I I I I I I I B I I I I I I I I I I I

National Center for State Courts Washington Project Office

11 10 North Glebe Road, Suite 1090 Arlington, Virginia 22201

(703) 84 1 -0200

DIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT;

Final Report \I

/

July 31,1990

Submitted to: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Submitted by: Thomas A. Henderson, Project Director

J d c e Munsterman Robert Tobin

I I I

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I I I I

Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 1

Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 2

Civil DCM ............................................................................................................................... 7

Criminal DCM ..................................................................................................................... 28

Summation ............................................................................................................................. 53

This project was supported by Grant Number 89-DD-CX-0017 awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs coordinates the activities of the following program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.

r

I I I I I I I I I I I I 8 I I I I I t

DCM ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) received a grant (89-DD-CX-

0017) from the Bureau of Justice Assistance to assess Differentiated Case

Management (DCM) by examining the application of the concept in six

demonstration sites: Superior Court, Camden County, New Jersey (civil and

criminal demonstrations); Superior Court, Pierce County, Washington (criminal

demonstration); District Court, Ramsey County, Minnesota (civil demonstration);

Detroit Recorder’s Court, Detroit, Michigan (criminal demonstration); and Berrien

County, Michigan (criminal demonstration). The six demonstrations spanned a two-

year period (mid-1988 to rnid-1990), during which NCSC personnel visited sites,

analyzed DCM reports, and collected descriptive and quantitative data. In June

1989, NCSC produced an interim assessment, noting that no definitive conclusions

could be drawn until more cases had been processed to termination under DCM.

Sufficient time has now elapsed to permit a h a l assessment. It should be stressed

that this assessment is not applied to individual sites. The two civil sites are treated

as a composite, and the four criminal sites are similarly treated.

The data for the assessment came from the following sources: (1) reports

written by NCSC staff after site visits of which there were eighteen; (2) descriptive

data supplied by the projects along with court rules, DCM manuals and procedures,

and budgets and organizational charts; (3) aggregate data supplied by the projects,

some of it manually produced, some produced by state judicial branch EDP systems

or on personal computers used by the DCM staff; and (4) case sample data for the

pre-DCM period and DCM period. It should be noted that only two sites, one civil

1

(Ramsey County) and one criminal (Pierce County) were able to provide a usable

"after" sample. Some sites provided the data but the format used did not include

adequate details to justify the extensive coding which was required. It was then

decided that it would be necessary to rely heavily on aggregate statistics and use

those sites which were able to provide the case data in a usable format.

A. METHODOLOGY

The assessment focuses on the utility, feasibility, and potential of DCM as an

operational tool, drawing upon the experience of the demonstration sites. Crucial to

the assessment is a clear understanding of the DCM concept. It is defined as

follows:

DCM is a sophisticated means of early case categorization to facilitate

individual case management and to move the cases in each category

to conclusion with the procedures, informational support, speed, and

resources appropriate for the particular category.

Implicit in this definition are six claims on behalf of DCM. (Most of these

claims were stated as goals in proposals from the demonstration sites.) These

claims, stated as assessment criteria, are listed below:

(1) C f

DCM. At every site there were start-up and ongoing costs for implementing DCM,

largely personnel costs. At some sites it was anticipated that these costs would be

more than offset by savings or benefits of various kinds.

2

TABLE 1. AREAS OF POSSIBLE COST SAVING

AREA COSTING UNIT QUANTITATIVE CONTROL* UNIT

jail detention costs of jail day, number of jail days adjusted for number of prisoner transportation saved, trips saved defendants processed trips

petit jury cost of juror day juror days saved adjusted for number of jury

issuance and service of cost of issuing and number of processing adjusted for case process delivering, a bench events saved volume, number of

warrant s u b p o e a or parties notice

police witness court cost of a police day in police days saved adjusted for appearance court, adjusted for differences for cases

overtime Scheduled

indigent defense cost of assigned savings in defender adjusted for number of (assigned counsel) defender days, days cases with indigent

adjusted for court and defendants noncourt time

discovery motions cost of processing savings resulting from adjusted for changes in motions and motions reduction in number of the number of active hearings motions cases

court appearances cost of a court savings resulting from adjusted for number of appearance for trial fewer court cases scheduled on (attorney time, judge appearances final trial calendar time-court personnel time)

judge "down time" cost of a judge-day savings resulting from reduction in "down time" of judges

grand jury (New Jersey cost of a grand jury savings in number of adjusted for number of presentation cases presented to defendants charged

grand jury with felonies by police

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~

*Comparison of costs before and after DCM requires adjustments for variables.

3

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

The list of cost items in Table 1 suggests some of the complexities of DCM

cost benefit analysis. The main problem was difficulty in segregating expenses

directly attributable to DCM . Most DCM procedures were, to a large extent,

introduced as enhancements into existing case management systems. Other

methodological problems were: ascertaining pre-DCM costs; gathering statistical

data on the costing units before and after DCM; and controlling for the many non-

DCM factors which might produce changes from one year to another. Data

problems aside, it would be very difficult to establish a cause-effect relationship

between DCM expenditures and any benefits which might be produced. Moreover,

none of the demonstration sites had a DCM project structure or data base

sufficiently developed to support a cost-benefit analysis. The Detroit Recorders

Court, the demonstration site which devoted most thought to cost benefit analysis,

estimated potential savings resulting from the DCM efforts which had been

implemented to be:

o 72,390 jail days ($60 per day = $4.3 million)

o 1,334 bench trial days

o 1,129 jury trial days

o 179,394 defendant docket days (days scheduled for off-track events)

o 107,004 bond days (days defendant on bond which affects the failure to appear rate and the new crime rate)

(2) DCM. bv earlv disposition of easily disposab le case s. reduces time

to disposition and backlog. NCSC established a sampling process to measure the

processing of cases filed before and after DCM. This methodology and an analysis

of the " before" sample at five of the six sites were described in detail in NCSC's

interim assessment report. Basically, each site, usually with NCSC aid, was asked to

4

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

select randomly a statistically significant number of cases in comparable periods,

before and after the start of DCM, and to submit these to NCSC for analysis. These

submissions were in the form of docket sheets which had to be coded, coded sheets

which only had to be entered, or diskettes. At four sites these data were supplied at

the state level from a central docketing system. These data varied in level of detail

and the extent to which track designations were included; but they provided the

means to examine comparative time to disposition (median and average) by: (1)

type of disposition; (2) case type; and (3) track (to the extent pre-DCM cases could

be retroactively assigned to tracks). The level of availability of data at each site also

varied, so that data on some sites were cursory. Complete before and after data

were obtained from only two sites.

In addition, NCSC gathered aggregate data on backlog before and

after DCM and also gathered the various management reports which were

generated for DCM coordinators at most sites. These aggregate data provided a

useful overview and facilitated interpretation of the sample data. Moreover, these

data provided information on the effect of DCM on case backlog, provided that the

cases subject to DCM were identifiable within the aggregate statistics.

(3) Improved use of judge and attornev time. A premise of DCM is

that it permits judges and attorneys to focus on hard cases and to minimize the time

spent unproductively on minor matters. At no site was it possible to develop

quantitative data on this point, since there was no pre-DCM point of reference. But

at some sites it was possible to measure the number of trials heard by judges before

and after DCM, a measurement that would have significance at those sites where a

purpose of DCM was to apply pressure for settlement or plea by increasing the

number of trials (e.g., Ramsey County civil).

5

I 'I I I I I I I I I I I I 1. 1. I

(4) Scheduling Certainty. A premise of DCM is that the use of tracks

and more intensive case management procedures winnows out the softer cases and

produces a firm trial calendar. It is possible to measure this by examining the

number of continuances in relation to cases scheduled before and after DCM.

Another measurement is the number of cases "unreached" requiring that ready

litigants be placed on standby or rescheduled. To the extent that these data were

consistently available in the sample case data from the sites or from aggregate

statistics, they were employed in the assessment.

(5) Participant satisfaction. One measure of DCM's effectiveness is

to be found in the perceptions of the court personnel who deal with it on a regular

basis, primarily judges and attorneys. At three sites, questionnaires were

administered to judges and attorneys to ascertain their reaction to DCM.

(6) Informational development. Very early in the DCM

demonstrations, it became evident that DCM required a supporting informational

system far more sophisticated than the existing systems. (The one exception was

Detroit, which has an advanced system.) Arguably, informational capability is a

byproduct, rather than a measurable goal, but even though most sites did not start

out describing management information systems as a goal, most sites quickly made

this a priority item, perceiving its crucial importance for DCM implementation.

NCSC responded to this change by making improvement in case management

informational an assessment area.

6

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

B. CIVILDCM

It was fitting that BJA included two civil DCM sites in its six-site DCM

project. There is interplay between the civil and criminal calendars, but more

importantly, DCM has grown up and been developed in the civil side of court. Its

application to criminal cases involves, to some extent, adaptation of the civil

experience to the needs of criminal courts. In general, DCM fits more easily into

the rhythm and style of civil courts for several reasons cited below:

Civil cases are not driven by constitutional imperatives or strict speedy trial rules; the pace depends, to a large degree, on judicial commitment to move cases.

Civil cases develop more slowly and often come into focus only when discovery reveals strengths and weaknesses, thus allowing more time to sort out cases and place them under management control.

Prosecutors do the early sorting of criminal cases relying on criteria which may not reflect the way these cases would be sorted for purposes of case management by the judiciary, whereas civil cases are subject to judicial management from the outset.

Civil procedure is more structured and deliberate than criminal procedure and lends itself to the inclusion of DCM requirements in the form of rules.

Civil cases lend themselves to categorization for management purposes since they do not involve as many diverse factors as criminal cases (e.g., prosecutorial priorities, jail status of defendant, criminal history of defendant, mandatory sentencing, etc.).

7

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I. I 1 I I

(1) The The experiences at the two DCM civil sites (Ramsey County, Minnesota

1 Environment at the Demonstration Sites

District Court and Camden County, New Jersey Superior Court) indicate that DCM

can readily be integrated into the existing civil case management system as

enhancement, even though the two sites differed a great deal in legal environment.

TABLE 2 BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF TWO CIVIL DEMONSTRATION COURTS

Characteristics county Population (1986) Jurisdiction of court

~

Normal Complement of Civil Judges

Caseload

Camden County Ramsey 492,800 474,000

Superior Court has jurisdiction District Court has jurisdiction of all civil cases, but handles of all civil cases, including chancery cases separately from equity cases, but has a separate law cases. Law Division has a administrative component for Special Civil Part to handle small civil cases. small civil cases.

At full strength 9 judges are in Law Division, but the Presiding Judge has a largely administrative role and the years. equivalent of up to one judge may hear Special Part and landlord-tenant cases.

Roughly 6.5 judges have been available to this court in recent years, 5.5 judges in earlier

There are about loo0 filings The annual fiiings are about per month in the Law Division 6000, of which about 25% are of which about 4045% are put note of issue cases (Le., major in issue by a responsive civil cases). pleading.

Presiding Judge of Civil Division plays a very major administrative role.

There is no Presiding Civil Judge.

Role of Presiding Judge, ifany

8

I I 1 I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I

Characteristics Length of Judicial Rotation on Civil Calendar

Type of Civil Calendar

Relationship of Civil Calendar to criminal Calendar

Point at which Court Assumes Control of Civil Cases

Alternative Dispute Resolution

Motions Practice

Camden County Ramsey Several years. A month or less.

Master calendar system with possibility of having a judge appointed for all purposes in major cases. (rarely used).

Master calendar system with possibility of having a judge appointed for all purposes

Despite rising crime rate, the civil calendar has not been particularly affected by the criminal calendar. There is limited interchange of judges between the two calendars.

The civil calendar is not, on the whole, a high priority calendar but was given above normal support when DCM started. Judicial strength on civil cases is influenced by criminal caseload.

Court usually assumes control when a responsive pleading is filed.

Ramsey County uses pocket filing, meaning that attorneys are not obliged to file pleadings until the point when they file a note of issue asking for a trial. Court control starts at that point.

Use arbitration in auto cases and personal injury cases below a certain amount; also use bar panels to settle cases before trial.

Very few alternatives.

Use motions calendar. Use motions calendar.

(2) DCM Approach at the Demonstration Sites

The two demonstration sites employed different management models,

Ramsey County looking to the experience of the San Diego Superior Court and New

9

I I 1 I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I I I

Jersey relying on the Civil DCM model instituted in Bergen County, New Jersey.

Yet, there were marked similarities in the approach adopted toward DCM.

(a) Tracks and Subtracks. Both sites employed a three-track system -- complex, standard, and expedited -- but differed in their use of the tracks. At both

locations complex cases were assigned to a judge who handled all matters for the

case; expedited cases were placed on a fast time schedule without major allowance

for discovery time and with less complicated DCM requirements; and the remainder

of the cases were placed in the standard track where cases were subject to the full

DCM control. Final authority over assignment of a case to a track was with the

court. Attorneys in Camden County,however, were given the opportunity to request

a specific track. In practice, few disputes arose over track assignments in either

county.

Camden County started out making fairly broad use of the complex track, on

the assumption that certain types of subject matter (e.g., asbestos suits) were per se

complex. However, the demands on judge time soon became excessive, requiring

the use of more empirically derived criteria to limit the use of the complex track.

Very few cases in Ramsey County were assigned to the complex track; those

assigned were primarily multi-party cases involving liens. Rarnsey County used the

expedited track much more than Camden County for several reasons. (1) In New

Jersey expedited cases were defined quite specifically in rules of court, whereas

Ramsey County used a more empirical approach; (2) In New Jersey many small

cases were heard in the Special Civil Part, which was not encompassed by DCM. At

both sites the great bulk of cases fell in the standard track, 80% or more in Camden

County, roughly 70% in Ramsey County. The number of cases in this one category

suggested a need for subtracking to obtain better case control, and both sites took

the view that this was best worked out by actual experience in the first year of

operation.

10

1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I .I

Camden County is considering the adoption of a variety of subtracks. Some

of the cases, once placed on the complex track, would be assigned to the standard

track (Le., asbestos cases, and some medical malpractice, and products liability

cases); but these cases would be placed on a different time schedule than other

standard cases with the additional requirement of a management conference.

Criminally based forfeiture cases would be assigned to the Presiding Judge of the

Criminal Division. Some types of expedited cases would have a brief discovery

period, and some would be assigned to a judge for management, without affecting

the tight time limits (for example, declaratory judgments or prerogative writs). In

Ramsey County certain flexible adaptations have emerged, specifically a modified

standard track with most characteristics of a normal standard track cases but with a

shorter time frame. Certain expedited cases have been set down for pretrial. Both

sites are headed toward more flexible tracking systems without sacrificing the basic

structure.

The distribution of cases among tracks at the two sites is reflected in Table 3.

TABLE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF CASES BY TRACK IN CAMDEN COUNTY AND

RAMSEY COUNTY

Track

Standard

Expedited

Complex

Camden County (%) RamsevCo untv - (%)

84 69

14 30

- 2 - 1

100% 100%

11

(b) Time Goals. Both sites have well-defined time-to-disposition goals, but

the goals depend upon the point at which the court considers itself in control of a

case. In Camden County, DCM management starts when a responsive pleading is

filed. Of 16,611 cases filed from the initiation of DCM in September 1988 until the

end of January 1990, only 7,343 cases (44%) have come under DCM through the

filing of a responsive pleading (roughly 430 per month). In Ramsey County, DCM

control starts with the filing of a note of issue by a party, indicating the desire for a

trial but not necessarily trial readiness. There may be a considerable lapse of time

between the initiation of a civil case in Ramsey County and the filing of a note of

issue. Although this is largely beyond court control, the court does take cognizance

of the date of filing and attempts to move those older cases. In the period April

1989 through December 1989,503 Note of Issue cases were assigned to tracks

(roughly 57 per month).

Ramsey County aspires to:

o dispose of 90% of all civil trials within 10 months of the filing of a Note of Issue. Analysis of a sample of cases from Ramsey County revealed that 64% of DCM cases were being disposed of within this time frame, a significant improvement over the pre-DCM period, but still far from the DCM time goal.

o permit no case to age beyond two years from the filing of the Note of Issue to disposition.

Ln addition, Ramsey County set the following time goals for each track:

o expedited track - disposition within 185 days of note of issue;

o standard track - disposition within 305 days of note of issue;

o complex track - disposition within two years of note of issue.

Since April 1989, Ramsey County has kept statistics on the average time to

disposition for DCM cases. As indicated below, the average time is very close to the

12

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

time goals specified above (305 days for standard track cases and 185 days for

expedited track cases), indicating that a number of cases are exceeding the specified

time limit.

TABLE4 AVERAGE TIME TO DISPOSITION FOR STANDARD AND EXPEDITED

DCM CASES, APRIL 1989 TO DECEMBER 1989 (RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT)

Month

April

May

June

July .

August

September

October

November

December

305 Day Goal Standard Track Expedited Track

Casescdavs) Casescdavs)

185 Day Goal

248

249

299

280

290

310

305

3 14

301

176

130

164

221

193

178

182

187

172

As suggested by the averages in the above table, a number off cases are not

disposed within the time goals. A sample of DCM cases reveals that 39% of

expedited cases and 58% of standard cases are not disposed within the time goals,

but all seven complex cases in the sample were disposed within the time goal (2

years). However, the rates of disposition represent a dramatic improvement in

Ramsey County when compared to the pre-DCM period. As indicated in Figure 1

below, 89% of DCM cases are being disposed within one year from note of issue as

opposed to 27% disposed of within one year prior to DCM.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Figure 1.

Cumulative Percent of Disposed Cases by Month for Ramsey County Pre and Post DCM Cases

90-

8 0 -

Pre DCM

- Post DCM

60- Accumulated % 50 -

of Dlsposed Cases

30-

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

Months to Disposition Based on Case Sample

Time to disposition data from a sample of DCM cases in Ramsey County

indicates considerable success in moving cases to disposition quickly. (See Figure

2.) Interestingly, the same data reveals little difference in time to disposition for

standard and complex cases, suggesting that the reference of a case to a judge for all

purposes need not place it in a a longer time frame. The data also reveals the

success of the expedited track in moving cases quickly.

14

I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I

% of Cases Disposed

Figure 2.

Cumulative Percent of Disposed Cases by Track and by Month, Ramsey County

100

40 20 I+ 0

0- 31- 61- 91- 121-151-181-211-241-271-301-331-366 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 365 +

Days

- Track 1 --. Track2 Track3 Based on case sample.

\

Camden County, since it started DCM control at an earlier point t

Ramsey County, has set longer time goals. Moreover, Camden County has defined

its goals by track and by interim events within tracks, as indicated in Table 5.

TABLE 5 CIVIL TIME TO DISPOSITION GOALS, CAMDEN COUNTY DCM

Time Period - Standard Complex

Joinder to 100 days 200 days As per individual Completion of case Discovery

Discovery to 80 days 165 days Management Disposition order

Total Time to 180 days 365 days Disposition

15

I I I E I E I E I I I I I 1 I I I I I

While there are national norms for time to disposition in civil cases, it is

more likely, as these two sites demonstrate, that time goals will be adapted to the

realities of local procedure.

(c) Staffinq. DCM, by definition, emphasizes more intensive management of

individual cases, which necessarily requires new personnel. At both sites a high-

level administrator was assigned general direction of DCM. In Camden County the

director of DCM was already in charge of the staff assigned to civil records and

calendaring and bore the title Civil Case Manager. To implement DCM two track

coordinators were recruited and two experienced employees of the clerk were

assigned to work with the coordinators. In Ramsey County a DCM Coordinator

(formerly a trial court administrator) was hired. Initially she was assisted by a

county-paid assistant, an assistant paid from grant funds and some part-time helpers.

Subsequently, the DCM coordinator was given control over the civil assignment

function and obtained three employees.

The lesson at both sites was the same. DCM is not a separate management

technique but an enhancement of the existing scheduling system which must be

integrated with this system to be efficacious. The DCM director must have

authority over civil scheduling, be a high-ranking administrator, and must have

additional staff. The main reasons for additional staff is that there must be a case

categorization process, more intensive case management, and that oral and written

communication with the Bar increases greatly under DCM. The result was that

DCM resulted in significant additional personnel expenditures. -

(d) New Information Requirements and New Procedural Events. Another

reason for staff increase is that DCM involves additional steps in the civil litigation

16

I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I i I 1 I I

process. These steps may take the form of new informational requirements or new

events.

TABLE 6 NEW DCM EVENTS AND INFORMATIONAL REQUIREMENTS

CAMDEN COUNTY AND RAMSEY COUNTY

Camden County Ramsey

Events No new events were added and one existing event will probably be eliminated - the general calendarcall. The about a joint-at-issue individualized nature of DCM has rendered a general calendar call superfluous.

Within 90 days of a Note of Issue, an attorney must confer in person with opposing counsel

memorandum. About 30 days before the pretrial conference in a standard case, the attorneys must meet and fill in a detailed informational statement. About 30 days before trial in a standard case, there is a pretrial conference after which a pretrial order is issued.

Infor- mation Re- case information statement issue memorandum to facilitate quirements (CIS) with their pleadings. In DCM tracking and the

assignment of a trial date. Prior to trial attorneys must file a Joint Disposition Conference Report.

Attorneys are required to file a Attorneys must file a joint-at-

non-expedited cases attorneys must file a case scheduling plan(CSP). If they do not, the court generates the plan. In non-expedited cases attorneys must file a trial information statement (TIS).

DCM clearly adds to the actions required of civil attorneys. The payoff, if

any, lies in the earlier settlement of cases.

17

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1.

(e) Bar Relations. DCM is impossible without support of the Civil Bar. At

both sites strong efforts were made to enlist bar support. In Camden County a

committee of the Civil Bar was involved in the DCM development and consulted on

an ongoing basis. Attorneys questioned the strong role of the State Administrative

Office of Courts, which is supportive of DCM and provided important aid to the

project in the form of computer support, technical assistance, development of an

attorney’s manua1,and a DCM brochure. A video cassette was also developed for

display at calendar calls or other places where attorneys congregated. Nonetheless,

attorneys continued to be skeptical, despite strong efforts of the Presiding Judge to

communicate with them and to accommodate some of their requests for change.

Ramsey County did not have as much participation from the State

Administrative Office of Courts. Since DCM was perceived as a local undertaking,

court relations with the Bar were less tense. As in Camden County, the attorneys

succeeded in effecting some changes, primarily with respect to discovery cutoffs and

reduced detail in DCM informational requirements.

It was a fear at each site that there might be some major disciplinary

showdowns with attorneys, but there was little outright opposition to the DCM

requirements. Ramsey County used a show cause calendar for instances of non-

compliance, but rarely did the court have to impose sanctions. In Camden County

the Presiding Judge was able, by informal contact, to overcome some major

problems of compliance. But the DCM program is still in an educative mode and

officials are working with attorneys to raise the rate and quality of compliance. The

success rate in Camden County for each DCM requirement, as of January 31,1990,

is indicated below.

o Attorneys file Case Idormation Statements with complaints in 91% of cases and with answers in 87% of cases.

18

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

o Attorneys, although they have the option to file their own proposed order, have permitted the court to enter automated orders in 67% of the cases, indicating fairly general acceptance of the DCM time frames.

o In 83% of cases reaching the trial stage, attorneys complied with the time requirement for filing a Trial Information Statement. A few were submitted after the due date.

, Compliance does not necessarily connote approval. DCM ultimately

depends on whether attorneys perceive it to be in their best economic interest, and

the issue is still in doubt, as indicated by survey responses from a sample of civil

attorneys at each demonstration site. Twenty-five civil attorneys in Camden County

were asked to state their opinion of various aspects of DCM, and sixteen responded.

The responses were made on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 indicating a very favorable

rating and 5 a very unfavorable rating. On almost every question the responses were

bunched in the middle of the scale, strongly suggesting that DCM is not perceived as

either threatening or helpful and that it has not really affected civil practice very

much. In only two areas did the responses show strongly negative or positive views.

Attorneys strongly objected to the time and effort required to file the special

documents specified in the DCM rules and the discovery cutoffs. The other area in

which they had strong preferences was in response to a question of judicial

commitment to DCM. They did feel that there was a strong judicial commitment to

DCM, probably reflecting the important role played by Presiding Judge Rudolph

Rossetti.

Similar questionnaires were used in Ramsey County where the attorneys

responded positively toward the effects of DCM. The question, "Overall, to what

extent are you satisfied or dissatisfied with the court's DCM system for civil cases?"

indicated that 77% of those responding were satisfied with the program. When

questioned as to the impact DCM had on the time they spend on a case, the 65% of

19

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

the attorneys indicated that the procedures implemented under DCM had increased

the amount of time required for each case with a corresponding number of attorneys

stating that DCM had no effect on the net return in dollars on civil cases. An

important finding in this attorney survey is the fact that many respondents indicated

that DCM had either a positive effect or no effect on case scheduling, with less than

10% indicating negative impacts.

The questionnaire given to the judges had an extremely positive response.

Positive responses were received in almost every questionnaire returned. In

summary, the judicial response is more positive than the attorney response;

however, both indicate satisfaction with the DCM program.

(f) Treatment of Non-DCM Cases! The Backlog Problem. The introduction

of DCM creates two classes of cases; (1) those that were initiated prior to DCM

and thus not subject to its requirements; and (2) those which are encompassed by

DCM. At both sites steps had to be taken to dispose of the pre-DCM cases, so that

DCM could be fully implemented without the extra burden of operating two

different civil management systems. One approach could have been to let the older

cases work their way out of the system, since in the first year or so of DCM the court

necessarily deals with the older cases well down the road to trial. The other

approach would be a vigorous attempt to push older cases to disposition. At both

sites the tendency was toward the latter approach with DCM being used as a means

to reduce the inventory of pending cases. In Ramsey County this took the form of

systematically bringing pre-DCM cases before a judge for a settlement conference.

The result was a dramatic reduction in the pending caseload after DCM started in

April 1988. As indicated in the table below the number of pending Note of Issue

cases dropped from 2052 in 1987 to 738 in 1989.

20

I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I

TABLE 7 PENDING NOTE OF ISSUE CASES IN RAMSEY COUNTY 1986-1989

Type of Civil Case 1986 1987 1988 1989 Personal Injury 990 525 408 Contract 672 843 45 1 285 Wrongful Death 37 35 10 4 Malpractice 58 61 34 20 Property Damage 99 114 53 17

4 5 9 Condemnation - - 2 - Total Pending Cases 1756 2052 1075 738

The pending DCM caseload in Ramsey County as of December 31,1989, was

696 (316 pretrack and 380 on track), not including a small number of pre-DCM

cases. This is a manageable amount, since the court is disposing of cases at the rate

of about 55-60 per month, indicating that the court could handle its pending

caseload in slightly more than 10 months and easily within a year. This conclusion is

supported by the fact that cases placed on track in the period April-December 1989

(503) just about equalled the number of DCM cases that were disposed (515).

In Camden County the institution of DCM and the close look at pending

cases which it entailed greatly increased awareness of the large number of cases

which languish because of failures of service or lack of a responsive pleading. This

caused a more active attempt to manage these cases, even though they are not

technically DCM cases. However, Camden County, as of January 31,1990, had not

reached the equilibrium point reached in Ramsey County for a variety of reasons.

o Camden County started DCM four months after Ramsey County.

o The volume of DCM cases in Camden County is seven or eight times higher than the volume of DCM cases in Ramsey County.

o The time goals in Camden County are longer, since DCM starts at an earlier point in the civil process than it does in Ramsey County.

21

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Camden County, in early 1990, was still handling a high volume of pre-DCM

cases, so that the DCM cases were just getting to a point where they constituted the

bulk of the current caseload. Of 7,343 DCM cases initiated from September 1990

onward, 2,066 were disposed as of January 31,1990, (415 expedited cases, 1,629

standard cases, and 22 complex cases). The key question is whether DCM

dispositions are starting to match dispositions at a level commensurate with the

DCM time goals. Table 8 contains the statistics for the period September 1989 to

March 1990, after DCM had been in operation for a year.

TABLE 8 DCM CASES ADDED AND DISPOSED IN CAMDEN COUNTY

SEPTEMBER 1989 TO MARCH 1990

Month DCM Case5 DCM Cases Cases Disposed as Added Disposed a % of Cases

Added

September 1989 439 October 1989 650 November 1989 43 December 1989 492 January 1990 694 February 1990 622 March 1990 585

209 159 288 304 371 300 a 4

48 24 65 78 53 48 - 81

Total 2718 133 1 49

As the figures in Table 8 indicate, DCM dispositions are starting to match

DCM filings as pre-DCM cases exit the system. In March 1990 dispositions were

81% of new cases, suggesting that the necessary parity may be achieved in several

months.

22

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

It appears that a benefit of DCM's individual case management is an

informed and focused attack on the pending caseload, which has already paid off in

Ramsey County.

(g) Rule Changes. Civil DCM required changes in the rules of civil

procedure, and both sites made major rule changes (detailed in the NCSC Interim

Descriptive Assessment). In Camden County the new rules were modeled on rules

employed in Bergen County, the initial DCM site in New Jersey. These rules were

applied by an order of the New Jersey Supreme Court. In Ramsey County DCM

rules were adopted by the District Court in phases, so that rules were adopted as

each new DCM event occurred (detail on the rules is contained in the Interim

Descriptive Assessment). This approach proved very practical since the court

prescribed no more than was necessary to cover the next stage of the

implementation, leaving room for adaptation in the light of experience. It is clear

that civil DCM entails substantial amendment of the rules of civil procedure.

(h) Judicial Involvement. An underlying assumption of DCM is that support

personnel can handle a lot of case management functions and much of the

communication with attorneys, leaving judges free to concentrate on their judicial

role and giving these judges more trial-ready cases. In Camden County DCM has

been largely a staff function, except that the Presiding Civil Judge has invested

considerable time and authority to make the system work and appears as the main

narrator in a video presentation on DCM. The other judges were not particularly

affected by DCM, as they indicated in responses to the evaluation team. In Ramsey

County, where judges rotate on and off the civil bench after short intervals, the

effect was even less. The DCM staff bore the brunt of the system and had

considerable control over continuances and scheduling problems. However, in

23

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Ramsey County the introduction of a pre-trial conference as a new DCM event did

affect judges in a few ways: (1) judges found that they had to abide by a pre-trial

order framed by another judge; and (2) some judges did not have the background to

successfully steer cases to settlement during the pre-trial, causing some backlash

from the Bar over the value of the added event. In general, however, civil DCM

appears to be largely a staff undertaking which does not involve a great deal of

judicial involvement in case management.

A more basic question is whether the greater staff involvement leads to

better use of judicial time. The before and after sample from Ramsey County

indicates that trials accounted for 5% of dispositions prior to DCM and 14% under

DCM. Figures from the Minnesota State Administrative Office of Courts indicate

that there was a sharp increase in the number of court and jury trials in note of issue

cases after DCM started in April 1988. The patterns of disposition by trial are

summarized in Table 9.

TABLE 9 NUMBER OF CIVIL COURT AND JURY TRIALS IN CASES REQUIRING

NOTE OF ISSUE RAMSEY COUNTY DISTRICT COURT 1986-1989

T p e of Civil Case Personal Injury Contract Wrongful Death Malpractice Property Damage Condemnation Total

1986 1987 53 55 52 84

1 1 1 4

10 13 0 0 117 157

x!&3 85 74 5

10 24 0 198

1989 99

104 2 5

13 1

224 -

(i) Calendaring. An underlying assumption of DCM is that it will produce

firrn trial calendars since the more intensive preliminary process will wash out soft

24

cases and lead to settlements at an early point. It also assumed that the time

sequences specified in court rules and scheduling orders and the new events

specified by DCM will have some positive effect on calendaring.

In Ramsey County DCM has had the effect of adding another event to

schedule -- the pretrial conference. It has the added effect of setting cases with

certainty on a date within the time limit for the track to which they are assigned. As

pre-DCM cases go off the calendar (they are almost gone), fewer cases (roughly 35-

40 per week) are being scheduled because of increased trial certainty.

In Camden County one effect of DCM will be the elimination of the general

calendar call at which attorneys indicate trial readiness and indicate the status of

their case. Such reporting is superfluous for DCM cases since court staff have

ongoing information for each case. DCM time frames affect the calendar dates

assigned to DCM cases which are assigned to a week certain within six weeks of the

issuance of an Assignment and Scheduling Notice (a DCM addition) issued at the

conclusion of the specified discovery period. At one point in 1989, it was difficult to

maintain the system due to lack of judges on the civil calendar.

At both demonstration sites master calendars were in effect, although

Camden may fully implement a system where all pre-trial matters in a particular

case go before one judge. One of the big issues in DCM is whether it applies to an

individual judge calendar. As conceived at the two demonstration sites, DCM

places heavy reliance on support staff to monitor cases and to direct their flow. The

judges (except for those judges in an administrative capacity) are not deeply affected

by DCM. This would obviously change if each judge had his or her own calendar

and would require a different set of relationships and responsibilities.

25

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I

(j) Informational Support. DCM requires an automated docketing system

which incorporates track assignments and also the events and reports added by

DCM. Also necessary is the ability to use this data base for the production of

management reports on DCM. In both Minnesota and New Jersey, the state

Administrative Office of Courts maintains an automated docketing system for civil

cases and was able to incorporate some of the additional data items required for

DCM. Unfortunately, it was very difficult to distinguish between DCM and non-

DCM cases or to develop specialized management reports for DCM managers. In

Ramsey County the need for DCM statistics was met by use of Q&A on a personal

computer, but even this required double entry of data. Even though the New Jersey

Administrative Office of Courts is highly committed to DCM, the process of

adapting the central information system is laborious and is only beginning to

produce management reports which have DCM relevance.

The lessons are evident. It is hard to adapt a state-wide automated docketing

system to the needs of one county entering into DCM, but it is easier to make

adjustments in a docketing system than it is to obtain the management statistics

necessary to operate and evaluate DCM. One indication of the potential value of

DCM is the impact it had at both sites on the upgrading of management

information. By its very nature DCM demands this type of support.

26

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! 1 I I

(3) Conclusions

Based on the six evaluation criteria the following conclusions can be drawn

about Civil DCM demonstrations.

There is no clear evidence showing any cost benefits.

DCM has had a positive effect on reducing backlog and moving cases to disposition. (In Camden this really amounted to holding even, during a period when the complement of judges was reduced).

There is no strong evidence that there has been better use of attorney and judge time under DCM although there has been a sharp increase in the number of jury trials in Ramsey County.

Scheduling certainty is clearly better in Ramsey County, whereas in Camden County there was no great problem of scheduling certainty even before DCM.

Participant satisfaction is not high, nor is it low; the issue is in doubt.

Substantial strides have been made in data processing support for management of cases, since DCM had the effect of forcing the addition of a management component to the existing computerized docketing systems.

27

C. CRIMINALDCM

I I

The flow of cases into a criminal court is controlled by the prosecutor, who

makes an initial differentiation among cases to determine where prosecutorial effort

should be focused. In a sense this sorting process is DCM, since it is a means of

categorizing cases for management purposes. In another sense it is not really DCM,

since it involves the application of criteria unique to the prosecutor's office and does

not necessarily take into account judicial management considerations such as the

amount of judicial resources required for certain types of cases.

Both the prosecutor and the courts have a vested interest in promoting case

differentiation, but for very different reasons. And, there is a natural tension

between courts and prosecutors over calendar control, a factor which is common,

but heightened by criminal DCM.

The court has no particular control over the initial screening when the

prosecutor looks at the incoming police complaints and separates them, roughly as

(1) cases so weak that they should be dismissed; (2) cases which should be

downgraded, with or without pleas, that they can be handled in a court of limited

jurisdiction; (3) cases where the defendant is eligible for a diversion program; (4)

cases where a plea is highly likely; and ( 5 ) cases which are likely to gu to trial.

Once the prosecutor has determined to go forward with a case to felony

court, a further sorting occurs. But there is a marked difference between the

management objectives of the prosecutor and the courts when differentiating cases.

The objectives for the prosecutor are similar to the court's objective in civil DCM,

that is, distinguishing cases is necessary priorities and allocate scarce resources. The

criteria to be used include (1) his or her policy priorities as to the type of crime

involved; (2) the jail status of the defendant; (3) the criminal history of the

defendant; (4) the likely sentence and whether it is mandatory; (5 ) his or her

I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I

estimation of how the defendant will react; (6) whether an informer is involved; and

(7) the overall strength of the case and the necessity for additional investigation.

For the courts, the management objective is far simpler: to increase the

predictability of the scheduling process by projecting how quickly a case will be

disposed. Unlike civil DCM, constitutional issues limit the discretion of both the

litigants and the courts. From this perspective, the use of civil DCM’s “tracks” is

useful primarily as a means of labeling the probable exit point of a case (e.g., plea at

arraignment--expedited; plea at pre-trial conference--standard; and trial--complex).

If the labeling reflects reality, the court can monitor more closely the progress of a

case to ensure the appropriate events are scheduled and take place on time.

The differences in objectives are not unique to DCM. All efforts to improve

criminal caseflow management involve disagreements over which institution will

control the calendar, the prosecutor or the courts. And this disagreement is not an

abstract issue. At each of the four demonstration sites, DCM was viewed by the

courts as a vehicle for a stronger court role in the management of criminal cases.

And this was, in fact, one of the outcomes of the programs in each of the sites.

Criminal DCM strengthened and improved court management of criminal cases.

At the same time, the difference in objectives also ensured that many of the

techniques which were so critical to civil DCM lost their meaning when applied to

criminal. The heavy reliance on structured case categorization employed in the civil

courts did not appear in the criminal counterparts. Most notably, the concept of

tracks was relatively insigntficant as a management device. Understanding criminal

DCM, therefore, requires as much sensitivity to the operational distinctions which

appeared among cases as to the formal management devices created by the

programs.

29

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

(1) The Legal Environment at the Demonstration Sites

TABLE 10

BASIC CHARACTERISTICS OF FOUR CRIMINAL DEMONSTRATION SITES

' ' Characteristic

1986 Population

Criminal Jurisdiction of court

Available Judges

Caseload

Length of Time on Criminal Calendar

Calendar Type

Detroit Recorders Berrien County Camden County. Pierce County court Circuit Court Superior Court Superior Court

2,164,300 (Wayne County)

Essentially a felony court, handling both Detroit and Wayne County cases

29 Recorders Court; 5 Circuit Judges

New cases 1989- 17,446

Judges are exclusively assigned to criminal cases

Individual judge calendar; judges grouped by floor under executive judge; cases demonstrations randomly to floor and then to judge

163,600 492,800 485,667

Exclusive Exclusive Exclusive felony jurisdiction of jurisdiction of jurisdiction felonies indictable offenses

4 judges who hear both civil and criminal cases; want DCM for civil cases too

run around 4O00 cases, of which u)-2!5% are criminal

Annualfilings

Judges hear both civil and criminal cases

Individual judge

6 judges

7,744 new cases added in 1989

Judges remain on criminal calendar for extended period , more than a year

Individual judge

One judge was assigned to a special DCM drug court (15 judges as of 1989)

1,884 drug cases added in 1989 (DCM only applied to drug cases)

Judges rotate frequently, after . several months

Cases assigned to drug court, as opposed to a specific judge

I I Characteristic

Point at Which Court Assumes Control

Lower Court Involvement

Grand Jury Indictment

Detroit Recorders Berrien County Camden County Pierce County court Circuit Court Superior Court Superior Court

Formally at Recorders Court arraignment; but court screening unit assists prosecutor and a new 1-day process permits defendants to start plea process in District Court

Warrants are processed through District Court with preliminary exam

Not required

Arraignment in Superior Court

Same as Wayne county

Not required

Arraignment in Superior Court, although Superior Court may take pleas to police complaint upon waiver of indictment at a pre-indictment conference

Most felonies start by complaint in municipal court but preliminary exams are centrally handled by one Municipal Court judge

Required

Arraignment in Superior Court

Felony cases taken directly to Superior court by prosecutor

Not required

(2) DCM Approach at the Demonstration Sites. The goals at each criminal

demonstration site were unique, so that there is limited inter-site comparability.

For example, the Camden Criminal Project focussed on reduction of the flow of

cases into the grand jury, a concern irrelevant to the other three sites (jurisdictions

where grand jury indictment is not required).

(a) Emdopent of DCM in the Pre-Indictment Process. Camden County

Superior Court, the only demonstration site where a grand jury indictment was

required, chose to use DCM as a means of routing a number of cases out of the

system prior to grand jury processing and to reduce the institutionalized delay factor

caused by the indictment procedure. The method for achieving this goal was the

establishment of a Pre-Indictment Conference (PIC), essentially a plea bargaining

31

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

session to dispose of cases which are negotiable. The PIC was closely tied to

Central Judicial Processing, a process by which all felony complaints in the county

are run through a central preliminary hearing, as opposed to the former procedure

of having these cases handled by a variety of municipal c o w judges, often without

both prosecution and defense represented. At the CJP (there is one for Camden

City cases and a separate one for all suburban courts), the prosecutor and defender,

in the course of their screening, identify cases suitable for reference to PIC. In 1989,

1503 (18%) of the 8160 defendants scheduled in CJP were later scheduled for PIC.

Roughly 50% of the cases referred to PIC were disposed. This is indicated in

Figure 3.

32

I I I I I I I I

30

20

lo --

0

Figure 3.

Rate of Case Dispositions at PIC

--

--

I , ~ , I I , I , , , I , 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Percent Disposed at PIC

July 1988 to December 1989 Based on aggregate statistics.

-"i -.-. Suburban

I The dispositions at PIC decreased the flow of cases into the grand jury, as

reflected by a lower percentage of indictments in relation to new cases (measured in

terms of defendants). Prior to PIC, which started in the summer of 1988, about 50%

of the new defendants added ultimately were indicted. As indicated in Table 11,

this percentage had dropped to 29% by the end of 1989, the first full year of PIC

I I I operation.

I I I I I I

33

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

TABLE 11

RATE OF CASE DISPOSITION AT PIC

Time Period Status of PIC Defendants Indictments % Indicted Added

January-June 1988 Before PIC 3534 1764 50%

July-December PIC starts late July 3810 1436 38% 1988

January-June 1989 PIC Operational 4033 1682 42%

Jdy-December PIC Operational 4127 1207 29% 1989

Not only did the percentage of indictments decline under PIC, but so did the

total number of indictments. As Table 12 demonstrates, despite an almost 10%

increase in felonies from 1988 to 1989, the number of indictments declined by

almost 11%.

TABLE 12

COMPARISON OF INDICTMENTS AND DEFENDANTS ADDED 1988 AND 1989

m 1989 % Change

Defendants Added 7015 7744 + 9.41

Indictments 3200 2889 Added

- 10.76

If the rate of indictment before PIC had prevailed in 1989, there would have

been 3,872 indictments rather than 2,889 indictments. These additional indictments

34

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I

would have flowed into the Superior Court, adding significantly to the judicial

caseload.

(b) Tracks and Subtracks. At all four demonstration sites cases were given

track assignments, although the term track might not be used. The one common

feature was the heavy emphasis on the early identification of plea cases. Other than

this, there was little conceptual commonality in tracking systems.

In Camden County there was a general perception that the DCM tracks had

little relevance to case management and were largely superfluous. Yet, cases were

regularly placed on one of three tracks by assistant prosecutors during their first

meeting with the Public Defender Office. The track designations were carried with

the case record, contained in computer reports and, in fact, used to produce

printouts showing each judge the time status of his or her cases in relation to track

goals. The three tracks (roughly expedited, standard, and complex as in the civil

model) seemed, at best, a way of predicting time to disposition and were generally

regarded as unrealistic by judges since they had no control over the time period

prior to indictment. It should be noted, however, that the categorization of cases for

purposes of PIC (see Section (a) above) does have special relevance for the

prosecutor and also some relevance for the court since it reduces the number of

cases coming into the court.

In Detroit cases were sorted into five categories based on an automated

point system which supports the sentencing system. These categories determine

seriousness of the sentence and are used as predictors of how early a case will exit

the system. However, all cases are expected to conclude within 90 days, so that the

categories have little relevance for managing cases and are really not known to

anybody but those staff persons engaged in the initial screening function. Late in

the DCM project a one-day track for first-time drug offenders was introduced,

35

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

meaning that there was a distinct management track separating these cases from the

other cases for management purposes. Basically, however, Detroit treats cases

generically for management purposes and uses DCM simply to accelerate the

identification of cases which could be settled by plea. The plea rate is about 65%.

Pierce County started DCM only to address drug cases, so that its tracks were

applicable only to this category of cases. Toward the end of the DCM project,

Pierce County introduced a track for certain assault cases but this came too late to

be a statistical factor. Pierce County uses basically three tracks, called plans, into

which the attorneys (primarily the prosecutor) sort incoming cases. The expedited

track is simply a plea track. The complex track is reserved for those cases with very

serious possible sanctions, cases involving major search and seizure issues or a lot of

drug testing, cases with multiple defendants, and cases based on informers and

having an effect on other cases. The remaining cases fall into a catch-all track.

Aside from some effect on plea cases the classifications do not appear to have much

management relevance and appear to be predictors of when the case will exit the

system. Of the 1,786 cases assigned to the three drug tracks in 1989 (some cases are

always in a no-track posture pending categorization), 35% were expedited, 17%

complex and 48% in the other category.

Berrien County uses a three track system (expedited, complex, and other)

which is based upon an attempt to balance prosecutorial priorities with case

complexity. In effect, it combines the prosecutorial concerns with the factors that

concern judicial caseflow managers. Cases which are considered high priority and

have low to medium complexity are placed on the fast track (90 days form

arraignment to trial ). Cases which have a low priority and a medium to high

complexity are placed on a complex track (210 days from arraignment to

disposition). Other cases go into a catch-all track with a time goal of 150 days.

Classification of cases under this system is assisted by the point system used in

36

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Michigan for sentencing purposes, but complexity is not a factor in that system and a

bit hard to define.

The experience in using tracks for criminal cases suggests that:

o tracking, aside from quickly identifying plea cases, is not very useful and that it may be best to treat other cases more or less generically within tight time frames (as in Detroit);

o there is no conceptual clarity underlying criminal tracking which appears in some cases to be an adapted version of the three-track system used in civil cases; and

o part of this conceptual problem is the unclear distinction of prosecutorial and judicial roles in criminal case management leading to situations where prosecutors make track assignments which have little sigmficance for judges.

(c) Time Goals. Time goals for criminal cases have been in existence for

some time because of constitutional demands and speedy trial laws. In both

Camden County and Pierce County, DCM time goals were considered in the context

of existing speedy trial requirements; and in both jurisdictions the DCM time goals

were not as stringent as the existing standards. Detroit already had very short time

frames and maintained them. In short, DCM had little effect on shortening time

goals but did attempt to ensure that the DCM time goals were made relevant to the

case management process. Whether this relevance was achieved is debatable, but in

some jurisdictions judicial and prosecutorial awareness of time factors has been

increased.

Given the difference in approaches to tracking of criminal cases it is not

really possible to compare the sites in terms of their time goals for each track, but

the goals are are given in Table 13.

37

I I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I I I I

TABLE 13

DCM TIME GOALS AT 4 CRIMINAL DEMONSTRATION SITES

SITE TIMEGOALS

Detroit Except for 1-day fast track to handle first-time drug offenders, the court attempts to dispose of all cases within 91 days of first appearance in District Court with 180 days as an outside speedy trial limit.

Pierce county

Berrien County

Plan A-30 days from arraignment Plan B-60-120 days from arraignment Plan C-60-150 days from arraignment

Track A- 90 days from arraignment Track B- 150 days from arraignment Track C--210 days from arraignment

Camden Expedited--days from arrest to disposition: 110 bail cases; 100 jail county cases

Standard--days from arrest to disposition: 190 bail cases; 140 jail cases Complex-days from arrest to disposition: 300 bail cases; 240 jail cases

,

The time goals in Camden County are quite long. The original time goals

were set with reference to speedy trial standards in New Jersey, then later

lengthened by judges and attorneys who felt the goals to be unrealistic. It does

appear that time goals which make a number of distinctions among cases are a bit

unwieldy.

The two demonstration sites with the most demanding time goals were Pierce

County and Detroit. At the latter site, where 17,446 felonies were filed in 1989, less

than 1% of the pending cases were more than 150 days in age. The record for

Detroit is presented in Table 14.

38

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

TAB= 14

PERCENTAGE OF PENDING CASES MORE THAN 150 DAYS IN AGE DECEMBER 31,1989

DETROIT RECORDER'S COURT

Year Cases Pending; % of Total Pending Cases > 150 davs

1987 1988 1989

108 175 90

3 % 1.1% .5 %

The very low number of aged cases in 1989 was achieved in the face of a 34%

increase in filings from 1987 to 1989. One reason for this success has been the

ability of the Defendant Screening Unit of the Court Administrator to quickly get

information to defense attorneys and to expedite the plea process.

Pierce County has also demonstrated success in meeting its goals as indicated

by a comparison between 500 pre-DCM cases filed in the first six months of 1988

and 456 DCM cases filed in the period July-November 1988.

Unlike Detroit, Pierce County focussed its time-to-disposition goals on drug

cases, the only type of case encompassed for DCM in that county. The experience is

summarized in Table 15. Prior to DCM, as revealed in a sample of 202 drug cases,

very few cases were disposed in the first month and about 20 % of the drug cases

remained undisposed after 150 days. Analysis of 1,325 drug cases disposed after the

advent of DCM revealed a sharp acceleration in the rate of disposition.

39

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

TABLE 15

COMPARATIVE TIMES TO DISPOSITION PRE-DCM CASES AND DCM CASES IN PIERCE COUNTY IN 1988

Time Period of Cumulative % of Pre- Cumulative % of DCM DisDosition DCM Cases Disposed Cases Disposed

0-30 Days 3 1-60 Days 61-90 Days 91-120 Days 121-150 Days

8% 47% 65% 74% 81%

37% 73% 89% 96% 98%

Further analysis of 1,325 drug cases disposed after the advent of DCM

reveals that Pierce County has had fair success in meeting its time goals for each

DCM track as is shown in Table 16.

TABLE 16

PERCENT OF DCM CASES DISPOSED WITHIN TRACK TIME GOALS IN 1989, PIERCE COUNTY

Cases Assigned

Cases Disposed

% of Cases Disposed

Cases Disposed Within Time Goal

% of Cases Disposed Within Track Time Goal

PlanA 30Day Plan B: 120 Days Plan C: 150 Days 583 784 299

548

94%

587

75%

390 556

71% 95%

190

64%

177

93%

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Although Table 16 indicates that only 71% of the expedited cases (Plan A)

were disposed within the track time goal, it must be noted that the goal is very

stringent-30 days from arraignment. When the same set of case dispositions is

viewed in a 90-day time frame, it can be seen that the expedited track has been very

efficacious, concluding 96% of all cases within 90 days as indicated in Table 17.

~

TABLE 17

CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF 1989 CASES DISPOSED BY TRACK WITHIN 90 DAYS OF ARRAIGNMENT

PIERCE COUNTY

Cumulative % of Cases Disposed

Time Period Plan A Plan B Plan C

31-60 Days 92% 65% 48% 0-30 Days 71% 21% 11%

61-90 Days 96% 87% 73%

The most intriguing aspect of the Pierce County DCM demonstration was

that it provided an opportunity to conduct a parallel experiment, since the drug

cases in the county were under DCM and the non-drug cases continued to be

handled under the old procedures. In fact, there was a DCM court and a non-DCM

court, facilitating an ongoing comparison of the new and old procedures. A sample

of drug and non- drug cases from the pre-DCM period showed that both types of

cases were disposed at roughly the same rate, with non-drug cases having a slight

edge in time to disposition. This is illustrated in Figure 4.

41

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1

30 20 10 0

Figure 4.

Cumulative Percentage of Disposed Pre DCM Cases By Months to Disposition, Pierce County

-- ,/ -- ,/:' -/

I t I 1 I I I I

100 90

- --

Drug

- NonDrug Accumulated % 50 --

0 I I I I I I I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Months to Disposition Based on case sample.

After DCM was instituted for drug cases, the disposition rate for drug cases

was much faster than the disposition rate for non-drug cases as given in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Cumulative Percentage of Disposed Cases (Drug and Non-Drug)

Under DCM, Pierce County

Months to Disposition Based on case sample.

The idea of running parallel drug and non-drug courts was unique to Pierce

County and provided some management problems because two different systems

42

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

were operating side by side. However, the experiment provided the clearest test of

DCM. Since DCM has effected obvious improvements, there is a high likelihood

that Pierce County will be encouraged to apply DCM to all criminal cases.

(d) Staffing. The staffing of criminal DCM projects reflected two basic

concerns: (1) adding prosecutorial resources, particularly in the up front screening

activities; and (2) obtaining and disseminating as quickly as possible the case and

defendant information necessary to facilitate plea negotiations. Many DCM needs

were filled by simply making use of existing personnel; others were filled by use of

BJA grant funds or, in the case of Camden County, state grant funds. The table

below indicates the staffing pattern at each site:

TABLE 18

STAFFING PATTERN AT FOUR DEMONSTRATION SITES

Site Prosecution Information Sumort

Detroit An assistant prosecutor was added since the need for more front end screening was perceived to be the key to the project. with case information, particularly

A bail unit under the court administrator was reconstituted as a screening unit to assist the prosecutor

quantification of case severity for sentencing purposes. Grant funds were used to pay for support of a statistician.

Bemen county

Focus was heady on data processing support since it was perceived that skills in this area were crucial to the more sophisticated information needs of DCM. A well-qualified data processing professional was hired.

Camden County

The assistant prosecutor in charge of front end screening was made the lead person for DCM. Grant funds were used for another prosecutor.

Two probation officers were hired to pull together defendant information; also hired was an investigator and a clerk-typist. The statistician in the office of the court's criminal case manager was designated as DCM coordinator.

43

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

Site Prosecution Information SUDDO~~

Pierce County Grant funds were used to hire an assistant prosecutor in the drug court and also a defender, both important considerations in Winning support for DCM. Special responsibility for DCM fell upon the assistant prosecutor in charge of the drug unit.

Information support was provided through a grant-funded assistant to the court administrator, the overall coordinator of the DCM effort. The assistant was provided some part-time help, primarily for data entry.

The staffing pattern illustrates the emphasis of criminal DCM on the intake

process; in Detroit and Camden County the projects were entirely front end

undertakings; in Pierce County and Berrien County, there was more concern over

the long-term monitoring of criminal cases, but the principal emphasis was clearly

upon identification of negotiable cases.

(e) New Informational Reauirements and New Procedural Event$. Criminal

DCM does not require rule changes that characterize civil DCM projects, nor are

the informational burdens on attorneys as heavy. In Detroit there were no real

procedural changes, except that rules had to be adopted to change the rates of

payment to defense counsel to a flat fee to encourage early pleas, when appropriate;

in Camden County one event was added, the Pre-Indictment Conference; in Pierce

County there was one event added, a pre-trial conference ten days after arraignment

to force attorneys to exchange information and to set cases on a track; and in

Berrien County the attorneys are required to fill in a scheduling analysis form

turned in at arraignment so that the court can place the case on an appropriate

track. These informational changes were handled by local court directives and did

not require cumbersome de-making procedures.

44

II I I II

( f ) Bar Relations. Criminal DCM does not involve the bar in the broad

sense that Civil DCM does. The latter affects a great number of practitioners,

whereas the former has its greatest impact on prosecutors and public defenders,

institutionalized legal offices. Consequently, the dynamics of attorney participation

under criminal DCM largely involves interaction between the court, the prosecutor

and public defender. Below are listed the relationships at each site:

Detroit

Prosecution: There were some tensions between court and prosecutor over plea policy, largely rectified by court establishing supportive relations with prosecutor screening unit and assistant prosecutor.

Defense: Detroit uses a large number of appointed attorneys who were, at the outset of DCM paid by event. To encourage earlier pleas a flat fee system was started.

Committees: Detroit DCM was largely accomplished in-house by changing the relationship between the court and the prosecutor. It did not require a committee structure.

Pierce County

Prosecution: The prosecutor made a commitment to try DCM, accepting some diminution in the traditional role of his office in case scheduling. The assistant prosecutor in Court 2 (drug cases) played an active role.

Defense: Defender initially was cool to DCM but became active supporter. There is a small defender staff which also assigns cases to private attorneys. Since these assigned attorneys may not get involved early, Defender played role in initial case tracking.

45

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I u I

Committees: Pierce County had Criminal Justice Liaison Group involving representatives of the agencies involved in the criminal process. This was used to launch DCM. There are regularly scheduled meetings involving prosecutor , defender, judges, and DCM staff to review DCM.

Camden County

Prosecution: One of the leaders in DCM was an Assistant Prosecutor who headed the grand jury unit and performed the essential screening function.

Defense: Defender (in New Jersey a state executive branch office) was not initially supportive but has accepted the PIC concept.

Committee: Dating back to 1981 Camden has had a Speedy Trial Committee. A smaller group from within this committee was formed to address DCM: the assignment judge (who was also the Presiding Criminal judge), the trial court administrator, the criminal case manager, an assistant prosecutor, the public defender, and a representative of the private bar (who later wrote a letter of support for the PIC operation). It does not appear that this group has been very active since DCM initiation.

Berrien County

Prosecution: Involved in DCM team meetings but not a prime mover.

Defense: Some contact with defense bar but more informative than consultative.

Committee: criminal DCM in Berrien County follows upon the introduction of Civil DCM. The DCM effort is very much under the direction of the chief judge of the circuit court., and although an interagency DCM team has existed from the outset, the DCM effort is quite court- directed.

46

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1

(g) Treatment of Non-DCM Cases -The Backlog Problem. The effect of

DCM (indicated in Table 19) on pending caseload has been positive. In Detroit the

number cases as a percentage of filings dropped dramatically in the period when

DCM was in effect, despite a sharp upsurge in filings.

TABLE 19

CASES PENDING AS A PERCENTAGE OF CASES FILED 1987-1989, Detroit

Year Filinzs Pending Cases Pending Cases as a

1987 13,030 2,822 21.6% 1988 15,632 2,856 18.3%

% of Filings

1989 17,446 2,653 15.2%

In Pierce County the number of pending DCM cases as a percentage of case

filings during 1989 was 23%. Of the 448 pending cases, only 54 (12%) were more

than 90 days in age. Table 20 provides the information on the age of DCM cases in

Pierce County.

TABLE 20

AGE OF PENDING DCM CASES IN PIERCE COUNTY DECEMBER 31,1990

Track 0-30 No Track 77 Track A 28 Track B 116 Track C 40 Track D* - 5

Total 266

Days 31-60 61-90 91-On Total

0 3 0 80 2 3 3 36

43 28 19 206 28 * 17 28 113 4 - 0 - 4 - 13

77 51 54 448

*New abuse case track.

47

I I I I I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I- I I

(h) Judicial Involvement. The degree of judicial involvement at the four

DCM sites varied markedly. In Camden County, where the main focus was on the

pre-indictment period, there was little effect on trial judges, but the presiding judge

had some involvement, primarily to take the early pleas resulting from the pre-

indictment conference. In Detroit, where the emphasis was on screening, the effect

on trial judges was not significant, but the Chief Judge was an active participant,

particularly in the one-day drug track. At both sites the basic idea was to keep cases

off the trial calendar by early pleas, so that the principal impact was on judges

engaged in sentencing defendants who entered pleas. This was usually the chief

judge.

In Pierce County, the judge assigned to the DCM court had a personal

responsibility for implementing DCM procedures. Due to rotation, various judges

served in this court and many played a major role in implementing DCM. Since

judges vary in their style of operation, DCM had to prove itself under different

judges. Judges in the DCM court were operating under stricter procedures than

those which prevailed in the non-DCM court, particularly pertaining to

continuances and calendaring. To some extent, DCM was a test of whether the

court could manage the calendar more effectively than the prosecutor. Berrien

County could also be described as a judge-dominated DCM system, where tracks,

assigned by judges, were built into the case management system.

(i) Calendaring. None of the four sites used a master calendar system.

Except for Pierce County, there is no indication that calendaring was greatly

affected by DCM. In Pierce County there was a definite emphasis on fixing firm

trial dates and reducing continuances. Comparison of case samples of pre-DCM

cases and post-DCM cases reveals that Pierce County roughly halved the rate of

trial continuance in drug cases. This information is presented in Table 21.

48

TABLE 21

I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I I 1

TRIAL CONTINUANCE RATE IN PIERCE COUNTY DRUG CASES BEFORE AND AFIER DCM

Number of Continuances per Case

Continued Cases as a % of Total Cases in Pre-

One 23 % 10% Two 10% 6%

Three or more 9% 6%

Continued Cases as a % of Total Cases in Post-

DCM Sample DCM Sample

0) Informational Support. As in the case of civil DCM, informational

support was crucial in criminal DCM. Detroit has a very sophisticated computer

system which permitted very quick analysis of case information to class* cases in

terms of severity and likelihood of plea. Given the huge case volume in that court

(17,000 annually), there would be no way to operate an expeditious case screening

function without a high degree of automation. The Detroit informational support

started off as part of a state judicial branch system. In 1981, it set up its own system

built around an IBM System 38, which permits point computation for purposes of

sentencing guidelines and substantial statistical capability. It is interesting to note

that Detroit earmarked some BJA grant funds for a statistician, indicating the

importance of management information to the court administrator.

Pierce County is included in SCOMIS, a state judicial branch system which

serves an indexing and calendaring function. However, this system was not terribly

useful for case tracking and management. Pierce County found it necessary to

institute a data base system in the software package "Q & A" in order to track DCM

cases, to improve calendaring and to produce management reports on DCM.

49

I I I I I I I I I I- I I I I I I I I 1

Berrien County identified computer support as its principal need and

structured its grant request accordingly. The court has used the county computer,

and while this has been generally satisfactory, there are inevitable problems of

priority and lack of familiarity with court procedure. To overcome this problem

Berrien County hired a high-ranking employee of the county data processing

department.

Camden County switched from a county PROMIS/GAVEL system to a state

judicial branch main frame version of the same system. The transition adversely

affected the DCM program in Camden; fortunately, the transition is complete and

the state system is starting to provide case profiles, calendaring support and

management reports showing case status in relation to DCM time goals. The

management reports have caught the attention of the judges because it lists their

cases in terms of track time goals and has caused them to question the tracking and

the goals. Previously, there was limited judicial attention to these factors. Now

there is increasing likelihood of greater involvement of trial judges.

The lessons of the DCM experience are approximately the same as the

lessons learned in Civil DCM: (1) state main frame systems are often slow to

respond to the needs of DCM managers, requiring some use of PC’s or other local

options to fill the service void; and (2) Q and A systems have helped greatly in

providing necessary management information and overcoming the lack of

management data in the computerized indexing and docketing systems maintained

by counties and state administrative offices of courts.

(k) Participant Satisfaction. An NCSC questionnaire was distributed by the

Pierce County Superior Court to some judges and attorneys in order to determine

the perceptions of the participants toward DCM. NCSC received questionnaires

from five judges and five attorneys. The attitudes were very positive toward the

50

I

I I I I I I I

I I I I I 1 I I

i

effects of DCM. For example, when asked whether DCM had increased the overall

efficiency of the court, all ten responses were in positive agreement. Six of those

responding totally agreed with the statement and the other four stated that they

partially agreed. The same positive response was given for the effects of DCM on

prosecutorial screening and moving up the plea negotiations in the case flow. All

responses indicated that they considered DCM had improved the management of

criminal cases, although they did not all feel that this improvement extended to the

general perception of the criminal justice system.

Table 22 gives the average response rate to each statement using a scale

from 1 to 4, with total agreement being 4 and total disagreement being 1. Thus, a 3

or 4 indicates agreement with a statement, while 1 or 2 indicates disagreement. A

cross-section of responses is provided in this table.

TAB= 22.

RESPONSES TO DCM PARTICIPANT QUESTIONNAIRE PIERCE COUNTY

Category DCM has increased the overall efficiency of the court DCM has increased the overall efficiency of the prosecutor's office DCM has reduced the number of motions filed DCM has reduced the number of court appearances per case DCM has moved up the t h e of prosecutorial screening DCM has moved up the time of plea negotiation DCM has reduced the time from arraignment to disposition DCM has led to a greater degree of certainty in trial date scheduling DCM has led to a reduction in continuances of trials DCM has increased the amount of information available to judges on

DCM has improved management of criminal cases DCM has improved the general perception of the criminal justice

each case

system

51

Average ResDonse

3.6 3.2 2.8 2.1 4.0 3.7 3.5 3.2 3.1 2.3

3.5 2.9

I I I I 1 i I I I I 1 I I I I I I

In summary, the participant satisfaction with DCM in Pierce County was very

positive. The participants feel that DCM has a positive impact on the management

of cases.

(3) Conclusion

Based on the six evaluation criteria, the following conclusions can be drawn

about the criminal DCM demonstrations:

There is no evidence that DCM is or is not cost-beneficial;

There is evidence at two sites, Detroit and Pierce County, that DCM reduced the number of aged cases in the system and reduced the time to disposition;

There is evidence in Camden County that DCM substantially reduced the flow into (and thus out of) the grand jury;

There is no clear evidence that DCM led to better use of judge and attorney time;

Scheduling certainty clearly increased in Pierce County;

Participant satisfaction (which was only measured in Pierce County) was highly favorable; and

Informational support improved substantially at all sites.

52

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

D. Summation

The demonstrations show that DCM can effect positive results. They also

show that DCM is not a standardized set of techniques to be plucked off the shelf

and disseminated. Basically, DCM is a management approach, a commitment to

apply resources to sort out disposable cases as early as possible and to manage the

remaining cases to disposition within set time frames along whatever specialized

paths seem appropriate.

53