Page 1 of 39 Workgroup on Performance Management Orientation Conference Call August 24, 2017 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Central Time (1:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time) Conference Call 1-888-670-3525; Code 3670753723# 12:00 p.m. Meeting Convenes AGENDA I. Welcome and Introductions, Judge William F. Stone, Chair II. III. IV. Membership List (Review for Corrections) Review Purpose and Goals of Workgroup (Charge One of AOSC16-39) Workgroup s Timeline V. Performance Measure Developments VI. Background on Case Management Technology VII. Review Available State-Level Performance Measures VIII. Next Steps and Meeting Note: Next meeting will be a conference call on September 2017 from 12:00 p.m. 1:30 p.m. Central Time (1:00 p.m. 2:30 p.m. Eastern Time) 1:30 p.m. Meeting Adjourned
Page 2 of 39 FLORIDA SUPREME COURT COMMISSION ON TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE & ACCOUNTABILITY 2016-2018 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT WORKGROUP CHAIR: The Honorable William F. Stone Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit Okaloosa County Courthouse, Annex Extension 1940 Lewis Turner Boulevard Fort Walton Beach, Florida 32547 (850) 609-5414 judge.stone@flcourts1.gov JA: Frannie Natalie frannie.natalie@flcourts1.gov MEMBERS: The Honorable Jennifer Bailey Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Dade County Courthouse, Room DCC 635 73 West Flagler Street Miami, Florida 33130 (850) 349-7152 jbailey@jud11.flcourts.org JA: Maria Prieto mprieto@jud11.flcourts.org The Honorable Hunter Carroll Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Manatee County Judicial Center 1051 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34206 (941) 749-3611 hwcarroll@jud12.flcourts.org JA: Lisa Fritz lfritz@jud12.flcourts.org The Honorable Cynthia Cox Circuit Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit 2000 16 th Avenue, Suite 383 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (772) 770-5231 coxc@circuit19.org JA: Havely White whiteh@circuit19.org The Honorable Angela J. Cowden Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit 430 South Commerce Avenue Sebring, Florida 33870 (863) 402-6612 acowden@jud10.flcourts.org JA: Janet Pitts jpitts@jud10.flcourts.org Mr. Jonathan Lin Court Administrator, Fifth Judicial Circuit 110 NW First Ave., Room 585 Ocala, Florida 34475 (352) 401-6707 Cell (352) 266-5774 Fax (352) 401-7883 jlin@circuit5.org Mr. Paul Silverman Court Administrator, Eighth Judicial Circuit Alachua County Courthouse 201 E. University Ave. Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 374-3638 silvermanp@circuit8.org Ms. Michelle Spangenberg Director of Case Management Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Main Judicial Complex 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 (561) 355-6396 mspangen@pbcgov.com Mr. Nick Sudzina Court Administrator, Tenth Judicial Circuit Polk County Courthouse P.O Box 9000 Bartow, Florida 33831-9000 (850) 534-4690 nsudzina@jud10.flcourts.org 1
Page 3 of 39 STAFF: Ms. Patty Harris Senior Court Operations Consultant Office of the State Courts Administrator Court Services 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900 (850) 410-1236 Fax (850) 414-1342 harrisp@flcourts.org Ms. Lindsay Hafford Court Operations Consultant Office of the State Courts Administrator Court Services 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900 (850) 410-0020 Fax (850) 414-1342 lewism@flcourts.org Mr. Victor S. McKay Senior Court Analyst II Office of the State Courts Administrator Court Services 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1900 (850) 410-3282 mckayv@flcourts.org 2
Page 4 of 39 Supreme Court of Florida No. AOSC16-39 IN RE: COMMISSION ON TRIAL COURT PERFORMANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER The purpose of the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability is to propose policies and procedures on matters related to the efficient and effective functioning of Florida s trial courts through the development of comprehensive resource management, performance measurement, and accountability programs. During the next two years, the Commission is expected to perform the following tasks, noting the strong connection between these issues and several of the goals and strategies in The Long Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch 2016-2021: 1. In support of Goal 1.3 (Utilize caseload and other workload information to manage resources and promote accountability), continue to develop the Trial Court Performance Management Framework in the following order: 1) establish baseline data and
Page 5 of 39 benchmarks for measuring Time to Disposition, Clearance Rate, and Age of Active Pending Caseload, upon collection of accurate data; 2) develop a process for correcting court data problems and errors; 3) prioritize and begin to develop administrative performance criteria for the essential elements of the trial courts, as provided for under section 29.004, Florida Statutes; 4) review trial court time standards as a means to identify further performance indicators; and 5) if items 1) through 4) have been achieved, identify new performance indicators and measures/dashboards for integrating performance measures into existing operational policies and procedures. 2. Also in support of Goal 1.3, evaluate the data needs and availability of court programs and issues, such as problem-solving courts, selfrepresented litigant participation, due process elements, and resource management, to determine a viable approach to performance management in these areas. 3. In support of Goal 4.3 (Create a compatible technology infrastructure to improve case management and meets the needs of the judicial branch and the court users), continue to provide guidance and direction on data management issues as necessary to maintain the integrity of data collection and reporting.
Page 6 of 39 4. In support of Goal 1.2 (Ensure the fair and timely resolution of all cases through effective case management) and Goal 1.3 (Utilize caseload and workload information, manage resources and promote accountability), conduct a workshop to identify events within a dependency case that involve significant judicial workload or court resources that are not captured by current tracking and reporting data systems. This workshop should identify appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage. 5. In support of Goal 1.5 (Encourage the use of consistent practices, procedures, and forms statewide), continue to provide support and assistance to the trial courts with regard to implementation of standards of operation and best practices approved by the Supreme Court. 6. In support of Goal 3.3 (Communicate effectively with all branches and levels of government on justice system issues), continue to assist the judicial branch as it responds to performance and accountabilityrelated statutory requirements and requests by the Florida Legislature and the Office of the Governor.
Page 7 of 39 The following individuals are appointed to serve on the Commission for terms that begin on July 1, 2016, and expire on June 30, 2018: The Honorable Paul Alessandroni County Judge, Charlotte County The Honorable Jennifer Bailey Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit The Honorable Herbert Baumann Circuit Judge, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Mr. Matthew Benefiel Court Administrator, Ninth Judicial Circuit Ms. Barbara Dawicke Court Administrator, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Ms. Holly Elomina Court Administrator, Sixteenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Ronald W. Flury County Judge, Leon County The Honorable Victor Hulslander Circuit Judge, Eighth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Leandra G. Johnson Circuit Judge, Third Judicial Circuit Mr. Jonathan Lin Court Administrator, Fifth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Ellen Sly Masters Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Diana L. Moreland Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit
Page 8 of 39 The Honorable William L. Roby Circuit Judge, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Elijah Smiley Chief Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable William F. Stone Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability should submit its reports to the Chief Justice through the State Courts Administrator. The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability is authorized to propose statutory changes related to the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the trial courts. The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability is authorized to propose amendments to rules of court procedure on issues involving the operational efficiency and effectiveness of the trial courts, for consideration by the Court. In developing proposed amendments to rules of court procedure, the Commission is directed to establish appropriate liaison relationships with the relevant Bar rules committees. Should the Commission recommend amendments to the rules of court procedure or forms, it shall file such recommendations in petition form with the Clerk of the Florida Supreme Court. Should the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability make recommendations that require additional funding or resources to implement, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationship with the
Page 9 of 39 Trial Court Budget Commission, as appropriate. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the chair of the respective budget commission with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference the need for additional court funding or resources, prior to the finalization of those reports. Should the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability make recommendations that impact court technology, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationship with the Florida Courts Technology Commission. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the Chair of the Florida Courts Technology Commission with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference court technology, prior to the finalization of those reports. Should the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability make recommendations about the education and training needs of judges and court staff, the Commission is directed to establish the necessary liaison relationships with the Florida Court Education Council. At a minimum, the Commission shall provide the Chair of the Florida Court Education Council with copies of Commission reports and recommendations that reference court education, prior to the finalization of those reports.
Page 10 of 39 The Honorable Diana L. Moreland shall serve as Chair of the Commission through June 30, 2018. Staff support will be provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator. DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on June 28, 2016. Chief Justice Jorge Labarga ATTEST: John Tomasino, Clerk of Court
Agenda Item IV.: Workgroup s Timeline Page 11 of 39 Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability Performance Management Workgroup August 24, 2017 Conference Call Timeline for Development of Performance Management Framework -Trial Courts Step Task TCP&A 1 Establish Workgroup Completed 2 Review Charge and Other Relevant Documentation August 2017 3 Review Current Performance Metrics and Data August 2017 Establish baseline data and benchmarks for existing measures. Develop a process for 4 correcting court data problems and errors. September Prioritize and begin to develop administrative December 2017 performance criteria for all essential elements. Review time standards. Identify new performance indicators and measures. 5 Finalize dashboards for integrating performance measures into existing January 2018 operational policies and procedures. 6 Prepare Draft Report February 2018 7 Perform Outreach & Finalize Report March 2018 8 Submit Final Report to the TCP&A and Supreme Court April 2018
Page 12 of 39 Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability Performance Management Workgroup August 24, 2017 Conference Call Agenda Item V. Performance Measure Developments Ensuring accountability and applying performance measures to court practices are longstanding concepts. The commitment to delivering fair and speedy justice and improving accountability to the public dates back to the 1970s with the publication of the American Bar Association Time Standards (1976) and the Conference of State Courts Administrators (COSCA) Time Standards (1983). Over the last several decades, a number of publications have been developed to refine and help court leaders measure and manage performance. These publications include: the Trial Court Performance Standards (1990) 1 ; CourTools (2005); the High Performance Court Framework (2010); and the Principles for Judicial Administration (2012). These documents are located here and are intended to provide a solid foundation for the court community to help both measure and manage performance. Relevance Thinking that the court is performing at its best and knowing it are two different things. Court leaders are accountable to both the judiciary and the public for a well-run court, which means that managers must be able to both effectively measure and manage performance. Skillful collection and analysis of performance information ensures that court managers no longer just think the court is performing well but are able to demonstrate it. Being a good manager means being able to monitor performance to identify what is working well and what is not. The judiciary relies on this aspect of court management, as does the public, 1 The Trial Court Performance Standards, created in 1990, provide measures and standards for courts to conduct self-assessment for the purposes of internal evaluation and self-improvement. However, it was difficult, due to limited time and resources, for courts to implement all 68 measures across the 22 standards arrayed within 5 broad performance areas. In reaction, in 2005, the National for Center for State Courts (NCSC) released a set of 10 performance measures called CourTools. The focus of these measures is based on fundamental values adhering to a balanced perspective of measures linked to the full range of court work. While the Courtools provide a broad range of indicators geared to general jurisdiction trial courts, they do not directly address parallel rationale and data requirements for performance measurement for specialized trial and appellate courts. This led to efforts to develop measures for court specific programs and specialized dockets such as child dependency, drug court, appeals, domestic violence, and probate.
Page 13 of 39 to ensure optimum court performance. 2 The goals of court management can perhaps best be illustrated with the following diagram: To focus attention on common objectives of sound court administration To provide a dual process of measuring and managing performance results To identify conditions under which high performance can be achieved. Measures alone are simply that measures court leaders must be able to apply the measures skillfully to move from performance measurement to performance management. Court leaders who are effective at measuring and managing performance should be able to: Focus attention on common objectives of sound court administration They should be able to: Address Expectations identify, understand and apply performance measures that address litigant expectations that the court process is clear, well designed and procedurally fair. The outcome is connected to the key court events and the administrative practices ensure the court process is purposeful and deliberative. Address Effectiveness identify, understand and apply performance measures that address the effectiveness of court procedures in the handling of cases, such as avoiding unnecessary litigation costs and time, while evaluating how court operations balance the desire for appropriate attention given to every case with the concurrent responsibility to treat cases proportionately, given the limitation of resources and growing caseload demands. Address Efficiency identify, understand and apply performance measures and targeted benchmarks that reveal how well court resources are allocated, whether the court s processes and procedures are efficient and the level of productivity of judges and court staff collectively in reducing time to disposition and eliminating unnecessary actions that 2 NACM Core Competency Accountability and Court Performance.
Page 14 of 39 do not contribute toward the disposition of a case or delivery of services to litigants and others requiring court services. Provide a dual process of measuring and managing performance results This includes: Efficiently Gathering Information using appropriate methods to gather information, to identify problems, determine the critical questions to ask and identify data requirements and data sources needed. Organizing Data collecting and storing data in a form that facilitates the analytical process: identify trends and patterns and distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information. Developing Meaningful and Valid Data Analysis identify cause and effect relationships, determine the authenticity and validity of sources of information, identify gaps in information and present findings, conclusions and recommendations in a wellorganized, clear and meaningful format to facilitate review and understanding by the decision-makers who are asked to act. Organizing and Presenting Data present the results of performance measurement activities in a format that promotes understanding and use by judges, court staff, justice system partners and the public. Effectively Communicating communicate to the public and its public policy partners the performance of the court in carrying out its constitutional duties, performing the necessary operational responsibilities and meeting the expectations of the public and court s public policy partners and areas warranting improvement. Identify conditions under which high performance can be achieved Integrate Results to Promote a System Orientation for On-going Improvement of Court operations and services incorporate the principles and methods of performance measurement into all aspects of court operations that are focused on accountability, continuous improvement and enhancing knowledge through managing for results and responding to changing circumstances. Diagnose Results apply the results of performance measurement activities to improve court performance, identify areas of work warranting correction and suggest what practices call for modifications.
Page 15 of 39 Disseminate Information to Different Audiences synthesize and present information adapted to targeted audiences: judges, staff, justice system partners, funders and the public, to promote new perspectives. In terms of court operations and services, what is measured and how it is measured depends on the specific context and environment in which a court operates. Nevertheless, to effectively measure and manage performance, court leaders, regardless of their specific function(s) or environments, should work to achieve competency in: Analytic skills to organize, collect, and analyze data. Management skills focused on applying the knowledge gained from the analysis of data to improve the performance of court operations. Communication skills to convey information about performance.
Page 16 of 39 Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability Performance Management Workgroup August 24, 2017 Conference Call Agenda Item VI.: Background on Caseload Management Technology in the Courts The state courts system has continued to focus on technology-based strategies for moving cases more efficiently and effectively through the trial court process. In fiscal year 2014 2015, the judicial branch made significant strides toward its goal of developing a comprehensive electronic courts structure. This objective includes the implementation of a statewide electronic filing solution (e-filing) for the trial and appellate courts; the integration of e-filing with other automated court processes; and electronic access to the courts. It also includes the branch s development of an Integrated Trial Court Adjudicatory System (ITCAS): a standardized, statewide, integrated data management solution for capturing and reporting case and court activity information for use both at the circuit and statewide levels (see attached diagram illustrating ITCAS). This endeavor is being overseen by the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability in cooperation with the Florida Courts Technology Commission. As background to ITCAS, the courts system made a significant breakthrough in December 2012, when, after a concerted, two-year effort, the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, together with its Court Statistics and Workload Committee and with the Florida Courts Technology Commission, submitted The Trial Court Integrated Management Solution (TIMS) report to the supreme court. Ambitious in scope, the report offered a framework for a standardized, statewide, integrated data management solution for capturing and reporting case and court activity information for use both at the circuit and statewide levels in short, it defined the kind of data the courts need to collect about the activity of the courts and the kind of system the branch needs to build in order to collect these data. Because branch leaders realized they cannot tackle such a colossal project all at once, they determined to work on a series of small, self-contained projects that will eventually be snapped together to form what is now called the Integrated Trial Court Adjudicatory System (ITCAS). In other words, the branch has adopted an enterprise view, and it is building the various components slowly and deliberately with that global perspective ever in mind. Over the last few years, the court has been focusing on two key elements of this system. First is the Court Application Processing System (CAPS). Consisting of workstations and software, this interactive case management application enables judges to view and work on electronic documents, to manage their cases electronically from any location and across many devices, and to issue court documents electronically. It also provides judges with basic tools and capabilities at the local level to manage and track case activity. Currently, the majority of circuits are using the CAPS viewers to assist with moving their backlogged foreclosure cases. The second element of the Integrated Trial Court Adjudicatory System is called the Judicial Data Management Services Project (JDMS). This project involves a state-level data management strategy that will pull court activity data from multiple sources and integrate them into a coherent whole. Ultimately, the data it provides will enable courts to measure adjudicatory outcomes and
Page 17 of 39 evaluate their efficiency; lead to increased operational efficiency through the adroit use of shared resources; and support supreme court efforts to establish organizational priorities through legislative resource and budgetary requests. The judicial branch has high aspirations for the JDMS the courts system s collection and management of foreclosure data for the Foreclosure Initiative was a proof of concept for the project and during the 2015 legislative session, lawmakers showed their support, appropriating funding for operational support for staff augmentation, software development, licensing, hardware, and equipment for the development of the JDMS Project. Information regarding the JDMS project can be found online here. The TCP&A very recently proposed a new reporting protocol that satisfies the data management requirements of the Judicial Data Management Services (JDMS). These specific clerk reporting requirements comprise the Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) requirements as outlined in the AOSC16-15. Overall, there is a need for more detailed information on the branch s performance to enable the reporting and display of case management information in a meaningful way for judicial use. The Summary Reporting System (SRS) created several years ago is antiquated. At the trial court level, the SRS data is manually submitted by the clerks and then manually entered by staff at the Office of the State Courts Administrator. The data is reported at a summary level. The judicial branch has faced some significant challenges, especially in its efforts to respond to trial court technology needs: because funding for trial court communications services (as referenced in the Florida constitution) falls under the jurisdiction of each of the 67 boards of county commissioners, technology resources differ from one county to another, resulting in disparities in the level of information and the services that the trial courts are able to provide. Another challenge the branch faces is the lack of state-level automation, which results in inconsistent communication between local automation systems and in a fractured data collection environment generally.
Page 18 of 39 Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability Performance Management Workgroup August 24, 2017 Conference Call Agenda Item VII.: Review Available State-Level Performance Measures On June 15, 2016, the TCP&A approved several recommendations regarding the establishment of a Trial Court Performance Management Framework. The goal of the Framework is to improve service delivery in trial court services and programs -- improving the capacity of the trial court system to measure performance and apply results for procedural refinements. This work entails the integration of case management technology at the local levels as well as data standardization efforts at the state-level to allow analyzation of case processes and timeliness. This Workgroup must also resolve: 1) the development of performance indicators and measures at both the state and local level, from various perspective groups (e.g., court user, internal operating, and social value) and 2) the identification of management practices and resource needs for conducting reengineering processes, such as technological access to data, dashboards, operational resources, or educational resources. Currently, the Uniform Case Reporting project, designed by the Office of the State Courts Administrator, aims at capturing standardized data for calculating three measures statewide: Time to Disposition, Clearance Rate, and Age of Active Pending Cases. These measures, initially used towards addressing the backlog of the Foreclosure Initiative, will be expanded to all divisions of court. While it is recognized these three measures do not provide a complete picture of the performance of the courts, the TCP&A suggests we continue to define and implement additional performance measurement policies in a deliberate manner to improve data management, accountability, transparency, and cost effectiveness. To accomplish this, the first tasks is to: 1) Establish baseline data and benchmarks for the existing measures: Time to Disposition, Clearance Rate, and Age of Active Pending Cases. 2) Develop a process for correcting court data problems and errors associated with these three measures. 3) Review time standards for possible revision. 4) Identify new performance indicators and measures, as time permits. 5) Prioritize and begin to develop administrative performance criteria for all essential elements. I.
Page 19 of 39 I. Tasks 1-3. Currently, at the statewide level, four databases exist, or are planned for, as sources for obtaining case information: 1) The Summary Reporting System (SRS), created in 1985 for purposes of judicial certification, provides summary-level descriptive information on filings and dispositions (excludes dates or disposition dates). 2) The Offender Based Transaction System (OBTS), designed by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, collects information for tracking adult offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest), through final disposition, regardless of whether the offender is convicted or acquitted. Examples of variables included are arrest and level of arrest charge, date of arrest, charge filed by the prosecutor, prosecutor or grand jury disposition, type of counsel, type of trial, court disposition, sentence type, and minimum and maximum sentence length. Dates of disposition of each stage of the process allow for tracking of time spent at each stage. 3) The Comprehensive Case Information System (CCIS) developed and implemented by the Florida Clerks of the Court, is a secured internet portal providing a single point of search for statewide court case information. CCIS users are comprised of the judicial community, state and local law enforcement, state agencies, and the Florida Legislature. https://www.flccis.com/ocrs/login.xhtml 4) Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) system, designed by the Office of the State Courts Administrator, is scheduled for implementation beginning in 2017 with Circuit Civil, 2018 for Family (including Juvenile Dependency), 2019 for Probate and County Civil, and 2020 for Criminal. https://www.flcourts.org/jdms. Once implemented, the UCR system will replace SRS. For purposes of reviewing the three measures, staff performed a calculation of the measures with readily available data, as shown below. Time to Disposition Statewide Calendar Year 2016 Data Source: OBTS (Offender Based Transaction System) Case Type Mean Days to Disposition Time Standard (in days) Percentage of Cases Within Standard Benchmark Felony 206 180 67% None Misdemeanor 280 90 57% None Note: Data in the above table is not official and should not be relied upon for any purpose except facilitating discussions by the TCP&A Performance Management Workgroup. Note: A segment (about 100,000 cases) of the dataset was removed due to cases having a negative age (disposition date preceded the filing date). Suggested Discussion Points:
Page 20 of 39 1. What is the definition of Time to Disposition and how exactly should it be calculated? According to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.250(a)(1) Trial Court Time Standards are: Felony 180 days (arrest to final disposition) Misdemeanor 90 days (arrest to final disposition) Civil Jury cases 18 months (filing to final disposition) Civil Non-jury cases 12 months (filing to final disposition) Small claims 95 days (filing to final disposition) Domestic Relations Uncontested 90 days (filing to final disposition) Domestic Relations Contested 180 days (filing to final disposition) Probate Uncontested, no federal estate tax return 12 months (from issuance of letters of administration to final discharge) Probate Uncontested, with federal estate tax return 12 months (from the return s due date to final discharge) Probate Contested 24 months (from filing to final discharge) Juvenile Delinquency Disposition hearing 120 days (filing of petition or child being taken into custody to hearing) Juvenile Delinquency Disposition hearing (child detained) 36 days (date of detention to hearing) Juvenile Dependency Disposition hearing (child sheltered) 88 days (shelter hearing to disposition) Juvenile Dependency Disposition hearing (child not sheltered) 120 days (filing of petition for dependency to hearing) Permanency Proceedings. Permanency hearing 12 months (date child is sheltered to hearing) 2. Do the current time standards need revision? 3. What benchmarks should be established? 4. What is the baseline data? a. CCIS (capable of providing measures in all case types now) b. OBTS (limited to criminal) c. UCR (will provide data in all case types, however, not until 2020) 5. Should staff try to obtain other data for calculating this measure across all case types? 6. Consider future review processes and use of the measure from various perspective groups (e.g., court user, internal operating, and social value). Should a dashboard be created and made available on-line? How should data quality be addressed?
Page 21 of 39
Page 22 of 39
Page 23 of 39
Page 24 of 39
Page 25 of 39
Page 26 of 39
Page 27 of 39 Clearance Rate Statewide Fiscal Year 2016-17 Data Source: SRS (Summary Reporting System) Dynamic Data Percentage of Case Type Average Clearance Rate Standard Cases Within Standard Benchmark Circuit Criminal 100.0% None N/A None Circuit Civil 100.1% None N/A None Circuit Probate 92.7% None N/A None Circuit Family 95.8% None N/A None Juvenile Delinquency 102.2% None N/A None Juvenile Dependency 86.9% None N/A None County Criminal 96.3% None N/A None County Civil 88.8% None N/A None Total 94.5% None N/A None Note: Data in the above table is not official and should not be relied upon for any purpose except facilitating discussions by the TCP&A Performance Management Workgroup. Suggested Discussion Points: 1. What is the definition of Clearance Rate and how exactly should it be calculated? 2. Should a standard be established? It is assumed to be 100%, however, it is not officially stated. 3. What benchmarks should be established? How should backlogs be addressed? 4. What is the baseline data? a. SRS b. CCIS (capable of providing measures in all case types) a. OBTS (limited to criminal) b. UCR (will provide data in all case types, however, not until 2020) 5. Consider future review processes and use of the measure from various perspective groups (e.g., court user, internal operating, and social value). How should a dashboard look and how often should it be disseminated or updated? The current dashboard is located here: http://www.flcourts.org/publications-reports-stats/statistics/clearance-rate-dashboard.stml Should trend information be included? Should it be made available on-line? How should data quality be addressed?
Page 28 of 39
Page 29 of 39
Page 30 of 39
Page 31 of 39
Page 32 of 39 Age of Active Pending Cases Quarter Ending June 30 th 2017 Data Source: Quarterly Pending Caseload Report (from local clerks of court) Note: The below data is sample data from one clerk s addendum which was PDF scanned and converted to Excel and resulted in the loss of some data. Case Type 0-90 Days 91-120 Days 121-180 Days 181-270 Days 271-365 Days 1-1.5 Years 1.5-3 Years Over 3 Years Circuit Civil 60% 14% 16% 10% Percentage of Cases Over Standard 40% (12 Months) 26% (18 Months) 44% (12 Months) 21% (24 Months) 73% (90 Days) 56% (180 Days) Circuit Probate 56% 23% 11% 10% Domestic Relations 27% 7% 49% 7% Juvenile Delinquency 11% 28% 46% 15% 89% (120 Days) Juvenile Dependency 14% 25% 34% 27% 86% (120 Days) Note: Data in the above table is not official and should not be relied upon for any purpose except facilitating discussions by the TCP&A Performance Management Workgroup. Suggested Decision Points: 6. What is the definition of Age of Active Pending Caseload and how exactly should it be calculated? According to Rule of Judicial Administration 2.250(b) - All pending cases in circuit and district courts of appeal exceeding the time standards shall be listed separately on a report submitted quarterly to the chief justice. The report shall include for each case listed the case number, type of case, case status (active or inactive for civil cases and contested or uncontested for domestic relations and probate cases), the date of arrest in criminal cases, and the original filing date in civil cases. The Office of the State Courts Administrator will provide the necessary forms for submission of this data. The report will be due on the 15th day of the month following the last day of the quarter. 7. Should we change the reporting format? 8. What benchmarks should be established? 9. What is the baseline data? a. Quarterly Pending Caseload Report b. CCIS (capable of providing measures in all case types) c. OBTS (limited to criminal) d. UCR (will provide data in all case types, however, not until 2020) 10. Consider future review processes and use of the measure from various perspective groups (e.g., court user, internal operating, and social value). How should a dashboard look and how often should it be disseminated or updated? Should trend information be included? Should it be made available on-line? How should data quality be addressed?
Page 33 of 39
Page 34 of 39
Page 35 of 39
Page 36 of 39
Page 37 of 39
Page 38 of 39
Page 39 of 39 General Concerns Moving Forward: Existing measures incentivize judges to close cases. There are additional events that are beyond judicial control across all divisions of court that affect time to disposition, clearance rates and age of active case load. This includes continuances, bankruptcy, etc. Current statistical methods being used do not capture all performance related data. There are several data access and quality issues to overcome. An example of some of our problems include: o In some instances, the courts have no ability to query their data. It is troubling that in 2017, the courts still do not have a mechanism in place to access our data or get the simplest of statistics such as time to disposition. o Case disposition data is not always entered. According to the most recent time standards data, 46 percent of felony pending cases were filed prior to 2010. In fact, the data was showing that there are some felony cases pending for 116 years! o Cases with outstanding warrants are classified as active and incorrectly included in the timeliness statistics. o Some cases listed have invalid case numbers. o Post-judgment issues, such as violation of probation and motions to correct illegal sentence, are incorrectly included in the timeliness statistics. o With a system of aggregate data, there is no mechanism for us to verify the accuracy of the data. o There are data errors based on inevitable human error. The Commission should look into alternate performance measures that capture qualitative issues. Judge Moreland mentioned the work the 2015 PMW consistently recognized that speed was never a substitute for quality. The PMW was not charged in previous administrative order with determining intangible methods of measurement. This may be something that the 2017 PMW should consider going forward. It may also be beneficial to work with CSWC and come up with a list of the top measures going forward that should be explored. This will initiate collecting those specific data elements for calculating additional measures.