This measure of “what is” allowed the NCSC to develop a set of case weights that measure the status quo of case processing.

Judicial Workload Study for the Superior Court in Yuma County, AZ

By Margaret Guidero and Suzanne Tallarico

Superior Court in Yuma County however, presiding judges in each county our elected board of supervisors, local (the court) is a general jurisdiction have general administrative authority city councils, and state funds and special court with six elected judges and three over all courts and court employees in revenue from many sources. commissioners who serve a population the county. Limited jurisdiction courts The court became aware of court of 160,000 residents. The courts and in Yuma County are located in the four performance measurement tools, like court departments, including juvenile corners of the 5,561 square miles that CourTools, during training presented court, adult probation, and the clerk comprise Yuma County and include by the Institute for Court Management of superior court, employ about 360 three justice courts and four municipal division of the National Center for people. The court system in is courts. Funding for our court system is State Courts (NCSC) and the Education not a “unified” court in the strict sense, a mix of general funds appropriated by Services Center of the Arizona

The Court Manager Volume 25 Issue 2 15 Administrative Office of the Courts. processing standards, helped the presiding Presiding Judge Andrew W. Gould judge develop a new case assignment identified the need in the court to protocol that also takes into consideration allocate judicial resources in a way that the subject matter expertise among the improves equity of case assignments judges, judicial workloads based on case and quality of justice and the potential types, case processing timelines, and non- for CourTools to assist with a redesign bench workloads. of Yuma’s case assignment protocols. The data gathering tool, the In August 2007, the court obtained enthusiastic participation of the Yuma a technical assistance grant from the State Superior Court bench, and tireless efforts Justice Institute (SJI.) In collaboration of Tallarico, Schaben, and Presiding with NCSC, Dr. Ingo Keilitz was hired to Judge Gould are presented in narrative present CourTools to the court and assist form for this article. in developing a performance dashboard In 2009, the court conducted a and data-gathering strategies. After judicial workload assessment among implementation of CourTools, the court its judges with the aid of technical was able to publish statistics on its newly assistance grant funds from SJI and designed dashboard and provide this an NCSC consultant. data to local and state funding authorities Caseloads and case types in the to support budget requests. More Superior Court Yuma vary in complexity important, the products of the court and judicial effort required for resolution. performance measures — through the Yuma’s study utilized a weighted mechanics of CourTools — confirm to workload assessment methodology and the public that the court is accountable. a time study data collection procedure In June 2007, the court’s “Court to translate judicial workload into an Performance Measurement System” — estimate of judicial need. The study facilitated by Dr. Keilitz — received utilized two analytical tools: the Award for • Judicial workload estimate — excellence in the category of “Being judicial workload based on the Accountable.” The award was presented average amount of time a judge to the court by now-retired Chief Justice needs to resolve a case and the Ruth McGregor and then-associate annual number of cases in the court. chief justice and current chief justice, Rebecca White Berch. • Judicial resource assessment In 2008, Judge Gould participated — compares the current available in an NCSC focus group that produced judicial resources to the resource recommendations entitled “A Unifying demand predicted by the model. Framework for Court Performance Measurement;” the Yuma CourTools performance measurement project was presented at the 2008 annual NACM Judicial Workload conference in Chicago, and the Yuma Estimate court received another SJI technical The judicial workload value assistance grant to conduct a statistical represents the minutes of annual analysis of judicial workload. Suzanne case-specific work using case weights Tallarico, an NCSC consultant, assisted and annual filings. This measure the court in developing a judicial uses baseline filing data and current workload data gathering tool. The data, practices. Judges need sufficient time in conjunction with case filings and case

16 www.nacmnet.org to reasonably engage litigants, listen used this data to review the baseline • Judicial Need — difference between to victims, and clearly explain rulings data and make adjustments as needed the judicial demand calculation and and orders — features fundamental to (e.g., areas in which judicial officers do the judicial officer supply the public perception of fairness and not have adequate time to engage in appropriate treatment by the court. certain areas of case processing). Case The first phase of a weighted weights can be adjusted to allow the Judicial Resource Supply workload assessment is the court to move toward “what should be.” The judicial resource supply value is determination of an estimated judicial The Committee reviewed individual the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) workload. Data generated from the study case weights to determine reasonableness positions available to process the court’s are used in conjunction with case filings and the adequacy of effort required work (cases, administrative duties). to develop a judicial officer resource in each case type. This “reality check” needs model. A caseload calculator was indicated that judges frequently have developed to allow the presiding judge inadequate time available to write Judicial Demand to equalize judicial case assignments decisions and issue orders. Case weights according to workload demands. were adjusted accordingly. The judicial demand value is calculated by dividing the judicial workload value by the judicial average Time study Judicial Resource annual availability value. The judicial The time study of a weighted demand value represents the judicial FTEs workload assessment yields individual Assessment needed to process case-specific work. case weights. Case weights are used to The judicial resource need is The judicial average annual calculate the overall judicial workload determined using three steps: availability value is the total amount values. In this study, individual case of time per year that judges have to weights were generated for 23 case types.1 • Judicial Resource Supply — current process their workload. This value was A case weight represents the judicial resources available calculated by the Committee using the average amount of time a judicial • Judicial Demand — calculation of the number of days per year and hours officer needs to process a case from number of judicial officers necessary per day that a judicial officer has to 2 filing to resolution. Final case weights to complete the court’s work work on case-specific and non-case- were developed using a qualitative adjustment process. Qualitative adjustments consider unique aspects of case processing not otherwise captured by the study. Case weight adjustments are accompanied by clear justification. Case weights are applied to annual filings and the result is a workload value.

Qualitative Adjustments

The study measured how judicial officers in the superior court in Yuma County currently process cases. This measure of “what is” allowed the NCSC to develop a set of case weights that measure the status quo of case processing. The NCSC Advisory Committee (hereinafter Committee)

The Court Manager Volume 25 Issue 2 17 specific activities. This value accounts Table ES-1: Total Judicial Need for weekends, holidays, sick days, and vacation time. Judicial Resources Superior Applying the case weights to the (FTE) Court Judicial 2009 filings resulted in the workload Officers value. We divided that value by the Judicial Case-Specific Resource 6.50 judge year value and the resulting Supply number was the judicial demand. The Judicial Predicted Resource 7.89 calculated judicial demand for all court- Demand related activities in the Yuma County Supply/Demand Difference -1.39 Superior Court is 7.89 FTEs.

Judicial Need

The judicial need value was calculated by comparing the predicted (3) to develop a caseload calculator tool results in a measure of annual judicial judicial demand with the judicial to assess judge caseload demands based workload. Divide the workload values resource supply in Yuma. upon the workload standards. by the amount of work time available The study revealed that the for an individual judicial officer, and superior court requires additional the result is the required judicial judicial resources to manage the court’s Overview: Workload resources. This approach allows a court work. Specifically, 1.39 judicial officers Assessment Model to measure resource needs and evaluate (or 1.5 FTEs) are required to adequately resource allocations. handle the caseloads based on 2009 A judicial workload assessment The most credible resource filings. These case weights applied model is a quantitative representation assessment technique, including the to 2010 filings (or projected filings) of variables that determine judicial workload assessment model, cannot provide the judicial resources needed resource needs. The core of the workload determine the exact number of judges for the 2010 fiscal year. A comparison assessment model is a time-study, required to manage caseloads. No single of the judicial demand, availability, and whereby judges track time spent on each quantitative resource assessment model need values is shown in Table ES-1. case type on their calendar. The time- can do that. A workload model should Case filings in most jurisdictions study data combined with case filing data be used in concert with the budget, determine the demands on judicial for the same period enables the court to population trends, and court-specific districts, but they are silent about the construct a “case weight” or workload factors that affect judicial resources. resources needed to process cases standard. The case weights represent the The draft case weights and needs effectively. Similarly, case filings offer average judicial time required to handle model were compared with the insights into the amount of judicial a case from filing to disposition in a one- Committee’s assessment of case types work generated by the case filings, but year period.3 that required additional handling. This they do not differentiate workloads of Case weights summarize the qualitative assessment allowed the each case type, nor do they eliminate variation in judicial time by providing Committee to make adjustments to the a common misperception: that equal an average amount of time per case. case weights. Case weights measure numbers of cases filed for two different On average, the case weight reflects “what is” and incorporate resource case types result in the same case- the typical amount of time needed to values that allow the court to process specific work. process specific case types. Case weights cases according to “what should be.” The primary goals of the project are used to calculate the expected Adjustments made by the Committee were (1) to establish a judicial workload annual judicial workload. are discussed in the section entitled standard, (2) to provide a viable tool to Applying case weights to current “Case Weight Adjustment.” predict future judicial officer need, and or projected annual case filings

18 www.nacmnet.org Methodology cannot be attributed to a specific case Case Weight Adjustment (e.g., legal research, staff meetings, Two types of information The final case weights are a result administrative tasks, and community are necessary to determine the of (1) the study of judicial workload speaking engagements). judicial resources required by the based on data collected, (2) adequacy of The project liaison for this study workload demand: time to process cases, and (3) scrutiny provided training for all judicial officers by the Committee and qualitative • Workload Estimate. This is who participated in the study about adjustments if necessary. This three- calculated by multiplying case recording their time and completing the phase process is a better predictor of weights (the average amount of web-based data collection.4 The training workload and of the judicial resource time spent on case processing) by provided participants with an opportunity need than any single process. Each step the number of annual case filings. to familiarize themselves with the data validates the prior step and accounts for collection tools. The data recorded on • Resource Assessment. The assessment unique practices and challenges of the the web data collection instrument of judicial resources is based on superior court in Yuma. was submitted directly into a database three calculations: Analysis of time study data indicated maintained by the NCSC. The 12-week that judicial officers in Superior Court in 1. Judicial resource supply data collection effort was very successful Yuma County work an additional average and participation rates were perfect. 2. Judicial demand of 46 minutes per day beyond the expected 7.5 hours per day. Annualized, 3. Judicial need Case Weight Calculation this figure is equivalent to 219 additional Yuma has strived to develop an Preliminary case weights were working days; judicial officers in this objective assessment of the time judges calculated by adding the annual time court work 22.38 days more than they need to resolve different types of cases spent on case-specific activities and are expected to work. This need to work in an efficient and effective manner. dividing that value by the case filings additional hours suggests an insufficient for a one-year period.5 The draft amount of time available to do the work case weights were presented to the required of them. Workload Estimate Committee for review of the adequacy Yuma’s judicial officers agreed that of time available to process cases and for all case types except for injunctions Time Study possible quality adjustments. against harassment, drug court, and post conviction relief cases, described below, A time study measures case the area in which they had the least complexity in terms of the average Adequacy of Time Discussion sufficient amount of time was writing amount of judicial time spent annually No single quantitative resource post-judgment rulings and orders. to process different types of cases, from assessment model can determine Using a standard from other the initial filing to final resolution, 6 the exact number of judicial officers workload assessment studies, judges including post-judgment activity. Data required for current caseloads. Results concluded that the time available for collection of all judicial activities is from a weighted workload assessment this work could be increased by adding critical in a time study. model should be used in concert with one hour to 10 percent of cases or Judicial officers in superior court other qualitative, court-specific factors by adding six minutes to each case recorded time spent on various case that affect the conclusion that a court type (except for injunctions against types on a daily log. These stats needs additional judicial resources. harassment, drug court, and post- were entered into a web-based data The Committee was asked to conviction relief cases). collection site designed for Yuma. consider whether judicial officers had The draft drug court case weight Judicial matters include (1) time on adequate time to complete a range of was adjusted to reflect an average of and off the bench, (2) time spent specific tasks — which can be statistically 20 minutes per month per case. This processing cases, (3) case-specific significant based on the case type. adjusted the case weight from work, and (4) non-case-specific work. 94 minutes, which equates to eight Non-case-specific activity is a broad minutes per case per month, to category and includes activities that 240 minutes per case.7 Post conviction

The Court Manager Volume 25 Issue 2 19 relief cases were adjusted to include Table 1: Case Weights for Yuma County Superior Court time for hearings that were not reflected during the study. Specifically, 21 minutes Criminal were added to the draft case weight of Felony Drug F1- F3 117 111 minutes for the following hearing Felony Non-Drug F1-F3 142 types: four minutes for status hearings, Felony Drug F4 – F6 129 four minutes for oral arguments, and Felony Non-Drug F4-F6 130 12 minutes for evidentiary hearings. The Drug Court Cases 240 total minutes for the three hearing types, Post Conviction Relief 132 which are expected in post conviction Violation of Probation 29 relief cases, equal 21 minutes. The additional six minutes for post-judgment Civil rulings and orders was not added to this Tort – Motor Vehicle 68 case type. Tort – Non Motor Vehicle 633 Final case weights are presented Medical Malpractice 633 in Table 1. Final case weights include Contracts 86 quantitative and qualitative aspects of Injunction Against Harassment 11 case processing and are accurate, valid, Other Civil 36 and credible. Probate Among the felony case types listed, drug court cases require the most Estate 45 judicial officer time. Non-specialty court Guardian/Conservatorship 57 case types, F1-F3 non-drug felonies, Domestic Relations have the highest case weight: Dissolution of Marriage – With Children 236 142 minutes (more than two hours). Dissolution of Marriage – No Children 50 No case is an “average” case that Paternity 74 requires exactly 142 minutes of judge Request to Establish Child Support – IV D 74 time. On average, superior court judges Request to Establish Child Support – Non-IV D 436 spend 142 minutes on a single F1-F3 Child Custody & Parenting Time 436 non-drug felony case. Some cases take more time, and some cases take less Other time. Generally, case weights are lower Orders for Protection 49 for high-volume case types with a lower Mental Health 68 likelihood of appearance in court.

Workload Calculation Resource Assessment administration (accounted for separately Applying case weights to the in the model). annual filings produces the overall Judge Resource Supply To calculate current available judicial case-specific workload for the The judicial resource supply value judicial resources, we began with the court. Using case filing figures for the is the number of FTE judicial officers number of FTE judicial officers. The six-month period November 2008 available to process the case-related average amount of non-case-specific through April 2009 and annualizing the workload. This calculation excludes the time recorded during the study was number of filings results in an annual number of FTEs dedicated to non- subtracted from the time available for case-specific workload value for the case-specific activity. Non-case-specific direct case-specific work. In Superior superior court of 637,666 minutes. activity includes community activities, Court in Yuma County, all judicial speaking engagements, committee officers spend an average of 81 minutes 8 meetings, and non-case-specific per day on non-case-specific work. This

20 www.nacmnet.org decreases the average 7.5-hour work day Judicial Officer Need Keeping the Model Current from 450 minutes to 369 minutes.9 The judicial need value is the In the absence of significant changes The presiding judge has substantial comparison of projected judicial in case processing, court structure, or administrative duties but also receives demand with the judicial resources jurisdiction in the Arizona or Superior the same volume of case assignments as currently available to process cases Court in Yuma County judicial system, the other judicial officers. He manages a (judicial availability). This study the case weights developed in this full caseload in addition to the time per determined that Superior Court in study should be accurate for the next day spent on administrative duties. The Yuma County requires an additional five to seven years. Periodic updates study revealed that the presiding judge 1.39 judicial officers to complete their are necessary to ensure case weights spends an average of 281 minutes per casework, based on court filings from continue to represent the actual judicial day on non-case specific (administrative) November 2008 through April 2009. case processing and workload. Case work compared to 70 minutes per day Applying the case weights to the final processing can change significantly when for the other judicial officers.10 The 2009 or projected 2010 case filing courts increase efficiencies, when there administrative responsibilities of the figures results in an updated resource are statutory or procedural changes, or presiding judge increase his schedule need scenario. Specifically, the current when various caseflow management three hours a day more than the model indicates superior court needs initiatives are implemented. schedules of other judicial officers, all a total of 7.89 judicial officers or 3.63 Workload assessment models of whom have a workday that routinely judicial officers for criminal cases,13 similar to the one used in Yuma can be exceeds 10 hours. 1.80 judicial officers for civil cases, and used effectively for judicial resource 2.46 judicial officers for domestic cases management. A six-month sample Judicial Officer Demand reflected in Table 4 (page 25). of case filing data (November 2008 The judicial demand value is calculated by dividing the judicial workload value by the judge year value. The result is the number of judicial FTEs needed to process case-specific work. The judge year value is defined as the number of work days in a year that Table 3: Calculation of Judicial a judge has to process their caseload. Annual Availability Value Weekends, holidays, vacation, sick Days Minutes leave, and time required for education Available Time 365 164,250 and training are deducted from 365 LESS days to arrive at the judge year value of 219 days. The average workday is Weekends 104 46,800 defined as 7.5 hours, minus 81 minutes Holidays 10 4,500 of non-case-specific work per judge, for Leave (vacation, illness) 2712 12,150 a final workday of 369 minutes. The Judicial Education 5 2,250 minutes in a workday multiplied by the TOTAL TIME 219 98,550 number of available days results in the LESS average annual availability of judges. Non-case specific time 17,739 In Superior Court in Yuma County, (81 min/day) judicial officers average 98,550 minutes TOTAL CASE 80,811 of availability annually (219 days x 7.5 SPECIFIC TIME hours x 60 minutes).11 AVAILABLE Workload values divided by the total case-specific time available (80,811 minutes per year) results in the total judicial officer need.

The Court Manager Volume 25 Issue 2 21 22 www.nacmnet.org Table 4: Overall Judicial Officer Need in Yuma County Superior Court

Minutes Case Cases Required Case Type Weight Filed Annually Felony Drug F1-3 117 410 47,970 Felony Non-Drug F1-3 142 424 60,208 Felony Drug F4-6 129 352 45,408

C ri m in a l Felony Non-Drug F4-6 130 604 78,520 Drug Court 240 128 30,720 Post Conviction Relief 132 72 9,504 VOPs 29 376 10,904 Tort - Motor Vehicle 82 144 11,808 Tort - Non Motor Vehicle 633 54 34,182 Medical Malpractice 633 8 5,064 C i v il Contract 86 450 38,700 Estate 45 132 5,940 Guardian/Conservatorship 57 276 15,732 Injunction Against Harassment 11 274 3,014 Other Civil 36 864 31,104 Dissolution w/ Children 236 436 102,896 tions Dissolution w/o Children 50 416 20,800 Paternity 74 168 12,432 Request to Est. Child Support IV-D 74 312 23,088 Request to Est. Child Support Non-IV-D 436 8 3,488 Do m estic R el a Child Custody & Parenting 436 52 22,672

M H Orders for Protection 49 280 13,720 Mental Health 68 144 9,792 Case Specific Workload (Weight x fillings) 637,666 Judge Average Annual Availability (219 days) 98,550 Average non-case specific work (81 minutes per day) 17,739 Average case-related availability 80,811 Judicial Officer Demand 7.89 Judicial Officer Demand: Criminal 3.63 resource N ee d s Judicial Officer Demand: Civil 1.80 Judicial Officer Demand: Domestic 2.46 Total Judicial Officer Demand 7.89

The Court Manager Volume 25 Issue 2 23 through April 2009) was used to work year for the presiding judge and (page 28), the tool is based on the validate this model. The real power the other judicial officers. 23 case weights computed in this of the model lies in its applicability to The presiding judge has study, and it compares caseloads of predict future judicial resource needs administrative duties not shared by the presiding judge, who has more with caseload projection analysis. other members of the bench. For administrative duties than the other Projected caseloads can be easily purposes of the real-time caseload judges, and another judicial officer on inserted into the model to provide an assignment, the average non-case the bench. In Example 2 (page 30), estimate of future judicial requirements. specific times for the presiding judge the tool compares caseloads of two (281 minutes per day) and the other judicial officers with different types of Case Assignment Tool judicial officers (70 minutes per day) caseloads. In Example 3 (page 32), the have been used. tool compares the presiding judge with Unlike other studies, the Yuma The case assignment tool allows a judicial officer but uses the collapsed study developed case assignment tools. the presiding judge to view the number case weights for three case types: all The presiding judge requested these of cases assigned to each judge — by criminal cases, all civil cases, and all tools to be able to use the case weights case type — and determine the capacity domestic cases. It was necessary to in a “real time” manner to ensure at which each judge is working. As collapse the 23 case types into three equitable distribution of the caseload caseloads ebb and flow and the mix case types to more closely align with the among all judicial officers in superior of different case types change, so, too, court’s case management system’s case court. To that end, an interactive does the workload of each judge. type categories.14 tool was developed on a spreadsheet Three case assignment tools were The case assignment tools are illustrated incorporating the expected case-specific developed for Yuma. In Example 1 in Tables 5, 6, and 7. In Example 1

Using a standard from other workload assessment studies,1 judges concluded that the time available for this work could be increased by adding one hour to 10 percent of cases or by adding six minutes to each case type.

24 www.nacmnet.org in Table 5, the presiding judge has officer 2 at 79.97 percent capacity. workload distribution. Although the 276 cases and judicial officer 2 has The case assignment tool case assignment tool using the collapsed twice as many cases, but their work presented in Tables 5 and 6 is based category weights doesn’t distinguish capacities are 91.61 percent and 79.97 on the 23 case weights developed among time required by case type, percent, respectively. The reason for during the study. To generate the case it provides the court with workload this difference is the expected annual weights, court staff calculated case stats for judicial officers. As the case work year (37,011 annual case-specific filing figures in the identified case management system evolves, it can minutes for the presiding judge vs. types. The current case management differentiate cases by the more refined 83,220 annual case-specific minutes system used in the court groups cases case types for which case weights for judicial officer 1). in three broad categories: criminal, have been developed. The court will The case assignment tool also civil, and domestic. To accommodate be able to make more meaningful differentiates between judicial officers the court’s case assignment tool, the case assignments to ensure equitable with a different mix of caseloads. In the case weights were recomputed into caseloads among all judicial officers. second example, shown in Table 6 of the the collapsed categories to reflect the ______use of the caseload calculator, judicial broader categories available in the case About the author officer 1 and judicial officer management system. The revised case Margaret C. Guidero is court administrator for the Superior Court in Yuma County, Arizona. 2 both have 552 cases assigned to them. assignment tool with the collapsed case Contact her at [email protected]. The cases have different case weights weights is presented in Table 7. Suzanne Tallarico is a principal Court and the workload capacities are different, The case assignment tool can be used Management consultant with the National Center for State Courts. with judicial officer 1 working at 81.48 to assess workload of the bench to percent capacity, compared to judicial ensure a consistent and equitable

Periodic updates are necessary to ensure case weights continue to represent the actual judicial case processing and workload. Case processing can change significantly when courts increase efficiencies, when there are statutory or procedural changes, or when various caseflow management initiatives are implemented.

The Court Manager Volume 25 Issue 2 25