This is the United States Administrative Office of the Courts' Case Management/Electronic Case Files software used by the federal courts. The Mississippi Supreme Court and its Administrative Office of the Courts have been implementing this system in some of their state courts, and Texas just sent a team from our Judicial Committee on Information Technology to see how that is going. In a nutshell, their pilot is going well, we were quite impressed; check it out at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/mec/mec.html. They imposed a new $10 filing fee on all civil filings to fund the effort and have a contractual arrangement with their state IT office (like our Department of Information Resources) to assist in the effort.
Coincidentally, we were there on the day when the Mississippi Supreme Court issued an administrative order ruling that the most recent budget cutting order by the executive branch cannot be applied, under separation of powers, to the judiciary.
Saturday, January 30, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Workload of District Courts
One component of information that has only recently become available to Texas is the weighted caseload (or “judicial needs”) study conducted for the Office of Court Administration by the National Center for State Courts in 2007. District judges across the state participated in the study, tracking their time by case category and activity type for a full month. This effort allows measurement, not just of the number of filings in various categories, but the differential workload associated with those filings. The time study was conducted during the entire month of October 2007. Throughout the month, judicial officers were asked to track and record the time they spent handling cases by both case type and case-related event. The case weights are calculated by summing all judicial officer time recorded for each case type and dividing by a three-year average of the number of cases filed for each case type during FY 2005-2007. This result provides a picture of current practice: the average amount of time currently spent by judicial officers in Texas handling each type of case. For example, a high level felony takes 186 minutes, while a misdemeanor takes 12 minutes.
Applying those case weights to the filings for fiscal year 2008, the following workload distribution is derived.
Criminal 40.6%
Civil 20.7%
Family 34.0%
Juvenile 4.7%
Within the category of civil cases, the higher-profile civil areas of judging (the tort and contract cases that presumably are near and dear to those who make most campaign contributions to elected judges?) constitute only 3.2% and 5.2%, respectively, of the total workload of the district judges in Texas. Another way to view this information is that (only) about one-fifth of the work of district courts is involved with civil cases other than family law; the other almost 80% is criminal, juvenile and family.
Applying those case weights to the filings for fiscal year 2008, the following workload distribution is derived.
Criminal 40.6%
Civil 20.7%
Family 34.0%
Juvenile 4.7%
Within the category of civil cases, the higher-profile civil areas of judging (the tort and contract cases that presumably are near and dear to those who make most campaign contributions to elected judges?) constitute only 3.2% and 5.2%, respectively, of the total workload of the district judges in Texas. Another way to view this information is that (only) about one-fifth of the work of district courts is involved with civil cases other than family law; the other almost 80% is criminal, juvenile and family.
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Vanishing Jury Trials
The decline in trials in the trial courts of America has been called “the most profound change in our jurisprudence in the history of the Republic.” As summarized in 2005 by Supreme Court of Texas Justice Nathan Hecht [The Vanishing Jury Trial: Trends in Texas Courts and an Uncertain Future, 47 S.Texas Law Review 2005], the annual number of jury trials in federal civil cases declined by 52%, 1985-2002, and in Texas civil cases declined by 49%, 1986-2004. As reported in a widely cited 2004 article by Marc Galanter [The Vanishing Trial: An Examination of Trials and Related Matters in Federal and State Courts, 1 J.Empirical Legal Stud. 459 (2004.]:
"The data provide a picture of trends in the state courts that overall bear an unmistakable resemblance to the trends in federal courts we have been examining. The portion of cases reaching jury trial declined from 1.8 percent to 0.6 percent of dispositions and bench trials fell from 34.3 percent to 15.2 percent. The absolute number of jury trials is down by one-third and the absolute number of bench trials is down 6.6 percent."
The Office of Court Administration recently updated Justice Hecht’s data, which ended in 2004, to see how the trends look in Texas. First a note on methodology: OCA reports contain data for the “criminal docket,” “civil docket,” and “juvenile docket.” Since 1986, family law cases have comprised about half of the civil docket. Family law cases (Reciprocals, Divorce, and All other Family Law Matters) are excluded from this analysis, as they were excluded from Justice Hecht’s. He reasoned that the rights to a jury trial and to a binding verdict are limited in family law cases, and jury trials are therefore much less frequent than in other civil cases; and, such cases cannot be brought in federal court, and an important purpose of Judge Hecht’s original article was to compare the situations in the Texas and federal systems. For simplicity, “civil” in this analysis should be read to mean “non-family civil.”
First, all dispositions of civil cases overall declined from 1986 to 1995 and then steadily increased until 2008, with a slight decline in 2009; the net of these two trends over 20 years was a 1.3 increase. Over just the past decade, civil case dispositions show a 29.6 percent increase. Annual dispositions in criminal cases rose 16.2 percent from 1999 to 2009 and 39.3 percent from 1989 to 2009. Criminal cases show a steady increase from 1986 to 2007 and then a slight drop from 937,722 to 891,290 in 2009.
Civil and criminal jury trials dropped during the 20 year period, both absolutely and as a rate of dispositions. The absolute number of jury trials, civil and criminal, in district and county court at law, dropped 20.4 percent. Criminal jury trials dropped 7.2 percent, and civil jury trials led the decline with a 43 percent decrease. The minimum occurred in 2006 when 1,708 trials occurred. The number climbed to 1,991 in 2009, which does not begin to approach the 3,492 jury verdicts from 1989. The decline in civil jury trials in Texas courts continues to follow the trends noted by Judge Hecht in 2004; interestingly, at the time of his article, criminal jury trials had increased by 20% from 1986 to 2004, but that has now reversed as noted above.
Trials as a percentage of dispositions, the “rate of disposition,” dropped an overall 41.7 percent. The difference between civil and criminal trials was less pronounced in this category. The rate of disposition for criminal cases dropped 33.4 percent from 1.05 percent of dispositions in 1989 to .7 percent of dispositions in 2009. This category has a smooth drop with the rate in 1989 as the maximum and the rate in 2009 as the minimum. The civil disposition rate dropped 43.7 percent, but the drop is more erratic. In 1989 the rate was 1.07 percent of dispositions, which fell to .6 percent of dispositions in 2009. The maximum occurred in 1992 with 1.2 percent, and the minimum of .5 percent occurred in both 2007 and 2008.
Thanks to OCA research specialist Jessica Tyler for her help with this data set.
"The data provide a picture of trends in the state courts that overall bear an unmistakable resemblance to the trends in federal courts we have been examining. The portion of cases reaching jury trial declined from 1.8 percent to 0.6 percent of dispositions and bench trials fell from 34.3 percent to 15.2 percent. The absolute number of jury trials is down by one-third and the absolute number of bench trials is down 6.6 percent."
The Office of Court Administration recently updated Justice Hecht’s data, which ended in 2004, to see how the trends look in Texas. First a note on methodology: OCA reports contain data for the “criminal docket,” “civil docket,” and “juvenile docket.” Since 1986, family law cases have comprised about half of the civil docket. Family law cases (Reciprocals, Divorce, and All other Family Law Matters) are excluded from this analysis, as they were excluded from Justice Hecht’s. He reasoned that the rights to a jury trial and to a binding verdict are limited in family law cases, and jury trials are therefore much less frequent than in other civil cases; and, such cases cannot be brought in federal court, and an important purpose of Judge Hecht’s original article was to compare the situations in the Texas and federal systems. For simplicity, “civil” in this analysis should be read to mean “non-family civil.”
First, all dispositions of civil cases overall declined from 1986 to 1995 and then steadily increased until 2008, with a slight decline in 2009; the net of these two trends over 20 years was a 1.3 increase. Over just the past decade, civil case dispositions show a 29.6 percent increase. Annual dispositions in criminal cases rose 16.2 percent from 1999 to 2009 and 39.3 percent from 1989 to 2009. Criminal cases show a steady increase from 1986 to 2007 and then a slight drop from 937,722 to 891,290 in 2009.
Civil and criminal jury trials dropped during the 20 year period, both absolutely and as a rate of dispositions. The absolute number of jury trials, civil and criminal, in district and county court at law, dropped 20.4 percent. Criminal jury trials dropped 7.2 percent, and civil jury trials led the decline with a 43 percent decrease. The minimum occurred in 2006 when 1,708 trials occurred. The number climbed to 1,991 in 2009, which does not begin to approach the 3,492 jury verdicts from 1989. The decline in civil jury trials in Texas courts continues to follow the trends noted by Judge Hecht in 2004; interestingly, at the time of his article, criminal jury trials had increased by 20% from 1986 to 2004, but that has now reversed as noted above.
Trials as a percentage of dispositions, the “rate of disposition,” dropped an overall 41.7 percent. The difference between civil and criminal trials was less pronounced in this category. The rate of disposition for criminal cases dropped 33.4 percent from 1.05 percent of dispositions in 1989 to .7 percent of dispositions in 2009. This category has a smooth drop with the rate in 1989 as the maximum and the rate in 2009 as the minimum. The civil disposition rate dropped 43.7 percent, but the drop is more erratic. In 1989 the rate was 1.07 percent of dispositions, which fell to .6 percent of dispositions in 2009. The maximum occurred in 1992 with 1.2 percent, and the minimum of .5 percent occurred in both 2007 and 2008.
Thanks to OCA research specialist Jessica Tyler for her help with this data set.
Monday, December 14, 2009
Collection Improvement
Lack of compliance in paying fines and fees denies a jurisdiction revenue and, more important, calls into question the authority and efficacy of the court and the justice system. Tight operating budgets, the search for additional funding for courts, and a continuing desire that court orders command the respect of defendants have combined in recent years to increase interest nationwide in collection of fines and fees.
Courts that have been the most successful in collecting have (1) adopted a philosophy that active, if not aggressive, collection is the right approach to take; (2) decided to improve community perceptions; and (3) dedicated some staff and other resources to the collection effort. Courts that have not made progress in fine collection have probably not yet grappled with these issues.
The preceding paragraphs are excerpts from a new publication by the National Center for State Courts entitled "Current Practices in Collecting Fines and Fees in State Courts: A Handbook of Collection Issues and Solutions" (2nd Ed.). It is available on the Center's website, www.ncsc.org, and more specifically here.
The OCA Collection Improvement Program, which is featured in the National Center's report, is another resource.
Courts that have been the most successful in collecting have (1) adopted a philosophy that active, if not aggressive, collection is the right approach to take; (2) decided to improve community perceptions; and (3) dedicated some staff and other resources to the collection effort. Courts that have not made progress in fine collection have probably not yet grappled with these issues.
The preceding paragraphs are excerpts from a new publication by the National Center for State Courts entitled "Current Practices in Collecting Fines and Fees in State Courts: A Handbook of Collection Issues and Solutions" (2nd Ed.). It is available on the Center's website, www.ncsc.org, and more specifically here.
The OCA Collection Improvement Program, which is featured in the National Center's report, is another resource.
Annual Statistical Report
As noted on November 10, we delayed publication of this report so that it could be previewed by Judicial Council and we would have time to add in some new features. Those features are salary and turnover information on Texas judges, pp. 17-20; Annual Reports of Judicial Boards, Agencies and Commissions (OCA, Judicial Council, TFID, JCIT etc.), pp. 63-79, and summary information on several areas of required reporting to OCA, pp. 61-62:
- Hate crimes
- Vexatious Litigants
- Appointments and Fees
- Capital Case Jury Charges, and
- Security Incidents.
Check out the 2009 report at http://www.courts.state.tx.us/pubs/AR2009/AR09.pdf.
Friday, December 4, 2009
State Budgets and Courts
The Center of Budget and Policy Priorities is projecting that state deficits will total $178 billion in 2010 with 41 states looking at shortfalls. State court budget reductions have been widespread, as reported recently with regard to Massachusetts in particular, in the New York Times editorial page. Ten states are actively looking at reengineering their services: Alabama, Florida, Minnesota, Michigan, New Hampshire, Iowa, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Utah and Vermont. They are looking at staffing to the most efficient level, using technology to the utmost, and tackling structural and governance issues that might be politically untouchable in better times.
Utah is a particularly interesting and dramatic example. Doubling filing fees there in the last legislative session allowed them to sustain "only" a 5% decrease in their unified state court budget, but they have gone much further to examine every aspect of their delivery of court services. They have accelerated e-filing, e-payments, e-documents and e-warrants; radically reorganized their clerk of court operations; downsized by 12% and reorganized their administrative office of the courts (the counterpart to OCA); instituted remote hearings, meetings and training; automated administrative functions in human resources, payroll and purchasing; required evidence-based practices in the provision of services, particularly juvenile justice treatment; and eliminating court reporters in favor of digital recording. Their Judicial Council has begun to look closely at contoversial judicial productivity issues, such as moving judicial vacancies to areas of greatest need, restructuring the use of senior judges by building them into the regular calendar, training judges in mediation and structured judicial settlement conferences to move their civil dockets more rapidly, and providing judges with cross-jurisdiction for domestic and juvenile cases. They propose to mandate by rule that all citation cases be filed electronically by law enforcement by a date certain in the near future, tied to automating their justice of the peace courts. They are going to contract with interpreters for a 40 hour week rather than case-by-case, working remotely and saving travel costs. They are consolidating all jury coordination services, and eliminate seperate clerk counters for district and juvenile courts. And, the are going to limit filing sites to one per county and eliminate or transfer personnel, and are further looking at reducing from 54 sites to 8 sites statewide. They are studying jurisdictional changes to use justice courts more efficiently, consolidating administrative districts to provide better distribution of resources and eliminate duplicate administration, and consolidating warrant issuance to a statewide function.
With the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts advising that our sales tax revenue in October 2009 is down almost 13% from 2008, these issues may become increasingly relevant for us. Much more information is available on this topic at the National Center for State Courts' Budget Resource Center.
Utah is a particularly interesting and dramatic example. Doubling filing fees there in the last legislative session allowed them to sustain "only" a 5% decrease in their unified state court budget, but they have gone much further to examine every aspect of their delivery of court services. They have accelerated e-filing, e-payments, e-documents and e-warrants; radically reorganized their clerk of court operations; downsized by 12% and reorganized their administrative office of the courts (the counterpart to OCA); instituted remote hearings, meetings and training; automated administrative functions in human resources, payroll and purchasing; required evidence-based practices in the provision of services, particularly juvenile justice treatment; and eliminating court reporters in favor of digital recording. Their Judicial Council has begun to look closely at contoversial judicial productivity issues, such as moving judicial vacancies to areas of greatest need, restructuring the use of senior judges by building them into the regular calendar, training judges in mediation and structured judicial settlement conferences to move their civil dockets more rapidly, and providing judges with cross-jurisdiction for domestic and juvenile cases. They propose to mandate by rule that all citation cases be filed electronically by law enforcement by a date certain in the near future, tied to automating their justice of the peace courts. They are going to contract with interpreters for a 40 hour week rather than case-by-case, working remotely and saving travel costs. They are consolidating all jury coordination services, and eliminate seperate clerk counters for district and juvenile courts. And, the are going to limit filing sites to one per county and eliminate or transfer personnel, and are further looking at reducing from 54 sites to 8 sites statewide. They are studying jurisdictional changes to use justice courts more efficiently, consolidating administrative districts to provide better distribution of resources and eliminate duplicate administration, and consolidating warrant issuance to a statewide function.
With the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts advising that our sales tax revenue in October 2009 is down almost 13% from 2008, these issues may become increasingly relevant for us. Much more information is available on this topic at the National Center for State Courts' Budget Resource Center.
Travels
I have been deblogged lately by travel. The week before Thanksgiving I had the opportunity to go to D.C. for my first meeting on the board of the Conference of State Court Administrators, and to attend the Rehnquist Dinner where an outstanding state jurist is honored each year in the reception hall of the Supreme Court of the United States. (The honoree was Timothy Evans, the Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of Cook County Illinois.) The week of Thanksgiving my family and a family of friends visited Athens, Greece and Istanbul, Turkey, an amazing trip. And this week I have my COSCA midyear meeting in St. Augustine, Florida. But I am getting back in the swing, hopefully to post more soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)