Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004

Transcription

1 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Submitted by National Center for State Courts Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, the Minnesota court system has been instrumental in creating an innovative approach to the study of court staff.

2 Acknowledgements 1 * Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Submitted by National Center for State Courts Project Staff Brian J. Ostrom, Project Director Matthew Kleiman Nicole L. Mott Neal B. Kauder, VisualResearch, Inc.

3 * 2 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 * 2004 National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, VA ISBN This report was developed under a contract from the Minnesota State Court Administrator s Office, contract number A The opinions and points of view expressed in this report are those of the authors, and do not necessarily represent the official position or polices of the Minnesota Supreme Court or State Court Administrator s Office.

4 3 * Acknowledgements The authors of this report wish to thank the people of the Minnesota District Courts for their participation in the Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment project. A study of this magnitude is not possible without the help and assistance of many talented and motivated individuals. Court staff and administrators were active in all phases of this project and consistently showed strong support for this effort to improve the funding and operations of Minnesota s courts. We were fortunate to work with two distinguished advisory groups that were instrumental in defining the scope and content of the evaluation. Primary project oversight was provided by the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee. They are to be commended for their guidance, support and leadership throughout the life of this project. State Staffing Study Advisory Committee Shelley Ellefson (Chair) Bruce Ahlgren Darrell Paske Van Brostrom Marcy Podkopacz Heidi Green Diana Williams Sam Juncker Jerry Winter The State Staffing Study Workgroup provided essential insight and comment on the overall project design, data collection instruments and multiple drafts of this report. Their efforts in helping coordinate various training efforts and in ensuring high response rates throughout the state to all survey instruments were invaluable. State Staffing Study Workgroup Bruce Ahlgren Jane Morrow Deborah Blees Charlotte O Connell Van Brostrom Timothy Ostby Sally Cumiskey Beverly Paavola Deb Dailey Darrell Paske Shelly Ellefson Marcy Podkopacz Diane Fox Carol Renn Heidi Green Marcia Setrum Diane Gross Sue Specht Tama Hall Vicki K. Riven Kelly Iverson Diana Williams Marieta Johnson Jerry Winter Sam Juncker Barb Worrell A special thanks goes to the dedicated and hard working staff members of the Research and Evaluation Unit of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO). Throughout all phases of this project, Heidi Green exhibited her trademark enthusiasm and professionalism in shepherding

5 * 4 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 this project to completion. Deb Dailey offered important insight into court operations, Craig Hagensick directed the provision of statewide data, and Michelle Wedeking provided exceptional administrative support. We are also grateful to Bill Hewitt, Neil LaFountain, and Charles Ostrom for their assistance with conceptualizing the project and with design of data collection instruments. In addition, we thank our NCSC colleagues Chris Ryan and John Douglas for their participation in the project site visits, Brenda Otto and Sherry Keesee for their administrative support, and Richard Schauffler and Shauna Strickland for their extensive review of the project manuscript. Mitchell Moore provided expert editorial services. Finally, we thank Judith Sullivan Phillips for managing the design and page layout.

6 5 * Table of Contents Part I: Design, Findings, and Recommendations Project Overview Introduction... 7 Project Participation and Oversight... 8 Description of the Project Phases Developing the Staffing Model Phase 1: Staffing Inventory Phase 2: Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3: Time Study Phase 4: Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5: Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6: Site Visits Phase 7: Use and Implication of the Staffing Model Finalizing the Model Using the Staffing Model Achieving Equitable, Efficient and Effective Case Processing Staffing Norms and Implied Staffing Levels Time Study Comparison of Implied Staffing Results for Staff/AJN and Time Study Methods Degree of Equity Conclusions and Recommendations Recommendations Part II: Project Development and Methodology Staffing Inventory Phase 1 Staff by Case Type Staff by Function Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 2 Survey Results Court Performance Survey Adequacy of Time Prioritizing the Allocation of Additional Staff Court Quality Survey Summary Results for Law Clerks and Court Reporters... 55

7 * 6 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Table of Contents, continued Time Study Phase 3 Choosing Representative Courts Selecting Case Types and Events Recording Time Annual Filings Calculating Workload Standards The Staff Year The Staff Day Validating the Results Site Visits Phase 6 Reprioritizing in the Face of Reduced Staffing Levels Compromised Tasks Recent Improvements for Staff Appendices A Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) B Number of AJN per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) C Staff per AJN by Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) D Implied Staff Levels Using the Staff per AJN Norm (by Court and by District) E Filings (2002) per Case Type (by Court and by District) F Implied Staff Levels Using the Time Study Weights (by Court and by District) G Number of Staff by Functional Area H Case Related Staff Functional Areas I List of 81 Tasks Organized by Functional Area J Results of the Court Quality Survey K Sufficiency of Time by Case Type and Functional Area L Priority of Functional Areas For Additional Staff by District M Summary Table of Law Clerks and Court Reporters by Functional Area N Non-Case Specific Activities/Tasks O Time Study Case Weights by County P Applying Different Staffing Norms to Our Three Court Groupings Q Validating the Staffing Inventory and Time Study Results

8 7 * Part 1 Project Overview Introduction The primary purpose of this project was to determine the number of support staff Minnesota courts need to provide effective service to the public. To accomplish this goal, the State Court Administrator s Office (SCAO) of Minnesota contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to develop a court staffing model for Minnesota district courts. The move to state funding of court staff in Minnesota makes this project particularly relevant. Historically, the level of court staff support in Minnesota developed on the basis of local funding and local operations. Consequently, specific support functions performed in one court location may not be provided in another; furthermore, there may be considerable variation in how well similar functions are performed. The Minnesota staffing model draws on and extends the successful methodology used in the Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment project completed in Clarity on court workload is a key ingredient in establishing the number of staff needed to support the resolution of cases coming before the court. Achieving an appropriate complement of judges and court staff is essential if Minnesota courts are to manage and resolve court business effectively and without delay while also delivering quality service to the public. Meeting these challenges involves systematically assessing the number of court support staff required to process court workload and resolving whether court staff is allocated equitably across the state. Assessing staff workload is a new enterprise for the nation s state courts. As a consequence, the Minnesota court system has been instrumental in creating an innovative approach to the study of court staff, as well as introducing a number of new terms and concepts to the field of judicial administration. This report describes each aspect of the study and serves as a reference for all data upon which the findings and recommendations are based. * The objective of this report and the proposed court support staffing model is to assist the Minnesota District Courts in evaluating: Statewide court support staffing requirements based on a thorough assessment of workload The equitable allocation of court support staff

9 * 8 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, The Court Executive Team (CET) is a committee of court professionals working in support of, and in partnership with, the Conference of Chief Judges to execute an administrative leadership agenda for the state court system. The Team develops and implements administrative and operational policies and strategies and shares information with all judicial system employees and justice system stakeholders in furtherance of the judicial system strategic plan. Project Participation and Oversight Our staffing model is based on data collected from each of the 87 counties within the 10 judicial districts in the state of Minnesota. Because St. Louis County operates three discrete and chambered courthouses Duluth, Hibbing and Virginia we analyzed each separately. Therefore, we examined staffing levels in 89 different jurisdictions. NCSC staff worked closely with court administrators in each jurisdiction to facilitate the distribution of survey materials and the collection of data. Two separate advisory groups provided oversight and guidance throughout the life of the study. The first, the State Staffing Study Workgroup, was composed of at least 2 representatives (court administrators, district administrator or key court staff) from each of the 10 districts. The second, the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee, was a smaller group made up of four judicial district administrators (or their appointees), three members of the Court Executive Team(CET), 1 one each representing small, medium, and large courts, and the Minnesota Supreme Court s director of Human Resources. The State Staffing Study Advisory Committee served as the decisionmaking body for this evaluation.

10 9 * Minnesota Judicial Districts by County 1 Carver Dakota Goodhue Le Sueur McLeod Scott Sibley 2 Ramsey 3 Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona 4 Hennepin 5 Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan 6 Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia 7 Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena 8 Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine 9 Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau 10 Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright

11 * 10 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Description of Project Phases The Court Staff Workload Assessment was completed through a seven-phase process. Figure 1 introduces each of the seven phases that are described in this report. The final recommendations of the workload assessment are presented in Chapter 4. Each of the seven phases has a distinct goal. The project team was charged with designing the various study methods and executing the tasks needed to achieve the individual goals. The workload assessment involved the collection of a large volume of data from throughout the state and examined that data using various analytical models, all of which are described in this report. Figure 2 provides a quick scan of the phases of the project and their significance for workload assessment. This diagram is useful as a guide to the report and to help orient the reader with the scope and content of the study. This study employs a broad and diverse set of descriptive and analytic techniques to develop court staffing norms in Minnesota. Given the scope of analysis, the project report is divided into three distinct, yet interrelated, parts. Part I: Design, Findings and Recommendations Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 explain the approach employed and discuss the primary results and implications of all seven project phases. Chapter 1 serves to introduce and summarize the study. Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive overview of the project rationale and analysis strategy. Chapter 3 develops the implications of the model for staffing need in 89 jurisdictions. Final conclusions and recommendations are covered in Chapter 4. Part II: Project Development and Methodology Chapters 5 to 8 provide an in-depth look into the methodology used during this project and the different phases of the research process. Included is a detailed overview of the staffing inventory (Chapter 5), the court performance surveys (Chapter 6), the time study and the development of case weights (Chapter 7), and site visits (Chapter 8). Appendices All primary data sources and results are included in the report Appendices.

12 11 * Figure 1: High Level Project Flow Diagram Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications

13 * 12 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Figure 2: Project Overview Goals, Methods, Output, Conclusions Goal Analysis or Method Phase 1 Staff Inventory Compile accurate inventory of the number of court staff in the state, by county, in fall County Staffing Surveys completed by court administrators at a time when few staff vacancies existed statewide. Two versions: Small Court Survey, Large Court Survey Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Examine sufficiency of full complement staffing levels to accomplish job responsibilities in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. Two surveys designed to gather staff and court administrator perspective on adequacy of workforce (Court Performance Survey) and quality of workplace environment (Court Quality Survey). Phase 3 Time Study Measure the actual amount of time staff spend supporting the processing of cases of different types through the courts. Time study conducted over two week period where more than 700 staff in nine courts tracked their time, differentiating by case type and functional area. Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Measure the number of judicial officers needed to resolve cases in each jurisidiction. Assessed Judge Need (AJN) is calculated by applying the specific judicial case weights to 2002 filings in each jurisdiction to derive judicial workload. Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Develop a set of staffing norms that allow for the assessment of resource equity among courts. Staff per AJN by case type and court size was adopted as the metric to assess resource need. The staffing norms are a function of the number of staff per case type and AJN. Phase 6 Site Visits Gather perspective of staff, court administrators and judges on the legitimacy of staffing norms and sufficiency of current staffing levels. Structured interviews with over 200 staff were conducted in five representative courts in August Perspective sought on procedures thought to be exemplary as well as practices open for improvement. Phase 7 Use and Implications Use the norms to calculate appropriate staffing levels in each court and compare to current actual staffing levels to assess resource need. The norms are used to calculate the implied staffing need for each of the 89 jurisdictions. The norms provide court managers with structured means to assess staff need by case type and functional area.

14 13 * Output Conclusion Reference Staff per case type and staff by function for 10 districts and 89 different court jurisdictions. Inventory conducted prior to statewide hiring freeze and staff layoffs in Staffing surveys completed by 100% of court administrators. Because the staffing inventory predates statewide hiring freeze, the inventory represents full complement of staff statewide. Chapter Five Appendix A: Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 Appendix G: Number of Staff by Functional Area Appendix H: Case Related Staff Functional Areas Performance survey gave staff perspective on sufficiency of time to handle 81 key tasks organized into 9 functional areas and identified priority areas for additional staff. Quality survey guaged strength of management and organizational effectiveness. Full complement staffing levels in Fall 2002 were associated with high levels of job performance and support decision to use these staff levels as foundation for staffing norms. Chapter Six Appendix I: List of 81 Tasks Organized by Functional Areas Appendix J: Results of the Court Quality Survey Appendix K: Sufficiency of Time by Case Type and Functional Area Appendix L: Priority of Functional Areas for Additional Staff by District Separate case weights developed for eight case types and for two court size categories. Model accounts for fact that case types vary in the amount of staff time and attention required. Time study results validate staff allocation derived from inventory and document current work practices of staff. Results support decision to use staffing levels from the staffing inventory as the basis for the staffing norms. Chapter Seven Appendix N: Non-Case Specific Activities/Tasks Appendix O: Time Study Case Weights by County Weighting filings by judicial case weights gives an estimate of judicial workload in all 89 jurisdictions. Dividing judicial workload by judge year value yields AJN by case type for each jurisdiction. AJN is a consistent and unifrom means for measuring the judicial workload in each of the 89 courts. Chapter Three Appendix B: Number of AJN per Case Type in distinct staffing norms that vary by case type and court size. The norms distinguish among 8 case types and 3 groupings of court size. Each staffing norm shows the average complement of staff per case type needed in a court of a given size to meet the needs of expedition, timeliness, and quality case processing. Chapter Three Figure 5: Ratio of Staff to Judges - Staffing Norms Appendix C: Staff per AJN by Case Type in 2002 Appendix D: Implied Staff Levels (Staff/AJN Ratio) Appendix E: Filings per Case Type Appendix F: Implied Staff Levels (Time Study Weights) Validation of results of staffing inventory and performance surveys. Information on reprioritizing staff and identification of compromised activities in face of reduced staffing levels. The general reduction in case-related court staff in Minnesota during 2003 produced a number of constraints in the ability of courts to provide effective service to the public. Chapter Eight Norms represent an informational and planning tool. Their utility lies in providing a common metric from which to assess and compare staffing levels between courts and districts. The norms, developed through a comprehensive research design, help ensure every court is competing on the same basis for resources, based on staffing levels associated with effective service. Chapter Three and Chapter Four Figure 10: Implied Staff Need and Comparison with Actual Staff Totals in 2002 Examples 1-5

15 * 14 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004

16 15 * Developing the Staffing Model The staffing model was developed by employing multiple methods and analytical strategies to measure staff workload, assess equity of allocation, and gauge the effectiveness of current practice. The seven primary phases are described below. Phase 1: Staffing Inventory Because a systematic assessment of staff workload had not previously been done in Minnesota or any other state for that matter it was necessary to begin with the basics. In the first phase we compiled an accurate census of the number of court staff in the state by county. Staffing Inventory: In November/ December 2002, we collected data from court administrators documenting the number of court staff (by job title) in each of the 89 courts. We classified staff into two basic groups based on whether job responsibilities were primarily case related (e.g., court clerks) or non-case related (e.g., human resources, accounting, information technology). Case related staff comprises the vast majority of court staff in Minnesota and were the primary focus of the study. Court administrators in each county then estimated how case related court staff is allocated across eight major case types and by the primary type of work (function) performed. We used the concept of functional area to group basic job responsibilities into categories such as courtroom support, calendaring and caseflow management, records management, jury services, and financial management. We conducted the staff inventory prior to the statewide hiring freeze and staff layoffs in Conducting the staffing inventory at a time when few staff vacancies existed statewide provided a staff profile at a time of full employment levels, ensuring that we developed the staffing model from a full staffing complement. A more detailed description of the Staffing Inventory is given in Chapter 5 of this report. Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications

17 * 16 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications Phase 2: Court Performance and Quality Survey The second phase of the project involved two statewide surveys of court staff and administrators. The purpose of the surveys was to test whether the staffing levels from November/December 2002 were sufficient in the opinion of court personnel and managers to accomplish job responsibilities in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. That is, if court employees associate the full staffing complement levels of late 2002 with effective court performance, then those staffing levels offer a presumptive staff complement upon which to build a staffing model. The two surveys were: Court Performance Survey. NCSC staff developed a web-based survey to gather staff and court administrator perspective on the adequacy of the workforce by basic functional areas of support. The surveys identified 81 key tasks, grouped into 9 functional areas, which need to (should) be performed for effective court support operations. Court staff identified: (1) which tasks they are expected to perform as part of their job; (2) whether they think they have enough time to perform them in a reasonable and satisfactory manner; and (3) those areas where the need for additional staff is most critical. Court Quality Survey. We asked court staff to complete a simple questionnaire, based on extensive research conducted by the Gallup Organization, to assess the quality of the workplace environment. This survey (called Q12) helps define the character of an organization in terms of the quality of relations between staff and their supervisors and managers. Private sector results from this survey are linked not only to the strength of the workplace and employee satisfaction, but also to hard measures of an organization s productivity. Employees who answer Strongly Agree to the questions are much more likely to work in more productive companies with lower employee turnover and higher customer satisfaction. We used these surveys to obtain an important performance perspective to benchmark current practice and to determine staffing levels associated with reasonable court performance. Given that nearly 100 percent of court staff completed the surveys, the results appear both compelling and valid. Chapter 6 provides a detailed description of the court performance and quality survey.

18 17 * Phase 3: Time Study The third phase of the project involved a twoweek time study of court staff workload in nine representative courts. Time Study. A time study clarifies the amount of time staff spend supporting the processing of cases of different types through the courts. As we found in the judicial weighted caseload studies, relying solely on case counts to determine the demands placed on staff ignores the varying levels of staff resources needed to handle different types of cases effectively. Different types of cases require different amounts of staff time and attention. Thus, for a two-week period, roughly 700 court staff in nine courts tracked how they spent their time at work, carefully differentiating by case type and functional area. The results tell us current practice; that is, how staff actually spends its time. The design of the time study allows us to extend (or generalize) the results from the nine participating sites to all 89 district courts. We can then combine the results from the time study with the statewide inventory to provide two important sets of management information. First, we can use the time study results (reported by staff) to validate the distribution of staff across both case type and function derived from the staffing inventory (reported by court administrators). The results we obtained from these two approaches to measuring staff workload are quite close and support the decision to base the staffing model on the findings from the inventory. Second, because detailed information on staffing allocation is now available for all district courts, individual court managers can examine and compare their specific staff levels and allocation with similarly situated courts around the state. The time study is described in detail in Chapter 7. Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications

19 * 18 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 44 Staff Staff Allocation Allocation and and Assessed Assessed Judge Judge Need Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications Phase 4: Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need The fourth phase of the project focused on establishing the work relationships between judges and court support staff. Efficient and effective case processing depends on courts having the appropriate number and arrangement of judges and court support staff. Moreover, those arrangements vary by case type. For example, Minor Criminal cases use proportionally more staff time and less judge time than Major Criminal cases. Therefore, we designed the staffing model to clarify and incorporate how staff-to-judge work relationships vary by case type. We determined staff allocation through the staff inventory and time study. We used the results from the Judicial Workload Assessment Project completed in 2002 to determine judge allocation. Assessed Judge Need (AJN): This measure represents the number of judicial officers needed to resolve cases in each jurisdiction. We calculated the AJN by applying specific judicial case weights to 2002 filings in each jurisdiction to derive the judicial workload. Dividing the judicial workload by the amount of time a judge has available to process cases during a year yields the Assessed Judge Need for a particular jurisdiction. AJN is a consistent and uniform means for measuring the judicial workload in each of the 89 courts.

20 19 * Phase 5: Formulate Staffing Norms The fifth phase of the project involved formulating the actual staffing model. The final model explicitly acknowledges the distinct yet interrelated roles of judges and court staff by establishing a set of staff to AJN ratios called staffing norms. Staffing Norms (Ratio of Staff to Assessed Judge Need): The model establishes 24 distinct staffing norms that vary by case type and court size. The norms distinguish among eight case types (Major Criminal, Major Civil, Probate and Mental Health, Family, Juvenile, Minor Civil, Minor Criminal, and Parking) and three groupings of court size based on AJN ( AJN; AJN; and 3.00 AJN and above). We can interpret each norm as the reasonable number of case related staff per judicial full-time equivalent (FTE) needed to effectively process and resolve a particular type of case in a particular size of court. For example, the model suggests that Minor Criminal cases in mid-size courts need 9.8 staff for each FTE of judicial workload. These statewide norms, discussed in more detail in Chapter 3, are the basis for our assessment of staff resource equity among jurisdictions. Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications

21 * 20 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications Phase 6: Site Visits In the sixth phase of the project we gathered the perspectives of court staff, court administrators and judges on the legitimacy of the staffing norms. We conducted a set of site visits to five courts (Dodge, Duluth, Hennepin, Kandiyohi, and Ramsey) in August We purposely chose to gather the views of court personnel on staffing issues during a time of a general hiring freeze, when staff vacancies were on the rise. The idea was to contrast court experience during relatively tough budget times with the results of the court performance survey and the court quality survey conducted during relatively good budget times. Site visits. Through a series of interviews, NCSC project staff confirmed the results of the staffing inventory conducted in November/ December We also documented court staff perspective on procedures thought to be exemplary, as well as practices or operations that could be improved. Finally, we sought the views of staff and judicial officers on the sufficiency of current staffing levels, and where they thought current staffing levels depart from what ought to be. The site visits confirmed that the general reduction in case related court staff in Minnesota during 2003 was producing a number of constraints in the ability of courts to provide effective service to the public. In this phase we also validated and finalized the staffing model through an extensive review and comment by the State Staffing Study Work Group and the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee. Results from the site visits are described in Chapter 8. Phase 7: Use and Implications of the Staffing Model The primary purpose of this project was to develop a set of staffing norms that allow for the assessment of resource equity among courts. The development and application of the norms is discussed in Chapter 3. Phase 1 Staffing Inventory Phase 2 Court Performance and Quality Survey Phase 3 Time Study Phase 4 Staff Allocation and Assessed Judge Need Phase 5 Formulate Staffing Norms Phase 6 Site Visits Phase 7 Use and Implications

22 21 * Finalizing the Model The two oversight committees established at the outset of the project provided active guidance in all stages of project design, data collection, analysis and interpretation of results. The key decisions and findings include: The inventory of 1,468 full time equivalent case related staff accurately reflects the number of case related staff employed by the Minnesota court system in November/ December We have a high level of confidence in the county-level staffing numbers and the allocation by case type and functional area because there was 100 percent participation by county court administrators. The number and allocation of case related staff identified in the 2002 inventory was deemed a reasonable and appropriate basis upon which to build the staffing model. The norms represent an informational and planning tool. Their utility lies in providing a common metric from which to assess and compare staffing levels between courts and districts. Relying on a consistent and equitable yardstick ensures that every court is competing on the same basis for resources, based on staffing levels associated with effective service. The present study was designed with the assumption that local court administrators are best qualified to determine how to organize court operations to ensure timely, efficient and quality case processing. The staffing norms, organized around broad functional areas, are flexible enough to identify areas of need without depriving local court administrators of the discretion needed to meet the challenges of changing technology, the case mix or other conditions unique to their court. The norms provide court managers with a structured model for administrative management and a way to assess the distribution of their staff across both case type and functional areas. The norms, which we developed from a multifaceted and comprehensive research strategy that was vetted by judicial branch staff and management, provide the basis for a persuasive case to be made to the state legislature for reasonable staffing levels statewide and support judicial branch accountability in the use of state funds.

23 * 22 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004

24 23 * Using The Staffing Model Achieving Equitable, Efficient and Effective Case Processing This chapter explains the use, interpretation, and implications of the court staffing model for all Minnesota district courts. Our primary goal was to create a staffing model to assist in the equitable allocation of case related staff throughout the state. By equity, we mean how fairly and equally staffing resources are distributed among the different courts and districts. The staffing model adopted in Minnesota is based on a set of staffing norms that vary by case type and court size. Building each norm involves calculating a separate ratio of staff to Assessed Judge Need. Applying the staffing norms in each jurisdiction yields an implied staffing level the number of staff needed to process cases in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. Comparing the implied staffing levels to current staffing levels allows one to identify jurisdictions that are over or under the levels suggested by the staffing norms. We developed the staffing norms discussed below, following a comprehensive inventory of court staff statewide, which is fully explained in Chapter 5, and a time study in nine jurisdictions, which we explain in Chapter 7. A related goal of the project was to conduct a preliminary investigation into whether the staffing levels recommended by the model supported efficient and effective case processing. The methods and instruments developed for this study reflect how we define the terms efficient and effective, as well as the interplay between them. The efficient solution often connotes, in everyday language, the fastest or cheapest approach. This definition is not the formal definition of efficiency, nor the one that we employ. We think of efficiency as the degree of jurisdictional effectiveness. This definition focuses attention on the goal of efficiency: the most productive use of resources to produce the most of what a jurisdiction values. Clearly, the critical goal of judicial administration is the efficient use of staff to achieve effective case processing. Effective case processing is enhanced when staff is appropriately assigned to the job responsibilities that need to be performed, and they have enough time to complete responsibilities in a satisfactory manner. In the current study, we used two surveys to learn from court support staff and court administrators whether staffing levels are sufficient to achieve quality case processing. Each survey taps into a different dimension of quality and gives us an alternative perspective on whether court staff is being used efficiently and effectively. The Court Performance Survey tells us, from the perspective of those who manage and do the work, whether staff is sufficient in number and appropriately allocated to effectively accomplish the work of the court. Staff and administrators were asked about their court s performance on 81 key tasks, covering nine functional areas, that should be conducted in a high-performing court. The survey was conducted shortly after the staff inventory and

25 * 24 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, The State Staffing Study Advisory Committee indicated that staffing levels in February 2003 (the time of the performance and quality surveys) was essentially identical to the staffing level in Fall 2002 (the time of the staff inventory). 3 Staff/AJN was selected over staff/filings, staff/ functional area, and the direct application of the time study weights to assess need. provides perspective on attitudes of court personnel at a time of few job vacancies (a full staff complement). The results show that line staff, supervisors and court administrators believe strongly that staff is efficiently allocated and, with staff at the Fall 2002 level, 2 there are very few priorities for additional staff. The Court Quality Survey examines staff perspective on the quality of their working environment. Turning from a focus on job responsibilities, this survey looks at the effectiveness of the court as an organization and the quality of relations between staff, their supervisors, and managers. The survey was based on research findings from the private sector that suggest that successful, highperforming courts will be strong, vibrant workplaces in which judges, managers and court staff have effective working relationships. The results of the Court Quality Survey complement the findings from the Court Performance Survey and confirm the view that the vast majority of staff believes they have the materials, self-motivation and the commitment to do quality work. Additionally, the results suggest that there is room for improvement in the area of internal management and the courts commitment to staff development. Together, these two surveys support our finding that the number and allocation of staff implied by the staffing model is consistent with efficient and effective case processing. We will explain the surveys more fully in Chapter 6. Staffing Norms and Implied Staffing Levels Our primary purpose is to develop a set of staffing norms that allow for the assessment of resource equity among courts. Based on the recommendation of the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee, we adopted the staff per AJN norm as the metric to assess resource needs. 3 This norm is a function of two components: (1) the number of staff per case type and (2) the Assessed Judge Need (AJN). We derived the number of staff per case type from data submitted by court administrators during the staffing inventory of November/December Because the staffing inventory was taken at a time of full staffing levels statewide (prior to the statewide hiring freeze and resultant vacancies), the distribution of staff across case types is referred to as a full staffing complement. Examining the use and implications of the staffing norms for all 89 jurisdictions requires numerous analyses and the creation of many

26 25 * large tables. To facilitate the understanding of this sizable amount of material, we adopt a particular presentation strategy. Within the body of text, we include an excerpt from the table designed to show the content of the table and illustrate the data or analysis performed. Complete tabular results by county and district can be found in the referenced appendix. We begin by compiling the number of staff by case type as displayed in Figure 3. Complete information on the number of staff by case type, by court and by district can be found in Appendix A. Figure 3: Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Appendix A: Number of Staff f per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Major Major Minor Minor 2002 Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Complete data in Appendix A, page 72.

27 * 26 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, For example, the case type Major Probate includes Trust, Guardianship, Commitment, and Probate filings. 5 A full explanation of the judicial case weighting process is provided in Minnesota Judicial Workload Assessment, 2002; NCSC. We determined Assessed Judge Need (AJN), the second component of our measure, by applying 33 separate case weights developed in the 2002 judicial weighted caseload study to 2002 filings. Weighting the filings by the case weights gives us an estimate of judicial workload in all 89 jurisdictions. We can then aggregate the resultant workload for the 33 case types up to the eight broader case types used in this study. 4 We calculated AJN by dividing the total judicial workload in each of the eight case types by the amount of time judges have available to do case related work, which we call the judge-year value. 5 Figure 4 shows the format for this data display. The complete listing of AJN per case type for all counties and districts can be found in Appendix B. Figure 4: Number of AJN per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Appendix B: Number of AJN per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Major Major Minor Minor Total AJN Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Complete data in Appendix B, page 74.

28 27 * The following example shows the calculation of Assessed Judge Need (AJN) for Major Criminal Cases in Hennepin County. Note that the case type Major Criminal is composed of four different case types as used in the judicial weighted caseload study. The final staffing model explicitly acknowledges the distinct yet interrelated roles of judges and court staff by establishing a set of staff to AJN ratios called staffing norms. Efficient and effective case processing depends on courts having the appropriate number and arrangement of judges and court support staff. Moreover, those arrangements vary by case type. For example, Minor Civil cases use proportionally more staff time and less judicial time than Major Civil cases. Therefore, the staffing model was designed to clarify and incorporate how staff-to-judge work relationships vary by case type. The staffing norm, then, is the average complement of staff needed in a court of a given size to meet the needs of expedition, timeliness, and quality in case processing. The average takes into account the fact that different types of cases require different levels of staff support while leaving local court administrators the discretion to allocate resources within the court as needed. Referencing the judicial weighted caseload provided us a uniform measure of judicial work in all 89 jurisdictions that accounts for the differences in judicial workload. We used the staffing levels from our inventory and the AJN for each of the eight case types to calculate separate staff per AJN ratios for each county. * Developing the Staffing Norms: Calculating Assessed Judge Need (AJN) AJN provides an estimate of the judicial workload by county for each of the eight case types. Because there are 33 case types in the judicial weighted caseload study, it is necessary to combine specific cases to obtain the eight broader case types used in the court staffing study. The table below shows how AJN is calculated for the Major Criminal case type in Hennepin County. The judicial workload of the four individual case types that comprise Major Criminal are summed to give total workload for the Major Criminal case type. Total Major Criminal workload is then divided by the judge year value to produce AJN for that case type. County: Case Type: Hennepin Major Criminal Judicial Case Case Types Filings Weight Workload Serious Felony 320 x 852 = 272,640 Other Felony 5,683 x 124 = 704,692 Gross Misdemeanor DWI 2,789 x 55 = 153,395 Other Gross Misdemeanor 3,727 x 46 = 171,442 Total workload 1,302,169 divided by Judge Year Value (minutes) 77,314 Assessed Judge Need (AJN) = 16.84

29 * 28 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Additional analysis of inventory data showed that staffing patterns varied significantly by size of court. Therefore, rather than a single statewide norm for each case type, we clustered the 89 courts into three groups based on AJN: 0 to 0.5 AJN courts.51 to 2.99 AJN courts 3 or more AJN courts Figure 5 shows the 24 separate norms we get by distinguishing between the 8 case types and the 3 sizes of court. Each norm can be interpreted as the reasonable number of case related staff per judicial fulltime equivalent (FTE) needed to effectively process and resolve a particular type of case in a particular size of court. For example, the model suggests that Minor Criminal cases in mid-size courts need 9.8 staff for each FTE of judicial workload. Figure 6 displays the application of the staffing norms for a sample of counties and districts. All counties and districts can be found in Appendix C. Figure 5: Ratio of Staff to Judges - Staffing Norms Assessed Judge Number of Staff Needed per Judge Court Size Need (AJN) Major Criminal Major Civil Probate Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Parking Small < Medium Large > Statewide Figure 6: Staff per AJN by Case Type (by Court and by District) Appendix C: Staff f per AJN by Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Total Major Major Minor Minor Staff /AJN Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Complete data in Appendix C, page 76.

30 29 * We used the staffing norm (staff per AJN ratios) to calculate the implied staffing level for each of the 89 jurisdictions in Minnesota. We calculated the implied staff level for a particular county by taking the staffing norm and multiplying that value by the AJN of a particular court. For example, in courts with.51 to 2.99 AJN, the staffing norm for Major Criminal is 3.9. Taking one such court, Dodge County, we know from the Judicial Weighted Caseload Study that its AJN for Major Criminal is.32 FTE. Multiplying the staffing norm (the ratio of staff per AJN) by the AJN yields an assessed need of 1.2 staff (3.9 x 0.32). Similarly, for a court in the large court grouping, for example Ramsey County, we multiply its AJN for Major Criminal (7.75) by the staffing norm for large courts (3.5), which yields an implied staffing level of As a third example, the adjacent sidebar titled Using the Staffing Norms, details for Carver County all relevant calculations and where in this report to find the data employed. * Using the Staffing Norms: Calculate Implied Staffing Need Using Staff/AJN Ratio Method Taking Carver County as an example, the information below shows how an individual county s staff per AJN ratio is calculated. Once calculated, the county s actual staff per AJN ratio is then compared to the appropriate staffing norm based on court size (in this case, 3 or more AJN). The implied staffing level for a particular case type is calculated by multiplying the appropriate staffing norm by a county s actual AJN. The actual number of staff can then be compared to the implied staffing need by case type and overall. County: Case Type: Calculate County Staff per AJN Compare County and appropriate court size Staff/ AJN Ratio Carver Major Criminal Location of Variable Needed for Calculation Value Variable Number of Staff per Case Type 3.0 Appendix A divided by AJN 0.74 Appendix B equals Staff/AJN 4.1 Appendix C Staff/AJN 4.1 Appendix C minus Look up norm for staff/ajn value 3.5 Figure 5 equals Over/Under Difference 0.6 Calculate Implied Staffing Need 3 or more AJN staffing norm 3.5 Figure 5 multiplied by AJN 0.74 Appendix B equals Implied Staffing Level 2.6 Appendix D

31 * 30 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Figure 7 displays the implied staffing levels based on the composite staffing norms. The complete data for all counties and districts can be found in Appendix D. Time Study Time Study Validation. We conducted a twoweek time study in nine representative district courts to augment and validate the results of the staff inventory. We can use the time study results (reported by staff) to validate the distribution of staff across both case type and function that we got from the staffing inventory (reported by court administrators). The benefit of a time study is that it tells us how staff actually spends its time. This information provides a useful contrast to the court administrators perspective on the functions being performed by staff. Figure 7: Implied Staff Levels using the Staff per AJN Norm (by Court and by District) Appendix D: Implied Staff f Levels Using the Staff per AJN Norm (by Court and by District) Total Major Major Minor Minor Implied Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Complete data in Appendix D, page 78.

32 31 * As with our judicial weighted caseload study, a time study clarifies the amount of time staffers spend supporting the processing of different types of cases through the courts. As another means to assess and validate the staff time and attention required by different types of cases, the time study complements the inventory, and validating the inventory is critical because it is the basis for the staffing norms. And given the many and varied responsibilities of court staff, it is sensible to confirm the accuracy with which the court administrators allocated their staff by case type and function during the inventory. The results of these two approaches to measuring staff workload are quite close, and support our decision to base the staffing model on the findings of the inventory. We applied the time study results to filings to develop implied staffing levels by case type. 6 We calculated implied staffing levels by multiplying the case weight the average amount of staff time needed to process a given type of case by the number of filings (for that case type), which gives us the total workload. We then divided the total workload by the staffyear value (94,920 minutes) the amount of time the average staff person has to process cases during the year. The time study case weights are displayed below. 6 A full explanation of the time study and staff weighted caseload methodology can be found in Chapter 5 of this report. Figure 8: Composite Time Study Case Weights (minutes) Assessed Judge Number of Staff Needed per Judge Court Size Need (AJN) Major Criminal Major Civil Probate Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Parking Small-Medium Large

33 * 32 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 * Using the Staffing Norms: Calculate Implied Staffing Need Using Time Study Method Total staff workload for a particular case type is determined by multiplying the appropriate case weight by the number of filings in the county. Total workload is then divided by the staff year value to determine the implied number of staff needed to do the work. The actual number of staff can then be compared to the implied staffing need by case type and overall. County: Case Type: Carver Major Criminal To illustrate, let s look at the implied staffing level for Carver County. Carver County belongs to the grouping of courts with 3 AJN or greater. In 2002, Carver County had 626 Major Criminal filings. A complete listing of the number of filings for each case type for each jurisdiction is found in Appendix E. If we multiply the number of filings by the appropriate case weight (for a 3 AJN or greater court) for Major Criminal 388 minutes we get a total workload of 242,888 minutes (626 x 388). By then dividing the workload by the staff year Calculate Total Staff Workload Location of Variable Needed for Calculation Value Variable Staff Case Weight 388 Figure 8 multiplied by Number of Filings 626 Appendix E equals Workload 242,888 Calculate Implied Staffing Need divided by Staff-year Value 94,920 equals Implied Staffing Level 2.6 Appendix F

34 33 * value we find that Carver County needs 2.6 staff to process Major Criminal cases (242,888/ 94,920). Figure 9 shows the implied staffing based on the time study. The complete implied staffing levels by case type, based on the time study results, can be found in Appendix F. Figure 9: Implied Staff Levels using the Time Study Weights (by Court and by District) Appendix F: Implied Staff f Levels Using the Time Study Weights (by Court and by District) Total Major Major Minor Minor Implied Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Complete data in Appendix F, page 82.

35 * 34 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Comparison of Implied Staffing Results for Staff/AJN and Time Study Methods Figure 10 displays the aggregate results of the implied staffing levels for both methods of estimating staff need. The first two data columns display the AJN and the total staff by county and district, as reported in our staffing inventory. The remaining columns show the implied staffing levels when we apply the staff per AJN norms and time study weights. Figure 10: Implied Staff Need and Comparison With Actual Staff Totals in 2002 (by Court and by District) 2002 Staff per AJN Time Study Weights District/County AJN Total Staff Implied Staff Difference Implied Staff Difference District Carver Dakota Goodhue (0.3) LeSueur (0.4) 8.2 (0.0) McLeod Scott Sibley (0.6) 5.7 (0.6) District 2-Ramsey (8.0) (5.2) District (8.4) Dodge Fillmore (1.4) 6.0 (0.3) Freeborn (0.5) Houston (1.7) 4.8 (1.3) Mower Olmsted (1.7) 29.9 (1.3) Rice Steele (1.5) 10.4 (0.5) Wabasha (0.9) 6.4 (0.8) Waseca (0.6) 5.8 (0.0) Winona (2.2) 15.8 (1.2) District 4-Hennepin (4.6) District (12.2) 89.5 (9.3) Blue Earth (1.4) 16.2 (1.8) Brown Cottonwood (0.5) 3.9 (0.6) Faribault (0.8) 5.2 (0.3) Jackson (1.8) 4.2 (1.3) Lincoln (1.3) 1.1 (2.0) Lyon (2.2) 8.6 (2.0) Martin (1.5) 8.0 (0.8) Murray (0.4) 2.2 (1.3) Nicollet (0.9) Nobles (1.4) 6.3 (0.4) Pipestone (0.3) 3.3 (0.0) Redwood Rock (0.7) Watonwan (0.7) 5.6 (0.2) District (10.0) 85.4 (5.8) Carlton (1.0) Cook Duluth (11.0) 38.1 (8.9) Hibbing Lake (0.2) 3.5 (1.0) Virginia (0.3)

36 35 * Figure 10: Implied Staff Need and Comparison With Actual Staff Totals in 2002 (by Court and by District), continued 2002 Staff per AJN Time Study Weights District/County AJN Total Staff Implied Staff Difference Implied Staff Difference District Becker Benton Clay (1.8) Douglas (0.2) 10.8 (0.4) Mille Lacs Morrison (0.1) Otter Tail (1.1) 13.2 (1.0) Stearns Todd Wadena (0.0) District (2.6) 50.6 (10.5) Big Stone (0.2) 1.6 (1.1) Chippewa Grant (0.5) Kandiyohi (2.1) 11.5 (3.5) Lac Qui Parle (0.6) Meeker (0.1) Pope (0.3) Renville (1.2) 5.7 (0.6) Stevens (0.6) Swift (0.4) 3.8 (0.5) Traverse (0.1) 1.2 (1.1) Wilkin (0.1) 2.2 (1.5) Yellow Medicine (0.5) 3.8 (0.5) District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater (0.2) Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson (1.4) 1.1 (1.6) Koochiching Lake of the Woods (0.6) 1.2 (1.0) Mahnomen Marshall (0.4) Norman (0.1) 1.9 (1.8) Pennington (1.0) 4.7 (0.9) Polk Red Lake (0.2) Roseau District (11.7) (18.1) Anoka (5.2) 64.6 (10.9) Chisago (0.5) 14.5 (0.8) Isanti (1.1) 9.5 (0.6) Kanabec Pine Sherburne (1.1) 16.7 (1.3) Washington (10.0) 43.7 (10.8) Wright AJN or > AJN AJN or < , , (9.4) Statewide , ,468.0 (0.0) 1, Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

37 * 36 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 * Comparing the Staffing Norms: Implied Staffing Need Using Staff/AJN Method and the Time Study Method Taking the example of Carver County and the Major Criminal case type, we compare actual staff to the implied staff need using the two methods. The implied staff need using the two methods tends to be quite close. In fact, they are identical in this example. The results suggest that the county assigns an additional.4 staff to Major Criminal than is typical for other courts in its group. County: Case Type: Carver Major Criminal For example, the staff per AJN model suggests that Carver County (in District 1) needs 14.6 staff. The column labeled Difference displays the difference between the implied staffing levels and the levels from the staffing inventory. It shows that Carver County needs an additional 1.1 staffers above that reported during the staffing inventory ( ). The final columns display the same set of information using the time study weights to calculate the implied staffing levels. Here, Carver County is estimated to need 14.3 staff. The second method validates the results of the first. Compare Staff per Case Type by Implied Staff (Staff/AJN Method) Location of Variable Needed for Calculation Value Variable # of Staff per Case Type 3.0 Appendix A minus Implied Staff (Staff/AJN Method) 2.6 Appendix D equals Difference (0.4) Compare Staff per Case Type by Implied Staff (Time Study Method) # of Staff per Case Type 3.0 Appendix A minus Implied Staff (Time Study Method) 2.6 Appendix F equals Difference (0.4)

38 37 * The final, bottom row of Figure 10 gives us statewide totals, which indicate an implied staff level of 1,468.0 staff using the staff per AJN method, and 1,469.6 staff using the time study weights. As should be clear from Figure 10, the implied staffing levels for the two different metrics are very similar. In fact, the two implied staffing levels correlate at a value of.99. Since the two measures are based on very different sources of information we would not expect them to be identical. The staff per AJN is based upon the average staffing levels per case type in the 89 courts and the Assessed Judge Need derives from the application of 33 different case weights. On the other hand, the implied staffing levels from the time study weights are based upon the application of case weights collapsed into eight broader case types. * Comparing the Staffing Norms: Implied Staffing Need Using Staff/AJN Method and the Time Study Method This example compares Carver County's total staff level to the number implied using the two methods. Again, the implied staff levels obtained using staff/ajn and the time study method are similar. Both methods indicate there is a need in the county for approximately one additional staff person. County: Case Type: Compare Staff per Case Type by Implied Staff (Staff/AJN Method) Carver All Case Types (Total Staff) Location of Variable Needed for Calculation Value Variable AJN 3.4 Appendix B Total Staff 13.5 Appendix A minus Implied Staff (Staff/AJN Method) 14.6 Appendix D equals Difference 1.1 Figure 10 Compare Staff per Case Type by Implied Staff (Time Study Method) Total Staff 13.5 Appendix A minus Implied Staff (Time Study Method) 14.3 Appendix E equals Difference 0.8 Figure 10

39 * 38 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Degree of Equity The staffing norms are the foundation for assessing the extent of staffing resource equity among the courts. The implied staffing levels in some counties and districts are above the actual staffing levels of the staffing inventory, while others are below. Courts that are below or above the average for their group have fewer or more staff resources than courts of comparable workload. For example, District 1 shows an implied staffing level of 166.4, or a need for an additional 16.4 staff above the level reported in the staffing inventory. On the other hand, District 5 has an implied staff level of 86.6, or 12.2 staffers below the inventory. It should be noted that the sum of all of the differences for the three court size groupings 0.0 to 0.5 AJN,.51 to 2.99 AJN, and 3.0 AJN or greater courts is zero. This means that the model, as it stands, does not call for the addition of any staff statewide. Rather it highlights potential resource inequities. For example, Carver County has lower than average staffing levels when compared to courts of similar workload and size (3.0 AJN or greater). According to our model, Carver County therefore needs an additional 1.1 FTE staff to be in line with the average staffing levels of other similarly situated courts. An additional benefit of the staffing model is that detailed information on staffing allocation is now available for all district courts. The staffing norms provide the basis for individual court managers to examine and compare their specific staff levels and allocation with similarly situated courts around the state. The norms provide another piece of information that administrators can draw on in deciding how to best allocate staff. Furthermore, examining the overall implied need for a court or district can be used by district and court administrators to rationally determine where, if new staff is hired, additional staff should be allocated or how to reapportion current staff between or within divisions.

40 39 * Conclusions and Recommendations The Court Executive Team is to be commended for initiating the Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment to develop an objective and transparent methodology for determining the number of court support staff needed in Minnesota to provide effective service to the public. The scale and the scope of this project is unprecedented in the nation s trial courts. Every court administrator participated in the various phases of this project, as did over 95 percent of court staff statewide. The tremendous level of participation ensured that the data upon which the staffing norms were developed is both reliable and valid. The model will help ensure quality case processing statewide and serve as a national exemplar for other states to follow. The principal product of this evaluation is the development of a set of 24 statewide staffing norms. The norms were derived from the staffing inventory, representing a full staffing complement statewide, and the calculation of the Assessed Judge Need (AJN) in 89 jurisdictions. Comparing results from the time study to the staffing inventory confirms that the inventory is a valid representation of the apportionment of staff across case types and functional areas. In addition, the results from the two statewide performance surveys confirm that the staffing levels from which the norms were created were adequate to provide quality service to the public. The norms represent a parsimonious, yet powerful tool from which to assess (1) the level of staff resource equity and (2) the adequacy of staffing levels to ensure the quality processing of cases in each court and district. The norms have additional utility as a guide for court and district managers. Beyond highlighting need, the norms can be referenced as a comparison between courts of similar workloads to assess the allocation of staff across case types. As filings and workload change throughout the state, the norms can be applied to updated filings and Assessed Judge Need by case type. Comparing the new implied staffing levels with an updated statewide staffing inventory will allow for a revised assessment of the everchanging workload of court staff.

41 * 40 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Recommendations Recommendation 1: The SCAO should update the staffing inventory and Assessed Judge Need on an annual basis. An annual update of the staffing inventory and AJN assures that staffing needs can be assessed and staffing levels adjusted as workload changes in the different jurisdictions around the state. To facilitate this process, Minnesota should develop a set of procedures to ensure accurate and reliable data collection of staffing levels by case type on an annual basis. The SCAO should require that the collection of the staff inventory be part of their annual data collection from the courts. Furthermore, the SCAO should design a set of data definitions and reporting procedures to guide court administrators in the counting and reporting of case related staff. Recommendation 2 Automate the annual study update procedure. Counts of existing staff are currently obtained from manual surveys completed by the court and district administrators. With the conversion to complete state funding for the District Courts, Minnesota should automate the collection of needed data on staff and integrate it into existing annual human resources processes, such as staff performance reviews (PDQ s), with the intent that data derived from this source could be used to accurately count the number of existing staff in an automated fashion. Recommendation 3: The SCAO should plan to periodically validate and re-establish the staffing norms. The present set of staff per AJN norms are based upon a full staffing complement statewide. Any updating of the norms will require that all courts statewide provide staffing levels by case type. The reassessment should be done at a time when there are limited vacancies in the courts. Statewide staffing shortages have the potential to lead to the development of norms that are below levels necessary for quality case processing. As such, updates to the staffing inventory should be accompanied by an assessment of the adequacy of the staffing levels.

42 41 * Recommendation 4: The focus of the present study is on caserelated staff. A staff needs assessment methodology should be developed and employed to account for non-caserelated employees. With the Minnesota s District Court transition to state funding (to be completed by 2005) the Minnesota District Courts should assess the need for all court staff, both case and non-case related. The Minnesota Staffing Study accounts for the majority of District Court staff in Minnesota in a fair, objective, and empirical manner. There remains a need to account for non-case related staff to complete the human resource assessment of the Minnesota District Courts. Alternative needs assessment methodologies may need to be developed because non-case related staff often hold specialized positions in management, finance, human resources, or information technology (IT). These positions may be few in number or unique to counties so that computation of statewide staffing norms may not meaningfully apply to the way individual counties or districts assess their need for these positions. One possibility is for the Minnesota district courts to develop an overhead rate that allows for an equitable distribution of non-case related staff. Individual districts would then have the responsibility of determining the most effective mix of non-case related staff in their districts. Recommendation 5: The staffing norms should be tied to a set of outcome based performance measures. The staffing norms are designed to reflect adequate staffing levels to ensure quality case processing. The present evaluation relied on staff and managerial perceptions of staffing resources. At the time of the evaluation, this proxy for efficiency and effectiveness was the best method available to make this assessment. In the future, the Minnesota District Courts should consider a project to develop and implement a series of performance measures tied to assessing whether the courts are achieving key goals and outcomes. Implementing these measures will help define expectations for a well-performing court and clarify the role of adequate staff resources in achieving those ends. Thoughtfully developed performance measures will allow district and court managers to directly link the level of staff and judicial resources in their jurisdictions to court wide goals, such as, access to justice, public trust and confidence and expedition and timeliness.

43 * 42 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004

44 43 * Part 2 Staffing Inventory Phase 1 The first step in any staffing project is to determine the current number of staff working within the jurisdiction under study. Minnesota is presently moving towards statewide funding. At the time of this report only select counties had made the transition. As a result, there is currently no centralized, statewide database that lists court employees by county and job title. Therefore, in order to get a complete picture of the number of court staff in Minnesota we sent a County Staffing Survey to court administrators statewide in November/ December The inventory of court staff predated the statewide hiring freeze and resultant staff vacancies of The staffing inventory thus represents the full complement of staff statewide, and the staffing norms developed from the inventory reflect full staffing levels. Our goal with the County Staffing Survey was to obtain an accurate count of the number of staff working in each county by job title, the types of cases they work on, and the type of work (functions) they perform. This type of detailed data, in conjunction with filings by case type and the allocation of judges by case type, allowed us to calculate: 1) staff by case type; 2) filings per staff; 3) staff by work function; and 4) staff per Assessed Judge Need. Based on pretests of the survey instrument, we determined that the best method for obtaining the desired information was to send out two related, but distinct, County Staffing Surveys 7. One survey was for small courts (two chambered judges or fewer), and collected information at the individual level for each staff member working in the court. The other, for large courts (3 chambered judges or more), 8 collected the same information at the aggregate level of the court s workforce. For smaller courts it was apparent that court administrators had the ability to examine the work done by staff on an employee-byemployee basis. We asked court administrators in the smaller courts to list each employee s job title, their FTE (full-time equivalent), and to estimate the proportion of time each spent working on different tasks. During the pretest of the two survey instruments it became clear that staff in smaller courts work on multiple case types. This made it extremely difficult for court administrators to estimate the percentage of an individual staff member s time spent on a particular case type. To solve this problem we asked court administrators to place a check mark next to the case types a staffer primarily works on. 9 In larger courts, obtaining detail at the individual level would not only be extremely time consuming, but next to impossible. For this reason, court administrators in these counties were asked to provide information in aggregate fashion. While the method for obtaining the data varied between the two surveys, 7 It should be noted that each county received only one survey. In addition, two of the three chambered judge courts found it difficult to fill out the large court survey and instead made use of the small court survey. 8 The two survey instruments were pilot tested in three courts: a one chambered judge court, a two chambered judge court, and a ten chambered judge court. The two surveys are available upon request. 9 Because of the lack of specialization in smaller courts, estimating the distribution of staff time across case types was accomplished by referencing the results from the time study for zero to two chambered judge courts. The proportion of time staff spent working on a particular case type during the time study was utilized as a way to allocate staff across case types. These proportions are.22 for Major Criminal,.09 for Major Civil,.05 for Probate,.19 for Family,.13 for Juvenile,.28 for Minor Criminal, and.04 for Minor Civil. For example, in Dodge County it was reported that there are 5.4 total case related staff. Multiplying the total number of staff (5.4) by the proportion for a particular case type (.22 for Major Criminal) yields the estimate of the number of staff who work in that case type (e.g., 5.4 x.22 = 1.2 staff working in Major Criminal in Dodge County). The time study will be explained in more detail later in this report.

45 * 44 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, In St. Louis County separate surveys were sent out to each of its three courthouses: Duluth, Hibbing, and Virginia. 11 Court reporters and law clerks were not included in the present study because their staffing levels are a one to one relationship with judges. 12 For larger courts, court administrators were asked to estimate the amount of time staff perfrom the functions within the seven case types. 13 A more complete description of these functions can be found in Appendix H. the type of information obtained remained the same (e.g., number of staff by case type and functional area). In all, we sent out 89 surveys. 10 The surveys asked court administrators to provide detailed information about their courts. First, we asked court administrators to provide some basic background information about their court (e.g., how many hours constitute a full work week in their county; the number of fulltime equivalent judges by case type in their county). In the second part of the survey we asked them to identify: 1. Job titles, the number of staff who fall under those titles and for all court staff (excluding court reporters and law clerks. 11 ) 2. The number of staff in their court, by one of the following case types: Major Criminal Major Civil Probate Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Parking 3. The amount of time spent by staff (in percentages) performing different work functions. 12 The work functions include: 13 Case Processing, Records Management, Calendaring and Caseflow Management Courtroom Support Case Monitoring and Enforcement Judicial Support Financial Management Jury Services Therapeutic and Evaluative Services Managerial Following the recommendations of the State Staffing Study Workgroup and the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee, only case related staff was included in the final count of staff statewide. This meant that in addition to law clerks and court reporters, we excluded from the study non-case related administrative staff (e.g., human resources, information technology, accounting, facilities, media, legislative liaisons), county specific employees (e.g., Examiner of Titles, Psychological Services), Hearing Officers, 14 Guardians ad Litem, Court Attendants, 15 and volunteers. We did include both temporary employees time and case related managerial time in the estimate of case related staff. 16 Because of reported variations in the time court administrators spend on case related matters in small courts, the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee decided to standardize the time spent by court administrators on case related matters. As a guide to estimating the proportion of time court administrators spend on case related matters in small courts (2.5 AJN or less courts), we conducted four separate conference calls with court administrators from 0 to.5 AJN courts,.51 to 1.5 AJN courts, 1.51 to 2.5 AJN courts, and court administrators who 14 Only tasks identified as court administration time is captured for the Hearing Officers. 15 Court attendants were included in the staff totals for Dakota County where they perform activities consistent with case related court staff (e.g., courtroom support tasks). 16 Temporary employees were included in the study to ensure a complete picture of staff resource needs. For example, in Ramsey County temps play a large role in the handling of cases in the Criminal Division.

46 45 * work in multiple jurisdictions to ensure an equitable determination of resource needs. 17 We determined that: 70 percent of a court administrator s time in 0 to.5 AJN courts is spent on case related matters, 25 percent of a court administrator s time in.51 to 1.5 AJN courts is spent on case related matters, and 15 percent of a court administrator s time in 1.51 to 2.5 AJN courts is spent on case related matters. We made adjustments to the staff FTE counts to account for the time court administrators spend on case related matters. For example, in Lac Qui Parle County, a.3 AJN court, there are two full-time court clerks and a court administrator. Making adjustments for the time spent by the court administrator on case related duties (70 percent) yields a total staff FTE of 2.7. Staff by Case Type Figure 11 displays staff by case type, by court and by district. The complete table of Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 for all counties and districts can be found in Appendix A. Statewide there are 1,468 case related staffers. District 4 has the most staff with 346.3, and District 8 has the fewest with At the bottom of Appendix A, totals are expressed for three court groupings:.5 AJN or less,.51 to 2.99 AJN, and 3.0 AJN or more courts. Not surprisingly, a majority of the state s court staff works in large courts 3.0 AJN or more even though only about one-fourth of courts statewide are large courts. 17 Court administrators from the following counties and multi-jurisdictional courts were included: Big Stone, Lac Qui Parle, Lincoln, Kanabec, Sibley, Waseca, Becker, Beltrami, Douglas, Cook/Lake, Grant/Pope, and Murray/Pipestone. Figure 11: Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Appendix A: Number of Staff f per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Major Major Minor Minor 2002 Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Complete data in Appendix A, page 72.

47 * 46 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Staff by Function Another way to look at the composition of court staff statewide is to distribute staff by the type of work they perform (Figure 12). The complete table of Number of Staff by Functional Area for all counties and districts can be found in Appendix G. At first glance it might seem that the obvious way to accomplish this is to compile a list of representative job titles and the number of staff falling under each job title. However, the state s court staff falls predominantly under two job titles seventy percent of all staff fall under the headings of Court Clerk and Court Specialist. The lack of job title diversity means that looking solely at an employee s job title to understand the type of work he or she performs provides limited information. To overcome this inherent limitation, we asked court administrators to array staff across the functional areas during the staffing inventory. Unraveling the distribution of staff by the type of work they perform provides valuable insights for court managers and administrators. Using a functional analysis, in which staff is allocated across different work areas, allows us to compare the distribution of staff resources in one court to the distribution of staff in other courts and districts. Beyond providing a basic inventory of staff by case type and functional area in each of the courts and districts statewide, Figures 11 and 12 do not reveal very much about issues of current staff resource equity or efficiency. What we can see is that there is variation in staffing levels among courts of similar size, and that courts allocate their resources in different ways across the functional areas. However, looking at the raw staffing levels does not necessarily provide insight into the number of staff needed to handle diverse caseloads, nor does it begin to address the question of what staffing levels represent an adequate and equitable distribution of staff. In the remaining chapters of this report, we will examine whether or not the staffing levels reported in the inventory are reasonable levels to ensure quality case processing. Figure 12: Number of Staff by Functional Area Appendix G: Number of Staff f by Functional Area Therapeutic Case Courtroom Case Judicial Financial Jury & Evaluative 2002 Staff Processing Support Monitoring Support Management Services Services Managerial District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Complete data in Appendix G, page 84.

48 47 * Court Performance & Quality Survey Phase 2 The purpose of this chapter is to examine whether court administrators and staff believed that the staffing levels of Fall 2002 were sufficient to provide reasonable and satisfactory service to the public. In the proceeding chapter we established the number of court staff in all 89 jurisdictions, and how staff is allocated by case type and job function. Now we want to determine from the perspective of court administrators and staffers whether that level of staffing is adequate to suitably complete the many and varied responsibilities facing each Minnesota trial court. Our objective is to identify the staff-related tasks that must be performed in a well-functioning court, evaluate how well each task is actually being performed, and assess the quality of staff and administrator work relations. Our finding that staffing levels of Fall 2002 were associated with high levels of job performance increases our confidence that those staffing levels are a strong foundation point for our staffing norms. We administered two separate statewide surveys in February 2003 to gather court administrator and staff perspectives on important dimensions of court performance. The first survey, called the Court Performance Survey, identified essential tasks commonly performed by all courts in Minnesota and looked at how well the tasks are being performed. Our analysis of court staff responsibilities distinguished 81 key tasks in the successful resolution of cases. These 81 tasks represent the end product of a lengthy vetting process conducted by the advisory board and court administrators and managers across the state. We organized these tasks into nine functional areas (Appendix H). Our results show that line staff, supervisors and court administrators believe strongly that staff is efficiently allocated and, with staff at Fall 2002 levels, 18 there are very few priorities for additional staff. The second survey, called the Court Quality Survey, gauged the strength of a court s workforce and the quality of the relationships among its employees. In this survey we pulled back from the detailed assessment of the specific job responsibilities of the court performance survey to focus on issues of organizational effectiveness. The survey was developed by the Gallup Corporation, based on more than 1 million surveys of worker attitudes around the world; high scores on the measures of work relationships correlate with higher levels of productivity, profit, employee loyalty, and customer satisfaction. 19 Gallup discovered that the most important variable in employee productivity and satisfaction is not pay or benefits or workplace environment, but the quality of the relationships between employees and their supervisors and managers. The results of the Court Quality Survey complement the findings from the Court Performance Survey and confirm that the vast majority of staff believed they have the materials, self-motivation and commitment to do quality work. 18 The State Staffing Study Advisory Committee indicated that staffing levels in February 2003 (the time of the performance and quality surveys) were essentially identical to staffing levels in Fall 2002 (the time of the staff inventory). 19 Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman. First Break All the Rules: What the World s Greatest Managers Do Differently (Simon & Schuster, 1999).

49 * 48 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 The detailed results from both surveys are discussed below. We asked all case related court staff, supervisors, managers, and court administrators statewide to participate in this phase of the study. Over 1,500 court personnel from all 89 courts completed the surveys. The extremely high response rate makes this survey unique in terms of its breadth and gives NCSC staff great confidence in drawing inferences from the data. The complete list of 81 tasks organized by functional area can be found in Appendix I, and the results of the Court Quality Survey are shown in Appendix J. Survey Results We administered the surveys together in a webbased format under three subsections: Basic respondent information Court Performance Survey Court Quality Survey The first subsection asked basic information of each respondent. We asked respondents which court they worked in, their job title, the case types they work on, and how long they have worked in the Minnesota trial courts. Obtaining basic respondent information allowed us to analyze the survey results by subgroups (e.g., by case type, by district). Court Performance Survey For each of the 81 separate tasks, staffers were asked to evaluate the following three statements: 1. I am expected to perform this task on a regular basis. 0 Not my job 3 Usually 1 Almost never 4 Almost always 2 Seldom 2. I typically have time to complete this task in a reasonable and satisfactory way. 1 Almost never 3 Usually 2 Seldom 4 Almost always 3. Obtaining additional staff to help perform this task should be a court priority. 1 Not a priority 3 Higher priority 2 Lower priority 4 Highest priority

50 49 * In the first statement, staffers identify the tasks they perform as part of normal job responsibilities. In the second statement, we asked staff to indicate if they have enough time to complete each task in a reasonable and satisfactory way. Gathering staff perceptions on this question allow us to assess whether staff resources are appropriately allocated to effectively accomplish the 81 essential tasks that, when performed satisfactorily, are synonymous with a high-performing court. Responses to this statement provided valuable information about whether or not service to the public could be significantly improved if more staff time were available to perform a given task. The final statement identifies those tasks that should be a priority for additional staff. Obtaining responses from both staff and managers/supervisors on this issue is important to provide both a bottom up and a top down perspective on current staffing levels. Court administrators and managers can utilize the results of the task-based survey to review the current staffing levels and distributions in their courts and districts. With the results we can evaluate the efficiency of current staff allocation and offer suggestions about how to redistribute current staff across different work functions. Adequacy of Time To assess whether staff felt they had sufficient time to perform a task, and whether it is a priority for the court to obtain additional staff for a given function, NCSC staff focused solely on respondents who indicated they usually or almost always perform a task. We assumed that individuals who perform a particular task most often would be the best arbiters of these issues. As noted above, the second statement asked staff if they had a sufficient amount of time to complete each of the 81 tasks in a reasonable and satisfactory way. To simplify the interpretation of the results, we converted the response values (1 to 4) to a more conventional 100-point scale: 25 = almost never, 50 = seldom, 75 = usually and 100 = almost always. Appendix K displays the average response values, grouped by case type and functional area, for each of the 10 districts and statewide. For example, in District 1 the average score for Case Processing tasks in Major Criminal was 72. This implies that staffers in District 1 feel they usually have enough time to perform case processing tasks in a reasonable and satisfactory way. To our surprise none of the averages for any of the case types or functions in the 10 districts had an average below An average score of 50 indicates that staff feels it seldom has enough time to complete the task in a reasonable and satisfactory way. Initially, NCSC staff only highlighted scores of 50 or below. However, no functional areas emerged. In fact, the averages were generally quite high (scores of 70 to 80) indicating that staff felt they usually had adequate time to perform each of the work functions. In order to identify those tasks which staff believes it has the least amount of time to perform, we used a relaxed standard of 70 or below. 20 The only exception was for those respondents who indicate that they usually or almost always perform Therapeutic and Evaluative Services. However, the reliability of these scores is limited because the response size is very small. In fact, the time study and staffing inventory reveal that less than 1% of staff time is spent on tasks in this functional area (see Figure 18). When this functional area is viewed by case type and by district there are not enough respondents for the results to be meaningful. In addition, any blank cells represent case type and functional areas with no respondents.

51 * 50 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, Managers/supervisors and court administrators include: court administrators, court operations supervisors, administrative managers/supervisors, assistant court administrators, chief deputies, court managers, deputy court administrators, and division supervisors. The results using 70 as the cut-off point are shown in Appendix K by shading the cells of 70 and below. For example, average scores for staff who are providing Judicial Support in District 1 for Major Criminal, Juvenile, and Minor Criminal are all slightly below 70. Thus, District 1 staff working on Judicial Support activities has less time for this task compared to other functional areas of these case types. A majority of the averages across all the districts indicate that staff usually has enough time, while a handful of scores fall in the range of seldom. It is only with the relaxed standard that any of the functional areas in the 10 districts were viewed as deficient in staff time. These results suggest that staff generally has enough time to complete essential tasks. When referencing the relaxed standard (see the shaded cells in Appendix K), Courtroom Support appears to be the functional area in which staff need more time to complete tasks. Conversely, staff reported few if any problems completing Jury Service, Financial Management, and Case Processing tasks. Across districts staff reported being pressed for time to complete tasks across various case types and functions. Using the relaxed standard, court administrators in Districts 1, 3, 5, and 7 might wish to consider addressing the issues of adequate time by adding additional staff and/or addressing efficiency issues. Court Administrators in Districts 6, 8, and 10, on the other hand, have very few areas where staff does not have sufficient time. On the whole, in February 2003, staff statewide reported that they have adequate time to complete their job responsibilities in a reasonable and satisfactory manner. This is clear from the relatively high scores staff report for the different work functions across the case types. This analysis provides strong evidence that the staffing levels in February 2003 still allowed for effective processing of cases by court staff. Prioritizing the Allocation of Additional Staff The final question of the task based survey asked staff, managers/supervisors and court administrators which tasks they perceive as priorities for additional staff. 21 Recall, possible responses to this inquiry include: not a priority, lower priority, higher priority, and highest priority. As we did on the second question above, here we also converted the response values (1 to 4) to a more conventional 100-point scale. Appendix L displays the average priority score for both court staff and managers/supervisors across the nine functional areas in the ten districts. Only in District 2 are any of the functional areas viewed as a higher priority for additional staff (a score of 75 or higher). Most of the other averages in each of the districts fall in the range of lowest priority. This suggests that staff and managers/supervisors statewide feel that the complement of staff at the time of the survey was adequate for effective job performance. However, to enhance our ability to identify any functional areas that might be viewed as a priority for additional staff, we adjusted the threshold (as we did in the previous section) so that scores greater than 60 were highlighted in the table. Utilizing a priority score greater than 60 is very conservative, as the threshold is just above the lower priority response.

52 51 * When we applied the standard of 60 it was even more apparent that at the time of the survey both staff and managers/supervisors felt that additional staffing was not a priority. Only in Districts 1, 2 and 10 was there dissatisfaction with the resource levels. District 2 managers/ supervisors reported some need for additional staff in all functional areas with the exception of Jury Services. Staffers in District 2 agreed with their supervisors/managers that Case Processing, Records Management, and Judicial Support are areas needing additional staff. Figure 13a: Staff s Top Priority Areas for Additional Staff Records Management Prepare files for court File folder management (create, shelve, add documents) Make files available for court hearings Financial Management Receive payments and fees and issue receipts Priority Areas Calendaring and Case Management Flow Review files for completeness before hearings Courtroom Support Minute taking, summarize significant facts in hearings Update group-scheduled hearing calendars and ensure accuracy Follow-through after hearing to notify parties, others Manage documents, files ready in court & filings processed Case Processing Counter service for new filings Prepare all post proceeding activity Misc. counter services (e.g., info to public, forms, directions) Record key data in automated system Process documents for jail intake/release Respond to requests for general and case specific information Process warrants, notify law enforcement Note: indicates the task also appeared as a top prioritiy for court administrators (Figure 13b). Figure 13b: Court Administrator s Additional Performance Task Priorities Monitoring and Enforcement Report on non-compliance to enforcing authority Set up case for monitoring court ordered sentences, judgments, etc. Implement informal compliance measures when appropriate Monitor and document behavioral terms of order Priority Areas Case Processing Provide notice to relevant parties of court dates and requirements Records Management Record retention archive and microfilm and purge when necessary

53 * 52 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Another way to review staff perception of resource allocation is to generate a list of the top staff priorities by functional area. Figure 13 lists staff priorities in the top panel and court administrator priorities in the bottom panel. The tasks highlighted in bold in the top panel were rated as priorities by both staff and court administrators. The average priority scores for the specific tasks range from 47 to 65. Even though these tasks were viewed as lower priorities by court staff or court administrators, court administrators can use this data in reviewing resource needs and their allocation of staff. As shown in Figure 13, both staff and court administrators identified several tasks that fall predominantly within the functional area of Case Processing as priorities for additional staff. Tasks falling under the functional areas of Courtroom Support and Records Management were also commonly identified as priority areas. Court administrators identified four tasks from the area of Case Monitoring and Enforcement as priorities for additional staff, but court staff did not agree. No tasks from the areas of Judicial Support, Jury Services or Therapeutic and Evaluative Services made the list of top priorities for either administrators or staff. Court Quality Survey The final component of the performance survey was a short survey assessing the quality of the work environment and relations between staff and their supervisors and managers. The Gallup Corporation developed this survey, referred to as Q12, following extensive analysis of over one million surveys of worker attitudes around the world. Gallup found that organizations that are the most engaged workplaces where employees tended to answer positively to simple questions about the quality of their relationships with supervisors or managers are organizations with higher levels of productivity, profits, worker retention, and customer loyalty. Applied to courts, it suggests that successful courts should be strong, vibrant workplaces in which judges, managers and court staff have good working relationships.

54 53 * The results of the survey are shown in Appendix J. The top panel illustrates the average responses by district. Statewide, the average responses typically ranged from 70 to 80, which signifies that staff somewhat agree with the 12 statements. Responses to questions 1 and 2 (Q1 and Q2) are especially high; staff understands what is expected of them and staff has the materials and equipment necessary to do a quality job. Very few average responses fell below the neutral response of 60 (used as a threshold for shading), so we explored an alternative approach to the analysis. This alternative analytical approach is shown in Figure 14 and in the bottom panel of Appendix J. The data represent the percent of respondents who strongly agree with each of the statements. Once again, Q1 stands out with a very high average statewide 77 percent of the respondents know what is expected of them at work. A pattern that was not as apparent in the top panel emerged in this analysis: almost 50 percent of staff strongly agree with Q1, Q2, Q5, Q8 and Q9. Staffers believe they have the materials, motivation, a clear mission, and the commitment to do quality work. * Q12 Questions We asked over 1,500 staff in all 89 courts to rate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of 12 statements about workplace satisfaction. The set of possible responses range from 1 to 5, with 1=Strongly Disagree; 2=Somewhat Disagree; 3=Neither Agree/Disagree; 4=Somewhat Agree; and 5=Strongly Agree. For interpretive purposes, we converted the numbers to a 100-point scale. The 12 statements are as follows: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 I know what is expected of me at work. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. There is someone at work who encourages my development. At work, my opinions seem to count. The mission/purpose of my court makes me feel that my job is important. My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work. I have a best friend at work. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. Q12 In the last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

55 * 54 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Figure 14: Results of the Court Quality Survey I know what is expected of me at work. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. There is someone at work who encourages my development. At work, my opinions seem to count. The mission/purpose of my court makes me feel that my job is important. Percent of Respondents Who Strongly Agree (Statewide) 21% 30% 25% 37% 42% 48% 45% 77% The remaining statements (Q3, Q4, Q6, Q7, Q10, Q11, and Q12) address the effectiveness of management. Typically less than 40 percent of staff responds to these statements with the highest level of agreement. If we use this standard of excellence (i.e. percent strongly agree responses), it is not to suggest these courts are problematic. Rather, the results highlight potential areas in which courts do not meet the highest standard. In summary, staff indicated that they have adequate time to complete their job responsibilities, and both staff and managers/supervisors identified relatively few work areas where there is a need for additional staff. The results of the Q12 survey tell us that staff evaluates the workplace environment as affirmative and encouraging. Staff has the tools needed to do their job, yet they perceive that managerial efforts could be improved. My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work. 42% I have a best friend at work. 23% In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. 33% In the last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow. 39%

56 55 * Summary Results for Law Clerks and Court Reporters Overall, 166 law clerks and 150 court reporters from 70 counties responded to the on-line performance survey. 22 Recall that these two positions were not officially part of the current study because the plan for state funding calls for assigning one law clerk and one court reporter to each judicial position. Therefore, the number of judges will set the number of law clerks and court reporters. However, the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee did want to clarify the full scope of job responsibilities handled by law clerks and court reporters and examine their views on whether they had sufficient time to get their work done. Based on their responses, very few court reporters or law clerks indicate problems with current staffing levels and assignments. The 81 tasks covered in the Court Performance Survey do not specifically address the primary job responsibilities of law clerks and court reporters. However, in the normal course of business, law clerks and court reporters do perform work that falls within the nine functional areas and 81 specific tasks. Those job assignments are clarified through the survey results and facilitate a comparison with other court staff. Law clerks and court reporters most often perform tasks classified within the following functional areas: Case Processing, Calendaring and Caseflow Management, Courtroom Support, and Judicial Support. As shown in Appendix M, both law clerks and court reporters indicate they have sufficient time in all of the functional areas in which they work (all average values exceed 79, where 75 = usually and 100 = almost always have enough time to complete the tasks satisfactorily). Responses by both groups suggest there were no areas in need of additional staff. The highest score was 47 for judicial support as indicated by law clerks (recall 25 = not a priority and 50 = lower priority ). A further breakdown shows which of the 81 tasks are typically performed by law clerks and court reporters (Appendix M). To be included on this list, the staffer had to respond that they usually or almost always are expected to perform this task. Most often law clerks provide administrative support duties for judges and record and update hearing calendars. Court reporters most often prepare and store stenotyped notes, prepare documents for appeals and change of venues, handle payments of accounts receivables, and perform record retention. In all instances, both law clerks and court reporters say they have enough time to reasonably and satisfactorily complete the tasks assigned to them. 22 The following counties were not represented in this survey: Aitkin, Big Stone, Dodge, Grant, Kittson, Lac Qui Parle, Lake of the Woods, Lincoln, Mille Lacs, Murray, Norman, Red Lake, Renville, Steele, Stevens, Traverse, and Wadena.

57 * 56 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004

58 57 * Time Study Phase 3 NCSC staff utilized a time study to measure the time court staff spends processing cases of different types. By developing separate case weights for different case types, the model accounts for the fact that case types vary in complexity and require different amounts of staff time and attention. As with the judicial weighted caseload studies, relying solely on case counts to determine the demands placed on staff ignores the varying levels of staff resources needed to handle cases effectively. But using a targeted time study in the present case has further utility. It serves as another way to capture current practice, and it validates the distribution of staff across both case type and function that followed from our staffing inventory. The steps involved in calculating and applying the staff weighted caseload methodology used in this project were: 1. Choosing a set of representative courts to participate in the study; 2. Selecting the set of case types and events to be used in constructing the weights; 3. Recording the total amount of staff time spent on each of the selected events within each of the case types for a period of two weeks in each participating court; 4. Calculating the number of each type of case filed annually in each court; and 5. Calculating workload standards by dividing the total amount of staff time spent (weighted to one year) on each of the selected case types by the corresponding number of filings for each case type. Choosing Representative Courts We collected time study data from nine pilot sites during a two-week period in April The State Staffing Study Advisory Committee selected the pilot sites as representative of different sized courts in Minnesota. The nine sites were clustered into two distinct groupings: 0 to 2.99 AJN courts (Dodge, Nobles, Norman, and Wadena) and 3.0 AJN or more courts (Anoka, Duluth, Hennepin, Kandiyohi, and Ramsey).

59 * 58 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Selecting Case Types and Events The Advisory Committee recommended that we collect data for seventeen different case types rather than eight. They expected that a more refined set of case types would reveal salient differences in practice between locations. In addition, we identified nine functional areas, two more than we used for the staffing inventory. We treated case processing, records management, and calendaring and caseflow management as distinct functions. The eight non-case specific activities, seventeen case types (and the case types they comprise), and nine functional areas are shown in Figure 15. A more detailed description of the non-case specific activities and functional areas can be found in Appendix I and Appendix N. Figure 15: Non-Case Specific Activities, Case Types and Functional Areas Customer Service (non-case related) Personnel Organization and System Development Facilities and Equipment Management Non-Case Specific Activities/Tasks Work Related Travel Leave Breaks and Lunch NCSC Project Major Criminal Felony Serious Felony Other Felony Gross Misdemeanor Gross Misdemeanor DWI Gross Misdemeanor Minor Criminal 5th Degree Assault/MSD DWI Non-Traffic MSD/Petty/Other Traffic Family Dissolutions Dissolutions with children Dissolutions w/out children Support Domestic Abuse Other Family Case Types Major Civil Major Civil Personal Injury Contract Property Damage Other Civil Harassment Parking Parking Juvenile Delinquency Delinquency Felony Delinquency Gross MSD Delinquency MSD Delinquency/Neglect/TPR Juvenile Petty/Truancy Minor Civil Minor Civil Implied Consent Unlawful Detainer Conciliation Probate and Mental Health Probate and Mental Health Trust Guardianship/Conservatorship Other Probate (Estate) Commitment Case Processing Records Management Calendaring and Case Flow Management Courtroom Support Financial Management Functional Areas Jury Services Case Monitoring and Enforcement Judicial Support Therapeutic and Evaluative Services

60 59 * Recording Time Calculating Workload Standards We asked case related staff in each of nine counties to keep account of their entire workday, and to include both case related and noncase specific activities. Staffers utilized a Daily Time Log, a Multiple Event Tally Sheet, and an online data entry screen to track and record their time. 23 We asked them to account for their time in discrete 10-minute blocks, and to identify either a non-case specific activity or a case type and a functional area for each block. 24 Annual Filings Once the time study was complete, filing data was needed to calculate the case weights. With assistance from the staff of the State Court Administrative Office (SCAO), we obtained data on the total number of filings for each case type in each court for FY This data is in Appendix E. To estimate the average amount of staff time required to process a given type of case, we divided the total time spent working on that case type by the total number of filings of that case type. If the sample of cases is large enough and the study period is representative of the year, the results will provide a valid estimate of the time needed to process each type of case. Our study satisfied both conditions. During the two-week data collection period approximately 95 percent of court staff in the pilot sites recorded over 2.2 million case related minutes of work. The very high level of participation and the large amount of data collected, cutting across all of the case types and functions, provides a valid and reliable snapshot from which to develop our case weights. To calculate the workload standards, we divided the total number of reported case related minutes (extrapolated to one year) by the number of filings for each case type. For example, Dodge County staff recorded 4,278 felony case minutes during the two-week time study period. Extrapolating this time to one year gives us 106,949 (4,278 x 25) felony case minutes. 25 To develop the case weight, we divided the time in minutes by the number of felony filings in 2002 (106,949/121). The resultant case weight 884 minutes suggests that, on average, processing a felony case in Dodge County requires 884 minutes of staff time. 23 We refined the time study instruments through two waves of pretests held in March with representatives from all nine pilot courts. 24 To assist court staff in tracking their time during the time study, we held a train the trainer session in St. Paul on April 3, Over 50 individuals, with at least two representatives from each of the nine pilot sites, attended the training session. NCSC staff and the Minnesota State Court Administrative Office staff reviewed the case types, non-case specific activities and functional areas. Trainers were shown how to use the two manual tally sheets and how court staff was to enter data on the online data entry screens. To facilitate the learning, we utilized a series of eight scenarios thought to be representative of the type of data entry combinations. 25 The two weeks worth of data is multiplied by 25 to estimate 50 weeks of time; the court is closed for 10 days for holidays the equivalent of two weeks.

61 * 60 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, For example, the average of nine minutes of staff time for every Parking filing in Ramsey County is significantly higher than the average of one minute in Hennepin County. This difference can be accounted for by the fact that Ramsey County does not use an automated citation ticket writer staff must enter each ticket by hand. The case weights for the nine pilot sites and 17 case types can be found in Appendix O. As one can see, for some case types there is remarkable consistency between the case weights in the nine sites, while for other case types there is large variation. When viewed as 17 different case weights, the variation derives from two factors: (1) the limited number of filings and limited number of minutes collected for certain case types (e.g., Dependency/Neglect/TPR and Commitment cases in the smaller courts); and (2) differences in local practice. 26 Because of the wide variation, the State Staffing Study Workgroup and State Staffing Study Advisory Committee agreed that aggregating the time study data up to eight case types and developing average case weights based upon two groupings of courts (0 to 2.99 AJN and 3.0 AJN or more judges) would reduce some of the variation. The aggregate results can be seen in the bottom panel of Appendix O. Figure 16 offers a clearer picture of the overall case related time in minutes, the number of filings and the resulting workload standards for both 0 to 2.99 AJN courts and 3.0 AJN or greater courts. Figure 16: Time Study Workload Standards Small - Medium Size Courts Large Size Courts 0-3 Judges 0 < AJN < 2.99 > 3 Judges AJN > 3.0 Time Filings Case Weights Time Filings Case Weights (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) (minutes) Major Criminal 406, ,192,683 23, Major Civil 167, ,337,469 16, Probate and Mental Health 86, ,050,372 6, Family 345, ,685,491 21, Juvenile 249, ,582,294 28, Minor Criminal 516,763 9, ,542, , Minor Civil 80,350 1, ,986,087 73, Parking 2, ,123, ,904 4

62 61 * It is interesting to note that there is not a clear pattern between the case weights in the 0 to 2.99 AJN courts and those in the 3.0 AJN or greater courts. For some case types (e.g., Major Criminal) the average time spent handling a case is larger for smaller courts. For other case types (e.g., Major Civil) this relationship is reversed. 27 In fact, in smaller courts Major Criminal cases take up the most staff time on average, while in larger courts Probate and Mental Health cases consume the most staff time. In and of itself this does not reveal very much about the validity of the workload standards. It simply suggests that the average amount of staff time needed to process cases varies between case types and between small and large courts. One way to assess the validity of the workload standards is to see whether the implied work could have been accomplished with the number of staff currently in place. To this end we applied the individual workload standards to 2002 data in each of the courts in Minnesota to answer the question: could all the cases filed in 2002 have been processed according to our case weights? If the answer is yes, this would lend considerable credence to the resulting weights. If, however, the answer is no, the workload standards might need further revision. To answer the question we first needed to determine the staff year and staff day. To calculate available staff time we needed to know how much time staffers have available each day for (1) case related work and (2) non-case related work. This is a two-stage process that entailed calculating how many days per year are available for staff to handle and process cases, and then determining how the business hours of each day are divided between case related and non-case related work. Multiplying the number of available workdays by the number of available case related hours in a day gives us a staff-year value. The staff-year value is an estimate of the amount of time the average staff has to process cases during the year. 27 The two sets of case weights are significantly correlated at.76. This reinforces the notion that some case types are more complex than others, and that the time required to process cases varies between small and large courts.

63 * 62 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 The Staff Year To establish an average staff year, one must accurately describe the various factors that reduce the days available for court staff to handle and process cases. Thus we must account for such factors as weekends, holidays and time related to illness and vacation. With this problem in mind, the State Staffing Study Workgroup and State Staffing Study Advisory Committee determined that the average staff year is 226 days. The Staff Day The staff day is separated into two parts: the amount of staff time devoted to (a) case related activities and (b) non-case specific matters. Although staff time available to process and handle cases will vary daily, the typical day will include the number of hours in the workday minus basic non-case specific events (e.g., organization and system development; facilities and equipment management, workrelated travel, meetings, training). The State Staffing Study Workgroup and State Staffing Study Advisory Committee established the 8.5-hour workday as the starting point. Out of this 8.5-hour day, we assumed that 7 hours are devoted to specified case related work. We gathered the time spent by staff on non-case specific matters during the time study and confirmed the initial assumption that approximately 1.5 hours per day were not available for case processing. An overview of the calculations that give us the staff day and staff year is provided in Figure 17. Multiplying these two values together gives us 94,920 minutes of case related time per staff person per year (226 days x 7 hours per day x 60 minutes per hour). We used the staff-year value to calculate the implied staffing needs when the case weights were applied to statewide 2002 filings. This set of results can be found in Appendix F. Figure 17: Calculation of the Staff Day and Staff Year Staff Day Duration (hours) Staff Year Duration (days) Total Hours per Day Total Days per Year Subtract Non-Case Related Activity: Subtract Non-Working Days: Lunch (0.5) Weekends (104) Breaks (0.5) Holiday (11) Other (0.5) Vacation (16) Sick (8) Total Case Related Hours per Day Total Working Days per Year

64 63 * Validating the Results To ensure the validity of the staffing inventory and the resultant staff per AJN norms, we compared the staffing levels (by case type and by functional area) reported during the staffing inventory to the time study data. Appendix Q compares the percentage of total staff by case type and functional area from the time study and from the staffing inventory. 28 Through the time study we were able to capture the amount of time staff spend working on a particular case type and the type of work performed. We can directly compare the time study results to the staffing inventory to assess the distribution of staff by court administrators. Overall, we can conclude that the staffing inventory is consistent with the results generated by the time study. The allocation of staff across the case types and functional areas during the staffing inventory phase corresponds well to the time spent on each as reported by court staff. The primary significance of this comparison is that it validates the distribution of staff across case types. In the lower panel of Appendix Q the distribution of staff across the case types in the larger courts is very similar between the staffing inventory and time study. 29 In comparing the two distributions of staff by case type, we can see that none of the case type totals deviate by more than three percent. For example, the time study suggests that 16.1 percent of staff work in Major Criminal, as compared to 18.3 percent in the staffing inventory. The strong association between the two studies makes us confident in the distribution of staff from the staffing inventory and the staff per AJN norms by case type we developed. Figure 18: Validating the Results from the Staffing Inventory with the Time Study Results Numbers represent percentage of total staff time allocated to each functional area. Comparison of the paired numbers reveals the extent of agreement between the two methods. Case Processing and Management Courtroom Support Case Monitoring/Enforcement Judicial Support Financial Management Jury Services Therapeutic and Evaluation Case Processing and Management Courtroom Support Case Monitoring/Enforcement Judicial Support Financial Management Jury Services Therapeutic and Evaluation 0 to 2.99 AJN Courts 1% 0% 2.6%.1% 2.9% 0%.4%.9% 6% 3.2% 3%.9% 2% 0%.6% 10.7% 14.6% 15.2% 12.8% 14.2% > 3.0 AJN Courts 12.4% 18.8% 7.9% 9.1% Time Study Staffing Inventory 50.1% 75.3% On occassion, court staffers (in the time study) classified their job responsibilities differently than court managers (in the staffing inventory). 74.6% 60.5% 28 The results from the time study are representative of the nine pilot sites. The results for the staffing inventory reflect all 89 courts in Minnesota. 29 The two series correlate at.97.

65 * 64 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 * Using the Staffing Norms: Examining the Allocation of Staff by Fuctional Area Taking the example of Carver County and the Courtroom Support Function, we compare actual staff to the implied staff need using the staff/ajn method and the time study method. It is first necessary to calculate the proportion of FTE staff covering each particular functional area. The county s actual use of staff by function can then be compared to the typical patterns of similarly sized courts. In this case, the county s allocation of staff to courtroom support is similar to other courts of similar size as determined by both the staff/ajn and time study methods. County: Case Type: Calculate % Staff by Function to Total Staff Carver Courtroom Support Location of Variable Needed for Calculation Value Variable AJN 3.35 Appendix B # of staff in Courtroom Support 2.2 Appendix G divided by Total Staff 13.5 Appendix G equals % Staff by Function/Total Staff 16.3% % Staff (Staff/AJN Ratio Method) 12.4% Figure 18 % Staff (Time Study Method) 18.8% Figure 18 In addition, this comparison provides a strong rationale for using the time study results to estimate the proportion of time staff spends on the different case types in zero to 2.99 AJN courts. Having confidence in the staffing distribution by case type is very important because the staffing norm (staff per Assessed Judge Need) is based upon the full complement of staff recorded in the staffing inventory. Turning from case types to functional areas, the results also confirm the staffing inventory results as seen in Figure 18. The extent to which the results are different across the functional areas is largely a reflection of different interpretations of the functional areas by staff (reporting time via the time study) and management (allocating staff in the inventory). This is most clearly the case for the case processing and management function. In areas that are more clearly delineated, such as Financial Management or Courtroom Support, the results of the time study more closely approximate those of the staffing inventory. The comparison of data across functional areas can serve as a heuristic device for court managers to assess the current work roles of their staff. Court administrators can use this information to compare the allocation of staff and the work they perform, as well as compare their court to other similar courts and districts. These results can also be informed by results from the two performance surveys presented in Chapter 6, which outlined specific tasks and functional areas that staff and managers see as areas needing additional staff resources. In this context, the differences between the time study and staffing inventory may be symptomatic of the difficulty that court managers have in assessing the type of work that their staff performs. Court managers can use this information to evaluate the way their staff is assigned to particular functions and case types. Court managers may wish to engage in a dialogue with staff to better understand what staffers do on a daily basis, exploring differences between formal organizational structures (codified in organizational charts) and what staff must do to get the work done and serve the public. An open line of communication between staff and managers will assist in identifying tasks that are not being completed or areas needing additional staff resources.

66 65 * Site Visits Phase 6 The final step of the research process was a series of site visits to representative courts in Minnesota. Two NCSC teams conducted faceto-face interviews with over 200 staff in five counties. NCSC staff and the State Staffing Study Advisory Committee selected sites representing various court sizes in Minnesota: Dodge (1.1 AJN), Kandiyohi (3.0 AJN), Duluth (8.3 AJN), and the two largest counties Ramsey (33.6 AJN) and Hennepin (79.8 AJN). NCSC staff interviewed court staff representatives of all divisions, court and district administrators and one judge from each county. The purpose of the interviews was threefold. First, NCSC staff wanted court staff perspectives on exemplary procedures or practices in their court, as well as those that could be improved to more efficiently and effectively conduct the work of the courts. Second, the interviews offered the opportunity to validate the results of the staffing inventory and performance surveys. Finally, the site visits provided a valuable opportunity to assess the impact of decreased staff levels on court performance. The timeline below shows that the performance surveys were administered shortly after a hiring freeze was placed on all Minnesota court staff positions. By August 2003, the time of our interviews with staff, court administrators and judges, enough staff positions had become vacant that staff s ability to provide quality service to the public was being compromised. Figure 19: Project Timeline Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Full staffing levels Staffing vacancies Hiring Freeze Staffing Inventory Staffing Inventory Analysis Performance Survey Design Survey and Analysis Time Study Development and Pre-test Time Study and Analysis Site Visits Final Report

67 * 66 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Reprioritizing in the Face of Reduced Staffing Levels During the site visit interviews, court staff, management and judges provided detailed examples of the impact of the budget crisis and subsequent hiring freeze on staff s ability to perform effectively. Essentially, staff has been forced to choose which tasks are most critical for the successful operation of the court. Figure 20 highlights those tasks court staff (including court administrators and supervisors) identified as compromised. (For purposes of comparison, refer to Appendix I, which lists all 81 essential tasks.) It should be noted that the tasks listed in Figure 20 comprise 25 percent of all the essential tasks (20 of 81 tasks). Thus the impact of diminished staff is being felt in many functional areas. In general, staff felt that the most critical tasks are those associated with public access to justice and time-sensitive court orders. But in prioritizing these tasks as the most essential, staff postpones or neglects other essential tasks. Staffers report that they must dedicate themselves to direct service to the public, such as staffing the counters and handling phone service. This creates lower staffing levels for tasks associated with sustaining basic court improvement initiatives, such as staff training or monitoring court performance. The impact is greatest when staff is not being trained to use essential technology designed to increase efficiency and productivity, such as the imaging file system. Staff reports that they often assist coworkers with tasks in order to complete the most critical court operations. Time spent in the courtroom is important, yet diverting staff to courtrooms results in less staff time for other duties, such as updating files and conducting file management tasks. Further, staffers suggest that decreased staffing levels require them to perform tasks typically not consistent with their job titles. For example, scheduling clerks and registrars have begun drafting orders. Court reporters sometimes handle court clerk duties. Managers and supervisors perform the work of lead workers, and lead workers perform the work of line staff to ensure that priority work is done. The snowball effect of staff shortages is apparent. The cost of adopting additional tasks is that staffers are less able to regularly train across divisions and work groups, which in turn diminishes their capacity to assist in other prioritized areas short of staff. To cope with low staffing levels, many divisions have resorted to extensively using temporary employees, and employing volunteers or contractual workers to handle workloads. Tasks associated with time-sensitive court orders are among staff s top priorities. These include expedited hearings in Family cases (Child Support Program) and Orders for Protection (OFPs), for which staff must update the Total Court Information System (TCIS) and domestic violence database. Staff in Probate and Commitments was especially concerned with timely handling of case related medical and mental health issues.

68 67 * Figure 20: Tasks Reported by Staff as Compromised During Site Visits (August 2003) Case Processing Respond to requests for general and case-specific information Record key data in automated system Judgment processing and recording Provide information to un-represented litigants Case Calendaring and Management Caseload statistics (i.e., gather and report) Assign cases to calendars; produce, publish and post calendars Maintain accurate inventory of cases pending Identify and dismiss inactive cases Collect and use statistical data to help maintain timely case processing Records Management Prepare files for court File folder management (e.g., create, shelve, add documents) Record retention archive, microfilm and purge when necessary Maintain exhibits Sealing and purging Optical records processing Financial Management Receive payments and fees and issue receipts Monitor and document compliance with financial payments Process revenue recapture claims Courtroom Support Manage exhibits Case Monitoring and Enforcement Report on non-compliance to enforcing authority

69 * 68 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Compromised Tasks NCSC staff asked court staff, management, and judges what tasks, if any, were not being performed in a satisfactory manner. They reported that staff training, records management, and court performance monitoring were the main areas being compromised. In addition, staff reported increased error rates across many functional areas. Working in an area outside one s typical duties or hiring temporary employees requires considerable training. Staff recounted numerous incidents in which training time was simply not available. Without proper training, the rate of error increases. And with increased errors, staffers must spend additional time correcting the errors. Staff criticized the lack of time to manage error reports and monitor for basic quality control. For example, they reported that case files have missing face sheets, old warrant lists are not corrected, and that courts are not meeting standards for updating cases. Organizational management issues were also neglected due to low staffing levels. Supervisors do not have time to compile performance-monitoring statistics. This feedback supports the results of the performance study, in which court administrators identified many case monitoring and enforcement tasks as top priorities for additional staff. Without staff to perform these duties, records management is neglected. For example, files are not purged and filing falls behind. Innovation and staff development also fall by the wayside when staffing levels are compromised. As a supervisor in Hennepin said, When organizations face crisis they follow Maslow s hierarchy now they are just feeding themselves they are missing the personal development component. The court as a whole is forced to be reactive as opposed to proactive in its everyday functions. And staffers worry about their ability to sustain even the reprioritized workload under the low staffing levels. Moreover, a state budget crisis often leads the legislative branch to consider the imposition of new or increased fees for court services. More extensive and complicated fee schedules increase the demands placed on court staff. For example, a new fee means creating new financial accounts, updating forms and databases, instituting new collection practices and training staff on these new procedures. In addition, court staff must collect and distribute the fee according to the rank order priority and effective date of the fee. If necessary, court staff must also determine and respond to issues of noncompliance. An unintended consequence of such budget enhancement strategies, especially in an environment of staff reductions, is that other staff responsibilities are compromised and overall quality of service suffers.

70 69 * Recent Improvements for Staff To be sure, court staff and management have been very creative in their attempts to bridge the gap between public needs and their ability to meet those needs. To a certain extent, innovative and flexible approaches to the essential functions can offset decreased staff levels. Several exemplary and innovative changes in the courts have facilitated work for staff. Efforts have been made to streamline work and reduce the amount of redundancy between divisions and external agencies. For example, Hennepin s civil division used to receive hundreds of calls of the same type in a day. Now Hennepin relies on an interactive phone response system with questions and answers designed to educate customers about these frequently asked questions (FAQs). Answers to these FAQs are also available on the court s website. An example of cooperation across institutions comes from Ramsey s Traffic Violation Bureau. There the court staff recounted a very recent improvement in electronic transfer of automated citations. The St. Paul police and court staff now coordinate to prevent duplicating recording information. This also reduces the amount of time spent deciphering hand-written citations. Other technological upgrades, such as implementing a new statewide case management system, are currently underway. Staff across the state remained hopeful that the new computer system would provide relief from more timeconsuming tasks. Another technology innovation provides staff with the ability to scan files into an electronic format. Court staffers applaud the new efficiencies made possible by this electronic imaging system. Providing judges and court staff access to electronic files increases both the speed of service and the accuracy of court records. The success of this system, however, hinges on the assumption that court staff has adequate time to be trained to use the system, to prepare and scan files and to reengineer their business processes to take advantage of the system. Overall, the interviews provided the NCSC and the Minnesota SCAO with valuable information. Clearly, the diminished levels of court staff of August 2003 jeopardize the ability of courts to maintain a high level of service to the public.

71 * 70 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004

72 71 * Appendices A Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) B Number of AJN per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) C Staff per AJN by Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) D Implied Staff Levels Using the Staff per AJN Norm (by Court and by District) E Filings (2002) per Case Type (by Court and by District) F Implied Staff Levels Using the Time Study Weights (by Court and by District) G Number of Staff by Functional Area H Case Related Staff Functional Areas I List of 81 Tasks Organized by Functional Area J Results of the Court Quality Survey K Sufficiency of Time by Case Type and Functional Area L Priority of Functional Areas For Additional Staff by District M Summary Table of Law Clerks and Court Reporters by Functional Area N Non-Case Specific Activities/Tasks O Time Study Case Weights by County P Applying Different Staffing Norms to Our Three Court Groupings Q Validating the Staffing Inventory and Time Study Results

73 * 72 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix A: Number of Staff per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Major Major Minor Minor 2002 Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona Dist. 4-Hennepin District Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan District Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia District Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena

74 73 * Major Major Minor Minor 2002 Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau District Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright AJN or < AJN or > AJN 1, Statewide 1, Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

75 * 74 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix B: Number of AJN per Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Major Major Minor Minor Total AJN Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona Dist. 4-Hennepin District Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan District Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia District Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena

76 75 * Major Major Minor Minor Total AJN Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau District Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright AJN or < AJN AJN or > Statewide Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

77 * 76 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix C: Staff per AJN by Case Type in 2002 (by Court and by District) Total Major Major Minor Minor Staff /AJN Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona Dist. 4-Hennepin District Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan District Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia District Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena

78 77 * Total Major Major Minor Minor Staff /AJN Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau District Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright AJN or < AJN AJN or > Statewide Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

79 * 78 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix D: Implied Staff Levels Using the Staff per AJN Norm (by Court and by District) Total Major Major Minor Minor Implied Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona Dist. 4-Hennepin District Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan District Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia District Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena

80 79 * Total Major Major Minor Minor Implied Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau District Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright AJN or < AJN AJN > 1, Statewide 1, Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

81 * 80 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix E: Filings (2002) per Case Type (by Court and by District) Total minus Total Minor Criminal Major Major Minor Minor Filings and Parking Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District 1 208,529 46,603 7,053 4,070 1,469 6,472 9, ,539 17,700 12,387 Carver 15,650 4, ,687 1, Dakota 119,095 26,828 3,820 2, ,676 5,896 83,965 10,364 8,302 Goodhue 14,685 3, ,169 1, LeSueur 7,075 1, , McLeod 11,620 2, , Scott 35,546 6,484 1, ,310 26,143 2,494 2,919 Sibley 4,858 1, , Dist. 2-Ramsey 327,143 39,110 5,963 3,645 1,965 4,846 4, ,776 17, ,257 District 3 114,191 30,697 4,731 3,239 1,443 4,469 5,691 76,532 11,124 6,962 Dodge 4,361 1, , Fillmore 5,307 1, , Freeborn 9,381 2, ,115 1, Houston 3,609 1, , Mower 11,167 3, ,983 1, Olmsted 31,961 8,118 1, ,550 1,319 19,383 2,851 4,460 Rice 15,210 3, ,100 1, Steele 7,791 2, , Wabasha 5,890 1, , Waseca 4,596 1, , Winona 14,918 4, ,996 1, Dist. 4-Hennepin 700,771 98,281 12,519 9,296 3,732 11,591 18, ,618 42, ,872 District 5 82,928 20,455 2,953 2,043 1,298 2,614 3,951 60,602 7,596 1,871 Blue Earth 18,271 4, ,553 1, Brown 5,278 1, , Cottonwood 2, , Faribault 4,470 1, , Jackson 4, , Lincoln Lyon 7,707 2, , Martin 6,376 1, , Murray 1, , Nicollet 10,401 1, , Nobles 5,721 1, , Pipestone 3, , Redwood 4,659 1, , Rock 2, , Watonwan 4,975 1, , District 6 175,350 23,359 3,191 2, ,972 3,430 44,904 10, ,087 Carlton 8,794 3, ,530 1, Cook 3, , Duluth 120,879 10,130 1,375 1, ,475 1,562 20,669 4,136 90,080 Hibbing 13,694 3, ,746 2,272 5,072 Lake 4, , Virginia 24,042 5, ,543 2,878 11,226 District 7 114,176 33,227 5,952 3,974 1,467 4,352 6,043 78,275 11,439 2,674 Becker 8,695 3, , Benton 7,478 2, ,631 1,047 0 Clay 16,022 3, ,233 1,146 1 Douglas 8,237 2, , Mille Lacs 6,840 2, , Morrison 8,544 2, , Otter Tail 10,255 3, ,661 1, Stearns 37,443 9,892 1,526 1, ,075 1,789 25,104 3,952 2,447 Todd 7,092 1, , Wadena 3,570 1, ,

82 81 * Total minus Total Minor Criminal Major Major Minor Minor Filings and Parking Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District 8 45,719 11,583 1,754 1, ,585 2,144 33,488 4, Big Stone 1, Chippewa 3,757 1, , Grant 2, , Kandiyohi 10,891 3, , Lac Qui Parle 2, , Meeker 5,006 1, , Pope 3, , Renville 5,473 1, , Stevens 1, , Swift 3, , Traverse 1, Wilkin 1, , Yellow Medicine 3, , District 9 91,586 28,816 4,867 2,992 1,316 3,733 5,665 61,761 10,243 1,009 Aitkin 9,726 1, , Beltrami 11,408 3, ,021 6,748 1, Cass 7,054 2, , Clearwater 2, , Crow Wing 16,889 4, ,337 1,394 5 Hubbard 4,839 1, , Itasca 10,117 4, ,895 1, Kittson Koochiching 3,616 1, , Lake of the Woods 1, Mahnomen 2, , Marshall 1, , Norman 1, Pennington 3,434 1, , Polk 9,654 2, , Red Lake 1, Roseau 3,782 1, , District ,042 50,795 8,830 4,963 1,618 7,661 8, ,626 19,175 6,621 Anoka 63,403 19,143 3,232 1, ,763 3,016 40,949 7,821 3,311 Chisago 10,475 3, ,991 1, Isanti 6,551 2, , Kanabec 4,139 1, , Pine 5,567 2, , Sherburne 16,646 4, ,055 11,897 1, Washington 49,272 11,035 2,061 1, ,721 1,447 36,226 4,096 2,011 Wright 23,989 6,570 1, ,273 16,445 2, AJN or < 29,604 6, ,150 22,017 2, AJN 370, ,222 16,638 10,482 4,845 14,015 19, ,144 39,582 20, AJN or > 1,640, ,774 40,300 26,352 10,517 35,416 47, , , ,010 Statewide 2,040, ,926 57,813 37,506 15,934 50,295 68,700 1,036, , ,388

83 * 82 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix F: Implied Staff Levels Using the Time Study Weights (by Court and by District) Total Major Major Minor Minor Implied Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona Dist. 4-Hennepin District Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan District Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia District Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena

84 83 * Total Major Major Minor Minor Implied Staff Criminal Civil Probate Family Juvenile Criminal Civil Parking District Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau District Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright AJN Courts AJN courts Statewide 1, Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

85 * 84 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix G: Number of Staff by Functional Area Therapeutic Case Courtroom Case Judicial Financial Jury & Evaluative 2002 Staff Processing Support Monitoring Support Management Services Services Managerial District Carver Dakota Goodhue LeSueur McLeod Scott Sibley Dist. 2-Ramsey District Dodge Fillmore Freeborn Houston Mower Olmsted Rice Steele Wabasha Waseca Winona Dist. 4-Hennepin District Blue Earth Brown Cottonwood Faribault Jackson Lincoln Lyon Martin Murray Nicollet Nobles Pipestone Redwood Rock Watonwan District Carlton Cook Duluth Hibbing Lake Virginia District Becker Benton Clay Douglas Mille Lacs Morrison Otter Tail Stearns Todd Wadena

86 85 * Therapeutic Case Courtroom Case Judicial Financial Jury & Evaluative 2002 Staff Processing Support Monitoring Support Management Services Services Managerial District Big Stone Chippewa Grant Kandiyohi Lac Qui Parle Meeker Pope Renville Stevens Swift Traverse Wilkin Yellow Medicine District Aitkin Beltrami Cass Clearwater Crow Wing Hubbard Itasca Kittson Koochiching Lake of the Woods Mahnomen Marshall Norman Pennington Polk Red Lake Roseau District Anoka Chisago Isanti Kanabec Pine Sherburne Washington Wright AJN or < AJN AJN or > 1, Statewide 1, Note: Because of rounding, percentages may not add to total.

87 * 86 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix H: Case Related Staff Functional Areas * Case Processing and Management Case Processing Staff working in this area perform tasks that relate to case and document filing and the maintainance of accurate summary records of cases and court decisions related to them. Other duties include: update the computerized case record summary; provide general counter services and information; prepare cases for appeal or transfer; prepare cost bills; maintain judgment records; process warrants, executions, writs, and bail documents; keep jail status records; and provide special case certifications and agency notices (e.g., licensing, adoption, vital statistics.). Records Management Staff performing services in this area pull and re-shelve files; add documents to files in a timely manner; make files available for court hearings in a reliable and timely manner; keep track of the location of all case files; set-up case and document files; store verbatim records of proceedings, exhibits and other physical evidence; microfilm, scan and archive records; and seal and purge records. Calendaring and Caseflow Management Staff working in this area help set judicial calendars as well as help judges meet established case processing time standards and avoid court delay. Specific responsibilities include: plan court calendars and assign cases to calendars; create scheduling formulas and keep records to evaluate their reliability; monitor the progress of cases and notify judges of cases that are off track ; maintain accurate records of case inventories and case status; and coordinate court scheduling with schedules of outside agencies to avoid conflicts. * Jury Services Court staff working in jury services create the jury source lists; select juror pools and summon jurors; process jury correspondence and calls regarding excuse requests or to answer questions; conduct orientations; assign jurors to panels and keep track of assignments and utilizations; create and manage juror call-in systems; maintain records for payment; and maintain juror utilization statistics and financial records. * Financial Management Staff working in this area receive payments and fees and issue receipts for monies received; process irregular checks; reconcile daily receipts and cash registers; determine appropriate accounts and process deposits; distribute payments to appropriate accounts and disburse funds accordingly; provide bail/bond accounting; and maintain time payment agreement records. * Case Monitoring and Enforcement Staff who work in this area improve the court s ability to hold individuals and outside agencies accountable for compliance with court orders. Specific staff responsibilities include monitor court ordered sentences, judgments, diversion agreements, and probate reports; monitor compliance with time-payment orders; implement informal compliance enforcement measures when appropriate (e.g., written and telephone notices, revised payment plan, etc.); monitor civil motor vehicle judgments for satisfaction; and report non-compliance to appropriate authorities with documentation. * Courtroom Support Judicial support in this area include the duties traditionally associated with the courtroom clerk that are essential for judges to convene proceedings in open court. Specific staff responsibilities include preparing minutes; managing exhibits; accepting and filing documents presented by attorneys in court; ensuring that court files are available when they are needed; assisting with jury selection and support; calling cases and recording outcomes; performing clerical follow through after court hearings to ensure that required notices to parties or agencies are prepared and issued; and other necessary on-demand and essential in-court duties.

88 87 * * Judicial Support Court Reporting Judicial support staff in this area conduct all tasks needed to create the verbatim record of court proceedings and convert that record into intelligible and useful outputs. Specific staff responsibilities include all of the work done by stenotype court reporters to record and transcribe their stenotype notes into readable formats; the work required to make audio or video recordings; providing transcript on demand for decision writing in a timely fashion; and being sufficiently available to support the flexible scheduling of incourt proceedings. Legal Support Judicial support staff in this area help judges assess the legal and evidentiary issues in cases and to frame appropriate legal decisions. Specific staff responsibilities are those tasks that require specialized training as a lawyer or a paralegal and may also include providing legal staff support to court managers and administrators in regard to contracts, court policy and organizational operations. Note: legal support may also refer to assisting unrepresented litigants, as well as ADR services that require legal expertise, such as mediation, arbitration, pro-tem judges, mini-trial services, etc. Secretarial Support This area of court operations includes traditional secretarial duties such as word processing for correspondence and opinions; serving as receptionist for personal and telephone inquiries and appointments and maintaining non-case related files. * Therapeutic and Evaluative Investigative and Evaluative Services Judicial support staff in this area help judges make well informed sentencing decisions and other interim or final dispositive judgments. Specific staff responsibilities include providing judges with reliable and timely information for bail/release screening; preparing reliable and timely diagnostic or social reports in family law, juvenile, probate, and mental health cases; and helping frame judgments that eliminate or reduce problems requiring repeated court intervention. Therapeutic Resources and Services Judicial support staff in this area help judges effectively implement their judgments. Specific staff responsibilities include helping to identify and provide appropriate post-judgment resources for successful sentencing and other dispositional interventions. Examples of services in this area are: counseling, treatment for addiction or emotional disorders, and information services to individuals or groups to effect compliance with orders and/or assist them to enhance capacity for social functioning and facilitating the growth of therapeutic jurisprudence. * Managerial Managerial personnel are those who do not perform tasks that are uniquely characteristic of courts but that would be typically required in any government organization. These would include the county court administrator, budget specialists, human resource specialists, information technology staff, etc. Unit or division managers who have oversight for operation level supervisors (supervisors of operational units who regularly supervisor line operations staff should not be counted as managerial) and staff would usually be counted as managerial.

89 * 88 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix I: List of 81 Tasks Organized by Functional Area * Case Processing 1 Counter service for new case filings and documents: receive, assign case number, stamp, route to data entry, etc. 2 Record required data regarding parties, documents and events in the automated or manual case management system (e.g., TCIS, SIP). 3 Record all post proceeding judgments/sentences, notices, executions, and writs. 4 Judgment processing and recording: maintain records relating to judgments, including assignment of judgment number/ identifier; index/record in appropriate registers; issue notices to judgment debtors/creditors; prepare abstracts and satisfaction of judgments, etc. 5 Appeals and change of venue: prepare required documents (e.g., transcript or tape, number and index file documents); maintain internal case tracking records, compute costs of appeals processing, forward case records to other court, record and process higher court judgments, etc. 6 Notice: provide notices to relevant parties of necessary court dates and requirements, including form notices linked to calendars, custom notices to individuals. 7 Process documents for jail commitment and release: maintain records of in-custody defendants, process documents for jail release, coordinate with custodial officials. 8 Warrant management: process warrants and return of service on warrants, process warrant cancellations and notify law enforcement; monitor action on cancellations. 9 Prepare change of venue cost bills for trial costs and/or bills for case processing services provided by the court. 10 Process and prepare special case certification records for state and federal executive branch agencies (e.g., licensing, adoption, marriage dissolution, etc.); personal representatives in probate and guardianship cases, etc. 11 Miscellaneous counter services: provide files or case-specific information to litigants and the public, duplicate/certify/conform copies of case documents, provide forms and/or direct customers to appropriate offices/units. 12 Respond to phone and/or requests for general and case-specific information. 13 Provide information to un-represented persons about court requirements and assist un-represented litigants with procedural compliance (e.g., domestic violence, child support). * Records Management 14 File folder management: create file folders, shelve files, add documents to files after they are processed, pull and re-shelve files. 15 Make files available for court hearings: ensure that case files needed for court are identified, pulled and transported to courtrooms. 16 Maintain file check out system: record file check out/delivery; track and retrieve all case files when they are not on the shelves; locate misplaced case files. 17 Record retention: archive and microfilming case documents and files, reconstruct and/or purge files when necessary. 18 Maintain exhibits: index, store, provide notification to reclaim; return to owner, destroy when appropriate. 19 Sealing and purging: identification and processing of sealed records; processing expungement orders. 20 Optical records processing: scanning and related services to support digital record storage. 21 Prepare files for court, including review for apparent completeness of the file, check for documents in process that may not be in the file. * Calendaring and Case Flow Management 22 Caseload statistics: gather and report statistics for required state and local reports (e.g., race surveys and SJIS forms). 23 Assign cases to regularly scheduled calendars, produce calendars, publish and post calendars. 24 Schedule individually set trials and hearings (lengthy motions, conferences, etc.) 25 Coordinate with law enforcement agencies regarding schedules for traffic and other high volume calendars. 26 Coordinate with jail/transportation officers to assure timely and reliable appearance of in-custody defendants. 27 Review case files prior to hearings: ensure that required actions are complete and that information needed by court is available and conforms to court policy. 28 Monitor readiness of parties for hearings and trials and confirm appearances; notify relevant individuals prior to hearings about missing information/documents or non-compliant legal forms. 29 Research/monitor status of individual cases and follow-up with lawyers/parties when cases are off track. 30 Maintain accurate inventory of cases pending: distinguish inactive (e.g., interlocutory appeals, fugitive status) from active cases; produce list of active cases, consult with managing judges when cases are off track. 31 Monitor continuances and scheduled vs. actual appearances and implement correctives. 32 Identify and dismiss inactive cases. 33 Collect and use statistical data to help judges maintain timely case processing. 34 Determine needed frequency and scheduling formulas for periodic regularly scheduled hearing sessions.

90 89 * 35 Track cases referred to alternative dispute resolution and initiate reminders or other actions when case resolution exceeds standards for timely processing. 36 Coordinate ITV sites, participants, calendars, and outside agencies for ITV events. 37 Operate and monitor ITV equipment. 38 Provide in-court interpreting services when litigants or witnesses do not speak English. 39 Provide interpreting services in interview settings for lawyers, bail screening personnel, probation staff, and others; order and track down interpreters. * Courtroom Support 40 Minute taking: record information and prepare documents summarizing significant facts about court hearings (e.g., date, judge, purpose, appearances, orders/judgments). 41 Manage exhibits: identify, mark, and record status; maintain inventory of all received; deliver admitted to jury; oversee custody and return. 42 Manage documents: ensure that files/documents are available in the courtroom when needed; documents filed in courtroom are accounted for and transported to central clerk s unit. 43 Update results of group-scheduled hearing calendars to ensure case status is accurate and current. 44 Provide clerical and administrative follow-through after court hearings to issue required notifications to parties, service providers or executive branch agencies (e.g., jail, bondsmen). 45 Prepare paperwork required for forfeiture or exoneration of bonds, warrant-related notices, etc. 46 Jury related duties: call/seat jurors for voir dire; record juror status (seated, excused, reasons); administer oaths, maintain attendance record; poll jurors. 47 Courtroom order and protocol: maintain quiet and order in courtroom before, during and after court hearings; direct and provide information to participants and public. * Financial Management 48 Receive payments and fees and issue receipt for monies received. 49 Identify and process irregular checks received (e.g., improperly tendered, illegible, returned for non-sufficient funds), including notification of tender, adjustment of payment records, etc. 50 Reconcile daily receipts and cash registers. 51 Process deposits: determine appropriate accounts (general, trust, etc.), prepare deposit slips for appropriate accounts, transmit deposits, maintain deposit records, etc. 52 Distribute and disburse payments: determine appropriate distribution of payments (e.g., statutory fund accounts, child support accounts, individual payees, restitution, etc.) and disburse funds to treasurer and other payees as appropriate. 53 Bail/bond accounting: e.g., receipt and post, apply bail/bond monies held in trust to fine/penalty accounts, refund monies, disburse unclaimed funds to appropriate account, follow up on bond payments when partially satisfied. 54 Identify and determine ownership and disposition of apparently abandoned cash trust monies and cash exhibits. 55 Accept, endorse and forward wage withholding checks for deposit to appropriate account. 56 Establish and maintain time payment agreement records and statements. 57 Monitor and document compliance with financial payments. 58 Determine financial eligibility and contribution for public defenders. 59 Process revenue recapture claims. 60 Receipt, review and payment of accounts receivables (e.g., witness fees, office supplies, contract services, transcripts, etc.) 61 Budget preparation and monitoring. * Jury Services 62 Create juror source lists, prepare jury summons lists and summon jurors. 63 Process juror correspondence and calls regarding excuse requests, questions, etc. 64 Create and manage juror call-in information system. 65 Manage juror appearance/reporting/utilization procedures: record attendance, provide juror orientation, assign jurors to cases, and track assignments. 66 Maintain records for juror payment. 67 Maintain jury utilization and financial statistics. 68 Determine and input data for juror qualification based on juror questionnaires.

91 * 90 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix I: List of 81 Tasks Organized by Functional Area, continued * Case Monitoring and Enforcement 69 Set up case for monitoring court ordered sentences, judgments, probation reports, deferred prosecutions, diversion conditions, etc. 70 Monitor and document behavioral terms of orders. 71 Implement informal compliance enforcement measures when appropriate (e.g., written and telephone notices, interview or mediation, revised payment plan, community service alternatives, etc.) 72 Report non-compliance to enforcing authority with documentation. 73 Special traffic or motor vehicle monitoring procedures: monitor civil motor vehicle judgments for satisfaction and reporting noncompliance to appropriate authorities with documentation. * Judicial Support 74 Administrative support duties for judges: prepare correspondence, opinions; answer phones; maintain office files; receptionist duties. 75 Store steno-typed notes in centrally available storage location or medium to ensure accessibility of notes to court officials in absence of the original reporter. 76 Operate and monitor electronic recording (E-R) equipment in court sessions (e.g., daily equipment checks, log of proceeding, supplies and equipment maintenance, index and store tapes or files). 77 Provide translations of written documents in languages other than English that are evidence needed for case adjudication or disposition. * Therapeutic and Evaluative Services 78 Investigation and evaluation: evaluate and assess individuals for specific problems and make recommendations for referral (e.g., substance abuse, parental fitness, etc.) 79 Diagnostic/social report preparation: prepare reports and recommendations to assist judges with findings, conclusions, orders, and referrals to appropriate programs. 80 Screen and refer cases to alternative dispute resolution; provide alternative dispute services. 81 Mediate disputes between parties to lawsuits to assist parties achieve voluntary settlement or narrow issues for judge.

92 91 * Appendix J: Results of the Court Quality Survey Average Response by District Number of Respondents Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 All Courts 1, District District District District District District District District District District Scale: 20 = Strongly Disagree; 40 = Somewhat Disagree; 60 = Neither agree/disagree; 80 = Somewhat Agree; 100 = Strongly Agree Note: Respnses in blue are less than or equal to 60 Percent of Respondents Who Strongly Agree by District Number of Respondents Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 All Courts 1, District District District District District District District District District District Note: Respnses in blue are less than or equal to 40 Survey Questions: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 I know what is expected of me at work. I have the materials and equipment I need to do my work right. At work, I have the opportunity to do what I do best every day. In the last seven days, I have received recognition or praise for doing good work. My supervisor, or someone at work, seems to care about me as a person. There is someone at work who encourages my development. At work, my opinions seem to count. The mission/purpose of my court makes me feel that my job is important. My associates (fellow employees) are committed to doing quality work. I have a best friend at work. In the last six months, someone at work has talked to me about my progress. In the last year, I have had opportunities at work to learn and grow.

93 * 92 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix K: Sufficiency of Time by Case Type and Functional Area Calendaring Therapeutic Case Records and Case Flow Jury Financial Case Courtroom Judicial & Evaluative Processing Management Management Services Management Monitoring Support Support Services* District 1 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 2 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 3 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 4 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 5 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 6 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil

94 93 * Calendaring Therapeutic Case Records and Case Flow Jury Financial Case Courtroom Judicial & Evaluative Processing Management Management Services Management Monitoring Support Support Services* District 7 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 8 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 9 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil District 10 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Statewide Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Scale: Do you have sufficient time? 25 = Almost Never; 50 = Seldom; 75 = Usually; 100 = Almost Always Numbers in blue are the functional areas with scores of 70 or less. *Note: The response rate for Therapeutic and Evaluative Service is below 5 for each district; thus, there were not enough respondents for these results to be meaningful. Blanks represent no respondents.

95 * 94 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix L: Priority of Functional Areas for Additional Staff by District Calendaring Therapeutic Case Records and Case Flow Courtroom Case Judicial Financial Jury & Evaluative Processing Management Management Support Monitoring Support Management Services Services * Average Responses District 1 Supervisor N=157 Staff District 2 Supervisor N=157 Staff District 3 Supervisor N=152 Staff District 4 Supervisor N=298 Staff District 5 Supervisor N=110 Staff District 6 Supervisor N=93 Staff District 7 Supervisor N=127 Staff District 8 Supervisor N=74 Staff District 9 Supervisor N=117 Staff District 10 Supervisor N=221 Staff Statewide Supervisor N=1,506 Staff Avg. % Responding Scale: 25 = Not a Priority; 50= Lower Priority; 75 = Higher Priority; 100 = Highest Priority. Numbers in blue are the functional areas with scores of greater than 60. * Note: The response rate for Therapeutic and Evaluative Service is below 5 for each district. * Supervisor job titles include - Court Administrator, Court Operations Supervisor, Administrative Manager/Supervisor, Assistant Court Administrator, Chief Deputy, Court Manager, Deputy Court Administrator, and Division Supervisor.

96 95 * Appendix M: Summary Table of Law Clerks and Court Reporters by Functional Area Adequate Time to Complete Tasks? Is this a Priority Area for Allocation of Additional Staff? Average Number Average Number Rating Responding Rating Responding Case Processing Law Clerk Court Reporter Records Management Law Clerk Court Reporter Calendar & Caseflow Law Clerk Court Reporter Courtroom Support Law Clerk Court Reporter Judicial Support Law Clerk Court Reporter Mean ratings of adequate time according to scale: 25 = almost never, 50 = seldom, 75 = usually, 100 = almost always. Mean ratings of priority areas according to scale: 25 = not a priority, 50 = lower priority, 75 = higher priority, 100 = highest priority.

97 * 96 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix M: Summary Table of Law Clerks and Court Reporters by Functional Area, continued Tasks Most Often Performed by Law Clerks and Court Reporters Functional Law Clerk Court Reporter Area Task Performed % number % number Case Record data and events in case management system Processing Review case files prior to hearings Maintain accurate inventory of cases pending Prepare files for court, check for all documents in process Monitor readiness of parties for court/confirm appearances Respond to requests for information Prepare/record post proceeding documents & events Maintain exhibits Monitor continuances & scheduled vs. actual appearances Prepare documents for appeals and change of venue Record retention: archive, microfilm and/or purge files Collect and use statistical data Courtroom Record/update results of group-scheduled calendars Support Jury related duties Manage documents in court, available when needed Minute taking Manage exhibits Courtroom order and protocol Provide clerical and administrative follow-up after court Judicial Administrative support duties for judges Support Provide in-court interpreting services Store stenotyped notes Operate and monitor equipment in court sessions Criteria for selection: Under the column headed 'number' are the number of law clerks and court reporters who reported that they ever perform (from "almost never" to "almost always") a particular task. Under the '%' column are the percent of staff that indicated that they "usually" or "almost always" are expected to perform this task. A task was only included if at least ten (10) or more people responded.

98 97 * Appendix N: Non-Case Specific Activities/Tasks Customer Service Covering counter for general questions not related to a specific case Answering phones (e.g., directions, receptionist, how to questions ) Responding to correspondence, , faxes, etc., regarding court procedures Publishing, monitoring and maintaining material on website Assisting with weddings Directing traffic Handling media requests Copying tapes for public requests (not copying tapes for appeal purposes or for a party to a specific case) Handling complaints Lost and found Opening incoming mail Logging checks received in the mail Distributing incoming mail and parcels Personnel Handling leave requests Recruiting and interviewing new staff Answering staff questions Providing formal and informal feedback to staff Reviewing staff work for accuracy (performing quality control checks) Monitoring use of family medical leave Motivating staff Providing or receiving informal one-on-one instruction Conducting and attending staff meetings Completing and reviewing time sheets Processing injured worker claims Mentoring Organization and System Development Facilities and Equipment Management Maintaining equipment Reviewing and transmitting contracts and maintenance agreements Overseeing remodeling of facilities Preparing facilities for scheduled activities (e.g., preparing courtroom, preparing jury assembly room) Providing technology support (e.g., computers, fax machine) Moving furniture and equipment Work Related Travel (not including commuting) Traveling to meeting/conferences Traveling between counties Running court-related errands (e.g., FedEx, UPS, bank deposits, picking up the mail, etc.) Leave Vacation Sick leave Jury duty Personal leave Family medical leave Military leave Bereavement leave Administrative leave Leave without pay Miscellaneous Breaks and lunch NCSC Project Logging time spent on various activities/tasks throughout the day Entering data on NCSC website Attending meetings/conferences (other than staff meetings) Training and staff development (e.g., new staff orientation, in-service training) Creating new forms Conducting community outreach (e.g., school tours, mock trial, paralegal/attorney orientation, etc.) Establishing and reviewing court procedures and policies/manuals Setting up and maintaining local libraries (e.g., law library) Engaging in legislative outreach Participating in surveys/studies Analyzing the need for new systems or applications Evaluating software Designing applications

99 * 98 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix O: Time Study Case Weights by County 0 to 2.99 AJN 3 AJN or greater Weighted Weighted Average Dodge Nobles Norman Wadena Average Anoka Duluth Hennepin Kandiyohi Ramsey Statewide Felony Gross Misd Major Civil , Harassment Probate and MH , Commitment , ,112 1, Dissolutions Support , Domestic Abuse Other Family 1,009 2,195 1, , Delinquency Dependency/ Neglect/TPR 994 2, , Juvenile Petty/Truancy Non Traffic MSD/Petty/ Other Traffic th Degree Assault/ MSD DWI Minor Civil Parking Summary Major Criminal Major Civil , Probate and MH , , Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Parking

100 99 * Appendix P: Applying Different Staffing Norms to Our Three Court Groupings Selected Small & Medium Courts Small Actual Medium Court Number Court AJN Estimate of Staff Estimate SMALL COURTS Kittson Lake of the Woods Lincoln Traverse Red Lake Grant Big Stone Lac Qui Parle Murray Rock Marshall Stevens Wilkin Norman Cook Lake MEDIUM COURTS Pipestone Clearwater Jackson Yellow Medicine Swift Cottonwood Pope Houston Faribault Koochiching Watonwan Chippewa Renville Roseau Mahnomen Pennington Selected Small & Medium Courts Medium Actual Large Court Number Court AJN Estimate of Staff Estimate MEDIUM COURTS Mower Polk Becker Winona Chisago Goodhue Itasaca Virginia LARGE COURTS Kandiyohi Otter Tail Rice Beltrami Carver Blue Earth Clay Sherburne

101 } * 100 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 Appendix Q: Validating the Staffing Inventory and Time Study Results 0 to 2.99 AJN Courts Calendaring Case Therapeutic Case Records and Caseflow Courtroom Monitoring & Judicial Financial Jury & Evaluative Time Study Processing Management Management Support Enforcement Support Management Services Services Total Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Time Study Total Staffing Inventory AJN and greater Courts Calendaring Case Therapeutic Case Records and Caseflow Courtroom Monitoring & Judicial Financial Jury & Evaluative Time Study Processing Management Management Support Enforcement Support Management Services Services Total Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Time Study Total Staffing Inventory } } 74.7 Major Criminal Major Civil Probate and MH Family Juvenile Minor Criminal Minor Civil Note: Numbers represent percentage (rounded) of staff time for each case type and each functional area.

102 101 *

103 * 102 Minnesota Court Staff Workload Assessment, 2004 WILLIAMSBURG, VA 300 Newport Avenue (23185) P.O. Box 8798 Williamsburg, VA DENVER, CO th St., Ste. 402 Denver, CO ARLINGTON, VA 2425 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 350 Arlington, VA Association Services (800) Consulting (800) Education (800) Government Relations (800) Information (800) International Programs (800) Publications (888) Research (800) Technology (888) The National Center for State Courts is an independent, nonprofit, tax-exempt organi-zation in accordance with Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue code. To find out about supporting the work and mission of The National Center, contact The National Center s Development Office at , or development@ncsc.dni.us.