introduction - ncjrs · sources—to the needs of individual cases. a. understanding differentiated...
TRANSCRIPT
1
INTRODUCTION
Differentiated case management (DCM) is a tech-nique courts can use to tailor the case managementprocess—and the allocation of judicial system re-sources—to the needs of individual cases.
A. Understanding DifferentiatedCase Management
The DCM premise is simple: Because cases differsubstantially in the time required for a fair and timelydisposition, not all cases make the same demandsupon judicial system resources. Thus, they need notbe subject to the same processing requirements.Some cases can be disposed of expeditiously, withlittle or no discovery and few intermediate events.Others require extensive court supervision overpretrial motions, scheduling of forensic testimony andexpert witnesses, and settlement negotiations. Theearly case screening that a DCM system promotesalso enables a court to prioritize cases for dispositionbased on other factors such as prosecutorial priori-ties, age or physical condition of the parties or wit-nesses, or local public policy issues.
Inherent in the concept of DCM is the recognition thatmany cases can—and should— proceed through thecourt system at a faster pace than others if appropri-ate pathways are provided. Under a DCM system,cases do not wait for disposition simply on the basisof the chronological order of their filing.
DCM synthesizes the past three decades of develop-ment in the field now known as caseflow manage-ment. As caseloads increase and more judges andadministrators acknowledge the importance of activesupervision of case progress, greater attention hasturned to methods for reducing delay, making thecourts more accessible to the public, and improvingpredictability and certainty in calendar management.For the most part, the many techniques developed,modified, and expanded in this process tend to be“event oriented.” For example, the concept of the
pretrial conference was developed as a method fornarrowing issues, perhaps shortening trials, andproviding an opportunity to advance settlementpossibilities. Mandatory settlement conferences werealso attempted. The focus was primarily on creatingadditional and more useful case events.
More recent research and development focus equally(if not more) on control of time intervals betweenevents and on methods to supervise, control, andmake these intervals more predictable. As part of thisfocus, emphasis has returned to the recognition that,although cases may be classified by broad definitions,each case is unique. Further, minimizing and makingmore predictable the time between case events callsfor tailoring a disposition timetable to the characteris-tics of each case.
The premise that all cases are not the same and donot make the same demands is one that everyoneaccepts intuitively, but it was not broadly applied tocase management until recently. In July 1987, theBureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), Office of JusticePrograms, of the U.S. Department of Justice launcheda demonstration program to pilot test the applicationof DCM techniques to criminal and civil caseloads inthe State trial courts. At the time, only one court in thecountry had introduced a DCM program. The SuperiorCourt in Bergen County, New Jersey, had adopted inMarch 1986 a pilot DCM program designed by theNew Jersey Administrative Office of the Courts. Nocourt had yet applied DCM to criminal cases.
The demonstration program confirmed the logic andbenefit of differentiated case management for the trialcourts and the usefulness of such programs for courtsof varying sizes and caseload composition. This guidegrew out of the experiences of six jurisdictions thatimplemented DCM techniques for criminal and civilcaseloads in courts of general jurisdiction during the1988–1991 demonstration. A list of these pilot juris-dictions, along with the names of the local officialsinvolved in their operation, is included in appendix A.
2
Although the guide is based on pilot testing in generaljurisdiction courts, the DCM concept can be readilyadapted to the case processing systems in courts oflimited jurisdiction as well as to special classes ofcases, such as domestic relations, juvenile, probate,and other matters.
B. Purpose of This Guide
This guide focuses on the issues that must be ad-dressed by jurisdictions that plan to implement adifferentiated case management program. It is de-signed to be used by judges, prosecutors, publicdefenders, members of the private bar, court adminis-trators, and other judicial system officials involved inadapting the DCM concept to the case processingsystems in their jurisdictions. Because a successfulDCM program requires continual coordination amongall agencies affected, it is critical that they be involvedfrom the start in DCM planning and operation.
3
Regardless of the criteria chosen for differentiatingamong cases or the case assignment system in use,two goals and four resulting objectives characterizedifferentiated case management. The goals:
■ Timely and just disposition of all cases consistentwith their preparation and case management needs.
■ Improved use of judicial system resources bytailoring their application to the dispositionalrequirements of each case.
To achieve these goals, a DCM program should havethe following objectives:
■ Creation of multiple tracks or paths for casedisposition, with differing procedural requirements andtimeframes geared to the processing requirements ofthe cases that will be assigned to that track.1
■ Provision for court screening of each case shortlyafter filing so that each will be assigned to the propertrack according to defined criteria.
■ Continuous court monitoring of case progresswithin each track to ensure that it adheres to trackdeadlines and requirements.
■ Procedures for changing the track assignment inthe event the management characteristics of a casechange during the pretrial process.
The key to developing meaningful DCM track criteriais to identify factors that determine the levels ofpreparation and court intervention required to achievea just and timely resolution of each case. A variety of
approaches are possible. Some courts differentiate onthe basis of the seriousness of the case—the natureof the charges and sentence exposure involved, forexample—or the characteristics of the claims anddefenses asserted, such as the amount in contro-versy. Other courts estimate the time required forpreparation and disposition based on the need forforensic testimony or psychiatric evaluation, thenumber of parties, the amount of discovery antici-pated, or other such factors.
Some courts simply differentiate on the basis of casetype; others use a combination of these approaches.No approach has been demonstrated to be superioras long as it permits a jurisdiction to distinguish theamount of preparation and judicial interventionneeded to resolve each case fairly and expeditiously.Appendix B provides examples of criteria used byseveral of the DCM pilot programs.
DCM can be used with any type of case assignmentsystem as long as it permits early, meaningful casescreening and differential processing procedures andpathways. Courts using a master calendaring systemwill manage DCM program functions centrally. Courtsthat use an individual calendaring system will requiresome central management functions, such as definingprogram goals, operational policies, and procedures;monitoring system performance; and the like; butmost case management tasks will be performed bythe individual judges and their staffs. Hybridcalendaring systems will require a combination ofthese management approaches.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OFDIFFERENTIATED CASE MANAGEMENT
1 The term “track” has become associated generically withDCM programs. However, some jurisdictions have found theterm offensive to the qualitative aspects of the judicial proc-ess that a DCM program is designed to promote. Instead of“track,” some jurisdictions therefore have adopted the term“plan” or “category” for their DCM classifications.
4
Seven principal areas, summarized below, are likelyto be affected by a DCM program. Users of this guidemay wish to contact officials in the BJA pilot sites (seeappendix A) to discuss the DCM concept and itsimplementation in their jurisdictions in more detail.
A. Use of System Resources
DCM is designed to enable a court to make better useof judicial and staff resources. Early screening identi-fies cases that require substantial judicial involvementto ensure timely preparation and disposition as wellas those that require less judicial intervention andpreparation time. By tailoring the disposition processto the management needs of cases filed, courtresources can be used more efficiently, and judges’time can be reserved for functions that require ajudge’s effort. For certain simpler cases, pretrial casemanagement activities can be delegated to adminis-trative staff. Increasing administrative staff responsi-bility for case management can also build a sense oforganizational responsibility for case disposition andenhance job satisfaction.
This is not to say that DCM is a substitute for addi-tional resources where these are needed. However,such a program will contribute to a more efficientuse of existing resources and enable a jurisdictionto assess its staffing and judicial needs morerealistically.
B. Case Disposition Time
Although DCM is a technique to enhance manage-ment of the case disposition process, it also mayreduce the time to disposition. The impact of a DCMsystem on case processing time is particularly appar-ent in those cases that do not require a trial. Since 90percent or more of cases filed are disposed of withouttrial, earlier attention to these cases and shorter
deadlines for case completion can have a markedeffect on the court’s overall time to disposition.
Setting deadlines, particularly when done in consulta-tion with counsel, can also be expected to reducerequests for continuance springing from lack ofpreparation. If the deadlines within the DCM tracksare realistic and counsel know the court will enforcethem, compliance is far more likely.
C. Quality of the Judicial Process
By tailoring case processing time and procedures tothe individual cases, DCM improves the quality of thecase process. Early case screening, an essentialcomponent of DCM, promotes better attorney prepa-ration and more informed discussion of disputedissues at each event. For the litigants, DCM providesgreater certainty that their cases will receive thedegree of time and attention necessary and that theywill reach timely disposition. DCM also facilitatesgreater public access to the court process by assuringthat the time and procedures allocated for the disposi-tion process are consistent with case requirements.DCM results in greater certainty that events will beconducted when scheduled; thus, judicial systemofficers, including attorneys, need to prepare onlyonce for each scheduled event.
D. Cooperation Among AgenciesInvolved in the Justice System
Because the planning and implementation process fora DCM program requires that all components agreecollegially on priorities for case processing andresources, the DCM program—if it is to succeed—necessarily fosters increased cooperation amongjudicial system agencies and the recognition that theyare working toward system goals as well as theirrespective institutional missions.
BENEFITS TO BE DERIVEDFROM A DCM PROGRAM
5
E. Litigation Costs
A DCM system may be expected to affect litigationcosts in several areas. Earlier case disposition anddeadlines for completion of key activities, such asdiscovery, result in fewer discovery-related motions.Limitations on the amount of discovery for cases incertain tracks or at certain pretrial stages, if explicityincorporated into the DCM system, reduce litigationcosts.2 The number of appearances resulting fromcontinuances as well as events that do not meaning-fully contribute to case disposition also are signifi-cantly decreased.
Some offsetting costs may be connected with DCMsystem requirements, such as completion of formsand reports by counsel relating to case screening andmonitoring. A jurisdiction should assess the implica-tions of its DCM system on litigation costs as thesystem is being designed.
F. Public Perception of the Court
Improving the court’s public image is a related benefitof implementing a DCM system. The efficiency andpredictability achieved through a well-functioningDCM program can enhance the respect and credibilityof the court among the legal community and thegeneral public.
G. Other
In most of the pilot DCM jurisdictions, the DCMprograms have had an impact on numerous otheraspects of judicial system operations and resources,including:
■ Reducing the number of jail days for defendants inpretrial custody as a result of the reduction in caseprocessing times for detained defendants.3
■ Reducing the number of bench warrants issued asa result of shorter time between court events andgreater certainty that scheduled events will, in fact,occur.
■ Savings in clerical and postage costs by elim-inating unnecessary continuances and associatednotices.
■ Savings in prisoner transport costs as well as inthe time expended per case by judges and attorneysby eliminating unnecessary continuances and eventsthat do not contribute to case disposition.
■ Savings in witness costs, including those relatedto police overtime, resulting from greater certainty inthe court’s calendar and the elimination of events thatdo not contribute to case disposition.
■ More efficient coordination of individuals and tasksassociated with complicated cases by identifyingthese cases early and imposing managementsupervision.
2 Some jurisdictions use a two-stage discovery process sothat limited discovery is permitted for purposes of earlysettlement discussions which, if not successful, are thenexpanded for purposes of trial preparation.
3 An essential element of all of the pilot criminal DCMprograms has been the creation of separate subtracks fordetained and released defendants within each major track.
6
The prerequisites for implementing a DCM programare:
■ The court must acknowledge its responsibility formanaging case progress.
■ Judicial officials must agree that all cases filed arenot alike and that they need different managementand processing.
■ Participants must commit themselves todifferentiate among cases for management andprocessing purposes.
■ A key judge must assume leadership throughoutthe development and implementation process.
■ An experienced administrator must be assigned tocoordinate the details of the DCM development andimplementation process.
PREREQUISITES FOR IMPLEMENTINGA DCM SYSTEM
■ Key justice system agencies must be willing tocollaborate on the design and implementation of aDCM program.
■ The court and other agencies involved must bewilling to reorganize existing staff to support theoperation of a DCM program.
■ Each agency must be willing to dedicate seniorstaff with expertise and credibility to evaluate cases.
■ An information system must be available tosupport the DCM program operation, monitoring, andevaluation. Depending on case volume, automationmay be necessary, although in many jurisdictions aPC-based system has been adequate.
If these prerequisites exist, a court can start to planfor a DCM program. The principal planning tasks aresummarized in chapter 5.
7
PLANNING FOR A DCM PROGRAM
The first step in planning a DCM program is to identifythe agencies and individuals integral to the caseflowprocess who will be affected by the changes a DCMprogram introduces.
A. Determining Who Should BeInvolved in Planning
If a criminal DCM program is being implemented, thefollowing officials need to play a role:
■ Chief judge.
■ Presiding criminal judge.
■ Court administrator.
■ Prosecutor.
■ Indigent defense service provider.
■ Representative from the private criminal bar.
■ Sheriff or other agency responsible for prisonertransport and court security.
■ Agency responsible for preparing pretrial releaserecommendations and presentence investigationreports.
■ Agency responsible for probation supervision.
If a civil DCM program is being implemented,individuals who need to be involved include:
■ Chief judge.
■ Presiding civil judge.
■ Representatives from the local bar.
■ Court administrator.
■ Civil case manager or assignment clerk.
■ Representatives from the court clerk’s office.
Once these have been identified, the directors of eachagency identified should assemble a policy committeeto develop the DCM overall goals and objectives.Once these have been agreed to, detailed planning
can begin. This can best be accomplished by creatinga task force drawn from the membership of the policycommittee and supplemented by staff in key opera-tional positions within these agencies (see chapter 7).
B. Information Gatheringby the DCM Policy Committee
Before it considers the changes a DCM mightachieve, the policy committee must develop a soundunderstanding of the court’s caseload characteristicsand how it presently is being disposed. Thus, thecommittee should obtain and analyze information onthe current state of case processing, including:
■ Recent trends in the number and types of casefilings.
■ The number, type, and age of pending cases.
■ The reasons for and frequency of continuancesand the types of cases in which they commonly occur.
■ Current time from filing to disposition and trendsover the past 5 years.
■ Points and timeframes at which case disposition isoccurring.
This information will provide a general picture of thepace and methods of case disposition as well asspecial problems occurring in the case process, asevidenced by continuances, for example. These datashould then be further analyzed to indicate thepercentage of cases disposed of in 30-day incre-ments, the events at which disposition occurs, and thedisposition methods used. This analysis will provide aclear picture of how time consumed by the caseprocess is currently being employed. The results willprovide a framework for gathering the data discussedbelow relevant to the design of the DCM program.
Primary focus should be upon identifying:
■ Types of cases that can be disposed of early inthe caseflow process and the events and informationnecessary to trigger their disposition.
8
■ Types of cases that warrant more extendeddispositional timeframes and the extent of judicialsupervision or management they require.
The caseflow information described above will providea basis for identifying problems with the existingcaseflow system that the DCM program shouldaddress. Among the specific issues that should beexplored to determine how cases should be differ-entiated and the various procedures and timesapplicable to each category are:
■ The stage (event) in the caseflow process atwhich different types of cases are being disposedand the most common types of disposition ateach stage.
In other words, what events—such as completion ofdiscovery, conduct of a pretrial conference, omnibushearing, motions hearing, or trial—are associated withdisposition of various types of cases? What methodsof case disposition—such as settlement, plea agree-ment, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) referral, orjury verdict—occur most frequently? Because morethan 90 percent of civil and criminal cases filed aredisposed of through nontrial methods, a DCM pro-gram should promote the occurrence of whateverevents are needed to trigger disposition as early inthe process as possible as well as identify whichcases will, in fact, require trial. A sample “fallout” chartshowing the events and times at which case disposi-tion occurs and the methods of case disposition usedis provided in appendixes F1 and F2.
■ The age of cases at disposition.
A historical summary of the age of disposed cases,measured from filing to disposition, should provide ageneral picture of case processing time. The datashould be coupled with an analysis of the events thatoccurred prior to disposition to determine whetherthese intervening events—and the elapsed timebetween them—contributed to case disposition. Forexample, on the criminal side, whether significantnumbers of dispositions occurred at arraignmentdepends upon whether discovery was exchanged,whether the defendant was represented by counsel,and so forth. On the civil side, whether or not pretrialconferences contributed to case disposition dependsupon the timing of the conference and the preparationrequired of attorneys for the conference.
■ The reasons for and frequency of continuances.
In addition to reviewing the nature of activities preced-ing disposition, the reasons for and frequency ofcontinuances of any of these events and the types ofcases in which they commonly occur should also beassessed. Special attention should be given to identi-fying situations in which continuances reflect unrealis-tic timing of scheduled events (for example, defend-ant’s counsel was not yet appointed), inadequacy ofexisting resources to accommodate scheduled events(for example, no trial judge was available), lack ofcoordination among participants (for example, theprisoner was not transported), or other dysfunctions.This analysis should provide a basis for identifyinggeneral management problems as well as specificissues that the DCM program should address.
C. Setting Standards or Goals forthe DCM System
Goals for the DCM system serve two principalfunctions:
■ To provide a common standard toward which allparties can direct their efforts.
■ To provide a basis for measuring the system’seffectiveness.
This analysis will provide a solid foundation fordeveloping the goals and objectives of the DCMprogram and a framework for adapting DCM principlesto local caseflow requirements. Goals should include:
■ General performance objectives for the justicesystem as a whole as well as for the court and specificjustice agencies involved.
■ General case processing objectives and priorities.
■ Objectives relating to judicial and other systemresource allocations systemwide and within eachinvolved agency.
The case processing goals and objectives of severalof the BJA pilot DCM programs are included with theproject descriptions in appendix A.
Within this framework, the operational policies andprocedures for implementing the DCM program canthen be developed by the DCM task force. The roleand function this task force should play in designingthe DCM program are discussed in chapter 6.
9
The DCM task force should design the program andimplementation plan for the DCM to achieve theprogram goals and objectives developed by the policycommittee and address specific caseflow problemsidentified during the analysis phase.
To ensure the successful design and implementationof a DCM program, a task force should assemble keypolicy and operational staff of the agencies andorganizations necessary to implement a DCM pro-gram. The DCM policy committee members can be avaluable nucleus, but the task force also needs theoperational perspective of people who can helpdevelop requisite program procedures. Mechanismsfor assembling the task force and conducting itsactivities will vary from one jurisdiction to another, butthe court must take the leadership role in the taskforce.
The following outlines the principal jobs the task forceshould perform.
A. Developing a CommonUnderstanding of the ExistingCaseflow Process
As discussed in chapter 5, design and implementationplanning should be the responsibility of task forcecomponents of the DCM policy committee. Theexisting case process—civil, criminal, or both—shouldbe documented, including at least the following:
■ Each key event in the caseflow process.
■ The estimated time between events.
■ Responsible agency or staff at each stage.
■ Points at which the court exercises (or loses)control over case progress.
Sample diagrams of criminal and civil caseflowprocesses are provided in appendix F3.
The task force should develop a thorough under-standing of present practices affecting both the civiland criminal caseflow process. The principal areasthat should be addressed are summarized in exhibit 1.
This analytic process will give the task force thenecessary level of understanding and common frameof reference for an effective DCM program.
B. Defining Criteria for CaseDifferentiation and Agreeing onDCM Track Characteristics
Chapter 1 described a variety of possible criteria fordifferentiating among cases. The analysis explainedabove should provide a framework for identifyingfactors that best distinguish among cases in a specificjurisdiction in terms of case management and disposi-tion needs.
Some courts have begun their DCM systems withthree tracks that represent three different speeds ofcase disposition; others have used as many as five orsix tracks to address both speed and special catego-ries of cases. The number and characteristics of theDCM tracks appropriate to an individual jurisdictionwill depend upon the case categorization thatemerges from the first-step analysis. Among theissues that need to be addressed in determining thespecific tracks and track characteristics appropriate ina specific jurisdiction are:
■ What cases can be reasonably expected to bedisposed of earlier than others? For example, if pleaagreement and probationary sentences currentlydispose of most first-offender cases involving lessthan 3 years potential incarceration, is it possible toassign these cases to a special track that will providean early conference at which realistic plea offers canbe made and assessed and disposition can occur?Similarly, if completion of discovery triggers thedisposition of certain classes of civil cases, is it
DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTINGA DCM PROGRAM
10
Exh
ibit
1.
Rel
evan
t C
rim
inal
an
d C
ivil
Cas
eflo
w P
ract
ices
: A
reas
fo
r R
evie
w b
y th
e D
CM
Tas
k Fo
rce
■G
ener
al
a.M
etho
d fo
r as
sign
ing
case
s to
judg
esb.
Met
hod
for
sche
dulin
g ca
ses
– fo
rmal
– in
form
alc.
Key
inte
rven
tion
poi
nts
or s
ched
uled
eve
nts
and
whe
n th
ey o
ccur
d.C
urre
nt p
roce
dure
s fo
r ca
se s
cree
ning
■C
rim
inal
Cas
e Pro
cess
ing
Syst
em
a.C
rim
inal
cas
eflo
w p
roce
ss o
verv
iew
:M
ajor
eve
nts
and
tim
efra
mes
b.R
elev
ant
stat
utor
y an
d ru
le p
rovi
sion
s(1
)D
elay
/spe
edy
tria
l pro
visi
ons
–de
scri
ptio
n–
degr
ee o
f com
plia
nce
(2)
Man
dato
ry s
ente
ncin
g pr
ovis
ions
and
freq
uenc
y of
the
ir u
se(3
)O
ther
pro
visi
ons
that
impa
ct o
n th
eca
seflo
w p
roce
ssc.
Judi
cial
sys
tem
pol
icie
s(1
)C
ourt
pol
icie
s–
Reg
ardi
ng s
ched
ulin
g ca
ses
ofde
tain
ed d
efen
dant
s–
Reg
ardi
ng c
onti
nuan
ce r
eque
sts
–R
egar
ding
cas
e pr
oces
sing
pri
orit
ies
(2)
Pros
ecut
oria
l pol
icie
s–
Reg
ardi
ng m
etho
d (u
se o
f ind
ictm
ent/
accu
sati
on/i
nfor
mat
ion,
etc
.)–
Reg
ardi
ng p
lea
nego
tiat
ion
–R
egar
ding
pro
visi
on o
f dis
cove
ry
(3)
Def
ense
pol
icie
s(a
)Is
sues
rel
atin
g to
indi
gent
defe
nse
serv
ices
–M
etho
d fo
r pr
ovid
ing
defe
nse
serv
ices
–M
etho
d fo
r as
sign
ing
case
s to
atto
rney
s–
Poin
t in
cas
e at
whi
ch a
ttor
neys
are
assi
gned
(b)
Issu
es r
elat
ing
to p
riva
te c
ouns
el(4
)Sp
ecia
l iss
ues
affe
ctin
g ca
seflo
w(a
)O
btai
ning
lab
repo
rts
(b)
Sche
dulin
g fo
rens
ic e
xper
tsd.
Cas
e fil
ing
and
disp
osit
ion
info
rmat
ion
(1)
His
tori
cal i
nfor
mat
ion
(las
t 5
year
s)–
Ann
ual c
ase
filin
gs–
Ave
rage
and
med
ian
case
age
at
disp
osit
ion
by y
ear
(and
typ
e of
cas
eif
avai
labl
e)–
Met
hod
of d
ispo
siti
on a
nd a
vera
gean
d m
edia
n ag
e fo
r ea
ch c
ase
disp
osit
ion
met
hod
by y
ear
(2)
Man
agem
ent
info
rmat
ion
on t
hepe
ndin
g ca
selo
ad–
Vol
ume
–A
ge–
Stag
e in
cas
eflo
w p
roce
sse.
Maj
or p
robl
ems
iden
tifie
d by
judi
cial
syst
em o
ffic
ials
■C
ivil
Cas
e Pro
cess
ing
Syst
em
a.C
ivil
case
load
pro
cess
ove
rvie
w: M
ajor
even
ts a
nd t
imef
ram
es
b.A
pplic
able
rul
es r
egar
ding
cas
e pr
oces
sing
(1)
App
licab
le t
imef
ram
es(2
)A
pplic
able
eve
nts
(3)
Dis
cove
ry(4
)La
ck o
f pro
secu
tion
(5)
Sanc
tion
s fo
r no
ncom
plia
nce
c.A
lter
nati
ve d
ispu
te r
esol
utio
n pr
ogra
ms
(1)
App
licab
le p
roce
dure
s an
d ti
mef
ram
esfo
r th
eir
use
(2)
Impa
ct o
n ci
vil c
ase
proc
ess
syst
emd.
Judi
cial
sys
tem
pol
icie
s(1
)Sc
hedu
ling
(2)
Con
tinu
ance
s(3
)U
se o
f san
ctio
nse.
Cas
e in
form
atio
n co
llect
ed(1
)In
form
atio
n us
ed t
o sc
reen
cas
es(2
)Ty
pe o
f inf
orm
atio
n(3
)Po
int
at w
hich
it is
col
lect
ed(4
)A
ctio
n ta
ken
as a
res
ult
f.C
ase
filin
g an
d di
spos
itio
n in
form
atio
n(1
)H
isto
rica
l inf
orm
atio
n (l
ast
5 ye
ars)
–A
nnua
l cas
e fil
ings
–A
vera
ge a
nd m
edia
n ag
e at
disp
osit
ion
by y
ear
–D
ispo
siti
on m
etho
ds a
vera
ge/
med
ian
age
for
each
by
year
(2)
Man
agem
ent
info
rmat
ion
on p
endi
ngca
selo
ad–
Vol
ume
–A
ge–
Stag
eg.
Maj
or p
robl
ems
iden
tifie
d by
judi
cial
syst
em o
ffic
ials
.
11
possible to assign these cases to a special track thatwill provide for the completion of discovery at theearliest practical time, with a settlement conferencescheduled shortly thereafter?
■ What degree of court supervision do cases requirethat need more extended case disposition time?Adequate court supervision of cases with extendeddispositional timeframes ensures that these casesproceed as scheduled and that the extended timepromotes disposition—not delay.
■ Do any special classes of cases present specialmanagement considerations? Managementconsiderations of some special cases warrantassignment to a special category—or subcategory—within a track. These might include criminal casesinvolving foreign-speaking defendants who requireinterpreters for court proceedings as well as forinterviews with attorneys, pretrial service, andprobation officials, or cases requiring competency orpsychiatric evaluations. Civil cases for specialattention may include those involving multiple expertwitnesses or third-party complaints.
C. Defining the CaseCharacteristics for Each Track
The case differentiation criteria adopted in task Babove should define the characteristics of casesassigned to the various tracks.
For example, a drug case involving one defendant, asimple laboratory analysis, and minor criminal sanc-tions may be assigned to an expedited track. Anotherdrug case that has similar characteristics, but alsoincludes search-and-seizure issues and a defendantwith an extensive criminal history, may be assigned toa standard or complex track. Similarly, a contractdispute involving two parties, no expert witnesses,and limited discovery may be assigned to an expe-dited track; another contract dispute with four parties,several expert witnesses, and extensive discoverymay be assigned to a standard or complex track.
Approaches used by the pilot criminal and civil DCMsites to define case characteristics for each track areincluded in appendix B. Based on the track character-istics adopted, forms should be designed to captureessential case information for track assignment.Sample forms used by several of the pilot sites ap-pear in appendix C.
D. Identifying Procedures ThatNeed To Be Instituted or Changed
Once the basic case differentiation scheme and thecharacteristics for each track are agreed upon,procedures must be developed for each track. Theseprocedures should address the entire caseflowprocess from filing and screening through disposition.Existing procedures that contribute to effective casemanagement should be continued and adapted tothe DCM program; where necessary, additional proce-dures and events should be instituted to assure ade-quate case screening, management, and monitoring.
Additional events may likely be needed or existingevents modified to provide for earlier court interven-tion and a chance of earlier disposition. For example,if the flow chart developed during the planning phaseindicates substantial delay before any court interven-tion, an early pretrial conference (that is to say, within10 to 15 days of the filing of a criminal case and within30 days of the filing of the answer in a civil case) maybe essential to ensure that cases are disposed of asearly as possible, consistent with their managementneeds. Examples of the track procedures andtimeframes adopted by several of the pilot sites areincluded in appendix E.
E. Assuring That Essential DCMFunctions Are Performed
The procedures developed for the DCM systemshould promote performance of the critical DCMfunctions listed in exhibit 2 and clear-cut responsibilityfor the tasks entailed.
F. Ensuring InteragencyCoordination, ManagementSupport, and Periodic Training
The task force also will need to:
■ See that each agency affected by the DCMprogram develops adequate internal implementationpolicies and procedures.
12
Exhibit 2. Critical DCM Functions and Planning Issues
■ Defining the tracks for the DCM System
■■ What factors distinguish cases in terms of their management and disposition needs?
■■ What procedures, events, and deadlines should be established to reflect the different management anddisposition requirements of the caseload?
■■ What degree of court supervision will the cases in these tracks require?
■ Case screening
■■ What information will be used to screen cases for track assignment, and how will that informationbe obtained?
■■ Who will screen the cases?
■■ When will case screening be done?
■ Track assignment
■■ When will the track assignment be made?
■■ Who will make the track assignment?
■■ What attorney input will be considered?
■■ How will attorneys be notified of the assignment?
■ Case management
■■ What management functions are needed to ensure that cases in each track are disposed of in accordancewith applicable track procedures and timeframes?
■■ What management functions can staff perform?
■■ What management functions require a judge?
■ Case monitoring
■■ What information is needed for case monitoring?
■■ How will compliance with applicable event deadlines be monitored?
■■ How will noncompliance be addressed?
■ Program assessment
■■ What are the goals and objectives of the DCM program?
■■ Who will be responsible for assessing the degree to which the DCM program achieves its goalsand objectives?
■■ What information will be used to perform this assessment?
■■ How will needed modifications in DCM be identified and made?
■ Interagency coordination
■■ Who will be responsible for assuring continuing communication and coordination among agenciesinvolved in the DCM process?
■■ What procedures will be instituted to promote close cooperation among the agencies involved andidentification and resolution of problems as they arise?
13
■ Develop mechanisms for ongoing interagencycoordination between all agencies involved.
■ Secure adequate management and informationsupport to manage and monitor individual cases aswell as the overall DCM program.
■ Guarantee ongoing education and training pro-grams for all levels of staff in each agency affected bythe DCM program.
■ Establish mechanisms for ongoing assessment ofDCM program operations, resolution of internaloperational and interagency coordination problems,and periodic modification of program policies andprocedures.
G. Regular Meetings To WatchProgram Operation and AddressAny Problems
The task force should meet regularly to reviewoperations of the DCM program and address imple-mentation problems as they occur. The meetingsshould occur at least once a month for the first 6months of the program and no less frequently thanevery other month after that. Many unanticipatedproblems will develop. Most of them will be relativelyminor, but if not addressed promptly may impede theprogram’s success. Minutes of a task force meeting inone of the pilot sites shortly after implementation,included in appendix D, highlight the range of issuesand questions that can come up once the DCMprogram is implemented.
H. Special Issues To Consider inDeveloping the DCM ProgramImplementation Plan
(1) Changing the rules or other provisions relatingto the case process. To the extent that the DCMprogram changes discovery practice and timeframesfor case processing, adds new events, or changes thecharacter of old events, civil DCM programs mostlikely will require changes in existing court rules. Rulechanges will be the most effective way of givingattorneys and the public adequate notice of the newcivil case processing procedures, including caseprocessing applicable to the various tracks. For
jurisdictions without local rules, publishing specialrules may be necessary. Starting the DCM programwith temporary or interim rules may be desirable;these can be modified to reflect changes as theprogram completes its pilot test period. Examples ofrules prepared for civil DCM programs are included inappendix G1.
Criminal DCM programs, on the other hand, mostlikely will require only minimal changes, if any, in courtrules. Most of the changes brought about by the DCMprogram can be introduced by court administrativeorder or interagency agreement within existingstatutory or rule provisions regarding case processingtime and events in the criminal case process. As anexample, appendix G2. includes the Pierce County(Washington) Superior Court’s Memorandum andSupplemental Memorandum on revised criminalprocedures instituted for the DCM program.
To determine whether implementing DCM requiresrule changes or other action, a jurisdiction shouldcarefully review existing rules and statutory and otherprovisions on time, events, and other details of caseprocessing. Based upon this review and the “locallegal culture,” local officials should determine howbest to proceed. In any event, the bar and the publicshould learn in local legal and other publications ofthe adoption of DCM. Appendix H has examples ofpublication announcements explaining the DCMprogram.
(2) Evaluating the pros and cons of pilot pro-grams. Some jurisdictions may want to consider aDCM program for the entire criminal or civil docket—or for both. Benefits of this approach are that all casesgo through a uniform procedure. Others may want tobegin with a pilot program, focusing on only a seg-ment of the caseload. This approach permits DCM tobe tested in a limited number of cases and programprocedures to be refined before the system is appliedto the rest of the docket. The BJA pilot projects haveused both strategies. However, those jurisdictions thatphased in the DCM program found that maintainingone caseflow management system for DCM casesand a second system for non-DCM cases requiredadded management functions and necessitatedorienting agencies to the procedures of the newsystem while still maintaining the old. This has been aparticular problem in situations in which the DCMprogram imposed more stringent management andpreparation requirements.
14
(3) Assuring adequate program management andsupport staff. The intensive case managementcharacteristic of a DCM program and its focus onearly disposition require adequate staff and informa-tion system support. This support enables staff toperform necessary case management and monitoringfunctions and issue notices of applicable events foreach track. In jurisdictions where a special judge isdesignated to handle a high volume of dispositions,such as those at arraignment or shortly thereafter,sufficient clerical and security support must beprovided for the volume of cases. This does notnecessarily require additional staff. Redefiningexisting responsibilities and duties will often suffice.
(4) Handling the current case inventory. Regard-less of whether DCM is implemented on a pilot basisor extended to the full caseload, the court will need aplan to dispose of pending case inventory. AlthoughDCM procedures will not apply to these cases, thereis no reason why the court cannot informally adhereto DCM principles by tailoring the case dispositionprocess to the needs of each case in inventory. Manyjurisdictions initiated their DCM systems with an auditof all pending cases to determine their status andschedule them for disposition. For the initial period,the court will need to maintain two parallel schedulingsystems. The DCM program must be designed toaccommodate systems for DCM and non-DCM cases.
(5) Developing necessary forms. The DCM systemwill require new forms for case screening and moni-toring and for notices regarding track assignment andscheduling. The design of these forms should giveparticular consideration to:
■ The purpose of each form.
■ The source from which the information will beobtained.
■ How the information will be used.
Requests for information for case screening should beunambiguous and geared to obtaining objectiveinformation that can be readily coded.
(6) Assuring adequate information system sup-port. The experiences of the BJA pilot DCM jurisdic-tions made it apparent that many trial courts lackinformation systems that provide adequate informa-tion for day-to-day case management and monitoringas well as for managing the overall DCM program.
Efforts by the pilot DCM sites to adapt statewide courtor county information systems proved unsatisfactory,and most of them developed supplemental PC-basedsystems to manage and monitor DCM.
A number of existing software programs can providethe capability necessary for DCM in most jurisdictions.When adapting any of these programs to the needs ofa local jurisdiction, judges and administrators shouldmeet to define the functions they need to have per-formed in order to manage and evaluate the newsystem, to supervise individual case progress, todetermine the status of the caseload, and to measurethe degree to which DCM goals and objectives arebeing achieved.
At a minimum, the DCM information system shouldprovide:
■ Information necessary to manage and monitorcase progress.
■ Information necessary to assess the degree towhich the system’s goals and objectives are beingachieved.
■ Flexibility to generate ad hoc reports that varioususers of DCM find helpful.
■ Information on the DCM program and individualcase progress as frequently as needed.
Sample computer screens and management reportsgenerated by several of the pilot sites are included inappendix I.
(7) Fostering cooperation between prosecutorsand public defenders. The prosecutor and publicdefender must cooperate to make a criminal DCMprogram work. Each of these offices should designatea senior-level attorney with expertise and credibility toscreen each case, exchange discovery early, andconduct realistic settlement discussions. The objec-tive is to reach the earliest possible disposition ofeach case consistent with the legal and managementisssues presented. For example, many jurisdictionsrequire that the early plea offer be the best offer andnot be reopened after the time for acceptance hasexpired. In determining the range of reasonable offersto promote early disposition in a given type of case,some jurisdictions sample the types of sentencesarrived at prior to the DCM program, considering casetype and offender characteristics, through plea or trialdisposition.
15
(8) Analyzing costs and benefits. Cost is, of course,an important consideration in designing a DCMsystem, and it is difficult to quantify in dollar terms theeconomies—or costs—that will result. Certainly aDCM program will produce significant savings byeliminating unnecessary, repetitive events andfunctions and by permitting more efficient use ofjudicial and staff time. On the other hand, a DCMprogram requires adequate staff, management, andinformation resources to be effective. It may requireenhanced information system capabilities (eitherautomated or manual) and increased staff support.However, it may simply require reorganizing existingstaff and resources and redefining the functions theyperform.
Most DCM pilot sites used the resources provided byBJA or local matching funds to support informationsystem needs (primarily the purchase of personalcomputers); hire court staff to coordinate and monitorcase progress; and perhaps hire additional prosecu-tors, public defenders, and paralegals to screen andhandle the caseload. In many instances, however,existing staff responsibilities were reorganized, thusobviating the need for new hires solely to implementthe DCM program.
In the long run, whether a DCM program results incost savings or higher expenditures will depend uponthe type and level of resources existing before DCM,the degree to which the court currently managescases efficiently, and the capabilities of the informa-tion system in place. Regardless of whether DCMreduces costs or increases savings, it should contrib-ute significantly to more efficient use of existingjudicial system resources.
(9) Providing training. An initial orientation programis essential for judges, court staff, prosecution anddefense attorneys, probation officers, sheriffs, and alltheir staffs. In addition, ongoing training must followthe orientation to address operational problems as
they arise and reinforce DCM goals and procedures.In many jurisdictions attorneys who practice beforethe “DCM court” also practice in courts not using DCMand therefore need to be exposed regularly to theDCM program to promote compliance with its newprocedures.
I. The Justice System Environment
An effective DCM program should capitalize on theorganizational strengths of the local judicial systemand address its weaknesses. In considering how toimplement a DCM program, the following questionsneed to be addressed:
■ What factors in the environment would supportefforts to implement DCM, and how can they beutilized in the court? In other justice system agencies?
■ What factors would work against DCM imple-mentation, and how can they be overcome orcounteracted in the court? In other justice systemagencies?
Usually it is more effective to identify and capitalize onthe facilitating factors rather than to try to makearbitrary changes. In designing a DCM program, it isimportant to:
■ Identify specific problems that will be remedied byimplementing differential case management.
■ Secure the agreement of key leaders to participatein development.
■ Listen carefully to objections or problems raised inyour agency and in others because many will havemerit and must be addressed.
■ Make sure adequate resources, staff, andequipment will be available at program startup tomaximize the chances of success.
16
Here are the essential elements of a DCM programalong with the objectives they support and the criteriaand guidelines for assessing the effectiveness withwhich they function.
A. Case Differentiation Criteria
Objective: Identification of the factors thatdetermine the level of preparation and courtintervention required to achieve a timely and justresolution in each case.
Assessment Criteria:
■ Policymakers have agreed on the factors thatmeaningfully differentiate cases.
■ These factors are the basis for formal criteria usedto define the number and nature of case processingtracks in the DCM system.
■ Track criteria are unambiguous and easily used.
■ Track criteria are clearly understood by all,including the bar.
Assessment Guidelines:
■ Do the track criteria for the DCM program providea meaningful guideline for categorizing casesaccording to the time and tasks required for their fairdisposition?
■ Are the track criteria clearly defined and capableof easy, unambiguous application?
B. Case Processing Tracksand Procedures
Objectives : Creation of sufficient processingtracks to facilitate timely disposition.
Scheduling of case events consistent with theneeds of each case.
Assessment Criteria:
■ Each of the DCM tracks is used with sufficientfrequency to justify its existence.
■ No DCM track has so high a percentage of casesassigned that it defeats the purpose of casedifferentiation.
■ Each event on the track and its timingmeaningfully contributes to timely case preparation,disposition, or both.
■ The time and processing characteristics of eachtrack accommodate the range of management/processing needs of the caseload.
■ Track reassignment is easily accomplished whenjustified.
■ Track reassignment occurs infrequently.
Assessment Guidelines:
■ Do the distinguishing processing characteristics ofthe tracks in the DCM system reflect the range ofmanagement needs of the cases filed?
■ Do the time and processing characteristics of eachtrack permit flexibility to accommodate the range ofmanagement/processing needs of the individualcases assigned?
■ Is the time between events individualized to reflectthe management needs of each case?
■ Are all of the tracks established being usedfrequently enough to make them useful?
■ What percentage of cases are assigned to eachtrack? What percentage of cases were anticipated tobe assigned to each track? [If the actual percentageof cases assigned to the tracks differs significantlyfrom the anticipated percentages, are there anyspecial issues that need to be a addressed, such as
CRITICAL ELEMENTS OF A DCMPROGRAM AND ASSESSMENTGUIDELINES
17
possible need for refinement of the track criteria?creation of subtracks? etc.]
■ Are the tracks serving the purposes for which theywere established?
■ How are cases warranting track reassignmentidentified?
■ What criteria are used to determine whether or notreassignment is necessary?
■ What procedures are used to reassign a case toanother track?
C. Case Screening Processand Track Determination
Objective : Screening of each case as soon aspossible after filing and assignment to the appro-priate track.
Assessment Criteria:
■ Suitable forms and procedures exist for obtainingnecessary information about each case at the time offiling for the purpose of track determination.
■ Case differentiation criteria are applied shortlyafter each case is filed.
■ Track assignment is communicated promptly toattorneys and appropriate court staff.
■ Deadlines imposed as a result of trackdetermination are communicated promptly to thosewho need them.
■ The track assignment and associated deadlinesare recorded in the permanent case record.
Assessment Guidelines:
■ Does the court review the pleadings in each caseshortly after filing (i.e., after charges are filed incriminal cases and after issue is joined in civil cases),using the criteria established for each track, todetermine the track assignment for each case and thetimeframe appropriate for its disposition?
■ Is there adequate information available to makethe track assignment at the time of this review? If not,
what additional information is needed for trackdetermination and how soon can it be obtained?
■ How are the results of the case review recordedand communicated to attorneys and court staff?
■ How much time elapses between the time of filingand the track assignment? Can this time periodreasonably be reduced? What case dispositionactivity is occurring during this period?
D. Court Control of CaseProgress and Deadlines
Objective : Assurance that cases proceed todisposition in accordance with the proceduresand deadlines for the track to which they havebeen assigned.
Assessment Criteria:
■ Hearings or other court events occur on thescheduled date.
■ The court can identify cases that are in danger ofexceeding deadlines and take action to assure thatthey stay on schedule.
■ Extensions of deadlines occur infrequently and aregranted by the court only for exceptional cause.
■ Requests for extensions are recorded and theirfrequency monitored.
■ Patterns of requests for continuances areexamined to determine whether modifications in theDCM system may be necessary.
■ Consequences are imposed for noncompliancewith established deadlines.
Assessment Guidelines:
■ Are cases heard when scheduled for pretrialevents? For trial?
■ What mechanisms are used to monitor compliancewith case processing deadlines?
■ Can the court identify cases in danger ofnoncompliance with these deadlines? Who identifiesthese cases? What action is taken on them?
18
■ How and when are cases identified that haveexceeded deadlines? Who identifies these cases?What action is taken on them?
■ What mechanisms are used to monitor thefrequency and reasons for motions to extenddeadlines?
■■ How frequently, by track, are such motionsfiled?
■■ By track, what action is taken on thesemotions?
■ Are continuance requests made for any specialcategory of cases or for any specific events with suchfrequency as to suggest that existing DCM time-frames are unrealistic or that resources are notadequate to achieve case processing objectives?
■ What mechanisms exist to monitor the frequencyand circumstances of motions to compel compliancewith discovery requests by track? By case type?
■ How frequently are such motions filed by track? Bycase type?
■ What action is taken on these motions?
E. Information Support
Objectives : Prompt creation of a case record tofacilitate monitoring of case progress and overallsystem performance.
Use of the information system to:
■ monitor case progress.
■ generate notices, calendars, and statisticalreports.
■ permit periodic analysis of system performance.
Assessment Criteria:
■ Case information, track assignment, and deadlinesare entered promptly into a data base.
■ The information produced by the system enablescourt personnel to monitor case progress and thecondition of the caseload.
■ Information about the current status of each caseis readily available.
■ The system flags cases in danger of exceedingtime standards.
■ Performance of cases on each track can beevaluated, by track.
■ The system can respond to ad hoc inquiries.
■ The system provides information to determinewhether the DCM system is meeting goals andobjectives.
■ Notices and calendars are generated promptly.
Assessment Guideline:
■ Is the track decision promptly entered into a database?
■ Is this information subsequently used for day-to-day case management?
■ Is the track assignment promptly communicated tothe parties involved along with the schedule forsubsequent case processing events?
■ Is the information needed to manage and monitoryour DCM program routinely collected?
■ Is the information needed to determine whethermodifications need to be made in the DCM programroutinely collected and readily available?
■ How is this information obtained and what is donewith the information after it is obtained? (i.e., to whomis the information communicated?)
■ Is the information needed to measure the successof your DCM program routinely collected and readilyavailable?
■ How is this information obtained and to whom is itcommunicated?
■ Does the information system routinely provideinformation by track regarding:
■■ case inventory by age, case type, and event?
■■ compliance with event and track deadlines?
■■ frequency, reason for, and effect ofcontinuances?
■■ case dispositions by age, track, and typeof disposition?
19
F. Judicial System Leadership
Objectives : A key judge to assume responsibilityfor overseeing the DCM program, meet regularlywith officials of the agencies involved, reviewcase management reports, address problemsdisclosed by these reports, and meet periodicallywith the DCM policy board and implementationtask force.
The court has adopted policies that articulate theDCM goals and policies clearly.
Assessment Criteria:
■ The court has published policies that clearlyarticulate the goals and procedures of the DCMprogram.
■ There is evident judicial leadership of the DCMsystem.
■ There is frequent, open consultation between thecourt and each agency involved with the DCMsystem.
Assessment Guidelines:
■ Has the court clearly publicized the goals andprocedures of the DCM program to attorneys andothers involved in the caseflow process?
■ Has one judge been designated withadministrative responsibility for monitoring andmanaging the DCM program and assuring that goalsand procedures are achieved?
■ Does he or she meet regularly with other judgesand officials in other agencies involved in the DCMprogram to address the operation of the program?
■ Does he or she have authority to adopt/reviseprocedures to address operational problems thatoccur?
■ Have mechanisms been established to assure thatall judges adhere to DCM policies and procedures?
G. Mechanisms forInteragency Coordination
Objective : Establishment of mechanisms forongoing communication among all agenciesinvolved in the DCM process.
Assessment Criteria:
■ Representatives of the agencies involved meetregularly concerning system operation.
■ Operational problems are addressed and resolvedin a collegial manner.
Assessment Guidelines:
■ Do representatives from each of the agenciesinvolved in the operation of the DCM program meetregularly to discuss the DCM program from theperspective of their respective offices?
■ Are operational problems relating to interagencycoordination promptly identified and addressed?
■ Is the information needed to measure the impactof the DCM program routinely collected?
■ What actions are taken as a result of having thisinformation?
20
Why would a jurisdiction want to consideradopting a DCM program?
(1) To make more efficient use of justice systemresources by tailoring their application to the needs ofthe individual cases filed.
(2) To serve the public more efficiently by providingdifferent processing paths with different timeframesand different procedural requirements, appropriatelygeared to case requirements to achieve a justdisposition in each case filed.
What types of cases are most appropriate for aDCM system?
All types of cases are suitable for a DCM program.
Which cases—civil or criminal—will most benefitfrom DCM in terms of improved case-processingtime?
The case-processing time for both civil and criminalcases can be substantially improved by DCM, particu-larly with regard to cases not disposed of by trial—i.e.,disposed of by plea or settlement, dismissal, etc.—which make up at least 90 percent of cases filed.These cases can be disposed of efficiently and fairlyby obtaining whatever information or scheduling orother court events are necessary to reach theirdisposition as early as possible, rather than waitinguntil the trial date approaches. In addition, the dockettime that might otherwise have been unnecessarilyreserved for their trial can be freed up for those casesthat will, in fact, require trial.
How do you decide on the right criteria for differ-entiating your caseload? For example, how doyou determine and isolate those factors that trulymake a difference among the cases?
The best way to determine criteria for differentiatingcases is through a combination of brainstorming withofficials representing various components of thejudicial process (i.e., plaintiff and defense counsel,prosecutor, public defender agencies, and the court)to identify differentiating factors based on experience
as well as to identify the critical information andevents necessary for disposition of different classes ofcases.
What resources are needed to perform the casescreening for a DCM program, and how many staffare needed for the screening process? Can we getthe attorneys to provide enough information tointelligently screen each case?
One experienced staff person can perform the casescreening functions in most courts. This person canperform other DCM program functions as well, suchas case monitoring, coordination with attorneys, etc.Experience with the pilot DCM programs has demon-strated that attorneys will provide all informationnecessary to screen cases intelligently, provided thatthe forms requesting this information are readilyusable, the request for information is clear andunambiguous, and the response is capable of objec-tive interpretation. Case screening also can occur atan early status conference conducted by a judge ormagistrate, thus relieving staff of that function.
How much information needs to be collected oneach case to classify it for the DCM program?How much is needed for monitoring compliancewith case-processing schedules? Who shouldmonitor compliance with the case-processingschedules developed for the DCM program?
The data needed to classify a case in a DCM programshould be geared to the criteria the jurisdiction hasadopted for case differentiation and the informationdesired to evaluate the DCM program. The varioustrack criteria developed by the pilot DCM projects,included in appendix B, give examples of the type ofinformation needed. In terms of monitoring case-processing schedules, the information needed wouldrelate to the time and events scheduled and the trackto which a case was assigned. Appendix I providessample computer screens used by several of theDCM projects demonstrating the data used formonitoring purposes.
FREQUENTLY ASKEDQUESTIONS ABOUT DCM
21
Will our existing information system be able tosupport the needed DCM data? If it can’t, shouldwe give any further consideration to a DCMprogram?
To decide whether your existing information systemcan support a DCM program, local officials shouldmeet and determine the questions they will need toanswer and the information they will want to maintainon a regular basis in order to manage and monitor theDCM program. They should then present thesequestions and information items to the director of thecourt’s information system, asking the directorwhether the system can provide this information and,if not, what if anything can be done to obtain it.(Based on the experiences of the pilot sites, very fewcourt information systems can provide the day-to-daymanagement information that a DCM program—orany court management program, for that matter—requires.)
That the present court information system cannotsupport the DCM program, however, should not be areason to abandon the program. Most of the pilotjurisdictions developed simple PC-based programsthat were inexpensive, user-friendly, and adequateuntil such time as a more permanent system could bedeveloped. Specific information on the developmentand use of these PC systems can be obtained bycontacting the local officials involved in the develop-ment of these systems in Pierce County, Washington,and Ramsey County, Minnesota.
When should track assignments be made?
The track assignment should be made as soon aspossible after filing—within 5 to 10 days of the filing ofan answer in a civil matter and at the time of the firstappearance, or very shortly thereafter, in a criminalmatter.
Who should make the track assignment?
Under a master calendar, an administrator or coordi-nator can make the case track assignment; in anindividual assignment system, the track assignmentcan be made by the judge to whom the case isassigned or by his or her designee. In either instance,clear criteria should be established for assignment tothe various tracks established and the attorneysinvolved in the case should be consulted and have anopportunity to provide input to the track assignmentdecision.
How many tracks should there be?
Many jurisdictions have begun their DCM programswith three tracks; others, however, have used more orhave subsequently developed subtracks so as toaddress special classes of cases. There is no magicnumber; the number should reflect realistic distinc-tions in case-processing requirements.
What should be the procedure if litigants object tothe track classification? Does that add to case-processing delay?
Procedure for prompt appeal to a judicial officershould be provided. The appeal process should besimple and in no way delay case progress. Theexperience of the pilot DCM sites was that appeals ofa track determination were extremely rare. Appeals ofa track determination should be minimal if the criteriafor track assignment are unambiguous and capable ofobjective and uniform application.
Do case screening and track assignment delaycase processing in any way?
No. If anything, the information obtained at the time ofcase filing should accelerate case progress by forcingopposing counsel to consider much earlier the issuesand tasks necessary for disposition and to provideeach other this information.
Should all cases be included in the DCMprogram?
Yes. Some courts exclude certain types of casesinitially, such as probate or domestic relations, butthere is no reason to make such exclusion once aDCM system has been pilot tested.
What will be the impact of a DCM program oncases not included in the program?
Cases filed before the DCM program was implemen-ted, and therefore not subject to DCM procedures, willneed to be processed according to pre-DCM practice.It will be very important that these cases not berelegated to second-class status. Many of the pilotjurisdictions conducted an audit of these cases andwere able to dispose of many of them, schedulingthose remaining for trial as soon as possible. Thesame concerns apply to cases not subject to the DCMprogram because they are excluded by case type(i.e., civil cases in a court using a criminal DCMprogram, general criminal cases in a court using aDCM program for drug cases only, etc.). In either
22
situation, there is no reason why the principlesunderlying a DCM program—active court manage-ment of the case process and categorization andprocessing of cases based on their complexity—should not be applied to all of the cases, DCM ornon-DCM.
Are civil cases more or less difficult to screenthan criminal cases?
Civil cases are neither more nor less difficult to screenthan criminal cases, as long as the criteria for casescreening are clearly articulated and capable ofunambiguous application.
Our individually calendared judges are randomlyassigned cases of all kinds at the time of filing.How could we go about integrating a DCM pro-gram into their caseflow system?
Since differentiation can be applied to all types ofcases, these judges can devise differentiated casemanagement procedures for all cases assigned tothem. Their first step should be to define the case-screening criteria that the DCM system will use. TheDCM tracks and procedures should then be defined,followed by a determination on how to allocate judicialtime to the events prescribed for each track. Since alltypes of cases might be expected to have an earlyconference, a judge might designate part of one day aweek simply as a conference day regardless of casetype.
Does DCM assume that each judge has a“specialty” calendar and gets only one type ofcase?
No. The DCM principles apply to all types of casesand are concerned with the complexity of cases, notthe case type as such.
What agencies, departments, or entities inaddition to the court are affected by a DCMprogram? Do they need to be involved in thedecision to implement a DCM program?
Virtually every agency involved in the civil or criminalcase process will be affected by a DCM program.While not all of these agencies can realistically beinvolved in the decision to implement a DCM program,they will certainly play a role in determining its suc-cess. Special effort should therefore be made by theDCM Task Force to coordinate development of theprogram with these agencies and to plan for the
program’s anticipated impact. On the criminal side, forexample, the agency responsible for prisoner trans-port will be instrumental in assuring that detaineddefendants are brought to court when scheduled. Tothe extent that the criminal case process is expeditedor there is any increase in the numbers of detaineddefendants needed to be brought before the courteach day, resources must be available to guaranteethat the program does not break down at this point.Similarly, the agency responsible for obtaining crimi-nal histories and preparing presentence reports mustfulfill its role in order for cases to be disposed of inaccordance with the DCM timeframes. If it is difficultto obtain timely and adequate criminal history informa-tion to satisfy statutory requirements, the planningprocess must address this situation.
Can a DCM program have an impact on crowdingin our jail?
Definitely. Not only will a DCM program give priority tocases involving detained defendants but, in addition, itshould promote much earlier disposition of thosecases that do not require extensive preparation. Inaddition, the scheduling certainty built into the DCMprogram should ensure that cases involving detaineddefendants are not continued except for a showing ofvery good cause.
Our prosecutor will not negotiate pleas. Would aDCM program still be useful to our jurisdiction?
Yes, because it will permit the court to manage thepace and procedures of the criminal case processfrom time of filing. In addition, if sentence exposure isa factor considered in track assignment, a DCMprogram can also contribute to earlier disposition.
Our prosecutor and public defender indicate thattheir heavy caseloads prevent their “screening”cases for purposes of DCM tracking until shortlybefore trial. How can a DCM program be useful,given this constraint?
Many prosecutors and public defenders have ex-pressed this reaction initially, when a DCM program isfirst discussed. Their later experience, however, tendsto be that, by disposing of those cases which can bedisposed of fairly expeditiously and by ensuring thateach event scheduled contributes meaningfully to thedisposition process of each case, they have had moretime to devote to those cases that require theirattention.