JUVENILE DEPENDENCY WORKLOAD TRACKING WORKSHOP

Transcription

1 TCP & A Court Statistics and Workload Committee JUVENILE DEPENDENCY WORKLOAD TRACKING WORKSHOP Report and Recommendations TALLAHASSEE, FL April 19, 2018

2 Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Members Respectfully submitted: The Honorable Ellen S. Masters, Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit (Chair) The Honorable Alan Fine, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit The Honorable Marci Goodman, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit The Honorable Mary Hatcher, Circuit Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit The Honorable James Martz, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Lee E. Haworth, Senior Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Michele Emmerman, Unified Family Court Case Manager, Sixth Judicial Circuit Angie Smith, Director of Strategic Planning, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Kim Stephens, Family Court Manager, Second Judicial Circuit Dawn Wyant, Information Systems Consultant II, Tenth Judicial Circuit Wendy Melgar, Juvenile Division Manager, Orange County Clerk of Court Avron Bernstein, Senior Attorney, OSCA, Office of Court Improvement Staff support: Office of the State Courts Administrator PJ Stockdale, Senior Court Statistics Administrator, Court Services Shelley Kaus, Court Statistics Consultant, Court Services Jovasha Lang, Senior Court Analyst II, Court Education and Improvement

3 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Contents Executive Summary... 1 Overview... 3 Judicial Weighted Workload Model... 3 Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop... 4 Workshop Summary... 4 Analysis... 6 Recommendations Recommendation One: Recommendation Two: Recommendation Three: Application to Problem Solving Courts... 13

4 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Executive Summary The Florida Supreme Court tasked the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability (TCP&A) with conducting a workshop to identify events within a dependency case that involve significant judicial workload or court resources that are not captured by current tracking and reporting data systems. This workshop should identify appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage. (AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability). This charge was given to the Court Statistics and Workload Committee (CSWC) who convened the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop on September 16, The workshop was chaired by CSWC member Judge Ellen S. Masters and included a very dynamic and engaged group of dependency judges, case managers, circuit administration, clerk of court staff, and OSCA subject matter experts in attendance. This workshop engaged in a set of exercises and focused discussions to identify elements (events, actions and factors) within a dependency case that represent areas of significant workload or present issues of highly variable complexity. These discussions considered these elements in the context of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model and attempted to identify critical decision and measurement points that will allow the court system to monitor and manage these elements and resources to ensure adequate availability and efficient adjudication of dependency cases. The workshop s agenda included a full day of group discussions, breakout sessions, and estimation exercises. These activities were aimed at accomplishing the following two objectives: Identifying events, actions and factors within a juvenile dependency case that may involve significant judicial workload or court resources for inclusion into court activity tracking and reporting data systems. Identifying appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage as a natural extension of normal work flow. Members considered a wide variety of issues that may impact how workload is tracked in the juvenile dependency division. Issues ranged from types of matters involved, duration of oversight, distribution of workload and case activity reporting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the workgroup selected twelve main issues that participants believed most significantly impacted workload in the dependency division. Participants agreed that these issues would provide a solid starting point for further workload exploration. These issues: 1) identified concerns with the current judicial weighted workload model, and 2) proposed exploration into the critical factors and events impacting judicial workload. Most issues discussed involved variations on the following themes: The majority of the issues raised by the workshop involve constraints on the tracking or reporting of case activity data in the courts. Given that the court system has a significant, long term investment in tracking and reporting systems, achieving meaningful enhancement involves Page 1 of 49

5 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop not only identifying necessary changes but also managing the implementation of those changes. Based on results of the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop and subsequent analysis, the Court Statistics and Workload Committee makes the following recommendations. One: Two: Establish the child as the unit of case activity reporting. Adopt an event-driven approach to reporting case activity within the dependency case type. Three: Complete the case weight simulations developed to validate the remaining tracking and reporting changes. Page 2 of 49

6 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Overview The Florida Supreme Court tasked the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability (TCP&A) with conducting a workshop to identify events within a dependency case that involve significant judicial workload or court resources that are not captured by current tracking and reporting data systems. This workshop should identify appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage. (AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability). This charge was given to the Court Statistics and Workload Committee (CSWC) who convened the Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop on September 16, This workshop engaged in a set of exercises and focused discussions to identify elements (events, actions and factors) within a dependency case that represent areas of significant workload or present issues of highly variable complexity. These discussions considered these elements in the context of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model and attempted to identify critical decision and measurement points that will allow the court system to monitor and manage these elements and resources to ensure adequate availability and efficient adjudication of dependency cases. Judicial Weighted Workload Model Workload within the Florida court system is determined, by the Judicial Weighted Workload Model (JWWM), as a function of the occurrence of specific case events and the time, averaged over all dependency activity across the state, that it takes to complete those events. The time interval is currently defined to be from the filing event to the disposition event. The Judicial Weighted Workload Model is used to estimate judicial need in future years and to provide the Legislature with the Annual Certification of Judicial Need each year. Every five years, the court system conducts an in-depth analysis of the work expended in handling dependency cases. The most recent review, called the Florida Judicial Workload Assessment, was conducted February 2015 through May The case weight, set at 271 minutes for Dependency cases, developed by this study coupled with the number of case petitions provide a broad estimate of the dependency workload in Florida courts. Within this weighted workload model, there are opportunities to fine tune the workload calculations through the use of adjustment modifiers. The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee that oversaw the Workload Assessment cited juvenile dependency as one area that may benefit from such tuning. The current iteration of the JWWM uses the Summary Reporting System (SRS) case counts as a basis and the associated SRS definitions of filing and disposition. While this reporting structure provides accurate counts of cases, it is more problematic when considering dispositions. The terms filing and disposition as it applies to SRS were defined in the 1980s when judicial need was estimated using a threshold standard based on number of cases (filings). Dispositions, while useful for management were not considered as factors in workload. As threshold estimation evolved to a more meaningful workload model and time from start to end of case activity assumed prominence, limitations in the meaning of filing and disposition as used for Page 3 of 49

7 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop SRS became apparent. For example, cases were reported to SRS as disposed when the first child in a multi-child case was resolved even if that child represented the simplest set of workload issues within the case. This rule is correct with respect to the threshold model of judge need, but inaccurate with respect to the workload model. In 2014, the Supreme Court adopted more fine-grained set of definitions in AOSC14-20 In Re: Case Event Definitional Framework, that refine the concepts of filing and disposition into an initiation and a closure event that clearly demark the transition points at which work begins and ends. These transitions also include periods of planned and unplanned inactivity, which is an important factor in measuring dependency workload. Additionally, in 2016, the Supreme Court mandated an event-drive case activity reporting system in the Uniform Case Reporting system to replace the Summary Reporting System for case activity reporting. While not used during the Judicial Workload Study, these refinements will provide an environment for a more accurate workload assessment. Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop The Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop was held Friday, September 16, This CSWC-sponsored workshop was chaired by Judge Ellen S. Masters and included a very dynamic and engaged group of dependency judges, case managers, circuit administration, clerk of court staff, and OSCA subject matter experts in attendance. The workshop s agenda included a full day of group discussions, breakout sessions, and estimation exercises. These activities were aimed at accomplishing the following two objectives: Identifying events, actions and factors within a juvenile dependency case that may involve significant judicial workload or court resources for inclusion into court activity tracking and reporting data systems. Identifying appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage as a natural extension of normal work flow. Materials provided to the workshop members are included in Appendix A. These background materials were comprised of: a discussion of how workload is determined in juvenile dependency via the Weighted Caseload Model and the FY Judicial Workload Assessment; the Summary Reporting System (SRS) data collection instrument that collects case filings for the juvenile dependency division and associated reporting instructions; and AOSC14-20 In Re: Trial Court Case-Event Definitional Framework. Workshop Summary Members considered a wide variety of issues that may impact how workload is tracked in the juvenile dependency division. Issues ranged from types of matters involved, duration of oversight, distribution of workload and case activity reporting. At the conclusion of the meeting, the workgroup selected twelve main issues that participants believed most significantly impacted workload in the dependency division. Participants agreed that these issues would provide a solid Page 4 of 49

8 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop starting point for further workload exploration. These issues 1) identified concerns with the current judicial weighted workload model and 2) proposed exploration into the critical factors and events impacting judicial workload. Most issues discussed involved variations on the following themes: 1. Work performed by Dependency judges but no included as an element of the Weighted Workload Model a. Is all cross-over work properly accounted for? i. Dependency judges frequently work on other case types, due to Unified Family Court. ii. Dependency judges frequently work on related cases filed in other court divisions. b. Is the workload associated with a motion filed that doesn t result in a case being captured in the model? c. Is the current method for capturing workload in highly variable areas accurate? i. Contested TPR cases are very different from non-contested TPR cases, and could be assigned different case weights. ii. Cases involving multiple children are different than cases involving a single child. iii. Cases involving multiple parental parties are different than cases involving a single parent or uncontested two-parent household. 2. The event definitions and case type category breakdown within the Summary Reporting System (SRS) may not be fine-grained enough to accurately capture workload for the juvenile dependency division within jurisdictions. a. Event definitions and SRS manual refinements i. Unambiguous definitions of closure and events in a case are needed. ii. Family should be defined, and needs to allow for same-sex couples. iii. Additional reporting rules may need to be added to the manual for additional guidance in state-level reporting. iv. Track motions that occur before a case-initiating event, including those that do not result in a case being initiated. b. A more accurate assessment of workload in the juvenile dependency division may require changes to the current SRS categories. i. Time is used as a proxy for complexity within an SRS case type. ii. Cases within a given case type require significantly different times to process depending on the issues involved. iii. This difference may be so significant that current categories may benefit from being split to capture disparate case types. iv. Examples: Contested TPR vs. non-contested TPR cases; simple family vs. multi-parent family c. Amend SRS statistics to count per child rather than per family. Page 5 of 49

9 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop 3. The Weighted Workload Model may not be responsive enough to accurately reflect the dynamic nature of juvenile dependency. a. Is juvenile dependency different than all other divisions regarding this dynamic nature? b. Is there anything we can count that will demonstrate the rapidly evolving environment? c. How has the weighted caseload model been affected by past changes in this division? Analysis Since the workshop, CSWC members and OSCA staff in both Court Services and the Office of Court Improvement have discussed these issues and considered possible resolutions. The majority of the issues raised by the workshop involve constraints on the tracking or reporting of case activity data in the courts. Given that the court system has a significant, long term investment in tracking and reporting systems, achieving meaningful enhancement involves not only identifying necessary changes, but also managing the implementation of those changes. Adjudicationin juvenile dependency is focused on children and families.workload is concerned with events and actions and, to some extent, with the time between those events and actions. Motions or petitions are filed, conferences and hearings are scheduled, parties are notified, reports filed, additional hearings are scheduled, and so on. The time allocated to these events to be heard along with the necessary preparation is constrained by practical realities and resources. Similarly, the time between these events may be constrained by statute or precedent. By considering these events and actions, the court system can identify important critical paths for case activity. These critical paths enable judges and program managers to implement and measure process enhancements intended to improve adjudicatory outcomes. Ultimately, determination of workload in dependency is complicated by the extreme variability in the trajectory of cases. There are significant human factors in a dependency case, such as number of children, number of parents, grandparents and guardians, individual issues associated with each child, and specific issues associated with each parent/grandparent/guardian. The adjudicatory needs inherent in these human factors greatly influence the occurrence of case events and activity, such as the number and type of motions, petitions, hearings and conferences that are considered or held. Effectively addressing these needs within the case event framework dictated by statute and rule result in a case type that involves a very large number of potential critical paths,each occurring in a variable proportion of cases and requiring a variable amount of work. An accurate measure of dependency workload will require a solid understanding of the workload associated with these paths. Page 6 of 49

10 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop For example, a simple case may achieve termination of supervision with five events (petition, arraignment, disposition hearing, initial judicial review, termination of supervision) with no further action required. A case resulting in adoption may result in eight events (petition, arraignment, disposition hearing, initial judicial review, three follow up reviews, and termination of supervision). More complicated cases might involve several hearings and multiple judicial reviews in a repeating cycle before final resolution of the case is achieved and the case no longer presents workload to the courts. Further complicating the measure of workload in dependency cases is that these cases may also involve significant periods of inactivity between events: periods where the court legitimately has no action to take or no event to which it can respond. In cases with this character, it is not meaningful to measure workload as an absolute period of time from one fixed starting point to one fixed ending point as these cases may involve years of absolute calendar time between the initiation event and the closure event. The Judicial Weighted Workload Model develops a case weight averaging time spent on activity over a range of case trajectories across the state. While this weight is effective for estimating judicial workload on the state level across all jurisdictions, anecdotal evidence indicates that estimated workload at the circuit level under this model can vary widely from the actuality. This reduces the usefulness of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model in managing judicial resources at the circuit level. Because of the survey methodology used to determine the case weight, it is very difficult to identify the time spent on specific events within the case. Furthermore, since the case weight is computed on filing events only, it does not fully capture the issue of complexity within a case. However, the model advances that the time spent on a case is a reasonably proxy for the complexity of a case, and that the case weight is a reasonable estimate of the average time spent. A more effective workload measurement can be obtained by considering the workload associated with significant events in the life of a case and then developing a model of the occurrence of those events. Modern simulation techniques can then be used to develop a more targeted case weight specific to the circuit.. Page 7 of 49

11 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Table 1 Workshop Issues Issue Description Results of Analysis/Review # 1 The Weighted Caseload Model may be missing some work in the juvenile dependency division 1.a.i 1.a.ii Cross-over work: Dependency judges frequently work on other case types under the Unified Family Court (UFC) model. Cross-over work: Dependency judges frequently work on related cases filed in other court divisions. The work accomplished under the Unified Family Court model was fully accounted for as part of the 2015 time study. Judicial workload is managed at the Family division level, and it is expected that judges may participate in cases from a variety of subdivisions within Family. For workload calculations, the workload expended on cases originating in other family subdivisions that are related to juvenile dependency cases is accounted for within the other subdivisions. The total workload for a circuit in the Family division includes work across all subdivisions. This restates the issue in 1.a.i to whether the average case time for those circuits employing the Unified Family Court model is significantly different than the combined (weighted) average case time for those circuits who do not use the UFC model. A survey of circuits indicated that all 20 circuits implement some version of the Unified Family Court model as required by Fla. Fam. L. R. P However, there is considerable variation in how these courts are structured and in the scope and kind of cases assigned. There is insufficient information available about these variations and no clear mechanism to track activity and workload within these varied courts to develop a reliable model for simulation. Further investigation of this issue has been postponed until additional information is available for meaningful analysis. Court Services staff conducted a thorough review of the 2015 time study conducted as part of the FY Judicial Workload Study. Staff determined that this study incorporated all of the available judicial time expended on juvenile dependency cases during the study period even though this time may not have been allocated to the most appropriate category. Workload for cases originating in other divisions is tracked within those divisions and aggregated to the circuit as a whole. Page 8 of 49

12 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Issue Description Results of Analysis/Review 1.b Workload associated with a motion filed that does not result in a case is not properly accounted for in the workload model. 1.c.i 1.c.ii Contested Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) cases are very different from noncontested TPR cases and could be assigned different case weights or case type modifiers. Cases involving a single child require a different workload when compared to those involving multiple children. Therefore, the current Judicial Workload Model adequately accounts for work of this type. The time expended on motions filed that do not result in a case was reported to the 2015 time study and is included as one of the factors making up the case weight. However, since this event is not captured dynamically, the workload model assumes that the ratio of motions not resulting in a case to motions resulting in a case stays constant. This issue then becomes an investigation of whether this ratio changes over the five year time between re-calibrations studies, and if the ratio does change, how can that change be incorporated into the judicial workload model? It was not possible to obtain the necessary information to conduct a meaningful simulation. While the UCR project is not specifically designed to provide the required information for this analysis, UCR implementation for the family division may provide addition opportunities to explore this issue. Investigation of this issue has been postponed until sufficient information is available for meaningful analysis. This issue proposes that the workload involved in contested Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) cases are significantly different from non-contested TPR cases and that considering workload related to these two case characteristics may produce a more precise and meaningful estimate of judicial need than the current measurement that does not distinguish between these cases. While there is some data available that is responsive to the analysis of this issue, there is a high probability that the data available is not sufficient to reliably estimate the necessary simulation parameters. However, given that there is some information available, completing the simulation may provide additional insight on the issue. A simulation is recommended to be performed for possible insights only and the results should not be considered reliable to form final recommendations. This issue proposes that the workload involved in juvenile dependency cases by considering the number of children involved may produce a more precise and meaningful estimate of judicial need than the current measurement that assumes the number of children does not affect workload. Page 9 of 49

13 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Issue Description Results of Analysis/Review 1.c.iii Cases involving multiple parental parties require a different workload when compared to cases involving a single parent or uncontested two-parent household. Sufficient data is available to conduct this simulation, which will provide the individual workloads for cases including a single child and case including multiple children and the workload for the mixed, current workload. Refer to appendix B for an example of the planned methodology. This issue proposes that the workload in juvenile dependency be evaluated in relation to the number of parents (one, two or multiple) with standing in the case and to whether the case was contested or uncontested. Data is available to identify parental distribution in cases; however, this data has some quality issues that may limit its usefulness. Once these quality issues are resolved, completing the simulation with available data may provide additional insight on the issue. Staff recommends that the simulation be performed for possible insights only and that results should not be considered reliable to form final recommendations. # 2 SRS Manual Refinements or Changes to the SRS 2.a.i 2.a.ii Unambiguous definitions of closure and events in a case are needed. Family should be defined and needs to allow for same-sex couples. AOSC14-20 provides the definition for a case closure event, which is being incorporated as part of the SRS Manual Revision. As the Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) project is expanded to the Family division, instructions and business rules will be defined for more fine-grained case event reporting for Juvenile Dependency cases. The definition of a family as it relates to Juvenile Dependency is determined by the definition that exists in Chapter 39, Florida Statutes, which includes all parents and legal custodians, regardless of sex. The definition of a family, while central to the adjudication of dependency and related cases, is not strictly a workload tracking issue. The SRS is concerned with the reporting of critical case activity for the estimation of workload. Therefore, this determination is not in the SRS Manual s scope. Page 10 of 49

14 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Issue Description Results of Analysis/Review 2.a.iii Additional reporting rules may need to be added to the manual for additional guidance in state-level reporting. 2.b The current SRS categories may benefit from modification to enable a more accurate assessment of workload within dependency. 2.c Amending the Summary Reporting System rules to track cases per child rather than per family may be a more accurate assessment of workload within dependency. # 3 Juvenile dependency workload tracking should be evaluated more frequently or in more detail since workload in this division is more dynamic and rapidly changing. Once the latest revision to the SRS Manual is issued, several enhancements to the reporting instructions will be in place, including incorporation of the case-event definitions from AOSC Continual improvement to case event tracking instructions and business rules will be a part of adding the Family division to the Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) project. Because of the survey methodology used to determine the Juvenile Dependency case weight as part of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model, it is difficult to identify the time spent on specific events within the case. Further, since the case weight is computed on filing events only, it does not fully capture the issue of complexity within a case, even though the model assumes the time spent on a case is a reasonable proxy for the complexity of a case and that the case weight is a reasonable estimate of the average time spent. A more effective workload measurement can be obtained by considering the workload associated with significant events in the life of a case and then developing a model of the occurrence of those events. An event-driven reporting methodology in the Juvenile Dependency division would allow judges and program managers to focus on the specific events in a dependency case where a significant change in the activity of a case may occur rather than on a specific legal event such as disposition or closure. The UCR project will be able to collect case activity information by child rather than by family. However, the OSCA will be able to calculate the workload statistics by child and also by family, providing continuity with the SRS for the juvenile dependency division. A percent change comparison was made between the case weights obtained during the judicial workload studies conducted in 1999, 2007, and The results of the percent change comparison does not provide any evidence that the juvenile dependency case weight changes more significantly than other case types within the five-year evaluation window recommended by the National Center for State Courts. Page 11 of 49

15 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Recommendations The recommendations below approach the workload problem in juvenile dependency from a number of directions, including changes to existing workload estimates and to the future development of workload tracking. Recommendation One: Establish the child as the unit of case activity reporting. Children and their needs are the primary consideration of dependency adjudication. Workshop participants agreed unanimously that the single most significant factor impacting workload was the number of children involved in a case and the distribution of issues associated with each individual child. This recommendation will enable judges and case managers to track case activity for each child under a distinct case number specific to that child. The uniform case number provides enough flexibility that each individual child can be tracked with a distinct case number while still maintaining the important case associations for the family as a whole. Recommendation Two: Adopt an event-driven approach to reporting case activity within the juvenile dependency case type. An event-driven reporting methodology allows judges and program managers to focus on the significant events in a dependency case at points where a significant change in the activity of a case may occur, rather than on a specific legal event such as disposition or closure. While all cases result in some form of disposition or closure, different events may occur in a case that change the anticipated path to resolution. These different paths may represent significant changes in workload. This variation may mean that a statewide average, as defined by case weights, is not sensitive enough to accurately reflect workload within specific jurisdictions. An event-driven model will provide the best opportunities for identifying workload activity. Recommendation Three: Complete the workload simulations for Issues 1.c.i-1.c.iii. The workshop identified a number of activity tracking issues that could not be fully explored in this term. Either the information needed did not exist or obtaining the data would be difficult or labor intensive. To study these issues in more depth and mindful of the costs involved, the CSWC developed a statistical simulation model of dependency cases (see Appendix B for an example). The models will allow the court system to investigate the most critical paths in dependency cases and explore how changes to tracking and reporting might impact workload both at the local and at the state level. Page 12 of 49

16 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Development of these models across a number of workshop issues provided insight into the potential role that variation plays in dependency workload calculation. This insight supports the workshop s assertion of the need to consider workload in the context of the trajectory of cases rather than as a broad measure from start to finish and is incorporated in Recommendation Two above. Owing to the complexity of the models, the need to develop and validate the design and the availability of analytical resources, the analysis of these simulations was not be completed within this committee term. It is recommended that the Office of State Courts Administrator complete the simulation studies and report the results back to the CSWC. Application to Problem Solving Courts The adjudication of cases within problem solving courts share many characteristics with dependency cases. Within a broad judicial framework, these cases are focused on the needs of the individual. A large number of highly variable factors can shape the trajectory of a case. Cases involve variable number of a limited set of judicial events (motions, conferences, hearings etc.) with significant periods of inactivity between events. Trajectories of these cases are highly dependent to local policies and practices. Consequently, these cases can follow radically different trajectories to resolution. This variation may mean that a statewide average, as defined by case weights, may not be responsive enough to accurately reflect workload within specific jurisdictions. Also, while there are similarities in procedure between different problem solving courts, it is not known if the workload between these courts can be considered similar. It is possible that case weights would have to be developed for each type of problem solving court. An event-driven model will provide the best opportunities for identifying significant workload within each type of problem solving court and for identifying commonalities and activity overlap between courts. The Judicial Resource Study has recommended that the court system begin tracking the number of individuals entering problem solving courts and to develop a case weight for problem solving courts. The CSWC agrees that this is an important first step in capturing workload in these areas. However, given the complexity of tracking case activity and associated workload within dependency, it is unlikely that number of individuals and a statewide average time to process will provide a sufficiently nuanced estimate of workload. It is recommended that the initial Judicial Workload Study recommendation 4 be expanded to include a plan to identify and track critical case activity events within each type of problem solving courts. This information will enable the development of appropriate life cycle models to assist judges and managers implement procedures to encourage efficient adjudication of these Page 13 of 49

17 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop cases. Once the transition events are identified, it will be possible to identify the workload associated with these events. The number and type of events coupled with the time required for these events and the time between these events will enable the court system to more accurately model the activity trajectories of each problem solving court. With this information, it would be possible to develop more accurate workload estimates that will enable court managers to ensure adequate resources are available. Page 14 of 49

18 Court Statistics and Workload Committee Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Appendix A Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop Materials Page 15 of 49

19 TCP & A JUVENILE DEPENDENCY WORKLOAD TRACKING WORKSHOP TALLAHASSEE, FL SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 Page 16 of 49

20 Upon request by a qualified individual with a disability, this document will be made available in alternative formats. To order this document in an alternative format, please contact: Shelley L. Kaus 500 South Duval Street Tallahassee, FL (ph) kauss@flcourts.org Page 17 of 49

21 AGENDA 9:30am Workshop Convenes Item I. Opening Remarks and Introductions The Honorable Ellen S. Masters, Chair Item II. Housekeeping A. Format of Workshop B. Travel Reimbursement Instructions Item III. Workshop Overview A. Workshop Charge B. Objectives C. Discussion D. Next Steps Item IV. Estimation Exercise Item V. Breakout Session A. Dependency Case Flow Analysis B. Significant Event/Action Identification 12:00pm 1:00pm Working Lunch Item VI. Variance Exercise Item VII. Breakout Session A. Analysis of Significant Events/Actions for Measurement Item VIII. Summary of Recommendations 4:00pm Workshop Adjourns Page 18 of 49

22 Table of Contents Workshop Overview Attachment 01: Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency; The Weighted Caseload Model... 7 Attachment 02: Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency; The FY Judicial Workload Assessment Attachment 03: Summary Reporting System (SRS) Juvenile Dependency Data Collection Instrument.. 14 Attachment 04: Excerpt from Summary Reporting System (SRS) Manual Juvenile Dependency Reporting Instructions Attachment 05: AOSC In Re: Trial Court Case-Event Definitional Framework Page 19 of 49

23 Workshop Charge: Workshop Overview The Florida Supreme Court tasked the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability (TCP&A) with conducting a workshop to identify events within a dependency case that involve significant judicial workload or court resources that are not captured by current tracking and reporting data systems. This workshop should identify appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage. (AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability) Sponsoring Committee: Court Statistics and Workload Committee (CSWC) Objectives of Workshop: Workshop Discussion: Identify events, actions and factors within a juvenile dependency case that may involve significant judicial workload or court resources for inclusion into court activity tracking and reporting data systems. Identify appropriate data management and reporting processes for capturing this workload and resource usage as a natural extension of normal work flow. The Juvenile Dependency Workload Tracking Workshop will engage in a set of exercises and focused discussions intended on identifying elements (events, actions and factors) within a dependency case that represent areas of significant workload or present issues of highly variable complexity. These discussions will considers these elements in the context of the Judicial Weighted Workload Model and will attempt to identify critical decision and measurement points that will allow the court system to monitor and manage these elements and resources to ensure adequate availability and efficient adjudication of dependency cases. Workload within the court system in Florida is determined by the occurrence of certain events within a case and the time it takes to complete those events. This may represent a different perspective to many workshop participants since most dependency activity is centered on the children or parents in a case. Workload determination, on the other hand, is concerned with events and actions. These events and actions are rolled up into a count of petitions reported via the Summary Reporting System. The number of petitions is an important aspect of workload. The time required to adjudicate those petitions is another. Every five years, the court system conducts an in-depth analysis of the work expended in handling dependency cases. The most recent review, called the Florida Judicial Workload Assessment, was conducted February 2015 through May The results of Page 20 of 49

24 this study are currently under review by the Supreme Court. The case weights developed by this study coupled with the number of case petitions provide a comprehensive estimate of the dependency workload. This is known as the Judicial Weighted Workload Model and is used to provide the Legislature with the Annual Certification of Judicial Need each year. Within this weighted workload model, there are opportunities to fine tune the workload calculations through the use of adjustment modifiers. The Judicial Needs Assessment Committee that oversaw the Workload Assessment cited juvenile dependency as one area that may benefit from such tuning. Workload calculations are further structured by AOSC14-20 In Re: Case Event Definitional Framework, which defines critical transition points in the activity of a case. We will use this framework extensively during the workshop. Please refer to AOSC14-20 in your materials for these definitions. Also, please note that the disposition event listed in the framework should, by definition, be taken to mean a closure event. It is understood that the term disposition has a different meaning in the juvenile dependency structure. For purposes of this workshop, we will use the term closure to indicate the point in which the presiding judicial officer has provided resolution on issues related to the initial commencement (filing) event. Next Steps: The CSWC and the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) will evaluate the elements (events, actions and factors) identified by this Workshop to determine how these elements may contribute to judicial workload calculations. Additionally, CSWC will consider how to track these elements through the Trial Court Data Model and make recommendations to the TCP&A. TCP&A will evaluate these recommendations from a resource and performance monitoring standpoint and make recommendations to the Supreme Court as necessary. Workshop Participants: The Honorable Ellen S. Masters, Circuit Judge, Tenth Judicial Circuit (Chair) The Honorable Alan Fine, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit The Honorable Marci Goodman, Circuit Judge, First Judicial Circuit The Honorable Mary Hatcher, Circuit Judge, Fifth Judicial Circuit The Honorable James Martz, Circuit Judge, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit The Honorable Lee E. Haworth, Senior Circuit Judge, Twelfth Judicial Circuit Michele Emmerman, Unified Family Court Case Manager, Sixth Judicial Circuit Wendy Melgar, Juvenile Division Manager, Orange County Clerk of Court Angie Smith, Director of Public Information, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Kim Stephens, Family Court Manager, Second Judicial Circuit Dawn Wyant, Information Systems Consultant II, Tenth Judicial Circuit Avron Bernstein, Senior Attorney, OSCA, Office of Court Improvement Page 21 of 49

25 Attachment 01 Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency The Weighted Caseload Model Page 22 of 49

26 Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency The Weighted Caseload Model Since 1999, the state of Florida has relied on a weighted caseload model to determine the need for judges in each circuit and county trial court during the annual judicial certification process. This model distills much of the complexity inherent in case activity down to those essential characteristics that impact judicial workload. The weighted caseload method calculates judicial need based on each court s total workload. The weighted caseload model represents the analytical determinate used during the annual judicial certification process. The model consists of five elements: 1. Unambiguous case types that categorize the court activities into distinct, countable groups; 2. Case filings or the number of new cases of each type opened each year. Case filings are submitted to the Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) by clerks of court and are forecasted out to the certification year; 3. Case weights, which represent the average amount of judge time required to handle cases of each type over the life of the case. Case weights capture the complexity of a specific case type and the contributions of a variety of court procedures, practices, and supplemental resources; 4. Work year value, or the amount of time each judge has available for case-related work in one year. Currently this time is set, over all circuits, to 6.0 hours out of an 8.5-hour day (1 hour for lunch and 1.5 hours for non-case related work) and 215 working days per year; and 5. Adjustment modifiers, which capture jurisdiction-specific characteristics, not represented in the other model components. Current adjustment modifiers include the jury trial modifier in circuit and county court, chief judge adjustment in circuit court, and election canvassing board adjustment in county court. Element 1: Case Types The weighted caseload model computes resource need by first calculating the expected workload facing a circuit for a given case type. For purposes of this workshop, we are only concerned with one of the twenty-eight case types defined for circuit court: Juvenile Dependency. Element 2: Case Filings The expected workload for a specific case type is calculated as the product of the anticipated filings (element 2) and the case weight for that case type (element 3). Page 23 of 49

27 Case filings are submitted to the OSCA by clerks of court on a monthly basis and are forecasted out to the certification year to arrive at the anticipated filings for the case type. The OSCA collects case filings as part of its Summary Reporting System (SRS). The SRS data collection form for the Juvenile Dependency division is included in Attachment 03, and the associated instructions in Attachment 04. For purposes of workload calculation, three commencement events, as defined by Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure 8.201, are used to determine the case filings for a given time period: A.1. Dependency Petitions Filed A.3. Termination of Parental Rights Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter 39 A.4. Adoption Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter 39 Element 3: The Case Weight The third element of the weighted caseload model is referred to as the case weight, and each distinct case type has its own weight. This element represents the average amount of judge time required to handle cases of each type over the life of the case. Case weights capture the complexity of a specific case type and the contributions of a variety of court procedures, practices, and supplemental resources. Over time, changes in statutory and case law, court rules, technology, and legal practice affect the amount of judicial work associated with resolving various types of cases. This part of the model, by design, needs periodic review and update to remain valid. Element 4: Judicial Work Year Work year value, or the amount of time each judge has available for case-related work in one year. Currently this time is set, over all circuits, to 6.0 hours out of an 8.5-hour day (1 hour for lunch and 1.5 hours for non-case related work) and 215 working days per year. Within the workload model, this value helps convert the workload calculation expressed in minutes per year to the number of judges needed per year. Element 5: Adjustment Modifiers Adjustment modifiers capture jurisdiction-specific characteristics not represented in the other model components. The weighted workload model assumes that there may be considerable variation in the practices or circumstances between circuits. Modifiers provide the opportunity to capture that variation as it relates to workload. This workshop will primarily be concerned with the identification of case activity and events that can be used to build additional adjustment modifiers specific to the juvenile dependency case type. Page 24 of 49

28 Attachment 02 Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency FY Judicial Workload Assessment Page 25 of 49

29 Determining Workload in Juvenile Dependency FY Judicial Workload Assessment The OSCA contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in 2014 to conduct a judicial workload assessment to update the weighted caseload models for circuit and county court judges. The model, by design, needs periodic review and update to remain valid. Over time, changes in statutory and case law, court rules, technology, and legal practice affect the amount of judicial work associated with resolving various types of cases. Time Study The empirical foundation of the workload assessment is the judicial time study. From September 28 through October 25, 2015, a time study was conducted of all circuit and county judges, senior judges, magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers and civil traffic infraction hearing officers throughout the state. Each individual was asked to track their time throughout the day and upload the information onto the NCSC website each evening. The time study gathered data on the case-related and non-case-related work of circuit and county court judicial officers. Judicial time spent on all phases of the life of a case from filing through post-judgment/post-disposition activity was collected. The goal was to capture all of the time being spent on and off the bench by judicial officers and quasi-judicial officers such as senior judges, magistrates, child support enforcement hearing officers and civil traffic infraction hearing officers in handling individual cases before the court, as well as all non-case related judicial work (e.g., work-related travel or administration). This data provided an empirical benchmark of how much time judicial officers are currently spending on different types of cases, on different activities or events within those cases, and on non-case-related work. Level of Detail within the Time Study During the time study, judges were asked to track all of their work-related time. Judicial work was divided into case-related and non-case-related activities. For each case-related activity, the judge will record the elapsed time, the case type category (i.e. Juvenile Dependency), and the case-related event (e.g., Pretrial, Non-trial/Uncontested Disposition, Bench Trial/Contested Disposition, Jury Trial, Post-Judgment/Post-Disposition). A description of each of the four relevant events for Juvenile Dependency case-related activity (Jury Trial excluded) follows. Pre-Trial Includes activities usually identified with the initiation of a filings in a juvenile dependency case, preparation of findings and orders related to pre-trial matters, Page 26 of 49

30 arraignment, pre-trial hearings (a proceeding in which arguments, witnesses, or evidence are heard but no final disposition of the case is made), non-dispositive motions (a request to the court asking for a specified finding, decision, or order), and case conferences (any pre-trial meeting or discussion on issues relating to a case). Non-Trial/Uncontested Disposition Includes all on-bench and off-bench activity related to any non-trial proceeding that disposes of the case, all off-bench research and preparation related to a non-trial disposition, preparation of findings and orders related to a non-trial disposition, and dismissal or adjudication. Bench/Contested Trial Includes all on-bench and off-bench activity related to a trial in which the judge is the finder of fact, all off-bench research and preparation related to a bench trial, preparation of findings and orders related to bench trials, and dismissal or adjudication. Post-Judgment/Post-Disposition Includes all on-bench and off-bench activity that occurs after disposition of a case. Includes case planning conference and approval, permanency hearings, and dependency and adoption judicial review hearings. The Time Study did not track individual cases, the number of hearings, or any other quantity of events occurring on a case. Rather, the study recorded the duration of time spent on activities in these pre-defined categories. Participants were instructed that multiple activities within the same case type category and event could be combined into a single entry on their time sheet. For example, a judge who conducts three misdemeanor cases with guilty pleas and sentencing for 60 minutes was permitted to enter this activity as a single 60-minute block of time, under the case type category of Misdemeanor and the case-related event of non-trial dispositions. Outcome of Time Study The four-week time study yielded tremendous success. Statewide, we achieved extremely high participation rates: approximately 1,250 court officers or 97% participated in the time study. The NCSC performed the statistical analysis of the data received from the time study. This data served as the foundation for updated case weights to more accurately reflect the workload of today s judiciary. Calculating Preliminary Case Weights Data from the time study was used to calculate new case weights for each case type. Page 27 of 49

31 Case weights, when viewed as a composite series of events, can be computed as the average of event times weighted by the proportions of occurrence of those events. Therefore, for a given case type i we have case weight, cwi cw i case _ weight p e j jall _ events j where pj represents the proportion of occurrence for each event and ej is the average time for that event. Final Case Weights Additional steps of the methodology of the FY Judicial Workload Assessment were aimed at arriving at final case weights for use in the weighted workload model. A Sufficiency of Time survey was administered to all judges. This survey was designed to illicit feedback from the judges as to the amount of available time they have to process different types of cases, whether the time is sufficient given their dockets, and to identify any statutory or rule requirements that are imposing additional requirements on judge that may be impacting their overall workload. The survey was a key methodological step as allowed for the documentation of additional workload requirements imposed on the judiciary since the last update to the case weights. Site visits to eight judicial circuits were conducted by the NCSC team and the OSCA. The circuits are representative of small, medium, large and extra-large circuits and included the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth, Tenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Seventeenth Circuits. Chief judges, trial court administrators, administrative judges, and judges from every major court division were interviewed. A series of Subject Matter Expert panels comprised of experienced trial court judges met to review and tweak the preliminary case weights developed via the time study. The divisional groupings included circuit criminal, circuit civil, family/juvenile, probate, county criminal and county civil. After review and approval, the preliminary case weights were then forwarded to the Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) for final approval. Lastly, the JNAC met to review and adjust the final proposed case weights. The 41 member judge committee represented each circuit in Florida and provided executive policy direction on the Judicial Workload Assessment to the NCSC and the OSCA. Page 28 of 49

32 Attachment 03 Summary Reporting System (SRS) Juvenile Dependency Data Collection Instrument Page 29 of 49

33 Section II. Family Court Part 3. Dependency 1. Dependency Petitions Filed 2. Shelter Petitions Filed A. Petitions Filed 3. Termination of Parental Rights Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter Adoption Petitions Filed Arising out of Chapter CINS/FINS Petitions Filed 1. Dependency Petitions Disposed 2. Shelter Petitions Disposed B. Petitions Disposed 3. Termination of Parental Rights Petitions Disposed Arising out of Chapter Adoption Petitions Disposed Arising out of Chapter CINS/FINS Petitions Disposed 1. Reopened Cases 2. Number of Judicial Review Hearings 3. Number of Shelter Hearings C. Other Actions Page 30 of 49

34 Attachment 04 Excerpt from Summary Reporting System (SRS) Manual Juvenile Dependency Reporting Instructions Page 31 of 49

35 Number of Juvenile Petition Filing Events Please refer to section A of the SRS form which reports information associated with the number of juvenile petition filing events during the specified reporting period. For consistency in reporting, a filing event is said to occur as of the date the filing document is received and date/time stamped or electronic date/time stamped with the clerk of court. Report one filing event when multiple children are named on one petition. Report the number of petitions filed, not the number of children. Report a filing event when a petition for dependency is transferred from another court or jurisdiction to the reporting court for disposition purposes. Report dependency petitions filed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions to remove the disabilities of non-age of minors filed pursuant to chapter 743, Florida Statutes. Note: This statute captures Emancipation under chapter 743, Florida Statutes, for minors in Residential, Utility or Bank Account matters. All other Emancipation matters should be filed in regular Family Court under the Other Family Court case type. Report shelter petitions filed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions for Termination of Parental Rights Arising Out of Chapter 39 filed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions for Adoption Arising Out of Chapter 39 filed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions for Children in Need of Services and Families in Need of Services (CINS/FINS) as provided under chapter 984, Florida Statutes. The following items identify common reporting errors. Please check these items to ensure that the SRS report does not include these reporting errors. DO NOT report the number of children listed on a dependency petition. Report only the number of dependency petitions filed during the specified reporting period. DO NOT include petitions filed on children with cases previously reported as disposed that are resubmitted to the court (See Number of Reopen Events, page 3-19). Page 32 of 49

36 DO NOT report petitions for dependency transferred from another court or jurisdiction to the reporting court for supervision purposes (See Number of Reopen Events, page 3-19). Number of Juvenile Petition Disposition Events Please refer to section B of the SRS form which reports information associated with the number of juvenile petition disposition events during the specified reporting period. Petitions are to be reported as disposed after an order of disposition is filed with the clerk. For consistency in reporting, a disposition event is said to occur as of the date the signed order, judgment or other recordable action is received and date/time stamped or electronic date/time stamped with the clerk of court. Report only one disposition event when multiple children are named on one petition. Report the disposition event which occurs first, when there are multiple disposition events. Report a disposition event when a dependency case is consolidated into another case with other siblings. Report a disposition event when a petition is dismissed by the court or the Department of Children and Families. Report dependency petitions disposed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report shelter petitions disposed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions for Termination of Parental Rights Arising Out of Chapter 39 disposed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions for Adoption Arising Out of Chapter 39 disposed pursuant to chapter 39, Florida Statutes, during the reporting period. Report petitions for Children in Need of Services and Families in Need of Services (CINS/FINS) disposed as provided under chapter 984, Florida Statutes. Number of Reopen Events Please refer to section C1 of the SRS form which reports information associated with the number of reopen events during the specified reporting period. For consistency in reporting, a reopen event occurs when a motion, pleading or other recordable action is received and date/time stamped or electronic date/time stamped with the clerk of court on a case that requires additional court activity after a disposition event has closed the case. Page 33 of 49

37 Report motions and petitions filed subsequent to the disposition of a case. If several motions or petitions are filed on the same day for the same case, report only one reopen event. However, if several motions or petitions are filed during the reporting period on different days for the same case, each motion or petition is reported as a reopen event. Examples of reopen events include, but are not limited to the following motions or petitions for: Extraordinary relief; Rehearings; Medical or psychiatric treatment; Change of custody; Order to show cause; Attorney's fees; and Non-fulfillment of performance agreement. Report cases transferred for supervision purposes if they are reactivated or resubmitted to the court for judicial action. The following item is a common reporting error. Please check this item to ensure that the SRS report does not include this reporting error. DO NOT report petitions for termination of parental rights as reopen events. Petitions for termination of parental rights should be reported in section A3 of the SRS reporting form as a juvenile petition filing event for the Dependency division. Number of Judicial Review Hearings Please refer to section C2 of the SRS form which reports information associated with the number of judicial review hearings/permanency review hearings held during the specified reporting period. Report the number of hearings before a judge or general magistrate whose purpose is to determine the status of children remaining in foster care or any status of a child pursuant to section , Florida Statutes. Number of Shelter Hearings Please refer to section C3 of the SRS form which reports information associated with the number of shelter hearings held during the specified reporting period. Report the number of hearings held to determine whether a child is to be sheltered, continued to be sheltered or reunited while proceedings are pending in the case pursuant to section , Florida Statutes. Page 34 of 49

38 Number of Reclosure Events Report in the appropriate case type, the number of cases in reopen status that are closed for court action on the date the motion, pleading or other filing that reopened the case has been resolved by the judicial decision, order or other recordable action. Note: The reclosure event definition is being provided for informational purposes only. At this time reclosure events are not to be reported for SRS purposes. Case Type Determinations The following list includes the types of proceedings that are included for each SRS case type. To select the correct SRS case type you should follow these procedures: Review each petition or complaint and determine the proper case type by identifying the primary issue involved. If a cover sheet is required or mandated, refer to the completed cover sheet to help determine the proper case type to report for the filing event Select the appropriate SRS case type for the matters indicated within the petition or complaint. Report the petition or complaint under the correct SRS case type on the Family Court (Juvenile) SRS form. There are a number of cases that come into the clerk s office that do not require judicial workload and therefore should not be counted for SRS purposes. Examples of these types of cases include, but are not limited to the following: Truancy petitions filed pursuant to section , Florida Statutes; and Department of Children and Families Dependency Petitions for Injunction pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. Dependency All matters relating to children who have been abandoned, abused, neglected by parents or other custodian, children who need to be sheltered, children surrendered for the purpose of adoption, or children whose parents desire to terminate parental rights pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes; or children in need of services pursuant to Chapter 984, Florida Statutes. Shelter All matters relating to shelter petitions pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. Termination of Parental Rights Arising Out of Chapter 39 All matters relating to termination of parental rights pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. Page 35 of 49

39 Adoption Arising Out of Chapter 39 All matters relating to adoption pursuant to Chapter 39, Florida Statutes. CINS/FINS All matters relating to children in need of services (and families in need of services) pursuant to Chapter 984, Florida Statutes. Page 36 of 49

40 Attachment 05 AOSC In Re: Trial Court Case-Event Definitional Framework Page 37 of 49

41 Supreme Court of Florida No. AOSC14-20 IN RE: TRIAL COURT CASE-EVENT DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER The judicial branch is committed to improving the administration of justice and recognizes the need to establish a consistent and unambiguous environment for the tracking and recording of trial court case activity as an integral element of this effort. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the attached Case-Event Definitional Framework (hereinafter Framework ), which is incorporated herein by reference and shall be effective upon the signing of this order. Adoption of the Framework was recommended by the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability and is consistent with In re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC12-25 (July 2, 2012), and the report entitled Trial Court Integrated Management Solution (TIMS): Identifying Key Case and Workload Data and Establishing Uniform Definitions for Improving Automation of Florida s Trial Courts. Additionally, the Framework has been deployed in the Fiscal Year Page 38 of 49

42 Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog Reduction Initiative and has demonstrated its utility in trial court activity tracking. The Office of the State Courts Administrator is hereby charged with maintaining and updating the Framework in accordance with rule 2.245(a), Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. The Office of the State Courts Administrator is also directed to take appropriate action to implement this Framework as an intrinsic element of new trial court case activity data management projects, including the Integrated Trial Court Adjudication System, and to retrofit, as necessary and practical, existing trial court data collection systems such as the Summary Reporting System and the Criminal Transaction System in a reasonable time frame commensurate with available resources and the expected benefits of such actions. DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 26, ATTEST: Ricky Polston, Chief Justice John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court Page 39 of 49