DOI: 10.3886/icpsr09918.v1
title: Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts of the United States, 1979, 1983-1985
title: Version 1

description: The purpose of this study was to examine caseflow management in order to reduce delays in urban trial courts. The data contain information from court records that reached disposition in a cross-section of urban general-jurisdiction trial courts during 1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The 1979 data files contain the baseline data for this survey. Data were gathered on civil and criminal case processing times across a broad range of courts, and changes in case processing times over a period of years were analyzed for 18 different jurisdictions: Newark, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Miami, Wayne County, Minneapolis, the Bronx, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Dayton, Boston, Cleveland, Providence, Wichita, Detroit, Oakland, and Jersey City. The data are supplemented by information supplied by trial court administrators and presiding judges in the courts participating in the study. Data include information on the nature of the case, the dates of first and last trials, and the total number of trials and their manner of disposition.
description: The purpose of this study was to examine caseflow management in order to reduce delays in urban trial courts. Data were gathered on civil and criminal case processing times across a broad range of courts, and changes in case processing times over a period of years were analyzed for 18 different jurisdictions: Newark, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Miami, Wayne County, Minneapolis, the Bronx, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Dayton, Boston, Cleveland, Providence, Wichita, Detroit, Oakland, and Jersey City. These data contain information that reached disposition in a cross-section of urban general-jurisdiction trial courts during 1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The 1979 data files contain the baseline data for this survey. In selecting courts for inclusion in the study, a mix of urban courts from different geographic regions, all with at least ten judges, was sought. The intent was to include at least a few courts that met the following criteria: (1) courts that had been the subject of a prior empirical study of case processing times, (2) courts that had initiated a significant delay reduction or delay prevention effort during the 1977-1983 period, and (3) courts located in states in which a significant state-wide delay reduction effort had been initiated during the 1977-1983 period.
description: After the court selection, presiding judges or trial court administrators were contacted to arrange initial site visits. These visits served three purposes: (1) to help project staff members obtain an overview of civil and criminal case processing in the court through interviews with key judges and administrators, (2) to collect documentary information about the court, such as organizational charts, management information reports, local court rules, annual reports, etc., and (3) to study the court's record-keeping system. These systems provided a basis for developing a data collection framework.
description: The criminal case survey instrument contains 22 basic question statements. Out of 22 basic data elements that are present in the data, eight are dates that include date of arrest, date trial started, date of disposition, and date of sentencing. Other elements include total number of defendants, most serious charge in indictment, number of counts or charges against this defendant, type of disposition, most serious charge at conviction, and sentence imposed. The civil case survey instrument contains 17 basic question statements. Out of 17 elements in the data six are dates which include date of complaint, first schedule trial date, date trial started, and date of disposition. Other elements include nature of case, number of plaintiffs, number of defendants, and manner of disposition. Supplemental data elements were added in particular sites.
description: ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
description: Presence of Common Scales: None
description: Response Rates: Not applicable.
description: Datasets: 
 
 DS0: Study-Level Files 
 DS1: 1979 Civil Data File 
 DS2: 1983 Civil Data File 
 DS3: 1984 Civil Data File 
 DS4: 1985 Civil Data File 
 DS5: 1979 Criminal Data File for Jersey City 
 DS6: 1979 Criminal Data File for Wichita 
 DS7: 1983 Criminal Data File for Miami 
 DS8: 1983 Criminal Data File for the Bronx 
 DS9: 1983 Criminal Data File for Portland 
 DS10: 1983 Criminal Data File for Jersey City 
 DS11: 1983 Criminal Data File for All Other Cities 
 DS12: 1984 Criminal Data File for Miami 
 DS13: 1984 Criminal Data File for the Bronx 
 DS14: 1984 Criminal Data File for Portland 
 DS15: 1984 Criminal Data File for Jersey City 
 DS16: 1984 Criminal Data File for All Other Cities 
 DS17: 1985 Criminal Data File for Miami 
 DS18: 1985 Criminal Data File for the Bronx 
 DS19: 1985 Criminal Data File for Portland 
 DS20: 1985 Criminal Data File for Jersey City 
 DS21: 1985 Criminal Data File for All Other Cities 
 DS23: SAS Data Definition Statements for All Civil Data Files 
 DS24: SAS Data Definition Statements for Jersey City Criminal Data 
 DS25: SAS Data Definition Statements for the Bronx Criminal Data 
 DS26: SAS Data Definition Statements for Miami Criminal Data 
 DS27: SAS Data Definition Statements for Portland Criminal Data 
 DS28: SAS Data Definition Statements for Criminal Data for All Other Cities
description: Data for 1979 are supplied for New Jersey and Wichita only. No civil data are available for Detroit for 1983 and 1985, nor for Phoenix, Miami, Minneapolis, Newark, New Orleans, or Oakland in 1984. See the notes in the codebook for information particular to certain sites. The individual survey instrument for each site is available only in hardcopy form upon request from ICPSR.
description: Civil and criminal trial cases in urban courts of the United States.
description: A general sample of approximately 500 criminal cases and 500 civil cases was selected for each disposition year--1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The approach to select the desired sample size of 500 was first to determine (or estimate) the number of dispositions in the year for which the sample was drawn. The determined (or the estimated) number was then divided by the desired sample size (500) to obtain the sampling interval. Using the random number as a starting point, every nth (where n is the sampling interval) case on the list was picked up for inclusion in the sample.