Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type

FY2008 Caseflow Assessment

1

MARYLAND STATE JUDICIARY FY 2008 STATEWIDE CASEFLOW ASSESSMENT

METHODOLOGY & DATA/APPLICATION ISSUES


2

This section of the report consists of three main parts. The first part describes data verification efforts conducted prior to the analysis of the FY2008 Circuit and District Court caseflow assessment data. The second part discusses the extent to which jurisdictions performed the 10% data quality check required as part of this assessment. The third part contains an analysis of the reasons why jurisdictions removed cases from the assessment application. An appendix is attached to the methodology to highlight all of recommendations and challenges that the jurisdictions faced while completing the FY2008 assessment.

I: Methodology Identification of Valid Data

• The current analysis is based on a sample of 41,474 original cases terminated in the Circuit Courts and 64,603 original cases

terminated in District Court during FY 2008 (7/1/2007-6/30/2008). The data was provided by the caseflow assessment project manager in December 2008.

• The number of cases (i.e., original terminations) analyzed for the FY2008 statewide report matches the assessment application’s

official counts of the valid data available from each Circuit and District jurisdiction. Valid data is defined by the official statewide time standards as those cases that contain a case start date, had the original termination during FY2008, and have a positive case processing time where the case start date occurs prior to the case stop date.

o For Circuit Courts, there were a total of 245 cases with missing case start dates, and 199 cases with negative case processing

times. Among the Circuit Court cases with missing case start dates, the majority occurred in either criminal (49%) or juvenile delinquency (47%) case types. For criminal cases with missing start dates, the majority occurred in motor vehicle appeal or jury trial cases. Of the cases with negative case processing times, over half occurred among juvenile delinquency cases (61%) followed by criminal cases (36%). It may be useful for the Judicial Council to assess whether the cases with missing start dates and negative case processing times are of a particular sub-type resulting in their consistent exclusion from the caseflow assessment.

o Of the 66,692 case terminations originally sampled from the JIS District Court data bases, 1,999 terminations (3%) were without

case start dates and 91 terminations (0.14%) had negative case processing time. Over 97% of the missing start date terminations were found in civil case; 923 terminations in civil large cases, consisting of over 10% of 8,823 civil large terminations sampled from the JIS data and 1,024 terminations in civil small case, close to 9% of 11,878 civil small terminations extracted from the JIS civil data. In terms of case sub-type, close to 1,600 of these missing start day cases in civil are contract and another 300 are tort. Seventy-eight percent of the terminations with negative case processing time were found in a single case type: civil small cases. Thus, of the six District Court case types, civil cases are more prone to have terminations with invalid key data elements.

One of the main reasons that civil cases have so many missing case start dates is that civil cases without parties being

served may be dismissed by the Maryland Rule 3-507. Since the civil case start date is the date of service in the caseflow assessment, these cases result in missing start date cases. One solution to this problem is to remove these cases from the assessment. Alternatively, the civil case start day could be changed to filing date as in circuit civil cases


3

though this change may render most of the cases, in particular those in civil small, over-standard cases unless the grace period before issuing 3-507 is suspended from the calculation of the case processing time.

Most of the terminations with negative case time in civil cases are likely to be confessed judgment cases. Again,

excluding such cases from the assessment, as well as the possibility of changing the case start date, should be considered if these cases are found to affect the caseflow assessment. This is particularly the case for cases with missing start dates in civil large and small since these cases constitute over 2 percent of the entire sample.

• The FY2008 caseflow assessment report differs slightly from the FY2007 report. In particular, when performance measures are

displayed in the aggregate (e.g., statewide within-standard percentages, or average case times displayed by jurisdiction size) the values are weighted to take into account for differences in jurisdiction-size, or the total the number cases originally terminated by a court, and to accurately reflect each jurisdictions’ contribution to statewide case processing performance. However, when historical data was used to show the trend, the unweighted approach was used to calculate the statewide within-standard percentages and average case processing times because data limitations found in pre-FY2007 data.

• Certain analyses were not performed for the FY2008 report due to limitations with the assessment data. For instance, an analysis

was not performed on the relationship between postponements and case processing performance because the assessment application contained postponements that occurred outside the time standards-defined case start and stop dates. It would be inappropriate to examine the relationship between postponements and case processing performance when the postponements may have occurred after the case stop (TPR-related postponements in CINA cases), and had no impact on case processing performance.

• In addition to reporting the average case processing times for case types, this report also provides the median case processing times

by case type. Unlike the average case time, the median case processing time is the middle value in the distribution of case processing times for a particular case type. For example, if all the criminal case processing times (from each jurisdiction) were arranged in magnitude from lowest to greatest, the median criminal case processing time would be the value in the middle of the distribution. Unlike the arithmetic mean (i.e., the ACT), the median is not affected by extreme scores.

• Appendix A of the methodology section of the statewide report also provides the recommendations and challenges that the

jurisdictions faced while completing the FY2008 assessment. The Maryland Judiciary is committed to not only documenting all jurisdiction-specific challenges and recommendations related to the completion of the assessment application but also responding to each item in a timely and comprehensive manner.


4

II. Data Quality Analysis of Removed Cases

• Per the request of the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), a brief analysis of the cases that jurisdictions removed from the

FY2008 caseflow assessment application was performed for the statewide report. At the September 2008 statewide caseflow assessment training sessions for Circuit and District Courts, jurisdictions were encouraged to ensure that a reason is provided when a case is removed from the assessment application. Currently, the assessment application has four pre-identified and valid reasons for removing a case from the application: 1) Reopen, 2) Waiver for Fee Denied, 3) No Case Really Opened, and 4) Incorrect Case Type. The assessment application also affords jurisdictions to remove a case for ‘Other’ reasons. The Maryland Judiciary has an interest in not only identifying the ‘Other’ reasons that jurisdictions are using for removing a case, but also making modifications to the application (where appropriate) to include additional valid removal reasons to the pre-identified list currently available. o The following analysis provides insight on the types of cases removed by both Circuit and District Courts, and the associated

removal reasons. The analysis is performed by case type (jurisdiction-specific information is available upon request), and focuses specifically on those cases that were removed by jurisdictions. The assessment application has a filter to identify the cases removed by the jurisdictions. It is also important to note that the following analysis is based on the caseflow data contained in the assessment application, which represents a sampling of each jurisdiction’s total, original terminations for FY2008.

• Table 2 displays the number and percentage of cases that jurisdictions removed manually from the assessment application by case

type. Removed cases have been identified as either ‘valid’ or ‘invalid.’ Removed, valid cases refers to those cases that should have been included in the assessment application because (on initial review) the cases had valid start and stop dates, as well as a positive case processing time. Removed, invalid cases refer to those cases that had either a missing case start date or a negative case time, and would be removed automatically by the assessment application in any calculations of case processing performance.

o Of the 7 Circuit Court case types analyzed, there were a total of 320 cases removed from the assessment application by

jurisdictions. In contrast, 44 cases across the 6 District Court case types analyzed for the FY2008 assessment were removed from the assessment application.

Of the 320 cases removed by Circuit Courts, 153 cases (48%) were valid cases and were removed for reasons other than

having a missing start or a negative clock time. Similarly, of the 44 District Court case types removed from the assessment application, 41 cases (93%) were valid cases and were removed from the application for other reasons, which will be discussed below.

For Circuit Courts, there were a greater percentage of removed, invalid cases (i.e., those with either a missing case start

date or negative case processing times) than valid cases (52% vs. 48%, respectively). While these removed, invalid


5

cases would have been automatically excluded from any calculations of case processing time if jurisdictions had not removed them, the presence of these 167 cases, constituting nearly over one third of the invalid 444 cases found in the assessment data, provides evidence that jurisdictions in fact reviewed these and other cases and took proper actions.

Table 2. Number and Percentage of Removed Cases by Case Type

Removed Cases Valid Invalid

Case Type

N % N %

Total

Circuit Courts Criminal 21 30% 49 70% 70 Civil 19 95% 1 5% 20 Family 41 98% 1 2% 42 Juvenile 52 36% 92 64% 144 CINA Shelter 9 100% 9 CINA Non-Shelter 11 31% 24 69% 35 TPR --- --- ---

Total 153 48% 167 52% 320 Case Type N % N % Total District Court

Criminal 6 86% 1 14% 7 Traffic 21-902 5 100% 5 Traffic Must Appear 21 21 Traffic Payable 3 75% 1 25% 4 Civil Large 5 100% 5 Civil Small 1 50% 1 50% 2

Total 41 93% 3 7% 44

• Table 3 displays the removal reasons for valid cases (N = 153, Circuit Courts; N = 41, District Court), which are cases that have no

apparent data deficiencies such as missing the case start date or having a negative case processing time. While the reasons for removal among invalid, removed cases are available in the assessment application, the data does not lend itself easily to analysis. Therefore, the removal reason analysis is focused solely on those removal reasons among valid, removed cases. It is important to note that the reasons for removal among valid cases may be of most interest because these cases should have remained in the application as they had a valid case start and stop date.


6

Table 3. Number and Percentage of Removal Reasons by Case Type Case Type

Criminal Civil Family Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA

Non-Shelter

Removal Reasons

N % N % N % N % N % N % Circuit Courts

Belongs to Another Court 0 -- 0 --- 0 --- 1 2% 0 --- 0 ---

Change Case Type 0 -- 0 --- 0 --- 1 2% 2 22% 1 9% Fee Denied 0 -- 3 16% 2 5% 0 --- 0 --- 0 --- Not Opened 1 5% 0 --- 3 7% 6 12% 0 --- 0 --- Reopen 11 52% 4 21% 25 61% 1 2% 0 --- 0 --- No Reason Provided 0 --- 0 --- 1 2% 2 4% 0 --- 0 --- Other 9 43% 12 63% 10 24% 41 79% 7 78% 10 91%

Total 21 100% 19 100% 41 100% 52 100% 9 100% 11 100% Case Type

21902 Civil Large Civil Small Traffic Must

Appear Traffic

Payable Criminal

Removal Reasons

N % N % N % N % N % N % District Court

Belongs to Another Court

0 -- 0 --- 0 --- 5 24% 3 100% 0 ---

Not Opened 1 20% 0 --- 0 --- 2 10% 0 --- 3 50% Reopen 2 40% 3 60% 0 --- 9 43% 0 --- 3 50% Other 2 40% 2 40% 1 100% 5 24% 0 --- 0 ---

Total 5 100% 5 100% 1 100% 21 100% 3 100% 6 100%

• Among Circuit Courts, the most frequently cited reason for removing criminal and family cases was the case being reopened (i.e.,

not having an original termination in FY2008), followed by an “other” removal reason. For criminal and family cases the most frequently cited “other” reasons include the case being outside the assessment period or expunged.

• For civil, juvenile, and CINA cases, the pre-defined removal reasons provided in the assessment application did not capture the

reasons why jurisdictions removed cases. Therefore, the ‘Other’ removal reason category was most often used by jurisdictions to discard from the assessment their civil, juvenile, and CINA cases.

o The most frequency cited ‘other’ reason for which civil cases were removed (i.e., 58% of the removed cases) is the case

stop date was outside the FY2008 assessment dates, either prior to or after FY2008. o Among juvenile cases removed for ‘other’ reasons, the most popular explanations include: 1) Transferred Out (20%), 2)

Transferred In (20%), 3) Transferred for Supervision Only (15%), and 4) No Disposition Obtained (13%). While ‘transferred for supervision only’ is a valid case removal reason (although not listed as such in the assessment


7

application), other transfer-related reasons have not been determined to be valid removal reasons by the Time Standards Sub-Committee. Thus, removing cases for the other transfer reasons identified needs to be examined by the Time Standards Sub-Committee.

o The most frequently cited ‘other’ reason for removed CINA shelter cases is that the case closed outside of the FY2008

assessment. In particular, of the 7 cases that noted other removal reasons, 86% noted that removal was due to the case stop date being outside the assessment range.

o Similar to CINA shelter cases, the case closing outside the assessment range was the most frequent ‘other’ reason

explanation for removing a CINA non-shelter cases.

• Among District Court removed cases, the most popular reasons for removal were either that the case was reopened or due to an ‘Other’ reason.

o Traffic must appear cases used the ‘other’ removal option most frequently. Of the 5 cases removed for other reasons, the

most common explanation was due to the case being expunged (40%). • As noted above, in addition to the cases that were manually removed by jurisdictions, there is a group of invalid cases that were

automatically excluded by the assessment application. The numbers of these cases are not insignificant in some case types, in particular District civil large and small cases. When the number of these cases is substantially large, removing these cases from the sample may significantly affect results of the analysis that uses the data.

Number of Cases Reviewed

• One of the initiatives implemented for the FY2008 caseflow assessment was establishing clear guidelines for the 10% data

review. While jurisdictions were requested to select at least 10% of the cases in the assessment data from each case type and conduct a data quality check by comparing the assessment data with the information found in the actual files, no concrete instruction was provided as to the selection of the cases for the review and which data elements should be reviewed, etc. To address this issue, more detailed guidelines were developed and shared with court personnel during the FY2008 assessment training sessions1. During the trainings, the courts were also requested to flag the cases that received the 10% review by checking the ‘record reviewed’ data field in the assessment application. The present analysis examines the extent to which the assessment data was received the ‘10% review’ by jurisdictions.

• Table 4 presents the percentage and number of ‘reviewed’ cases by case type and jurisdiction for Circuit Courts. When

aggregated for each case type, greater than 10% of the cases in the sample were reviewed. However, the percentage of cases reviewed varies substantially from one jurisdiction to another. In the table ‘N/A’ refers to instances where no terminations were

1 For more detailed information regarding the 10% data review, see the FY2008 Circuit and District Courts Caseflow Assessment Application Training Manuals. The manuals are available for download from the Maryland Judiciary’s CourtNet (http://courtnet/caseflowassessment/index.html).


8

reported except for Montgomery County and Prince George’s Circuit Courts where ‘N/A’ is used because it is assumed that data quality checks were performed prior to their upload of the assessment data to the application. For example, from Montgomery County Circuit Court’s FY2008 caseflow report, it is clear that call cases in the sample were reviewed and most of the key information was verified with actual files before the data was uploaded to the assessment application.

o It is commendable that some jurisdictions went far beyond the data quality review that was requested. For instance,

Cecil County reviewed nearly 100% of its data, and Dorchester and Queen Anne’s Counties reviewed approximately 50%of criminal, civil and family cases and close to 100% of juvenile and child welfare cases.

o One of the goals associated with data quality is to have all jurisdictions complete both the initial data quality review

and the 10% review. Among the Circuit Court jurisdictions subject to this sub-analysis,2 the percent of jurisdictions completing the 10% review ranges from 55% (for review of TPR cases) to 68% (review of civil and juvenile delinquency cases). The number of jurisdictions completing the 10% data review varies by case type. Specifically, as few as 7 jurisdictions failed to complete the 10% review for civil, juvenile delinquency, and CINA non-shelter cases and as high as 9 jurisdictions failed to complete the 10% review for criminal, CINA shelter, and TPR cases.

The observed variations in the completion of the 10% data quality reviews across jurisdictions are of great

concern when conducting the statewide analysis because no guarantee is provided as to the accuracy of the information in the data and the validity of the analyses that use the data. While it is argued that the assessment data from the courts that have regular data quality checks in place should be sufficiently ‘good’ and thus should not require additional data check in the assessment, we note that data errors do occur during the extraction of the data and its upload to the assessment application. Accordingly, even when the quality of the original data is assured, it is still necessary to sample cases from the assessment data and closely review them for accuracy.

Note, however, the present analysis is solely based on the examination of ‘reviewed’ data field in the assessment

data. It is possible that some jurisdictions performed the 10% review and failed to check the ‘reviewed’ box. At the same time, it is also possible that others may have checked the box without fully completing the review. To verify the extent of jurisdictions’ data review process, additional in-depth examination of ‘reviewed’ case information is necessary.

o Overall, at least 10% of the data for each Circuit Court case type was verified via the 10% data quality review (see Table

4). In particular, 20% of the criminal cases were verified via the 10% data quality review check whereas 75% of the TPR cases were verified through this data quality check.

In general, case types with fewer observations such as child welfare cases had a greater rate of review. TPR

cases had the highest rate of review at 75% followed by CINA non-shelter cases (42%), and CINA shelter cases (31%).

2 The Circuit Court jurisdictions subject to this sub-analysis are those who did not upload their data to the assessment application and for which original terminations occurred in FY2008.


9

o The percentage of cases reviewed also varies within each jurisdiction, suggesting that the management of the caseflow

assessment, at least with respect to court’s data quality/review efforts, may not be standardized across departments (within the court). It is recommended that each jurisdiction develop court-wide data quality check procedures and standards to ensure the accuracy of its case information and validity of the jurisdiction-specific case processing performance analysis.

Table 4. Percentage and Number of Cases Reviewed by Jurisdiction and Case Type, Circuit Court

Criminal Civil Family Juvenile CINA-Shelter CINA-Non

Shelter TPR Jurisdiction Circuit % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

Allegany 4 0% (0) 100% (491) 100% (495) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Anne Arundel 5 18% (87) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Baltimore City 8 0% (0) 99% (488) 2% (10) 12% (58) 31% (149) 76% (26) 81% (278) Baltimore County 3 43% (203) 10% (48) 15% (70) 12% (59) 32% (58) 20% (38) 100% (31) Calvert 7 39% (132) 12% (58) 14% (68) 21% (58) 68% (13) 0% (0) 80% (8) Caroline 2 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Carroll 5 20% (100) 11% (52) 3% (15) 50% (161) 17% (3) 100% (13) 0% (0) Cecil 2 100% (495) 96% (480) 100% (493) 100% (297) 100% (67) 100% (6) 100% (14) Charles 7 17% (86) 0% (2) 17% (83) 15% (72) 0% (0) 92% (11) 0% (0) Dorchester 1 58% (230) 65% (236) 53% (265) 100% (120) 100% (4) 100% (2) 100% (4) Frederick 6 11% (56) 15% (73) 16% (79) 47% (196) 32% (18) 100% (21) 83% (10) Garrett 4 0% (0) 0% (0) 92% (301) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) N/A (--) Harford 3 9% (43) 10% (51) 10% (49) 13% (60) 9% (13) 42% (13) 96% (24) Howard 5 0% (0) 25% (125) 5% (22) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Kent 2 8% (25) 7% (12) 0% (0) 41% (29) 0% (0) N/A (--) 0% (0) Montgomery 6 N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) Prince George’s 7 N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) N/A (--) Queen Anne’s 2 49% (103) 48% (232) 53% (178) 98% (62) 100% (2) 100% (1) N/A (--) Somerset 1 10% (34) 10% (29) 10% (46) 17% (14) 41% (7) 13% (1) 100% (2) St. Mary’s 7 18% (79) 6% (32) 13% (64) 68% (123) 57% (27) N/A (--) 100% (7) Talbot 2 0% (0) 0% (1) 1% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) 0% (0) Washington 4 15% (73) 17% (81) 28% (133) 27% (114) 26% (22) 33% (20) 100% (30) Wicomico 1 10% (49) 10% (52) 17% (82) 10% (34) 100% (24) 93% (14) 0% (0) Worcester 1 0% (0) 10% (50) 0% (0) 9% (13) 86% (12) 100% (32) 100% (11)

Total 20% (1,795) 27% (2,593) 25% (2,455) 25% (1,470) 31% (419) 42% (198) 75% (419)

• Table 5 presents the percentage and number of ‘reviewed’ case for the 24 District Court jurisdictions. The compliance rate for

the 10% review appears higher for District Court jurisdictions than Circuit Courts and the variation in the percent of cases reviewed across jurisdictions and across case types is much smaller. That said, comparisons across types of courts (i.e., Circuit vs. District Courts) and jurisdictions within the same type of court should be approached with caution as data is not collected on the quality of the review being performed.


10

o Among traffic cases, only a few jurisdictions failed to review their 10% of the cases. Six jurisdictions reviewed less than 10% of criminal cases, 10 in civil large and 4 in civil cases. Of those jurisdictions with less than 10% review rate, only 1 jurisdiction did not review cases at all in a single case type.

o Overall, the percentage of cases reviewed ranges from 11% for traffic 21-902 to 13% for traffic must appear suggesting

minimal variation across case types. The variation across jurisdictions is also small; no District Court jurisdiction reviewed greater than 30% of its cases for a given case type though much fewer jurisdictions failed to review its 10% of cases.

o As stated above, the percentage of cases reviewed varies within each jurisdiction, suggesting that the management of

the caseflow assessment, at least with respect to court’s data quality/review efforts, may not be standardized across departments (within the court).

Table 5. Percentage and Number of Cases Reviewed by Jurisdiction and Case Type, District Court

Criminal 21-902 Traffic Must Appear Traffic Payable Civil Large Civil Small Jurisdiction District % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N) % (N)

Allegany 12 8% (39) 11% (46) 10% (49) 10% (51) 6% (16) 10% (42) Anne Arundel 7 10% (50) 10% (52) 10% (50) 10% (50) 14% (57) 11% (50) Baltimore City 1 10% (50) 7% (40) 10% (50) 10% (50) 21% (85) 27% (112) Baltimore County 8 11% (54) 10% (51) 11% (56) 10% (50) 10% (41) 18% (81) Calvert 4 25% (125) 18% (89) 15% (76) 20% (99) 20% (70) 12% (55) Caroline 3 11% (55) 11% (22) 10% (50) 10% (50) 6% (11) 13% (53) Carroll 10 11% (54) 10% (51) 14% (72) 20% (98) 8% (34) 16% (77) Cecil 3 9% (47) 11% (50) 10% (51) 10% (50) 12% (54) 11% (52) Charles 4 16% (81) 11% (53) 11% (54) 10% (52) 2% (9) 3% (12) Dorchester 2 2% (9) 3% (8) 1% (3) 4% (22) 2% (5) 2% (7) Frederick 11 11% (57) 10% (52) 10% (50) 10% (50) 15% (62) 23% (98) Garrett 12 8% (41) 11% (25) 10% (42) 10% (50) 12% (12) 11% (50) Harford 9 8% (40) 12% (58) 11% (57) 10% (52) 16% (70) 12% (53) Howard 10 13% (65) 17% (85) 25% (125) 10% (50) 21% (82) 14% (59) Kent 3 13% (63) 10% (13) 13% (67) 13% (64) 5% (5) 8% (40) Montgomery 6 7% (32) 10% (48) 10% (50) 9% (46) 8% (33) 10% (44) Prince George’s 5 30% (151) 10% (52) 10% (52) 23% (113) 14% (63) 13% (55) Queen Anne’s 3 22% (109) 10% (38) 21% (104) 11% (57) 12% (21) 10% (44) Somerset 2 21% (103) 19% (43) 30% (148) 13% (63) 22% (29) 13% (57) St. Mary’s 4 11% (54) 11% (57) 11% (56) 12% (62) 10% (33) 17% (74) Talbot 3 10% (48) 10% (27) 11% (53) 10% (51) 9% (20) 10% (48) Washington 11 10% (50) 13% (65) 33% (164) 10% (50) 16% (76) 12% (55) Wicomico 2 10% (52) 10% (50) 11% (55) 11% (56) 7% (28) 17% (78) Worcester 2 12% (58) 10% (50) 0% (0) 9% (46) 6% (20) 2% (8)

Total 12% (1,487) 11% (1,125) 13% (1,534) 12% (1,382) 12% (936) 12% (1,304)


11

III: Data and Application Issues This section highlights several key issues concerning the quality of the Maryland Judiciary Assessment data and the functionalities of the Caseflow Assessment Application that require discussion among the state judicial community as they are critical to the quality and usefulness of the caseflow assessment. In addition, jurisdictional requests for modifying the current Case Assessment Time Standards are included. Key Data Issues Discussed below are a few of the key caseflow-related issues that have been documented either as a result of performing the FY2008 statewide analysis or from reviewing the FY2008 jurisdiction-specific reports. A full account of all the issues brought forth by the Circuit and District Courts in their jurisdiction-specific reports is provided in Appendix A of this document. It is important to note that the Maryland Judiciary views all issues raised by the jurisdictions as a priority.

• The Maryland Judiciary expended a tremendous amount of resources to clarify for jurisdictions the data quality review component of the caseflow assessment. At the FY2008 caseflow training sessions held for Circuit and District court personnel held in September 2008, the caseflow assessment team comprised of caseflow court experts, technicians, and researchers discussed the importance of conducting both an initial data quality review and a more in-depth 10% review. The initial data quality review focused on correcting (when appropriate) any case in the assessment application data that had a missing start date or a negative case processing time. The more in-depth 10% review required jurisdictions to pull a random sample of cases from each case type and compare the information contained in the assessment application with the actual case file. The jurisdictions were instructed to compare any field that directly impacts case processing time such as all the time standards identified suspension events for a particular case type.

o In addition to clarifying the data review procedures, the updated caseflow training manuals provided Circuit Courts

with a user guide defining the UCS docket codes being used to pull the dates associated with each time standard-defined suspension event (for each case type). One of the benefits of having these docket codes available to jurisdictions is that they help to ensure that the correct code is being entered into the UCS system for each time standards-defined suspension event. At this time, District Court does not have a similar user guide. It is requested that a similar user guide is developed for District Court users as this additional clarification will help personnel ensure that the correct information is being entered and pulled (from the system) for caseflow purposes.

• While improvements have been made with regard to data quality, continued attention needs to be paid to ensuring the quality of the

assessment data. If courts were to use the caseflow data to review its case processing performance, make informed management decisions and implement successful case management procedures, it is essential that they are confident in the quality of the assessment data and have (programmatically) accurate analytical tools. While the Maryland Judiciary can assist courts with data analysis, ensuring quality data requires a partnership between the Judiciary and the jurisdictions involved in this annual caseflow assessment.


12

o As noted in previous caseflow assessment reports, cases with missing start dates continue to plague the assessment

data. Since in certain circumstances (such as confessed judgment cases in District Civil), valid cases may have a missing start date because of the definition of case start date applied for the Application data, unilaterally removing such cases without verifying the information may not be the best practice, which is what is currently being practiced.

o Additional guidance is needed as to how to handle cases that will always have or are likely to have missing start dates

(such as confessed judgment cases in District Civil and Circuit Criminal cases dismissed before the first appearance of defendant or his/her counsel, etc.). Equally needed are the guidelines regarding suspensions that started before the case start date, those ended after the case stop date, and those did not have proper suspension events.

o In addition, if a jurisdiction applies its “home-grown” rules in closing certain type of cases, the rules should be

reported to the AOC as well as should be documented in their case assessment reports. It is requested that the Time Standards Sub-Committee identify those cases with missing start dates and negative clock times that routinely appear in the assessment data, and decide whether it is appropriate to continue their inclusion as these cases are automatically excluded from all calculations (unless jurisdictions enter a case start date).

• In the FY2007 caseflow assessment report, it was requested that the assessment application identify and flag all reasons why cases

were removed from the Application by jurisdictions. The application was modified to generate such information; however, the current functionality is not adequate and additional modifications are needed. For instance, the application-generated ‘case removal‘ report does not list all the removed cases present in the assessment data. The reason for this appears to be due to programming that somehow skips the removed the cases also plagued by other errors such as a missing start date or a negative case processing time. Also, the case removal report does not identify the jurisdiction that removed the case rather only the case number is provided. It would be useful that the jurisdiction was provided along with the case number.

o A preliminary analysis of removal reasons is provided in Tables 2 and 3 above. The reasons for removal among those

cases removed for “other” reasons vary by case type among Circuit and District Courts. Some of the common “other” removal reasons among Circuit Courts include: case stop dates closing outside the range of the 2008 fiscal year, the exclusion of cases where no disposition date was available, and cases that were transferred in, out, or for supervision only. For District Courts, the most common “other” reason is due to the case being expunged. Based on these (preliminary) results, it appears that transfer cases, cases falling outside the 2008 fiscal year, those without a defined disposition date, and expunged cases require further discussion by the Time Standards Sub-Committee.

• As discussed in FY2007, confusion continues to surround some of the time standards-defined suspension events. While the

Maryland Judiciary has developed a detailed user guide for Circuit Court personnel (note: District Court personnel do not have a user guide), additional discussion and explanation needs to be provided regarding the appropriate start and stop dates for certain approved case time suspension events.


13

o For instance, in order to exclude time for the DNA suspension event, Court personnel have to identify cases postponed due to the unavailability of DNA test results on their own since the assessment application cannot identify such postponements automatically. Having Court personnel identify these cases while not a problem in and of itself can create challenges due to the fact the UCS does not have a specific postponement code due to DNA though it has a postponement code for forensic evidence. However, it remains unclear whether this postponement can be applied to the DNA suspension event when forensic evidence may apply to something other than DNA.

o Other areas where guidance is requested focuses on defining what constitutes a pre-sentence treatment program.

While it does not seem feasible to list out the programs that qualify for this suspension event, it may be possible for the Time Standards Sub-Committee to provide criteria or guidance on the types of programs to be represented by this suspension event.

o Several suspension events have defined as their suspension end date the “next concluded/continued/scheduled event”

(such as, mistrial, NCR, pre-trial treatment program, collaborative law, DNA, and incompetency). Without clear definition of what the “next event” should be, courts will vary in the amount of time excluded for the particular suspension event.

o It is requested that the Time Standards Sub-Committee review the suspension start and end dates for each case type

and ensure that clarity exists so that differences in the application of these suspension events across jurisdictions is minimized.

• As noted in the FY2007 report, postponements are considered to be a major reason why cases close over the state defined time

standards. That said, limitations associated with the postponement data contained in the assessment application preclude an analysis of the impact of postponements on case processing performance. In particular, it was determined that the number of postponements collected by the assessment application does not take into time standards-defined case start and stop dates. For example, the CINA shelter case stop date is adjudication; however, the assessment data included postponements that occurred post-adjudication. Also, courts differ in the types of postponements that they report to the assessment. Some courts only report trial postponements whereas other report pre-trial, trial, and sentencing postponements. Given variation in the reporting of postponement information and incomplete information on how each jurisdiction is reporting/collecting their postponement information, conducting a meaningful analysis of postponements in relation to case time using the statewide data would be extremely difficult if not impossible.

o Some Circuit and District courts noted in their jurisdiction-specific reports that the postponement reasons were not

available in the assessment application. Since postponement reasons are not standardized across jurisdictions, a postponement reason analysis has not been performed for the statewide report. Prior to analyzing postponement reasons, discussion and direction needs to occur related to how postponements are being measured across jurisdictions, how the postponements are linked to their respective postponement reasons, and whether jurisdictions should first standardize their postponement reasons.


14

• Several questions remain regarding the District Courts time standards. In particular, while the assessment application is not to

include reopened cases, one of the District Court time standards defined case start dates for District criminal, traffic must appear, and 21-902 cases is ‘removal from stet.’ If a case is removed from stet, it would seem that the case was previously opened particularly when stet is defined as one of the case stop events. Also, as discussed during the FY2008 caseflow assessment training for District Court personnel, District civil cases were not being closed on the last initial judgment or dismissal but rather were remaining open until the last judgment/dismissal date of the fiscal year under review. This issue was addressed with the appropriate technical personnel; however, continued oversight needs to occur to ensure that the assessment is measuring case time as defined by the time standards. Caution should be used when reviewing the District civil results as case time may be over-estimated. It is requested that the Time Standards Sub-Committee review the District Court time standards for clarity.

• Several jurisdiction-specific reports commended the caseflow assessment application, as well as the state judiciary for their technical

and informational assistance to improve the FY2008 caseflow initiative. In particular, it was noted several times that jurisdictions experienced improved efficiency while using the FY2008 application. Jurisdictions also appreciated the caseflow training sessions that were provided by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) for both Circuit and District court personnel. As a result of some of these efforts to better inform jurisdictions about caseflow processes and procedures, some of the jurisdiction-specific reports detail changes and make recommendations on how to improve the assessment application and the caseflow process, more generally. Therefore, it is requested that the Time Standards Sub-Committee review all of the policy-related time standards items brought forth by the jurisdictions, and provide feedback as to how each item will be addressed.


15

Appendix A


16

Assessment Application and UCS/JIS data Issues - Previously Raised General

1. Assessment Application: Jurisdictions were not able to export Assessment Data to MS Word or Excel. Need to provide jurisdictions with information on computer settings to successfully export data to a spreadsheet. 2. Testing Procedures: Need to develop detailed testing plans for testers to test all the new features and functionalities of the application and verify if any changes in the time standards were correctly applied during the pilot phase of the Assessment Application. Ideally, test plans should delineate what the tester should do and what is the expected outcome from each testing step. 3. Use of Jurisdiction-specific Codes: At least in UCS, jurisdictions are allowed to develop and use their own codes, creating confusion when a jurisdiction-specific code is identical to one of the default UCS codes. For example, ‘KMAN’ is the default UCS code for an Interlocutory Appeal; however, the Garrett County is using ‘KMAN’ for mandatory discovery. Austin is speaking with Tim Miller to rectify this issue. It is essential that JIS/UCS check with other jurisdictions regarding key UCS codes that are used in the assessment and ensures that all jurisdictions are using the same code for the same event, etc. 4. Inconsistency between UCS and Assessment: The data structure and definition under the assessment should be comparable, if not identical, to that of the data system from which the data is extracted to avoid any confusion or requiring jurisdictions additional data entry/verification work. For example, the Assessment Application utilizes different codes for postponements (certain codes are missing) and has fewer choices than that which is used in UCS. A jurisdiction indicated that they had to enter postponement reasons into the case management system, and they were not uploaded to the Assessment Application. 5. Disposition Codes: Currently, Administrative closure, Bankruptcy (BK) and Non-Participant (NP) are being used as valid civil dispositions in UCS (and included in the caseflow) even though they are no longer considered as such. While Administrative Closure as a case stop should be discussed further by the Time Standards Sub-Committee, BK and NP should be excluded from the Assessment Application as Civil disposition types. 6. Develop an Application exclusion list for Circuit and District Courts. Should Circuit “Lack of Jurisdiction” cases be included?

Circuit Courts 1. A missing start date results when first appearance hearing, pled, and received a disposition all happened on the same day in criminal and juvenile cases since UCS doesn’t allow such data entry with the same date. UCS should be modified to allow such data entry. It has been recommended that the program capture the date the disposition was entered into the case. There needs to be some indication of whether or not it is valid for a case to have a missing (time standards defined) case start date. 2. Facts Sustained/Facts Not Sustained should not be listed as a case stop (case disposition) for juvenile cases since they are outcomes of adjudicatory hearings. Also need to check the UCS code to see if these outcomes are listed as valid disposition types. 3. For suspensions (such as FTA/Bench Warrant/Reverse Waivers) that occur prior to the case start date, the portion of the suspension before the case start should not be included in the calculation of the suspension time. Currently, the suspension time includes time prior to the START date, which often results in a negative clock time. 4. Case suspension (such as a bankruptcy suspension) occurred after the case time stop date (or happened when the case was reopened) is currently included in the Assessment. 5. In multiple defendants cases, the first service and first answer dates were not captured correctly. The Assessment is capturing the service date on the last defendant served and the answer date for the last defendant to answer the original complaint. 6. During the pilot stage of the assessment, several courts incorrectly closed cases by using the disposition code BR for Bankruptcy. Since bankruptcy is a case time suspension and not a case stop, this code needs to be removed from the list of valid disposition events in UCS.


17

Assessment Application and UCS/JIS data Issues - Previously Raised (Continued)

Circuit Courts 7. In family cases, where the Motion for Waiver of Costs was filed, the date of filing of the petition should not be picked up as the case start even though it occurs prior to the caseflow assessment case start date (the filing date of the complaint or petition). 8. Juvenile cases transferred-in for supervision were not excluded from the Caseflow Assessment. Transfer for supervision only should be added as a defined removal reason. 9. Reopened cases are included in the Assessment Application (Baltimore City).

District Court 1. Currently, there is no document that provides a list of Time Standard-defined events and corresponding JIS codes. Accordingly, there is no way to know which suspension events are hard-coded and which ones are not in the JIS mainframes, for example. More seriously, jurisdictions do not have a way to correctly verify the events identified in the assessment data with actual case files. 2. Currently, in some civil cases, the case stop date was not correctly extracted from the JIS civil data, and these cases had reopened portions of the cases in the assessment data. During the FY2008 training, the issue was discussed and a temporary solution – only for over-standard cases – was suggested. JIS programmers are aware of this issue and are in a position to change the Civil extraction code for FY2009. Report on the status of JIS progress is requested. 3. It is requested that procedures be established to identify and flag multiple-complaint civil cases in order to be able to calculate the case processing time of these cases correctly. This issue should be addressed for FY2009. 4. Problems with the District postponement data (including postponements that took after the original case termination) referred to JIS. (District 5) 5. A new report, listing all TMA that had not been set (regardless of whether they are over 45 days old or not) was requested almost 2 years ago. This ADM for JIS to create this report is still outstanding. {District 10} 6. In confessed judgment cases, service for defendants is sent out at the same time a judgment is entered. Since service is therefore returned after the judgment is entered, assessment results indicate a "negative time" disposition. The application needs to be adjusted to account for this situation. The Time Standard Subcommittee should also examine whether such cases be included in the assessment. 7. Had to enter arrest warrant information again this year. {District 8} 8. Traffic Payables – Unable to make changes during 10% review because “Save” button not shown on computer screen. {District 11}

Assessment Application Related - FY2008 Assessment Issues Circuit Courts

1. The assessment picked up all dates for POS (postponement) and RES (reset), regardless whether the case was original or reopened. This required correcting the number of postponements in a given case since disposition of a case has been reopened multiple times. For example, postponements contained in the CINA cases include those that occur after the case STOP date. Postponements contained in the TPR cases also included those from the CINA case. 2. TPR cases that were dismissed, denied, or withdrawn are not include in the data.

3. Stop dates need to be captured for TPR cases that are disposed of in another fashion other than a final order (UCS Code: TFOG) being filed. 4. Missing Motor Vehicle Appeals as of June 2008 in the Assessment. {Criminal} 5. In domestic cases, the last disposition date, regardless whether the case is original or not, is being captured. For example, if a divorce case was reopened with a petition for contempt and then was dismissed, the assessment contains the date of the dismissal, not the Decree of Divorce disposition. 6. Propose that when the petition for waiver to an adult court is filed prior to the case start date, the suspension should begin on the case start date.


18

Assessment Application Related - FY2008 Assessment Issues (Continued) Circuit Courts

7. Assessment Reports should include/focus on median time. 8. It would be helpful for trend analysis if the application could produce graphs or reports showing: 1) state average within-standard rates for each category across several years, 2) Court's within-standard rate by category across several years. 9. Information collected in UCS not gathered in assessment program and must be manually entered into system. The same is true when changes are found from the assessment program; the clerk must update UCS, if the record is to be corrected. Is there any way to address this? 10. Print function in Assessment Application proved difficult again in FY08. 11. Providing “Circuit” reports is not as helpful as individual county reports. 12. The application should be able to run an entire batch of individual case detail reports at one time, instead of printing each case individually. It should also to print all the information pertaining to one specific case on one sheet of paper (possibly in two columns), instead of spanning across two sheets. 13. In criminal, the application was picking up the filing date as opposed to the start date (first appearance) so each of these had to be changed manually. 14. The application software should not allow a postponement to be entered without a reason. As it came time to evaluate postponements, we found individual case records from the application process that noted a postponement, but there wasn’t any reason given. The application should also “highlight” such fields so that they are not overlooked or should have a method to force the user to input a postponement code. 15. In some instances, print outs of the reports from the assessment are not readable. Examples have been sent to JIS. 16. Flag felony and misdemeanor cases in the Assessment. 17. Data within JIS (such as start and stop dates) and Caseflow Assessment was not always consistent. 18. Removed Case Report only list the cases that were removed by jurisdictions, excluding those by the application whereas the ‘removed’ filter list all cases that were removed. 19. A number of cases in Juvenile show 0 days under ‘Time to Disposition.’ It appears that the application was not able to re-adjust the case time back to 1 days after the case time became 0 (or negative) when the record was modified (such as when jurisdictions enter the case start dates in missing start-day cases – See Juvenile 07-J-00-000144). 20. When a case becomes an open-&-shut case due to change in case start or stop date, the existing suspensions appear to remain unchanged or not removed (Example: Juvenile: 02-J-07-000490). 21. The assessment application does not show data fields for military leave suspension in the CINA Shelter and Non-Shelter cases. 22. The overall jurisdiction-specific terminations for certain jurisdictions were not complete for a long time. Negative suspension time for domestic relations child support service event. (see 12-U-08-000108 )

Assessment Application Related - FY2008 Assessment Issues (Continued)

District Court 1. Develop special category (flag) to identify cases over standard for valid reasons, so they will not have an adverse impact upon performance. 3. Cases belonging to other counties found in our data. 5. Incorrect number of trials was captured in the data. 6. When a case has more than three postponements, the clerk had to toggle back and forth between the postponement screen and then go back to the original screen to save the work. 7. When criminal cases had the PBJ disposition, the information was not captured in the "disposition type" on the case record screen. 8. The penalty deposit payment date was not picked up as the 1st trial date.


19

Assessment Application Related - FY2008 Assessment Issues (Continued) District Court

9. JTPs are not recognized as "stop" time. 10. The Notice of Intention to Defend date is not downloading in the Assessment Program and it should since that is the start date when there is no service. 11. A date downloaded into the field “last pre-trial hearing date.” No small claim has pre-trial hearings so all these dates had to be deleted. 12. The Assessment does not have the Disposition Type code for a scenario when both parties appeared but the case was dismissed. 13. Incorrect First Appearance Date. Twenty-three cases had in 21-902 had an incorrect first appearance date. Assessment is capturing the last court appearance (or Stop Date). 14. Criminal – Assessment captured the Issue Date of the Summons/Warrants for the case start date rather than leaving the start date blank. Assessment filling in the incorrect case start date. 15. A real improvement to caseflow could be made by creating a mechanism in the computer to calculate the time for each individual case. 16. "SuspStopMissing" error appeared in criminal cases even when the clerk entered the case in sub curia status and the Sentencing/Sub Curia end date. These cases needed the sentencing/sub curia end date entered to correct the error. 17. Unclear if the criminal data was sampled from one site or from all the sites in the jurisdictions. 18. How is a random sample of cases being pulled when Districts have multiple locations?

Data- Related - FY2008 Assessment Issues UCS Related - Circuit Courts

1. An improvement to UCS should be considered that will better track "day of postponements." For criminal cases, the case is called in open court and postponements are requested. 2. Need to develop a tickle in UCS when service was taken place but an answer has not been received so that a status conference can be scheduled for these cases. These cases are not captured until the 2-507 is issued. 3. Clerk's office discovered that a calendar event in a criminal case could be updated or changed. In all other types of cases, after recording an event, one cannot update or change such information. AOC made aware but not addressed as of report date. 4. In UCS, the clerk must enter a bench warrant/FTA as a postponement; therefore, this creates a higher number of postponements. Can bench warrants not calculate as a postponement? The assessment program counts all postponements generated in UCS. 5. Separate interlocutory appeal codes. Interlocutory appeal has its own code (KINT); however there is only one mandate code (KMAN). 6. A form letter should be generated through UCS when a pleading is filed after the bankruptcy stay to ask for a copy of the order lifting the stay so that suspension time can be calculated (Civil-Bankruptcy Suspension). 7. For all case types in UCS, the target date should be calculated by taking suspensions into consideration. 8. UCS should automatically recalculate and change the target date whenever a case stop/start took place. 9. DNA suspension event-postponement reason code is not captured in system. 10. Several courts were using the disposition code AC or Administratively Close as a case disposition in the following cases: Request for Administrative Subpoena (s), Foreign Judgment, and Commission entered from another state. 11. Clear direction needs to be provided to the Courts regarding the appropriate TPR case stop codes for final order of guardianship. 12. Habeas Corpus cases where the waiver for fee application was denied resulting in invalid start and stop dates. 13. Add weighted ACT to caseflow. 14. Why is a higher level of clearance required to access removed cases?


20

Data- Related -FY2008 Assessment Issues (Continued) UCS Related - Circuit Courts 15. Can the Caseflow not gather cases that are closed but still on a suspension code KPST (PSETX) and KINT (IA)?

Data- Related -FY2008 Assessment Issues (Continued)

JIS District Court Data Related - District Court 1. Need code for summons un-served--currently is noted as a comment in the system. 2. The way the computer batch system sets trials dates is out of the clerk’s control. The computer system is not designated to pick the soonest open date for trial, so often times cases are set 45-90 days out from the citation entry date. 3. Start dates in Citations prior to 2000 were off 2-3 days and needed to be corrected. 4. Programming should be provided to enable Commissioners to enter trial dates. 5. Review codes for mental health court and drug court cases to avoid them being included in Assessment. 6. No mechanism to notify the clerks of cases which are pending and have not been assigned a trial date. Would like a similar 45 day report in Civil as there is in Criminal and Traffic. 7. A Rule 3-507 notice is often generated 14 to 16 months after the last activity date. The notice needs to be produced more timely and consistent with the rule. Time Standards Policy Issues - Previously Raised

District Court 1. District Court Case Start Dates: Currently, ‘Amendment from circuit court’ and ‘Removal from Stet’ are defined as valid case start date events for criminal, traffic 21-902 and must-appear cases. The Time Standard Subcommittee is requested to decide upon whether they should continue to be included in the caseflow data. 2. Civil Large cases bankruptcy suspension stop entered after judgment: These suspensions are currently not counted as valid due to a missing suspension stop date. The Time Standard Subcommittee is requested to discuss whether such suspensions should be counted valid in the assessment.{District 11} 3. Traffic Payable cases in which tickets were “paid out” before given trial dates: These cases are currently excluded from the assessment. However, the issue was raised about the treatment of cases in which tickets were initially paid out but a defendant later went for trial (citation closed as a prepay first then defendant writes in for case to be reopened for trial). The Time Standard Subcommittee is requested to decide upon whether these cases be included in the assessment or removed if they are found in the data.

FY2008 Time Standards Policy Issues Circuit Courts

1. Exclude from the Assessment cases that were filed in another jurisdiction and transferred to the "destination" court. One alternative to removing these cases would be to measure the case time from the time when they were transferred in rather than the time when they were initially opened in other jurisdictions. 2. Consider psychological evaluations as a suspension event. 3. Questions have been raised about whether other suspension events that render a case inactive should be included in the Caseflow Time Standards. For example, when a case cannot proceed because it is waiting for a decision from the: Federal Court, Attorney General’s Office, another Jurisdiction, or the Court of Appeals (in another case), the case time should be suspended. It is also recommended that case time is suspended in a case where an order of rehabilitation has been granted (similar to the bankruptcy suspension). 4. If there is a suspension event that occurs prior to the case start date and ends sometime between case start and stop, is it legitimate to exclude from the calculation of case time that portion of the suspension that occurred after the case start? For example, in criminal cases, when an attorney for a defendant appears while his/her client is under a bench warrant, this would constitute a suspension event that occurred prior to the case start. The valid portion of the suspension – from the case start to suspension stop – should be subtracted from the case time.


21

FY2008 Time Standards Policy Issues (Continued) Circuit Courts

5. While current definitions of the suspension events cover most of the situations that courts encounter, no guidelines are provided for jurisdictions to handle unusual situations. For instance, how should jurisdictions (or the application) handle instances in multiple defendant civil cases where one defendant has a bankruptcy and the other doesn’t, and the case continue to moves forward? Should bankruptcy suspension time be excluded from the caseflow even though the case continued to move forward? Similarly, should a multiple defendant case be treated as a single defendant case if the second of two defendants was never served by closing it when the complaint(s) associated with the first defendant was disposed of? The subcommittee is requested to address such issues as deemed appropriate and transmit its resolutions to jurisdictions for dissemination. 6. Allow the time to stop at the start for Petition for Reverse Waiver filed prior to the start date. A case cannot go forward until a ruling is made on petition. Presently the courts' ruling causes a negative disposition time in the case. 7. Recommend case time suspension for the period of time between plea or verdict and sentence while awaiting payment of arrearage in Constructive Criminal Contempt cases as well as in cases where the defendant is a cooperating state witness and in special plea agreements calling for deferred sentencing in exchange for adherence to a restitution payment regime. 8. Need a broader definition for PSI as a stop, such as 'sentencing deferred pending Sentencing Memorandum being filed' as a PSI suspension event. Sentencing Memorandum contains information the judge needs for sentencing. Memorandum not prepared by parole and probation. 9. The time standard should remain 180 days to "try" the case, but the standards should allow additional time, such as 2 months, to finalize the sentencing. 10. Need guidance determining if events such as certain treatment programs (e.g., a pre-disposition treatment program (a suspension event) vs. a pre-disposition treatment supervision) can be considered suspensions for time standards purposes. It is requested that the Subcommittee develop criteria to be used by clerks to help them assess whether a program being ordered is a pre-disposition treatment program. 11. For a suspension event like competency and DNA test result, the suspension event begins with the competency evaluation order or postponement of a scheduled event due to the unavailability of DNA results and ends with the date of the next event, supposedly a competency hearing or trial, which may occur some time after the results of the competency evaluation or DNA test result is received. Problems arise when the “next” event is not the one that we expect (e.g., a competency hearing or a trial), resulting in a shortened suspension. It is recommended that the Time Standards Sub-Committee review this issue as it may be advisable to define the “next event” in the time standards chart as the suspension stop date. 12. Is it forensic evidence in addition to DNA that is the suspension? Also, a suggestion was made for a crime lab suspension event. 13. Determination of when foreclosure cases should close (ratification of sale vs. auditor's report). 14. While courts track bankruptcy issues, it should not be incumbent upon the court personnel to contact the Trustee or the United State's Bankruptcy Court regarding the appropriate filing of paperwork. 15. Need a new suspension code for cases that are awaiting resolution of a companion case that is on an appeal. 16. Foreclosure cases should either be removed from the assessment or given special consideration, as cases are likely to exceed average processing times as compared to other civil cases, especially as Federal Government is pushing banks to slow down the foreclosure process. 17. Make civil cases start time at service instead of file date due to the many problems with timely service. 18. Recommend a suspension code for domestic/civil cases held sub curia. Could this also be used when closure/ruling on a case is pending due to ruling on another case that is on appeal? The case on appeal will have time suspended but the case also waiting for the finding will not.


22


19. We would receive an automatic time stop if we ordered a PSI. We are trying to save the resources of the State and the Division of Parole and Probation by only ordering PSIs when absolutely necessary. If we fail to postpone the sentencing for approximately 7 weeks, attorneys will simply request a PSI to get the stop. Any way to obtain a suspension for this postponement? 20. Time Standard for limited divorce cases. Some jurisdictions administratively close limited divorces upon the agreement of the parties, but this process is not universally accepted. A coherent statewide case management process should be formulated for limited divorces that work with the Case Time Standards or a new standard should be discussed for this case type. 21. Reexamine how the Caseflow Time Standards differ from the federal guidelines and decide whether they should be aligned or not. At a minimum, all UCS reports should report clock time by both standards (Caseflow and Federal). 22. Additional clarity needs to be obtained regarding what constitutes non-binding arbitration, and how non-binding arbitration differs from mediation as well as Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). At this point, the burden of interpretation is left to jurisdictions, which is problematic considering non-binding arbitration is considered a suspension event for the Caseflow Assessment. It is recommended that the Subcommittee or other appropriate entity develop a clear definition of non-binding arbitration so that courts can ensure that they are utilizing the suspension appropriately. Also, currently the suspension stop date for the non-binding arbitration is the date the case is reinstated. It is unclear the extent to which other non-binding arbitration related outcomes such as the successful completion of the arbitration or case dismissal are included in the arbitration-related suspension. It is requested that the Subcommittee address all possible outcomes for a given suspension event. 23. 30-day time standard for CINA Shelter cases should not include weekends or holidays because impacts case time. 24. CINA Shelter-Consolidate siblings into one case for statistical purposes. 25. TPR cases should have the same service stop considered when calculating case time. This is particularly troublesome for TPR cases involving siblings, where a delay in service on a parent slows down the processing time for all related cases. 26. Change start time in TPR cases from file date to show cause service date. 27. Perform assessment every two years rather than annually. Bi-yearly assessment would provide broader view of any trends and would save the Clerk's office a significant expenditure in employee hours. 28. Find a way to work more efficiently with the outside stakeholders in order to better manage foreclosures. {Civil} 29. The assessment application training manual was very helpful but we would suggest that it be broaden to include a section on case flow management; the purpose; goals, etc. which supervisory staff could utilize so that training would be more consistent throughout the State. It would be a ready reference for all staff to refer to when they have questions and could be a useful tool in teaching staff, especially new members. 30. There needs to be a review of changes in workload and how this may impact our resources and our day-to-day operations. This should be done in each of the functional areas addressed in this Assessment, as well as part of Chief Judge Bell's Judicial Certification plan. 31. Data quality portion of Assessment is challenging: One suggestion that could make sure this portion is given the attention it deserves is to separate data quality review from the assessment. If the data quality portion was conducted in late spring, a more complete process could be ensured. 32. Cases dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction (2-507) should be excluded from the assessment since these cases were closed because parties were not served.


23


33. What legislative requirements may impact the FY2009 caseflow assessment? For instance, it has been noted that additional hearing time required as a result of recent mandated legislation requiring annual, on the record, consultations with CINA respondents. 34. Have Administrative Judge, Administrator, and Clerk of the Court read and sign their jurisdiction-specific reports. 35. Exclude CINA data from TPR assessment application screen. 36. In confessed judgment cases, service for defendants is sent out at the same time a judgment is entered. Since service is therefore returned after the judgment is entered, assessment results indicate a “negative time” disposition. The application needs to be adjusted to account for this situation. The Time Standards Sub-Committee should also examine whether such cases be excluded from the assessment.

FY2008 Time Standards Policy Issues District Court

1. Transfer cases also need to be addressed. When a case is transferred from one jurisdiction to another, the start date may have occurred in the original jurisdiction. These case do not accurately reflect what has transpired in each individual jurisdiction in regards to caseflow. 2. Why is FTA/Body Attachment or Show Cause Order not considered a valid suspension whereas FTA/Non Bench-Warrant is? 3. It was suggested DAFJ (denied affidavit judgment) be used to stop case time. 4. TMA cases are comparable to 21-902 cases which have a 180 day time standard (as opposed to payable). 5. Recommend that the time standard for small civil claim cases be raised to 180 days. 6. Missing start dates due to 3-507 dismissals. In FY07, was entering the stop date as the start date rendering a zero day case. This year discarded cases resulting in a total of 383 cases. Some courts are populating missing start/stop dates with filing dates. Start date for civil is service. 7. Cases that fall under the long arm statute need to be reviewed as to the impact they have on case flow. These cases have a trial date which is initially set further out, approximately 105 days. The defendant has 60 days to file a notice of intention to defend. {District Civil Small 90-day time standard} 8. Denied affidavit judgments present a major issue. In a case where the defendant is served, and the case is filed under affidavit, a trial date is issued when the Judge reviews the case for judgment. On this first trial date, if the Judge denies the affidavit, then the case is usually reset for an ex parte proof hearing. Occasionally a Judge will instruct the clerk to hold the file for a length of time for documents to be filed. At present, these cases are reset before the Judge who defined the affidavit judgment, within 30 days of that denial. The current time standard penalizes the Court because the plaintiff did not supply the correct documents to be granted a judgment on affidavit. 9. Conduct a specific workshop staff to make sure proper codes are used for calculating the case time. 10. In District civil matters, trial dates are issued at the time of initial filing in accordance with MD Rule 3-102. This rule should be changed to allow the issuance of trial dates upon the filing of the intention to defend by the defendant. This would allow the clerk to have total control of the contested dockets. 11. In Civil Small Cases, Non-resident Defendants get a 90-day trial. The standard for Small Claims is 90 days so these cases are usually over-standard. Should they be excluded from the caseflow? 12. Cases dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction (3-507) should be excluded from the assessment since these cases were closed because parties were not served.


24

FY2008 Time Standards Policy Issues (Continued) District Court

13. The lack of multiple suspensions that can be applied to a case causes a problem. If there is more than one settlement involved in a case, the manual advises to use the longest of the multiple occurring suspensions. For example, if a defendant was served, and entered into a settlement agreement that fell through, and the case was reset for trial, that is one suspension event. If that same defendant enters into another settlement agreement prior to this new trial date, this creates a secondary suspension date, which is not recorded in the assessment. Leads to faulty overall calculation of case time. 14. Recommend that for the 2009 caseflow study that the period allowed to conduct the study be extended to at least 45 days. 15. Ideally the staff who prepared the caseflow study requirements would receive different results if AOC staff actually conducted the study rather than delegate the task to the field. 16. Track each defendant separately when there are multiple defendants in a case for time processing purposes which more accurately reflects what is happening in court; or avoid using cases with multiple defendants in the study. 17. Create a Task Team to handle the caseflow assessment process uniformly throughout all courts. This Task Team would perform all aspects of the analysis and create the report. This would include meetings with the Administrative Judge, Administrative Clerk, and Division Chiefs. 18. In District payable traffic matters, the court currently sets all traffic payable offenses for trial. For total control of our payable traffic dockets, the trial dates should only be set upon written request of the defendant to stand trial.

FY2008 Maryland Statewide Caseflow Assessment

0

MARYLAND STATE JUDICIARY FY 2008 STATEWIDE CASEFLOW ASSESSMENT

DISTRICT COURT


1

Maryland District Court FY 2008 Caseflow Assessment Executive Summary

• To prepare the fiscal year 2008 (FY2008) Maryland District Court Statewide Caseflow Assessment, samples of up to 500 original case terminations

per case type for criminal, traffic 21-902, traffic must appear, traffic payable, civil-large, and civil-small were extracted from the JIS databases for each of the 24 jurisdictions of Maryland’s District Court, totaling 64,603 valid case terminations used for the present analysis.1 This is about 640 cases more than FY2007 (63,959) figure.

o Because of several data limitations described below, some of the findings should be treated with caution.

The assessment data included postponements that occurred outside the case assessment period (i.e., before the case start and after case stop date), making the analysis of postponements on the case processing performance impossible.

For civil large and small case types, incorrect case stop dates that do not correspond to the original case terminations were extracted in some cases. During the caseflow assessment training, jurisdictions were requested to review the case stop date for all over-standard cases and correct them if necessary, so that at least the percentage of cases closed within the time standard and the average case time for over-standard cases will be calculated accurately. However, it is not certain to what extent the problem was addressed since few jurisdictional reports described their data quality review efforts in detail.

o According to Table 1, statewide, no case type met the state mandate of 98% of cases completed within standard. The highest percent of cases

closed within standard was 90% for criminal, followed by 86% for civil-large and 85% for traffic payable, and the lowest within-standard termination rate was 58% for traffic must appear.2

Table 1. Overall Terminations and Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard (Weighted) by Case Type, District Court, FY2007 and FY2008

Within-Standard Terminations State Mandates

FY2008 Case Type

Time Standard

Percentage Within-

Standard

Fy2008 Original

Terminations N %* FY2007

%*

FY2007-08 Change

Criminal 180 days 98% 11,960 10,908 90% 87% 3% Traffic 21-902 180 days 98% 10,073 8,560 79% 84% -5% Traffic Must Appear 120 days 98% 11,889 7,234 58% 59% -1% Traffic Payable 120 days 98% 11,994 10,325 85% 85% 0% Civil Large 250 days 98% 7,904 7,243 86% 84% 2% Civil Small 90 days 98% 10,783 9,015 78% 77% 1% Total 64,603 53,285

Note: Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of the jurisdiction-specific statistics.

1 Cases without case start dates and those with negative case processing times (i.e., case stop dates occur before start dates) were excluded from the current analysis as they are in the Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application. However, in certain circumstances, a valid case may have a missing start date because the case start date in the Assessment does not necessarily correspond to the case filing date, and a case may close prior to that start date (for example, a confessed judgment case in District civil). However, since there is no easy way to verify the information of these cases, all cases with missing case start dates as well as those with missing processing times were removed. An analysis of these invalid cases is included in the Methodology/Data Issues section of the statewide report. 2 These statewide percentages are the weighted averages of the jurisdiction-specific statistics so that each jurisdiction’s overall terminations are reflected in the calculation of the statewide average.


2

o The percent of cases closed within standard for FY2008 slightly improved from FY2007 for criminal and civil large cases, while the percentage

declined or unchanged for all traffic cases.

• In general, the percentage of cases closed within standard among small- and medium-sized jurisdictions3 is about or slightly higher than the overall statewide average for all case types though no case type exceeded the state mandate of 98%. The performance of large jurisdictions trailed behind the statewide average for all case types except in criminal cases where 91% of cases within standard among the large jurisdictions compared to 91% among small jurisdictions (and statewide) and 87% among medium-sized jurisdictions. The performance of large jurisdictions is particularly poor among traffic must appear cases where only 42% of cases closed within standard.

Table 2. Percent of Cases Closed within Time Standard (Weighted) by Case Type and by Jurisdiction Size, District Court, FY2008

Jurisdiction Size Case Type Time Standard

State Mandated Statewide

Small Medium Large Criminal 180 days 98% 90% 91% 87% 91% Traffic 21-902 180 days 98% 79% 86% 83% 70% Traffic Must Appear 120 days 98% 58% 60% 77% 42% Traffic Payable 120 days 98% 85% 82% 92% 82% Civil Large 250 days 98% 86% 94% 90% 84% Civil Small 90 days 98% 78% 88% 76% 75%

Note: Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of the jurisdiction-specific statistics.

• The overall average case processing times for all case types except for traffic 21-902 and civil small cases were within their expected time standards

(see Table 3). The weighted statewide average case time for civil small cases is 100 days compared to 90 days for the Maryland Time Standard, and the weighted statewide average case time for traffic must appear cases is 128 days, 8 days greater than the time standard-defined 120 days. For all case types but criminal cases, the average case time increased from the FY2007 level.

• The average processing time of over-standard cases was considerably greater in all case types, about 1.4 to 2.9 times the time standard. When

compared with within-standard cases, the average case processing time for over-standard cases ranged from 2.4 to 6.7 times as long. • The substantially large average case time for civil cases, also observed in FY2007, may be due in part to the extraction of incorrect case stop dates

among civil cases. As indicated above, jurisdictions were requested to review and correct case stop dates for over-standard cases and report their findings in jurisdictional reports. However, few reports described their data review processes and results, impeding our ability to fully assess the extent to which the data has been corrected by jurisdictions.

Table 3. Average Overall, Within- and Over-Standard Case Processing Time (Weighted) by Case Type, District Court, FY2008

Average Case Time (in days) Case Type Time Standard Overall Within Standard Over Standard

Over-Standard/ Within-Standard

FY2007 Overall Average Case Time

Criminal 180 days 115 80 400 5.0 132 Traffic 21-902 180 days 137 99 270 2.7 110 Traffic Must Appear 120 days 128 77 188 2.4 114 Traffic Payable 120 days 81 59 168 2.9 78 Civil Large 250 days 149 85 572 6.7 130 Civil Small 90 days 100 51 258 5.1 79

3 The information regarding the grouping of jurisdictions by size and the number of judges in this analysis was taken from the Assessment Application.


3

• As shown in Table 4, a considerable number of over-standard cases were terminated shortly after their time standards. Except for civil large cases,

9 to 11% of the over-standard cases closed within a week beyond the time standard, and 30 to 38% of them closed within a month over the time standard. In civil large cases, 4% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week beyond the 250-day time standard and 16% closed within 1 month beyond the standard.

Table 4. Percent of Over-Standard Cases Closed within 1 Week and 1 Month beyond Time Standard and Time Required to Close 50% of Over-Standard Cases by Case Type, District Court, FY2008

Time Standard

% of Over-Standard Cases Closing Over Standard

Time to Close 50% of Over-Standard Cases Case Type

Number of Over-Standard

Cases Within 1 week within 1 month

Criminal 180 days 1,052 10% (102 cases) 31% (329 cases) 1.7 months

Traffic 21-902 180 days 1,513 9% (143 cases) 32% (482 cases) 1.6 months

Traffic Must Appear 120 days 4,655 9% (430 cases) 30% (1,401 cases) 1.8 months

Traffic Payable 120 days 1,669 11% (184 cases) 33% (557 cases) 1.6 months

Civil Large 250 days 665 4% (25 cases) 16% (105 cases) 5.9 months

Civil Small 90 days 1,768 11% (202 cases) 38% (650 cases) 1.7 months

• Both pre-trial and trial postponements are reported to the Statewide Caseflow Assessment. However, completeness and accuracy of the

information remains uncertain because of several reasons. First, the reporting of the postponement information is still optional. Second, the assessment included postponements that occurred before the case start date and those after case stop date. Third, while jurisdictions had opportunities to review and complete postponement information during the assessment data quality review period, it is not certain to what extent postponement data was reviewed and corrected. Accordingly, the statewide-level results regarding postponements in relation to the termination status (within-standard termination vs. over-standard termination) were not reported. Table 5 presents the number and percentage of cases with postponement information.

o For the purpose of this analysis, a case with postponement information is defined as a case with either valid information in the ‘number of

postponements’ data field or postponement reasons provided, except for where both the number and reason fields indicated no postponement. As observed in FY2006 and FY2007, postponements were much more likely among criminal (50%), traffic 21-902 (47%), traffic must appear (38%) and civil large (40%) cases than traffic payable (13%) and civil small (25%) cases.

o Of the cases in the sample that might have had one or more postponements, 99% had the number of postponements matching with that of

postponement reasons. Thus among the cases reported to have been postponed, the postponement information appears to be consistent.

o Cases with mismatched postponements and postponement reasons are more or less evenly distributed across jurisdictions with up to 3 such cases per jurisdiction per case, except for the following jurisdictions: Dorchester (11 cases in criminal), Baltimore City (15 cases in Traffic 21-902), Harford and Wicomico (7 cases in civil large, respectively), and Queen Anne’s (19 cases in civil small).


4

Table 5. Number and Percent of Cases with Postponement Information by the Match between the Numbers of Postponements and Postponement Reasons by Case Type, District Court, FY2008

Fy2008 Original Terminations

Cases with postponement information*

Cases with numbers of postponements and

reasons matched

Cases with numbers of postponements and reasons not matched

N % % (FY2007) N (%) Criminal 11,960 6,020 50% 50% 5,986 (99%) 34 Traffic 21-902 10,073 4,747 47% 47% 4,726 (>99%) 21 Traffic Must-Appear 11,889 4,471 38% 36% 4,468 (>99%) 3 Traffic Payable 11,994 1,546 13% 14% 1,544 (>99%) 2 Civil-Large 7,904 3,148 40% 44% 3,124 (99%) 24 Civil Small 10,783 2,683 25% 25% 2,650 (99%) 33 Total 64,603 22,615 35% 35% 22,498 (99%) 117

* Excludes the cases with no postponements (0 postponements and 0 postponement reasons).

• District Court case processing time is suspended for a variety of case type-specific reasons. However, like the postponement data, reporting of

suspension data is currently optional in the Assessment, and therefore results regarding case suspensions should be interpreted with caution, as there is no guarantee that the information is complete across all jurisdictions or accurate if it is provided. That said, during the FY2008 caseflow assessment training, jurisdictions were requested to review the suspension information in the assessment data and update it if necessary.

o Overall 13% of cases were reported to have one or more suspensions. The percent of suspended cases varies from 7% for civil small to

26% for traffic must appear cases. These 8,461 cases had a total of 9,290 suspensions (1.1 suspensions per case). o Of the 9.290 suspensions identified in the sample, 3% (310) were found incomplete (missing suspension start or end date) or invalid

(negative suspension time). The percentage of suspensions with incomplete or invalid data is large among civil large cases (19%) and civil small cases (11) compared to criminal or traffic cases.

o As observed in FY07, suspensions without suspension stop dates are prevalent among civil large and small cases.

Table 6. Number and Percent of Suspended Cases with Incomplete or Invalid data by Case Type, District Court, FY2008

Overall Suspensions Suspensions with Invalid Data by Type of Error Cases with Cases with

Suspensions With Valid

Data Without Valid

Data Missing

Stop Date Missing

Start Date

Negative Suspension

Time Case Type

Overall Cases

N % N N % N % N (%) N (%) N (%) Criminal 11,960 1,621 14% 1,825 1,818 >99% 7 0.4% 6 (86%) 1 (14%) 0 (0%) Traffic 21-902 10,073 1,170 12% 1,321 1307 99% 14 1% 7 (50%) 6 (43%) 1 (7%) Traffic Must Appear

11,889 3,063 26% 3,502 3,466 99% 36 1% 12 (33%) 21 (58%) 3 (8%)

Traffic Payable 11,994 976 8% 1,004 1,004 100% 0 0% N/A N/A N/A Civil Large 7,904 898 11% 901 732 81% 169 19% 155 (92%) 0 (0%) 14 (8%) Civil Small 10,783 733 7% 737 653 89% 84 11% 75 (89%) 0 (0%) 9 (11%) Total 64,603 8,461 13% 9,290 8,980 97% 310 3% 255 (83%) 28 (9%) 27 (9%)


5

o As observed in FY2006 and FY2007 (see Table 7 below), over 96% of suspensions reported in criminal and traffic cases are those due to

defendant(s)’ having failed to appear (FTA) in court, mostly first time FTAs. In FY2007, about 3% of FTA suspensions had incomplete or invalid data; this year less than 1% (0.7%) of the suspended cases had such errors, all but 3 of which are without a suspension stop or start date. Most of the remaining suspensions (270 cases, 3.5%) in criminal and traffic cases are PSI-related.

All of the 50 invalid FTA suspensions were found in traffic cases, either 21-902 (14 suspensions) and must appear (36

suspensions). Of the 36 invalid FTA suspension in must appear cases, 20 were found in a single jurisdiction (Dorchester County).

o As observed in FY2007, 83% of the suspensions in civil cases are ‘passed for settlement’, and the remaining 17% are bankruptcy. While

96% of the passed for settlement suspensions were valid, only 27% of bankruptcy suspensions were complete, higher than the FY2007 level (20%) and about at the FY2006 level (28%), all of which lacked suspension end dates. Overall, 15% of reported suspensions in civil cases were found deficient (17% for FY2007).

Of the 200 invalid bankruptcy suspensions, 137 (69%) were found in civil large cases. Several jurisdictions had more than 10

invalid suspensions. These jurisdictions include Cecil County (18 suspensions), Charles County (17), Carroll County (14), Calvert County (13), and St. Mary’s County (11).

Table 7. Number and Percent of Suspensions with Invalid data for Selected Suspension Types, FY2008

Total Suspensions

Valid Suspensions

Invalid Suspensions

Missing Stop Date Missing Start Date

Negative Suspension

Time N % N % N % N % N % N % Criminal, Traffic (21-902, Must Appear & Payable)

FTA 7,364 96% 7,314 99% 50 0.7% 19 38% 28 56% 3 6% PSI Order 270 4% 264 98% 6 2% 5 83% 0 0% 1 17% NCR Filing 10 0.1% 10 100% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Competency 5 0.1% 5 100% 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A Drug Court Diversion 3 0% 2 67% 1 33% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% Military Leave 0 0% 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 N/A

Total 7,652 100% 7,595 99% 57 1% 25 44% 28 49% 4 7% Civil Large and Small

Passed for Settlement 1,362 83% 1,310 96% 52 4% 29 56% 0 0% 23 44% Bankruptcy 274 17% 74 27% 200 73% 200 100% 0 0% 0 0% Military Leave 2 0.1% 1 50% 1 50% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Total 1,638 100% 1,385 85% 253 15% 230 91% 0 0% 23 9%


6

Maryland District Court FY2008 Caseflow Assessment

Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type and by County/Jurisdiction, FY 2008

Jurisdiction District No.

Judges* Jurisdiction

Size* Criminal 21-902

Traffic Must-Appear

Traffic Payable

Civil Large Civil Small

Allegany 12 2 Small 82% 90% 66% 90% 94% 86% Anne Arundel 7 8 Medium 81% 71% 44% 81% 87% 75% Baltimore City 1 26 Large 97% 87% 55% 85% 80% 72% Baltimore County 8 13 Large 89% 78% 57% 89% 93% 84% Calvert 4 1 Small 92% 91% 62% 97% 96% 86% Caroline 3 1 Small 97% 95% 83% 94% 98% 90% Carroll 10 2 Small 98% 98% 93% 97% 97% 88% Cecil 3 2 Small 99% 97% 85% 99% 95% 89% Charles 4 2 Small 67% 57% 20% 22% 89% 82% Dorchester 2 1 Small 93% 78% 36% 39% 91% 90% Frederick 11 3 Medium 96% 93% 68% 94% 96% 81% Garrett 12 1 Small 86% 68% 26% 81% 88% 77% Harford 9 4 Medium 93% 97% 83% 97% 93% 84% Howard 10 5 Medium 95% 93% 81% 96% 90% 66% Kent 3 1 Small 99% 96% 69% 97% 98% 93% Montgomery 6 10 Large 98% 59% 48% 80% 88% 73% Prince George’s 5 13 Large 73% 78% 29% 81% 78% 68% Queen Anne’s 3 1 Small 94% 92% 61% 89% 92% 86% Somerset 2 1 Small 89% 91% 71% 95% 96% 94% St. Mary’s 4 1 Small 88% 92% 75% 97% 93% 84% Talbot 3 1 Small 94% 81% 55% 92% 95% 89% Washington 11 2 Small 98% 97% 75% 97% 97% 90% Wicomico 2 2 Small 96% 76% 41% 81% 94% 86% Worcester 2 1 Small 94% 91% 72% 96% 93% 89% Statewide 104 90% 79% 58% 85% 86% 78%

*Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Statewide average is the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


7


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type and the Size of Jurisdiction, FY 2008

Jurisdiction Size*

Jurisdiction District No. Judges* Criminal 21-902 Traffic Must-

Appear Traffic Payable

Civil Large

Civil Small

Small Allegany 12 2 82% 90% 66% 90% 94% 86% Calvert 4 1 92% 91% 62% 97% 96% 86% Caroline 3 1 97% 95% 83% 94% 98% 90% Carroll 10 2 98% 98% 93% 97% 97% 88% Cecil 3 2 99% 97% 85% 99% 95% 89% Charles 4 2 67% 57% 20% 22% 89% 82% Dorchester 2 1 93% 78% 36% 39% 91% 90% Garrett 12 1 86% 68% 26% 81% 88% 77% Kent 3 1 99% 96% 69% 97% 98% 93% Queen Anne’s 3 1 94% 92% 61% 89% 92% 86% Somerset 2 1 89% 91% 71% 95% 96% 94% St. Mary's 4 1 88% 92% 75% 97% 93% 84% Talbot 3 1 94% 81% 55% 92% 95% 89% Washington 11 2 98% 97% 75% 97% 97% 90% Wicomico 2 2 96% 76% 41% 81% 94% 86% Worcester 2 1 94% 91% 72% 96% 93% 89% Small, Overall 22 91% 86% 60% 82% 94% 88% Medium Anne Arundel 7 8 81% 71% 44% 81% 87% 75% Frederick 11 3 96% 93% 68% 94% 96% 81% Harford 9 4 93% 97% 83% 97% 93% 84% Howard 10 5 95% 93% 81% 96% 90% 66% Medium, Overall 20 87% 83% 77% 92% 90% 76% Large Baltimore City 1 26 97% 87% 55% 85% 80% 72% Baltimore County 8 13 89% 78% 57% 89% 93% 84% Montgomery 6 10 98% 59% 48% 80% 88% 73% Prince George's 5 13 73% 78% 29% 81% 78% 68% Large, Overall 62 91% 70% 42% 82% 84% 75% Statewide 104 90% 79% 58% 85% 86% 78%

*Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Statewide and jurisdiction size-specific averages a re the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


8


Percent of Criminal Cases Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction Size, FY 2008

82%

92%

97%98% 99%

67%

93%

86%

99%

89%

94%

98%96%

94%

81%

96%93%

95%97%

89%

98%

73%

90%88%

91%

94%

87%

91%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statew

ide (N

= 11

,960)

Small

, Ove

rall (N

= 7,

977)

Allega

ny (N

= 49

0)

Calvert

(N =

500)

Carolin

e (N =

501)

Carroll

(N =

500)

Cecil (N

= 50

0)

Charle

s (N =

501)

Dorch

ester

(N =

500)

Garrett

(N =

490)

Kent (N

= 50

1)

Queen

Ann

e’s (N

= 501)

Somers

et (N

= 50

1)

St. M

ary's (

N = 50

1)

Talbot

(N =

498)

Wash

ington

(N =

492)

Wico

mico (N

= 50

0)

Worc

ester

(N =

501)

Medium

, Ove

rall (N

= 2,

000)

Anne A

runde

l (N =

501)

Fred

erick

(N =

501)

Harfor

d (N =

499)

Howard

(N =

499)

Large

, Ove

rall (N

= 1,

983)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 50

1)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

501)

Montgo

mery (N

= 48

1)

Princ

e Geo

rge's (

N = 50

0)

Jurisdiction (No. Within-Standard)

Per

cent W

ithin

-Sta

ndar

d

Jurisdiction size: Small Medium Large

*Statewide and jurisdiction size-specific averages a re the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


9


Percent of Traffic 21-902 Cases Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction Size, FY 2008

90%91%

95%

98% 97%

57%

78%

68%

96%

91%

81%

97%

76%

91%

71%

93%

97%

93%

87%

78%

59%

78%79%

92%

86%

92%

83%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statew

ide (N

= 10

,073)

Small

, Ove

rall (N

= 6,

044)

Allega

ny (N

= 41

5)

Calvert

(N =

500)

Carolin

e (N =

202)

Carroll

(N =

500)

Cecil (N

= 45

9)

Charle

s (N =

500)

Dorch

ester

(N =

246)

Garrett

(N =

233)

Kent (N

= 13

0)

Queen

Ann

e’s (N

= 37

1)

Somers

et (N

= 22

1)

St. M

ary's (

N = 50

0)

Talbot

(N =

269)

Wash

ington

(N =

498)

Wico

mico (N

= 50

0)

Worc

ester

(N =

500)

Medium

, Ove

rall (N

= 1,

997)

Anne A

runde

l (N =

500)

Fred

erick

(N =

499)

Harfor

d (N =

500)

Howard

(N =

498)

Large

, Ove

rall (N

= 2,

032)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 53

5)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

500)

Montgo

mery (N

= 49

9)

Princ

e Geo

rge's (

N = 49

8)


Per

cent W

ithin

-Sta

ndar

d




10


Percent of Traffic Must Appear Cases Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction Size, FY 2008

66%

62%

83%

93%

85%

20%

36%

26%

69%71%

55%

75%

41%

72%

44%

68%

83%81%

55%57%

48%

29%

58%

75%

60%61%

77%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statew

ide (N

= 11

,889)

Small

, Ove

rall (N

= 7,

897)

Allega

ny (N

= 50

0)

Calvert

(N =

498)

Carolin

e (N =

500)

Carroll

(N =

498)

Cecil (

N = 49

9)

Charle

s (N =

499)

Dorch

ester

(N =

499)

Garrett

(N =

417)

Kent (N

= 50

0)

Queen

Ann

e’s (N

= 50

0)

Somers

et (N

= 50

0)

St. M

ary's (

N = 49

8)

Talbot

(N =

499)

Wash

ington

(N =

490)

Wico

mico (N

= 50

0)

Worc

ester

(N =

500)

Med

ium, O

veral

l (N =

1,99

4)

Anne A

runde

l (N =

500)

Fred

erick

(N =

497)

Harfor

d (N =

500)

Howard

(N =

497)

Large

, Ove

rall (N

= 1,

998)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 50

0)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

500)

Mon

tgomery

(N =

499)

Princ

e Geo

rge's (

N = 49

9)


Per

cent W

ithin

-Sta

ndar

d




11


Percent of Traffic Payable Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction Size, FY 2008

90%

97%94%

97%99%

22%

39%

81%

97%95%

92%

97%

81%

96%

81%

94%

97%96%

85%

89%

80% 81%

85%

97%

82%

89%92%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statew

ide (N

= 11

,994)

Small

, Ove

rall (N

= 7,

994)

Allega

ny (N

= 50

0)

Calvert

(N =

499)

Carolin

e (N =

500)

Carroll

(N =

500)

Cecil (N

= 50

0)

Charle

s (N =

499)

Dorch

ester

(N =

500)

Garrett

(N =

500)

Kent (N

= 49

8)

Queen

Ann

e’s (N

= 50

0)

Somers

et (N

= 50

0)

St. M

ary's (

N = 50

0)

Talbot

(N =

500)

Wash

ington

(N =

498)

Wico

mico (N

= 50

0)

Worc

ester

(N =

500)

Medium

, Ove

rall (N

= 2,

000)

Anne A

runde

l (N =

500)

Fred

erick

(N =

500)

Harfor

d (N =

500)

Howard

(N =

500)

Large

, Ove

rall (N

= 2,

000)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 50

0)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

500)

Montgo

mery (N

= 50

0)

Princ

e Geo

rge's (

N = 50

0)


Per

cent W

ithin

-Sta

ndar

d




12


Percent of Civil Large Cases Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction Size, FY 2008

94%96%

98% 97%95%

89%91%

88%

98%96% 95%

97%94%

93%

87%

96%93%

90%

80%

93%

88%

78%

86%

93%94%92%

90%

84%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statew

ide (N

= 7,

904)

Small

, Ove

rall (N

= 4,

532)

Allega

ny (N

= 27

4)

Calvert

(N =

355)

Carolin

e (N =

177)

Carroll

(N =

430)

Cecil (N

= 45

9)

Charle

s (N =

411)

Dorch

ester

(N =

203)

Garrett

(N =

100)

Kent (N

= 10

5)

Queen

Ann

e’s (N

= 18

1)

Somers

et (N

= 12

9)

St. M

ary's (

N = 31

6)

Talbot

(N =

223)

Wash

ington

(N =

462)

Wico

mico (N

= 39

1)

Wor

cester

(N =

316)

Med

ium, O

veral

l (N =

1,65

5)

Anne A

runde

l (N =

422)

Fred

erick

(N =

408)

Harfor

d (N =

442)

Howard

(N =

383)

Large

, Ove

rall (N

= 1,

717)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 40

6)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

430)

Montgo

mery (N

= 43

9)

Princ

e Geo

rge's (

N = 44

2)


Per

cent W

ithin

-Sta

ndar

d




13


Percent of Civil Small Cases Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction and Jurisdiction Size, FY 2008

86% 86%

90%88% 89%

82%

90%

77%

93% 94%

89% 90%

86%89%

75%

81%

84%

66%

72%

84%

73%

68%

78%

84%

87%86%

76%75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Statew

ide (N

= 10

,783)

Small

, Ove

rall (N

= 7,

310)

Allega

ny (N

= 44

2)

Calvert

(N =

478)

Carolin

e (N =

421)

Carroll

(N =

472)

Cecil (N

= 46

6)

Charle

s (N =

431)

Dorch

ester

(N =

455)

Garrett

(N =

443)

Kent (N

= 48

0)

Queen

Ann

e’s (N

= 45

7 )

Somers

et (N

= 45

4)

St. M

ary's (

N = 44

5)

Talbot

(N =

477)

Wash

ington

(N =

451)

Wico

mico (N

= 46

8)

Wor

cester

(N =

470)

Med

ium, O

veral

l (N =

1,74

6)

Anne A

runde

l (N =

447)

Fred

erick

(N =

432)

Harfor

d (N =

443)

Howard

(N =

424)

Large

, Ove

rall (N

= 1,

727)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 41

5)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

442)

Mon

tgomery

(N =

445)

Princ

e Geo

rge's (

N = 42

5)


Per

cent W

ithin

-Sta

ndar

d




14


Overall, Within-Standard and Over-Standard Average Case Processing Time (weighted) by Case Type, FY2008

1 1 51 37

1 28

81

1 49

1 0080

997 7

59

85

51

400

27 0

1 881 68

57 2

258

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Criminal (152,411) Traffic 21-902 (21,004) Traffic Must Appear(37,966)

Traffic Payable(90,942)

Civil-Large (41,871) Civil-Small (149,913)

Case Type

Ave

rage

Cas

e P

roce

ssin

g T

ime

(Day

s)

Overall

Within-Standard Terminations

Over-Standard Terminations


15


Overall and Over-Standard Average Case Processing Time by Case Type and Jurisdiction, FY2008

Criminal 21-902

Traffic Must-Appear

Traffic Payable Civil Large Civil Small Jurisdiction District

No. Judges*

Jurisdiction Size*

OverallOver

Standard OverallOver

Standard Overall Over




Standard

Allegany 12 2 Small 241 901 104 235 109 188 70 149 103 508 81 268 Anne Arundel 7 8 Medium 336 1367 179 363 158 214 86 164 137 499 91 217 Baltimore City 1 26 Large 74 272 120 334 126 196 80 237 160 411 114 275 Baltimore County 8 13 Large 104 264 137 253 138 215 69 183 129 744 82 239 Calvert 4 1 Small 98 228 105 219 111 171 54 154 84 448 70 240 Caroline 3 1 Small 102 1010 92 236 81 164 63 148 80 479 61 249 Carroll 10 2 Small 76 221 75 258 70 152 52 148 94 543 80 274 Cecil 3 2 Small 73 385 78 219 80 153 45 129 89 681 73 301 Charles 4 2 Small 170 280 186 274 218 249 237 282 120 428 80 211 Dorchester 2 1 Small 132 688 138 227 160 199 152 202 120 632 67 184 Frederick 11 3 Medium 91 232 94 222 102 167 66 154 94 505 72 188 Garrett 12 1 Small 145 459 181 315 196 237 81 171 129 500 95 244 Harford 9 4 Medium 99 380 79 239 80 159 50 162 104 449 76 194 Howard 10 5 Medium 88 220 93 225 86 163 68 160 188 993 121 250 Kent 3 1 Small 90 1438 84 225 103 156 47 153 73 483 51 165 Montgomery 6 10 Large 76 520 179 269 159 230 82 172 159 670 111 259 Prince George’s 5 13 Large 140 259 146 331 179 215 90 168 185 540 144 342 Queen Anne’s 3 1 Small 94 290 108 223 116 176 71 160 112 511 75 227 Somerset 2 1 Small 96 227 101 232 97 167 62 145 87 453 46 214 St. Mary’s 4 1 Small 117 248 100 223 100 166 56 148 107 472 73 244 Talbot 3 1 Small 95 215 132 242 132 187 73 154 99 604 60 154 Washington 11 2 Small 82 246 88 209 94 161 53 150 76 467 62 199 Wicomico 2 2 Small 83 212 146 256 149 196 91 163 99 408 69 193 Worcester 2 1 Small 105 578 106 233 97 169 52 155 120 662 72 243 Statewide 104 115 400 137 270 128 188 81 168 149 572 100 258

*Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Statewide average is the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


16


Overall and Over-Standard Average Case Processing Time by Case Type and Jurisdiction Size, FY2008

Criminal 21-902 Traffic Must-

Appear Traffic Payable

Civil Large Civil Small Jurisdiction Size

Jurisdiction District No. Judges*

OverallOver






StandardSmall Allegany 12 2 241 901 104 235 109 188 70 149 103 508 81 268 Calvert 4 1 98 228 105 219 111 171 54 154 84 448 70 240 Caroline 3 1 102 1010 92 236 81 164 63 148 80 479 61 249 Carroll 10 2 76 221 75 258 70 152 52 148 94 543 80 274 Cecil 3 2 73 385 78 219 80 153 45 129 89 681 73 301 Charles 4 2 170 280 186 274 218 249 237 282 120 428 80 211 Dorchester 2 1 132 688 138 227 160 199 152 202 120 632 67 184 Garrett 12 1 145 459 181 315 196 237 81 171 129 500 95 244 Kent 3 1 90 1438 84 225 103 156 47 153 73 483 51 165 Queen Anne’s 3 1 94 290 108 223 116 176 71 160 112 511 75 227 Somerset 2 1 96 227 101 232 97 167 62 145 87 453 46 214 St. Mary’s 4 1 117 248 100 223 100 166 56 148 107 472 73 244 Talbot 3 1 95 215 132 242 132 187 73 154 99 604 60 154 Washington 11 2 82 246 88 209 94 161 53 150 76 467 62 199 Wicomico 2 2 83 212 146 256 149 196 91 163 99 408 69 193 Worcester 2 1 105 578 106 233 97 169 52 155 120 662 72 243 Small, Overall 22 114 412 116 239 125 184 87 169 99 511 70 222Medium Anne Arundel 7 8 336 1367 179 363 158 214 86 164 137 499 91 217 Frederick 11 3 91 232 94 222 102 167 66 154 94 505 72 188 Harford 9 4 99 380 79 239 80 159 50 162 104 449 76 194 Howard 10 5 88 220 93 225 86 163 68 160 188 993 121 250 Medium, Overall 20 220 849 132 292 90 164 66 160 138 604 91 214Large Baltimore City 1 26 74 272 120 334 126 196 80 237 160 411 114 275 Baltimore County 8 13 104 264 137 253 138 215 69 183 129 744 82 239 Montgomery 6 10 76 520 179 269 159 230 82 172 159 670 111 259 Prince George’s 5 13 140 259 146 331 179 215 90 168 185 540 144 342 Large, Overall 62 93 301 157 284 156 211 81 176 160 585 110 277

Statewide 104 115 400 137 270 128 188 81 168 149 572 100 258*Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Statewide and jurisdiction size-specific averages a re the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


17


Overall and Over-Standard Median Case Processing Time by Case Type and Jurisdiction, FY2008

Criminal 21-902

Traffic Must-Appear

Traffic Payable Civil Large Civil Small Jurisdiction District

No. Judges*

Jurisdiction Size*

OverallOver






Standard

Allegany 12 2 Small 113 240 91 226 88 160 64 145 71 453 55 142 Anne Arundel 7 8 Medium 104 261 120 232 138 192 74 154 71 443 55 145 Baltimore City 1 26 Large 63 208 91 228 109 164 51 200 96 361 55 175 Baltimore County 8 13 Large 87 245 120 229 110 198 51 156 72 480 59 123 Calvert 4 1 Small 88 213 90 214 96 155 47 142 56 371 45 111 Caroline 3 1 Small 68 238 78 228 72 152 58 142 60 476 40 183 Carroll 10 2 Small 68 218 65 223 61 135 47 139 74 416 60 126 Cecil 3 2 Small 63 356 67 214 69 139 41 125 52 483 46 168 Charles 4 2 Small 139 247 152 227 210 234 225 272 68 340 55 141 Dorchester 2 1 Small 89 213 126 221 149 181 142 177 63 440 57 132 Frederick 11 3 Medium 76 219 77 219 89 153 56 144 58 503 50 118 Garrett 12 1 Small 105 231 144 234 180 211 71 155 70 457 56 163 Harford 9 4 Medium 69 227 66 216 67 149 45 157 62 412 59 135 Howard 10 5 Medium 70 216 74 216 68 147 60 159 91 524 68 142 Kent 3 1 Small 66 241 72 229 94 142 41 143 63 483 44 138 Montgomery 6 10 Large 61 239 164 254 126 207 65 160 82 425 65 127 Prince George’s 5 13 Large 114 233 104 253 163 192 79 151 90 501 56 206 Queen Anne’s 3 1 Small 76 215 94 198 98 164 63 147 72 481 53 134 Somerset 2 1 Small 77 215 85 229 87 153 57 138 57 390 36 117 St. Mary’s 4 1 Small 102 223 88 212 86 155 50 140 69 385 43 135 Talbot 3 1 Small 81 204 109 237 112 177 68 149 59 608 50 116 Washington 11 2 Small 66 232 77 199 81 146 48 139 55 456 50 129 Wicomico 2 2 Small 71 202 132 237 135 177 85 152 67 280 52 138 Worcester 2 1 Small 72 241 94 213 82 154 46 151 61 537 53 130 Statewide 104 80 228 113 231 112 170 72 158 81 446 56 152

*Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (January 22, 2009). Statewide average is the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


18


Overall and Over-Standard Median Case Processing Time by Case Type and Jurisdiction Size, FY2008

Criminal 21-902 Traffic Must-

Appear Traffic Payable Civil Large Civil Small Jurisdiction

Size Jurisdiction District

No. Judges*

OverallOver






StandardSmall Allegany 12 2 240 113 226 91 160 88 145 64 453 71 142 55 Calvert 4 1 213 88 214 90 155 96 142 47 371 56 111 45 Caroline 3 1 238 68 228 78 152 72 142 58 476 60 183 40 Carroll 10 2 218 68 223 65 135 61 139 47 416 74 126 60 Cecil 3 2 356 63 214 67 139 69 125 41 483 52 168 46 Charles 4 2 247 139 227 152 234 210 272 225 340 68 141 55 Dorchester 2 1 213 89 221 126 181 149 177 142 440 63 132 57 Garrett 12 1 231 105 234 144 211 180 155 71 457 70 163 56 Kent 3 1 241 66 229 72 142 94 143 41 483 63 138 44 Queen Anne’s 3 1 215 76 198 94 164 98 147 63 481 72 134 53 Somerset 2 1 215 77 229 85 153 87 138 57 390 57 117 36 St. Mary’s 4 1 223 102 212 88 155 86 140 50 385 69 135 43 Talbot 3 1 204 81 237 109 177 112 149 68 608 59 116 50 Washington 11 2 232 66 199 77 146 81 139 48 456 55 129 50 Wicomico 2 2 202 71 237 132 177 135 152 85 280 67 138 52 Worcester 2 1 241 72 213 94 154 82 151 46 537 61 130 53 Small, Overall 22 86 238 100 219 112 168 80 160 64 423 51 135Medium Anne Arundel 7 8 261 104 232 120 192 138 154 74 443 71 145 55 Frederick 11 3 219 76 219 77 153 89 144 56 503 58 118 50 Harford 9 4 227 69 216 66 149 67 157 45 412 62 135 59 Howard 10 5 216 70 216 74 147 68 159 60 524 91 142 68 Medium, Overall 20 88 242 95 224 75 150 58 152 72 464 57 139Large Baltimore City 1 26 208 63 228 91 164 109 200 51 361 96 175 55 Baltimore County 8 13 245 87 229 120 198 110 156 51 480 72 123 59 Montgomery 6 10 239 61 254 164 207 126 160 65 425 82 127 65 Prince George’s 5 13 233 114 253 104 192 163 151 79 501 90 206 56 Large, Overall 62 77 222 135 245 136 186 64 159 86 446 58 161

Statewide 104 80 228 113 231 112 170 72 158 81 446 56 152*Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (January 22, 2009). Statewide and jurisdiction size-specific averages a re the weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics.


19


Distribution of Over-Standard Cases by the Time beyond the Time Standard, Criminal Cases (N=1,052), FY2008

102

80

70

77

64

55

67

57

4951

35

30

27

24

14 1413

89

15

11

67 7

87

46

13

19

3

64

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7-9mos.

10-12mos.

2 yrs. 3 yrs. 4 + yrs.

Clock Time over Time Standard (in weeks)

Te

rmin

ati

on

s

• The average case processing time

Overall: 115 days (FY07: 132 days) Within-standard cases: 80 days (FY07: 85 days) Over-standard cases: 400 days (FY07: 545 days)

• 10% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard.

• 31% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard.

• 50% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 1.7

months over standard.


20


Distribution of Over-Standard Cases by the Time beyond the Time Standard, Traffic 21-902 Cases (N=1,513), FY2008

143

132

107

100

95 94

98

79

58

50

61

41

37 38

48

30

35

22

16

21

1820

10

17

4

7

81

30

11

1

9

0

30

60

90

120

150

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7-9mos.

10-12mos.



Term

inati

on

s

• The average case processing time


• 9.5% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard.

• 42% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month (4 weeks) over standard.

• 50% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 1.6 months over

standard.


21


Distribution of Over-Standard Cases by the Time beyond the Time Standard, Traffic Must Appear Cases (N=4,655), FY2008

430

371

293

307 306

273

257

232

173 172

156 156

130

119115

107

96

8480

72 69

56

46 45 42

53

277

99

35

04

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7-9mos.

10-12mos.



Term

inati

on

s

• The average case processing time:




• 50% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 1.8 months

over standard.


22


Distribution of Over-Standard Cases by the Time beyond the Time Standard, Traffic Payable Cases (N=1,669), FY2008

184

145

120

108

117

98

80

71

61

71

5047

38

2629 30 29

23

1820

2320

16 15 16

10

126

50

26

20

0

50

100

150

200

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 7-9mos.

10-12mos.



Term

ina

tio

ns

• Time Standard: 120 days


Overall: 81days (FY07: 78 days) Within-standard cases: 59days (FY07: 59 days) Over-standard cases: 168 days (FY07: 185 days)




standard.


23


Distribution of Over-Standard Cases by the Time beyond the Time Standard, Civil Large Cases (N=661), FY2008

105

70

56

38

23

44

31

35

27

34

22

32

14

17 17

79 9

64

2 3 3 4

25

14

10

0

30

60

90

120

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 3 years 4 years 5+years

Clock Time over Time Standard (in months)

Term

inati

on

s






standard.


24


Distribution of Over-Standard Cases by the Time beyond the Time Standard, Civil Small Cases (N=1,768), FY2008

202

174

126

148

297

182

109

64

45

36

21 22

10

36 35 3732 33

27

14 16 15

60

21

6

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 2 3 4+

Clock Time over Time Standard

Ter

min

ati

on

s






standard.

Week Month Year


25

Maryland District Court


Number of Suspensions with Invalid Data by Suspension Type, Criminal Case Terminations, FY2008

Suspensions with

Valid Data Suspensions with Invalid Data

Suspension Type Number of

Suspensions Reported N % N % Missing Stop Date Missing Start Date Negative Clock Time

FTA#1 1,473 1,472 99.9% 1 0.1% 0 1 0 FTA#2 171 171 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 FTA#3 12 12 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 PSI Order* 153 148 96.7% 5 3.3% 5 0 0 Competency 5 5 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Drug Court Diversion 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 0 0 Military Leave 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 NCR Filing 10 10 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Total 1,825 1,818 99.6% 7 0.4% 6 1 0

Number of Suspensions with Invalid Data by Suspension Type, Traffic 21-902 Case Terminations, FY2008

Suspensions with


Suspension Type # of


FTA #1 1,107 1,100 99.4% 7 0.6% 2 5 0 FTA #2 124 120 96.8% 4 3.2% 3 1 0 FTA #3 16 14 87.5% 2 12.5% 2 0 0 PSI Order* 72 71 98.6% 1 1.4% 0 0 1

Competency 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 Drug Court Diversion 2 2 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Military Leave 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 NCR 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 Total 1,321 1,307 98.9% 14 1.1% 7 6 1


26



Number of Suspensions with Invalid Data by Suspension Type, Traffic Must-Appear Case Terminations, FY2008

Suspensions with




FTA #1 3,028 3,009 99.4% 19 0.6% 2 15 2 FTA #2 390 374 95.9% 16 N/A 10 5 1 FTA #3 39 38 97.4% 1 N/A 0 1 0 PSI Order 45 45 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Competency 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 Drug Court Diversion 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 Military Leave 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 NCR Filing 0 0 N/A 0 N/A 0 0 0 Total 3,502 3,466 99.0% 36 1.0% 12 21 3

Number of Suspensions with Invalid Data by Suspension Type, Traffic Payable Case, FY2008

Suspensions

with Valid Data Suspensions with Invalid Data



FTA#1 976 976 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 FTA#2 27 27 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 FTA#3 1 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0 Total 1,004 1,004 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0 0


27



Number of Suspensions with Invalid Data by Suspension Type, Civil Large Case Terminations, FY2008

Suspensions with




Bankruptcy 194 57 29.4% 137 70.6% 137 0 0 Military Leave 1 1 100.0% 0 0.0% 0 0 0 Passed for Settlement 706 674 95.5% 32 4.5% 18 0 14 Total 901 732 81.2% 169 18.8% 155 0 14

Number of Suspensions with Invalid Data by Suspension Type, Civil Small Case Terminations, FY2008

Suspensions with




Bankruptcy 80 17 21.3% 63 78.8% 63 0 0 Military Leave 1 0 0.0% 1 100.0% 1 0 0 Passed for Settlement 656 636 97.0% 20 3.0% 11 0 9 Total 737 653 88.6% 84 11.4% 75 0 9


28

FY 2008 STATEWIDE CASEFLOW ASSESSMENT

DISTRICT COURT

Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Jurisdiction FY2005-FY2008


29


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Statewide (Unweighted)

63%

33% 32%

46%

89%

84%

77%

60% 59%

72%

90%

84%

90%88%

68%

84%

91%

84%

91%

85%

61%

86%

92%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 63% 33% 32% 46% 89% 84%

FY2006 77% 60% 59% 72% 90% 84%

FY2007 90% 88% 68% 84% 91% 84%

FY2008 91% 85% 61% 86% 92% 84%

Criminal Traffic 21-902 Traffic Must Appear Traffic Payable Civil Large Civil Small

FY2005-08 Change 28% 52% 29% 42% 3% 0%

Time Standard FY2005 90 days (98%) 90 days (98%) 90 days (98%) 90 days (98%) 250 days (98%) 90 days (98%) FY2006 120 days (98%) 120 days (98%) 120 days (98%) 120 days (98%) 250 days (98%) 90 days (98%) FY2007 180 days (98%) 180 days (98%) 120 days (98%) 120 days (98%) 250 days (98%) 90 days (98%)


30


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Allegany County (Unweighted)

50%

30%32%

44%

87%83%

50%

24%26%

63%

89%

81%78%

72%

55%

93%96%

90%

82%

90%

66%

90%

94%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 50% 30% 32% 44% 87% 83%

FY2006 50% 24% 26% 63% 89% 81%

FY2007 78% 72% 55% 93% 96% 90%

FY2008 82% 90% 66% 90% 94% 86%


/ //


31


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Anne Arundel County (Unweighted)

32%

13%14%

53%

85%

76%

56%

40%37%

59%

92%

70%

80%

74%

49%

82%

92%

73%

81%

71%

44%

81%

87%

75%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 32% 13% 14% 53% 85% 76%

FY2006 56% 40% 37% 59% 92% 70%

FY2007 80% 74% 49% 82% 92% 73%

FY2008 81% 71% 44% 81% 87% 75%


/ //


32


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Baltimore City (Unweighted)

80%

8%4%

52%

83%

67%

88%

58%

47%

75%

86%

72%

94%90%

68%

91%

78%

72%

97%

87%

55%

85%

80%

72%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 80% 8% 4% 52% 83% 67%

FY2006 88% 58% 47% 75% 86% 72%

FY2007 94% 90% 68% 91% 78% 72%

FY2008 97% 87% 55% 85% 80% 72%


/ //


33


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Baltimore County (Unweighted)

28%25%

22%

57%

84%

76%

60%

46%

37%

75%

90%

79%82% 83%

57%

78%

91%

83%

89%

78%

57%

89%93%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 28% 25% 22% 57% 84% 76%

FY2006 60% 46% 37% 75% 90% 79%

FY2007 82% 83% 57% 78% 91% 83%

FY2008 89% 78% 57% 89% 93% 84%


/ //


34


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Calvert County (Unweighted)

50%

16%18%

23%

88% 88%

70%

56% 54%

80%

88%84%

95% 95%

73%

94%91%

85%

92% 91%

62%

97% 96%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 50% 16% 18% 23% 88% 88%

FY2006 70% 56% 54% 80% 88% 84%

FY2007 95% 95% 73% 94% 91% 85%

FY2008 92% 91% 62% 97% 96% 86%


/ //


35


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Caroline County (Unweighted)

88%

40%38%

51%

95%

89%

94%

77%

65%

90%

96%

92%

99%93%

72%

94% 96%

88%

97%95%

83%

94%98%

90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 88% 40% 38% 51% 95% 89%

FY2006 94% 77% 65% 90% 96% 92%

FY2007 99% 93% 72% 94% 96% 88%

FY2008 97% 95% 83% 94% 98% 90%


/ //


36


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Carroll County (Unweighted)

83%

72%

60%

64%

87%

83%

94%96% 96% 98%

93%89%

97% 98%

92%96% 95%

88%

98% 98%

93%97% 97%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 83% 72% 60% 64% 87% 83%

FY2006 94% 96% 96% 98% 93% 89%

FY2007 97% 98% 92% 96% 95% 88%

FY2008 98% 98% 93% 97% 97% 88%


/ //


37


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Cecil County (Unweighted)

88%

64% 65%

79%

95%93%

96%

86% 86%

97%93%

90%

100% 98%

91%

99%95%

87%

99% 97%

85%

99%95%

89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 88% 64% 65% 79% 95% 93%

FY2006 96% 86% 86% 97% 93% 90%

FY2007 100% 98% 91% 99% 95% 87%

FY2008 99% 97% 85% 99% 95% 89%


/ //


38


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Charles County (Unweighted)

33%

25%

13%

6%

85%

79%

56%

39%

34%

20%

88%

80%

70% 71%

34%

29%

87%

81%

67%

57%

20%22%

89%

82%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 33% 25% 13% 6% 85% 79%

FY2006 56% 39% 34% 20% 88% 80%

FY2007 70% 71% 34% 29% 87% 81%

FY2008 67% 57% 20% 22% 89% 82%


/ //


39


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Dorchester County (Unweighted)

90%

38%35%

26%

92% 93%93%

64%

68%

46%

93%88%

95%91%

69%

57%

95%91%

93%

78%

36%39%

91% 90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 90% 38% 35% 26% 92% 93%

FY2006 93% 64% 68% 46% 93% 88%

FY2007 95% 91% 69% 57% 95% 91%

FY2008 93% 78% 36% 39% 91% 90%


/ //


40


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Frederick County (Unweighted)

64%

45%

36%

52%

98%

89%87%

79%

74%

93%

98%

91%

96% 97%

80%

97% 97%

90%

96%93%

68%

94% 96%

81%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 64% 45% 36% 52% 98% 89%

FY2006 87% 79% 74% 93% 98% 91%

FY2007 96% 97% 80% 97% 97% 90%

FY2008 96% 93% 68% 94% 96% 81%


/ //


41


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Garrett County (Unweighted)

47%

16% 16%

37%

93%

82%

60%

37%

30%

71%

85%

77%

67% 66%

45%

82%

95%

81%

86%

68%

26%

81%

88%

77%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 47% 16% 16% 37% 93% 82%

FY2006 60% 37% 30% 71% 85% 77%

FY2007 67% 66% 45% 82% 95% 81%

FY2008 86% 68% 26% 81% 88% 77%


/ //


42


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Harford County (Unweighted)

30%

37%41%

63%

90%

80%

70%

63%

69%

92%90%

84%88%

93%

84%

96% 95%

82%

93%97%

83%

97%93%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 30% 37% 41% 63% 90% 80%

FY2006 70% 63% 69% 92% 90% 84%

FY2007 88% 93% 84% 96% 95% 82%

FY2008 93% 97% 83% 97% 93% 84%


/ //


43


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Howard County (Unweighted)

60%

39%

46% 45%

91%

77%

72% 71%74%

62%

94%

79%

91%93%

77%80%

92%

70%

95%93%

81%

96%

90%

66%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 60% 39% 46% 45% 91% 77%

FY2006 72% 71% 74% 62% 94% 79%

FY2007 91% 93% 77% 80% 92% 70%

FY2008 95% 93% 81% 96% 90% 66%


/ //


44


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Kent County (Unweighted)

79%

42%

28%

55%

99% 97%

92%

63%

56%

84%

93% 93%

99% 98%

72%

99%96% 95%

99% 96%

69%

97% 98%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 79% 42% 28% 55% 99% 97%

FY2006 92% 63% 56% 84% 93% 93%

FY2007 99% 98% 72% 99% 96% 95%

FY2008 99% 96% 69% 97% 98% 93%


/ //


45


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Montgomery County (Unweighted)

78%

5%

10%

31%

84%

74%

89%

25%

38%

57%

82%

76%

91%

69%

41%

69%

78%

71%

98%

59%

48%

80%

88%

73%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 78% 5% 10% 31% 84% 74%

FY2006 89% 25% 38% 57% 82% 76%

FY2007 91% 69% 41% 69% 78% 71%

FY2008 98% 59% 48% 80% 88% 73%


/ //


46


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Prince George’s County (Unweighted)

51%

33%36%

47%

82%

68%

55% 53%

46%

76%78%

66%

61%

84%

46%

65%

77%

68%

73%

78%

29%

81%78%

68%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 51% 33% 36% 47% 82% 68%

FY2006 55% 53% 46% 76% 78% 66%

FY2007 61% 84% 46% 65% 77% 68%

FY2008 73% 78% 29% 81% 78% 68%


/ //


47


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Queen Anne’s County (Unweighted)

71%

29%30%

16%

92%

82%

87%

63%

58%

53%

92%

85%

98%95%

71%

86%89%

82%

94%92%

61%

89%92%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 71% 29% 30% 16% 92% 82%

FY2006 87% 63% 58% 53% 92% 85%

FY2007 98% 95% 71% 86% 89% 82%

FY2008 94% 92% 61% 89% 92% 86%


/ //


48


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Somerset County (Unweighted)

65%

42%

48%50%

97%94%

78%

61%

71% 72%

93%90%

92%

98%

88%92%

99%95%

89%91%

71%

95% 96%94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 65% 42% 48% 50% 97% 94%

FY2006 78% 61% 71% 72% 93% 90%

FY2007 92% 98% 88% 92% 99% 95%

FY2008 89% 91% 71% 95% 96% 94%


/ //


49


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 St. Mary’s County (Unweighted)

63%

52% 54%

61%

92%

86%

77%

72% 74%

79%

91%

86%

93% 94%

78%

94%

90%

81%

88%92%

75%

97%

93%

84%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 63% 52% 54% 61% 92% 86%

FY2006 77% 72% 74% 79% 91% 86%

FY2007 93% 94% 78% 94% 90% 81%

FY2008 88% 92% 75% 97% 93% 84%


/ //


50


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Talbot County (Unweighted)

76%

36%

22%

57%

98%

90%

85%

62%

52%

91% 91%88%

97%

85%

58%

94%92%

88%

94%

81%

55%

92%95%

89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 76% 36% 22% 57% 98% 90%

FY2006 85% 62% 52% 91% 91% 88%

FY2007 97% 85% 58% 94% 92% 88%

FY2008 94% 81% 55% 92% 95% 89%


/ //


51


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Washington County (Unweighted)

79%

24%

19%

45%

97%

91%95%

78%

71%

92%

99%94%

99% 99%

84%

98% 99%95%

98% 97%

75%

97% 97%

90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 79% 24% 19% 45% 97% 91%

FY2006 95% 78% 71% 92% 99% 94%

FY2007 99% 99% 84% 98% 99% 95%

FY2008 98% 97% 75% 97% 97% 90%


/ //


52


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Wicomico County (Unweighted)

79%

43% 43%

55%

92%87%

81%

69%

64%61%

87% 87%

98%

87%

57%

74%

92%90%

96%

76%

41%

81%

94%

86%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 79% 43% 43% 55% 92% 87%

FY2006 81% 69% 64% 61% 87% 87%

FY2007 98% 87% 57% 74% 92% 90%

FY2008 96% 76% 41% 81% 94% 86%


/ //


53


Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, FY2005-FY2008 Worcester County (Unweighted)

49%

43%

32%28%

83%

88%

75%

63% 61%

47%

90%

80%

95%91%

76%

85%

94%90%

94%91%

72%

96%93%

89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

FY2005 49% 43% 32% 28% 83% 88%

FY2006 75% 63% 61% 47% 90% 80%

FY2007 95% 91% 76% 85% 94% 90%

FY2008 94% 91% 72% 96% 93% 89%


/ //

FY 2008 Maryland Statewide Caseflow Assessment

Page 1 of 62

MARYLAND STATE JUDICIARY

FY 2008 STATEWIDE CASEFLOW ASSESSMENT CIRCUIT COURTS


Page 2 of 62

Executive Summary

• Maryland’s 24 Circuit Court jurisdictions reported up to 500 cases per case type (original terminations) for criminal, civil, domestic relations, juvenile delinquency, Child In-Need of Assistance (CINA) shelter, CINA non-shelter, and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) for Fiscal Year 2008 (FY2008). This resulted in a total of 41,474 valid case terminations that were analyzed for the FY2008 statewide caseflow assessment report.1 o In instances where data is displayed in the aggregate (e.g., the statewide percentage of cases closing within-standard or the average case

time by jurisdiction size) as opposed to when jurisdiction-specific results are provided, weights have been applied to more accurately depict statewide performance.

o As shown in Table 1, statewide, no case type met their respective within-standard percentage goal. In FY2007 and FY2008, the case type

closest to achieving its within-standard percentage goal is domestic relations, standard 2, which requires that 98% of such cases close within 730 days.

Table 1. Overall Terminations and Percentage of Cases Terminated Within-Standard by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY2007 and FY2008

Percent Within-Standard Weighted

Case Type

(Time Standard) FY2008 Original

Terminations State Goal FY2007 FY2008

FY2007-08 Change*

Criminal (180 days) 10,165 98% 87% 88% +1% Civil (548 days) 10,467 98% 91% 91% 0% Domestic Relations, Standard 1 (365 days) 90% 84% 87% +3% Domestic Relations, Standard 2 (730 days)

10,916 98% 97% 97% 0%

Juvenile Delinquency (90 days) 6,961 98% 95% 94% -1% CINA Shelter (30 days) 1,697 100% 61% 69% +8% CINA Non-Shelter (60 days) 620 100% 88% 86% -2% TPR (180 days) 648 100% 41% 41% 0% Total 41,474

Note: The statewide within-standard percentages displayed in Table 1 are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance. * Due to rounding, the percentage change for the civil, domestic relations (standard 2), and TPR case types reflect no change in performance between FY2007 and FY2008. In actuality, the change is less than 1 percentage point.

o The ‘FY2007-08 Change’ column of Table 1 indicates that for most case types there has be no change or improvements in case processing

performance between the past two fiscal years. The most notable improvements in case processing performance occurred among domestic relations (standard 1) and CINA shelter cases where the within-standard percentages increased by 3 and 8 percentage points, respectively between FY2007 and FY2008.

o The greatest decline in case processing performance was experienced in CINA non-shelter cases where the weighted within-standard

percentage was 88% in FY2007 compared to 86% for FY2008, a 2 percentage point decline. 1 Cases considered invalid were those missing case start dates and those with negative case processing times (i.e., stop dates preceding start dates). It is important to note that missing case start dates and negative case processing times may be valid given how the time standards have been defined; however, for calculating time such data is invalid.


Page 3 of 62

• Table 2 displays the within-standard percentage values by case type and jurisdiction size. Small jurisdictions (1-2 Judges) met the State’s

within-standard percentage goals for domestic relations cases in FY2008.2 While neither medium (3-5 Judges) nor larger (10 or more judges) jurisdictions met the State’s time standards goals, large-sized jurisdictions remained stable or increased their within-standard percentage across all case types between FY2007 and FY2008 except in juvenile and CINA non-shelter case types (results not shown). Medium-sized jurisdictions improved in performance for domestic relations (standard 1) cases, exhibited no change in TPR, CINA shelter, and criminal cases, and declined in performance among the remaining case types (results not shown).

Table 2. Weighted Percentage of Cases Closed Within-Standard by Case Type and Jurisdiction Size, Circuit Courts, FY2008

Jurisdiction Size Case Type (Time Standard) State

Goal Statewide

Percentage Small Medium Large Criminal (180 days) 98% 88% 95% 88% 87% Civil (548 days) 98% 91% 96% 89% 91% Domestic Relations, Standard 1 (365 days) 90% 87% 95% 86% 86% Domestic Relations, Standard 2 (730 days) 98% 97% 100% 95% 97% Juvenile Delinquency (90 days) 98% 94% 94% 94% 94% CINA Shelter (30 days) 100% 69% 64% 78% 67% CINA Non-Shelter (60 days) 100% 86% 90% 92% 83% TPR (180 days) 100% 41% 73% 65% 32% Note: The statewide within-standard percentages grouped by jurisdiction size displayed in Table 2 are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.

• The largest increases in the percentage of cases closing within-standard occurred among the large-sized jurisdictions. In particular, among

large-sized jurisdictions a 7 percentage point increase occurred in TPR cases (25% in FY2007 vs. 32% in FY2008) and a 9 percentage point improvement in performance occurred among CINA shelter cases (58% in FY2007 vs. 67% in FY2008). The largest decline in the percentage of cases closing within-standard occurred in small-sized jurisdictions with a 10% decrease for TPR cases (83% in FY2007 vs. 73% in FY2008).

• Small jurisdictions had within-standard percentages higher than the statewide within-standard percentages for six case types compared to

medium- and large-sized jurisdictions, which had higher within-standard percentages for fewer case types (three and zero, respectively). • As shown in Table 3, the overall average case processing times for most case types (except CINA shelter and TPR) were shorter than their

respective time standards.

o However, the average case processing time of over-standard cases was considerably greater in all case types, between 1.5 to 2.8 times the time standard.

2 Grouping jurisdictions by size in this analysis follows the approach used by the Caseflow Assessment Application. There no changes in jurisdiction size from the previous two fiscal years.


Page 4 of 62

o The average case time for over-standard cases ranged from 2.9 to 6.4 times as long as the average case time for within-standard cases. The greatest differences between the over- and within-standard case times were for domestic relations cases, standard 2 (6.4 times as long) followed by domestic relations cases, standard 1 (4.7 times as long) and criminal cases (4.4 times as long).

• The overall ACT has improved for all case types except for civil, juvenile delinquency, and CINA non-shelter between FY2007 and FY2008.

The greatest improvement occurred among TPR cases, which experienced a 59 day reduction (on average) in the processing of cases between the two fiscal years.

o The greatest increase in the overall ACT occurred among civil cases, which increased by 12 days from 253 in FY2007 to 265 in

FY2008.

Table 3. Average Overall, Within-, and Over-Standard Case Processing Time by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY2008

Average Case Time (in days)

Case Type

(Time Standard) Overall Within-Standard Over-Standard


Criminal (180 days) 100 69 307 4.4 Civil (548 days) 265 202 849 4.2 Domestic Relations, Standard 1 (365 days) 198 127 594 4.7 Domestic Relations, Standard 2 (730 days) 198 165 1061 6.4 Juvenile (90 days) 45 37 154 4.2 CINA Shelter (30 days) 44 24 83 3.5 CINA Non-Shelter (60 days) 43 29 119 4.1 TPR (180 days) 273 123 358 2.9 Note: The statewide average case times displayed in Table 3 are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.

• Table 4 provides the median case processing times by case type and termination status (overall, within-standard, and over-standard).

o The median case processing time represents the middle value in the distribution of case processing times for a particular case type. For example, if all the criminal case processing times (from each jurisdiction) were arranged in magnitude from lowest to greatest, the median criminal case processing time would be the value in the middle of the distribution. Unlike the arithmetic mean (that is, the ACT, or the average case processing time), the median is not affected by extreme scores.

• As shown in Table 4, the overall median case time for all case types is shorter than the overall ACT displayed in Table 3. The differences in

median and average values suggests that there are extreme case processing times that are negatively impacting the “true” average representation of the average case processing time, or the length of time it takes jurisdictions to process cases.

o Given limitations with the statistics available, it is best to analyze and review multiple measures of performance. Ideally, a (more or less)

consistent picture would emerge affording the Court greater confidence in the performance results and clear direction on how best to modify management practices.


Page 5 of 62

Table 4. Median Overall, Within-, and Over-Standard Case Processing Time by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY2008

Median Case Time (in days)

Case Type

(Time Standard) Overall Within-Standard Over-Standard


Criminal (180 days) 76 57 264 4.6 Civil (548 days) 192 169 722 4.3 Domestic Relations, Standard 1 (365 days) 130 106 502 4.7 Domestic Relations, Standard 2 (730 days) 130 125 950 7.6 Juvenile (90 days) 37 36 122 3.4 CINA Shelter (30 days) 28 25 64 2.6 CINA Non-Shelter (60 days) 33 29 120 4.1 TPR (180 days) 243 132 317 2.4

Note: The statewide median case times displayed in Table 4 are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.

• Across all case types except CINA non-shelter, the median time for over-standard cases is markedly lower than that obtained by the ACT.

Once again, this suggests that a small number of cases with extreme processing times may be impacting the ACT. In FY2008, the greatest difference in the over-standard case time as measured by the two statistics occurs in civil cases, which experienced an ACT of 849 days compared to a median time of 722 days.

o A possible explanation for the markedly high ACT among over-standard civil cases is the change that occurred in several

jurisdictions with the handling of the bankruptcy suspension event. In particular, for the FY2008 caseflow assessment, the suspension time for bankruptcy was only to be excluded from the calculation of case time when the bankruptcy discharge order was received by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court (in cases where the defendant was found bankrupt). In the past, several jurisdictions were excluding bankruptcy suspension time when the discharge was not received from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court but the case was ultimately dismissed in accordance with Maryland Rule 2-507.

o Another possible explanation for the markedly high ACT among over-standard civil cases could be the result of an increase in

foreclosure cases in the state and the associated granting of a deferral of the motion for dismissal that arises out of Maryland Rule 2-507.

• Table 5 displays the percent of over-standard cases that closed shortly after the defined time standard. Although the over-standard average

case times were substantially greater than the within-standard average case times, a considerable number of over-standard cases were terminated shortly over their time standards.

o The most dramatic change in the percentage of cases closing just over-standard between FY2007 and FY2008 took place among CINA

non-shelter and TPR cases.


Page 6 of 62

o For CINA non-shelter cases, 20% of cases closed within a week over-standard in FY2007 compared to 15% in FY2008 (FY2007 results are not presented in Table 5). For TPR cases, 7% of cases closed within a week over-standard in FY2007 compared to 12% in FY2008 (FY2007 results are not presented in Table 5).

Table 5. Percent of Over-Standard Cases Closed Shortly After the Time Standard and Time Required to Close 50% of Over-Standard Cases by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY2008

% of Over-Standard Cases Closing (Just) Over Standard

Time to Close 50% of Over-

Standard Cases

Circuit Court Case Type

(Time Standard)

Number of Over-Standard Cases

% (No. cases) Time Over-Standard

Criminal (180 days) 913 29% (261 cases) Within 1 month 2.3 months Civil (548 days) 740 11%(83 cases) Within 1 month 6.2 months Domestic Relations, Standard 1 (365 days) 1055 14% (145 cases) Within 1 month 5.5 months Domestic Relations, Standard 2 (730 days) 230 7% (16 cases) Within 1 month 9.2 months Juvenile (90 days) 385 51% (198 cases) Within 1 month 3.6 weeks CINA Shelter (30 days) 438 20% (89 cases) Within 1 week 3.4 weeks CINA Non-Shelter (60 days) 85 15% (13 cases) Within 1 week 1.5 months TPR (180 days) 380 12% (45 cases) Within 1 month 4.7 months

Note: The aggregate percent of cases closing (just) over their respective time standards are not weighted; therefore, caution should be used when generalizing this information to the statewide level.

• In September 2008, the Maryland Judiciary held two training sessions to guide jurisdictions in their use of the caseflow assessment

application and their completion of the FY2008 jurisdiction-specific report. As a change from previous years, it was requested that when postponement information was available in a case (i.e., the number of postponements and associated reasons) that such information be provided (and verified) in the assessment application.

o Despite this request, it is important to note that there is no mechanism to verify the extent to which the postponement information

in the application is accurate. In addition, over the course of completing the statewide report, it became clear that different jurisdictions report different types of postponement information at different types during the life of a case. In particular, some jurisdictions only report trial postponements whereas other report pre-trial, trial, and sentencing postponements. Some jurisdictions only report those postponements that occur during the time standards defined case start and stop times while others report postponements that occur after the time standards defined case stop dates.

Given variation in the reporting of postponement data in the assessment application, the postponement-related analysis

has been modified from previous years. Since the assessment data extracted from the UCS included postponements that had occurred outside of the time standards defined case start and stop dates, it is inappropriate to link postponement information with case processing time.


Page 7 of 62

Therefore, the postponement analysis contained in this report focuses on the extent of invalid postponement data present in application assessment (see Table 6), and number of postponements present in the assessment application data (see Table 7).

• Table 6 displays the extent of matched and mis-matched postponement data uncovered in the assessment application. Matched

postponement data refers to those cases where the number of identified postponements for a particular case matches the number of postponement reasons. Cases with mis-matched postponement data includes those cases where: 1) a postponement is identified but no reason is provided, 2) the number of postponements and the number of postponement reasons do not match, 3) no postponement is identified based on the number of postponements but postponement reasons are provided, and 4) information on the number of postponements is missing but postponement reasons are available.

o The purpose of providing information on the extent of mis-matched postponement data is to help guide future efforts on the

collection of postponement data for the caseflow application assessment. o The reasons for mis-matched postponement data are unknown at this point as they are likely the result of technical and policy

challenges, and not necessarily reflective of how Courts are entering postponement information in the assessment application. • According to Table 6, the number of postponements and postponement reasons match for the majority of civil, criminal, domestic relations,

and TPR cases with valid postponement information in the FY2008 assessment application. In fact, for these case types, less than 5% of the postponement information gathered is mis-matched.

o In contrast, for CINA cases, the percentage of matched postponement information ranges from 57% for shelter cases to 60% for

non-shelter cases. At least 40% of the postponement information gathered for CINA cases is identified as mis-matched.

• If the Maryland Judiciary is interested in examining the relationship between case postponement information and performance, steps need to be taken to ensure the accuracy of the postponement data contained in the assessment application. One initial step in this effort would be to ensure that the number of postponements identified for a case corresponds with the number of postponement reasons provided.

o Furthermore, the Judiciary should continue its efforts to standardize the reason codes used to describe why a case is postponed.


Page 8 of 62

Table 6. Extent of Matched and Mis-Matched Postponement Data, Circuit Courts, FY2008

Civil Criminal Domestic Relations Juvenile

CINA Shelter

CINA Non-Shelter TPR

Overall Terminations 10,467 10,165 10,916 6,961 1,697 620 648 Terminations with Valid Postponement Information 9,969 10,157 10,419 6,521 1,322 536 516 (Missing Data) (8) (497) (440) (375) (84) (132)

Matched Postponement Data 9,914 9,805 10,367 5,884 760 322 497 (% of Valid Terminations) 99% 97% 99% 90% 57% 60% 96%

Mis-Matched Postponement Data 55 352 52 637 562 214 19

(% of Valid Terminations) 1% 3% 1% 10% 43% 40% 4% Note: ‘Terminations with Valid Postponement Information’ are defined as those cases where valid postponement information is available in either the number of postponements field or the postponement reason code fields.

• Due to the fact that postponement information contained in the assessment application is gathered at any point during the life of a case, not

solely between the time standards defined case start and stop dates, the only analysis performed highlights the percentage of cases that were identified as postponed or not postponed.

o Again, it is important to reiterate that we are unable to define what types of postponements were granted due to differences in how

jurisdictions report postponement information to the assessment application. That is, some jurisdictions report only trial postponements whereas others report pre-trial, trial, and sentencing postponements.

• Similar to the past two fiscal years, postponements were much more likely among TPR (69%), CINA shelter (52%), CINA non-shelter (45%),

juvenile delinquency (39%), and criminal (38%) cases than in civil (10%) and domestic relations (13%) cases (see Table 7).

o The ‘Missing Data’ column displayed in Table 7 reflects those cases with missing case start dates, negative case processing times, or those where the number of postponements for a particular case (i.e., not postponement reasons) is missing. When the number of postponements in a case is missing, it is unclear whether the missing data indicates no postponements were present in a case, or that the postponements were not captured despite postponements being granted in a case. The latter can occur because for certain case types, as well as for certain jurisdictions the application data is collected from a data system other than the Uniform Court System (UCS).


Page 9 of 62

Table 7. Number and Percent of Cases by Postponement Status by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY2008

Circuit Court Case Type Postponed Not Postponed Terminations with Valid

Postponement Information

N % N % N

Criminal 3,871 38% 6,286 62% 10,157 Civil 1,040 10% 8,929 90% 9,969

Domestic Relations 1,336 13% 9,083 87% 10,419

Juvenile Delinquency 2,562 39% 3,959 61% 6,521

CINA Shelter 682 52% 631 48% 1,313

CINA Non-Shelter 239 45% 297 55% 536

TPR 355 69% 161 31% 516 Note: ‘Terminations with Valid Postponement Information’ are defined as those cases where valid postponement information is available in the number of postponements field only. The termination values provided in this table are slightly different than those displayed in Table 6.

• As specified by the case time standards for Maryland’s trial courts, case time may be suspended to account for those events over which the

court has no control (e.g., Military Leave, Interlocutory Appeals, Arbitration, etc.). Direction provided at the September 2008 caseflow training sessions urged jurisdictions to review and correct the suspension data contained in the assessment application. In particular, if suspension information reflected in the assessment application is incorrect or absent, it was requested that jurisdictions correct and update the data because the presence of valid suspension events directly impact case processing time.

o A consequence of not reporting suspension information is that case processing time (i.e., time to disposition) may be over-estimated. In

addition, some jurisdictions may be fully reporting their suspension information whereas others may not. Variation in the reporting of suspension information makes comparisons across jurisdictions difficult if not impossible.

o In several of the FY2008 jurisdiction-specific reports, questions were raised about the current time standards-defined start and end dates

for certain suspension events. The variation that exists in how jurisdictions capture certain suspension events (e.g., excluding suspension when not appropriate, or coding suspension events differently) will impact the Maryland Judiciary’s ability to compare performance across jurisdictions.

o Given the lack of data on how jurisdictions handle (i.e., docket, or code) the time standards suspension events, it is difficult to know

whether differences in case processing time across jurisdictions are due to variation in Court management practices or due to differences in how courts are implementing the case time standards.


Page 10 of 62

• As shown in Table 8, statewide, 16% of the FY2008 cases had at least one suspension reported compared to 22% observed in FY2007. This is a slight decrease from FY2007; however, it remains a substantial increase from FY2006 wherein only 8% of the cases had at least one suspension reported.

o The percent of suspended cases varies from 2% for TPR cases to 29% for juvenile delinquency cases.

Table 8. Number and Percent of Suspended Cases with Valid or Invalid Data by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY2008

• Of the 7,441 suspensions identified in the cases used in this analysis, 20% were found to be invalid, which is substantially less than the 52%

found in FY2007.3 Similar to the past two fiscal years, the percentage of suspensions with invalid data is particularly high among domestic relations (42%), and civil (53%) cases.

o Similar to FY2007, for CINA shelter and non-shelter cases, the assessment application did not contain variables denoting the military

leave suspension start and end dates. Therefore, it is unclear whether jurisdictions experienced no military leave suspensions in CINA cases or whether the missing information is the result of the system not capturing and displaying this suspension information in the application.

3 Invalid suspensions are defined as those missing a suspension start or end dates, or those having a negative suspension times (i.e., suspension end dates preceding suspension start dates).

Number of Cases with

Suspensions Number of Suspensions

With Valid Data

With Invalid

Data

Case Type Overall Cases

N % N N % N %

Suspensions with Invalid Data by Type of Data Error

Criminal 10,165 2,138 21% 2,472 2,321 94% 151 6% (30 Missing Stop Dates, 114 Missing Start Dates, 7 Negative Suspension Times)

Civil 10,467 525 5% 526 246 47% 280 53% (271 Missing Stop Dates, 8 Missing Start Dates, 1 Negative Suspension Time)

Domestic Relations 10,916 2,133 20% 2,219 1,280 58% 939 42%

(2 Missing Stop Dates, 7 Missing Start Dates, 930 Negative Suspension Times)

Juvenile Delinquency 6,961 2,003 29% 2,212 2,126 96% 86 4%

(45 Missing Stop Dates, 32 Missing Start Dates, 9 Negative Suspension Times)

CINA Shelter 1,697 0 0% --- --- --- --- ---

CINA Non-Shelter 620 0 0% --- --- --- --- --- TPR 648 12 2% 12 8 67% 4 33% (3 Missing Stop Date, 1 Missing Start Date)

Total 41,474 6,811 16% 7,441 5,981 80% 1,460 20% (351 Missing Stop Dates (24%), 162 Missing Start Dates (11%), 947 Negative Suspension Times (65%)).


Page 11 of 62

o For civil cases, the number of suspensions reported with invalid data is greater than the number of suspensions reported with valid data

(280 compared to 246, respectively). • Suspensions with negative suspension times are markedly more prevalent in the FY2008 data at 65% (of the invalid suspension data)

compared to 3% in FY2007. The majority of the cases with negative suspension times occurred in domestic relations cases within the ‘no service in child support cases’. In particular, 930 of the 947 negative suspension times occurred in domestic relations cases in the ‘no service in child support cases’ suspension event. It is important to note that the assessment application does not take into account these negative suspension times when calculation case time. However, the presence of these negative suspension events may create a distraction for jurisdictions during their data quality review.

o That said, there are substantially fewer cases with invalid suspension data in the FY2008 caseflow assessment application as compared to

the FY2007 application data. Specifically, of the suspension data available, only 20% is defined as invalid in FY2008 compared to 52% in FY2007. One possible explanation for the decrease in invalid suspension data is the greater focus that jurisdictions placed on examining their suspension information, as well as the availability of a Circuit Court user guide that identifies the docket codes used to identify the start and stop dates associated with each suspension event. Another possible explanation is that changes were made to assessment application to ensure that valid start and stop dates were pulled for each suspension event.

• Information on invalid suspension data should be used by the Maryland Judiciary to identify any gaps in the data entry, data collection, and

programming efforts performed in support of the caseflow assessment application. Since invalid suspension information cannot be factored into the calculation of case processing time, the calculation of case time may be over-estimated.

o Variation in how jurisdictions enter their suspension start and stop dates into their case management system or interpret the time

standards-defined suspension events, as well as how programmers compile the suspension data for the annual caseflow makes comparisons of case processing performance across jurisdictions difficult.

o Efforts to improve the data contained in the caseflow assessment application should include (where applicable) a focus on defining each

suspension event with examples as to what events are covered by the particular suspension. For example, it is unclear the extent to which jurisdictions docket non-binding arbitrations in the same way. Furthermore, it is unclear if jurisdictions differentiate non-binding arbitration and mediation in their docket entries. If court personnel docket mediation in the same way they docket non-binding arbitration, suspension time may be applied to case time when it is not warranted.


Page 12 of 62

Percentage of Cases Within-Standard (Weighted): Eight Case Types

FY 2007 FY 2008 FY07-08

% Change Criminal (98% in 180 days) 87% 88% 1%

Civil (98% in 548 days) 91% 91% 0% Domestic Relations (90% in 365 days) 84% 87% 3% Domestic Relations (98% in 730 days) 97% 97% 0%

Juvenile (98% in 90 days) 95% 94% -1% CINA Shelter (100% in 30 days) 61% 69% 8%

CINA Non-Shelter (100% in 60 days) 88% 86% -2%

Term. Parental Rights (100% in 180 days) 41% 41% 0%

Note: The statewide within-standard percentages displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.

87% 9

1%

84%

97%

95%

61%

88%

41%

88% 91%

87%

97%

94%

69%

86%

41%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Cri

min

al

(98%

in 1

80 d

ays

)

Civ

il

(98%

in 5

48 d

ays

)

Dom

esti

c R

ela

tions

(90%

in 3

65 d

ays)

Dom

esti

c R

ela

tions

(98%

in 7

30 d

ays)

Juvenile

(98%

in 9

0 d

ays

)

CIN

A S

helt

er

(100%

in 3

0 d

ays

)

CIN

A N

on-S

helt

er

(100%

in 6

0 d

ays)

Term

inati

on o

f

Pare

nta

l R

ights

(100%

in 1

80 d

ays

)

Case Type

% W

ithin

-Sta

ndard

FY07 FY08


Page 13 of 62

Circuit Courts Statewide FY 2008 – % of Cases Within-Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction

Small Jurisdictions

No.

Judges

Criminal (98% goal)

Civil (98% goal)

DR 365 (90% goal)

DR 730 (98% goal)

Juvenile (98% goal)

CINA Shelter

(100% goal)

CINA Non-Shelter (100% goal)

TPR (100% goal)

Allegany 2 99% 100% 98% 100% 99% 89% 100% 100% Calvert 2 78% 91% 88% 99% 93% 53% 100% 40%

Caroline 1 97% 93% 95% 100% 78% 50% 100% 100% Dorchester 1 100% 99% 98% 100% 98% 50% 100% 100%

Garrett 1 93% 85% 96% 100% 94% 25% 38% Kent 1 99% 95% 97% 100% 100% 100%

Queen Anne's 1 97% 99% 97% 100% 92% 100% 100% Somerset 1 93% 98% 97% 100% 94% 65% 100% 0%

Talbot 1 94% 97% 95% 99% 97% 100% 100% 20% Small, Overall 11 95% 96% 95% 100% 94% 64% 90% 73%

Medium Jurisdictions

No.

Judges

Criminal (98% goal)

Civil (98% goal)

DR 365 (90% goal)

DR 730 (98% goal)

Juvenile (98% goal)

CINA Shelter

(100% goal)


TPR (100% goal)

Carroll 3 86% 93% 86% 98% 99% 83% 100% 100% Cecil 3 86% 89% 94% 100% 86% 76% 100% 21%

Charles 4 86% 92% 83% 97% 97% 62% 100% 100% Frederick 4 97% 91% 86% 99% 98% 68% 86% 75% Harford 5 68% 70% 71% 82% 80% 90% 100% 48% Howard 5 86% 90% 83% 95% 95% 89% 100% 100%

St. Mary's 3 95% 93% 88% 98% 93% 40% 43% Washington 4 97% 96% 97% 100% 100% 87% 100% 97% Wicomico 3 99% 99% 98% 100% 97% 88% 60% 13% Worcester 3 99% 99% 98% 100% 100% 43% 84% 82%

Medium, Overall 37 88% 89% 86% 95% 94% 78% 92% 65%

Large Jurisdictions

No.

Judges

Criminal (98% goal)

Civil (98% goal)

DR 365 (90% goal)

DR 730 (98% goal)

Juvenile (98% goal)

CINA Shelter

(100% goal)


TPR (100% goal)

Anne Arundel 10 94% 97% 95% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100% Baltimore City 30 82% 87% 83% 95% 94% 63% 24% 19% Baltimore Co. 16 88% 90% 85% 96% 90% 69% 83% 52% Montgomery 21 86% 95% 90% 100% 95% 80% 90% 61%

Prince George's 23 95% 94% 82% 97% 99% 99% 100% 56% Large, Overall 100 87% 91% 86% 97% 94% 67% 83% 32%

Statewide 148 88% 91% 87% 97% 94% 69% 86% 41%

* Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Note: The overall jurisdiction size and statewide within-standard percentages displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.


Page 14 of 62

88

%

95% 99

%

78%

97% 99

%

93%

99%

97%

93%

94%

88

%

86%

86%

86%

97%

68%

86%

94% 97

% 99%

99%

87%

94%

82%

88

%

86%

95%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N =

9,2

52)

Smal

l, Ove

rall

(N =

2,7

31)

Allega

ny (N

= 4

93)

Calve

rt (N

= 2

65)

Carol

ine (

N =

335)

Dorches

ter (

N =

394)

Garre

tt (N

= 10

0)

Kent (

N =

321)

Queen A

nne's (N

= 2

04)

Somer

set (

N =

324)

Talbot

(N =

295)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

4,3

46)

Carro

ll (N

= 4

24)

Cecil

(N =

428)

Charle

s (N

= 4

27)

Freder

ick (N

= 4

76)

Har

ford

(N =

333)

How

ard (N

= 4

00)

St. M

ary's

(N =

411

)

Was

hingt

on (N =

487)

Wico

mico

(N =

491)

Wor

cest

er (N

= 4

69)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

2,17

5)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 4

60)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 3

98)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

416

)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

435

)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

466)

Jurisdiction (# within-standard)

Perc

en

t W

ith

in-S

tan

da

rd

Jurisdiction Size: Small Medium Large

Circuit Court Criminal Cases (N = 10,165) – % Within 180-Day Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction

Note: The overall jurisdiction size and statewide within-standard percentages displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.


Page 15 of 62

91%

96% 10

0%

91% 93%

99%

85%

95%

99%

98

%

97%

89%

93%

89%

92%

91%

70%

90% 9

3% 96% 9

9%

99%

91%

97%

87% 90

%

95%

94%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N =

9,7

27)

Smal

l, Ove

rall

(N =

2,9

15)

Allega

ny (N

= 4

90)

Calve

rt (N

= 4

54)

Carolin

e (N

= 2

21)

Dorches

ter (

N =

358

)

Garre

tt (N

= 19

3)

Kent (

N =

157)

Queen A

nne's (N

= 4

83)

Somer

set (

N =

280)

Talbot (

N =

279

)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

4,5

09)

Carro

ll (N

= 4

53)

Cecil

(N =

445)

Charle

s (N

= 4

55)

Freder

ick (N

= 4

45)

Har

ford

(N =

348)

How

ard (N

= 4

47)

St. M

ary's

(N =

466)

Was

hingt

on (N

= 4

71)

Wico

mico

(N =

491)

Worc

este

r (N

= 4

88)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

2,3

03)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 4

77)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 4

25)

Baltim

ore C

ounty (N

= 4

43)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

485)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

473

)


Perc

en

t W

ith

in-S

tan

da

rd


Circuit Court Civil Cases (N = 10,467) – % Within 548-Day Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 16 of 62

87%

95% 98

%

88

%

94% 98

%

96%

97%

97%

97%

95%

86%

86%

94%

83% 8

6%

71%

83%

88

%

97%

98%

98%

86%

95%

83% 8

5%

90%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N = 9

,861)

Smal

l, Ove

rall

(N =

3,4

14)

Allega

ny (N

= 4

83)

Calve

rt (N

= 4

39)

Carolin

e (N

= 4

63)

Dorches

ter (

N =

491)

Garre

tt (N

= 3

12)

Kent (

N = 16

7)

Queen A

nne's (N

= 3

25)

Somer

set (

N =

426)

Talbot (

N =

308)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

4,3

24)

Carro

ll (N

= 4

28)

Cecil

(N =

463)

Charle

s (N

= 3

99)

Freder

ick (N

= 4

19)

Har

ford

(N =

351

)

How

ard (N

= 4

01)

St. M

ary's

(N =

436)

Was

hingt

on (N =

467)

Wico

mico

(N =

483)

Worc

este

r (N

= 4

77)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

2,12

3)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 4

49)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 4

06)

Baltim

ore C

ounty (N

= 3

86)

Montg

omer

y (N =

460)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

422)


Pe

rce

nt

Wit

hin

-Sta

nd

ard


Circuit Court Domestic Relations Cases (N = 10,916) – % Within 365-Day Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 17 of 62

97%

100

%

100

%

99%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

99%

95% 98

%

100

%

97% 99

%

82%

95% 98

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

97%

100

%

95% 96

% 100

%

97%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N =

10,6

86)

Smal

l, Ove

rall

(N =

3,5

69)

Allega

ny (N

= 4

95)

Calve

rt (N

= 4

92)

Carol

ine (

N =

490)

Dorch

este

r (N

= 5

00)

Garre

tt (N

= 3

25)

Kent (

N =

173)

Quee

n Anne's

(N =

334

)

Somer

set (

N =

437)

Talbot

(N =

323)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

4,7

40)

Carro

ll (N

= 4

89)

Cecil

(N =

491)

Charle

s (N

= 4

67)

Freder

ick (N

= 4

81)

Har

ford

(N =

403)

How

ard (N

= 4

62)

St. M

ary's

(N =

487)

Was

hingt

on (N

= 4

82)

Wico

mico

(N =

492)

Wor

cest

er (N

= 4

86)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

2,3

77)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 4

72)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 4

66)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

436)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

507)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

496)

Jurisdiction (# within standard)

Perc

en

t W

ith

in S

tan

dard


Circuit Court Domestic Relations Cases (N = 10,916) – % Within 730-Day Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 18 of 62

94

%

94

% 99

%

93%

78%

98

%

94

% 100

%

92% 94

% 97%

94

% 99

%

86

%

97% 98

%

80

%

94

%

93%

100

%

97% 10

0%

94

% 100

%

94

%

89

%

95%

99

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N =

6,5

76)

Smal

l, O

vera

ll (N

= 9

66)

Allega

ny (N

= 17

8)

Calve

rt (N

= 2

60)

Carol

ine (

N =

61)

Dor

ches

ter (

N =

117)

Garre

tt (N

= 4

7)

Kent (

N =

71)

Quee

n Anne's

(N =

58)

Somer

set (

N =

78)

Talbot

(N =

96)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

3,2

41)

Carro

ll (N

= 3

19)

Cecil

(N =

256

)

Charle

s (N

= 4

57)

Freder

ick

(N =

410

)

Har

ford

(N =

355

)

How

ard (N

= 3

92)

St. M

ary's

(N =

168)

Was

hingt

on (N

= 4

26)

Wic

omic

o (N

= 3

20)

Wor

cest

er (N

= 13

8)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

2,3

69)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 4

85)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 4

65)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

442)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

484)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

493)


Perc

en

t W

ith

in-S

tan

dard


Circuit Court Juvenile Delinquency Cases (N = 6,961) – % Within 90-Day Standard

By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 19 of 62

69

%

64%

88

%

53%

50%

50%

25%

100

%

65%

100

%

78% 8

3%

76%

62%

68

%

90

%

89

%

40%

87% 88

%

43%

67%

93%

63%

69

%

80

%

99

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N =

1,259

)

Smal

l, Ove

rall

(N =

83)

Allega

ny (N

= 4

6)

Calve

rt (N

= 10

)

Carol

ine (

N =

2)

Dorch

este

r (N

= 2

)

Garre

tt (N

= 7)

Kent (

NA)

Queen A

nne's (N

= 2

)

Somer

set (

N =

11)

Talbot

(N =

3)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

395)

Carro

ll (N

= 15

)

Cecil

(N =

51)

Charle

s (N

= 18

)

Freder

ick (N

= 3

8)

Har

ford

(N =

127)

How

ard (N

= 2

5)

St. M

ary’s

(N =

19)

Was

hingt

on (N

= 75

)

Wico

mic

o (N

= 2

1)

Wor

cest

er (N

= 6

)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

781)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 5

0)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 3

05)

Baltim

ore C

ounty (N

= 12

6)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

139)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

161)


Perc

en

t W

ith

in S

tan

da

rd


Circuit Court CINA Shelter Cases (N = 1,697) – % Within 30-Day Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 20 of 62

86% 9

0%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

38%

100

%

100

%

100

%

92%

100

%

100

%

100

%

86%

100

%

100

%

100

%

60

%

84%

83%

100

%

24%

83%

90

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wid

e (N

= 5

35)

Smal

l, O

vera

ll (N

= 3

6)

Allega

ny (N

= 12

)

Calve

rt (N

= 1)

Carol

ine (

N =

3)

Dor

ches

ter (

N =

2)

Garre

tt (N

= 3

)Ken

t (N

A)

Quee

n Anne's

(N =

1)

Somer

set (

N =

8)

Talbot

(N =

6)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

184)

Carro

ll (N

= 13

)

Cecil

(N =

6)

Charle

s (N

= 12

)

Freder

ick

(N =

18)

Har

ford

(N =

31)

How

ard (N

= 7

)

St. M

ary’s

(NA)

Was

hingt

on (N

= 6

1)

Wic

omic

o (N

= 9

)

Wor

cest

er (N

= 2

7)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

315

)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 9

)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 8

)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

159)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

66)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

73)


Perc

en

t W

ith

in S

tan

dard


Circuit Court CINA Non-Shelter Cases (N = 620) – % Within 60-Day Standard

By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 21 of 62

41%

73%

100

%

40

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

0%

20%

65%

100

%

21%

100

%

75%

48

%

100

%

43%

97%

13%

82%

32%

100

%

19%

52%

61%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State

wide (

N =

268)

Smal

l, Ove

rall

(N =

33)

Allega

ny (N

= 15

)

Calve

rt (N

= 4

)

Carol

ine (

N =

8)

Dorch

este

r (N

= 4

)

Garre

tt (N

= N

A)

Kent (

N =

1)

Queen A

nne's (N

A)

Somer

set (

N =

0)

Talbot

(N =

1)

Med

ium

, Ove

rall

(N =

78)

Carro

ll (N

= 3

)

Cecil

(N =

3)

Charle

s (N

= 4

)

Freder

ick (N

= 9

)

Har

ford

(N =

12)

How

ard (N

= 5

)

St. M

ary's

(N =

3)

Was

hingt

on (N =

29)

Wico

mico

(N =

1)

Wor

cest

er (N

= 9

)

Large

, Ove

rall

(N =

157)

Anne Aru

ndel (N

= 2

3)

Baltim

ore C

ity (N

= 6

6)

Baltim

ore C

ounty

(N =

16)

Mon

tgom

ery (

N =

43)

Prince

Geo

rge's

(N =

9)


Per

cen

t W

ith

in S

tan

da

rd


Circuit Court Termination of Parental Rights Cases (N = 648) – % Within 180-Day Standard By Size of County/Jurisdiction



Page 22 of 62

100

265

198 198

45 44 43

273307

849

594

1061

154

83119

358

69

202

127165

37 24 29

123

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Criminal (N = 10,165)

Civil (N = 10,467)

DR 365 (N= 10,916)

DR 720 (N = 10,916)

Juvenile (N = 6,961)

CINA Shelter(N = 1,697)

CINA Non-Shelter

(N = 620)

TPR (N = 648)

Ave

rag

e C

ase

Tim

e

Overall

Over-Standard

Within-Standard

Overall, Within-Standard, and Over-Standard Average Case Time by Case Type, FY2008

Note: The statewide average case time displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.


Page 23 of 62

Overall (O) and Over-Standard (OS) Average Case Time for Circuit Court Cases

Small Jurisdictions

No. Judges

Criminal (180-day

goal)

Civil (548-day

goal)

DR 365 (365-day

goal)

DR 730 (730-day

goal)

Juvenile (90-day

goal)

CINA Shelter (30-day

goal)

CINA Non-Shelter (60-day

goal)

TPR (180-day

goal) O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS Allegany 2 62 206 167 571 138 464 138 NA 28 111 25 41 26 NA 138 NA Calvert 2 133 289 274 729 170 506 170 802 47 131 32 43 29 NA 290 407 Caroline 1 103 199 241 771 157 465 157 NA 84 265 30 31 18 NA 160 NA Dorchester 1 109 189 160 952 139 438 139 NA 33 135 29 32 9 NA 152 NA Garrett 1 96 279 284 785 138 672 138 3724 39 254 50 61 110 161 NA NA Kent 1 94 212 184 600 129 476 129 NA 25 NA NA NA NA NA 139 NA Queen Anne's 1 81 302 141 734 131 469 131 NA 39 123 21 NA 8 NA NA NA Somerset 1 119 252 137 912 103 527 103 868 35 111 29 43 32 NA 196 196 Talbot 1 98 218 177 606 144 502 144 843 32 168 18 NA 27 NA 210 223 Small, Overall 11 99 230 196 727 142 492 142 1323 40 148 32 45 37 161 188 328


No. Judges

Criminal (180-day

goal)

Civil (548-day

goal)

DR 365 (365-day

goal)

DR 730 (730-day

goal)

Juvenile (90-day

goal)


goal)


goal)

TPR (180-day

goal) O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS Carroll 3 123 279 220 973 189 527 189 935 31 162 33 63 22 NA 89 NA Cecil 3 133 318 275 905 159 482 159 849 117 670 32 60 34 NA 294 339 Charles 4 124 268 254 790 225 584 225 951 38 109 33 52 29 NA 177 NA Frederick 4 69 351 292 1032 186 521 186 1163 45 125 27 44 29 70 159 259 Harford 5 177 376 545 1405 423 1183 423 1546 66 136 27 45 26 NA 244 370 Howard 5 117 288 260 831 236 735 236 1348 51 331 23 35 16 NA 116 NA St. Mary's 3 86 252 237 835 182 553 182 842 43 126 46 62 NA NA 363 518 Washington 4 83 267 204 778 116 462 116 806 18 121 24 46 16 NA 109 229 Wicomico 3 84 249 184 781 122 427 122 NA 36 119 27 49 144 344 257 276 Worcester 3 76 221 167 710 106 460 106 NA 27 NA 47 62 35 83 169 240 Medium, Overall 37 112 304 293 955 222 663 222 1135 47 200 30 50 39 168 197 304

Large Jurisdictions

No. Judges

Criminal (180-day

goal)

Civil (548-day

goal)

DR 365 (365-day

goal)

DR 730 (730-day

goal)

Juvenile (90-day

goal)


goal)


goal)

TPR (180-day

goal) O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS Anne Arundel 10 97 501 233 746 164 443 164 825 36 191 25 37 20 NA 119 NA Baltimore City 30 101 349 297 838 166 607 166 920 46 143 53 100 97 113 348 403 Baltimore Co. 16 98 257 269 869 213 696 213 1221 51 132 33 59 46 104 191 264 Montgomery 21 95 254 210 950 154 501 154 946 46 127 27 52 43 105 187 282 Prince George's 23 83 247 258 725 243 595 243 1114 33 134 24 71 29 NA 202 278 Large, Overall 100 95 314 263 829 195 579 195 1022 44 142 47 91 46 105 299 372 Statewide 148 100 307 265 849 198 594 198 1061 45 154 44 83 43 119 273 358

* Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Note: The overall jurisdiction size and statewide average case time displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.


Page 24 of 62

76

192

130 130

37 28 33

243264

722

502

950

122

64

120

317

57

169

106125

36 25 29

132

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Criminal (N = 10,165)

Civil (N = 10,467)

DR 365 (N = 10,916)

DR 720 (N = 10,916)

Juvenile (N = 6,961)

CINA Shelter(N = 1,697)

CINA Non-Shelter

(N = 620)

TPR (N = 648)

Me

dia

n C

ase

Tim

e

Overall

Over-Standard

Within-Standard

Overall, Within-Standard, and Over-Standard Median Case Time by Case Type, FY2008

Note: The statewide median case times displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.


Page 25 of 62

Overall (O) and Over-Standard (OS) Median Case Time for Circuit Court Cases

Small Jurisdictions

No. Judges

Criminal (180-day

goal)

Civil (548-day

goal)

DR 365 (365-day

goal)

DR 730 (730-day

goal)

Juvenile (90-day

goal)


goal)


goal)

TPR (180-day

goal) O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS Allegany 2 56 203 147 571 99 455 99 NA 28 111 24 35 27 NA 143 NA Calvert 2 109 252 217 671 117 463 117 786 39 109 28 40 29 NA 269 403 Caroline 1 106 196 179 615 130 447 130 NA 38 115 30 31 20 NA 160 NA Dorchester 1 112 189 105 846 127 447 127 NA 28 92 29 32 9 NA 168 NA Garrett 1 76 255 212 686 98 427 98 3724 14 98 47 49 86 88 NA NA Kent 1 99 212 120 598 115 500 115 NA 24 NA NA NA NA NA 139 NA Queen Anne's 1 74 313 96 651 105 427 105 NA 28 113 21 NA 8 NA NA NA Somerset 1 119 241 93 731 70 467 70 868 28 105 28 35 32 NA 196 196 Talbot 1 98 208 126 579 109 488 109 843 28 113 20 NA 23 NA 211 219 Small, Overall 11 95 222 149 657 108 456 108 1316 31 107 30 39 33 88 186 325


No. Judges

Criminal (180-day

goal)

Civil (548-day

goal)

DR 365 (365-day

goal)

DR 730 (730-day

goal)

Juvenile (90-day

goal)


goal)


goal)

TPR (180-day

goal) O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS Carroll 3 104 254 153 863 139 474 139 930 25 124 29 63 21 NA 71 NA Cecil 3 126 286 173 717 130 430 130 849 29 216 28 62 45 NA 274 294 Charles 4 113 237 196 707 161 531 161 840 36 103 29 47 28 NA 177 NA Frederick 4 53 286 225 796 110 459 110 1181 43 107 24 39 31 70 152 182 Harford 5 114 287 231 1041 131 963 131 1159 54 119 28 36 28 NA 194 281 Howard 5 103 252 201 739 157 569 157 1121 31 140 27 35 15 NA 104 NA St. Mary's 3 74 221 182 665 138 500 138 806 35 114 35 42 NA NA 197 545 Washington 4 78 262 153 716 90 441 90 806 14 121 21 35 17 NA 113 229 Wicomico 3 76 203 166 604 91 398 91 NA 32 118 23 49 14 344 255 268 Worcester 3 69 219 137 705 90 429 90 NA 22 NA 44 65 32 83 168 240 Medium, Overall 37 92 261 191 787 125 569 125 1011 34 127 27 43 24 168 174 269

Large Jurisdictions

No. Judges

Criminal (180-day

goal)

Civil (548-day

goal)

DR 365 (365-day

goal)

DR 730 (730-day

goal)

Juvenile (90-day

goal)


goal)


goal)

TPR (180-day

goal) O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS O OS Anne Arundel 10 74 253 185 689 149 402 149 825 36 191 27 38 22 NA 135 NA Baltimore City 30 50 311 224 702 90 507 90 834 39 116 29 72 70 127 307 356 Baltimore Co. 16 86 241 196 715 122 531 122 935 43 115 28 55 37 104 177 254 Montgomery 21 75 224 133 813 111 443 111 946 46 112 24 53 38 113 161 231 Prince George's 23 85 230 206 642 185 489 185 961 27 109 25 71 27 NA 165 274 Large, Overall 100 68 268 196 708 135 481 135 910 39 122 28 69 38 109 265 328 Statewide 148 76 264 192 722 130 502 130 950 37 122 28 64 33 120 243 317 * Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 22, 2008). Note: The overall jurisdiction size and statewide median case times displayed are weighted to account for differences in jurisdiction-size, and to accurately reflect each jurisdiction’s contribution to statewide case processing performance.


Page 26 of 62

Over-Standard Criminal Terminations (N = 913) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 180-day Standard

261

156

85

120

56 5445

27 2318

10 7 9 5 6 5 5 5 6 6 4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 month

over

2 month

s ove

r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1.5 to

2 ye

ars o

ver

2-3 ye

ars

3+ year

s ove

r


Ter

min

atio

ns

• Average Case Time: Overall: 100 days Within-Standard Terminations: 69 days Over-Standard terminations: 307 days

• 29% of the over-standard criminal cases closed within 1 month over standard.

• 55% of the over-standard criminal cases closed within 3 months

over standard.


Page 27 of 62

Over-Standard Civil Terminations (N = 740) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 548-day Standard

83

7169

52

41 41

34

29

25

11

20 1917

13

1816

20

9

4

85

7

11

5

53

22

16

21

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 month

over

2 month

s ove

r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 243 ye

ars o

ver

4 year

s ove

r5 ye

ars o

ver

more

than 5 ye

ars o

ver


Ter

min

atio

ns


• 11% of the over-standard civil cases closed within 1 month over

standard. • 53% of the over-standard civil cases closed within 6 months over

standard.


Page 28 of 62

145142

112

86

75 73

65

37

19

33

22

15 14 14

26

14 128 9 11

511 13

6

44

19

4

21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 month

over

2 month

s ove

r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

2-3 ye

ars o

ver

3-4 ye

ars o

ver

4-5 ye

ars ove

r

more

than 5 ye

ars ove

r


Ter

min

atio

ns

Over-Standard Domestic Relations Terminations (N = 1,055) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 365-day Standard


• 14% of the over-standard domestic relations cases closed within 1 month

over the 365-day standard. • 53% of the over-standard domestic relations cases closed within 5 months

over the 365-day standard.


Page 29 of 62

Over-Standard Domestic Relations Terminations (N = 230) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 730-day Standard

1615

24

15

10 10

6

13

3

1213

6

8

4

6 6

23

2 2

43

2

20

25

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 month

over

2 month

s ove

r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 24

2-3 ye

ars o

ver

more

than

3 year

s ove

r


Ter

min

atio

ns

• Average Case Time: Overall: 198 days Within-Standard Terminations: 165 days Over-Standard terminations: 1,061 days

• 7% of the over-standard domestic relations cases closed within 1 month

over the 730-day standard. • 54% of the over-standard domestic relations cases closed within 10

months over the 730-day standard.


Page 30 of 62

Over-Standard Juvenile Delinquency Terminations (N = 385) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 90-day Standard

63

56

45

34

16

27

1517

129 9

6 53

6 6

2 2 2

63

1 1 13

74

6 5

13

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 wee

k over

2 wee

ks ove

r 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 22 23 24 25 26

7-9 m

onths o

ver

9-12 m

onths o

ver

1-2 ye

ars o

ver

2-3 ye

ars o

ver

more

than 3 ye

ars o

ver


Ter

min

atio

ns


• Slightly over half (51%) of the over-standard juvenile delinquency

cases closed within 1 month over standard.


Page 31 of 62

Over-Standard CINA Shelter Terminations (N = 438) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 30-day Standard

21

86 7

38

4 5

64

51

4244

27

11

17

12

3

14

2

22

11 10

19

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 day o

ver

2 day

s over

3 day

s ove

r4 d

ays o

ver

5 day

s ove

r6 d

ays o

ver

7 day

s ove

r2 w

eeks o

ver

3 wee

ks ove

r4 w

eeks o

ver

5 wee

ks over

6 wee

ks ove

r7 w

eeks o

ver

8 wee

ks ove

r9 w

eeks o

ver

10 w

eeks o

ver

11 w

eeks o

ver

12 w

eeks o

ver

3-4 m

onths o

ver

4-5 m

onths o

ver

5-6 m

onths o

ver

more

than 6

month

s ove

r


Ter

min

atio

ns


• 20% of the over-standard CINA shelter cases closed within 1 week over standard.

• 50% of the over-standard CINA shelter cases closed within 3 to

4 weeks over standard.


Page 32 of 62

Over-Standard CINA Non-Shelter Terminations (N = 85) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 60-day Standard

13

10

87

14

33

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1 week over 2 weeks over 3 weeks over 4 weeks over 1-2 months over more than 2months over


Ter

min

atio

ns


• 15% of the over-standard CINA non-shelter cases closed within 1 week over-standard.

• 50% of the over-standard CINA non-shelter cases closed

approximately 6 weeks over-standard.


Page 33 of 62

45

49

31

41

30

24 2321

15

23

14

9

6 7 6

97

2

10

53

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 month

over2 m

onths o

ver 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

1.5 to

2 ye

ars o

ver

2-3 ye

ars ove

r

more

than

3 year

s ove

r


Ter

min

atio

ns

Over-Standard Termination of Parental Rights Terminations (N = 380) by the Amount of Time Beyond the 180-day Standard


• 12% of the over-standard TPR cases closed within 1 month

over-standard. • 50% of the over-standard TPR cases closed approximately 5

months over-standard.


Page 34 of 62

Circuit Court Criminal Case Suspensions: Data Integrity Issues

Suspensions

with Valid Data Suspensions with Invalid Data Suspension Type

Number of Suspensions

Reported N % N % (Breakdown of invalid suspensions by type

of data error) FTA/Warrant 1 1039 1036 100% 3 <1% (1 Missing Stop Date, 2 Negative Suspension Times) FTA/Warrant 2 106 105 99% 1 1% (1 Missing Stop Dates) FTA/Warrant 3 11 11 100% 0 0% Incompetency Evaluation 66 62 94% 4 6% (3 Missing Stop Dates, 1 Negative Time) NCR 73 65 89% 8 11% (6 Missing Stop Dates, 2 Missing Start Date) Mistrial 23 22 96% 1 4% (1 Missing Stop Date) Military Leave 2 2 100% 0 0% NA Reverse Waiver 58 56 97% 2 3% (2 Missing Stop Dates) Pre-Sentencing Treatment Program Order 24 24 100% 0 0% NA Interlocutory Appeal 111 3 3% 108 97% (107 Missing Start Dates, 1 Missing Stop Date) Pre-Sentencing Investigation 928 907 98% 21 2%

(12 Missing Stop Dates, 5 Missing Start Dates, 4 Negative Times)

DNA Testing 28 25 89% 3 11% (3 Missing Stop Dates) Pre-Trial Sentencing Treatment Program

3 3 100% 0 0% NA

Total 2472 2321 94% 151 6% (30 Missing Stop Dates, 114 Missing Start Dates, 7 Negative Suspension Times)


Page 35 of 62

Circuit Court Civil Case Suspensions: Data Integrity Issues

Suspensions with Valid Data

Suspensions with Invalid Data


Suspensions Reported N % N %

(Breakdown of invalid suspensions by type of data error)

Bankruptcy 460 188 41% 272 59%

(268 Missing Stop Dates, 3 Missing Start Dates, 1 Negative Suspension Time)

Arbitration 13 10 77% 3 23% (3 Missing Stop Dates) Interlocutory Appeal 38 34 89% 4 11% (4 Missing Start Dates) Military Leave 1 0 0% 1 100% (1 Missing Start Date) FTA/Warrant 1 14 14 100% 0 0% NA FTA/Warrant 2 0 --- --- --- --- ---

Total 526 246 47% 280 53% (271 Missing Stop Dates, 8 Missing Start Dates, 1 Negative Suspension Time)

Circuit Court Domestic Relations Case Suspensions: Data Integrity Issues

Suspensions with Valid Data

Suspensions with Invalid Data




Bankruptcy 4 4 100% 0 0% NA

No Service 2003 1071 53% 932 47% (2 Missing Start Dates, 930 Negative Suspension Times)

Interlocutory Appeal 10 5 50% 5 50% (5 Missing Start Dates) Military Leave 2 1 50% 1 50% (1 Missing Stop Date) FTA/Warrant 1 176 175 99% 1 1% (1 Missing Stop Date) FTA/Warrant 2 20 20 100% 0 0% NA FTA/Warrant 3 4 4 100% 0 0% NA Collaborative Law 0 --- --- --- --- ---



Page 36 of 62

Circuit Court Juvenile Delinquency Case Suspensions: Data Integrity Issues

Suspensions with Valid Data Suspensions with Invalid Data




FTA/Warrant 1 401 400 100% 1 0% (1 Negative Suspension Time) FTA/Warrant 2 29 29 100% 0 0% NA FTA/Warrant 3 6 6 100% 0 0% NA Mistrial 0 --- --- --- --- --- Military Leave 0 --- --- --- --- --- Interlocutory Appeal 0 --- --- --- --- --- Incompetency Evaluation 58 58 100% 0 0% NA NCR 6 5 83% 1 17% (1 Missing Stop Date) Waiver Petition 149 130 87% 19 13% (18 Missing Stop Dates, 1 Missing Start Dates) PDT 372 357 96% 15 4% (14 Missing Stop Dates, 1 Missing Start Date)

PDI 1,191 1141 96% 50 4% (12 Missing Stop Dates, 30 Missing Start Dates, 8 Negative Suspension Time)


Circuit Court CINA Case Suspensions: Data Integrity Issues

• According to the Maryland Circuit Courts Child Welfare Time Standards, the clock time for CINA shelter and non-shelter cases is suspended only due to military leave. Similar to FY2007, the data obtained from the assessment application does not identify any military leave suspension dates in CINA cases. In fact, the data sets for CINA shelter and non-shelter downloaded from the application did not have a military leave variable defined at all. So, it is unclear whether no suspensions occurred or that suspensions did occur but a variable was not defined so as to capture the information in the Application. Whether this is an artifact of the assessment application or a valid finding is unknown at this point.


Page 37 of 62

Circuit Court Termination of Parental Rights Case Suspensions: Data Integrity Issues

Suspensions with Valid Data Suspensions with Invalid Data




Interlocutory Appeal 12 8 66.67% 4 33% (3 Missing Stop Date, 1 Missing Start Date) Military Leave 0 -- -- -- -- NA

Total 12 8 67% 4 33% (3 Missing Stop Date, 1 Missing Start Date)


Page 38 of 62

FY 2008 STATEWIDE CASEFLOW ASSESSMENT

Circuit Courts

2005-2008 Percent of Cases Terminated Within-Standard (Unweighted), by Jurisdiction


Page 39 of 62

Allegany County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

100

%

98

%

96

% 100

%

95%

85%

100

%

0%

100

%

99

%

98

%

100

%

98

%

63%

100

%

43%

99

%

99

%

99

%

100

%

99

%

78%

100

%

100

%

99

%

100

%

98

%

100

%

99

%

89

%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 100% 98% 96% 100% 95% 85% 100% 0%

FY2006 100% 99% 98% 100% 98% 63% 100% 43%

FY 2007 99% 99% 99% 100% 99% 78% 100% 100%

FY2008 99% 100% 98% 100% 99% 89% 100% 100%

Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 730 Days Juvenile CINA ShelterCINA Non-

ShelterTerm. Parental

Rights

NOTE: Bars reflect fiscal years 2005-2008.


Page 40 of 62

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

92%

96%

93%

100

%

100

%

96%

88

%

67%

92% 95

%

93%

100

%

98

%

91%

100

%

50%

87%

96%

95%

100

%

100

%

95% 10

0%

70%

94% 9

7%

95% 10

0%

100

%

93%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 92% 96% 93% 100% 100% 96% 88% 67%

FY2006 92% 95% 93% 100% 98% 91% 100% 50%

FY 2007 87% 96% 95% 100% 100% 95% 100% 70%

FY2008 94% 97% 95% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 41 of 62

Baltimore City Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

77%

87%

55%

87%

91%

53%

29%

17%

80

%

90

%

73%

92% 9

6%

52%

45%

19%

80

%

87%

81%

95%

93%

54%

40%

17%

82%

87%

83%

95%

94%

63%

24%

19%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 77% 87% 55% 87% 91% 53% 29% 17%

FY2006 80% 90% 73% 92% 96% 52% 45% 19%

FY 2007 80% 87% 81% 95% 93% 54% 40% 17%

FY2008 82% 87% 83% 95% 94% 63% 24% 19%



Rights



Page 42 of 62

Baltimore County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

92%

93%

76%

89%

95%

58%

74%

0%

89% 91

%

83%

95%

94%

53%

89%

21%

87% 9

0%

83%

97%

91%

58%

84%

0%

88

% 90%

85%

96%

90%

69%

83%

52%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 92% 93% 76% 89% 95% 58% 74% 0%

FY2006 89% 91% 83% 95% 94% 53% 89% 21%

FY 2007 87% 90% 83% 97% 91% 58% 84% 0%

FY2008 88% 90% 85% 96% 90% 69% 83% 52%



Rights


Calvert County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard


Page 43 of 62

88

%

93%

93%

100

%

94

%

56%

0%

13%

81%

90% 92%

99

%

91%

65%

33%

85%

90

%

89

%

99

%

94

%

0%

78%

91%

88

%

99

%

93%

53%

100

%

40

%

40

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 88% 93% 93% 100% 94% 56% 0% 13%

FY2006 81% 90% 92% 99% 91% 65% 33%

FY 2007 85% 90% 89% 99% 94% 40% 0%

FY2008 78% 91% 88% 99% 93% 53% 100% 40%



Rights

NANA



Page 44 of 62

Caroline County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

92%

54%

79%

90

%

83%

25%

100

%

25%

95%

81%

86

%

99

%

88

%

38%

100

%

100

%

94

%

92%

90

%

99

%

96

%

80

%

100

%

100

%

97%

93% 9

5%

100

%

78%

50%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 92% 54% 79% 90% 83% 25% 100% 25%

FY2006 95% 81% 86% 99% 88% 38% 100% 100%

FY 2007 94% 92% 90% 99% 96% 80% 100% 100%

FY2008 97% 93% 95% 100% 78% 50% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 45 of 62

Carroll County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

91%

88

%

73%

92%

98%

73%

100

%

0%

94

%

83%

74%

93%

98%

95% 10

0%

0%

91% 92

%

77%

94

% 98

%

46

%

100

%

83%8

6%

93%

86

%

98%

99

%

83%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 91% 88% 73% 92% 98% 73% 100% 0%

FY2006 94% 83% 74% 93% 98% 95% 100% 0%

FY 2007 91% 92% 77% 94% 98% 46% 100% 83%

FY2008 86% 93% 86% 98% 99% 83% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 46 of 62

Cecil County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

78%

75%

72%

87%

86%

40

%

78%80

%

79%

89%

99%

79%

31%

42%

81% 8

3%

93%

99%

85%

46% 50

%

86% 8

9%

94%

100

%

86%

76%

100

%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 78% 75% 72% 87% 86% 40% 78%

FY2006 80% 79% 89% 99% 79% 31% 42%

FY 2007 81% 83% 93% 99% 85% 46% 50%

FY2008 86% 89% 94% 100% 86% 76% 100% 21%



Rights



Page 47 of 62

Charles County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

70%

85%

75%

94

%

87%

33%

17%

75%

88

%

79%

97%

89%

65%

29%

84

%

89

%

79%

99

%

98

%

83%

62%

86

%

92%

83%

97%

97%

62%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 70% 85% 75% 94% 87% 33% 17%

FY2006 75% 88% 79% 97% 89% 65% 29%

FY 2007 84% 89% 79% 99% 98% 83% 62%

FY2008 86% 92% 83% 97% 97% 62% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 48 of 62

Dorchester County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

94

% 98%

97% 10

0%

100

%

93%

100

%

100

%

96

%

96

%

97% 10

0%

100

%

60

%

100

%

99%

100

%

97% 10

0%

100

%

95% 10

0%

83%

100

%

99

%

98%

100

%

98%

50%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 94% 98% 97% 100% 100% 93% 100% 100%

FY2006 96% 96% 97% 100% 100% 60% 100%

FY 2007 99% 100% 97% 100% 100% 95% 100% 83%

FY2008 100% 99% 98% 100% 98% 50% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 49 of 62

Frederick County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

93%

67%

72%

90

%

74%

52%

73%

86%

94%

80

%

75%

94%

81%

45%

100

%

39%

97%

87%

76%

95% 98

%

76%

100

%

63%

97%

91%

86%

99%

98%

68%

86%

75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 93% 67% 72% 90% 74% 52% 73% 86%

FY2006 94% 80% 75% 94% 81% 45% 100% 39%

FY 2007 97% 87% 76% 95% 98% 76% 100% 63%

FY2008 97% 91% 86% 99% 98% 68% 86% 75%



Rights


Garrett County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard


Page 50 of 62

90%

90%

98%

100

%

100

%

66

%

100

%

100

%

92%

88

%

98%

100

%

95%

33%

82%

75%

92%

87%

97% 9

9%

96

%

17%

100

%

50%

93%

85%

96

% 100

%

94

%

25%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 90% 90% 98% 100% 100% 66% 100% 100%

FY2006 92% 88% 98% 100% 95% 33% 82% 75%

FY 2007 92% 87% 97% 99% 96% 17% 100% 50%

FY2008 93% 85% 96% 100% 94% 25% 38%



Rights



Page 51 of 62

Harford County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

78%

86

%

53%

68

%

73%

52%

30%

72%

67%

65%

81%

76%

45%

100

%

58%

72%

85%

75%

89% 90

%

90

%

100

%

20%

68

% 70%

71%

82%

80

%

90%

100

%

48

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 78% 86% 53% 68% 73% 52% 30%

FY2006 72% 67% 65% 81% 76% 45% 100% 58%

FY 2007 72% 85% 75% 89% 90% 90% 100% 20%

FY2008 68% 70% 71% 82% 80% 90% 100% 48%



Rights



Page 52 of 62

Howard County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

86

%

86

%

73%

93%

79%

53%

100

%

0%

88

%

87%

71%

93%

88

%

58%

100

%

0%

87%

86

%

78%

95% 9

7%

94

% 100

%

100

%

86

% 90

%

83%

95%

95%

89

%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 86% 86% 73% 93% 79% 53% 100% 0%

FY2006 88% 87% 71% 93% 88% 58% 100% 0%

FY 2007 87% 86% 78% 95% 97% 94% 100% 100%

FY2008 86% 90% 83% 95% 95% 89% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 53 of 62

Kent County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

100

%

96%

91%

100

%

100

%

0%

100

%

98

%

94%

93%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

96%

96% 10

0%

98

%

80

%

99%

95% 9

7% 100

%

100

%

100

%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 100% 96% 91% 100% 100% 0% 100%

FY2006 98% 94% 93% 100% 100% 100%

FY 2007 100% 96% 96% 100% 98% 80%

FY2008 99% 95% 97% 100% 100% 100%



Rights



Page 54 of 62

Montgomery County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

90

%

95%

90

%

99

%

99

%

71%

97%

60

%

90

% 94

%

91%

99

%

100

%

70%

77%

56%

89

%

96

%

92%

99

%

99

%

61%

88

%

42%

86

%

95%

90

%

100

%

95%

80

%

90

%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 90% 95% 90% 99% 99% 71% 97% 60%

FY2006 90% 94% 91% 99% 100% 70% 77% 56%

FY 2007 89% 96% 92% 99% 99% 61% 88% 42%

FY2008 86% 95% 90% 100% 95% 80% 90% 61%



Rights



Page 55 of 62

Prince George’s County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

93%

87%

60

%

78%

97% 98

%

100

%

52%

94

%

88

%

78%

98

%

100

%

99

%

98

%

48

%

95%

91%

76%

94

% 98

%

98

%

100

%

76%

95%

94

%

82%

97% 9

9%

99

%

100

%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 93% 87% 60% 78% 97% 98% 100% 52%

FY2006 94% 88% 78% 98% 100% 99% 98% 48%

FY 2007 95% 91% 76% 94% 98% 98% 100% 76%

FY2008 95% 94% 82% 97% 99% 99% 100% 56%



Rights



Page 56 of 62

Queen Anne’s County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

98%

97%

93%

100

%

97%

75%

100

%

100

%

98%

99%

96% 10

0%

96%

80

%

100

%

100

%

98%

99%

96% 10

0%

99%

25%

100

%

100

%

97% 99

%

97%

100

%

92%

100

%

100

%

0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 98% 97% 93% 100% 97% 75% 100% 100%

FY2006 98% 99% 96% 100% 96% 80% 100% 100%

FY 2007 98% 99% 96% 100% 99% 25% 100% 100%

FY2008 97% 99% 97% 100% 92% 100% 100% 0%



Rights



Page 57 of 62

Somerset County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

97%

97%

93%

99

%

100

%

88

%

100

%

0%

95% 9

8%

96

% 100

%

93%

69

%

100

%

60

%

91%

98

%

97% 10

0%

99

%

50%

63%

67%

93%

98

%

97% 10

0%

94

%

65%

100

%

0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 97% 97% 93% 99% 100% 88% 100% 0%

FY2006 95% 98% 96% 100% 93% 69% 100% 60%

FY 2007 91% 98% 97% 100% 99% 50% 63% 67%

FY2008 93% 98% 97% 100% 94% 65% 100% 0%



Rights



Page 58 of 62

St. Mary’s County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

94

%

93%

79%

94

% 97%

55%

0%

0%

92%

92%

83%

95% 96

%

53%

100

%

60

%

96

%

95%

88

%

97%

95%

70%

22%

95%

93%

88

%

98

%

93%

40

% 43%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 94% 93% 79% 94% 97% 55% 0% 0%

FY2006 92% 92% 83% 95% 96% 53% 100% 60%

FY 2007 96% 95% 88% 97% 95% 70% 22%

FY2008 95% 93% 88% 98% 93% 40% 43%



Rights



Page 59 of 62

Talbot County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

98%

95%

84

%

97% 9

9%

64%

100

%

60

%

100

%

96

%

94

%

99

%

96

%

63%

100

%

100

%

98

%

94

%

93%

99

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

100

%

94

% 97%

95% 9

9%

97% 10

0%

100

%

20%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 98% 95% 84% 97% 99% 64% 100% 60%

FY2006 100% 96% 94% 99% 96% 63% 100% 100%

FY 2007 98% 94% 93% 99% 100% 100% 100% 100%

FY2008 94% 97% 95% 99% 97% 100% 100% 20%



Rights



Page 60 of 62

Washington County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

97%

94

%

87%

99

%

100

%

90

%

100

%

91%

98

%

95%

93%

100

%

100

%

96

% 100

%

75%

98

%

95%

94

% 100

%

99

%

80

%

98

%

94

%97%

96

%

97% 10

0%

100

%

87%

100

%

97%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 97% 94% 87% 99% 100% 90% 100% 91%

FY2006 98% 95% 93% 100% 100% 96% 100% 75%

FY 2007 98% 95% 94% 100% 99% 80% 98% 94%

FY2008 97% 96% 97% 100% 100% 87% 100% 97%



Rights



Page 61 of 62

Wicomico County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

100

%

95%

92%

99

%

98

%

82%

37%

99

%

98

%

98

%

100

%

98

%

77%

38%

99

%

99

%

97% 9

9%

97% 10

0%

25%

99

%

99

%

98

%

100

%

97%

88

%

60

%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 100% 95% 92% 99% 98% 82% 37%

FY2006 99% 98% 98% 100% 98% 77% 38%

Fy 2007 99% 99% 97% 99% 97% 100% 25%

Fy2008 99% 99% 98% 100% 97% 88% 60% 13%



Rights



Page 62 of 62

Worcester County Circuit Court: Percent of Cases Within-Standard

93%

83% 8

5%

98%

94%

25%

70%

44%

95%

79%

87%

97% 99

%

63%

61%

40%

99%

95%

93%

100

%

100

%

63%

70%

63%

99%

99%

98%

100

%

100

%

43%

84%

82%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY 2005 93% 83% 85% 98% 94% 25% 70% 44%

FY 2006 95% 79% 87% 97% 99% 63% 61% 40%

FY 2007 99% 95% 93% 100% 100% 63% 70% 63%

FY2008 99% 99% 98% 100% 100% 43% 84% 82%



Rights


Documents

Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type