News
Sizing up the Judiciary
News Article
January 05, 2014
Talks are underway to assess the number of trial judges needed. The statewide “right sizing” effort follows similar work in the minor courts.
The Supreme Court has embarked on a venture never before attempted in Pennsylvania — an evidence-based study to calculate how many Common Pleas Court judges are needed to handle the workload in each judicial district.
“Right sizing” the Commonwealth’s judicial complement has been a concern for a number of years.
Having the right number of judges in each judicial district is an economic imperative and fundamental to ensuring that Pennsylvania’s courts can continue to provide a high level of quality service.
Studies of this kind are also known as weighted caseload studies since they measure not only the number of cases handled by each court, but also the amount of a judge’s time needed to perform the various tasks related to a case.
The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) has been hired to perform the study. Suzanne Tallarico, NCSC principal court management consultant, will serve as project director, assisted by John Douglas, also from NCSC. Tallarico and Douglas have done similar work in 16 other states.
A judicial steering committee, composed of Common Pleas Court judges from different sized counties across the state — along with AOPC staff — is overseeing the project. The committee will advise the NCSC on identifying general case types, (e.g., criminal, civil, family, orphans, juvenile), on the general lengths of time cases take to complete, and on reviewing the results.
The first committee meeting took place November 15 in the Pennsylvania Judicial Center with members outlining to the NCSC consultants the desired structure of the study.
The study requires Pennsylvania’s Common Pleas Court judges, using a secure, Web-based system, to report for one month the amount of time they spend on various cases and tasks they perform. For example, time spent on holding hearings, conducting settlement conferences or writing opinions, as well as non-case-related activities like administrative duties.
The time measurement — when considered along with a judicial district’s caseload — will indicate the number of judges needed to handle the work of that district.
NCSC staff will travel throughout the state to provide training for the judges participating in the study and to answer any questions.
The final product will provide a data-based standard for the number of judicial positions needed for each judicial district. The resulting calculations will give the General Assembly an objective measure to assess the necessity of filling judicial vacancies and/or creating new judgeships. It also will give the Supreme Court data to enable it to use senior judges more efficiently. Judicial districts can use the results to match their existing judicial resources as efficiently as possible.
Studies of this sort are typically usable for five to eight years and can be updated annually with new caseload data. Funding for the project is being provided in part through a grant from the State Justice Institute.
Judicial Needs Assessment Committee Members:
Judges
Mark Bernstein - Philadelphia
Jeffrey Manning - Allegheny
Thomas DelRicci - Montgomery
Tina Polachek Gartley - Luzerne
Todd Hoover - Dauphin
Margherita Patti Worthington - Monroe
Dudley Anderson - Lycoming
John Cascio - Somerset
John Foradora - Jefferson
Michael Sholley - Snyder/Union
Nathaniel Nichols - Delaware
AOPC Staff
Amy Ceraso - AOPC Judicial Automation
Barb Holmes - AOPC Judicial Automation
Kim Nieves - AOPC Research & Statistics
Laurie Sacerdote - AOPC Research & Statistics
Amy Kehner - AOPC Judicial Programsp
Joe Mittleman - AOPC Judicial Programs
For other stories of interest about the state court system check out the current issue of AOPConnected.