Differentiated Case Management Program Brief.


MENU TITLE: Differentiated Case Management Program Brief 
Series: BJA
Published: February 1993
16 pages
28,778 bytes

Differentiated Case Management Program Brief

Bureau of Justice Assistance

What Is Differentiated Case Management? 
The BJA DCM Demonstration Program 
Critical Elements of a DCM Program and Performance 
 Guidelines 
 Case differentiation criteria
 Case processing tracks and procedures
 Case screening and track determination
 Court control of case progress and deadlines
 Information support
 Judicial system leadership
 Mechanisms for interagency coordination
DCM Implementation Agenda
 Judicial system commitment
 Judicial system leadership and administrative     
  support
 Determining the key players
 Evaluating the existing caseflow process
 Defining criteria and agreeing on track           
  characteristics
 Altering existing procedures and instituting new  
  ones
 Assuring adequate interagency coordination,       
  management, and support
 Orientation and training
 Ongoing program assessment and fine-tuning 
Sources for Additional Information and Assistance 
 Criminal DCM programs 
  Berrien County (St. Joseph), Michigan
  Camden County (Camden), New Jersey 
  Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington 
  Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan 
 Civil DCM projects 
  Camden County (Camden), New Jersey 
  Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minnesota 
 BJA contacts 
 Selected bibliography 

What is Differentiated Case Management?

Differentiated case management (DCM) is a technique
courts can use to tailor the case management
process to the requirements of individual cases.

The DCM concept is premised on the assumption that
all cases are not alike and, therefore, should not
be subject to the same processing events and
timetables. Some cases can be disposed of promptly
with little or no time needed for discovery and few
intermediate events. Others require extensive court
supervision over pretrial motions, the scheduling
of expert witnesses, and settlement negotiations.
Moreover, some cases, even if complex, need to be
given scheduling priority for a variety of reasons,
such as imminent threat of harm to a party, age or
physical condition of a witness, and local
prosecutorial
policies.

Inherent in the concept of DCM is the recognition
that some cases can--and should--proceed through
the court system at a faster pace than others. In a
DCM system, the traditional "first-in-first-out"
rule for case scheduling and disposition is
replaced by a case management system that
accommodates the diversity of case processing
events and timeframes appropriate to the individual
cases filed.

A jurisdiction may want to consider adopting a DCM
program to achieve the following goals:

o Make more efficient use of justice system
resources by tailoring their use to the needs of
the individual cases.

o Serve the public more efficiently by providing
different processing paths with different
timeframes and procedural requirements geared to
the characteristics of each case.

o Achieve a just disposition according to the
specific tasks and timeframe.

The BJA DCM Demonstration Program

In 1987, the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA)
launched a demonstration program to pilot test the
application of DCM techniques to criminal and civil
caseloads in general jurisdiction courts.1 Almost
all of the demonstration courts that introduced DCM
to the criminal caseload have expanded its use to
encompass the civil caseload, and vice versa.2 In
addition, after the National Institute of Justice
evaluated these early programs and determined them
to be successful, a number of other courts adopted
DCM systems modeled after the pilots.

Ironically, while most people agree that all cases
are not alike and do not make the same demands on
judicial system resources, prior to the BJA
demonstration program, DCM was not generally
considered in the design of caseflow management
policies or systematically applied to caseflow
management practices. While broad distinctions
among cases were common (such as civil versus
criminal or misdemeanor versus felony) and special
tracks for special types of cases were used (such
as for domestic violence protection orders and
administrative appeals), finer case management
distinctions were rare. BJA's DCM Demonstration
Program was launched to develop a case management
framework that accommodated these finer
distinctions.

Although each of the BJA DCM demonstration projects
differ, reflecting local practices, policies, and
procedures, they share common elements, including:

o A system of multiple tracks for processing cases,
each with different events and timeframes.

o The elimination of case events that do not
contribute to case resolution and, conversely, the
necessary addition of case events that promote case
disposition.

o Assurance that timeframes between events provide
adequate opportunity for parties to prepare
themselves and for cases to proceed as scheduled.

o Early screening of each case for purposes of
track assignment.

The experiences of the BJA DCM Demonstration
Program clearly establish the benefits of DCM. All
of the participating DCM projects significantly
reduced case processing times and increased courts'
productivity, evidenced by their capability to
handle greater numbers of cases in shorter periods
of time without corresponding increases in
resources. 

The experience of criminal DCM programs is typified
by Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington, where the
drug caseload increased by approximately 50 percent
the first year after the DCM program began. Of
these drug cases, 88 percent were disposed of
within 90 days, compared to only 11 percent
disposed of the year prior to DCM program
implementation. In Detroit, although the volume of
criminal cases increased by 35 percent during the 2
years following DCM program implementation, the
rate of case dispositions increased proportionally
without any increase in
backlog.

Civil DCM programs have had similar results. In St.
Paul, Minnesota, for example, the pending caseload
was reduced from 12,008 to 680 (a 94-percent
reduction) within the first 8 months of the
program. After the DCM program had been underway 2
years, the ratio of case dispositions to case
filings increased from 70 percent to 105 percent,
actually keeping ahead of case filings. The percent
of cases more than 12 months old decreased from 46
percent to 33 percent. In addition, the time
available for trials increased (attributed to the
elimination of scheduled events that often had been
continued), and an increased volume of case filings
has been accommodated without additional judicial
resources.

Many spinoff effects of the DCM program have been
noted in other segments of the justice system, such
as reductions in pretrial detention time, decreases
in the number of bench warrants issued, and fiscal
savings in a number of areas, including litigation
costs, witness fees (particularly police overtime),
and prisoner transport expenses. These added
benefits are attributed to greater scheduling
certainty and the elimination of events that do not
promote case disposition.

However, a DCM program is not a substitute for
additional judicial system resources when they are
needed. A DCM system can maximize existing
resources by quickly disposing of easily resolved
matters, thereby freeing up resources to focus on
more complex and time-consuming cases. Throughout
this process, a jurisdiction should be in a
significantly better position to realistically
assess its staffing and judicial needs.

Critical Elements of a DCM Program and Performance
Guidelines

Every DCM program must contain certain critical
elements. This section outlines these elements and
recommends guidelines to achieve them.

Case differentiation criteria

It is necessary to identify the factors that
determine the level of preparation and court
intervention required to achieve a timely and just
resolution for each case. The following guidelines
will facilitate performance:

o Establish consensus among judges, attorneys, and
others involved in the caseflow process about which
factors determine the degree of court supervision
and case processing time required to dispose of the
various cases filed.

o Incorporate these factors into formal criteria
for defining the different case processing tracks
appropriate for the DCM system and the events and
timeframes applicable to each track.

Case processing tracks and procedures

Create a sufficient number of processing tracks to
facilitate timely disposition of all cases. Also,
meaningfully distribute the caseload among the
tracks to make each track useful. The following
guidelines will facilitate performance:

o Ensure that each event scheduled meaningfully
contributes to case preparation and disposition.

o Schedule each event to promote case disposition.

o Ensure that the timeframes and events for each
DCM track accommodate the range of management and
processing needs of the cases assigned.

Case screening and track determination

Screen each case as soon as possible after filing
and assign it to the appropriate case processing
track. The following guidelines will facilitate
performance:

o Apply the criteria for assigning cases to tracks
shortly after a case is filed.

o Ensure that there are suitable forms and
procedures to obtain the necessary information
about each case at the time of filing to make a
track determination.

o Promptly communicate the track assignment and
associated deadlines to the attorneys and court
staff involved in the case process and record this
information in the permanent case record.

Court control of case progress and deadlines

Ensure that cases proceed to disposition according
to the procedures and deadlines for their assigned
track. The following guidelines will facilitate
performance:

o Ensure that court events occur as scheduled.

o Ensure that the court has the capability to
identify cases in danger of exceeding deadlines and
take action to make sure that they stay on
schedule.

o Grant deadline extensions infrequently and only
for exceptional cause. 

o Ensure that patterns of requests for extensions
are recorded, monitored, and periodically examined
to determine whether modifications in DCM track
timeframes or events are necessary.

o Impose sanctions for noncompliance with
established deadlines.

Information support

Promptly create a case record to monitor case
progress and overall system performance. Use the
case record and information system to monitor the
progress of all cases in the DCM system; generate
notices, calendars, and statistical reports; and
prepare periodic analyses of system performance.
The following guidelines will facilitate
performance:

o Ensure that track assignments and applicable
deadlines for each case are promptly entered into
the court's information system data base.

o Ensure that the information system enables court
personnel to monitor case progress and the
condition of the caseload.

o Make readily available information about the
current status of each case.

o Provide mechanisms in the system to alert
involved parties when cases are in danger of
failing to comply with track timeframes.

o Ensure that the system provides information to
determine whether the DCM program is meeting its
goals and objectives.

o Ensure that the system can generate notices and
calendars promptly.

Judicial system leadership

Adopt court rules, policies, and other written
guidelines that clearly articulate the DCM goals
and critical elements. It is also critical to
designate one judge with responsibility for
overseeing the DCM program. The DCM judge meets
regularly with officials of the agencies involved,
reviews case management reports, and addresses
operational and coordination problems as they
arise. The following guidelines will facilitate
performance:

o Provide published policies that clearly
articulate the goals and procedures of the DCM
approach.

o Ensure that the designated judge has authority to
manage the DCM program and address operational and
coordination issues as they arise.

Mechanisms for interagency coordination

Establish mechanisms for ongoing communication
among all agencies involved in the DCM process. The
following guidelines will facilitate performance:

o Review DCM system operations regularly with the
agencies involved.

o Resolve operational and coordination problems as
they occur and in a collegial manner.

DCM Implementation Agenda

A jurisdiction cannot simply decide to instate a
DCM program. A number of prerequisites must be
achieved before implementing any DCM system. These
requirements are outlined below.

Judicial system commitment

First and foremost, the court must recognize its
responsibility for managing case progress. It must
be committed to establishing different processing
paths and procedures to reflect the diverse
management requirements of the cases filed. In
addition, judicial system agencies must be willing
to collaborate on the design and implementation of
a DCM program and dedicate senior staff with
adequate expertise for case screening.
Reorganization of staff and modification of
existing policies, procedures, and practices will
most likely be necessary, and the court and other
agencies involved must be prepared to support the
operation of the DCM program.

Judicial system leadership and administrative
support

In addition to a designated DCM judge, an
experienced court administrator must be assigned to
coordinate the details of the DCM development and
implementation process. This person will need to
establish an information system to support DCM
program operation, monitoring, and evaluation
functions.3

Determining the key players

The first step in planning a DCM program is to
identify the affected agencies and individuals
integral to the caseflow process. At a minimum,
these will include the chief judge, the presiding
criminal or civil judge, the court administrator,
and the bar. If a criminal DCM program is
undertaken, the prosecutor, indigent defense
service provider, sheriff, and pretrial/probation
supervision agency should also be involved.

Evaluating the existing caseflow process

All participants must develop a common
understanding of the existing system. A systematic
analysis of the characteristics of the court's
caseload and the manner in which it is currently
disposed is the foundation for planning a DCM
system. Planners should also analyze recent trends,
including:

o The number and types of case filings.

o The number, types, and ages of pending cases.

o The elapsed time from filing to disposition.

o The points and timeframes for case disposition.

In addition, participants should document existing
case processes, including, at a minimum:

o Each key event in the caseflow process.

o The prescribed and actual time between events.

o The responsible agency or staff at each stage.

o The points at which the court exercises control
over case progress.

o The points at which the court has difficulty
maintaining control over case progress. 

In developing this analysis, participants should
pay special attention to present practices
affecting the caseflow process, including
applicable rules and statutes, methods for
scheduling and assigning cases to judges,
continuance policies, discovery practices, case
screening, and case settlement opportunities.

Defining criteria and agreeing on track
characteristics

There is no single set of criteria for case
differentiation or any special number of tracks a
DCM system should use.4 The analysis of the
existing caseflow process should provide a
framework for identifying the factors that best
distinguish cases in terms of their management and
disposition needs and the number and types of case
processing tracks considered. This analysis should
focus on identifying:

o The characteristics of cases that can reasonably
be expected to be disposed of earlier than others.

o The characteristics of cases requiring
significant court supervision and extended case
disposition time.

o The degree of court supervision and the
disposition time required for case groupings.

Altering existing procedures and instituting new
ones

Once there is agreement on the basic case
differentiation scheme and characteristics of each
track, the participants should develop procedures
for each track, from filing and screening through
disposition, to promote early court intervention
and monitoring, and provide opportunities for early
disposition. Existing procedures that contribute to
effective case management should be continued and
adapted to the DCM program. Where necessary,
additional procedures and events should be added to
assure adequate case screening, management, and
monitoring. Conversely, existing procedures that do
not contribute to case disposition should be
redefined, rescheduled to a point in the case
process when they can be effective, or eliminated.

Assuring adequate interagency coordination,
management, and support

The court should take the lead in ensuring that
adequate mechanisms are developed for ongoing
coordination among all agencies involved in the DCM
system and in resolving coordination problems as
they arise.

Orientation and training

Orientation and ongoing training programs are vital
for judges, attorneys, and staff at all levels in
every agency affected by the DCM program. The new
DCM system will necessarily change the way business
in the court is conducted and, in so doing, the way
other justice system agencies operate. It is vital
that everyone involved in the caseflow process
understands the policies and goals introduced by
the DCM system; the purposes of the various track
procedures, forms, and reporting required; and the
role their respective agencies play in contributing
to the success of the program.

Ongoing program assessment and fine-tuning

The DCM program should be monitored on an ongoing
basis to address operational problems as they
arise, refine system procedures as necessary, and
provide periodic reports to all agencies involved
on the system's effectiveness and impact.

End Notes

1. At the time BJA initiated its DCM Demonstration
Program, only one court in the country, the Bergen
County, New Jersey, Superior Court, had introduced
DCM. Bergen County instituted a pilot civil DCM
program in March 1986; no courts had yet applied
DCM to criminal cases.

2. Descriptions of the BJA DCM Demonstration
Program projects are included in the Sources for
Additional Information and Assistance.

3. Depending on case volume, automation may be
necessary; in many jurisdictions a PC-based system
may be adequate.

4. Some courts have DCM systems with three tracks
(simple, standard, and complex); others have six or
more tracks with additional subtracks.

Sources for AdditionalInformation and Assistance

Six demonstration projects (four criminal and two
civil) were launched under sponsorship of BJA's DCM
Demonstration Program and began operation in July
1988. Below is a summary of each program with the
names, addresses, and telephone numbers of
officials who can provide information and technical
assistance. 

Criminal DCM programs

Berrien County (St. Joseph), Michigan. The Berrien
County criminal DCM program builds on a civil DCM
project instituted by the court in early 1988. The
system consists of three tracks. All criminal cases
are assigned to a track based on anumber of factors
reflecting the complexity of each case and the
priority given for its disposition.

Contact:
Honorable Ronald J. Taylor
Chief Circuit Judge
Second Judicial Circuit Court
Courthouse
St. Joseph, MI 49085
616-983-7111, ext. 386

Camden County (Camden), New Jersey. The Camden
County criminal DCM program extends the concept of
the Central Judicial Processing Court previously
established in other New Jersey jurisdictions for
screening purposes. It establishes a subsequent
pre-indictment conference (PIC) for case review,
potential disposition, and track assignment.
Originally, four tracks were established for cases
not disposed of at the PIC conference: expedited,
standard, complex, and priority. The priority track
was geared to serious offenses requiring expedited
processing; it has since been combined with the
expedited track.

Contact:
Judge A. Donald Bigley
Assignment Judge of the Superior Court
Superior Court of Camden County
Hall of Justice, Suite 570
Fifth and Mickle Boulevard
Camden, NJ 08103
609-757-8182

Pierce County (Tacoma), Washington. The Pierce
County DCM project initially focused on drug cases
and was expanded in June 1989 to include sexual
assault cases. Since April 1990, the DCM system has
been applied to all criminal cases, and efforts are
now under way to develop a DCM system for civil
cases. Implementation of the DCM program has
involved transfer of case management functions for
criminal cases from the prosecutor to the newly
established court administrator's office. Three
case processing plans were established: expedited,
normal, and complex. Dispositional timeframe
standards range from 30 to 90 days, depending on
the specific plan. A special category for
complicated sexual assault cases has also been
developed; the disposition of these cases is guided
by the individual judge assigned.

Contact:
Judge J. Kelley Arnold
Pierce County Superior Court
930 Tacoma Avenue South
Tacoma, WA 98402
206-591-3655

Beverly Bright
Superior Court Administrator
930 Tacoma Avenue South
Tacoma, WA 98402
206-591-3653

Wayne County (Detroit), Michigan. Wayne County's
DCM project, unlike the other three criminal
programs, is based on existing sentencing
guidelines and data. It operates on the assumption
that cases resulting in lesser guideline penalties
are managerially less complex and will exit the
system sooner. Five case categories and additional
subtracks, each with different case processing
timeframes, have been established for case
assignment according to applicable guideline
characteristics.

Contact:
Honorable Dalton A. Roberson
Chief Judge
The Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit
Frank Murphy Hall of Justice
1441 St. Antoine Street
Detroit, MI 48226-2384
313-224-2444

George Gish
Clerk/Court Administrator
The Recorder's Court for the City of Detroit
Frank Murphy Hall of Justice
1441 St. Antoine Street
Detroit, MI 48226-2384
313-224-2506

Civil DCM projects

Each of the two civil DCM projects establishes
multiple tracks with different provisions for
pretrial discovery, court events, and timeframes.

Camden County (Camden), New Jersey. Simultaneous
with the introduction of a Criminal DCM program,
Camden County launched a civil DCM project, modeled
after an established DCM project in Bergen County,
New Jersey. Three tracks were established:
expedited, standard, and complex. Assignment to the
complex track required the approval of the
presiding civil judge. Special subtracks have
subsequently been established for certain types of
cases, including medical malpractice, asbestos
claims, personal injury protection claims, and
other special case classes.

Contact:
Honorable Rudolph J. Rossetti
Presiding Judge of the Civil Division
Superior Court of Camden County
Hall of Justice, Suite 470
Fifth Street and Mickle Boulevard
Camden, NJ 08103
609-757-8116

Linda Torkelsen
Civil Case Manager
Superior Court of Camden County
Hall of Justice, Suite 520
Fifth Street and Mickle Boulevard
Camden, NJ 08103
609-757-8164 

Ramsey County (St. Paul), Minnesota. Ramsey County
developed three DCM tracks with dispositional
timeframes triggered by the filing of a Joint at
Issue Memorandum (JIM) 90 days after the attorneys
certify that a case is at issue. The three tracks
are: 

o Expedited, to be disposed of within 90 days of
the JIM. 

o Standard, to be disposed of within 305 days of
the JIM. 

o Complex, to be disposed of within a maximum of 2
years of the JIM. 

For expedited cases, the only scheduled court event
is the trial. For standard cases, a joint
disposition conference of the attorneys is
scheduled 45 days after track assignment, a
judicial settlement conference is held 15 days
thereafter, and trial is scheduled within 30 days.
Complex cases are assigned to an individual judge
for a case management conference where a schedule
for requisite subsequent events and applicable
timetable are established.

In 1990, Ramsey County developed a criminal DCM
program modeled after the case differentiation
process established in the civil DCM program.

Contact:
Honorable J. Thomas Mott
Second Judicial District Court
1621 Ramsey County Courthouse
St. Paul, MN 55102
612-298-4541

Lynae Olson
DCM Coordinator
Second Judicial District Court
1230 Ramsey County Courthouse
St. Paul, MN 55102
612-298-4500

BJA contacts

The following BJA contacts also will provide DCM
program support and technical assistance:

BJA Information Systems Branch
Bureau of Justice Assistance
633 Indiana Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-5943

BJA DCM Demonstration Project
Caroline S. Cooper, Director
The American University
3615 Wisconsin Avenue NW.
Washington, DC 20016
202-362-4183

Selected bibliography

Bakke, Holly, and Maureen Solomon. "Case
Differentiation: An Approach to Individualized Case
Management." Judicature. Vol. 73, No. 1, June-July
1989.

Cooper, Caroline, Maureen Solomon, and Holly Bakke.
Guide for Implementing a DCM Program:
Applying DCM Principles to the Criminal and Civil
Caseflow Process in General Jurisdiction Courts.
The American University. 1992.

Cooper, Caroline, Maureen Solomon, Holly Bakke, and
Thomas Lane. BJA Differentiated Case Management
Demonstration Program: Overview and Program
Summaries. Bureau of Justice Assistance. February
1992.

Cooper, Caroline, Maureen Solomon, Holly Bakke, and
Thomas Lane. BJA Expedited Drug Case Management
Demonstration Program: Overview and Program
Summaries. Bureau of Justice Assistance. February
1992.

Davis, Honorable Legrome D. Review of the Felony
Case Process in the Baltimore City Circuit Court
and Recommendations for Expediting Dispositions.
Courts Technical Assistance Project. Report No. 3-
002. July 1991.

Taylor, Honorable Ronald J. Preliminary
Recommendations Regarding the Application of
Differentiated Case Management Principles to the
Caseload in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County,
Florida. Courts Technical Assistance Project.
Report No. 3-012.
September 1991.

Taylor, Honorable Ronald J. Recommendations to the
Pima County (Tucson), Arizona Justice Court
Regarding the Development of a Differentiated Case
Management System for Civil Cases. Courts Technical
Assistance Project. Report No. 3-006. April 1991.

Taylor, Honorable Ronald J., and Caroline Cooper.
Recommendations to Expedite the Management of Drug
Cases in the Multnomah County (Portland), Oregon
Circuit Court. Courts Technical Assistance Project.
Report No. 3-001. March 1991.

Thompson, Honorable Donald H., and Beverly Bright.
"Success Story: Pierce County Superior Court
Filings Increase, Yet Criminal Cases are Disposed
More Rapidly." Annual Report on Caseflow
Management. Office of the Administrator of the
Courts. February 1992.

Torkelsen, Linda. "Differentiated Civil Case
Management: A Bench/Bar Partnership." Court
Manager. Winter, 1991.

--------------------
This document was prepared under cooperative
agreement number 90-DD-CX-0006, provided by the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of
Justice. The points of view or opinions stated in
this document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.
---------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance
633 Indiana Avenue N.W.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-6278

----------------------
The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office
for Victims of Crime.

NCJ 140189