U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

Court Performance Measures 

in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

Assessment Guide 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Office of Justice Programs 

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 
U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW.

Washington, DC 20531

Eric H. Holder, Jr.

Attorney General

Laurie O. Robinson

Acting Assistant Attorney General

Jeff Slowikowski

Acting Administrator

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Justice Programs

Innovations • Partnerships • Safer Neighborhoods

www.ojp.usdoj.gov

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ojjdp

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice 

Programs, which also includes the Bureau of Justice Assistance; the Bureau of Justice Statistics; the 

Community Capacity Development Office; the National Institute of Justice; the Office for Victims 

of Crime; and the Office of Sex Offender Sentencing, Monitoring, Apprehending, Registering, and 

Tracking (SMART).
Court Performance Measures in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases: Guide 

to Judicial Workload Assessment 

Mark Hardin, J.D.

Ying-Ying Yuan, Ph.D.

Judith Larsen, J.D.

Sophia I. Gatowski, Ph.D.

Dawn Marie Rubio, J.D.

With:

Gila R. Shusterman, Ph.D.

John Fluke, Ph.D.

Judy H. Rothschild, Ph.D.

Kristen Stafford, B.A.

Shante Bullock

Original Printing December 2008

Second Printing April 2009

NCJ 223571
This publication was prepared under grant number 2003–JS–FX–K008 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of 

Justice, and grant number 90XW0008 from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children, Youth and Families, Children’s 

Bureau. Points of view or opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position or policies of 

the funding agencies, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Justice or 

the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This information is in the public domain. Readers are encouraged to copy portions of the text which 

are not the property of copyright holders and share them, but please credit the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of 

Justice, and the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 
Preface 

In ensuring the protection and welfare of children, the

Federal Government has concentrated on three primary 

goals: safety, permanency, and well-being for abused 

and neglected children. The Government has led efforts 

to ensure that child welfare agencies, courts, and other 

stakeholders work together to achieve these worthy goals. 

In 1997, the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) further 

focused child welfare agencies and courts on system 

reforms organized around these goals. The ASFA also 

emphasized that courts play a crucial role in achieving 

positive outcomes for vulnerable children. 

The Federal Government recognizes that everyone involved 

in the protection of children is committed to the goals 

of safety, permanency, and well-being for every child. 

However, commitment to these goals is not enough. As 

stakeholders in whom the public has placed its trust, we 

must commit to a continuous process of improving and 

strengthening our dependency systems and cross-system 

supports. Performance measurement is only one step in 

that process, but it is a critical first step. To better serve 

and protect vulnerable children, we must first know how 

our current systems are doing. 

Two Federal agencies—the U.S. Department of Health 

and Human Services’ Children’s Bureau and the U.S. 

Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)—are cosponsoring a 

broad-based effort to measure the progress of juvenile 

and family courts in addressing the needs of abused and 

neglected children. This effort models the Federal ideals 

of collaboration and cooperation. It blends information and 

experience from two key initiatives: the Children’s Bureau 

performance measurement project and OJJDP’s Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (SANCA) project. Three 

of the Nation’s leading court reform organizations—the 

American Bar Association, the National Center for State 

Courts, and the National Council of Juvenile and Family 

Court Judges—have provided technical support. 

The Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse 

and Neglect Cases is the result of this collaborative effort. 

The Toolkit provides practical, comprehensive guidance on 

how to undertake performance measurement and move 

toward more efficient and effective dependency court 

operations. Pilot tested in 12 diverse sites, the Toolkit

reflects a breadth and richness of experience that will 

make it useful for any juvenile or family court.

The Toolkit could not have been produced without the 

combined expertise and leadership of the 3 court reform 

organizations and the cooperation of the 12 pilot sites. 

Working together, all of these contributors demonstrated 

that performance measurement can be done in any court 

and that it is essential to improving how we address the 

needs of abused and neglected children.

About the Toolkit 


Performance Measurement: 

A Critical Need 

Developing objective and qualitative measurements of 

practice is essential to a court’s capacity to improve the 

effectiveness and efficiency of its operations and to sustain 

those improvements. Like child welfare agencies, juvenile 

and family courts must focus not only on the timeliness 

of case processing and decisionmaking, but also on the 

quality of the process and the outcomes resulting from the 

court’s efforts. 

Courts must focus on child safety by assessing their safety 

performance data and developing plans for improving 

the safety of children under their jurisdiction. Courts also 

must focus on ensuring secure, permanent homes for 

children in foster care and must improve their effectiveness in achieving permanency. In addition, courts need to 

determine how well they are protecting the rights of the 

children and adults who come before them. Finally, courts 

need to set aspirational performance goals in each of these 

areas—goals designed to focus efforts, motivate staff, 

evaluate achievements, and lead to better outcomes for 

children and families. 

Few courts currently have the capacity to effectively 

measure their performance in child abuse and neglect 

cases. Whereas for-profit businesses have long taken 

for granted the need for performance measurement, it is 

still a relatively new concept for the Nation’s courts. Yet, 

without this essential information, courts with jurisdiction 

over abuse and neglect cases cannot know what types of 

improvements they need to make and whether their efforts 

to improve are working. 

Performance measurement makes it possible for courts 

to diagnose and assess areas in need of improvement 

and review progress in those areas. In this process, courts 

build improvements from a baseline of current practices 

and then conduct regular reassessments as reforms are 

implemented. 

The purpose of the measures in the Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases is 

to help courts establish their baseline practices; diagnose 

what they need to improve; and use that information to 

make improvements, track their efforts, and identify, document, and replicate positive results. 

By capturing data for the 30 measures in the Toolkit, courts 

will be able to evaluate four areas of operation: child safety, 

child permanency, due process or fairness, and timeliness. 

u	Safety (Measures 1A and 1B). The goal of these two 

measures is to ensure that children are protected from 

abuse and neglect while under court jurisdiction. The 

performance outcome promoted by these measures is 

based on the principle of “first, do no harm.” Children 

should be protected from abuse and neglect, no child 

should be subject to maltreatment while in placement, 

and children should be safely maintained in their homes 

whenever possible and appropriate. 

u Permanency (Measures 2A–2E). The goal of these five 

measures is to ensure that children have permanency 

and stability in their living situations. The permanency 

measures are closely related to timeliness measures 

but also include additional considerations. With this 

category, courts assess whether children change 

placements, whether cases achieve permanent legal 

status, and whether children reenter foster care 

(a possible safety issue as well). The permanency 

measures encourage courts to examine the “bigger 

picture” of the court experience for the abused or 

neglected child. In using the permanency measures, 

a court will need to obtain information from partner 

agencies such as the State child welfare system or 

private providers who track children placed in foster 

care. 

u	Due Process (Measures 3A–3J). The goal of these 10 

measures is for the court to decide cases impartially 

and thoroughly based on evidence brought before it. 

Due process measures address the extent to which 

individuals coming before the court are provided basic 

protections and are treated fairly. 

u	Timeliness (Measures 4A–4M). The goal of these 

13 measures is to minimize the time from the 

filing of the petition or emergency removal order to 

permanency. Courts generally are most familiar with 

timeliness measures. These measures help courts 

identify areas where they are doing well and areas 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

where improvement is needed. To ensure that courts 

can pinpoint specific stages of the hearing process 

in need of improvement, these measures must be 

comprehensive (applied to all stages of proceedings) 

and sufficiently detailed. 

None of the measures includes a standard or benchmark 

of performance. Rather, the measures suggest a base of 

experience from which to develop reasonable and achievable benchmarks. The measures are designed to help 

courts improve services to maltreated children and their 

families, and it is important for courts to measure their 

progress toward achieving that goal. The measures are 

intended to be part of a process of continuing improvement. They are also intended to be developmental; that is, 

the measures can be refined as more is learned about the 

factors associated with a model process for handling child 

abuse and neglect cases. 

The developers of the Toolkit expect courts to collaborate 

with child welfare agencies in applying these measures; 

for this reason, the court performance measures in the 

Toolkit are designed to be compatible with the Child 

and Family Services Review (CFSR) outcome measures 

developed for child welfare agencies. The Toolkit developers encourage courts to work with child welfare agencies 

to establish not only minimum acceptable standards of 

performance but also aspirational goals that challenge 

both stakeholders to improve even further. 

The national court performance measures also reinforce 

the goals of other current Federal reform programs and 

legislation, including the Court Improvement Program (CIP) 

and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA). These initiatives recognize that courts, as well as State child welfare 

agencies, are crucial stakeholders in achieving positive 

outcomes for maltreated children who become involved in 

the child welfare system. Court performance has an impact 

on overall system performance in achieving safety and 

permanence for these children in a fair and timely manner. 

History of the Performance 

Measures 

The history of court performance measurement for child 

abuse and neglect cases began with a miniconference 

held in Scottsdale, AZ, on May 5, 1998. The miniconference 

was cosponsored by the Court Improvement Conference 

and the Conference of State Court Administrators’ Court 

Statistics Project Advisory Committee. Participants worked 

with the following resource materials: 

u	Trial court performance standards and measurement 

system (prepared by the National Center for State Courts 

(NCSC) and funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance 

(BJA)). These standards touched on five fundamental 

purposes of courts: access to justice; expediency and 

timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence 

and accountability; and public trust and confidence. 

Although general trial court standards could be applied 

to juvenile and family courts, miniconference participants 

perceived a need for measures and standards tailored 

specifically to child abuse and neglect cases. 

u	Draft sets of child abuse and neglect performance 

measures developed by the American Bar Association 

(ABA) Center on Children and the Law, NCSC, and 

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, with comments and 

suggestions from the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ). 

u	A set of measurement goals from the National CourtAppointed Special Advocates Association. 

u	Best practice recommendations for handling child abuse 

and neglect cases, outlined by NCJFCJ in ResouRCe 

GuideliNes: improving Court Practice in Child Abuse 

and Neglect Cases. 

u	Technical assistance bulletins on information 

management in child abuse and neglect cases and 

judicial workload assessment in dependency cases, 

developed by NCJFCJ. 

Miniconference participants summarized key performance 

measures for dependency courts in a consensus statement, which was then presented in the following forums: 

u	To participants in the ABA Summit on Unified Family 

Courts, May 1998. 

u	To child welfare professionals at the Permanency 

Partnership Forum, June 1998. 

u	To managers of statewide automated child welfare 

information systems at the conference “Continuing To 

Build the Future: Using Automation for Children and 

Families,” September 1998. 

u	To juvenile and family court judges at the NCJFCJ 

Annual Conference, July 1998. 

u	To judges, court administrators, and child welfare 

workers at “Improving Outcomes for Abused and 

Neglected Children,” a symposium sponsored by the 

Bureau of Justice Assistance and the David and Lucile 

Packard Foundation, June 2000. 

vi 
About the Toolkit 

In addition, Dr. Ying-Ying Yuan prepared a critique of the 

performance measures in a September 1999 report for 

the ABA entitled “Feasibility of Implementing Court SelfAssessment Measures for Dependency Cases.” 

The measures were then revised to reflect input from 

these sources, and the revisions were summarized by Dr. 

Victor E. Flango in an article entitled “Measuring Progress 

in Improving Court Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect 

Cases” (Family Court Review, Volume 39, pp.158–169, 

April 2001). 

In their present form, the court performance measures 

in the Toolkit grew out of the Attaining Permanency for 

Abused and Neglected Children Project, conducted jointly 

by the ABA Center on Children and the Law, NCSC, and 

NCJFCJ, with funding from the David and Lucile Packard 

Foundation. Over a 3-year period, these measures were 

pilot tested to determine their applicability in different 

types of courts with different measurement needs and data 

collection capabilities. The measures were also examined 

for compatibility with the CFSR outcome measures for 

child welfare agencies. One result of this effort was the 

2004 publication Building a Better Court: Measuring and 

improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. This publication described 

dependency court performance measures for safety, 

permanency, due process, and timeliness. It also outlined a 

process for assessing judicial workload that encompasses 

both on-the-bench and off-the-bench aspects of dependency work. 

The Children’s Bureau Project 

After publishing Building a Better Court, the ABA, NCSC, 

and NCJFCJ received funding from the Children’s Bureau 

of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to 

support efforts by courts to improve their handling of child 

abuse and neglect cases. The Children’s Bureau project 

provided targeted technical assistance to six sites: Charlotte, NC; Clackamas County, OR; Little Rock, AR; Minneapolis, MN; New Orleans, LA; and Omaha, NE. During this 

project, the partnering organizations were able to test and 

refine the court performance measures, and data collection 

instruments at these sites. 

The Children’s Bureau project helped the six sites do the 

following: 

u	Use the performance measures outlined in Building 

a Better Court—compatible with Adoption and Foster 

Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) and 

CFSR measures—to assess their performance in abuse 

and neglect cases. This included evaluating each site’s 

capacity to generate data for each of the performance 

measures. 

u	Examine judicial workloads to determine whether 

judges were able to spend enough time on child abuse 

and neglect cases to make timely and well-considered 

decisions in these cases. The partnering organizations 

disseminated information about and provided technical 

assistance in judicial workload assessment. 

u	Develop a court-specific strategic plan for using 

performance and workload data to achieve increased 

accountability and better court performance. 

A major goal of the Children’s Bureau project was to 

enhance the sites’ self-assessment capacity so they would 

be able to track and measure their own progress after their 

involvement in the project ended. This strengthened capacity also makes the sites better able to assess their ASFA 

compliance and CIP implementation. The project sought to 

enable project sites—and eventually all courts handling 

abuse and neglect cases—both to begin a process of 

continuing self-improvement and to help child welfare 

agencies determine the impact of court proceedings on 

achievement of CFSR outcomes. 

The Strengthening Abuse and Neglect 

Courts Act Project 

While the Children’s Bureau project was underway, the 

ABA, NCSC, and NCJFCJ received funding from the 

U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice 

and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to help courts use 

automated management information systems to improve 

their performance in child abuse and neglect cases. The 

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act (SANCA) 

project supported SANCA implementation in six States: 

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, New Jersey, and Virginia. 

At each site, the SANCA project partners helped improve 

automated management information systems, implement performance measurement, develop case-tracking 

capabilities, and perform other management information 

system functions specifically for child abuse and neglect 

cases. The SANCA project provided this assistance through 

meetings of representatives from all SANCA sites, onsite 

training and technical assistance to each site, and offsite 

consultation. 

vii 
viii 

Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

The SANCA project has not focused on improving court 

information systems as an end in itself. Rather, the focus 

has been on improving these systems in ways that will 

have the greatest positive impact on efforts to improve 

quality and timeliness in courts’ handling of abuse and 

neglect cases, to target reforms for court improvement 

efforts, and, ultimately, to improve the lives of abused and 

neglected children. 

The Toolkit Volumes 

All the aforementioned work has culminated in the production of the Toolkit for Court Performance Measures in Child 

Abuse and Neglect Cases. The Toolkit content is informed 

by the experiences of the Children’s Bureau and SANCA 

project sites. 

In addition to providing detailed guidance about court performance measures for child abuse and neglect cases, the 

Toolkit offers a general approach—a way of thinking—that 

can help dependency courts successfully implement a 

performance measurement process. Using the Toolkit, 

dependency courts can: 

u	Establish a baseline of current practice, diagnose what 

they need to improve, and use that information to build 

and track improvement efforts. 

u	Measure their progress in achieving the goals of safety, 

permanency, and well-being for children. 

u	Identify and document practices that are achieving 

positive results and replicate those results. 

The Toolkit includes the five volumes described below. 

Although each volume focuses on a particular audience, 

the Toolkit developers encourage everyone involved in 

court performance measurement for abuse and neglect 

cases to consult all the volumes for instruction, guidance, 

and inspiration. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Key Measures. This booklet outlines nine 

measures that the national partners have identified as 

key to determining court performance in child abuse and 

neglect cases. The booklet succinctly discusses the goal 

of each measure, data requirements, calculation and interpretation, and important related measures. It is an ideal 

tool for making the case for performance measurement to 

legislators, funders, and other high-level decisionmakers. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Implementation Guide. This step-by-step 

guide provides practical advice on how to set up a performance measurement team, assess capacity (determine 

which measures the team can currently implement and 

which measures will require capacity building), prioritize 

among measurement needs, plan data collection activities, and use the data generated through the performance 

measurement process to plan reforms. The implementation Guide uses examples from the Children’s Bureau and 

SANCA project sites to illustrate key points. It also highlights lessons learned from the sites about performance 

measurement approaches, as well as challenges and 

strategies for overcoming those challenges. Performance 

measurement teams and project managers will find the 

implementation Guide helpful as they plan and implement 

a performance measurement program and use results to 

drive improvement efforts. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Technical Guide. This comprehensive 

volume describes all 30 court performance measures for 

child abuse and neglect cases. The Technical Guide details 

the goals and purpose of each measure, discusses alternate or proxy measures, provides step-by-step specifications for calculating the measures, articulates what data 

elements need to be collected to produce each measure, 

suggests ways to present data effectively, and provides 

examples of how data obtained for each measure can be 

used in reform efforts. The Technical Guide also includes a 

detailed dictionary of technical terms and a flowchart outlining the typical child abuse and neglect hearing process. 

This volume is ideal for project managers and information 

technology (IT) staff tasked with obtaining performance 

measures. It will give them an indepth understanding of 

all the measures, what is needed to obtain data for the 

measures, and how to report findings in a way that is easily understood by various target audiences. 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: User’s Guide to Nonautomated Data 

Collection. Some courts may lack automated systems for 

gathering performance measurement data on abuse and 

neglect cases. Even if a court has adequate automation resources, certain performance measures (such as those assessing due process) may not be captured via automated 

systems. Furthermore, qualitative information can help to 

explain quantitative outcomes. This volume explains how to 

use nonautomated data collection methods—such as file 

review, court observation, interviews, and focus groups— 

to complete the performance measurement picture. 
About the Toolkit 

Court Performance Measures in Child Abuse and 

Neglect Cases: Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment. To improve their handling of abuse and neglect 

cases, courts need to be able to measure workloads as 

well as performance. Measuring judicial workloads makes 

it possible for courts to track existing resources and 

argue persuasively for additional resources when they 

are needed. This volume presents a method for obtaining 

data on judicial workloads in abuse and neglect cases 

which includes an assessment of what is required for best 

practice in these cases. Drawing on work from the pilot 

project sites, this volume discusses different approaches 

to workload analysis and provides tools for conducting 

analyses. 

Toolkit DVD and Web Site 

All Toolkit publications and related materials, such 

as presentations and instruments, are available 

on DVD and at www.courtsandchildren.org. 

ix 

Acknowledgments 

In developing this Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment, we reviewed studies conducted during the Packard Grant 

and the article in Building a Better Court: Measuring and improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child 

Abuse and Neglect Cases (2004). These earlier products were jointly developed by the American Bar Association (ABA), 

the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ), and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC). 

Most of the information in this guide is based on what we learned while working with a few courts supported by the 

Strengthening Abuse and Neglect Courts Act and Children’s Bureau projects—Clackamas County, Oregon, and Pulaski 

County, Arkansas. We particularly thank Judge Deanne Darling from Clackamas County and Judges Wiley Branton, 

Rita Gruber, and Joyce Warren of Pulaski County. We are greatly indebted to several people in the Oregon Judicial 

Department—Nancy Miller, former Deputy State Court Administrator for Program Operations; Timothy Travis, Staff 

Counsel for Juvenile Law; Leola McKenzie, Assistant Director, Court Programs and Services Division; and Lynn Travis, 

former Juvenile Court Improvement Project Model Court Coordinator. We are equally indebted to Connie Hickman 

Tanner, Director of Juvenile Courts, Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), and Teri Hays, AOC Attorney Ad 

litem Coordinator. Others who assisted with court observations in Arkansas included Donna Gay, AOC Staff Attorney; 

Marjorie Kesl, Attorney Ad litem; Lisa McGee, Assistant Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel; Lynn Pence, Attorney 

and Parent Counsel with the Center for Arkansas Legal Services; and Jennifer Keith Ferguson, Operations and Legal 

Director for Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families. We value and appreciate the experience of having worked 

with all of these individuals. 

Our special thanks for reviewing this publication go to Lisa Portune, an NCJFCJ consultant, who provided a careful 

and thorough edit of a prior draft of this guide, including both substantive comments and copyediting. Gene Flango of 

NCSC reviewed prior drafts and provided important substantive comments. We greatly benefited from our close collaboration with Lisa and Gene throughout this project. 

Special thanks are due to Shante Bullock, program specialist at the ABA Center on Children and the Law, who 

provided support for this project for several years. We also thank Amanda Cusick, administrative assistant at the ABA 

Center on Children and the Law, who has supported the project more recently. 

Finally, neither this Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment nor this project would have been possible without the commitment and support of Joan Ohl, Susan Orr, and Emily Cooke of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children 

and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Kristen Kracke of the Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. 

The responsibility for sins of omission or commission, however, is solely ours. 

Mark Hardin, Director 

National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues and 

Director of Child Welfare, ABA Center on Children and the Law 

Ying-Ying T. Yuan, Senior Vice President 

Walter R. McDonald & Associates, Inc. 

Judith Larsen, Consultant 

,ABA Center on Children and the Law 

Sophia I. Gatowski, Assistant Director 

Permanency Planning for Children Department, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

Dawn Marie Rubio, Principal Court Management Consultant 

National Center for State Courts 

Contents

Preface .................................................................................................................................................................iii

About the Toolkit............................................................................................................................................v

Acknowledgments.........................................................................................................................................xi

Chapter 1: Introduction............................................................................................................................. 1

Chapter 2: The Judicial Time Log........................................................................................................... 9

Chapter 3: Court Observation ............................................................................................................. 13

Chapter 4: A Delphi Process .................................................................................................................. 17

Chapter 5: Conclusions............................................................................................................................ 19

Endnotes............................................................................................................................................................ 25

Appendixes

Appendix A: Judicial Time Log Worksheet ............................................................................................. 27

Appendix B: Instructions to Judges for Completing Judicial Time Log Worksheet ................................ 29

Appendix C: Judicial Workload Activity Code Sheet ............................................................................... 31

Appendix D: Court Observation Tool ...................................................................................................... 33

Appendix E: Instructions to Observers and Project Administrators for Conducting Court

Observations ............................................................................................................................................ 47

Chapter 1 

This publication describes the design and use of a set of tools to help determine appropriate workloads for judges who hear 

child abuse and neglect cases.1 This chapter examines: 

u	How new legal duties have increased the responsibilities of judges in dependency cases. 

u	Why it is important for workload analysis in child abuse and neglect cases to consider the amount of time it takes judges 

to comply with legal requirements and practice standards. 

u	What are the sources of law and practice standards in child abuse and neglect proceedings. 

u	What are the goals that shaped the preparation of these workload analysis tools. 

Increasing Responsibilities of 

Courts in Child Protection Cases 

Increasingly over the past 30 years, Congress and State 

legislatures have assigned important roles to the courts in 

child abuse and neglect cases. Lawmakers have expanded 

the courts’ role in these cases as they have increasingly 

First, judges must increasingly focus on achieving permanency for abused and neglected children. This focus now 

includes prevention of unnecessary placements in foster 

care, reunification of foster children with their families 

when appropriate, and timely finalization of new permanent placements for children who cannot return home 

within a reasonable time. Judges not only must oversee 

Introduction
 

looked to courts to protect abused and neglected children. 

State and Federal legislation requires courts to oversee case 

planning for each child in foster care and to help ensure 

that foster children are placed in safe, permanent homes. 

Because of that legislation, judges must spend much more 

time on each case to faithfully implement the law. 

Courts, however, have lagged in adjusting the workloads2 

of judges and other judicial officers3

 to enable them to 

fulfill these additional new responsibilities. Many courts 

have not determined how many judges are needed to fulfill 

the letter and spirit of these mandates. Furthermore, the 

composition of court staff and the number of judicial officers are evolving as courts consider how best to process 

cases. The workload of these personnel is also critical. 

Exhibit 1–1 shows some of the questions and issues that 

typically arise during child abuse and neglect hearings and 

the expansion of those issues during the past 30 years. 

Exhibit 1–2 shows how more recent Federal mandates, 

especially after the enactment of the Adoption and Safe 

Families Act of 1997 (ASFA), have contributed to this trend. 

Some of the trends contributing to the expansion of the 

role of the judiciary in child abuse and neglect cases are 

described below. Issues to be addressed by judges in child 

abuse and neglect cases have expanded in several ways. 

agency casework and services related to their attempts to 

achieve each of these goals but also must make judicial 

findings about the reasonableness of State efforts to accomplish each goal. 

Second, judges have more responsibility to ensure 

children’s safety and well-being. Recent Federal and 

State statutes require judges to focus more intensively on 

safety.4

 Case plans now must address educational, medical, and mental health services for children; in most States, 

judges review the plans when they are formulated and 

periodically review the implementation of such plans. 

Third, legal representation has expanded in child abuse 

and neglect cases. Attorneys are increasingly involved 

throughout the entire judicial process, instead of only during selected hearings. Further, additional parties who are 

generally represented by counsel are involved in the litigation. For example, noncustodial parents and putative fathers are increasingly represented by separate counsel. In 

addition, growing sensitivity to conflicts of interest leads to 

the involvement of additional attorneys. For example, more 

courts are appointing separate counsel for both parents, 

even those living together. The American Bar Association 

(ABA) now has demanding performance standards for attorneys representing all parties; as part of these standards, 

judges are asked to help ensure competent representation. 
2 

Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

Exhibit 1–1. Issues Typically Resolved by Juvenile Courts in Abuse and Neglect Cases 

1978 2008 

Validity of allegations 

Custody, if allegations proven 

Need for emergency placement 

Sufficiency of efforts to prevent placement 

Necessity of emergency relief other than placement 

(e.g., removal of perpetrator) 

Validity of allegations 

Custody, if allegations proven 

Visitation 

Sufficiency of case plan 

Sufficiency of efforts to implement case plan 

Sufficiency of efforts to reunify family 

Whether efforts to reunify the family are required 

Applicability of Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA) and, if 

ICWA applies, issues such as tribal court jurisdiction 

Child’s long-term legal status (permanency hearing) 

Termination of parental rights 

Legal guardianship 

Sufficient efforts to place the child for adoption 

Approval or disapproval of adoption 

Exhibit 1–2. New Federal Duties Imposed on Juvenile Courts Since the Enactment of ASFA 

u	Decisions about whether services to preserve or reunite families are required.
 

u	Case-specific findings regarding the need to remove children from their homes.
 

u	Case-specific findings regarding reasonable efforts to prevent unnecessary foster care placement, reunify families,
 

and achieve permanency for children who cannot return home. 

u	Earlier and more tightly structured permanency hearings. 

u	Mandatory petitions for termination of parental rights. 

u	Rights of foster parents, preadoptive parents, and relative caregivers to appear in court and participate in hearings. 

u	Efforts to ensure timely interstate placements. 

u	New procedures to facilitate interstate litigation in foster care cases. 

Fourth, additional and more stringent time limits have 

been imposed on the judicial process in child protection 

cases. Judicial time limits, which once applied to limited 

stages of the court process, now apply to more hearings at 

more stages of the process. The current trend is to apply 

time limits to every stage of the judicial process, including 

termination of parental rights and adoption. Furthermore, 

judicial time limits are typically shorter than they used 

to be, allow fewer exceptions, and are enforced by some 

judges with increasing rigor. 

Fifth, as explained above, additional parties (such as 

noncustodial parents and putative fathers) are increasingly 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

involved in the court process. More nonparty participants must now ensure that foster parents receive notice of hearare increasingly involved as well, including court-appointed ings and permit foster parents to participate in hearings. 

special advocate (CASA) volunteers and service providers. Exhibit 1–3 shows the increase in the types and frequency 

Federal legislation enacted in 2006 strengthened the role of hearings involving foster children during the past 30 

of foster parents in child abuse and neglect cases. Courts years. 

Exhibit 1–3. Typical Sequence of Hearings for Child in Foster Care Who Cannot Be Returned Home 

1978 2008

Adjudication/
 

Disposition
 

One Case: One Hearing 

Emergency 

Removal Hearing 

Adoption 

Hearing 

One Case: Many Hearings 

Pretrial 

Hearing 

Adjudication 

Hearing 

Disposition 

Hearing 

Case Review 

Hearing 

Permanency 

Hearing 

Guardianship or 

Custody Hearing 

Termination of 

Parental Rights 

Hearing 

Post-TPR Case 

Review Hearing 

3 
4 

Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

Exhibit 1–4. Typical Participants in Child Protection Cases 

1978 2008 

Caseworker 

Custodial parent(s) 

Caseworker 

Custodial parent(s) 

Noncustodial or putative parent 

Separate attorney for each parent 

Child’s attorney or guardian ad litem* 

Agency attorney 

CASA volunteers* 

Foster parents 

Preadoptive parents 

Relative caregivers 

*In some States or jurisdictions, they do not frequently participate 

in hearings. 

Exhibit 1–4 shows how the number and types of participants at most hearings have grown during the past 30 

years. 

In summary, although some courts have increased the 

amount of time that judicial officers can devote to each 

child abuse and neglect case,5

 the number of judges is still 

insufficient to enable them to meet legislative requirements for handling child abuse and neglect cases. Based 

on recent State Court Improvement Program (CIP) reassessments,6

 it is clear that many judges still cannot fulfill 

the letter and spirit of important Federal and State requirements. This is true, in part, because of the time required 

to implement recommended standards of practice during 

hearings.7 The result of these new legal requirements is 

widespread difficulty in complying with the requirements 

and in following best practices identified by leading judicial 

and attorney organizations. Because of the strain on 

judicial officers, lawyers, and court staff, some courts have 

become accustomed to truncated case review hearings, 

unprepared attorneys, and a lack of case-specific findings 

for simple uncontested hearings. 

Why Appropriate Workloads Are 

a Key to Court Improvement 

Judicial officers, attorneys, and court staff need manageable workloads so they can do a good job of hearing child 

abuse and neglect cases. Although adequate levels of 

judicial staffing do not ensure well-run courts, a competent 

judicial process is not possible without adequate staffing. 

Judges with excessive workloads cannot carefully review 

their files to prepare for hearings. In child abuse and 

neglect litigation in most States, child protection agencies 

submit lengthy written reports (often with many attachments) prior to most substantive hearings. These reports 

typically describe the current circumstances of the child 

and family, explain any changes since the last hearings, 

outline the agency’s efforts to rehabilitate the family unit (if 

applicable), and frame issues for the court. When judicial 

officers do not have sufficient time to review these reports 

and other documents,8

 hearings lack focus. Judges with 

excessive caseloads are forced either to scan complicated 

reports immediately before the hearing or not read them 

at all, and thus can miss issues important to children and 

families. 

Judges with excessive workloads cannot schedule and 

complete hearings within reasonable timeframes. Crowded 

judicial calendars can force judges to set hearings, especially contested hearings, months in the future. This causes 

agencies and courts to miss legal deadlines, and delays 

the achievement of permanency for children and families. 

Although other important factors (such as judicial scheduling practices) also contribute to court delay, excessive 

judicial workloads are often a major factor.9 

Additionally, judges with excessive caseloads cannot take 

sufficient time to communicate effectively with all of the 

parties involved, especially parents and older children. 

When this happens, the parties often fail to understand the 

litigation. Many parents who come before the court in child 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

abuse and neglect cases may not have a high school education, and often they cannot read. Further, English may be 

their second language. 

Unless the judicial officer takes time to explain and to ask 

questions, even well-educated parties may not understand 

or remember what has happened when each hearing ends. 

Overburdened judicial officers often cannot monitor case 

progress as the law requires. As shown in State court 

assessments and reassessments, a major reason for 

case delays in many courts is the lack of timely delivery 

of assistance and services to parties, which can make it 

impossible for courts to set case goals during permanency 

hearings as required by law.10 Delays in service delivery 

also often delay legal proceedings to free the child for 

permanent placement.11 

With proper workloads, judicial officers can help ensure 

that they receive confirmation of timely service delivery 

and, if not, they can schedule special court proceedings 

to determine and attempt to correct the causes of delays 

in service. Although improved judicial workloads are no 

guarantee that judges will limit service delays, they enable 

judges who have the proper skills and motivation to do so 

more effectively. Judges who rush through hearings are 

more likely to slight key issues that studies have shown 

are critical to successful family reunification, such as 

timely notice to all parties and visitation. 

Finally, after hearings are completed, judicial officers with 

excessive caseloads cannot prepare timely court orders or 

appropriately detailed findings. It is important that judges 

prepare and distribute court orders at the conclusion of 

court hearings. This helps ensure that all parties clearly 

understand what is expected of them when they work 

together toward the case goal. 

Such court orders should include certain specific findings, 

such as the legally required “contrary to the [interests] 

finding” when children are removed from home,12 “reasonable efforts findings” following the child’s removal13 and 

at least once every year thereafter,14 and case review 

determinations.15 

Detailed court orders are essential to help the judge create 

an accurate record that can be the basis for further hearings and legal proceedings, such as termination of parental 

rights. Court forms that list the elements of case-specific 

findings can help focus judicial attention on critical issues 

and enhance accountability for later performance. 

In summary, although providing judges with sufficient 

time will not ensure that the practices mentioned above 

will improve, improvements in these practices cannot 

occur without sufficient time. When combined with other 

reform efforts, additional time can be an important factor in 

achieving critical court improvements. 

Sources of Practice Standards 

Given that excessive workloads contribute to the widespread gap in many jurisdictions between statutory requirements and practice, it is critical to analyze how much 

time is needed to implement specific key legal requirements. Likewise, it is important to take into account judicial 

practice standards, i.e., practices needed to enable judicial 

officers to fulfill the law’s spirit as well as its letter. 

Fortunately, the Nation’s leading legal professional organizations have described such judicial practice standards. 

These standards are described in the RESOURCE GUIDELINES,16 which have been endorsed by the officers and 

Board of Trustees of the National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges, the ABA, and the Conference of Chief 

Justices. The RESOURCE GUIDELINES address the following for each of the key types of court hearings: 

u	The purpose of the hearing. 

u	The persons who should be present at the hearing. 

u	The issues the court should address at the hearing. 

u	The key decisions the court should make at the hearing. 

u	The content of the courts’ findings at the hearing. 

u	The duration of key court events to fully address issues. 

Workload analysis can take into account the judicial standards and time estimates regarding the length of hearings 

described in the RESOURCE GUIDELINES. The requirements 

set forth in Federal and State laws and court rules are 

also important, as are the ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY 

GUIDELINES,17 which address additional functions required 

by ASFA. Workload studies could assist in future revisions 

of these documents by obtaining additional information 

from a variety of courts in different settings about how long 

it takes to conduct specific types of hearings when following these practice standards and fully complying with legal 

requirements. 

5 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

Goals of Workload Analysis for 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases 

To reduce judicial workloads so that full compliance with 

the law and the implementation of judicial practice standards can be achieved, concerns voiced about workload 

should be based on strong logic and supporting data. 

Recommendations resulting from a methodical workload 

study (and eventually flexible workload standards) can lend 

authority to legitimate requests for more judges (or, in the 

future, for other court personnel). For caseworkers, the 

Child Welfare League of America caseload standards have 

been a great help in dramatically reducing worker caseloads during the past 30 years. When complaints are made 

about a child welfare agency’s errors or delays, it can be 

effective to argue that those errors or delays are caused 

by excessive worker caseloads, as shown by the agency’s 

inability to comply with national caseload standards. 

To better enable compliance with the law and fuller 

implementation of recommended standards of practice, 

workload analysis should do more than ensure more 

equitable distribution of judicial resources within or among 

judicial districts. Such an analysis should help judges 

achieve a high quality of decisionmaking. Thus, workload 

analysis should: 

u	Focus on the time needed to comply fully with the law. 

u	Take into account key standards of practice. 

u	Be objective and call for change only when needed. 

To develop a comprehensive method to analyze judicial 

workloads in child abuse and neglect litigation, courts 

must address not only how much time is needed to handle 

cases but also how much time is needed to handle other 

aspects of the court’s business. The term “workload” takes 

into account all of the types of work a judicial officer is 

expected to handle. Caseload analysis only addresses how 

many cases a judicial officer, attorney, or court employee 

should be expected to handle. Workload analysis calculates 

not only caseloads but also the time needed for non-caserelated judicial activities. 

Accordingly, judicial workload studies for child abuse and 

neglect litigation should answer the following questions: 

u	How much time does it take to conduct various types of 

hearings in child abuse and neglect cases that comply 

with practice standards and legal requirements? 

u	How much time is needed for judges to perform caserelated work outside of court? 

u	How much time is needed for non-case-related 

activities? 

u	How can accurate estimates of the number of judges 

needed for a court be generated based on these data 

and taking into consideration the special off-the-bench 

responsibilities of dependency court judges? 

Pilot Studies in Which the Tools 

Were Developed 

This study is based on two pilot court studies to develop 

and test an experimental approach to evaluating judicial 

workload needs in child abuse and neglect cases. It was 

hoped that these pilot studies would develop and refine 

a methodology for future use. These two pilot studies in 

fact led to the development of the tools presented in this 

volume. 

The two pilot studies focused exclusively on courts largely 

hearing child abuse and neglect proceedings (in these 

courts only child abuse and neglect, juvenile justice, and a 

small proportion of other domestic relations proceedings 

are heard). The studies included the judges actually hearing these child abuse and neglect cases and their support 

personnel, including assistants, bailiffs, and computer data 

entry staff. 

The analysis in each pilot court was performed in two 

phases. In the first phase, current practice regarding the 

completeness of hearings and the amount of time taken 

by the court for different activities was measured. “Completeness of hearings” refers to the level of adherence 

to national practice standards and legal requirements for 

child abuse and neglect cases. 

In the second phase, the courts and the study team tried 

to create conditions that would allow for more complete 

hearings. That is, the State and local courts arranged for 

more time to be available for each court hearing. The 

study team instructed judges about how the completeness of hearings would be measured and, as appropriate, 

the meaning of the identified practice standards and legal 

requirements. 

The purpose of the two phases was to test the impact 

of the training and of the expanded availability of time 

on the completeness of the hearings. In addition, the 

6 
Chapter 1: Introduction 

measurement of current practice in the first phase 

established a baseline from which to determine whether 

improvements could be made. Having two phases in future 

studies can be useful in demonstrating the effectiveness of the baseline conditions; however, as noted in the 

discussion of the use of the judicial time log and the court 

assessment tool in the next two chapters, it also increases 

the amount of time needed to collect workload data. We 

anticipate that future research in conjunction with courts 

will help to refine effective and efficient study methods, 

which will reduce some burden on participants. 

Tools for Judicial Workload 

Analysis 

The next two chapters discuss two main tools used in 

workload analysis—time log data collection and observation of courtrooms. A fourth chapter discusses the use of 

a Delphi process to build consensus among dependency 

court judges as to the optimal length of time needed for 

both in-court and out-of-court activities. A concluding 

chapter suggests implementation strategies to adapt these 

tools to specific situations. 

7 

Chapter 2 

This chapter focuses on the use of an instrument (tool) to measure the amounts of time judges spend on specific types of 

activities in child abuse and neglect proceedings. Information about times actually involved in specific court events (such 

as types of hearings and many other types of court activities), when combined with evaluations of how well and fully these 

events are accomplished, is invaluable to learning how much time is needed to effectively conduct such events so as to 

fulfill the letter and spirit of State and Federal requirements. 

What Can Completion of the 

Judicial Time Log Accomplish? 

A critical component of any workload study is the calculation of the average time spent on each work event. This can 

be done by asking judges to keep a time log (see below), 

taking measures of in-court time recorded by observers or 

court staff, using audio or video equipment that measures 

time, obtaining estimates derived from a panel of judges 

working iteratively, or a combination of these approaches.18 

Practice Tip: Although time logs provide comprehensive information about both on-the-bench and 

off-the-bench time, requiring judges to keep accurate 

time logs can be very demanding. Some alternative approaches can be explored—for example, a 

sampling of the types of hearings in which it is most 

important to measure time can be obtained, and then 

judges can be asked to record time for those events 

only (both during phase one and phase two). Routine, 

frequently occurring events can be measured by 

courtroom observers or court staff who can note the 

start time and finish time for such events during both 

phase one and phase two. 

The Judicial Time Log
 

The judicial time log provided in this volume is a tool for 

capturing the actual time spent by judges hearing child 

abuse and neglect cases on various activities on a daily 

basis for a designated period of time. Time logs can be used 

to capture both on-the-bench activities and off-the-bench 

case-related and non-case-related judicial time. 

In the two study sites for the Toolkit project, time logs were 

designed to be completed under two sets of conditions: The 

first phase established a baseline of current practice, and 

phase two occurred after judges completed a tutorial that 

provided instruction about the completion of time logs and 

reviewed mandated and nationally recommended standards 

of practice. 

During the second phase, fewer hearings were scheduled 

so that judges could accommodate these recommended 

practices. Because the time log includes all work time spent 

during the course of the day and week, it captures the proportion of all work time spent on each activity, not just the 

total amount of time. The time log also notes non-work-time 

gaps, such as sick time, vacation, and holidays, so that a realistic estimation of available time can be made. Also, time 

spent on work that is not specifically related to the judges’ 

in-court activities or specific cases, such as administrative 

time and training and educational activities, is captured. 

What Is the Judicial Time Log? 

Each judge completes a judicial time log worksheet, a 

paper data collection instrument (appendix A), for each 

day he or she engages in judicial activities during the data 

collection periods. Each judge also is given instructions on 

how to complete the worksheet (appendix B) and a code 

sheet for the various types of judicial workload activities 

and tasks being recorded (appendix C). 

Data collection begins with the judge recording the start 

time of each workday on the worksheet. For each task, the 

judge enters the appropriate codes for the task and the 

time when the task is finished. If a judge works outside 

normal work hours, works from home, resumes work later 

in the day, or works on weekends, he or she also records 

these times on the worksheet. The worksheet also allows 

for breaks in work time to be recorded. At the end of the 

data collection period, a complete record of all work activity for each day of the period has been recorded. 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

Judges are trained in data collection procedures before 

each data collection period begins. Judges are shown 

how to complete the instrument, definitions of the codes 

are discussed, and worksheet forms and code sheets are 

provided. If questions or concerns about completing the instrument arise during data collection, the judge or judge’s 

assistant will contact the workload analysis coordinator. 

When Should the Judicial Time 

Log Be Used? 

The time log can be used to measure the duration of a 

wide range of judicial activities. When doing so, it is important to keep all other variables as consistent as possible; 

for example, the same judges, in the same locations, for 

the same period of time. Judges’ schedules may vary by 

day of the week (e.g., a certain type of hearing or training 

activity may always occur on Fridays), so each day of the 

week should be equally represented during each phase. 

However, because it is not possible to keep some conditions that affect the expenditure of time, such as vacations, 

from changing, it is important to be aware of the possible 

impact of the inconsistency of these conditions. For example, if phase one occurs during January and phase two 

occurs during April, differences between workload in January and workload in April may be due to the time of year or 

a judge’s vacation patterns rather than the intervention being measured. Data collection periods should be scheduled 

considering as many of these factors as possible. 

How Should the Judicial Time 

Log Be Used? 

If the study will be conducted in two phases, two data 

collection periods can be established for each court. The 

purpose of the first data collection period (phase one) is 

to determine a baseline (current practice) regarding the 

length of time judges spend on all activities. During the 

second data collection period (phase two), the caseload 

of each participating judge is reduced by a set number of 

hearings per day, which are transferred to a judge not participating in the study. If there are two phases to the study, 

the same judicial time log worksheet is used for both the 

baseline and caseload control periods. 

If the jurisdiction does not use the two-phase approach, 

only one data collection period may be needed. In either 

case, prior to the start of data collection involving caseload 

control (fewer hearings per day), the judges receive 

refresher training on dependency court practice standards 

based on the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and Federal law. The 

training focuses on reinforcing the judges’ adherence to 

the practice standards during the caseload control data 

collection period. Among other things, the judges review 

the hearing observation sheets, which focus on key practices set forth in the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and requirements of Federal law. 

The judicial time log does not capture data on the nuances 

of a judge’s decisionmaking practices. To capture this 

broader view, the time log should be used in conjunction with the court observation tool discussed in chapter 

3. If judicial time logs are used in conjunction with court 

observations, judges should complete worksheets only 

when observers are in the court. To ensure that judges and 

observers use terminology consistently, observers should 

review the judges’ worksheets during the first several days 

they are present. 

The advantage to using a judicial time log to study 

workload is that it reflects actual time spent rather than 

the judge’s recollection of how the time was spent, an 

observer’s interpretation of how the time was spent, or a 

panel of judges’ estimation of how time is typically spent. 

To date, the time logs have been used only by judges, but 

the logs could be adapted to capture data on how other 

court personnel spend their work time. 

Additional Considerations 

The approach discussed above is a comprehensive way 

to collect a full array of data on the tasks completed by 

judges on and off the bench. Depending on the needs 

of the court, the following approaches can also be 

considered: 

u	As discussed in chapter 3, observers of court hearings 

could keep detailed track of time for each hearing, thus 

eliminating the need for judges to keep time logs of 

on-the-bench time. Judges might still be asked to keep 

time logs of off-the-bench time. 

10 
Chapter 2: The Judicial Time Log 

u	In some courts, hearing times are tightly scheduled and 

are quite consistent. In such courts, court calendars 

could be a source of data on specific times for standard 

types of hearings. 

u	Time logs for on-the-bench proceedings could be used 

only to measure time spent on specific types of hearings 

that are held less frequently. 

If the approach to using time log data is adjusted, for 

example, to consider only specific types of hearings, then 

the data collection period can also be adjusted to increase 

the number of hearings for which data are collected. 

11 

Chapter 3 

A court observation process can provide valuable insight into judicial workload. Information obtained from a court observation process can be an additional source of data about the nature of judicial work and particularly about whether best 

practices are followed in hearings. However, the ability of a court observation process to provide accurate and meaningful 

data depends greatly on the skills and neutrality of the individuals who code hearings. In any observation process, therefore, attention must be paid to the selection and training of observers as well as to conducting reliability checks on the data 

generated by the observation process (more information will be provided later in this chapter).19 

Why Use the Court Observation 

Tool? 

Court observation is a key tool for capturing the time 

needed to conduct court hearings in accordance with legal 

requirements and nationally recommended practices. The 

court observation tool presented in this volume is a set of 

forms (appendix D) and instructions (appendix E) designed 

to capture the content and process crucial to each kind of 

each hearing (see appendix D). A neutral observer is an 

individual experienced in the dependency court process 

who is not a participant in the observed judge’s cases or 

court. A neutral observer can be recruited from the State’s 

court improvement office or the State Supreme Court’s 

administrative staff; or the observer can be a lawyer from a 

dependency court in another jurisdiction, a retired judge, a 

law school faculty member, or a member of the private bar. 

The aim is to have a knowledgeable observer cover each 

Court Observation
 

hearing, as well as the depth of discussion in each hearing. The forms are based on the practice standards from 

RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child 

Abuse and Neglect Cases and on Federal legal requirements 

for child abuse and neglect cases. 

The court observation forms, when used in conjunction with 

the time log, are also used for both phases of the workload 

analysis. The observations in phase one establish current 

practice. Phase two occurs after a judicial tutorial that 

reviews mandated and recommended practices. Judges 

schedule fewer cases for phase two so they can accommodate practices they may have consistently omitted in phase 

one because of lack of time or knowledge (for example, 

inquiry into “reasonable efforts,” or notice and service of 

process to missing parties). The results are analyzed to 

determine how many dependency cases a judge could 

manage if recommended strategies were used during court 

hearings to achieve the results mandated by the Adoption 

and Safe Families Act (ASFA) and related Federal and State 

laws. 

What Is the Court Observation 

Tool? 

Court observation is done by neutral observers who fill 

out forms designed to capture the content and process of 

significant kind of hearing for a specified period of time.20 

The issue of an observer’s bias or inaccuracy can be 

addressed in a number of ways. The first approach is 

through rigorous training of several observers in actual 

court hearings. Each individual’s observations of a hearing 

are compared to the observations of others to establish 

high inter-rater reliability. Because the court will train a 

number of observers, it can then decide whether to use 

one or more observers, depending on the court’s needs 

and resources during the observation period. A second 

approach to reducing inadvertent bias is to use more than 

one observer during the observation period. 

A court may decide to cover all common hearings— 

emergency removal hearings, adjudications, disposition 

hearings, case review hearings, permanency hearings, 

termination of parental rights (TPR), and post-TPR—or to 

focus on the hearings that are most likely to be incomplete 

or that tend to delay outcomes. In the latter category are 

hearings for emergency removal/shelter care, case review, 

permanency, and post-TPR hearings.21 

The forms in appendix D are specific to each major kind 

of hearing: emergency removal hearing (also referred to 

as probable cause hearing, shelter care hearing, etc.), 

adjudication, disposition hearing, case review hearing, 

permanency hearing, TPR hearing, and post-TPR hearing. 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

Each form provides space to enter the following 

information: 

u	Observer’s name or other identifier. 

u	Judge’s name or other identifier. 

u	Case number or other agreed-upon case identifier. 

u	Start and finish times for each hearing. 

Part 1 captures the participants: 

u	Mother, father, child, and relatives. 

u	Attorneys or legal representatives for the child, parent(s), 

and agency. 

u	Providers, including social service personnel. 

Part 2 observes how the judge sets up the hearing: 

u	Introduction of parties. 

u	Explanation of the case. 

u	Advice to parents and child about rights and 

responsibilities. 

Part 3 lists issues appropriate to the kind of hearing being 

observed that relate to the child’s best interests. Depending on the type of hearing, these issues might include the 

following: 

u	Child’s service needs.
 

u	Notice and service of process for missing parties.
 

u	Paternity.
 

u	Child support.
 

u	Visitation.
 

u	Suitability of current placement.
 

u	Permanency goal.
 

u	Reasonable efforts of the agency.
 

u	Case plan.
 

In part 3, hearing quality, or the completeness of the
 

discussion of issues, is captured with ratings of “1,” “2,” 

or “3.” A rating of “1” indicates that the issue was raised 

by one person. A rating of “2” indicates that the issue was 

discussed by at least two people. A rating of “3” indicates 

that, in addition to the issue being raised, the judge or an 

attorney brought the parent or child into the discussion of 

the issue.22 

Part 4 includes the judge’s findings and summations. This 

section captures not only whether mandated findings were 

made, but also whether they were supported by casespecific facts as required by ASFA. Depending on the hearing, Part 4 might include the following: 

u	Finding on agency’s reasonable efforts. 

u	Finding on parental compliance with case plan. 

u	Finding on appropriateness of permanency goal. 

u	Explanation of deadlines. 

u	Setting new hearing date. 

u	Distribution of court orders. 

The forms leave room for an observer’s comments in part 

5. Helpful comments distinguish unusual features of the 

hearing observed; for example, comments may indicate 

that the hearing was shortened because an attorney did 

not appear or that the case was scheduled as a case review but, when a social worker remarked that it was time 

for the permanency hearing, it was designated as a permanency hearing without the requisite thorough reports. 

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES establish standards both for 

the content of hearings and for the amount of time that 

should be set aside on the docket for each kind of hearing. 

The RESOURCE GUIDELINES, which are published by the 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

(NCJFCJ) and formally endorsed by the Conference of 

Chief Justices as well as the officers and Board of Trustees 

of the NCJFCJ and the American Bar Association, are the 

principal hearing-related standards for dependency cases. 

They must, of course, be supplemented by the requirements of Federal laws that have been enacted since their 

publication, especially by ASFA and its regulations. 

One key premise of the RESOURCE GUIDELINES is that the 

court process should be “front-loaded”; that is, as many 

process and content issues as possible should be dealt 

with in the first hearing so that the case will not be delayed 

as litigation continues. Thus, 1 hour is recommended 

for the first substantive hearing (often called an emergency removal hearing, shelter care hearing, or probable 

cause hearing) and for the permanency hearing. Other 

hearings—uncontested adjudications, dispositions, case 

reviews, and uncontested terminations of parental rights— 

are recommended to be scheduled for 1⁄2 hour. 

The approach recommended in connection with the use of 

these tools is to temporarily provide enough time to allow 

judges to conduct hearings that both comply with practices 

recommended in the RESOURCE GUIDELINES and fulfill all 

legal requirements related to the hearings.23 This strategy 

14 
Chapter 3: Court Observation 

makes it possible to measure the actual time needed for 

properly conducted and substantive hearings. However, a 

court system using the court observation tool may have 

reason to modify some of the time durations in the RESOURCE GUIDELINES. For example, hearings for contested 

adjudications, contested TPRs, and contested case reviews, 

all of which will generally involve the extended examination and cross examination of witnesses. Each of these 

will likely take much longer than the times recommended 

by the RESOURCE GUIDELINES for adjudication, TPRs, and 

case reviews, because the RESOURCE GUIDELINES time 

estimates apply only to uncontested hearings. 

Courts that also have dependency drug courts in which 

parenting is frequently reviewed may be able to conduct 

permanency hearings in less than an hour (for example, if 

a parent has failed drug court, a decision could be reached 

quickly that the child’s return to the parent is unwise; 

conversely, if a parent has succeeded in drug court and is 

in compliance with the case plan, the child’s return may be 

the obvious best outcome). 

Once the observer’s forms are completed, they are submitted to an analyst who derives projected workload from the 

accumulated data.24 

When Should the Court 

Observation Tool Be Used? 

There are two options for using the court observation tool. 

It can be applied in two phases, with a break in between 

for a judicial tutorial, or in one phase that is preceded by 

a judicial tutorial. The two-phase strategy establishes a 

baseline of current practice in phase one, permitting analysis of gaps and problems that judges have in meeting legal 

mandates and using recommended practice standards. 

Phase two permits judges to address mandated and recommended practices more thoroughly because they have 

a lighter docket. 

A court that chooses to use the court observation tool in 

one phase only foregoes analysis of current practice and 

focuses entirely on recommended practice. 

An exploratory use of the court observation tool in two 

phases occurred in two courts in two different States. Both 

courts were juvenile-dependency courts in which judges 

handled dependency hearings 3 days a week in addition 

to their juvenile delinquency caseload.Dependency (or 

child abuse and neglect) hearings were observed for 10 

consecutive workdays in phase one and again for 10 days 

in phase two. There was a 2-month break between the two 

phases to analyze the phase one material and to prepare 

and conduct a judicial tutorial that identified omissions 

and provided resources for more thorough and complete 

hearings. 

For courts in which judges carry a mixed caseload, with 

dependency hearings occurring once a week or less 

frequently, observations should take place over a longer 

period of time (for example, once a week for 6 weeks in 

each phase). To overcome limitations of time and geography, the results of observations of small numbers of cases 

in several rural courts could be combined. 

This tool would not be a significant help in determining 

overall judicial workloads of individual judges in rural 

courts who only handle dependency cases occasionally; 

however, it can help identify the appropriate durations of 

key types of hearings and problems with the content and 

process of hearings in these courts. The forms could also 

be used in connection with court improvement reassessments and family services reviews. 

For courts that choose to use the court observation tool in 

one phase, data collection times would be cut in half. For 

example, a court with a large dependency caseload would 

have court observations for 10 workdays. Courts with 

smaller workloads would make similar adjustments. 

How Should the Court 

Observation Tool Be Used? 

Appendix E contains instructions for using the court observation tool, including all of the information a court observer 

Practice Tip: As previously mentioned, accurate 

coding of hearings is essential for meaningful results. 

To ensure accuracy, a small sample of hearings 

should be “check coded” by a second, experienced 

coder (i.e., the second coder codes the same hearing 

without reference to the original coding), who notes 

any discrepancies in the way the hearing was coded. 

All errors are then addressed in consultation with the 

original coder. Errors may be due to problems in understanding the observation form, differing interpretation of observed events, or problems with the coder’s 

ability. Errors, once identified, can be reconciled and 

addressed in training. If a high rate of error occurs in 

the sample that is check coded, those hearing observations should be discarded for analysis purposes. 

15 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

will need to conduct the observations, along with answers 

to frequently asked questions. 

In brief, the two elements required for effective use of 

the tool are (1) trained observers who are experienced in 

dependency court process and (2) the court observation 

forms (contained in appendix D), which can be modified to 

include local court terminology. 

Elements of effective observations include: 

u	Observations scheduled over consecutive workdays 

(for example, 10 days per phase in courts with heavy 

dependency dockets). 

u	An initial interview with the judge to establish how 

the judge manages the docket, hearings, and staff 

assignments, and to anticipate and resolve problems (for 

example, issues regarding terminology). 

u	Examination of case files prior to each day’s hearings 

(where possible). 

u	Initial 2-day teamwork by two observers to ensure a 

consistent coding (or marking) process and inter-rater 

reliability, and a debriefing process which reviews any 

discrepancies in coding, corrects errors, and establishes 

a consistent coding approach. 

u	For each hearing, sufficient forms to cover any 

eventuality. 

u	Most important, attentive observation and coding 

(or marking of hearing observations) by experienced 

observers. 

The instructions in appendix E cover the kinds of issues 

that can arise in hearings that proceed quickly. When used 

by experienced observers, the forms capture information 

about both the duration and the quality of the hearing, 

creating a factual basis on which to make workload 

recommendations. 

16 
Chapter 4 

Why Use a Delphi Process? 

A Delphi process is a technique used to obtain estimates 

from a panel of experts. It differs from a focus group in that 

the experts have the opportunity to change their estimates 

based on feedback from the other panel members. Unlike 

a focus group, the Delphi process is iterative; that is, it is a 

search for consensus among the participants. 

In a workload study, a Delphi process can be used to 

estimate the amounts of time judges need for in-court 

(hearings) and out-of-court activities. In addition, the Delphi 

approach estimates how long events would take if they 

were modified to follow best practices. Conducting a Delphi 

process as part of a workload analysis provides a means of 

involving participants in the workload assessment process; 

when judges participate in building consensus about time 

estimates and the weight given to different types of cases, 

For dependency cases, the Delphi panel would identify 

key events, both on the bench and off the bench in a child 

abuse and neglect case and how much time it takes to 

complete each event. 

What Was the Delphi Process in 

the Project Sites? 

Based on the task structure defined for the project, a Delphi process was conducted at each project site to estimate 

the amounts of time judges need for in-court (hearings) 

and out-of-court activities. The Delphi sessions implemented in the two project sites modified the “traditional” Delphi 

process slightly by including information obtained from a 

survey given to the panelists prior to the Delphi session. 

Results from the survey guided the Delphi discussion. 

In this study, the Delphi process involved the following 

A Delphi Process
 

workload findings have more credibility because judges 

know how those findings were derived 

What Is a Delphi Process? 

A Delphi process is a multistep procedure to build 

consensus on a particular area of interest based on the 

collective experience and expertise of the participants (in 

this case judges experienced at presiding over child abuse 

and neglect litigation).25 In a Delphi process, judges who 

preside over child abuse and neglect litigation (the experts) 

are asked to estimate the amount of time they believe is 

necessary to dispose of cases (judges can be asked to 

estimate the amount of time each case event takes and/ 

or the amount of time it takes to dispose of the case as a 

whole). 

For example, judges may be asked to estimate the time 

needed to conduct an emergency removal hearing or a 

preliminary protective hearing. These estimates are then 

compiled and each judge on the panel receives his or her 

original estimate along with the group’s average estimate 

of the time needed to dispose of that case event. Each 

judge is then asked if he or she would adhere to his or 

her initial response or would modify the response to more 

closely approximate the group’s average. Based on this 

discussion, new averages are calculated until consensus 

is reached. 

steps: 

1. A small group of judges (the Delphi group) responded 

to a survey asking about the amount of time they spent 

on specific judicial activities related to child abuse and 

neglect cases. 

2. The project team prepared the survey results and 

the baseline times per hearing (for those judges who 

completed the time logs) to present to the Delphi group. 

3. The Delphi group convened and was asked to develop 

consensus about the amount of time currently spent 

on the identified activities related to child abuse and 

neglect litigation. Among other things, the Delphi group 

viewed the survey results and the durations of baseline 

and experimental hearings.26 

4. The Delphi group was then asked to reach consensus as 

to the amount of time that would be required for “ideal” 

dependency practice. 

5. Participants were asked to identify constraints on 

achieving that ideal. 

The Delphi group of judges was asked both how much 

time they currently spent on different types of hearings and 

how much time would be appropriate for judges to spend 

on each type of hearing. The Delphi group was also asked 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

how much time would be appropriate for judges to spend 

on child abuse and neglect-related activities that do not 

concern specific cases before the court (i.e., off-the-bench 

activities that are not related to a specific case but are an 

important component of dependency work). Such activities 

included the following overall categories: 

u	Administrative (handling personnel matters, budgeting, 

staffing). 

u	Judicial training (receiving or conducting). 

u	Professional enhancement (reviewing articles, case law, 

statutes, etc., to keep current). 

u	Public education. 

u	Court improvement (meetings with stakeholders to 

discuss reforms related to abuse and neglect litigation). 

u	Community outreach (working with community groups, 

serving on boards or legislative committees). 

How Should the Delphi Process 

Be Used To Inform the Workload 

Study? 

Delphi sessions can be used to inform quantitative timestudy data and to help adjust those data to estimate the 

length of time needed for more complete and thorough 

hearings. The Delphi sessions were facilitated by neutral 

parties familiar with the Delphi process, the time-study 

data, and the work of the dependency court judge. 

The Delphi sessions involved a series of exercises in which 

the following consensus time values were established: 

u	Judge day value. 

u	On-the-bench dependency activity hearing duration 

(emergency removal hearing or preliminary protective 

hearing, adjudication hearing, disposition hearing, case 

review hearing, permanency hearing, TPR hearing). 

u	Off-the-bench dependency activity—case related 

(judicial time spent handling dependency cases off the 

bench). 

u	Off-the-bench dependency activity—non-case related 

(judicial time spent on dependency judicial functions not 

directly related to case processing). 

The Delphi survey results and the baseline and experimental time-study data (as applicable) served as the starting 

point for consensus building among the expert judge 

participants. Projecting the survey data on an overhead 

screen made the process both visual and auditory and thus 

more immediate. 

Because dependency judges handle a range of caseload 

sizes and activities, expert participants can be asked if 

there are any significant judicial categories that would help 

in interpreting time-study data. These categories could 

include full-time versus part-time, administrative versus 

nonadministrative, and urban versus rural. The Delphi 

groups in Arkansas and Oregon found these distinctions 

helpful as they worked to achieve consensus on workload 

estimates. 

Things To Consider When 

Implementing a Delphi Process 

As previously mentioned, convening a Delphi session can 

be a valuable way to involve participants in the workload 

assessment process, thereby increasing the credibility of 

the findings. Delphi sessions also provide a valuable tool 

for exploring the quality of hearings and determining how 

long events would take if they were modified to follow best 

practices. Furthermore, Delphi groups provide an opportunity to more fully examine the off-the-bench, non-caserelated activities that are part of judicial dependency work. 

However, the reliability and validity of any estimates 

derived from the group are constrained by the participants’ 

depth and breadth of experience. Strategies for improving the time estimates provided using the Delphi method 

follow: 

u	The Delphi session should be facilitated by a neutral 

party who is familiar with the Delphi process, the time 

log data, and the work of the dependency court judges. 

u	Involve all judges who hear dependency matters, or 

as many as possible, to increase the range of expert 

opinion (if the court also uses judicial officers, such as 

commissioners, referees, or masters, include them in 

the Delphi process as well). 

u	Encourage Delphi participants to think about the usual 

or typical case rather than unique or longer, more 

complex cases. 

u	Cross-check estimates against timed measures for case 

events or case types to keep the process grounded in 

reality. 

u	Use additional data collection procedures and sources 

of data (e.g., court observations and time logs) to 

supplement the Delphi study. 

18 
Chapter 5 

This chapter includes further comments regarding judicial workload analysis for child abuse and neglect cases, including a 

discussion of the following: 

u	Incorporating standards of practice into workload analysis. 

u	Additional recommendations for workload analysis using the tools presented earlier in this report. 

Incorporating Standards of 

Practice Into Workload Analysis 

The tools presented here help courts analyze the necessary workloads to enable courts to fulfill practice standards 

and comply with the law. Using these tools, courts can 

more closely approximate full compliance with the law and 

practice standards and control caseload demands. This 

approach requires relatively competent and very flexible 

courts and it can be used in most, if not all, States. To use 

this approach, it is not necessary to identify courts that 

include an assessment of whether practice standards 

were implemented, or did not measure off-the-bench caserelated and non-case-related activities, then comparisons 

drawn from the experimental phase will need to acknowledge those differences. 

Specific Recommendations for 

Judicial Workload Analysis 

This section contains recommendations for studies using a 

Conclusions
 

already fulfill all essential standards of practice. 

Focused, highly competent training on the rationale and 

details associated with each key standard of practice will 

make it more likely that courts will approach full implementation of practice standards and the law during the 

study period. This training must explain the purpose of each 

standard and engage judges interactively to foster their 

willingness to conduct thorough hearings (at least during 

the study period). 

In addition, we recommend that observers (preferably with 

the assistance of other experts) provide detailed feedback 

and suggestions to judges at the beginning of the experimental period (phase two) to enable judges to implement 

judicial standards of best practice more fully before the 

formal time log or observation process begins. This underscores the need for training on implementation of standards, as well as the need for highly qualified and credible 

observers, as discussed earlier. 

If baseline workload data are available, State courts 

conducting these studies might consider eliminating the 

baseline (nonexperimental) phase. Data obtained from the 

experimental period (phase two) can be compared with 

existing information about workload. It is important to keep 

in mind, however, that if the available baseline data did not 

methodology similar to the one used in this study: 

Planning the Study 

1.	 Build on current or prior larger scale studies where 

they exist. 

For States that analyze all categories of judicial 

workloads together, we recommend that the practice 

standards related to workload analysis for child abuse 

and neglect cases be designed to supplement the 

more general analysis. For example, if a State uses a 

weighted caseload analysis, then workload analysis 

regarding child abuse and neglect litigation should 

calculate an adjusted weight for these cases, which 

can supplement the data collected for the larger study 

and can be applied to existing formulas. 

One means of adapting to existing State workload 

analysis is to use comparable units of analysis. For 

example, if a State uses a weighted caseload method 

that is based on the number of case filings, develop an 

approach for child abuse and neglect cases that does 

the same. This way the results can be combined. 

In this study we calculated the amounts of time 

devoted to cases during a specific time period rather 

than preparing a projection of the total court time 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

during the life of a case. If the State bases workload 

measures on the number of case filings and there 

is reason to believe the courts will be amenable 

to combining results, we recommend shifting the 

measurement to make projections based on the 

judicial time needed per case. 

2.	 Where possible, select sites with relatively high 

levels of practice and positive outcomes for 

children and families. 

When selecting sites for these studies, seek out those 

courts that can most closely approach full compliance 

with standards of practice under modified conditions. 

In addition, look for courts that show positive 

outcomes for children and families. Even though 

there may be other reasons for positive outcomes, 

the existence of good outcomes for children and 

families will strengthen the credibility of the studies’ 

recommendations. 

3.	 At the beginning of each study, accurately classify 

hearing types in the local court using statewide 

terminology. 

Terminology for hearings is not always consistent 

within a State. Specific types of hearings may have 

different names within the State and the names might 

be used in various ways, even within a single court. 

Judges or court employees often use labels that are 

inconsistent with the terms used in State law and 

nationally recommended practice standards. For 

example, in one court we analyzed, hearings based 

on special motions were called reviews but were 

fundamentally different from case progress reviews. 

When judges or court employees give labels to 

hearings that are inconsistent with State law and 

national standards, it can cause observers to fill out 

the wrong forms and enter incorrect data into the 

State information system regarding the frequency of 

hearings. 

To avoid these problems, it is important for judges and 

court employees to be interviewed at the onset of the 

study. In this way observers can learn the local terms 

for hearings and judges can learn the criteria that will 

be used to determine the true nature of a hearing. As 

a result, judges and observers can create a common, 

more accurate lexicon. 

To ensure that judges and observers use terminology 

consistently, observers should review the judges’ time 

logs during the first several days they are present. 

Judges complete time logs only when observers are 

present in the court. 

Gathering Data 

4.	 Use time logs similar to those used in this study. 

The time logs provided in this guide worked well 

in the project sites that tested the instruments: the 

logs provided the data needed, were implemented 

according to protocol, and were easy to comprehend 

and use. It is important to note that completion of the 

instruments requires commitment and effort on the 

part of the judges. 

5.	 Provide judges with written instructions and 

training on the use of the time log. 

We provided the judges with written instructions and 

then reviewed the instructions with them. This helped 

avoid misinterpretations about how to code and record 

the durations of various activities. 

6.	 Use different hearing observation instruments for 

each type of hearing. 

It is impractical to use only one form for all types 

of hearing observations. We tried this in one court, 

developing a backup form that could be used for any 

hearing for which another form was not appropriate. 

This all-purpose form proved difficult to use in our 

work with the project sites. 

If a hearing is 5 or 10 minutes long, for example, it will 

be difficult to examine a lengthy hearing form and try 

to identify all of the issues that may or may not apply. 

Some aspects of the hearing could be missed because 

the observer is searching for the correct elements to 

check off on the form. 

A better approach is for the observer and judge to 

discuss how this particular court labels hearings, the 

observer to read hearing reports in advance so that 

types of hearings can be anticipated, and the observer 

to check with the judge about the types of hearings 

set for each day (e.g., obtain a copy of the docket or 

calendar of hearings). 

20 
Chapter 5: Conclusions 

7.	 Consider eliminating a baseline analysis (phase 

one—current practice) if baseline workload data 

are already available. 

The experimental aspect of this study was expensive 

and challenging to implement. Many of the costs 

and complexities can be avoided by eliminating 

the phase one (baseline) portion of the research if 

existing baseline data are already available (even if 

these data are limited). We recommend conducting 

a limited number of experimental studies in the 

future, using both phases, to further test and refine 

this methodology. The phase two approach (i.e., 

temporarily limiting workloads, helping courts more 

fully implement standards of practice and legal 

requirements, and then analyzing the workload 

implications of using best practices) can be quite 

useful in itself. 

8.	 Use a modified version of the phase two portion of 

workload analysis. 

We recommend (as explained above) providing 

an enhanced version of the phase two workload 

analysis. This requires improved training (explaining 

each element of best practices in detail) as well as 

mentoring judges when they do not fulfill best practice 

expectations. 

In short, this approach involves actively helping 

selected courts approximate recommended practices 

as closely as possible under controlled workload 

demands. During the study, judicial dependency 

workloads are analyzed under these special conditions, 

including time measurements, observation of 

completeness of hearings, and analysis of out-of-court 

activities. This approach also requires identifying 

any best practices that were not followed under the 

controlled conditions and why. 

For example, best practices may not have been 

implemented because of judges’ resistance to 

changes in the way they conduct hearings, flaws in 

training or mentoring, institutional barriers (such as 

the unavailability of attorneys to appear at certain 

hearings), the irrelevance of certain recommended 

practices in some situations, or flaws in court 

observation. Followup interviews of judges, court staff, 

and others should help clarify these issues. 

It is also important to find out how judges actually use 

the additional time provided by a lighter caseload and 

then to clarify why and how this additional time did or 

did not contribute to improved hearing completeness, 

including specific best practices. Again, followup 

interviews are needed to accomplish this task. 

We do not assume that the modified practices will 

continue after the research period is completed 

because the court must resume its former processes. If 

a court system is able to conduct such an experiment 

on a longer term basis, however, there should be 

periodic monitoring of court performance, perhaps 

accompanied by refresher training and mentoring. 

9.	 Use highly qualified observers following detailed 

protocols. 

As discussed in detail in chapter 2, only highly 

professional observers can make reliable and valid 

determinations about the completeness of hearings. 

Only highly trained court staff, researchers, and 

attorneys with years of specialized experience can 

correctly identify and classify hearing types and 

efficiently and accurately identify which best practices 

were and were not followed. In addition, observers 

need the credibility to enable them to provide effective 

feedback to the judge during the study. 

To the extent possible, the assignment of observers 

should address issues of reliability of observation. This 

can be done during both training and observation. 

Observers should work as a team, at least for the first 

day or two of observations, to ensure consistency 

and accuracy in ratings. They should record their 

decisions about how to assign ratings under confusing 

conditions. Observers should also periodically confer 

and review each other’s ratings to confirm their 

continued consistency in assigning ratings (see the 

Practice Tip in chapter 3, under “How Should the Court 

Observation Tool Be Used?” (p. 15), regarding “check 

coding” and inter-rater reliability). 

Careful preparation for observations is needed, 

including advance familiarity with hearings and with 

the courtroom itself. Even experienced observers need 

training. 

Information to be used to train observers and a 

protocol for hearing observations are provided in 

appendix E, Instructions to Observers and Project 

Administrators for Conducting Court Observations. 

21 
Guide to Judicial Workload assessment
 

10. Observe only limited categories of hearings. 

Two issues must be considered when contemplating 

which hearings to measure in terms of workload, 

given that the approach in this Toolkit provides 

comprehensive data but places some burden on the 

court and its personnel. The decision about which 

approach to use depends on a court’s needs and 

current availability of data. 

One approach is to focus on hearings that occur 

often and therefore take up the bulk of the court’s 

time. Many of our observations during the pilot study 

included types of hearings that occur with relative 

infrequency. Focusing on fewer types of hearings can 

reduce the time burdens of studies such as this one. 

If future studies will focus on fewer types of hearings, 

we recommend the following as the top priorities. 

However, it is important to note that the types of 

hearings that should receive the highest priority for 

study may vary, particularly in States with relatively 

distinctive court processes: 

u	 Emergency removal hearings (also called shelter 

care hearings, preliminary hearings, preliminary 

protective hearings, detention hearings, etc.), which 

occur within a short time after a child is removed 

from home. In most States, these are the first 

substantive hearings and they can play a major 

role in avoiding early case delays. “Front-loading” 

the court process (i.e., thoroughly considering the 

substantive issues related to the child’s welfare 

in these early proceedings) is critical to engaging 

the parties and getting the process off to a good 

start. Further, there is very wide variation in the 

completeness of these hearings. 

u	 Case review hearings. In States where courts 

conduct case review hearings, these are frequent 

hearings and it is important to study them. Case 

review hearings have a substantial impact on the 

pace and quality of litigation, and there is wide 

variation in the completeness of these hearings. 

u	 Permanency hearings. There is also wide variation 

in the quality and completeness of permanency 

hearings. Many courts conduct permanency 

hearings as if they were case review hearings; 

the result is delayed permanency for children. 

Permanency hearings should include a systematic 

and intense inquiry into the practicality of the 

possible permanent placement goals. Among other 

things, these hearings should explore whether and 

why it is necessary to give up on adoption as a 

case goal. 

u	 Post-TPR case review and permanency 

hearings. There is particularly wide variation in the 

completeness and focus of post-TPR case reviews. 

If it is necessary to conduct many of these reviews, 

they should be considered a separate category. 

These hearings should focus on the timeliness 

and appropriateness of efforts to secure a legally 

permanent placement for the child. At this stage of 

the proceedings, the difference in function between 

a case review hearing and a permanency hearing is 

relatively minor. 

Lower priority hearings that could also be studied 

include the following: 

u	 Adjudication. Uncontested adjudications could 

be observed, particularly to determine whether 

court orders are prepared promptly and whether 

parties are asked to explain, in their own words, the 

reasons for court jurisdiction. 

u	 Disposition. Disposition is an important stage of 

the court process. In this stage, the judge should 

thoroughly consider the case plan (in most States) 

and the need for out-of-home placement. Some 

courts do not give adequate attention to decisions 

about disposition. 

Some of the lowest priority hearings that could be 

observed include the following: 

u	 Highly contested hearings requiring special 

settings. Observation of these hearings is highly 

time consuming and unlikely to provide helpful data 

on the completeness of hearings. Future studies 

might, however, address the effects of efficient 

court processes on the durations of contested 

hearings. 

u	 Uncontested TPR hearings. These hearings 

require careful efforts to ensure that parents give 

knowing and voluntary consent. In most courts, it 

will not be a high priority to observe this type of 

hearing. 

22 
Chapter 5: Conclusions 

u	 Hearings on special motions and other 

miscellaneous proceedings. It will probably be 

a waste of resources to observe large numbers 

of miscellaneous hearings or hearings on special 

motions. In addition, it is misleading to record a 

miscellaneous hearing as a common hearing type. 

For example, if a hearing is set for the sole purpose 

of resolving a dispute about visitation, it does not 

need to be rated as a case review hearing. 

On the other hand, miscellaneous substantive hearings 

could be observed prior to TPR for the limited purpose 

of observing who was present and the judges’ followup 

steps, including prompt issuance of court orders. 

Another approach might be to focus on specific 

types of hearings that occur relatively rarely. This 

would be appropriate if a court already has a good 

estimate of the time needed for hearings that occur 

more frequently or if the court decides to gather 

data on such hearings in other ways. Hearings that 

occur infrequently sometimes take a considerable 

amount of time and often judges do not have as much 

experience with such hearings. Therefore, data on 

the completeness and appropriate duration of these 

hearings can provide guidance for judges who are 

conducting them for the first time. 

Finally, an advantage to observing a limited number of 

types of hearings is that this approach may produce 

recommendations that can be scientifically supported 

for the duration of the hearings that are studied. This 

information not only will help determine the number of 

judges that are needed by the courts, but also can be 

very useful to judges and court staff in guiding them on 

the amount of time to set aside for these hearings. 

11. Supplement other data collection methods with a 

Delphi session. 

Delphi sessions provide a valuable means to explore 

the quality of hearings; determine how long hearings 

would take if they were modified to follow best 

practices; examine off-the-bench, non-case-related 

activities; corroborate observations; and increase the 

credibility of workload findings. 

We strongly recommend that Delphi sessions be 

facilitated by a neutral party familiar with the Delphi 

process, the other data sources used in the workload 

study, and the work of the dependency court judge. 

As many as possible of the judges and judicial 

officers who hear dependency matters should be 

included in the Delphi session, and participants 

should be encouraged to think about “typical” 

hearings rather than rare or complex events. We also 

strongly recommend that, during the Delphi session, 

participants be asked to reflect on timed measures for 

case events or case types (e.g., time log or hearing 

observation data). 

Using Results of Workload Analysis 

12. Require commitments to practice improvements as 

a condition to improved workloads. 

Regardless of the study methodology, if courts are 

to be given additional judge time to improve their 

practices in child abuse and neglect cases, clear 

expectations should be set about the results of this 

additional time. A court with less than a perfect rating 

for the completeness of hearings should be required 

to agree to fully adopt a specific identified set of best 

practices. 

If a court already has an extraordinary level of 

complete hearings and other best practices for out-ofcourt activities—and if this is possible only because 

of the judges’ long working hours—it is appropriate 

to make workload adjustment so that judges can 

work regular hours. However, this should be the 

only exception to setting expectations for improved 

performance in connection with easing judges’ 

workloads. 

13. Tie improvements in judicial workloads to quality 

assurance regarding standards of practice. 

When judges are given additional time to implement 

best practices, quality assurance (methodical periodic 

review of judges’ performance) should take place to 

ensure that the agreed-upon practice improvements 

actually occur. Along with the financial investment for 

added judge time should come a small investment 

in quality assurance to ensure accountability. This 

accountability should continue at least until the 

agreed-upon improvements have been in place for a 

reasonable period of time. 

23 

Endnotes 

1. In this guide, the term “child abuse and neglect cases” 

is used interchangeably with “dependency cases.” Both refer to cases in which court proceedings are brought under 

special State statutes and in which there are allegations of 

child abuse or neglect by adult family members. 

2. The term “workload” rather than “caseload” is used here 

because workload is more inclusive. Although caseload 

refers to the number of cases that come before a judge, 

workload also encompasses other types of judicial work, 

such as administrative duties, training, public education, and working with community groups. As explained 

elsewhere, these non-case-related functions have become 

increasingly important and burdensome for courts that deal 

with matters related to child abuse and neglect. 

3. “Other judicial officers” refers to individuals who hear 

cases and make judicial decisions under the supervision of 

judges. Titles of these officers include hearing officers, referees, magistrates, and commissioners. For the purposes 

of this guide, the terms “judge” and “judicial officer” are 

used interchangeably. 

4. Public Law 103–89, amending 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–679; 

65 Fed. Reg. 4020–4093 (January 25, 2000), amending 45 

C.F.R. §§ 1355–1357. 

5. Although national judicial workload data for dependency 

cases are not available, a number of the recent State Court 

Improvement Program judicial reassessments found that 

the duration of typical child abuse and neglect hearings appears to have increased, albeit unevenly. These 

reassessments were required as a condition of continued 

funding under the Federal Court Improvement Program. 

6. Public Law 103–89, amending 42 U.S.C. §§ 620–679; 

65 Fed. Reg. 4020–4093 (January 25, 2000), amending 

45 C.F.R. §§ 1355–1357. Although the purpose of the 

original assessments was to determine the current state 

of practice in child abuse and neglect cases as of the midand late 1990s, the purpose of the reassessments was to 

determine the progress and direction of the courts in the 

early and mid-2000s under the Federal Court Improvement 

Program. 

7. This conclusion is supported by a number of reassessment findings. See, for example, Arkansas Supreme Court 

Ad Hoc Committee on Foster Care and Adoption and the 

CIP Reassessment Team, Arkansas Court Improvement 

(CIP) Reassessment Report (Little Rock, AR: Arkansas 

Administrative Office of the Courts, 2005), pp. 20, 45, 49, 

53–54; Hawaii Judiciary, Hawaii Court Improvement Project Reassessment Report (Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Judiciary, 

2005), pp. 15–18, 21; K. Monahan, T. Richards, A. St. Onge, 

J. Larsen, M. Hardin, S. Noursi, and S. Caverly, Michigan 

Court Improvement Program Reassessment (Portland, ME: 

University of Southern Maine, Edmund S. Muskie School 

of Public Service, Cutler Institute for Child and Family 

Policy, and American Bar Association Center on Children 

and the Law, 2005), pp. 107–133, 133–137; University of 

Puerto Rico, Assessment of Court Proceedings in Puerto 

Rico Related With Child Abuse and Neglect Under the Court 

Improvement Program (Rio Pieoras: University of Puerto 

Rico, 2003), pp. 56–59. 

8. Examples of other important documents include reports 

by guardians ad litem or CASA volunteers, motions and 

affidavits by attorneys, mental health reports, and reports 

by other service providers. 

9. A number of CIP reassessments have identified excessive judicial workloads as a significant barrier to timely 

case processing. See, for example, Hawaii Judiciary, 

Hawaii Court Improvement Project Reassessment Report 

(Honolulu, HI: Hawaii Judiciary, 2005), p. 16; K. Monahan, 

T. Richards, A. St. Onge, J. Larsen, M. Hardin, S. Noursi, 

and S. Caverly, Michigan Court Improvement Program 

Reassessment (Portland, ME: University of Southern Maine, 

Edmund S. Muskie School of Public Service, Cutler Institute 

for Child and Family Policy, and American Bar Association 

Center on Children and the Law, 2005), pp. 86–90, 99; S. 

Young, Vermont Juvenile Court: A Reassessment (Montpelier, VT: Vermont Court Administrator’s Office, 2005), pp. 

50, 88. 

10. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(C) requires the court to conduct 

a permanency hearing within 12 months after a child is 

considered to have entered foster care. At that hearing, the 

court must determine the child’s permanency plan. 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

11. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(E)(iii) provides that, subject to 

certain exceptions, after a child has been in foster care for 

15 of the most recent 22 months, the State must file a petition (or support another party’s petition) to terminate the 

parental rights of the child’s parents. One of the exceptions 

is that the State has not provided services to the family, 

within the times specified in the case plan, to achieve the 

child’s safe return home. 

12. 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(d). 

13. 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(d). 

14. 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2), 45 C.F.R. §§ 1356.21(b), (d). 

15. 42 U.S.C. § 675(5)(B). 

16. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in Child 

Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 1995). 

17. National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

ADOPTION AND PERMANENCY GUIDELINES: Improving 

Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: 

NCJFCJ, 2000). 

18. For an overview of workload assessment methods, 

see American Bar Association Center on Children and 

the Law, National Center for State Courts, and National 

Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, “Assessing 

Judicial Workload,” in Building a Better Court: Measuring 

and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 2004), 

pp. 28–53. 

19. For general information about court observation 

procedures, see the User’s Guide to Nonautomated Data 

Collection volume of this Toolkit. 

20. Timing of court observations is discussed in the next 

section, “When Should the Court Observation Tool Be 

Used?” 

21. In addition, if it is decided that judges should keep a 

time log for a sample of hearing types, then observation 

can be conducted for the same sample of hearings. 

22. As the hearing progresses, an issue can first be rated 

“1,” then “2,” then “3.” When results are analyzed, only the 

highest number is recorded. 

23. Judges are asked to address all legal requirements 

that apply to each type of hearing, whether through State 

statutes or court rules or through Federal statutes and 

regulations. Key Federal requirements appear in Titles IV–B 

and IV–E of the Social Security Act and its regulations, 

including the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA), the 

2000 Federal regulations implementing ASFA, and more 

recent Federal statutory amendments. 

24. The American Bar Association Center on Children and 

the Law, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, and the National Center for State Courts can offer 

guidance and technical assistance in data analysis. 

25. For a discussion of the Delphi method, see H.G. 

McDonald and C.P. Kirsch, “Use of the Delphi Method as 

a Means of Assessing Judicial Manpower Needs,” Justice 

System Journal 3 (Spring) (1978): 314. See also the section on the Delphi process in American Bar Association 

Center on Children and the Law, National Center for State 

Courts, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court 

Judges, Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving 

Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse 

and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 2004), pp. 46–51. 

26. Data regarding baseline hearing lengths from the time 

log component of the study were not available for both of 

the Delphi sessions conducted. For the Delphi sessions 

in which data were not yet available, judges reacted to 

information from the survey findings only. 

26 
Appendix A 

Judge 

Judicial Time Log Worksheet 

Date:________________ 

Page_____of_______ 

Number of Cases Today: Time Started Work: 

Line # 

Activity 

Area 

Activity 

Code 

Task 

Code 

Finish 

Time 

# of 

Cases Comments 

Drug 

Court 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

Appendix B 

General Instructions 

1. Start each workday with a new worksheet and enter the date. 

2. If you use multiple worksheets for one date, enter the number of worksheets used for that date in the space 

provided at the top of the page. 

3. Send in completed worksheets on a weekly basis. 

4. Log all of your time during workdays from the beginning of work until the finish time of your last work-related 

activity on that date. See instruction below (#8) regarding nonwork time gaps on days that include work activities. 

5. Base finish time for each task on actual finish time or your best estimate. Don’t worry if you are a few minutes off. 

6. Use the Comments section to indicate the number of cases and any brief notes when there is ambiguity about 

how to code something. 

7. Record your activities and fill out worksheets for 4 weeks. The specific date for the end of data collection in this 

phase of the project has yet to be determined. 

Instructions to 

Judges for Completing 

Judicial Time Log Worksheet 

Specific Coding Instructions 

8.	 To code non-work-related breaks in your day use the code: nonwork time gaps 202–14. For example: 

a. If your last work-related activity occurs in the evening after you leave court, use the code nonwork time gaps 

202–14 for the time between leaving work and resuming work activities. 

b. Use this code for nonwork lunch breaks as well. 

9.	 During weekends: If you work during two or more nonconsecutive time periods on a weekend day, use the same 

coding approach as a weekday. On a time log worksheet, enter the date, the time you start, and the time you 

finish each activity. Enter any nonwork time gaps. 

10. Court waiting time 300–28 should include waiting for purposes other than the entry and exit of parties and should 

not include preparing the court order while in the courtroom. 

11. Note when out-of-court activities are drug court related. Enter the number of drug court activities in the Drug 

Court column on the worksheet. For example, if 12 cases are addressed in the drug court staffing, enter 12. You 

may also use the Comments section to enter this information. 

12. For all nondependency activities (NDA), use code 207. You do not need to enter any task code for NDA. NDA 

includes all non-dependency-related activities, case related or not, such as delinquency, domestic relationship, 

civil, and criminal matters. This applies whether the nondependency activity is in court or out of court. This could 

include nondependency hearings, orders, meetings, conferences, and training. 

13. For activities that are both dependency and nondependency related, apportion time between the specific activity 

and code 207. 

a. Unless a long time period is involved and the proportions are far from equal, the proportion of time should be 

recorded as 50–50 or otherwise equally divided if there are more than two types of activities. 

b. If there is a long time period, roughly estimate the time proportions. 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

14. Break time in the course of administrative activities is coded as 201–15. 

15. As noted above (#8), nonwork time gaps include the time between leaving court and resuming work activities 

later in the day. Code lunch breaks as a nonwork time gap 202–14. 

16. When you work on more than one case during a time period, note the number of cases in the Comments section. 

For example, if you read several files in a particular time period, use the code for reviewing files and in Comments 

enter the number of files read. 

17. If it is difficult to determine the exact number of cases worked on during a particular time period (e.g., how many 

court orders you filled out), consider using a separate page to count the number of cases, files, etc. Then enter the 

number in the Comments section. 

18. There is a thin line between public education (205) and working with communities (206). The distinction is 

between information sharing and active problem solving. If the distinction is unclear, explain in the Comments 

section. 

19. For combined adjudication-disposition hearings, use code 300–48. 

20. The difference between case-related and non-case-related dependency activity is that non-case-related activity is 

associated with dependency but is not case specific. 

21. When working on one case twice in 1 day, code all tasks associated with that case and point that out in the 

comments. 

22. If you read the individual files of multiple siblings for a single hearing, count that as reading one file whether or 

not they are placed in the same placement. 

23. If you prepare court orders for multiple siblings for a single hearing, count that as preparing one court order 

whether or not they are placed in the same placement. 

24. Record e-mail as correspondence. 

25. It is not necessary to code whether termination of parental rights (TPR) hearings or adjudications were granted or 

denied. Code the activity as a TPR hearing or adjudication, regardless of whether it was granted or denied. 

26. When a TPR hearing is solely to decide best interests of the child following proof of the grounds for TPR, code as a 

TPR hearing. 

27. When a TPR order is suspended until an adoptive placement is located, code as TPR. Do not code as post-TPR 

until the order is final. 

28. VP means a review of voluntary placement (180-day hearing). 

29. For activity codes 400, 401, and 402, use task code 42 for file review and review of written materials, reports, and 

exhibits. 

30. If the task code planning (46) under case-related out-of-court activities (400, 401, or 402) applies to your work, 

note the nature of the task in the Comments section. 

31. When you prepare an order during and immediately following a hearing, code the activity as part of the hearing. 

Preparing orders that occur as out-of-court activities should be coded separately, using task codes 400–45, 

401–45, or 402–45 as appropriate. 

32. Use code 401–44 for a case-related meeting, whether or not the meeting is to help prepare for a specific hearing. 

33. Code guardianship review as 300–38. Use only when a child already has a permanent guardian and you are 

reviewing that permanency plan. 

34. Code guardianship hearings that are not guardianship reviews as 300–41, other in-hearing task. 

30 
Judicial Workload 

Activity Code Sheet 

Judicial Workload Activity Code Sheet 

Activity Area Activity Tasks 

Non-case-related 

dependency 

activities (NCR) 

200 Leave 10. Annual and other leave 

11. Compensatory time and adjusted workweek 

12. Industrial accident 

13. Sick leave 

201 Administrative activities 15. Breaks (e.g., brief respite, informal time with judicial staff) 

19. Personnel-related activities 

20. Non-case-related meetings 

23. Other administrative activities 

24. Correspondence (mail/fax/e-mail/voice mail) 

25. Telephone 

26. Travel (e.g., to meetings, conferences, task force activities) 

202 Nonwork time gaps 14. Nonpaid or nonwork time gaps in workday (e.g., time spent 

on personal matters or breaks between work activities such 

as time between leaving court and resuming work later in 

the day) 

203 Training (receiving or 

conducting) 

Use the following task codes for activities 203–206 as applicable: 

17. Education, training, journals/articles 

18. Providing/receiving public education 

20. Non-case-related meetings 

23. Other administrative activities 

24. Correspondence (mail/fax/e-mail/voicemail) 

25. Telephone 

26. Travel (e.g., to meetings, conferences, task force activities) 

204 Professional 

enhancement 

205 Public education 

206 Working with 

communities 

Nondependency 

activities (NDA) 

Note: This 

includes all nondependency 

activities, 

whether or not 

case related. 

207 Nondependency 

activities (e.g., 

delinquency, domestic 

relations, civil, criminal, 

hearing, orders, 

delinquency-related 

meetings, conferences, 

training) 

Appendix C 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

32 

Judicial Workload Activity Code Sheet 

Activity Area Activity Tasks 

Case-related 300 In-court hearings 27. Preparation other than documents (includes consultation with 

activities attorney, meetings, etc.) 

(CRA) 28. Court waiting time 

29. Emergency removal (shelter care/probable cause/preliminary 

protective/detention) 

30. Pretrial 

31. Adjudication 

32. Disposition 

33. Case review 

34. Motions 

35. Permanency 

36. Termination of parental rights (TPR) 

37. Post-TPR case review/permanency 

38. Guardianship review 

39. Voluntary placement review 

40. Drug court 

41. Other in-hearing task 

48. Combined adjudication-disposition 

Case-related 

out-of-court 

activities 

(CROC) 

400 Hearing preparation 42. Review of files relevant for hearings, written materials, 

reports, exhibits 

43. Case-related meeting 

44. Preparing orders 

45. Planning 

46. Other case-related out-of-court activity 

401 Hearing followup 42. Review of files relevant for hearings, written materials, 

reports, exhibits 

43. Case-related meeting 

44. Preparing orders 

45. Planning 

46. Other case-related out-of-court activity 

402 Interim activities 42. Review of files relevant for hearings, written materials, 

reports, exhibits 

43. Case-related meeting 

44. Preparing orders 

45. Planning 

46. Other case-related out-of-court activity 
Court Observation Tool Appendix d 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Emergency Removal Hearing 

(Also referred to as a probable cause hearing, shelter care hearing, temporary custody hearing, or preliminary hearing.) 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1. Persons Present During Hearing 

Family #

 Mother 

Attorneys # 

Child 

Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government

 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____ 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Service needs of children (mental, medical, education, etc.) 1 2 3 

b) Reasonable efforts to prevent placement 1 2 3 

c) Whether removal from home is in the child’s best interests 1 2 3 

d) Need to place child away from noncustodial parent 1 2 3 

e) Appropriateness of current placement 1 2 3 

f) Appropriateness of placement of child with relative other 

than parent 

1 2 3 

g) Visitation with parents, if child is placed away from home 1 2 3 

h) Visitation with siblings 1 2 3 

i) Paternity 1 2 3 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

34 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if 

court clerk did this)? 

1 

b) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

c) Make case-specific findings concerning reasonable efforts? 1 

d) Make case-specific findings regarding the need to remove the child from home? 1 

5. Comments: 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix d: Court Observation Tool 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Adjudication Hearing Pretrial/Preadjudication Only 

(Also referred to as jurisdictional hearing, fact-finding hearing, or trial.) 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1.	 Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government


 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____
 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Notice and service of process—missing parties 1 2 3 

b) Paternity (if applicable) 1 2 3 

c) Child support 1 2 3 

d) Whether allegations of the petition are true 1 2 3 

e) Appropriateness of current placement 1 2 3 

f) Visitation with parents, if child is placed away from home 1 2 3 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Make specific findings as to whether each of the allegations of the petition is true? 1 

b) Explain case deadlines and the consequences of missing the deadline? 1 

c) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if 

court clerk did this)? 

1 

d) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

e) Make case-specific findings concerning reasonable efforts to provide services? 1 

35 

5. Comments: 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

36 

Combined Adjudication/Disposition Hearing Pretrial/Preadjudication Only 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1.	 Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government

 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____ 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Service needs of children (mental, medical, 

educational, etc.) 

1 2 3 

b) Notice and service of process—missing parties 1 2 3 

c) Paternity 1 2 3 

d) Child support 1 2 3 

e) Whether allegations of the petition are true 1 2 3 

f) Appropriateness of current placement 1 2 3 

g) Appropriateness of placement of child with relative other 

than parent 

1 2 3 

h) Visitation with parents, if child is placed away from home 1 2 3 

i) Visitation with siblings 1 2 3 

j) Where child will be placed 1 2 3 

k) Terms of child and family’s case plan 1 2 3 

l) Reasonable efforts to prevent placement 1 2 3 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix d: Court Observation Tool 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Make specific findings as to whether each of the allegations of the petition is true? 1 

b) Explain case deadlines and the consequences of missing the deadline? 1 

c) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if court 

clerk did this)? 

1 

d) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

e) Make case-specific findings concerning reasonable efforts to provide services? 1 

5. Comments: 

37 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

38 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Disposition Hearing 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1.	 Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service 

Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government

 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____ 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Service needs of children (mental, medical, 

educational, etc.) 

1 2 3 

b) Need to place child away from custodial parent 1 2 3 

c) Need to place child away from noncustodial parent 1 2 3 

d) Appropriateness of current placement 1 2 3 

e) Appropriateness of placement of child with relative other 

than parent 

1 2 3 

f) Visitation with parents, if child is placed away from home 1 2 3 

g) Visitation with siblings, if children are separated 1 2 3 

h) Where child will be placed 1 2 3 

i) Terms of child and family’s case plan 1 2 3 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix d: Court Observation Tool 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Explain case deadlines and the consequences of missing the deadline? 1 

b) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if court 

clerk did this)? 

1 

c) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

5. Comments: 

39 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

40 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Case Review Hearing 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1.	 Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government

 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____ 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Service needs of children (mental, medical, 

educational, etc.) 

1 2 3 

b) Need to place child away from custodial parent 1 2 3 

c) Need to place child away from noncustodial parent 1 2 3 

d) Appropriateness of current placement 1 2 3 

e) Visitation with parents, if child is placed away from home 1 2 3 

f) Visitation with siblings, if children are separated 1 2 3 

g) Ongoing efforts to notify missing parties or putative 

fathers (if applicable) 

1 2 3 

h) Ongoing efforts to determine paternity 1 2 3 

i) Terms of child and family’s case plan 1 2 3 

j) Reasonable efforts to achieve permanency (return home or 

other permanent placement) 

1 2 3 

k) Progress toward permanency goal 1 2 3 

l) Appropriateness of permanency goal 1 2 3 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix d: Court Observation Tool 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Explain case deadlines and the consequences of missing the deadlines? 1 

b) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if court 

clerk did this)? 

1 

c) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

d) Make case-specific findings concerning reasonable efforts to achieve permanency? 1 

e) Make specific findings concerning the parents’ compliance with the case plan? 1 

f) Make specific findings concerning terms of the case plan and whether revision is needed? 1 

5. Comments: 

41 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

42 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Permanency Hearing 

(Also referred to as a permanency planning hearing, 12-month hearing, etc.) 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1a. Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government

 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____ 

1b. First Permanency Hearing Subsequent Permanency Hearing? 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Service needs of children (mental, medical, 

educational, etc.) 

1 2 3 

b) Need to place child away from custodial parent 1 2 3 

c) Need to place child away from noncustodial parent 1 2 3 

d) Appropriateness of current placement 1 2 3 

e) Appropriateness of placement of child with relative 

other than parent 

1 2 3 

f) Visitation with parents, if child is placed away from home 1 2 3 

g) Visitation with siblings, if children are separated 1 2 3 

h) Ongoing efforts to notify missing parties or putative 

fathers (if applicable) 

1 2 3 

i) Ongoing efforts to determine paternity 1 2 3 

j) Terms of child and family’s case plan 1 2 3 

k) Reasonable efforts to achieve permanency 1 2 3 

l) Progress toward the permanency goal 1 2 3 

m) Appropriateness of the selected permanency goal 1 2 3 

n) Permanency plan decision 1 2 3 

o) Next steps to implement the permanency plan 1 2 3 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix d: Court Observation Tool 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Explain case deadlines and the consequences of missing the deadlines? 1 

b) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if court 

clerk did this)? 

1 

c) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

d) Make case-specific written findings concerning reasonable efforts to achieve permanency? 1 

e) Make specific findings concerning the parents’ compliance with the case plan? 1 

f) Make specific findings concerning terms of the case plan and whether revision is needed? 1 

g) Make specific findings supporting the permanency planning decision? 1 

h) Make specific findings concerning reasonable efforts to achieve permanency? 1 

i) Make specific findings concerning appropriateness of all permanency goals higher in 

priority than selected goal? 

1 

5. Comments: 

43 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

44 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) Hearing 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1.	 Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government


 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____
 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Notice and service of process on all parents 1 2 3 

b) Paternity of child 1 2 3 

c) Whether evidence (or admissions) support grounds 

for termination 

1 2 3 

d) Whether termination is in the child’s best interests 1 2 3 

e) Appropriateness of post-termination case plan 1 2 3 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

b) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if court 

clerk did this)? 

1 

c) Make specific verbal findings of fact that fully supported the court’s decision? 1 

5. Comments: 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

___________________________________________________________________________________________ 

Appendix d: Court Observation Tool 

Observer:__________________ 

Judge:__________________ 

Post-Termination Case Review Hearing 

Today’s Date _________ Judicial Case Number ______________ Start ______________ Finish ______________ 

1.	 Persons Present During Hearing 

Family # Attorneys # Social Workers/Service Providers #

 Mother Child Primary Social Worker/Supervisor

 Father Parent Foster Parent/Other Service

 Provider(s) (number)_____ Child Agency/Government


 Relative(s)/Acquaintances_____
 

2. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Introduce the persons present? 1 

b) Explain the hearing in language understandable to parents and age-appropriate children? 1 

c) Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 1 

3. Did the following issues come up during

 the hearing? 

Yes, mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and two or 

more persons 

mentioned 

the issue 

Yes, and judge 

or attorney 

elicited parent 

or child’s views 

on issue 

a) Progress toward achieving adoption 1 2 – 

b) Appropriateness and terms of adoption subsidy 1 2 – 

c) Disclosure of child’s history and disabilities 1 2 – 

d) Efforts to recruit, screen, match adoptive parents for child 1 2 – 

e) Progress of home studies of possible adoptive parents 1 2 – 

f) Status and progress of adoption proceeding 1 2 – 

g) Services to child 1 2 – 

4. Did the judge: Yes 

a) Set the next hearing date before the parties left the courthouse (answer yes if court 

clerk did this)? 

1 

b) Prepare and distribute court orders before the parties left the courthouse? 1 

c) Make case-specific findings concerning reasonable efforts? 1 

45 

5. Comments: 

Appendix e 

Purpose 

The court observation tool captures information about the 

length of time hearings take when judges use nationally 

recommended practices to protect children in accordance 

with statutory mandates.1 This information is used to project a manageable workload for dependency court judges. 

Judicial hearing observation differs from court improvement observation in that it is mainly about time rather 

than quality. Because quality is an adjunct of time analysis, 

however, a few of the most important quality indicators are 

included on the observation forms (e.g., visitation, paternity, notice, and service of process). If the hearing process 

captures these quality indicators, the time allotment is 

likely to be accurate. 

Observation Forms 

Court observation forms have been provided for the most 

common kinds of dependency hearings. The names for 

these hearings differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but 

observers should easily identify the applicable forms, as 

nearly all States follow essentially similar case processes. 

Observers should feel free to rename forms to match local 

practice. Included in this packet are: 

1. Emergency removal hearing, also referred to as shelter 

care hearing, probable cause hearing, preliminary 

protective hearing, temporary custody hearing, or 

preliminary hearing. 

2. Adjudication hearing, also referred to as jurisdictional 

hearing, fact-finding hearing, or trial. 

Instructions to Observers and 

Project Administrators for 

Conducting Court Observations 

Implementation 

The court observation tool requires two elements: neutral 

observers who are experienced in dependency court 

processes and court observation forms that capture the 

content and process of the hearing observed. 

Observers 

Observers should be recruited from outside the dependency court being observed. They should not engage in 

dependency practice before the judge being observed. 

Experienced observers can be recruited from the court improvement office, the highest State court’s administrative 

staff, a law faculty, a dependency attorney from another 

jurisdiction, or the private bar. 

During the first few days of observation it is a good idea to 

have two observers for each hearing. The observers can 

compare notes, work out problems in the marking process, 

and agree to submit one form. After the observers have 

learned the marking process, one experienced observer 

per hearing should be sufficient. The second observer 

can either cover other hearings or alternate with the first 

observer. 

3.	 Combined adjudication/disposition hearing.2 

4.	 Disposition hearing. 

5.	 Case review hearing. 

6.	 Permanency hearing, also referred to as permanency 

planning hearing or 12-month hearing. 

7.	 Termination of parental rights (TPR) hearing. 

8.	 Post-termination case review hearing. 

Each observation form begins with identifying information 

about the hearing: 

1.	 Name or identifier of observer. 

2.	 Name or identifier of judge. 

3.	 Docket or case number or numbers for the case or 

cases being heard. 

4. Start and finish times for the hearing.
 

Each observation form has five parts:
 

Part 1. Persons present during the hearing, typically:
 

a.	 Mother, father, child, and relatives.
 

b.	 Attorneys for the child, parents, and agency or 

government. 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

c.	 Providers, including social workers, foster parents, and 

other service providers. 

Part 2. Did the judge: 

a. Introduce persons present? 

b. Explain the hearing in language understandable to 

parents and age-appropriate children? 

c. Advise parties of their rights at the hearing? 

Part 3. A list of issues that might arise relating to the best 

interests of the child, in accordance with indicators found 

in ASFA, regulations, and policies relating to the best 

interests of the child, as well as to hearing procedure. Depending on the type of hearing, these issues include such 

elements as service needs for children, notice and service 

of process, paternity, child support, visitation with parents 

and siblings, suitability of placement, reasonable efforts, 

and terms of the family’s case plan. 

To rate part 3 elements: 

a.	 If the issue was mentioned, the observer marks “1.” 

b.	 If two or more persons mentioned the issue, the 

observer marks “2.” 

c.	 If the issue was mentioned and, in addition, the judge 

or attorney elicited views on the issue from the parents 

or child, the observer marks “3.” 

The rating system for part 3 indicates how thoroughly an 

issue was discussed and helps measure the quality of the 

hearing. 

Part 4 addresses the judge’s findings and summations and 

requires a much narrower analysis. Laws and regulations 

require a judge to follow certain procedures. For example, 

when a judge makes a finding—for example, that an 

agency made reasonable efforts, or that a child will not 

be returned home—those findings are to be supported by 

reference to case-specific facts. By looking at the answers 

to part 4 questions, the data analyst will know that a judge 

either did or did not make a finding and, if so, that the finding was or was not supported by evidence and testimony 

in the case. Part 4 also notes whether a date was set for 

the next hearing and whether orders were immediately 

distributed. 

Part 5 records comments from the observer. This is the 

place to capture any unusual details in the case that 

would affect the data analysis. For example, explain that a 

hearing took only 5 minutes because an attorney did not 

appear and a new hearing was set for a later date. 

Recommended Procedure 

Time Allotted 

Courts have the option of conducting court observations in 

one phase with a judicial tutorial at the beginning or in two 

phases with a judicial tutorial between. 

The One-Phase Option 

Courts that focus only on performance that incorporates 

national standards of practice and legal mandates—without comparison to current court performance—can obtain 

useful data on workloads by observing courts over one 

relatively short period of time. Court observations should 

be preceded by a judicial tutorial or seminar that reminds 

judges of mandated and recommended practices. Training 

should be delivered by knowledgeable professionals, such 

as the director of the State’s court improvement program 

teamed with a respected judge from another jurisdiction. Judges then schedule a lighter docket for the court 

observation period, in accord with times recommended in 

the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges 

(NCJFCJ) publication RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving 

Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. Those 

times are: 

1.	 Emergency removal (shelter care or probable cause) 

hearings: 1 hour 

2.	 Uncontested adjudications: 30 minutes 

3.	 Dispositions: 30 minutes 

4.	 Case reviews: 30 minutes 

5.	 Permanency hearings: 1 hour 

6.	 Uncontested termination of parental rights: 1 hour 

Data should be collected for at least 2 consecutive weeks 

for courts with high dependency caseloads, and for longer 

consecutive periods for courts that hear dependency cases 

2 days a week or less often. 

The Two-Phase Option 

In the two-phase option, phase one measures current 

performance as a baseline and phase two measures 

performance that incorporates recommended national 

practice standards that meet all statutory mandates. 

It is recommended that the equivalent of 2 weeks full-time 

observation be devoted to phase one and 2 weeks to 

phase two. Courts that do not hear dependency cases at 

least twice a week may spread the observation during 

48 
Appendix e: Instructions to Observers and 

Project Administrators for Conducting Court Observations 

each phase over 3 weeks instead of 2, but the weeks in 

each phase should be consecutive. 

There should be a pause between phases to collect and 

analyze data and compare those data with data from the 

judicial logs, if that tool is also in use. Certain weaknesses 

will be noted in any court’s performance, arising from a 

variety of causes, such as heavy caseloads, insufficiently 

trained attorneys or social workers, or judges new to 

dependency practice. Once systemic weaknesses are 

identified, judicial training can be prepared and delivered. 

Typically, this would be 1-day or 1⁄2-day training that 

focuses on the areas needing improvement. As noted 

earlier, it is optimal if training is delivered by knowledgeable professionals, for example, the director of the court 

improvement program teamed with a respected judge in or 

out of the State. 

For phase two, judges should be asked to schedule their 

dockets lightly, in accordance with recommended times in 

the NCJFCJ RESOURCE GUIDELINES. More time would be 

scheduled for contested cases that are expected to be time 

consuming. The point of phase two is to give judges time 

to be thorough. 

Preparation 

Before beginning court observation, observers should 

interview judges to learn how they customarily manage 

hearings, staff functions, and the docket. Observers may 

be unfamiliar with some terms and practices. This is a time 

to anticipate and resolve problems. 

The observer should request permission to look at the case 

files before hearings begin each day. It is a great help to 

look at the current court reports and court orders from the 

previous hearing. The observer can fill out forms with initial 

identifying information. Knowing the context of the case 

will make it much easier to follow events in the hearing. 

If, however, the judge cannot make files available, the 

observer will have to gather all information from the docket 

and from the hearing itself. 

The observer should look over the courtroom and learn 

where the attorneys, social workers, and parties are positioned before the bench. This will make it easier to follow 

the rapid introductions at the beginning of each hearing. 

Observation 

The observer should enter the courtroom with a printout 

of the day’s docket, forms filled out with initial identifying 

information (if case file reviews were permitted), and extra 

blank forms in case there are mistakes or the substance 

of the hearing changes (for example, a case review might 

change into a permanency hearing). 

The observer should sit where there are clear sightlines to 

the judge and the other participants, even if the attorneys 

and parties have their backs to the observer. 

The events in a hearing unfold rapidly, so the observer will 

have to be sufficiently familiar with the forms that items 

can be marked without delay. 

Completion 

Observation forms should be submitted promptly to the 

data analyst. The analyst who scans the forms as soon 

as they come in may be able to spot problems that can 

be raised with the observers and corrected (for example, 

failure to enter the finish time for the hearing or confusion 

over where to include witnesses among the participants). 

Frequently Asked Questions 

Questions Pertaining to Observations 

Generally 

u	 How does one determine the start and finish times 

for a hearing? 

Prior to any observations, the observer should note 

whether a clock controls the times (in some courts a 

clock is started when a hearing begins and stopped 

when it ends), or whether the judge or clerk announces when the hearing has started and finished. If either 

of those practices, or one similar, is in effect, those 

times should be noted as start and finish times on the 

observation form. 

If there is no consistent practice indicating start and 

finish times, the observer should consider the start 

time to be when the case is called for the record, and 

the finish time when participants leave—or are asked 

to leave—counsel’s table. After participants leave the 

judge may continue to write, but the observer would 

not know whether the judge is writing orders for the 

case just heard or working on another document. 

Therefore, the judge’s writing time should not be 

included within the hearing time (it will be accounted 

for in the judge’s log) unless the participants are still at 

counsel’s table waiting for the judge’s order. 

49 
Guide to Judicial Workload Assessment
 

u	 What if a case is scheduled for a particular kind of 

hearing—for example, adjudication, case review, 

or termination of parental rights—but after the 

case is called it does not go forward as a full 

hearing? 

If the case does not go forward as a full hearing 

because preliminary matters must be dealt with, as 

in the case of a pretrial hearing, use the form for the 

hearing listed on the docket, and check the box “Pretrial/Preadjudication Only”. If there is no box, such as 

for a case review hearing, add “pre-” to the title and 

explain in the Comments section. 

If the case does not go forward because something 

is amiss—a witness does not appear, a parent is not 

brought in from the jail, the social worker does not 

appear—enter the start and finish times and note in the 

Comments section why the hearing was abbreviated. 

u	 What if the court system has an adjunct 

dependency drug court where many of the issues 

have already been aired? The hearing may be very 

short as a result. How should that be indicated? 

In the Comments section, note that the parents participate in a drug court where the relevant issues were 

recently discussed, so the hearing was unusually short. 

Questions Pertaining to Part 1 of the 

Observation Forms 

u	 How does the observer account for more than one 

attorney appearing on behalf of parents, the child, 

or the government? 

Next to the appropriate box checked under “Attorney,” 

write the number of attorneys who appeared. For 

example, place a “2” next to “Parent” if each parent 

had an attorney present. 

u	 Hearings often are attended by many service 

providers of different kinds. For example, how 

does one indicate that a court-appointed special 

advocate (CASA), a foster parent, and a group 

home supervisor were present? 

Check the appropriate service provider box. Enter 

the number “3” on the line provided, and below that 

figure write “1 CASA, 1 foster parent, 1 group home 

supervisor.” 

u	 What if people in the courtroom who are not 

identified at the outset are later called upon by the 

judge to add information? 

Make an effort to record their presence. For example, 

if relatives are scattered about the courtroom and the 

judge recognizes them at some point in the proceeding, return to part 1 and mark how many relatives 

there are, to the best of your knowledge. 

u	 What if a parent or someone else is not present in 

the courtroom but participates by speakerphone, 

such as from jail or from out of State? Should they 

be marked as present? 

Yes. The observer might indicate that it was a telephone connection. For example, check the “Mother” 

box and next to it write “by telephone.” 

Questions Pertaining to Part 2 of the 

Observation Forms 

u	 What if the court explains the hearing process and 

advises parties of their rights in some way other 

than by the judge, such as by video? 

That general practice would be described in the report 

produced after phase one. It would be up to those 

who prepare the judicial caseload model to decide if 

that sufficiently informs and protects participants. The 

observer would leave those boxes on the observation 

sheets blank, as observation only addresses what actually occurs in court. 

Questions Pertaining to Part 3 of the 

Observation Forms 

u	 If an issue is raised by one person, then 

subsequently discussed by two persons, and 

finally directed by the judge to the parents or child, 

should the observer mark only “3” and erase the 

previous “1” and “2” figures? 

No. It is recognized that given the quick flow of events 

during a hearing, the observer will be marking as the 

issue is addressed. The data analyst will look only at 

the last column marked to determine how thoroughly 

the subject was discussed. There is no need to erase 

earlier marks. 

50 
Appendix e: Instructions to Observers and 

Project Administrators for Conducting Court Observations 

u	 What if an issue in Part 3 is not discussed because 

it is not pertinent to that particular case, rather 

than because it was overlooked? For example, 

sibling visitation might not be raised because there 

are no siblings, or parental visitation might not be 

raised because the parent is dead. 

Because the data analysis protocol looks only at large 

groups of statistics, not case-by-case statistics, it is 

not necessary to note why certain issues were not 

discussed in a particular case. However, if the court 

wishes to keep track of case-specific information (that 

is, use the observation sheets for additional analysis), 

the observer may write “NA” for “not applicable” to the 

left of the issue on the list—or make a comment to 

that effect in part 5. 

u	 What if the judge’s practice is not to repeat any 

of the information in the court report, but say 

only, “The court has received the social worker’s 

report. Are there any objections? If not, it will 

be entered”? The report might contain many of 

the issues listed in part 3, but they would not be 

discussed aloud. 

The observer’s job is to mark down only what is seen 

and heard in court. If an issue is discussed in court, 

it receives a “1,” “2,” or “3.” If it is not discussed, no 

mark is made. If the court’s practice is to enter the 

court report without discussing issues, that should 

be mentioned in the phase one report, and might be 

included as an element for training prior to phase two. 

Questions Pertaining to Part 4 of the 

Observation Forms 

u	 What if a judge says “I find that the agency made 

reasonable efforts” without specifying a basis for 

that finding, but the observer noted in part 3 that 

there was discussion of the kinds of reasonable 

efforts made by the agency. Should the observer 

mark the Part 4 finding as supported by casespecific data? 

There is very little room for observer discretion in Part 

4. The general rule is that unless the judge verbalizes specific findings of fact to support the court’s 

decision, such as referring to details of an individual 

social worker’s testimony or to specifics of an agency’s 

report to the court, the finding has not been supported. 

However, there might be an unusual situation where 

efforts are thoroughly discussed and the judge then 

makes an almost immediate finding that the agency 

made reasonable efforts. That scenario would amount 

to unmistakable support for the finding. 

Questions Pertaining to Part 5 of the 

Observation Forms 

u	 What kind of comments should go in part 5? 

For purposes of this protocol, helpful comments are 

those that identify unusual aspects of the hearing. For 

example, if a hearing lasted only 5 minutes, it could 

be noted that the reason was that the parent was 

not brought to court from jail. If the court wishes to 

use these observation forms for analysis beyond the 

current project, however, longer comments could be 

entered describing the hearing. 

Endnotes 

1.	 Mandates include The Adoption and Safe Families 

Act of 1997 (Public Law 105–89, 111 Stat. 2115) and 

other dependency-related Federal and State laws. 

Recommended practices include those set forth in 

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, 

RESOURCE GUIDELINES: Improving Court Practice in 

Child Abuse and Neglect Cases (Reno, NV: NCJFCJ, 

1995). 

2.	 In many courts adjudication and disposition hearings 

are combined. Therefore, a form that combines them 

is provided. For other hearings that may be combined, 

the observer should use the forms provided for both 

hearings but eliminate the introductory parts that 

do not apply to the second hearing (for example, 

introduction of parties and advisement of rights). 

Fasten the two observation forms together and submit 

them to the data analyst as one package. 

51 




*NCJ~223571*
 

National Council of Juvenile and 

Family Court Judges 

National Center for State Courts 

ABA Center on 

Children and the Law