Opinion ID: 896887
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Caseload and Trends.

Text: [¶ 18] The Court has reviewed the weighted caseload studies for 1997 through 2000. A weighted caseload study allocates the amount of judicial resources (including judges and judicial referees) needed to handle cases in the district after weighting each type of case by the amount of time required to process an average case of that type. The study adjusts each district for travel time depending on whether that district requires high travel, moderate travel, or low travel time from the judicial officers serving the district. In 1997 through 2000, the East Central Judicial District was designated a low travel district, the Northwest Judicial District was designated a moderate travel district, and the Southeast Judicial District was designated a high travel district. The study also allocates time not available for handling cases but which is required in each district for the presiding judge to handle administrative matters. The resulting computation is the minimum judicial resources (expressed as a judicial FTE, which includes both judges and judicial referees) to meet the needs of the district based upon weighted case filings. The study does not include juvenile dismissals, which occur either when a state's attorney declines to file a juvenile petition or when a judge or judicial referee dismisses a petition. Juvenile dismissals are omitted from the study because they have a negligible impact on judicial workload. [¶ 19] When the minimum judicial FTE's required are compared to the judicial FTE's currently available in a district, the difference is expressed as a positive number, indicating there are more judicial resources available than current weighted case filings require, or a negative number, indicating there are fewer judicial resources than are needed to serve that district's weighted case filings. Ideally, each district would show a small positive number, indicating judicial resources available for that district have a margin for contingencies such as the prolonged illness of a judge, absence for continuing judicial education, judicial committee assignments, and similar circumstances that are not currently accounted for in the caseload study. The weighted caseload study does reflect the mental health filings which constitute an unusual caseload in the Southeast Judicial District. The weighted caseload study does not at present reflect the impact of judicial resources committed in judicial districts to juvenile and adult drug courts. [¶ 20] The 1997 through 2000 weighted caseload studies show the following allocation of judicial resources: 1997 Weighted Caseload Study Without Juvenile Dismissals 44 Judges 7.48 Referees -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDICIAL TOTAL WEIGHTED FTE ADJUSTED DISTRICT FILINGS REQUIRED JUDICIAL FTE DIFFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- East 632,542 9.38 8.88 - 0.50 Central Northeast 404,604 6.95 6.88 - 0.07 Northeast 366,282 [#] 5.43 6.88 + 1.45 Central Northwest 454,910 7.07 8.88 + 1.81 South 577,863 8.98 9.36 + 0.38 Central Southwest 178,917 2.78 3.88 + 1.10 Southeast 380,050 6.53 5.88 - 0.65 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 2,995,169 47.11 50.64 + 3.53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1998 Weighted Caseload Study Without Juvenile Dismissals 44 Judges 7.48 Referees -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDICIAL TOTAL WEIGHTED FTE ADJUSTED DISTRICT FILINGS REQUIRED JUDICIAL FTE DIFFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- East 666,349 9.88 8.88 - 1.00 Central Northeast 383,194 6.58 6.88 + 0.30 Northeast 429,234 6.36 6.88 + 0.52 Central Northwest 446,741 6.94 8.88 + 1.94 [] South 537,403 8.35 9.36 + 1.01 Central Southwest 178,569 2.77 3.88 + 1.11 Southeast 385,679 6.62 5.88 - 0.74 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 3,024,731 47.51 50.64 + 3.13 [] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1999 Weighted Caseload Study Without Juvenile Dismissals 43 Judges 7.48 Referees -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDICIAL TOTAL WEIGHTED FTE ADJUSTED DISTRICT FILINGS REQUIRED JUDICIAL FTE DIFFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- East 641,655 9.51 8.88 - 0.63 Central Northeast 394,855 6.78 6.88 + 0.10 Northeast 398,148 5.90 6.88 + 0.98 Central Northwest 401,747 6.24 7.88 + 1.64 South 511,377 7.94 9.36 + 1.42 Central Southwest 173,642 2.70 3.88 + 1.18 Southeast 390,350 6.70 5.88 - 0.82 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 2,911,774 45.77 49.64 + 3.85 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2000 Weighted Caseload Study Without Juvenile Dismissals 43 Judges 7.48 Referees -------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDICIAL TOTAL WEIGHTED FTE ADJUSTED DISTRICT FILINGS REQUIRED JUDICIAL FTE DIFFERENCE -------------------------------------------------------------------------- East 655,574 9.72 8.88 - 0.84 Central Northeast 399,617 6.86 6.88 + 0.02 Northeast 376,306 5.58 6.88 + 1.30 Central Northwest 422,371 6.56 7.88 + 1.32 South 509,719 7.92 9.36 + 1.44 Central Southwest 166,753 2.59 3.88 + 1.29 [] Southeast 406,031 6.97 5.88 - 1.09 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Totals 2,936,371 46.20 49.64 + 3.43 [] -------------------------------------------------------------------------- [¶ 21] In the 1997 through 2000 weighted caseload studies, the Northwest Judicial District has consistently appeared as having more judicial resources available than weighted case filings require, while the East Central and Southeast Judicial Districts are shown as having fewer judicial resources than the weighted filings would require.