FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT COURT
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN
OPERATIONAL AND
MANAGEMENT REVIEW
FINAL REPORT
October 9, 2008 (release date)
Gordon M. Griller, Project Director
Lawrence G. Myers, Consultant
Erika Friess, Project Staff
Daniel J. Hall, Vice President
Court Consulting Services
707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900
Denver, CO 80202-3429
(303) 293-3063
© 2008
National Center for State Courts
This document was prepared under a contract signed on February 7, 2008,
between the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the City of Ann Arbor, (the
City) Michigan, on behalf of and at the request of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court
System (the Court), a trial court principally funded by the City and operating as part of
Michigan’s Integrated Judicial Branch. The points of view and opinions expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the City, the Court, or the Judicial Branch. NCSC grants the City and the
Court a royalty-free, non-exclusive license to produce, reproduce, publish, distribute or
otherwise use, and to authorize others to use, all or any part of this report for any
governmental or public purpose.
Online legal research provided by LexisNexis.
OPERATIONAL AND MANAGEMENT REVIEW
FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
MICHIGAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgments
Ongoing Organization Changes
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................. i
I.
Introduction..............................................................................................................1
A. The Court in General .........................................................................................2
B. Organizational Issues Affecting the Court.........................................................4
C. Unique Caseload Issues Related to the University of Michigan........................6
D. Analytical Methodology ....................................................................................8
II.
Operational Issues and Recommendations ............................................................10
A. The Court’s Workforce ....................................................................................10
1. Judicial Officers and Direct Support...........................................................18
2. Administrators and Supervisors..................................................................20
3. Office and Clerical Staff .............................................................................21
4. Probation Staff ............................................................................................23
B. Customer Services ...........................................................................................23
1. Courthouse Wayfinding ..............................................................................24
2. Court Space and Facilities Management.....................................................25
3. Internet Self-Help........................................................................................27
C. Calendaring and Caseflow ...............................................................................30
1. Preliminary Hearings ..................................................................................31
2. Criminal and Traffic ...................................................................................31
3. Non-Traffic Civil Infraction and Parking ...................................................33
4. Civil Matters, Including Small Claims .......................................................34
5. Problem-Solving Courts..............................................................................34
D. Technology Improvements ..............................................................................39
1. New Judicial Information System (Case, Cash, Jury) ................................39
2. Courtroom Recordkeeping..........................................................................40
E. Reliability and Integrity of Case Files .............................................................42
F. Financial Operations ........................................................................................43
1. Cash Management and Accounting ............................................................43
2. Debtflow Processes.....................................................................................44
G. Probation Programs and Management .............................................................47
H. Justice System Collaborations .........................................................................48
1. Ann Arbor Government .............................................................................49
2. Ann Arbor Police Department and County Sheriff.....................................50
3. County of Washtenaw.................................................................................51
4. Michigan State Court Administrator’s Office.............................................52
5. Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court (Washtenaw County Trial Court)..53
6. University of Michigan ...............................................................................54
7. National Trial Court Improvement Organizations......................................55
III.
Strategies for Change.............................................................................................57
A. General Approach to Improvement .................................................................57
B. Continued Attention to Best Practices .............................................................60
C. Court Performance Measures – CourTools Focus. ..........................................61
D. Enhanced External Communications...............................................................65
Appendices*
Fifteenth Judicial District Organization Chart
Persons Interview
Workforce Questionnaire – March 2008
CourTools Review
Example of a Limited Jurisdiction Annual Report: Tempe, Arizona
*The Appendices are considered supplemental information and are not provided with
each copy of the report. Copies of the Appendices were sent to District Court
Administration and are available through that office.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The NCSC project team wishes to acknowledge and thank the judicial officers,
administrators, supervisors and staff members of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court for their
hospitality, openness and cooperation. Additionally, we are indebted to the officials and
employees of the City of Ann Arbor, County of Washtenaw, and Judicial Branch of Michigan
who gave us their views in person and on the telephone.
We applaud the unwavering care and concern shown by all of these people for the
responsible and effective operation of the District Court. We hope that this report will contribute
to the successful ongoing efforts among the City, County, State, University and Court to provide
the best possible array of limited jurisdiction judicial services to the litigants, victims, witnesses,
lawyers, jurors, and general public served by the Court.
ONGOING ORGANIZATIONAL CHANGES
This operational review presents a “snapshot” in time of the District Court during a four
month period in its life; February through May 2008. Various changes in processes, events, and
personnel during that time, and subsequently, have the potential of affecting some of the
conclusions and recommendations drawn from interviews, observations, and data samples.
Examples include possible changes in judicial calendars and policies due to the recent decisions
of Magistrate Mike Gatti to return to private practice and Judge Ann Mattson to retire from the
judiciary, the announced departure of office staff in court administration through resignation and
retirement by the end of the calendar year permitting some job and work process reorganization,
and the decision by the City Council to fund a new city courthouse and public safety building
which is going forward. For the most part, however, data collected and advice given throughout
the report remains unaffected.
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Executive Summary
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Why Review the District Court?
The National Center for State Courts (the Center), a public benefit corporation dedicated
to the improvement of court and justice systems, was contracted by the City of Ann Arbor (the
City) to review and analyze the current operations, services and staffing of the Fifteenth Judicial
District Court of Michigan (the Court), a limited jurisdiction court with citywide jurisdiction.
Although all district courts in Michigan function as part of the state judicial branch, because the
City of Ann Arbor largely funds the Court it has a legitimate interest in ensuring it functions
efficiently and in compliance with state standards and national best practices.
What Functions Were Assessed?
Eight basic operational elements were examined. These major areas of study judge the
Court against the best practices for trial courts nationwide that Center consultants have observed
and documented.
Operational Element
Function Evaluated
Staffing, Organization Structure, Work Distribution,
Workforce
Customer Service
Calendaring and Caseflow Management
Supervision and Leadership
Access, Fairness, Procedural Justice
Pace and Expediency in Case Processing; Docket
Management; Wait Times
Technology Improvements
Computerization, Website Usefulness, Courtroom
Technology, Courthouse Public Use Technology
Reliability and Integrity of Case Files
Records Management Protocols, Accuracy of Files,
Coherence of Electronic Index Records with Paper
Case Files, Timeliness of Records Retrieval
Financial Operations
Accounting and Expenditure Controls, Debtflow
Management and Revenue Collections
Probation Programming
Client Monitoring, Recidivism, Treatment Tracking
Justice System Collaboration and Leadership
Cooperation and Teamwork with City, County and
State Officials, University Community
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
i
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Executive Summary
The Center team spent four days on site in early February 2008, conducting interviews
and reviewing day-to-day Court operations. Additionally, telephone interviews subsequently
took place with various State, City, County and Judicial Branch officials.
What Is the Overall Assessment of the Court?
On the whole, the National Center for State Courts concludes that the Court is very well
run and should rightfully be proud of the services it offers to the Ann Arbor community. There
are some noteworthy distinctions in the operation and performance of the Court that we wish
more courts across the nation would emulate. First, the Court holds itself accountable for
processing cases from filing to disposition in a timely fashion. The Court has consistently
maintained a 95 per cent clearance rate for all case types. Clearance rate is a measure of whether
the court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. If cases are not disposed of in a timely
manner, backlogs grow and trial court delay results.
Secondly, the Court has an exemplary probation department which provides an array of
diagnostic and behavior modification programs (e.g. presentence recommendations, counseling,
monitoring, community service coordination, treatment, and evaluation services) not commonly
found in limited jurisdiction courts nationwide. Court and City officials appear to be likeminded in endorsing restorative justice where sentencing addresses not only the defendant and
the offense, but the victim and community as well.
Third, the Court has developed four problem-solving forums that are quite effective and
in keeping with the best practices of diagnostic adjudication.1 They include a sobriety (drug)
court, a domestic violence court, a street outreach (homeless) court and a special docket for
minors in possession (MIP) due to the large number of under-age college student drinkers cited.
Fourth, a dramatic enhancement in technology for the Court has been the recent
migration to a new electronic case and cash management system, the state-developed Judicial
Information System (JIS). Work processes have become more efficient, management reports are
1
Diagnostic adjudication is a term coined by Carl Baar, Tom Henderson, Barry Mahoney and others in a 1984
National Institute of Justice study to describe what is currently referred to in judicial administration literature as a
problem-solving tribunal, essentially a combination of therapy and accountability for the offender and restoration for
the victim and community. Mental health courts, drug courts, homeless courts, juvenile courts, teen courts, qualityof-life courts (prostitution, status offenses, vagrancy, etc.) and prison re-entry courts are examples. These courts
follow a medical/behavioral model in applying progressive sanctions coupled with evidenced-based treatment
regimes for chemical addictions and behavior problems. Recidivism rates have been shown to be much less for
defendants handled in these courts.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
ii
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Executive Summary
more useful and timely, and system features (e.g. jury management, courtroom data entry,
collections, and Internet customer services) are more robust. The Court has also embraced
digitized audio and video courtroom recording which has enhanced cost-effectiveness. The
strategic decisions to move in these directions are wise and consistent with future trends.
What Should be Improved?
A significant problem within the Court is space. The amount and configuration of space
is inadequate given the volume and functions of the Court. Fortunately, the City is well on the
way to solving those problems with the construction of a new Public Safety and Court Building
on the municipal government campus. Space difficulties faced by Court users include crowded
dockets and courtrooms due to the limited scheduling of shared Circuit Court facilities, poor
internal workflow efficiencies within Court Administration offices, confusion for litigants and
the public in finding correct offices and courtrooms in the County Courthouse, and building
safety and security inefficiencies due to the high volume and mixed use within the County
Courthouse.
Reorganization of Court Administration to streamline and combine functions is underway
and likely will result in some modest reductions in staffing through attrition. The efficiencies
inherent in JIS have assisted in this restructuring.
The Court has recently embarked on a more formal collections effort to address its
outstanding debt, essentially fines and fees that have gone unpaid for many months or years. The
National Center views court debt collection as a workflow issue to be addressed with the same
zeal and intensity as case processing. Debtflow management, as the process has been dubbed, is
an important measure of court performance targeted to maximize early, voluntary compliance
with court monetary directives. The same principles that curtail and manage delay reduction
regarding cases can be used to reduce and control debt, namely early and continuous monitoring,
progressive sanctions, the certainty of pursuit and consequences for non-compliance, and a
system structured to make it easy for people to comply. The Court is adopting measures
supporting these values.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
iii
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Executive Summary
A Good Court Striving to Be Better
The Fifteenth Judicial District Court is a good court striving to be better. All too
frequently, the National Center is called to examine courts that are in chaos or have serious
management dysfunctions. This is certainly not one of those instances. The City policymakers
and the community of Ann Arbor have every right to be proud of their District Court. Where
improvements can be made, as pointed out in this report, Court officials are intent on making
them. Where program and management strengths are evident, they are willing and able to build
on them to be ever more effective. Our conclusion is that the Court is well run, well respected,
and well positioned for the future.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
iv
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
I.
Final Report
INTRODUCTION
In February 2008, the government of the City of Ann Arbor, Michigan (the City)
engaged the National Center for State Courts (NCSC or Center) to conduct an operational
and management assessment of the Fifteenth Judicial District Court (the Court). NCSC
project team members made a one-week visit to Ann Arbor for interviews with court
representatives and other municipal justice stakeholders.
Additionally, the Center
conducted selected telephone interviews with various city, state, county, and judicial
branch representatives, developed and administered an electronic questionnaire to all
judges and court staff regarding workforce and workload issues, reviewed the 2004
operations study by Plante Moran which focused on court unification, efficiency and
space planning,2 and compared the Court to other limited jurisdiction courts outside
Michigan serving mid-range cities hosting large four-year universities.3
Data collection was largely based on interviews and observations, along with the
collection of related documents targeting such subjects as information systems, work
processes, judicial calendars and dockets, procedural and operational manuals, and
statistics on workload and performance measures. Among the topics addressed were:
•
•
•
•
Recent history of the Court and specific functions, including additions and
expansions of programs and administrative/support functions.
Workforce and staffing levels regarding court programs and functions.
Interactions and interfaces with external departments and agencies.
Current challenges to timely, efficient and quality case processing and
delivery of services, including such issues as electronic information systems,
probation programs, space and facilities, and justice system coordination.
2
Plante Moran, Inc. is a public accounting firm with an organizational development consulting practice. In
the late 1990s the courts in Washtenaw County embarked upon a demonstration project to form a Unified
Trial Court; merging the individual courts within the county into a single-tiered trial court with the
objective of improving services. Many state and local trial courts throughout the United States have
reorganized themselves in such a fashion, although it is a very complicated restructuring that often
accompanies a simultaneous move toward statewide funding of the courts. At about the same time, the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court vacated the highly congested City Hall and leased space in the County
Courthouse, joining the Twenty-second Circuit Court, Probate Court, and other county judicial operations.
The Fifteenth Judicial District Court, anticipating an eventual relocation to a new city courts building
contracted with Plante Moran to review and improve court operations and assist in determining appropriate
space needs for the court.
3
Courts outside Michigan were sampled rather than other district courts inside the state since we conclude
that intra-state comparisons can easily be accomplished by court administrators and/or the State Court
Administrator’s Office (SCAO) through its Regional Court Directors, and data from outside Michigan may
be more instructive regarding new processes, procedures, and services.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
1
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
•
•
Final Report
Financial and debt collection activities.
Customer service issues.
This report presents the results of the Center’s assessment.
Overall, NCSC
concludes that the Court is very well run and should rightfully be proud of the services
it offers to the Ann Arbor community. Further, the NCSC consultants were impressed
with the strategic understandings and decisions by Court leaders, namely judicial officers
and the Court’s management, regarding the challenges and potentials faced by the City’s
justice system over the next few years (2-5 years) and in the distant future (5 years plus).
Examples include conscientious attempts to position the Court to effectively manage the
space problems of today while planning for the development of a new city court building
tomorrow; moving to a new case and cash management system with expanded features
for staff and the public by leveraging the efforts, sunk costs, and expertise of the State
Judicial Branch; and promoting problem-solving courts to deal more effectively in
changing destructive addictive behavior involving alcohol, drugs, and domestic violence.
A.
The Court in General
The Fifteenth Judicial District Court serves the City of Ann Arbor (population
114,000)4 which funds its operating and capital budgets. It is one of three district courts
in Washtenaw County (population 344,000); the other two being the 14A Judicial District
Court handling all limited jurisdiction cases in the County, but outside both the City of
Ann Arbor and township of Ypsilanti; and the 14B Judicial District Court serving
Ypsilanti Township alone.5
Subject matter jurisdiction for district courts includes
ordinance and state misdemeanor violations (penalty less than one year in jail), ordinance
and state non-traffic civil infractions (including parking), and civil cases where the claim
is $25,000 or less (including small claims which are restricted to civil matters of $3,000
or less and permit no attorney representation). District courts also handle misdemeanor,
traffic and felony arraignments, and criminal preliminary examinations in felony cases
4
Ann Arbor is home to 35 percent of the county’s population. It is the seventh largest city in the state.
There are approximately 100 district courts in Michigan. Only four municipalities have decided to retain
their municipal courts rather than create a district court. Municipal court jurisdiction is more limited than
district court jurisdiction.
5
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
2
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
and landlord-tenant disputes. All criminal court cases for persons 17 years and older
begin in district court.
The Court has a high case volume; in excess of 40,000 cases filed annually (CY
2007). It is staffed by four full-time judicial officers—three judges and one attorney
magistrate. Judges run city-wide in popular elections every six years. The magistrate is
appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the judges. Additionally, there are 45 FTE
court staff; 13 whom are judicial division employees working directly for judicial
officers.
Court personnel represent 5 percent of the approximately 830 city-paid
government workforce. Ann Arbor Government is organized in a strong council/city
manager format, commonplace throughout Michigan and the Upper Midwest.
Organizationally, the Court functions through a professional Court administrator,6
reporting to a chief judge,7 and responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Court and
its four divisions: Administration, Civil, Traffic/Criminal, and Probation. The Court
conducts business from a single location at the Washtenaw County Courthouse in
downtown Ann Arbor a few blocks from the City Hall. In addition to their regular duties,
the judges and magistrate hear felony in-custody arraignments and criminal preliminary
examinations at the County Service Center (jail), a few miles from the courthouse. This
assignment is rotated among all district court judicial officers in the County according to
a predetermined schedule outlined in a cross jurisdictional agreement between the district
and circuit courts effectuated through the State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO).
FY 2007 Court revenues, ending June 30, 2007, totaled $2,904,405 against
$3,912,089 in expenditures for the same period; a revenue-to-expenditure ratio of $0.74
to $1.00.8
Although caseflow data is kept by calendar year, comparing FY 2007
6
Keith Zeisloft has been the court administrator since 2001. Previously, he worked as a court executive in
Lucas County, Ohio. He is a lawyer and has practiced law in the past.
7
The chief judge is appointed by the Supreme Court from the members of the bench after advice and
counsel from the judges of the court.
8
Source: City of Ann Arbor FY 2007 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report issued by the Ann Arbor
Financial and Administrative Services, Accounting Services Unit. Although a revenue-to-expenditure ratio
is described here, it is not an effective internal performance measure. None of the purposes of a court of
law goes to the issue of raising revenue or to offsetting operating costs by increasing revenues. We
calculate this metric merely to enable us to later compare gross revenues to expenditures in similar limited
jurisdiction courts nationwide to indicate how legislative bodies (e.g., state legislatures, city councils,
county boards) have commonly raised court fines, fees and costs to greater levels than exist in Ann Arbor.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
3
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
expenditures to CY 2007 new and reopened filings (40,511 matters) provides a rough but
fairly adequate measure of efficiency at $96.56 cost per case.9
There are some very noteworthy distinctions in the array of services offered by
the Court that we wish more courts would emulate. First, very few limited jurisdiction
courts nationwide have a probation department. Probation services include pre-sentence
recommendations, counseling, monitoring, community service coordination, treatment,
and evaluation services.10
The NCSC consultants found probation staff extremely
professional and dedicated. Secondly, the Court has developed four effective problemsolving adjudication forums: a sobriety (drug) court, a domestic violence court, a street
outreach (homeless) court, and a special docket for minors in possession (MIP) due to the
large number of under-age college students cited. All are quite effective and in keeping
with the best practices of diagnostic adjudication.11
B.
Organizational Issues Affecting the Court
Many limited jurisdiction courts find themselves in a complex dual relationship.
Responsible, on the one hand, to a city or county “host government,” and, on the other
hand, to the state judicial branch, either through a county or regional trial court presiding
judge or directly to the state Supreme Court. It is a much more intricate structural
entanglement, we believe, than confronted by general jurisdiction courts funded by
counties for several reasons. City administrations are generally more tightly interwoven
with the agencies and entities they oversee and fund, including municipal and city courts;
9
Cost per case is one of the ten CourTools measures. CourTools is a National Center for State Courts’ trial
court performance measurement system that condenses decades of research on the effectiveness of court
services to ten indices. Monitoring cost per case, from year to year, provides a practical means to evaluate
existing case processing practices and to improve court operations. Although an aggregate cost such as
outlined here is better than no cost analysis whatsoever, courts should strive to delineate costs by case type
as possible. To do so effectively requires a programmatic budget where personnel costs are assigned as a
percentage-of-salary to various case categories.
For further information on CourTools go to
www.courtools.org.
10
There are no field offices or field services provided.
11
Diagnostic adjudication is a term coined by Carl Baar, Tom Henderson, et. al. in a 1984 National
Institute of Justice study to describe what is currently referred to as a problem-solving tribunal, essentially a
combination of therapy and accountability for the offender, and restoration for the victim and community.
Wellness courts, mental health courts, drug courts, homeless courts, juvenile courts, teen courts, quality-oflife courts (prostitution, status offences, vagrancy, etc.) and prison re-entry courts are examples. The courts
follow a medical/behavioral model applying progressive sanctions coupled with evidenced-base treatment
regimens for chemical addictions and behavior problems.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
4
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
controlling such functions as hiring, email, payroll, purchasing, accounting, facilities, and
other day-to-day operations in great detail.
Many city judges are appointed by city councils for contractual periods (e.g.
Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, Arizona, Missouri, Utah, etc.) binding them in
problematical ways to local executive and legislative authorities. Such circumstances, we
contend, work against the independence and separation of limited jurisdiction judges in
general, even to the extent of diminishing the status of those judges who are elected such
as in Michigan.
City judges and administrators often lack the independent power and authority
ascribed to general jurisdiction judges and executives; municipal and city court officials
commonly and mistakenly viewed as local rather than state officials. There also is
frequently a constant struggle to remain free of inappropriate and undue influence by
prosecutors, police and funding bodies.
Other complicating factors for limited jurisdiction courts are occasioned by the
large number of self-represented litigants and simpler proceedings often giving the false
impression there is disregard for due process. Some conclude these courts function more
like administrative tribunals rather than courts of law. Nothing could be further from the
truth. In limited jurisdiction matters, judges often must take a more active role in all
phases of the adjudicatory process even when lawyers are present. In fact, since many of
the attorneys appearing in city and municipal courts are handling a high volume of cases
themselves, the judge may be the only guarantee of real fairness in the proceedings by
assuring the lawyers have not overlooked a critical issue.
Judges play a much more significant role in all phases of limited jurisdiction work
than they do in general jurisdiction forums. Because lawyers are sparse in such settings,
judges take on an active role in establishing the facts of the case, monitoring proceedings,
and ensuring a record is made of the matter (where records are required).12
Certainly, greater significance and standing for limited jurisdiction judges is
gained where a state Supreme Court has taken a strong stand in integrating all levels of
state trial courts under the judicial branch through administrative orders, supportive case
12
Adjudicatory Processes: A Review of Critical Research, by Gordon Griller, The Court Manager, Volume
20, Issue 4, pp 18-21. Winter 2005-2006. National Association for Court Management. Williamsburg,
VA.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
5
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
law, and court rules. Such is the case in Michigan, we feel. Buttressed by elective status,
solid relationships with City officials,13 and a reputation for consistently good
performance, the judges of the Fifteenth Judicial District are well positioned to continue
to exercise effective and responsible judicial independence in guiding the Court. One
indication are the organization charts used by city and state officials to depict the Court’s
relationship to municipal government and the judicial branch, respectively, suggest
functional independence at the local level and organizational inclusion at the state level.
C.
Unique Caseload Issues Related to the University of Michigan
The University of Michigan (UM), located in the heart of Ann Arbor, is the single
most significant case generator for the Court. With 37,000 students and nearly 30,000
employees, it has an enormous economic, demographic, and social impact on the
community.14
Most college crimes are misdemeanors linked to alcohol abuse, either underage
consumption or drunk driving. As with most colleges, the University of Michigan strictly
enforces state liquor law violations. Students arrested or cited on campus by University
police are charged under Michigan state statutes and prosecuted by the County Prosecutor
in the District Court. Those arrested outside the University, but in the City of Ann Arbor,
are charged by municipal police under city ordinances and prosecuted by the City
Attorney.
Generally, there is an upsurge in the number of alcohol-related cases filed in the
Court concurrent with the fall trimester.15 Alcohol is the number one drug of abuse on
college campuses nationwide, including the University of Michigan.16 As students arrive
13
Judge Creal served on the Ann Arbor City Council prior to her election to the Court.
The University employs 46 percent of all working age residents in the City of Ann Arbor. Sixty-nine
percent of City residents over age 25 have completed four or more years of college. Forty-two percent of
the resident workforce is engaged in managerial and professional occupations; the largest fields being
health services, education and research, high-tech industries, retail, and manufacturing. All of this
contributes to a lower serious crime rate than other cities of like size; especially regarding violent crime.
15
The University operates on four-month trimesters. Fall: September – December; Winter: January –
April; and Spring/Summer: May – August.
16
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Post-Secondary Education.
14
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
6
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
in large numbers for the fall trimester, parties and binge drinking17 become a problem in
spite of the University’s comprehensive substance abuse prevention program utilizing
nationally recognized best practices. One of the components of the anti-abuse program is
strict enforcement of Michigan’s “zero tolerance” statute (Minor in Possession) making it
a crime for anyone under the age of 21 to have a blood alcohol level of .01 or higher.
Consequently, from late August through mid-October, there are numerous MIP cases
cited into the Court as students test the limits of the law.18 Court staff indicates that
occasionally there are long lines of defendants in the hall to pay fines.19 In 2006, the
most recent year statistics are available, campus police arrested or cited 961 liquor law
violators, and documented an additional 959 alcohol violations reported to non-police
agencies resulting in University disciplinary action.20
State drug law violations are the second largest violation category flowing from
the University to the Court, amounting to 83 cases in 2006. Although laws regarding
drug possession, use and sale are similar on and off campus for most controlled
substances, laws regarding marijuana possession are different. Marijuana violations on
UM property are a misdemeanor punishable by a fine up to $2,000 and/or imprisonment
of up to one year since the University operates under state law. Persons convicted of
marijuana possession off UM property, but in the City of Ann Arbor, may be charged
with a civil ordinance infraction and required to pay a fine only, or may be charged with a
misdemeanor under state law.
17
A Harvard University study (circa: 2000) of 15,000 college students recently concludes that two out of
five full-time college students (44 percent) are binge drinkers. One in five (23 percent) is a frequent binge
drinker with three or more binge drinking episodes in the past two weeks. (www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas).
18
According to the latest Harvard study on college student binge drinking, most alcohol purchase and
consumption occurs off campus. (www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas).
19
In 2004, Michigan adopted one of the strongest Minor in Possession (MIP) laws in the country. It is
illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase, consume, possess, or have any bodily content of alcohol.
The court can order diversion for the first offense resulting in no misdemeanor conviction upon successful
completion of substance abuse treatment, court-ordered screenings, community service and a $100 fine.
Jail is not an option. A second offense requires a 90-day license suspension, $200 fine, and successful
completion of treatment, screening, and community service. No diversion is possible. Failure to comply
with the sentence can result in a 30-day jail sentence. Stiffer penalties are required upon a third violation.
20
Another interesting college town related phenomenon was recently documented by Daniel Rees and
Kevin Schnepel, two economists at the University of Colorado, who studied college football games and
crime. They reported that arrests of all types of belligerent and bad behavior rose after home football
games. Upsets, either victories or defeats, triggered even higher numbers of arrests for disorderly conduct
and drunk driving. The authors conclude that alcohol consumption may have much to do with the
relationship between college football games and aggressive, unlawful behavior. (www.econ.cudenver.edu).
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
7
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Lastly, larceny cases round out the top three violation categories generated by the
University, including burglary, robbery, breaking and entering, and theft. There were 65
matters referred to the Court in 2006.
It is assumed that most limited jurisdiction courts in cities hosting large colleges
or universities experience the same type of student generated violations.
However,
smaller urban communities, such as Ann Arbor, dominated by a university likely feel the
effects more dramatically.
D.
Analytical Methodology
In conducting this operational and management review, the NCSC consultants
analyzed data from a number of sources, including on-site observations; performance
information from the Court and Michigan SCAO (e.g., statistics and reports); on-site and
telephone interviews with Court, City, and state leaders and staff; historical research on
justice system issues in Ann Arbor; pertinent laws and administrative orders; an
electronic workforce questionnaire; previous studies of the Court (e.g., Plante Moran
organizational development study); and a comparative survey of similar limited
jurisdiction courts. A two-person team spent four days at the Court gathering information
and interviewing stakeholders.
(See list of those interviewed in the Appendix.)
Conclusions about present practices, processes, procedures, work, facilities, attitudes, and
operations are based on the data synthesized from these numerous sources to provide our
findings and recommendations. Where recognized best practices exist, NCSC project
consultants have suggested ways to apply them to the Court.
The report is essentially divided into two segments. First, a detailed review of
eight basic operational elements: workforce (staffing, organization structure, work
distribution, supervisory and management leadership); customer service (access, fairness,
and procedural justice for court users), calendaring and caseflow management (pace and
expediency in case processing); technology improvements; reliability and integrity of
case files (records management, accuracy, and timeliness); financial operations
(including accounting, expenditure control and revenue collections); probation
programming and management, and justice system collaboration with state and local
officials.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
8
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Secondly, NCSC consultants offer some general thoughts about change and
improvement that may be helpful in setting a three to five year strategic agenda. The
Court is entering an important time in its history, characterized by the impending move to
a new city courthouse, changes in judicial personnel, and the need to simultaneously
sustain and grow, as possible, its problem-solving forums, treatment and probation
operations, and high-tech/high touch technology services.
It is a time for strategic
leadership.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
9
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
II.
OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND RECOMMENDATIONS
A.
The Court’s Workforce
Among the eight operational areas reviewed, one of the most important—and all
too often minimized in many studies—is the efficiency, morale and well-being of the
Court’s workforce, including both judicial and non-judicial staff.
Courts are labor
intensive organizations largely dependent upon employees to perform numerous critical
tasks, often without direct supervision, that dramatically impact the lives of those before
the Court. In a university town, we submit the work of judges and staff is even more
important as it impacts many young adults in their first experiences with the justice
system away from home on their own. For these reasons, a major component of NCSC’s
review is the Court’s employees.
At the time of the study, there were 39 full-time staff in the Court, including 4
judicial officers.
On-site interviews were held with all judges, the magistrate,
administrators and supervisors, and selected key line personnel.
Additionally, an
electronic questionnaire was emailed to each employee in late March 2008 asking a series
of questions about job satisfaction, workplace problems, supervision, communication,
trends, and ideas about improvements in court operations. A portion of the opinion
survey requires respondents to rate their agreement with each of 20 statements on a fivepoint scale from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. In essence, this is CourTool
Measure 9, one of the ten court performance standards vetted by the national community
of courts and endorsed by the National Center for State Courts to periodically measure
employee satisfaction. We recommend that the Court routinely administer the 20
question survey annually; it is specifically structured to gather data on whether staff
feels they have the materials, motivation, direction, sense of mission and commitment
to do quality work. As important as conducting the survey is the commitment by court
leaders to take action based on questionnaire responses. Surveys raise expectations
among staff. When employees surface concerns, management needs to demonstrate that
those interests are being heard and addressed. Even though all problems may not have
immediate solutions, upon review of the results management should communicate with
staff what actions will be taken and why. (Copies of the electronic questionnaire and
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
10
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
information about CourTools Measure 9, Court Employee Satisfaction may be found in
the Appendix.)
In discussing the Court’s workforce, it is worth mentioning at the outset that there
are observable characteristics of well functioning courts impervious to the comings and
goings of leaders, changing circumstances, programs within the Court, or the equipment
or technology of the moment.
Much of it has to do with intangible, transparent
relationships between people in the organization that rest on purpose, trust, and
empowerment. Although observations of and discussions with staff indicate that these
virtues are active within the Court, it is important to explain their critical nature and
strengthen them where possible.
The Purposes of the Court
Very few people work for government generally, or the Court specifically, for the
money. There are certainly many practical reasons someone may seek a position with the
Court—job security, pension stability, routine working hours, convenience, or friends and
relatives employed by the Court, city, or county. Although these all make good sense,
the challenge for court leaders at the Fifteenth District Court, as well as other trial courts
throughout the country, is to spark a deeper, more altruistic, passionate motive among
current and future staff.
People have a need to feel part of something larger than themselves—delivering
justice, protecting our freedoms, helping someone break free from an addiction, making
the city safe. To the extent that leaders and managers in the Court embrace those
idealistic values in the workplace and link them to operational basics, employees have a
greater likelihood, in turn, to feel motivated, significant, and purposeful.
Courts that excel paint an inspiring picture of their purposes, the future, and their
unique place in serving their community. They link purpose, vision, and direction to
everyday work.
The national discussion of court purposes over the years has surfaced some
weighty and interesting foundations from which court leaders can launch more specific
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
11
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
conversations about visions and directions for their courts. They are worth a quick
review.21 Courts:
•
Do justice in individual cases. Ultimately, trial courts apply the law to the
facts in a case. Because issues at stake are limited, lawyers are few, and many
litigants are self-represented, district court judges play a larger role in
ensuring due process and procedural fairness than in many other tribunals.
•
Appear to do justice in a timely and consistent manner. In many respects,
what trial courts do is not just about the case before them. It is also about all
the other potential cases that may be filed and the perception of the fairness,
timeliness, and impartiality of the justice system as revealed in the actions of
the Court. What the Court does on a daily basis influences public trust and
confidence in the Rule of Law.
•
Protect the individual against the arbitrary use of government power. Courts
are in the truth-finding business. In safeguarding individual rights by
championing truth over government power, courts of law uphold one of the
most revered principles of our democratic republic. Here, we are often
astonished when the “little guy” is acquitted or wins a lawsuit against the
government, but it happens. Courts enable such occurrences.
•
Provide a forum for the resolution of legal disputes. Without a recognized,
legitimate government institution—a trial court—to settle conflicts among
people, chaos, disorder, and anarchy result. Social order is a purpose of
courts.
•
Maintain accurate, timely, accessible records of legal status. Over 50 percent
of the work of courts is dedicated to creating, maintaining, storing, and
retrieving paper or digitized records of facts pertaining to a dispute, legal
issues and judicial decisions. Without documenting such proceedings,
appellate courts are unable to review trial court decisions for fairness,
accuracy, and error and parties to the case cannot obtain closure to move on
with their lives, and the work of courts would be largely hidden from public
view.
•
Shield the vulnerable from abuse, neglect, and abandonment. Through
actions brought before them, courts translate the highest principles of a
civilized society by saving from harm those who are at risk, weak, helpless, or
defenseless. This purpose may affect a wide range of interests beyond people
themselves and include the environment, plants, and animals.
•
Confront criminal behavior by:
o Deterring future crime. Timely, just punishment helps prevent
misconduct and wrongdoing through the certainty of government
21
Ernie Friesen, a founder of modern court management, and a law school dean, author, educator, and
justice system reformer, outlined a series of purposes of courts in the 1970s. Many of the purposes listed
here were developed by Friesen in his discussions and writings about trial court delay and caseflow
management. They have relevance to overall court operations and culture as well as delay reduction.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
12
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
retribution. By their visible public actions, courts play a strong role in
thwarting future unlawful behavior.
o Rehabilitating the convicted. For the betterment of society, trial courts
are charged with a responsibility to diagnose behavioral problems and
reform offenders. Tailored sentencing, problem-solving tribunals, and
probation are responsible ways toward doing so.
o Separating the convicted from society. Where treatment is impossible,
fails or is inappropriate, trial court judges are entrusted with the
ultimate penalty for those sentenced—confinement.
Visions are tough to do well. It’s an exercise in both the head and heart that
defines your energy, aspirations and hopes as a court. It sets you apart from all the other
district courts in Michigan as well as limited jurisdiction courts throughout the nation. It
identifies you as a unique governmental institution dedicated to fair, impartial, and
individual justice. A good vision results in a direction for the future that is desirable,
feasible, focused, and flexible. You should be able to convincingly and memorably
explain it to others in five minutes or less.
There is much that the NCSC project team has seen in the work and programs of
the Fifteenth Judicial District Court that distinguish it. Your commitment to diagnostic
adjudication and problem-solving forums, your ideas about expanded Internet service to
customers, your dedication to efficient, fair case processing, your devotion to evidencebased treatment programs, and your collaborative partnerships with city and state
officials to streamline the Court while maintaining your independence and separate
public accountability. The NCSC consultants feel it would be helpful for both staff and
court users if a clear, inspiring vision could be developed and promoted about the
values and direction of the Court. Perhaps a retreat with key leaders may be a good
starting point to discuss what you’re good at, what you’re passionate about, and how
you make a positive, lasting impact on your community.
By building on that vision, Court leaders will help to instill a stronger resolve on
the part of staff that they are part of something quite significant; something more than
just a job. To the extent that staff embraces that perception, many courts have found
turnover and absenteeism decline, error rates drop, ideas about improvements and better
customer service increase, and morale generally improves.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
13
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Trust Within the Workplace
Increasing numbers of courts are struggling with the issue of trust in the
workplace, as are many other types of organizations. Based on interviews, observations,
and a workforce survey the NCSC project team facilitated, court leaders may want to
concentrate on ways to enhance communication and information flow. More detailed
data about organization transparency is outlined later in the report regarding the survey
results (see Section IV: Strategies for Change).
Trust is palpable. A high trusting organization is a healthy place to work where
open communication defines interactions among people. In a low trust organization,
communication is guarded; political solutions are often seen as quick fixes without
lasting value; hidden agendas are commonplace; and information is guarded or
grudgingly revealed. High trust limits destructive office politics, encourages smoother,
efficient ways of working together, and promotes open collaboration between divisions
and departments. Low trusting courts exhibit painful micromanagement, bureaucracy,
and redundant systems, together with an atmosphere of constant worry and suspicion.
High trust courts, on the other hand, display helpful rules and procedures understood by
the vast majority of employees, and staff takes “ownership” of problems and routinely
solves small dysfunctions before they become bigger, destructive dilemmas. Creativity
and innovation is encouraged.
Trust makes interactions between parties predictable, it creates a sense of
community and it makes it easier for people to work together. Trust rests on two virtues:
competence and compassion.
If managers are seen to be capable in their jobs, employees will trust them to
address needed problems, coordinate the work unit in equitable ways, and help each
employee develop to his or her full potential and career with the Court. Where managers
are over their heads, lazy, incommunicative, secretive, incompetent, or uncaring, staff
will disconnect and the work unit will suffer.
For the most part, our observations and interviews suggest the Court’s top and
middle managers are competent. Also, for our purposes in assessing trust levels within
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
14
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
the Court, they are seen to be capable by others.22 One indication is the openness and
sincerity of communications we observed within the Court (e.g., staff meetings, trainings,
work unit interactions).
Furthermore, the staff was not reluctant to discuss their
apprehensions and anxieties with us, although none of our interviews surfaced deepseated problems in either working relationships or supervisory proficiency.
Where
concerns were expressed, they tended to target three things: perceived uneven workload
levels among a few employees, angst over new procedural changes (e.g., collections
program), or discomfort over how retirements, resignations, and reassignments may
complicate work processes until replacements are hired, trained, and functioning well.
NCSC consultants do not view any of these issues as greatly problematical. As long as
the Court administrator and key management staff are sensitive to these concerns and
address them in a timely, constructive manner—as we feel assured they will—there is no
cause for alarm.
It is a relatively common reaction to be distressed over uncertainty in the
workplace, whether it is a new procedure, program, co-worker, or boss. Psychologists
tell us such responses are centered more on losing valued relationships and patterned
ways of doing things than fear of change itself. With this in mind, it brings us to the
second basic element in building and sustaining workplace trust: compassion (empathy or
benevolence).
It is not enough to be competent as a supervisor to promote trust. You must also
be seen and clearly understood by employees as having their best interests at heart. It’s
not about protecting employees or befriending them. It’s not about creating a country
club environment or making life easier through creature comforts such as better facilities,
more time off, higher pay, or less work—although those amenities are certainly helpful to
the workforce. It is about honestly listening to where people are at in their working lives
and caring about what they need to do a better job.
Unhappiness and discontent in the workplace is most often related to the context
in which work is performed. Some of these dissatisfiers may be caused by court or city
22
As outlined in his book, The Speed of Trust: The One Thing that Changes Everything (Simon &
Schuster, Ltd. 2006), Stephen MR Covey defines competence as delivering results, getting better at what
you do, confronting reality head-on, clarifying expectations, holding yourself and others accountable, and
keeping commitments. In our opinion, this definition fits, generally, the leaders and managers in the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
15
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
policies, problems with supervisors, inadequate salaries, or poor working conditions.
Correcting these deficiencies may help employees to be more satisfied on the job, but it
will not cause staff to be more motivated. Dissatisfaction leads to decreased productivity
and less commitment to the trial court.
Motivation on the job, psychologists and industrial engineers have demonstrated,
flows more from a sense of achievement, recognition, the nature of the work itself,
responsibilities vested in the job and person, and the possibility of advancement. It arises
less from the surroundings and accouterments (e.g., salary, work space, title) at work and
more from the relationship an employee has to what he or she does. If a person feels the
work they are performing for the Court is worthwhile and valuable, and they can clearly
see its importance, chances substantially increase that they will be motivated to do a good
job and take personal responsibility to improve things.
It appears that Court administration is structuring job duties and reporting lines to
enhance and vary work (e.g., cross training, reassigning employees to avoid burn-out,
changing job duties, etc.), organizing work units to maximize advancement opportunities,
and recognizing and celebrating solid work achievement on the part of deserving staff.23
Resultantly, staff turnover (about 5 percent or less annually) is lower than courts of
similar size and jurisdiction (average about 10 percent annually) we have studied.
Turnover is principally confined to two areas. Employees who have been with the Court
a few years and take an advancement opportunity because they see limited growth
opportunity at the Court, a commonplace occurrence among mid-sized trial courts. And,
among long-term job holders who have reached a decision to retire. A positive benefit
with upper level position vacancies has been the ability to reorganize.
Empowerment
A third characteristic of a well functioning court is the empowerment of staff to
independently act to solve problems, make important work-related choices, and perform
their job duties with relative freedom from overbearing bureaucracy or hierarchical
23
A conclusion by NCSC consultants currently being addressed by Court administration is the over
compartmentalization of staff into separate traffic/criminal and civil divisions. We feel it may be better to
meld these two work units into one operational group, given the size of the staff, to promote cross-training,
job enhancement, and advancement opportunities.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
16
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
controls. Allowing staff responsibility for outcomes where they can architect a final
product or task with only general direction is a key feature of a high trusting organization.
Empowerment in the workplace is permitting and expecting employees to operate
autonomously within boundaries. As such, they are responsible for results and held
accountable for their actions. Where that environment exists, efficiency is enhanced
since work need not be constantly approved beforehand or double-checked afterwards.
Widespread information sharing, an aspect of empowerment, was noticeable in
the Court. Managers and employees openly share information about important work
related programs, critical court initiatives underway and ideas targeting work process
improvements. Work unit meetings, briefings between the Court administrator and staff,
and cross-Departmental problem-solving discussions occur. Interaction among managers
and staff are apparent and productive. One cautionary note for managers, however, is to
be sensitive to workers who may be withdrawn or isolated and encourage their
participation as well.
Lastly, empowerment also expects that work will often be done in teams. Teams
not only promote interaction among staff in search of more productive ways of doing
work, but permit greater understandings by employees of how work units and different
jobs interrelate with each other. They are ideal ways to improve highly interdependent
and complex processes commonly found in the workflow of a trial court. Cross-division
or work unit teams help to break down the “we” versus “them” mentality often found in
organization life.
Here, NCSC consultants are talking about self-directed project teams not bosses
leading subordinates. Small, inter-unit teams of 3-5 employees assigned a common
purpose or goal by senior managers and responsible for problem-solving, decisions and
outcomes that may affect more than one work group. Highly effective courts have found
that regular use of employee teams improve work processes and create a culture of
collaboration where staff comes to believe decisions and actions are better when done
cooperatively. The broad-scoped use of project teams was evident in the Court.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
17
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
1. Judicial Officers and Direct Support
There are four full-time judicial officers serving the Court, three elected judges
and one magistrate appointed by the judges. Collectively, the judiciary has 45 years of
experience on the bench with the Court.24
The judges have worked together as a
leadership team for nine years and have known each other as friends and practicing
lawyers in the Ann Arbor bar for many years. Interview data from internal and external
justice system stakeholders support the NCSC consultants’ observations that they are a
well organized professional team with a collaborative work style.25 Issues and problems
appear to be discussed and resolved in a timely manner, effective evidence-based
adjudication programs are well developed (e.g., sobriety court, DV court, homeless court,
MIP docket), Court leaders are concerned about efficiency, customer service and
minimizing case delay, and the Court is seen by others as both holding defendants
accountable and providing proven rehabilitation opportunities (e.g., probation
monitoring, community resources, collections program, etc).
A significant matter in the recent history of the Court causing some stress and
dislocation among the District and Circuit Judges of Washtenaw County (both of whom
currently occupy the County Courthouse) was an attempt at unifying the trial courts
which was eventually aborted. Understandably, major court reorganization of this nature
often causes tension and anxiety; even on a good day. Relationships between the benches
seem to have returned to normalcy in the wake of a decision a few years ago to remain a
two-tiered system. Where friction remains, it is largely confined to minor issues such as
difficulties in scheduling shared adjudication space and decisions regarding District Court
space modifications and alterations in the County Courthouse.
Each judge has a three-person staff appointed by and serving at their pleasure; a
judicial secretary, certified electronic court recorder (CER), and bailiff. The magistrate
has one support staff person; a combined CER/judicial secretary position. Although the
24
Chief Judge Creal was elected in 1999, Judge Hines in 1992, and Judge Mattson in 1994. Magistrate
Gatti was appointed in 2002. However, 50 percent of the judicial officers will change in 2008. Judge
Mattson has announced her retirement and a new judge will be selected in the November 2008 election. It
was also learned by NCSC consultants in mid-April that Magistrate Gatti has resigned to go into private
practice. The Court is actively recruiting for a replacement.
25
Collegiality among elected judges in the same trial court is not a given. Where it does not exist or is
strained, it can be very disruptive; affecting staff morale, court programs, relationships with other branches
of government, and sometimes the very stature and image of the court itself.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
18
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
predominate ratio nationwide of support staff to judge in mid-sized limited jurisdiction
courts is less (generally only one secretary/clerk per judge or no dedicated staff at all in
lieu of a clerical pool serving all judges), many function with at least two support staff
assigned from a central court management office during formal court sessions
(commonly a clerk/recorder and bailiff or court security officer) who can be allocated
other organization-wide duties when not attending court sessions. Although the Court
appears to function well with its current configuration of direct judicial support staff, it
is likely that organization-wide efficiency could be increased and current staff used
more effectively in assigning CERs and bailiffs from a central pool overseen by the
Court administrator. Such a change may alter the configuration of judicial chambers
space in any new courthouse/public safety building as well.
A recent courthouse design trend promoting the pooling of judicial support staff is
called “collegial chambers.” It has two purposes. First, security and collegiality is
enhanced by officing judges and the magistrate together in a protected portion of the
Court building; each having a judicial or administrative assistant in an office or cubicle
adjacent to their chamber.
In such situations, the chambers generally open onto a
common waiting and reception area, having one or more conference rooms for larger
group meetings with judges as necessary, controlled by a single, central receptionist.
Only two judicial/executive gender-specific bathrooms are necessary rather than one for
each chamber. This motif, much like the configuration of modern-day law offices, also
permits much more interaction among judges in combating the isolation often inherent in
their jobs. The downside is judges must travel to courtrooms; similar to what exists
now.26
Secondly, this operational method permits more widespread use of courtroom
staff, namely the CER and bailiff, when they are not needed in formal court proceedings.
By pooling these staff under the direction of the Court administrator, they can be crosstrained to perform other general purpose office work enhancing the overall efficiency of
26
The collegial chamber model is generally more adaptable to limited jurisdiction courts with short cause
matters, master calendars, and flexible courtroom assignments as opposed to general jurisdiction courts
exhibiting more protracted matters, individual calendars, and greater interplay between the chambers and
courtroom during formal proceedings.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
19
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
the Court. Pooled staff become much more versatile and can be assigned to any judicial
officer or courtroom.
Such a change would be a dramatic cultural and operational shift for the Court;
however, it works well and is commonplace in many limited jurisdiction courts, offering
significant efficiency improvements.
2. Administrators and Supervisors
In individual meetings with administrators and supervisors, the NCSC project
team was impressed with their openness, hospitality, and collegial attitude. They exhibit
mutual respect for one another and appear to work well together.
The organizational configuration for the Court administrator’s office, given the
functions of the office and staff size, we feel can be improved somewhat by consolidating
the two major work units: traffic/criminal and civil. There are no universal norms in
limited jurisdiction trial courts regarding how many people should report to a single
manager, although many courts are moving to higher spans of control (more employees
reporting to an single boss) and flatter organizations (fewer layers of management) due to
more technology automating routine work processes.
This conclusion, also, fits
“empowered” cultures where staff is given latitude to act independently. As you would
suspect, the leaner the ratio of supervisors to employees, the more potential savings are
possible in reduced manager positions and more streamlined organization structure
regarding information flow and decision-making. With a small organization such as the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court (39 FTE employees, including judicial officers), most
supervisors are not just managers. They perform front-line work as well. Consequently,
the margin for flat out reducing middle management positions is slim, although there is
room for consolidating the two basic work units; traffic/criminal and civil.
There are numerous dynamics regarding organization structure that court leaders
may wish to keep in mind as they explore ways to gain efficiencies. Some factors to
consider in re-organization raise the cost of doing business ($™) and others lower it ($š).
Among them are:
$™ The more diverse and complex the work, the narrower the span of control or
the greater the need to segment the work and assign it to special-purpose staff.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
20
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Financial management, as an example, is more complex and intricate
requiring it to be somewhat isolated from the rest of the central office work.
$š Experienced people who are well selected, developed (trained) effectively,
and “empowered,” need less day-to-day supervision.
$™ The more important coordination and interdependence between work units or
positions, the narrower the span of control.
$™ A lot of change in the workplace often requires more supervision and,
therefore, narrower spans of control (frequently on a temporary basis). The
movement to the new JIS case management system is an example of this
circumstance.
$š Once effective work coordinating mechanisms are in place, such as the new
automated JIS system, work unit reorganizations such as the consolidation of
criminal/traffic and civil under one supervisor are possible to increase spans
of control.
$š The more direct feedback an employee has from automated systems (e.g., JIS,
pay-by-phone and pay-by-web data oversight, etc.), the less reliant the
employee is on a supervisor and a larger span of control is possible.
$™ The more administrative burden (e.g., reports, meetings, statistics, etc.) on
managers by the state or city, the smaller span of control they can manage.
$™ The higher the expectations and needs of employees (e.g. career development,
cross training), the smaller the span of control.
3. Office and Clerical Staff
Based on the NCSC consultants observations and conversations with office and
clerical staff, as well as questionnaire results, it appears most employees have a basic
understanding of their job duties, but may struggle to “stay in the know” with new
information and general policies and procedures. Since the Court has a relatively small
clerical staff (16 FTE’s at Clerk II or III levels) and few middle management positions (4
FTE Lead Division Deputies), career advancement opportunities are limited. Turnover is
relatively low at around five percent of the workforce.27 Job classifications, descriptions,
and salary ranges appear to be reasonable, although it would be advisable to incorporate
performance-related objectives in the descriptions as feasible.
Feedback via the
workforce questionnaire indicates that some employees are confused or unsure of what is
expected of them regarding work standards.
27
Clerk II, the standard entry-level position, appears to have an appropriate salary level. The Court
administrator reports that 40-60 job applicants are normal for a Clerk II opening.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
21
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
A big issue of concern to clerical staff appears to be adequate training, both in
their primary job assignments and cross-training in other jobs where they substitute for
absent employees. Job training is the key to staff empowerment, greater knowledge and
ownership of work processes, more independent decision-making, enhanced workforce
flexibility, and, ultimately, more confident and skilled employees.
A good starting point for a more effective, structured training regime would be the
development and revision of work unit procedural manuals.
The Court does have
numerous work process guidebooks. It would be helpful if procedural manuals were
digitized and available via the Intranet.
Many trial courts are moving toward
electronic manuals, quickly accessible at individual work stations and easily updated.
It certainly would be a worthwhile project to aid in (a) job enlargement, the horizontal
expansion of jobs by learning new tasks at the same skill and responsibility levels in a
work unit, and (b) job enrichment, the addition of duties beyond core position
responsibilities which may include selected, broad-scoped projects that span work unit
boundaries such as caseflow procedural analysis, statistical reports or process
improvement studies.
Court management should also consider conducting a training needs
assessment. Focus should be placed on needs as opposed to desires. The Court’s
middle managers should initially identify the skills and abilities of individual
employees, what may be needed to get them to the next level, and propose a training
plan and timetable for each employee. Also, discussing with each employee what
struggles he or she may be facing in their day-to-day work and desired improvements to
make their jobs easier and more efficient is a positive step. Using the workforce survey
conducted as part of this operational review can assist in pinpointing common
organization-wide issues. Finally, a comparison of what each employee is currently
doing vis-à-vis what will be expected of them as the Court continues to grow and
change would be helpful.
Of particular importance in office staff training is proficiency with automated
systems. Special attention should be given to JIS understanding and competence.
Lastly, regarding clerical staffing levels in general, we cannot conclude that they
are out of the norm for a court with the volume and sophisticated workload exhibited by
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
22
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
the District Court. We can say, however, that the efficiency JIS has introduced into court
operations is noteworthy, streamlining workflow, eliminating manual processes,
providing opportunities to consolidate work, permitting new services to be added, and
attending to areas in the workflow that may have been neglected. Consequently, it is
important for Court leaders to continue to be sensitive to the possibilities of reengineering
jobs through attrition.
4. Probation Staff
The Probation Department, currently located off-site, is staffed by a supervisor,
five probation agents, and two clerical personnel. At times, the Department utilizes
university student interns. One agent is assigned to the Sobriety Court docket, one to the
Domestic Court docket, and the remaining four staff (including the supervisor) have a
more general caseload assignment. The Department provides what they term “fortress
probation,” meaning all contacts with probationers are centralized at the probation office.
Home, work, school, and field visits are not conducted. While not mandated, probation is
seen as a vital service and is common among district courts in Michigan.28
The staff appears to be adequate, dedicated, and skilled. The supervisor is a
social worker and lawyer. Agents are well versed in treating addictive behavior, show
good rapport with clients, and are knowledgeable regarding nationwide probation issues
and treatment modalities. It is quite likely that efficiency will improve somewhat by
locating the Department on-site with the judges as is planned in the new city courthouse.
Another area or expressed concern by probation officials that surfaced in the workforce
survey as well is the poor performance of the Court’s contracted drug testing vendor. It
would appear to NCSC consultants that improvement should be a priority to Court
leaders.
B.
Customer Services
Limited jurisdiction courts are where most people experience the justice system
firsthand. Traffic and ordinance violation cases, as an example, represent 55 percent of
28
Probation as an operational function of limited jurisdiction courts is unusual nationwide. Michigan is a
shining example to lower courts in other states in providing enlightened, effective treatment services to
misdemeanants.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
23
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
the 100 plus million trial court cases filed nationally, a rate of over 18,000 cases for every
100,000 residents in the United States.29 In Michigan the figure is higher at 59 percent of
all the incoming cases in 2005.30 How these important, fast-paced courts serve customers
greatly influences the public perception about the American judicial system.
1. Courthouse Wayfinding
“Wayfinding” is a term introduced in the late 1970s that refers to the concept of
how people move within building space and how building design and signage assist
people to orient themselves, find directions, and identify their locations. To most people
the courthouse is an unfamiliar and intimidating place. Effective signage, in lieu of
expensive building renovation, is an easy way to help unfamiliar visitors in the
Washtenaw Courthouse. Any signage update should be coordinated with the Circuit
Court, County Administration, and other building tenants. It will benefit all who occupy
the building.
People use numerous cues to indicate where they are located, determine how to
get to a specific destination, and conclude they’ve finally arrived at it. In confusing
structures such as the County Courthouse the task is much more difficult due to the poor
building layout, myriad of functions, and large number of public users. Better signage is
an economical solution and will be an important feature in the new city courts building as
well.
It is suggested that a more prominent, useful directory be installed in the lobby
so it is clearly visible to visitors as they exit the security screening stations. The
information presented needs to be simple, clear, legible, and familiar to the customer with
directions via arrows. Color-coding may be useful. Avoid court jargon, confusing legal
terms, excessive repetition, and poor placement. Complementary floor directories should
be graphically linked to the lobby directory.
Additional signage, consistent in color, style, and verbiage should clearly
identify for users when they have arrived at a specific courtroom, office, or service
location. Wayfinding signs that protrude from the wall are often more noticeable and
29
30
National Center for State Courts Statistics Project, 2006.
SCAO 2006 statistical reports.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
24
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
helpful.
Final Report
Signage flat against the wall, such as the posting of dockets were less
conspicuous and helpful. The ultimate objective is to provide enough information to
permit the customer to easily find his or her way to a desired destination on their own.
2. Court Space and Facilities Management
The current space allocated to the District Court is inadequate. Not only are
Departments located off-site, but functions on-site do not have the space necessary to
properly perform their functions or the adjacencies near each other to promote maximum
efficiency.
The configuration of the front counter in the case processing office does not allow
good customer contact and processing of payments. This does not mean that staffcustomer interactions are ineffective, but that staff must put forth extra effort because of
the poor design of the area. Space allocations for civil, traffic/criminal, and the storage
and retrieval of case files are all currently deficient, hampering exchanges within work
units as well as across divisional lines. Communication and paper flow efficiency and
productivity are reduced. Due both to design and lack of space, time is wasted within and
across work units. There have been some recent space reconfigurations to streamline
workflow and staff interactions within the office areas which have helped. It is doubtful,
however, that much more can be done to improve the layout without more space and
costly remodeling.
Major concerns center on the location of judges’ chambers being separate and
apart from courtrooms.
Resultantly, safety and security issues exist.
In today’s
courthouse, no judge, escorted or not, should walk a common hallway to and from a
courtroom assignment. The location of holding cells and jury deliberation rooms relative
to courtrooms and the judge’s bench also present movement and security problems.
Prisoners should not be allowed to move in close proximity to judges, jurors, or the
general public. Jurors should be securely segregated from other courtroom participants
and have unencumbered pathways to and from the deliberation room.
If the District Court remains in the County Courthouse for an extended period of
time, these issues should be addressed. However, the impending move to a new city
courthouse does not make wholesale renovation cost-effective.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
25
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
The Court and County have done much to enhance court security given the
limited space and make-shift configuration of the Courthouse to accommodate District
Court functions, including security screening stations in the lobby, secure anterooms to
access the judges’ suites, security escorts for judicial officers, a series of secure doors
throughout the complex, bailiffs who are former law enforcement officers, and
emergency strategic plans involving Ann Arbor Police and County Sheriff’s Deputies.
Although there is little we can recommend to reconfigure and enhance the Court’s
space in the County Courthouse given the fact that momentum appears to be building for
a new city courts/public safety building, a few suggestions may help in regard to present
security. It is recommended that greater use of CCTV throughout the building be
considered, especially given the desire by Circuit Court officials to backfill space in the
building with juvenile court adjudication functions once the District Court moves to
courthouse space in the new Ann Arbor Municipal Center. This technology has proven
to be an essential component in court security throughout the country, especially in older
buildings not originally designed with today’s needed safety requirements.
CCTV,
coupled with additional intrusion and duress alarms at key points throughout the
Courthouse such as secure parking lots, non-public building entrances, prisoner holding
and transport areas, chambers and courtrooms/public hearing rooms, would heighten
existing security.
Although the NCSC consultants did not interview County Courthouse tenants
unrelated to District Court functioning, there are numerous offices and programs in the
building responsible to various governmental entities (e.g., Adult Probation, officing in
the basement, is a function of the Michigan Department of Corrections, Clerk of Court’s
Court Services Unit, etc.).
Generally, when this is the case, as it frequently is in
courthouses across the nation, there is a lack of coordination between tenants regarding
security protocols and emergency procedures. In many regards, the Michigan Judicial
Branch anticipated a confused courthouse environment when it created its Court Security
Manual requiring coordination within the courthouse through a court security advisory
committee and vesting court leaders with responsibilities for developing security
standards, procedures, programs and emergency responses tailored to individual court
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
26
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
buildings.31
Final Report
We advise that security/emergency coordination among courthouse
tenants is often more of constant problem than many are willing to admit.
Consequently, frequent and ongoing efforts directed at coordination are paramount.
It is recommended that security be enhanced in and around the judges’ parking
area with fencing and a card-activated security gate. These improvements are relatively
inexpensive and provide an added measure of safety for judicial officers at many urban
courthouses. Any improvements could be utilized by the circuit court judges in the
future.
In-custody defendants should be brought into the Court building by means of a
sally port; an entrance that is secure from pedestrian or vehicular intrusion of any
kind. The sally port should be equipped with CCTV, an intercom, and duress alarms.
As a best practice, it is wise to conduct a secondary screening of inmates once they enter
the holding areas in the Courthouse to ensure they have not managed to secrete any
weapons. Screening equipment designed for this purpose is available on the market and
used by many courts today.
Lastly, the more visible security appears in the Court building, the more likely it
will have a deterrent effect. To that end, we suggest the security role of bailiffs should
be more perceptible to the public, including courtroom participants. This has been
simply accomplished by some courts through providing standard blue blazers embossed
with the Court seal or other official looking crest on the breast pocket with the words
“Court Security” or “Court Marshal.” In doing so, it adds to the professional appearance
of the staff, promotes an image of heightened protection throughout the courthouse, and
publicly elevates the position of bailiff.
3. Internet Self-Help
Limited jurisdiction courts throughout the nation are increasingly realizing the
potential of the Internet in serving their customers better. Since many lower court
processes are fine and fee based (e.g., traffic and parking citations, ordinance violations),
Internet online payment systems provide immense economies-of-scale and workload
31
The Michigan Court Security Manual developed and published by the State Court Administrator’s Office
is a detailed and effective document. It clearly designates local trial court leaders as responsible for
courthouse security and emergency coordination and is buttressed by case law and Supreme Court order.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
27
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
efficiencies.
Final Report
The Court’s recent move to JIS and use of the SCAO’s (State Court
Administrator Office) statewide pay-by-web system has resulted in sizeable increases in
electronic payments and corresponding reduced paper flow in the office.32 Efforts by the
Court to promote and market the Internet online fines payment system would be well
spent. The Superior Court in Los Angeles publicizes the ease and convenience of its
Internet services widely by placing attractive, visible advertising (posters, brochures)
throughout the courthouse with the slogan “Why Stand In Line; Go Online” and then
giving the particulars about online payment. A quick recorded announcement on the
Court’s phones when the public is put on hold is another way to promote electronic
access. Phoenix Municipal Court’s Call Center staff utilizes the Court’s online payment
system when receiving an inquiry from a party about fine payment. The conversation
goes something like this:
Hello, Phoenix Municipal Court. How may I help you?
I’d like to pay an overdue traffic fine. I meant to come to court, but
couldn’t. Now, I’ve received a delinquent notice that I owe an extra $30
late fee.
If you wish, you may pay it over the Internet at ___________.
I don’t use the Internet.
If you have a valid credit card, I can take payment over the phone. (The
Call Center employee accesses the online payment screen just as the
customer could do and processes the payment).
Imaginatively advertising the Internet as a faster, easier way to do business with
the Court, whether online payments, obtaining forms and instructions on filing a case,
or information about court dates, is a wise investment in helping to speed workflow.
32
Over the first 11 months of the court’s pay-by-web service (2/14/2007 – 1/8/2008), there were 7,454
payment transactions totaling $975,258; an average of $130.84 per payment. Assuming each of those
transactions would take an average of 5 minutes to manually process via mail or over-the-counter, there is a
potential efficiency savings of 30 percent of a clerk’s time (621 hours out of a 2,080 hour work year).
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
28
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
The Fifteenth Judicial District Court could certainly lead the way for other Michigan
courts if court leaders wanted to do so.33
The NCSC consultants reviewed the Court’s web site.
In addition, Chris
Crawford, president of Justice Served, a court technology consulting firm, studied the site
as well at the request of NCSC. Our overall impression is the Court’s web site could be
improved with more features and easier, better navigation. Examples of additional
features include jury service confirmations and postponements, maps and parking
information, news about the Court and its special programs (e.g., sobriety court, DV
court, MIP docket, etc.), explanations about the Court’s jurisdiction vis-à-vis the other
district courts in the county and the circuit court. The current online, interactive services
for ticket payment and case search would be more user friendly if those tabs were
highlighted on the home page and if the left column navigation buttons were more highly
profiled. Some websites ask for online feedback and evaluation from users which is
useful in redesign. Admittedly, many courts are dependent on city, county, or state
technology services for their web design which may limit creativity and improvement. It
may be worth exploring whether the Court could move toward a separate URL that is
easier to find and use, but still linked to the City of Ann Arbor government web site.
Another example of futuristic self-help technology to speed workflow and
improve customer service that the Court may wish to explore, especially with the move
to a new courthouse, is the use of wireless kiosks for litigant check-in upon arrival for
a court appearance and to process payment after a court appearance. Both wireless
and kiosk solutions, similar to airline check-in and ATM deposit transactions are
beginning to appear in a few courts across the country.
Today’s courts waste untold hours each day in courtrooms calling for people who
have not appeared at the courthouse. In the future, check-in kiosk instructions would be
tied to the court calendar, direct the person to the proper courtroom, notify the Court staff
that the person is present, and queue up the persons present and ready to appear, perhaps
in the order they checked-in (similar to an airline rewarding persons who come to the
33
Famed business consultant and author Peter Drucker advised organization leaders long ago that
“innovation and marketing produce results; all the rest are costs.” That advice applies to courts as well as
well as businesses. Peter F. Drucker, Management: Tasks, Responsibilities, Practices (Harper & Rowe,
1974).
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
29
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
airport early with the best seats). The kiosk will also, as the calendar system progresses,
estimate the time that the person is to appear in the courtroom which would allow the
individual to make better use of his/her waiting time.
The check-in kiosk system can be easily linked to electronic display panels
outside the courtroom and in the waiting areas. The display panels could show the
appearance order of cases being heard in the courtroom; the panels shifting as cases are
cleared.
This system is currently in operation at the Ramsey County (St. Paul),
Minnesota Justice Center Courtroom. The list of non-custody defendants ready to appear
at initial appearance hearings after they have met with their attorneys and queued into the
system is displayed on an electronic panel outside the courtroom.
It could be an
interesting and time-saving feature in the new City Courthouse.
C.
Calendaring and Caseflow
Based on historical data, the caseload for the Court has remained relatively stable
over recent years at roughly 40,000 filings. Over 94 percent of the cases filed each year
are typically disposed the same year, a very respectable result for a limited jurisdiction
court. Among disposed cases, most plead guilty or admit responsibility (54 percent),
followed in order of magnitude by cases placed in hiatus due to default, non-appearance,
other court proceedings (e.g., bankruptcy) or non-payment of a fine (17 percent),
dismissals by the parties (12 percent), settlements, refusals to contest, and waivers or
transfers (8 percent), and bench and jury trials (5 percent). There is nothing abnormal in
these dispositional rates.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
30
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
1. Preliminary Hearings
The Court conducts initial appearances and criminal preliminary examinations at
the Jail Service Center in conjunction with the other courts in the County. Prelims are
generally heard twice a week in the afternoons by a district judge. These arrangements
have continued as a result of the unification process a few years ago and do much to
speed front-end felony case management. The magistrate hears in-custody arraignments
at the Service Center every fourth weekend, rotating that assignment with other judicial
officers in the County.
The Court may wish to explore video conferencing in conducting Jail Service
Center matters. The Michigan Judicial Branch has a very open-ended set of policies and
rules regarding remote video hearings and testimony. Two-way interactive video is
permitted between a courtroom and prisoner holding facility or other location in initial
appearances, pretrials, pleas, sentencings for misdemeanors, show cause hearings,
waivers and adjournments of extradition, criminal preliminary examinations, and forensic
determinations of competency. Although the present system appears to work well, it still
requires travel time and a judge off-site during the normal work day. Some backup judge
capacity could be gained and less complicated scheduling would likely result through
video jail hearings. Admittedly, current inhibitors in doing so pertain to courtroom
scheduling difficulties at the County Courthouse and questionable equipment installation
at that facility given a possible move to a new City Courthouse in the immediate future.
Expanded remote video appearances and testimony should definitely be considered in
the move to a new building.
2. Criminal and Traffic
The largest workload for the Court is traffic and criminal cases. The division of
labor between the magistrate and judges in handling this caseflow appears effective; the
magistrate handling fast-paced, short-cause, non-attorney matters conducive to walk-in
services, and the judges concentrating on extended hearings, multi-party cases involving
attorneys and more protracted issues. The magistrate’s calendar includes heavy doses of
minor traffic, namely arraignments and explanations of traffic citations, bench warrants,
first
offense
minor-in-possession
(MIP)
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
cases,
and
traffic/ordinance/criminal
31
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
correspondence.34 He also hears small claims. Two judges, Judge Hines and Judge
Mattson, handle criminal, domestic violence, and homeless calendars. Presiding Judge
Creal handles a large proportion of the traffic calendar in addition to the Sobriety Court,
one of Michigan’s 39 special problem-solving drug courts.
The criminal
pretrial/trial/motion/OSC docket on Tuesday is very lengthy (often 50 matters) as well as
the sentencing/review/OSC docket on Thursday (63 matters set for the morning on
February 7, 2008 as an example).
The volume of cases on these judge-handled criminal and traffic dockets keep
people waiting and cause confusion in the courtroom. It appears much of the problem is
attributable to inadequate courtroom space occasioned by the need to share facilities with
the circuit court, and the necessity to consolidate scheduling to accommodate a limited
number of district court assigned prosecutors. Court leaders are aware of the difficulties
experienced by defendants, attorneys, witnesses and law enforcement officers, but are
banking on the courthouse space in the new Ann Arbor Municipal Center to solve their
space problems.
The prosecutor shortfall is a more systemic problem that needs
documentation and support from the Court to raise it to a more heightened level of
urgency with city and county policymakers. Starting now to do so would be wise;
potentially heading-off a future crisis.
Currently, Court calendaring takes advantage of the specialized skills and
expertise of the three judges on the bench. Judge Hines and Mattson, former prosecutors,
concentrate on criminal and domestic violence matters. Judge Creal, a former civil
litigator focuses on civil, traffic and Sobriety Court. It is a good mix, well received by
prosecutors and defense lawyers. How calendars may change in the future with Judge
Mattson’s impending retirement (late in 2008) and a new judge elected to the bench in
November 2008, will be interesting. Such a change permits the Court to look anew at
34
The number of Minor-in-Possession cases fluctuate dramatically. From August thru November there is a
substantial upswing (100’s per week) due to the arrival of new and returning students for fall classes at the
University of Michigan and a routine, heightened local law enforcement program called “party patrol.”
During the normal course of the year, MIP’s average 15-20 per week. There have been numerous studies
of college student alcohol consumption, including binge drinking. The findings regarding excessive
consumption are somewhat startling and likely account for many of the court’s MIP cases. According to a
series of Harvard University studies (findings may be downloaded from www.hsph.harvard.edu/cas), two
out of five full-time college students are current binge drinkers. One in five is a frequent binge drinker,
with three or more binge drinking episodes in the past two weeks.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
32
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
scheduling practices. In doing so, it is suggested that court leaders canvass the bar and
other interested parties in developing options. There is no magic formula for calendaring,
although ensuring evidence-based caseflow basics are addressed in any new system is
vital. Among them are early and continuous control, nothing off calendar, a reasonably
strict continuance policy, short scheduling (mindful of Michigan’s case processing
standards), and processes to prompt lawyers and/or litigants to be prepared for
meaningful events that move the case toward disposition (events happen when the Court
schedules them). Also, the Court has a good track record of judges substituting for each
other rather than using visiting or pro-tem judges that should be maintained in any new
mix of jurists.
Another important attribute of the Court is the efficient interplay between the
courtroom and Court administration regarding criminal and traffic case processing. Too
often in many courts there is a disconnect between the courtroom and the central records
function. It does not appear to be a problem in Ann Arbor.
An example of this
coordination is the routine practice of records staff pulling tickets for all case types by
defendant for a court appearance. This efficiency is likely to increase further as JIS
realizes its full potential and wireless communications are developed for updating the
case management system from the courtroom.
3. Non-Traffic Civil Infractions and Parking
There are a small number of non-traffic civil infractions (e.g., quality of life
crimes including refuse removal, littering, building codes/permits, excessive noise, dog
violations, etc.) and parking violations processed by the Court. Parking violations issued
in the City of Ann Arbor are handled by the City Treasurer’s Office,35 those issued on
University of Michigan property are processed by the Court. These matters are relatively
easily handled by the Court.
35
In most city limited jurisdiction courts, the court processes parking tickets. In Ann Arbor, however, the
City Treasurer not only processes parking tickets but makes available a parking referee who hears contested
matters. Online and mail-in parking ticket payments are outsourced to a private firm through the
Treasurer’s Office.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
33
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
4. Civil Matters, Including Small Claims
The Court has civil jurisdiction up to $25,000 and small claims jurisdiction to
$3,000. The Fifteenth Judicial District Court parallels other district courts in both types
of matters and resolution trends. The majority of filings range from general civil (2,034)
to landlord-tenant (1,105) and then to small claims (812). The greatest amount of formal
court time (e.g., trials) spent in resolving them is just the reverse, small claims required
161 bench trials, landlord-tenant 23 bench trails and general civil 12 bench or jury trials.
General civil matters required more time per trial given the more complicated issues and
higher stakes.
The civil staff is among the smallest units in Court administration. Recently, all
but the supervisor left the Department due to a retirement and a resignation for a new
position outside the Court. It was recently learned that the supervisor, a 20 year plus
employee, will be retiring in late 2008. Hiring and training a new cadre of staff in the
Department is a principal concern of the moment. The procedural manuals for the
Department look to be in good order and the supervisor is extremely dedicated and a
willing teacher. We don’t expect any complications in incorporating replacement staff.
It is advisable, however, that a larger group of employees be cross-trained in civil
processes to backfill and assist as necessary in covering the work of the unit. This
apparently is planned through an amalgamation of criminal/traffic and civil. We
concur with this reorganization.
Caseflow processes are streamlined in civil and appear to work well. The average
time to disposition is within statewide standards. The attorney magistrate handles all
small claims.
5. Problem-Solving Courts
A distinguishing feature of the Court is its array of “diagnostic” or problemsolving dockets, including a Sobriety Court, Street Outreach (Homeless) Court, Domestic
Violence Program, and special MIP dockets. They are well developed, results oriented,
and efficient; ranking as some of the best we have seen among limited jurisdiction courts.
Like the DV program, the Sobriety Court program is quite advanced and it is one
of 39 such courts operating at the district court level in Michigan. The Fifteenth District
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
34
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Sobriety Court targets repeat drinking drivers36 and first-time offenders who are serious
alcohol abusers or addicted to alcohol and other drugs. The program, initiated in October
2004 and overseen by Chief Judge Creal, has a capacity of 100-120 clients monitored by
one probation agent (Steve Hill).
probationers.
Mr. Hill’s caseload generally ranges from 55-70
A Sobriety Court Panel, meeting weekly, recommends to the Court
admissions to the program and movement by a participant from one phase to the next
over an 18 to 24 month period.37
The program is intended as an alternative to
incarceration. Consequently, it is very intensively administered. Meetings, drug testing,
community service and behavior modification are strictly monitored. It has an 85 percent
completion rate as opposed to similar national programs which average 65 percent.38
National studies confirm drug court clients generally have lower recidivism rates (2-16
percent) as opposed to substance abusers sent to jail (60 percent).39 There is little dispute
among
substance
abuse
researchers
that
blending
long-term
treatment
with
accountability, immediacy, and certainty of court response works more effectively than
punishment alone.
Sobriety Court is held on Friday mornings.
Probationers in Phase One
(stabilization and treatment) are scheduled for review every two to three weeks before
Judge Creal. Successful probationers who move to Phase Two and Three appear in court
less frequently. Each case heard is discussed the previous day by the Sobriety Court
Panel in a noon meeting with the judge. Consequently, court sessions are informal and
non-adversarial, focused on the behavior and accountability of the defendant. A typical
courtroom interaction appears more conversational and paternal than legalistic:
Judge: Mr. Smith, How are your meetings going?
Smith: Fine, Judge. I haven’t missed any. I got my GED, so my family is happy,
and I’ll have a year of sobriety on the 28th of this month.
36
Most offenders referred to the program have a minimum of two drunk driving arrests within the most
recent seven years.
37
The Panel consists of the judge, probation agent, court coordinator, county prosecutor, city attorney,
defense lawyer, prevention services representative and treatment providers. There are three phases: Phase
One (3 months): stabilization and treatment; Phase Two (6 months): healthy living plan; and Phase Three
(12-18 months): giving back to the community component.
38
National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP).
39
U.S Department of Justice, National Criminal Justice Research Service. Recidivism is measured by
rearrest within one year as defined by the filing of a drug or alcohol related charge within one year of
program completion.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
35
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Judge: That’s great, I’m proud of you. Just keep your eye on the ball. Would
you like to move to Phase Two today?
Smith: Yes, your Honor.
Judge:
If you come forward, I’ll give you your certificate for successfully
completing Phase One and entering Phase Two. You’re doing well.
[audience applauds]
The Street Outreach Court, developed by Judge Hines in 2006, assists homeless
people (or those at risk of becoming homeless) who have demonstrated their commitment
to working with community service programs to resolve outstanding civil infractions and
non-violent misdemeanor charges, including warrants.
Such charges can bar the
homeless from employment, public housing, and government-entitled benefits as well as
subject them to arrest, jail time, and increased fines if caught. The Court is held outside
the courthouse where access for clients is easier. Cases are resolved through an “action
plan” requiring specific behaviors on the part of the participant to ameliorate the charge
against him/her and improve their life situation. During the last 12 months, over 200
cases have been heard and resolved.
A special Domestic Violence Docket has also been operated by the Court since
1996. In 1998 the Court, the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office, a law enforcement
agency and Safe House Center40 received a Federal grant to promote a coordinated
response to domestic violence among the Court, County and City criminal justice
agencies through more intense judicial oversight of DV cases. In 1999 the Fifteenth
Judicial District Court and other district courts in Washtenaw County were selected by
the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Violence Against Women, as one of three sites
in the country to test what works best in cases of domestic violence. The Court and other
community partners were part of a five-year Judicial Oversight Demonstration Initiative
(JODI) along with courts in Dorchester (Boston), Massachusetts and Milwaukee,
Wisconsin using frequent judicial reviews of domestic violence cases.
Over the last decade, the Court’s commitment to highlight and address domestic
violence has remained strong.
The Fifteenth Judicial District Court is recognized
40
Safe House Center is a non-profit, non-governmental shelter for victims of domestic violence in
Washtenaw County, Michigan.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
36
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
statewide and nationally for its best practices in the area of domestic violence. Currently,
the Court and the other district courts in Washtenaw County have a Federal grant
through 2009 to help maintain their specialized domestic violence dockets.
Probation officers specially trained in domestic violence dynamics more intensely
monitor convicted offenders. Victim safety and offender accountability are paramount.
The district court judges view effective handling of domestic violence cases as homicide
prevention.
Lastly, the Court has structured a Minors-In-Possession (MIP) docket to address
cyclical increases in citations due to college student enrollment patterns and to provide
information about binge drinking, alcohol poisoning and other issues relevant to the
student population. During the beginning of the fall trimester (August to November),
increased numbers of university students engage in binge and experimental drinking both
on and off campus. Law enforcement agencies operate at higher patrol levels (dubbed
“party patrol”) resulting in large numbers of citations. MIP case filings in the fall can
reach 150 per week; normal levels throughout the remainder of the year average 15-20
per week. Court calendars are adjusted to accommodate the influx of cases.
The Michigan MIP law41 is one of the nation’s toughest. If a first-time offender
elects to plead guilty, the statute allows the Court without entering a judgment of guilt, to
defer further proceedings and place the offender on probation with terms that include
payment of fines and costs and completion of a substance abuse prevention/treatment
program. The Court maintains a non-public record of the arrest and plea, and sends
duplicate information to the Secretary of State which is held in a non-public file. If the
deferral is not successful, a conviction is entered for the first offense. For a second or
third offense, fines increase, license suspension is mandatory, jail time is possible and a
misdemeanor conviction is recorded.
The development and continuation of these four problem-solving tribunals move
the Court beyond the traditional goals of the judicial system to address underlying
chronic, destructive behaviors and larger disruptive social issues. Two elements are
essential in this enlightened, outcome-based approach to justice. First, a bench that is
willing and confident to push past the fixed roles for limited jurisdiction courts. And
41
“Any bodily alcohol” is a violation of the minor in possession law.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
37
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
secondly, a progressive Probation Department skilled in recommending, monitoring and
enforcing conditions of probation. Outside Michigan, few lower courts exhibit such
capabilities. Inside Michigan, it is our conclusion that not many do it as well as the
District Court in Ann Arbor.
Depending on funding and community problems, two other types of limited
jurisdiction diagnostic or therapeutic courts/dockets may be of interest to the Court’s
leadership for future development. Mental Health courts target minor criminal and traffic
offenses committed by people with mental illness. An arrest provides a gateway to court
overseen treatment.
Cases are dismissed or charges reduced based upon successful
diversion, essentially compliance with corrective behavior plans and medication regimens
overseen by the Probation Department in collaboration with mental health professionals.
Limited jurisdiction courts in Tempe (AZ), Seattle (WA), and Broward County (FL) with
special mental health dockets report reductions in jail admissions, fewer re-arrests, less
recycling of known mentally ill defendants through the criminal justice system, and more
long-lasting treatment success for clients under court directive and probation
monitoring.42
Quality-of-Life Courts, modeled after New York City’s Midtown Community
Court, are also growing in number and effectiveness in many urban settings. They deal
with low level, “victimless” offenses such as disorderly conduct, prostitution, panhandling, littering, housing code violations, shoplifting, and graffiti. The argument to
address these offenses aggressively is based on the view that if left unchecked and
unaddressed, community pride diminishes, apathy and neglect grow, and more serious
crimes result. Most of these courts are in older, larger cities where urban decay is
widespread.
Ann Arbor appears not to suffer the same urban blight and offense
problems, although given the current housing crisis, significant rental property, a
transient college population, and disorderly conduct and littering at and around college
sporting events, Court and City leaders may want to keep a watchful eye on victimless
crime trends, learn more about how coordinated court, law enforcement, neighborhood
and city government programs can address community betterment, and experiment with
such a specialty docket.
42
National Center for State Courts research reports.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
38
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
D.
Final Report
Technology Improvements
A dramatic enhancement in technology for the Court has been the recent
migration to a new electronic case and cash management system, the state-developed
Judicial Information System (JIS).
Work processes have become more efficient,
management reports are more useful and timely, and system features (e.g., jury
management, courtroom data entry, collections, Internet customer service, etc.) are more
robust.43 The Court has also embraced digitized audio and video courtroom recording
which has enhanced cost-effectiveness.
The strategic decisions to move in these
directions are wise and consistent with future trends.
1. New Judicial Information System (Case, Cash, Jury)
JIS is a 20 year old legacy system tied to an IBM AS/400 platform and COBAL
software. AS/400 technology, introduced by IBM in 1988, has been updated over the last
two decades and supports both client-server and web-based applications. Next generation
JIS (Next-Gen) is under development, moving the entire system to a Microsoft .NET
environment. UNISYS is the selected development vendor using an established court
case management framework pioneered in Western Australia. Systems development will
take approximately 42-48 months; a civil module will be programmed first (12 months),
followed sequentially by criminal (12 months), juvenile (12 months), and probate (4
months). Once Next-Gen is operational, the source code will be owned by the Michigan
Judicial Branch enabling the SCAO Technology Group to support and modify it as
necessary. New system hardware will be centrally hosted by JIS in Lansing.
Even though JIS is a dated system, it is robust and functionally well-developed for
district courts. It has been routinely modified and improved over the years by the SCAO
technology group. Although the system serves both small and large general and limited
jurisdiction courts statewide, it is especially useful for district courts. It supports FTP
interfaces with law enforcement allowing uploads of citation data in paperless electronic
form from automated ticket writers, promising significant data entry workload reductions
for the Court should such interchanges be effectuated. The Ann Arbor Police Department
43
NCSC’s District Court workforce survey indicated overwhelming staff support for the new JIS case and
cash management solution, especially regarding its ability to streamline routine workflow processes.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
39
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
and the Washtenaw County Sheriff’s Department use the Courts and Law Enforcement
Management Information System(CLEMIS), a Michigan system developed by a
consortium of state public safety agencies. CLEMIS can accommodate FTP uploads
although system architects prefer to transmit data to courts through a web-based protocol.
Should these preference problems be resolved at the state level between JIS and
CLEMIS, redundant data entry and greater efficiency would certainly result for all
district court sites, including Ann Arbor.
JIS has recently automated more broad-scoped management information data on
disposition and time guidelines by case type which is helpful at the district court level,
especially regarding “Part IV” statistics related to delay reduction. Pay-by-web and
default collections features of JIS have streamlined both current and delinquent traffic
fine payments. The jury management module has increased functionality in scheduling
and overseeing jurors.44 As Next-Gen JIS is programmed, it is expected that Internet
customer features commonly available in other states will be incorporated, including, but
not limited to, juror postponements/excusals/orientation/payments, interactive forms and
instructions for the self-represented (a proprietary, commercial Internet software package
called TurboCourt, marketed by Intersys, Inc., is currently available for small claims
forms preparation on a customer fee-for-service basis), and e-filing.
A short-term downside in moving to JIS for the Court has been the lack of
computer inter-connectability with the other trial courts in the County.
NCSC
consultants were advised, however, that a shift by District Courts 14A, 14B, and the
Circuit Court to JIS is likely to take place in the near future. This would hold positive
benefits for all courts.
2.
Courtroom Recordkeeping
District Court adjudication proceedings are recorded using FTR Gold digital
audio equipment and JAVS video transcript systems (e.g., voice-activated courtroom
44
Jurors in Michigan are qualified by a special, separate Jury Board. The County Circuit Clerk’s Office
then summons jurors for all trial courts in the county, assigning lists to each court.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
40
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
video cameras). Both are very good approaches and position the Court well for a more
advanced use of this technology in the future.45
Today, computer technology and digital video chips combine to allow for
computer network based cameras to be used in nearly all situations. Digital video
cameras use wired or wireless (Wi-Fi) computer network connections to transmit their
pictures to video displays for video conferencing and/or digital video recording.
Basically, the camera is the image source and the computer is the receiver. The computer
can then display, record, or do both with the video signal. In other words, traditional
video-conferencing and video court recording systems are no longer stand-alone, separate
technologies but have converged in the camera and software running on a PC or network
server. This is the direction that the District Court should consider moving in the future.
Further, a digital video camera can be powered through a computer network using
power-over-ethernet (PoE) technology.46 If the proper network router equipment with
PoE technology is installed, the camera can receive electrical power through the same
wire as the data is transmitted, thus eliminating the need for a second direct electrical
connection with a separate electrical conduit.
Video-conferencing technology has also been making the transition from analog
cameras connected to ISDN telephone lines to digital IP based systems. This allows for
both dedicated video conferencing and personal computer video conferencing to co-exist
and inter-operate. It also allows video-conferencing signals to travel over the same
computer networks that data travels, greatly reducing operating costs by eliminating
costly ISDN (digital) telephone calls to connect systems with city, county or state
networks. This inter-operability and increase in capability can greatly benefit the Court.
For example, judges can easily hold group video conferences in their chambers via their
personal computer and then go into the courtroom to use the multi-camera system to
make a record via video conference with an in-custody defendant at the Jail Service
Center. In the not-too-distant future, it will be technically feasible for a law enforcement
45
Some courts using these technologies have gone to a central control room with a certified court recorder
monitoring and facilitating the record in more than one courtroom to save cost and manpower. An example
is the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County which has over 50 e-courtrooms.
46
For more on power-over-ethernet technology see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power over Ethernet.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
41
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
officer to appear in the courtroom via wireless video conference from a remote location if
they were not able to attend a hearing in person.
E.
Reliability and Integrity of Case Files
Fairness, equality and integrity depend, in part, on the accuracy, availability and
accessibility of court records, whether in paper or electronic form. These records include
data needed for inquiry such as indexes, dockets, case information statements, and
various registers of action, as well as documents associated with the facts, arguments and
rulings in particular cases that make up the official files such as verbatim records of the
proceedings.
Although the NCSC consultants did not physically review case files, given the
structured processes and procedures followed by office and judicial staff they did
observe, they have no reason to conclude paper records maintained by Court are
inaccurate. Judicial branch records management standards appear to be followed as well;
older records being moved to long-term storage and eventual destruction through
shredding47 and computer and paper records were seen to be congruent.48
There were concerns by some that occasionally case files were missing or hard to
find within the Court. Some of the dislocations may be attributed to the off-site location
of the Probation Department, a heavy user of files, or records transit between judicial
staff and the Court’s administration office. It may be worthwhile for Court leaders to
tighten file check-out procedures although caution is urged to avoid undue, onerous
burdens of file users. Some courts have bar coded file jackets, logging files in and out of
a file room by scanning them against a unique identifier (often another bar code) on the
requester’s personal court identification badge. This procedure, of course, works best
when a permanently assigned file room clerk monitors the process and active files are
centrally and securely located. It is expected that such a system would be part of the new
city courthouse.
47
The Court recently purchased its own shredding machine and has an older records storage room in the
basement where records are routinely staged for destruction.
48
Congruence of data between computer and paper files is a key measure regarding the overall quality of a
court’s recordkeeping system.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
42
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
F.
Final Report
Financial Operations
Limited jurisdiction courts nationwide handle hundreds of millions of dollars
annually in fines, fees, and costs; most often in small amounts. As such, effective
internal accounting and audit controls are a critical feature of daily court business.
1. Cash Management and Accounting
The Judicial Information System (JIS) in use by the Court provides a series of
automated internal safeguards in tracking money and case records that streamline,
standardize, and pinpoint data and information changes. Daily receipts are deposited
through cash registers that are tied to the JIS database. Payments are summarized and
transmitted to the City Treasurer for recording in the City’s general ledger accounts.
The Court utilizes its own depository and trust accounts. Daily receipts are
deposited to the bond and trust accounts.
Amounts in the depository account are
transmitted monthly to the City Treasurer and the state of Michigan.
A monthly
summary is sent to the City Treasury for recording in the City’s general ledger.49
The Michigan Judicial Branch has a detailed list of requirements and procedures
published in the Michigan Court Administration Reference Guide governing the
processing, receipting, modifying, updating, reporting and accounting for monies and
case modifications to ensure procedural transparency and data integrity. An independent
audit was recently conducted by Abraham & Gaffney, P.C. (September 11, 2007) using
the Reference Guide. Twenty-one weaknesses and deficiencies were outlined50; the
Court subsequently took corrective action to address each of the findings. The most
pervasive shortcomings appear to emanate from staffing levels, either too few personnel
to permit needed workflow separation in internal accounting duties from time-to-time or
supervisors performing line employee functions in lieu of monitoring and verifying their
work.
Cross training, workflow adjustments and some selective reorganization of
affected work units are appropriate solutions. All in all, we find the remedies proposed
49
Internal Audit Report, Fifteenth District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1, 2006 through June 30,
2007, Abraham & Gaffney, P.C., 3511 Coolidge Road, Suite 100, East Lansing, MI 48823, dated:
9/11/2007.
50
Abraham & Gaffney advised that the Fifteenth Judicial District Court had the second-lowest number of
deficiencies among all district courts in Michigan; the lowest number of auditing deficiencies was 18.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
43
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
by the Court fitting and consistent with standard accounting practices for similar
limited jurisdiction courts in other states. It is suggested, however, that Court leaders
consider doing another financial audit within the next 18 months due to the large
number of new case and cash management changes introduced over the past year. In
large measure, it would be prudent to do so since the Court has been in such a state of
flux recently regarding new processes.
2. Debtflow Processes
The National Center views court debt collection as a workflow (debtflow)
progression; unpaid obligations moving over time from initial delinquency to aged debt
where payments may languish for many months or years without resolution. Just as
caseflow management has demonstrated that successfully attacking the problem of court
delay is to clear backlogged cases first, and then methodically reshape and improve the
flow of cases from filing to disposition, so is it true with debtflow. The District Court has
started to take that tack by taking a few thousand older civil infraction cases which are at
least 60 days past due followed by misdemeanor cases.51 Mailers have been devised after
reviewing samples from other courts and general guidelines outlined by the SCAO. The
Court’s methodical, research-based approach to instituting a permanent collections
program is wise in avoiding volume and processing problems attendant to such an effort
when it is hastily implemented.
It is suggested that Court officials consider formally committing to an assertive
posture in collecting financial sentences by issuing a written statement or local
administrative order that affirms it is the policy of the Court to expect payment-in-full
at sentencing. This expectation should be consistently communicated to all defendants
through various escalating streams of formal communications and penalties sent to
them after a violation(s). In many instances, state uniform law citation forms are openended enough to allow local courts and law enforcement agencies the ability to institute
special collection techniques beginning with the issuance of the citation itself. Notices
used by many limited jurisdiction courts nationwide that have proven effective are listed
51
JIS provides a well developed collections module which the Court is using. The Court administrator
estimates that there is $1.3-$1.4 million dollars in debt to be collected by the court dating back to calendar
year 2000 and representing some 4,000 cases.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
44
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
below. Some of these suggestions may already be in process. Some that are not may
require statewide policy, modifications to JIS, City Council action, or procedural changes
in the Court’s workflow. We encourage their serious consideration.
•
Bail Envelope – Provided when a violation is issued by a police officer; often
related to municipal police departments that issue most of the court’s citations
and write into just one court (e.g., Ann Arbor Police Department). It contains
the standard fine amounts for common violations, criteria for attending court
diversion programs and instructions for paying fines by mail, phone or web,
and how to request a trial/hearing date. Many courts have found that
providing a self-addressed envelope and written information about options,
cited offenders are more prone to pay.
•
Court Reminder Notice – Mailed to the defendant when a violation is filed
with the court. The notice summarizes the amount that may be paid without
appearing in court, the scheduled court date, and payment options including
Web and IVR instructions. Many courts do not take this step since they view
it as an extra expense. Collection research data, however, indicates that a
reminder notice such as this one elicits a significant response in admissions of
responsibility or guilt and payment without a court appearance. Caseflow
management processes have a corollary in prompting early disposition by
promoting not only early and continuous control, but short scheduling as well.
•
Consistent Verbal Instructions to Defendants regarding Fine Payments –
Court staff in answering questions from defendants and judicial officers in
giving instructions from the bench when the violation is adjudicated must be
consistent. In many courts, central office staff and judges give conflicting or
confused messages to defendants about fine payments. To the credit of some
courts, judges and staff have carefully reviewed practices to ensure
miscommunications are minimized.
•
Fine Payment Sentencing Details Assigned to Court Staff – Various limited
jurisdiction courts have delegated responsibility for determining payment
terms to court staff upon sentencing, reducing the time a defendant spends
before a judge and permitting the staff to conduct a thorough interview
regarding payment options, ability to pay, and details of a deferred payment
plan if such is warranted. It has improved efficiency greatly by delegating
detailed, time consuming discussions on financial compliance to a “side bar”
discussion in a room adjacent to the courtroom with a financial enforcement
screener. (It is suggested that the Court and City consider configuring the new
city courthouse with fines payment processing rooms immediately adjoining
selected courtrooms). If payment terms cannot be agreed upon between the
staff and the defendant, the defendant has the right to see a judge or magistrate
to resolve the impasse. There are very few impasses according to Phoenix
officials, who have used this approach for sometime, and a much smoother,
efficient caseflow in the courtroom. Phoenix did have to secure a special
statutory provision, however, which may or may not be necessary in Michigan
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
45
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
(A.R.S. §13-808: “A. If a defendant is sentenced to pay a fine alone or in
addition to any other sentence, the court or a probation officer or a staff
member designated by the court may grant permission for payment to be made
within a specific period of time or in specified installments. If no such
permission is embodied in the sentence the fine shall be payable
immediately.”)
•
Staff Interview with Sentenced Defendant Immediately after Court
Appearance – Conducted when a defendant requests a deferred (time)
payment plan. Defendant completes a court provided financial profile listing
his/her assets (bank accounts, vehicles, and property), income, and expenses.
The defendant must provide a social security number which may be used for
escalated collection efforts if the account becomes delinquent. A credit
bureau report is conducted. Payment-in-full is required by the close of
business on the day of request if the defendant has available credit on a major
credit card.52 Finally, employer or parent information (if defendant is a
minor) is collected in case the defendant cannot be contacted at his home
address or telephone numbers.
•
Payment Reminder Notice – A computer generated notice automatically
mailed 14 days before a payment plan due date. The reminder notice lists all
the standard payment options, including web/IVR, mail, and a payment dropbox at a City Hall location.
•
Delinquency Letter – A computer generated letter mailed when a scheduled
payment is five business days late. The letter demands payment-in-full,
advises the defendant of the consequences of failure to make payment, and
lists all the standard payment options.
•
Telephone Calls – More aggressive action taken by many limited jurisdiction
courts when first-level prompts do not work include phone calls to defendants
by either a designated delinquents’ accounts staff member or out-bound
calling service (according to a monitored script) between 10 and 30 days
delinquent. In such actions, each delinquent account can get five to seven
telephone calls at varying stages of delinquency. Outbound calling must be
performed outside normal business hours in compliance with the Fair Debt
Collection Practice Act (FDCPA).
•
Tougher Court-Generated Sanctions – For those defendants who are
delinquent over 30 days on criminal or misdemeanor fine payments, an order
to show cause summons or petition to revoke probation through the
prosecutor’s office for failure to pay financial sentences can be issued. If a
defendant fails to appear, the court can then issue a warrant.
•
Statewide Sanctions – Many states have implemented penalties for nonpayment of court fines, fees and costs that include suspension of a defendant’s
52
Many courts have a “time payment culture,” deferring first to monthly installment payments rather than
payment-in-full. More successful, efficient court collection operations expect full payment and only move
to time payments for good cause as a secondary option.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
46
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
ability to annually renew vehicle license tabs (vehicle registration via the
Motor Vehicle Department), and debt set-off programs intercepting state
income tax refunds and state lottery winnings to pay court ordered financial
sentences. Michigan already uses a drivers license suspension program, a
common sanction in many states, through the Secretary of State.
•
G.
Local Law Enforcement Sanctions – An increasing number of courts have
persuaded local law enforcement agencies to assign officers to serve failure to
pay warrants in criminal and misdemeanor cases. Open, walk-in calendars
must be available during normal business hours with court staff assistance to
pull records and work up financial histories to accommodate warrant officers
with in-custody defendants. Technology has enhanced these approaches in
some cities (e.g., Philadelphia as an example) by equipping city refuse
collection trucks with electronic, wireless license plate reading devices to alert
parking authorities to the location of scofflaw vehicles for booting and/or
towing.
Probation Programs and Management
The goals of the Court’s Probation Department are well structured and realistic:
to ensure judicial orders are followed, to confront issues causing a defendant’s unlawful
behavior, to promote prevention, to reduce recidivism, to restore victims, to promote
community service, and to support safe, legal probationer behavior. Court and City
officials are like-minded in endorsing restorative justice where sentencing addresses not
only the defendant and offense, but the victim and community as well. Victims may
make statements in court and/or talk with probation agents about defendant
consequences.
The Department conducts pre-sentence investigations, including background
checks, psychological and social evaluations, and makes treatment recommendations.
PSI’s are consistent with sentencing guidelines developed by the probation Department
and approved by the judges.
Caseloads are high; sometimes reaching 160 clients per agent. A mitigating
factor, however, is that supervision is not overly complicated and many less intensive
terms of probation are six months or less. Appointments are either by phone or in-office
visits lasting 30 minutes or less.
Every agent reviews his/her caseload monthly,
monitoring court order compliance (e.g., no alcohol, no drugs, and attendance at
prescribed treatment programs), restitution and community service. Probation violations
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
47
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
are promptly referred to the Court for remedial action, normally graduated sentencing
which may include some incarceration. Maximum probation duration is five years for
Stalking and two years for all other offenses. The Court’s typical practice is to maintain
probation status for two years for Domestic Violence and Sobriety Court offenders, and
six months to one year for all other offenders.
Success is said to be measured by quick turnaround from sentencing to treatment,
judicial satisfaction with monitoring and compliance, number of successful discharges,
and restitution, fines and costs paid. Little information was available, however, on the
number of cases closed with or without improvement, or the recidivism rates (arrest for a
similar or more serious offense within a specified time, usually a year after probation is
terminated). Based on observations and data regarding the organization of programs and
compliance with recognized, evidence-based treatment standards, the NCSC project team
concludes the recidivism rate is likely low.
It is suggested that the Probation
Department randomly sample terminated cases to gather data on recidivism rates.
NCSC consultants were impressed with the stand-alone electronic case-tracking
system used by the Department. The system was exceptionally user friendly, providing
substantial informative data to the agent on individual cases.
A considerable improvement for the Department will be its eventual co-location
with the Court in courthouse space in the new Ann Arbor Municipal Center. A complaint
voiced by probation staff, which largely should be solved in a new building, is the
propensity to lose or misplace routine Court paperwork in transit between the Court and
the Department’s current off-site location. This concern refers only to routine operational
documents. Probation Department client files are confidential by statute and, if moved to
the courthouse, are always in the custody of a probation officer who returns the Probation
file immediately. Court case files are never removed from the courthouse.
H.
Justice System Collaborations
Michigan district courts are part of a complex justice system structure;
accountable in different, but complementary ways to both the state judicial branch and
city government. As part of Michigan’s integrated state court system, the district court is
clearly obligated by law, precedent and administrative orders to function as an
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
48
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
independent tribunal. The popular elections of district court judges reinforce that fact.53
Concurrently, the Court also has a duty and responsibility to City government, which
provides the majority of the Court’s funding and infrastructure needs (e.g., furnishings,
fixtures, equipment, buildings, security, etc.), to operate as efficiently and collaboratively
with city policy-makers and agencies as possible.
The NCSC consultants are impressed with the smooth and complementary
functioning of City, County and Court operations. Interviews and historical research
indicate a high level of mutual respect among government leaders, especially between the
City of Ann Arbor and the District Court.54
1. Ann Arbor City Government
Ann
Arbor
City
Government
prides
itself
55
services…“through the intelligent use of resources….”
in
providing
excellent
To that end, municipal leaders
have streamlined city government since 2001 by trimming City staff 20 percent with no
noticeable operational performance decline.56
City management has encouraged the
Court to explore improvements in its business processing systems through the infusion of
technology (e.g., video and audio transcript, wireless networking, probation case
automation, etc.), more streamlined workflow, and job reengineering. In many respects,
the Court has willingly and critically done so; this third party operational review is an
example.
Court revenue forecasts have become more reliable. The new JIS system has
automated manual work in many areas. Non-judicial staffing levels57 have dropped from
41 FTE positions a few years ago to 36 FTE positions today, a 12 percent decline while
workload levels have remained static.
53
Although courts at all jurisdictional levels must operate both independently and interdependently with
executive and legislative branches, the distinction in roles and functions is clearer in Michigan limited
jurisdiction courts where the 254 district judges are elected. In numerous states (e.g., New Jersey, Arizona,
Washington, Colorado, etc.) city, municipal, or district judges are appointed by city or county councils. In
those situations, the doctrine of separation of powers—a bedrock organizational principle of American
Constitutional Democracy - is more subject to confusion and misunderstanding.
54
Two City Council members are currently among the leading candidates for Judge Mattson’s position
upon her retirement in December 2008.
55
City’s mission statement in part.
56
Roger Fraser, City Administrator.
57
Does not include three judges and one attorney magistrate
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
49
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
A new dimension in the Court-City partnership is in the making with the planned
construction of the new five-story, $36.3 million courts and police building project. Even
though planning has reached detailed design and construction phases, continued
collaboration between the Court and City can lead to added flexibility and efficiencies
through new technology (e.g., way-finding, kiosk check-in and computerized video
queuing of appearances in court, enhanced video conferencing, etc.), security, flexible
building use for optional evening court sessions and/or staggered probation
office/program hours, collegial chambers, and a better, more efficient central office
configuration for both internal workflow and customer service.
All in all, the City and Court appear to have a very positive, respectful
relationship. The judges are sensitive to the issues faced by municipal leaders, and
comments by City officials lead us to conclude they are proud of the work of the Court.
Two suggestions, however, the Court may wish to pursue that have been found useful
by others in boosting communication with city councils and city administration are (a)
“ride along” programs for City leaders to review adjudication processes first-hand by
shadowing a judge, including observing pre-court discussions, paperwork, files, and
disposition recommendations, as well as sitting with a judge on the bench, and
debriefing afterwards, and (b) annual State of the Court reports highlighting
caseloads, new initiatives and future directions, complete with a formal presentation to
the council at a public meeting.58
2. Ann Arbor Police Department and County Sheriff
Since jurisdiction for the Fifteenth Judicial District Court is concurrent with Ann
Arbor City boundaries59, Ann Arbor Police Department (AAPD) is the primary law
enforcement agency channeling work to the Court. To a lesser extent, the Washtenaw
County Sheriff’s Department and University of Michigan Department of Public Safety
also cite matters into the Court.
58
A structured, long-term program of education about the Court for City officials, we submit, would be
especially helpful in Ann Arbor since the City Council is large (10 members), their terms are short (2
years), and District Court adjudication processes are sophisticated and often misunderstood.
59
The Court, with the consent of the State Court Administrative Office and by agreement with the chief
judges of surrounding district courts, exercises jurisdiction outside of the city limits of Ann Arbor,
Michigan in certain limited circumstances.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
50
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Generally, most working relationships between municipal courts and their
respective police departments are harmonious. Such is, indeed, the case in Ann Arbor.
In an interview with AAPD Chief of Police Barnett Jones, he indicated no major
difficulties or problems with the Court. He is hopeful, however, in a move to a new
court/police building that it may be possible to reduce police overtime expenses with
improved scheduling, expanded video appearances, and the possibility of a night court.60
An indication of the cordial working relationship between the Court and police is
the recently introduced Citizens’ Police and Court Academy, the first of its kind in
Michigan. The Academy is a 10-week program educating the public about the criminal
justice system, ways to resist and prevent crime, and the two faces of justice—
preservation of order and protection of rights.
Washtenaw County Sheriff Dan Minzey declares his agency enjoys a productive,
workable relationship with the District Court as well, although interactions with them are
largely limited to hearings at the Jail Service Center, and County Courthouse screening
and security. Interaction with the Court will be less after their move to a new building.
Areas of interest the Sheriff hopes will improve include expanded video
appearances between the jail and courthouses to reduce inmate transport needs, and more
visible progress toward electronic data sharing among separate criminal justice
information systems.
In tracking a piece of paper from law enforcement to final
disposition in the court system a few years ago, Sheriff Minzey mentioned he was
amazed to learn the same data element (e.g., name, charge, address, arresting officer,
DOB, etc.) was entered into various databases as many as seven different times.
3. County of Washtenaw
County Administrator Robert Guenzel was complimentary noting that although
there have been occasional tensions between the County and City in leasing and
modifying County Courthouse space for the district court, the relationship has been very
professional and cordial. A particularly productive area, he said, has been the work of a
60
In the latest FY, AAPD was $267K over budget in sworn officer overtime expenses; only a small portion
attributed to court appearances. Chief Jones noted it would be difficult to save substantial amounts of
money in court appearances since the judges are already very accommodating, requiring officers only to be
present at necessary court events to give testimony.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
51
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
Criminal Justice Collaborative Council, a monthly forum of County and Court leaders
targeting systemwide improvements in such areas as jail overcrowding, reducing
recidivism and promoting multi-agency technology solutions.
4. Michigan State Court Administrator’s Office
In a state where courts are locally-funded by cities and counties, all circuit and
district judges stand for popular election, and much of the infrastructure—including
human resource systems, non-judicial salaries, facilities, security, local area networks,
records management, financial and accounting systems—is dependent on or controlled by
local government; Michigan has a relatively strong, vibrant State Court Administrative
Office (SCAO). The SCAO is constitutionally commissioned to assist the Supreme
Court in the day-to-day management of the judicial branch as a unified organization. The
staff is very professional, and their work quite valuable, especially regarding trial court
coordinating services such as information systems, caseflow policies, statistics and
assistance, family and children programs pertaining to adjudication, public information,
alternative dispute resolution services and training, in-service education, and legislative
lobbying.
The SCAO has been more heavily involved with the Fifteenth Judicial District
Court in recent years due largely to their decision to transition from a “homegrown” case
and cash management system (ENACT) to JIS. Roughly, 65 percent of the district courts
in the state are using JIS. SCAO senior staff considers the installation of JIS in Ann
Arbor to be well done; indicative of effective pre-planning and a well run court.
A significant effort underway at the Court currently involving SCAO help and
advice is an enhanced collections effort. Forms, instructions, and technical assistance
have been supplied by SCAO staff, although decisions about the nature and organization
of the effort are vested with local court leaders.
The relationship between the SCAO and District Court’s leadership appears very
balanced, affording both flexibility and autonomy for the trial court and coordinated and
standardized performance at the statewide level. Generally, collaboration between a
central state judicial office and local trial courts is more productive where information
flow is intense, local courts are smaller and more homogeneous in structure, size and
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
52
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
function, and individual trial court capabilities, funding and services are limited. Such is
the case with the Fifteenth Judicial District Court. Nationally, there tends to be less of a
symbiotic relationship between an SCAO and trial courts where information flow is
limited, the courts are larger in structure, size and function with numerous, specialized
staff, and local funding is robust.
5. Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court (Washtenaw County Trial Court)
The general jurisdiction court in Washtenaw County is the Twenty-Second Circuit
Court with five circuit judges and two probate judges, all officing at the County
Courthouse. Despite the aborted attempt at unification among the district and circuit
courts in the County a few years ago, relationships between the benches and staffs are
businesslike and professional. A caseflow change remaining from the short-lived merger
is the larger role played by the district courts in front-end felony processing (e.g., first
appearance matters, criminal preliminary examinations and felony criminal plea-taking)
to help reduce jail overcrowding. Pretrial jail days, as a result, have been reduced by
about 40 days per felony case.61
There are no formal, scheduled meetings among the chief judges of the circuit and
district courts. Likewise, the non-judicial administrative leaders of those courts do not
routinely meet either.
An elected County Clerk functions as clerk to the circuit court as well as handling
numerous other public record-keeping functions, including register of deeds, vital
statistics and licenses (e.g., birth and death records, marriage licenses, passports, notary
public, business records, etc.), elections, juror qualifications, property tax records and
secretariat to the County Board. The Clerk has a separate Clerk of Court Division
providing standard courtroom support services to the circuit bench. The probate, juvenile
and family (Friend of the Court) court support staff work directly for the circuit court
administrator. Adult probation is a function of the Michigan Department of Corrections
and has offices in the County Courthouse.
Circuit court leaders plan to relocate juvenile court adjudication functions to the
County Courthouse when the District Court moves to a new city facility in a few years. It
61
Dan Dwyer, Trial Court Administrator, 22nd Circuit Court of Michigan.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
53
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
is likely that substantial remodeling will be necessary in doing so since juvenile and adult
site and sound separation is required for in-custody delinquency and felony defendants.
It is also understandable that before the District Court vacates the Courthouse, County
officials will be extremely reluctant to make any further building modifications on their
behalf unless it is consistent with future plans for the building.62
Although relationships appear to be gracious among general and limited
jurisdiction courts in the County, it is somewhat unusual there isn’t a more formal,
legitimized structure to promote continued coordination among the courts themselves. In
many parts of the country, the chief judge of the general jurisdiction court has been
delegated the responsibility by the Supreme Court to coordinate, at a minimum,
periodic meet-and-confer sessions among all state courts in a county or judicial district
to deal with common problems and institute economies-of-scale where such reforms
are in the public interest, improve overall justice services, and increase efficiencies.
Although Michigan Court Rules authorize this consultative structure, the general
jurisdiction court discontinued periodic meetings when the Washtenaw Trial Court
Demonstration Project terminated several years ago. The judges and court administrators
of the District Courts in Washtenaw County continue to meet on a monthly basis.
6. University of Michigan
The University community, although dominating the economic and cultural life in
Ann Arbor, tends to play a small role vis-à-vis the Court. Relationships between the
Court, City, and University are focused on the best interests and overall safety of
students, college staff, and public visitors to the campus.
The UM Public Safety Department reports no dramatic increases in campus crime
over the last few years. The majority of arrests/citations are for liquor law violations; as
much as 5 to 7 times higher than the next largest crime category, drug violations. Most
judicial referrals originate from on-campus arrests. Violent crime is minimal. Property
crime is principally related to low-level, opportunity thefts of electronic equipment and
62
The current lease for District Court space in the County Courthouse expires on December 31, 2009. If all
City decisions were timely and favorable in the development, funding and construction of a new city
courthouse and public safety building, it is unlikely the District Court would exit its current location for at
least 24-36 months.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
54
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
personal belongings such as bikes, credit cards, and cash. UM police have discretion,
depending on the violation, circumstances and criminal history, to refer a student to UM
officials for disciplinary action rather than formal adjudication. Such referrals often
relate to disorderly conduct, smoking, and nuisance offenses (e.g., loud music, noisy
parties, etc.).
7. National Trial Court Improvement Organizations
The judicial officers, court administrator and senior administrative staff are
actively involved in local and state justice system educational programming, including
judicial and court operational training developed and coordinated through the Michigan
Judicial Institute (MJI), a division of the SCAO. Michigan is an acknowledged leader
within the national community of courts regarding state-sponsored educational curricula
for judicial branch employees. The MJI, developed in 1977, offers a wide range of
continuing education, distance learning opportunities (e.g., webcasts and web-based
training) and resource center materials, including bench books and publications related to
judicial procedures, court management, and public education programs.
Some of the judges have stretched beyond the state to become more involved in
national court improvement organizations.
As an example, Judge Hines serves on
NCSC’s advisory committee developing guides for courts interested in using more
problem-solving forums such as the Sobriety and Street Outreach Courts, and chairs the
Access to Justice Committee of the American Judges Association (AJA). Probation
Department leaders are also involved nationally through membership in the American
Probation and Parole Association and National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
It is our contention that the Fifteenth Judicial District Court has much to offer
and much to learn from other limited jurisdiction judges and court professionals
nationwide and should seek more opportunities to work with groups targeting
municipal, city and district trial court improvement beyond the state. We realize such
involvement is often constrained by limited funds and time, and places extra burdens on
those involved in performing their duties within their home courts. Nevertheless, we feel,
the District Court is at a point in its history where it does the basics very well and has
stepped into the world of specialized dockets quite successfully. Further, through its
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
55
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
successful use of probation services as a sentencing option to address addictive, violent
and socially dysfunctional behavior at early stages, there is little doubt that it is reducing
recidivism and constraining future costs for the local criminal justice system.63 To mature
further, serve the community in expanded ways, and altruistically help struggling limited
jurisdiction courts outside Michigan, court leaders would benefit greatly from broader
exposure to management approaches and operational techniques nationally.
63
Widespread research conducted by national groups (e.g., PEW, NIC, NIJ, NCSC, APPA) substantiate
that progressive sanctions, coupled with community-based treatment available to judges in sentencing
defendants with criminal and addictive behavior at early stages, are more effective than incarceration or
fines alone.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
56
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
III.
STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE
A.
General Approach Toward Improvement
Final Report
Consistently high performing courts generally exhibit the three virtues outlined
early in this report – vision (where are we going and how are we going to get there?),
trust (do you care about me as an important member of the team and do you make
decisions based on competencies?) and empowerment (will you give me opportunities to
grow and add value to the Court?). Top court leaders also look at the Court honestly,
confronting the brutal facts including those that may not be complimentary, and devise
ways to involve employees and other stakeholders toward improving operations. The
Fifteenth Judicial District Court is, we feel, such an organization.
For the most part, we found the programs of the Court well run, the staff
committed to a solid work ethic, judges and managers open to suggestion and
improvements, and the work of the Court highly regarded by others, especially those who
work closely with the Court at City, County, and state judicial offices. Consequently, it
is in that spirit that we have made various suggestions throughout this analysis and that
we offer these few final overarching recommendations.
The Court is at an opportune time in its history to develop a strategic plan; a
structured, announced direction (vision) for the Court, an agreed upon set of core
values that describe the essence of the Court and energize people about the importance
of its mission, and a set of understandable, practical goals that move the Court ahead.
By year’s end, half of the judicial officers will be new. In a few years, the Court will
occupy a new city courthouse and public safety building. The Court administrator is
experienced, well regarded and sophisticated at court improvement (e.g., JIS, debtflow
program, Wi-Fi services). Various recent staff retirements and those announced for later
this year permit central office reorganization, expanded cross-training, broader teambuilding, and job enhancements. And, judicial leaders can more easily take steps to
anchor special adjudication dockets (e.g., Street Outreach Court, DV Court, Sobriety
Court) into the overall culture of the Court not just fasten them to the personalities or
special interests of individual judges. Here, calendar rotations may not only provide
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
57
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
these programs a firmer foundation, but provide more versatility among the judicial
officers regarding assignments.
The Court is well positioned to spearhead greater, smarter uses of technology as
work saving solutions for not just judicial processes but the justice system as a whole.
Video conferencing holds promise to save prisoner transit costs, staff travel time, and
improve community safety by avoiding the need for multiple trips from the jail to the
courthouse.64 Court leaders are on the verge of experimenting with additional Wi-Fi
transmission of data inside the courthouse, speeding information flow and avoiding costly
hard line cable.65 Hand-held electronic ticket writers for law enforcement are a proven
work saving device, avoiding widespread redundant data entry and reducing
recordkeeping errors. A task force of City, Police, and Court members would seem to
hold promise in promoting a pilot project. Expanded Internet services to court customers
should be explored. The Court has already made significant progress in this area, but
more can certainly be done in the way of helpful consumer information, interactive forms
and customer payment services.
It is suggested that the Court build greater management analysis capability into
its staffing model by either training and vesting more middle management staff with
analytical, problem-solving skills, or by hiring a general purpose management analyst
from the outside who can help guide project teams. Courts, as is true of other complex
organizations, generally do not successfully implement major change in a comprehensive
way.
Rather, significant, sustainable improvement begins more frequently as an
experimental program; architected through a pilot project experiencing small, early wins
complete with course adjustments when needed, guided by a trusted coalition.
Methodically, momentum builds. Converts are gained and the pilot expands. Eventually,
a better way of doing business emerges and influence leaders in and around the Court
agree the change is important, valued progress. Although the Court administrator has
64
The city/county courthouse complex is approximately 5 miles away from the jail Service Center. Travel
to and from requires one to go through more densely populated areas which adds travel time.
65
Court leaders have embraced Wi-Fi as a viable method of data transmission in probation by sending data
to and from the courtroom and probation server. The Court plans to experiment with real-time Wi-Fi
transmission soon in transmitting JIS case disposition data, including fine and fee amounts, from the
courtroom to the central court administration office. Currently, defendants must bring their paperwork
from the courtroom to the central office to be recorded into JIS. This Wi-Fi JIS approach will take place
after the collections project is established.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
58
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
assigned on-site managers special, organization-wide tasks (e.g., new collection effort) in
addition to their regular duties with success, a strong commitment to team and pilot
project innovation needs to be a clear, recognized expectation for middle managers.
To that end, it may also be worthwhile for the Court to develop, at a high level in
the organization, a management analyst position.
Here, we are not suggesting the
addition of a new position, but the reengineering of an existing position in the central
office into a general purpose analyst to help spearhead efficiencies and reforms. One
possibility is to enlarge the Deputy Court Administrator position in this fashion.
A significant event in the collective life of the Court is the planning, design and
development of the new city courthouse. NCSC consultants heard little from judges and
Court staff about their involvement and input for the building. Our supposition is that
much of the planning and design work is complete. Our hope and advice is that Court
leaders will stay engaged in the development and construction effort. Court buildings are
unique. The flow of cases, litigants, witnesses, jurors and numerous others involved with
the Court is not easily understood, and more often not greatly appreciated, by space
planners, designers, architects and construction managers. We have seen too many
construction mistakes to believe that without constant involvement and interaction by the
Court with building developers things will go smoothly. It is suggested that Court
leaders strive to be as proactive in the development of the new building as possible.
Lastly, we encourage the Court to be as much a leader in promoting compliance
and accountability for those ordered to pay monetary penalties as it is in providing
evidence-based ways for those ordered to correct their addictive behaviors. In both
instances, the Court needs to encourage individual responsibility, provide proven ways
for violators to comply, and deliver graduated sanctions for non-compliance. The result
is not only more credibility for the Court, but a strengthening in both the application of
justice and the appearance of justice. The Court is well on its way to doing so with the
new collections program, but there are many proven, successful ways to enhance
compliance that can be employed beyond the basics. It would complement the Court’s
stature and help other limited jurisdiction courts in Michigan improve if the Court
resolved to be the leader among district courts in collections.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
59
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
B.
Final Report
Continued Attention to Best Practices
One of the great advantages inherent in the public sector is that government
organizations can learn from each other (some may say “steal” from one another), to
avoid unforeseen complications in new program development or confusion in revitalizing
current programs that may be suffering lackluster results. District Court leaders are good
at identifying their service needs and incorporating best practices pioneered by other
courts. The array of problem-solving dockets, the decision to move toward JIS as a more
effective electronic case management solution, and the recent thrust toward an enhanced
collections program are examples. Consequently, we certainly would not describe the
Court as stuck in the status quo.
A great assist is the fact that Michigan district courts, in our opinion, start at a
higher competency level than many municipal, city, and justice courts throughout the
country. That can readily be seen among some of the limited jurisdiction courts in our
comparative sample.
Funding is relatively stable based on professional-level city
management and elected municipal leaders who are supportive of the Court and
understand its need to balance both its role as an independent judicial branch and an
accountable public enterprise. Also, the SCAO provides very effective trial court support
on par, if not better, than some of the more accomplished statewide administrative offices
of the courts and has directed some of its efforts toward outlining productive practices in
Michigan courts (e.g., jail overcrowding, conservatorships, collections).
Continued attentiveness to best practices is a very useful concept in the court
world.
The ultimate objective, of course, is to find better ways to do things, not
necessarily the one best way. Here, we encourage the District Court to begin exploring
best and successful practices used by recognized cutting-edge limited jurisdiction
courts in other parts of the country (e.g., Phoenix, Seattle, Philadelphia, Washington,
DC). Often, these courts serve communities larger than Ann Arbor and have the talent
and depth of experience to experiment to a greater degree than courts in smaller
communities. Program and idea transfer, we have found however, is largely unrelated
to size, funding or number of staff in the “donor court.”
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
60
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
C.
Final Report
Court Performance Measures – CourTools Focus
For the last few decades, governments have progressively wrestled with ways to
evaluate the work and performance of courts; essentially, to measure justice. Valiant
attempts have come and gone, most often linked to a search for answers to tougher
questions by funding agencies targeting both how public money is spent and what the
results have been.
This more assertive stance by legislative authorities has been coupled with
mounting public demand for transparency in government and business. Misled investors
(i.e., Enron, WorldCom, Tyco), deceived consumers (i.e., drug protection standards, auto
recalls) and scandal weary taxpayers (FEMA and Hurricane Katrina, over 150
exonerations of death row inmates for wrongful convictions) have grown increasingly
vocal in their desire to understand and monitor public and private institutions to insure
they are serving the common good and truly improving their communities. Courts are
frequently swept up in this malaise of distrust.
Performance data for courts can address numerous needs, including planning for
the future, diagnosing current problems, testing new programs, improving services,
assessing impacts on a diverse customer base, persuading funding agencies of the merits
of both existing and new programs, and telling the government’s story to the public.
Consequently, a search for more definitive measures outlining the work of more than
16,000 courts across America not only serves the public interest, but promotes the
interests of court officials as well.
Trial courts, perhaps more than any other public enterprise, must be at the center
of the performance spotlight, leading the way for the rest of government. Courts are
vested with a core responsibility in a democratic and free society—applying the law to
the facts in individual cases. If the courts are seen to be fair, consistent, accessible,
efficient, and receptive to new and responsible ways to improve their purposes and
functions in society, social order flourishes and justice is seen to be done. If not, the very
fabric of democratic society is shaken at its center.
Although all justice agencies need to re-energize their efforts toward open and
more effective performance measures, it can be argued that the middle of the justice
system—namely, the courts—has the greatest need. Here, legal processes and procedures
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
61
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
are mysterious, delay is often too commonplace, records are confusing, and the
courthouse is frequently felt to be an intimidating and unfamiliar place. Police and
corrections agencies, on the other hand, have done a better job in categorizing and
measuring their activities, whether it’s response times and crime statistics, or drug
treatment programs and recidivism rates.
Things are changing; however, in the “gap” between police and corrections. It
started in the trial courts in 1995 when the Commission on Trial Court Performance
Standards, a project conducted by the NCSC identified five basic performance measures
for courts. Those standards were (1) Access to Justice, (2) Expedition and Timeliness,
(3) Fairness, Equality and Integrity, (4) Independence and Accountability, and (5) Public
Trust and Confidence. There was a downside in the Commission’s work, however.
Researchers itemized an exhaustive 68 ways that data on those measures could be
collected.
It soon became apparent that data collection burdens overwhelmed courts in
efforts to apply the standards on a day-to-day operational basis. Many gave up in
frustration or fatigue. The national community of courts agreed, nonetheless, that the five
standards were valid ways to assess court activity and functioning.
Here, the National Center helped to spearhead a solution. Over the last few years,
it worked with trial court practitioners and social scientists to whittle 68 data calibrations
to 10 basic metrics which they dubbed “CourTools.” In many respects, the CourTools,
taken collectively, are universal, common sense ways to assess basic court performance,
regardless of court size, jurisdiction, or location. They measure case delay, impartiality,
attitudes and perceptions, data accuracy, customer service, stewardship of resources, and
respect for the Court and its decisions.66
Although a comprehensive effort to apply a variety of CourTool measures to the
District Court was not possible in this limited operational review, NCSC consultants were
able to administer Measure 10, Court Employee Satisfaction, through an electronic
questionnaire. The complete results are in the Appendices. Generally, we found the
results more instructive for what wasn’t said as opposed to what was reported. The
response rate was a bit disappointing. Out of a potential 39 staff, 24 people (61 percent)
66
See www.courtools.org.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
62
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
responded. This is a lower response rate than we anticipated in using a private, webbased network survey.
Normally, we would expect a 70 percent response level,
especially since research shows that involvement is higher with electronic surveys than
paper questionnaires or voluntary interviews.67 We were able to increase the response
rate by 10.5 percent (4 respondents) through a series of reminder notices and lengthening
the survey period from two to three weeks.
Our initial conclusion is that response was low due to poor survey salience.
Salience is simply how important or relevant the survey topic is to the survey recipients.
In this case we suspect that most staff concluded that to respond would make little
difference in their work life or the day-to-day functioning of the Court. In contrast, the
Plante Moran survey done in 2004 at the height of discussions about merging the circuit
and district courts, which likely included the possibility of reorganization and job
realignments, was certainly seen as significantly more important to the responders
accounting for the 80 percent response rate from the Court staff at that time.
It is also instructive to note who did and did not complete the survey by selfselected job categories.68 In considering response by job category, judicial staff (those
employed directly by a judge or magistrate) and probation staff had the highest response
rates.
Judicial officers, managers/supervisors/administration, and line staff/others
responded at the lowest rate. When looking at the entire court staff collectively, more
actual responses were received from judicial staff and central office front-line employees
than any other group largely due to the fact there are more people in those job categories
than the others. Resultantly, there is likely some response rate bias in favor of judicial
staff, and to lesser extent probation employees. In our opinion, however, it doesn’t
overly skew the interpretation of the results or negate the value of the questionnaire for
management improvement purposes. The following chart sorts the respondents by job
class.
67
Colorado State University research on electronic questionnaires.
The survey was anonymous with eight different respondent categories that could be selected relative to
job duties: judicial officer, judicial staff, manager/supervisor, civil division, criminal/traffic division,
probation, administration, and other.
68
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
63
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSE RATES
Job Category
Number of Positions
Percentage
Total
Respondents
By Job Category
By Total Staff
Judicial Officer
4
2
50%
5%
Judicial Staff
9
7
77%
18%
Probation
6
4
66%
10%
Mgrs/Sup/Adm.
7
4
57%
10%
Line Staff/
Others
13
7
54%
18%
Total
39
24
n/a
61%
In reference to the survey responses, we offer the following comments. The
initial 20 forced-choice questions represent a standardized, vetted instrument used by the
National Center in many court settings. It is suggested that the Court administer this
short survey to all employees annually permitting management to create a baseline to
track morale and improve working conditions. The results from this initial application
indicate a comfortably solid response that the large majority of staff is happy with their
jobs, understand the importance of their work, and, generally, feel the work environment
is positive. There appears to be a need for management, however, to make sure more
information is communicated in helpful and understandable ways about changes, new
directions, and policies or procedures affecting employees, and for managers and
supervisors to be more supportive and solicitous of honest feedback and new ideas. Also,
some apprehension was noted in the survey results about empowerment. Here, too,
managers would be wise to focus more attention on encouraging independent activity and
autonomy to freely function as an employee within recognized work-related boundaries.
With more freedom also comes more accountability. That should clearly be understood
by employees in any restructuring of jobs and duties.
Many of the remaining
35 open-ended questions targeted policies and
procedures, job training, workload levels, customer service, resources (e.g. space,
equipment, supplies), and automation.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
On the downside, moderate concern was
64
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
expressed by employees regarding inadequate policy and procedure manuals, deficient
space, a poor phone system, and problems with uneven workloads. On the upside, there
is overwhelming support for the new JIS computer system and its ability to streamline
work and save staff time. Employees are proud of the Court for its efficiency and delay
reduction efforts as well as its caring spirit in giving defendants opportunities to “turn
their lives around.”
Lastly, we suggest court leaders explore applying as many of the CourTools
measures as possible. To that end, the Appendices include a detailed section on all ten
measures and their usefulness. Many courts are moving to incorporate these performance
standards in chronicling a more accurate and compelling account of their work to funding
agencies, special interest groups and the public. Limited jurisdiction courts, regrettably,
are in the minority when it’s come to applying CourTools. Here is an opportunity for the
Fifteenth Judicial District to lead the way, providing not only methods to improve, but to
present a more accurate understanding to others about the importance and impact of your
court and courts in general. You have much good news to tell.
D.
Enhanced External Communications
Given the public yet confusing nature of courts, many court leaders have
embarked on concerted efforts to educate, collaborate, and partner with community
groups to promote more understanding and support for the judicial branch. We are aware
of numerous efforts on the part of the District Court including county and city criminal
justice coordinating councils dedicated to general planning and systemic grants
management and civic/business memberships to promote greater understandings about
the Court. Here, we are proposing that the Court, as part of any strategic planning it
undertakes, consider developing an advisory committee targeting its specific users and
customers. Such a group could participate as “court watchers” to gather data about the
impressions of court patrons and the public. Washington, DC Superior Court, a unified
system, recently worked with a non-profit organization dedicated to court improvement
in the District, the Council for Court Excellence, to solicit public volunteers to visit
courtrooms and public court offices reporting on their experiences to the bench. Many
little nuisances (e.g., substandard restrooms, inability of jurors to hear, consistently poor
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
65
Operational and Management Review of the
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Final Report
rapport between a judge and litigants) were described, leading to substantial
improvements at the courthouse and in the Court’s relationship with its community.
Volunteers have been used to survey the public at courthouses on CourTool Measure 1,
Access and Fairness, with great success.
Other opportunities to enhance communication with stakeholders and the general
public should be of interest to the Court, too, including a speaker’s bureau, an annual
report, brochures and information pamphlets explaining court programs,69 services and
self-help approaches, and better, more helpful information on the Court’s website. With
the sophisticated, computer-literate population of Ann Arbor, a more highly developed,
interactive court website would likely be a welcome addition to the cyberspace scene.70
Finally, we encourage Court leaders to become more actively involved in the
national community of courts whether by participating in some of the many court
improvement organizations, attending seminars and workshops outside Michigan, or
visiting some of the advanced limited jurisdiction courts in the country to search out
new ideas and better approaches.71 Some of the judges and probation professionals are
active nationally,72 but not the Court administrator or his supervisory staff. Suggestions
to explore include the National Judicial College, National Association for Court
Management, and the ABA Judicial Division’s Special Judges Group.
69
NCSC consultants did review some of the brochures and pamphlets issued by the Court. Although they
are somewhat informative, there is substantial room for improvement. Perhaps, a UM journalism or
marketing class may be interested in tackling a project or two.
70
The Washtenaw County Trial Court, 22nd Judicial Circuit Court, has its own website with a substantial
array of information for the public. A similar website would benefit the users of the District Court.
71
Limited jurisdiction courts that we consider advanced enough to offer learning opportunities to District
Court leaders are generally larger than Ann Arbor and include courts in such cities as Seattle and Phoenix.
72
Organizations we noted that judges or staff participates in are the American Judges Association,
American Probation and Parole Association, and the National Association of Drug Court Professionals.
National Center for State Courts, October 2008
66
APPENDICES
• 15th Judicial District Court Organization Chart
• Persons Interviewed
• Workforce Questionnaire
• CourTools Information
• Example of Annual Report: Tempe Municipal Court
Organization Chart
15th Judicial District Court
1
Persons Interviewed
15th Judicial District Court
Hon. Ann Mattson, Judge
Hon. Julie Creal, Chief Judge
Hon. Elizabeth Pollard Hines, Judge
Hon. Michael Gatti, Attorney Magistrate
Keith Zeisloft, Court Administrator
Shryl Samborn, Deputy Court Administrator
Ann Savickas, Probation Supervisor
Steve Hill, Sobriety Court Probation Officer
Justin Woodard, Probation Intern
Nancy Broxholm, Lead Deputy Civil Clerk
Linnae Bellaver, Jury Clerk
Darylin Green, Finance Manager
Erica Louzon, Account Clerk II
Alicia Green, Lead Deputy Traffic/Criminal Clerk
City of Ann Arbor
Roger Fraser, City Administrator
Barnett Jones, Chief of Police
Robert W. West, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Washtenaw County
Robert Gruenzel, County Administrator
Dan Minzey, County Sheriff
Nimish R. Ganata, Assistant County Prosecutor
Deputies, County Sheriff, Court Security
Defense Bar
Brant Funkhouser
22nd Judicial Circuit Court
Dan Dwyer, Trial Court Administrator
State Court Administrator’s Office (SCAO)
Mark Dobek, Technology Director
Deborah Green, Regional Services Director, Region I
James Hughes, Regional Services Director, Region II
1
Workforce Questionnaire
Fifteenth Judicial District Court, Ann Arbor, Michigan
March 2008
Part One: Twenty Statements about Your Job and the Court
Below are some general statements about your job and the court. Please select only one
answer per question as to how strongly you agree or disagree with each statement.
1. I understand what is
expected of me.
2. I am kept informed
about matters that
affect me.
Agree
54.17% (13)
33.33% (8)
50% (12)
3. I have the resources
(materials, equipment,
29.17% (7)
supplies, etc.) necessary
to do my job well.
4. I am able to do my
best every day.
Neither
Agree/Nor Disagree
Disagree
Strongly
Agree
45.83% (11)
20.83% (5)
7. Someone in the court
cares about me as a
41.67% (10)
person.
8. I have opportunities
to express my opinion
about how things are
done in my division.
9. The court is
respected in the
community.
41.67% (10)
0% (0)
20.83% (5) 16.67% (4) 4.17% (1)
Response
Total
0% (0)
24
8.33% (2)
24
62.5% (15)
8.33% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
24
50% (12)
0% (0)
4.17% (1)
0% (0)
24
0% (0)
8.33% (2)
8.33% (2)
24
41.67% (10) 20.83% (5) 8.33% (2)
8.33% (2)
24
0% (0)
24
8.33% (2)
8.33% (2)
24
5. Communication
within my
41.67% (10) 41.67% (10)
division/department/unit
is good.
6. In the last month, I
was recognized and
praised for doing a good
job.
12.5% (3)
Strongly
Disagree
37.5% (9)
16.67% (4) 4.17% (1)
29.17% (7)
12.5% (3)
12.5% (3)
58.33% (14) 29.17% (7)
0% (0)
0% (0)
24
10. My coworkers work
well together.
29.17% (7)
58.33% (14) 4.17% (1)
8.33% (2)
0% (0)
24
11. I am encouraged to
try new ways of doing
things.
16.67% (4)
8.33% (2)
24
0% (0)
24
12. I understand the
connection between the
work I do and the
mission and goals of the
court.
37.5% (9)
50% (12)
20.83% (5) 4.17% (1)
54.17% (13) 8.33% (2)
1
0% (0)
13. My working
conditions and
environment enable me
to do my job well.
16.67% (4)
62.5% (15) 16.67% (4) 4.17% (1)
0% (0)
24
14. I feel valued by my
supervisor based on my
knowledge and
contribution to my
department, unit, or
division.
54.17% (13) 20.83% (5)
12.5% (3)
8.33% (2)
4.17% (1)
24
15. I feel free to speak
my mind.
41.67% (10)
12.5% (3)
8.33% (2)
12.5% (3)
24
12.5% (3)
24
25% (6)
16. In the last month,
someone in the court has
16.67% (4)
talked to me about my
performance.
29.17% (7) 20.83% (5) 20.83% (5)
17. I enjoy coming to
work.
33.33% (8)
62.5% (15)
0% (0)
4.17% (1)
0% (0)
24
18. My coworkers care
about the quality of
services and programs
we provide.
29.17% (7)
50% (12)
12.5% (3)
8.33% (2)
0% (0)
24
19. I am treated with
respect.
33.33% (8)
37.5% (9)
25% (6)
4.17% (1)
0% (0)
24
20. I am proud that I
work for the court.
54.17% (13)
37.5% (9)
8.33% (2)
0% (0)
0% (0)
24
Total Respondents
24
Part Two: Open-Ended Questions about Your Job and the Court
I. Policies, Procedures and Standards
1. Do you have a set of policies, procedures or standards that guide your work?
Response
Total
Response Percent
Yes
10
59%
No
7
41%
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
2. How is your work measured?
1.
I attempt to know as much as possible about the people (probationers) under my
supervision; if I can answer any question regarding one of my clients then I believe I
have done my job. I believe that any measurement of my success is based on the
comprehensiveness of my answer. I have never received a written review or any
other measurement of my work, although I have received adequate verbal feedback to
the extent that I feel the level of my work is both acknowledged and approved.
2
2.
I have only worked here for a few months, so I have not been able to experience this
process yet. However, I believe that performance evaluations are conducted by an
individual’s supervisor every 6 months. However, I do have daily meetings with my
supervisor.
3.
I have to keep up with the caseload. Cases are to be completed within a certain
period of time unless there is a very good reason for a delay.
4.
by having docket material prepared in a thorough and timely fashion by having the
department run smoothly and efficiently
5.
Somewhat set, but it seems a lot of procedures are verbal, or via email, but a bit
confusing sometimes because there isn't a specific set of procedures.
6.
Safety of Judicial staff, as well as the performance of Sobriety court participants.
7.
performance evaluations done on a yearly basis
8.
If it's not done, I hear about it.
9.
As long as the Judge is up and working and still alive, then my job is doing well.
10. by getting the docket completed
11. My work is measured by the DV Grant
12. Not sure.
13. Don't understand the question
Total Respondents
14
(skipped this question)
10
3. Do the policies/procedures/standards help you in doing your work?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
Yes, I have a lot of autonomy within an established framework.
Yes, the policies and standards do help me know what is expected of me.
yes, in that they set the standard for us to strive to meet.
Yes HR Policies and SCAO policies are a starting point for questions that arise
For the most part, other than a lot seems to be verbal policies, or a email several months ago, but
never compiled into a concrete procedure manual.
Yes
the policies for each job position are outdated and need to be redone to set better standards.
only when training on something new
I'm not sure what they are, but the job always gets done.
no
If I had any questions, it would be my go to guide
Yes. It's spelled out.
not really
Total Respondents
13
(skipped this question)
11
4. Are there areas of your work that are not outlined in policies/procedures/standards, but
should be?
1. I sometimes ask for guidance from my supervisors and colleagues
2. Yes, there are currently no updated written procedures for my job. However, when I was hired it
was requested of me to make a procedure manual with the notes I take while being trained.
3. not really
3
4. None
5. I feel that the jobs need to have more specific timelines for completion and clerks need to be held
accountable for not completing work in a timely manner
6. Not really
7. The entire job description should be in writing
8. Yes varies from day to day/week to week
9. Not necessarily
10. Yes, for example certain issues related to my job are mandated by MCLS. Much of this i have had
to find on my own.
11. No
12. No
Total Respondents
12
(skipped this question)
12
II. Workload
5. How would you describe the average size (quantity) of your workload?
1. I supervise between 100 and 200 probationers.
2. Currently, I feel a little overwhelmed. However, it is due to the fact that we just implemented a new
program that I am the main contact person for. As we get more current the workload will start to
level off.
3. Manageable; light on some days, heavy on others
4. My caseload is a little too high to comfortably address the administrative demand of my job - this is
being addressed and the load is coming down slowly.
5. My average workload is about 75 to 150 files per week.
6. Since we converted to JIS, I would say we have gained a great deal of efficiency, however, I don't
think we are taking advantage of the increased efficiency as well as we should.
7. Med/High
8. Most days my workload feels fairly light, but i often spend time working on other projects needed
for court function, but not specifically assigned to me, or back up projects as we call them.
9. Fair
10. Workload varies day to day.
11. Varies from day to day/week to week
12. Fair
13. The quantity can be handled, but it seems that i am also expected to have time for “special
projects” which include very non analytical work such as file review prior to purging, or ticket data
entry. I am capable, and competent to perform more complex tasks. Per the function of the
[position deleted], there has been absolutely no training offered. There is an expectation that i am
responsible for all aspects of [position deleted], including some issues that preceded my taking
over the position. I am/ was expected to organize what were boxes of questionnaires, and
understand what needed to be done with them. I have ad-libed this position with a strong
background in communication, and sales. Some aspects that are technical are something i was
expected to handle on my own, and produce. I have had several accolades based on this
performance from the public, and Judges, but the supervisor has not said anything.
14. It fluctuates sometimes; but overall it's manageable w/in 40 hours.
15. Busy
16. varies in capacity, some days are very busy, others are not, depending on the court dockets and
correspondence
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
4
16
8
6. How does your workload compare to others in your unit/doing similar work?
1. I have a smaller caseload than other probation officers in my unit. However, my probationers and
required method of supervision call for more frequent interaction with both the probationers and the
court.
2. Very comparable. We may do different things, but are both very busy.
3. Nearly identical
4. Comparable
5. I am the only supervisor - the goal is for me to have half the caseload as the agents approx 100
cases.
6. N/A
7. About the same across the board. Many times I wish we had more work to do.
8. Higher than my peers.
9. I think the work load is evenly distributed, it is individual working style that makes there seem to be
differences.
10. Equal
11. Varies day to day
12. Varies
13. About the same
14. [This response was paraphrased since the specific job was identified throughout]. My Workload is
more complex, in that it combines different job duties. The duties are extremely different. There are
times when the expectation of one position can be at odds with each other.
15. My position is unique; but of course others could do more.
16. Comparable
17. Court time is probably the same, however I don't type as many transcripts as others due to the
nature of our dockets
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
7. In other units?
1. I have a MUCH smaller caseload than other probation officers in other units.
2. This division is currently very hectic. They recently lost an employee to a new job and have
another employee retiring in a few weeks. They have managed to replace one clerk and are in the
process of hiring another. However, when training a new person, things tend to move a little slower
for a while. The traffic/criminal department seems to function very well with the current staff,
although I have little interaction with thier department.
3. Unknown
4. I think a half caseload is the standard goal for supervisors in similiarly sized departments. I have
asked other supervisors at our annual conferencesto confirm this.
5. N/A
6. N/A
7. Unsure
8. Fon't know
9. N/A
10. N/A
11. N/A
12. [Response paraphrased]. My position requires the ability to function internally, with co workers
regarding traffic criminal, misdemeanor, criminal history, and all aspects of court function.
5
13. N/A
14. Stress is much less than the clerk's office.
Total Respondents
14
(skipped this question)
10
8. How manageable is your workload?
1. I feel it is a manageable amount.
2. Currently it is manageable, with perhaps a little o/t from time to time. However, I am concerned
whether it will remain manageable.
3. Very manageable most of the time.
4. Very. Just need to be organized.
5. Improving weekly - I have not had to add a weekend day of work for the past three weeks to keep
up.
6. My workload is manageable some weeks and not others.
7. For the most part, pretty good
8. Very manageable for me
9. Easily manageable
10. Manageable as long as it is kept up daily. If you are out sick, it waits for you.
11. Manageable
12. No control over workload
13. Very
14. [Response paraphrased]. I must be here at least 4.5 days a week, and little vacation is possible.
15. Completely manageable, very rare overtime
16. Very
17. Very
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
9. Do you believe you can reasonably complete all of your work according to management
expectations?
1. Yes.
2. Currently yes. However, there is talk about implementing a new program, as part of the collections
program, requiring me to see all persons appearing before a judge that request time to pay and
evaluate their ability to pay. If we do implement this program, I do fear that my workload will
become difficult.
3. Yes. I am allowed transcript preparation time during work hours, which eliminates the need to take
work home.
4. Yes
5. Yes - our specialty court - Street Outreach Court is growing and adding to the demand on me as
the coordinator. I am considering training a clerk to help with this. This project impacts the answers
below because it has grown steadily in the past three years since it was started. Also I have added
more community work (my initiative) because I feel the court is underrepresented on community
coalitions.
6. I try to complete all of my work on a daily basis. But, sometimes it is not an option especially when
it has been a very busy phone day. My job requires allot of steps to finish just one file and
sometimes that is interrupted by phone calls.
7. For the most part, yes.
8. I do.
9. Yes
10. Yes, it's not a problem as long as we are fully staffed. Phone line coverage can kill the whole day
6
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
whenever someone is out. That seems to happen several time each week.
Yes
Yes
Yes
I am not always sure what management is expecting, unless i have made a mistake. I am expected
to work on my own but also be accountable to the supervisor who is not always in the loop with
current and ever changing needs.
Yes. I know what is expected of me and what needs to get done, so I get it done as expected.
Yes
Yes
Total Respondents
17
7
(skipped this question)
10. How does your workload compare to the past?
Response Response
Total
Percent
6 months
ago:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
68%
14
64%
Same
I have not worked here for 6 months yet
Same
Similar
More
Somewhat slower
About the same
Heavier than
Heavier, staffing losses increase workload
Same
Same
Same
N/A
Same
Same
1 year ago:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
15
Same
Same
Similar
More
N/A
Little bit less
Heavier than
Heavier
Same
Same
Same
N/A
Increased responsibility
7
14. Same
2 years
ago:
14
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
64%
N/A
Same
Similar
More
N/A
Much more efficient since we got JIS
Heavier than
Heavier
Same
Same
Same
N/A
Increased responsibility
Busier than 2 years ago, but some different
responsibilities as well.
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
15
9
The following is a summary of the responses.
6 Months:
Less
Same
Heavier
N/A (not here)
Increased responsibilities
Much more efficient with JIS
6 months
1
10
2
2
1 year
1
7
3
2
1
2 years
0
5
3
3
2
1
11. Have there been any significant recent changes in the work you are expected to perform?
Response Response
Total
Percent
No
Yes, please explain:
12
71%
5
29%
1. Yes, we have implemented a new collections program. However, that is part of the
reason they hired me and was explained to me at the time of my interview.
2. As above, more community involvement. This is more my expectation than my
supervisors although they are aware of and support his aspect of my work
3. Now I am expected to extend my workload to include, home visits for sobriety court
probationers.
4. Ticket entry in addition to normal work since a clerk left and was not replaced.
5. Change in assignment
8
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
III. Customers
12. Who are your customers?
Response Response
Total
Percent
Inside the court:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
15
65%
15
65%
16
70%
The Judges and their immediate staff.
Defendant's that have rec'd an overdue notice.
N/A
Judges
Defendants with tickets or complaints.
Defendants of Misdemeanors & Tickets
Citizens
Defendants
Defendants, court staff
N/A
Coworkers
Victims
Supervisor/magistrate/clerk/public
Co-workers
Other employees who need information
Inside the
justice system:
1. Co-workers that may need my help. Or other court
personnel working at different courts.
2. All court users
3. Other probation agents with who we share clients,
victims
4. Judges, magistrate.
5. Other staff including our dept & Judges staff
6. Judicial Staff
7. City and state attorneys, police agencies
8. Judges, Admins
9. Defendants
10. Defendants/attorneys
11. Probation Officers
12. Potential jurors/judges/Circuit Ct. Jury Clerk
13. SCAO
14. The public
15. Attorneys, defendants. Officers
Outside the
justice system
(e.g. private
attorneys,
city/county/state
9
agencies:
The citizens of the city of Ann Arbor
All of the listed examples, but also including some vendors.
The electorate
Attorneys
City and State prosecutor.
Attorney's
All persons entering the courtroom
Attorneys, private record search companies
Attorneys, officers
All as you have stated
As stated
Safe House
Attorneys Jury Board
Attorneys, treatment providers, testing facilities
Attorneys, city, county & state agencies
Attorneys
Total Respondents
16
(skipped this question)
8
13. How do you determine customer satisfaction and whether you are doing a good job?
1. Probationer compliancy.
2. By my interaction with defendants on the phone and whether they are satisfied with the information
I have provided them. I try to be as helpful as possible, however, court rules prohibit me from
providing certain information.
3. By positive comments and lack of complaints.
4. I look at the number of appeals filed and the number of complaints lodged. If people are not
complaining, we must be doing some things right. If we address concerns quickly and
appropriately, people believe we are doing a good job.
5. Our probationers are not customers and they are often by definition dissatisfied at having to work
with us. In spite of this dynamic we do occasionally receive thank you letters and positive feedback
from ones who feel we helped them make a positive change. Out primary feedback is from the
judges as to the timeliness and completeness of our reports to them
6. It the defendant understands his or her options on how to proceed.
7. When people go away without being treated with attitude. People aren't happy to be paying tickets
or fines, but I still try to treat them with respect and dignity.
8. Judicial Staff remains safe.
9. I don’t think you really have satisfied customers per say in this kind of job, as most people do not
want to be here or are here for bad/dishonest reasons
10. Defendants understand the process after calling, etc.
11. No clue. We do get occasional Thank You's from defendants and or their friends and families for
doing things for them or going the extra mile for them.
12. Comments from attorneys/judge
13. If my customers are getting the answers and help they need from me and are happy with it.
14. I often get direct verbal feedback from customers. I also have email responses outlining
satisfaction. I have had compliments on my ability to put them at ease, and make their time at the
court as pleasant as possible. I have not had direct feed back from the supervisor, however i have
from the Judge, and Ct. Administrator. There is no exit survey in place at this time.
15. I determine customer satisfaction by addressing people's needs. If I answer or offer a solution and
that's the last I hear about it, I know I've done my job.
16. Being informed and ability to convey the information to the public
10
17. By their demeanor
17
Total Respondents
7
(skipped this question)
IV. Resources
14. Do you have adequate resources to do your job?
Yes
No, Please
explain
Response
Total
Response
Percent
13
76%
4
24%
1. I think our department needs one more body. Someone else to help off set the
telephone calls that we get on a daily basis. Also, I believe that it would truly help to
have our flex schedules back. The ability to come in late and or leave early.
2. For the most part, however although I am currently not assigned to telephones, I do
think we could be more efficient/customer service oriented by implementing a more
automatic phone system (ACD-etc)
3. Have to share work space with 5 others, no workspace of my own no set court room,
share courtrooms in entire bldg.
4. [Response paraphrased]. I need more time to set up my the work processes than i am
allowed. Often times, there is a real time shortage in allowing 30 minutes to prepare.
17
Total Respondents
7
(skipped this question)
15. Is your work space adequate for conducting your work?
Yes
No, Please
explain
Response
Total
Response
Percent
10
62%
6
38%
1. Not every courtroom I work in has adequate space for work materials nor are the
courtroom work stations ergonomically custom fitted -- the courtroom spaces are used
by several different court recorders.
2. It's ok but the office would work better if we were in the courthouse and if the probation
department was all on the one floor
3. Not really happy with the desk configuration. I think a lot of issues were implemented
without really understanding the ramifications of some of those.
4. Area is shared with 5 other people.
5. As stated above
6. I currently work out of the courtroom attached to the Judge's chambers because I need
to be close to the Judge's office, but there is no space there for me.
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
11
16
8
16. Additional Resources:
Response Response
Total
Percent
What additional
resources would help
you do your job better?
12
63%
11
58%
11
58%
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Broader (less restrictive) internet access.
A procedure manual
A permanent courtroom
New courthouse
Adding another person to our dept.
?
Courtroom monitors/Our own courtroom
Own workspace/courtroom
N/A
JIS training
An office in or adjacent to the Judge's
chambers.
12. A typewriter
How would they
improve your work?
1. I could check social-networking sites to assess
probationers' supervision requirement
accountability (e.g. alcohol/drug use)
2. It would make the training process easier
3.
4. Better communication, paper flow better security
5. Less distractions.
6. ?
7. Aware of what’s happening in courtrooms
8. Make more efficient
9. N/A
10. Meeting other successful clerks in my job
category
11. I would actually be in my own office and not a
satellite one.
12. Needed for marriage licenses
How would they
improve
performance/outcomes?
I would have greater awareness of my probationers’
compliancy.
The sooner I am fully trained the more work I will be able
to produce.
Fewer misunderstandings, quicker and more accurate
delivery of paperwork
Less time on the phone and more time working.
?
Save time walking around to & from different courtrooms
12
N/A
N/A
Confidence, thoroughness and professionalism
I'm pretty resourceful
More convenient than finding one not in use
Total Respondents
12
V. Automated Information Systems
17. To what extent is your work automated through JIS or another electronic system?
1. A very large extent.
2. Almost all of my work. We are an on-line court so we even communicate through an electronic
system.
3. JIS docket import to JAVS has eliminated the need to hand type the docket myself, which took
approx 10% of my day.
4. We have JIS which is a big help
5. Some between JIS and the in-house access database
6. Reporting to the Michigan State Police and Secretary of State.
7. Very much so, I think we have gained great efficiency through JIS
8. Probably 50% of my workload.
9. JIS generates notices, but we still have to manually send them out
10. Almost all
11. It's an information resource
12. Some what to get information
13. All my work is entered through Quickbase
14. JIS is a tool for Jury, however not automated . JIS is extreemly automated for traffic criminal
15. 95% of my work is completed on the computer; whether it's JIS, Word, JAVS recording equipment;
the internet and DCCMIS
16. 50%
17. 100%
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
18. How well do the automated system(s) work?
1. Quite well.
2. Once in a great while i will have trouble accessing peachtree on the sever. However, IT responds
very quickly to rectify the problem.
3. JIS works very well; JAVS has had several issues that disrupted court.
4. Quite well
5. Very well
6. Well.
7. A lot better than previous system.
8. Very
9. Well
10. Fairly well
11. So far, so good
12. ok
13. Well
13
14. Very well
15. Knock on wood fairly good; but because we are so reliant upon it, frustration mounts quickly when
it's not working.
16. Well
17. Very well
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
19. If new, how has the system affected your work?
1. The court has recently converted to JIS, however, I already had JIS experience prior to working
here.
2. JIS has had a tremendous impact on the time it takes us to prepare criminal histories. It has cut this
time in half at least. Improvements to our in house system have saved us much time in form
preparation.
3. It makes taking transactions much quicker and more accurate. Overall I think the entire court has
gained more efficiency. I think we would be better off working with a streamlined staff to take
advantage of that efficiency.
4. The system is quite helpful.
5. The new JIS system has made all aspects easier, the time spent updating cases, processing
payments has decreased
6. If it's down, you can't work
7. Able to get needed info quickly
8. Easier to get docket info instead of having to ask others to run docket
9. I really think Quickbase is user friendly and holds a lot of information about each defendant
10. Expedites certain processes, such as automatic label printing
11. Made it more efficient
Total Respondents
11
(skipped this question)
13
20. Could the system be improved?
1. I believe it is being improved.
2. I think this is a very technical up to date court that functions well.
3. The access database could be streamlined to run faster over a wireless network - our IT
department is working on this
4. I believe that there is always room for improvement.
5. Minor things.
6. Improvements have been constant.
7. Not sure
8. Use more of the system forms offered and prints instead of old manual forms
9. N/A
10. N/A
11. N/A
12. Not qualified to answer this
13. Probably
14. Possibly
14
Total Respondents
14
(skipped this question)
10
VI. Training Needs and Opportunities
21. Do you receive regular training related to your job?
Response Response
Total
Percent
Yes
10
59%
No
7
41%
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
22. What kind of training do you receive?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
If I request to attend a training I have confidence that my request will be granted.
My training is provided by my supervisor and the Traffic/Criminal supervisor
SCAO offers training opportunities
Issues related to substance abuse, drug and alcohol testing, new methods of supervision
If something changes, such as a law. We receive an email or a hand out.
JIS training
Weapons training.
Once a year we switch positions and are retrained, however i think refreshers could be helpful
Hand-outs with instructions
On the job and Taser training
Taser training
I shadowed a Probation Officer
E mails
Conferences and position specific
Written and hands on
16. N/A
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
23. How often do you receive the training?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
As often as I request it or as often as it is required.
I am a new employee that frequently asks questions
At least annually
Annually and whenever I find something I feel will be useful
About once a year
Once
yearly
Only as needed for new processes
Yearly
Yearly
1 day
Daily
Several times a year
15
16
8
14. Ability to ask questions and get answers when needed is available
15. N/A
15
Total Respondents
9
(skipped this question)
24. Do you have an annual training requirement?
Response Response
Total
Percent
No
If yes, please
explain
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
12
71%
5
29%
Re-certification with weapon.
Only taser
Lien certification
SCAO Grant yearly training
Working at least 10 hours in courtroom per year
Total Respondents
17
(skipped this question)
7
25. Are requirements enforced?
1. I am not aware of a training requirement. I have a training requirement related to my graduate
degree.
2. No
3. N/A
4. Yes
5. Have never heard of any training requirements
6. N/A
7. No
8. N/A
9. I am not sure.
10. Yes
11. Don't know
Total Respondents
11
(skipped this question)
13
26. Are you cross-trained to do other work within and outside your division or work unit?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Yes, but not as a requisite of my current position or employer.
I am currently being trained to be able to cover my supervisor
No
N/A
All agents are cross trained to do clerical support
We are cross-trained once a year to switch to a different job.
Somewhat.
Yes
Yes
Yes, if you know another job, but all that gets you is more work.
16
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
No
No
No
Yes
Yes with the Judge's secretary and bailiff
No
Yes, because I was previously employed in the traffic and civil divisions
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
27. Is the ongoing training you receive adequate? Why/how? Why not?
1. It is adequate as it is either required, or I request to attend a training that will hopefully facilitate
innovation or enhance my performance.
2. My supervisor is inexperienced in training. While doing her best, she tends to confuse herself,
which in turn is confusing for me.
3. N/A
4. Yes.
5. Yes - it is generally self-selected according to what each agent feels he/she needs
6. We really do not receive any training. It would be nice to receive more training on a regular basis.
Allowing the employees the option of taking other classes.
7. For the most part, however I think procedures should be better documented.
8. Yes
9. Ithink that a lot of times each job position makes minor changes, and these changes are not
conveyed to the whole staff on a regular basis which can lead to confusion especially when trying
to help others in their jobs.
10. Enough to do my job well and help when I can.
11. N/A
12. Only the taser training/other on the job
13. No additional training is required, other than attending seminars/meetings
14. [Response paraphrased]. Much of my training is self imposed. As an example, I looked up the
statutes.
15. Yes, as much as it can be.
16. Yes
17. Yes
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
28. Do you belong to any court related professional association or organizations?
Response Response
Total
Percent
No
8
47%
Yes, Please List:
9
53%
1. The Batterer Intervention Coalition of Michigan; The National Association of Social
Workers.
2. I am currently a Certified Electronic Recorder (CEO). I am able to court record.
3. MECRA
4. Bar Association, Women Lawyers Association
17
5. Michigan District Court Probation Officers Association American Probation and Parole
Association State Bar of Michigan
6. CA Paralegals
7. NADCPMADCPMECRA
8. MECRA
9. MECRA
Total Respondents
(skipped this question)
17
7
VII. Opportunities for Change
29. What does your unit do well?
1. We have successfully implemented a new collections program that has already generated
additional revenue for the court.
2. We spot issues of mental health, substance abuse, financial, housing, domestic violence that
impact the client's ability to comply with probations. We give client's the tools to comply and put
them in touch with the agencies that will help them comply and not re-offend. We supervise our
clients well and each agent knows a lot about each case.
3. Processing tickets and complaints.
4. For the most part, I think we work well together, and are willing to help each other out.
5. Our unit is very efficient with its workload.
6. We are good at picking up the slack when we are short staffed for whatever reason
7. We are the front line for the District court
8. Protect the Judge
9. Protect the judge
10. My unit stays on top of the DV cases.
11. Process and enter cases in a timely manner.
12. When push comes to shove, we do pull together to get something accomplished
13. N/A- I'm not part of a unit. I work for the magistrate, and I believe all our job requirements are done
well
Total Respondents
13
(skipped this question)
11
30. What could be improved in you unit’s work?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
I think that my department can work a little better at becoming more organized.
We need a better drug test vendor
I don't know.
Again, better documented procedures and policies.
Physical space in the courtroom.
Communication on a regular basis about the small changes in day to day operations
More help with phone lines.
A safer, more secure facility(ies)
Better court facilities
N/A
Better legal term knowledge, and explaining the clerks role in the process to defendants and the
public. Good communication, and writing skills should be encouraged.
12. The amount of complaining and lack of collaboration
18
13. Can't think of anything
Total Respondents
13
(skipped this question)
11
31. Think about the court in general: What does it do well?
1. As a whole, I believe the court operations very efficiently. There is good communication between
all members of the staff.
2. Our court processes cases in a timely fashion. As we look at other local courts, we notice that JIS
is updated much faster than the other courts update their database.
3. Take care of defendants in processing there tickets and complaints.
4. Efficiency
5. Quickly process all tickets and misd for AR
6. Everything that entails the Mission of the Court
7. Most everything
8. The court tries to get defendants to have a second chance at changing their life. Most defendants
don't see it as that and disregard everything the court does to help.
9. Processes incoming financial transactions in a timely manner .
10. We adjust to change well.
11. Provides very good service to the public
Total Respondents
11
(skipped this question)
13
32. What could be improved?
1. I can't believe I'm saying this, but I can't think of anything.
2. A new courthouse would help all aspects of the court's functioning.
3. The communication between supervisor and employees, officers and staff. Having the ability to
speak your mind without it being scrutinized. Having the ability to assess what needs to be done
with your job and do it without having to explain yourself.
4. Space
5. To allow flex time for the staff. To be able to work when the phone are not ringing and still cover
the normal court hours. Staff would be a whole lot happier!! We could avoid heavy traffic times and
save gas, time and child care costs. You would think that Ann Arbor of all places, would be a
leader in this.
6. A new facility
7. Better facilities
8. The warrant system. If a warrant is issued, instead of waiting to catch the defendant, the court
should have a separate team for picking up defendants on warrants.
9. Standards that apply to all employees, e.g.- often times certain things are stated as “facts” when in
truth, employees are giving legal advice.
10. The morale and management styles used in the clerk's office.
11. More communication between judicial/administration and staff
Total Respondents
19
11
13
(skipped this question)
33. What are the five issues or practices that, if resolved, could improve the work you do?
Response Response
Total
Percent
1.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
52%
8
38%
7
33%
4
19%
3
14%
Better organization
New facility
Flex time
Better procedure manuals.
Improved space
Communicating changes in jobs
Phones
A new facility
New bldg
N/A
Training
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
11
Completion of training
Reliable drug testing vendor
Phones
Better phone system (ACD).
Improved security
Flex hours
New bldg
Respect
3.
1. Development of procedure manual
2. Better communication with the Victim Advocate around
restitution
3. Better communication
4. In court updating of cases
5. Having lock-ups in all courtrooms
6. Get out of county bldg
7. Management training
4.
1. Better communication with the prosecutor around violation
hearings and plea deals
2. Better relationships with Judges
3. More automatic scheduling (electronic notices) reduces errors
and confusion about court dates.
4. Position opportunity
5.
1. Access to jail, police databases
2. Better training of all.
3. Meetings
20
Total Respondents
11
(skipped this question)
13
34. What are the five practices or policies by outside agencies that have made it more difficult
to do your job?
Response Response
Total
Percent
1.
9
47%
4
21%
3
16%
4.
0
0%
5.
0
0%
1. Poor performance by our drug test vendors
2. Officers talking to defendants and telling them the wrong information.
3. When police officers give defs wrong information about court
policies/procedures.
4. Walking out with court files
5. N/A
6. Dealing with the county govt/court
7. N/A
8. Ingress/ egress from ct. building
9. Not a large enough, or efficient building
2.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Lack of adequate funding for substance abuse treatment
Problems regarding 14th District Court internet payments.
Not updating the system when they have a file
NO EMPLOYEE ENTRANCE
3.
1. Difficulty helping clients access mental health treatment
2. Confusion about which courts have jurisdiction
3. Sharing jury room w/ 22nd judicial
Total Respondents
9
(skipped this question)
15
35. In the past few years, what changes have improved your ability to do your job?
1. JIS improved things dramatically. Wireless access in the courtroom has helped tremendously. A
video surveillance system makes us feel safer.
2. The switch over to JIS.
3. JIS. Upgraded computers (faster).
4. Drug court database
5. New computer system
6. JIS
7. N/A
8. Better court security
9. N/A
10. More efficient staff through attrition, etc.
Total Respondents
21
10
(skipped this question)
14
36. What five changes would you like to see in the next few years that would improve the
ability for you to do your job?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
New courthouse X 5!
Bring back flex-time.
Better phone system (ACD).
Space
Public access to old records
Fex hours
A new facility
New court bldg
I am too new to comment.
[Response paraphrased]. To permit a limited number of special purpose positions to be stand-alone jobs and
not rotate untrained, uncaring staff into those specialty jobs who may not understand the nuances and
information necessary to properly convey accurate information to customers.
22
Total Respondents
10
(skipped this question)
14
CourTools Information
The number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of
incoming cases.
Purpose:
Clearance rate measures whether the court is keeping up with its
incoming caseload. If cases are not disposed in a timely manner,
a backlog of cases awaiting disposition will grow. This measure is
a single number that can be compared within the court for any
and all case types, from month to month and year to year, or
between one court and another. Knowledge of clearance rates
by case type can help a court pinpoint emerging problems and
indicate where improvements may be made. Courts should aspire
to clear (i.e., dispose of) at least as many cases as have been
filed/reopened/reactivated in a period by having a clearance
rate of 100 percent or higher.
Method:
Computing a clearance rate requires a count of incoming
cases and outgoing cases during a given time period
(e.g., year, quarter, or month).
Incoming cases are summed using three kinds of cases: New
Filings, Reopened cases, and Reactivated cases. If Reopened
and Reactivated cases cannot be counted, just use New Filings.
Step 2
Sum
incoming
cases
New Filings
Reopened Cases
Reactivated Cases
Total Incoming Cases
812
+ 162
+ 109
= 1,083
Outgoing cases are summed by using three kinds of dispositions:
Entry of Judgment, Reopened Dispositions, and Placed on Inactive
Status. If Reopened Dispositions and Placed on Inactive Status cases
cannot be counted, just use Entry of Judgment cases.
Sum
outgoing
cases
Step 3
Copyright © 2004.
copies and updates at
www.ncsonline.org/d_research
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-616-6109
Step 1
Definition:
Entry of Judgment
684
Reopened Disposition
+ 137
Placed on Inactive Status +
92
Total Outgoing Cases
= 913
The clearance rate is calculated by dividing the result
of Step 2 by the result of Step 1.
Calculate
clearance
rate
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
913 ÷ 1,083= 84%
Analysis and Interpretation
The process…
Outgoing Cases
1,200
Plot incoming and
outgoing cases
over time
800
Incoming Cases
400
0
Jan
Jul
Dec
150%
Calculate a
clearance rate
100%
50%
Outgoing Divided
by Incoming Cases
0%
Apr
May
June
July
Outgoing
855
734
635
1,016
Incoming
843
825
774
965
÷
÷
÷
÷
=
=
=
=
Clearance Rate
101%
89%
82%
105%
partial data shown
150%
Set a clearance
rate goal
100%
100% Clearance Rate
50%
0%
150%
Monitor, analyze,
take action
Catching up:
Dispositions outpace filings
100%
50%
Falling behind:
Review caseflow management practices
0%
Jan
Jul
Dec
This chart shows clearance rates for two case types (Civil and Criminal)
for six months. The Civil clearance rate was above the target level of 100
percent at the beginning of this period. However, the Criminal clearance
rate was falling significantly below the target level. The court implemented
new caseflow management practices and redirected resources from the
Civil calendar to the Criminal calendar to improve Criminal case
processing. The chart shows that the Criminal clearance rate improved.
By the end of the six-month period, the clearance rates for the two case
types were in balance. Clearance rate data allows the court to see whether
its caseflow management changes had the desired effect.
150%
Criminal
Civil
Monthly Clearance
Rates for managing
criminal and
civil caseloads
100%
50%
Resources redirected from
civil to criminal calender
0%
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Further analysis shows how clearance rates can be compared on an annual
basis to assess the impact of new policies. For example, highlighting
districts that reach a clearance rate target allows court managers to assess
the effectiveness of caseflow management practices across court divisions,
court locations, or courtroom by courtroom.
Criminal
Cases
Annual Clearance
Rates for assessing
comparative
performance
Above
100%
Civil
Cases
Above
100%
103%
X
District 1
87%
District 2
105%
District 3
93%
102%
X
District 4
90%
101%
X
District 5
107%
X
X
92%
83%
Three years of data provides a more representative picture of clearance
rate trends by smoothing yearly fluctuations.
3-Year Clearance
Rates for
analyzing trends
3-Year
Average
2002
2003
District 3
105%
114%
99%
106%
District 2
106%
100%
101%
102%
District 1
100%
99%
97%
99%
District 4
99%
98%
95%
97%
District 5
96%
90%
89%
91%
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
2004
Terms You Need to Know
Entry of Judgment: A count of cases for which an original
entry of judgment has been filed. For cases involving multiple
parties/issues, the manner of disposition should not be
reported until all parties/issues have been resolved.
New Filing: A count of cases that have been filed with the
court for the first time.
Place on Inactive Status: A count of cases whose status
has been administratively changed to inactive because the
court will take no further action in the case until an event
restores the case to the court's active pending caseload.
Reopened Disposition: A count of cases that were disposed
of by a modification to, and/or enforcement of, the original
judgment of the court. For cases involving multiple
parties/issues, the manner of disposition should not be
reported until all parties/issues have been resolved.
For a full discussion of these definitions, see the State Court Guide to Statistical
Reporting, 2003, available at: www.ncsconline.org/d_research/statistical_reporting_2003.
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Reopened Case: A count of cases in which judgments have
previously been entered but which have been restored to the
court's pending caseload due to the filing of a request to
modify or enforce the existing judgments. When a Reopened
Case is disposed of, report the disposition as a Reopened
Disposition.
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Reactivated Case: A count of cases that had previously
been placed in an inactive pending status, but for which further
court proceedings and activities can now be resumed so that
the case can proceed to disposition.
Definition:
The percentage of cases disposed or otherwise resolved within
established time frames.
Purpose:
This measure, used in conjunction with Measure 2 Clearance
Rates and Measure 4 Age of Active Pending Caseload is a fundamental
management tool that assesses the length of time it takes a court
to process cases. It compares a court’s performance with local, state,
or national guidelines for timely case processing. When the underlying
data conforms to the State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting, the
measure takes into account periods of inactivity beyond the court’s
control (e.g., absconded defendants, cases suspended pending decision
on an appeal) and provides a framework for meaningful measurement
across all case types.
Copyright © 2004.
copies and updates at
www.ncsonline.org/d_research
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-616-6109
The case processing time standards published by the American
Bar Association (ABA) and those published by the Conference of
State Court Administrators (COSCA)provide a starting point for
determining guidelines. Many states and individual courts have
adopted their own guidelines, and certain case types (e.g., juvenile)
have been the focus of more detailed guidelines by a variety of
organizations. Courts should take note of existing guidelines and
rules of court in their jurisdiction when developing their own
guidelines for each case type.
COSCA Case
Processing Standards
ABA Case
Processing Standards
Civil
Civil
• Non-Jury Trial – 100% within 12 months
• Jury Trial – 100% within 18 months
• 90% within 12 months
• 98% within 18 months
• 100% within 24 months
Criminal
Criminal
• Felony – 100% within 180 days
• Misdemeanor – 100% within 90 days
• Felony
• 90% within 120 days
• 98% within 180 days
• 100% within 1 year
• Misdemeanor
• 90% within 30 days
•100% within 90 days
Juvenile
Juvenile
• Detention and Shelter Hearings
– 100% 24 hours
• Adjudicatory or Transfer Hearings
• Concerning a juvenile in a detention or
shelter facility – 100% within 15 days
• Concerning a juvenile not in a detention
or shelter facility – 100% within 30 days
• Detention and Shelter Hearings – 100% 24 hours
• Adjudicatory or Transfer Hearings
• Concerning a juvenile in a detention or
shelter facility – 100% within 15 days
• Concerning a juvenile not in a detention
or shelter facility – 100% within 30 days
Domestic
Domestic
• Uncontested – 100% within 3 months
• Contested – 100% within 6 months
• 90% within 3 months
• 98% within 6 months
• 100% within 1 year
Source: Heather Dodge and Kenneth Pankey, ”Case Processing Time Standards in State Courts, 2002-2003”
National Center for State Courts Web site, www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_CasManCPTSPub.pdf.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Method:
This measure should be reviewed on a regular (e.g., monthly,
quarterly, annual) basis. If reviewed regularly, the court can observe
trends as they develop, then aggregate the data for annual reporting.
For each case type, the first task is to compile a list of all cases that
were disposed or otherwise resolved during the reporting period.
For the purpose of this measure, "disposed or otherwise resolved"
is defined as having had an Entry of Judgment. If the data for the
measure are not available in automated form, and data collection
requires manual review of case files, then the measure will likely
need to be taken on an annual basis. Sampling is an option in
courts where case volumes are high.
Sampling
This measure should be calculated for all cases disposed or otherwise resolved
during the reporting period. If a complete report on all such cases cannot be
produced by the case management system, sampling will be necessary. In most
instances, a sample of 300 cases for each case type will be sufficient. Cases should
be selected either by a random or a systematic procedure. Random samples are
typically generated by a computer or from a random number table. Systematic
samples require the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of domestic
cases in a court was 3,000 and the intended sample size is 300 cases, begin at a
randomly selected starting point and select every tenth case (3,000/300=10).
Which Cases Are Included?
There are two kinds of cases for which the time to disposition can be computed.
The first are typical cases that move through the system without interruption.
When these cases are disposed or otherwise resolved by Entry of Judgment during
the reporting period, they should be counted. The filing dates for these cases
will vary, but what qualifies them for inclusion is the fact that the disposition
dates all fall within the reporting period (e.g., the calendar year).
The second kind are cases that had their progress interrupted and underwent a
period of inactivity, but were Reopened or Reactivated by the court and disposed of
during the reporting period. An example of this is a contract case that is Placed on
Inactive Status pending the outcome of bankruptcy proceedings. Following those
proceedings, the contract case resumes and is disposed. Another example is a
criminal case in which the defendant absconds after the case was filed. The case
is Placed on Inactive Status during this time, but when the defendant is apprehended
and returned to court, the case resumes and is disposed.
Cases in which judgment was previously entered, but which have been Reopened
due to a request to modify or enforce existing judgments are also included. For
example, the court might grant a motion to consider newly discovered evidence,
and thus reopen a case. In juvenile cases, a case might be reopened due to violation
of probation, or due to failure of parents to comply with a court order. When these
Reopened cases are disposed during the reporting period, they should be included
in this measure. In all these examples, the time that is counted starts when the case
is reopened, not with the filing date of the original filing.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Cases that are in an official period of inactivity at the end of the reporting period should
not be included in this measure. As this type of case is considered to be among the court’s
Inactive Pending cases at the end of the reporting period (i.e., they are not moving toward
disposition for a known and legitimate reason and the court is aware of this), they should
be excluded from the analysis. Active Pending cases are excluded from analysis, since no
disposition has been reached.
Time Calculation Examples
Begin reporting period
End reporting period
Filing
Entry of Judgement
Typical disposed
case (Small Claims)
40 days
Entry of Judgement
Filing
Typical disposed
case (Misdemeanor)
60 days
60 days
Bankruptcy
proceedings held
Reactivated case
(Contract)
40 days
50 days
Reactivated case
(Simple Assault)
Case Reactivated
90 days
100 days
Case Reactivated
Defendant absconds
15 days
80 days
20 days
Original Case
35 days
Probation Violation
Disposition
Reopened Case
(Felony Drug)
150 days
Probation Term
10 days
10 days
Defendant absconds
Inactive Pending
Case (Simple Assault)
20 days
115 days
Exclude, defendant
absconded
Filling
Active Pending
Case (Contract)
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
100 days
Exclude, no
disposition yet
Analysis and Interpretation
Superior Court
Percemtage of Cases Disposed
180 days
Division
Number of days
365 days
Current
Goal
Current
Goal
Mean
Criminal
70%
98%
97%
100%
170
121
Civil
82%
na
95%
90%
151
93
Domestic
90%
98%
92%
100%
158
105
Median
This table summarizes time to disposition in one court across three case types.
The court is almost meeting its 365-day standard in criminal cases, exceeding its
365-day standard in civil cases, and lagging behind in domestic cases. The court
should examine criminal caseflow management in the first 180 days, the period
in which the court is furthest from its goal.
Time to Disposition
in Felony Cases100% at 365-Day
Time Standard
100%
100% performance goal
75%
50%
25%
0%
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
This court has adopted the ABA standard for felony cases. The court was steadily
improving, and nearly met this goal in June, but in the months following, time to
disposition increased. The court needs to examine what happened in July and
October to determine the source of the periodic drops in performance.
Comparing Time to
Disposition in Civil
and Criminal Cases
(using a 365-Day
Time Standard)
100% performance goal-criminal
100%
Civil
90%
80%
70%
90% performance goal-civil
Criminal
caseflow management improvement
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Increases in the criminal caseload caused the court to shift judicial officers from civil
to criminal cases and initiate caseflow management improvements in June. Time to
disposition for criminal cases did improve, but not without an increase in time to
disposition for civil cases.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Analysis and Interpretation
The graphics here show one way to display time to disposition data for felony cases in four courts. The data
show that the vast majority of cases are resolved within six months in the two faster courts, compared to about
eighteen months in the two slower courts. The profile of felony case time to disposition in different courts may
vary due to the seriousness of the case mix, charging and pleading practices, and the manner of disposition.
Of course, differences in time to disposition will also result from variation in court case management practices.
Documenting differences in case processing time among courts is the first step in analyzing the reasons for
those differences.
For all types of cases, time to disposition is a basic court management tool. Compiling data on the timing
of key case events, consistent definition of terms, and distinguishing between active and inactive cases are
basic ingredients to understanding and improving caseflow management.
Percent of Felony
Cases Disposed
W ithin 36
Months…
cases
1,000
14% within 180 days
750
Court 1
500
250
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 months
cases
1,000
43% within 180 days
Court 2
750
500
250
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 months
cases
1,000
78% within 180 days
Court 3
750
500
250
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 months
cases
1,000
88% within 180 days
Court 4
750
500
250
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 months
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Terms You Need to Know
Active Pending: A count of cases that, at the end of the reporting period, are
awaiting disposition.
Entry of Judgment: A count of cases for which an original entry of judgment--the
court’s final determination of the rights and obligations of the parties to a case--has
been filed. For cases involving multiple parties/issues, the manner of disposition
should not be reported until all parties/issues have been resolved.
Mean: The average value of a set of numbers.
Median: The middle value in a distribution of numbers. Half of the values will
be above this point, half will be below.
Percentile: A percentile is a score below which a given percentage of the cases falls.
Thus, if cases aged 120 days represent the 90th percentile of a court’s pending
caseload, it means that 90% of those cases are aged 120 days or less. Spreadsheet
and statistical software can calculate percentile ranking of data.
Reactivated: A count of cases that had previously been placed in an Inactive
Pending status, but for which further court proceedings and activities can now
be resumed so that the case can proceed to disposition.
Reopened: A count of cases in which judgments have previously been entered
but which have been restored to the court's pending caseload due to the filing of
a request to modify or enforce the existing judgment.
Reopened Disposition: A count of cases that were disposed of by a modification
to and/or enforcement of the original judgment of the court.
Time Standards: An acknowledged measure of comparison, measured as the
time (in days) it take to process a case, from filing to disposition. A time standard
is expressed in terms of the percentage of cases that should be resolved within a
certain time frame (e.g., 98% within 180 days).
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Random sample: A sample chosen that assures no bias in the selection process.
A random sample of case files is typically generated by a computer or selected from
a random number table. Systematic samples require a randomly selected starting
point, then the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases in a
court was 3,000 and the sample size was to be 300 cases, select every tenth case
(3,000 ÷ 300 = 10).
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Place on Inactive Status: A count of cases whose status has been administratively
changed to inactive because the court will take no further action in the case until an
event restores the case to the court's active pending caseload.
Definition:
The age of the Active cases that are pending before the court, measured
as the number of days from filing until the time of measurement.
Purpose:
Knowing the age of Active cases pending before the court is most useful
for addressing three related questions: Does a backlog exist? Which cases
are a problem? Given past and present performance, what is expected in
the future?
Does a
backlog exist?
20%
Time standard
10%
0%
Jan.
Which cases
are a problem?
20%
Criminal cases
10%
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-616-6109
Dec.
0%
What is expected
in the future?
Jan.
Dec.
Jan.
Dec.
20%
10%
Copyright © 2004.
copies and updates at
www.ncsonline.org/d_research
0%
Method:
This measure should be used in conjunction with Measure 2 Clearance
Rates, and Measure 3 Time to Disposition, to get an accurate picture of how
a court is managing its caseload. For example, a court may have a high
clearance rate, and score well on Measure 2, yet still be building
up an inventory of older cases (evaluated by using Measure 4.) This
measure differs from Measure 3 Time to Disposition, in that the cases being
analyzed here have not reached a disposition in the court.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
To use this measure accurately, a court must be able to identify and count cases that
have been Placed on Inactive Status. These are cases that have ceased movement toward
a disposition as the result of events beyond the court’s control (e.g., a defendant who
absconds, the initiation of bankruptcy proceedings, etc.) The ability of a court to track
its pending cases will also allow the court to return an Inactive case to Active status if
the case has been Reactivated. At the time of measurement, the court should remove
Inactive cases from the pending inventory because these cases are not directly
comparable to Active cases and will exaggerate the age of the pending caseload.
This measure should be taken on a regular (e.g., monthly, quarterly, or annual)
basis. The measure can be used to report age of the pending caseload for any case
type (See CourTools Case Types and Counting Cases for a complete list of case types and
case sub-types as defined in the State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting.)
For each case type being analyzed, the case management system should generate
a report that calculates the time, in days, from filing of the case until the date
established for the reporting period being analyzed (e.g., last day of the month,
last day of the year) for all cases that are in Active Pending status.
Sampling
This measure should be calculated for all cases in the Active Pending inventory.
However, sampling will be necessary in courts where case volumes are high if a
complete report cannot be produced by the case management system. In most
instances, a sample of 300 cases for each case type will be sufficient. Cases should
be selected either by a random or a systematic procedure. Random samples would
typically be generated by computer or from a random number table. Systematic
samples require the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases
in a court was 3,000 and the sample size was to be 300 cases, begin at a ramdomly
selected starting point and select every tenth case (3,000 ÷ 300 = 10).
Which Cases Are Included?
Only Active Pending cases are included in this measure, and other cases should
be excluded. Rules for counting, as defined in the State Court Guide to Statistical
Reporting, are summarized below and illustrated in the figure.
The most straightforward cases to count are those that are moving through the system
without interruption and are active and pending at the time of measurement.
A second category are cases that had their progress interrupted and underwent
a period of inactivity but were Reactivated by the court prior to the time of
measurement. An example of this is a contract case that is Placed on Inactive
Status pending the outcome of bankruptcy proceedings.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Following those proceedings, the contract case resumes, and is counted as a Reactivated
case (not as a new filing). Another example is a criminal case in which the case is filed
and the defendant absconds for a period of time. The case is Placed on Inactive Status
during this time, but when the defendant is apprehended and returned to court, and
the case is Reactivated.
A third category are cases in which judgment was previously entered, but which have
been Reopened due to a request to modify or enforce existing judgments. These cases
have been restored to the court’s Active Pending caseload. For example, the court might
grant a motion to consider newly discovered evidence, and thus reopen a case.
A fourth category are cases that should not be included in this measure. These are
cases that are in an official period of inactivity at the date of report. As this type of
case is considered to be among the court’s Inactive Pending cases (i.e., they are not
moving toward disposition for a known and legitimate reason and the court is aware
of this) at the date of report, they should be excluded from the analysis.
Time
Calculation
Examples
Date of report
180 days
Active Pending case
(Automobile Tort)
180 days
Bankruptcy proceedings held
Reactivated case
(Contract)
40 days
60 days
130 days
(40+60+130)–60 = 170 days
Case Reactivated
Defendant absconds
Reactivated case
(Simple assault)
Reopened case
(Felony Drug)
20 day
Original Case
115 days
30 days
Disposition
Probation
Violation
Probation Term
40 days
(20+115+30)–115 = 50 days
40 days
Defendant absconds
Inactive Pending case
(Simple Assault)
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
20 days
115 days
Exclude from time calculation
Analysis and Interpretation
The data collected for this measure allows the court to look at cases that are exceeding
its time standards. Measure 3 Time to Disposition asks, "What percentage of our cases are
being processed within our time standards?" Measure 4 asks, "What percentage of our
cases exceed our time standards?" A court may be handling its current caseload, but at
the same time have old cases that are lingering on. The top graph indicates that this
court is managing its caseload effectively, and at the 180-day mark, the court is close to
its goal of having no more than 10 percent of its active cases pending beyond 180 days.
The bottom graph indicates, however, that the court is having a harder time meeting its
standard at the 365-day mark. The red line indicates the goal is to have no more than 2
percent of its active caseload pending at 365 days from time of filing. The court is
unable to meet this standard.
Identifying specific cases and analyzing their status (e.g., by location, by judge, by type
of proceeding) will allow the court to know whether the active pending cases are being
appropriately managed. In this example, the court has extracted descriptive information on cases pending beyond 365 days to begin its case-level analysis.
20%
Percent of Cases
Pending Beyond
10%
180 days
0%
Jan.
Nov.
Jan.
Nov.
10%
Percent of Cases
Pending Beyond
5%
365 days
0%
Focusing on the
cases that exceed
365 days…
Case
Numbers
Case Type
Age-days
Next Action
Location
Judge
SC-F-136
Murder
536
Jury Trial
Scott
Jones
SC-F-468
Drug–Sale
382
Motion Hearing
Colton
Smith
SC-F-771
Fraud
439
Bench Trial
Jersey
Kearn
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Analysis and Interpretation
Median Age
of Pending
Civil Cases
Begin purge of
inactive cases
400
300
Purge concluded
Regular monitoring/
dismissals continue
200
100
0
Jan.
Mar.
May
Jul.
Sep.
Nov.
Analysis of the age of the Active Pending caseload over time can be used to determine whether caseflow
management practices are having their intended effects. This figure shows how a court’s decision to
undertake an intensive program to identify and dispose of stagnant civil cases has caused a noticeable
drop in the median age of its pending civil caseload. These stagnant cases appeared to be active cases,
but examination of the files and communication with parties revealed the cases had either settled out
of court or were no longer being pursued.
Who Sets Time Standards?
The Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and the American Bar
Association (ABA) have offered specific time standards for case processing. The
question of whether these standards are attainable is an empirical one that remains
largely unanswered. Time standards are expressed as the percentage of cases that
should be resolved within a certain elapsed period. For example, the ABA offers
the following standards:
Civil cases
90% within 12 months
98% within 18 months
100% within 24 months
Domestic cases
90% within 3 months
98% within 6 months
100% within 12 months
Felony cases
90% within 120 days
98% within 180 days
100% within 1 year
Juvenile cases
Detention & shelter: 100% within 24 hours
Adjudicatory or transfer (Detention or shelter): 100% within 15 days
Adjudicatory or transfer (Not in Detention or shelter): 100% within 30 days
Heather Dodge and Kenneth Pankey, ”Case Processing Time Standards in State Courts, 2002-2003”
National Center for State Courts Web site, www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/KIS_CasManCPTSPub.pdf.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Terms You Need to Know
Active Pending: A count of cases that, at the end of the reporting period, are
awaiting disposition.
Inactive Pending: A count of cases that, at the end of the reporting period, have
been administratively classified as inactive. Such circumstances may be defined by
statewide court administrative rule or order.
Percentile: A percentile is a score below which a given percentage of the cases falls.
Thus, if cases aged 120 days are in the 90th percentile of a court’s pending caseload,
it means that 90% of those cases are aged 120 days or less. Spreadsheet and statistical
software can calculate percentile ranking of data. The percentiles a court selects
should be chosen based on its own state or local time standards or those suggested
by the Conference of State Court Administration(COSCA) or the American Bar
Association (ABA).
Random Sample: A sample chosen that assures no bias in the selection process.
A random sample of case files is typically generated by a computer or selected from
a random number table. Systematic samples require a randomly selected starting
point, then the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases in a
court was 3,000 and the sample size was to be 300 cases, select every tenth case
(3,000 ÷ 300 = 10).
Reactivated: A count of cases that had previously been placed in an Inactive
Pending status, but for which further court proceedings and activities can now be
resumed so that the case can proceed to disposition.
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Reopened: A count of cases in which judgments have previously been entered
but which have been restored to the court's pending caseload due to the filing of
a request to modify or enforce the existing judgments.
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Place on Inactive Status: A count of cases whose status has been administratively
changed to inactive because the court will take no further action in the case until an
event restores the case to the court's Active Pending caseload.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Definition:
The number of times cases disposed by trial are scheduled for trial.
Purpose:
A court’s ability to hold trials on the first date they are scheduled to be
heard (trial date certainty) is closely associated with timely case disposition. This measure provides a tool to evaluate the effectiveness of calendaring and continuance practices. For this measure, "trials" includes
jury trials, bench trials (also known as non-jury trials or court trials), and
adjudicatory hearings in juvenile cases.
Method:
Measuring trial date certainty requires identifying all cases disposed by
trial during a given time period (e.g., a year, quarter or month). The
illustrations offered below are for monthly reporting. After the cases are
identified, additional information must be collected to determine
whether those cases were tried on the first date they were set for trial or
were continued one or more times before the trial actually began.
Step 1: Create and Sort the List of Cases Disposed by Trial
Copyright © 2004.
copies and updates at
www.ncsonline.org/d_research
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-616-6109
Prepare a list of all of the cases disposed by trial during the reporting period and organize
them by case type. Next examine the case record to determine the number of trial dates
set in the case and record them. The minimum number of trial dates set for any case on this
list will be 1, since all the cases on the list have at least one trial setting. The list should
contain the case number, the type of case, the type of trial, and the number of trial dates
set (including the date upon which the trial ultimately began).
After the list is compiled, it should be sorted within case types by trial type, and then by
number of trial dates set. Sorting the list in this fashion will facilitate the creation of a
summary table showing the number of cases of each type with one date set for the trial to
begin, those with two trial-start dates, and so on, up to the maximum number of dates on
which the trial was set to begin, by case type and type of trial.
Summary Table
for Capturing
Trial Dates
Court Case
Number
Case
Type
Trial
Type
Number of
Trial Dates Set
CV246-357
General Civil
Jury
1
CV555-121
General Civil
Jury
1
FE123-456
Felony
Jury
3
FE654-321
Felony
Bench
4
DO369-123
Domestic
Bench
2
DO212-609
Domestic
Bench
5
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Step 2: Sort the Cases by Frequency of Trial Settings
Prepare a summary table from the sorted list. In the example below, the court had 73 general civil and
felony cases disposed by trial during the reporting period, and has sorted them by case type and trial type
into columns indicating how many times each case was set for trial. For example, the table below indicates
there were 2 Felony Jury cases disposed by trial that were set for trial 1 time; 14 cases set for trial 2 times, 6
cases set for trial 3 times, and so on.
Annual Summary
Report of Trial
Settings
Number of Settings
Total
Cases
Trial
Type
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
General Civil
Jury
2
3
7
2
2
0
1
1
18
General Civil
Bench
2
2
6
3
1
1
0
0
15
Felony
Jury
2
14
6
3
2
1
0
0
28
Felony
Bench
3
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
12
Case Type
Analysis and Interpretation
The first way to examine the data is to look at the proportion of cases that meet a specific
performance goal set by the court for trial date certainty. For example, the court may seek to
have 90 percent of its cases go to trial in no more than two trial settings. Excellent performance
would be measured by 90 percent of the cases disposed by trial actually going to trial on the first
or second scheduled trial date.
To illustrate, we use data from the table above for a single case type and a single trial type, FelonyJury, to determine that 57 percent of the cases disposed by trial are meeting the court’s goal: 90%
of the cases disposed with 2 or fewer trial settings. This can also be determined for all case types
and trial types, for comparison.
To determine
Felony-Jury
performance:
Cases with 1 trial setting
Cases with 2 trial settings
Total
16
Total Cases Disposed
28
Percentage
within standard
16 ÷ 28 = 57%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
General Civil Jury
General Civil Bench
Felony Jury
Felony Bench
Domestic Jury
Domestic Bench
Juvenile Adjudicatory
Hearing
Performance Goal
Trial Date
Certainty by
Case Type
2
+14
Computing the Averages by Case Type
A second way to look at the data is to determine the average (mean) number of trial settings by case type.
Averages should be interpreted with caution, since a few cases with a high number of trial settings will
make the average appear artificially high.
To compute the average, first calculate the total number of trial settings by case type and trial type. Multiply
the frequency label in the column heading by the number of cases in each row and add the results. Then
divide the Total Trial Settings by the Total Cases Disposed by Trial for that case type/trial type combination
to determine the average (mean) number of trial settings per case.
For example, the result in the column labeled "Three" settings for Felony - Jury is 18 (3 x 6). Doing this
calculation for each column across the Felony - Jury row shows that there were 76 Total Trial Settings
for the 28 cases of this case type and trial type. Dividing 76 by 28 results in the average: 2.7 trial settings
per case.
Annual Summary Report
of Trial Settings
Number of Settings
Trial
Type
One
Two
Three
Four
Five
Six
Seven
Eight
Total
Cases
General Civil
Jury
2
3
7
2
2
0
1
1
18
General Civil
Bench
2
2
6
3
1
1
0
0
15
Felony
Jury
2
14
6
3
2
1
0
0
28
Felony
Bench
3
4
2
2
1
0
0
0
12
Case Type
3 x 6 = 18
Total Trial
Settings
General Civil
Jury
2
General Civil
Bench
Felony
Jury
Felony
Bench
10
0
7
8
62
12
5
6
0
0
47
12
10
6
0
0
76
8
5
0
0
0
30
6
21
8
2
4
18
2
28
18
3
8
6
Calculate the Average
Trial Settings…
Total Trial
Settings
Average Trial
Settings
Case Type
Trial
Type
General Civil
Jury
62
÷
18
=
3.4
General Civil
Bench
47
÷
15
=
3.1
Felony
Jury
76
÷
28
=
2.7
Felony
Bench
30
÷
12
=
2.5
Total
Cases
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Due to
unreadiness,
attorneys request
continuances
Court continually
grants
continuances
Too few cases are
ready to keep
judges busy
Court schedules
unrealistically high
number of cases
Cases low on list
are not usually
reached for trial
When low on list,
attorneys may
not prepare cases
and have witnesses
Effect of Scheduling and Continuance Policy
Source: Maureen Solomon, Caseflow Management in the Trial Court (Chicago: American Bar Association, 1973), p.50.
Credible trial dates require a firm and consistently applied policy to limit the number of trial day
continuances. If continuance practices are too lenient, attorneys are less likely to be properly
prepared on the trial date which increases the likelihood of a breakdown in the trial calendar.
The result is judge and court staff time is wasted.
• Are trials routinely rescheduled at the request of counsel (one or both)? If so, it is likely that
an initiative is needed to realign the attitudes of both bench and bar about the
importance of trial date certainty. Judges should set trial dates in consultation with
counsel to carefully consider necessary preparation time and their future schedule
to avoid conflicts; bar members need to be convinced not to agree to a trial date they
are not prepared to meet; the court should commit to having a judge available to try
the case on the scheduled date; and requests for continuances should rarely be granted.
Terms you need to know
Bench Trial Disposition: A case disposition is counted as a bench trial disposition when the first
evidence is introduced, regardless of whether a judgment is reached. Also known as court trial or
non-jury trial.
Jury Trial Disposition: A case disposition is counted as a jury trial disposition when the jury has
been sworn, regardless of whether a verdict is reached.
Mean: The average value of a set of numbers, equal to the sum of all values divided by the
number of values.
Trial Disposition: Dispositions that involve an examination of facts and law presided over by a
judicial officer in order to reach a judgment in a case. These include jury trials and bench trials
(also known as non-jury trials or court trials). Adjudicatory hearings in juvenile cases are also
counted as trials.
Trial Setting: Action taken by the court to set a date upon which a trial is scheduled to begin.
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
• Is rescheduling often necessary because there are not enough judges to hear the cases on a given trial
day? If so, the trial-setting practices, whether explicit in formulas or intuitively applied
by judges, need to be revised.
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Ongoing feedback on calendar dynamics greatly increases the odds that the court can sustain
improvement in trial management. Addressing the larger issue of the underlying cause(s) affecting
trial date certainty is critical for creating the expectation that case events will proceed as scheduled.
For example:
Definition:
The percentage of files that can be retrieved within established time
standards, and that meet established standards for completeness and
accuracy of contents.
Purpose:
A reliable and accurate case file system is fundamental to the
effectiveness of day-to-day court operations and fairness of judicial
decisions. The maintenance of case records directly affects the
timeliness and integrity of case processing. This measure provides
information regarding (a) how long it takes to locate a file, (b) whether
the file’s contents and case summary information match up, and (c)
the organization and completeness of the file.
Retrieving Files
Randomly identify equal numbers (but at least 50) of pending case files,
closed--on-site case files, and closed--off-site case files in each case type
being evaluated. Record how long it takes to find each case file. Closed,
On-site Criminal–Felony cases are shown as an example.
File Location
Data Collection
Form
Case Type:
Criminal-Felony
Time required to locate
Random
case #’s
0-15
minutes
SC-F-136
x
x
SC-F-771
x
61+
minutes
Not
found
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
Copyright © 2004.
copies and updates at
www.ncsonline.org/d_research
31-60
minutes
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
Sample size: 5 0
File Type (check one)
__ Pending
__
x Closed, On-site
__ Closed, Off-site
16-30
minutes
SC-F-468
‘‘‘
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-616-6109
Method:
x
SC-F-863
SC-F-979
x
Total files
40
6
2
2
0
Add the number of files in each column. To compute the percentages,
divide each column total by the grand total number of files in the
sample. In this example, a total of 40 files were located in 0-15 minutes
out of the grand total of 50 files retrieved. The percentage is 40 divided
by 50, or 80 percent.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Retrieving Files – Interpretation
In this example, the court determines that 100 percent of the Closed, On-site
cases in Criminal-Felony were located, and 80 percent were located within the
court’s time standard of 15 minutes. Court staff and management need to evaluate
why the remaining files could not be located within this time frame, and determine
if this result suggests changes that should be made in the court’s records
management practices.
Courts should establish a high standard for being able to locate their case files, e.g., 98
percent or more. A similar high standard should be defined for locating the files within
the 15-minute time frame, e.g., 90 percent or more of pending and closed on-site files.
The court should define a standard for locating off-site files as well, e.g., 90 percent of
the off-site files within one working day.
Percent of Files
Retrieved
Percent of cases
100%
90% goal for locating files within 15 min.
75%
50%
25%
0%
0-15
16-30
31-60
61+
minutes
not found
Content Reliability
A second element of this measure examines the extent of correspondence between the
case file summary and the file contents. The content and format of the case file summary (variously referred to as the case docket, case file register, register of actions, etc.)
vary across jurisdictions, but this summary document generally includes at least a complete record of the documents filed with the court for each case. The question this element answers is whether the summary of documents accurately reflects all the documents filed with the court that are supposed to be in the file and, conversely, whether
the documents in the file are accurately recorded on the summary of documents.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Content Reliability –
Method:
(continued)
For each case file in the Pending, Closed-On-site, and Closed Off-site
samples examined in the first element of Measure 6, review the case
file summary and the case file contents for each of the located case
files. For each case file, record the answers to the following questions
on a data collection form:
• Does every document-related entry on the case file summary
have a corresponding document in the case file?
• Is every document in the case file listed as an entry on the case
file summary system?
Add the number Xs in each column. Calculate the percentage
of cases for which "Yes" was answered to both questions.
Content Reliability
Data Collection
Form
Case Type:
Criminal-Felony
Each entry has
a document?
Total
Random
case #’s
YES
SC-F-136
x
x
x
SC-F-468
x
x
x
SC-F-771
x
NO
YES
YES/YES
NO
x
x
Total files
35
x
x
15
‘‘‘
SC-F-979
‘‘‘
x
SC-F-863
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
Sample size: 5 0
File Type (check one)
__ Pending
__
x Closed, On-site
__ Closed, Off-site
Each document
has an entry?
44
x
6
38
In this example, of the grand total of 50 files examined, a total of
35 files have an entry for each document in the file and a total of
44 files have a document for each entry. Thus, not all entries have
documents and not all documents have entries. Only 38 of the 50
files examined meet the Yes/Yes condition. To compute the percentage,
divide the total Yes/Yes (38) by the grand total of files examined (50).
The result is 76 percent.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Content Reliability – Analysis and Interpretation
In this example, the court has set a content reliability standard of 95 percent
correspondence between the summary list of documents and the documents
themselves in all case types, regardless of their status (pending, closed) or the file
location (on-site, off-site). In this court, pending files are kept on site, and closed files
are kept on site for 12 months, and then moved off site. Felony-Pending case files are
currently meeting the court’s standard. The Closed, On-site files are not quite meeting
the standard. The same is true for the Closed, Off-site files. This could indicate that
closed files, which have been checked out to court customers for review and copying
of documents since being closed, are becoming incomplete due to loss of documents
somewhere in the file review and document copying process.
Correspondence
between case
file summary
and contents
95% goal for correspondence
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Pending
Closed
On-site
Closed
Off-site
Pending
Felony
Closed
On-site
Closed
Off-site
Domestic Relations
Data can also be analyzed over time (e.g., annually) to see if performance is consistent,
improving, or declining. In the example below, the court met its standard in 1998,
experienced a sharp decline, then recovered and maintained its standard. The
precise reasons for variation in performance (e.g., changes in personnel, technology,
procedures, facilities, workflow) need to be determined by court staff and management
to determine if corrective action is necessary.
Correspondence
between case
file summary
and contents
Criminal-Felony: Closed, on-site
100%
95% goal for correspondence
75%
50%
1998
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Pending
Closed
On-site
Probate
Closed
Off-site
File Organization and Completeness
A third element of Measure 6 considers whether the file contents are organized and
formatted according to established practice in the jurisdiction. It also explores the
completeness of the file—whether key documents filed with the court are contained
in the case file. The Content Reliability element outlined above examines correspondence
between the file contents and case file summary. It does not, however, explicitly investigate
whether key documents are missing from both the file and summary.
Method:
The specific criteria for judging the organization and completeness of case files may vary
across courts. The first step is to identify 5 to 7 criteria that are appropriate for the specific
court and case type. For example, have specific documents (e.g., complaint, answer, motion,
judgment) been found missing in the past? If so, the presence of such previously missing
documents should be included as criteria for the measure. Other criteria might include
whether the documents filed with the court have been submitted and processed correctly
(e.g.,correctly captioned) and ordered according to the jurisdiction’s specifications for case
files (e.g., confidential documents properly identified and sealed).
Once the criteria are defined by the court for each case type, examine each of the files in
the sample of cases selected, record whether the files meet the criteria, and summarize the
findings on a data collection form.
Completeness
Organization
File Organization
and Completeness
Data Collection
Form
Case Type:
Criminal-Felony
Correct
Caption
Complaint
x
x
x
x
SC-F-468
x
x
x
x
SC-F-771
x
x
x
Proof of
Service
Order/
Judgement
x
x
x
x
x
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
‘‘‘
File Type (check one)
__ Pending
__
x Closed, On-site
__ Closed, Off-site
Date/Time
Stamp
SC-F-136
‘‘‘
Sample size: 5 0
Random
case #’s
Confidential
Documents
SC-F-863
x
x
SC-F-979
x
x
x
x
x
x
Total files
50
50
47
50
40
44
x
x
In this example, of the grand total of 50 files examined, a total of 50 files contain correctly
identified and sealed Confidential Documents. A total of 50 files have documents with a
correct Date/Time Stamp; a total of 47 files have documents with a Correct Caption, and
so on. To compute the percentages, divide the total files in each column by the grand total
of files examined (50). For Confidential Documents, the percentage is 50 divided by 50, or
100 percent. For Correct Caption files, 47 divided by 50 is 94 percent.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Analysis and Interpretation
Shown here are the hypothetical results of one court’s examination of files for six
court-specific criteria for Closed, Civil-Contract case files.
Interpreting the results of this measure depends on the nature of the specific criteria
and the importance of each criterion to the court’s records management system.
The nature of the criteria will suggest corrective actions (e.g., clarification/
communication regarding filing requirements to parties or attorneys, or new staff
procedures to address the specific deficiency). The initial measurement also serves
as a baseline for setting intermediate and long-term targets of performance.
Conformance
to Criteria
95% goal conformance to criteria
100%
75%
50%
Order or
Judgement
Completeness
Terms You Need to Know
Closed cases: Cases that have been disposed of by the court, regardless of the
manner of disposition.
Off-site case files: Case files that are stored in a building or facility other than
the site of the court division responsible for those files.
On-site case files: Case files that are stored in the same building as the court
division responsible for those files.
Pending cases: Cases that are awaiting disposition by the court.
Random Sample: A sample chosen that assures no bias in the selection process.
A random sample of case files could be generated by a computer, or by picking one
file on a random basis, and choosing additional files at evenly spaced intervals
(choosing every tenth file on the shelves, in ascending order) until the desired total
number of files is obtained. Systematic random samples require the taking of every
ninth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases in a court was 3,000 and the sample
size was to be 300 cases, select every tenth case (3,000 ÷ 300 = 10).
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Organization
Complaint Answer
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Confidential Date/Time Correct
Documents
Caption
Stamp
Definition:
Payments collected and distributed within established timelines, expressed
as a percentage of total monetary penalties ordered in specific cases.
Purpose:
Integrity and public trust in the dispute
resolution process depend in part on
how well court orders are observed and
enforced in cases of noncompliance.
In particular, restitution for crime victims
and accountability for enforcement of
monetary penalties imposed on offenders
are issues of intense public interest and
concern. The focus of this measure is
on the extent to which a court takes
responsibility for the enforcement of
orders requiring payment of monetary
penalties.
Why only measure criminal financial
obligations?
•
•
•
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-466-3063
Every jurisdiction has at least one criminal court.
Responsibility for financial accounting in child
support and other civil matters is not universally
accepted as a core court function across the states.
Why only measure misdemeanors?
•
•
Copyright © 2005
copies and updates at
www.courtools.org
All courts with criminal jurisdiction process and
account for financial penalties.
Accounting for fines, fees, and restitution is
a core operational activity of all courts with
misdemeanor jurisdiction.
Most of the money handled by criminal courts
While court orders establish
originates in criminal traffic and other misdemeanors.
a wide variety of sanctions, financial
• Due dates are likely to be clearly established and
obligations are clearly understood and
fall within one year from order date.
measurable. Financial obligations
include child support, civil damage awards,
traffic fines, and criminal
penalties. However, state courts vary in their responsibility for and control over the
full range of monies ordered and received. Therefore, to keep this measure broadly
applicable and feasible, the focus is on criminal penalties in misdemeanor cases, including
restitution. Once understood and in place for misdemeanor cases, similar measurement
methods can be applied to other relevant types of monetary penalties and obligations.
Timely payment of restitution is a significant part of how success is defined for this
measure. Collection and disbursement of restitution to victims of crime is particularly
emblematic of the court's commitment to public accountability.
.
Method:
The results of this measure should be reviewed on a regular basis (e.g., monthly, quarterly,
annually). If reviewed regularly, the court can establish baselines, set performance goals,
observe trends as they develop, and aggregate the data for annual reporting.
The first task is to compile a list of all misdemeanor cases in which 1) a financial penalty
was ordered and 2) the due date for final payment falls within the reporting period. The
term total monetary penalty includes all financial obligations associated with misdemeanor
cases, regardless of local terminology and practice (e.g., fines, fees, assessments, restitution,
etc). If the case includes an order for restitution, additional information will include
the amount of restitution ordered, the amount of money collected and applied to the
restitution obligation, and the amount disbursed to the victims. For the purposes of
the measure, separate restitution “accounts” (multiple victims/payees) can be aggregated
into a single balance.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
Other than for restitution payments to victims, compiling a record of all subsequent disbursement
activities is not included in this measure (i.e., success in directing/paying out funds received to
the appropriate account). This decision reflects the practical reality that there can be numerous
funds entitled to a fraction of the total penalty as well as wide variation in local accounting practices
governing the timing and allocation of dollars received.
Eight data elements
are essential:
Availability of Information
1. Case number.
2. Date of the order of sentence.
3. Due date for final payment of the total
monetary penalty.
4. Total monetary penalty in the case.
5. Amount of total monetary penalty received
(collected) to date.
6. Total amount of restitution ordered in the case.
7. Amount received that is applied by the court
to restitution.
8. Amount of restitution received that is disbursed
to victims.
Ease of data collection for this measure will depend on the quality
of the court's systems for tracking and monitoring compliance with
the terms of sentences and other judgments. For many courts,
accessible court records, whether manual or automated, may
contain all the required data. In the event data cannot be collected
for this measure without inspection of case files, a reliable sampling
technique may need to be used. The task will be relatively simple
if the clerk's office keeps judgment journals or similar payment
bookkeeping records. A sample should not be drawn from
bookkeeping records alone unless an entry is created in those
records for all cases where an order includes restitution and other
monetary penalties. It is possible, for example, that the bookkeeper
only creates a record when a payment is made rather than when
a penalty is initially ordered. In that instance, sampling from that
source would not be representative of all cases in which a
monetary penalty is ordered.
Converting Time to Dollars
Accurate measurement of compliance requires a means to convert a monetary penalty into days
of community service or jail time when accepted in lieu of fines or as alternatives to payment of
restitution. These equity-related practices are used in many cases where the offender is unable
to pay the full amount of monetary penalties. This process obliges courts to establish a dollar
value when converting monetary obligations to “time served.” For example, an order that states
“$200 fine to be paid within 3 days, or one day in jail” establishes an implied conversion formula
of “$200 = 1 day jail time.”
More commonly, when circumstances include an inability to pay, community service is imposed.
For example, local policy may be that a $200 penalty is equivalent to the number of hours
necessary to pay off the penalty at $10 per hour.
Total Penalty
=
Hours Necessary to Pay Fine
x
Hourly Rate
Extended Due Dates and Time Payments
Consistent with strategies to improve enforcement of orders without resorting to community
service or incarceration, courts may extend the original due dates for monetary obligations,
set up payment plans, etc. For this measure, if the original date is extended, the extended
due date is used in measuring compliance.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
April 1, 2005
April 30, 2005
Included in
the Analysis
$525 fine,
due immediately
Ordered
Which Cases and
Penalties Are Counted?
The figure illustrates which cases are
counted when determining the compliance
rate for cases in which monetary penalties
were due in full in April 2005. Only
cases in which final payment of the total
monetary penalties is due in April 2005
are counted. The starting dates of the
cases vary and may precede the month
of April. Cases in which penalties are not
due in full until after April are excluded
from the analysis. Final payment includes
both actual payment as well as completion
of community service or jail time during
the reporting period in lieu of payment.
Due
Included in
the Analysis
$200 fine,
$300 restitution
Ordered
Due
Included in
the Analysis
$1,125 fine
Community service
completed
Ordered
Included in
the Analysis
$200 fine = 20 hours x $10/hr
Ordered
Original
due date
Extended
due date
Excluded from
the Analysis
$125 fine
Ordered
Due
Excluded from
the Analysis
$400 restitution, 12 monthly installments
$100 fine,
due immediately
Data Reporting and Analysis
Total Penalties
This table summarizes compliance on collection of total misdemeanor monetary penalties in
one court. The Preliminary Compliance Rate is the percentage of total monetary penalties
ordered that were collected as actual dollars. Combining the dollar value of community
service or jail served in lieu of payment (Conversion Credit Dollar Value) with Actual Dollars
Collected produces Overall Monetary Penalties Collected. Finally, Overall Compliance Rate
is calculated by dividing Overall Monetary Penalties Collected by the Total Amount Ordered.
Two examples illustrate the use of conversion credits: Case Three shows the total penalty (penalty
and restitution) of $250 converted, and Case Five shows $100 of $1,150 converted. In addition,
Cases Two and Four show partial compliance with no conversion credits, which means that
preliminary and overall compliance rates are the same. Case One shows full compliance.
Total Penalties
Total
Amount
Ordered
Actual
Dollars
Collected
Preliminary
Compliance
Rate
Conversion
Credit Dollar
Value
Overall
Monetary
Penalties
Collected
Overall
Compliance
Rate
100%
Case
Date
Ordered
One
1/1/2003
4/1/2004
$400
$400
100%
—
$400
Two
2/15/2003
4/15/2004
$450
$325
72%
—
$325
72%
Three
3/5/2003
4/5/2004
$250
$0
0%
$250
$250
100%
Four
4/15/2003
4/15/2004
$500
$125
25%
—
$125
25%
Five
4/25/2003
4/25/2004
$1,150
$375
33%
$100
$475
$2,750
$1,225
45%
$350
Date Due
Total
1,575 / 2,750 = 57%
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
$1,575
41%
57%
Restitution Collection and Disbursement
In some criminal cases, the monetary penalty will require restitution in the form of payment to
the victim for harm that was caused. This measure calls for specific analysis of the amount of
restitution ordered, collected, and distributed to victims. In this court, the overall compliance
rate is 57%, the restitution collection rate is also 82%, and all restitution has been disbursed
(100%). This result occurs because all dollars collected are applied to restitution obligations
first, prior to paying any other government revenue penalty accounts, and the court is efficient
in making payment to victims. In Case One the total penalty, including restitution, is fully paid.
In Case Four, the total monetary penalty of $500 is not paid, but sufficient funds have been
collected to cover full restitution. Once restitution is collected, the court can monitor the
actual disbursement of restitution to victims.
Terms You Need To Know
Misdemeanor: A lesser crime punishable by a fine and/or county jail time generally up to one year.
Restitution: An amount to be paid for the purpose of compensation for an injury, loss, or damage.
Restitution Collection and Disbursement
Restitution
Amount
Ordered
Restitution
Amount
Collected
Restitution
Collection
Rate
Restitution
Disbursed
Overall
Compliance
Rate
$300
$300
100%
$300
100%
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
$100
$100
100%
$100
100%
$550
$375
68%
$375
100%
$950
$775
82%
$775
100%
775 / 775 = 100%
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Senior Contributors: William E. Hewitt and Ingo Kellitz
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Improving compliance rates for collection of monetary penalties as well as for collection and
disbursement of restitution is enhanced by monitoring the trend in performance. For example,
the figure below compares Preliminary Compliance Rate to Overall Compliance Rate over time.
This court had not implemented “conversion credit” practices in 2000, so the two rates are
identical. As a result of implementing
conversion practices in 2001, the two
Total Penalty Compliance Rate Over Time
rates diverge and a more accurate
measure of compliance is achieved.
80%
Overall Compliance Rate
Adopting a broader definition of
60%
payment, to include both dollars
and community service or jail time,
40%
allows the court to incorporate the
Preliminary Compliance Rate
full spectrum of penalty enforcement.
20%
Without such adjustments,
0%
performance in this area will be
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
misrepresented and misunderstood.
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Compliance with Monetary Penalties Over Time
Definition:
Juror Yield is the number of citizens selected for jury duty who are
qualified and report to serve, expressed as a percentage of the total
number of prospective jurors available. Juror Utilization is the rate at
which prospective jurors are used at least once in trial or voir dire,
expressed as the number of jurors selected as a percentage of the total
number of prospective jurors qualified and available to serve (yield).
Purpose:
The percentage of citizens available to serve relates to the integrity
of source lists, the effectiveness of jury management practices, the
willingness of citizens to serve, the efficacy of excuse and postponement
policies, and the number of exemptions allowed. The objective of this
measure is to minimize the number of unused prospective jurors—the
number of citizens who are summoned, qualified, report for jury
service, and who are not needed.
Method:
Courts differ in their approach to drawing a pool of qualified jurors.
The Juror Yield Computation Worksheet below accommodates most
one-step or combined qualifying and summoning practices.
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-466-3063
Juror Yield
Computation
Worksheet
Potential Availability
Not Available
A. Summonses Sent
B. Postponed to Serve this Period
C. Told Not to Report
______
+ ______
– ______
E. No Show
F. Undeliverable
G. Disqualified
H. Exempt
I. Excused
J. Postponed to Future
D. Total Potentially Available
= ______
K. Total Not Available to Serve = ______
L. Total Serving
M. Juror Yield(%)
= [D-K]
= [ (L / D) x 100 ]
Copyright © 2005
copies and updates at
www.courtools.org
Notes:
A. Number of Summonses Sent: The total number of summonses sent to prospective jurors.
B. Postponed to Serve this Period (Postponed In): The number of people summoned and postponed
from a previous measurement time period who are required to serve during this time period.
C. Told Not to Report: The number of people the court assumes were available and willing to serve
but who were instructed in advance by the court not to report.
D. Total Potentially Available: Total number of people expected to report for jury duty, calculated
as the Number of Summonses Sent plus the number Postponed to Serve this Period minus the number
Told Not to Report [(A+B) – C].
E. No Show: The number of people not reporting for jury duty as instructed. Include jurors who
report for duty, but leave without explanation before service is complete.
F. Undeliverable: The number of summonses sent out that were returned by the post office as undeliverable.
G. Disqualified: The number of people not allowed to serve by statute (e.g., those who are no longer
residents of the jurisdiction).
H. Exempt: The number of people allowed by statute to be excused at their own request who have made
and been granted such a request.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
+ ______
+ ______
+ ______
+ ______
+ ______
+ ______
I. Excused: The number of people excused at the court’s discretion (e.g., financial hardship).
Excuse guidelines are set by statute or court rules.
J. Postponed to Future Time Period (Postponed Out): The number of people postponed at the court’s
discretion during this measurement period to serve at a future date.
K. Not Available to Serve: Total number of people not available to serve due to items E through J.
[E+F+G+H+I+J].
L. Total Serving: The total number of people serving. [D-K].
M.Juror Yield: The percentage of citizens selected for jury duty who are qualified and report to serve,
expressed as a percentage of the total number of prospective jurors available. [(L/D) x 100].
The Juror Yield Worksheet provides an overall measure of juror yield. A commonly used goal
for yield is 40 percent, a value demonstrated to be realistic in many well-managed courts. The
worksheet also provides courts with more detailed and diagnostic feedback on specific areas
in which the court might improve. For instance, courts with high percentages of undeliverable
summonses (F on the worksheet) might seek to improve the accuracy of source lists. Courts
with a high number of excused (I on the worksheet) might choose to evaluate their policy for
granting requests to be excused or implement procedures that reduce the burden of jury service
(e.g., using shorter terms of service or providing childcare). If the court has a large number of
potential jurors failing to appear (E on the worksheet), it may choose to implement stricter
enforcement or develop public outreach and jury service education programs.
Juror Yield
Over Time
Juror Yield (%)
Analysis and Interpretation
55%
Upper limit
40%
Goal
25%
Lower limit
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Courts may track juror yield over time and evaluate unusual variations. Although variations are
expected, points falling well above or well below the average can alert the court to the need for
possible adjustments. For example, any time the yield rises above an upper limit (e.g., 55%) or
below a lower limit (e.g., 25%) the court can adjust the number of persons summoned and thus
call to service the appropriate number of potential jurors needed by the court. By examining
this measure over time, courts are better able to respond to their jury workload.
Postponement
Ratio
Ratio of postponed out to postponed in
Jurors
Jurors
Postponed Postponed
In
Month
Ratio
Out
March
260
250
1 to 1
April
255
253
1 to 1
May
250
245
1 to 1
June
290
220
1.3 to 1
July
300
210
1.4 to 1
From the Juror Yield Computation Worksheet, the court can calculate the ratio of potential
jurors postponed out to the number postponed in to evaluate postponement practices. The
ratio is calculated by dividing the number of Postponed to Future Time Period (J) by the number
Postponed to Serve this Period (B). Ideally, this ratio should be in balance at 1:1 and stable over
time so that the court is not short of potential jurors in some periods while having a surplus in
others. As shown above, the court’s postponement ratio has become problematic in the summer
months, as more potential jurors are allowed to postpone their service, while at the same time
the court did not anticipate this with a sufficient number of potential jurors postponed in.
Understanding these patterns will enable to court to keep the ratio in balance in the future.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
As a complement to the previous calculation, the court can also calculate the proportion of
potential jurors Postponed to Serve This Period as a share of Summonses Sent [(B/A) x 100]. This
allows the court to monitor deferral rates and prevent high deferral rates, since this may skew
the jury pool (e.g., all "snowbirds" showing up for jury service during summer months). Based
on this analysis, the court might need to restrict the dates that people can be allowed to
postpone into, thereby avoiding too many postponements in the same jury pool.
Percentage
Postponed to
Serve this Period
40%
Average
30%
20%
10%
0%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Juror Utilization
The second element of this measure, Juror Utilization, helps the court minimize the number
of unused jurors—that is, the number of citizens who are summoned, qualified, told to report
for service, and are not needed. This element addresses the problem of non-use of panels due
to settlements and pleas and the problem of calling panels that are larger than needed for the
selection of a jury.
Courts should calculate juror utilization at various stages along the jury selection process
(e.g., percent sent to the courtroom, or percent impaneled as a juror or alternate). Further
follow-up will uncover the source of the underutilization and courts can then implement
an appropriate solution.
Once the prospective juror appears for jury duty, and postponements and hardships are handled,
the person will fall into one of five categories as defined below. Note that courts need to distinguish between completed jury selection (defined as once the jury is sworn) and incomplete jury
selection (defined as any time a case is disposed during the jury selection process (e.g., by settlement or plea) prior to the jury being sworn), in order to obtain an accurate picture of their jury
management practices.
The categories are:
N. Selected in Completed Jury Selection: The number of jurors selected and impaneled
to serve on the jury or as an alternate, when a jury is sworn.
O. Challenged in Completed Jury Selection: The number of jurors excused (by peremptory
challenge, challenge for cause, or by the judge’s own initiative) from the panel, when a
jury is sworn.
P. Not Selected or Challenged in Completed Jury Selection: The number of jurors assigned to a
courtroom and attending jury selection, but not questioned or needed, when a jury is sworn.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
Q. Utilized in Incomplete Jury Selection: The number of jurors assigned to a courtroom and
attending jury selection, when a jury is not sworn.
R. Never Assigned: The number of jurors who did not attend jury selection and remained
in the assembly room until dismissed.
Juror Utilization is defined in two parts. First is the Percent Selected as Jurors, which assumes the
court does not use a multiple voir dire. Applying the calculations obtained from juror yield,
this percentage is calculated as [(N/L) x 100]. A suggested goal for this part is 30 percent.
The second part, Percent Sent for Jury Selection, is defined as the percentage of potential
jurors who attended jury selection, calculated as [((N+O+P+Q)/L) x 100]. The suggested
goal for this part is 90 percent.
Terms You Need to Know
Challenge for Cause: A challenge to the seating of a juror based on the potential juror
admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties or their attorney, personal knowledge
about the facts, or some other basis for believing he/she might not be impartial.
Jury Trial: A category of case dispositions in which a jury is impaneled to determine the issues
of fact in a case. A jury trial should be counted as beginning when the jury has been sworn,
regardless of whether a verdict is reached.
Panel: A group of prospective jurors sent to the courtroom for voir dire.
Peremptory Challenge: A challenge to the seating of a juror for which no reason is required. The
number of such challenges for each side is set by statute and may vary by case type.
Summons: A first-time summons sent to a prospective juror during the measurement period.
This is not a count of people, but a count of all the mail sent, and should not include reminders
or re-summonses (a second summons sent to a prospective juror who was postponed from a
previous period).
Undeliverable: A summons that cannot be delivered. A summons that is reprocessed
after obtaining change-of-address information should not be counted as undeliverable.
Voir Dire: A process of questioning prospective jurors by attorneys for each side
and/or the trial judge about their background, life experiences, and opinions to
determine whether they can weigh the evidence fairly and impartially.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Senior Contributors: William E. Hewitt and Ingo Kellitz
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Calculations for Juror Yield and Juror Utilization should act as a starting point for a discussion on how
to improve the court’s ability to effectively manage jury service. The interplay between Juror Yield
and Juror Utilization demonstrates the need for using both elements of this measure, and examining
them in the context of other measures. Unexpectedly high yields affect the ability of the court to
utilize all of the citizens who reported for duty. On the other hand, a shortage of prospective jurors
due to low juror yields may result in high utilization, but may also delay trials and adversely affect
trial date certainty.
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Additional diagnostic calculations may uncover other areas deserving court attention. For example,
the Percent Utilized in Jury Selection may be high due to panel sizes being too large. To determine
this, the calculation of Percent Sent to Courtroom and Utilized is used: [((N+O)/(N+O+P)) x 100].
The suggested goal for this component is 90 percent. When analyzing panel sizes in this way, the
court will appear to be inefficient in its use of jurors if the court is unable to distinguish between
jurors not selected or challenged in cases with completed jury selections (P in the list above)
and those utilized in incomplete jury selections (Q in the list above).
Definition:
Ratings of court employees assessing the quality of the work
environment and relations between staff and management.
Purpose:
Committed and loyal employees have a direct impact on a court’s
performance. This measure is a powerful tool for surveying employee
opinion on whether staff have the materials, motivation, direction,
sense of mission, and commitment to do quality work. Knowing how
employees perceive the workplace is essential to facilitate organizational
development and change, assess teamwork and management style,
enhance job satisfaction, and thus, improve service to the public.
Method:
This measure is an opinion survey of all court employees conducted
on a regular basis (e.g., annually). The survey questionnaire requires
respondents to rate their agreement with each of 20 statements on a
five-point scale from “Strongly Agree” to “Strongly Disagree.” Two
additional items ask respondents to identify the organizational division,
department, unit, or court location in which they work. The survey
can be easily adapted to include one or more open-ended questions
soliciting written feedback and pinpointing specific concerns.
Surveys raise expectations
among staff; management
should understand that
asking a question implies
Trends in Overall Employee Satisfaction
District Court, Harmony County
taking action based on
90
responses. When employees
raise concerns, management
needs to demonstrate that
those concerns are being
heard. Not all problems
Index Score
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
800-616-6109
Paying Attention
to Employee
Satisfaction
can be immediately
Copyright © 2004.
copies and updates at
www.ncsonline.org/d_research
addressed, but upon
review of the results
management should
communicate to staff
what actions will be
taken and why.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
85
80
75
70
Jan
Jul
Jan
Jul
Jan
Jul
Jan
Jul
Jan
01
01
02
02
03
03
04
04
05
Q. Utilized in Incomplete Jury Selection: The number of jurors assigned to a courtroom and
attending jury selection, when a jury is not sworn.
R. Never Assigned: The number of jurors who did not attend jury selection and remained
in the assembly room until dismissed.
Juror Utilization is defined in two parts. First is the Percent Selected as Jurors, which assumes the
court does not use a multiple voir dire. Applying the calculations obtained from juror yield,
this percentage is calculated as [(N/L) x 100]. A suggested goal for this part is 30 percent.
The second part, Percent Sent for Jury Selection, is defined as the percentage of potential
jurors who attended jury selection, calculated as [((N+O+P+Q)/L) x 100]. The suggested
goal for this part is 90 percent.
Terms You Need to Know
Challenge for Cause: A challenge to the seating of a juror based on the potential juror
admitting bias, acquaintanceship with one of the parties or their attorney, personal knowledge
about the facts, or some other basis for believing he/she might not be impartial.
Jury Trial: A category of case dispositions in which a jury is impaneled to determine the issues
of fact in a case. A jury trial should be counted as beginning when the jury has been sworn,
regardless of whether a verdict is reached.
Panel: A group of prospective jurors sent to the courtroom for voir dire.
Peremptory Challenge: A challenge to the seating of a juror for which no reason is required. The
number of such challenges for each side is set by statute and may vary by case type.
Summons: A first-time summons sent to a prospective juror during the measurement period.
This is not a count of people, but a count of all the mail sent, and should not include reminders
or re-summonses (a second summons sent to a prospective juror who was postponed from a
previous period).
Undeliverable: A summons that cannot be delivered. A summons that is reprocessed
after obtaining change-of-address information should not be counted as undeliverable.
Voir Dire: A process of questioning prospective jurors by attorneys for each side
and/or the trial judge about their background, life experiences, and opinions to
determine whether they can weigh the evidence fairly and impartially.
© 2005 National Center for State Courts
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Senior Contributors: William E. Hewitt and Ingo Kellitz
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Calculations for Juror Yield and Juror Utilization should act as a starting point for a discussion on how
to improve the court’s ability to effectively manage jury service. The interplay between Juror Yield
and Juror Utilization demonstrates the need for using both elements of this measure, and examining
them in the context of other measures. Unexpectedly high yields affect the ability of the court to
utilize all of the citizens who reported for duty. On the other hand, a shortage of prospective jurors
due to low juror yields may result in high utilization, but may also delay trials and adversely affect
trial date certainty.
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Additional diagnostic calculations may uncover other areas deserving court attention. For example,
the Percent Utilized in Jury Selection may be high due to panel sizes being too large. To determine
this, the calculation of Percent Sent to Courtroom and Utilized is used: [((N+O)/(N+O+P)) x 100].
The suggested goal for this component is 90 percent. When analyzing panel sizes in this way, the
court will appear to be inefficient in its use of jurors if the court is unable to distinguish between
jurors not selected or challenged in cases with completed jury selections (P in the list above)
and those utilized in incomplete jury selections (Q in the list above).
Step 1: Prepare Survey
The content and format for the survey form should be standardized—the same questions asked in the same
way—so that survey results can be reliably compared throughout the court. For courts with organizational
divisions or different court locations, particular attention should be paid to the second part of the survey
that identifies the divisions, units, or court locations of the respondent’s work or primary assignments. To
analyze and interpret the results by these organizational divisions of the court, it is important that they are
identified accurately.
To maximize survey response rate, a note of explanation and encouragement from a respected member
of the court should accompany the survey. The idea is to inform employees about survey planning, data
collection, and implementation plans. Without this communication, employees who would otherwise
support the survey may not participate.
Step 2: Plan Data Collection
A plan should be developed for administering the survey to all court employees in the department, division,
or court location being evaluated. Staff should be given advance notice of the survey and presented with
clear instructions, a deadline, and a contact person to whom respondents can ask questions about the
survey’s content and purpose. The timing of the survey should take into account holidays, vacations,
workload, and other issues, to maximize staff participation.
Step 3: Administer Survey
Most organizations that survey their employees do so once a year. But with only a single survey, management
can't distinguish between flukes and trends. By surveying multiple times a year, using different samples of
employees from the various divisions and locations, the court can better distinguish between reactions to
one-time events and ongoing concerns.
Distribution Method
The survey should be administered in a way that maximizes the participation of staff. Paper questionnaires
work well for this type of survey. However, if feasible, a Web-based survey should be considered because it
lowers costs of data entry and may boost response rates. If the survey is completed on paper, completed
surveys should be deposited in a box rather than handed directly to a person. Anyone absent on the day
of the survey should have the opportunity to complete it at another time.
Confidentiality
Courts should maintain ethical standards of confidentiality. Because survey results are analyzed and reported
only at the levels of the organizational division and the court as a whole, respondents need not and should
not be identified by name. The perceived confidentiality of employee responses to the questionnaire is
critical to the success of the measure.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
2
Strongly
Agree
1
Court Employee Satisfaction Survey
Neither A
gree or D
isagree
Agree
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree
Court Employee Satisfaction Survey
3
5
4
Circle the Number
1. I understand what is expected of me.
1
2
3
4
5
2. I am kept informed about matters that affect me.
1
2
3
4
5
3. I have the resources (materials, equipment, supplies, etc.) necessary to do my job well.
1
2
3
4
5
4. I am able to do my best every day.
6. In the last month, I was recognized and praised for doing a good job.
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
5
5
5
7. Someone in the court cares about me as a person.
1
2
3
4
5
8. I have opportunities to express my opinion about how things are done in my division.
1
2
3
4
5
9. The court is respected in the community.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
13. My working conditions and environment enable me to do my job well.
1
2
3
4
5
14. I feel valued by my supervisor based on my knowledge and contribution to my
1
2
3
4
5
16. In the last month, someone in the court has talked to me about my performance.
1
1
2
2
3
3
4
4
5
5
17. I enjoy coming to work.
1
2
3
4
5
18. My coworkers care about the quality of services and programs we provide.
1
2
3
4
5
19. I am treated with respect.
1
2
3
4
5
20. I am proud that I work in the court.
1
2
3
4
5
5. Communication within my division/department/unit is good.
10. My coworkers work well together.
11. I am encouraged to try new ways of doing things.
12. I understand the connection between the work I do and the mission and goals
of the court.
department, unit or division.
15. I feel free to speak my mind.
Court Division or Location
(Check the appropriate boxes. Your answers are confidential.)
In which Court Division do you work? (check only one)
What is your primary location? (check only one)
___ Civil
___ Accounting
___ Main Courthouse
___ Criminal
___ Pre-Trial Release
___ Juvenile Court
___ Juvenile
___ Judiciary
___ West County Courthouse
___ Family
___ Judicial Support
___ East County Courthouse
___ Probate
___ Administration
___ Other:________________
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Analysis and Interpretation
Enter the results from each respondent into a spreadsheet or database to record and summarize the results. The
figure shows a sample summary spreadsheet, with results visible for a selection of the first and last items. Here
the court surveyed 100 employees, but the number of valid responses for each question is not necessarily 100. If
people did not answer the question, their answers are not counted as valid responses for that question. Note that
the Respondent Number is simply an identifier for data entry purposes and is not linked to a specific person in
any way.
Overall views about the workplace are the first level of analysis. Court managers may decide that a rating of at
least 4 or better means that the court is meeting its performance goal. In this case, the Strongly Agree/5
responses would be grouped together with the Agree/4 responses into a single “Agree” grouping.
Employee Satisfaction
1=Strongly Disagree
2=Disagree
3=Neither agree/Disagree
Respondent
Number
4=Agree
5=Strongly Agree
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q19
Q20
What is
expected
Kept
Informed
Have
resources
Treated with
Respect
Proud to
W ork
10001
5
5
3
3
4
10002
2
3
–
2
3
10003
4
3
4
3
2
10004
5
4
5
4
3
10005
3
3
–
3
3
3
4
3
3
2
Total Score
372
360
235
300
307
Total Respondents
100
100
100
100
100
98
100
98
100
99
10100
Total Valid Reponses
Rating of 4 or 5
72
75
66
72
76
Average
3.8
3.6
2.4
3.0
3.1
7 2÷98= 73%
To determine the percentage in the Agree group,
sum the total number of responses with 4s and
5s and divide by the Total Valid Responses.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
300÷100= 3.0
Another way to look at the data is to compute the average
score for each question in the survey. To compute the
average, first calculate the Total Score. Then divide
the Total Score by the Total Valid Responses.
Rate of Agreement with Questions
The adjacent chart shows the percent in
the Agree group (rating of 4 or 5) for
the first five items. Court employees
were especially positive about being
kept informed and communications.
At the same time, they were least satisfied
with having the resources they need.
I understand what is expected of me.
I am kept informed.
80% Performance Goal
I have the resources to do my job well.
I am able to do my best.
Calculating a Satisfaction Rate
Communication within my division is good.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Creating an Index Score
A court may wish to construct an overall rating of employee satisfaction. By summing the average scores
for each question, an index score is created. The 20 questions have a maximum possible score of 5 points
each, for a total maximum score of 100. In the example below, the court's overall employee satisfaction
score is 79.5, the sum of the average scores of all twenty questions.
Overall Rating of Employee Satisfaction
Average
Scores
Court Employee Satisfaction Survey
1. I understand what is expected of me.
3.8
2. I am kept informed about matters that affect me.
3.6
3. I have the resources (materials, equipment, supplies, etc.) necessary to do my job well.
4. I am able to do my best every day.
2.4
4.9
5. Communication within my division/department/unit is good.
3.7
6. In the last month, I was recognized and praised for doing a good job.
3.8
7. Someone in the court cares about me as a person.
4.8
8. I have opportunities to express my opinion about how things are done in my division.
4.5
9. The court is respected in the community.
4.5
10. My coworkers work well together.
3.9
11. I am encouraged to try new ways of doing things.
4.6
12. I understand the connection between the work I do and the mission and goals of the court.
3.9
13. My working conditions and environment enable me to do my job well.
4.3
14. I feel valued by my supervisor based on my knowledge and contribution to my department, unit or division.
15. I feel free to speak my mind.
4.7
4.5
16. In the last month, someone in the court has talked to me about my performance.
3.2
17. I enjoy coming to work.
4.5
18. My coworkers care about the quality of services and programs we provide.
3.8
19. I am treated with respect.
20. I am proud that I work in the court.
3.0
+
3.1
Overall Index Score = 79.5
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Examining Results by Division
Distinguishing results by division or location is a powerful way to assess the variation of responses
throughout the court. Scores on individual questions or the overall index scores are valuable for
establishing current performance levels (baselines) for the court and to help set acceptable and
achievable goals for future performance. This comparison shows how various organizational divisions
of the court stand relative to the overall court ranking or relative to a goal set by the court.
For example, if the division's percent reporting they Strongly Agree or Agree with Question 2
("I am kept informed about matters that affect me.”) is 54 and the court's is 75, it should be
clear that the division's employees do not feel as well informed as the average court employee.
Improvement can be achieved once the underlying reasons for this difference are identified.
Appropriate comparisons can focus discussions among the divisions and with court management,
and thus help formulate strategies for improvement. By tracking survey ratings over time, court managers and staff will be able to evaluate changes associated with improvement initiatives and focus their
efforts at improving their workplace.
Rate of Agreement
by Court Division
Q2
Kept
informed
Q19
Treated with
respect
Q20
I am
proud
Overall Scores
(All questions)
62%
54%
68%
56%
60%
Criminal
72
62
74
62
68
Civil
Family
90
76
60
92
80
Probate
58
78
72
78
72
Juvenile
78
78
75
80
80
Entire Court
72
75
72
76
72
Terms You Need to Know
Index: A single number used to summarize a set of data, providing an overview.
Valid Responses: Responses that should be counted for purposes of analysis.
For example, missing, “not applicable,” or nonsensical responses are not included.
© 2004 National Center for State Courts
Developed by the NCSC Court
Performance Community of Practice.
Division
Q1
What is
expected
Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall
Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler
Information Design: Neal B. Kauder
Design and Layout: Graphics 3
Percent Strongly Agree or Agree
Tempe Municipal Court
State of the Court
Presented to Mayor and Council
by Presiding Judge
Louraine C. Arkfeld.
January 2008
INTRODUCTION
This is the fourteenth annual state of the court message presented to Mayor and Council. We
have this tradition in order to provide you with the current status of the court by sharing
information on our overall operations and performance including accomplishments, revenues,
expenditures, and budget issues as well as our goals for this coming year. As always, we
welcome any feedback from Mayor and Council about our work.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Operational Effectiveness
x The Court effectively maintained operations despite a 33 percent turnover rate in calendar
year 2007.
x The Court has played an active role in the implementation of the City's new photo
enforcement program, which is anticipated to increase filings and staff workload by up to
600 percent.
x This year marks the fourth full year of the Mental Health Court. There are currently 21
people participating in the program; three are homeless and four have co-occurring
disorders. The Mental Health court offers a diversion option for the seriously mentally ill
and aids that population in accessing various services in an effort to provide greater
stability and lessen the likelihood of their committing new criminal offenses. While the
primary mission of this program is to dispense justice while addressing the needs of this
unique population, it has earned strong community support. All of the participants in
Mental Health Court are represented by an attorney who volunteers her time.
Community members have offered to provide clothing and other essential items to help
contribute to successful program completion for our program participants.
x The Court is in compliance with all requirements of the Arizona Supreme Court's
Minimum Accounting Standards Compliance Checklist again this year.
x The Court has received approval to create up to three Lead Court Service Specialists via
competitive reclassification using existing CSS positions. These staff will provide needed
day to day training and assistance to newer staff while providing the court with additional
flexibility and providing staff with greater opportunities for career advancement.
x The Court and Customer service teams within the civil division of the Court have been
“blended” with all employees being cross- trained to perform all tasks and functions.
x The criminal division of the court has actively participated in cross training of employees
and revisions of procedures.
x The Court has revised and updated job descriptions for all employee positions.
x The Court has been highly invested in the City’s development of Business Continuity
Plans. The Court has played a lead role in assisting other courts in developing disaster
recovery plans.
x The Court established a Memorandum of Understanding with Scottsdale City Court so in
the event of a disaster that results in the extended closure of either Court, the close
proximity of these respective facilities make for reasonable alternative sites to conduct
business on a temporary basis.
Page 1
x
x
In conjunction with its comprehensive Business Continuity Plan, the Court conducted an
unannounced drill to utilize the manual work-around procedures that were developed as
part of its business continuity plan.
Court management completed National Incident Management System (NIMS) training
certification and participated in the National Incident Disaster Exercise in October 2007.
Technology Improvements
x The Court purchased eight (8) electronic hand-held systems that that will be utilized by
the Police Department’s Traffic Enforcement Aides to issue electronic parking
complaints. These units will be compatible with the Court’s new Case Management
System, and will be deployed when that system is implemented in September 2008. It is
hoped that ultimately, hand-held technology can be utilized by all police officers to issue
complaints, and thus all information can be electronically transmitted, which will largely
eliminate redundant manual data entry by court specialists, lessen filing times and overall
periods to adjudicate offenses, and reduce the likelihood of any errors.
x The Court has installed a new panic alarm system that allows for a more immediate and
specific security response in the event of a security issue.
Cost Effectiveness
x In March of 2007, the Council approved an ordinance change allowing creation of a court
commissioner position. This position was filled through the reclassification of one of our
existing hearing officer positions. This new position has given the court flexibility to
have the Commissioner work in the criminal division on a limited basis in addition to his
regular job duties in the civil division while saving the costs of paying for a pro tem
judge.
x In fiscal year 2007 the Court collected $5,802,267 in revenues to the City. This figure
was 1.5 percent higher than projections for the fiscal year. Overall, the Court received
$11,945,389 in payments in fiscal year 2007, which was $496,047 more than the prior
year; an increase of almost four percent. In addition to the City’s General Fund, monies
are disbursed to the state and funds designated by statute, to victims who are owed
restitution and to collection agencies to offset the costs of holding those accountable who
have previously been non-complaint.
x For every dollar spent on Court operations, the Court collects $2.54, which is among the
highest ratios of revenue to expenditure within Maricopa County.
Customer Services
x In addition to serving its hearing impaired customers, the Court is using its assistive
listening devices to help interpreters more effectively communicate with Spanish
speaking court users during various dockets.
x All Court staff has received training in the proper usage of court interpreters.
x The Court has worked collectively with Public Works and the Police Department to begin
a project to overhaul and modernize the two existing elevators within the PD/Court
Building. The Court provided the needed space to house the plumbing and equipment
needed to power both elevators.
Page 2
x
x
x
With one full year in position, the Court Training Coordinator has ensured that the court
made available a total of 1,466 hours of training for calendar year 2007 with 60 classes
that were made available to employees.
In order to measure job engagement and satisfaction, newly hired staff is surveyed and
meet with the Court Training Coordinator informally on a monthly basis during their
probationary period. This has proven to be successful in obtaining feedback and ensuring
that their on-the-job training experience is positive and effective.
Court employees receive training and have discussions on professionalism at monthly
team meetings.
Community Outreach
x Court employees have participated in Tempe’s Homeless Connect Program. Homeless
individuals receive information on the court process and direction in resolving any
outstanding court matters.
x In what has become a Tempe tradition, the Court invited all fifth through eighth grade
students in the City of Tempe to participate in our annual Law Day contest. This year
the Court hosted an art contest with the theme "Liberty Under Law: Empowering Youth,
Assuring Democracy." There were over a hundred entries displayed in the City Council
Chambers.
x Members of the court management team have made it a priority to provide ways to
connect with other city departments and the Tempe community through committee
involvement. This past year, management has served on the Executive Board for the
Tempe Professional Development Club, the Deferred Compensation Executive Board,
the Tempe Recruitment Outreach Committee,
Tempe Leadership, The Tempe
Committee on Homelessness, the Neighborhood Services Team, the Committee for
Youth, Families and Community and the Oversight Board for the Tempe Learning
Center.
x Members of the management team are active (and actively recruited) in boards,
committees and commissions that serve Limited Jurisdiction, Superior and Supreme
Courts. They include the Limited Jurisdiction Court Administrators’ Association, the
Supreme Court Code Standardization Committee, the Court Leadership Institute of
Arizona, the Arizona Courts Association, the Commission on Victims in the Courts, the
Committee on Limited Jurisdiction Courts, the Arizona Commission on Technology, the
Technical Advisory Council, the Court Automation Coordinating Committee, and the
Restorative Justice Resource Council.
x The Court continues to host presentations on issues of the law to groups such as Tempe
Leadership and other community organizations.
Page 3
DISCUSSION
As always, the mission of this Court is to provide effective and efficient justice for our
community. As a result, the first concern is to ensure appropriate staffing and efficient processes
to handle the high volume of cases that continue to move through our Court. We have addressed
this not only by advocating for additional positions but by improving the training that both new
and continuing staff receive as well as looking for ways to increase the flexibility of tenured
employees.
This past year, we have addressed our training and effectiveness goals in various ways.
This is our first full year in which Frankie Valenzuela has served as out full-time training
coordinator. The Council may or may not be aware that we are required by the Arizona Supreme
Court to provide 16 hours of continuing education to all court staff – both judicial and nonjudicial. As great believers in the impact of quality education, we have focused on developing
strong in-house programs that not only meet the court mandate, but provide education that is
both pertinent to our needs and easily accessible to our employees. One of the challenges in a
small organization is keeping the most competent employees motivated when upward mobility is
limited by the small number of management positions. To overcome this challenge we have also
developed lead positions from existing Court Services Specialist positions. These individuals
will not only be able to provide additional training and assistance to new staff, but they are also
given an opportunity for career advancement that was previously not available.
We believe this
is a very important and needed benefit. We anticipate filling our first position within the month
to assist new employees in working on photo enforcement cases. We operate with the second
highest number of filings per non-judicial employee of any municipal court within Maricopa
County, but with retention efforts that include improved training we are finally seeing reduction
in our turnover rate. Although the rate for the entire year was still high at 33 percent, the really
positive change has become apparent in the last six months; with a turnover rate that has fallen
below 5 percent. This is a major accomplishment.
We made adjustments at the bench officer level as well. We currently have the highest
number of filings per criminal judge for a municipal court in Maricopa County. This high
Page 4
workload volume requires significant flexibility from our bench officers. Criminal Judges
MaryAnne Majestic and Michelle O’Hair-Schattenberg, both with over 13 years tenure, have
contributed greatly in addressing the high workload. Additionally, in March 2007, the Council
approved an ordinance creating the position of Court Commissioner. We then reclassified an
existing Hearing Officer position to Commissioner and Judge Thomas Robinson, who has been
with the court since 1995, is now filling this position. While he still primarily hears civil
violations, he is also covering our in-custody docket at least two days a week thus reducing our
cost for pro-tems who traditionally cover this docket. He has also filled in for criminal division
judges in their absence, again reducing costs. His ability to be available on a moment’s notice
has greatly increased our flexibility.
Also, as a result of the retirement of one of our hearing
officers this year, we added our first new bench officer in ten years, Judge Art Attona.
I do
think our stability at the bench level is a significant statement about our commitment to quality
and justice.
As you are aware we are now at the beginning of the expanded City of Tempe Photo
Enforcement Program. The initial numbers have indicated a vast increase in filings as more and
more installations go live.
We worked closely with the Police Department during the
implementation stage of this program and quickly began to realize the enormous impact this
would have on the court. Fortunately the Council was also able to recognize this and recently
authorized five new Court Services Specialist positions for the Court to address this workload.
This is most appreciated and we are confident that as a result we will be able to continue to
provide the level of service Tempe customers have come to expect.
Our extensive use of automation is one of the reasons we are able to operate at such low
staffing levels. This has resulted in our intense focus over the last few years on the development
of our new Case Management System (CMS). While progress on this highly complex effort did
not go as rapidly as we had hoped, we are diligently working our way towards a revised
implementation date of September 2008. To ensure success we have assigned one of our Deputy
Court Managers full-time to the job as Project Manager. Numerous demonstrations to internal
staff and those in other courts have resulted in high praise for the thoroughness of the system.
We continue to have every confidence that the end result will be a CMS that not only contains all
of our current functionality but also markedly improves it. One already positive result of the
Page 5
detailed development process has been the required review of every aspect of our work process.
Thus, the new system will provide a solid platform for future enhancements that will streamline
our work processes even more. Clearly the long-awaited implementation and the concurrent
necessary training will be a big undertaking this year. We have worked in partnership with the
Supreme Court’s Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) throughout the development of our
CMS. As a result it continues to be a candidate system for most limited jurisdiction courts
throughout Arizona. Thus, we anticipate continued development and training support not only
from the AOC but other limited jurisdiction courts as well.
As many are now experiencing downtown, the always difficult parking situation has been
exacerbated by additional construction projects; particularly the closing of the East Parking lot at
City Hall. We are approaching this problem from a variety of angles. We have been working
with the prosecutor’s office to find solutions that would keep some groups of defendants from
having to come to Court prior to their assignment to diversion. We have accommodated Tempe
citizens volunteering their time as jurors by allowing them access to the Police/Court parking
garage. While some of these issues will hopefully be addressed by the completion of the parking
garage in a year’s time, we still face challenges for our employees. Because of the nature of our
business, many have concerns about lengthy walks to off-site parking that result in exposure to
disgruntled customers. I would welcome the opportunity to help develop a long term parking
plan that not only accommodates court users but also court employees.
Most exciting for me this year has been my new management team. This year marked
the completion of the first year with a new Court Manager, Mark Stodola, as well as a new
Deputy Court Manager, Nancy Rodriguez. As I mentioned, we also assigned our other Deputy
Court Manager, Rick Rager, full-time as Project Manager for the Case Management System and
thus I have also had a Court Supervisor, Jeanette Wiesenhofer, on temporary assignment as
Deputy Court Manager for the Criminal Division. Additionally, Court Supervisors, Christy
Slover, Jennifer Dubois, Alexis Allen and Jacque Frusetta have consistently gone the extra mile
in training new hires, assuring exceptional customer service and fulfilling the court’s mission. I
can say unequivocally that this is the best management team I have ever had. Their vision and
support make everything we do possible and I cannot thank them enough.
Page 6
CONCLUSION
I continue to be proud of the entire staff here at the Court and the constant teamwork and
commitment they demonstrate. It is their efforts that make the list of accomplishments possible.
I look forward to another year as we accomplish the goals and meet the challenges ahead.
As always we consistently receive excellent support and assistance from departments
throughout the city.
I particularly appreciate the partnership within the Criminal Justice
Working Group and the efforts of the Human Resources Department who have provided so much
support through our personnel changes and reclassifications. And, of course, the Information
Technology Department is a key player in our CMS project. The commitment of Mayor and
Council to excellence throughout the organization is a source of pride for all of us.
We will continue to always strive toward our goal to provide a stable and progressive
Court that serves this community by providing effective and efficient administration of justice.
We all appreciate the opportunity to serve Tempe.
Page 7
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment # 1 – Court Mission and Vision Statement
Attachment # 2 - 2008 Goals
Attachment # 3 – Maricopa County Municipal Courts Activity Statistics
Attachment # 4 – Workload Indicators, Criminal and Civil Divisions
Attachment # 5 – Budget Summary
Attachment # 6 – Revenue Summary
Attachment # 7 – Three-year Information Technology Financial Summary
Attachment # 8 – Security Statistics
COURT MANAGEMENT TEAM
Mark Stodola, Court Manager
Rick Rager, Deputy Court Manager, Automation Manager
Nancy Rodriguez, Deputy Court Manager, Civil Division, Budget Manager
Christy Slover, Court Services Supervisor, Court Services, Criminal Division
Jennifer Dubois, Financial Services Supervisor, Civil Division
Jacque Frusetta, Administrative Services Supervisor, Court Administration
Alexis Allen, Court Services Supervisor, Civil Division
Frankie Valenzuela, Court Training Coordinator
Jeanette Wiesenhofer, Court Services Supervisor, Criminal Division
INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
Mayor and City Council
Charlie Meyer, City Manager
Jeff Kulaga, Assistant City Manager
Andrew Ching, City Attorney
Robert Hubbard, City Prosecutor
Jan Hort, City Clerk
Tom Ryff, Chief of Police
Angel Carbajal, Assistant Chief of Police
Brenda Buren, Assistant Chief of Police
Mary Anders, Fiscal/Research Administrator
Kerby Rapp, Operations Support Administrator
Jon O’Connor, Deputy Human Resources Manager
Tom Canasi, Community Services Manager
Kathy Berzins, Deputy Community Services Manger, Social Services
Shelley Hearn, Community Relations Manager
Nikki Ripley, Communication and Media Relations Director
Jerry Hart, Financial Services Manager
Cecilia Velasco-Robles, Deputy Financial Services Manager, Budget
Tom Mikesell, Lead Budget and Research Analyst
Adam Williams, Budget and Research Analyst II
Mark Day, Budget and Research Analyst II
Gene Obis, Information Technology Manager
Dave Heck, Deputy Information Technology Manager
Ted Hoffman, Deputy Information Technology Manager
Ron Smith, Applications Supervisor
Page 8
JUDICIAL ADVISORY BOARD
Judy Aldrich
Thomas E. Klobas
Brad Tebow
Hon. Mark Aceto
Margaret Stockton
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION
Barbara Mundell, Presiding Judge, Superior Court, Maricopa County
Marcus Reinkensmeyer, Court Administrator, Maricopa County
Karen Westover, Court Administrator, Limited Jurisdictions Courts, Maricopa County
David K. Byers, Administrative Director, AOC, Supreme Court
Janet Scheiderer, Court Services Director, AOC, Supreme Court
Page 9
MISSION
To contribute to the quality of life in our community by fairly and impartially
administering justice in the most effective, efficient, and professional manner
possible.
VISION
Work together to serve the public.
Treat the public and each other with courtesy and respect.
Be ethical in all that we do.
Communicate honestly and openly.
Be sensitive and caring.
Welcome and value individual differences and diversity.
Reward well-intentioned and well-reasoned risk taking.
Praise and reward fully, discipline sparingly.
Be energetic and hard working.
Make every day in the Court both positive and productive.
Page 10
2008 GOALS
Case Management System (CMS) Implementation
The Court is in latter stages of a Case Management System development in partnership with the
Arizona Supreme Court. $500,000 in state funds has been provided toward this effort, which
uses a robust and current technology set. Implementation in the Court is planned for September
2008. The City IT Department is responsible for the data migration from the Court’s current
Legacy application to the new application. This CMS project is a candidate to become the next
generation system for all limited jurisdiction courts in Arizona.
Processing of Photo Enforcement Complaints
The City of Tempe recently entered into a contract that will increase the number of photo
enforcement cases filed with the Court by up to 600 percent. This will result in a significant
increase in judicial and staff workload. The judicial workload increase will involve a higher
volume of civil traffic hearings to adjudicate responsibility. The staff workload increase will
include processing payments, correspondence, telephone inquiries and defensive driving
completion reports. The Court will continue to place a high priority on the timely and accurate
processing of all cases, including this increased caseload.
Disaster Preparedness
The Court plans to further enhance its already comprehensive disaster preparedness and business
continuity plan by exploring the purchase of fireproof cabinets to protect original complaints and
fingerprint records for cases that the Court is required to maintain and preserve, providing flashdrives to management staff that contain all written policies, procedures and form templates for
use in case of an emergency in which staff cannot access the physical facility and by continuing
to implement unannounced drills to test manual work-around procedures. Tempe is assisting
other courts in the development of disaster preparedness plans.
Customer Service
In efforts to continue our quest to emphasize positive interaction with both internal and external
customers we will continue to offer the public customer satisfaction surveys as one way to
measure our service. In addition, we have developed in-house classes such as Legal Advice vs.
Legal Information and Basic Spanish for Court Employees that will offer staff resources to better
serve our customers. Lastly, we will continue to discuss in monthly team meetings and training
e-mails the importance of quality customer service to both the public and to internal customers.
Training
The Court continues to explore ways to maximize the potential of court staff. With the help of
our court training coordinator, we have established new in-house training classes and have
outside training classes available for staff development. In addition, we will use e-learning to
help train employees as a fast low cost-method of learning. This year will also be spent working
on creating training manuals for our new case management system and developing “hands-on”
training sessions for staff.
Page 11
Stability of the Court Workforce
Over the past three years the Court has experienced tremendous turnover from its front line staff
resulting instability through out the court. Management has made it a priority to address this
turnover by advocating for additional staff, addressing workload issues, providing more handson training for new hires, establishing a morale committee and emphasizing employee
accountability. While the Court has experienced a 33 percent turnover rate of Court Service
Specialists, we have dropped below a 5 percent turnover in the first 6 months of Fiscal Year
2008.
Employee Accountability
The Court is examining ways to better measure employee and Court performance through the use
of CourTools. CourTools is a set of ten trial court performance measures developed by the
National Center for State Courts that offers court managers a balanced perspective on court
operations.
MARICOPA COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT ACTIVITY FOR
FISCAL YEAR 2006/2007
Comparing various workloads, output and productivity measures of selected municipal courts in
Maricopa County support findings of previous external operational reviews and financial audits.
Benchmark figures are attached to allow for further analysis. Certain objective measures are key
indicators of efficiency. For example:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Tempe Municipal Court ranks fourth in Maricopa County in terms of filings (behind,
Phoenix, Mesa and Scottsdale).
Tempe Municipal Court is the fifth largest municipal court in the state (after Phoenix,
Tucson, Scottsdale and Mesa) in terms of filings, yet is the ninth largest city in the state.
Tempe Municipal Courts filings account for approximately 10.08 percent of the total
municipal court filings in Maricopa County.
Tempe Municipal Court has the second highest ratio of revenue to expenditures; $2.54:1
($2.54 in revenue for every $1.00 spent for court operations).
Tempe Municipal Court has the second lowest cost per filing of comparable municipal
courts ($44 per filing) in Maricopa County ($62).
The Tempe Municipal Court has the highest filings per judge in Maricopa County
There were 24,945 filings per bench officer and 3,898 filings per non-judicial staff in
FY 07.
Tempe Municipal Court has the second highest ratio of revenue to expenditures; 2.32:1
($2.32 in revenue for every $1.00 spent for court operations).
Tempe Municipal Court has the second lowest cost per filing of comparable courts ($40
per filing) in Maricopa County (average of $61 per filing).
Tempe Municipal Court continues to have slightly lower revenues per filing than most
other courts, due in large part to the number of parking violations, which constitute some
of the lowest assessed fine amounts.
Page 12
5,817
18,170
11,373
14,734
52,198
133,022
179,625
CHANDLER
MESA
TEMPE
SCOTTSDALE
PHOENIX
MARICOPA CO
STATE OF ARIZONA
117,185
242,080
40,938
9,161
13,988
18,595
7,019
9,567
MISDEMEANOR
$6,916,442
$11,945,389
$23,682,042
$15,765,302
$44,609,201
$132,018,938
$181,210,933
GLENDALE
TEMPE
SCOTTSDALE
MESA
PHOENIX
MARICOPA CO
STATE OF ARIZONA
$66,024,146
$94,384,062
$30,285,496
$6,665,944
$5,959,223
$4,705,583
$4,667,438
$3,340,379
EXPENDITURES
$124
$117
$134
$114
$113
$111
$116
$146
REVENUE PER
FILING
717,992
967,557
194,408
180,621
56,485
96,347
25,488
35,162
CIVIL TRAFFIC
$62
$60
$91
$48
$28
$44
$78
$81
EXPENDITURE
PER FILING
84,540
143,530
41,584
4,658
25,014
3,012
1,885
2,161
ORDINANCE
$2.00:$1
$1.92:$1
$1.47:$1
$2.37:$1
$3.97:$1
$2.54:$1
$1.48:$1
$1.81:$1
$ RATIO
REVENUE TO
EXPENDITURE
14,378
21,263
3,321
1,154
658
2,010
1,062
3,175
PROTECTIVE
ORDERS
1,067,117
1,554,055
332,449
210,328
107,518
138,134
41,271
59,715
TOTAL
100.00%
100.00%
31.15%
19.71%
10.08%
12.94%
3.87%
5.60%
% TO
COUNTY
PHOENIX
not available
not available
7
22
MESA
MARICOPA CO.
STATE OF ARIZONA
3
5
SCOTTSDALE
3
GLENDALE
TEMPE
4
CHANDLER
not available
not available
4
1
2
2
1
1
not available
not available
348
82.5
59
32.5
48
42
PAGE 1 OF 2
not available
not available
4,233
5,252
4,779
8,454
6,406
3,209
not available
not available
58,998
99,359
92,640
40,750
37,323
27,373
not available
not available
12,787
17,267
30,047
21,504
14,929
8,254
not available
not available
955
1,674
3,560
3,308
1,244
983
COURT STAFFING Staffing figures were obtained directly from the courts as this information has not yet been reported to the Supreme Court
FILINGS
FILINGS PER
FILINGS
PER NONHEARING
NON-JUDICIAL
FILINGS PER
HEARING
PER BENCH JUDICIAL
OFFICERS
STAFF
JUDGE
OFFICER
OFFICER
STAFF
JUDGES
$6,041,442
CHANDLER
REVENUE
COURT REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FY 2006/2007
9,650
GLENDALE
COURT FILINGS FY 2006/2007
CRIMINAL
TRAFFIC
MARICOPA COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT ACTIVITY FY 2006/2007
68.67%
100.00%
21.39%
13.53%
6.92%
8.89%
2.66%
3.84%
% TO STATE
223
250
638
1,036
TEMPE
SCOTTSDALE
MESA
PHOENIX
NOTES:
455
61
48
5
11
25
JURY TRIALS
720
303
175
139
292
289
PROTECTIVE
ORDER
HEARINGS
3,791
1,763
2,557
1,977
304
1,699
CIVIL
HEARINGS
PAGE 2 OF 2
Court staffing totals for Maricopa County and the State of Arizona not available as of 1/09/08.
The 6 courts listed above represent 83.3% of the caseload in Maricopa County and 57.23% of the State of Arizona
21,668
28,788
6,002
2,913
3,030
2,344
676
3,119
TOTAL
TRIALS /
HEARINGS
3,612
720
2,361
14,975
4,865
887
3,327
19,709
This information is provided to the Supreme Court in accordance with annual reporting requirements.
69
GLENDALE
MARICOPA CO
STATE OF ARIZONA
1,106
CHANDLER
NON -JURY
TRIALS
COURT TRIALS AND HEARINGS
1.73%
1.36%
1.60%
1.90%
1.25%
0.90%
0.42%
8.81%
%
FILINGS
THAT GO
TO TRIAL
2.09%
2.04%
1.95%
1.83%
1.42%
3.50%
0.86%
6.67%
2.03%
1.85%
1.81%
2.11%
1.44%
2.18%
1.13%
7.56%
% FILINGS % FILINGS
THAT GO THAT GO TO
TO CIVIL TRIAL OR
HEARING HEARING
TEMPE MUNICIPAL COURT
CIVIL DIVISION
WORKLOAD INDICATORS
FY 2006-2007
Activity
YTD
Avg/Mo
06/07 Proj
05/06 Tot
% Chg
Cases Filed
56,304
4,692
56,304
80,259
-30%
Charges Filed
69,894
5,825
69,894
98,927
-29%
Parking
23,777
1,981
23,777
43,035
-45%
Traffic & Misc.
39,590
3,299
39,590
45,919
-14%
Photo Radar
7,414
618
7,414
9,927
-25%
Speeding
6,924
577
6,924
9,202
-25%
Red Light
487
41
487
724
-33%
2,304
192
2,304
5,225
-56%
1,329
111
1,329
3,073
-57%
837
70
837
2,012
-58%
975
81
975
2,152
-55%
825
69
825
1,798
-54%
3,083
257
3,083
3,768
-18%
Courtroom 5
1,999
167
1,999
2,092
-4%
Courtroom 6
1,084
90
1,084
1,676
-35%
1,977
165
1,977
2,653
-25%
Courtroom 5
957
80
957
1,240
-23%
Courtroom 6
1,020
85
1,020
1,413
-28%
FTA Defaults
19,670
1,639
19,670
22,707
-13%
Appeals
34
3
34
21
62%
Civil Correspondence Rec'd
30,255
2,521
30,255
48,596
-38%
6,834
570
6,834
7,042
-3%
DDS Completions
8,869
739
8,869
10,873
-18%
AZDDS
3,848
321
3,848
6,475
-41%
5,020
418
5,020
n/a
N/A
1
0
1
4,398
-100%
2,053
171
2,053
2,762
-26%
627
52
627
1,156
-46%
1,426
119
1,426
n/a
N/A
0
0
0
1,607
-100%
Bicycle Diversion Completions
209
17
209
86
143%
Summons and Complaints
14,144
1,179
14,144
19,776
-28%
Complaints Issued
11,736
978
11,736
19,963
-41%
Complaints Reissued
2,408
201
2,408
319
655%
Cashier Activity
34,344
2,862
34,344
39,959
-14%
Mail Payments Posted
10,276
856
10,276
15,669
-34%
Financial Services Interviews
10,709
892
10,709
10,718
0%
IVR Payments
19,933
1,661
19,933
17,993
11%
Lockbox Payments
9,955
830
9,955
19,584
-49%
Arraignments
Courtroom 5
Final Adjudication
Courtroom 6
Final Adjudication
Motions
Hearings
Returned Mail
CRASH
NSC
DDS Continuances
AZDDS
CRASH
NSC
TEMPE MUNICIPAL COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION
WORKLOAD INDICATORS
FY 2006/2007
ACTIVITY
YTD Av
g/Mo 06/07 Proj 05-06 Tot
%
Ch
g
CASES FILED
16,855
1,405
16,855
16,970
-1%
CHARGES FILED
38,924
3,244
38,924
38,687
1%
9,559
797
9,559
9,394
2%
COURTROOM #4 ACTIVITY
7,882
657
7,882
7,814
1%
JAIL ACTIVITY
1,677
140
1,677
1,580
6%
INITIAL APPEARANCES (jail)
7,662
639
7,662
3,852
99%
ARRAIGNMENTS
9,227
769
9,227
4,968
86%
FINAL ADJUDICATION
2,474
206
2,474
1,487
66%
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCES
12,084
1,007
12,084
6,108
98%
230
19
230
94
145%
225
19
225
94
139%
5
0
5
8
-38%
538
45
538
386
39%
ORDER OF PROTECTION
375
31
375
252
49%
INJUNCTION PROHIBITING
163
14
163
134
22%
OTHER COURTROOM ACTIVITY*
4,993
416
4,993
1,906
162%
CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED
26,552
2,213
26,552
25,827
3%
6,149
512
6,149
3,640
69%
228
19
228
4,851
-95%
22,015
1,835
22,015
22,576
-2%
MTC STATE
2,563
214
2,563
3,230
-21%
MTC DEFENSE
2,887
241
2,887
3,416
-15%
MTC PRO PER
4,775
398
4,775
5,110
-7%
MTC PUB DEF
863
72
863
704
23%
9,737
811
9,737
8,664
12%
MTD DEFENSE
131
11
131
134
-2%
MTD PRO PER
31
3
31
46
-33%
MTD PUB DEF
10
1
10
2
400%
1,018
85
1,018
2,259
-55%
12,354
1,030
12,354
10,158
22%
36
3
36
32
13%
PRISONERS
TRIALS
NON-JURY
JURY
PETITIONS FILED
RETURNED MAIL
CERTIFIED MAIL
MOTIONS
MTD STATE
OTHER MOTIONS
WARRANTS ISSUED
APPEALS
AWARDS
MISCELLANEOUS
6514
6599
EQUIPMENT RENTAL
LICENSES
6906
6990
TRAINING & SEMINAR
TOTAL BY COST CENTER
TOTAL
TRAVEL EXPENSES
LOCAL MEETINGS
7403
7404
TOTAL
TRAINING & SEMINAR
7401
FEES & SERVICES
EQUIPMENT REPAIR
6856
TOTAL
OUTSIDE PRINTING
MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTION
6716
DUPLICATING
POSTAGE
6704
6753
TELECOMMUNICATION SVCS-Pagers
6702
6755
INTERPRETERS
CELL PHONE CHARGES
6694
6701
LAUNDRY
6693
PUBLIC DEFENDER FEES
6670
CONTRACTED SERVICES
COLLECTION FEES
6669
OFF-SITE STORAGE
LEGAL FEES -- Pro Tems
6668
6672
JURY FEES
6665
6688
CONSULTANTS -- Interpreters
6656
MATERIALS & SUPPLIES
FIRST AID
6513
TOTAL
PRINTING & COPY
BOOKS & PUBLICATIONS
6370
MINOR EQUIPMENT
6351
6505
OFFICE SUPPLIES
CLOTHING
6201
ACCT DESC
PROJECTIONS
6305
ACCT #
347,939.56
16,456.82
1,161.80
8,231.93
7,063.09
322,986.70
-
-
312.99
188.01
5,216.24
14.40
820.51
-
86.98
1,054.57
205,492.00
109,801.00
-
-
8,496.04
670.90
1,117.87
-
3,789.34
571.87
351.03
369.99
1,625.04
1410
52,471.75
-
-
-
-
37,860.97
-
8,404.80
-
1,548.43
4,740.91
-
-
5,942.92
-
-
1,888.80
-
12,372.91
2,962.20
14,610.78
-
-
-
8,075.94
-
-
6,534.84
1411
OVER /
UNDER BGT
26,011.37
-
-
-
-
12,102.05
-
2,852.81
487.20
877.78
1,739.16
-
-
1,764.00
-
-
-
-
3,256.10
-
-
1,125.00
13,909.32
-
-
-
-
8,804.64
-
-
5,104.68
1412
$12,393.68
426,422.68
16,456.82
1,161.80
8,231.93
7,063.09
372,949.72
-
11,257.61
800.19
2,426.21
6,668.08
5,216.24
14.40
820.51
-
7,706.92
86.98
1,054.57
1,888.80
205,492.00
3,256.10
109,801.00
12,372.91
4,087.20
37,016.14
670.90
1,117.87
-
3,789.34
17,452.45
351.03
369.99
13,264.56
1400 ROLLUP
CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURES FOR ALL COST CENTERS
FY 2006/2007
$
$
414,029.00
10,376.00
760.00
6,246.00
3,370.00
364,563.00
-
11,500.00
2,500.00
3,500.00
12,200.00
4,069.00
125.00
650.00
-
9,300.00
300.00
1,129.00
2,566.00
180,000.00
3,250.00
110,000.00
15,981.00
7,493.00
39,090.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
190.00
3,500.00
18,000.00
500.00
600.00
14,300.00
06/07 BUDGET
(12,393.68)
(6,080.82)
(401.80)
(1,985.93)
(3,693.09)
(8,386.72)
0.00
242.39
1,699.81
1,073.79
5,531.92
(1,147.24)
110.60
(170.51)
0.00
1,593.08
213.02
74.43
677.20
(25,492.00)
(6.10)
199.00
3,608.09
3,405.80
2,073.86
329.10
(117.87)
190.00
(289.34)
547.55
148.97
230.01
1,035.44
+ / - BUDGET
TEMPE MU
NICIPAL COU
RT
REVENU
E SU
MMARY
FISCAL YEAR 2006-2007
ACCT # AND DESCRIPTION
4601 PARKING FINES
CURRENT YTD
REVENUES
PRIOR FY ACTUAL
% PROJ
VS PFYA
DIFFERENCE
(CFYP - PFYA)
631,904.05
376,929.35
(0.40)
(254,974.70)
4602 TRAFFIC FINES
1,677,450.81
1,637,258.51
(0.02)
(40,192.30)
4603 CRIMINAL FINES
1,147,472.62
1,206,677.57
0.05
59,204.95
4604 PUBLIC DEFENDER FEES
4605 FORFEITURES
4607 NEIGHBORHOOD ENHANCEMENT
61,337.59
83,389.73
0.36
22,052.14
176,291.35
226,975.75
0.29
50,684.40
32,524.00
53,747.81
0.65
21,223.81
4609 ANIMAL CONTROL
4612 DDS COURT DIVERSION
-
4616 SMOKING ORDINANCE FINES
4617 DDS OUT OF STATE DIVERSION
4621 DEFAULT FEES
4624 BOOT FEES / PARKING
4627 COUNTY JAIL FEE
-
450,804.00
490,666.90
-
30.00
2,430.00
1,623.00
373,370.66
404,810.99
0.00
0.00
0.09
39,862.90
0.00
30.00
(0.33)
(807.00)
0.08
31,440.33
1,520.00
3,680.00
1.42
2,160.00
275,082.31
387,463.97
0.41
112,381.66
4628 COPIES AND TAPES
29,661.49
19,004.45
(0.36)
(10,657.04)
4636 PROCESS SERVICE
10,366.72
10,052.50
(0.03)
(314.22)
4640 SURETY BOND FORFEITURES
10,600.00
5,400.00
(0.49)
(5,200.00)
4642 REINSPECTION FEE/NBR ENH
-
-
0.00
0.00
4643 RENTAL HOUSING CODE FINE
50.00
250.00
4.00
200.00
4648 CONTEMPT CHARGES
4653 CITY JAIL FEE
100.00
300.00
2.00
200.00
86,355.00
145,190.50
0.68
58,835.50
48,025.09
0.00
0.00
4660 WARRANT FEES
4661 PROSECUTOR FEES
4935 CASH OVER / SHORT
4949 OTHER
TOTAL
ACCT # AND DESCRIPTION
4641 PUBLIC SAFETY ENHANCEMENT FUND
149,621.25
5,960.95
(246.03)
(824.40)
29,331.14
4,967,320.60
5,053,451.03
CURRENT YTD
REVENUES
PRIOR FY ACTUAL
449,070.98
394,634.22
4634 28-2533 20% TO PD (Cost Center 2210)
-
387.22
4637 28-4139 100% TO GENERAL FUND
-
127,071.89
ACCT # AND DESCRIPTION
4632 COURT USER FEE (CEF)
4851 INTEREST ACCRUED
CURRENT FY
PROJECTED
455,049.83
327,675.86
15,051.07
29,219.60
-
-
4853 GAIN / LOSS ON INVESTMENT
TOTAL
CURRENT YTD
REVENUES
470,100.90
356,895.46
0.00
0.00
(1.04)
(6,206.98)
(36.58)
30,155.54
0.02
86,130.43
% PROJ
VS ACT
DIFFERENCE
(CFYP - PFYA)
% PROJ
VS ACT
DIFFERENCE
(CFYP - PFYA)
(0.28)
(127,373.97)
0.94
14,168.53
0.00
0.00
(0.24)
(113,205.44)
Revenues:
Balance Carryover:
Projected Revenues:
Sub Total:
EXPENDITURES:
FY 08 Expenditures through 12/31/07
Case Management System Development - Programming
Case Management System Development System - Hardware
Case Management System Development System - Software
IVR Maintenance Agreement, Annual Costs
MiniSoft ODBC Maintenance, Annual Costs
TAB Maintenance Agreement, Annual Costs
InFax Calendar Display Maintenance, Annual Cost beg. 07/08
Police Radios for Panic Alarms, Annual Costs
WENDELL Connection to Supreme Court T1 Line, Annual Costs
HP LaserJet 430N
E-government for Court
Check payments by telephone
Electronic TF of Funds for those on contracts
Document Imaging integrated w/case mgmt system
E-Filing of Court documents
Video Conference system w/jail for IA, Arrn, etc.
Fingerprint Scanners for Crim. Divisions, Imaging Proj.
Federal Tax Intercept Program Interface
Appeals, electronic interface w/Superior Court
Civil Traffic arraignments via Internet
Filing Cabinets
CEDP Training
Security Cameras
First Floor Build Out/Remodel
Bar Coding
Database License/Maintenance
TOTAL EXPENSES:
TOTAL REVENUES:
BALANCE:
13,700
4,000
2,500
3,000
911,295
935,861
24,566
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
FY2007/2008
561,533
374,328
935,861
FY2007/2008
$
376,595
$
350,000
$
100,000
$
50,000
$
8,000
$
2,000
$
1,500
$
$
$
Three-Year Information Technology Financial Summary
25,000
50,000
80,000
407,500
409,566
2,066
$
$
$
$
22,000
$
$
$
15,000
20,000
25,000
2,000
1,500
10,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
23,000
$
4,000
130,000
$
$
FY2008/2009
24,566
385,000
409,566
FY2008/2009
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
20,000
40,000
369,500
387,066
17,566
35,000
20,000
25,000
45,000
20,000
20,000
25,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
4,000
2,000
1,500
12,000
25,000
75,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
FY2009/2010
$
2,066
$
385,000
$
387,066
FY2009/2010
170
223
195
MACE
17
17
21
23
14
0
17
JUL
SEPT
OCT
NOV
DEC
JAN
143
2073
21
12
19
199
17
202
APRIL
MAY
JUNE
TOTALS
AVG/MO
05-06
TOTAL
2,282
173
169
194
196
17
21
FEB
DATE
MARCH
0
173
207
193
210
KNIVES
AUG
5
RAZOR
BLADE
254
13
156
10
5
19
13
7
51
0
12
8
8
18
TOOLS
1,068
68
814
61
55
48
66
61
55
0
103
103
89
81
92
CAN
OPENER
8
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BOX CUTTER
314
22
268
28
32
21
11
28
24
0
21
27
16
24
36
SCISSORS
311
19
228
18
14
21
10
24
12
0
26
26
17
30
30
NAIL FILES
76
1
16
1
0
0
1
1
0
0
4
2
1
1
5
GUNS
2
1
6
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
HAND
CUFFS/ KEYS
146
14
166
11
8
15
18
20
17
0
14
13
14
23
13
NEEDLES
5
2
20
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
CHAINS
134
15
177
9
12
19
16
25
16
0
15
15
25
15
10
PICKS
3
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
AMMO
TEMPE MUNICIPAL COURT
Single Point of Entry
Security Statistics
Fiscal Year 2007
MAGS
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MISC. ITEMS
672
43
521
21
30
53
46
54
56
0
53
72
43
48
45
5,469
384
4609
322
338
426
398
433
471
398
506
427
467
423
TOTAL ITEMS
172,830
13544
162,528
12757
13184
13003
13642
12844
14591
12790
12942
14420
13758
15367
13230
PERSON
S
99,915
10413
124,952
9804
10427
10147
10362
10285
12145
10303
10051
11110
10658
11918
7742
ALARM
COUNTS