|
Top
Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines: Caseflow Management.
National Association of Court Management.
The NACM Core Competency Curriculum Guidelines provide a comprehensive statement of the caseflow management knowledge and skills necessary for court leaders.
Court Manager Caseflow Management Articles.
National Association for Court Management.
The NCSC Digital Archive contains the following caseflow management articles published in NACM's Court Manager dating from 1991 to the present.
Caseflow Management Guide.
Lansing, MI: State Court Administrative Office (2004).
A guide for judges and caseflow management practitioners about caseflow management, court supervision of case progress, judicial support and leadership, and management information.
Steelman, David C. et al.
Caseflow Management: The Heart of Court Management in the New Millennium.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (2004).
This book recounts the history of caseflow management in America and discusses the types of caseflow management: Trial Dates, Trial Management, and Court Event Management After Trial. Finally, the book discusses the implementation of caseflow management for different types of cases, from family and probate to criminal and civil. As a last note, the book looks to future case management, with considerations for new technologies and new court systems. (KF8732 .S74 2004)
Mahoney, Barry and Holly C. Bakke.
"How to Conduct a Caseflow Management Review: A Guide for Practitioners."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1994).
A "how-to" guide to help conduct caseflow management review by analyzing caseflow management systems of several urban courts.
Solomon, Maureen, and Douglas Somerlot.
Caseflow Management in the Trial Court: Now and for the Future.
Chicago: American Bar Association, Division for Judicial Services, Lawyers Conference Task Force on Reduction of Litigation Cost and Delay (1987).
(KF8732 .Z9 S64 1987)
Attacking Litigation Costs and Delay: Final Report of the Action Commission to Reduce Court Costs and Delay.
Chicago: American Bar Association (1984).
This final report provides the Commission's conclusions regarding simplifying pretrial procedures, expediting appeals, adapting available technology, reducing expenses for litigants, and the role of the bench and bar in managing change. (KF8727 .Z9 A38 1984)
Top
Implementing Proactive and Differentiated Case Management in New Mexico.
Santa Fe: Supreme Court of New Mexico (2001).
The goal of this study was to introduce the system of Differentiated Case Management to New Mexico's courts. It was eventually found that the DCM system helped New Mexico's courts by reducing the time between case filing and disposition. (KFN4110.5 .C65 F56)
Crandall, Gregory H.
Differentiated Case Management Program Orleans Criminal District Court: Final Process and Outcome Evaluation Following Year Two of the Project.
New Orleans: Orleans Parish Criminal District Court (1998).
This report provides both process and outcome evaluations for this project, and suggests areas for futher study. The results provide necessary data that enables the court to create an effective differentiated caseflow management program to manage its incoming criminal docket. (KFL510.5 .C65 D54)
Bakke, Holly C., et al.
Integrating ADR into Trial Court Civil Caseflow Management Systems: An Implementation Guide.
Denver: Justice Management Institute (1996).
Although alternative dispute resolution has many other benefits, it is a primary component of caseflow management, and often, differentiated case management. (KF8986 .B35)
Differentiated Case Management: Fact Sheet.
Washington, DC, Bureau of Justice Assistance (November 1995).
Defines the key features and benefits of the DCM model. Every case that goes to court imposes a unique set of demands on court resources. The traditional first-in / first-out, one-track-fits-all approach to case management is no longer either feasible or desirable.
Differentiated Case Management: Implementation Manual.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993).
A book which goes into greater detail on the management and implementation of DCM. It includes frequently asked questions about the system, cases in which the system was implemented, and basic tactics to assure the greatest success with DCM.
Differentiated Case Management: Program Brief.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Assistance (1993).
This pamphlet explains the concept of Differentiated Case Management (or DCM), describes the criteria needed for DCM, and the process by which a locality can implement the program.
Top
Kakalik, James S. et al.
Just, Speedy, and Inexpensive?: An Evaluation of Judicial Case Management Under the Civil Justice Reform Act: Summary.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND, The Institute for Civil Justice (2000).
This resource discusses six principles of case management with accompanying techniques, and suggests implications for a promising case management package.
(KF8754. J87 2000)
Rauma, David.
The Civil Justice Reform Act Expense and Delay Reduction Plans: A Sourcebook.
Washington, DC: Federal Judicial Center (1995).
A reference volume used to aid those prosecuting civil cases. Using the Civil Justice Reform Act as a template, this document examines various statistics about civil justice and uses them to postulate a number of trends and patterns.
Mahoney, Barry et al.
Civil Caseflow Management Improvement in the Superior Court, Suffolk County (Boston, MA), 1987-1991.
Denver: National Center for State Courts, Institute for Court Management (1992).
An NCSC study of comparative case management speed and effectiveness in a large environment. The study investigates the court system of Boston, Massachusetts in order to discover what works and how case management systems can succeed in other urban environments.
Goerdt, John.
Divorce Courts: Case Management, Case Chracteristics, and the Pace of Litigation in 16 Urban Jurisdictions.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1992).
Multi-jurisdictional study of case-management procedures and case procesing times.
Mahoney, Barry and Antoinette Bonacci-Miller.
"Improving Civil Caseflow Management in Urban Trial Courts."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1992).
Project that aims to produce significant improvements in caseflow management practices in participating courts and helping reduce case processing times to decrease backlogs in the courts.
Top
Solomon, Maureen.
Improving Criminal Caseflow.
Bureau of Justice Assistance, American University (October 2008).
This resource provides steps to address the criminal caseflow process and discusses state-of-the-art caseflow management principles.
Cuyahoga County, Ohio Felony Case Processing Study Phase I: Final Report and Recommendations.
The Justice Management Institute (2005).
This report identifies recommendations to improve felony case processing and discusses the recommendations' impact on staff and computer equipment.
Steelman, David C. et al.
"Caseflow Management and Judge Assignments for Criminal Cases in Minnesota`s Fourth District Court (Hennepin County): Final Report."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (October 1999).
This report addresses the caseflow management needs of the Hennepin County court system. See Appendix C (page 91) for a detailed discussion on differentiated case management.
Ostrom, Brian.
"Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine State Criminal Trial Courts."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (October 1999).
Timeliness and the quality of justice are not mutually exclusive either in theory or in fact. Expeditious criminal case resolution is found to be associated with court systems in which the conditions also promote effective advocacy. Because effective advocacy underlies due process and equal protection of the law, it is an integral aspect of the broader concept of quality case processing. The evidence from this study suggests that well-performing courts should be expected to excel in terms of both timeliness and quality.
Steelman, David C.
Non-discretionary Assignment, Transfer, and Reassignment of Felony and Misdemeanor Cases .
Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, Court Services Division (1995).
Municipal Court of Marion County, Indiana: Final Report. Pursuant to a December, 1994, order of the Indiana Supreme Court, all Indiana trial courts were required to adopt a proposed local rule providing for the non-discretionary assignment of all felony and misdemeanor cases filed. In addition, the trial courts were required to provide for the continued assignment of a judge in the event of dismissal and for the reassignment of a case in the event a change of judge is granted under the newly amended Indiana Criminal Rules 12 and 13. The National Center for State Courts assisted the Municipal Court of Marion County with the development of proposed local rules that comply with the Supreme Court order and with the planning for the implementation of the new rules.
Steelman, David C., and Jeffrey M. Arnold.
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, Criminal Division Time Standards Improvement Plan.
Chicago: Cook County Circuit Court (1993).
The purpose of the improvement plan is to permit the Criminal Division judges to introduce ways to achieve further expedition in their handling of felony cases. In order for the presiding judge and his colleagues in the Criminal Division to achieve such improvements, one important step is to employ criteria for what constitutes "improvement." Time standards for case processing serve this purpose.
A Manual for Workshops on Processing Felony Dispositions in Limited Jurisdiction Courts.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1992).
Improving the Quality of Justice While Reducing Delay. An NCSC project which seeks to aid those searching for innovative means of more effectively managing cases. Each chapter proceeds by discussing case management in a different environment, from small claims, to civil, to large felony cases.
Mahoney, Barry et al.
Criminal Caseflow Improvement in the Hudson County Superior Court (Jersey City, NJ),.
Denver, CO: National Center for State Courts, Institute for Court Management (1992).
This report is intended to provide an overview of the court’s delay reduction efforts during the 1989-1992 period. It provides an overview of the court’s situation as of May 1989, describes the planning process undertaken in the 1989-90 period, and discusses the impacts of the court’s caseflow management improvement efforts. The concluding section presents some recommendations for the future.
Mahoney, Barry, and Todd Clear.
Criminal Caseflow Management in the Essex County Superior Court (Newport, NJ).
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1990).
This report provides an overview of developments with respect to criminal caseflow management in the Essex County Superior Court, and sets forth recommendations for action by the court's leadership and by state-level leaders.
Top
Roehl, Janice A., and Kristin Guertin.
A Self-Evaluation Manual and Case Management System to Adult Drug Courts.
Pacific Grove, CA: Justice Research Center (2000).
This resource applies differentiated case management principles to the drug court environment. (KF3885.5 .R64)
Cooper, Caroline S.
Expedited Drug Case Management.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance (1994).
An examination of several approaches taken by judges to speed up the numerous drug cases that clutter their judicial systems. Possible benefits are examined, followed by descriptions of how each attempted study panned out.
Top
Flango, Carol.
How are Courts Coordinating Family Cases?.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (September 1999).
Families come to court for many reasons, and some families return to court frequently. For these families, a coordinated approach to the multiplicity of cases involving various family members and an integrated human service delivery system seems to hold the most promise of moving the family toward self-sufficiency. The basic premise is that an integrated approach not only will promote a better quality of court decision making by providing the judges and judicial hearing officers with accurate and complete information about the family, but also will make the best use of the limited resources the community has to strengthen families.
Aikman, Alexander B.
"Case Management and Caseflow Study of the Jefferson County (KY) Circuit, District, and Family Courts: Final Report."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (May 1995).
This report reviews case management in the courts in Jefferson County, Kentucky. See also Recommendation 9 (page 91), which indicates that "Circuit court judges should implement a differentiated case management program for newly filed cases."
Rubin, Ted H. and Victor Eugene Flango
"Court Coordination of Family Cases."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1992).
Research examines the frequency with which families in the court system have multiple related cases filed in different courts. Considers the justification for coordinating these separate cases (in some cases unnecesssary, but in others, possibly essentials for the well-being of the family members).
Top
Aikman, Alexander B.
"Managing Mass Tort Cases: A Resource Book for State Trial Court Judges."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1995).
A resource book for state court trial judges created from the discussion at the first National Mass Tort Conference.
Top
Steelman, David C.
"Managing Probate Workload and Dockets."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1992).
This report suggests some of the ways to improve the management of judges' workload and dockets without expanding support staff.
Top
Miller, Fred.
"Rural Courts are Fertile Ground for Caseflow Management: The Case Processing and Delay Reduction in Rural Courts Project."
Williamsburg, Virginia: National Center for State Courts (June 1991).
This article reviews and expands on the delay in rural courts reported from an earlier study originally published in "Delay in Rural Courts: It Exists, But It Can Be Reduced", State Court Journal, Volume 14, Number 3, Summer, 1990.
Top
Goerdt, John A.
"Small Claims and Traffic Courts: Case Management Procedures, Case Characteristics, and Outcomes in 12 Urban Jurisdictions."
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts (1992).
This study is the first to describe and compare the procedures, caseload size, case characteristics, case outcomes, and pace of litigation in traffic cases across several large urban jurisdictions from a variety of states.
|
