My da|ra Login

Detailed view

metadata language: English

Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts of the United States, 1979, 1983-1985

Version
v0
Resource Type
Dataset : survey data
Creator
  • Mahoney, Barry (National Center for State Courts. Institute for Court Management)
Other Title
  • Archival Version (Subtitle)
Publication Date
1995-12-20
Funding Reference
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice
  • United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance
Language
English
Free Keywords
case processing; cities; court cases; courts; trial courts
Description
  • Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to examine caseflow management in order to reduce delays in urban trial courts. The data contain information from court records that reached disposition in a cross-section of urban general-jurisdiction trial courts during 1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The 1979 data files contain the baseline data for this survey. Data were gathered on civil and criminal case processing times across a broad range of courts, and changes in case processing times over a period of years were analyzed for 18 different jurisdictions: Newark, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Miami, Wayne County, Minneapolis, the Bronx, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Dayton, Boston, Cleveland, Providence, Wichita, Detroit, Oakland, and Jersey City. The data are supplemented by information supplied by trial court administrators and presiding judges in the courts participating in the study. Data include information on the nature of the case, the dates of first and last trials, and the total number of trials and their manner of disposition.
  • Abstract

    The purpose of this study was to examine caseflow management in order to reduce delays in urban trial courts. Data were gathered on civil and criminal case processing times across a broad range of courts, and changes in case processing times over a period of years were analyzed for 18 different jurisdictions: Newark, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Miami, Wayne County, Minneapolis, the Bronx, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Dayton, Boston, Cleveland, Providence, Wichita, Detroit, Oakland, and Jersey City. These data contain information that reached disposition in a cross-section of urban general-jurisdiction trial courts during 1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The 1979 data files contain the baseline data for this survey. In selecting courts for inclusion in the study, a mix of urban courts from different geographic regions, all with at least ten judges, was sought. The intent was to include at least a few courts that met the following criteria: (1) courts that had been the subject of a prior empirical study of case processing times, (2) courts that had initiated a significant delay reduction or delay prevention effort during the 1977-1983 period, and (3) courts located in states in which a significant state-wide delay reduction effort had been initiated during the 1977-1983 period.
  • Abstract

    After the court selection, presiding judges or trial court administrators were contacted to arrange initial site visits. These visits served three purposes: (1) to help project staff members obtain an overview of civil and criminal case processing in the court through interviews with key judges and administrators, (2) to collect documentary information about the court, such as organizational charts, management information reports, local court rules, annual reports, etc., and (3) to study the court's record-keeping system. These systems provided a basis for developing a data collection framework.
  • Abstract

    The criminal case survey instrument contains 22 basic question statements. Out of 22 basic data elements that are present in the data, eight are dates that include date of arrest, date trial started, date of disposition, and date of sentencing. Other elements include total number of defendants, most serious charge in indictment, number of counts or charges against this defendant, type of disposition, most serious charge at conviction, and sentence imposed. The civil case survey instrument contains 17 basic question statements. Out of 17 elements in the data six are dates which include date of complaint, first schedule trial date, date trial started, and date of disposition. Other elements include nature of case, number of plaintiffs, number of defendants, and manner of disposition. Supplemental data elements were added in particular sites.
  • Methods

    ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection: Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.; Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes..
  • Methods

    Presence of Common Scales: None
  • Methods

    Response Rates: Not applicable.
  • Table of Contents

    Datasets:

    • DS0: Study-Level Files
    • DS1: 1979 Civil Data File
    • DS2: 1983 Civil Data File
    • DS3: 1984 Civil Data File
    • DS4: 1985 Civil Data File
    • DS5: 1979 Criminal Data File for Jersey City
    • DS6: 1979 Criminal Data File for Wichita
    • DS7: 1983 Criminal Data File for Miami
    • DS8: 1983 Criminal Data File for the Bronx
    • DS9: 1983 Criminal Data File for Portland
    • DS10: 1983 Criminal Data File for Jersey City
    • DS11: 1983 Criminal Data File for All Other Cities
    • DS12: 1984 Criminal Data File for Miami
    • DS13: 1984 Criminal Data File for the Bronx
    • DS14: 1984 Criminal Data File for Portland
    • DS15: 1984 Criminal Data File for Jersey City
    • DS16: 1984 Criminal Data File for All Other Cities
    • DS17: 1985 Criminal Data File for Miami
    • DS18: 1985 Criminal Data File for the Bronx
    • DS19: 1985 Criminal Data File for Portland
    • DS20: 1985 Criminal Data File for Jersey City
    • DS21: 1985 Criminal Data File for All Other Cities
    • DS23: SAS Data Definition Statements for All Civil Data Files
    • DS24: SAS Data Definition Statements for Jersey City Criminal Data
    • DS25: SAS Data Definition Statements for the Bronx Criminal Data
    • DS26: SAS Data Definition Statements for Miami Criminal Data
    • DS27: SAS Data Definition Statements for Portland Criminal Data
    • DS28: SAS Data Definition Statements for Criminal Data for All Other Cities
Temporal Coverage
  • Time period: 1979
  • 1983 / 1985
    Time period: 1983--1985
Geographic Coverage
  • United States
Sampled Universe
Civil and criminal trial cases in urban courts of the United States.
Sampling
A general sample of approximately 500 criminal cases and 500 civil cases was selected for each disposition year--1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The approach to select the desired sample size of 500 was first to determine (or estimate) the number of dispositions in the year for which the sample was drawn. The determined (or the estimated) number was then divided by the desired sample size (500) to obtain the sampling interval. Using the random number as a starting point, every nth (where n is the sampling interval) case on the list was picked up for inclusion in the sample.
Collection Mode
  • Data for 1979 are supplied for New Jersey and Wichita only. No civil data are available for Detroit for 1983 and 1985, nor for Phoenix, Miami, Minneapolis, Newark, New Orleans, or Oakland in 1984. See the notes in the codebook for information particular to certain sites. The individual survey instrument for each site is available only in hardcopy form upon request from ICPSR.

Note
2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 29 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2006-01-12 All files were removed from dataset 22 and flagged as study-level files, so that they will accompany all downloads.2005-11-04 On 2005-03-14 new files were added to one or more datasets. These files included additional setup files as well as one or more of the following: SAS program, SAS transport, SPSS portable, and Stata system files. The metadata record was revised 2005-11-04 to reflect these additions. Funding insitution(s): United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. National Institute of Justice (84-IJ-CX-0077). United States Department of Justice. Office of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance (84-SN-AX-0001, 87-DD-CX-0002).
Availability
Delivery
This version of the study is no longer available on the web. If you need to acquire this version of the data, you have to contact ICPSR User Support (help@icpsr.umich.edu).
Alternative Identifiers
  • 9918 (Type: ICPSR Study Number)
Relations
  • Is previous version of
    DOI: 10.3886/ICPSR09918.v1
Publications
  • National Center for State Courts. Trial Court Performance Standards With Commentary. Monograph.NCJ 161570, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1997.
    • ID: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/161570.pdf (URL)
  • Conti, S.D.. Drug Issues Affecting State Judicial Systems. Briefing Papers.NCJ 170647, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1991.
  • Goerdt, J.A., Lomvardias, C., Gallas, G.. Reexamining the Pace of Litigation in 39 Urban Trial Courts. NCJ 134609, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1991.
  • Hewitt, W.E., Gallas, G., Mahoney, Barry. Courts That Succeed Six Profiles of Successful Courts. NCJ 125932, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1990.
  • National Center for State Courts. Trial Court Performance Standards With Commenatry. NCJ 131143, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1990.
  • Goerdt, J., Lomvardias, C., Gallas, G., Mahoney, Barry. Examining Court Delay: The Pace of Litigation in 26 Urban Trial Courts 1987. NCJ 121598, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1989.
  • Munsterman, G.T, Munsterman, J.T.. Microcomputer Applications for Jury Systems Support. NCJ 120203, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1989.
  • National Center for State Courts. Microcomputer Applications for Jury Systems Support. NCJ 126858, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1989.
  • National Center for State Courts. Tentative Trial Court Performance Standards With Commenatry. NCJ 117505, Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1989.
  • Mahoney, Barry, Sipes, Dale Anne. Toward better management of criminal litigation. Judicature.72, 29-37.1988.
  • Mahoney, Barry, et al. Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts, Final Report. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice. 1988.
  • Mahoney, Barry, et al. Changing Times in Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. 1988.
  • Mahoney, Barry. Attacking problems of delay in urban trial courts. State Court Journal.11, (3), 4-10.1987.
  • Mahoney, Barry, Sipes, Larry L., Ito, Jeanne A.. Implementing Delay Reduction and Delay Prevention Programs in Urban Trial Courts: Preliminary Findings From Current Research. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts. 1985.

Update Metadata: 2015-08-05 | Issue Number: 6 | Registration Date: 2015-06-15

Mahoney, Barry (1995): Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts of the United States, 1979, 1983-1985. Archival Version. Version: v0. ICPSR - Interuniversity Consortium for Political and Social Research. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09918