ASSESSING THE NEED FOR NEW TRIAL COURTS/JUDGESHIPS:

NATIONAL SURVEY OF STATES

Introduction

Texas does not currently have a systematic method for assessing the need for additional state trial courts or judgeships. Separate bills are filed each legislative session to create new state district courts (some indicating a speciality such as criminal, civil, family law, or juvenile) in various Texas counties. Often, and as was the case in the most recent legislative session (i.e. HB 400), the requests for courts are evaluated and consolidated into a single "court creation" bill which is substituted for the various individual requests. Unfortunately, there is not currently a scientific method for determining which requests are valid and which are not. Thus, the ultimate decision as to whether a court is created is often based on imperfect, or anecdotal information. The survey upon which this report is based is the first step in designing a more precise system for creating new trial courts in Texas.

While a 1996 study conducted by the National Center for State Courts, Assessing the Need for Judges and Court Support Staff, provides some valuable information about the various factors being used by states to evaluate judicial needs, it was necessary to update that data and supplement it with additional information.

The information presented in this report is intended to give Texas policymakers a better understanding of how other states deal with the complicated process of determining the need for additional trial courts or judgeships. In addition, this report provides an introduction to weighted caseload as an approach to assessing the need for new trial courts.

Methodology

In June 1999, surveys were faxed to each of the 49 states (excluding Texas) and the District of Columbia to determine what methods were currently being used to determine the need for new state trial courts/judgeships. A total of 48 completed surveys were returned by personnel in the various state administrative offices of the courts (AOCs) or the state supreme courts. See Appendix B for a copy of the survey instrument.

Survey Results

The results of the survey are presented on a question-by-question basis. The survey explored the following issues:

• Which entity (e.g., state legislature, state supreme court, AOC, judicial council) determines whether a new court is created?
• How often is a determination to create a new court made?
• What type of data/research products are used to determine if a need exists for new courts?
• Which entities provide data to make the decision whether or not to create new courts?
• What methods/factors are used to assess the need for new courts and which are the most important?
• Is there a written state policy regarding the criteria that must be met to create a new court?⁽¹⁾

 

Which Entity Determines Whether a New Court Should Be Created?

The vast majority of the states responding to the survey (40 states - 83 percent) indicated that the state legislature determines whether new trial courts/judgeships should be created. Six jurisdictions indicated that the state's supreme court makes that determination, and another two states noted that the Governor determines the need for new courts. (See Figure 1.)

Figure 1

Which Entity Determines the Need for New Trial Courts/Judgeships

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts Survey: Creating New Trial Courts, Texas Office of Court Administration, 1999.
Note: Since more than one entity can be responsible for determining whether a new trial court should be created in a particular state, the total number of responses indicated above may exceed the number of jurisdictions which responded to the survey (48).

Please refer to Table A2 in Appendix A for a state-by-state breakdown of which entities determine whether a new court/judgeship should be created and who provides them with the information to make that decision.

How Often is a Determination to Create New Courts/Judgeships Made?

The vast majority of the survey respondents (29 states -- 62 percent) indicated that assessing the need for new courts is done on an "as-needed" basis or whenever a request for new courts is made. Eight states (17 percent) indicated this evaluation is done every legislative session and one indicated the determination is made each year prior to the legislative session. Other states indicated that it is done: each fiscal year (1 state), every three to four years (1 state), or every eight years (1 state).

Data/Research Products Used to Evaluate the Need for New Trial Courts/Judgeships

The most frequently utilized data sources for determining the need for new courts/judgeships are presented below in Table 1.

Table 1

Most Frequently Used Data Sources For Determining Judicial Needs

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts Survey: Creating New Trial Courts, Texas Office of Court Administration, 1999.

Which Entities Provide Data to the Decision-Making Bodies?

Since the AOC often tends to be the central depository of state court case activity data, it is not surprising that the vast majority of jurisdictions (40 states -- 83 percent) indicated that the entity that determines the need for new trial courts/judgeships relies on the AOC for the support data and/or research. Nineteen states (40 percent) indicated that the decision making entity obtains data from local court staff, and eight states (17 percent) noted that data/research products are provided by legislative research staff. (See Figure 2.)

Figure 2

Sources of Data/Research

For Entities Assessing the Need for New Trial Courts/Judgeships

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts Survey: Creating New Trial Courts, Texas Office of Court Administration, 1999.
Note: Since there can be more than one source of data/research in a particular state, the total number of responses indicated above may exceed the number of jurisdictions which responded to the survey (48).

Methods/Factors Used to Determine if a Need Exists for New Trial Courts/Judgeships

Survey respondents were asked to indicate which factors are currently being used in their states to assess the need for new trial courts/judgeships. Additionally, they were asked to rank the factors in priority order.

While it is apparent from the survey data that states tend to use a wide variety of factors when determining if the judicial system is in need of additional trial courts/judgeships, there are a handful of factors which are consistently used by the vast majority of states and which are most often ranked among the five most important factors. Table 2 displays the decision-making factors which were most frequently cited by survey respondents.

Table 2

Most Frequently Used Factors For Determining Judicial Needs

Source: Administrative Office of the Courts Survey: Creating New Trial Courts, Texas Office of Court Administration, 1999.

Interestingly, the most frequently cited factors above were not necessarily the most commonly mentioned factors when respondents were asked to prioritize them in order of importance. The factors that were most frequently ranked among the five most important include:

1) Caseload Growth: 23 states (48 percent);

2) Number of Cases Filed: 22 states (42 percent);

3) Weighted Caseload Indicators: 19 states (40 percent);

4) Number of Cases Filed Per Judge: 16 states (33 percent); and

5) Population Growth: 13 states (27 percent).

Table A1, which is attached as an appendix to this report, provides a state-by-state breakdown of factors used to assess the need for new trial courts/judgeships.

Written Policies Concerning the Criteria That Must Be Met to Create a New Court/Judgeship

Although most states seem to have a set of factors they rely upon when trying to determine if more trial courts/judgeships are needed, those states with written policies concerning the criteria which must be met in order to create a new court are in the minority. Just 17 states (36 percent) indicated that they had a written policy, while 31 states did not report that such a policy is in effect.⁽³⁾ (See Figure 3.)

Figure 3

Percentage of States with Written Policy Regarding the Criteria

Necessary to Create a New Court

Evaluation of the Use of Weighted Caseload Indicators as a Method for Determining the Need for New Courts

Due to limited state resources and many entities competing for state appropriations each biennium, it is critical that Texas develop a systematic, statistical method for assessing the need for new trial courts (i.e., state district courts). One valid approach to determining the need for new courts is a weighted caseload study.

Weighted caseload is a technique for determining how much time is required to process a given court's caseload from filing to disposition.⁽⁴⁾ This technique analyzes the types of cases being filed, as opposed to the total number of cases filed, in an effort to control for the difference in processing time for various classes of cases (e.g., capital murder, traffic, mass tort, divorce). Because raw case counts are not directly tied to the amount of time it should reasonably take to dispose of those cases, they are not a very good tool for determining the need for additional trial courts. The weighted caseload approach shifts the emphasis away from caseloads to a more appropriate measure, workloads.

A weighted caseload study addresses two key issues which are essential when considering whether new state district courts should be created:

1) How much judge time, on average, is required to hear each type of case?; and

2) How much time does a typical judge have for hearing cases?

Essentially, the number of judges or courts needed is determined by dividing the amount of required judge time to dispose of all cases by the total amount of time judges have to hear cases.

Since 1996, there has been a marked increase in the number of states adopting weighted caseload as a tool for assessing judicial needs. In 1996, just 13 states employed the weighted caseload approach compared to 23 states in 1999. Invariably, weighted caseload is used in conjunction with other factors to determine the need for new judges or courts.

Weighted caseload may be particularly appropriate for Texas because, according to the National Center for State Courts, it provides "an objective means to measure relative needs for judges and court support staff in judicial districts of different sizes." The judicial districts throughout the state of Texas vary significantly in both population and geographic size.⁽⁵⁾ Accounting for these differences is critical when assessing the need for new courts because the amount of time available to hear cases may be substantially different in urban and rural jurisdictions due to the amount of time each day a rural, multi-county jurisdiction judge spends traveling from county to county.

Despite the apparent value of the weighted caseload approach, some limitations do need to be considered. First, data collection for weighted caseload is burdensome and expensive,⁽⁶⁾ and the weights are difficult to keep current. Enough information must be gathered from the courts regarding the time it takes to process primary events that make up particular cases (e.g., arraignments in felony cases). Time logs kept by judges must be monitored on a regular basis to ensure that enough data has been collected and, when sufficient data has been collected, to allow judges to stop logging their time (so as to reduce the record-keeping burden on the judges and their coordinators). Keeping the weights current is a critical component of the weighted caseload technique. Updating the weights is both time-consuming and expensive. However, not updating the weights periodically can potentially undo all the hard work and resources dedicated to creating the weighted caseload system in the first place. In the end, however, weighted caseload may be the most appropriate method for determining if new trial courts are necessary to ensure the efficient administration of justice.

Conclusion

The survey data presented in this paper, along with information culled from Assessing the Need for Judges and Court Support Staff (National Center for State Court, 1996), are intended to provide policymakers with the necessary information to begin designing a process for determining the need for new trial courts in Texas.

The survey of other states indicates that while most states utilize court statistics compiled by the AOC to make decisions about whether new trial courts are needed, a significant number of states (25) currently utilize a weighted caseload technique or other formal statistical research approach to assist them in this difficult process.

The lack of a systematic approach to determining the need for additional courts can lead to decisions which do not necessarily address the greatest needs. In Texas, new courts have been created in counties in which per court case filings were significantly lower than those in surrounding counties that did not request new courts. For example, in 1995, a new district court (381^st District Court) was requested for and created in Starr County, even though Starr County had approximately one-fifth (317) of the average district court case filings per district court judge and statutory county court judge in Cameron County (1,733) and approximately one-third (317) of the average district court filings per district court judge and statutory county court judge in Hidalgo (992) and Webb (1,016) counties.⁽⁷⁾

The vast majority of the other states are similar to Texas, in that the state legislature is ultimately responsible for creating new courts. In addition, a fairly small number of states (17) have formal, written policies concerning the criteria that must be met to create a new court.

It is apparent that Texas is in need of a systematic, statistical approach for assessing the need for new courts, as well as a written policy which details the criteria necessary to create new state district courts. A formal weighted caseload study may be the first step in moving Texas in the right direction.

Appendices 

Notes

1. It is important to note that some respondents indicated that their answers pertained to assessing the need for additional judgeships, as opposed to courts.

2. The following states indicated that formal research using weighted caseload or some other statistical technique is used to assess the need for new courts/judgeships: Alabama; Arizona; Colorado; Florida; Georgia; Iowa; Louisiana; Massachusetts; Michigan; Minnesota; Montana; Nebraska; New Jersey; New Mexico; New York; North Carolina; North Dakota; Ohio; Oklahoma; Oregon; South Dakota; Tennessee; Utah; Virginia; Washington; West Virginia; and Wisconsin.

3. The following states indicated that they had a written policy: Alabama; Arizona; Colorado; Florida; Georgia; Indiana; Iowa; Louisiana; Maryland; Michigan; New Hampshire; New Jersey; Ohio; Tennessee; Washington; West Virginia; and Wisconsin.

4. See Assessing the Need for Judges and Court Support Staff (National Center for State Courts, 1996) for an in-depth description of the weighted caseload approach.

5. Texas is an especially difficult state in which to determine the need for additional courts/judgeships because: 1) there are two levels of trial courts in urban areas (i.e., district courts and statutory county courts; and 2) there are significant noncontiguous overlapping district in rural areas.

6. The state of Florida has estimated that the cost of developing a weighted caseload system for assessing judicial workload and certifying the need for new judges will total approximately $253,000. See Information Brief on the State Courts System's Development of a Delphi-Based Weighted Caseload System, Report No. 98-46 (Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, January 1999).

7. As the statutory county courts have some concurrent jurisdiction with the district courts and information is not available to show how many of these cases are handled by the statutory county courts, these statistics are based on both district court judges and statutory county court judges handling all district court filings.

1998-1999 Texas Judicial Council Annual Report