.

“The best of it was the fact that in the middle of a pandemic, Judge Brann could conduct this massive preceding, that literally had national import, and finish the case in two weeks,” Jones said of the Pennsylvania election lawsuit. “We operated in a way that promoted the Third Branch, and that’s the way it should be.”

More from: info@uscourts.gov

News Network

  • Federal Reserve Lending Programs: Credit Markets Served by the Programs Have Stabilized, but Vulnerabilities Remain
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve) authorized 13 lending programs—known as facilities—to ensure the flow of credit to various parts of the economy affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The last of the nine facilities supported through CARES Act funding ceased purchasing assets, such as corporate bonds, or extending credit by January 8, 2021. As of September 1, 2021, the CARES Act facilities held about $19 billion in assets. The Federal Reserve oversight reviews completed in December 2020 identified opportunities to enhance certain areas, including internal process and controls. These reviews also identified areas for continued monitoring, such as cybersecurity and conflicts of interest. GAO found that Federal Reserve's plans for ongoing monitoring of the facilities align with federal internal control standards for ongoing monitoring of an entity's internal control system. Available indicators suggest the facilities helped improve access to credit and liquidity in the corporate and municipal credit markets. For example, corporate bond spreads (which reflect borrowing costs) have remained low, and municipal spreads have decreased to prepandemic levels. Also, officials from state and local entities that participated in the Municipal Liquidity Facility (which targeted the municipal bond market) generally said the facility was beneficial and helped restore investor confidence in the municipal bond market. However, corporate and municipal credit markets remain vulnerable. For corporate credit markets, corporate bonds outstanding remain elevated and the high level of debt leaves businesses vulnerable to distress. Municipal credit markets also remain vulnerable because of the pandemic's extended duration, which may adversely affect local economies. According to surveys of small and independent businesses and lenders, access to credit has improved, but recovery remains slow, including for businesses in the services sector. Loans made under the Main Street facilities (which targeted small and mid-sized businesses and nonprofits) were concentrated among small for-profit businesses in certain economic sectors, such as restaurants. According to GAO's generalizable survey of Main Street borrowers, an estimated 88 percent said that the program was “very important” in helping them maintain operations. Women-owned businesses participated at lower rates compared to their representation among U.S. businesses. Although estimates of veteran- and minority-owned business participation were somewhat lower compared to their representation among U.S. businesses, the differences were not statistically significant (see figure). Estimated Participation of Business Types in the Main Street Lending Program Why GAO Did This Study On July 30, 2021, the last of the 13 Federal Reserve lending facilities stopped purchasing assets or extending credit. However, some of these facilities, including facilities that were supported through Department of the Treasury funding appropriated under section 4003(b)(4) of the CARES Act, continue to hold outstanding assets and loans. The Federal Reserve will continue to monitor and manage the facilities until these assets and loans are no longer outstanding. The CARES Act included a provision for GAO to periodically report on section 4003 loans, loan guarantees, and investments. This report examines the Federal Reserve's continued oversight and monitoring of the CARES Act facilities; what available evidence suggests about the facilities' effects on corporate credit markets, states and municipalities, and small businesses; and the characteristics of Main Street Lending Program participants, among other things. GAO reviewed applicable laws and agency and Federal Reserve Bank documentation; analyzed agency and other data on the facilities and credit markets; interviewed Federal Reserve and Treasury officials and representatives of state and local governments; and conducted a generalizable survey of for-profit Main Street borrowers. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at (202) 512-8678 or clementsm@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Priority Open Recommendations: Social Security Administration
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In April 2020, GAO identified seven open priority recommendations for the Social Security Administration (SSA). Since then, SSA has implemented four of those recommendations by: (1) updating its system to ensure waivers for Disability Insurance overpayments over $1,000 are processed correctly; (2) taking steps to address Disability Insurance overpayments that result from the concurrent receipt of Federal Employees' Compensation Act benefits; (3) establishing an Enterprise Risk Management framework and council to address cyber risks in the context of other risks and their potential impact on SSA's mission; and (4) strengthening oversight of representative payees to help ensure they are managing beneficiary funds appropriately. In May 2021, GAO identified one additional open priority recommendation for SSA, bringing the total number to four. These recommendations involve the following areas: ensuring program integrity; and protecting vulnerable beneficiaries. SSA's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Elizabeth Curda at (202) 512-4040 or curdae@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Finnish Foreign Minister Pekka Haavisto Before Their Meeting
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken At the Atlantic Council’s Front Page Pride Edition Virtual Conversation with Jonathan Capehart on “Pressing for Equality: Engaging on LGBTQI Issues Around the World”
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo Remarks to the Press
    In Crime News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Opening Remarks by Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken Before the Senate Committee on Appropriations
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Priority Open Recommendations: Department of Education
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found In April 2020, GAO identified six priority recommendations for the Department of Education. Since then, Education has implemented three of those recommendations by taking action to: (1) raise awareness of the threat of lead in school drinking water and collaborate with EPA to encourage testing; (2) help borrowers in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program better understand eligibility requirements; and (3) improve its cyber risk management framework to better protect the agency's systems and data. In May 2021, GAO identified four additional priority recommendations for Education, bringing the total number to seven. These recommendations involve the following areas: protecting the investment in higher education and ensuring the well-being and education of the nation's school-age children. Education's continued attention to these issues could lead to significant improvements in government operations. Why GAO Did This Study Priority open recommendations are the GAO recommendations that warrant priority attention from heads of key departments or agencies because their implementation could save large amounts of money; improve congressional and/or executive branch decision-making on major issues; eliminate mismanagement, fraud, and abuse; or ensure that programs comply with laws and funds are legally spent, among other benefits. Since 2015 GAO has sent letters to selected agencies to highlight the importance of implementing such recommendations. For more information, contact Jackie Nowicki at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Grand Juries Carry on During Pandemic
    In U.S Courts
    As the federal courts have gradually resumed operations with new pandemic-era health and safety rules in place, one aspect of the courts’ mission is on a fast track: the resumption of grand jury proceedings.
    [Read More…]
  • Two Former Louisiana Supervisory Correctional Officers Sentenced for Civil Rights Offense Arising Out of the Death of an Inmate
    In Crime News
    Two Louisiana men, former jail supervisors, were sentenced today to five years in prison and over four years in prison respectively for being deliberately indifferent to an inmate’s serious medical needs.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Blinken’s Call with Salvadoran Foreign Minister Hill Tinoco
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Office of the [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Meet and Greet with Embassy Jerusalem Staff
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Rare Diseases: Although Limited, Available Evidence Suggests Medical and Other Costs Can Be Substantial
    In U.S GAO News
    What GAO Found According to the literature GAO reviewed, diagnosis of any disease can be complicated, and diagnosis of rare diseases can be particularly difficult because of a variety of factors. (See figure.) Although some rare diseases may be detected quickly, in other cases years may pass between the first appearance of symptoms and a correct diagnosis of a rare disease, and misdiagnoses—and treatments based on them—occur with documented frequency. According to the literature GAO reviewed and GAO's interviews, those with undiagnosed, misdiagnosed, or untreated rare diseases may face various negative outcomes. For example, a person's health can suffer when appropriate, timely interventions are not provided or when interventions based on misdiagnoses cause harm. In addition, multiple diagnostic tests, medical appointments, and ultimately unwarranted interventions can add to the costs of the disease. Examples of Factors That May Interfere with Accurate Diagnosis Research on the costs of rare diseases is limited, in part because of the difficulty of diagnosing them. Nonetheless, the costs can be substantial, as indicated by available research from the U.S. and elsewhere and the experts, researchers, and organization officials GAO interviewed. These costs—to those with rare diseases, health care payers, the U.S. government, or a combination—can include direct medical costs (e.g., costs of outpatient visits or drugs), direct nonmedical costs (e.g., costs to modify one's home to accommodate a wheelchair), or indirect costs (e.g., loss of income or diminished quality of life). Peer-reviewed studies of specific rare diseases estimated costs for people with rare diseases that are multiple times higher than costs for people without those diseases. One recent study, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, estimated $966 billion as the total cost (including medical and other nonmedical and indirect costs) in the United States for an estimated 15.5 million people with 379 rare diseases in 2019. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate. Why GAO Did This Study By definition, few people have any specific rare disease. But there are many different rare diseases—about 7,000—and as a result, an estimated 30 million people in the United States have one or more of them. About half of those with a rare disease are children. Often genetic, many rare diseases are chronic, progressive (they worsen over time), and life-threatening. Relatively little is known about the costs of rare diseases, either individually or collectively. The Joint Explanatory Statement for the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, includes a provision for GAO to study the costs of rare diseases within the U.S. GAO examined, among other things, the challenges to diagnosing rare diseases and what is known about their costs. GAO reviewed documents from two agencies in HHS—the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and published literature, including studies on the costs of rare diseases in the United States and elsewhere published from 2000 through 2021. GAO also interviewed NIH and FDA officials; selected researchers and experts on rare diseases, health care, and health economics; and officials of organizations representing those with rare diseases. The organizations included two devoted to rare diseases in general and six representing those with a specific rare diseases or sets of related rare diseases. For more information, contact at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Antony J. Blinken Remarks at Top of Meeting with the Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN Nations
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Antony J. Blinken, [Read More…]
  • Four Chinese Nationals Working with the Ministry of State Security Charged with Global Computer Intrusion Campaign Targeting Intellectual Property and Confidential Business Information, Including Infectious Disease Research
    In Crime News
    A federal grand jury in San Diego, California, returned an indictment in May charging four nationals and residents of the People’s Republic of China with a campaign to hack into the computer systems of dozens of victim companies, universities and government entities in the United States and abroad between 2011 and 2018.
    [Read More…]
  • Escort Sentenced to Prison for Underreporting Income
    In Crime News
    A Florida man was sentenced today to 21 months in prison for filing a false tax return. Jami Kopacz, of Fort Lauderdale, pleaded guilty to filing a false corporate tax return on Dec. 16, 2020. According to court documents and statements made in court, Kopacz worked as a paid escort for clients across the United States. Kopacz received payments directly from his escort clients, and from a private business for whom he worked as an independent contractor. From 2015 to 2018, Kopacz used his corporation, JK Training LLC, to receive income, and then filed false corporate tax returns (Forms 1120S) that substantially underreported the company’s gross receipts and total income.
    [Read More…]
  • Secretary Michael R. Pompeo And Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheikh Ahmad Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Sabah
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Michael R. Pompeo, [Read More…]
  • Department of Justice Statement on Solarwinds Update
    In Crime News
    The Department of Justice Spokesman Marc Raimondi issued the following statement:
    [Read More…]
  • Malaysia Travel Advisory
    In Travel
    Reconsider travel to [Read More…]
  • Macroprudential Oversight: Principles for Evaluating Policies to Assess and Mitigate Risks to Financial System Stability
    In U.S GAO News
    GAO is providing a framework for evaluating macroprudential policy—that is, activities designed to assess and mitigate risks to financial system stability. The framework presents six general components of macroprudential policy and 18 principles (see table), as well as related standards, for establishing the foundation of such policy and putting it into operation. Government actors—such as the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC) and its member agencies—are responsible for meeting or contributing to framework principles as they relate to the actors' individual areas of macroprudential responsibility or authority. GAO refers to government actors with collective macroprudential policy responsibilities as the macroprudential entity. GAO Framework for Evaluating Macroprudential Policy Component Principles The macroprudential entity should: Mandate and scope Have a clear mandate Have a scope of responsibilities that extends across the financial system Establish measurable and specific intermediate objectives reflecting the full scope of its responsibilities Governance Have a governance structure promoting willingness to mitigate risks to financial stability in a timely manner Have authorities promoting ability to act consistent with mandate and scope Have transparency requirements promoting the effectiveness, legitimacy, and predictability of macroprudential policy Risk assessment Establish a risk-assessment program corresponding to the scope of the financial system and the entity’s intermediate objectives Identify and analyze potential sources of systemic risk Develop criteria to evaluate significance of risk Establish policies and procedures to conduct systematic risk assessments Risk mitigation Develop a range of macroprudential tools consistent with mandate and scope of responsibilities Develop policies and procedures for conducting risk-mitigation activities Evaluation Evaluate effectiveness of its efforts Document and communicate evaluation findings and promptly remediate issues Data and information Use quality data Develop useful information for decision-making Document information appropriately Establish policies and procedures for sharing data and information Source: GAO. | GAO 21 230SP The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act established FSOC to identify and respond to threats to financial stability in the United States. Other countries have created similar entities, and a growing body of research has developed around these macroprudential structures and approaches. This report presents a principles-based framework to serve as criteria for assessing the financial stability efforts of FSOC and its member agencies. It is intended as a resource for GAO and other auditors, FSOC and its member agencies, and Congress. It also may be useful to others, both domestically and internationally. In developing this framework, GAO reviewed literature on macroprudential policy, prior GAO reports, relevant laws and regulations, and international risk-management guidelines. GAO also interviewed or held discussion groups with representatives of FSOC and its member agencies; international financial stability entities, supreme audit institutions, and international organizations; public interest and industry groups; former regulators and civil servants; and academic and regulatory experts. For more information, contact Michael E. Clements at (202) 512-8678 or ClementsM@gao.gov.
    [Read More…]
  • The United States Announces New Humanitarian Aid in Central America and Mexico 
    In Crime Control and Security News
    Ned Price, Department [Read More…]
Network News © 2005 Area.Control.Network™ All rights reserved.