NCJ Number
196656
Date Published
January 2001
Length
46 pages
Annotation
This report presents the methodology and findings from a pilot research project that addressed expanding judicial workload theory and methods beyond traditional weighted caseload
approaches in child-abuse/neglect cases.
Abstract
Much of the past research that has examined judicial workload has
ignored the inherent complexities of the judicial role by
focusing on time-on-task issues. Moreover, judicial workload
studies have rarely examined the workload of juvenile and family
court judges generally and the workload associated with child
abuse/neglect cases specifically. Because performance standards
serve as the boundary for balancing quality and timeliness
concerns, this pilot research was developed to incorporate and
reflect the best-practices standards of the "Resource Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases," "The Adoption and Permanency Guidelines: Improving Court Practice in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases," and the Federal Adoption and Safe Families Act. The contemporary legal framework for
child-abuse/neglect cases has shortened time frames to permanency
for children while the number of hearings required per cases have
increased. This is occurring in the context of burgeoning
caseloads and limited court resources. The maintenance of quality decision-making under such conditions requires changing implicit values and expectations that underscore the assessment of
judicial time and work in traditional workload studies, as well as changing the methods used to make such assessments. This
report recommends that judicial workload assessments expand the
concept of "judicial work" beyond the traditional view of "judge
as legal decision-maker" to recognize the importance of the
leadership and student dimensions of judicial practice. Other
issues addressed include a reconceptualization of tasks
associated with the key values of permanency planning and the
time involved in such planning; a more systemic approach for
determining appropriate time-estimate and practice standards;
continual judicial training and education; and the recognition of
the judicial leadership role in workload estimates.
Recommendations are offered for changes in the methodological
approach to calculating judicial time and judicial workload.
Overall, judicial workload studies must value time differently
and redefine and expand what constitutes legitimate "judicial
work." 5 figures
Date Published: January 1, 2001