New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts 2005 Submitted by the National Center for State Courts New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Matthew Kleiman, Ph.D. William E. Hewitt Brian J. Ostrom, Ph.D. Submitted by the National Center for State Courts Project Director: Brian J. Ostrom, Ph.D. Project Staff: Matthew Kleiman, Ph.D. William E. Hewitt Wanda Romberger Lavolia Duncan Sherry Keesee-Buchanan Amy E. Smith New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts Project Liaison and Technical Advisor: Dale Trombley Table of Contents Executive Summary i 1. Overview of New Hampshire 1 1.1 District Court1 1.2 The Superior Court1 1.3 Probate Court2 1.4 Caseload Trends in New Hampshire Courts2 1.5 Family Division: a Strategic Consideration Outside the Scope of the Study4 2. Judicial Needs Assessment Overview 5 2.1 Theory and National Context of Judicial Needs Assessment5 2.2 History of Judicial Needs Assessment in New Hampshire6 2.3 2004 Study: Key Concepts and Study Process6 3. Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) 9 4. Case Types 11 5. Judge Year, Judge Day, and Judge Year Value 15 6. Time Study 17 6.1 Data Collection and Coding Procedure18 6.2 Time Study Analysis18 6.3 Assessing the Validity of the Preliminary Case Weights20 6.4 Estimating Statewide Judicial Need20 7. Adequacy of Time Survey 23 8. Quality Adjustments by Expert Committees of Judicial Officers 27 8.1 What Adjustments Were Actually Made and Why?28 8.2 Implications of the Final Case Weights31 9. Preparation of Final Case Weights and Determination of Judicial Need 33 10. Recommendations 35 Endnotes 37 Appendices 39 Executive Summary Purpose data by National Center staff showed This report describes the results of a Judi-the data sufficiently representative and cial Needs Assessment authorized by the detailed to yield reliable and valid results. New Hampshire Supreme Court and con-The assumption that this data provide ducted by the National Center for State an accurate foundation for workload Courts. The major purposes of the study standards was confirmed when National were to: (1) conduct an empirically based Center staff coded and analyzed the evaluation of the level of judicial resources data. Applying the results from the time on a statewide basis; (2) provide accurate, study to case filings results in a predicted easily understandable criteria to assess the need of judicial officers that correneed for judicial resources; and (3) provide sponds very closely with the number of a valid method for determining the number judicial officers that were working in of judicial officers needed to provide effec-New Hampshire during the relevant tive case resolution for the people of New study years. Hampshire at a reasonable level of quality. 2. A systematic, qualitative review process Method used to elicit expert opinion about how The study employed a state-of-the-art apwell current practice corresponds with proach to assess judicial need. The National “what ought to be.” The question here Center’s model is anchored in three compo-is whether current practice is consistent nents: with achieving reasonable standards of quality, given resource constraints. To 1. A time study that determines how much assist the review process, judges, justices, time judges actually spend on cases of and marital masters statewide were sur- various types. This provides a measure veyed about their perspectives on the of current practice (“what is”) with re-adequacy of time to perform key casespect to judicial workload. A major ad-related and non-case-related tasks. Duraptation of the National Center’s staning the quality review process, New dard model was to use data already avail-Hampshire judges found that current able through time studies previously practice, as reflected in the time study conducted by staff of the NH Admin-weights, is adequate for achieving a level istrative Office of the Courts in 2002 of quality that is consistent with reason- and 2003, in lieu of conducting an enable standards of best practice, with few tire new time study. This decision was exceptions. Quality adjustments were made as a time- and cost-saving mea-made to one of the ten preliminary case sure after initial review of the available weights in District Court, three of New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 eleven in Superior Court, and two of four in Probate Court. 3. Guidance, oversight, and critical deci- sion-making were provided by two separate groups of judicial officers. The first group, the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC), reviewed and approved the overall project design and reconvened at key points during the study to review, modify, and ratify findings and recommendations of the project study team. In addition, Workload Study Groups—judicial officers representing District, Superior, and Probate Courts—participated in a structured review process of the time study and adequacy of time survey findings and provided direction for suggested quality adjustments. Results Overall, this assessment resulted in a set of empirically-based workload standards useful for gauging the number of judicial officers needed to effectively handle cases in New Hampshire. Based on the application of these standards to the present caseload, New Hampshire needs an additional 5.6 full-time equivalent (FTE) judicial officers. This would increase the current existing complement of 68.9 FTE judicial officers to 74.5 FTE. Specifically, the need in each court is: • District Court: 31.7 FTE judicial officers (increase of 1.2 FTE) • Superior Court: 37 FTE (increase of 3.8 FTE) • Probate Court: 5.8 FTE (increase of .6 FTE) Recommendations Three recommendations by the National Center are offered in the report to maintain and improve the state’s judicial needs assessment capacity in the future. Recommendation 1: The AOC should conduct a systematic update of the workload standards approximately every five years. Funding for this should be part of the regular legislative agenda related to the process of assessing the need for new judgeships. The review process should be undertaken under the auspices of an advisory body similar to JNAC. Recommendation 2: The new case management system should be designed to provide a complete and accurate count of filings and dispositions based upon the case types developed in this study. Additionally, an accurate gathering of trial and post-judgment data should be made a priority. Recommendation 3: The AOC should count criminal cases using defendants as the unit of count rather than the number of charges against each defendant. New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 1. Overview of New Hampshire T his Judicial Needs Assessment takes place in the context of a Judicial Branch structure organized since 1963 into three court departments: District, Superior, and Probate. Currently the organization of the Judicial Branch is in transition with the recent creation by the Legislature of a Family Division that will absorb significant elements of the workload of the other three departments. Each of these departments their organization, administration and subject matter jurisdiction - is briefly described in this overview section. 1.1 District Court The District Courts are New Hampshire’s courts of limited jurisdiction. Each judicial district has a justice and special justice appointed by the governor and council (NH RSA 502-A:1). Manchester, Nashua, and Concord also have a full-time associate justice (NH RSA 502-A:3 and 3-a). Unlike Superior Courts, there are both full- and part-time District Court justices. Part-time District Court justices may also practice as attorneys. The Supreme Court may convert part-time justices to full-time after reviewing population, caseload, judicial time, and efficiency and with prior approval of the legislative fiscal committee (NH RSA 491-A:3). For the study period, the Administrative Office of the Courts determined that there were 30.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) judicial officers working in the District Courts.1 Administrative Judge Edwin Kelly is responsible for administration of the Court.2 District Courts are responsible for cases involving: 1. small claims and landlord tenant matters; 2. minor crimes and violations; 3. civil cases in which the disputed amount does not exceed $25,000; and 4. juvenile neglect or abuse, delinquency, and children in need of supervision. The creation of a new Judicial Branch Family Division (JBFD), described in Section 1.5, will affect the workload of the District Courts, since responsibility for juvenile matters will be transferred to that court. 1.2 The Superior Court The Superior Court is the statewide court of general jurisdiction established in 1901 to resolve serious criminal, domestic relations, and civil cases and provides a forum for trial by jury. Types of cases heard in the Superior Court include: 1. negligence, contracts, real property rights, and other civil matters with a minimum claim of $1,500 in damages in which either party requests a trial by jury; New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 2. all civil cases in which the damage claims exceed $25,000; 3. divorce, custody and support, and domestic violence (sharing jurisdiction over domestic violence cases with the District Court); 4. felonies (major crimes such as drugs, burglary, theft, and aggravated felonious sexual assault); and 5. misdemeanor appeals from the District Court. The Superior Court also has exclusive jurisdiction over petitions for injunctive relief, in which parties seek a court order to block action, appeals from zoning and planning board decisions, disputes over title to real estate, and petitions to enforce contracts. Judges of the Superior Court are appointed by the Governor with approval by a majority of New Hampshire’s constitutional five- member elected Executive Council. The term of office is from appointment until age 70. Chief Justice Robert J. Lynn presides over the Court and hears cases when necessary. Currently there are twenty-six Superior Court Justices (including Judge Lynn) who sit in eleven Superior Court sites, one for each county and two in Hillsborough County. In addition to the authorized judgeships, the Superior Court’s judicial resources are augmented by nine marital masters and four senior retired justices. During the study period 33.5 full-time equivalent judicial officers were used to handle the workload. The JBFD will reduce the jurisdictional scope of the Superior Court by transferring divorce and matters related exclusively to children to the new court. 1.3 Probate Court The Probate Court has responsibility to hear cases involving trusts, wills and estates, adoptions, termination of parental rights, name changes, guardianship of incapacitated persons, guardianship of minors, partition of property, and involuntary admissions. Administrative Judge John R. Maher is responsible for administration of the Probate Court while also hearing cases in Rockingham County. There are four additional full-time probate justices and five part- time justices serving the ten probate courts statewide. The workload was handled during the time-study period by 5.2 full-time equivalent judicial officers. Workload in the Probate Courts will be affected by the creation of the new JBFD with the transfer of jurisdiction for termination of parental rights, adoption matters (except private party adoptions), and guardianships of the person of minors (guardianship of person and estate will remain with probate.) 1.4 Caseload Trends in New Hampshire Courts Figure 1 shows caseload trends in New Hampshire for the ten years preceding this study. Most noteworthy is the great difference in total caseloads among the courts; for example the District Court has three times more cases than the Superior Court. How- New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 ever, as the results of this weighted caseload Court, caseloads have shown modest growth study show, more judicial time is required to during the decade, following a pattern hear and resolve the Superior Court cases generally similar to the rest of the nation. than those in the District Court. Caseload The Probate Court caseload remained trends are generally flat except for the constant for the first six years of the de- District Court, where cases have risen mark-cade, dropped slightly between 1999 and edly since 1997, following a precipitous drop 2000, and has remained relatively constant between 1993 and 1997. In the Superior since that time. Figure 1: District, Superior, and Probate Court Filings (CY 1993-2003) 250,000 150,000 200,000 District 100,000 50,000 Superior Probate 0 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 1.5 Family Division: A Strategic Consideration Outside the Scope of the Study Development of the Family Division began with a legislatively-authorized pilot project in two counties (Grafton and Rockingham) and is now projected for full implementation statewide within three years. Judge Edwin Kelly has been appointed Administrative Judge of the Family Division. The Family Division will handle case types that are currently distributed across all three of the other courts. Figure 2 illustrates the types of Figure 2: Family Court Case Types matters that will be removed from the jurisdiction of each existing court and transferred to the new Family Division. All of these matters are associated with specific case types and case weights in the new weighted caseload system. Therefore, although a full analysis of the new court is beyond the scope of this project, the results from the workload analysis can be used to explore the projected impact on judicial need. Case Type District Superior Probate Divorce, annulment, paternity establishment x Custody and support of children (establishment and enforcement) x Juvenile abuse/neglect, delinquency and children in need of supervision x Termination of Parental Rights x Domestic violence/stalking (except emergency temporary protection orders) x x Adoptions (except private party) x Guardianships of the person of minors x New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 2. Judicial Needs Assessment Overview 2.1 Theory and National Context of Judicial Needs Assessment The National Center for State Courts has assisted state courts with Judicial Needs Assessment (JNA) studies for many years. The studies aim at assisting courts to develop meaningful, easily understood criteria for determining overall judicial officer need, taking into account both case-related and non- case-related workload factors. In all, the National Center has conducted more than 50 workload and staffing assessments in the last 10 years. The studies have been performed in a variety of contexts — statewide and local efforts and general and limited jurisdiction courts — and have involved judges, quasi-judicial officers, and administrative and clerical staff. All studies are anchored by a “weighted caseload” model that directly measure the variations in judicial time required to resolve different types of cases. The weighted caseload method uses time as a measure for workload and is based on the assumption that the more judicial time required to process a case, the more work is involved. Assessing the judicial workload through the development of a weighted caseload model is a rational, credible, and practical method for determining the need for judges and is being adopted by an increasing number of states. National Center workload studies are grounded in the principle that adequate resources are essential if a state’s judiciary is to effectively manage and resolve court business without delay while also delivering quality service to the public. Meeting these challenges involves objectively assessing the number of judicial officers needed for courts to achieve their performance objectives. Weighted caseload studies represent a “best practice” method to assess this need. A case weight is defined as the average A weighted caseload study helps the state … • Determine the need for judges; • Integrate quality and make the reasoning explicit; • Make a persuasive and reasoned case to the legislature for appropriate resources; and • Evaluate use of existing resources amount of judicial time needed to handle a particular case from filing to resolution. Thus, weighted caseload translates numbers of court cases (court filings) into workload for judicial officers. While case filings can help determine the demands placed on state courts, unadjusted case-filing numbers offer only minimal guidance as to the amount of judicial work generated by those case filings. Moreover, the inability to differenti- New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 ate the work associated with each case type could create the misperception that equal numbers of cases filed for two different case types result in equivalent workloads. Cases vary in complexity and different types of cases require different amounts of time and attention from judicial officers. For example, a typical violent felony case requires hours of judge’s time, while a typical traffic case requires just a few minutes. To account for the variation in complexity among different case types, specific case weights are developed. By weighting court cases, a more accurate assessment can be made of the amount of time required to process the caseload, i.e., caseload can be translated into workload. 2.2 History of Judicial Needs Assessment in New Hampshire The use of a weighted caseload approach to determine judge need has a long history and is familiar in New Hampshire. As early as 1987, annual salaries of part-time district court justices were based on an objectively determined weighted case value (RSA 491- A:3). The probate courts also began using a system in 1987 and updated the case weights in the mid-1990s. In addition, New Hampshire has used a weighted caseload system to establish clerical workload. This study represents an initiative to comprehensively overhaul the weighted caseload system to bring it in line with state-of-the- art practices recently adopted and being developed in many states.3 The effort is timely because the District court system has not been updated since 1987,4 the Probate system was last updated in the mid-1990’s, and the Superior court does not yet have a judicial weighted caseload system. The current study can also be used as an effective tool to help the courts and legislature manage the reorganization and implementation of the Family Division and the design and pending introduction of the courts’ new information system. 2.3 2004 Study: Key Concepts and Study Process Key Concepts Contemporary best practice in judicial needs assessment uses weighted caseload to determine how much time is required of judges to handle their caseloads. The weighted caseload model draws on a few essential concepts. Some of the key terms are defined below: Preliminary case weight: the amount of time, on average (expressed in minutes), that judges actually spend hearing typical cases of a given type. Final case weight: the amount of time required for a judge to do a job of reasonable quality for typical cases of a given type (also called workload standard). Workload (preliminary): the total time required (expressed in minutes), under current practice, for judicial officers to handle all of the cases. Workload (final): the time required for judi- New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 cial officers to do a job of reasonable quality for all of their cases. Judge day: the amount of time in a day (expressed in hours or minutes) judges are available to work. Judge year: the number of days in a calendar year judges are available to handle cases. Judge year value: the number of minutes in a year that judges have available to do case-related work. Implied judge need: the total number of judicial officers needed to handle the workload. Process The primary goal of the project was to accurately determine the amount of time judges need to resolve different types of cases in an efficient and effective manner. We adopted an approach to judicial workload that provides judges a structured process to assess the reasonableness of current case processing practices. The basic parts of the project are summarized below and described in detail in the report sections that follow. • The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) • Determination of case type categories for which time standards (case weights) would be developed • Determination of judge day and judge year standards for case-related and non-case-related time • Time study and determination of preliminary case weights • Adequacy of time survey • Quality adjustments by expert com- mittees of judicial officers • Preparation of final case weights and determination of current judicial needs Overall project design is based on a concerted effort to augment and extend previous work conducted by the New Hampshire Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). The most noteworthy adaptation was the use and re-analysis of time study data previously collected by AOC staff in place of the NCSC’s standard time study procedure. The revised method used in this study provides a means to establish case weights conducive to the efficient and effective resolution of cases. As the number and/or complexity of cases increases without an ensuing increase in judicial resources, judges are forced to increasingly ration their time on each case to stay current with incoming work. In some instances, revised procedures or new technology support faster case processing with no loss in quality. For other case types the result is simply more cases squeezed onto already crowded dockets. Augmenting the problem for certain types of cases is new legislation that requires greater judicial time and attention in meeting the rule as well as the spirit of the law. As workloads rise, judges can and do work faster; the issue is distinguishing how best to allocate scarce judicial resources across the vast array of cases coming before the court. The challenge is to provide judges New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 sufficient time to reasonably engage litigants, listen to victims, clearly explain legal rulings and orders—features fundamental to the public perception of fairness and appropriate treatment by the court. This study employs a structured method to carefully review current case processing practices and determine the time needed by judges to reasonably and satisfactorily conduct their business. New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 3. Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) T he first stage of the New Hamp-but did not meet in formal session until shire judicial needs assessment was to November 4, 2004 when they reviewed the establish a policy committee to guide the time study results and the preliminary case project, with responsibility to resolve impor-weights. Guidance was provided to AOC tant issues affecting data collection, interpre-and NCSC project staff throughout the tation, and analysis. This committee, called project by the JNAC leadership, and the Ad- the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee ministrative Judges of each trial court. Cru- (JNAC), is composed of the Administrative cial in the early stages of the project was Judges of each of the trial courts and se-convening ad hoc working committees of lected other justices designated by the Ad-judges from each trial court to determine ministrative Judges. An additional role of the case type groups for which case weights the JNAC is to shepherd acceptance and (workload standards) would be established. implementation of the study results within This was a necessary first step for the time the Judicial Branch and externally with part-study data collection. ners in government. We will return to discuss the work of the As agreed in the project plan, JNAC mem-JNAC in the context of reporting on the bers were identified at the start of the study, time study and the adoption of the final case weights. Members of the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee District Court Superior Court Administrative Judge Kelly Administrative Judge Lynn Judge Cullen Marital Master Rein Judge Korbey Judge Sullivan Probate Court Administrative Judge Maher Judge Cassavecchia Judge Cloutier Judge Patten New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 4. Case Types S uitable case type categories are im-a practical perspective, case types should be portant because they are the foundation aggregated into a meaningful, but limited of measured workload. Knowing the aver-number of categories that are likely to re- age time different types of cases take allows main stable over time. The goal is a man- estimation of judge need in relation to the ageable number of case types that judges, number and relative complexity of cases court administrators, and legislators recogheard by the court. The appropriate choice nize as distinct, important, and covering the of case types must reflect the way cases are gamut of judicial work. actually counted in a state. In addition, from Figure 3: District Court Case Types District Court Case Types Case Type Examples Criminal 1 Parking Criminal 2 Motor vehicle violations Ordinance violations Fish & game Felony (Probable Cause Hearings) Criminal 3 Class B misdemeanor DWI 1st offense Operation after revocation Criminal 4 DWI aggravated and repeat Class A misdemeanor Probation violation Civil 1 Writs of Replevin ex parte Attachment Other Civil Civil 2 Civil Writ Domestic Violence Domestic violence Petition Stalking Involuntary Emergency Admissions Mental health commitments Juvenile Abuse/neglect of children Delinquency Children in need of supervision Landlord tenant/small claims Rental property disputes Civil matters less than $5,000 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 The first step by NCSC project staff was to During these sessions, all of the many de- identify and secure lists of all case types rec-tailed case types recognized by the Judicial ognized in New Hampshire’s automated case Branch’s case management system (SUSmanagement system. Given the large num-TAIN) were classified under one or another ber of case types contained on these long, of these case type groupings.5 The result detailed, and sometimes obsolete lists (Ap-was substantively similar types of cases claspendix 1) and with the aim of limiting the sified into a manageable number of logical number of case type categories, it was nec-groupings that also reflected apparent difessary to consolidate case types into larger ferences in the average amount of judge time categories. NCSC staff worked with sub-needed to resolve the case. ject matter experts from each level of the New Hampshire court system to determine These preliminary classifications were given which case types could be readily combined to subcommittees of judges (Workload to produce preliminary case type groupings. Study Groups) from each court level for in- Figure 4: Superior Court Case Types Superior Court Case Types Case Type Examples Criminal 1 (Complex) Superior crimes against persons Criminal 2 (Routine) Property crimes District court appeals Felony preliminary hearings Criminal 3 (Simple) All other criminal cases Equity (Complex) Complex civil matters where money generally is not an issue Equity (Routine) Routine civil matters where money generally is not an issue Domestic (Complex) Divorce and related, including child custody support Domestic (Routine) Domestic violence, stalking Support enforcement and paternity Miscellaneous petitions relating to children Domestic (Simple) Marriage waiver petition Out of county support violation Civil (Complex) Torts and contracts Civil (Routine) District court appeals Other routine civil Juvenile District court appeals Certification to adult court Special juvenile matters New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 dividual and group review to discuss and cial kinds of juvenile matters that occur in- revise them as appropriate. These meetings frequently in the Superior Court. were held by conference call. Probate Court case types The final case-type groupings are shown in Four case types were developed for Probate Figures 3 - 5 for each court level. The full Court (Figure 5). Routine cases are cases original array of District, Superior, and Pro-typically concluded in one appearance be- bate Court case types are shown in Appenfore the judge. Adoption and estate admindix 1. istration matters are categorized as Non- complex. Complex cases are largely com- District Court case types prised of termination of parental rights Ten District Court case type groupings were matters. Long-term cases involve developed, and are illustrated in Figure 3, guardianships and trusteeships in which the with examples of the types of subject mat-court has continuing supervision. ter most characteristic of each. For all courts, case types are grouped into Superior Court case types meaningful categories associated with the About 100 specific Superior Court case types way cases are identified and counted in staare listed in the SUSTAIN system and were tistical reports. One gauge of the validity and aggregated into 11 major case type group-utility of these groupings is apparent in the ings (Figure 4). These include three categoease with which they can be associated with ries of criminal cases, two groups of equity the case type jurisdiction of the new Family cases, three groups of domestic relations Division. cases, two groups of civil cases, and the spe- Figure 5: Probate Court Case Types Probate Court Case Types Case Type Examples Routine Marriage waiver Nursing home matters Non-complex Adoption Estate Administration Complex Termination of Parental Rights Miscellaneous infrequently heard but complex matters Long-term Guardianship Trustee New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 5. Judge Year, Judge Day, and Judge Year Value I n this section, we describe the procedure for calculating how much time in a year judges have to work on cases. Arriving at this value is a two-stage process that entails calculating how many days per year are available for judges to hear cases (the judge year) and then determining how the business hours of each day are divided between case- related and non-case-related work (the judge day). Multiplying these two measures gives the judge year value, which is an estimate of the amount of time the “average” judge has to hear cases during the year. a. The Judge Year. Calculating the “average” judge year requires determining the number of days per year judges have to hear case-related matters. Starting with 260 days (52 weeks x 5 days per week), holidays, vacation days,6 and continuing legal education are deducted. The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee determined that judges have an average of 219 days available each year to hear cases (Figure 6). Appendix 2 shows how New Hampshire’s judge year compares with the judge years from a sample of other states. Clearly, the 219 days for New Hampshire places it near the top of the list of states who have implemented the weighted caseload methodology. b. The Judge Day. The judge day is separated into two parts: the amount of judge time devoted to (a) case-related matters and (b) non-case-related matters. Figure 6: Calculating the Judge Year Judge Year Total Days per Year (52 weeks X 5 days) Subtract Non-Working Days: Holidays - 12 Vacation - 25 CLE - 4 Total Working Days Per Year = 219 (a) Case-related time includes all time devoted to: • hearing cases on the bench; review- ing case files and documents in the preparation for hearings and mak- ing decisions on cases; • researching specific points of law related to cases; • meeting with counsel in chambers to plan management of cases or encourage settlement; • writing decisions (findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders); and • taking telephone requests for war- rants and emergency protective or- ders. (b) Non-case-related timeincludes time devoted to: • activities required of judges to con- tribute to the efficient and effective operation of the court (e.g., super- vising personnel, meeting with clerks about administrative matters; participation in state and local com- mittees); New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 • cooperation and coordination with other justice system agencies on matters of policy and practice; • community outreach and public education; • court related travel; and • personal time during the workday. Distinguishing case-related and non-case- related time provides clear recognition that judges have many responsibilities during the day and when the time study was conducted judges recorded all of those activities. The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee established the 8.5-hour work day as the starting point. One hour was deducted for Figure 7: Calculating the Judge Day Judge Day Total Hours per Day 8.5 Subtract Lunch and Breaks: - 1.0 = 7.5 Total Case-Related: 6.0 Total Non Case-Related: + 1.5 = 7.5 lunch and breaks, leaving 7.5 hours. The court policy expectation is that 6 hours are available each day for case-related work and 1.5 hours for non-case-related activities.7 Figure 7 provides an overview of the calculation. c. Judge Year Value. Multiplying the judge year (219 days) by the number of hours in a judge day available for case-related work (6 hours) gives the amount of time available per year for judges to hear cases. Thus, the judge year value in District, Superior, and Probate courts is 78,840 minutes of case- related time per judge per year (219 days x 6 hours per day x 60 minutes per hour). New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 6. Time Study T he first critical time study activ-The AOC time study included all judicial ity of the NCSC project team was to activity in seven District Court locations, complete an assessment of existing time three Superior Court locations, and three study data on hand and available for analy-Probate Court locations. For each court sis. Time studies in all three courts had been level, Judicial Department staff had selected conducted by AOC staff in 2002 and 2003. geographically diverse locations and mixes The purpose of the evaluation was to deter-of large and small courts for participation mine whether the available data was suffi-in the time study. For each location, the cient for re-analysis consistent with the duration of the time study was 4 weeks, National Center’s recommended model for which the National Center considers ad- time studies. The essential considerations equate to achieve a reasonably representawere whether the original data collection: tive picture of judicial activity in a typical year.8 Figure 8 shows the specific court 1. Included a valid sample of participating locations that were included in the time study court locations, judges, and court and the time study periods. After careful personnel. review of a representative sample of exist2. Included an adequate data collection ing data, NCSC staff determined the earlier period in each court. time study data adequate and sufficient, and 3. Provided sufficient detail to distinguish secured the full data set for coding and all relevant case types and the primary analysis. case activities performed. Figure 8: Time Study Locations and Data Collection Period District Court Time Study Date Superior Court Time Study Date Claremont January 2003 Cheshire May 2002 Dover January 2003 Hillsborough North March 2002 Exeter January 2003 Strafford June 2002 Merrimack January 2003 Milford January 2003 Probate Court Nashua January 2003 Hillsborough April/May 2003 Salem January 2003 Merrimack May 2003 Strafford June 2003 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 6.1 Data Collection and Coding Procedure The time study source data came from daily logs kept by the judges and their courtroom staff each day of the data collection period. During the time study, judges also provided copies of the courts’ schedule of cases, with annotations regarding what happened to the case. The hearing time was recorded on these logs for individual cases or for time blocks when many cases received brief attention. Judges also recorded the time spent in off-the-bench case-related time (e.g., reviewing case files, researching cases and preparing findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders), including time at home on nights and weekends (e.g., issuing warrants and emergency protective orders). In addition, non-case-related activity was included in the daily logs (e.g., lunch breaks, meetings with administrative staff, teleconferences with administrative judges, meetings with service providers, etc.).9 In short, all work time was recorded from arrival in the morning to departure in the evening and work performed at home at night and on weekends. These logs and the calendars were painstakingly audited and annotated by the Administrative Office of the Court’s Fiscal Manager (Dale Trombley) after they were submitted. During the audits, judges were contacted to complete missing data and clarify ambiguous entries. In addition, case types were determined and annotated on each schedule of cases. National Center project staff then worked with these raw data to aggregate all of the recorded time into minutes by the case type groupings discussed above in Section 4. Minutes associated with the case types were further specified by event type and then aggregated into 1) time spent prior to trial, 2) in trial or other dispositive activity, and 3) in a post-judgment proceeding. 6.2 Time Study Analysis The preliminary case weights were calculated by summing all time recorded for each case type and dividing by the number of filings for each case type in CY 2003.10 This result provides a picture of current practice: the average amount of time judges currently spend resolving cases of different types. The preliminary case weights for judges in District, Superior, and Probate Courts are shown in Figure 9. Preliminary case weights were calculated based on data received from each jurisdiction participating in the time study. These results were then used to estimate judicial need in all courts statewide. To calculate the preliminary case weights, the total number of reported case-related minutes (extrapolated to one year) was divided by the annual number of filings for each case type. For example, District Court judges recorded 7,607 Criminal (2) case-related minutes during the four-week time study period. Extrapolating this time to one year gives us 94,321 Criminal (2) case minutes.11 To develop the case weight, we divided the time New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 in minutes by the number of Criminal (2) District Court, Criminal 2 is the most prevafilings in CY 2003 (94,321/16,007). The lent case type with about 16,000 cases, re- resultant case weight of 5.8 minutes means quiring 94,000 minutes of judge time (or an that, on average, handling a Criminal (2) case average of 5.8 minutes per case). In con- in District Court requires 5.8 minutes of trast, juvenile cases with only 2,000 filings judge time. require 164,000 minutes of judge time (or an average of 82.1 minutes per case). The utility of a weighted caseload system is Caseload is not the same as workload. now easy to illustrate. For example, in the Figure 9: Preliminary Case Weights District Case Type Criminal (1) Criminal (2) Criminal (3) Criminal (4) Civil (1) Civil (2) Domestic Violence Involuntary Emergency Admissions Juvenile Landlord Tenant/Small Claims Time Preliminary Case (in Minutes) ÷ Filings = Weight 340 ÷ 814= .4 94,321 ÷ 16,007 = 5.8 51,017 ÷ 7,894 = 6.5 179,433 ÷ 11,674 = 15.3 906 ÷ 151= 6.0 33,460 ÷ 1,978 = 16.9 50,201 ÷ 1,443 = 34.8 240 ÷ 16= 15.0 164,076 ÷ 1,998 = 82.1 108,761 ÷ 6,666 = 16 682,755 48,641 Time Preliminary Case Superior Case Type (in Minutes) ÷ Filings = Weight Criminal Complex 126,360 ÷ 702 = 180 Criminal Routine 199,563 ÷ 3,313 = 60 Criminal Simple 16,042 ÷ 682 = 24 Equity Complex 92,541 ÷ 403 = 230 Equity Routine 19,095 ÷ 610 = 31 Domestic Complex 376,871 ÷ 2,264 = 166 Domestic Routine 79,337 ÷ 774 = 103 Domestic Simple 4,784 ÷ 489 = 10 Civil Complex 106,095 ÷ 941 = 107 Civil Routine 25,785 ÷ 439 = 59 Juvenile 2,100 ÷ 35 = 60 Total 1,048,572 10,652 Time Preliminary Case Probate Case Type (in Minutes) ÷ Filings = Weight Routine 360 ÷ 165 = 2 Non-Complex 89,482 ÷ 2,900 = 31 Complex 58,395 ÷ 246 = 237 Long Term 76,458 ÷ 1,079 = 71 Total 224,694 5,068 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 6.3 Assessing the Validity of the Preliminary Case Weights One way to verify the preliminary case weights, to determine how realistic and accurate they are, is to apply the case weights to a previous year’s filings. The results from the time study can then be compared to current conditions in the court and assessed. The crucial question is: Could all cases filed and disposed last year have been processed according to the case weights assigned? Appendix 4 displays the estimated judicial need for the sample of courts that participated in the time study. For all three courts, the actual number of judges matches almost exactly with the estimates of judicial need produced by the model. This result provides convincing evidence that the case weights are an accurate reflection of current practice. 6.4 Estimating Statewide Judicial Need To determine the implications of the model statewide, it is necessary to extend the results from the sample of courts participating in the study to all courts. For example, the preliminary case weight for Criminal (2) cases in District Court is 5.8 minutes. Multiplying this weight by the number of Criminal (2) filings statewide – 65,954 filings – results in a workload of 379,236 minutes. When each of the preliminary weights is multiplied by the appropriate number of filings and the resultant workloads are summed, a total workload of 2,473,662 minutes is calculated for District Court. Dividing the total amount of work by the judge year value (2,473,662 ÷ 78,840) yields an implied need of 31.4 District Court judges. In comparison, District Court actually has 30.5 judges. The full set of calculations for District, Superior, and Probate Courts is illustrated in Figure 10. On the whole, it seems clear that the preliminary case weights pass the plausibility test—the existing judicial officers could have handled the workload generated by the cases filed in CY 2003. Furthermore, the set of preliminary case weights and their implications were reviewed and accepted as valid by JNAC. The results from the time study tell us current practice. By closely examining how cases are currently being processed, data are assembled that make it possible to identify particular work areas where judicial officers may not have sufficient time to reasonably conduct their business. From this assessment, adjustments can be made to the preliminary case weights to build in sufficient time for practice to evolve from how it is currently getting done, under present resource constraints, to how it should be getting done. New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Figure 10: Assessing the Validity of the Preliminary Case Weights Preliminary Case Workload District Court Filings Weight (minutes) Criminal 1 Criminal 2 Criminal 3 Criminal 4 Civil 1 Civil 2 Domestic Violence Involuntary Emergency Admiss Juvenile 2,821 65,954 25,309 42,765 465 6,835 4,524 1,462 6,927 25,022 .4 5.8 6.5 15.3 6.0 16.9 34.8 15.0 82.1 16 1,128 379,236 164,509 654,305 2,790 115,512 157,480 21,930 568,915 407,859 Landlord and Tenant/Small Claims 182,084 2,473,662 Actual FTE 30.5 Implied FTE 31.4 -0.9 Preliminary Case Workload Superior Court Filings Weight (minutes) Criminal Complex 1,861 180 334,980 Criminal Routine 10,052 60 603,120 Criminal Simple 2,106 24 49,539 Equity Complex 1,396 230 320,562 Equity Routine 2,109 31 66,020 Domestic Complex 5,343 166 889,408 Domestic Routine 1,673 103 171,487 Domestic Simple 1,031 10 10,086 Civil Complex 2,883 107 309,497 Civil Routine 1,562 59 91,744 Juvenile 101 60 6,060 30,117 2,852,502 Actual FTE 33.2 Implied FTE 36.2 -3.0 Preliminary Case Workload Probate Court Filings Weight (minutes) Routine 368 2 736 Non-Complex 5,605 31 173,755 Complex 429 237 101,673 Long Term 1,778 71 126,238 Total 8,180 402,468 Actual FTE 5.2 Implied FTE 5.1 0.1 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 7. Adequacy of Time Survey D uring the month of November 2004, the National Center administered a web-based survey to all judges, justices, and marital masters statewide to gather perspective on the sufficiency of time to perform key case-related and non-case- related tasks. Results from the survey were used by the three Workload Study Groups and the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee to evaluate the preliminary workload standards and ensure that they provide sufficient time for quality performance. The web-based survey was divided into two basic sections: (1) basic respondent information and (2) an assessment of whether there is adequate time within current resource levels to do a reasonable job in performing essential judicial tasks. The first section asked respondents to indicate the level of court they worked in, their position (judge/justice or marital master), their status (part-time or full-time), and their length of service on the bench. The second part Figure 11: Adequacy of Time Survey I generally have enough time to… of the survey asked respondents to evaluate whether they have enough time to do a reasonable job in performing necessary judicial duties. The list of specific judicial duties is organized around four areas: pre-trial activities, trial activities, post-judgment activities, and general court management activities.12 Specifically, for each of the separate judicial duties, judges and marital masters were asked to evaluate the statement, “I generally have enough time to…” complete this judicial duty in a reasonable and satisfactory way, on a scale ranging from “Almost Never” to “Almost Always.” For duties that respondents did not regularly perform or did not apply to their position, a response of “Does Not Apply” was available. An example of the survey layout is provided below in Figure 11. Overall, 23 District Court judges, 18 Superior Court judges, 11 Marital Masters, and 4 Probate judges, from across the state, completed the surveys. Review post-judgment motions and other relevant information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N/A Almost Very Very Almost Does Not Never Seldom Seldom Occasionally Frequently Frequently Always Apply New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 National Center staff compiled the rein need of additional time, regardless of sponses and analyzed results separately for court level, to complete their tasks. One pos- judicial officers in District, Superior, and sible explanation for the lack of time in this Probate courts.13 For each judicial activity area is that judges are forced to make an average response score was generated.14 tradeoffs with the time they have available. The complete set of results for District In other words, accomplishing the essential Court, Superior Court, and Probate Court activities (e.g., pre-trial, trial, and post-judg- are displayed in Appendices 5 - 7. To ease ment activities) associated with their caseload interpretation, the judicial duties are sorted, comes at the expense of general court man- within each of the four areas, based upon agement (e.g., supervise and evaluate staff, the average response score. In addition, a conduct general legal research, participate in line has been drawn at the response score public outreach and education). of 4 (“Occasionally”). Responses at or below the line represent judicial duties where The adequacy of time results were shared respondents feel at best they only “occasionwith JNAC and it was recommended that ally” have enough time to complete in a rea-the Workload Study Groups use the survey sonable and satisfactory way. A summary results as a guide when reviewing the pre- of the results is provided in Figure 12. liminary case weights with an eye toward making appropriate quality adjustments. In Figure 12, a check mark is placed next to judicial duties where average response scores were 4 or less. For example, the average score of 3.8, for judges in District Court who conduct settlement conferences, is slightly below the threshold of 4. Thus, judges in District Court who conduct settlement conferences perceive this as an area where more time may be warranted to ensure the quality handling of cases. In summary, there are relatively few activities within the area of Pre-trial, none in the area of Trial, and only one activity in Post- Judgment that were perceived by judicial officers as insufficient in the amount of time available to complete their judicial duties in a reasonable and satisfactory way. However, in the area of General Court Management several activities are perceived by judges as New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Figure 12: Adequacy of Time Survey Results I generally have enough time . . . With Respect to Pre-Trial Activities: 1 to conduct the advisement or first appearance 2 to conduct preliminary hearings 3 to conduct pre-trial hearings and motions 4 to conduct hearings on temporary custody, support, etc. 5 to consider bail or pre-trial release 6 to consider home study, social/psych. evaluations 7 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 8 to conduct settlement conferences 9 to take pleas 10 to adequately review the case file 11 to adequately explain orders and rulings 12 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 13 to treat members of the bar appropriately With Respect to Trial: 14 to prepare for a trial (or contested hearing) 15 to conduct a trial (or contested hearing) 16 to prepare findings, conclusions and orders With Respect to Post-Judgment Activities: 17 to hold sentencing hearings 18 to review post-judgment motions and other relevant information 19 to hold probation violation, modification, review and other hearings 20 to read and consider presentence and other eval/diagnostic reports 21 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 22 to treat members of the bar appropriately 23 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants With Respect to General Court Management 24 to participate in evaluation/planning/administration of the court 25 to supervise and evaluate staff 26 to conduct general and legal research 27 to perform case management activities 28 to monitor timeliness of required case events 29 to participate in judicial education and training 30 to participate in public outreach and education 31 to read and respond to correspondence 32 to make and answer telephone calls 33 to read slip opinions, professional periodicals, papers and journals Note: check marks represent items with an average score of 4 ("Occassionally") or less District Superior Probate New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 8. Quality Adjustments by Expert Committees of Judicial Officers T he quality adjustment process took place over three days in four meetings. The first three meetings were attended by members of the Workload Study Groups (WSG) for the District, Superior, and Probate Courts. At the fourth meeting, the JNAC members were provided with the recommendations made by the WSGs and asked to consider their policy and resource implications. At each WSG meeting, National Center staff provided members a brief orientation to the process involved in preparing the preliminary time study weights. This was followed by review of the adequacy of time survey results and what they imply about the nature and existence of current resource constraints. All judges attending each meeting engaged in a structured discussion of judicial experience and opinion regarding the scope and consequences of existing trade- offs facing judges as they attempt to balance available time with workload demands. The study groups examined current practice (as measured by the time study), judicial attitudes (as measured by the statewide survey), and their personal knowledge of statutory and public policy trends, personal experience and opinion to confront issues of perceived resource constraints and make recommendations on the content of the final case weights. Specifically, for each case type, each judge was asked to consider: Is the amount of time being spent on these cases sufficient to achieve a level of quality that is consistent with reasonable standards? Interpretation of the time study findings were supported by looking “inside the numbers” for each case weight to see how total time is distributed across pre-trial, trial, and post-judgment activities. Perspective on the way judges’ time is spent over the life of a case adds focus and precision to the deliberations. Complete “inside the numbers” information was given to the judges for all cases in each working group. For example, Figure 13 illustrates these results for juvenile and landlord-tenant/small claims cases in the District Court. Considering juvenile cases, it is known that 100% of all cases include pre-trial activity and the estimated average time spent on such matters by judges is 17 minutes. So, pretrial matters contribute 17 minutes of the total case weight of 82.1 minutes. By contrast, trials only occur in an estimated 12% of the juvenile cases; but when they occur, typical trials last 173 minutes. Combining these two factors (173 minutes x .12 event frequency) means that trial time contributes 20.8 minutes to the overall case weight. Likewise, post disposition activity takes an average of about 59 minutes and occurs in 75 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Figure 13: “Inside the Numbers”: An Example Time Study Event Time Study (minutes) x Frequency = Result Juvenile Pre-trial 17 x 100% = 17.0 Trial 173 x 12% = 20.8 Post Disposition 59 x 75% = 44.3 82.1 Case Weight Landlord Tenant/Small Claims Pre-trial 2 x 100% = 2.0 Trial 21 x 50% = 10.7 Post Disposition 12 x 30% = 3.6 16.3 Case Weight Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total percent of the cases, contributing 44.3 min-processing. Small adjustments were recomutes to the case weight. mended by the WSGs to one of the ten preliminary case weights in District Court, three The utility of this event level analysis is that of eleven in Superior Court, and two of four it allows judges to see the average time in Probate Court. currently being spent by event as they evaluate whether current practice is adequate to do a job of reasonable quality. In addition, District Court if an adjustment to current practice seems warranted to improve the quality of case pro-For the District Court, the proposed quality cessing, the overall impact of the adjustment adjustment pertained to the Civil 2 case type. on the case weight can be calculated. Here the District Court judges agreed that the current press of business has reduced The complete “inside the numbers” for all the average time available for pre-trial mat- case types for all of the courts is shown in ters to an unacceptably low level. Specifi- Appendices 8 - 10. cally, judges stated they often have inadequate time to review the case file and pleadings at this stage. The recommendation by 8.1 What Adjustments Were the WSG was to increase average pre-trial Actually Made and Why? time from 1 minute to 5 minutes. On the whole, the Workload Study Groups viewed current judicial resource levels as adequate for efficient and effective case 28 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 District Court Adjustments Event Time Event Contribution to (in Minutes) x Frequency = Workload Standard Civil (2) Pre-trial 1 5 x 100% = 1.0 5 Trial 40 x 25% = 10.0 Post Disposition 24 x 25% = 6.0 Final Workload Standard 16.9 20.9 Superior Court The Superior Court Judges adjusted three case weights. For Criminal complex and Criminal routine cases, the judges added 5 minutes and 3 minutes, respectively, to the pre-trial time to allow additional time to research and draft orders on pretrial motions. The quality adjustment recommended for the Civil complex cases was 10 minutes in the Superior Court Adjustments pre-trial phase to allow more time to prepare for and conduct settlement discussions. The judges noted that well-informed settlement discussions reduce the likelihood of trial, and when trial is the best choice, pretrial conferences help to better focus trial preparation and shorten trial time. Event Time Event Contribution to (in Minutes) x Frequency = Workload Standard Criminal Complex Pre-trial 60 Trial 487 Post Disposition 63 Final Workload Standard Criminal Routine Pre-trial 35 Trial 306 Post Disposition 50 Final Workload Standard Civil Complex Pre-trial 30 Trial 1,360 Post Disposition 59 Final Workload Standard 65 x 100% = x 15% = x 75% = 38 x 100% = x 5% = x 20% = 40 x 100% = x 5% = x 15% = 60 73 47 180 35 15 10 60 30 68 9 107 65 185 38 63 40 117 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Probate Court (from 20 minutes to 30 minutes) for more careful consideration of home study reports In the Probate Court two adjustments were and hearings in cases where birth parents recommended. For the Routine probate voluntarily surrender rights to their children. cases, characterized by nursing home administration accounts, marriage waivers, In summary, New Hampshire judges found and petitions to file authenticated copies of that current practice as reflected in the pre- wills, all of the judicial activity takes place liminary time study weights is adequate for during a “one-shot” review of the file achieving a level of quality that is consistent documentation and pleadings. Probate with reasonable standards of best practice, judges believe that the press of other busiwith a few exceptions. This is consistent ness tends to make these reviews increaswith the findings of the Adequacy of Time ingly pro forma and more dependent on brief-Survey.15 As discussed in the following secings by counsel than best practice would detion, Implications, the recommended adjustmand, and they recommend increasing avments have little impact on the overall state’s erage time from 2 minutes to 5 minutes for judge need. these cases. For Non-complex probate matters, characterized by adoptions and estate The final quality-adjusted case weights for administrations, judges want to add 10 min-all case types are shown in Figure 14. utes to the preliminary time study weight Probate Court Adjustments EventEvent Time Contribution to x Frequency(in Minutes) = Workload Standard Routine Pre-trial 2 5 x 100% = 2 5 Trial x 0% = 0 Post Disposition x 0% = 0 Final Workload Standard 2 5 Non-Complex Pre-trial 20 30 x 100% = 20 30 Trial 52 x 15% = 8 Post Disposition 10 x 35% = 4 Final Workload Standard 31 41 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Figure 14: Final quality-adjusted case weights District Case Type Final Adjusted Weights Criminal (1) Criminal (2) Criminal (3) Criminal (4) Civil (1) Civil (2) Domestic Violence Involuntary Emergency Admissions Juvenile Landlord Tenant/Small Claims .4 5.8 6.5 15.3 6.0 20.9 34.8 15.0 82.1 16 Final Adjusted Weights Superior Case Type Criminal Complex Criminal Routine Criminal Simple Equity Complex Equity Routine Domestic Complex Domestic Routine Domestic Simple Civil Complex Civil Routine Juvenile Probate Case Type 185 65 24 230 31 166 103 10 117 59 60 Final Adjusted Weights Routine Non-Complex Complex Long Term 8.2 Implications of the Final Case Weights Preliminary case weights were developed for the District, Superior, and Probate Courts based on separate time studies conducted in a sample of participating courts (Figure 8). When the preliminary case weights were applied statewide, they showed an implied 2 31 237 71 need for an additional 0.9 District Court judges, 3 additional Superior Court judges and essentially no change in the Probate Court (Figure 10). From this starting point, the reasonableness of each individual case weight for each of the three courts was examined by members of the appropriate Workload Study Group. These groups recommended changes to a total of six case New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 types (one District Court case type, three Superior Court case types, and two Probate Court case types), with the end product being a final set of quality-adjusted case weights (Figure 14). The impact on implied judge need of the six case type adjustments is an increase of .3 judicial FTE in District Court, .9 judicial FTE in Superior Court, and .8 judicial FTE in Probate Court. Taken together, applying the preliminary case weights statewide and the quality-adjustment process, both contribute to overall implied judicial need. Overall judicial need is calculated by applying the final cases weights to CY 2003 statewide filings. Results show the need for an additional 1.2 judicial officers in District Court, 3.8 judicial officers in Superior Court, and .7 judicial officers in Probate Court (Figure 15). Figure 15 shows the actual number of judicial officers at the time of the study, the implied need calculated by the study, and the resource deviation for both the preliminary case weights (current practice) and weights following the quality adjustment process. Because the resource deviation is calculated by subtracting the actual number of judicial officers from the implied need, a negative resource deviation suggests the need for additional resources. Across the three courts, the adjustments show the need to add 5.6 FTE judicial officers to the existing complement of 68.9 FTE judicial officers. Appendices 11 - 13 display the resource implications for each District, Probate, and Superior court in New Hampshire when both the preliminary case weights and the quality adjusted weights are applied to filings. The implied need, derived from the preliminary case weights, corresponds very closely with the actual number of FTE judicial officers for each of the individual court locations. Figure 15: Implied Need Following the Quality-Adjustment Process Time Study Resource Implied Need Deviation Court Actual (FTE) (Actual -Time St) Quality Adjustment Resource Implied Need Deviation (FTE) (Actual - Adjusted) District 30.5 31.4 Superior 33.2 36.2 Probate 5.2 5.1 -0.9 31.7 -1.2 -2.9 37.0 -3.8 0.1 5.8 -0.7 Total 68.9 72.7 -3.8 74.5 -5.6 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 9. Preparation of Final Case Weights and Determination of Judicial Need The quality adjustment recommendations of the Workload Study Groups charging their administrative responsibilities. They are too often called upon were presented to JNAC and the Administo fill in for trial judges absent due to trative Office of the Courts on December educational sessions, illness or otherwise 15, 2004. Final consideration and discus-unable to work on their cases. While an sion of major policy decisions related to the extensive evaluation of this time comstudy were the focus of the agenda. Of ponent was beyond the scope of this special importance were acceptance and ratievaluation, it is clear that administrative fication of primary project findings: judges spend significant time on planning, budgeting, and legislative matters. 1. A judge year standard of 219 days is appropriate for judges in New Hampshire. 2. A judge day standard based on 6 hours of case-related time and 1.5 hours of non-case-related time is in line with expected judicial practice in New Hampshire. Given the results from the Adequacy of Time Survey, it would be appropriate in the future to more fully explore the time available to judges for general court management. 3. The recommendations of the Workload Study Groups are reasonable and supported by members of JNAC. These should be incorporated in the Judicial Branch budget requests for the next fiscal year. 4. Special note should be taken of the ongoing erosion of time administrative judges of each division have for dis- New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 10. Recommendations T he case weights adopted by JNAC indicate the need for an additional 5.6 judicial officers to effectively handle the current caseload of New Hampshire. These case weights are grounded in current practice (as measured by the time study) and adjusted for quality by members of the New Hampshire judiciary. Over time, the integrity of workload standards are affected by multiple influences, including changes in legislation, court rules, legal practice, technology, and administrative factors. Examples of such factors include legislative mandates that increase the number of required hearings (e.g., additional review hearings in dependency cases), the development of specialized courts (e.g., New Hampshire’s new Family Division, drug courts, etc.), and the introduction of more efficient case management practices. Periodic updating is necessary to ensure that the standards continue to accurately represent judicial workload. Three recommendations are made below that will improve New Hampshire’s ability to maintain the integrity of the workload standards. The 2005 study considerably enhances the potential for keeping the case weights current. Each workload standard is constructed by compiling information on three distinct case event categories: pre-trial time, trial time, and post-judgment time. It is possible to Recommendation 1: The AOC should conduct a systematic update of the workload standards approximately every five years. Funding for this should be part of the regular legislative agenda related to the process of assessing the need for new judgeships. The review process should be undertaken under the auspices of an advisory body similar to JNAC. assess the validity and reasonableness of each workload standard by examining this event-level information. Over time, adjustments can then be made to the case weights at the event level to respond to new court rules, legislative mandates, and improved case processing strategies. This targeted adjustment strategy will reduce the need for conducting the complete, expensive, and time-consuming time-study procedures. New Hampshire’s ability to simplify the process of keeping weights current depends on two additional recommendations. The integrity of the workload standards depends on maintaining the quality of record keeping and statistical reporting. Specifically, accurate calculation of judicial workload requires knowing 1) how many cases of each type are filed; 2) how cases are disposed (e.g., was the case disposed after a trial or was the case dismissed or settled?); New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Recommendation 2: The new case management system should be able to track filings and dispositions based upon the case types developed in this study. Additionally, an accurate gathering of trial and post-judgment data should be made a priority. and, finally, 3) how many cases involved post- judgment activity. If the records of case filings and manner of disposition include significant variations in event classification from county to county, or if misclassifications or over- or under- counts regularly occur in some counties, then the estimate of judge need will be unreliable and inaccurate. Regular and thorough auditing and feedback for correcting data collection problems is critical for achieving reliability in reporting across the courts. Recommendation 3: The AOC should count criminal cases using defendants as the unit of count rather than the number of charges against each defendant. Trials and post-judgment activity represent a substantial part of judges’ workload and needs to be captured accurately. Unfortunately, data on trials and post-judgment activity is not currently available. Efforts should be made to ensure that the type of data needed by the Judiciary is maintained and available on an ongoing basis. Currently, the AOC counts the number of criminal charges as the unit of count rather than the number of defendants. According to the State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting, a resource guide for determining and counting elements of court caseloads, criminal cases should use the defendant as the unit of count, regardless of the number of charges in a single incident. Charge-based systems introduce unnecessary variability related to local legal practices of the prosecutor. As the new case management system is developed, the AOC should consider moving away from counting charges and ensure that filings be counted by defendant. New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Endnotes 1 FTEs were calculated for National Center staff using actual work schedule assignments of full- and part-time judges in each judicial district for the time study period. FTEs for Probate court were based on the schedule titled “Judicial Assignments January 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003” provided by Patti Cole. District court was based on the existing judicial weighted caseload scheduling plan for 2003, which totaled 30.5.  Superior court was based on CY 2003 assignments totaling 33.3 FTE (26.8 judges and 6.5 marital masters).   2 Judge Kelly is named to become the first Administrative Judge of the newly created Family Division. 3 Among recent examples are California, Florida, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. 4 A review in 1994 resulted in recommended changes that were not implemented. 5 On close inspection it was apparent that some designated “case types” were misplaced logically (e.g., were case events or other case processing notations), were never used, or should for other reasons be dropped or reorganized in a future system. 6 Effective January 1, 2005 judges with 10 or more years of full time service shall be credited with 30 annual days per year (Supreme Court Administrative Order 2005-04). 7 New Hampshire’s court policy is in line with typical expectations of other states. 8 Care is taken to be sure that the study period is not atypical in some important way. A fair technical question might be raised at this stage: since the time study does not capture all of the minutes judges spend over the life of cases, how was it possible for the method to validly measure the average time it takes to process cases from start-to-finish? A brief answer is that in any given four-week period it is safe to assume that we capture a representative sample of workload associated with all stages in the life of the typical case. That is, some cases have just their beginning activities captured; for others we capture events in the middle; some have the dispositive events captured, and still others have events captured that occur after disposition is reached. A more detailed explanation for the avid technical reader is offered in Appendix 2. 9 Analysis of how much time is spent on different kinds of non-case-related activity is beyond the scope of this study. 10 Since time was only recorded in a sample of courts, the preliminary case weights are based upon the filings from the sample of courts. 11 The four weeks worth of data is multiplied by 12.4 to estimate 49.6 weeks of time; the court is closed for 12 days for holidays. 12 The National Center developed an initial draft of judicial duties that were vetted and finalized by members of JNAC. 13 Because of the similar nature of survey responses for judges and marital masters in the Superior Court, a single combined analysis of responses was undertaken. 14 Responses of “Not my job” were treated as missing data. 15 As discussed in the Adequacy of Time Survey, judges noted only a few judicial tasks in the pre-trial stage where time was not adequate for case -related work, while most essential activities related to general court management were shorted. New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendices Appendix 1: Case Type Detail Appendix 2: Judge Year Comparison Appendix 3: Event - Based Weighted Caseload Methodology Appendix 4: Assessing the Validity of the Preliminary Weights in the Time Study Locations Appendix 5: Adequacy of Time Survey Results – District Court Appendix 6: Adequacy of Time Survey Results – Superior Court Appendix 7: Adequacy of Time Survey Results – Probate Court Appendix 8: Inside the Numbers – District Court Appendix 9: Inside the Numbers – Superior Court Appendix 10: Inside the Numbers – Probate Court Appendix 11: Implied Need – District Court Appendix 12: Implied Need – Superior and Probate Courts New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 1: Case Type Detail Probate Routine Complex Blank Case Type Field Marriage Waiver No Case Type - will be Assigned Nursing Home - no administration Pet. File & Record Auth Copy Will Non-Complex Adoption Adoption - Agency, Related Adoption - Agency, Unrelated Adoption - Private, Related Adoption - Private, Unrelated Adoption Consent /No Adoption File Change of Name Conservatorship Intestate Administration Involuntary Admission Involuntary Adm-Mental Retardation Relinquishment Testate Administration Voluntary Admin. with Will Voluntary Admin. without Will Charitable Uses & Trust Claims for Services by Fiduciary Equity - Other Inter Vivos Trust Petition for Declaratory Judgment Petition on Cemetery Trust Funds Petition to Partition Power of Attorney Quiet Title Termination of Parental Rights Long-term Guardianship of a Minor Guardianship of an Incompetent Special Needs Trust Trustee Named in Will Trustee not Named in Will No weight Death Certificate Will Wills Filed - No Administration District Criminal 1 Civil 1 Parking Other Civil Writ of Replevin Criminal 2 Ex Parte Attachment M.V. ViolationOther Violation Misdemeanor Criminal-Dept. of Transportation Fish & Game Town Ordinance Stalking Telephonic DV Telephonic Criminal-Felony Fire Inspection Warrant Civil 2 Civil Writ Domestic Violence Domestic Violence Petition Stalking Foreign Protective Orders Criminal 3 Involuntary Emergency Admissions Extradition Involuntary Emergency Admissions Parole Revocation Operating After Rev/Susp 1st Off. Juvenile Class B Misdemeanor Abuse Petition DWI 1st Offense Delinquency Petition Neglect Petition Criminal 4 CHINS Petition Aggravated DWI Juvenile Drug Court DWI 2nd Offense Class A Misdemeanor Landlord and Tenant/Small Claims Search Warrant Landlord-Tenant Under 540-A:4 VIII DWI Subsequent Landlord-Tenant Writ Probation Violation Small Claim Complaint Contempt of Court New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 1: Case Type Detail (continued) Superior Criminal 1 (Complex) Domestic (Complex) 1st & 2nd Degree Assault 1st & 2nd Degree Murder Aggravated Felonious Sexual Assault Capital Murder Child Pornography Conspiracy Felonious Sexual Assault Manslaughter Negligent Homicide Joint Petition Joint Petition for Divorce Libel for Divorce Pet. for Custody and Other Relief Petition for Custody and Support Petition for Custody Petition for Legal Separation Petition for Support Petition for Divorce Criminal 2 (Routine) Domestic (Routine) All Other Felonies All Other Misdemeanors Contested Grand Jury Matters District Ct Misdemeanor Appeals Juvenile Certification Criminal 3 (Simple) All Other Criminal Cases Boundover Motion to Dispose of Property Petition for Destruction of Drugs Search Warrants Violation Bail Receipt - No Judicial Time Domestic Violence Petition DVP Transfer Petition for Annulment Petition for Legitimation Petition for Paternity and Support Pet. for Grandparent Visitation Petition for Paternity Pet'n to Register Foreign Decree Petn to Reg For'n Decree & Modify Pet'n to Register Foreign Support Registration of Foreign DVP Registration of Foreign Order Stalking Petition Equity (Complex) Bill in Equity Contract Declaratory Judgment Eminent Domain Interpleader Labor Board Appeal Mandamus Partition Planning Board Appeal - Certiorari Pet-Dissolution of Partnership Petition for Discovery Personal Injury Petition for Injunction Petition to Quiet Title Replevin Petition for Specific Performance Trespass Zoning Board Appeal Domestic (Simple) Coverage for Other Superior Court Marriage Waiver Petition Out of County Support Violation Other Pet-Enforce Obligation of Support Pet to Establish Support Order Petition Petition for Visitation Petition for Separate Maintenance Pet'n to Recover Public Assistance To be Determined Transfer from Another Court URESA Initiating State URESA Responding State Continued on next page New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 1: Case Type Detail (continued) Superior (Continued) Equity (Routine) Civil (Complex) Administrative License Suspension Coverage for District Court OTHER Collection Coverage for Other Superior Court Pet. for Ex Parte Rest. Order Fraudulent Conveyance Forfeiture Foreclosure Habeas Corpus Habitual Offender Appeal Subpoena for In State Witness Juror Show Cause Motor Vehicle Admin. Appeal Marriage Waiver Petition Notice of Bond Claim Other Petition for Accounting Petition Pet to Approve Minor Settlement Petition for Receivership Petition for Return of Property Pet'n for Special School Meeting Petition for Special Town Meeting Registration of Foreign Order Right to Know Stalking Petition Tax Abatement To be Determined Transfer from Another Court Wage Claim Juvenile District Court Appeal Habeas Corpus Indictment Juvenile Certification Negligence Other Petition 519-A Medical Malpractice Contract Declaratory Judgment Fraudulent Conveyance Malpractice - Other Malpractice - Medical Misrepresentation & Fraud Negligence Personal Injury Replevin Small Claims Transfer Petition for Specific Performance Trespass Wrongful Discharge Civil (Routine) Collection Construction Coverage for Other Superior Court District Court Appeal Libel/Slander/Defamation Forfeiture Plea of Indemnity Other Pet'n to Approve Minor Settlement Pet'n to Register Foreign Decree Registration of Foreign Order Right to Know Suit on Note To be Determined Transfer from Another Court Wage Claim New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 2: Judge Year Comparison Judge Year Judge Year State (in days) State (in days) Kansas 224 Michigan 215 Missouri 224 New Mexico 214 Delaware 222 Washington 214 New York 221 Connecticut 213 Colorado 220 Wisconsin 213 Georgia 220 Nebraska 211 Oregon 220 Utah 211 Maine 219 Louisiana 209 New Hampshire 219 West Virginia 209 Hawaii 218 North Dakota 205 South Dakota 216 Minnesota 202 California 215 Alabama 200 Florida 215 25 state average 215 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 3: Event Based Weighted Caseload Methodology T he time study weighted caseload technique is a method to measure case complexity in terms of the amount of judicial time needed to process a case from the initial filing to disposition to post-judgment activity (if any). The Event-Based Weighted Caseload Methodology is designed to take a snapshot of court activity and compare the judge time spent on primary case events to the number of cases entering the court. As such, the study measures the total amount of judicial time in an average month devoted to processing each particular type of case to be weighted (e.g., juvenile, landlord tenant/ small claims, equity). Because it is a snapshot, few cases will actually complete the journey from filing to final resolution during the study period. However, each participating court will be processing a number of each type of case in varying stages of the case lifecycle (i.e., some particular types of cases will be in the pre-trial phase, other similar types of cases will be in the trial phase, while still others of the same type of case will be in the post-trial stage). For example, during a given month, a Superior Court location will handle the initiation of a number of new contract cases, while the same court will also have other contract cases (perhaps filed months earlier) on the trial docket, and still other contract/commercial cases in the post-judgment phase. Moreover, if the sample period is representative, the mix of new, trial, and post-judgment activities conducted for each type of case as well as the time devoted to each type of activity will be representative of the type of work entering the court throughout the year. Therefore, data collected during the study period will provide a direct measure of the amount of judicial time devoted to the full range of key case processing events. The average number of cases filed each month in each participating court is also compiled. For example, if a court spent 1,000 hours processing felony cases and there were 500 felony cases filed, this would be an average of two hours per felony (1,000 hours/500 felony filings). This two-hour “workload standard” is interpreted as the average time to process a felony case from filing to final resolution—even though no individual case is tracked from start to finish. Rather, the workload standard is a composite of separate (though likely similar) cases observed at various points in the case life cycle. The following figure illustrates this concept. Assume the chart shows the progress of four separate cases of a similar type through a given court during the four weeks of the time study. It is not necessary that cases be tracked from start to finish. Instead, for each type of case examined, the study tracks the time spent on key case processing events during each case’s life cycle. When the time spent on each event for these four cases is summed up for the one-month period, the result is an estimate of the total amount of time needed to process a case from start to New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 = Case processing events 1st case 4th case 2nd case 3rd case finish—even though no particular case is tracked from start to finish. Type 1 provides the time required to process the closing segment of case life; Type 2 provides the time required to complete an entire case; Type 3 focuses on the beginning segment of case life; and Type 4 provides the time required to process the middle segment of case life. Time study period New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 4: Assessing the Validity of the Preliminary Weights in the Time Study Locations Preliminary Case Workload District Court Filings Weight (minutes) Criminal 1 Criminal 2 Criminal 3 Criminal 4 Civil 1 Civil 2 Domestic Violence Involuntary Emergency Admiss Juvenile 814 16,007 7,894 11,674 151 1,978 1,443 16 1,998 6,666 .4 326 5.8 92,040 6.5 51,311 15.3 178,612 6.0 906 16.9 33,428 34.8 50,231 15.0 240 82.1 164,096 16 108,656 Landlord and Tenant/Small Claims 48,641 679,846 Actual FTE 8.7 Implied FTE 8.6 0.0 Preliminary Case Workload Superior Court Filings Weight (minutes) Criminal Complex 702 180 126,360 Criminal Routine 3,313 60 198,780 Criminal Simple 682 24 16,042 Equity Complex 403 230 92,541 Equity Routine 610 31 19,095 Domestic Complex 2,264 166 376,871 Domestic Routine 774 103 79,337 Domestic Simple 489 10 4,784 Civil Complex 941 107 101,019 Civil Routine 439 59 25,785 Juvenile 35 60 2,100 10,652 1,042,713 Actual FTE 13.3 Implied FTE 13.2 0.1 Preliminary Case Workload Probate Court Filings Weight (minutes) Routine 165 2 330 Non-Complex 2,900 31 89,900 Complex 246 237 58,302 Long Term 1,079 71 76,609 Total 4,390 225,168 Actual FTE 2.9 Implied FTE 2.9 0.0 Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 49 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 5: Adequacy of Time Survey Results - District Court I generally have enough time . . . Almost Very Seldom Occasionally Frequently Very Almost Never Seldom Frequently Always With Respect to Pre-Trial Activities: N Mean 13 to treat members of the bar appropriately 22 6.4 9 to take pleas 23 6.3 12 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 22 6.3 5 to consider bail or pre-trial release 23 6.2 1 to conduct the advisement or first appearance 20 6.1 2 to conduct preliminary hearings 23 5.6 6 to consider home study, social/psych. evaluations 19 5.3 7 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 23 5.2 3 to conduct pre-trial hearings and motions 23 5.0 11 to adequately explain orders and rulings 23 4.7 10 to adequately review the case file 23 4.7 4 to conduct hearings on temporary custody, support, etc. 8 4.1 8 to conduct settlement conferences 14 3.8 Overall Pre-Trial Activities 5.5 With Respect to Trial: 15 to conduct a trial (or contested hearing) 22 6.0 14 to prepare for a trial (or contested hearing) 23 5.0 16 to prepare findings, conclusions and orders 23 4.7 Overall Trial Activities 5.2 With Respect to Post-Judgment Activities: 21 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 22 6.2 22 to treat members of the bar appropriately 22 6.2 19 to hold probation violation, modification, review and other hearings 23 6.0 17 to hold sentencing hearings 22 5.5 18 to review post-judgment motions and other relevant information 23 5.5 20 to read and consider presentence and other eval/diagnostic reports 22 5.5 23 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 23 5.3 Overall Post-Judgment Activities 5.7 With Respect to General Court Management 32 to make and answer telephone calls 23 4.6 31 to read and respond to correspondence 23 4.3 33 to read slip opinions, professional periodicals, papers and journals 23 4.3 29 to participate in judicial education and training 23 4.2 26 to conduct general and legal research 23 4.0 24 to participate in evaluation /planning /administration of the court 22 3.8 27 to perform case management activities 22 3.5 25 to supervise and evaluate staff 20 3.4 28 to monitor timeliness of required case events 23 3.3 30 to participate in public outreach and education 23 3.2 Overall General Court Management Activities 3.9 4.0 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 6: Adequacy of Time Survey Results - Superior Court I generally have enough time . . . Almost Never Very Seldom Seldom Occasionally Frequently Very Frequently Almost Always With Respect to Pre-Trial Activities: N Mean 13 to treat members of the bar appropriately 27 6.5 12 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 27 6.4 5 to consider bail or pre-trial release 18 6.2 1 to conduct the advisement or first appearance 18 6.0 9 to take pleas 17 5.9 2 to conduct preliminary hearings 21 5.9 3 to conduct pre-trial hearings and motions 27 5.6 7 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 27 5.4 6 to consider home study, social/psych. evaluations 22 5.4 4 to conduct hearings on temporary custody, support, etc. 25 5.4 11 to adequately explain orders and rulings 26 4.8 10 to adequately review the case file 27 4.8 8 to conduct settlement conferences 24 4.5 Overall Pre-Trial Activities 5.6 With Respect to Trial: 15 to conduct a trial (or contested hearing) 26 6.0 14 to prepare for a trial (or contested hearing) 26 5.0 16 to prepare findings, conclusions and orders 26 5.0 Overall Trial Activities 5.3 With Respect to Post-Judgment Activities: 22 to treat members of the bar appropriately 27 6.6 21 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 27 6.4 17 to hold sentencing hearings 18 6.3 20 to read and consider presentence and other eval/diagnostic reports 22 5.7 18 to review post-judgment motions and other relevant information 26 5.7 19 to hold probation violation, modification, review and other hearings 23 5.6 23 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 25 5.4 Overall Post-Judgment Activities 6.0 With Respect to General Court Management 32 to make and answer telephone calls 27 4.8 31 to read and respond to correspondence 24 4.7 29 to participate in judicial education and training 27 4.6 33 to read slip opinions, professional periodicals, papers and journals 27 4.3 27 to perform case management activities 25 4.1 24 to participate in evaluation/planning/administration of the court 25 4.1 26 to conduct general and legal research 27 3.8 25 to supervise and evaluate staff 24 3.8 28 to monitor timeliness of required case events 25 3.7 30 to participate in public outreach and education 24 3.3 Overall General Court Management Activities 4.1 4.0 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 7: Adequacy of Time Survey Results - Probate Court I generally have enough time . . . Almost Never Very Seldom Seldom Occasionally Frequently Very Frequently Almost Always With Respect to Pre-Trial Activities: N Mean 1 to conduct the advisement or first appearance 3 7.0 13 to treat members of the bar appropriately 4 6.3 12 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 4 6.0 7 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 4 5.8 3 to conduct pre-trial hearings and motions 4 5.3 2 to conduct preliminary hearings 3 5.0 6 to consider home study, social/psych. evaluations 4 5.0 8 to conduct settlement conferences 3 5.0 4 to conduct hearings on temporary custody, support, etc. 3 4.3 5 to consider bail or pre-trial release 1 4.0 11 to adequately explain orders and rulings 3 4.0 10 to adequately review the case file 4 3.8 9 to take pleas 0 Overall Pre-Trial Activities 5.2 With Respect to Trial: 16 to prepare findings, conclusions and orders 4 5.8 15 to conduct a trial (or contested hearing) 4 5.5 14 to prepare for a trial (or contested hearing) 4 4.5 Overall Trial Activities 5.3 With Respect to Post-Judgment Activities: 22 to treat members of the bar appropriately 4 6.3 18 to review post-judgment motions and other relevant information 4 6.0 23 to prepare and issue orders, including bench warrants 3 6.0 21 to listen to and treat parties appropriately, especially pro ses 4 5.8 20 to read and consider presentence and other eval/diagnostic reports 2 5.0 19 to hold probation violation, modification, review and other hearings 1 4.0 17 to hold sentencing hearings 0 Overall Post-Judgment Activities 5.8 With Respect to General Court Management 32 to make and answer telephone calls 3 5.3 29 to participate in judicial education and training 3 5.0 31 to read and respond to correspondence 3 5.0 30 to participate in public outreach and education 4 4.8 24 to participate in evaluation/planning/administration of the court 3 4.7 26 to conduct general and legal research 3 4.7 33 to read slip opinions, professional periodicals, papers and journals 3 4.3 27 to perform case management activities 3 4.0 28 to monitor timeliness of required case events 3 3.7 25 to supervise and evaluate staff 4 3.5 Overall General Court Management Activities 4.5 4.0 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 8: Inside the Numbers - District Court Time Study Event Time Study (minutes) x Frequency = Result Criminal (1) Pretrial 0.1 x 100% = 0.1 Trial 30 x 1%= 0.3 Post Disposition 0 x 10% = 0.0 0.4 Case Weight Criminal (2) Pretrial 4 Trial 31 Post Disposition 2 x 100% = 4.0 x 5% = 1.6 x 10% = 0.2 5.8 Case Weight Criminal (3) Pretrial 6 Trial 20 Post Disposition 3 x 100% = 6.0 x 0.5% = 0.1 x 10% = 0.3 6.4 Case Weight Criminal (4) Pretrial 8 Trial 114 Post Disposition 16 x 100% = 8.0 x 5% = 5.7 x 10% = 1.6 15.3 Case Weight Civil (1) Pretrial 1 Trial 32 Post Disposition 18 x 100% = 1.0 x 10% = 3.2 x 10% = 1.8 6.0 Case Weight Civil (2) Pretrial 1 Trial 40 Post Disposition 24 x 100% = 1.0 x 25% = 10.0 x 25% = 6.0 16.9 Case Weight Domestic Violence Pretrial 19.5 Trial 38 Post Disposition 10 x 100% = 19.5 x 35% = 13.3 x 20% = 2.0 34.8 Case Weight Involuntary Emergency Admission Pretrial 2 Trial 15 Post Disposition x 100% = 2.0 x 87% = 13.0 x 0% = 0.0 15.0 Case Weight Juvenile Pretrial 17 Trial 173 Post Disposition 59 x 100% = 17.0 x 12% = 20.8 x 75% = 44.3 82.1 Case Weight Landlord Tenant/Small Claims Pretrial 2 Trial 21 Post Disposition 12 x 100% = 2.0 x 50% = 10.7 x 30% = 3.6 16.3 Case Weight Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 9: Inside the Numbers - Superior Court Time Study Event Time Study (minutes) x Frequency = Result Criminal Complex Pretrial 60 x 100% = 60 Trial 487 x 15% = 73 Post Disposition 63 x 75% = 47 180 Case Weight Criminal Routine Pretrial 35 x 100% = 35 Trial 306 x 5% = 15 Post Disposition 50 x 20% = 10 60 Case Weight Criminal Simple Pretrial 18 x 100% = 18 Trial 560 x 1% = 6 Post Disposition x 0% = 0 24 Case Weight Equity Complex Pretrial 58 x 100% = 58 Trial 1,314 x 10% = 131 Post Disposition 1,010 x 4% = 40 230 Case Weight Equity Routine Pretrial 21 x 100% = 21 Trial 96 x 5% = 5 Post Disposition 275 x 2% = 6 31 Case Weight Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total Continued on next page. New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 9: Inside the Numbers - Superior Court (continued) Time Study (minutes) x Event Frequency = Time Study Result Domestic Complex Pretrial 33 x 100% = 33 Trial 354 x 20% = 71 Post Disposition 208 x 30% = 62 166 Case Weight Domestic Routine Pretrial 18 x 100% = 18 Trial 239 x 20% = 48 Post Disposition 122 x 30% = 37 103 Case Weight Domestic Simple Pretrial 3 x 100% = 3 Trial 15 x 10% = 2 Post Disposition 110 x 5% = 6 10 Case Weight Civil Complex Pretrial 30 x 100% = 30 Trial Post Disposition 1,360 59 x x 5% 15% = = 68 9 107 Case Weight Civil Routine Pretrial 11 x 100% = 11 Trial 916 x 5% = 46 Post Disposition 32 x 5% = 2 59 Case Weight Juvenile Pretrial 2 x 100% = 2 Trial 52 x 100% = 52 Post Disposition 33 x 20% = 7 60 Case Weight Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 10: Inside the Numbers - Probate Court Time Study Event Time Study (minutes) x Frequency = Result Routine Pretrial 2 x 100% = 2 Trial x 0% = 0 Post Disposition x 0% = 0 2 Case Weight Non-Complex Pretrial 20 Trial 52 Post Disposition 10 x 100% = 20 x 15%= 8 x 35%= 4 31 Case Weight Complex Pretrial 83 Trial 261 Post Disposition 240 x 100% = 83 x 50% = 131 x 10% = 24 237 Case Weight Long Term Pretrial 21 Trial 127 Post Disposition 370 x 100% = 21 x 10% = 13 x 10% = 37 71 Case Weight Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 11: Implied Need - District Court Time Study Quality Adjustment Resource Implied Deviation Implied Resource Deviation District Court Actual Need (FTE) (Actual -Time St) Need (FTE) (Actual - Adjusted) Auburn 0.7 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.2 Berlin 0.4 0.5 -0.1 0.5 -0.1 Claremont 0.6 0.7 0.0 0.7 -0.1 Colebrook 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Concord 2.3 2.6 -0.3 2.6 -0.3 Derry 1.2 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 Dover 1.3 1.3 0.0 1.3 0.0 Durham 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Exeter 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 Franklin 0.8 0.9 -0.1 0.9 -0.1 Goffstown 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Gorham 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Hampton 1.1 0.9 0.2 0.9 0.2 Haverhill 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 Henniker 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 Hillsborough 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 -0.1 Hooksett 0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.7 -0.1 Jaffrey/Peterborough 0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.7 -0.1 Keene 1.5 1.7 -0.2 1.7 -0.2 Laconia 1.3 1.5 -0.2 1.5 -0.2 Lancaster 0.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 Lebanon 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 Littleton 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 Manchester 3.3 3.6 -0.3 3.7 -0.4 Merrimack 1.0 1.1 -0.1 1.1 -0.1 Milford 0.7 0.7 0.0 0.7 0.0 Nashua 2.9 3.2 -0.3 3.3 -0.4 New London 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.0 Newport 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.4 0.0 Northern Carroll 0.4 0.5 -0.1 0.5 -0.1 Plaistow 0.6 0.5 0.1 0.5 0.1 Plymouth 0.7 0.6 0.1 0.6 0.1 Portsmouth 0.9 0.7 0.2 0.7 0.2 Rochester 1.4 1.6 -0.2 1.6 -0.2 Salem 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.9 0.3 Southern Carroll 0.6 0.7 -0.1 0.7 -0.1 30.5 31.4 -0.9 31.7 -1.2 Note: Due to rounding, numbers may not add up to the total New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 Appendix 12: Implied Need - Superior and Probate Courts Superior Court Belknap Carroll Cheshire Coos Grafton Hillsborough North Hillsborough South Merrimack Rockingham Strafford Sullivan Actual Implied Need (FTE) Resource Deviation (Actual -Time St) Implied Need (FTE) Resource Deviation (Actual - Adjusted) 2.3 2.4 -0.1 2.5 -0.2 1.3 1.5 -0.3 1.6 -0.3 1.8 2.3 -0.5 2.3 -0.5 1.1 1.1 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.6 1.2 0.4 1.3 0.3 7.5 7.1 0.4 7.3 0.2 5.0 5.1 -0.1 5.2 -0.2 3.6 5.0 -1.4 5.1 -1.5 4.0 5.3 -1.3 5.6 -1.6 4.0 3.8 0.2 3.9 0.1 1.1 1.3 -0.2 1.3 -0.2 Time Study Quality Adjustment 33.2 36.2 -2.9 37.0 -3.8 Probate Court Belknap Carroll Cheshire Coos Grafton Hillsborough Merrimack Rockingham Strafford Sullivan Actual Implied Need (FTE) Resource Deviation (Actual -Time St) Implied Need (FTE) Resource Deviation (Actual - Adjusted) Time Study Quality Adjustment 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.3 1.6 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 -0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 -0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 -0.1 0.4 -0.2 0.2 0.0 0.3 -0.1 1.8 -0.5 0.9 -0.1 0.7 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.3 -0.1 5.2 5.1 0.1 5.8 -0.7 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005 New Hampshire Judicial Needs Assessment, 2005