KCMO Municipal Court Report Final 05-04-15 (2)

Evaluation of Kansas City Municipal

Courts Case Management And Operational Efficiencies

May 4, 2015

Janet G. Cornell, Court Management Consultant Ron Titus, Court Management Consultant

Daniel J. Hall, Vice President Court Consulting Services

707 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2900 Denver, CO 80202-3429

(303) 293-3063

EvaluationofKansasCityMunicipalCourtsCaseManagementandEfficiencies

National Center for State Courts ii | P a g e

ThisdocumentwaspreparedfortheKansasCity,Missouri,MunicipalCourtwithlocalfunding.TheNationalCenterforStateCourts(theCenter,theNationalCenter,orNCSC)apublicbenefitcorporationtargetingtheimprovementofcourtsnationwideandaroundtheworld,wascommissionedtoassessandproviderecommendationsfortheKansasCityMunicipalCourt.ThepointsofviewandopinionsexpressedinthisreportarethoseoftheauthorsasagentsoftheNationalCenter,anddonotnecessarilyrepresenttheofficialpositionorpoliciesofthejudgesandstaffoftheKansasCityMunicipalCourtortheCityofKansasCity,Missouri.NCSCgrantstheKansasCityMunicipalCourt,aroyaltyfree,nonexclusivelicensetoproduce,reproduce,publish,distributeorotherwiseuse,andtoauthorizeotherstouse,alloranypartofthisreportforanygovernmentalorpublicpurpose.


National Center for State Courts iii | P a g e

TableofContentsIntroduction .............................................................................................................. 1Project Methodology ................................................................................................ 2Background............................................................................................................... 2Preliminary Operational Observations ................................................................. 3

Current Court Strengths ........................................................................................................... 4Current Challenges Faced by the Court .................................................................................. 4

Caseflow Management Best Practices.................................................................... 4Observations and Recommendations ..................................................................... 7

Leadership and Vision ............................................................................................................. 7Consultation with Justice System Stakeholders ...................................................................... 9Court Supervision of Cases (Judicial Division and Courtroom Practices) ............................ 9Utilization of Standards and Goals (Court Policies, Protocols and Procedures) ................. 12Court Control of Continuances (Case Initiation, Scheduling, Docketing and Processing) .. 13Focus on Early Case Disposition (Clerks Office Operations and Functions) ..................... 16Use of Management Information and Information Systems (Technology) ........................... 17

Additional Operational Topics: Judicial Resources and Specialty Courts ..... 19Judicial Resources ................................................................................................................. 19Specialty Courts .................................................................................................................... 23

Items for Further Review or Consideration ........................................................ 24Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 24Appendices .............................................................................................................. 25

Appendix I - Example or Model Caseflow Management Plan, Policy or Statement .............. 1Appendix II CourTools Court Performance Measures ......................................................... 1Appendix III Example Integrated Justice Governance Charter ............................................ 1Appendix IV Analysis of Various Court Statistics .............................................................. 1a) Cases going to trial at first appearance ............................................................................... 1b) Fine Payments Prior to First Appearance ........................................................................... 3c) Number of Continuances for Closed Cases (October and November 2014) ...................... 5d) Analysis of Citations for Calendaring ................................................................................ 6Appendix V Caseflow Management Practices from Filing to Disposition including Examples of Calendars ............................................................................................................ 1Appendix VI Example or Model Court Continuance Policy ............................................... 1


National Center for State Courts iv | P a g e

Thispageisintentionallyleftblank.


National Center for State Courts 1 | P a g e

IntroductionTheKansasCityMunicipalCourt(Court)contactedtheNationalCenterforStateCourts(NCSC)requestinganassessmentoftheiruseoftechnology.TheCourtimplementedanewcasemanagementsystemaboutthreeyearsagoandwenttopaperondemandatthesametime.TheCourthadthreemajorquestions:(1)whethertheCourtisoptimallyprocessingeachtypeofcaseasefficientlyasitcould;(2)whethertheCourtisusingitsexistingtechnologytoitsfullestextent;and(3)thespecificstepstheCourtshouldtaketoobtainthegreatestbenefitsfromthecurrentsystem.TheKansasCityMunicipalCourtisthelargestmunicipalcourtinMissouri.TheCourthaseightfulltimejudges,oneparttimejudge,aCourtAdministrator,andapproximately75employees.Oftheapproximately200,000casestheCourthandlesinayear,themostcommonaretrafficviolations,generalordinanceviolations(e.g.,trespass,assault,disorderlyconduct),buildingcodeandnuisanceviolations,andanimalrelatedhealthandpublicsafetyviolations.TheCourtalsohasaheavymisdemeanordocketthatincludesasubstantialnumberofdomesticviolencecases.ThesecasesaregroupedintogeneralcasetypeswithTrafficandGeneralOffensesbeingthemajorcasetypes1.ThecourtdoesnotdistinguishcasesbythevarioussubcasetypesbeyondtrafficandnontrafficandDUIanddomesticviolence.Percityordinance,ArticleX.Division1,Sec.21401,thecourthasonedivision,division209,dedicatedtohousingandanimalviolations,andonedivision,division203,dedicatedtodomesticviolence.Thechartbelowdepictsoverallcasefilingdistribution,baseduponFY20132014filings.2

1 Other minor case types are Animal, Housing, Parking, Restitution, Non-Traffic. 2 Data from report dated October 9, 2014, from Megan Pfannenstiel, for most recent completed fiscal year.

180,341PoliceTraffic

18,534GOS/Ordinance

2,453Aviation,VA

Cases,UniversityPolice

23,201 KansasCityNonGOS

CourtCaseloadDistributionFY20132014



ProjectMethodologyTheprojectmethodologyincludedakickoffprojectteleconferencebetweentheprojectconsultantteamandtheChiefJudge,theCourtAdministratorandtheDeputyCourtAdministrator.TheCourtAdministratorwasidentifiedastheonsitecontactandProjectManagerforallprojectwork.Projectspecificswerediscussedaswerelogisticsandaplanfortheonsiteassessment,determinationoftheindividualstobeinterviewedduringthesitevisit,andapreliminaryreviewofdataanddocumentsforreview.ApreliminarysitevisittookplaceonNovember1314andNovember1719,2014.Thesitevisitincluded:interviewsofjudicialofficers,courtstaffandjusticesystemrepresentatives;atourandobservationsofcourtoperations;andreviewofcourtdocuments,performancemetricsandreports.AsecondsitevisitoccurredonJanuary89,2015.ThissitevisitincludedmeetingswiththeoutgoingandincomingPresidingJudgesandseniorcourtleadership.TheNCSCwishestoacknowledgeandthanktheKansasCity,Missouri,MunicipalCourtforsupportduringtheprojectactions.TheoutgoingandincomingChiefJudges,CourtAdministrator,andDeputyCourtAdministratorprovidedsignificantleadershipandfeedbackduringtheprojectdiscussions.Appreciationisalsoextendedtocourtstaffandjusticesystemrepresentativeswhoprovidedvaluableinformationduringmeetings,toursandinterviews.Withouttheirinterestandtimecommitment,projectinformationandprocessissueswouldnotbeasthoroughandrich.

BackgroundTheKansasCity,Missouri,MunicipalCourtrequestedthisevaluationofoperationalefficienciesaspartoftheongoingdesiretoensuremaximumefficienciesandeffectivenessofcourtoperations.Twopriorevaluationshavebeencompletedwhichmaybeofnote: ManagementReviewoftheMunicipalDivisionoftheJacksonCounty,MissouriCircuit

Court,datedJune4,1990,bytheNCSC,withafocusontheMunicipalCourtcaseloadandrelatedstaffingandresources,and

AStudyoftheKansasCity,Missouri,MunicipalJusticeSystem,datedFebruary2005,byCarterGobelAssociates,Inc.,withafocusonthemunicipaljusticesystemoperationsandcourtworkvolumes.

TheMunicipalCourtPresidingJudgeiselectedtoaoneyeartermbythemembersoftheMunicipalCourtBench.Attheprojectoutset,thePresidingJudgewasJudgeJosephH.Locascio;however,heconcludedhistermDecemberon31,2014.EffectiveJanuary1,2015,JudgeAnneJ.LaBellaassumedthefunctionasPresidingJudgeforaoneyearterm.Section21412oftheMunicipalCodeprescribesthatthePresidingJudgesserve12monthtermsandmaybeselectedforsubsequentyears.(Localcourtrule17.3furtherclarifiesthatthePresidingJudgemaysucceedhimself).



Rule17,oftheMunicipalCourtLocalRules3,prescribestheroleofthePresidingJudgetoincludethefollowing:

a. Assigncasestothevariousdivisions;b. PresideatallCourtenBancmeetings;c. Appointandsuperviseneededcommittees;d. Reviewandapprovecourt'sbudget;e. Handlemediaandgovernmentcontacts;f. DevelopforCourtenBancapprovalstandardizedproceduresamongdivisions;g. CoordinatewiththeCourtAdministratortheoverallfunctioningofthecourt;h. Handleallmattersrequiringimmediatejudicialattention;i. Conductcasessetonthevideoarraignmentdocket;j. Assignthecasedocketsofabsentjudges;k. Assigntransfersbyotherdivisionjudgesonamotionsustainedforchangeofjudgefrom

them;l. Assigncasestransferredbyotherdivisioninordertoequalizedivisiondockets;m. Hearcasestransferred,added,changed,orscheduledbeforethePresidingJudge;n. Determinewhetherajudge'sabsencefromcourtispursuanttocourtbusiness.

ThereareeightfulltimedivisionsoftheKansasCityMunicipalCourtandoneparttimedivisionwhichfocusonCityordinanceviolations,notablythehousingandanimalviolations.Duringthecourseofthisproject,twojudicialvacanciesoccurred;bothhavebeenfilledwithnewlyappointedjudges.TheadministrativefunctionsofthecourtfallundertheresponsibilityanddirectionoftheCourtAdministrator.Workingthroughsubordinatestaffnumbering75individuals,theadministrativefunctionsinclude:administrativeservices,businessservices,probationspecialtycourtjailfunctions,facilitiesandtechnology,budgetandfinance,andpublicinformationorcourtcommunications.

PreliminaryOperationalObservationsBaseduponreviewofcourtinformation,documentsandinteractionsduringthesitevisits,theNCSCteammadesomepreliminaryobservationsregardingthecurrentstrengthsandoperationalchallengesofthecourtsoperatingenvironment.Theyarenotedhereandindicatethatthisisacourtwithgoodpracticesinplace,andacourtthatcontinuallyfacesopportunitiesandchallengesinensuringexcellenceandefficiencyinoperation.Byshiningalightoncourtoperationsandprovidingresultingrecommendations,theconsultantsdonotintendtoindicatethecourtisincrisis,butinsteadareproposingchangesthatcanbuilduponcurrentleadershippracticesandexpanduponoperationalexcellence,efficiencies,andeconomiesofscale. 3 See Kansas City Municipal Court Local Rules: http://kcmo.gov/court/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2014/03/ MunicipalCourtLocalRules.pdf



CurrentCourtStrengths

InterestandsupportfromthePresidingJudgeboththeoutgoingandincomingjudges Dedicatedjudicialofficerswhohaveinterestinoperationalefficiencyandinnovation ActiveinvolvementoftheCourtAdministratorandsenioradministrativeleaders Useofacasemanagementsystem(CMS)thatcanretrievecaseandworkloadbased

statisticsforworkloadanalysis Relationshipswithjusticesystempartners:cityleadership,cityprosecutionandlocal

lawenforcement SupportfromtheCityManagerforcontinuedcourtinnovationandexcellence,and Exclusiveuseoftheautomatedsystemforpaperondemandcasehandling

eliminatingtherelianceuponpaperCurrentChallengesFacedbytheCourt

ThedesiretoimproveuponthecurrentCMS ThechallengeofcontinuingCourtoperationswithinlimitedbudgetamounts Anagingcourtfacilitywithoutdatedaccessibilityandcustomerflow Knowledgethatlocaljailcostsareexpensiveforcourtdefendants,and Increasingcaseload

CaseflowManagementBestPracticesToaddresstheKansasCityMunicipalCourtsthreemainquestionsof1)whethertheCourtisoptimallyprocessingeachtypeofcaseasefficientlyasitcould;2)whethertheCourtisusingitsexistingtechnologytoitsfullestextent;and3)identificationofthespecificstepstheCourtshouldtaketoobtainthegreatestbenefitsfromthecurrentsystem,theconsultantsreviewedcourtoperationsthroughthelensofnationallyagreeduponfundamentals,orbestpractices,ofcaseflowmanagement.Thesebestpracticesalignwiththethreeassessmentcategoriesorquestionsandallowforprojectrecommendationstobeclassifiedundereachfundamentalcategory.Caseflowmanagementbestpractices,asutilizedbytheInstituteforCourtManagementoftheNCSC,includesevenkeyareas:1)leadershipandvision;2)consultationwithstakeholders;3)courtsupervisionofcaseprogress;4)theuseofperformancestandardsandgoals;5)courtcontrolovercontinuances;6)worktowardearlycasedispositionandadjudication;and7)theuseofinformationandinformationsystemstomonitorperformance.4Allofthesepracticesplayaroleinacourtsabilitytosuccessfullymanageitscasesandoperateefficiently.

4 Institute for Court Management, National Center for State Courts, Fundamentals of Caseflow Management, 2012.



Figure1illustratesthesefundamentalsandindicatestheinterrelationshipandinterdependencebetweenallofthem.

Optimalcaseflowmanagementpracticesmakeuseof: cleardirectives,governance,andleadership; acaseflowmanagementplan; earlycourtreviewandassessmenttodeterminethelevelofcourtservicesneeded; aformalcontinuancepolicyandothercourtrulesandprotocols;and data,metricsandmeasuresoncaseloadstatusforoperationalaccountability.

Thisaccountabilityextendstoalljusticepartners.Italsoinvolvesongoingleadershipscrutinyandevaluationofhowwelltheprocessingsystemisfunctioning,coupledwithstrategiesforimprovement.Thechartbelowindicatesthesecaseflowmanagementbestpracticesalongwithexamplesoftheminactualuse.Thesecanbeillustrativeandinformativeforthecourttoconsiderandadopt.

LeadershipandVision

StakeholderConsultation

CourtSupervisionofCases

UseofStandardsandGoals

EarlyCaseDisposition

Monitoring,UseofData,Information

Controlof

Continuances

Figure1 CaseflowManagementBestPracticesandFundamentals



FundamentalsofCaseflow

Management5

PracticalExamplesofPresenceofFundamental1. 1.Leadershipandvision PublishedMissionandVisionStatement

PublishedStrategicPlanfortheCourtAdministrativeOrders/DirectivesSeniorExecutive(Leadership)TeamCourtwideRules,PoliciesandProcedures

2. Consultationandinvolvementwithstakeholders

Meetings/RegularInteractionCriminalJusticeAgenciesDocumentedAgreements,Goals,Projects

3. Activecourtsupervisionofcases

CourtDirectedCaseSchedules,Calendars,EventsClearKnowledge/ExpectationsonCaseflowManagementPublishedCaseflowManagementPlanorPolicy

4. Useofstandardsandgoals Stated/PublishedCaseProcessingGoalsStandardsforDisposition,ProcessingTimelinesSystemandStaffTrainingonGoalsandStandards

5. Courtcontrolofcontinuances PublishedCourtContinuancePolicyClear/KnownCriteriaforRequestingContinuancesAdherencetoPoliciesRegularReviewofContinuanceData

6. Focusontheearlydispositionofcases

PublishedGoalsforCaseDispositionEarlyReview/AssessmentofCaseComplexityEventsandActionsPromotingEarlyCaseConclusion

7. Useofinformation,casedataandautomation/technologysystems

AbilitytoGetandUseCourtandSystemPublishedDataPublicationofCourtPerformanceMetricsRegularReviewandStakeholderAssessmentofMetrics

Figure2CaseflowManagementFundamentalsandExamplesofActualUseTheobservationsandrecommendationsinthefollowingsectionsareorganizedaccordingtothesessevenfundamentalsandbestpracticesofcaseflowmanagement.

5 Institute for Court Management, National Center for State Courts, Fundamentals of Caseflow Management, 2012.



ObservationsandRecommendationsObservationsandrecommendationsarenotedbelow.Asstatedabove,theyareorganizedundereachofthecaseflowmanagementbestpractices.LeadershipandVision

ObservationsArticle3oftheKansasCityCharterprovidesfortheMunicipalCourtandSection301(c)statesthatthecourtshallactthroughtheCourtenbanc.ArticleXoftheCodeofOrdinancesfurtherdefinestheresponsibilitiesoftheMunicipalCourtandspecificallytheselectionanddutiesofthePresidingJudge.ThePresidingJudgedoesnothavetheauthoritytounilaterallydecidecourtpolicyandprocedure(asotherheadsofjusticeentitiesmayhave),thuscourtwidepolicyandproceduresmustbedeterminedbyvoteorconsensus.TheresponsibilitiesofthePresidingJudgeareenumeratedinthemunicipalcodeandincluderesponsibilitiessuchas:administration,liaison,appointmentofcommittees,callingandpresidingovermeetings,and,assignmentofjudgesandcases.ForfurtherinformationconcerningkeyresponsibilitiesofapresidingjudgetheNationalCenterforStateCourtshaspublished,KeyElementsofanEffectiveRuleofCourtontheRoleofthePresidingJudgeintheTrialCourts6.ThoughtheKansasCity,MissouriMunicipalCourtmaynotbeconsideredatrialcourtthisdocumentmaybeusefulinconsideringtheproperroleofapresidingjudgewhichmaybefurtherdocumentedinaruleofcourtorevenachangeinthemunicipalcode.Duringtheonsitemeetings,itwasstatedthatenbanccourtmeetingswereinfrequent,convenedonanirregularorsporadicschedule,andincludeddepartmentheadsfromotherjusticeentities.Decisionsfromenbancmeetingsmaynotbecarriedoutasintended.RecognizingthatthePresidingJudgesauthorityislimited,thereisanopportunitytoconsiderastructurethatencouragesconsensusbuildingandcollaboration.Recommendations1. EstablishaformalMunicipalCourtGovernancePolicyorCharter.

Acourtofthissizewouldbenefitfromamoreformalgovernancestructuretodiscusscourtpolicyandprocedureswithformalminutesapprovedbythecourt,formalpoliciesandprocedureswelldocumentedandfollowedbyallmembersandstaffofthecourt.Seekincreasedcollaborationamongthejudges.AsthePresidingJudgesresponsibilityislimited,astructurethatencouragescollaborationisrecommended.InmostcourtsthePresidingorChiefJudgesprimaryresponsibilityistoseekconsensusamongthebench.

6 Key Elements of an Effective Rule of Court on the Role of the Presiding Judge in the Trial Courts, National Center for State Courts,Williamsburg, Viurginia, June 2006, http://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/judicial/id/31.



2. ExpandandclarifythePresidingJudgerole.Sections21405,21406,and21413(8)ofArticle,Division1,oftheKansasCityCodeofOrdinancesdescribestherole,responsibilities,andauthorityofthePresidingJudge.WhileSec.21413(8)laysoutspecificdutiesofthePresidingJudge,theothertwosectionsmayimplyalimittothePresidingJudgesduties.Thispossibleconflictshouldberesolvedthroughthedevelopmentofapolicythatclarifiesthemeaningofthesesectionswhenappliedtothegovernanceofthecourt.ThemunicipalordinancesimplyastructuresimilartoaCEOandExecutiveBoardwiththePresidingJudgeactinglikeacompanyCEOandtheCourtenbancactingliketheExecutiveBoard.

3. ReviewtheinterpretationoftheSunshineLawwithregardtotheenbancmeetings.

TheMissouriSunshinelawappliestoJudicialentitieswhenoperatinginadministrativecapacity.TheCourtshouldconsiderandexplorethelegalityandpossibilityofdevelopingapolicythatdifferentiatesbetweencourtadministrativebusiness(e.g.financial,facilities,humanresources,etc.)andcourtproceduresandpolicies(e.g.courtroomprocedurestocarryoutjustice).

4. EvaluatethepossibilityofmakingthePresidingJudgetermatwoyearterm.Leadershipcontinuityisimportanttothesmoothoperationofanyorganization.Withtheimplementationoftheaboverecommendationsthecourtshouldconsiderhowbesttoensurecontinuitypoliciesandproceduresoverseveralyears.

5. Createandpublishaninternalcaseflowmanagementplan.Courtleadershipshouldcreateaninternalcaseflowmanagementplan,inwhichthecourtandcourtleadershiplaysoutexpectationsforoverallcaseflowgoalsandpracticesforthecourt.Suchaplanshouldbereviewedandvettedbythebenchandcourtadministration.AnexampleofacaseflowmanagementplanisincludedinAppendixI.

6. Establishandreaffirmformalcourtwidegoalsfortimestandards.

Timetodispositionisanacceptedstandardformeasuringtheefficiencyandeffectivenessofacourt.TheCourtshoulddeveloptimestandardsandappropriateproceduresformeasuringandobtainingthegoalssetbysuchstandards.Suchstandardswillhelpthecourttoprioritiesforuseoflimitedresourcesandoperationalgoals,e.g.,inoneyearincrements.AppendixIIincludestheCourToolscourtperformancemetricsconsideredtobebestpracticeandusefulforacourttomeasureperformance.

7. Developapolicyforthecreationandimplementationofpoliciesandprocedures.

Ofthoseinterviewed,bothjudgesandstaffcommentedonthelackofstructureconcerningthedevelopmentandimplementationandinterpretationofnewandexistingpoliciesandprocedures.Thiscanbeaddressedbyclearproceduresforthedevelopmentofpoliciesandprocedures,aswellasregularreviewandupdates,wherebytheappropriatecourtjudicialofficersandstaffareconsultedandhaveopportunitytovetpolicy/procedurecontent.Thiswouldalsoaidinthedevelopmentofclearproceduresforimplementingpolicies.



ConsultationwithJusticeSystemStakeholdersObservationsPolicyandproceduresthatimpactthejusticesystemasawholearenormallyhandledbywhatisfrequentlycalledanintegratedjusticegovernancecommitteewherealljusticeagenciesarerepresentedandgeneraljusticepolicyandproceduresarediscussed.Thesediscussionsareusuallytakenbacktoeachindividualentityforfurtherdiscussionconcerningthespecificimpactontheindividualjusticeentity.Afterindepthdiscussionsatboththeinternallevelandexternallevelintegratedjusticepolicyandproceduresaredetermined,documentedandfinalized.Itappearsthattodatebenchmeetingshaveincludeddepartmentheadsfromnoncourtdepartments,suchaslegalaid,lawenforcement,ortheprosecutor,etc.Thisisagoodpracticefordiscussingandreachingresolutionsconcerningissuesthatimpactallgroups,butitisimportantthatthecourtalsomeetsindependentlytodiscussissueswithinthecourt.Recommendations1. Establishaformalgovernancestructureforcollaborationbetweenthecourtandjustice

systementities.EstablishanIntegratedJusticeGovernanceCommitteeoraJusticeCoordinating/OversightGroupcreatedwithaformalcharge,membership,andoperatingrules.Thisgroupwillensurethatpoliciesandproceduresthatimpactthejusticesystemasawholearefullydiscussedandvettedbeforedraftingandimplementation.AnexampleofagovernancecharterisnotedinAppendixIII.

2. Utilizethiscollaborativeentityastheprimaryforumtocollaborateonhighlevelpolicies.Thisgroupcanaddressoperationalproblemsaffectingthecriminaljusticepartners,reviewperformancedata(fromthecourt,prosecutor,LegalAid,andthepolicedepartment),andtopreparebudgetswithgreatercohesiveness,efficienciesandeconomiesofscale.

CourtSupervisionofCases(JudicialDivisionandCourtroomPractices)

ObservationsTheKansasCityMunicipalCourtoperateswithatendencyforsilooperationswitheachjudicialofficercraftingtheirownstyleandpracticeforprocessingcases.Observationsindicatedthatcasemanagementpracticesdiffergreatlybetweenjudicialofficer,baseduponstyleandpreference.Whileindependenceisastalwartprincipalofthejudicialsystemsuchpracticesshouldbeexaminediftheyimpededtheefficientoperationsofthecourt.Morefrequentenbancmeetingstodiscussthemeritsofdifferentpracticesshouldminimizedifferencesanddiminishtheirimpact.



TheCourthasmadesignificantprogressintheuseoftechnology,andthishasallowedtheentirecourttoforegodependenceonpaperandusetheelectronicfile.Technologyismaximizedthroughthestandardizationofprocessesandprocedures.Thusthenextsteptoincreasethevalueofthecourtstechnologyistofurtherstandardizetasksandprocedures,inthecourtroom.Thisshouldbedone,butnotattheexpenseofjustice.Thiscourtisahighvolumecustomerbasedcourt.Onadailybasis,over2,0003,000consumersorcasepartiesareexpectedonsite.Thisnumberofconsumerscreatesopportunitiestostandardizeprocessesastherewillbemanycourtuserswithsimilarsolutionstotheirlegalproblems.Thisalsocreatesaneedforhighvolumetrafficflowandplannedaccesstotheappropriatecourtserviceorfunction.Thecourtoperatesinafacilitythathasoutdatedphysicalinfrastructure.Workhasbeenunderwaytoevaluateareastoretrofitandupgradetheexistingfacility.Observanceofseveralcourtroomssuggeststhatcourtroomshavelargedockets,arecrowdedandtheassembledgroupaffectstheprocessingofcases.Thereiswastedtime,alevelofsoundthatmakeshearingdifficult;namesaremissedwhencalledbytheJudgeandthenrepeatedlycalledormissed.Responsibilitiesofstaffmembersinthecourtroomswerealsounclear,withsomeinstancesofmultiplebailiffsinthecourtroomwithsomediscretionarytimenotfullyutilizedduringincustodyproceedings.Noncourtactivitiestakeplaceincourtroom(pleanegotiations,attorneysconferencingwithclients,etc.).Variationsoccurintherigorusedinthecourtrooms,baseduponjudicialpreference.

Recommendations1. SimplifythedailyCaseSummaryCardprocess.

Thepracticeofissuingthecasesummarycardiscommendable,asitprovidesthecourtbothjudicialandadministrativestaffarealtimeviewofthevolumeofcasessetandanticipatedforappearance,andpubliccomingonsite.Theprocess,howeverappearstotaketheworkofonefulltimestaffwhocontinuallyreviews,preparesandproducesthedocument,whichmaybereviseduptothreeorfourtimeseachday.Theprocessshouldbestreamlined.Theprocessalsolinkstotheawarenessofanyjudgesabsence,andtheneedtoplaninadvanceforthoseabsences,toincludeblockingoutsettingsfortheabsentjudgeorreassigningcasespriortothemorningofappearance.(AdoptionofRecommendation1underCourtControlofContinuancescouldgreatlyalterthisprocess.)

2. Createfinepaymentoptions.Thecourtexpectssignificantincreasesinparkingviolationssowillneedtoestablishprocessesfortheeasypaymentofparkingtickets,andstrivestobeinclusiveofasmanymethodsaspossibleforthelitiganttocomplywiththefinepayment.



3. Createastandardandsimpleprocessforlitigantstocontestparkingtickets.Giventhattheprocessofcontestingcasescanbeconfusingandcomplex,thecourtshouldcreateaprocessthatisunderstandableandsimple,andshouldmakeinformationavailabletocourtlitigants,shouldtheydesiretolitigatethecitation.

4. Thefirstappearanceshouldbeforpleasandattorneyrequirements.

Baseduponreviewofcourtstatistics,lessthan10%ofthecasesproceedtotrialatthefirstappearance7,withalargeamountofcases,7580%,movingtotrialatasubsequentdate,(seeAppendixIV).Thecourtshouldconsiderchangingthepurposeofthefirstappearancetodetermininghowthedefendantpleasandwhetherhecanaffordhisownattorneyorneedsapublicdefender.Thepracticeofschedulingtheofficerandwitnessesatthefirstappearanceshouldbeseriouslyreconsidered.Thisshouldbethepracticeonlyifmostofthecasesgototrialatthefirstappearance,whichisnotthecase.Proceduresshouldbedesignedforthemostcommoneventsoroutcomes,notfortheleastcommon.Thiswilldecreasethenumberpersonsinthecourtroomandpassingthroughthecourt.Shouldthedefendantobtainanattorneypriortothefirstappearancethentheattorneycanwaivethefirstappearanceandscheduleatrialdateordiscovery.Anynegotiationsbetweentheprosecutorandthedefendantsattorneycantakeplaceoutsidethecourtroomorevenviaemail.Appropriateprocedurescanbeestablishedsothatwheneveryonecomestocourtthecasewillbeabletogoforward.Suchaprocedurewouldgreatlyreducetheamountofpublicinthecourtroom.Toaccommodatethelawenforcementofficersaschedulecanbedevelopedforwhenofficersareavailableandcasescanbescheduleforthosetimes.

5. Evaluatethepleanegotiationprocess.Thecourtroomshouldnotbeusedtonegotiatepleas.Ifthisisacommonpracticethenaspecificlocationinthecourthouse(orinthecourtroom)shouldbedesignatedfornegotiations.Casesshouldbetriagedtoreducethenumberofpublicinthecourtroomandtoreducethecasesortheappearancesbeforeajudge.

6. Createaprotocolfortheefficientdeliveryofdefendantadvisoryinformation.Developaprocedureforinformingdefendantsoftheirrightsandexplanationofcourtpracticesthatdoesnotinvolvethejudgeprovidingtheseforeachindividualdefendant.Variousmethodsexistsuchasbeingshownbyvideotoalldefendantsappearingforthefirsttime.Anexamplewouldbeanarraignmentadvisoryvideo,inwhichexplanationisprovidedonwhatwilloccurattheevent,whatisexpectedofthedefendant,andhowthedefendantcanmakeaplea,payafine,orobtaincounsel(ifappropriate).

7. Determinewhenandifthearrestingorchargingofficerneedstobepresent.Sincemostofthecasesarecontinuedatthefirstappearance,theofficerspresenceisnotnecessary.Ifthefirstappearanceisusedtoonlyacceptpleasanddetermineattorney

7 See Appendix III (a) Cases going to trial at first appearance.



requirementsthenifatrialisset,itcanbesetaccordingtothecourtsandofficersschedule.ThisrecommendationalsocorrelatestothesectiononCaseScheduling,DocketingandProcessing.

8. Performadministrativetasksoutsidethecourtroombyadministrativestaff.Evaluatefunctionsconductedincourtrooms,toidentifyonesthatareprimarilyadministrativeinnatureandcurrentlyconductedbyjudicialofficers,whichcanbedelegatedtoclerks;anexampleisthereviewofLegalAidapplicationdocuments.

9. Reviewincustodyprocedures.Incustodyproceduresshouldbeevaluatedinlightofthelimitedareasadjacenttothecourtrooms.Thefocusshouldbetominimizeextradetentiontrips,maximizesecurityprovisionsandpromoteefficiencyfortheincustodyappearancesincourtrooms.Thisisparticularlyimportantinlightofthependingremodel.

10. Reviewtheprotocolforadjustingdocketswhenjudgesareabsent.Currentlyanentiredocketismovedtoasinglejudgewhenajudgeisabsent.Thisisnecessaryduetotheenforcementofficerdrivingthedocket.Movingawayfromtheofficerdrivendocketwillallowthedockettobedividedbetweenjudgeseveningouttheworkloadamongjudges.Thecourtshouldcreateaprocesstoknow,inadvance,whencoverageisrequired,andhowcaseswillbeequallydistributed(assumingtheofficerdrivenassignmentsystemdoesnotprevail).

11. Reviewtheoverallcourtaccessbythepublic.Analyzetheusualaccessneedsandvolumes,anddevelopprocessestomanagehighvolumes,anddeployextrastaffduringheavytraffictimes.(Thependingremodelallowsthecourttoredesignthecourthouseentrancetobetteraccommodatethepublic.)StrivetoplacehighvolumecustomeroperationsonlowerfloorsinthebuildingandconsidermovingCourtroomIfromthecurrentbackhallwayaccesstoafronthallwayaccesspathtoeliminatelitiganttravelintobackcorridors,andtopossibleconfusion.

UtilizationofStandardsandGoals(CourtPolicies,ProtocolsandProcedures)ObservationsThecourtcurrentlyhasasetofAdministrativeDirectivesaswellasStandardOperatingProceduresforthecourtoperationsdivision,thecourtservicesdivisionandthecourtfinancedivision.Courtstaffnotethatmany,ifnotall,oftheseareoutdated.Observationsindicatedthatthereareareasforcreationofadditionalpoliciesandprocedures,andthatareasofcourtoperationsshouldbeaddedtothewrittenpoliciesandprotocols.Recommendations1. Reviewandevaluateallexistingadministrativedirectives,orders,andpolicies.

Determinewhicharestillrequiredandpublishanddistributeupdateddocuments.



2. Createastandardprocedureforthecreationandimplementation,ofnewadministrative

directives,orders,andpolicies.Thecourtshouldhaveasetofdirectives,orders,andpoliciesthatdocumenthowthecourtwillconductitself.Theprotocolshouldincludeformalpoliciesforhighlevelpolicystatementsorassertion,proceduresfordiscreetactionsandstepsinthestatedareas,andforjudicialadministrativedirectives.Theseshouldalsocontainproceduresforimplementationandadministration.

3. Seektoimprovestandardizationofpractices.Totheextentpossibleexpectedpracticesforjudicialofficersanddivisionsshouldbecreatedafterfullconsiderationanddiscussionatbenchorenbancmeetings.Thesecanbeutilizedtodocumentsareasofagreementandtherangeofacceptablepractice.

4. Createwrittenprotocolsandastandardlibraryorindexingforeasyaccessandreference.Thecourtshouldconsiderifthesenewwrittenpracticesshouldbesegregatedbycourtandcaseoperationalarea(e.g.,byoperationsandadministration,orbytrafficcasetypeorgeneralordinancetype),andhowbesttoorganizethemforeasyaccessbyjudgesandstaff.

5. Includewrittenprocessesforspecialtycourts.Writtenpracticesandcriteriashouldbeincludedforallspecialtycourtoperations.Writtenprocedures,processes,andpoliciesaidininstitutionalizationofspecialtycourts.

CourtControlofContinuances(CaseInitiation,Scheduling,DocketingandProcessing)

ObservationsCasesareinitiatedbyelectronictransmissionofcasedataelementsfromtheKansasCityPoliceDepartment.Eachchargeorviolationcreatesacasenumberatthecourt,andeachcaseisscheduledforacourtdatebaseduponascheduleofpoliceofficerticketvolumes,andworkschedule.Theprosecutorreviewsall(typicallyfocusingonthemoreseriouscharges)priortoofficiallybeingfiled,toensurethepropercharginglanguageispresent.Allcases/chargesareincludedinasummonssenttotheviolator/defendantviaasubcontractedagency.Thesummonsormailingsaresenttotheviolatorswithnocurrentrequirementforconfirmationofreceipt,andnonotificationtoanyancillarypartiesorvictims.Casesarethensetfortheirfirstappearanceorarraignmentdatewhenthecitationisissued,usingthepolicedepartmentbasedprotocol,onpredeterminedweekordaysofthemonth;thispracticealsosetscaseswiththesameofficeratthesamedayandtime.Thisprotocoldrivesthelengthoftimeittakesforacasetobecalendared(sometimestakingseveralmonthstoschedule)ononeoftheeightfulltimeandoneparttimejudicialofficercalendars.



Thispracticedoesnotallowfortherandomassignmentsofcasestojudges,andofficersandcasepartiescometoknowwhichjudgewillhavewhichcases/charges.Italsomakespossiblelargecalendarsordocketsduetohighcitationvolumesforparticularofficers.Thisstructuredassignmentlimitsthereassignmentofcasesshouldajudgebeabsentasthecasesmustbekepttogetherfortheschedulingconvenienceoftheofficer.Whenajudgeisabsent,entiredocketsarereassignedtoanotherjudge.Thiscanresultinlargenumbersofcasesbeinginsertedinanalreadylargedocket.Continuancepracticesvaryandareinconsistentbetweenthedifferentjudicialdivisions.Themediannumberofappearancesfortrafficis3withamaximumof25;fornontraffic(fromoldsystem)themedianis7withamaximumof17;forgeneraloffensesthemedianis4withamaximumof20.(SeeAppendixIV)Continuancesaresoughtfortimetoobtaintheappointmentofanattorney,toallowtimefordiscovery,orformoretimetomakepaymentofthefinancialsanction.

Recommendations1. Changetheprocessofassigningfirstappearancetobetterequalizeworkloadandto

schedulefirstappearancewithinamonthorlessofthecitation.Eliminatecalendarpracticesbasedupontheofficerandticketvolumesandschedules.Theprocessofpolicedrivencalendaringshouldbereevaluatedtoplacethecourtintheroleofdirectingwhenandhowcasesarescheduled.Thepracticeofrestrictingthenumberoftimesanofficercanappeareachmonthshouldalsobeatopicofdiscussionbetweenthecourtandpolice,withthegoalofensuringtheearliestschedulingpossibleandforoptimallitigantanddefendantaccesstotheircourtdate.ThisrecommendationrelatestoCourtSupervisionofCases.

2. Evaluatetheprocessofmailingsummonsonallnewcharges.Thecourtandprosecutorshouldevaluatetherequirementforsuchactivityandshouldatminimumsendonenoticeperdefendantnotpercharge.

3. Reviewsandrevisepracticestoassignacasenumbertoeachcharge.Underthecurrentpracticeseachchargeandviolationgeneratedanindividualcasenumber.Thisprocessmaybecreatingextrahandlingforalljusticesystemstaffandtheissuanceofcasenumberforeachchargemaybeinflatingtheworkload.Somecourtshaveuptofiveindividualchargeswithinasinglecasenumberissued.CourtandjusticesystemleadersshouldevaluatewiththeMissouriCourts,AdministrativeOffice,todeterminetherequirementforcasenumberassignment.Ifnotrequired,thecourtshouldbeginactionstoadoptaprocessforsinglecasenumberassignmentforeachincidentwithrelatedviolationsorchargessubsumedwithinthesinglecasenumber.

4. Createanearlycaserevieworcasetriageprocess.Developamethodtoreviewincomingcasestoestablishcasecomplexity,casecompositionandcaseneedsforupcomingcourtevents.Thismayinvolveestablishingcriteriaforcasecomplexity,againstwhichallincomingcasesareassessed.Thismayalsoinvolve



determinationofwhichcaseswillrequireofficerpresencefortheupcomingcourtdate(andwilldrivethescheduling)andwhichcasewillnotrequireofficerappearance.Thismayalleviatetheschedulinglimitationsofthecurrentsystem.

5. EstablishasingleCalendarCoordinatorposition,toincludecalendaranddocket

coverage.Asinglepositionshouldbeidentifiedtoperformcalendarcoordinationfunctions.Simplifiedandstandardprotocolsshouldbeestablishedtoprovidedocketandcalendarcoveragewhenajudicialofficerisabsent.ThispositionshouldreporttotheCourtAdministratorordesignee.Thecourtadministratorshouldalsoensurethatstaffmember(s)is/aretrainedforbackupcoverageofthisfunction.Thispracticeshouldincludemethodstoidentifyandtrackabsences,inadvancewhenpossible,withtheobjectiveofmanagingthenumbersofofficersabsentatagiventime.

6. Segregateandcalendarcourthearings/eventsbytypeofeventoroutcome.Underthecurrentcalendarscheme,casesofalltypesandstagesaresetatthesamecalendartime(e.g.,at9:00amor10:00am).Thecourtshouldconsideracalendarthatsegregatesthecasesbaseduponstageofproceeding(e.g.,arraignments,ormotions),andbaseduponcasetype(e.g.,DUI,orordinanceviolation).AppendixIVprovidesasampleofsuchacalendar.

7. Establishaformal,writtencontinuancepolicy.Acontinuancepolicyshouldincludehowtoavoidconflictsforjudicialandofficerschedules.AsamplecontinuancepolicyisincludedinAppendixVI.

8. Implementaformalandconsistentlypracticedtimepaymentprogram.Aformaltimepaymentprojectshouldincludeformalpoliciesandprocedures,clearidentificationofwhichcourtstaffhasauthoritytoissuepaymentplans,andprogrammetricstorecordandtrack.

9. Consideraseparatecalendarforcasesrequiringapublicdefender

Assesstheappearance(onsite)practicesofLegalAidattorneystoidentifyareasofwastedtime,redundancyandopportunitiestoreengineertimeutilization.

10. Refinetheprosecutorcitationsreviewprocess.Establishprotocolstoseparatecasesthattrulyneedtobereviewedbytheprosecutorbeforefilingwiththecourt.Alsodevelopastandardprocedureforchangingormodifyingchargestominimizetheneedfortheprosecutingattorneytoreviewcitationsbeforehavingthemfileddirectlywiththecourt.



FocusonEarlyCaseDisposition(ClerksOfficeOperationsandFunctions)ObservationsThecourtmaintainsapublicfacingclerksfilingcounter,undertheoversightoftheCourtAdministrator.Thisfunctionoccursatafilingcounterlocatedonthefirstfloor,withapproximatelytenservicewindows.Thesewindowsarewheredefendantsandpartiestoacasecanmakeinquiryaboutcasestatus;obtaincasedocumentsorinformationorwherepaymentscanbemade.Thisoperationalareaiscurrentlybeingevaluatedtoimproveaccess,considercounterheightforstaffandenhancesecurityprovisions;thisiscommendableandshouldcontinue.Currentlyallwindowsperformanyoftherequiredfunctionsforthepublic.Spaceislimitedforthepublicwithanarrowfoyeradjacenttothecounters.Onthestaff,orback,sideofthecounter,staffmembershavetheirindividualworkspaceequippedwithcomputers,cashhandlingandnecessarydocumentsforthepublic.Aseparatecashofficeislocatedinaroombehindthefilingcounter,anditisseparatedandsecured,butallowsforthecashierstoobservefilingcounteroperationsfromanappropriatedistance,withsecurityfeatures.Recommendations1. Establishprotocolsforcourtstafftoconfirmdefendantinformation(address,phone,

email,etc.)Therewasageneralfeelingthatmanycaseprocessingimprovementscouldnotbeimplementedbecauseofinaccurateorincompletecontactdata.Proceduresshouldbeimplementcourtwidetoverifydefendantcontactdataateachpointofcontactandinteraction,andrecord/updatethatinformationintheCMSateachinstance.

2. Modernizethepublicserviceareawiththependingremodel.Modernizationofthedesk,windowandaccessfeatureswillallowthecourttodemonstratetheimportanceofthecountercustomerserviceandwillalsoallowmoreservicestobeoffered.Thisspacecouldbedesignedtofilterdefendantspossiblydirectingthemtolegalservicestoapplyforindigentdefenseservicesorotherwiseassistdefendantstominimizecourtappearancesoraminimumensuredefendantsarepreparedfortheircourtappearance.

3. Establishelectronicpaymentmethods.Thecourtneedstocreateaprocessfortheeasytechnologybasedpaymentofcitationsthatdonotrequirecourtappearancesandforparkingtickets.Staffcommentsindicatedthatparkingticketvolumesareexpectedtobecomeanissueinthenearfuture,andelectronicpaymentoptionsprovidenecessaryaccessfortheparkingviolators.



UseofManagementInformationandInformationSystems(Technology)ObservationsCourtleadershipcurrentlyusesstatisticsanddata,includingthedailycasesummarycardandmonthlystatistics.Observationsindicatedthatthereisopportunitytoexpandtheuseofdata,increasethedisseminationtojudicialofficers,andexpandcourtstatisticstocourtperformancemeasures.TheCourthasdeployedtechnologyallowingnonpaperbasedoperationsandtheabilitytoobtaindataandreportsfromREJIS.Therearepracticesthatcanbeupdatedandexpanded,andthereareopportunitiesformoredirectandactivecourtdirectionofthetechnologydevelopment.Therearealsoopportunitiesforthecourttorelyuponprovenbestpracticetechnologystandards.REJISIMDSmaynothavesufficientcapabilitiestohandlechangesindocketingandtheremaybeconcernaboutsufficientmotivationforREJIStomodifythesystemorinsufficientfundingtoseekmodifications.Recommendations

1. Maximizetheuseofcourtperformancemetrics.

Thecourtisencouragedtocontinueuseofallthedataandinformationpossible.Tothedegreepossible,thecourtshouldpublishcourtstatisticsusingtheNationalCenterforStateCourtsCourToolsmethodology.8SeealsoAppendixII.

2. Establishaprocessandpracticefortheentirebenchtoreviewcourtperformancemetrics.Thecourtshouldroutinelyreviewcourtperformancemeasures.Changestopoliciesandproceduresregardingcourtoperationswillhaveapositiveimpactoncourtoperations.Thisimpactcanbemeasuredwithvariousmetrics.Thecourtshouldidentifysuchmetricsandimplementcollectiontoverifythedesiredimpacttopolicyandprocedurechanges.Thecourtwillalsobecomemorefamiliarwithoverallcourtperformance,alongwithrelationshipstoindividualjudgeroles.

3. Publishcourtwidecasestatistics.Thecourtshouldroutinepublishcourtwidestatistics.Somestatisticswillonlybeappropriateforinternalpublication,butsomewillbeappropriateforwiderdistribution.Thecourtshoulddecide,viapolicy,whichstatisticsarepublishedandwhen.Routinepublishingstatisticswillresultinamuchmoreopenjudicialenvironment.

4. Publishinformationaboutcourtinitiativesandaccomplishments.

Additionally,thecourtshouldinitiatetheprocessofaregularpubliccourtperformancemeasuresreportordocumentinwhichdataaboutfilingsandcourtclearanceratecanbeincludedaswellassummariesofchangesoraccomplishments.

8 For information about CourTools, see http://www.courtools.org/ and Appendix II.



5. Reviewbestpracticesfromothercourts.Thecourtshouldroutinelyinvestigatehowotherscourtshavechosentopublishandshareperformancedata;examplesareavailableontheCourToolswebsite.

6. Recommendedareasforinitialdatacollectionandconsiderationofanalysisandpossiblepublicationinclude:

a. Establishaprocesstocontinuallymeasurecustomervolumesandthetypesofservicesrequested;includethepublicationofthosevolumes,notingthetypesofaccessandserviceneeded.

b. Countandassessthevolumeofreturnmailfromtheoutboundcasesummons,anddetermineanacceptablelevelofreturndocuments;consideractionstoupdatecaseaddressinformationtoavoidreturnmailonfuturecourtdocumentsandcorrespondence

c. Evaluateallcourtcontinuancestoassessnumberofcontinuancesandforwhichtypeofcases/charges.

d. Evaluatethecaseswithdefendantcompliance(finepayment)priortothefirstcourtdatetodetermineactualvolumesofcasesrequiringthefirstcourtsetting(arraignment),andthenumberofcasesthatfalloutofthesystemandareconcluded.

e. Evaluatethenumberofselfrepresentedlitigantcasesthatproceedtotrial,andforthenumberofcontinuances

f. Evaluatestatisticsofthenumberofcasesscheduled,alongwiththenumberoffailurestoappear,casecontinuance(fortimetoobtainanattorney,orforpaymentofafine),andotheroutcomesfromeachtypeofevent.

g. Assessthereasonsforcasecontinuanceandutilizetoestablishpractices,andconsistencytominimizecontinuances.

h. Obtainandstudydataonthetimingandtypesoffinancialpaymentmade.Includeevaluationofcaseage,amountoffine(fullorpartial)paid

i. Evaluatethenumberofhousingandanimalcasesthatarefiled,calendaredandforoutcome(plea,dismissed,trial)

7. Integratespecialtycourtdataintothemaincourtperformancedataandmeasures.

Determineappropriatestatisticsformeasuringspecialtycourtperformanceandintegrateitwithroutinecourtperformancedata.

8. ContinueREJISenhancements.AdditionalfunctionalityisrequiredinREJIStomaximizetheuseoftechnologytoenablethecourttoprocessitscaseloadmoreefficiently.ThefirstorderofbusinessthoughistomaximizetheuseofREJISscurrentfunctionality.Areasoffunctionalitythatshouldbeexploredincludecalendaring,notices,casereporting,scheduling,tickling,trackingdefendants,combiningandsegregatingcases.



9. EnhancethecourtsinfluencewiththeCMSvendor.Thecourtshouldfurtherdevelopitsinfluenceoverthevendorsdirectionandsystemenhancement.Acourtstaffpersonshouldbeappointedasthevendorliaisontodealwiththevendor.ItisalsoimportantthatthecourtbeactiveinaREJISusergroup.Suchagroupshouldbeuserdrivenwithusersseekingoutbestpracticesforcourtprocedureswithanefforttostandardizeprocedures.TotheextentcourtsusingREJIScanstandardizetheirproceduresthemorelikelyREJISwillmodifytheirprogramsandthecostofsuchenhancementscanbesharedamongcourts.

10. Expandcurrentpracticesforqualityassurance/reviewofCMSdata.Developroutinereportsanderrorcheckingprotocolstoreviewdataaccuracy,andperformthemviadaily,weekly,andmonthlyreports.Createaroutinizedprocesswithstaffdedicatedtoensurethequalityassurancereviewandpassingofqualityresultstocourtsupervisorsandthecourtadministrator.

AdditionalOperationalTopics:JudicialResourcesandSpecialtyCourtsTwoadditionalareasofnotearementionedhere:judicialresourcesandspecialtycourts.Bothhaveaninfluenceonoperationalefficiencyandsuccess.JudicialResourcesObservationsCurrently,theCourthasbeenallocatedeightfulltimejudges,andoneparttimejudge.AsofApril2015,bothrecentvacancieshavebeenfilled.Inreviewingtheannualworkload,threecasecategories,usedbytheOfficeoftheStateCourtAdministratorandreportedbytheCourt,wereevaluated;Alcohol/DrugRelatedTraffic,OtherTraffic,andNonTrafficOrdinances.TheOSCAonlyhaddataforthelastthreefiscalyears.Databefore2011isnotavailableasthecourtwasimplementinganewcasemanagementsystemandwasunabletoreportfilingsordispositions.Monthlyfilingsforthelastthreecalendaryearswerestudied.Eachcategoryisdiscussedseparately.Alcohol/DrugRelatedTrafficisthesmallestofthethreecategoriesandthecourtappearstobeabletokeepcurrentwithfilings.Chart1presentspendingcases,whicharesteadyatabout1400pendingcasesatanygiventime.Chart2showsthatfilingsanddispositionsfluctuatebetweenabout80and100permonthwithdispositionsbeingthelessvariable.



OtherTrafficisthelargestcategorywiththegreatestvariability.Filingsrangefromalowoflessthan9,000andahighofmorethan23,000filingpermonth(Chart3).Thereareseasonalcyclesthatshouldbefurtherexamined.Dispositionsarealsovariable,trackingthefilings.Thisistobeexpected,astraffictendstohaveashortlifewithalargepercentageofdefendantspayingthefine.WhatismostinterestingwithOtherTrafficisthatthecourtisapparentlynotkeepingupwiththeworkload,astheirpendingcases(Chart4)hasgrownfromabout160,000casestoover220,000overthelastcoupleofyears.

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

Jul1

1Sep1

1Nov

11Jan1

2Mar

12May

12Jul1

2Sep1

2Nov

12Jan1

3Mar

13May

13Jul1

3Sep1

3Nov

13Jan1

4Mar

14May

14Jul1

4Sep1

4Nov

14

Alcohol/DrugRelatedTraffic

PendingCases(1stoftheMonth)

20406080

100120140160

Jul1

1Sep1

1Nov

11Jan1

2Mar

12May

12Jul1

2Sep1

2Nov

12Jan1

3Mar

13May

13Jul1

3Sep1

3Nov

13Jan1

4Mar

14May

14Jul1

4Sep1

4Nov

14

Alcohol/DrugRelatedTraffic

Dispositions

Filings

Chart 1

Chart 2



NonTrafficOrdinancestendtobealittlemorepredictablewithavarianceforbothfilingsanddispositionsofabout1,000casespermonth(Chart5).Butagaindispositionslagbehindfilingsandthecourtisfallingbehindwithpendingcasesgrowing50percent,about3,000to45,000cases(Chart6).

5,0007,0009,000

11,00013,00015,00017,00019,00021,00023,00025,000

Traffic

Dispositions

Filings

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

220,000

240,000Traffic

PendingCases (1stoftheMonth)

Chart 3

Chart 4



Theremaybevariousreasonsforcasestobeinpendingstatusmostlikelyfailuretopayandfailuretoappear,bothofwhichgenerallyresultsinwarrants.Warrantswerenotfullyevaluated,butoneprobablywouldexpectanincreaseinoutstandingwarrants.Thefailuretopayorappearaccountsforacertainpercentageofpendingcasesbutreallydonotaccountforthegrowthofpendingcases.

500

1,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000

NonTraffic

Dispositions

Filings

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000NonTraffic

Pending cases(1stofthemonth)

Chart 5

Chart 6



Theconclusionisthatthecourtneedstomakesomechangestobringpendingcasesundercontrolandincreasetheirfilingtodispositionratio.Itisobviousthatthecourtdoesneeditsfullcomplementofjudgesandmustmakeproceduralchangestobringtheircaseprocessingundercontrol.Thecontinuedenhancementoftheiruseoftechnologyandproposedrecommendationsshouldaccomplishthis.Ifnotthecourtmayneedmorejudicialresources.Recommendations1. TheCourtshouldmaintainitsfullcomplementofjudicialofficers.

TheCourtshouldkeepitscurrentnumberofjudgestoensureandcontinuesufficientcalendarsandefficientcaseprocessingactions.

2. Addcaseloaddatatotheroutinecollectionandreportingofcourtperformancemeasures.Continueevaluationofallcasefilings,onamonthlybasisandreviewthetypesandcomplexityoftheincomingchargestodeterminethedemandforjudicialresources.

3. Assesstheworkvolumesandcalendarapportionstimeforthespecialtycourts.TheCourtshouldascertainifanyspecialtycourttimeisadequatebydevelopingappropriatereportsandstatisticstomeasureperformance.

SpecialtyCourts

ObservationsTheCourthasembracedtheconceptofusingproblemsolvingorspecialtycourts.Itoperatesseveralproblemsolvingcourts(mentalhealthcourt,veteranstreatmentcourt,domesticviolencecourt,drugcourt,housingandanimalcourt),eachonefunctioninginanindependentmanner.Casesfromthespecialtycourtsarescheduledamongallothercasessetineachdivision.Observationsindicatethatsignificantcourttimemaybeallocatedtothespecialtycourtfunctionwithoutongoingjudgeandadministrativereviewofprogramoutcomes.Courtswithspecialtycourtoperationshavefoundthatcontinualreviewofselectprogrammetricsassistsinreportingonprogramfunctionsandallowsforclearknowledgeaboutthereturnontheinvestmentofjudicialandnonjudicialtime.

Recommendations1. Assessallspecialtycourtfunctions.

Afullinventoryandreviewshouldtakeplaceonallspecialtycourtoperations.Thisshouldincludereviewofthefoundingreasonsanddocumentsforeachcourtscreation.



2. Establishandpublishroutinemetricsforeachofthespecialtycourts.Regularmonthly,quarterly,aswellas,annual9statisticsshouldbereviewedandpublished,andwidelysharedwiththebench.Suchstatisticsshouldincludedataonnumbersofcasesfiles,scheduled,continuances,numbersofcontactsandservicesrendered,andtimetodispositionandageofcases.

3. Establishclearprogramgoalsandobjectivesforeachofthespecialtycourts.Programobjectives,goalsandperformancemetricsshouldbedocumentedforallspecialtycourtsordockets.Thepracticeofdocumentingprogramexpectationswillassistthecourtintrackingtheuseofresourcesandoperations.

4. Produceanannualreportwhichincludesspecialtycourtperformancedata.

Annualstatisticsandaccomplishmentsshouldbetabulatedandpublishedforallspecialtycourtsanddockets.Thesematerialswillalsooutlinecourtsuccessesandinnovationsforcourtusersandfunders.

ItemsforFurtherRevieworConsideration TheKansasCityMunicipalCourtisencouragedtocontinueplanningforinteriorretrofitting

andremodeling.Enhancementsandmodernizationwillincreasecustomeraccess,servicefunctionsandworkvolumemanagement.

Furtherdatacollectionandreviewisalsosuggested.Expansiveinformationabouthowthecourtisprocessingcasesandwherelogjamsmaybeoccurringwillalsoservetohelpcourtleadership,inconjunctionwiththeentirejusticepartnergroup,makecohesiveandlastingoperationalenhancements.

Thecourtisencouragedtomakeuseofbestpracticeinformationgathering,forexample,assessinghowothercourtsusepolicies,protocolsandtechnology.

TheCourtisencouragedtoconductacaseflowmanagementseminarforcourtstaff,judicialofficersandsystempartners,sothatallparticipantswillbeawareofcaseflowbestpractices,andwillbeabletousecommonterminologyinassessingcaseflowoperations.

ConclusionAsstatedattheoutset,theKansasCityMunicipalCourtcurrentlyhassignificantandobviousexamplesofleadershipfeaturesandoperationalinnovation.ThisreportcontainsmanyitemizedrecommendationsandtheCourtshouldbeencouragedtocontinueitsfocusonoperationalchange.TheNCSCconsultantsbelievethattheexistinginterestinefficiency,excellenceandoptimaluseoftechnologywillfacilitateongoingsystemwideenhancements.

9 Recent Annual Reports were published for the Municipal Drug Court Program, April 2013; Jackson County Mental Health Court, March 2014; and KC Municipal Veteran Court, April 2014



AppendicesIncludedwithintheAppendicesareexamplesofpolicies,plansanddescriptivedocuments.Thesearemerelyexamplesandshouldbeusedtopromptandpromoteconsiderationofsuchdocumentsthatthecourtmayconsiderusefulinconductingitsbusiness.EachjurisdictionisuniqueandtheKansasCityMunicipalCourtshouldcreateandutilizepolicies,plansandstatementsofcourtoperationsandfunctionsthatbestfitthecourtanditscommunity.AppendixIExampleorModelCaseflowManagementPlan,Policy,orStatementAppendixIICourToolsCourtPerformanceMeasuresAppendixIIIExampleIntegratedJusticeGovernanceCharterAppendixIVAnalysisofVariousCourtStatistics

a)Casesgoingtotrialatfirstappearanceb)FinePaymentsPriortoFirstAppearancec)NumberofContinuancesforClosedCases(OctoberandNovember2014)d)AnalysisofCitationsforCalendaring

AppendixVCaseflowManagementPracticesfromFilingtoDispositionandSampleCalendarsAppendixVIExampleorModelCourtContinuancePolicy

AppendixIExampleorModelCaseflowManagementPlan EvaluationofKansasCityMunicipalCourtsCaseManagementandEfficiencies


AppendixIExampleorModelCaseflowManagementPlan,PolicyorStatement

ModelCaseflowManagementPlanAdministrativeOrder[year] [number]

CASEFLOWMANAGEMENTPLANITISORDERED:Thisadministrativeorderisissuedinaccordancewith____CourtAdministrativeOrderxx.A. GoalsoftheCourt

ThecourtadoptsthefollowingCaseflowManagementPlanto:1. Expeditethedispositionofallcasesinamannerconsistentwithfairnesstoallpartiesandis

permissibleunderlaw;2. Minimizetheuncertaintiesassociatedwithprocessingcases;3. Ensureequalaccesstotheadjudicativeprocessforalllitigants.

B. CaseProcessingTimeGuidelines[SelecteitherOptionAorOptionB:]

[OptionA:Thecourtadoptsthisplantocomplywiththetimeguidelinesasset forth inAdministrativeOrderXX.Thecourtwillnotdismissacaseforthesolereasonthatitislikelytoexceedtheguideline.]

[OptionB:Thecourtadopts thisplantocomplywith the timeguidelinesasset forth inAdministrativeOrder XX except in regards to criminal proceedings. The court has provided the sheriff with theopportunity to comment and the sheriffs response is attached. The court does not anticipate jailovercrowdingasaresultof thechange in thisguideline. Thecourtadopts the followingguidelines forcriminalproceedings:

__percentofall(typeof)casesshouldbeadjudicatedwithin___daysfromthedateofentryoftheorderbindingthedefendantovertothecircuitcourtand__percentwithin__days.Incarceratedpersonswillbeaffordedpriorityfortrial.Thecourtwillnotdismissacaseforthesolereasonthatitislikelytoexceedtheguideline.]

C. SchedulingPolicyThecourtwillscheduleallcasesorcontestedmatters inamannerthatminimizesdelay fortheparties

and that reduces thepossibilityofcontinuanceof scheduledevents. Thecourtwillcontrolallcases fromcaseinitiationthroughpostdispositionproceedingsby:

1. Appropriatecasescreening;2. Schedulingconferencesandordersforthepurposeofachievingdatecertainty;3. Managementofdiscoveryandmotionpractice;4. Realisticschedulingofallcourtevents.

Thecourtwillmonitorallcasesandcontestedmatterstoensurethatnocaseexistsforwhicha futureactionor reviewdatehasnotbeen scheduled. The courtwill scheduleall casespursuant to the timeguidelinesset forth inAdministrativeOrderxx [add the following, ifapplicable](andSectionBof thislocaladministrativeorder).Thecourtwillnotpermitacaseorcontestedmattertoremainonthiscourtsdocket inexcessoftheguidelinessetforth inthis localadministrativeorderwithout immediate judicialreview.

D. ContinuancePolicy

Thecourtstrictlyadherestopolicy#___.

AppendixIExampleorModelCaseflowManagementPlan EvaluationofKansasCityMunicipalCourtsCaseManagementandEfficiencies


E. AlternativeDisputeResolution(ADR)[Optional]Thecourtencouragesalternativemeanstoresolvedisputes.Litigantswillbeprovidedwithinformation

regardingareadispute resolutionand counseling centers. [Optional insert specificprogramsandalternativesutilized(suchasmediation,caseevaluation,etc.)]CasesreferredtoADRshallremainopen.F. PretrialSchedulingOrders[insertcourtprocedure]G. SettlementorFinalPretrialConferences[Optional]

Everyactionthatisnotdisposedofthroughmediation,caseevaluation,orothermeanswillbescheduledforasettlementconferenceandconductedinaccordancewithxx.H. TrialSchedulingandManagement

[Insert court procedure (Trials should be scheduled in a manner that minimizes continuances forschedulingconflictsandensurestrialdatecertainty.)]I. MonitoringSystems

Thecourtscasemanagementsystemwill:1. Monitorcaseprogress;2. Generatereportsformeasuringpendinginventoryandmeasuringcompliancewiththetime

guidelines.

Specificreportsthatwillbeavailablefromthecasemanagementsystemare:caseswithnonextactiondate,ageofpendingcases,numberofcasespendingbeyondtimestandardsby judge,ageofcasesateachevent,ageofcasesatdisposition,timeintervalsbetweenevents,andexceptionreports.Date:_____________________ _________________________________

SignatureofChiefJudge

AppendixIICourToolsCourtPerformanceMeasures EvaluationofKansasCityMunicipalCourtsCaseManagementandEfficiencies


AppendixIICourToolsCourtPerformanceMeasures

CourTools Overview Brochure http://www.courtools.org/Trial-Court-Performance-Measures.aspx

Court Consulting Services707 Seventeenth Street Suite 2900Denver, CO 80202-3429800-466-3063

Headquarters:300 Newport AvenueWilliamsburg, VA 23185-4147800-616-6109www.ncsconline.org

GivingCourts

the Tools to

MeasureSuccess

Definition: The av

erage cost of pro

cessing a single c

ase, by case type.

Purpose: Monito

ring cost per case

, from year to yea

r, provides a prac

tical means

to evaluate existin

g case processing

practices and to

improve court

operations. Cost

per case forges a

direct connectio

n between how

much is spent an

d what is accomp

lished. This meas

ure can be used

to assess return o

n investment in ne

w technologies, re

engineering of

business practice

s, staff training, o

r the adoption of

best practices.

It

also helps determ

ine where court o

perations may be

slack, including

inefficient proce

dures or underu

tilized staff.

Method: A prim

ary responsibilit

y of courts is effic

ient processing o

f cases.

Efficiency within

the context of ca

se resolution mea

ns to use resourc

es

in their most pro

ductive fashion t

o produce the m

ost of what a cour

t

system values. G

auging efficiency

, then, requires c

areful examinatio

n

of how courts can

best use their pe

rsonnel, procedu

res, and technolo

gy

to achieve desire

d outcomes such a

s access, fairness

, and timeliness.

This measure pr

ovides important

insight into the m

anagement of a

court's limited re

sources. Cost pe

r case requires th

e following data

for

a given time peri

od (e.g., a year):

total court expe

nditures

case disposition

s (or filings) by m

ajor case type

a complete inve

ntory of all judic

ial officers and co

urt staff

The court's alloc

ation of personn

el across case typ

es is used to

distribute the co

urt's total expens

es across case typ

es. This method

is used because t

he vast majority o

f court expenditu

res are personne

l

related, and cou

rts generally allo

cate their judicia

l and staff resour

ces

rationally to acco

mmodate their w

orkload. Total c

osts by case type

are then divided

by the total num

ber of cases in ea

ch relevant case

type to obtain the

cost of a single c

ase.

The primary use o

f this measure is

within a court, o

ver time. The ut

il

of cost per case i

ncreases when it

can be linked di

rectly to other el

em

of court perform

ance (i.e., other C

ourTools measur

es) as it provide

important persp

ective for interpr

eting the relation

ship between co

s

outcomes. Once

a court determin

es how it is curre

ntly performing

different case typ

e areas, court ma

nagers can make

more informed

decisions regard

ing the level of r

esources to devo

te to each case ty

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Definition: Ratings

of court employ

ees assessing the

quality of the wo

rk

environment and

relations between

staff and manage

ment.

Purpose: Comm

itted and loyal em

ployees have a d

irect impact on a

courts

performance. Th

is measure is a po

werful tool for su

rveying employe

e

opinion on whet

her staff have th

e materials, moti

vation, direction,

sense of mission

, and commitme

nt to do quality

work. Knowing h

ow

employees perce

ive the workplace

is essential to fa

cilitate organizat

ional

development and

change, assess te

amwork and man

agement style,

enhance job satis

faction, and thus

, improve service

to the public.

Method: This m

easure is an opin

ion survey of all

court employees

conducted

on a regular basi

s (e.g., annually)

. The survey que

stionnaire requir

es

respondents to r

ate their agreem

ent with each of

20 statements o

n a

five-point scale fr

om Strongly Agr

ee to Strongly D

isagree. Two

additional items

ask respondents

to identify the o

rganizational div

ision,

department, unit

, or court locatio

n in which they w

ork. The survey

can be easily ada

pted to include o

ne or more open

-ended questions

soliciting written

feedback and pin

pointing specific

concerns.

Paying Attentio

n

to Employee

Satisfaction

Trends in Overa

ll Employee Sat

isfaction

District Court, Har

mony County

90

85

80

75

70

Inde

x Sc

ore

Jan Jul Ja

n Jul Jan

Jul Jan

Jul Jan

01 01 02

02 03 03

04 04 05

Surveys raise e

xpectations

among staff; m

anagement

should underst

and that

asking a quest

ion implies

taking action ba

sed on

responses. Whe

n employees

raise concerns,

management

needs to demon

strate that

those concerns a

re being

heard. Not all pr

oblems

can be immedi

ately

addressed, but

upon

review of the r

esults

management sh

ould

communicate to

staff

what actions w

ill be

taken and why

.

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Method:

Definition: Juror

Yield is the numb

er of citizens sele

cted for jury dut

y who are

qualified and rep

ort to serve, exp

ressed as a perce

ntage of the tota

l

number of prosp

ective jurors avai

lable. Juror Utili

zation is the rate

at

which prospectiv

e jurors are used

at least once in

trial or voir dire,

expressed as the

number of juror

s selected as a pe

rcentage of the to

tal

number of prosp

ective jurors qua

lified and availab

le to serve (yield

).

Purpose: The p

ercentage of citiz

ens available to s

erve relates to th

e integrity

of source lists, th

e effectiveness o

f jury manageme

nt practices, the

willingness of cit

izens to serve, th

e efficacy of excu

se and postpone

ment

policies, and the

number of exem

ptions allowed. T

he objective of th

is

measure is to mi

nimize the numb

er of unused pro

spective jurors

the

number of citize

ns who are summ

oned, qualified, r

eport for jury

service, and who

are not needed.

Courts differ in t

heir approach to

drawing a pool o

f qualified jurors.

The Juror Yield C

omputation Wor

ksheet below acc

ommodates most

one-step or comb

ined qualifying an

d summoning pr

actices.

Notes:A. Num

ber of Summon

ses Sent: The tota

l number of summo

nses sent to prospe

ctive jurors.

B. Postponed to

Serve this Peri

od (Postponed In):

The number of peo

ple summoned and

postpo

from a previous me

asurement time per

iod who are requi

red to serve during

this time period.

C. Told Not to Re

port: The number

of people the court

assumes were ava

ilable and willing to

se

but who were instru

cted in advance by

the court not to re

port.

D. TotalPotentia

lly Available: To

tal number of peop

le expected to rep

ort for jury duty, ca

lcula

as the Number of S

ummonses Sent plu

s the number Postp

oned to Serve this

Period minus the n

Told Not to Report

[(A+B) C].

E. No Show: The

number of people

not reporting for ju

ry duty as instructe

d. Include jurors wh

o

report for duty, but

leave without exp

lanation before serv

ice is complete.

F. Undeliverabl

e: The number of s

ummonses sent out

that were returned

by the post office

as

G. Disqualified:

The number of peo

ple not allowed to

serve by statute (e

.g., those who are

n

residents of the jur

isdiction).

H. Exempt: The n

umber of people a

llowed by statute to

be excused at thei

r own request who

and been granted

such a request.

Juror Yield

Computation

Worksheet

Potential Availa

bility

A. Summonses Sen

t ______

B. Postponed to Se

rve this Period +

______

C. Told Not to Rep

ort ______

D. Total Potentially

Available =

______

Not Available

E. No Show

F. Undeliverable

G. Disqualified

H. Exempt

I. Excused

J. Postponed to Fu

ture

K. Total Not Availa

ble to S

L. Total Serving

= [ D - K]

M. Juror Yield(%

) = [

(L / D) x 100 ]

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Definition: Paym

ents collected an

d distributed wit

hin established ti

melines, express

ed

as a percentage o

f total monetary

penalties ordere

d in specific cases

.

Purpose: Integr

ity and public tru

st in the dispute

resolution proces

s depend in part o

n

how well court or

ders are observed

and

enforced in cases

of noncomplian

ce.

In particular, rest

itution for crime v

ictims

and accountabilit

y for enforcemen

t of

monetary penalti

es imposed on cr

iminals

are issues of inten

se public interest

and

concern. The fo

cus of this measu

re is

on the extent to

which a court tak

es

responsibility for

the enforcement

of

orders requiring p

ayment of moneta

ry

penalties.

While court orde

rs establish

a wide variety of s

anctions, financia

l

obligations are cl

early understood a

nd

measurable. Fina

ncial obligations

include child supp

ort, civil damage

awards,

traffic fines, and c

riminal

penalties. Howev

er, state courts va

ry in their respon

sibility for and co

ntrol o

full range of mon

ies ordered and r

eceived. Therefor

e, to keep this me

asure

applicable and fe

asible, the focus i

s on criminal pen

alties in misdeme

anor c

restitution. Once

understood and

in place for misd

emeanor cases, si

milar

methods can be a

pplied to other re

levant types of m

onetary penalties

and

Timely payment o

f restitution is a s

ignificant part of

how success is def

ined

measure. Collect

ion and disburse

ment of restitutio

n to victims of cri

me i

emblematic of the

court's commitm

ent to public acco

untability.

.

Method: The re

sults of this meas

ure should be rev

iewed on a regula

r basis (e.g.,

annually). If revi

ewed regularly, th

e court can establ

ish baselines, set

p

observe trends as

they develop, and

aggregate the da

ta for annual rep

o

The first task is to

compile a list of

all misdemeanor

cases in which 1)

was ordered and

2) the due date fo

r final payment fa

lls within the re

term total monet

ary penalty includ

es all financial ob

ligations associa

cases, regardless

of local terminolo

gy and practice (

e.g., fines, fees, a

etc). If the case i

ncludes an order

for restitution, a

dditional inform

the amount of re

stitution ordered

, the amount of m

oney collected

restitution obligat

ion, and the amo

unt disbursed to t

he victims. Fo

the measure, sepa

rate restitution a

ccounts (multip

le victims/pay

into a single balan

ce.

Why only meas

ure criminal fina

ncial

obligations?

All courts with cr

iminal jurisdiction

process and

account for financ

ial penalties.

Every jurisdiction

has at least one c

riminal cou

Responsibility for

financial accounti

ng in child

support and other

civil matters is not

universa

accepted as a cor

e court function ac

ross the

Accounting for fi

nes, fees, and rest

itution is

a core operational

activity of all cour

ts wit

misdemeanor juris

diction.

Most of the mon

ey handled by crim

inal c

originates in crimi

nal traffic and othe

r m

Due dates are lik

ely to be clearly e

stabl

fall within one yea

r from order date.

Why only meas

ure misdemean

ors?

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Retrieving Files

Definition: The p

ercentage of files

that can be retri

eved within estab

lished time

standards, and th

at meet establish

ed standards for

completeness an

d

accuracy of conte

nts.

Purpose: A relia

ble and accurate

case file system i

s fundamental to

the

effectiveness of d

ay-to-day court op

erations and fair

ness of judicial

decisions. The m

aintenance of cas

e records directly

affects the

timeliness and in

tegrity of case pr

ocessing. This m

easure provides

information rega

rding (a) how lo

ng it takes to loc

ate a file, (b) wh

ether

the files content

s and case summ

ary information m

atch up, and (c)

the organization

and completenes

s of the file.

Method: Ra

ndomly identify

equal numbers (b

ut at least 50) of

pending case file

s,

closed--on-site ca

se files, and close

d--off-site case fil

es in each case ty

pe

being evaluated.

Record how lon

g it takes to find

each case file. C

losed,

On-site Criminal

Felony cases are

shown as an exa

mple.

Add the number

of files in each c

olumn. To compu

te the perc

divide each colum

n total by the gra

nd total number

of files in

sample. In this e

xample, a total o

f 40 files were loc

ated in 0-1

out of the grand

total of 50 files re

trieved. The per

centage is

by 50, or 80 perc

ent.

File Location

Data Collection

FormSC-F-136

SC-F-468

SC-F-771

SC-F-863

SC-F-979

Total files40

62

2

xx

x

x

x

Randomcase #s

0-15minutes

16-30 minutes

31-60minutes

61+ minutes

Notfound

Case Type:

Criminal-Felony

Sample size: 50

File Type(check o

ne)

__ Pending

__ Closed, On-site

__ Closed, Off-sitex

Time required to lo

cate

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Definition: The nu

mber of times ca

ses disposed by tr

ial are scheduled

for trial.

Purpose: A cour

ts ability to hold

trials on the first

date they are sch

eduled to be

heard (trial date

certainty) is clos

ely associated wit

h timely case dis

posi-

tion. This measu

re provides a tool

to evaluate the e

ffectiveness of ca

len-

daring and conti

nuance practice

s. For this measu

re, "trials" includ

es jury

trials, bench trial

s (also known as

non-jury trials o

r court trials), an

d adju-

dicatory hearing

s in juvenile case

s.

Method: Measu

ring trial date ce

rtainty requires i

dentifying all case

s disposed by

trial during a giv

en time period (

e.g., a year, quart

er, or month). Af

ter

the cases are ide

ntified, additiona

l information mu

st be collected to

determine whethe

r those cases wer

e tried on the fir

st date they were

set for trial or we

re continued one

or more times be

fore the trial

actually began.

Step 1: Create a

nd Sort the List

of Cases Dispos

ed by Trial

Prepare a list of a

ll of the cases dis

posed by trial du

ring the reportin

g period and org

anize

them by case typ

e. Next examine

the case record t

o determine the n

umber of trial da

tes

set in the case an

d record them. T

he minimum num

ber of trial dates

set for any case o

n this

list will be 1, sinc

e all the cases on

the list have at l

east one trial set

ting. The list sho

uld

contain the case

number, the typ

e of case, the typ

e of trial, and the

number of trial

dates

set (including th

e date upon whi

ch the trial ultim

ately began).

After the list is co

mpiled, it should

be sorted within

case types by tria

l type, and then b

y

number of trial

dates set. Sortin

g the list in this f

ashion will facilit

ate the creation o

f a

summary table s

howing the num

ber of cases of ea

ch type with one d

ate set for the tria

l t

begin, those with

two trial-start da

tes, and so on, u

p to the maximu

m number of dat

es o

which the trial wa

s set to begin, by

case type and typ

e of trial.

Summary Table

for Capturing

Trial Dates

Court Case

Number

Case Type

Trial Type

CV246-357

CV555-121

FE123-456

FE654-321

DO369-123

DO212-609

Number

Trial Dates

General Civil

General Civil

Felony

Felony

Domestic

Domestic

Jury

Jury

Jury

Bench

Bench

Bench

1

1

3

4

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Definition: The a

ge of the active c

ases that are pen

ding before the c

ourt, measured a

s

the number of d

ays from filing un

til the time of mea

surement.

Purpose: Cases

filed but not yet

disposed make u

p the court's pen

ding caseload.

Having a comple

te and accurate

inventory of activ

e pending cases a

s well

as tracking their

number and age

is important bec

ause this pool of

cases

potentially requi

res court action.

Examining the a

ge of pending ca

ses makes

clear, for exampl

e, the number an

d type of cases d

rawing near or ab

out to

surpass the court

's case processin

g time standards

. Once the age

spectrum

of cases is determ

ined, the court ca

n focus attention

on what is requi

red to

ensure cases are

brought to comp

letion within reas

onable timefram

es.

Method: Fo

r each case type b

eing analyzed, th

e court should pr

oduce a report th

at

calculates the tim

e, in days, from f

iling of the case u

ntil the date estab

lished

for the reporting

period being exa

mined (e.g., last

day of the mont

h, last

day of the year).

A report, similar

to the one below

, can be used to d

isplay

the age of pendi

ng cases in time

periods relevant

to the court. Su

ccess in

achieving a parti

cular case proces

sing time goal is

easily monitored

by

referring to the C

umulative Percen

t column. In the

example below,

85

percent of the G

eneral Civil cases

are being dispos

ed in 540 days o

r less,

close to meeting

the court's goal

of resolving 90 p

ercent within thi

s timefram

This measure sh

ould be used in c

onjunction with

Measure 2 Clearan

ce R

Time to Disposition

to get an accurate

picture of how a

court is managi

n

example, a court

may have a high

clearance rate,

and score well on

M

be building up a

n inventory of ol

der cases (evalua

ted by using Mea

su

differs from Meas

ure 3 Time to Dispo

sition in that the

cases being anal

yz

reached a dispos

ition in the cour

t.

Approaches the co

urt's g

90% of cases with

in 18

2005 National C

enter for State Cou

rts

Nat

iona

l Cen

ter f

or S

tate

Cou

rts

300

New

port

Aven

ue

Willi

amsb

urg,

Virg

inia

231

85

800-

466-

3063

Copy

right

2005

copi

es a

nd u

pdat

es a

t

ww

w.n

cson

line.

org/

d_re

sear

ch

Age of Active

Pending Caseloa

ds

0-90

91-180

181-270

271-365

366-450

451-540

541-630

631-730

over 730

Total

344

410

245

267

189

168

90

124

76

1,913

18%

21%

13%

14%

10%

9%

5%

6%

4%

18%

39%

52%

66%

76%

85%

90%

96%

100%

General Civil

Felony

Age (days)

Number

of Cases Perce

ntCumula

tive

Percent 0-60

61-120

121-180

181-240

241-300

301-365

over 365

Total

438

559

785

82

92

123

32

2,111

2

2

3

Age (days)

Number

of Cases Perc

Definition: The p

ercentage of case

s disposed or oth

erwise resolved w

ithin

established time

frames.

Purpose: This m

easure, used in co

njunction with M

easure 2 Clearanc

e

Rates and Measure

4 Age of Active P

ending Caseload,

KCMO Municipal Court Report Final 05-04-15 (2)

Documents

Transcript of KCMO Municipal Court Report Final 05-04-15 (2)