Workload and Resource Assessment

Resource Guide

Systematically assessing the number or people, appropriate resources, and measures of caseloads is critical for ensuring that courts and related agencies are able to deliver quality service to the public effectively and without delay. Given the increasing number and complexity of cases, it is important for states to use an objective workload assessment process, combined with an interconnectedness of judicial and staff work that allows for a holistic assessment of resources needed, to ensure that existing judges and court support staff are used effectively and allocated equitably.

Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.


Featured Links

Workload Assessment.

NCSC Area of Expertise.

Workflow Management Systems Vendors.

Workflow Management Systems Vendors from the Court Technology Vendor List.

Kleiman, Matthew and Cynthia G. Lee. Virginia Indigent Defense Commission Attorney and Support Staff Workload Assessment. (2010).

A comprehensive and objective assessment of attorney and staff resources in Virginia public defender officers.

North Carolina Assistant District Attorney/Victim Witness Legal Assistant Workload Assessment. (2010). As assessment of the number of Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) and Victim Witness Legal Assistants (VWLAs) required for the effective prosecution of cases in North Carolina. Report available upon request.

General

Flango, Victor and Brian Ostrom. Assessing the Need for Judges and Court Support Staff. (June 1996). National Center for State Courts: Williamsburg, VA This classic handbook is intended to acquaint state and local courts as well as legislative bodies with alternative methods of assessing the need for court judges and court support staff and to help decision makers evaluate these alternatives and choose those most appropriate for their situation. In sum, this handbook aspires to be a management and planning tool for state courts and legislatures to use to assess objectively how many judges and court support staff are needed to process the work effectively and efficiently.
Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. (2004). NCSC, American Bar Association, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

This Guide and Toolkit outline a process that courts can measure court performance and judicial workload. They have been designed to be meaningful to the largest number of courts as possible.

Hewitt, William E., Brian Ostrom and Richard Schauffler. Performance Measurement Gains Momentum Through CourTools. (2006). Future Trends in State Courts.

From the one-judge/two-magistrate Morrow County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio to the trial courts of Washington, from statewide policy initiatives of the judicial branch in Arizona, California, North Carolina and Utah to locally imposed "audits" by county funding authorities in Lake County, Indiana, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, performance measurement in courts is an important, rapidly emerging trend.

Fautsko, Timothy F. Workload Assessment Model for the Puerto Rico Superior Court. (2003). Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts The NCSC conducted measures to determine the resource needs of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico's court system.  The study found a shortage of judges, support staff, law clerks, and inadequate court facilities which detrimentally impacted the efficiency of the commonwealth's courts.

Online Publications and Resources

Ryan, Christopher and Daniel Hall. Commonwealth of Massachusetts -- Administrative Office of the Trial Courts Staffing Study. (February 2005).

The purpose of the staffing study detailed in this report was to develop an accurate tool to measure the work demands placed on staff and account for the resources required in each of the departments in the Massachusetts Trial Courts.

Hall, Daniel. Kansas District Court Judicial and Clerk Staff Weighted Caseload Study. (October 2011). National Center for State Courts, Court Consulting Services.

Understanding that any comprehensive review of the Judicial Branch would require an accurate assessment of the staffing needs of the courts, the Supreme Court contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to conduct a “weighted caseload study” (WCLS). This type of study has been recommended since at least 1944 in previous studies of court operations in Kansas.

Ostrom, Brian and Matthew Kleiman. Maryland Attorney and Staff Workload Assessment, 2005. (August 2005).

This report describes the methods and results of the NCSC's comprehensive evaluation of the Maryland Office of the Public Defender (OPD) attorney and support staff workload. The primary goal of the project was to establish a transparent formula for OPD to use in assessing the appropriate levels of attorney and staff resources necessary to provide effective and competent legal representation.

Kleinman, Matthew and Cynthia Lee. Michigan Judicial Workload Assessment: final report. (August 2011). National Center for State Courts, Research Division.

This technical report provides a detailed discussion of the workload assessment methodology and results, and enumerates the policy decisions made by Justice Needs Assessment Committee.

Ostrom, Brian et al. Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004. (September 2004).

The primary purpose of this project was to determine the number of support staff Minnesota courts need to provide effective service to the public.

Ostrom, Brian et al. Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment, 2002. (November 2003).

How many judges does the State of Minnesota need to provide effective case resolution? To answer this question, the Conference of Chief Judges and the Minnesota Supreme Court contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to determine how to measure judicial workload in Minnesota District courts. A clear measure of court workload is central to establish the number of judges needed to resolve all cases coming before the court. Adequate resources are essential if the Minnesota judiciary is to manage and resolve court business effectively and without delay while also delivering quality service to the public. Meeting these challenges involves systematically assessing the number of judges required to handle caseloads, and resolving whether judicial resources are allocated equitably across the state.

Lee, Cynthia and Matthew Kleinman North Carolina Superior Court Judicial Workload Assessment: final report. (November 2011). The National Center for State Courts, Research Division.

The workload assessment is founded upon a statewide time study that provided a detailed empirical profile of the amount of time Superior Court judges currently spend handling cases of various types—including both on-bench and off-bench work—as well as other essential judicial functions such as travel and administrative work.

Douglas, John and Nial Raaen. Renton, Washington Municipal Court: Courts Operations Study: final report. (March 2011). National Center for State Courts, Court Consulting Division.

The Renton Municipal Court is a court of limited jurisdiction with a caseload that consists of city ordinance and Revised Code of Washington criminal misdemeanors, criminal traffic, traffic and non-traffic infractions, and parking cases. The primary contribution to the increase in the Court’s workload was the installation in 2008 of traffic safety cameras, adding several thousand new cases each year.

Uekert, Brenda et al. West Virginia Circuit Court Judicial Workload Assessment: Final Report. (November 2006).

This report updates a previous study in order to reflect current practices and case filings in determining judicial need.

Ostrom, Brian and Matthew Kleiman. Wisconsin Judicial Needs Assessment, 2006. (February 2007).

Final report for the Wisconsin Judicial Needs Assessment project.

Hurst, Hunter, III. Workload Measurement for Juvenile Justice System Personnel: Practices and Needs. (1999). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grants Program This article emphasizes that "consequences or sanctions that are applied swiftly, surely, and consistently, and are graduated to provide appropriate and effective responses to varying levels of offense seriousness and offender chronicity, work best in preventing, controlling, and reducing further law violations."  This resource also provides information on the weighted caseload model.