Differentiated Case Management.


MENU TITLE: Differentiated Case Fact Sheet
Series: BJA
Published: November 1995
6 pages
9,861 bytes

Bureau of Justice Assistance Fact Sheet

Differentiated Case Management

Every case that goes to court imposes a unique set
of demands on court resources. With the increasing
volume and diversity of criminal and civil dockets
in most courts, and the broad range of case types
and case processing requirements presented, the
traditional first-in/first-out, one-track-fits-all
approach to case management is no longer either
feasible or desirable. Differentiated Case
Management (DCM) is a technique courts can use to
tailor the case management process to the
requirements of individual cases. DCM provides a
mechanism for processing each case in accordance
with the timeframe and judicial system resources
required. Thus, each case can move as expeditiously
as possible toward disposition, rather than waiting
in line. 

Background

In July 1987 the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department
of Justice, awarded a grant to EMT, a nonprofit
organization based in California, to develop and
provide technical assistance for DCM. Under this
grant, DCM demonstration projects were implemented
at five State trial courts in 1988. Responsibility
for continuation of the DCM project was assumed by
American University's School of Public Affairs in
July 1989, aided by a BJA award for technical
assistance to the BJA demonstration sites and
assessment and documentation of DCM's key elements
and results. Four additional demonstration sites
were funded in 1989. American University's DCM
grant was active through September 1992. American
University currently provides limited technical
assistance to courts interested in implementing DCM
through a technical assistance grant funded by BJA.

Key Features of DCM Model

The DCM model offers three key features:

o Development of multiple case processing tracks
with different events and timeframes that reflect
the range of case processing characteristics and
requirements presented by the caseload--Shortly
after a case is filed, it is assigned to the
applicable track based on criteria developed by the
local judicial system. Some courts have only three
tracks--simple, standard, and complex; other courts
have six or more tracks specific to that court and
subtracks as needed. 

o Improved organization of court events to ensure
that each scheduled event occurs at a time and in a
manner that promotes case disposition--Court events
such as preliminary hearings, motions, and
evidentiary hearings are not automatically
scheduled; instead, they are scheduled only for
those tracks in which they are appropriate. For
example, a predisposition conference would be
scheduled for a major drug possession case assigned
to a "complex" track, but would not be scheduled
for a simple drug trafficking case assigned to a
"simple" track. Only events that contribute to the
case disposition process are scheduled, and each
scheduled event is designed to promote case
disposition. Thus, events that do not contribute to
case resolution (such as pro forma calendar calls)
are eliminated, and events that do contribute to
case disposition (such as pretrial conferences) are
scheduled at times when issues can be defined or
disposition might reasonably be expected to occur.

o Close case monitoring--Monitoring individual
cases both ensures that each case stays within
track procedures and timeframes and identifies
unanticipated problems that may warrant track
reassignment.

Benefits of DCM

Benefits attributed to DCM, as determined by
demonstration site experience, include:

o Significantly greater scheduling certainty and
more efficient use of resources, including:

- Reduced disposition times.

- Greater judicial productivity.

- Fewer continuances.

- Lower witness costs, including less police
overtime.

- Reduced pretrial detention costs.

- Fewer bench warrants due to failures to appear.

o Increased coordination and cooperation among
justice agencies, including:

- More efficient coordination of individuals and
tasks.

- Earlier discovery and other information exchanges
among attorneys.

- Earlier availability of information needed for
accurate case scheduling (for instance, the need
for an interpreter and pre-sentence
investigations).

o Improved quality of the judicial process,
including:

- Better attorney preparation due to more reliable
court schedules.

- Fewer witnesses "lost" due to delays or
continuances.

- Improved public respect for the judicial process.

DCM Implementation 

According to the courts that implemented DCM, its
success generally includes the following
prerequisites:

o Commitment of major players in the judicial
process (i.e., judges, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys) to developing a system that
differentiates among cases for processing purposes.

o Leadership of a key judge throughout the
development and implementation of the DCM system
and of an experienced administrator assigned to
coordinate the effort.

o Willingness on the part of the court and the
participating agencies to reorganize existing staff
responsibilities, if necessary, and to dedicate
senior staff, at least initially, to screen cases
at the time of filing.

o An information system that supports the
operation, monitoring, and evaluation of the DCM
system. For a large volume of cases, an automated
information system may be necessary, but many
jurisdictions have found a personal computer-based
system to be adequate, at least initially.

How Much Will DCM Cost?

Budgeting for DCM implementation requires
evaluation of existing resources. Many
jurisdictions simply reorganize existing staff and
redefine staff functions as necessary to support
the requirements of the DCM system. For example, a
court clerk might begin tracking the different
types of cases on the court docket or monitoring
cases proceeding on a given track. Costs
specifically attributable to the DCM system include
the need for adequate staff, management, and
information resources both within the court and
among participating agencies. The actual costs of
implementing DCM will therefore be determined by
the preimplementation adequacy of these resources. 

What are DCM Services?

Limited, no-cost telephone technical assistance
that provides general information and referrals is
available to courts interested in implementing the
DCM system. For technical assistance, contact
American University, School of Public Affairs, at
the telephone number and address listed below.

The publications Differentiated Case Management
Implementation Guide, Differentiated Case
Management Program Brief, and BJA Information File
include all BJA and other Office of Justice
Programs agency publications that pertain to DCM
and are available from the BJA Clearinghouse. See
"For Further Information" below.

What Courts Already Have DCM?

Courts currently practicing DCM include:

o BJA Demonstration Projects:
Virtually all of the demonstration courts that
introduced DCM to their criminal caseloads have
since extended it to their civil cases, and vice
versa.

- Differentiated Case Management

Berrien County (St. Joseph), Michigan: Criminal
cases, based on an early civil DCM program; later
expanded to include a five-track drug court,
including a treatment track.

Camden County, New Jersey: Criminal and civil
cases.

Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington: Initially drug
cases; later expanded to property cases, then to
sexual assault cases, and then to the entire
criminal docket.

Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minnesota: Initially
civil cases; now, also criminal cases.

Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan: Criminal cases.

- Expedited Drug Case Management (applying DCM
specifically to drug cases, to move them as
expeditiously as possible toward disposition)

Middlesex County (New Brunswick), New Jersey: Drug
cases.

Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon: Drug and
property cases, including a track for drug
treatment court cases.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Court of Common Pleas:
Originally, criminal nonjury cases; now, all
criminal cases.

o Other Jurisdictions Adopting the BJA DCM
Demonstration Model:

- Federal Jurisdictions 
Ten pilot districts in the Federal Court system.

- Statewide Jurisdictions
State of California (civil cases).
District of Columbia (drug cases).
State of Maryland (civil cases).

- Local Jurisdictions
Jefferson County (Birmingham), Alabama: Civil
cases.

Pima County (Tucson), Arizona: Civil cases.Ninth
Judicial Circuit Court of Florida (Orlando):
Criminal cases.

New Castle County (Wilmington), Delaware: Drug
cases, including drug court treatment track.

Anne Arundel County (Annapolis), Maryland: Domestic
relations cases.

Baltimore City, Maryland: Drug cases, including
drug court treatment track, and civil cases.

Baltimore County, Maryland: Civil cases.

Montgomery County, Maryland: Criminal and civil
cases.

For Further Information

For additional information about DCM, contact:

Prosecution and Adjudication Branch
Bureau of Justice Assistance
633 Indiana Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20531
Tel: 1-202-616-3218

School of Public Affairs
The American University
4400 Massachusetts Avenue NW.
Brandywine, Suite 660
Washington, DC 20016-8159
Tel: 1-202-885-2875

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Tel: 1-800-688-4252
Fax: 1-301-251-5212
Internet: look@ncjrs.aspensys.com

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

FS000117
November 1995