Superior Court Workload and Performance Follow

Performance Audit Committee
September 15, 2005
Follow-Up Report
Pierce County Superior Court
Workload and Performance
Conducted for Pierce County Performance Audit Committee
by
Matt Temmel
Performance Audit Coordinator
Summary
This report is a revised version of a memorandum presented on July 21, 2005 to the
Performance Audit Committee, based on further analysis by performance audit
staff. The main change concerns the analysis of workload in Pierce County
Superior Court and other superior courts, particularly in civil cases.
The previous analysis of civil workload was based on the “total civil filings” as
presented in the annual Superior Court caseload reports by the Administrative
Office of the Courts. Further analysis found that the total civil filings include a
large sub-category called “other matters filed with the clerk.” Those filings do not
affect judicial workload, and they distort the picture if included in the comparative
workload analysis. Therefore, we have excluded “other matters filed with the
clerk” from the analysis. Details are in Appendix 1.
Update on Superior Court Criminal Case Processing, 2001-2005
The 2001 performance audit report by Justice Management Institute (JMI) included
data on Superior Court workload and performance in criminal cases through the
year 2000. The current report (on pages 2-9) provides an update on felony filings,
resolutions, pending cases, case age, and related matters, so that the County Council
has current information on Superior Court workload and performance.
Attachments 1 - 7 (in a separate packet) are graphs to illustrate the case
management data discussed in this part of the report.
Through 2004, felony filings have declined 14% in Pierce County since reaching a
high point in 2001. Drug case filings have declined significantly.
The number of pending cases is a standard measure of a court’s efficiency and
productivity in case processing. In criminal cases, the main findings on pending
cases are as follows.
‰
The number of pending criminal cases was 1,783 as of July 1, 2005, versus
1,720 pending cases five years ago near the end of the JMI performance audit.
‰
At that time (late December 2000), Superior Court had 20 judges. The 21st
judge took office in March 2001.
‰
In 2001 and continuing through the end of 2002, Superior Court reduced the
number of pending cases from approximately 1,700 to 1,100.
i
‰
In 2003, despite the decline in criminal filings and despite the presence of the
21st judge, the number of pending cases began to rise sharply – and has
continued to rise to July 2005. The number of pending cases is now greater than
at the time of the JMI performance audit.
‰
Case age is now much older than it was in 2003. This means it now takes much
longer to resolve most felony cases.
Continuances in criminal cases are closely related to the number of pending cases.
The number of continuances in criminal cases fell in 2001 and reached the low
point in early 2002. The trend then changed. From March 2002 to the present, the
number of continuances has increased dramatically. The monthly number of
continuances is now much greater than in 2001.
The report analyzes the duration of continuances. Short continuances (1-15 days)
are now less common, and longer continuances (16-60 days) more common, than in
previous years. According to the case processing principles suggested in the JMI
performance audit report of 2001, this is the reverse of what should be happening.
The 21st judge took office in March 2001 and may have contributed to the court’s
improved productivity in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, however, the number of pending
cases and case age began to increase. As mentioned above, eventually the numbers
exceeded the levels at the time of the 2001 performance audit, despite the presence
of the 21st judge and despite the decrease in criminal filings.
It is possible that management issues as well as state relaxation of the Time-forTrial rules in 2003 were the crucial factors that affected the court’s performance and
that the presence of the 21st judge had little impact on the trends.
Comparative Workload Data
To provide a comparative perspective, the report (on pages 10-17) presents
workload and performance data in Pierce County and six other superior courts. The
information comes from reports published by state Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC).
Attachments 8 - 16 (in the separate packet) illustrate the findings on comparative
workload and performance.
On criminal cases, considering both adult and juvenile cases, the report finds that
Pierce County Superior Court has a relatively high rate of filings per judge,
although the criminal workload has been greater in some other counties, particularly
ii
in the last two or three years. In 2003 and 2004, Spokane County had the highest
number of adult criminal filings per judge, but it had a low workload in civil cases.
This report analyzes civil workload, which was not addressed in the 2001
performance audit report. “Civil” can be defined broadly, to include all noncriminal cases, or more narrowly, in the sense of “type 2” cases as defined by the
state AOC. By all measures of civil workload, the report finds that Pierce County
Superior Court ranks at or near the top in terms of workload per judicial officer.
The report combines all filings (criminal and civil) and calculates the number per
judicial officer in the various courts since 1992. Pierce County ranks second
highest. The highest is Snohomish County. That court has a very high civil
caseload, but it ranks lowest in terms of criminal caseload. Criminal caseload has a
larger impact on a court and a greater effect on the needed number of judges.
Of the seven superior courts considered in the analysis, Pierce County Superior
Court stands out as having a high workload in both criminal and civil filings, as
does Clark County Superior Court.
Comparative Data on Pending Cases
To complement the internal management data on pending cases in Pierce County
Superior Court, the report presents data on pending cases in other courts. The total
number of pending cases is highest in Clark County and Pierce County, which also
have the highest workload (filings).
The comparative findings on pending cases are not conclusive, in part because of
data issues. There are significant differences between SCOMIS (the state AOC data
system) and LINX (the Pierce County data system) on the number of pending cases
in Pierce County. The data issues can be resolved by discussions among three
agencies: Superior Court, Clerk of Superior Court, and the state AOC.
iii
Recommendations
Based on the comparative workload analysis, the report recommends that the
County Council increase the number of judicial officers by one or two positions.
The workload data supports either one or two more positions.
It is essential also to address the performance problems, such as the steep rise in the
number and age of pending cases. An increase in the number of judicial officers, by
itself, will not solve the case processing problems experienced by the court since
2003. Therefore, we recommend that authorization of an additional judge or
commissioner should include a proviso for improved case management and
quarterly reporting of performance data to the County Council.
Lastly, it is important to resolve data differences between LINX and SCOMIS so
that better data is available for future analysis.
The recommendations appear on pp. 18-19.
Comments on the Report
After reviewing the draft report, the Superior Court submitted a response that agrees
with most of the report but takes issue with some of the details. The comments
appear below as Appendix 2. The comments would be impossible to follow if the
text of the report were modified. Thus the report that follows is the draft report
submitted to Superior Court on August 24 for its review and comment. The only
changes are as follows:
™ This summary has been added.
™ The Table of Contents has been expanded to list the exhibits.
™ Brief comments [in bracketed italics, like this] have been added on pages 2,
9, 12, 13, 16, and 19 referring the reader to Appendix 2 or Appendix 3 for
further discussion.
™ The Superior Court response to the report appears as Appendix 2.
™ Performance audit staff comments appear as Appendix 3.
iv
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
1
II. Update on Pierce County Superior Court, 2001-2005
2
A. Trends in Felony Filings and Resolutions
2
B. Composition of Filings
3
C. Filings in Pierce County and Other Counties
4
D. Case Outcomes
5
E. Pending Criminal Caseload
6
F. Age of Pending Cases
7
G. Continuances
7
H. Discussion of the Management Data
9
III. Comparisons with Other Courts
10
A. Judicial Workload: Criminal Filings per Judge
11
B. Judicial Workload: Civil Filings per Judge
12
C. Discussion of the Comparative Workload Data
14
D. Comparative Pending Cases
15
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
18
Appendix 1: A Data Issue That Makes a Difference:
Other Matters Filed with the Clerk
20
Appendix 2: Comments by Superior Court
23
Appendix 3: Comments by Performance Audit Staff
41
Exhibits in the Report
Exhibit 1, page 2
Felony Filings and Resolutions since 1992 in Pierce County and
State of Washington
Exhibit 2, page 3
Composition of Pierce County Felony Filings, 2000 and 2004
Exhibit 3, page 5
Resolutions by Type: Includes All Cases Resolved between
January 2001 and June 2005
v
Exhibit 4, page 6
Pierce County Superior Court Pending Felony Cases. 12/29/2000
and 7/1/2005
Exhibit 5, page 8
Criminal Case Continuances
Exhibit 6, page 10 State of Washington Superior Court Judges in Seven Counties as
of June 30, 2005
Exhibit 7, page 15 Total Filings (all kinds) per Superior Court Judicial Officer
Exhibit 8, page 16 Pierce County Pending Cases according to LINX and SCOMIS
Attachments (in a separate packet)
1. Criminal Case Filings, 2001-2005, by Month
2. Criminal Case Resolutions, 2001-2005, by Month
3. Superior Court Pending Cases, 2001-2005, by Month
4. Superior Court Pending Criminal Cases, Indicating Change in Trend in 2003
5. Median Age (in Days) of Pending Cases: Trial Units 1-5
6. Median Age (in Days) of Pending Cases: Homicide
7. Criminal Case Continuances by Month since 2001
8. Adult Criminal Filings per Judge, 1992-2004: Three Largest Superior Courts
9. Adult Criminal Filings per Judge, 1992-2004: Seven Superior Courts
10. Juvenile Offender Filings per Judge, 1992-2004
11. Civil Filings (all non-criminal cases) per Judicial Officer, 1992-2004
12. Civil Filings per Judicial Officer, 1992-2004, using the AOC definition of a civil
case (but excluding “other matters filed with the clerk”)
13. Civil Filings per Judicial Officer, excluding Domestic Violence and Civil
Harassment Protection Orders
14. Total Filings per Judicial Officer, 1992-2004
15. Superior Court Pending Cases as of July 31, 2005
16. Total Pending Cases per Judicial Officer, July 31, 2005
vi
I. Introduction
In February 2001 Justice Management Institute (JMI) presented its performance
audit report on felony case processing issues in Pierce County Superior Court.
Besides many useful observations and recommendations, the report included data
on Superior Court workload and performance through the year 2000.1
The purpose of this follow-up report is to update the data to 2005 on felony filings,
resolutions, pending cases, case age, and other matters, so that the County Council
has current information on Superior Court workload and performance.
To provide a comparative perspective, this report also presents data on workload
and performance in other superior courts based on information available from the
state Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).
On July 12, Pierce County Superior Court briefed the County Council’s Public
Safety and Human Services Committee on its 2006 budget request, which includes
another judge, another commissioner, and additional staff. Previously, the Council
Chair had directed staff to analyze data on Superior Court issues to assist the
Council in deciding whether to invest more resources in the court.
We appreciate the assistance of Superior Court on this project. Special thanks go to
Steve Saynisch, deputy court administrator, who provided the case management
data analyzed here (attachments 1 - 7) and other supporting information.
Performance audit staff collected the AOC data comparing workload and
performance among the various superior courts (attachments 8 - 16).
We also appreciate the assistance of Kevin Stock, Pierce County Clerk of Superior
Court, in resolving data problems.
While this is a follow-up report, it is limited to the workload and performance
issues mentioned above. It does not address other important issues (such as court
governance) analyzed by JMI but not fully resolved by the 2002 JMI follow-up
report.
1
JMI, Management Study of Felony Case Processing in Pierce County, Washington, February 15, 2001. The
workload and performance data is on pages 31-42. In March 2002, JMI completed another study, The
Superior Court and Felony Case Processing to help implement some of the audit recommendations. Both
reports are available on the county website: www.piercecountywa.org/performance-audit
1
II. Update on Superior Court, 2001 – 2005
A.
Trends in Felony Filings and Resolutions
Filings are the basic driver of court workload. Exhibit 1 (below) shows the number of
felony filings and resolutions each year since 1992 for Pierce County Superior Court as
well as the totals for all superior courts in Washington. (State data prior to 1992 is not
comparable with later data.) The filings in the exhibit refer to new felony cases and
exclude appeals from lower courts and also cases in which no charges were filed. This is
how JMI reported filings in the 2001 audit report. The figures will differ a little if
misdemeanor filings or appeals from lower courts are included, but the trends will be in the
same direction. [Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 discuss this point further.]
As can be seen in Exhibit 1, the Pierce County filings have grown at a slower rate than the
statewide total filings, 15% versus 58% between 1992 and 2004. Filings and resolutions in
Pierce County reached a high point in 2001 (the figures are shaded gray in the table).
Since 2001, Pierce County filings have declined 14%, while the statewide filings have
increased 9%.
Exhibit 1
Felony Filings and Resolutions since 1992 in Pierce County and State of Washington
FELONY FILINGS *
Pierce
County
State
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Change since 1992
Change since 2001
4,881
4,802
4,885
5,224
4,626
4,923
5,486
5,817
6,109
6,550
5,959
6,056
5,635
15%
-14%
28,529
28,032
28,728
32,296
31,035
34,103
37,592
37,995
39,694
41,387
41,908
44,311
45,037
58%
9%
RESOLUTIONS **
Pierce
County
State
4,353
4,613
4,822
5,253
4,427
4,894
5,475
5,647
6,335
7,009
6,017
5,991
5,975
37%
-15%
25,966
28,191
28,561
31,823
31,557
32,970
38,263
37,581
39,115
40,687
41,665
41,808
43,217
66%
6%
* Filings include new felony filings, and exclude "non-charge" cases and appeals from lower courts.
** Resolutions include felonies resolved by conviction of a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor, and
exclude lower court appeals.
Data source: SCOMIS, as reported in AOC annual caseload reports
2
These figures come from the state AOC, based on information from the SCOMIS
data system. Pierce County’s LINX data system will give slightly different
numbers of filings and resolutions. The trends in the LINX filings and resolutions
are in the same direction as the state data.
This report has 16 attachments in a separate packet. Attachments 1 and 2 show
Pierce County filings and resolutions each month since January 2001. Naturally,
the filings go up and down each month. The trend line indicates the big picture.
For filings, the trend since January 2001 is slightly down. Resolutions are down
more. This means that cases are taking longer to resolve and the number of pending
cases is rising, as will be discussed later (pp. 6-7).
B. Composition of Filings
The 2001 performance audit report analyzed felony filings in 2000. Exhibit 2
(below) compares filings in 2000 and 2004.
Exhibit 2
Composition of Pierce County Felony Filings, 2000 and 2004
2000
Filings Type
Homicide
Sex Crimes
Robbery
Assault
Theft/Burglary
Motor Vehicle Theft
Controlled Substance
Other Felony
Total
2004
Number
Percentage
Number
Percentage
51
241
193
632
1,198
47
2,867
880
0.8%
3.9%
3.2%
10.3%
19.6%
0.8%
46.9%
14.4%
38
210
248
823
1,466
37
2,064
749
0.7%
3.7%
4.4%
14.6%
26.0%
0.7%
36.6%
13.3%
6,109
100.0%
5,635
100.0%
Source: State data in AOC annual caseload reports
Since 2000, two major changes in filings appear to have occurred:
‰
Decline in drug prosecutions
‰
Rise in special assault cases
Drug filings have declined significantly. As Exhibit 2 indicates, there were 2,867
“Controlled Substance” filings in 2000, or 47% of the total filings that year. In
3
2004, the number had declined to 2,064, or 37% of the total. (For the first half of
2005, drug filings were 40% of total filings.)
The rise in special assault filings is not visible in the state data. In fact, Exhibit 2
indicates that sex crimes in 2004 were lower than in 2000 (210 filings versus 241)
and also declined as a percentage of total filings. However, there is a large
difference between “sex crimes” as defined in the state data and “special assault” as
defined in Pierce County. The Pierce County Special Assault unit (trial unit 4)
prosecutes sex crimes as well as other cases such as domestic violence assault,
kidnapping, unlawful imprisonment, and failure to register as a sex offender.
The LINX data clearly indicates that filings by the Special Assault trial unit have
increased from 637 filings in 2000 to 883 filings in 2004, or a 38% increase. Sex
crimes as defined by the state make up less than half of those filings.2
C. Filings in Pierce County and Other Counties
Superior Court workload is generally affected by the number of cases and by the
mix of case types. We analyzed the state AOC data on felony filings in Pierce
County and six other counties from 1998 to 2004. Three major changes that may
affect the workload of Pierce County Superior Court are as follows
1. Comparing 2000 and 2004 filings, total filings declined in Pierce County (down
8%). Filings also declined in King County (down 10%). Filings increased in
the other counties: Clark (6%), Kitsap (10%), Snohomish (32%), Spokane
(33%), Thurston (3%), and state total (7%).
2. Homicide cases have declined in Pierce County, from 51 in 2000 to 38 in 2004.
Another factor is that fewer aggravated murder and death penalty cases have
been filed in recent years.
3. Pierce County stands out from the other counties in terms of the number of drug
cases, but the gap is narrowing. Drug filings have decreased significantly in
Pierce County (and in King County too). This may be due in part to the greater
use of Drug Court. Drug filings have increased in many other counties. In the
counties studied, the largest increase was in Spokane County, where drug filings
doubled between 2000 and 2004 (and grew from 21% to 31% of total filings).
In Pierce County, as mentioned previously, drug filings have declined from 47%
to 37% of total filings, according to state AOC data.
2
According to LINX, special assault filings for 2000 to 2004 were as follows: 637, 760, 906, 924, and 883.
Sex crime filings for the same years, according to state data, were 241, 301, 359, 320, and 210.
4
D. Case Outcomes
The JMI report of 2001 included data on case outcomes in 2000 (percentage of
cases that were dismissed, pled guilty, or had a bench or jury trial). Exhibit 3
provides updated information by trial unit (TU) for all cases resolved between
January 2001 and June 2005.
Exhibit 3
Resolutions by Type: Includes All Cases Resolved between January 2001 and June 2005
TU 1
Robbery/
Assault
TU 2
Arson/Fraud
TU 3
Burglary/
Theft
TU 4
Special
Assault
TU 5
Drugs/
Vice
TU 6
Homicide
TOTAL
Acquitted
1%
0%
0%
1%
0%
3%
0%
Dismissed
10%
15%
10%
9%
10%
10%
11%
5%
2%
1%
5%
3%
32%
3%
85%
83%
88%
84%
87%
54%
86%
Other
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%
2%
0%
Total
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Convicted after Trial
Guilty Plea
Source: LINX data from Superior Court
Cases that are dismissed (11% in total) may be re-filed, and the data do not indicate
when that occurs. The high number of guilty pleas (86%) does not indicate whether
the plea was to the original charge or a reduced charge. Thus the statistics in
Exhibit 3 have limited value.
The JMI report also presented data on the age of cases resolved in 2000. Special
programming would be needed to update that analysis. However, a later section
(page 7) discusses trends in the age of pending cases based on readily-available
reports from LINX.
5
E. Pending Criminal Caseload
The number of pending cases is a standard measure of a court’s efficiency and
productivity in case processing. Exhibit 4 is a “then and now” comparison of
felony cases pending on December 29, 2000 (as presented in the performance audit
report of 2001) and on July 1, 2005. As can be seen, the number of pending cases is
now larger than it was five years ago at the time of the performance audit.
Exhibit 4
Pierce County Superior Court Pending Felony Cases, 12/29/2000 and 7/1/2005
December 29, 2000
Charge Type
Number of
Pending Cases Percentage
Robbery, assault (trial unit 1)
Arson, fraud (trial unit 2)
Burglary, theft (trial unit 3)
Special assault (trial unit 4)
Drugs, vice (trial unit 5)
Homicide (trial unit 6)
Total
July 1, 2005
Number of
Pending Cases
Percentage
229
248
174
224
816
29
13.3%
14.4%
10.1%
13.0%
47.4%
1.7%
281
205
267
352
647
31
15.8%
11.5%
15.0%
19.7%
36.3%
1.7%
1,720
100%
1,783
100%
Source: LINX data from Superior Court
Attachment 3 shows the trend since 2001 in the number of cases pending in Pierce
County Superior Court. As can be seen in the graph, Superior Court in 2001 and
2002 reduced the number of pending cases from approximately 1,700 to 1,100.
With few exceptions, the number of pending cases declined each month from
January 2001 until December 2002. Then the trend changed direction in 2003.
Attachment 4 has the same data (Total Pending Cases) as Attachment 3, but the
latter graph presents the data in two fields and two colors to highlight the
remarkable change in trend. Between December 2002 and January 2003, the
number of pending cases jumped by over 200. Later in 2003, the number began to
climb sharply, and it has continued to rise to July 2005.
6
F. Age of Pending Cases
On the whole, criminal cases are now taking much longer to resolve than in the
recent past. Attachment 5 is a graph of the median age of pending cases since
November 2003 (the earliest date that standard case age reports are available). For
trial units 1 – 5, which have the vast majority of the cases, case age is now much
older than it was in late 2003.
In trial unit 6, Homicide, case age has declined considerably, as shown in
Attachment 6. That trend may be due to the decreased incidence of aggravated
murder and death penalty cases.
G. Continuances
The rising number of pending cases is associated with a corresponding increase in
the number of case continuances granted by the court. Superior Court tracks
continuances in criminal cases. Attachment 7 is a graph of continuances since
January 2001. The number of continuances fell in 2001 and reached the low point
in March 2002. The trend then turned upward. From March 2002 until the present,
the number of continuances has increased dramatically, and the numbers are now
much greater than in 2001.
In theory, it is possible that an increasing number of continuances would not
adversely affect case processing times if continuances are granted for a shorter time
(that is, if continuances have a shorter duration). However, that is not what has
occurred, based on analysis of the court’s data.
Exhibit 5 (next page) presents the data. Starting in 2003, continuances increased
greatly in number. The middle table in the exhibit shows the duration of the
continuances as percentages of the annual totals, and the percentages are then
graphed below.
The basic finding is that short continuances (1-15 days) are now less common, and
longer continuances (16-60 days) more common, than in previous years. According
to the case processing principles suggested in the performance audit report of 2001,
this is the reverse of what should be happening.
7
Exhibit 5
Criminal Case Continuances
Duration of
Continuance
1 - 5 days
6 - 15 days
16 - 30 days
31 - 60 days
61 - 90 days
91 + days
Total
2001
2002
312
762
697
1,455
659
233
4,118
247
718
692
1,634
652
151
4,094
2003
2004
459
1,314
1,299
2,048
653
126
5,899
446
893
1,367
2,906
1,052
193
6,857
2005 thru
July 31
2004 minus
2001
219
487
872
2,155
723
129
4,585
134
131
670
1,451
393
-40
2,739
Same Data as Percentages of Annual Total
Duration of
Continuance
1 - 5 days
6 - 15 days
16 - 30 days
31 - 60 days
61 - 90 days
91 + days
Total
2001
2002
8%
19%
17%
35%
16%
6%
100%
6%
18%
17%
40%
16%
4%
100%
2003
2004
8%
22%
22%
35%
11%
2%
100%
7%
13%
20%
42%
15%
3%
100%
2005 thru
July 31
2004 minus 2005 minus
2001
2001
5%
11%
19%
47%
16%
3%
100%
-1%
-5%
3%
7%
-1%
-3%
-3%
-8%
2%
12%
0%
-3%
Short Continuances are Now Less Common,
and Longer Continuances are More Common
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
1 - 15 days
16 - 30 days
31 - 60 days
61 + days
2001
2002
2003
2004
Data source: Pierce County Superior Court
8
2005 thru July
31
H. Discussion of the Management Data
It is difficult to explain the case processing trends mentioned above. The large
increases in pending cases and case age would be understandable if filings were
increasing. But, as documented earlier (pp. 2-5), filings in Pierce County have
decreased. [Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 further discuss this point.]
Public attention to Superior Court in 2001 may have contributed to the court’s
improved productivity and efficiency in processing criminal cases in 2001 and
2002. Besides the performance audit report (presented at public meetings in
January and February 2001), there was extensive publicity in 2001 about dismissal
of high profile cases for violation of the speedy trial rules.
Another factor to consider is the appointment of the 21st Superior Court judge in
March 2001, thus making another judge available to handle the court’s workload.3
Around the same time, the Superior Court changed the way in which it handled
criminal cases, such as making continuances the responsibility of the Criminal
Division Presiding Judge. The number of pending cases (and presumably case age)
declined greatly in 2001 and 2002. Then in 2003, pending cases and case age began
to increase. Eventually the numbers exceeded the levels at the time of the
performance audit, despite the presence of the 21st judge and despite the decrease in
the number of cases filed.
Another possibility is that management issues and a change in the time-for-trial
rules were crucial and that the presence of a 21st judge had little impact on the
trends.
The Time-for-Trial rules were adopted by the state Supreme Court, effective
September 1, 2003 and applicable to all cases pending at the time. The new rules
relaxed the previous speedy trial rules and basically increased the amount of time in
which a case must be tried or settled. This change in the rules is clearly related to
the increase in pending cases and case age since late 2003.
Although the Time-for-Trial rules did not take effect until September 1, 2003, they
were published in draft form a year earlier and thus were known to prosecutors,
defense counsel, and the courts. This may explain why the trends in pending cases
and continuances changed in early 2003. [Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 have further
discussion on this point.]
3
The appointment of the 21st judge was authorized by the Pierce County Council in October 2000 and was
unconnected with the performance audit. The JMI report, February 2001, did not address how many judges
are needed.
9
III. Comparisons with Other Courts
The rest of this report presents data from the state Administrative Office of the
Courts (AOC) on court workload, pending cases, and related matters in various
superior courts. To provide some context, Exhibit 6 presents basic information on
the county populations, number of judges and commissioners, and the number of
judges and judicial officers per capita.
The state legislature in 1997 authorized up to 24 positions in Pierce County
Superior Court, but the County Council has funded only 21. Exhibit 6 shows the
number of authorized but unfilled positions in the other courts.
Exhibit 6
State of Washington Superior Court Judges in Seven Counties
as of June 30, 2005
Judicial
Officers
Judges
per
100,000
Pop.
Authorized
Unfilled
Judge
Positions *
Superior Court
2005 County
Population Judges
King
1,808,300
51
10
61
3.4
2.8
7
Pierce
755,900
21
6
27
3.6
2.8
3
Snohomish
655,800
14
4
18
2.7
2.1
1
Spokane
436,300
12
6
18
4.1
2.8
1
Clark
391,500
9
2.5
11.5
2.9
2.3
1
Kitsap
240,400
8
1.1
9.1
3.8
3.3
-
Thurston
224,100
7
2.2
9.2
4.1
3.1
1
6,256,400
179
49
228
3.6
2.9
16
State Total
Commissioners
Judicial
Officers
per
100,000
Pop.
* Authorized by state statute but unfunded at the county level.
Source: AOC Superior Court caseload report for 2004 and court directories as of July 2005.
The AOC data presented below includes workload and pending cases. The
objective is to understand the relationships that may exist between workload (such
as criminal filings per judge), efficiency and productivity (pending cases per judge
and case age), and the number of judges and commissioners.
10
Workload in criminal cases is presented as filings per judge. In civil cases, the
responsibilities of judges and commissioners vary from county to county, and the
proportions of judges and commissioners also vary considerably. For example,
Pierce County and Spokane County each has six commissioners, but the former has
21 judges and the latter has 12 judges. Because of this difference, it is not advisable
to report the number of civil filings per commissioner or per judge.4 Therefore,
civil filings are presented as the number per judicial officer.
The graphs depict various measures of the performance of Pierce County Superior
Court, six other superior courts, and the state total as a reference point.5
The following sections of the report present information on criminal filings per
judge, civil filings per judicial officer, and total filings per judicial officer in Pierce
County and other superior courts.6
A. Judicial Workload: Criminal Filings per Judge
Attachments 8 and 9 address adult criminal filings per judge since 1992.7 As shown
in Attachment 8, the criminal filings per judge in Pierce County are much higher
than in King and Snohomish counties.
The picture becomes more complex when other superior courts are considered.
Attachment 9 shows criminal filings per judge since 1992 in seven superior courts.
While the Pierce County filings per judge are consistently much higher than in King
County and Snohomish County, they are lower than the 2003 and 2004 rates in
Clark County, Thurston County, and Spokane County. Historically, the criminal
filing rate per judge in Pierce County was much higher than in Spokane County, but
things have changed. In 2003 and 2004, as the graph indicates, the Spokane
4
The ratio of commissioners to judges can be seen in Exhibit 6 on the previous page. For example, the ratio
in Spokane is 1:2, Pierce 1:3.5, Snohomish 1:3.5, King 1:5.1, etc.
5
The state total is total state filings of the kind under discussion divided by the total state number of judges
or judicial officers (judges and commissioners). In other words, the state total is a weighted average of all
superior courts in the state.
6
Attachments 8 - 14 in this report replace what were attachments 8 -11 in the July memo. Bar graphs have
been converted to line graphs for easier readability. The time frame of the comparative analysis, originally
1998-2004, has been pushed back to 1992 to give a more complete picture.
7
Attachments 8 and 9 differ slightly from the graphs presented in the July memo because “non-charge” cases
are now omitted. These cases are rare in Pierce County but are more prevalent elsewhere, especially in
Kitsap, Snohomish, and Thurston counties.
11
criminal filing rate exceeded the Pierce County rate by approximately 50 cases per
judge.8
In juvenile offender cases, Pierce County’s rate of filings per judge is very close to
the state average, as shown in Attachment 10.
Considering both adult and juvenile cases, our conclusion is that Pierce County
Superior Court has a relatively high rate of criminal filings per judge, but the
criminal workload has been greater in some other counties, especially in the last two
or three years. [Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 have further discussion on this point.]
B. Judicial Workload: Civil Filings per Judge
Civil filings are a major part of judicial workload and should be considered along
with criminal filings to get a balanced picture. The following discussion refers to
“civil” cases in two senses: (1) broad definition, meaning all non-criminal cases,
and (2) narrow, as defined by AOC.
In the broad sense, “civil” refers to all non-criminal cases. The filings are a
composite of domestic relations, probate, guardianship, adoption, paternity, mental
illness, and juvenile dependency as well as nine categories of AOC “civil” cases
discussed later (torts, commercial, property rights, etc).
Attachment 11 shows civil filings per judicial officer in this broad sense. Pierce
County ranks high on the chart along with Clark County. But Snohomish County,
since 2001, has had the highest rate of civil filings per judicial officer.
We studied the data in detail to ascertain possible reasons for Snohomish County’s
surprisingly high ranking in civil cases. Two items of interest were found:
‰
‰
Since 2000, Snohomish County has seen substantial increases in the number
of commercial cases and property rights cases.
In 2004, Snohomish County had twice as many juvenile dependency filings as
Pierce County. [Appendix 3 has further important information on this issue.]
In a more narrow sense, “civil” refers to a “type 2” case as defined by AOC and
includes nine sub-categories: tort, commercial, meretricious relationship, property
8
As mentioned above, pp. 4-5, filing of drug cases in Spokane County doubled between 2000 and 2004,
while Pierce County drug filings decreased.
12
rights, civil harassment protection order, domestic violence protection order,
administrative law review, other petitions, and appeals from lower courts.
A tenth category of AOC “civil” filings is called “other matters filed with the
clerk.” These are paperwork filings that do not add to judicial workload. In the
interest of making fair comparisons among the courts, we have omitted “other
matters filed with the clerk” from the analysis. Details are in Appendix 1.
Attachments 12 and 13 refer to civil filings in the AOC sense (nine sub-categories
but excluding “other matters filed with the clerk.”). Attachment 12 shows civil
filings per judicial officer for seven superior courts as well as the state total. As can
be seen, Pierce County Superior Court has had the highest rate of civil filings per
judicial officer over the years.
It is important to probe into this finding to make sure it is valid. According to the
AOC classification, petitions for domestic violence protection orders are a category
of civil cases. These cases form over one-fourth of the Pierce County civil caseload
(in the AOC sense of “civil” cases), and the county has a high incidence of these
cases in per capita terms. We wanted to determine whether the filings for domestic
violence protection orders were responsible for Pierce County’s high rankings in
civil filings per judicial officer (which was shown above in Attachment 12).
Therefore, we excluded the DV protection orders and also the similar civil
harassment protection orders from the civil filings of all courts and calculated the
remaining number of civil cases per judicial officer.
Attachment 13 shows the results. Pierce County still ranks high in civil filings per
judicial officer, exceeded by only Snohomish County in 2003 and 2004. This
means that other types of civil cases, not just domestic violence protection orders,
are responsible for Pierce County’s high ranking in terms of civil case workload.
Thus, by all measures of civil workload, however defined, Pierce County Superior
Court ranks at or near the top in terms of workload per judicial officer.
13
C. Discussion of the Workload Data
In our opinion, criminal caseload has a larger impact than civil caseload on a court
and a greater effect on the needed number of judges. But it is also important to
consider both the criminal and civil caseload.
According to the data, Snohomish County has ranked highest in civil workload in
recent years, but it ranks lowest in criminal cases. In 2003 and 2004, Spokane County
had the highest number of adult criminal filings per judge, but it had a low workload in
civil cases. Thurston County has also ranked high in criminal cases per judge recently,
but it has a surprisingly low number of civil cases.
Of all courts considered in this analysis, Pierce County Superior Court stands out as
having a high workload in both criminal and civil cases. Clark County Superior Court
also ranks high in both criminal and civil filings.
Attachment 14 combines all types of filings, criminal and civil, and shows the number
per judicial officer since 1992. Pierce County ranks second highest (after Snohomish
County). The data table, rather than the graph, may be more useful to study the data.
Exhibit 7 (next page) is the data table from 1998 to the present.
As shown in Exhibit 7, filings per judicial officer have declined in Pierce County
and three other counties. It is also clear that Pierce County has experienced a
consistently high number of filings per judicial officer each year. The last row in
Exhibit 7 indicates the Pierce County ranking each year. Another way to view the
data is to compare Pierce County’s figures with the state total. Filings per judicial
officer in Pierce County (and in Clark and Snohomish) are significantly higher than
the state total. They have been that way ever since 1992.
Pierce County Superior Court tends to emphasize the weight of its criminal caseload
and has focused its case management procedures in the criminal arena. There has
been little public discussion of the civil caseload, which, as shown in the graphs, is
one of the highest in the state in terms of filings per judicial officer.
14
Exhibit 7
Total Filings (all kinds) per Superior Court Judicial Officer (judges and commissioners) **
Superior Court
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Change
since
1998
Clark
1,445
1,385
1,301
1,303
1,351
1,373
1,251
(195)
King
1,096
1,079
1,084
1,032
988
1,044
1,036
(60)
Kitsap
1,155
1,126
1,188
1,149
1,156
1,179
1,214
59
Pierce
1,318
1,313
1,355
1,295
1,240
1,241
1,273
(45)
Snohomish
1,272
1,193
1,240
1,230
1,264
1,316
1,367
94
Spokane
1,095
965
980
1,023
1,048
1,106
1,120
25
Thurston
1,102
1,033
1,064
1,061
1,052
1,088
1,068
(34)
State Total
1,159
1,108
1,119
1,093
1,102
1,128
1,128
(32)
highest
2nd
highest
3rd
highest
3rd
highest
2nd
highest
Pierce County
ranking each year
2nd
highest
2nd
highest
** Excludes adult criminal "non-charge" cases, juvenile offender "non-charge" cases, and
civil "other matters filed with the clerk."
Source: Calculated from AOC annual caseload reports
D. Comparative Pending Cases
As shown earlier in this report, Pierce County Superior Court has seen a great rise
in the number of pending criminal cases since 2003. This section of the report is an
effort to gather comparative data on pending cases in other courts.
Using state AOC data, it is theoretically possible to identify the number of pending
cases per judge (or per judicial officer) in the various superior courts and see which
ones are most efficient and productive in case processing. The data might also
suggest whether there is a strong relationship between workload (such as filings per
judge) and efficiency and productivity in case processing (such as pending cases per
judge).
15
While that was the goal of our comparative analysis, the analysis will not be
conclusive, in part because of data issues. There are significant differences between
SCOMIS (the state AOC data system) and LINX (the Pierce County data system)
on the number of pending cases in Pierce County. Exhibit 8 shows the pending
cases on July 31 according to these two sources.
Exhibit 8
Pierce County Pending Cases 7/31/2005 according to LINX and SCOMIS
Case Type
SCOMIS
(AOC)
LINX
Difference
1
Criminal (a)
2,178
2,459
(281)
2
Civil
4,626
6,983
(2,357)
3
Domestic
2,680
3,099
(419)
4
Probate/Guardianship
526
526
5
Adoption/Paternity
3,323
3,491
(168)
6
Mental Illness
52
389
(337)
7
Juvenile Civil (dependency)
2,171
1,239
8
Juvenile Offender
387
2,967
9
Lower Court Appeal
no data
259
TOTAL of types 1 – 8
15,943
21,153
-
932
(2,580)
(5,210)
(a) Note: In the table, the LINX criminal number includes Drug Court cases and
excludes bench warrants and Western State evaluation. Counts for both LINX and
SCOMIS (all case types) exclude cases in a suspended status (warrant, mediation,
stay, arbitration, appeal, continued for/deferred prosecution, and diversion).
Sources: Three LINX reports from Superior Court on pending cases (criminal, civil,
and juvenile offender) as of August 1 around 5:00 a.m. and Superior Court profiles as
of July 31 from AOC.
As shown above, the numbers are generally higher in SCOMIS. This suggests that
Pierce County staff may have “resolved” cases in LINX but not done the same in
SCOMIS. The one exception to this pattern is dependency cases, where the
pending numbers are higher in LINX.
The data differences can be resolved by discussions among three agencies: Superior
Court, Clerk of Superior Court, and the state AOC. The following information is
tentative. [Appendix 3 presents further details as of August 31, but the picture is
substantially the same as presented here in the text.]
16
Attachment 15 shows the pending cases by type in the various superior courts as of
July 31, 2005. For Pierce County, the graph shows the numbers in two ways: based
on SCOMIS and based on LINX.
If LINX is correct, Pierce County had 104 pending criminal cases per judge, which
is higher than most counties, as can be seen in the graph. Spokane County, which
has had high criminal filings recently, has 124 pending cases per judge.
In the civil cases, if LINX is correct, Pierce County with 171 pending cases per
judicial officer compares favorably with other courts. The number is virtually the
same as the 169 pending cases per judicial officer in King County, which has a
much lower number of filings per judicial officer.
In the “other” civil cases, if LINX is correct, Pierce County with 244 pending cases
per judicial officer ranks second highest after Clark County (455 cases). Most of
the other counties are much lower than Pierce County.
Attachment 16 combines the data and shows total pending cases as of July 31,
excluding juvenile offender, dependency, and lower court appeals.9 Pierce County
ranks second in total pending cases after Clark County. It is notable that Pierce
County and Clark County also have the highest workload, according to the previous
analysis of filings.
Pending cases are analyzed here at a point-in-time rather than as trend data because
of the data problems. If the SCOMIS figures as of July 30 are not accurate, the
historical data is also likely to be incorrect.10
The July memo included graphs on the age of pending cases in the various courts
based on SCOMIS/AOC data. The information was probably incorrect because it
was based on an incorrect number of open cases in Pierce County. Until the data
issues have been resolved, it is not possible to compare case processing times using
that source.
9
Juvenile offender and dependency are excluded because the available data do not seem credible. Lower
court appeals are small in number and are excluded because we do not have the data from LINX.
10
According to AOC, the pending civil cases (type 2) in Pierce County were around 4,500 at the end of each
year from 1998 to 2001. The figures then jump to 6,400 at the end of 2002, 8,100 at the end of 2003, 6,300
at the end of 2004, and 6,842 on June 30, 2005. Those figures are hard to accept. There are also problems in
LINX reports. As reported in the July memo, a LINX report from Superior Court for June 30, 2005 indicated
that only 1,138 civil cases were pending at the time. It turns out the LINX report was mistaken, and the
actual number as of June 30 was about 4,500.
17
IV. Conclusions and Recommendations
Judicial workload in Pierce County Superior Court is relatively heavy compared
with other superior courts. It would be reasonable for the County Council to
increase the number of judicial officers by one or two positions.
Adding another judge, or a judge and a commissioner as requested by Superior
Court, would of course increase the court’s overall output of work. But
appointment of additional judicial officers would not address the problems that the
court has experienced in efficiently managing the decreasing criminal filings since
2001.
Despite the decreased criminal filings, and despite the presence of the 21st judge
who took office in March 2001, the number of pending criminal cases has risen
dramatically since 2003. Clearly, there are other factors at work beside the number
of judges or commissioners that influence the number of pending cases and case
processing times.
Therefore, we believe the budget for increased judicial officers should include
provisos for improved case management and quarterly reporting to the Council of
performance data in a useful format.
In addition, if the Council wishes to authorize another commissioner, it might be
useful to include a sunset clause in the authorizing budget or ordinance. For
example, a commissioner could be authorized for two or three years, and the
position would then disappear unless the Council reauthorizes the position prior to
the sunset date. Three to six months in advance of that date, Council staff or the
Performance Audit Committee could be directed to report on what the
commissioner position has accomplished and make appropriate recommendations
for continuing, changing, or eliminating the position.
Lastly, all superior courts in the state are included in the SCOMIS data, and it is
necessary to use that source when comparing workload and performance of the
courts. It is important to resolve the data differences between LINX and SCOMIS
on pending cases so that better information is available in the future. The Council
may wish to require a report on these matters, via a budget proviso, by the Clerk of
Superior Court in early 2006.
18
Recommendations
1. Increase the number of judicial officers by one or two positions.
2. Include provisos for improved case management and quarterly reporting to the
Council of performance data in a useful format.
3. If another commissioner is authorized, consider including a sunset clause.
4. Require a report by Clerk of Superior Court in early 2006 on progress in
resolving the data differences between LINX and SCOMIS, particularly on
pending cases.
[Appendix 2 and Appendix 3 have further discussion of the recommendations.]
19
Appendix 1
A Data Issue That Makes a Difference: Other Matters Filed with the Clerk
“Other Matters Filed with the Clerk” is a category of civil filings (type 2 cases) in
Superior Court caseload reports by the state Administrative Office of the Courts
(AOC). Since 1992, the category has been defined to include tax warrants, abstracts of
judgments, transcripts of judgments, and foreign judgments.
Until 1998, the Superior Court caseload reports presented the civil filings in nine
categories (torts, commercial, etc.), and then added those filings to get “total civil
filings” – and then as an afterthought indicated the number of “other matters filed with
the clerk.” That changed in 1998. The “other matters” are now included in the “total
civil filings.” There is great variation by county in the reported filings of “other
matters.”
Other Matters Filed with the Clerk, 2004
County
Other
Matters
Total Civil
Filings
Other Matters
as Percentage
of Total
Clark
King
Kitsap
Pierce
Snohomish
Spokane
Thurston
2,585
11,630
215
873
4,781
3,281
3,051
7,885
39,309
3,152
15,099
14,394
8,663
6,416
33%
30%
7%
6%
33%
38%
48%
State Total
38,738
128,009
30%
Source: AOC 2004 Superior Court caseload report
This data issue has a major impact when comparing civil workload among the various
courts. The graphs on the next page present civil filings per judicial officer in two
ways, including and excluding the “other matters filed with the clerk.” In the top
graph, Pierce County is in the middle of the pack. In the lower graph, Pierce County
has the highest civil workload over the years, joined by Snohomish County in 2003 and
2004.
20
"A Data Issue That Makes a Difference"
Civil Filings per Judicial Officer if "Other Matters Filed with
the Clerk" Are Counted in the Total Civil Filings
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
Clark
King
Kitsap
Pierce
Snohomish
Spokane
Thurston
State Total
100
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
Civil Filings per Judicial Officer
excluding "Other Matters Filed with the Clerk"
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
Clark
King
Kitsap
Pierce
Snohomish
Spokane
Thurston
State Total
1998
1999
2000
2001
21
2002
2003
2004
The top graph, which relies on the total civil filings as reported by AOC, gives a
distorted picture of actual judicial civil workloads. This can be proved by delving into
the AOC statistics.
The AOC definition of “other matters filed with the clerk” used to contain this
sentence: “These matters are normally closed and disposed at the same time they are
opened.” This suggests a paperwork transaction. The sentence disappeared from the
glossary in 1992. But it is still true today that the paperwork is filed for “other matters”
and the filing is simultaneously “closed and disposed.” In the AOC caseload reports
we compared civil filings and resolutions of “other matters,” which are reported in
separate tables. The numbers are almost identical. For example, if a county has 11,630
filings of “other matters” in 2004, the number of resolutions of “other matters” is
almost exactly the same. That could not happen if a judicial officer had to work on the
“other matters” before resolving them.
This indicates that the “other matters filed with the clerk” involve filing of paperwork,
do not affect judicial workload, and should be omitted from the comparative workload
analysis.
22
RECEIVED
SUPERIOR
COURT
OF THE
ST A TE OF W A SHINGTON
SEP 1 2 ZOOS
Pierce County
PelformanceAUdits
FOR PIERCE COUNTY
STEPHANIE
Pamela
A. AREND,
Maris,
Jan-Marie
Glaze,
DEPARTMENT
(253)
Judicial
JUDGE
534 COUNTY -CITY BUILDING
930 TACOMA AVENUE SOUTH
TACOMA, WA 98402-2108
Assistant
Court
Reporter
12
798-7562
September 7, 2005
Councilmember Dick Muri
Chair, Performance Audit Committee
Pierce County Council
RE:
Pierce County Superior Court Workload and Performance
Dear Councilmember Muri:
On August 24 we were presented with a Revised Report on Superior Court Workload and
Perfornlance prepared by Mr. Matt Temmel. We have reviewed that report and prepared a
response,which is enclosed. This responsewas prepared in my absenceby Judge Chushcoff
with assistancefrom Stephen Saynisch. Mr .Saynisch and I will be at the September 15
perfornlance audit committee meeting to discuss Mr. Temmel's report and Superior Court's
response.
We look forward
to working
with the Performance
Issues.
/
J\\
~~ephan~
Presiding
Cc'
A. Arend
Judge
~tt
Temmel
Judge Bryan Chushcoff
Stephen Saynisch
Andra Motyka
Superior Court Executive Committee
Audit
Committee
on these very important
September 8, 2005
Superior Court Workload & Performance
Response to Follow-Up Report of the Performance Audit
Committee
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART I — SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE..................... ………………………………1
PART II — DISCUSSION OF THE DRAFT REPORT ............... …………………………3
A. Update on Superior Court, 2001 - 2005……………………………............. .................. 3
1. Lower Court Appeals…................................................................................................ 3
2. “Misdemeanors” Are Filings Too! Assuring a Consistent Count ……………………4
3. Criminal Filing Trend in Superior Court ..................... ………………………………6
4. 1996 is the Proper Base Year for Assessing the Need for Additional Judges……… .. 7
B. Composition of Filings ...................................................................................................... 8
C. Pending Criminal Caseload/Age of Pending Cases........................................................... 9
D. Filings in Pierce County and in Other Counties: Judicial Workload .............................. 11
E. Impact of Adding Judicial Departments/Commissioner on the Court’s
Workload.......................................................................................................................... 13
PART III — REPLY TO THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF THE DRAFT REPORT.................................................................................................. 15
PART I — SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSE
We believe that the Draft Report data for adult felony filings is incorrect. The error
affects the 2004 data most significantly. However, the data can be adjusted to provide a
comparable basis for comparison over the past several years. We then get a good picture
of the caseload burden superior court faces.
After this adjustment is made, it is seen that the trend of increasing criminal case
filings over many years peaked in 2001, backed off modestly, and plateaued for 2002 -
24
2004. The trend of increased filings may have returned in 2005. State filing trends
suggest that increases in Pierce County criminal filings will resume.
A more appropriate time for assessing the need of additional judges is 1997 – the
year the state legislature authorized the addition of five (5) superior court judge
departments for Pierce County. In that time, filings have increased 28%.1 When
projected filings for 2005 are used for comparison, the increase since 1996 is 35%.
Superior Court believes that any analysis of the court’s workload should:
a)
compare the court with other superior court’s of Washington State on the
basis of filings per judge or (where appropriate) per judicial officer (i.e.
includes court commissioners); and,
b)
evaluate the court’s workload over a period of time that includes the run-up
of criminal case filings during the 1980’s and 90’s that roused the state
legislature to authorize the creation of five (5) additional judicial departments
for Pierce County Superior Court.
Furthermore, the court has done its work with what we believe is the lowest number
of support personnel per judge of any of the seven counties compared in the Draft Report.
Pierce County Superior Court is singular in that it is the only one of these courts
that is among the highest worked courts in both civil and criminal filings throughout the
entire period. Its workload has exceeded the state average throughout the 13-year period
considered.
Adding two judges and one commissioner will nevertheless leave Pierce County
1
Using the more appropriate method of counting described in this paper. Using the
Committee staff’s calculation of filings of 5,635 in 2004 compared to 4,626 filings in
1996 still produce increased filings of 21.8%.
25
Superior Court with a workload greater than the state average.
PART II — DISCUSSION OF THE REPORT
A. Update on Superior Court, 2001 - 2005.
We believe that the data set forth in Exhibit 1 Felony Filings (Draft report p. 3) for
2004 is wrong. We will suggest a more appropriate count below. Our criticism is that
Committee staff excluded filings that we believe should be included. The Draft Report
indicates that the count of new filings excludes “non-charge” cases and appeals from
lower courts. Draft Report footnote to Ex. 1. But by our calculation, the Draft Report
also excludes “misdemeanor” cases from the count for filings. We will explain below
why this is a serious error in measuring Superior Court’s workload. But we begin by
discussing lower court appeals.
1. Lower Court Appeals
We do not believe that appeals from lower courts should be excluded from the
totals. While such cases do not result in a trial,2 they require a not insignificant amount
of the court’s time to review and to decide. That is, these cases require work and
2
These cases are decided upon a review of the record of the lower court proceedings
including briefs on appeal and oral argument from the parties. Superior Court is
responsible to provide appellate review of decisions from Pierce County District Court as
well as the decisions from all of the municipal courts in Pierce County (Tacoma,
Lakewood, Puyallup, Gig Harbor, and so on). The court also provides appellate review
of the decisions of administrative law judges. In the latter case, the filing will be
reflected as a civil and not a criminal filing in superior court and so would not be
included in the numbers under discussion. Pierce County District Court also has limited
jurisdiction to hear civil cases. An appeal from a District Court decision in a civil matter
would be counted in superior court’s civil filings. Municipal courts do not have
jurisdiction to consider civil cases so an appeal from a municipal court will always
produce a criminal filing.
26
resources of the court and there is no reason not to include them.
2. “Misdemeanors” Are Filings Too! Assuring a Consistent Count.
We place the word “misdemeanor” in quotation marks because these cases always
include a felony charge too. So such cases are not purely misdemeanors.3 Excluding
such cases produces the anomalous result that a filing that includes a single felony charge
counts as a filing but a filing that has a felony and a misdemeanor does not count at all!
This may explain the large drop in drug filings noted by the Committee staff at Exhibit 2
and elsewhere in the Draft Report. Probably more than any other classification of
offense, a felony drug charge may be coupled with a misdemeanor offense. For it is
common for a drug charge to be a product of a search incident to arrest for a
misdemeanor (e.g. Driving While License Suspended) and then for both charges to be
filed in superior court. For 2004, 366 such cases were filed in Pierce County Superior
Court and excluded by the Draft Report.
The counting of “misdemeanor” cases therefore has likely undercounted the number
of drug cases. So while the number of drug case filings still has likely declined since
2000, the extent of the decline is overstated in the Draft Report at its Exhibit 2.
If the filings were consistently counted through the years, the effect of this
exclusion might be considered relatively benign. And, prior to 2004, the number of
“misdemeanor” filings was nominal so the result had little impact. For instance, in 2003
3
We are not aware of any case in which only a misdemeanor was filed in superior court
although it is possible. Certainly there are cases that produce a conviction only for the
misdemeanor charge or in which the prosecutor may amend charges to include only a
misdemeanor (most commonly as part of a plea agreement). But it is not convictions that
measure the court’s work.
27
the number of such cases was 11; for the year 2002, it was 21 such cases. Prior years are
similar in magnitude. But beginning with 2004, the state Administrative Office for the
Courts (“AOC”) changed the manner in which it counted or classified these filings with
dramatic effect: 366 cases. So, excluding “misdemeanor” cases for 2004 is problematic
as a point of comparison when such cases were not excluded in the same manner in prior
years. We hasten to add that this change in counting was not a decision of the Committee
staff but rather a change in the manner in which AOC compiled “misdemeanor” filings.
For the reasons set forth above, we do question the staff’s decision to exclude such cases
at all. A result of counting in this manner – when coupled with the change in
classification by AOC – is that the court’s total for 2004 is artificially reduced by
approximately 350 cases when compared to other years. As we will see in the next
section, this is significant for assessing the trend of filings.
As we look at trends, it will also important to note that through July 2005, the court
is on pace to have 6,382 new criminal case filings, the second highest number of filings
ever and a 5% increase over 2004.4
4
Per SCOMIS, through July 31, 2005 there were 3,722 new filings. Annualized, this
projects to 6,382. Per LINX through August 31, 2005, the total of new filings is 4,320.
This projects to annualized filings of 6,480. For the sake of consistency with the Draft
Report we use the lower, SCOMIS, projection.
28
3. Criminal Filing Trend in Superior Court
Correcting for the omission of lower court appeals and for “misdemeanors” Exhibit
1 should be:
Criminal Filings*
Exhibit 1
Pierce County
State
1992
4972
29981
1993
4905
29765
1994
5002
30395
1995
5342
33965
1996
4727
32581
1997
5052
35785
1998
5589
38834
1999
5907
39241
2000
6241
40971
2001
6634
42390
2002
6021
42843
2003
6132
45377
2004
6052
47847
2005**
6382**
54790**
% change since
2004
2005
2004
2005
2000
<3%>
2.25%
14%
33.7%
2001
< 8.1%>
<3.4%>
11%
29.2%
1996
28%
35%
46.8%
68.2%
* Excludes “non-charge” cases. ** Estimated.
The Draft Report states that from 2000 to 2004 criminal filings declined 8% and
between 2001 and 2004 filings declined 14%. Draft Report, p. 4. In fact, using the more
appropriate method of counting in our Exhibit 1, we see that for the 2000/2001 to 2004
period the appropriate figures are -3% and -8.1%. And when the 2005 estimate is used
we see an increase of filings since 2000 of 2.25%.
29
As is seen in Exhibit 1, when using the more appropriate method of counting, the
number of filings in 2002, 2003 and 2004 is essentially flat; they are not declining. In
sum, comparing 2004 filings that have been calculated in a different manner with the one
peak year of 2001 suggests a declining trend in filings that is incorrect. Once the filings
are counted in the more consistent and meaningful fashion suggested herein, a different
pattern emerges.5 A look at the data over the longer term suggests that a trend of
increasing case filings peaked in 2001, backed off modestly, and plateaued for 3 years.
The trend of increased filings may have returned in 2005. Will it continue? If State
filings are a predictor, the clear trend there suggests that Pierce County filings will
increase.
Moreover, in assessing the need for additional judicial departments, we do not
believe that 2000 or 2001 is the proper year for comparison. That simply happens to be
when JMI did its performance audit of superior court (based upon 1999 data). More
pertinent, we believe, is the number of filings for 1996.
4. 1996 is the Proper Base Year for Assessing the Need for Additional Judges.
As the Committee staff report correctly notes, in 1997 the state legislature
authorized the addition of five (5) superior court judge departments for Pierce County.
Draft report p. 10. At that time, the data it had before it was for the year 1996. Since the
state legislature authorized five additional judges in 1997 only two judges have been
added. Our point is that had total filings not changed since 1996, a persuasive argument
5
Had one evaluated the data in 2003 and seen a drop of 9.2% in filings from 2001 to
2002 and concluded that the “trend” was for a declining caseload in 2003 one would have
been wrong. A comparison with a single data point can be misleading.
30
could be made that the superior court should still be staffed with three more judges. Yet,
in that time, filings have increased 28%.6 When the 6,382 projected filings for 2005 is
used for comparison, the increase since 1996 is 35%.
B. Composition of Filings
We take no issue with the description of the composition of filings set forth in the
Draft Report. One important change in the composition of the court’s caseload is not
captured by the data, however. That is the methamphetamine manufacturing (“meth lab”)
cases. A decade ago there were few of these cases.
In 2004, the State Department of Ecology responded to 532 meth labs in Pierce
County. In King County, the county with the next most responses, the number was 183.7
Such cases pose a special problem for the court, too. Completion of the evaluation of
evidence by crime lab personnel is critical to a proper presentation of these cases.
Unfortunately, it is often untimely. Consequently, delays occur in the processing of such
cases in superior court. Prosecutor Horne, discussing meth lab cases, put it this way:
A typical case with 2 to 3 co-defendants includes 150 – 200 items of
evidence and 200 – 400 pages of discovery. Trials can last from 1 to 3
weeks. A conviction can result in significant prison time for these serious
offenders.
Memo of June 6, 2005. As the penalty for a crime is increased, the court often sees an
6
Using the more appropriate method of counting described in this paper. Using the
Committee staff’s calculation of filings of 5,635 in 2004 compared to 4,626 filings in
1996 still produce increased filings of 21.8%.
7
Source: Memo of June 6, 2005 from Gerald A. Horne, Prosecuting Attorney, to
Councilmembers Gelman and Muri and the Criminal Justice Taskforce. Some other
counties: Clark 28; Kitsap 39; Snohomish 91, Spokane 40 and Thurston 51.
31
increase in the rate of such cases being tried rather than settled with a plea of guilty.8
Compared to cases of possession or even delivery of a controlled substance, the penalty
for manufacturing is harsh.9 The court has experienced an increase in the age of its
pending criminal cases and has noted that a significant percentage of the court’s oldest
cases (those exceeding 270 days pending) are meth lab cases.10 In 1997 such cases were
much less numerous.
C. Pending Criminal Caseload/Age of Pending Cases
We share the concern of the Committee staff about the growing backlog of pending
cases. We agree with the Committee staff’s suggestion that a change in the time for trial
rules by the Washington Supreme Court provide an important part of the explanation.
However, we do not believe that it is the entire explanation.11
We agree with the Draft Report when it remarks “Superior Court workload is
generally affected by the number of cases and by the mix of case types.” Emphasis
8
For example, the Draft Report notes that 32% of homicide cases are resolved by trial.
The next closest case category is 5%. (Draft Report, Ex. 3, p. 5.)
9
A person with no prior felony criminal history, i.e. an offender score of “0”, charged
with possession of methamphetamine faces a standard range sentence of 0 – 6 months;
for delivery of methamphetamine the range is 12+ - 20 months; for manufacturing of
methamphetamine the range is 51 – 68 months. By comparison, Assault in the Second
Degree reaches a standard range of 53 – 70 months only when the offender score is “8”
i.e. a significant prior felony criminal history.
10
As of August 31, 2005, 7.2% of the court’s pending cases exceeding 270 days were
methamphetamine manufacturing cases.
11
An AOC analysis of pending criminal caseloads statewide undertaken to assess the
impact of the change in the time for trial rules concluded similarly. Like the Draft
Report, it noted a rise in pending cases occurring several months prior to the change in
the rules. Because of this, the AOC analysis offers only that the change in the time for
trial rules is a factor but not the sole factor for this statewide phenomenon.
32
added. Draft Report p. 4. While we have not completed our discussion of case filings in
superior court, we now turn to the mix of criminal cases pending.
Exhibit 4 to the Draft Report (p. 6.) suggests an additional explanation for some of
the increase in pending cases. It shows that the total number of pending cases is nearly
unchanged from December 29, 2000 to July 1, 2005.12 But the mix of those cases has
changed in a significant way. The percentage of the court’s pending caseload comprising
drug/vice cases has declined from 47.4% to 36.3%. This accounts for a total of 169
fewer cases. Increasing in its share of the court’s pending caseload are special assault
cases (up from 13% to 19.7%) and increasing the number of pending cases by 128.
Robbery/assault unit cases increased by 52. These case categories have historically been
among the longest to get to trial or resolution. (See Draft Report, Attachment 5.) These
case categories contain the most significantly penalized criminal offenses. Also, as noted
above, amid the drug cases are a distressing number of meth lab cases. Meth lab cases
are among the case types requiring greater time to resolution. Against this analysis,
however, is the increase in burglary/theft cases by 93. This case type is usually among
the faster cases to resolve.
We do not have and do not offer in this paper a complete explanation for the
increase in pending cases. We do think that the heavy case loads experienced in Pierce
County Superior Court takes a toll and that relief in the form of additional judicial
personnel will help. We also recognize that an important factor in superior court’s ability
to resolve cases is the adequacy of the resources of the prosecuting attorney and of the
12
It does not show that during that timeframe, the number of pending cases dipped
substantially for 3 years and then regained all of it over the next 2½ years. See
Attachment 4 to the Draft Report.
33
Department of Assigned Counsel (“DAC”). The vast majority of cases are resolved with
a plea and not a trial. A plea cannot be entered until the parties have reached an
agreement. The court can keep the parties on schedule but the parties still have to
evaluate, investigate and negotiate the matter. If the prosecutor and DAC do not have the
resources to do their job, it will impact the pace of the superior court. We now turn to a
discussion of the court’s caseload.
D. Filings in Pierce County and in Other Counties: Judicial Workload
Superior Court is gratified that the Performance Audit Committee staff has
committed itself to an analysis of the court’s workload that:
a)
compares the court with other superior court’s of Washington State on the
basis of filing per judge or (where appropriate) per judicial officer (i.e.
includes court commissioners); and,
b)
evaluates the court’s workload over a period of time that includes the runup of criminal case filings during the 1980s and 90’s that roused the state
legislature to authorize the creation of five (5) additional judicial
departments for Pierce County Superior Court.
Any analysis of the court’s business that fails to look at the foregoing dimensions of
the court’s work will fail to capture the fact that for the past 13 years, Pierce County
Superior Court consistently has both criminal and civil case filings per judge 10% to
more than 30% greater than the state average. During the period, it has never been below
the state average.
Furthermore, the court has done its work with what we believe is the lowest number
of support personnel per judge of any of the seven counties compared. In 2001, the
34
Office of the Administer of the Courts (now AOC) concluded that Pierce County had the
fewest number of courtroom staff per judicial officer of the county’s compared.
Additionally, it showed that superior court was tied for the fewest number of total staff
per judicial officer.13 We do not have current data for the other counties but since 2000
Pierce County Superior Court administration staff has increased modestly by 1.5 FTE and
a criminal case manager position has been authorized but not yet filled. We, therefore,
believe that Pierce County Superior Court continues to be among the leanest – if not the
leanest - court staffs in Washington State.
Comparison of Pierce County Superior Court’s workload with the six (6) largest
superior courts in the state is revealing. Pierce County Superior Court is singular in that
it is the only one of these courts that is among the highest worked courts in both civil and
criminal filings throughout the 1992 to present period.
In the time permitted to respond and with the data available, we have had a limited
ability to recalculate the comparison of Pierce County to other counties using the revised
Exhibit 1 data and recalculating the numbers for other counties on the same basis. We
will discuss below the result of that work. For other attachments to the Draft Report our
discussion assumes that the Draft Report remains accurate in the relative caseloads of
Pierce County Superior Court compared with other courts (even though we disagree with
actual caseload numbers as discussed above).
13
Source: Tables “L” and “M” to Final Report. Organizational Assessment of the Pierce
County Superior Court dated February 15, 2001. The counties6 compared with Pierce
County were Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane and Thurston.
35
E. Impact of Adding Judicial Departments/Commissioner on the Court’s
Workload.
Exhibit 2 (below) shows that with 1,273 filings per judicial officer, Pierce County
Superior Court currently ranks second among the six counties compared here.
Exhibit 2
2004 TOTAL Filings (All Kinds)
Filings/Judicial Officer
Rank
Clark
1251
3/2
King
1036
7
Kitsap
1214
4/3
Pierce
1273*
1185** 1145***
2/4/4
Snohomish
1367
1
Spokane
1120
5
Thurston
1068
6
STATE Avg.
1118
* Uses 27 judicial officers (current – 21 judges and 6 commissioners)
** Uses 29 judicial officers (current plus 2 judges)
*** Uses 30 judicial officers (current plus 2 judges and 1 commissioner
Exhibit 2 also shows how things would change with the addition of judicial officers.
By adding two judicial departments, the number of filings per judicial officer drops to
1,185 and Pierce County’s relative rank drops to fourth among the seven counties.
Adding one commissioner and two judges drops the number of filings per officer to
1,145; Pierce County’s rank remains fourth.
Currently, Pierce County’s caseload per judicial officer is 13.9% above the state
average. It is interesting to note that adding three judicial officers still leaves Pierce
County with a per judicial officer caseload 2.4% above the state average.
Let’s look at the same numbers for adult felony criminal caseload. This is shown in
Exhibit 3.
36
Exhibit 3
2004 Adult Criminal Filings (Per Judge)
Filings/Judge
Rank
Clark
285
4/3
King
200
6
Kitsap
279
5/4
Pierce
288*
263**
3/5
Snohomish
191
7
Spokane
345
1
Thurston
293
2
STATE Avg.
258
* Uses 21 judges (current)
** Uses 23 judges (current plus 2 judges)
NOTE: Using 6,382 filings projected for 2005, the number of criminal filings per
judge is 304; add 2 judges to this level of filings and the rate declines to 277.
In Exhibit 3 see that Snohomish County has the lowest number of criminal case
filings per judge yet in Exhibit 2 we saw that it has the highest number of total filings per
judicial officer of the counties compared. Snohomish has a very large number of civil
filings per judicial officer compared to the other counties. We note this because criminal
cases command a much higher share of judicial resources than do a comparable number
of civil cases. Spokane County has experienced a large increase in recent years in
criminal case filings and has the highest number of criminal cases per judge. Yet
Spokane ranks fifth in total filings per judicial officer. Pierce County is unique in that it
has high numbers of both civil and criminal case filings per judge/judicial officer. The
Draft Report also makes this point at p. 14.
Pierce County Superior Court’s relative caseload of criminal cases has persistently
exceeded the state average. This is shown at Attachment 9 of the Draft Report. Pierce
County Superior Court’s relative caseload of civil cases has also persistently exceeded
37
the state average. This is shown at attachments 11, 12 and 13 of the Draft Report.
PART III — REPLY TO THE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF
THE DRAFT REPORT
We concur with the conclusion of the Draft Report that because of the heavy
caseload in Pierce County compared with other superior courts, that it “would be
reasonable for the County Council to increase the number of judicial officers by one or
two positions.”
We also concur with the conclusion of the Draft Report that there are significant
data differences between LINX and SCOMIS that make collection and comparison
difficult and complicate analysis. However, it is not enough to reconcile these
differences. Even should these information systems synchronize, it will not address
important problems that the court experiences. We need help with the analysis of the
large amount of data that LINX is able to collect. It is for this reason that the court has
requested the addition of a statistician. Perhaps this person would be better described as a
system analyst or even, an accountant.
The recommendation for “improved case management and quarterly reporting to
the Council of performance data in a useful format” requires a more complex response.
The court has no reservation about providing data to the Council. But following the
recommendation poses a number of problems.
First, there is no established, agreed upon (or even proposed!) performance data for
the court. Indeed, an important reason that the court seeks the addition to its staff of a
statistician is because we want to establish such standards and monitor performance for
internal management purposes.
38
Second, we simply do not have the staff to do much more than print out the data
that LINX generates. It does not provide data, graphs, charts or other representations of
its data over relevant periods of time without human intervention. Doing this and
figuring out what information is most useful and then analyzing it is an important and
time-consuming task but the court simply has no one with time to do it. It has required a
significant re-direction of staff and judicial time merely to respond to the Draft Report.
We cannot imagine doing this quarterly without additional staff.
On this subject another point should be made. We have noted in the body of this
Response that Pierce County Superior Court has the leanest staff to judicial officer ratio
among the seven largest courts in Washington State. Our administrative staff is
authorized a 35 hour workweek. We would like to increase this to 37½ hours per week.14
We concur with the Draft Report’s recommendation to authorize another court
commissioner. We disagree with the suggestion that the position should have a sunset
provision a few years hence.
This position requires the highest professional qualities and a demanding work
ethic. It is a job that requires excellent judgment and dedication. The decisions that the
court’s commissioners make are critical to justice and to the timely and efficient
administration of the court’s business. Not just anyone can properly make the decision
about the custodial placement of children, for instance. It will be an impediment to trying
to retain a highly qualified candidate prepared to forsake a career with the risk that the
position may be eliminated in “two or three” years. The job is too important to doom it
to mediocrity by hamstringing the selection of the best person.
14
The judicial assistants for each judge already are authorized a 37½ hour work week.
39
\
TheJ;eis no reason to believe that the workload of the commissioners will decline in
the next few years and the need now is manifest. Moreover, the Draft Report offers no
standard for detennining whether the position should be eliminated.
Respectfully submitted,
Pierce County Superior Court
By;
Appendix 3
Comments by Performance Audit Staff
September 12, 2005
We read with interest the letter from Judge Arend and the response to the report by
Judge Chushcoff (Appendix 2). Overall, despite some disagreement about details,
we believe there is little substantive difference between the report and the response.
It may be useful to comment briefly on four topics:
1. Criminal filings and the impact on the trend if misdemeanors and appeals
from lower courts are included or excluded.
2. Factors that affect the large increase in pending criminal cases.
3. Interpretation of the comparative data on judicial workload.
4. The report’s conclusions and recommendations.
1. Criminal Filings
In its response, the court disputes the kind of filings included in Exhibit 1 of the
report (pp. 26-31 above, referring to the exhibit on page 2). The sentences that
precede Exhibit 1 explain the approach used in the report:
“The filings in the exhibit refer to new felony cases and exclude appeals
from lower courts and also cases in which no charges were filed. This is
how JMI reported filings in the 2001 audit report. The figures will differ a
little if misdemeanor filings or appeals from lower courts are included, but
the trends will be in the same direction.”
The court takes issue with this approach, and deems it “a serious error” in
measuring workload (page 26). It insists that misdemeanors and appeals from
lower courts must be included in the filings portion of Exhibit 1.25
25
As the response acknowledges (page 28), the issue arises from a decision by the state AOC to change the
way it reports misdemeanor filings starting in 2004.
41
We believe that total filings can include or exclude misdemeanors, and appeals
from lower courts as well, but the choice does not matter because the trend is not
affected.
Exhibit 3-1 (next page) shows the filings as presented in the report and in the
court’s response – and then graphs the two sets of data. As can be seen, the trends
are in the same direction.
Later in the court’s response, at page 35, there is a suggestion that a revised
approach to Exhibit 1 (by including misdemeanors and appeals from lower courts)
would result in different findings when comparing judicial workload in Pierce
County and other courts. The response is mistaken. Attachments 8, 9, and 10,
which compare criminal workload among the courts, include misdemeanors and
appeals from lower courts. Only “non-charge cases” are excluded, as stated at the
lower left of the graphs. Exhibit 1 has no bearing whatsoever on the workload
comparisons later in the report.
The court’s response, at page 30, asserts that 1996 is the proper base year for
calculating percentages changes in workload because the state legislature authorized
more judges in 1997. This is not a credible point in our opinion. Percentage
increases or decreases can be calculated from any selected year, and preferably
from multiple years. The report did this from 1992, the starting point for the data,
and from 2001, the high point for Pierce County.
2. Pending Cases
The court’s response includes section B, Composition of Filings, and section C,
Pending Criminal Caseload / Age of Pending Cases (pp. 31-34.) These sections
attempt to explain the rise in pending cases by examining recent changes in the
specific types of filings over the years.
We agree that a large number of certain filings, such as methamphetamine
manufacturing cases (pp. 31-32) or aggravated murder, can have large impacts on
the court’s time and adversely affect the number of pending cases. But this
explanation goes only so far and does not explain the very large rise in pending
cases shown in Attachment 3 of the report. The response acknowledges this on
page 33: “We do not have and do not offer in this paper a complete explanation for
the increase in pending cases.”
42
Exhibit 3-1
Two Ways of Showing Criminal Filings since 1992
Felony Filings as
Presented in this Report *
Filings as Presented in
Superior Court Response **
Pierce County
State
Pierce County
State
4,881
4,802
4,885
5,224
4,626
4,923
5,486
5,817
6,109
6,550
5,959
6,056
5,635
28,529
28,032
28,728
32,296
31,035
34,103
37,592
37,995
39,694
41,387
41,908
44,311
42,422
4,972
4,905
5,002
5,342
4,727
5,052
5,589
5,907
6,241
6,634
6,021
6,132
6,052
29,981
29,765
30,395
33,965
32,581
35,785
38,834
39,241
40,971
42,390
42,843
45,377
45,847
Change since 1992
15%
49%
22%
53%
Change since 2001
-14%
3%
-9%
8%
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
* As in this report, page 2, but correcting 2004 State figure to 42,422 (the report mistakenly says 45,037).
Filings include new felony filings, and exclude misdemeanors, lower court appeals, and "non-charge" cases.
JMI used this method in its 2001 performance audit report. Data source: AOC annual reports.
** As in this report, page 29, but correcting 2004 State figure to 45,847 (the response mistakenly says 47,847).
Filings include new felony filings, misdemeanors, and lower court appeals, and exclude "non-charge" cases.
The court response also includes 2005 annual data, which is speculation. Data source: AOC annual reports.
43
The court’s response and the report agree that the Time for Trial rule had a major
impact in increasing the number and age of pending cases.
Another factor that influences the pending caseload is how the court manages its
cases, such as its practices in granting continuances. The report (pp. 7-8) presents
important data on the growing number and longer duration of continuances in recent
years in all types of cases. The response does not address this issue.
3. Judicial Workload in Pierce County and Other Counties
The court’s response (pp. 34-38) discusses judicial workload, as measured by
filings per judge (or filings per judicial officer when appropriate). The court’s
response is mostly a reiteration of points made in the report. However, there is also
some new material on what the number of filings per judge or per judicial officer
would be if Pierce County had more judges or commissioners (pp. 36-37). This
raises the problem of standards. When interpreting the graphs attached to the
report, to what should the Pierce County caseload be compared?
Two kinds of standards are available in the graphs. First, we can ascertain how the
workload of Pierce County Superior Court compares each year, and especially in
recent years, with other courts. Second, the Pierce County workload can be
compared with the state total. (The state total is a weighted average of all superior
courts in the state. The court’s response refers to this as the state average.)
The court’s response emphasizes the second standard. In criminal and civil cases,
the Pierce County workload “has persistently exceeded the state average” (pp. 3738). Thus the court advocates a need for more judicial personnel by emphasizing
how far Pierce County Superior Court is from the state total. To summarize the
many examples presented in the court’s response, it would take four more judicial
officers to align Pierce County workload per judicial officer with the state total.
This is an interesting point, but it is not definitive. The state total has limitations. It
is simply a composite of the workload of all superior courts in the state, and it is
much affected by large courts that have either unusually heavy or unusually light
criminal or civil workload. For example, the state total is “pulled down” by the low
criminal workload per judge in King County and Snohomish County, and it is
“pulled up” by the high number in Spokane County. The civil filing calculations
are similarly affected. There is no inherent reason why the state total should be the
definitive standard when analyzing judicial workload. It is one possible standard to
be considered along with other comparisons.
44
Attachments 8-14 present information on criminal filings per judge and civil filings
per judicial officer. The material is interesting and possibly illuminating, but it is
also inherently difficult to understand. To get a clear picture of judicial workload
among the various courts, and to summarize what is presented at greater length in
Attachments 8-14, we believe the following approach may be helpful:
‰
Consider the last three years (2003, 2004, and 2005 through July), and review
the data in detail one year at a time.
‰
Keep it simple. Consider two measures for each year: criminal filings per
judge, and civil (i.e., all non-criminal) filings per judicial officer.
The exhibits on the next three pages summarize the comparative workload data in
this manner. The findings are fairly consistent from year to year.
⇒ The top graph on each page shows criminal filings per judge, including adult
and juvenile cases. Pierce County ranks in the middle each year (fourth or
fifth out of the seven courts). In the report, adult criminal and juvenile
offender cases were treated separately. A different picture emerges when the
two are combined, as in these three graphs. This is not a strong basis on
which to advocate for another judge or judges.
⇒ The bottom graph on each page shows civil filings per judicial officer.
Pierce County ranked third highest in 2003, and it ranks second in 2004 and
2005. We believe this material provides fairly strong support for authorizing
another commissioner.
45
Exhibit 3-2: Summary of 2003 Data
Superior Court Criminal Filings per Judge, 2003
Adult Criminal Filings per Judge
Juvenile Offender Filings per Judge
600
Excludes "non-charge cases"
500
481
476
464
426
394
398
400
331
292
300
200
100
Clark
Thurston
Spokane
Pierce
Kitsap
Snohomish
King
State Total
Civil (all non-criminal) Filings per Judicial Officer, 2003
1,200
Excludes "other matters filed with the clerk"
1,059
1,005
1,000
909
834
800
800
820
797
724
600
400
200
Snohomish
Clark
Pierce
Kitsap
46
King
Spokane
Thurston
State Total
Exhibit 3-3: Summary of 2004 Data
Superior Court Criminal Filings per Judge, 2004
Adult Criminal Filings per Judge
Juvenile Offender Filings per Judge
600
Excludes "non-charge cases"
500
468
460
437
426
422
400
382
299
300
278
200
100
Spokane
Thurston
Kitsap
Clark
Pierce
Snohomish
King
State Total
Civil (all non-criminal) Filings per Judicial Officer, 2004
1,200
1,134
Excludes "other matters filed with the clerk"
1,000
945
920
836
800
808
828
803
717
600
400
200
Snohomish
Pierce
Clark
Kitsap
47
Spokane
King
Thurston
State Total
Exhibit 3-4: Summary of 2005 Data
Superior Court Criminal Filings per Judge, January-July 2005
Adult Criminal Filings per Judge
300
285
Juvenile Offender Filings per Judge
273
254
250
Excludes "non-charge cases"
242
221
213
200
182
157
150
100
50
Spokane
Clark
Thurston
Pierce
Kitsap
Snohomish
King
State Total
Civil (all non-criminal) Filings per Judicial Officer, January-July 2005
800
700
Excludes "other matters filed with the clerk"
697
600
568
561
476
500
495
472
429
427
Kitsap
Thurston
400
300
200
100
-
Snohomish
Pierce
Clark
King
48
Spokane
State Total
Before leaving this matter of comparative workload, it is worth mentioning why
Snohomish County ranks higher than Pierce County in civil filings per judicial
officer. The differences have to do with growth in filings, not changes in the
number of judicial officers. First, Snohomish County has experienced a rising
number of filings of commercial and property rights cases, which appear to be
connected with economic growth.
Second, and far more important, in 2004 Snohomish County had twice as many
juvenile civil filings as Pierce County (3,875 versus 1,907). A high proportion of
the Snohomish filings are truancy cases. Clearly, there are policy differences
between the two counties as to how juvenile civil matters are handled. The
differences in juvenile civil filings go back several years and are the main reason
why Snohomish County Superior Court ranks highest in civil filings per judicial
officer.
4. The Report’s Conclusions and Recommendations
The report concludes that workload in Pierce County Superior Court is relatively
heavy compared with other courts. Recommendation 1 is that the County Council
should increase the number of judicial officers by one or two. The workload data
supports either one or two additional officers.
Audit topics do not stand still. Since the body of the report was written in August,
the County Council passed a supplemental budget on September 6, 2005, that
authorizes another judge for Pierce County Superior Court, to be appointed later in
the year. The Council’s action may change the political environment, but it does
not affect the workload data and other information in the report.
The comparative workload data clearly indicates that Pierce County Superior Court
has a relatively high workload in civil cases. Commissioners ordinarily hear many
of these cases, but judges can also handle them. It is essentially a political decision
whether to authorize another commissioner or not do so since another judge has
already been authorized.
49
This brings us to the most important points in the report:
Ö Additional judicial officers will not, by themselves, solve the problem of the
increase in the number and age of pending cases documented in the report.
Ö Appointment of another judge in 2001 did not solve the problem. Pending
cases are now much higher than in 2001 despite the decline (or at least no
increase) in criminal filings.
Ö Authorization of additional judicial officers, whether another judge or a judge
and a commissioner, should include meaningful provisos in the 2006 budget
that encourage the court to operate more productively and more efficiently
than in the past.
Recommendation 2 is that the 2006 budget should include provisos for improved
case management and quarterly reporting to the Council of performance data in a
useful format. The court, at page 38, responds it has no reservation about providing
data to the Council, but it also mentions there is no established, agreed upon, or
even proposed performance data for the court. That is true. That can be worked out
later by budget staff, performance audit staff, and the court.
Recommendation 3 was to consider including a sunset clause if the Council
appoints another commissioner. The court’s response suggests that a sunset clause
is not feasible. We agree with that conclusion. But, as mentioned above, for any
additional court personnel that are authorized (judge, commissioner, or staff), the
Council should write budget provisos designed to improve the court’s performance.
In general, there are two ways to monitor the court’s performance: (1) compare
current performance and past performance, and (2) compare performance with that
of other courts. With regard to (2), this report tried to compare performance on the
number and age of pending cases, but the analysis could not be completed because
of large data differences between LINX and SCOMIS on the number of pending
cases.
Recommendation 4 is to require a report by the Clerk of Superior Court in early
2006 on progress in resolving the data differences between the two information
systems. For the record, the following exhibit shows the data differences as of July
31 and August 31, 2005.
50
Exhibit 3-5
Pierce County Superior Court Pending Cases according to LINX and SCOMIS
- - - - - - July 31, 2005 - - - - - -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
SCOMIS
(AOC)
Difference
- - - - - - August 31, 2005 - - - - - LINX
SCOMIS
(AOC)
Case Type
LINX
Difference
Criminal (a)
Civil
Domestic
Probate/Guardianship
Adoption/Paternity
Mental Illness
Juvenile Civil
Juvenile Offender (a)
Lower Court Appeal
2,178
4,626
2,680
526
3,323
52
2,171
410
no data
2,459
6,983
3,099
526
3,491
389
1,239
2,967
259
(281)
(2,357)
(419)
(168)
(337)
932
(2,557)
2,227
4,629
2,667
539
3,304
65
2,229
439
no data
2,533
5,268
3,086
571
3,488
402
1,268
3,035
253
(306)
(639)
(419)
(32)
(184)
(337)
961
(2,596)
TOTAL of types 1 - 8
15,966
21,153
(5,187)
16,099
19,651
(3,552)
Note (a): Criminal figures include Drug Court cases and exclude bench warrants and Western State evaluation. Figures for
all case types exclude cases in a suspended status (warrant, mediation, stay, arbitration, appeal, continued for / deferred
prosecution, and diversion).
Sources: AOC Superior Court profiles and LINX pending cases reports, July 31 and August 31.
51