BEXAR COUNTY JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS FY SECOND QUARTER

Transcription

1 BEXAR COUNTY JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURTS FY 29-1 SECOND QUARTER JUDICIAL SYSTEM WORKLOAD AND EFFICIENCY MEASURES Prepared by: Planning and Resource Management Budget Division

2 Brief Summary: This part of the report is based FY between the months of January and March. The report only includes criminal district courts and their presiding judges in the Bexar County judicial system, which includes the following: 144 th Criminal District : Judge Catherine Torres-Stahl 175 th Criminal District : Judge Mary Roman 186 th Criminal District : Judge Maria Teresa (Tessa) Herr 187 th Criminal District : Judge Raymond Angelini 226 th Criminal District : Judge Sid L. Harle 227 th Criminal District : Judge Philip Kazen 29 th Criminal District : Judge Sharon MacRae 379 th Criminal District : Judge Ron Rangel 399 th Criminal District : Judge Juanita Vasquez-Gardner 437 th Criminal District : Judge Lori Valenzuela*

3 Measure 1: Cost per Disposition Definition: The net cost of disposing of a single case. Method: Cost per disposition is the net cost of the court divided by the number of dispositions. Net cost per disposition includes revenue collected and costs between October and December from each court. This measure allows the court to compare their average cost per case to other courts, enabling the participants to make adjustments to court practices where applicable. Indigent defense is included in the net cost per disposition. Of the total expenses for the court system, 41 percent are indigent defense costs. The second graph represents the average net cost (revenue collected versus cost) per court appointed attorney assignment. Other personnel are budgeted within other respective County departments, such as the District Attorney s Office, Bexar County Sheriff s Office, and the District Clerk s Office. Positions with benefits include three prosecutors, two court clerks, three bailiffs, one advocate, and one investigator for each court. Specialized District Attorney teams involving family violence and alcohol related incidents are also included. Analysis and Interpretation: The following page shows a court by court comparison of Cost per Case based on the second quarter of FY s are listed in order of the least to the most costly. Net Cost Per Disposition (Estimate) $8 Net Cost $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $2 $211 $311 Rangel Kazen Vasquez- Gardner $351 $361 Torres- Stahl $625 $54 $385 $44 $44 $442 Herr Harle Roman Angelini MacRae Valenzuela Costs $1,2 $1,1 $1, $9 $8 $7 $6 $5 $4 $3 $481 $73 $784 Average Indigent Cost per $811 $828 $867 Rangel Kazen Valenuela Torres-Stahl Harle Angelini Vasquez- Gardner $911 $926 $1,3 $1,33 MacRae Herr Roman 1

4 FY nd Quarter Cost per Disposition Number Judge Operating Expenses Ct. Appointed Atty. Costs Total Expenses Indigent Defense Revenues Fine Revenues Total County Revenues Net Cost/ (Savings) Number of Dispositions Net Cost/ (Savings) per Disposition 379 Rangel $ 78,245 $ 138,72 $ 216,965 $ 16,146 $ 1,84 $ 116,986 $ 99, $ Kazen $ 62,517 $ 157,853 $ 22,37 $ 15,467 $ 94,326 $ 19,793 $ 11, $ 311 Vasquez- 399 Gardner $ 81,957 $ 179,9 $ 26,966 $ 6,857 $ 84,775 $ 91,632 $ 169, $ Torres-Stahl $ 66,379 $ 191,725 $ 258,14 $ 14,121 $ 1,111 $ 114,232 $ 143, $ Herr $ 69,87 $ 248,238 $ 318,18 $ 11,526 $ 17,19 $ 118,545 $ 199, $ Harle $ 73,551 $ 215,33 $ 288,881 $ 18,161 $ 95,175 $ 113,336 $ 175, $ Roman $ 63,368 $ 215,768 $ 279,136 $ 8,21 $ 84,37 $ 92,238 $ 186, $ Angelini $ 75,122 $ 234,175 $ 39,297 $ 13,79 $ 112,4 $ 125,83 $ 184, $ MacRae $ 73,44 $ 162,22 $ 235,66 $ 2,721 $ 34,84 $ 37,525 $ 197, $ Valenzuela $ 56,817 $ 83,28 $ 14,25 $ 123 $ 5,5 $ 5,128 $ 134, $ 625 Administration $ 55,183 $ - $ 55,183 $ - $ - $ - $ 55,183 N/A N/A Total $1,251,53 $1,826,48 $3,77,11 $16,42 $ 818,96 $ 924,498 $2,152,

5 Measure 2: Jail Bed Days Definition: The number of jail bed days consumed. Method: This information is retrieved from the Jail Track Management System. The use of jail bed days is helpful when making case management decisions regarding disposition. When implementing a differentiated case management system, it is important to measure current consumption and then measure it against the actual consumption after the implementation of the new system. The ultimate goal is expedited case disposition where appropriate, and the benefit is a reduction in jail bed days consumed. Note: Motions to revoke probation are included. The average length of stay for inmates is calculated by totaling the number of jail bed days consumed from indictment to release and dividing by the number of inmates incarcerated. Analysis and Interpretation: The following shows a court by court comparison of Jail Bed Days for the second quarter of FY 29-1 from least jail bed days to the greatest jail bed days and the average length of stay per inmate. Jail Bed Days Jail Bed Days 35, 3, 25, 2, 18,51 2,864 23,815 25,581 25,95 26,4 27,25 27,299 28,736 3,752 15, Valenzuela MacRae Angelini Herr Harle Kazen Rangel Roman Vasquez-Gardner Torres-Stahl Average Length of Stay 112 Days MacRae Herr Vasquez-Gardner Rangel Angelini Harle Torres-Stahl Roman Kazen Valenzuela 3

6 Measure 3: Clearance Rates Definition: The number of disposed cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases. Method: Clearance rates are measured using two variables, incoming cases and the number of cases disposed monthly. Incoming cases include new cases filed by information, new cases filed by indictment, other cases reaching docket (motions to revoke probation/deferred adjudication, shock probations returned from TDC, and transfers from other counties), internal cases transferred in, and removing cases transferred out. Motions to revoke probation are counted against the original court in which the case was disposed from. The number of outgoing cases includes all monthly dispositions. The first graph shows the average monthly docket, which portrays the workload for each court. The second graph shows the disposition rate for each court. This is determined by the number of cases disposed versus the entire docket. Certain dismissals have been removed this quarter to follow the Office of Administration guidelines, which include Case Dismissed, Dismissed-Deferred Adjudication, Dismissed-Deceased, Dismissed Reduced to Class C, and Dismissed and Reduced. These dismissals were removed because they have previously been counted as a disposition either through a plea or other conviction. Analysis and Interpretation: The clearance rate is a measure of the incoming cases a court receives monthly compared to the total cases disposed of monthly. This measure portrays the court s ability to balance current caseload and incoming cases. A clearance rate of 1% represents a court that is currently maintaining the status quo. Above 1% represents a court that is disposing of more cases than it is receiving. Below 1% represents a court that is disposing of less cases than it is receiving. This measure is helpful in making case management decisions that will assist in the reduction of backlog. Additionally, the measure of the age of the case disposed assists the court in gauging their progress in comparison with the ABA standards. Average Monthly Docket 2,5 255 Docket 2, 1, , Torres- Stahl Angelini Harle Valenzuela Kazen Vasquez- Gardner Rangel Roman MacRae Herr Disposition Rate Percent 13% 12% 11% 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % 12% 11% 1% 9% MacRae Herr Harle Vasquez- Gardner 9% 9% 8% 9% Average 7% 6% 6% Rangel Angelini Roman Kazen Torres- Stahl Valenzuela 4

7 Rate 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 88% 225% 2% 175% 15% 125% 1% 75% 5% 25% % Clearance Rate Valenzuela Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate *This is the first quarter the 437 th has been reported. 13% 12% 11% 1% 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 18% Clearance Rate Vasquez-Gardner Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 85% Rate 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 94% 11% Clearance Rate Herr Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 91% 1% 9% Rate 8% 7% Judge's Rate 6% 5% Jan Feb Mar Month 5

8 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 94% Clearance Rate Rangel Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 92% 11% 1% Rate 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 93% 11% 1% 9% Clearance Rate Roman Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 75% Rate 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 11% 1% 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 92% Clearance Rate Harle Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 82% Rate 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 6

9 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 91% 11% 1% 9% Clearance Rate Angelini Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 93% Rate 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 11% 1% 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 85% 9% Clearance Rate MacRae Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 114% Rate 8% 7% 6% 5% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 2 nd Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 79% 11% 1% 9% Clearance Rate Kazen Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 71% Rate 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate 7

10 Rate 1 st Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 77% 12% 11% 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% Clearance Rate Torres-Stahl Jan Feb Mar Month Judge's Rate Last Qtr. Average Clearance Rate 76% 8

11 Measure 4: Time to Disposition Definitions: Time to Disposition: The percentage of cases disposed or otherwise resolved within established time frames. This is a comparison of data from age of disposed cases and only considers cases that are disposed, not the full docket. Average Monthly Disposition Rate: The number of cases disposed on a monthly basis compared to the total number of cases on the docket, which is noted in each Time to Disposition chart. Average Monthly Docket: The number of cases on the docket per month averaged through the months reported within the established time frame, which is noted in each Time to Disposition chart. The case processing time standards published by the American Bar Association (ABA) and those published by the Conference of State Administrators (COSCA) provide a starting point for determining guidelines. According to the National Center for State s, the Conference of State Administrators (COSCA) and the American Bar Association (ABA) have offered specific time standards for case processing. The Criminal District s will be implementing a Felony Case Plan (CASE) that sets the time standards for Bexar County. The applied time frame for this measure will use the Standard Track time frame, in which a case can be disposed of between 275 days and 285 days. The most similar range in the reported data is between 241 and 281 days, which will be used for this measure. Analysis and Interpretation: The disposition rate represents the actual day to day workings of the. It is a measure of the judicial workload. This calculation takes into consideration the disposition of cases on the existing docket in addition to the other matters addressed by the on an average day, including Motions to Revoke, Shock Probation, Motions for New Trial and Motions to Adjudicate. The disposition rate portrays the flow of the variety of judicial proceedings routinely before the. The Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System report categorized the age of disposed cases in the following categories for Criminal District s: 6 Days or Less Days 61-9 Days Days Days Days Days Days Days Days 21-24Days Days Days 521 Days & Over *CASE management system implemented in Judge Herr s court, Judge Harle s court, and Judge MacRae s courts. 9

12 Average Monthly Docket 1,121 Time to Disposition Judge MacRae* Monthly Disposition Rate 12% COSCA 63% within 16 Days 6% Last Quarter CASE 8% within 28 Days < > Day Ranges Average Monthly Docket 1,434 Time to Disposition Judge Harle* Monthly Disposition Rate 1% COSCA 52% within 16 Days 55% Last Quarter CASE 71% within 28 Days < > Day Ranges Average Monthly Docket 1,785 Time to Disposition Judge Kazen Monthly Disposition Rate 7% COSCA CASE 57% within 16 Days 7% within 28 Days 59% Last Quarter < > Day Ranges 1

13 Average Monthly Docket 1,6 Time to Disposition Judge Angelini Monthly Disposition Rate 9% COSCA CASE 54% within 16 Days 67% within 28 Days 53% Last Quarter < > Day Ranges Average Monthly Docket 1,762 Time to Disposition Judge Vasquez-Gardner Monthly Disposition Rate 9% COSCA 52% within 16 Days 57% Last Quarter CASE 66% within 28 Days < > Day Ranges Average Monthly Docket 1,545 Time to Disposition Judge Herr* Monthly Disposition Rate 11% COSCA CASE 51% within 16 Days 65% within 28 Days 52% Last Quarter < > Day Ranges 11

14 Average Monthly Docket 1,765 Time to Disposition Judge Rangel Monthly Disposition Rate 9% COSCA CASE 52% within 16 Days 64% within 28 Days 5% Last Quarter < > Day Ranges Average Monthly Docket 1,73 Time to Disposition Judge Roman Monthly Disposition Rate 8% COSCA CASE 45% within 16 Days 62% within 28 Days 2 58% Last Quarter < > Day Ranges Average Monthly Docket 2,55 Time to Disposition Judge Torres-Stahl Monthly Disposition Rate 6% COSCA 49% within 16 Days 56% Last Quarter CASE 59% within 28 Days < > Day Ranges 12

15 Average Monthly Docket 1,168 Time to Disposition Judge Valenzuela Monthly Disposition Rate 6% COSCA 35% within 16 Days CASE 45% within 28 Days < > Day Ranges 13

16 Measure 5: Age of Active Cases Pending Caseload Definition: The age of active cases pending before the court, which is measured as the number of days from filing until the time of measurement. Method: For each case type being analyzed, the report calculates the time, in days, from filing of the case until the date established for the reporting period being examined (December 31, 29). Fugitives are included in the data, which can be an extensive amount of time. Analysis and Interpretation: The age of the active case pending measure allows a court to view their progress in achieving a disposition rate more in line with the ABA standards. It is a helpful tool in docket management allowing the court to make the necessary adjustments in case administration to achieve a reduction in disposition rate more in line with ABA standards. Note: Fugitives are not included in the data. Cases include what district courts consider open felony cases. Percent of Active Caseload Over One-Year Old 7% 6% 62% 5% Percent 4% 3% 2% 1% 1% 18% 2% 2% 26% 31% 34% 37% 4% MacRae Harle Herr Angelini Rangel Roman Vasquez-Gardner Kazen Torres-Stahl Valenzuela 14

17 Measure 6: Caseload Comparison Definition: The amount of new cases added and the amount of jury trials that went to verdict. Method: This information is retrieved from the Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System reported to the Office of Administration. Analysis and Interpretation: The following shows an aggregate comparison of Caseload between the third quarter and first quarter of FY New Cases Filed Last Quarter Comparison st Quarter 2nd Quarter 1 Harle Herr Angelini Vasquez- Gardner Kazen Torres-Stahl Rangel Roman MacRae Jury Trials to Verdict Last Quarter Comparison # of Trials st Quarter 2nd Quarter Herr Torres-Stahl Roman Harle MacRae Rangel Kazen Vasquez- Gardner Angelini 15

18 BEXAR COUNTY JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT APPENDIX This Appendix is broken into two sections, FY 29-1 data between January and March and age of disposed cases. The purpose of this appendix is to further analyze specific data involved with measuring court performance.

19 FY nd Quarter District Caseload New Cases Herr Torres- Stahl Rangel Kazen Harle Angelini MacRae Roman Vasquez- Gardner Valenzuela Other Cases Reaching Docket Herr Torres- Stahl Angelini Rangel Vasquez- Gardner MacRae Roman Harle Kazen Valenzuela Jury Trials to Verdict # of Jury Trials Harle MacRae Rangel Valenzuela Roman Herr Angelini Torres- Stahl Vasquez- Gardner Kazen i

20 FY nd Quarter District Caseload Capital Cases to Verdict Roman Herr Kazen Torres- Stahl Angelini Harle MacRae Rangel Vasquez- Gardner Valenzuela ii

21 Aged Cases Disposed (Percent) Criminal District s 2 nd Quarter INDICATOR: Comparison of age of cases % -9 Days % 91-2 Days % Days % 281 Days & Over MacRae 48% 21% 11% 2% Angelini 45% 14% 8% 33% Kazen 42% 2% 8% 3% Torres-Stahl 42% 13% 5% 4% Harle 4% 17% 14% 29% Vasquez- Gardner 39% 18% 9% 34% Herr 36% 19% 1% 35% Rangel 35% 2% 8% 37% Roman 34% 16% 12% 38% Valenzuela 28% 1% 7% 55% 6% 5% Average Percent of Disposed Cases Percent 4% 3% 2% 1% % MacRae Angelini Kazen Torres-Stahl Harle Vasquez-Gardner Herr Rangel Roman Valenzuela % -9 Days % 91-2 Days % Days % 281 Days & Over iii

22 Sources: Measure 1: Cost per Disposition Bexar County Adult Probation Information System State Fiscal Year Report: Felony Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System: District Criminal Section Summary Report Estimates by Planning and Resource Management Measure 2: Jail Bed Days Jail Track Management System Measure 3: Clearance Rate Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System: District Criminal Section Summary Report Measure 4: Time to Disposition Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System: District Criminal Section Summary Report National Center for State s Measure 5: Age of Active Cases Pending Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System Measure 6: Caseload Comparison Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System: District Criminal Section Summary Report Appendix: Bexar County Criminal Justice Information System: District Criminal Section Summary Report