court statistics and workload committee · management and reporting processes for capturing this...

TCP& A

Court Statistics and Workload Committee

JUVENILE DEPENDENCY WORKLOAD

TRACKING WORKSHOP

Report and Recommendations

TALLAHASSEE, FL

April 19, 2018

Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Members

Respectfully submitted:

The Honorable Ellen S. Masters, Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit (Chair)

The Honorable Alan Fine, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Marci Goodman, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Mary Hatcher, Circuit Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable James Martz, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Lee E. Haworth, Senior Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit

Michele Emmerman, Unified Family Court Case Manager, Sixth Judicial Circuit

Angie Smith, Director of Strategic Planning, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

Kim Stephens, Family Court Manager, Second Judicial Circuit

Dawn Wyant, Information Systems Consultant II, Tenth Judicial Circuit

Wendy Melgar, Juvenile Division Manager, Orange County Clerk of Court

Avron Bernstein, Senior Attorney, OSCA, Office of Court Improvement

Staff support:

Office of the State Courts Administrator

PJ Stockdale, Senior Court Statistics Administrator, Court Services

Shelley Kaus, Court Statistics Consultant, Court Services

Jovasha Lang, Senior Court Analyst II, Court Education and Improvement


Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop

Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1

Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 3

Judicial Weighted Workload Model ............................................................................................... 3

Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop .................................................................... 4

Workshop Summary ....................................................................................................................... 4

Analysis........................................................................................................................................... 6

Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 12

Recommendation One:.............................................................................................................. 12

Recommendation Two: ............................................................................................................. 12

Recommendation Three: ........................................................................................................... 12

Application to Problem Solving Courts ........................................................................................ 13



Executive Summary

The Florida Supreme Court tasked the Commission on Trial Court Performance and

Accountability (TCP&A) with conducting “a workshop to identify events within a dependency

case that involve significant judicial workload or court resources that are not captured by current

tracking and reporting data systems. This workshop should identify appropriate data

management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage.”

(AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability).

This charge was given to the Court Statistics and Workload Committee (CSWC) who convened

the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop on September 16, 2016. The workshop

was chaired by CSWC member Judge Ellen S. Masters and included a very dynamic and

engaged group of dependency judges, case managers, circuit administration, clerk of court staff,

and OSCA subject matter experts in attendance.

This workshop engaged in a set of exercises and focused discussions to identify elements

(events, actions and factors) within a dependency case that represent areas of significant

workload or present issues of highly variable complexity. These discussions considered these

elements in the context of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model and attempted to identify

critical decision and measurement points that will allow the court system to monitor and manage

these elements and resources to ensure adequate availability and efficient adjudication of

dependency cases.

The workshop’s agenda included a full day of group discussions, breakout sessions, and

estimation exercises. These activities were aimed at accomplishing the following two objectives:

Identifying events, actions and factors within a juvenile dependency case that may

involve significant judicial workload or court resources for inclusion into court

activity tracking and reporting data systems.

Identifying appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this

workload and resource usage as a natural extension of normal work flow.

Members considered a wide variety of issues that may impact how workload is tracked in the

juvenile dependency division. Issues ranged from types of matters involved, duration of

oversight, distribution of workload and case activity reporting. At the conclusion of the meeting,

the workgroup selected twelve main issues that participants believed most significantly impacted

workload in the dependency division. Participants agreed that these issues would provide a solid

starting point for further workload exploration. These issues:

1) identified concerns with the current judicial weighted workload model, and

2) proposed exploration into the critical factors and events impacting judicial workload.

Most issues discussed involved variations on the following themes:

The majority of the issues raised by the workshop involve constraints on the tracking or

reporting of case activity data in the courts. Given that the court system has a significant, long

term investment in tracking and reporting systems, achieving meaningful enhancement involves

Page 1 of 49



not only identifying necessary changes but also managing the implementation of those changes.

Based on results of the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop and subsequent

analysis, the Court Statistics and Workload Committee makes the following recommendations.

One: Establish the child as the unit of case activity reporting.

Two: Adopt an event-driven approach to reporting case activity within the

dependency case type.

Three: Complete the case weight simulations developed to validate the remaining

tracking and reporting changes.

Page 2 of 49



Overview






(AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability).

This charge was given to the Court Statistics and Workload Committee (CSWC) who convened

the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop on September 16, 2016. This workshop

engaged in a set of exercises and focused discussions to identify elements (events, actions and

factors) within a dependency case that represent areas of significant workload or present issues

of highly variable complexity. These discussions considered these elements in the context of the

Judicial Weighted Workload Model and attempted to identify critical decision and measurement

points that will allow the court system to monitor and manage these elements and resources to

ensure adequate availability and efficient adjudication of dependency cases.

Judicial Weighted Workload Model

Workload within the Florida court system is determined, by the Judicial Weighted Workload

Model (JWWM), as a function of the occurrence of specific case events and the time, averaged

over all dependency activity across the state, that it takes to complete those events. The time

interval is currently defined to be from the “filing” event to the “disposition” event. The Judicial

Weighted Workload Model is used to estimate judicial need in future years and to provide the

Legislature with the Annual Certification of Judicial Need each year.

Every five years, the court system conducts an in-depth analysis of the work expended in

handling dependency cases. The most recent review, called the Florida Judicial Workload

Assessment, was conducted February 2015 through May 2016. The case weight, set at 271

minutes for Dependency cases, developed by this study coupled with the number of case

petitions provide a broad estimate of the dependency workload in Florida courts. Within this

weighted workload model, there are opportunities to fine tune the workload calculations through

the use of adjustment modifiers. The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee that oversaw the

Workload Assessment cited juvenile dependency as one area that may benefit from such tuning.

The current iteration of the JWWM uses the Summary Reporting System (SRS) case counts as a

basis and the associated SRS definitions of “filing” and “disposition”. While this reporting

structure provides accurate counts of cases, it is more problematic when considering dispositions.

The terms filing and disposition as it applies to SRS were defined in the 1980s when judicial

need was estimated using a threshold standard based on number of cases (filings). Dispositions,

while useful for management were not considered as factors in workload. As threshold

estimation evolved to a more meaningful workload model and time from start to end of case

activity assumed prominence, limitations in the meaning of filing and disposition as used for

Page 3 of 49



SRS became apparent. For example, cases were reported to SRS as disposed when the first child

in a multi-child case was resolved even if that child represented the simplest set of workload

issues within the case. This rule is correct with respect to the threshold model of judge need, but

inaccurate with respect to the workload model.

In 2014, the Supreme Court adopted more fine-grained set of definitions in AOSC14-20 In Re:

Case Event Definitional Framework, that refine the concepts of filing and disposition into an

“initiation” and a “closure” event that clearly demark the transition points at which work begins

and ends. These transitions also include periods of planned and unplanned inactivity, which is

an important factor in measuring dependency workload. Additionally, in 2016, the Supreme

Court mandated an event-drive case activity reporting system in the Uniform Case Reporting

system to replace the Summary Reporting System for case activity reporting. While not used

during the 2015-2017 Judicial Workload Study, these refinements will provide an environment

for a more accurate workload assessment.


The Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop was held Friday, September 16, 2016.

This CSWC-sponsored workshop was chaired by Judge Ellen S. Masters and included a very

dynamic and engaged group of dependency judges, case managers, circuit administration, clerk

of court staff, and OSCA subject matter experts in attendance.

The workshop’s agenda included a full day of group discussions, breakout sessions, and

estimation exercises. These activities were aimed at accomplishing the following two objectives:

Identifying events, actions and factors within a juvenile dependency case that may



Identifying appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this


Materials provided to the workshop members are included in Appendix A. These background

materials were comprised of: a discussion of how workload is determined in juvenile

dependency via the Weighted Caseload Model and the FY2014-2016 Judicial Workload

Assessment; the Summary Reporting System (SRS) data collection instrument that collects case

filings for the juvenile dependency division and associated reporting instructions; and AOSC14-

20 In Re: Trial Court Case-Event Definitional Framework.

Workshop Summary

Members considered a wide variety of issues that may impact how workload is tracked in the

juvenile dependency division. Issues ranged from types of matters involved, duration of

oversight, distribution of workload and case activity reporting. At the conclusion of the meeting,

the workgroup selected twelve main issues that participants believed most significantly impacted

workload in the dependency division. Participants agreed that these issues would provide a solid

Page 4 of 49



starting point for further workload exploration. These issues 1) identified concerns with the

current judicial weighted workload model and 2) proposed exploration into the critical factors

and events impacting judicial workload. Most issues discussed involved variations on the

following themes:

1. Work performed by Dependency judges but no included as an element of the Weighted

Workload Model

a. Is all cross-over work properly accounted for?

i. Dependency judges frequently work on other case types, due to Unified

Family Court.

ii. Dependency judges frequently work on related cases filed in other court

divisions.

b. Is the workload associated with a motion filed that doesn’t result in a case being

captured in the model?

c. Is the current method for capturing workload in highly variable areas accurate?

i. Contested TPR cases are very different from non-contested TPR cases,

and could be assigned different case weights.

ii. Cases involving multiple children are different than cases involving a

single child.

iii. Cases involving multiple parental parties are different than cases

involving a single parent or uncontested two-parent household.

2. The event definitions and case type category breakdown within the Summary Reporting

System (SRS) may not be fine-grained enough to accurately capture workload for the

juvenile dependency division within jurisdictions.

a. Event definitions and SRS manual refinements

i. Unambiguous definitions of closure and events in a case are needed.

ii. Family should be defined, and needs to allow for same-sex couples.

iii. Additional reporting rules may need to be added to the manual for

additional guidance in state-level reporting.

iv. Track motions that occur before a case-initiating event, including those

that do not result in a case being initiated.

b. A more accurate assessment of workload in the juvenile dependency division may

require changes to the current SRS categories.

i. Time is used as a proxy for complexity within an SRS case type.

ii. Cases within a given case type require significantly different times to

process depending on the issues involved.

iii. This difference may be so significant that current categories may benefit

from being split to capture disparate case types.

iv. Examples: Contested TPR vs. non-contested TPR cases; simple family vs.

multi-parent family

c. Amend SRS statistics to count per child rather than per family.

Page 5 of 49



3. The Weighted Workload Model may not be responsive enough to accurately reflect the

dynamic nature of juvenile dependency.

a. Is juvenile dependency different than all other divisions regarding this dynamic

nature?

b. Is there anything we can count that will demonstrate the rapidly evolving

environment?

c. How has the weighted caseload model been affected by past changes in this

division?

Analysis

Since the workshop, CSWC members and OSCA staff in both Court Services and the Office of

Court Improvement have discussed these issues and considered possible resolutions. The

majority of the issues raised by the workshop involve constraints on the tracking or reporting of

case activity data in the courts. Given that the court system has a significant, long term

investment in tracking and reporting systems, achieving meaningful enhancement involves not

only identifying necessary changes, but also managing the implementation of those changes.

Adjudicationin juvenile dependency is focused on children and families.Workload is concerned

with events and actions and, to some extent, with the time between those events and actions.

Motions or petitions are filed, conferences and hearings are scheduled, parties are notified,

reports filed, additional hearings are scheduled, and so on. The time allocated to these events to

be heard along with the necessary preparation is constrained by practical realities and resources.

Similarly, the time between these events may be constrained by statute or precedent. By

considering these events and actions, the court system can identify important critical paths for

case activity. These critical paths enable judges and program managers to implement and

measure process enhancements intended to improve adjudicatory outcomes.

Ultimately, determination of workload in dependency is complicated by the extreme variability

in the trajectory of cases. There are significant human factors in a dependency case, such as

number of children, number of parents, grandparents and guardians, individual issues associated

with each child, and specific issues associated with each parent/grandparent/guardian. The

adjudicatory needs inherent in these human factors greatly influence the occurrence of case

events and activity, such as the number and type of motions, petitions, hearings and conferences

that are considered or held. Effectively addressing these needs within the case event framework

dictated by statute and rule result in a case type that involves a very large number of potential

critical paths,each occurring in a variable proportion of cases and requiring a variable amount of

work. An accurate measure of dependency workload will require a solid understanding of the

workload associated with these paths.

Page 6 of 49



For example, a simple case may achieve termination of supervision with five events (petition,

arraignment, disposition hearing, initial judicial review, termination of supervision) with no

further action required. A case resulting in adoption may result in eight events (petition,

arraignment, disposition hearing, initial judicial review, three follow up reviews, and termination

of supervision). More complicated cases might involve several hearings and multiple judicial

reviews in a repeating cycle before final resolution of the case is achieved and the case no longer

presents workload to the courts.

Further complicating the measure of workload in dependency cases is that these cases may also

involve significant periods of inactivity between events: periods where the court legitimately has

no action to take or no event to which it can respond. In cases with this character, it is not

meaningful to measure workload as an absolute period of time from one fixed starting point to

one fixed ending point as these cases may involve years of absolute calendar time between the

initiation event and the closure event.

The Judicial Weighted Workload Model develops a case weight averaging time spent on activity

over a range of case trajectories across the state. While this weight is effective for estimating

judicial workload on the state level across all jurisdictions, anecdotal evidence indicates that

estimated workload at the circuit level under this model can vary widely from the actuality. This

reduces the usefulness of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model in managing judicial resources

at the circuit level.

Because of the survey methodology used to determine the case weight, it is very difficult to

identify the time spent on specific events within the case. Furthermore, since the case weight is

computed on filing events only, it does not fully capture the issue of complexity within a case.

However, the model advances that the time spent on a case is a reasonably proxy for the

complexity of a case, and that the case weight is a reasonable estimate of the average time spent.

A more effective workload measurement can be obtained by considering the workload associated

with significant events in the life of a case and then developing a model of the occurrence of

those events. Modern simulation techniques can then be used to develop a more targeted case

weight specific to the circuit.

.

Page 7 of 49



Table 1 Workshop Issues

Issue Description Results of Analysis/Review

# 1 The Weighted Caseload Model may be missing some work in the juvenile dependency division

1.a.i Cross-over work: Dependency judges

frequently work on other case types under

the Unified Family Court (UFC) model.

The work accomplished under the Unified Family Court model was fully accounted

for as part of the 2015 time study. Judicial workload is managed at the Family

division level, and it is expected that judges may participate in cases from a variety

of subdivisions within Family. For workload calculations, the workload expended

on cases originating in other family subdivisions that are related to juvenile

dependency cases is accounted for within the other subdivisions. The total

workload for a circuit in the Family division includes work across all subdivisions.

This restates the issue in 1.a.i to whether the average case time for those circuits

employing the Unified Family Court model is significantly different than the

combined (weighted) average case time for those circuits who do not use the UFC

model.

A survey of circuits indicated that all 20 circuits implement some version of the

Unified Family Court model as required by Fla. Fam. L. R. P. 12.003. However,

there is considerable variation in how these courts are structured and in the scope

and kind of cases assigned. There is insufficient information available about these

variations and no clear mechanism to track activity and workload within these

varied courts to develop a reliable model for simulation. Further investigation of

this issue has been postponed until additional information is available for

meaningful analysis.

1.a.ii Cross-over work: Dependency judges

frequently work on related cases filed in

other court divisions.

Court Services staff conducted a thorough review of the 2015 time study conducted

as part of the FY2014-2016 Judicial Workload Study. Staff determined that this

study incorporated all of the available judicial time expended on juvenile

dependency cases during the study period even though this time may not have been

allocated to the most appropriate category. Workload for cases originating in other

divisions is tracked within those divisions and aggregated to the circuit as a whole.

Page 8 of 49




Therefore, the current Judicial Workload Model adequately accounts for work of

this type.

1.b Workload associated with a motion filed

that does not result in a case is not

properly accounted for in the workload

model.

The time expended on motions filed that do not result in a case was reported to the

2015 time study and is included as one of the factors making up the case weight.

However, since this event is not captured dynamically, the workload model assumes

that the ratio of motions not resulting in a case to motions resulting in a case stays

constant. This issue then becomes an investigation of whether this ratio changes

over the five year time between re-calibrations studies, and if the ratio does change,

how can that change be incorporated into the judicial workload model?

It was not possible to obtain the necessary information to conduct a meaningful

simulation. While the UCR project is not specifically designed to provide the

required information for this analysis, UCR implementation for the family division

may provide addition opportunities to explore this issue. Investigation of this issue

has been postponed until sufficient information is available for meaningful analysis.

1.c.i Contested Termination of Parental Rights

(TPR) cases are very different from non-

contested TPR cases and could be

assigned different case weights or case

type modifiers.

This issue proposes that the workload involved in contested Termination of Parental

Rights (TPR) cases are significantly different from non-contested TPR cases and

that considering workload related to these two case characteristics may produce a

more precise and meaningful estimate of judicial need than the current measurement

that does not distinguish between these cases.

While there is some data available that is responsive to the analysis of this issue,

there is a high probability that the data available is not sufficient to reliably estimate

the necessary simulation parameters. However, given that there is some information

available, completing the simulation may provide additional insight on the issue. A

simulation is recommended to be performed for possible insights only and the

results should not be considered reliable to form final recommendations.

1.c.ii Cases involving a single child require a

different workload when compared to

those involving multiple children.

This issue proposes that the workload involved in juvenile dependency cases by

considering the number of children involved may produce a more precise and

meaningful estimate of judicial need than the current measurement that assumes the

number of children does not affect workload.

Page 9 of 49




Sufficient data is available to conduct this simulation, which will provide the

individual workloads for cases including a single child and case including multiple

children and the workload for the mixed, current workload.

Refer to appendix B for an example of the planned methodology.

1.c.iii Cases involving multiple parental parties

require a different workload when

compared to cases involving a single

parent or uncontested two-parent

household.

This issue proposes that the workload in juvenile dependency be evaluated in

relation to the number of parents (one, two or multiple) with standing in the case

and to whether the case was contested or uncontested.

Data is available to identify parental distribution in cases; however, this data has

some quality issues that may limit its usefulness. Once these quality issues are

resolved, completing the simulation with available data may provide additional

insight on the issue. Staff recommends that the simulation be performed for possible

insights only and that results should not be considered reliable to form final

recommendations.

# 2 SRS Manual Refinements or Changes to the SRS

2.a.i Unambiguous definitions of closure and

events in a case are needed. AOSC14-20 provides the definition for a case closure event, which is being

incorporated as part of the SRS Manual Revision. As the Uniform Case Reporting

(UCR) project is expanded to the Family division, instructions and business rules

will be defined for more fine-grained case event reporting for Juvenile Dependency

cases.

2.a.ii Family should be defined and needs to

allow for same-sex couples. The definition of a “family” as it relates to Juvenile Dependency is determined by

the definition that exists in Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, which includes all parents

and legal custodians, regardless of sex. The definition of a “family”, while central

to the adjudication of dependency and related cases, is not strictly a workload

tracking issue. The SRS is concerned with the reporting of critical case activity for

the estimation of workload. Therefore, this determination is not in the SRS

Manual’s scope.

Page 10 of 49




2.a.iii Additional reporting rules may need to be

added to the manual for additional

guidance in state-level reporting.

Once the latest revision to the SRS Manual is issued, several enhancements to the

reporting instructions will be in place, including incorporation of the case-event

definitions from AOSC14-20. Continual improvement to case event tracking

instructions and business rules will be a part of adding the Family division to the

Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) project.

2.b The current SRS categories may benefit

from modification to enable a more

accurate assessment of workload within

dependency.

Because of the survey methodology used to determine the Juvenile Dependency

case weight as part of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model, it is difficult to

identify the time spent on specific events within the case. Further, since the case

weight is computed on filing events only, it does not fully capture the issue of

complexity within a case, even though the model assumes the time spent on a case

is a reasonable proxy for the complexity of a case and that the case weight is a

reasonable estimate of the average time spent.

A more effective workload measurement can be obtained by considering the

workload associated with significant events in the life of a case and then developing

a model of the occurrence of those events. An event-driven reporting methodology

in the Juvenile Dependency division would allow judges and program managers to

focus on the specific events in a dependency case where a significant change in the

activity of a case may occur rather than on a specific legal event such as disposition

or closure.

2.c Amending the Summary Reporting

System rules to track cases per child rather

than per family may be a more accurate

assessment of workload within

dependency.

The UCR project will be able to collect case activity information by child rather

than by family. However, the OSCA will be able to calculate the workload statistics

by child and also by family, providing continuity with the SRS for the juvenile

dependency division.

# 3 Juvenile dependency workload tracking

should be evaluated more frequently or in

more detail since workload in this division

is more dynamic and rapidly changing.

A percent change comparison was made between the case weights obtained during

the judicial workload studies conducted in 1999, 2007, and 2015. The results of the

percent change comparison does not provide any evidence that the juvenile

dependency case weight changes more significantly than other case types within the

five-year evaluation window recommended by the National Center for State Courts.

Page 11 of 49



Recommendations

The recommendations below approach the workload problem in juvenile dependency from a

number of directions, including changes to existing workload estimates and to the future

development of workload tracking.

Recommendation One:

Establish the child as the unit of case activity reporting.

Children and their needs are the primary consideration of dependency adjudication. Workshop

participants agreed unanimously that the single most significant factor impacting workload was

the number of children involved in a case and the distribution of issues associated with each

individual child. This recommendation will enable judges and case managers to track case

activity for each child under a distinct case number specific to that child. The uniform case

number provides enough flexibility that each individual child can be tracked with a distinct case

number while still maintaining the important case associations for the family as a whole.

Recommendation Two:

Adopt an event-driven approach to reporting case activity within the juvenile dependency

case type.

An event-driven reporting methodology allows judges and program managers to focus on the

significant events in a dependency case at points where a significant change in the activity of a

case may occur, rather than on a specific legal event such as disposition or closure. While all

cases result in some form of disposition or closure, different events may occur in a case that

change the anticipated path to resolution. These different paths may represent significant

changes in workload. This variation may mean that a statewide average, as defined by case

weights, is not sensitive enough to accurately reflect workload within specific jurisdictions. An

event-driven model will provide the best opportunities for identifying workload activity.

Recommendation Three:

Complete the workload simulations for Issues 1.c.i-1.c.iii.

The workshop identified a number of activity tracking issues that could not be fully explored in

this term. Either the information needed did not exist or obtaining the data would be difficult or

labor intensive. To study these issues in more depth and mindful of the costs involved, the

CSWC developed a statistical simulation model of dependency cases (see Appendix B for an

example). The models will allow the court system to investigate the most critical paths in

dependency cases and explore how changes to tracking and reporting might impact workload

both at the local and at the state level.

Page 12 of 49



Development of these models across a number of workshop issues provided insight into the

potential role that variation plays in dependency workload calculation. This insight supports the

workshop’s assertion of the need to consider workload in the context of the trajectory of cases

rather than as a broad measure from start to finish and is incorporated in Recommendation Two

above.

Owing to the complexity of the models, the need to develop and validate the design and the

availability of analytical resources, the analysis of these simulations was not be completed within

this committee term. It is recommended that the Office of State Courts Administrator complete

the simulation studies and report the results back to the CSWC.

Application to Problem Solving Courts

The adjudication of cases within problem solving courts share many characteristics with

dependency cases. Within a broad judicial framework, these cases are focused on the needs of

the individual. A large number of highly variable factors can shape the trajectory of a case.

Cases involve variable number of a limited set of judicial events (motions, conferences, hearings

etc.) with significant periods of inactivity between events. Trajectories of these cases are highly

dependent to local policies and practices.

Consequently, these cases can follow radically different trajectories to resolution. This variation

may mean that a statewide average, as defined by case weights, may not be responsive enough to

accurately reflect workload within specific jurisdictions. Also, while there are similarities in

procedure between different problem solving courts, it is not known if the workload between

these courts can be considered similar. It is possible that case weights would have to be

developed for each type of problem solving court.

An event-driven model will provide the best opportunities for identifying significant workload

within each type of problem solving court and for identifying commonalities and activity overlap

between courts.

The Judicial Resource Study has recommended that the court system begin tracking the number

of individuals entering problem solving courts and to develop a case weight for problem solving

courts. The CSWC agrees that this is an important first step in capturing workload in these

areas. However, given the complexity of tracking case activity and associated workload within

dependency, it is unlikely that number of individuals and a statewide average time to process will

provide a sufficiently nuanced estimate of workload.

It is recommended that the initial Judicial Workload Study recommendation 4 be expanded to

include a plan to identify and track critical case activity events within each type of problem

solving courts. This information will enable the development of appropriate life cycle models to

assist judges and managers implement procedures to encourage efficient adjudication of these

Page 13 of 49



cases. Once the transition events are identified, it will be possible to identify the workload

associated with these events. The number and type of events coupled with the time required for

these events and the time between these events will enable the court system to more accurately

model the activity trajectories of each problem solving court. With this information, it would be

possible to develop more accurate workload estimates that will enable court managers to ensure

adequate resources are available.

Page 14 of 49



Appendix A


Materials

Page 15 of 49

JUVENILE DEPENDENCY WORKLOAD

TRACKING WORKSHOP

TALLAHASSEE, FL

SEPTEMBER 16, 2016

TCP& A

Page 16 of 49

Upon request by a qualified individual with a disability, this document will be made available in alternative formats. To order this document in an alternative format, please contact:

Shelley L. Kaus 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1900 (ph) 850.617.1854 [email protected]

Page 17 of 49

AGENDA

9:30am Workshop Convenes

Item I. Opening Remarks and Introductions

The Honorable Ellen S. Masters, Chair

Item II. Housekeeping

A. Format of Workshop

B. Travel Reimbursement Instructions

Item III. Workshop Overview

A. Workshop Charge

B. Objectives

C. Discussion

D. Next Steps

Item IV. Estimation Exercise

Item V. Breakout Session

A. Dependency Case Flow Analysis

B. Significant Event/Action Identification

12:00pm – 1:00pm Working Lunch

Item VI. Variance Exercise

Item VII. Breakout Session

A. Analysis of Significant Events/Actions for Measurement

Item VIII. Summary of Recommendations

4:00pm Workshop Adjourns

Page 18 of 49

Table of Contents

Workshop Overview…………………………………….……………………….....................…5

Attachment 01: Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency; The Weighted Caseload

Model…………………………………………………………………………………………...…7

Attachment 02: Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency; The FY 2014-2016 Judicial

Workload Assessment…………………………………………………...………………….…...10

Attachment 03: Summary Reporting System (SRS) Juvenile Dependency Data Collection

Instrument…………………………………………………………………………………..……14

Attachment 04: Excerpt from Summary Reporting System (SRS) Manual

Juvenile Dependency Reporting Instructions………………………………………………..…..16

Attachment 05: AOSC 14-20 In Re: Trial Court Case-Event Definitional Framework…..…...22

Page 19 of 49

Workshop Overview

Workshop Charge:






(AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability)

Sponsoring Committee:

Court Statistics and Workload Committee (CSWC)

Objectives of Workshop:

Identify events, actions and factors within a juvenile dependency case that may



Identify appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this


Workshop Discussion:

The Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop will engage in a set of exercises and

focused discussions intended on identifying elements (events, actions and factors) within a

dependency case that represent areas of significant workload or present issues of highly variable

complexity. These discussions will considers these elements in the context of the Judicial

Weighted Workload Model and will attempt to identify critical decision and measurement points

that will allow the court system to monitor and manage these elements and resources to ensure

adequate availability and efficient adjudication of dependency cases.

Workload within the court system in Florida is determined by the occurrence of certain events

within a case and the time it takes to complete those events. This may represent a different

perspective to many workshop participants since most dependency activity is centered on the

children or parents in a case. Workload determination, on the other hand, is concerned with

events and actions. These events and actions are rolled up into a count of petitions reported via

the Summary Reporting System.

The number of petitions is an important aspect of workload. The time required to adjudicate

those petitions is another. Every five years, the court system conducts an in-depth analysis of the

work expended in handling dependency cases. The most recent review, called the Florida

Judicial Workload Assessment, was conducted February 2015 through May 2016. The results of

Page 20 of 49

this study are currently under review by the Supreme Court. The case weights developed by this

study coupled with the number of case petitions provide a comprehensive estimate of the

dependency workload. This is known as the Judicial Weighted Workload Model and is used to

provide the Legislature with the Annual Certification of Judicial Need each year. Within this

weighted workload model, there are opportunities to fine tune the workload calculations through

the use of adjustment modifiers. The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee that oversaw the

Workload Assessment cited juvenile dependency as one area that may benefit from such tuning.

Workload calculations are further structured by AOSC14-20 In Re: Case Event Definitional

Framework, which defines critical transition points in the activity of a case. We will use this

framework extensively during the workshop. Please refer to AOSC14-20 in your materials for

these definitions. Also, please note that the “disposition event” listed in the framework should,

by definition, be taken to mean a “closure event”. It is understood that the term disposition has a

different meaning in the juvenile dependency structure. For purposes of this workshop, we will

use the term “closure” to indicate the point in which the presiding judicial officer has provided

resolution on issues related to the initial commencement (filing) event.

Next Steps:

The CSWC and the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) will evaluate the elements

(events, actions and factors) identified by this Workshop to determine how these elements may

contribute to judicial workload calculations. Additionally, CSWC will consider how to track

these elements through the Trial Court Data Model and make recommendations to the TCP&A.

TCP&A will evaluate these recommendations from a resource and performance monitoring

standpoint and make recommendations to the Supreme Court as necessary.

Workshop Participants:

The Honorable Ellen S. Masters, Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit (Chair)

The Honorable Alan Fine, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Marci Goodman, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Mary Hatcher, Circuit Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable James Martz, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Lee E. Haworth, Senior Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit

Michele Emmerman, Unified Family Court Case Manager, Sixth Judicial Circuit

Wendy Melgar, Juvenile Division Manager, Orange County Clerk of Court

Angie Smith, Director of Public Information, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

Kim Stephens, Family Court Manager, Second Judicial Circuit

Dawn Wyant, Information Systems Consultant II, Tenth Judicial Circuit

Avron Bernstein, Senior Attorney, OSCA, Office of Court Improvement

Page 21 of 49

Attachment 01

Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency

The Weighted Caseload Model

Page 22 of 49


The Weighted Caseload Model

Since 1999, the state of Florida has relied on a weighted caseload model to determine the need

for judges in each circuit and county trial court during the annual judicial certification process.

This model distills much of the complexity inherent in case activity down to those essential

characteristics that impact judicial workload.

The weighted caseload method calculates judicial need based on each court’s total workload.

The weighted caseload model represents the analytical determinate used during the annual

judicial certification process. The model consists of five elements:

1. Unambiguous case types that categorize the court activities into distinct, countable

groups;

2. Case filings or the number of new cases of each type opened each year. Case filings

are submitted to the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) by clerks of

court and are forecasted out to the certification year;

3. Case weights, which represent the average amount of judge time required to handle

cases of each type over the life of the case. Case weights capture the complexity of a

specific case type and the contributions of a variety of court procedures, practices,

and supplemental resources;

4. Work year value, or the amount of time each judge has available for case-related

work in one year. Currently this time is set, over all circuits, to 6.0 hours out of an

8.5-hour day (1 hour for lunch and 1.5 hours for non-case related work) and 215

working days per year; and

5. Adjustment modifiers, which capture jurisdiction-specific characteristics, not

represented in the other model components. Current adjustment modifiers include the

jury trial modifier in circuit and county court, chief judge adjustment in circuit court,

and election canvassing board adjustment in county court.

Element 1: Case Types

The weighted caseload model computes resource need by first calculating the expected workload

facing a circuit for a given case type. For purposes of this workshop, we are only concerned with

one of the twenty-eight case types defined for circuit court: Juvenile Dependency.

Element 2: Case Filings

The expected workload for a specific case type is calculated as the product of the anticipated

filings (element 2) and the case weight for that case type (element 3).

Page 23 of 49

Case filings are submitted to the OSCA by clerks of court on a monthly basis and are forecasted

out to the certification year to arrive at the anticipated filings for the case type. The OSCA

collects case filings as part of its Summary Reporting System (SRS).

The SRS data collection form for the Juvenile Dependency division is included in Attachment

03, and the associated instructions in Attachment 04. For purposes of workload calculation,

three commencement events, as defined by Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.201, are used

to determine the case filings for a given time period:

A.1. Dependency Petitions Filed

A.3. Termination of Parental Rights Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter 39

A.4. Adoption Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter 39

Element 3: The Case Weight

The third element of the weighted caseload model is referred to as the “case weight”, and each

distinct case type has its own weight. This element represents the average amount of judge time

required to handle cases of each type over the life of the case. Case weights capture the

complexity of a specific case type and the contributions of a variety of court procedures,

practices, and supplemental resources.

Over time, changes in statutory and case law, court rules, technology, and legal practice affect

the amount of judicial work associated with resolving various types of cases. This part of the

model, by design, needs periodic review and update to remain valid.

Element 4: Judicial Work Year

Work year value, or the amount of time each judge has available for case-related work in one

year. Currently this time is set, over all circuits, to 6.0 hours out of an 8.5-hour day (1 hour for

lunch and 1.5 hours for non-case related work) and 215 working days per year. Within the

workload model, this value helps convert the workload calculation expressed in minutes per year

to the number of judges needed per year.

Element 5: Adjustment Modifiers

Adjustment modifiers capture jurisdiction-specific characteristics not represented in the other

model components. The weighted workload model assumes that there may be considerable

variation in the practices or circumstances between circuits. Modifiers provide the opportunity

to capture that variation as it relates to workload. This workshop will primarily be concerned

with the identification of case activity and events that can be used to build additional adjustment

modifiers specific to the juvenile dependency case type.

Page 24 of 49

Attachment 02


FY 2014-2016 Judicial Workload Assessment

Page 25 of 49


FY 2014-2016 Judicial Workload Assessment

The OSCA contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in 2014 to conduct a

judicial workload assessment to update the weighted caseload models for circuit and county

court judges. The model, by design, needs periodic review and update to remain valid. Over

time, changes in statutory and case law, court rules, technology, and legal practice affect the

amount of judicial work associated with resolving various types of cases.

Time Study

The empirical foundation of the workload assessment is the judicial time study. From September

28 through October 25, 2015, a “time study” was conducted of all circuit and county judges,

senior judges, magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers and civil traffic infraction

hearing officers throughout the state. Each individual was asked to track their time throughout

the day and upload the information onto the NCSC website each evening.

The time study gathered data on the case-related and non-case-related work of circuit and county

court judicial officers. Judicial time spent on all phases of the life of a case—from filing through

post-judgment/post-disposition activity—was collected. The goal was to capture all of the time

being spent on and off the bench by judicial officers and quasi-judicial officers such as senior

judges, magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers and civil traffic infraction

hearing officers in handling individual cases before the court, as well as all non-case related

judicial work (e.g., work-related travel or administration). This data provided an empirical

benchmark of how much time judicial officers are currently spending on different types of cases,

on different activities or events within those cases, and on non-case-related work.

Level of Detail within the Time Study

During the time study, judges were asked to track all of their work-related time. Judicial work

was divided into case-related and non-case-related activities.

For each case-related activity, the judge will record the elapsed time, the case type category (i.e.

Juvenile Dependency), and the case-related event (e.g., Pretrial, Non-trial/Uncontested

Disposition, Bench Trial/Contested Disposition, Jury Trial, Post-Judgment/Post-Disposition). A

description of each of the four relevant events for Juvenile Dependency case-related activity

(Jury Trial excluded) follows.

Pre-Trial

Includes activities usually identified with the initiation of a filings in a juvenile

dependency case, preparation of findings and orders related to pre-trial matters,

Page 26 of 49

arraignment, pre-trial hearings (a proceeding in which arguments, witnesses, or evidence

are heard but no final disposition of the case is made), non-dispositive motions (a request

to the court asking for a specified finding, decision, or order), and case conferences (any

pre-trial meeting or discussion on issues relating to a case).

Non-Trial/Uncontested Disposition

Includes all on-bench and off-bench activity related to any non-trial proceeding that

disposes of the case, all off-bench research and preparation related to a non-trial

disposition, preparation of findings and orders related to a non-trial disposition, and

dismissal or adjudication.

Bench/Contested Trial

Includes all on-bench and off-bench activity related to a trial in which the judge is the

finder of fact, all off-bench research and preparation related to a bench trial, preparation

of findings and orders related to bench trials, and dismissal or adjudication.

Post-Judgment/Post-Disposition

Includes all on-bench and off-bench activity that occurs after disposition of a case.

Includes case planning conference and approval, permanency hearings, and dependency

and adoption judicial review hearings.

The Time Study did not track individual cases, the number of hearings, or any other quantity of

events occurring on a case. Rather, the study recorded the duration of time spent on activities in

these pre-defined categories. Participants were instructed that multiple activities within the same

case type category and event could be combined into a single entry on their time sheet. For

example, a judge who conducts three misdemeanor cases with guilty pleas and sentencing for 60

minutes was permitted to enter this activity as a single 60-minute block of time, under the case

type category of Misdemeanor and the case-related event of non-trial dispositions.

Outcome of Time Study

The four-week time study yielded tremendous success. Statewide, we achieved extremely high

participation rates: approximately 1,250 court officers or 97% participated in the time study. The

NCSC performed the statistical analysis of the data received from the time study. This data

served as the foundation for updated case weights to more accurately reflect the workload of

today’s judiciary.

Calculating Preliminary Case Weights

Data from the time study was used to calculate new case weights for each case type.

Page 27 of 49

Case weights, when viewed as a composite series of events, can be computed as the average of

event times weighted by the proportions of occurrence of those events.

Therefore, for a given case type i we have case weight, cwi

eventsallj

jji epweightcasecw_

_

where pj represents the proportion of occurrence for each event and ej is the average time for that

event.

Final Case Weights

Additional steps of the methodology of the FY 2014-2016 Judicial Workload Assessment were

aimed at arriving at final case weights for use in the weighted workload model.

A Sufficiency of Time survey was administered to all judges. This survey was designed to illicit

feedback from the judges as to the amount of available time they have to process different types

of cases, whether the time is sufficient given their dockets, and to identify any statutory or rule

requirements that are imposing additional requirements on judge that may be impacting their

overall workload. The survey was a key methodological step as allowed for the documentation

of additional workload requirements imposed on the judiciary since the last update to the case

weights.

Site visits to eight judicial circuits were conducted by the NCSC team and the OSCA. The

circuits are representative of small, medium, large and extra-large circuits and included the First,

Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Circuits. Chief judges, trial

court administrators, administrative judges, and judges from every major court division were

interviewed.

A series of Subject Matter Expert panels comprised of experienced trial court judges met to

review and tweak the preliminary case weights developed via the time study. The divisional

groupings included circuit criminal, circuit civil, family/juvenile, probate, county criminal and

county civil. After review and approval, the preliminary case weights were then forwarded to

the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) for final approval.

Lastly, the JNAC met to review and adjust the final proposed case weights. The 41 member

judge committee represented each circuit in Florida and provided executive policy direction on

the Judicial Workload Assessment to the NCSC and the OSCA.

Page 28 of 49

Attachment 03

Summary Reporting System (SRS)

Juvenile Dependency Data Collection Instrument

Page 29 of 49

Section II. Family Court

Part 3. Dependency

A. Petitions Filed

1. Dependency Petitions Filed

2. Shelter Petitions Filed

3. Termination of Parental Rights Petitions Filed Arising out of

Chapter 39

4. Adoption Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter 39

5. CINS/FINS Petitions Filed

B. Petitions Disposed

1. Dependency Petitions Disposed

2. Shelter Petitions Disposed

3. Termination of Parental Rights Petitions Disposed Arising out of

Chapter 39

4. Adoption Petitions Disposed Arising out of Chapter 39

5. CINS/FINS Petitions Disposed

C. Other Actions

1. Reopened Cases

2. Number of Judicial Review Hearings

3. Number of Shelter Hearings

Page 30 of 49

Attachment 04

Excerpt from Summary Reporting System (SRS) Manual

Juvenile Dependency Reporting Instructions

Page 31 of 49

Number of Juvenile Petition Filing Events Please refer to section “A” of the SRS form which reports information associated with the

number of juvenile petition filing events during the specified reporting period. For consistency

in reporting, a filing event is said to occur as of the date the filing document is received and

date/time stamped or electronic date/time stamped with the clerk of court.

Report one filing event when multiple children are named on one petition. Report the

number of petitions filed, not the number of children.

Report a filing event when a petition for dependency is transferred from another court or

jurisdiction to the reporting court for disposition purposes.

Report dependency petitions filed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the

reporting period.

Report petitions to remove the disabilities of non-age of minors filed pursuant to chapter

743, Florida Statutes.

Note: This statute captures Emancipation under chapter 743, Florida Statutes, for

minors in Residential, Utility or Bank Account matters. All other Emancipation

matters should be filed in regular Family Court under the “Other Family Court” case

type.

Report shelter petitions filed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting

period.

Report petitions for Termination of Parental Rights Arising Out of Chapter 39 filed

pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period.

Report petitions for Adoption Arising Out of Chapter 39 filed pursuant to chapter 39,

Florida Statutes, during the reporting period.

Report petitions for Children in Need of Services and Families in Need of Services

(CINS/FINS) as provided under chapter 984, Florida Statutes.

The following items identify common reporting errors. Please check these items to ensure that

the SRS report does not include these reporting errors.

DO NOT report the number of children listed on a dependency petition. Report only the

number of dependency petitions filed during the specified reporting period.

DO NOT include petitions filed on children with cases previously reported as disposed

that are resubmitted to the court (See Number of Reopen Events, page 3-19).

Page 32 of 49

DO NOT report petitions for dependency transferred from another court or jurisdiction to

the reporting court for supervision purposes (See Number of Reopen Events, page 3-19).

Number of Juvenile Petition Disposition Events Please refer to section “B” of the SRS form which reports information associated with the

number of juvenile petition disposition events during the specified reporting period. Petitions are

to be reported as disposed after an order of disposition is filed with the clerk. For consistency in

reporting, a disposition event is said to occur as of the date the signed order, judgment or other

recordable action is received and date/time stamped or electronic date/time stamped with the

clerk of court.

Report only one disposition event when multiple children are named on one petition.

Report the disposition event which occurs first, when there are multiple disposition

events.

Report a disposition event when a dependency case is consolidated into another case with

other siblings.

Report a disposition event when a petition is dismissed by the court or the Department of

Children and Families.

Report dependency petitions disposed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the

reporting period.

Report shelter petitions disposed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the

reporting period.

Report petitions for Termination of Parental Rights Arising Out of Chapter 39 disposed

pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period.

Report petitions for Adoption Arising Out of Chapter 39 disposed pursuant to chapter 39,

Florida Statutes, during the reporting period.

Report petitions for Children in Need of Services and Families in Need of Services

(CINS/FINS) disposed as provided under chapter 984, Florida Statutes.

Number of Reopen Events Please refer to section “C1” of the SRS form which reports information associated with the

number of reopen events during the specified reporting period. For consistency in reporting, a

reopen event occurs when a motion, pleading or other recordable action is received and date/time

stamped or electronic date/time stamped with the clerk of court on a case that requires additional

court activity after a disposition event has closed the case.

Page 33 of 49

Report motions and petitions filed subsequent to the disposition of a case. If several

motions or petitions are filed on the same day for the same case, report only one reopen

event. However, if several motions or petitions are filed during the reporting period on

different days for the same case, each motion or petition is reported as a reopen event.

Examples of reopen events include, but are not limited to the following motions or

petitions for:

Extraordinary relief;

Rehearings;

Medical or psychiatric treatment;

Change of custody;

Order to show cause;

Attorney's fees; and

Non-fulfillment of performance agreement.

Report cases transferred for supervision purposes if they are reactivated or resubmitted to

the court for judicial action.

The following item is a common reporting error. Please check this item to ensure that the SRS

report does not include this reporting error.

DO NOT report petitions for termination of parental rights as reopen events. Petitions

for termination of parental rights should be reported in section “A3” of the SRS reporting

form as a juvenile petition filing event for the Dependency division.

Number of Judicial Review Hearings Please refer to section “C2” of the SRS form which reports information associated with the

number of judicial review hearings/permanency review hearings held during the specified

reporting period.

Report the number of hearings before a judge or general magistrate whose purpose is to

determine the status of children remaining in foster care or any status of a child pursuant

to section 39.701, Florida Statutes.

Number of Shelter Hearings

Please refer to section “C3” of the SRS form which reports information associated with the

number of shelter hearings held during the specified reporting period.

Report the number of hearings held to determine whether a child is to be sheltered,

continued to be sheltered or reunited while proceedings are pending in the case pursuant

to section 39.402, Florida Statutes.

Page 34 of 49

Number of Reclosure Events

Report in the appropriate case type, the number of cases in reopen status that are closed for court

action on the date the motion, pleading or other filing that reopened the case has been resolved

by the judicial decision, order or other recordable action.

Note: The reclosure event definition is being provided for informational purposes

only. At this time reclosure events are not to be reported for SRS purposes.

Case Type Determinations The following list includes the types of proceedings that are included for each SRS case type. To

select the correct SRS case type you should follow these procedures:

Review each petition or complaint and determine the proper case type by identifying the

primary issue involved. If a cover sheet is required or mandated, refer to the completed

cover sheet to help determine the proper case type to report for the filing event

Select the appropriate SRS case type for the matters indicated within the petition or

complaint.

Report the petition or complaint under the correct SRS case type on the Family Court

(Juvenile) SRS form.

There are a number of cases that come into the clerk’s office that do not require judicial

workload and therefore should not be counted for SRS purposes. Examples of these types

of cases include, but are not limited to the following:

Truancy petitions filed pursuant to section 984.151, Florida Statutes; and

Department of Children and Families Dependency Petitions for Injunction

pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes.

Dependency

All matters relating to children who have been abandoned, abused, neglected by parents

or other custodian, children who need to be sheltered, children surrendered for the

purpose of adoption, or children whose parents desire to terminate parental rights

pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes; or children in need of services pursuant to

Chapter 984, Florida Statutes.

Shelter

All matters relating to shelter petitions pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes.

Termination of Parental Rights Arising Out of Chapter 39

All matters relating to termination of parental rights pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida

Statutes.

Page 35 of 49

Adoption Arising Out of Chapter 39 All matters relating to adoption pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes.

CINS/FINS All matters relating to children in need of services (and families in need of services)

pursuant to Chapter 984, Florida Statutes.

Page 36 of 49

Attachment 05

AOSC 14-20 In Re: Trial Court Case-Event Definitional

Framework

Page 37 of 49

Supreme Court of Florida

No. AOSC14-20

IN RE: TRIAL COURT CASE-EVENT DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

The judicial branch is committed to improving the administration of justice

and recognizes the need to establish a consistent and unambiguous environment for

the tracking and recording of trial court case activity as an integral element of this

effort. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the attached Case-Event Definitional

Framework (hereinafter “Framework”), which is incorporated herein by reference

and shall be effective upon the signing of this order.

Adoption of the Framework was recommended by the Commission on Trial

Court Performance and Accountability and is consistent with In re: Commission

on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC12-

25 (July 2, 2012), and the report entitled Trial Court Integrated Management

Solution (TIMS): Identifying Key Case and Workload Data and Establishing

Uniform Definitions for Improving Automation of Florida’s Trial Courts.

Additionally, the Framework has been deployed in the Fiscal Year 2013-2014

Page 38 of 49

- 2 -

Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog Reduction Initiative and has demonstrated its utility

in trial court activity tracking.

The Office of the State Courts Administrator is hereby charged with

maintaining and updating the Framework in accordance with rule 2.245(a), Florida

Rules of Judicial Administration. The Office of the State Courts Administrator is

also directed to take appropriate action to implement this Framework as an

intrinsic element of new trial court case activity data management projects,

including the Integrated Trial Court Adjudication System, and to retrofit, as

necessary and practical, existing trial court data collection systems such as the

Summary Reporting System and the Criminal Transaction System in a reasonable

time frame commensurate with available resources and the expected benefits of

such actions.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 26, 2014.

____________________________________

Ricky Polston, Chief Justice

ATTEST:

______________________________

John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court

Page 39 of 49

Trial Court Case Event Definitional Framework

This framework provides a clear and unambiguous description of certain key events in

adjudication of a case and provides a foundational structure for recording and tracking case

activity within the trial courts. The framework is not all inclusive of every important event in the

life of a case and is intended to be expanded as the informational needs of the court system

evolve.

Filing event: A filing event occurs when an action is brought before the court as the

result of a petition, pleading, complaint or any other recordable1 action sufficient to begin

a case. This definition would include an arrest or summons or other action charging an

individual with a crime, as well as the filing of any other document or action recorded

with the court authorized to initiate a case. The initiation of a case by whatever means is

referred to as a filing event.

Open case: A case that has one or more issues outstanding that require active resolution

by the court.

Disposition event: A disposition event has occurred when a case is closed for court

activity as a result of judicial decision, order or other recordable action that provides

resolution, by the court, on the issues raised by and subsequent to the filing event.

Closed case: A case that has had all issues raised by and subsequent to the filing event

resolved and no further action of the court is required.

Reopen event: A reopen event occurs when a motion, pleading or other recordable

action occurs on a case that requires additional court activity after a disposition event has

closed the case for court activity. Note that a reopen event involves at least one action

and that additional post-judgment actions may occur before the case is reclosed.

Reopened case: A case that has one or more post-judgment actions outstanding that

require active resolution by the court.

Reclosure event: A reclosure event occurs when the last (or only) post-judgment action

has been resolved by judicial decision, order or other recordable action, thereby

completing court proceedings on the issues raised by and since the reopen event occurred.

Reclosed case: A reopened case that has had all post-judgment actions resolved and no

further action of the court is required.

1 Recordable, in this guideline, means those happenings relating to court activity that would appear on a court docket

or otherwise require the making of an historical record by the clerk of courts in their official capacity.

Page 40 of 49

With the addition of these definitions, there are six statuses in which a case can be placed as the

case moves from initiation to resolution:

Active - A case is considered in an active status when the court is engaged in activity

directly related to the resolution of the specific matters and issues associated with the

case. This status applies to open cases in the period between a filing and disposition

event.

Inactive - A case is considered in an inactive status when court activity on that case is

suspended pending resolution of an issue external to the court or that does not directly

involve the court in resolving that issue; for example, awaiting the results of an appeal or

the disposition of a related case. A case placed in an inactive status is not closed and

does not need to be reopened when the case returns to active status, regardless of the

length of time involved. This status applies of open cases in the period between a filing

and disposition event.

Closed - A case is considered to be closed, or disposed, (that is, in a closed status) for

court activity on the date of the judicial decision, order or other recordable action that

provides resolution to the last (or all) of the matters brought before the court as a

consequence of the filing event that initiated the case. The court, then, has no further

action to take on the case. This status identifies a previously open case that has been

resolved by the courts and applies to the period between the disposition event and the

first reopen event.

Reopened Active - A case will be considered to be in a reopened status (either active or

inactive), from the date that the first post-judgment motion/pleading is filed or other

action occurs that reopens a case for court activity (i.e. the reopen event) until the date of

the last judicial decision/order resolving all overlapping court proceedings (i.e. the reopen

closure event). Each period in which a case is reported as in a reopened status may

involve one or more overlapping post-judgment actions. A case is considered to be in a

reopened active status when one or more post-judgment actions are pending and the court

is actively engaged in their resolution. This status identifies a reopened case and applies

to the period between the initiating reopen event and the final reclosure event as

described.

Reopened Inactive - A case is considered to be in a reopened inactive status if the

activity on all outstanding post-judgment actions is held in abeyance pending resolution

of some issue external to the court or that does not directly involve the court in resolving

that issue. In this circumstance, the court is not actively working to resolve the matter(s).

This status identifies a reopened case and applies to the period between the initiating

reopen event and the final reclosure event as described.

Page 41 of 49

Reclosed - A case that has had one or more post-judgment actions will be considered

reclosed, or re-disposed, (that is, in a reclosed status) for court activity on the date of the

judicial decision, order or other recordable action that provides resolution to the last (or

all) of the matters brought before the court since the reopen event occurred. The court,

then, has no further action to take on the case. This status identifies a previously

reopened case with additional matters that has been resolved by the courts and applies to

the period between the reclosure event and the next reopen event.

Additional Guidelines

For consistency in reporting, an event or status change is said to occur as of the date the order is

signed, the clerk document date/time stamp or the electronic date/time stamp associated with the

action as appropriate.

Recordable, in this guideline, means those happenings relating to court activity that would

appear on a court docket or otherwise require the making of an historical record by the clerk of

courts in their official capacity.

The definition of the closure events (disposition and reopen) denote that the court has no further

action to take on a case. This definition of closure does not indicate the clerk of courts has

completed all of their required activity with regards to the case, only that the court has rendered

judgment on the matters of the case and will take no further action on the case (excluding

planned review or scheduled future action).

Note also that a case status cannot be reported as a closure (closed or reclosed) while the case

remains in an inactive status. The act of closing a case for whatever reason is indicative of

significant activity on the case. Therefore, an inactive case that is being closed for any reason

including administratively, should be transitioned to the appropriate active status (active or

reopened active) first, then followed by the corresponding closure status.

Upon initiation, an open case is considered to be in an active status. If, at some point in the

adjudication process, the case can no longer be actively advanced, the case may be moved to

inactive status. Once work can begin again on the case, it is returned to active status. This cycle

may be repeated any number of times throughout the life of the case until the final disposition

event where the case is moved to closed status. At this point, the case is no longer considered

open.

From the date of disposition, subsequent filings or other recordable actions (post-judgment) will

indicate that the case has been reopened. A case reopen event represents a block of time in

which one or more overlapping post-judgment actions, such as motions, petitions, or reviews, are

being actively addressed by the court. When the last post-judgment action in that block is

resolved, the case reopen event is closed and the case is moved to reclosed status.

Page 42 of 49

When considered as a block of one or more post-judgment actions, a reopen event moves a

previously closed case into a reopened active status. This starts a case reopen block for tracking

purposes. A subsequent, overlapping post-judgment action for a case already in reopened active

status would not change the case’s status. It simply becomes another matter to be resolved by

the court for this case reopen block. It is possible that activity on the case may stop due to

circumstances out of the court’s control. In this instance, the case remains reopened but the

status would change to reopened inactive. Subsequent activity on the matters by the court would

change the status back to reopened active, where it would remain until returned to reopen

inactive status or reclosed.

Each post-judgment action (from reopen event to reclosure event) should be tracked individually.

This ensures the necessary granularity within the framework. Different data collection systems

may require these actions to be reported in different ways depending on the purpose of that data

collection. For example, reporting for case age statistics may require that each post-judgment

action be reported as they occur. Reporting for judicial workload (e.g., Summary Reporting

System), may consider case reopen blocks (from case reopen event to case reclosed event) and

not the individual post-judgment actions that make up the block. This flexibility in the

framework is necessary to reconcile reporting within existing data collection systems and to

ensure consistent reporting for the future.

Example

A motion to reopen a case previously disposed is filed on June 15. The case is placed in a

reopened active status and a case reopen event block begins. On June 20, a second motion for

modification is filed. This post-judgment action while tracked separately, is part of the existing

case reopen event block. On June 23, the first motion is disposed. The case remains in a

reopened active status because the second motion has not been resolved. On July 3, the second

motion is resolved and the case is placed in a reclosed status. Although there are two post-

judgment actions, there is only one case reopen block. If third motion is filed subsequent to July

3, say on July 15, the case would then be returned to reopened active status, pending resolution

of that reopen event and a second case reopen block would begin.

Page 43 of 49



Appendix B

Event-Driven Workload

Simulation Methodology

Page 44 of 49



Statement of Problem:

Issue I.c.ii: Cases with one child generate a different workload than cases involving multiple

children. Therefore each type of case should have a separate case weight for workload

calculations.

Abstract:

The Judicial Weighted Workload Model (JWWM) includes the number of children involved in a

dependency case as an implicit factor in establishing a case weight. This model assumes that the

proportion of cases involving one child or multiple children is reflected within the statewide

assessment. Themes one and three of the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop

bring up issues with that assumption. While the workshop did not question whether the case

weight in the JWWM leads to an accurate assessment of workload on the state level, participants

did suggest that the case weight did not give an accurate assessment of workload at the local

level.

The CSWC and OSCA’s Statistics, Research, and Evaluation subunit were tasked with

investigating the claim “Cases involving a single child requires a different workload than cases

involving multiple children”. The major hurdle for conducting a quick analysis was the lack of

knowledge pertaining to time expended on single child cases and multiple children cases. Thus a

critical path based simulation was proposed to create a process where numbers could be obtained

and used to influence the workload model. The simulation was designed to take into account

critical pathways relevant to this claim and use random variables to account for missing

information. A potential benefit of performing these simulations would be identifying critical

path strategies helpful for analyzing results and providing possible insight into how best to deal

with data at critical points. Data from Office of Court Improvement (OCI) allowed staff to

estimate the proportion of single child and multiple-child dependency cases and estimate the

proportion of time expanded on each from the 2015 time study. Methodological blueprints have

been constructed and development is underway.

Proposed Solution to Statement of Problem:

Our goal is to do an extensive simulation study which will provide us workload for the single

child and multiple children combined and the workload for the mixed, current workload. We

will then make inference on the statistical difference using a 2-sample t-test:

𝐻𝑜: 𝑤𝑑 − (𝑤𝑠 + 𝑤𝑚) = 0 (Workloads are similar/same)

𝐻𝑎: 𝑤𝑑 − (𝑤𝑠 + 𝑤𝑚) ≠ 0 (Workloads are different)

where 𝑤𝑑 is the average workload from the current weighted workload model, 𝑤𝑠 is the average

workload from the single child model’s simulations, and 𝑤𝑚 is the average workload from the

multiple children model’s simulation. These parameters will be the product of multiple random

variables that are specific to the data and can produce simulation results.

Page 45 of 49



Since the case weight for juvenile dependency cases under the JWWC is already computed, the

simulation only has to estimate the number of filings in order to compute average workload. An

average workload value can be computed over a random selection of possible filings as follows:

𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑑,1 × 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑑 = 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑑,1



⋮𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑑,𝑛 × 𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑑 = 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑑,𝑛

The average workload is

𝑤𝑑 =1

𝑛 ∑ 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑙𝑜𝑎𝑑𝑑,𝑖

𝑛

𝑖=1

Using a similar calculation, the average workload for cases involving single child cases, ws and

multi-child cases, wm can be computed.

While the case weight for dependency cases in general is known from the 2015-2017 Judicial

Workload Study, the actual case weight associated with single and multi-child cases is not

known. A review of time study data, in July-August 2017, determined that the raw data can be

used to derive the requisite weights. Therefore, in order to compute workload for single and

multi-child cases, the simulation will also have to estimate the case weight in addition to filings

for these categories of cases.

Thus, to complete the simulation of workload as proposed, the simulation study will have to

estimate

1. A distribution for the case weight for single child cases.

2. A distribution for the case weight for multi-child cases.

3. A distribution for the number of filings for dependency cases for a year.

4. A distribution for the number of filings for single child cases for a year.

5. A distribution for the number of filings for multi-child cases for a year.

The parameters above will be estimated in two stages. The first stage will estimate the case

weights for single and multi-child cases. The second stage will estimate the number of filings

for dependency, single-child and multi-child cases.

Methodology for estimating distribution of a parameter:

For clarity, the methodology for parameters 3, 4, and 5 will be discussed first. The methodology

for parameters 1 and 2 involve similar calculations as 3, 4, and 5 but require additional steps to

complete.

Page 46 of 49



The Monte-Carlo method is based on the generation of a large number of filings from a

distribution (repeated sampling), computing the desired statistic (workload) and taking the

average of that workload. By the law of large numbers, the average of these workload values

over all iterations will be approximately the actual average workload.

In this simulation, we will estimate the distribution of the parameters using the Pert-Beta

distribution. This technique is well known for estimating parameters of the type needed and is

used extensively in critical path analysis, Monte-Carlo simulation and project path planning.

The Pert-Beta distribution assumes that the most likely values to occur are clustered around the

most frequently occurring value. Thus, for filings, a reasonable estimate of the number of filings

in a given year is a value around the most frequently occurring value over the previous several

years. For example, if the set of filings over five years was {6,356, 4,723, 4,536, 5,319, 4,124},

it is reasonable to expect the filings for the next year will be somewhere around 4,400. The

Judicial Workload Study included similar reasoning when it used the three year average of

filings as part of the case weight calculation.

Methodology for computing the number of filings for dependency cases for a year

In the Summary Reporting System (SRS), the case type of Juvenile Dependency are captured.

The yearly filings of Juvenile Dependency cases reported to the SRS will work as our input

dataset for the Pert-Beta distribution. We will collect SRS dependency filings for a range of

years close to that of the 2015 time study for consistency purposes. Once we have a decent

sampling of yearly dependency filings, we will compute the following summary statistics: the

minimum, the mode, and the maximum. These summary statistics are integral to the Pert-Beta

distribution for localizing it to a specific problem. Once we have localized the Pert-Beta

distribution to this particular problem, we can estimate the number of filings for dependency

cases for a year.

A flow chart of the process and example follow:

A range of yearly dependency filings {7,400,5,300, 4,100, 4,500,4,500} → 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒 [𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑,𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 , 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑑] = [4100, 4500, 7500].

Once the Pert-Beta distribution is localized to a particular problem, the distribution can create

estimates for yearly filings as many times as our Monte-Carlo simulation needs to achieve the

criteria for the law of large numbers.

Methodology for computing the number of filings for single child cases for a year

This is a two-step process which utilizes the Pert-Beta distribution twice. Our first localization of

the Pert-Beta distribution is to that of the proportion of single child cases. The SRS currently

does not record the number of children involved in dependency cases, however the Office of

Court Improvement (OCI) has records of the number of children involved in dependency cases.

With this in mind, we requested the number of children involved in cases by year for a range of

years close to that of the 2015 time study for consistency purposes. Once we had the data, we

converted the number of cases reflecting a single child involved to the proportion it represents

out of all the data in that year. We localized this Pert-Beta distribution to this particular problem

Page 47 of 49



by computing the minimum, the mode, and the maximum from our sample proportions. Our first

localized Pert-Beta distribution will estimate the proportion of single child cases for a year.

A flow chart of the first Pert-Beta process and example follow:

A range of yearly single child case proportions {0.60,0.62, 0.62, 0.68,0.61} → 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑢𝑡𝑒 [𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑑,𝑚𝑜𝑑𝑒𝑑 , 𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑑] = [0.60, 0.62, 0.68]

The second localized Pert-Beta distribution will follow the methodology for computing the

number of dependency cases for a year (presented above). With both distributions constructed,

we can estimate the number of filings for single child cases for a year. The intuition is to simply

say that if, for example, 63.5% of dependency filings for the year 2015 are single child cases and

the total number of dependency filings for the year 2015 are 10,000 then the number of filings

for single child cases in 2015 would be (0.635)𝑥(10,000) = 6,350. The process that connects

our two steps is to multiply the first localized yearly single child proportion by the yearly

dependency filings. These localized Pert-Beta distributions can create estimates, which are then

combined in the above manner, as many times as our Monte-Carlo simulation needs to achieve

the estimate for the desired parameter.

Methodology for computing the number of filings for multi-child cases for a year

First we need to determine the proportion of cases involving multiple children and then we can

determine the total number of cases. The total number of cases is simply the proportion of single

child cases plus the proportion of multi-child cases. Therefore we can compute the proportion of

multi-child cases as 1 minus the proportion of single child cases using the single child proportion

developed in the previous step.

𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 = 1 − 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑

For example, if 64.2% are single child cases for a year then 100% − 64.2% = 1 − 0.642 =0.358 = 35.8% are multi-child cases for that year. Similarly, we can compute filings for multi-

child cases.

𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 = 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑠𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑

Methodology for computing case weight for single child cases

This methodology is a multi-layered process that can be seen through the three important

parameters involved in its computation of case weight:

𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡1−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 =(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦)𝑥(𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒1−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑)

3 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠1−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑.

Those three important parameters are total time spent on dependency matters, the proportion of

time those matters are related to a single child, and three years of filings for single child cases.

We will obtain our estimate for total time spent on dependency matters via the 2015 time study

data. Upon reviewing the 2015 time study, there were only three event types that made sense:

Page 48 of 49



General legal Research, Juvenile Dependency, and Juvenile Dependency-Duty Work. The

intuition here seems to be that

𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦 = 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝐺𝐿𝑅 + 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝐽𝐷 + 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝐷𝑊.

A portion of all time spent on General Legal Research was allotted to Juvenile Dependency

based on the ratio of time spent on dependency to total time reported in the study.

The second parameter that needs estimating is the proportion of time spent on dependency

matters which are related to a single child. This parameter assumes that the proportion of time

spent on single child cases during the 2015 time study is equal to the distribution we found from

the OCI data, i.e. the proportion of dependency cases that are single child. The localized Pert-

Beta distribution under this assumption was constructed in the first step of the methodology for

computing the number of filings for single child cases for a year. The third parameter that needs

estimating is three years of filings for single child cases, which is three simulated results of the

methodology for computing the number of filings for single child cases for a year. Once three

simulated results have been ran to filings for single child cases, take their average to obtain the

third parameter. After all three parameters have been found, apply the formula for computing the

case weight for single child cases above to finish this multi-layered process.

Methodology for computing the case weight for multi-child cases

This methodology is similar to the previous methodology with a few variations. The three

important parameters of interest involved in this multi-layered process are quite similar too. The

computation for this case weight is:

𝑐𝑎𝑠𝑒 𝑤𝑒𝑖𝑔ℎ𝑡𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 =(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑑𝑒𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦)𝑥(𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑)

3 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑎𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑠𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑.

The three important parameters involved in this multi-layered process are total time spent on

dependency matters, the proportion of time those matters are related to multi-child cases, and

three years of filings for multi-child cases. The estimation methodology for finding the total time

spent on dependency matters was outlined in the previous methodology and is followed directly.

Since we have already made the major assumption in the previous methodology, we will make

that assumption here too so that we might utilize the relationship that the proportions for single

child cases and multi-child cases share (1 − 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛1−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑 = 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑝𝑜𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑚𝑢𝑙𝑡𝑖−𝑐ℎ𝑖𝑙𝑑, as

demonstrated above). Therefore we assume that the proportion of time spent on single child

cases during the 2015 time study is equal to the proportion of dependency cases that are single

child. Once we have this assumption, we obtain our second parameter by running the localized

Pert-Beta distribution that yields the proportion of single child cases and subtracting that from 1.

The third parameter that needs estimating is three years of filings for multi-child cases, which is

three simulated results of the methodology for computing the number of filings for multi-child

cases for a year. Once three simulated results have been ran to filings for multi-child cases, take

their average to obtain the third parameter. After all three parameters have been found, apply the

formula for computing the case weight for multi-child cases above to finish this multi-layered

process.

Page 49 of 49

court statistics and workload committee · management and reporting processes for capturing this...

Documents