HomeMy WebLinkAboutSeptember 28, 2011 MinutesPUBLIC =AFETY COORDINATING COVNCIL
Minutes of Meeting
September 28, 2011
Convened: 3:38 p.m. Adioyrned: 4:08 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
Commissioner Craft called the meeting to order at 3:38 p.m. in Conference Room # 3, 2300
Virginia Avenue, Fort Pierce, Florida.
ROLL CALL
Roll call was taken.
Member= Pre=enibi
Bruce Colton, State Attorney
Commissioner Chris Craft
Chief Judge Steve Levin,l9t" Circuit
Judge Philip 1. Vacucci,l9t" Circuit
Scott Harloff for Suzanne Caudell, CORE Program
Trevor Morganti for Ken Mascara, Sheriff of SLC
Dennis Schmidt for Janet Collins, Bail Association
John Romano, New Horizons
Members Abtenit:
Thomas Mark, Department of Corrections
Suzanne Caudell, CORE Program
Ken Mascara, Sheriff of SLC
Pat Tighe, Major - SLSO
Diamond Litty, Public Defender
Janet Collins, Bail Association
Others Present
Mark Godwin, SLC Criminal Justice Coordinator
Tom Genung,19t" Circuit Court Administrator
Ethel Rowland, Taxpayer
Broderick Underwood, C11S Analyst
Lt. William McMahon, SLC SO
Major Gary Robinson, PSL PD
APPROVAL OP MINUTE=~
The minutes from July 28, 2011 were unanimously approved.
IPwblie fafety Coordinating Coaneil
fep~ember Z8, ZOff
Page Z
UPDATE by fLC fherriff~s Offiee- Trevor Morganti on behalf of fheri~f Ma=eara~
Mr. Morganti, Classification Supervisor reported the jail population at 1292 which includes 61
federal inmates. Twenty two percent of the population is mentally ill. Five percent of the
population's age is 55 and above. He reported an inmate as old as 88 which imposes an
increase in medical costs. Mr. Morganti advised that this is something they will watch, other
than that it has been quiet.
UPDATE by Criminal ~a=~iee Coordinator- Marh Codwin~
Mr. Godwin reported that there are currently 150 to 160 people on GPS with the Pretrial
Program. He gave an update on the SLC Drug Lab which expanded into Okeechobee this
past July at the Judiciary's request. The Okeechobee Lab is in the same building as CORE
Probation which is at: 406 NW 3rd Avenue. The Board also recently approved a sixteen line
phone system for the four counties. This automated system would allow defendants to call
their local "hotline" phone number and they would be forwarded to one main line. After
being connected to the main line, defendants would make a key press for their specific county
instructions (including random numbers, hours, and location of each lab). Prior to this staff
had to set a message every night of the year.
C11S Analyst, Broderick Underwood has been working with Thomas Genung, Court
Administrator on electronic filing within our data base. Currently there are 40o to 500
attorneys registered to file on the civil side. Mr. Godwin announced that they are ready to
help any Judges interested in using this feature on the criminal side. In regards to holding a
Best Practices meeting, it will not be held now due to the Legislative session starting earlier.
The Florida Association of Counties had to switch gears to get ready for that.
The Average Monthly Inmate Population report was reviewed and discussed.
~fUDIC1AL UPDATE:
Chief Judge Levin reported the Judges new assignments are out and changes will be made in
January. He thanked Chairman Craft and Miss Outlaw for their efforts during the transition of
the courthouse expansion. The Juveniles at Seventh Street will be moved over to occupy two
new court rooms. Felonies will be on the third floor and Judge Barnes will move to the old
courthouse now referred to as the middle building. Lots of changes were made and will
continue to be made. They have until December 31st to use all of the FEMA dollars to
complete this expansion. The Chief Judge also reported the Juvenile Drug Court population as
"medium" and the Adult Drug Court as well as Mental Health Court as "large".
Pyblie fafety Coordinating Coyn~il
feptember Z8, ZOff
Page 3
OLD BUfiNEff:
Mr. Godwin provided an update on Major Tighe's suggestion to have a facilitator workr with
our middle managers to improve the Court System case flow and wori?flow. Mr. Godwin
mentioned he would. scan and email the two proposals he obtained. One proposal is from
David C. Steelman with National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the other from Attorney
Howard R. Messing. Both are highly qualified in this type of service.
NEW BUfINEff:
Mr. Godwin thanked Judge Klingensmith because he has done a great job with the Juveniles.
Currently there are only fifteen in our Juvenile Detention Center in all four Counties which is at
an all-time low.
Mr. Romano wanted to speak about managing entities but opted to put it off until there is a
larger PSCC audience at a later meeting. He provided a brief overview on the subject.
Chairman Craft announced after serving five years on this committee his intentions of offering
other Commissioners the opportunity to serve on this committee. November is when the
Board reorganizes and rotates the committees on which they serve. Chairman Craft thought
it would be a great opportunity for his Board to learn and have a better understanding on
how the system and programs operate. Members agreed that it would be beneficial for
another Board member to get involved and understand how this committee works-together
and what the different agencies experience and accomplish.
A citizen, Ms. Rowland spore briefly about a Law Enforcement training called: Fair and
Impartial Policing and passed around a handout on it. This training is for Law Enforcement
Agency Executives, Command Staff, and Community Stakeholders. Please see attached for
more information.
It was decided that no Public Safety meeting will be held in November since it falls on
Thanksgiving and December since it is a Holiday week and many may not be in town. In the
event of an urgent matter a meeting can be scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Craft adjourned the meeting at 4:08 p.m.
Submitted by,
Carlene Busse
THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE HELD October 27, 2011
Pablie fafety Coordina~ins Coancil
fepiember Z8, ZOff
Pase 4
1 September 2011
I would be happy and honored to serve as Facilitator for the St. Lucie CJCC.
As the County has been studied extensively in the past I would propose an
updating to enable the Criminal Justice system to positively tweak its
procedures.
For this type of project I typically visit the jurisdiction for 2 or 3 days meeting
with all Criminal Justice System participants to develop an updated case flow
model.
I would then propose returning for a full (or half) day workshop with the CJCC
Members to try to develop and enhanced case flow system.
After that, if desired, I could return to present a report to Senior Criminal
justice.Officials on the product(s) of the workshop.
I noticed your Public Safety Coordinating Council minutes of July 28 2011
considers a considerably longer time frame (3 months I believe) however my
experience is that a much shorter time frame can yield significant results.
Subsequently, should a detailed multi-month study be desired that can
always be considered at a later date.
For this project I would bill $1000. a day plus expenses (Hotel, Travel etc). My
normal lawyer billing rate is currently $500. an hour but for this type of project
and for a local Government (and old friends) I am happy to offer this reduced
rate. My best guess is the complete project should take no more than 5 days
(and quite possibly less).
I am attaching my resume for the Councils consideration. If you need any other
information just ask.
Very best
Howard
Howard R. Messin
Professor Emeritus of Law
Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad Law Center
2200 S. Ocean Lane, Suite 2510
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
(954) 462-2484
HRMESQ(c~AOL.com
EDUCATION
J.D., Syracuse University College of Law, May, 1973. Graduate level work in Sociology,
Syracuse University, 1967-1969. A.B. (Sociology, Art History), Syracuse University,
1963. Bronx H.S. of Science
RECENT PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES
Professor of Law Emeritus, (Tenured) -Nova Southeastern University Shepard Broad
Law Center, Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Taught courses in Professional Responsibility, Evidence, Trial Advocacy, Criminal Clinic
Torts, Advanced Professional Responsibility Seminar and Constitutional Rights of
Institutionalized Persons..
Member- Pre-Trial Services Resource Center; A Washington DC based not-for-profit
involved in Pre Trial Justice related issues. Chair 2000-2002, Member 1989-Present
Chair -Board of Regents -Pre-Trial Justice Institute. A U.S. Department of Justice
sponsored institute dealing with Pre-Trial Justice training and certification 1999-2001
Expert Witness -Legal Ethics: Conflict of Interest,- Confidentiality, Attorney Client
Relations, Standard of Practice, and related legal ethical matters.
Legal Ethics -Florida Bar Professional Ethics Committee Member; Co-drafter Florida's
Rules of Professional Conduct; Past Chairperson (three terms) Florida Bar Grievance
Committee; Legal Ethics Program Nova Law Center, Expert Witness in Legal Ethics,
Representative areas; Confidentiality; Conflict of Interest; Candor to Tribunal, Judicial
Ethics.
Jail Master -Federal Master Broward County Florida (Fort Lauderdale) Jail a 5000+ bed
system and former Federal Master Monroe County Florida (Key West) jail a 300+ bed
system. Appointed by the U.S. District Court in both suits.
Consultant - Jail Crowding and Criminal Justice System Delay Reduction.
Representative Sites: Los Angeles, CA; New York City, NY; Boston, Mass; Chicago, IL;
San Francisco, CA; Dekalb County, Georgia; Topeka, Kansas; Charleston, South
Carolina; Youngstown, Ohio; Champaign County, Illinois; Tampa, Florida; Milwaukee,
Wisconsin; FairFax County, VA; Houston, Texas; Charlotte, South Carolina; Cherokee
County, S.C.; Warner-Robbins, GA; Martin County, Florida; Champaign County, Illinois;
Arlington County, VA; Tulsa, OK; Thurston County. WA.;Midland County, Mich.
;Monterey County, CA., St. Lucie County, Florida, Etc.
Instructor -Jail Crowding Seminars: Representative Seminars; National Academy of
Corrections, Tennessee Corrections Institute, BJA sponsored training for state trainers
Boston, MA, San Francisco, CA, California Association of County Executives, California
Department of Corrections, New York State Association of Counties, Michigan
Association of Counties, New Mexico Association of Counties, American Jail
Association.
Trial Advocacy - N.I.T.A. Certified (Teacher Training Program): Co-Founder Nova Law
Center intensive Trial Advocacy Program; Director Florida Bar Public
Defender/Prosecutor N.I.T.A. Training Program; Instructor Florida Prosecuting
Attorney's Trial Advocacy Program.
PRIOR EMPLOYMENT
Visiting Fellow: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, selected in a
nationwide competition, conducted research on the use of masters in jail litigation.
(1987)
Office of the State Attorney: Broward County, Florida (1976-1981); Bureau Chief,
Juvenile Division-Attorney supervision, case charging and policy making,
responsibilities (1980-1981); Senior Assistant State Attorney/Training Officer-Felony
case charging responsibility and director of training for over 100 attorneys (1978-1980);
Bureau Chief, Misdemeanor Division-Supervisor of all entry level assistants and director
of office employment activities; (1976-1978); Senior Assistant, Felony Division -trial
attorney (1976).
Office of the Public Defender: Broward County, Florida (1973-1976); Chief Assistant
(1975-1976) -supervision and training of staff of 30 attorneys; Senior trial attorney-
felonydivision (1973-1975).
Consumer Protection Agency: Syracuse, New York (1971-1974); Director: Supervision
of staff of 25 employees in consumer complaint and advocacy agency (1974); Assistant
director (1971-1973).
Teaching: Nova University, Fort Lauderdale, Florida -Adjunct Professor -Criminal
Justice (M.A.) Program (1977-1980); Onondaga Community College, Syracuse, New
York -Instructor of Sociology (1969-1976); Cazanovia College, Cazanovia, New York -
Instructor of Sociology (1969-1970).
PUBLICATIONS
Messing, "Assessing Development of Legal Background for U.S. Policies on HIV in
Jails" published in the AIDS & Society International Research and Policy Bulletin, Vol. 6
No. 3 (March/April 1995).
Messing, "Ethics Development at the American Bar Association," American Association
of Law Schools Professional Responsibility Section Newsletter (Spring, 1995).
Messing, AIDS in Jails, American Jails Magazine, March/April 1993 Vol.Vll #1.
Messing, AIDS in Jails, 11 N.III. U.L.R. 297 (1991).
Messing and Caruso -AIDS in Corrections Correctional Law Reporter Vol.ll No. 2 May
1990
Messing and Henry -Jail Crowding Training on Systemic Delay Reduction. United
States Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance (1990)
Messing, Legal Ethics, Survey of Florida Law 1986-1087, 11 NOVA L.J. (1987).
Messing, Florida's Proposed Rules of Professional Conduct. Survey of Florida Law,
(1985-1986), 10 NOVA L.J. 1107 (1986).
Dobson, Braccialarghe & Messing, Evidence, Survey of the United States Court of
Appeal, Eleventh Circuit, 37 MERCER L. REV. 1357 (1986).
Messing, The Latest Word on Solicitation, LX, No. 5 FLA BAR. J. 17 (1986).
Messing, Criminal Pre-Trial Practice in Florida, Vol. II Pre-Trial Practice, Chapter II
Ethical Considerations in Criminal Pre-trial Practice. THE FLORIDA BAR (1987).
Messing, Representing a Criminal Defendant Who Intends to Lie, LXI FLA. BAR J. April
1987.
Florida's Rules of Professional Conduct (1984) Co-author and committee member.
Messing, A Review of Florida's Proposed Rules of Professional Conduct, 5 TRIAL
ADVOC. Q. 16 (1986).
Messing & Dale, How Many Beds in a Cell are Constitutional? AM. JAIL ASSN
NEWSLETTER
Messing & Dale, Supreme Court Restricts Constitutional Tort Actions, AM. JAIL ASSN
NEWSLETTER (Summer 1986).
Messing & Dale, Jail Masters, AM. JAIL ASSN NEWSLETTER (Winter 1986).
OTHER WRITINGS
Messing, Scripts for Broadway Legends and Circus at Sea on NCL's Windward and for
London Daily News and The Tonvs on Cunard's Sagafjord and Vistafjord.
Messing & Denise, Script for Dance Magic on NCL's Sunward 2, Skyward, Southward,
Starward and Messing, script for Escapade on Cunard's QE2.
Messing and Cox, Technical Assistance in Jail Crowding: An Evaluation and Analysis
for the United States Department of Justice National Institute of Corrections -- A
comprehensive study of assistance provided to jails in dealing with the problems of jail
crowding. Presented to the National Institute of Corrections in 1986. Part of the
collection of the National Institute of Corrections National Information Center.
Criminal justice system evaluations for each of the following jurisdictions. Each is a 15-
40 page report analyzing the Criminal Justice System of the local jurisdiction suggesting
options for change which might assist in improving the efficiency of the local criminal
justice system.
Alachua County, FL
Allegheny County, PA
Arlington County, VA
Champaign County, IL
Charleston County, SC
Cherokee County, SC
Chicago, IL
DeKalb County, GA
Fairfax County, GA
Harris County, TX
Hillsborough County, FL
Los Angeles County, CA
Mahoning County, OH
Maricopa County, AZ
Monterey County,CA
Martin County, FL
Midland, MI.
Monterey, CA
Milwaukee, WI
New York City, NY
Quachita Parish, LA
Rhode Island Supreme Court
San Francisco, CA
Shawnee County, KS
Tulsa, OK
Warner Robbins, GA
Messing, Problems in Reading Professional Ethics -- A supplemental readings book for
Professional Responsibility.
ACTIVITIES AND MEMBERSHIPS
Admitted to practice in: Florida; New York; United States Supreme Court; United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida; United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit.
Member, American Bar Association; Florida Bar Association.
Member, American Bar Association; Association of Professional Responsibility Lawyers
(1991-present).
Member and Past Vice Chairperson,, Florida Bar Ethics Committee (1982-1996).
Member, Florida Bar Criminal Law Section, Executive Council (1988-1992), Ethics
Committee (1981-1985).
Member, American Bar Association Criminal Justice Section, Prison and Jails
Committee, (1984-1989).
Chairperson, Florida Bar Grievance Committee 17D, (1984-1987) and (1990-1993),
(1998-2000)
Member, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, Committee on
Standards for Admission to Federal Practice and Sub-Committee on Student Practices,
(1981-1982) (1990-present).
Member, Florida Bar; Model Rules Study Committee (1983-1988).
Member, Florida Bar Certification and Designation Committee, (1986-1987).
Director and Team Leader, Florida Prosecutor/Public Defender Trial Advocacy Institute,
(1981-1987).
Member. and Chairperson Nova Law Center Faculty Recruitment Committee (1982-
1986); Member and Chairperson Nova Law Center Adjunct Faculty Committee (1982-
1986); Member, Nova Law Center Admissions Committee (1985-1990), Chairperson
(1987-1989).
Chairperson Broward County Commission Official Advisory Committee on Criminal
Justice Planning -- OPAC, (1977-1980).
Member Broward County Advisory Committee to the Sexual Assault Center -April,
(1977-1979).
` SPEECHES GIVEN
(A Representative Selection)
"T.he Practice of Law, Can We Define tt?" Speech to The Association of Professional
Responsibility Lawyers, San Diego, CA February 2001
Judicial Ethics, Fudan University, Shanghai, China May 2000, Sponsored by the U.S.
Department of State.
Speech to the annual meeting of the Federal Bar Association for the Eastern District of
Texas on Legal Ethics at their annual meeting-Galveston, Texas June 4,1998.
Orientation for new U.S. Magistrate Judges -Judicial Ethics -Washington, DC, August
29, 1996
Office of the U.S. Courts -Racial and Ethnic Bias in Courts: New Orleans 1993 (District
Court .Judges), Denver 1993 (Bankruptcy Judges), Washington 1993 (District Court
Judges), Chicago 1993 (U.S. Magistrates), San Francisco 1993 (District Court Judges),
Salt Lake 1993 (U.S. Public Defenders)
ABA Conference on Professional Responsibility -(Legal Ethics and Popular Culture)
1993.
Association of Chief Judges of Metropolitan Courts -speeches on Jail Crowding and
Courts, 1987 San Diego, 1989 Chicago.
American Jail Association -Annual Training Seminar 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990. Speaker,
Legal Issues Seminar and Jail Masters Seminar.
Legal Ethics -organized and taught over 35 CLE certified seminars on Legal Ethics,
including programs in Legal Ethics for Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers.
QE2 -Guest Lecturer 1989-1990 "Confessions of an American Trial Lawyer," "Why WE
Have Lost the War on Drugs" "An American System of Justice" and "Americas Jails",m
onboard Cunards QE2.
Office of US Courts -Judicial Ethics -Miami, Florida 1988 (Bankruptcy Judges)
Monterrey, CA (US District Court Judges) 1989.
National Conference on Prison and Jail Overcrowding -featured speaker, 1st and 2nd
National meetings, Orlando, Florida (1988, 1989)
Department of Justice, Program on Drug Testing in Jail, Keynote Speech on "The Ethics
of Drug Testing" Portland, Oregon 1989.
Training in New Developments in a Systemic Approach to Jail Crowding for:
Alachua County -Criminal Justice Group
Area Resource Center -New Haven, CT
Bureau of Justice Assistance -Boston, MA and San Francisco, CA
Florida Council on Crime and Delinquency
Los Angeles County Criminal Justice Commission
Maricopa County -Criminal Justice Task Force
Michigan Association of Counties
Ohio Department of Corrections
Tennessee State University and Tennessee Corrections Institute
The California Association of County Executives
The County Commission -Charles#on, SC
The County Commission - Quachita Parish, LA
The National Academy of Corrections
The New York State Association of Counties
The New Mexico Association of Counties
The Rhode Island Department of Corrections
The Sheriffs Department -Olathe, KS
The Texas State Sheriffs Association
Thurston Co., Washington
Training for the Bureau of Justice Assistance -Regional Program Briefings --
Adjudication Programs, Washington, DC, Chicago, IL 1987.
Provided assistance to the A.B.A. National Conference of State Trial Judges on
designing and presenting its special Symposium on Jail Crowding at the ABA Annual
Meeting in Chicago -- 1984.
American Academy of Judicial Education 1984: Taught in their "Law of Evidence
Program".
U.S. Department of Justice: Immigration Division. Evidence Seminar for Immigration
Judges at Annual Conference, Miami, FL 1984.
TRAVEL EXPERIENCE
Extensive travel in the United States, Europe, Asia, Mid-East, Central and South
America, Southern Africa and the Caribbean.
AWARDS AND HONORS
Selected in 2002 by the U.S. Department of Justice as facilitator in the drafting of Pre-
Trial Release Standards for The National Association of Pre-Trial Services Agencies
this will be a full revision of their code of Ethics and Practice Standards.
Selected in 1999 (for the sixth year) to be on the selection panel of the NYU Root Tilden
Fellowship to select Root Tilden and Sensheimer fellows for NYU's law school.
Elected as a Director of the American Bar Association's Association of Professional
Responsibility Lawyers, Member APRL 2000 Planning Committee
Florida Bar Journal writing competition -Best Article 1986-1987 "Representing a
Criminal Defendant Who Intends to Lie."
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice Visiting Fellow -- Selected in a
national competition to conduct research on the role of masters in jail litigation 1986-
1987.
Fulbright Teaching Fellowship (Japan): Nominated by the Council for International
Exchange of Scholars for a Fulbright lecturing award, Japan 1987.
Chosen for appointment to the United States Foreign Service, 1977 and 1980. The
selection process took two years and included written and oral examinations and a full
security clearance. Of over fifteen thousand original applications, less than one
hundred individuals were ultimately selected for an offer of appointment.
Found "Best Qualified" by the State Judicial Qualifications Commission for the
Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for the position of County Court Judge, September 1977,
March 1978, and September, 1979.
Listed in "Who's Who in American Government", Marquis Publishers Chicago, Second
Edition,1975 and Third Edition 1977
1 /09
NCSC
NalioTial Center fir State Cnuns
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS TO AID
COURT SYSTEM CASEFLOW AND WORKFLOW*
Since case adjudication is the principle business of the courts, the Court Consulting Services
Division of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provides caseflow management and
delay reduction services to general, limited, appellate and special jurisdiction (such as juvenile,
family, probate, drug, and enforcement) courts.
Our consultants evaluate, design, and implement process improvement projects in the
following areas:
Backlog reduction
Identification of existing case backlog and development of strategies to eliminate the backlog
and prevent it from recurring.
Calendar structure analysis
Evaluation of existing calendar sfiructure and the resource demands of various calendar
components. Can include the development of a calendar model that reduces problems of
competing demands on system resources and improves the throughput of cases on the daily
calendar.
caseflow management
Identification of current case processing, and production and development of improved
processes to improve case processing in order to meet client defined goals.
Development of time standards
Facilitation of a process involving court leaders and key stakeholders to reach consensus on
normative standards for how long cases should take in the jurisdiction.
Differentiated case management
Identification of the varying levels of resources needed to dispose of various case sub-types and
the design of a caseflow system that allocates the appropriate resources necessary to promptly
and efficiently dispose of the cases.
For examples of projects done in this area by NCSC consultants, see http://www.ncsc.org/Services-and-
Experts/Areas-of-expertise/caseflow-a nd-Workflow-ma nagement. aspx.
Post-adjudication case management
Identification of post-adjudication case processing issues, such as sanction enforcement or
modification of decrees, and development of strategies to improve the case management to
meet client defined goals.
NOTES ON POSSIBLE NCSC FACILITATION OF CRIMINAL CASEFLOW
AND WORKFLOW IN THE 19TH CIRCUIT COURT OF FLORIDA IN SAINT
LUCIE COUNTY
To aid the St. Lucie County Public Safety Coordinating Council (PSCC), NCSC offers the services
of David C. Steelman, a lawyer and principal court management consultant with 37 years
experience working for NCSC. See the attached biographical sketch for more details about Mr.
Steelman's background.
Background
Mr. Steelman has read materials relating to the criminal case process in St. Lucie County,
including the website for the "St. Lucie County Case Flow Management System," the 2005
report on an assessment of the County's criminal justice system by the Institute for Law and
Policy Planning, recent reports on the County's detention center population, the most recent
annual report on the Florida Criminal Justice, Mental Health, and Substance Abuse
Reinvestment Grant Program Act, and recent online news articles about the St. Lucie County jail
population, electronic monitoring initiatives, computer programs designed to give judges timely
access to information about criminal defendants on their dockets, operation of a Mental Health
Court, and proposals including possible jail privatization to reduce County budget problems.
Mr. Steelman has some familiarity with the felony criminal case process in Florida courts. As is
shown by the simplified overview presented below, that process involves at least three
significant case processing domains:
1. Court proceedings involving judges and other institutional participants including
prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, jail officials and prisoner
transport officers;
2. County corrections processes including such activities as the booking of arrested
persons, detention of persons not granted pretrial release, incarceration of sentenced
defendants not transferred to state prison, probation supervision, and detention of
probation violators; and
3. Administrative support services provided most visibly by the Circuit Court Clerk's Office,
but also including judges' judicial assistants and other court support personnel, support
personnel for State Attorneys, Public Defenders, County Detention Officials, and
probation officers.
Possible Areas of Assistance
Subject to further deliberations by PSCC members, it appears that Mr. Steelman may provide
case management facilitating services that focus on either court proceedings or administrative
support services, or both.
Experience shows that the manner in which judges and lawyers deal with the progress of cases
from initiation to conclusion can have significant consequences for county corrections, as well
as on the staffing resource needs for court clerical support personnel` Work with judges, state
attorneys and defense attorneys to facilitate possible changes might yield positive results for
St. Lucie County.
Another fruitful area .would be for Mr. Steelman to facilitate improvements in case processing
by administrative support staff members in the Clerk's Office, perhaps including administrative
communications with support staff in the Court and the offices of other criminal justice
agencies. Efforts in other trial courts have shown that timely processing by a clerk's office can
have important consequences in terms of prompt transmission of court decisions associated
with pretrial release, commitment to the state penitentiary, and provision of adult probation
t
services.
In any court support office, there is a possibility that case processing practices are the result of
a series of incremental changes over time, so that they represent "the way we've always done.
it." To the extent that resistance to change can be overcome, modification of business
practices may reduce inefficiencies and possible delays, allowing for more expeditious
communications within the criminal justice community and greater use of the potential of
information technology.$
Conclusion
NCSC is pleased to be able to offer assistance to the St. Lucie County Public Safety Coordinating
Council by facilitating possible improvements in the criminal justice process. We look forward
to reaching agreement with the leaders of the Council on the most fruitful way for this to be
done.
See David C. Steelman and Jonathan L. Meadows, Ten Steps to Achieve More Meaningful Criminal Pretrial
Conferences In the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida (NCSC, May 2010); see also, David Steelman, Ingo Keilitz, Mary
Beth Kirven, Nial Raaen, and Larry Murphy, Twelve Steps to Enhance the Efficiency of Court Operations in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania (NCSC, April 2011); and see David C. Steelman and Jane Macoubrie, Staff Efficiency and Court
Calendars for the District Courtin Duluth, Minnesota (NCSC, November 2008).. For more on each of those reports,
see the paper attached below, " We Don't Have Enough Resources to Reduce Delay! Caseflow Management as a
Tool to Provide High Quality Justice that is A ordable as Well as Prompt" (September 2011).
+ See David C. Steelman, PreliminaryAssessment of Operational Issues in the Office of the Clerk of Courts for Vork
County, Pennsylvania (NCSC, October 2006); see also, David C. Steelman and Nial A. Raaen, Operational Review of
the Office ofludicial Support in Delaware County, PA (NCSC, September 2005).
: See David Steelman and Penelope Wentland, Process Improvement and Reengineering Efforts in New Hampshire
Courts (NCSC, July 2005); see also, David C. Steelman, Court Business Process Enhancement Guide (NCSC for
COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee, May 2003).
Simplified Overview of Felony Criminal Justice Process in St. Lucie County
Crime Committed or Reported
Defendant Arrested
Booking & Release Decision
Pretrial Rele se or Detention
Pretrial Detention or Release
Pretrial Detelntion or Release
i
Release or C mmitment
Pretrial Detention or Release
1
Release if Detainee Acquitted
Implementa ion of Sentence
• Jaillncarceration
• Transfer to State Prison
• Probation Supervision
Petition to Revoke Probation
Possible Incarceration Pending
Probation evocation Decision
Case Record Closure
Court Proteedin s
Initial Appearance
Filing of Formal Charges
1
Arraignment on Formal Charges
Pretrial Ca?;e Preparation
Ple or Other NSntrial Disposition
Trial Sche ud led & Held
1
Acquittal or Conviction
1
Sentence on Plea or Conviction
Probation Revocation Hearings
End of All Court Proceedings
Case Fife Creation
Notice to Jail on Bail
Case Record Update
1
Case Record Update
Notice to Jail on Bail
File & Re ord Update
Record o Disposition
File & Re ord Update
Record o Finding
1
Record of Judgment
Commitment Order to
County~Corrections
Collection"of Monetary
Sancti ns
Monitorin of Compliance
with Sentence Conditions
File & Record Update
Case File Closure
4
DAVID C. STEELMAN
Principal Court Management Consultant
Phone and Faz: (603) 647-4143
E-mail: dsteelman~ncsc.org
DAVID C. STEELMAN has been with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) since 1974. In 37 years
with NCSC, he has led projects for courts in Florida and about three dozen other states, as well as a
dozen foreign countries, in such areas as court organization; court performance measurement; trial and
appellate court caseflow management; drug courts; family and juvenile courts; management of court
reporting services; and management of traffic courts. He has worked with the Ninth Judicial Circuit of
Florida, offering recommendations to reduce the impact of criminal case processing delays on jail
crowding.(2005)and onthe achievement of more meaningful pretrial conferences in criminal cases
(2010). He also contributed to the development of criminal case management improvements as part of
an effort to reduce jail crowding in Escambia County, Florida (2009).
Mr. Steelman recently concluded work as a reporter for the "Model Time Standards for State Courts"
(approved by Conference of Chief Justices, Conference of State Court Administrators, American Bar
Association House of Delegates and National Association for Court Management, August 2011). His
book entitled, caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium (2000,
2002, 2004), was NCSC's most in-demand publication for several years. He also wrote the Court
Business Process Enhancement Guide (COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee, May 2003), he was a
contributing author to Changing Times in Trial Courts (National Center for State Courts, 1988-, by Barry
Mahoney and others, and hewas co-author with James P. Economos of Traffic Court Procedure and
Administration (2d ed., American Bar Association, 1983).
Mr Steelman's efforts have not been limited to American courts. His international work has included
efforts to facilitate caseflow management improvements in common law countries including Ireland
(1997) and Nepal (2000), as well as the Middle Eastern Islamic countries of Egypt (1997-99, 2002 and
2008) and Abu Dhabi (2008-09). In April-May 2004, he was a visiting scholar at the Research Institute on
Judicial Systems at the University of Bologna in Italy. Most recently, in early 2009, he was a member of
the three-person International Court Management Expert Advisory Board for the Judicial Modernization
Strategic Planning Group of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. At the request of the Chief Justice of South
Africa, he is currently facilitating caseflow management improvements in the High Courts and
Magistrates Courts of the Republic of South Africa.
From September 1987 through August 1992, as a vice president of the National Center, Mr. Steelman
was the director of its Northeastern Regional Office. From 1977 through 1983, he was an adjunct
professor in the Evening Division of Boston College. He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from the University of
New Hampshire (BA 1967), before being a Ford Foundation Teaching Fellow and earning a graduate
degree (MA 1970) there. After serving as a US Army officer in Vietnam, he received his law degree from
the Boston University School of Law (JD 1974). He is admitted to the practice of law in Massachusetts
and New Hampshire. Before he joined the National Center, he worked for New Hampshire Legal
Assistance, representing clients in civil and domestic proceedings, and for the Maine Municipal
Association, where he wrote guidelines for the administration of local welfare.
„D,,a~,~, Mid-Atlantic Association for
M Court .Management
2011 Annual Educational Conference
M September 18 - 21, 2011
Williamsburg Lodge, Williamsburg, Virginia
"Forging our Future from our Past"
WE DON'T' HAVE ENOUGH RESOURCES
TO REDUCE COURT DELAY!
CASEFLOW MANAGEMENT AS A TOOL TO PROVIDE HIGH-
QUALITY JUSTICE THAT IS AFFORDABLEAS WELL AS
PROMPT§
§ This paper was originally prepared by David C. Steelman, Principal Court Management Consultant, National
Center for State Courts, for a workshop entitled, Reducing TNa/ Court Delay (Phoenix, Arizona, May 23, 2011),
sponsored by the National Center for State Courts and its Institute for Court Management, in collaboration with
Greaten Associates, LLC; the National Judicial College; the Justice Management Institute; the Trial Courts of
Arizona in Maricopa County; the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts; the National Association for Court
Management; and the Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System.
6
We Don't Have Enough Resources to Reduce Delayl
Caseflow Management as a Tool to Provide High Quality Justice that is
A ordable as Well as Prompt
Introduction
As the concluding work product of a project to study felony delay in an urban general-jurisdiction trial
court, NCSC consultants presented a report in 2009 with recommendations for a comprehensive
program on how criminal judges could work with prosecutors, public defenders, law enforcement
bodies and corrections officials to reduce times from case initiation to just outcomes through the
exercise by the court of early and continuous control of the felony process in collaboration with its
criminal justice partners. Even after extended efforts by the NCSC team to assure their commitment
and support, however, the stakeholders expressed grave concerns that they did not have enough people
to reduce delay through changes in their practices, procedures and shared expectations. While
improvement efforts have not been abandoned, they are now proceeding at a very slow pace.
In today's time of budget problems for almost every state, we can all relate to the following quip by a
justice system official in Orange County, Florida: "We've been doing so much with so little for so long
that pretty soon we'll be asked to do everything with nothing!" Obviously, there is a point at which
reduction of available resources will severely impede the capacity of courts and their justice partners to
carry out their mission in society.
Yet the adoption and implementation of suitable Caseflow management policies and practices is not
only desirable but necessary for a court to see that justice is done in a time of budget difficulties. Courts
and their justice partners will always have finite resources. The central feature of Caseflow management
is to see that available resources (especially the time of citizens, judges, court staff, lawyers and other
participants in the court process) are not wasted, but are instead used in a prudent fashion to assure
that justice is done in a timely manner within the constraints imposed by the availability of budgeted
resources.
Findings from a Study of Felony Cases in State Trial Courts
In 1999, NCSC researchers reported on a study of efficiency, timeliness and quality in felony cases before
state trial courts. They found that timeliness and quality are not in conflict. Moreover, they found that
prosecutors and defense attorneys in faster courts are able to make better use of their time than in
slower courts
The current research demonstrates that the relative importance of resources varies
inversely with timeliness. The faster the system, the less the perceived importance of
resources. Moreover, the faster courts do not necessarily have more resources than the
slower courts, in accordance with the legal culture notion. Resources are important
from the attorneys' perspective, but they are not that important in expeditious courts.
We believe this relationship exists because in the expeditious courts, the attorneys have
learned how to be more efficient.
s Brian Ostrom and Roger Hanson, Efficiency, Timeliness and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine State Criminal
Trial Courts (Williamsburg, VA: NCSC, 1999), p. 105, http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffilesl/nij/181942.pdf, and
http://www.ncsconline.org/WC/Publications/Res_CasMan_EfRciencyPub. pdf.
7
What features were present in the courts in that study that were more expeditious? In each of the
faster courts, there was greater court control of the progress of cases than in the slower courts. They
found that the better-performing courts employ a set of policies and procedures including the
following:fi
Judges are committed to early and continuous judicial control over case scheduling, including
firm trial and hearing dates;
• The courts are serious about following case processing time standards or goals; and
• There is a regular process through which the court, prosecutors, and defense attorneys
communicate and coordinate their activities to address case management issues and problems.
In other words, the researchers found that adoption and implementation of key caseflow
management principles can have a clear effect on the level of resource concerns for courts and
their justice partners.
Findings from Recent NCSC Projects
Since the great recession of 2008, whose impact on state and local court budgets remains significant
across the country, the conclusions from the research described above have had renewed urgency. In
fact, they have been confirmed by evidence from different NCSC projects with trial courts.
1. Court Calendar and Case Management Practices in Duluth, Minnesota.' In light of a crippling budget
problem in the State of Minnesota, the general-jurisdiction trial court in Duluth faced the possibility that
one of its eight judgeships might be reassigned to another court in the judicial district, and that the
number of court staff might be reduced from 35 to as low as 21. The court engaged NCSC to advise
them on ways that the calendar and case management practices of the judges might be refined to
promote greater court support staff efficiency. The Court wanted help to organize for a reduced staff;
to promote judge flexibility and avoid burnout; to have capacity to respond to changing conditions; and
to introduce improved caseflow and workflow management strategies for the long term.
Among the findings of the NCSC project team was that the Court's current scheduling practices greatly
increased the complexity of the work to be done by court staff. Staff members reported that they spent
a huge amount of time (for some, as much as 60% of their total work time), tracking down case files.
Everyone commented that there were major delays for court staff in adding newly filed documents to
case file folders. There were problems for courtroom clerk to record court orders accurately for the
case files, for probation officers, and for the families of juveniles. Lawyers and probation officers
indicated they often did not receive timely prior notice of court events in which they must appear.
Under current practices, NCSC found that case progress slowed down after initiation, and that there
were too many continuances.
NCSC consultants concluded that reducing the amount of staff work on each case would have the
greatest potential to improve staff efficiency. It was clear that staff members had to do more work on
each case than was necessary. The court's current approach to calendaring and managing cases created
many more file events for court staff than were necessary. In fact, NCSC analysis of statewide judge
workload and staff workload data yielded a conclusion that reducing the average number of file events
e ibid., pp. 105-106.
'See David C. Steelman and Jane Macoubrie, Staff Efficiency and Court Calendars for the District Courtin Duluth,
Minnesota (NCSC, November 2008).
8
per case for four major case types by lust one event would be the equivalent of having four more people
on staff.
2. Felony Cases in Anchorage, Alaska s In 2009, Alaska court officials sought assistance from NCSC to
reduce delay in felony case-processing in its largest general jurisdiction trial court. A consultant from
NCSC worked with a team of judges, state and local prosecutors and public defenders, and law
enforcement representatives. Data from the Office of the Administrative Director of the Alaska Court
System showed that the average time to disposition for cases disposed in the last calendar quarter of
2008 average 178.7 days, with one case taking 1,519 days. For these cases, the data also showed that
cases often had multiple pre-indictment hearings scheduled (25 in one case); multiple schedule pretrial
conferences (37 in one case); multiple scheduled change-of-plea hearings (16 in one case); and multiple
trial-week listings (17 in one case.
Overall, there was an average of 12.2 scheduled court events per case (78 in one case, and 72 in
another). Based on the results of studies of the cost of continuances in other jurisdictions for courts,
prosecutors and public defenders, the NCSC consultant estimated that each extra criminal court setting
in Anchorage probably costs the State of Alaska from $500 to $1,000.
If rules of criminal procedure in Alaska contemplate no more than 5-8 court events from initial
appearance through conviction and sentencing to possible violation of probation proceedings, then the
case closed in the last quarter of 2008 with 78 scheduled events may have had about 70 extra scheduled
events. If court and other criminal justice officials in Anchorage are concerned about having inadequate
resources to meet due process requirements in criminal proceedings, then the extra scheduled events in
that one case may have cost the State of Alaska the equivalent of the salary and fringe benefits for at
least one support staff person for a year. The extra events in-the two cases with the most scheduled
events (78 and 72, respectively) may have cost the State of Alaska the full-time equivalent of an extra
prosecutor or public defender attorney.
3. Steps to Achieve More Meaningful Court Events in the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida 9 With 65
judges, the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of Florida is a trial court of general jurisdiction serving about 1.3
million residents of Orange and Osceola Counties in Central Florida. In November 2009, the Court
engaged the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to evaluate the processing of criminal and juvenile
delinquency cases in both Orange and Osceola Counties. The evaluation was to give particular attention
to how pretrial conferences in such cases might be made more meaningful. The NCSC review of case
processing would include not only the Court, but also the State Attorney's Office and the Public
Defender's Office, with an eye to determining how efficiencies might be achieved by streamlining the
process.
Using information provided by the Court and court-related organizations, NCSC consultants estimated
the cost of wasted time has been estimated by the National Center for State Courts. In Orange County,
not having meaningful court dates for pretrial conferences and trials in felony, misdemeanor, and
juvenile delinquency cases costs the Court and its justice partners about $4.2 million worth of wasted
personnel time each year. In Osceola County, the wasted time costs about $3.1 million in personnel
expenses each year.
$ Oavid C. Steelman, Improving Criminal Caseflow Management in the Alaska Superior Court in Anchorage (NCSC
Technical Assistance Report, March 2009).
e David C. Steelman and Jonathan L. Meadows, Ten Steps to Achieve More Meaningful Criminal Pretrial
Conferences in the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida (NCSC, May 2010).
9
NCSC reported that the reduction of wasted time from the adoption and implementation of such
caseflow management improvement steps would yield the equivalent of having two more judges, about
ten more line prosecutors and ten more assistant public defenders, four more courtroom clerks, four
more corrections and juvenile detention officers, ten more law enforcement officers, and more support
staff for the Court, SAO, OPD and law enforcement agencies.
Based on its findings, NCSC recommended ten caseflow management improvement steps to promote
more meaningful court events, including reduction of unnecessary continuances; use of differentiated
case management (DCM) as a tool for early and continuous court control of case progress; early and
continuous case management attention to discovery requirements; early judicial settlement
conferences; and adoption of a plea cutoff policy
4. State Public Defender Resource Needs in Missouri.30 Following six months of communications at the
beginning of 2010, the Director of the Missouri Public Defender's Office informed the presiding judge of
the 38"'Judicial Circuit of Missouri in July 2010 that the Public Defender's caseload had exceeded
established maximum caseload standards, so that the Public Defender would no longer accept new
cases. When an application was subsequently received by the Public Defender on two felony cases in
Christian County and the applicant was determined to be indigent, a circuit judge appointed the Public
Defender to the cases over his objection, after which the Public Defender filed a motion to set aside the
appointment. After a hearing in August 2010, the motion to set aside the appointment by was
overruled by the judge, and the Public Defender brought the matter before the Missouri Supreme Court.
In October 2010, the Chief Justice commissioned a retired judge to serve as a Special Master, to take
testimony, compel documents, and to report findings of fact and conclusions of law on specific
questions relating to matter of caseloads for Public Defender attorneys.ll
Based on the fact that NCSC had recently completed a workload assessment for the Missouri judiciary
and had offered to do a similar study for the Missouri State Public Defender's Office, the Special Master
with the support of the State Court Administrator requested technical assistance from NCSC. In
November 2010, NCSC consultants offered brief papers on (a) factors relating to Public Defender trial
attorney caseloads, and (b) the Public Defender Commission's "protocol" for assessment of attorney
caseloads.
The paper on factors affecting trial attorney caseloads looked at how well the court in each circuit does
in meeting felony time standards; and the ratio of prosecution attorneys in a county to the number of
MSPD attorneys. For this purpose, NCSC consultants made a brief study of a representative sample of
10 judicial circuits serving 24 counties.
The brief investigation by NCSC of information from the 10 judicial circuits yielded information on Public
Defender staff resource needs that seems in general to agree with prior NCSC national research
conclusions,'thatspeedy felony courts with a process firmly controlled by the judges allow both
prosecutors and defenders to make better use of their staff resources. Thus, the continuation of efforts
io David C. Steelman and Nathan M. Hall, "Brief Exploration of Factors Relating to Trial Attorney Caseloads for the
Missouri State Public Defender's Office" (NCSA Technical Assistance Paper, November 2010), and David C.
Steelman, "Brief Comment on the Missouri Public Defender Commission's Caseload Standard Protocol" (NCSC
Technical Assistance Paper, November 2010).
ii Report of the Special Master, Missouri State Public Defender v. Waters and Orr, MO. S.Ct. No. SC91150 (February
3, 2011).
iz See Ostrom and Hanson, supra note 2.
10
by Missouri court leaders to promote prompt disposition of cases can be seen as a worthwhile tool for
avoiding unnecessary increases in the need for additional MSPD staff resources.
NCSC results also show that there may bean important relationship between the staff resources in the
offices of prosecuting attorneys and the staff resource needs of public defender offices. In the six local
jurisdictions with alower-than-average percent of felony cases disposed within 14 months, there were
1.77 prosecuting attorneys for every defender attorney. By comparison, the seven counties that met or
exceeded the time standard that 95% of all felonies be disposed within 14 months have more defender
attorneys (24) than prosecuting attorneys (22), for a ratio of 0.92 prosecutors per defender. In all
sample counties in which the percentage of felonies disposed within 14 months was equal to or higher
than the average for all 24 sample counties, there were 1.18 prosecutors for every defender attorney.
5. Court Efficiency in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania.' The County of Lancaster in Pennsylvania faces
budget shortfalls and increased demand for services. In 2010 the Lancaster County Court of Common
Pleas engaged NCSC to identify ways to improve the efficiency and economy of f the business processes
of the various departments of the Court without loss in quality and effectiveness. The NCSC final report
recommended initiatives in twelve areas to improve court efficiency, including the introduction of
caseflow management improvements to reduce the cost ofcase-processing inefficiency for three case
types --criminal, juvenile delinquency, and civil domestic violence.
a. Criminal Cases. From interviews with court representatives and other institutional stakeholders, the
NCSC project team concluded that there were several areas in which there may be delays and
inefficiencies in the progress of criminal cases. Judges and others indicated to NCSC consultants that
there were issues with the timeliness of preliminary criminal case processing in the limited jurisdiction
courts, that there were problems incase progress from general jurisdiction arraignment to the
conclusion of court proceedings, which one person called a "culture of continuances," and lengthy
delays in the resolution of probation violations involving new criminal charges. In addition to other
burdens that criminal case delays may create, they result in increased pressure on the resources of the
Lancaster County Prison, where the average prison population has consistently been at or above
capacity in recent years, so that construction of a new facility is under consideration.
To help reduce the demands of criminal case processing on available criminal justice resources, NCSC
studied a sample of criminal cases and recommended the development and implementation of a
Criminal caseflow Management Improvement Plan, providing for reduction of unnecessary delays
through court exercise of early and continuous control of case progress, from preliminary proceedings
through general jurisdiction events all the way through the prompt resolution of probation violations.
NCSC reasoned that early and continuous court control of criminal case progress would reduce the
average monthly population of the County Prison by almost 10%. This would change the scope and
urgency of any need to plan for adding jail-bed capacity. While more beds might still be needed before
2025, the need will be less than initially projected by consultants. It would also be in the interest of the
Court, the District Attorney, and the Public Defender to take the steps recommended by NCSC, which
would result in a reduction of the number of scheduled criminal court events by about-2590. This would
reduce time committed to such events, so that the people in these organizations would have more time
available to deal more fully with criminal cases needing attention.
is David Steelman, Ingo Keilitz, Mary Beth Kirven, Nial Raaen, and Larry Murphy, Twelve Steps to Enhance the
Efficiency of Court Operations in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (NCSC, April 2011).
11
b. Juvenile Delinauency Cases. In Lancaster County from 2000 through 2007, juvenile delinquency case
filings and cases processed averaged around 2,000 per year. NCSC learned from interviews with court
officials and other institutional stakeholders that there are delays and inefficiencies in the progress of
juvenile delinquency cases from initiation to conclusion. Two areas were identified in the interviews for
which there may be increased "transaction costs" arising from avoidable redundancies of effort by
personnel of the Court and its justice partners. One of these involved potential system inefficiencies in
juvenile delinquency case processing. The other had to do with the location of court hearings for
juvenile delinquency cases.
Based on the analysis of a representative sample of delinquency cases, NCSC confirmed that there was
indeed a substantial amount of court event rescheduling, and that this caused pressure on both Public
Defender resources for representing defendants and on the Sheriff for transport of detainees. On that
basis, NCSC recommended steps to reduce unnecessary rescheduling of juvenile delinquency
adjudicatory hearing dates. In addition, NCSC recommended that the Court should continue to hold
delinquency hearings at the courthouse, employing video hearings when suitable or when required for
security. Implementing the caseflow management recommendations would reduce or avoid second or
subsequent listings, which require additional time and resources from every person who has to "touch"
the case. Reduction of multiple settings for adjudicatory hearings would also solve the problem of
where to hold hearings for detained juveniles. With every hearing on a case the juvenile must be
transported to the court, which has the disadvantage of incurring additional cost to the sheriff.
c. Civil Domestic Violence (Protection from Abuse) Cases. In addition to inefficiencies in criminal case
processing and delinquency case processing, the NCSC project team learned from interviews that there
were also delays and inefficiencies in the progress of civil domestic violence (protection from abuse, or
PFA) cases from initiation to conclusion. To determine if there are increased "transaction costs" for case
participants arising from avoidable redundancies of effort, NCSC studied caseload data and a sample of
cases showing the manner in which PFA cases proceed through the system. In the ten-year period from
2000 through 2009, the total number of PFA filings per year remained relatively constant. Yet PFA
dispositions by the Court lagged behind new filings every year from 2004 through 2009, so that the
number of cases pending at the end of each year has consequently increased considerably. Given that
the purpose of a civil protective order is to protect a person from being harmed by a family or other
household member, including a spouse, sexual or intimate partner who is a parent or the person's child,
the way in which such cases are handled can have significant impact on vulnerable persons.
Based on its analysis, NCSC recommended ways to reduce unnecessary rescheduling of protection-from-
domesticviolence hearings, in part by providing more low-cost legal services to parties. NCSC estimated
that continuances in these cases may cost the parties and the Court almost $500,000 a year in wasted
time. It is clear that not all continuances are frivolous or avoidable. But if the court were to manage the
progress of cases more effectively, NCSC calculated that continuances might be reduced by about 70%,
saving the court about $190,000 per year through the reduction of wasted time for judges and support
staff, and saving the parties about $150,000 a year in terms of wasted time that would be avoided. The
restoration of low-cost legal services recommended by NCSC would necessarily involve affirmative
public expenditures, but reduction of avoidable continuances and delays in these cases would not only
provide a substantial public service, but it would also result in savings for citizens, judges and court
support personnel that would be two or three times the public outlay for the program.
12
Conclusion
Efforts to improve caseflow management do not just serve a court's paramount goal to provide prompt
justice. in fact, they are critically important in times of budget difficulty, because strong court direction
of case progress promotes predictability and efficient use of time and other resources for judges, court
staff, public and private lawyers, and other institutional participants in the trial-court process. As the
examples offered here suggest, an assertion that " We Don't Have Enough Resources to Reduce Delay,"
may often not be tenable. In fact, the introduction of caseflow management improvements to reduce
delay and serve of the purposes of courts can also serve as an important way to make better use of
finite resources in a time of budget scarcity.
13
~~ !~-"
~~,~ ~ A ~ceenc~-used Appr®ach
Agencies are recognizing that even the best officers might
manifest bias and therefore even the best agencies must be
proactive to achieve fair and impartial policing.
The "Fair and Impartial Policing" (FIP) perspective is based on the science of bias. Pursuant to this perspective
even the best law enforcement officers may manifest bias because they are human, and even the best agencies will
have biased policing because they hire humans to do the work.
Resources reflecting this perspective include:
Command-level (orcommand-and-community training) in the FIP perspective and the
Comprehensive Program for Producing Fair and Impartial Policing
Recruit/patrol officer training
First-line supervisor training
Train-the-trainer sessions for the recruit/patrol and first-line supervisor curriculums (funded
by the COPS Office)
The FIP Perspective
While some of the bias in policing is likely caused by intentional discrimination against people of color and other
groups, the research points to another mechanism producing biased behavior. Social psychologists have shown
that "implicit" or "unconscious" bias can impact what people perceive and do, even in people who consciously hold
non-prejudiced attitudes. Implicit bias might lead the line officer to automatically perceive crime in the making when
she observes two young Hispanic males driving in an all-Caucasian neighborhood or lead an officer to be "under-
vigilant" with a female subject because he associates crime and violence with males. It may manifest among
agency command staff who decide (without crime-relevant evidence) that the forthcoming gathering of African-
American college students bodes trouble, whereas the forthcoming gathering of white undergraduates does not.
The FIP perspective provides direction for change. First of all, the implication is that all agencies because
they hire humans, must proactively promote fair and impartial policing. Department efforts must address the
ill-intentioned ofFcers and the well-meaning ones, and must encompass an analysis of the higher level,
maybe longstanding, procedureslpractices that may reflect or produce biased policing. The proactive work
they need to do is encompassed in the Comprehensive Program for Achieving Fair and Impartial Policing
that addresses: policy, recruitment/hiring, education/training, supervision and accountability, outreach to
diverse communities, and the analysis of institutional policies and practices.
Training for personnel is particularly important. While training cannot easily undo the implicit associations that took
a lifetime to develop, the social psychologists have shown that, with information and motivation, people can
implement controlled (unbiased) behavioral responses that override automatic (biased) associations. The
implication is that law enforcement departments need to provide training that makes personnel aware of their
unconscious biases so that they are able and motivated to activate controlled responses to counteract them. (See
information on the recruit and first-line supervisor curriculums below.)
Command-Level Training
The command-level training, that is 1.5 days in length, can be provided to either (1) command level personnel from
at least two agencies, or (2) command level personnel from (at least) one agency and community stakeholders from
the jurisdiction(s). The trainer is Dr. Lorie Fridell, the former Director of Research at the Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) (now at the University of South Florida) and a national expert on biased policing.
TOPICS COVERED:
• Rethinking racially biased policing
• The social science of humanbias and its implications for policing
• The benefits and elements of a comprehensive program to facilitate
fair and impartial policing'
• Meaningful policy
• Supervision and accountability
• Recruitment/hiring
• Education/training
• Assessing institutional policies and practices
• Measurement
o Responding to disparity charges
o Data Collection: The''issues, the facts
• Outreach to diverse communities
• How to implement a comprehensive program.
RecruitlPatrol and First-Line Supervisor Training
The USDOJ COPS Office funded the University of South Florida and Circle Solutions, Inc. to develop two
curriculums based on the FIP perspective: one for recruits and patrol officers and the other for first-line
supervisors. Two 2.5-day TOT sessions are scheduled-one in Rhode Island in November 2011 and the other in
Hutchinson (KS) in March 2012-so that trainers from around the nation can learn to train in these two cutting edge
curriculums.
The recruit/patrol curriculum helps academy recruits and patrol officers to:
• Understand that even well-intentioned people have biases;
• Understand how implicit biases impact on what we perceive/see and can (unless prevented) impact on
what we do;
• Understand that fair and impartial policing leads to effective policing; and,
• Use tools that help him/her (1) recognize his/her conscious and implicit biases, and (2) implement
"controlled" (unbiased) behavioral responses.
To reinforce the recruit/patrol training and facilitate
adherence to the agency's anti-biased policing policy, the
second curriculum helps first-line supervisors promote fair
and impartial policing. The training:
• helps supervisors identify subordinates who maybe acting in a biased manner-including those well-
meaning officers whose biased behavior may not be consciously produced;
• provides guidance to supervisors on how they should respond to officers who exhibit biased policing
behaviors;
• challenges supervisors to think about how bias might manifest in their own behavior; and
• provides guidance on how to speak about bias to individuals (e.g., officers, individual community
members) and groups/media.
These curriculums are very different from the "standard" biased policing training programs and have been very well
received around the country. For more information on the FIP perspective and the two curricula, visit the COPS
Office web site (www.cops.usdoj.gov), and view a video interview of Dr. Lorie Fridell (April 2011, "Biased Policing")
under "Resources" and "Media Center."
The TOT Program: The newly-designed Fair and Impartial Policing TOT Program (FIPTOT)-again funded by the
USDOJ COPS Office-allows teams of trainers (that can be comprised of both sworn and non-sworn personnel)
from academies and other law enforcement training organizations, to learn to implement both the recruit/patrol
officers' and first-line supervisors' curricula. The 2.5-day TOT sessions "walk" trainers through every aspect of the
Fair and Impartial Policing Training Program and provide opportunities to "practice" teaching the modules of both
curricula. At the conclusion of the FIPTOT, trainers will be able to implement these innovative new curricula for
their local academies and law enforcement training organizations.
Two FIPTOT sessions will be held:
- November 2-4, 2011: Providence, Rhode Island
- March 12-14, 2012: Hutchinson, Kansas
Each session is limited to 25 participants to maximize learning and registration is on a first-come, first-serve basis.
Since the FIPTOT is being sponsored by the COPS Office, there is no registration fee for the 2.5 day training
session. All training materials and trainer resources will be provided to participants. Participants (or their agencies)
are responsible for their own travel arrangements and costs.
Visit http:l/bit.ly/gzM98H to register and for comprehensive information about the FIPTOT, including how to
identify and select training teams, logistics for both sessions, the training agenda, and the training team.
For more information on the FIP perspective and resources, contact Lorie Fridell at
Ifridell@usf.edu or 813-991-9655.
Agencies are recognizing that even the best officers might manifest bias and therefore even the best
agencies must be proactive to achieve fair and impartial policing. This training presents what is
known about human biases and provides guidance for promoting fair and impartial policing in the
areas of policy, training, supervision/accountability, leadership, recruitment/hiring, outreach, and
measurement.
l/Vh~ sht~~ld attel~d this ~ .5~dsy trsil~i~lg iln your jt~risi~tic~i~°?
Law Enforcement Agency Executives,
Command Staff, and Community Stakeholders
Presenter
Dr. Lorie Fridell, former Director of Research at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), is a national
expert on racial profiling, or what she terms "racially biased policing." She has authored and co-authored a
number of chapters and books on the topic. While at PERFshe co-authored with colleagues Racially Biased
Policing: A Principled Response, which guides law enforcement executives on how to respond to the issues
of racially biased policing and the perceptions of its practice. Concerned about the very high expectations
that stakeholders had with regard to the data collected on police stops, she wrote By the Numbers: A Guide
for Analyzing Race Data from Vehicle Stops and the companion book, Understanding Race Data from
Vehicle Stops: A Stakeholders' Guide. Her most recent chapter (2008) is entitled "Racially Biased Policing;
The Law Enforcement Response to the Implicit Black-Crime Association."
Dr. Fridell is a keynote speaker at conferences on this important topic and has been invited on a number of occasions to speak to
various chiefs/sheriffs associations and police accountability groups around the country and in Canada, She has trained for and/or
consulted with anumber ofagencies/entities including the Chicago PD, San Francisco PD, Los Angeles PD, Toronto Police Services,
Austin PD, Seattle PD, Massachusetts Chiefs Association, Piedmont PD, Oakland PD, Berkeley PD, La Crosse PD, Madison PD,
Prince William County PD, Kansas Racial Profiling Task Force, Wisconsin Bureau of Justice Assistance, Institute for Law and Justice,
Rhode Island Chiefs' Association, Wisconsin Chiefs' Association, and RAND Inc., to name a few. With funding from the U.S.
Department of Justice and with assistance from national experts on law enforcement and the social psychology of bias, Dr. Fridell has
produced model Fair and Impartial Policing curriculums for both recruits/patrol officers and first-line supervisors. Dr. Fridell is on the
National Board of the ACLU.
TOPICS COVERED:
• The social science of human bias and its implications for policing
• The benefits of a comprehehsive program to facilitate fair and
impartial policing
• The elements of a comprehensive program
• Meaningful policy
• Supervision and accountability
• Recruitmentlhiring
• Education/training
• .Assessing institutional policies and practices
• Measurement
o Responding to disparity charges
> Data Collection: The issues, the facts
• Outreach #o diverse'communities
• How to implement a comprehensive program.
"Dr. Fridell's class is the gold standard for
addressing contemporary issues of bias biased
policing" (Michael Gennaco, Independent
Auditor, in a report prepared for the City of Palo
Alto, 2/16/2010, p. 8).
Comments fr®m attendees:
^ It was very interactive and made me think. The resources and facts/examples were amazing.
^ The seminar was excellent; probably the best session on racially biased policing 1've attended.
^ Dr. Fridell's presentation skills are excellent and she delivers on point.
^ Class discussion was open and honest.
^ Was a positive approach to the topic!
^ This training needs to be available to all officers and the community.
^ Enjoyable training with good scientific information.
^ Group discussion was valuable and showcased the very different approaches of different departments.
^ Excellent training; highly recommended.
^ (Instructor) aggressively addressed difficult topics with facts and experience.
^ The instructor knowledge of the subject is exceptional.
^ Very dynamic, interesting speaker. High energy.
^ This course exceeded my most hopeful expectations!
^ 1 obtained new ideas from the other students as well as from the instructor.
^ Course content was great. Dialogue among participants was very beneficial.
^ Great course. Very much the eye opener for this small agency.
^ The course is excellent. We need to attract departments to it who don't think they need to go!
This training can- be provided in your jurisdiction,
state or region
Class accommodates up to 30
Instructor requires (1) participants from at least
two agencies (because of the value of cross-
agency sharing) and/or (2) the inclusion of
community stakeholders.
Contact Lorie Fridell at Ifridell@usf.edu or 813-
991-9655