The second stage focuses on group meetings. One meeting should be held with judges and another with court operational personnel. Keeping the groups separate is recommended for three reasons: (1) it keeps group size manageable, (2) it compensates for the tendency of court staff to defer to judges during meetings and withhold opinions that might differ from those of judges, and (3) it provides an opportunity to prepare a report for the steering committee that shows how the opinions of judges and court operations personnel compare with respect to allocation of the court’s personnel resources. (In some courts, especially in smaller and medium-sized courts that have fewer judges and staff or when judges and operations staff are accustomed to working closely together, this separation may not be necessary.)

The purpose of the group meetings is for the facilitator to use the model as a springboard for eliciting and discussing reactions of group members to the model and to look for reactions that appear to be shared by all or most members of the group.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. It is possible that the group’s work will require adjustments to the model. For example, structural or work assignment details within work units may come to light that are not apparent to upper management. It also is possible that changes may have occurred that are not reflected in standard reports or other data sources the court manager relied on to prepare the model. If there are no changes, the model itself serves as part of the analysis and report. The remainder of the report should be devoted to the facilitator’s written presentation of (1) the consensus views of members of the two groups regarding the way that court resources are allocated and (2) what group members would like to know but cannot discern about resource allocation as a result of the modeling and group interaction process. An important part of the facilitator’s responsibility in preparing the report is to highlight any striking differences between the views of judges and staff, especially if it appears that judges know the answers to questions that staff are asking, or vice versa. In summary, the report produced by this measure consists of :