t State Court Caseload Statistics, 1997 Supplement to Examining the Work of State Courts, 1997 State Court Structures , / Jurisdiction and Reporting Practices State Court Caseloads Court Statistics Project Methodology State Court Caseload Statistics, 1997 '\\ / Supplement to Examining the Work of State Courts, 1997 Compiled by Carol R. Flango, Margaret J. Fonner, and Karen Gillions Way Court Statistics Project Staff Brian J. Ostrom Fred Cheesmn Director Research Associate Carol R. Flango Ann M. Jones Research Associate Research Associate Neal B. Kauder Robert C. LaFountain Consultant, VisualResearch Research Analyst Karen Gillions Way Margaret J. Fonner Research Analyst Program Specialist the State Justice Institute, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and the National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics Project. r<C'A 2-1b - 99 Copyright 1998 National Center for State Courts ISBN 0-89656-195-X NCSC Publication Number R-211 Suggested Citation: Court Statistics Project, State Court Cuseload Statistics, 1997 (National Center for State Courts 1998) This report was developed under Grant SJI-9 1-N-007-098- 1 from the State Justice Institute and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Points of view are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the State Justice Institute or the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Conference of State Court Administrators' Court Statistics Committee Hugh M. Collins (1 982 to present), Cochairman, Judicial Administrator, Louisiana J. Denis Moran (1983 to present), Cochairman, Director of State Courts, Wisconsin John A. Clarke (I 988 to present), Executive OfficerKlerk, Los Angeles Superior Court Howard W. Conyers (1990 to present), Administrative Director of the Courts, Oklahoma Robert L. DOSS,Jr. (1990 to present), Administrative Director of the Courts, Georgia Marc Galanter (1986 to present), Evjue-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Daniel J. Hall (1990 to present), Director of Planning and Analysis, Office of the State Court Administrator, Colorado Judge Aaron Ment (1991 to present), Chief Court Administrator, Connecticut William J. O'Brien (1994 to present), State Court Administrator, Iowa John T. Olivier (1991 to present), Clerk, Supreme Court of Louisiana Howard P. Schwartz (1992 to present), Judicial Administrator, Kansas Robert Wessels (1995 to present), Court Manager, County Criminal Courts at Law, Houston, Texas National Center for State Courts' Board of Directors Warren E. Burger, Honorary Chairman (1971-1995), Chief Justice of the United States Chief Justice David A. Brock, Chairperson, Supreme Court of New Hampshire Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey, Chairperson-Elect, Supreme Court of Delaware William C. Vickrey, Vice-Chairperson, State Court Administrator, Supreme Court of California Judge Roberto A. Arias, Duval County, Jacksonville, Florida Byron Atttridge, King and Spalding, Atlanta, Georgia Justice Carl 0. Bradford, Maine Superior Court Chief Judge Kevin S. Burke, Hennepin County District Court, Minnesota Howard W. Conyers, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of Oklahoma Justice William Cousins, Illinois Appellate Court Justice Ann K. Covington, Supreme Court of Missouri Sheila Gonzalez, Ventura Superior Municipal Courts, California Gordon M. Griller, Court Administrator, Maricopa County Superior Court, Arizona Judge William G. Kelly, District Court, Michigan Judge Thelma Wyatt Cummings Moore, Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia William G. Paul, Sr., Director, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma Chief Justice Thomas R. Phillips, Supreme Court of Texas John Siegenthaler, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee Stephan W. Stover, Administrative Director, Supreme Court of Ohio Nancy M. Sobolevitch, Court Administrator, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania Judge Sandra Ann Thompson, Los Angeles Municipal Court, Torrance, California Chief Justice Gerald W. Vandewalle, Supreme Court of North Dakota Ruth Walsh McIntyre, Seattle, Washington Roger K. Warren, President, National Center for State Courts Robert Wessels, Court Manager, County Criminal Courts at Law, Houston, Texas Acknowledgments The members of the Court Statistics Project (CSP) gratefully acknowl- edge assistance and guidance from throughout the state court community. Our main debt of gratitude is to the state court administrators, the appel- late court clerks, and their staffs who have provided the bulk of the information included in Examining the Work of State Courts, 1997 and State Court Caseload Statistics, 1997. They have been consistently patient and helpful in answering written and telephone inquiries for more data or for explanations of the data provided. We owe a special debt of gratitude to the staff members of the administrative offices of the courts and of the appellate courts who serve as contact persons between their offices and the Court Statistics Project. The content and design of all products produced by the CSP benefit greatly from the guidance of the 12 members of the Conference of State Court Administrators’ Court Statistics Committee. The committee members have given generously of their time, talent, and experience, and their participation has been invaluable to project staff. The Court Statistics Project is funded through the generous support of the State Justice Institute and the Bureau of Justice Statistics. It should be noted that the points of view stated in Examining the Work ofSrate Courts, 1997 and State Court Caseload Statistics, 1997 are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the policies of either agency. However, the authors wish to acknowledge the guidance and support provided by Pamela Bulloch, the project monitor at the State Justice Institute. The publications of the Court Statistics Project benefit greatly from the careful editing of Dawn Spinozza. Responsibility for the information and the analysis reported in this document rests fully with the Court Statistics Project staff. The more general responsibility for developing the CSP products and promoting improvements to court statistics is shared with the National Center for State Courts’ management and the COSCA Court Statistics Committee. V Preface The Court Statistics Project makes information available in three distinct formats that we believe best serve the needs of the project’s constituents. State Court Caseload Statistics, I997 is designed to provide specific information about particular court systems. This volume offers all inter- ested parties high-quality, baseline information on state court structure, jurisdiction, reporting practices, and caseload volume and trends. The information assembled in this product will be especially helpful to people interested in doing their own cross-state comparisons or in examining the implications of caseload volume on the work and resource needs of specific state courts. For those wishing to brush up on the uses of these data, the Introduction provides an overview of applications, ingredients, and inter- pretation of state court caseload statistics. This information is also available through the Inter-University Consortium or to anyone who requests a copy of the publication from the Court Statistics Project. A second publication, Examining the Work of State Courts, 1997, pro- vides a readable overview, with easy-to-understand graphics and tables, of current state court activity and trends. The goal of this work is to provide a comprehensive yet nontechnical presentation of the demands currently being placed on state courts and the evolution of caseloads over time. Judges, policymakers, and practitioners will find this document useful for a range of planning and research needs, as well as for gaining a greater appreciation for the business of state courts. Finally, the State Court Organization series, provides an exhaustive compilation of information on state court structure and operations. The latest volume, the fourth in the series, complements, and extends the information on court jurisdiction and reporting practices provided here. The newest edition will cover most of the topics included in the 1993 edition, but will also cover new topics as well. Notable additions are tables on court automation, specialized courts, the administrative authority of presiding trial court judges, and the processing of domestic violence cases. A tenative table of contents for State Court Organization, 1998 is re- printed at the back of this volume. vii Introduction Using State Court Caseload Statistics The secret language of statistics, so This introduction provides an overview of the uses, ingredients, and interpreta- appealing in a fact-minded tion of state court caseload statistics. This examination is offered at a time of culture, is employed to sensation- significant improvements in the quality of court statistics in general and in the alize, confuse, and oversimplify. comparability of those statistics across the states in particular. To help realize Statistical methods and statistical the potential of caseload statistics, this document considers three main ques- terms are necessary in reporting tions: Why are caseload statistics useful? What are their ingredients? How the mass data of social and can they address practical problems? economic trends, business conditions, ”opinion” polls, the This is not a “technical” document. Although it is assumed that the reader has census. But without writers who an interest in what courts are doing, there is no expectation of statistical expertise. Moreover, virtually all courts and states