Data Quality Workgroup · The Honorable Elijah Smiley, Circuit Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit...

Data Quality in Florida’s Trial Courts

Recommendations from the

Commission on Trial Court Performance and

Accountability’s

Data Quality Workgroup

September 2020

Updated to reflect Supreme Court Actions in December 2020


Page 2 of 18

DATA QUALITY WORKGROUP MEMBERS

The Honorable Jennifer Bailey, Circuit Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Chair

The Honorable Paul Alessandroni, County Judge, Charlotte County

Mr. Noel Chessman, Court Technology Officer, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Scott Ellis, Clerk of Court, Brevard County

Ms. Gina Justice, Trial Court Administrator, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Terrance Perkins, Circuit Judge, Seventh Judicial Circuit

The Honorable Elijah Smiley, Circuit Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit

Ms. Kelly Steele, Court Programs Manager, Ninth Judicial Circuit

Ms. Kimberly Swain, Director of Court & Operational Services, Pinellas County Clerk of Court

Mr. Jeff Taylor, Deputy Director of Technology Services, Manatee County Clerk of Court

Staff Support Provided by the Office of the State Courts Administrator

Arlene Johnson, Chief of Court Services

Lindsay Hafford, Senior Court Operations Consultant

Victor McKay, Court Operations Consultant

Judith Ivester, Court Operations Consultant


Page 3 of 18

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .....................................................................................4

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND ...........................................................................6

CHARGES AND GOALS OF THE DATA QUALITY WORKGROUP ......................7

IMPROVING OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN DATA ................................................7

STARTING POINT OF JUDICIAL ACTION AND TIME STANDARDS .................12

CONSIDERATION OF NEW TIME STANDARDS ................................................12

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................13

CLOSING REMARKS ........................................................................................17

APPENDICES ....................................................................................................18


Page 4 of 18

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability’s Data Quality Workgroup

(Workgroup) was established in the 2018-2020 term and was directed to study data quality in

Florida’s trial courts and make recommendations designed to improve the overall confidence in

court data. The Workgroup, comprised of judges, a clerk of court, and court and clerk staff

members, met throughout the term and conducted a comprehensive data verification exercise, the

results of which formed the basis of the Workgroup’s recommendations. They also evaluated the

role of data quality in the federal courts and assessed the need for defining judicial time to

disposition in all cases. Based on their findings, the Workgroup advances 11 recommendations

to the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability. The recommendations are as

follows (with actions by the Supreme Court noted in underlined text):

1) The Office of the State Courts Administrator should implement robust data quality control measures in phase two of Uniform Case Reporting. The Supreme Court supports

the Office of the State Courts Administrator implementing robust data quality measures

in phase two of Uniform Case Reporting.

2) The Office of the State Courts Administrator should monitor Uniform Case Reporting data for quality control opportunities and implement them as they are identified. The

Supreme Court supports the Office of the State Courts Administrator monitoring the

Uniform Case Reporting project for quality control opportunities and implementing them

as they are identified.

3) The Supreme Court should discontinue the Foreclosure Initiative data reporting requirement and require the placement of a notification on all existing and published

Foreclosure Initiative reports that informs users the data is sourced from an unaudited

database. The Supreme Court supports the discontinuance of the Foreclosure Initiative

data reporting requirement upon a court’s transition to, and validation of, data submitted

via Uniform Case Reporting. The Court also supports the immediate inclusion of a

notification on reports indicating this data is sourced from an unaudited database.

4) The Supreme Court should consider issuing a directive to state attorneys reminding them that the state is obligated to resolve all counts relative to a case, and that no counts should

be left open and unresolved. The Supreme Court supports circuit court chief judges

collaborating locally with the state attorney, as well as other judges, the clerks of court,

and other justice system partners, to address unresolved case counts and cases not

properly closed.

5) The Supreme Court should consider pursuing a modification to the judgment and sentence forms found in rule 3.986(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (and, if

necessary, to the Clerk’s case maintenance systems and the CAPS judicial viewers), to

include a statement that creates the presumption for case closure or dismissal on

unaddressed counts. These modifications will ensure all counts are disposed upon or

before the final disposition. The Supreme Court supports further consideration of a

modification to rule 3.986, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, to include a statement

that creates the presumption for case closure or dismissal on unaddressed counts.


Page 5 of 18

6) The courts and clerks of court should develop an automated mechanism for flagging case records containing incomplete or inaccurate data. This mechanism should be designed to

identify specific items in the data set and should be accompanied by a business process

for resolving flagged records. The Supreme Court supports the development of an

automated mechanism for flagging case records containing incomplete or inaccurate data.

7) The courts and clerks of court should conduct a statewide initiative to identify and flag case records not closed appropriately and develop automated business processes to

escalate flagged cases for review and resolution through the collaboration of both court

and clerk staff. The Supreme Court supports circuit court chief judges collaborating

locally with clerks of court to identify and flag case records not closed appropriately and

developing automated business processes to escalate flagged cases for review and

resolution through both court and clerk staff.

8) The courts and clerks of court should require a review of existing case status definitions by all users of case management and case maintenance systems and should provide easily

accessible quick reference guides to status definitions within all case management

platforms. The Supreme Court supports circuit court chief judges collaborating locally

with the judges, court staff, and the clerks of court to ensure an accurate understanding of

the case status definitions and their bearing on overall data quality. Through

communication and training, the chief judges should promote the uniform application and

appropriate use of case status definitions through their local court data systems. The

Court further supports a referral to the Florida Courts Technology Commission

requesting development of an easily accessible quick reference guide to case status

definitions to be included in each case management system.

9) Each judicial circuit should prioritize data quality as a local responsibility by assigning the role of Data Quality Manager to an existing or new staff member. This position

would serve as a liaison between the court and clerk of court on matters relating to data

and would act as a singular point of contact on data quality issues throughout the circuit.

The individual would be responsible for analyzing court data, identifying opportunities

for quality improvement, developing automated processes designed to improve

confidence in data, and communicating quality improvement initiatives to judges and

court staff. The Supreme Court supports each judicial circuit assigning the role of Data

Quality Manager to a new or existing staff member whose responsibility it will be to

oversee all data quality initiatives, identify opportunities for quality improvement,

develop automated processes designed to improve confidence in data, communicate

quality improvement initiatives to judges and court staff, and serve as liaison for data

quality initiatives to court and clerk staff, outside stakeholders, and the Office of the State

Courts Administrator.

10) The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) should hold a Trial Court Data Summit, which brings together responsible parties from each judicial circuit and the

OSCA to review existing measures and implement mandatory statewide data standards.

The Supreme Court supports the Office of the State Courts Administrator facilitating a

Trial Court Data Summit.


Page 6 of 18

11) A Judicial Time to Disposition measure should be developed in the 2020-2022 term by the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability. The measure should

begin when judicial action commences, deduct inactive time (relying on the use of

Active/Inactive status indicators), measure the time in which the judge has control over

the case and its trajectory, and be used in conjunction with the Time to Disposition

measure in standard reports. The Supreme Court supports the Commission on Trial

Court Performance and Accountability developing a new Judicial Time to Disposition

measure for the trial courts. The Court recognizes that this measure will rely on data

included in Uniform Case Reporting. As such, the measure may not be operational

within the 2020-2022 term; however, the Commission should prioritize the

implementation of the measure at the earliest possible opportunity.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

In the 2014-2016 term, the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability

(Commission) was charged, via AOSC14-40 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance

and Accountability, with developing recommendations on a performance management

framework for the trial courts with an emphasis on articulating long-term objectives for better

quantifying performance. In response to this charge, Commission Chair Judge Diana Moreland

created the Performance Management Workgroup (PMW) to assist in developing

recommendations. In June 2016, the PMW advanced a series of recommendations in their

report, Recommendations on a Performance Management Framework for Florida’s Trial Courts.

The recommendations included the establishment of a Trial Court Performance Management

Framework to improve service delivery in trial court services and programs. The Framework

would include both short- and long-term objectives and would be used to identify performance

indicators of the court system functions deemed by s. 29.004, F.S. as essential. It would also be

guided by certain administrative principles, including those supported by the National Center for

State Courts1, as well as concepts developed by the PMW.

In the 2016-2018 term, the Court, via AOSC16-39 In Re: Commission on Trial Court

Performance and Accountability, charged the Commission with continuing to develop the Trial

Court Performance Management Framework in the following order: 1) establish baseline data

and benchmarks for measuring Time to Disposition, Clearance Rate, and Age of Active Pending

Caseload, upon collection of accurate data; 2) develop a process for correcting court data

problems and errors; 3) prioritize and begin to develop administrative performance criteria for

the essential elements of the trial courts, as provided for under s. 29.004, F.S.; 4) review trial

court time standards2 as a means to identify further performance indicators; and 5) if items 1)

through 4) have been achieved, identify new performance indicators and measures or dashboards

for integrating performance measures into existing operational policies and procedures.

1 The Pursuit of High Performance, International Journal for Court Administration. Hanson, Ph.D., Roger, Ostrom,

Ph.D., Brian, Kleiman, Ph.D., Matthew, November 2010.

2 Rule 2.250, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, establishes a presumptively reasonable time period for the

completion of cases in the trial and appellate courts of the state.

https://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/240957/2130573/AOSC14-40.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/240957/2130573/AOSC14-40.pdfhttps://www.flcourts.org/content/download/218026/1974102/Recommendations-on-Performance-Management-Framework-6-15-16.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241069/2131245/AOSC16-39.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241069/2131245/AOSC16-39.pdfhttps://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2018/06/RJA-7-1-18.pdf


Page 7 of 18

The PMW was reestablished in the 2016-2018 term and tasked with addressing these charges.

They developed a work plan based on analyzing trial court data but faced challenges in accessing

the appropriate types of data. These challenges led the PMW to develop a series of

recommendations designed to improve data quality at the source. Their recommendations were

compiled in the June 2018 report, Recommendations to Improve Performance Management in

Florida’s Trial Courts. The key recommendation of the report was to create a data quality

workgroup to evaluate data management guidelines, including existing data control and

verification processes by both the courts and the clerks of court. This recommendation led the

Court to direct the Commission to create a data quality workgroup in the 2018-2020 term to

focus on specific aspects of data quality to improve the overall confidence in court data.

CHARGES AND GOALS OF THE DATA QUALITY WORKGROUP

In AOSC18-19 In Re: Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, the

Supreme Court charged the Commission with continuing the development of the Trial Court

Performance Management Framework. More specifically, the Court directed the Commission to

establish a data quality workgroup to:

a) Improve overall confidence in data and, if time permits; b) Consider whether the starting point of time standards should begin once judicial action

commences as opposed to the indictment, information, petition, or complaint filing date;

and

c) Consider if there should be new time standards for how long litigants must wait for a hearing, trial, or ruling.

In response to this charge, Judge Moreland established the Data Quality Workgroup

(Workgroup) and appointed Judge Jennifer Bailey as chair. It was determined that the

Workgroup should include both court and clerk participants, and an additional nine members

were added to include judges, court administration professionals, court and clerk technology

officers, and one clerk of court. In establishing the Workgroup, Judge Moreland requested that

the efforts to improve overall confidence in data begin with, and remain focused on, actions that

would improve Uniform Case Reporting (UCR) data.

The Workgroup identified the most frequently occurring data quality issues and developed a

work plan designed to address these issues individually. These issues were predominantly

centered around case closure and the application of case status definitions. The work plan would

include a review of existing data systems, conducting a data verification exercise to analyze data

from these systems, performing an assessment of local data quality practices, and evaluating the

need to define better the time in which the judge has control over the case. The Workgroup

frequently met throughout the term to address these matters, and their activities, findings, and

recommendations are discussed in greater detail below.

IMPROVING OVERALL CONFIDENCE IN DATA

Review of Existing Data Systems

The first task of the Workgroup’s work plan was to identify and review the three existing court

data collection systems available that have the capability to manage court performance. Those

https://www.flcourts.org/content/download/429149/4659198/Recommendations%20to%20Improve%20Performance%20Management%20for%20Florida's%20Trial%20Courts.pdfhttps://www.flcourts.org/content/download/429149/4659198/Recommendations%20to%20Improve%20Performance%20Management%20for%20Florida's%20Trial%20Courts.pdfhttps://www.flcourts.org/content/download/413201/4109203/AOSC18-19%20(1).pdf


Page 8 of 18

systems are the Offender Based Transaction System, the Foreclosure and Economic Recovery

Case Tracking System, and the Uniform Case Reporting system.

Offender Based Transaction System

In 1988, several state agencies and the Office of State Courts Administrator (OSCA)

standardized the reporting of criminal case data in the Offender Based Transaction System

(OBTS). The OBTS system is intended to reduce county reporting workload by satisfying the

reporting requirements of state agencies and the OSCA into one combined reporting system.

Clerks of court transmit all state-level criminal information to Civitek (a subsidiary of the Florida

Court Clerks and Comptrollers), which in turn supplies the information to other state agencies

and the OSCA.

Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Case Tracking System

The Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Case Tracking System (FERCTS) was developed by

the Office of the State Courts Administrator during the foreclosure crisis of the Great Recession

that occurred between 2007 and 2009. To address the significant backlog in foreclosure cases

during the crisis, the courts used key data elements collected through FERCTS, which allowed

judges to manage their foreclosure backlog more efficiently. The FERCTS also allowed the

courts to analyze the age of active pending cases, clearance rates, and time to disposition of

foreclosure cases. The data was supplied by the clerks of court through reporting requirements

established in AOSC13-28 In Re: Final Report and Recommendations of the Foreclosure

Initiative Workgroup. These requirements were extended through subsequent administrative

orders AOSC13-51 In Re: Case Status Reporting Requirements and AOSC15-9 In Re:

Continued Case Status Reporting Requirements. The initiative was deemed a success and helped

the courts address the substantial backlog of foreclosure cases.

Uniform Case Reporting System

The Uniform Case Reporting system, or UCR, is based on the success of the FERCTS. UCR

began in earnest in 2016 through the issuance of AOSC16-15 In Re: Uniform Case Reporting

Requirements, which essentially expanded the reporting requirements of FERCTS to include

additional data elements and to require reporting data on all case types. UCR is a modernization

of state reporting requirements on case inventory and status assignment, summary reporting

system case type and disposition assignment, post-judgment reopen and reclosure activity for all

case types, and complex civil case reporting. UCR focuses on five primary case event types

including case initiation, case closure, case change, case reopen, and case reclosure. The system

is designed to collect the least amount of data that accurately describes a case event and to

provide basic case aging data that will facilitate the calculation of the age of active pending

caseload, clearance rate, and time to disposition. UCR also relies on data reported by the

individual clerks of court and is being implemented in phases by case type. Reporting

requirements are promulgated through the release of data collection specifications, which

incorporate the standard Trial Court Case Event Definitional Framework (Appendix A) and

Codes for Reasons of Status Change guidelines (Appendix B). Data reporting began in 2016

with the Circuit Civil case type and will continue through December 2021.

https://www.flcourts.org/content/download/217686/1972062/AOSC13-28.pdfhttps://www.flcourts.org/content/download/217686/1972062/AOSC13-28.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/240903/2130249/AOSC13-51.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241029/2131005/AOSC15-9.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241029/2131005/AOSC15-9.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241168/2131839/AOSC16-15.pdfhttps://www.floridasupremecourt.org/content/download/241168/2131839/AOSC16-15.pdf


Page 9 of 18

Data Verification Exercise

The next step in the work plan of the Workgroup was to identify and assess the problems that

lead to a breakdown in data quality. The Workgroup began with several hypotheses on the most

common data quality concerns including that inaccurate application of case status3, failure to

properly close cases, and missing data were to blame in most instances. To evaluate the

frequency with which these problems occur, the Workgroup conducted a data verification

exercise that involved identifying each open case from the three above-described data systems

and reviewing a subset of those cases at the local level to ascertain the reason the case remains

open.

Judge Bailey appointed a Data Verification Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to develop the

parameters of the data sample. The Subcommittee established that samples of 90 open cases

from each of the Data Quality Workgroup members’ counties be reviewed during the exercise.

The sample of 90 open cases included 30 circuit criminal cases, 30 county criminal cases, both

sourced from OBTS data; 15 foreclosure cases sourced from FERCTS data; and 15 other civil

cases sourced from UCR data (see Appendix C for detailed information on the data sample).

Adjustments were made for the counties where data were unavailable. For example, Flagler

County only supplies FERCTS data, so their entire sample of 90 cases was drawn from only one

of the three data systems. With regard to case age, the following parameters were established by

the Subcommittee:

• Circuit and county criminal cases – This data sample was drawn from the OBTS and based on open cases between one and 10 years old. Cases over five years old

represented approximately 30% of all open cases for circuit and 45% for county, so

the sample was distributed evenly over the one through 10 years. Cases under one

year old were excluded as those should be legitimately open cases based on the time

standard of 180 days (for felonies) or 90 days (for misdemeanors).

• Foreclosure cases – This sample was drawn from the FERCTS and based on open cases between two and seven years old. Cases between eight and 29 years old

collectively represented only 7% of all open cases, so it was determined there may be

low value in examining those cases in this exercise. Cases under two years old were

excluded as those should be legitimately open cases based on the time standard of 12

months (for circuit civil non-jury cases) and 18 months (for circuit civil jury cases).

• Circuit civil cases – This sample was derived from the UCR system and was based on open cases between two and five years old. The sample excluded cases under two

years old as those should be legitimately open cases based on the time standard of 12

months (for circuit civil non-jury cases) and 18 months (for circuit civil jury cases).

Each member of the Workgroup received their data sample and was asked to research the case

records in the sample and to indicate the reason the case remained open. Members were

provided uniform reason codes to use in the exercise. They were also asked to have the exercise

3 Case status is defined in the Case Event Definitional Framework document (Appendix X). Definitions include

Active, Inactive, Closed, Reopened Active, Reopened Inactive, and Reclosed.


Page 10 of 18

performed by their respective clerk or court counterpart so that the analysis could include a

comparison of the two local data systems. In total, 900 cases were reviewed. The responses

provided great insight into the shortcomings of the available data systems and the reasons why

cases remain open, sometimes well past their time standard. The results of the exercise are

summarized below.

Offender Based Transaction System

• This data set included a review of 540 Circuit and County Criminal cases.

• Only 51 percent (275 cases) of circuit criminal cases and 22 percent (118 cases) of county criminal cases reflected a consistent status between the local case maintenance

system data and OBTS data maintained by the OSCA.

• For the 27 percent of cases where the status was inconsistent between the two systems, the issues identified include:

o Related counts remained in Open status (the case appears as Open in OBTS until all counts are Closed);

o No disposition date entered; and o The local case maintenance system had a valid capias/bench warrant issue date,

but the date was not present in the OBTS data maintained by the OSCA. The

capias/bench warrant date would place the case on Inactive status; however,

without the date in the OBTS data set, the case remains open and Active for

reporting purposes.

Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Case Tracking System

• 300 foreclosure cases were reviewed.

• Only 47 percent of cases (140 cases) reflected a consistent status between local case maintenance system data and foreclosure system data maintained by the OSCA.

• 44 percent (131 cases) reflected an inconsistent status between the local case maintenance system and the foreclosure system data maintained by the OSCA, while the remaining 9

percent (28 cases) were indeterminate. Issues identified include:

o No disposition date was provided to the OSCA; o Incorrect case status was reported to the OSCA (i.e., the case was initially

reported to the OSCA as Closed, but then a subsequent status was reported which

designated the case Inactive or Active, or the case was initially reported to the

OSCA as Reclosed rather than Closed; and

o OSCA’s initial file data was extracted incorrectly.

Uniform Case Reporting System

• 60 Circuit Civil cases were reviewed

• Only 80 percent of cases (48 cases) reflected a consistent status between the local case maintenance system data and the UCR data maintained by the OSCA.

• The Workgroup recognized that the UCR data was more consistent than the two legacy data systems but agreed that 80 percent accuracy is still unacceptable.

The findings of this exercise supported the Workgroup’s initial hypotheses and helped them

identify the problems common to all data collection platforms as well as those that are unique to

individual systems. They developed recommendations designed to address the specific problems


Page 11 of 18

of each of the three data sets, as well as solutions to address all court data across multiple

platforms. The recommendations, discussed in greater detail later in this report, provide concrete

measures to improve the overall confidence in court data.

Data Quality at the Local Level

The third step in the Workgroup’s work plan was to assess the need for data quality assurance at

the local level. The Workgroup agreed that if data entry and error detection problems persist at

the local level, they will continue to diminish the overall quality of court data systemwide. They

analyzed how the federal courts system addressed their issues with data quality by acquiring staff

and defining roles for staff with positions classification specifications. The position

classification specifications include roles for staff that support data quality assurance for all

electronic and publicly available data. The positions of Data Quality Analyst I (Appendix D),

and Data Quality Analyst II (Appendix E), are responsible for various aspects of quality

assurance, including:

• Ensuring the veracity and efficiency of a court unit’s case information database;

• Maintaining accuracy and completeness of official case records from opening to final disposition, checking the accuracy of daily data entries, maintaining user log errors,

reviewing entries, performing automated quality checks on creditors, monitoring

undeliverable emails to take appropriate action, and verifying case openings;

• Preparing and distributing monthly and quarterly statistical reports; typing, formatting, editing, and running reports;

• Performing edits and corrective actions to ensure the accuracy of data, files, and records; testing new events; generating deadlines and deficiency notices for missing documents;

archiving records; and

• Advising managers regarding trends in input errors and conducting corrective action; developing and revising procedures for data entry; researching and proposing solutions to

various case management issues.

In comparison, the Florida State Courts System currently has positions responsible for managing

and maintaining statistical data and performing research and analysis on available data, but these

responsibilities do not extend to the quality assurance measures seen in the federal courts.

Additionally, there are only five such positions in existence in the state courts system and four of

them are located in OSCA. The Workgroup evaluated the comparable positions found in the

State Courts System Class Specifications, including the Court Statistician (Appendix F), the

Court Statistics Consultant (Appendix G), and the Data Quality Control Specialist (Appendix

H).

Following the review of existing positions, the Workgroup agreed that the specific position title

or class specification was of less importance than the performance of the role itself. Further,

they agreed that data quality controls at the local level are essential to the viability of any quality

assurance initiative. The Workgroup determined that the function of data quality control could

be performed by any of the above-referenced positions or by an existing member of court staff

who has familiarity with court data processes and principles. As such, rather than recommending

each jurisdiction retain a new data-quality focused position, the Workgroup developed a

recommendation for each circuit to have designated data quality control personnel who would be

responsible for data entry protocols and standards, training, data monitoring and error reporting,


Page 12 of 18

and coordinating with OSCA and the other data quality control personnel in the state courts

system.

STARTING POINT OF JUDICIAL ACTION AND TIME STANDARDS

Defining Judicial Time to Disposition

The Workgroup’s final step in the work plan was to evaluate the need to define the time in which

the judge has control over the case. The Workgroup examined whether the starting point of

judicial time should begin once judicial action commences as opposed to the indictment,

information, petition, or complaint filing date. At present, there are three key efficiency

measures on which courts throughout the country rely. These measures are based on nationally

accepted court management principles found in the National Center for State Courts’ CourTools

and High Performance Court Framework initiative literature. They are:

1) Time to Disposition – the percentage of cases disposed or otherwise resolved within established time frames.

2) Age of Active Pending Caseload – the age of active cases that are pending before the court, measured as the number of days from filing to time of measurement.

3) Clearance Rate – the number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases.

With the implementation of Uniform Case Reporting (UCR), the Florida trial courts will be able

to produce data on these three measures for purposes of performance management. This will be

a significant milestone for the judicial branch and will allow the courts to measure various

aspects of the case as it progresses toward disposition. The Workgroup agreed that while these

measures are critical, they also recognize a need for establishing a definition for judicial time to

disposition, which focuses on the time in which the judge has control over the case. For

example, there are times in the life of the case where the judge has no control over its trajectory,

such as in a criminal case where the defendant is declared incompetent to proceed or in a civil

case where a stay is issued due to the filing of bankruptcy by one of the parties. In considering

the establishment of such a definition, the Workgroup adopted several principles that should be

followed but agreed that the matter deserved more in-depth analysis than they could devote

during the 2018-2020 term. As such, their recommendation is that the definition be studied

further and finalized during the 2020-2022 term.

CONSIDERATION OF NEW TIME STANDARDS

The final component of the Commission’s charge was to consider if there should be new time

standards for how long litigants must wait for a hearing, trial, or ruling. At present, there are

standard times within which cases must be disposed4. The Workgroup recognized that creating

new time standards or amending the existing standards would require access to data on how the

4 Rule 2.250, Florida Rules of Judicial Administration, establishes a presumptively reasonable time period for the

completion of cases in the trial and appellate courts of the state.

http://www.courtools.org/https://cdm16501.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/ctadmin/id/1874https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2018/06/RJA-7-1-18.pdf


Page 13 of 18

time standards currently apply. Existing data systems do not capture this level of information,

making measuring these portions of time impossible. Once fully implemented, the Uniform

Case Reporting system will allow courts to compute time to disposition, and they will be able to

evaluate whether they are meeting the existing standards for disposing cases. The addition of

new standards, such as how long certain segments of the case take, would require the creation of

additional data elements within UCR.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

As a result of the initiatives undertaken during the 2018-2020 term, the Workgroup developed 11

recommendations, which are listed below, along with a discussion on each. Recommendations

one through 10 are in response to the first component of the charge, which asked the

Commission to improve overall confidence in data. Recommendation 11 is in response to the

second component of the charge, which asked the Commission to consider whether the starting

point of time standards should begin once judicial action commences as opposed to the

indictment, information, petition, or complaint filing date.

Recommendation One: The Office of the State Courts Administrator should implement robust

data quality control measures in phase two of Uniform Case Reporting.

Discussion: The implementation of UCR is divided into two phases. Phase one focuses on

establishing the data exchange between each clerk of court and OSCA; phase two focuses on

data verification and implementing data quality controls. After counties progress through phase

one for each respective case type for which data will be submitted, they move into phase two.

Phase two of UCR presents a critical opportunity to implement data quality control measures

designed to identify errors at the earliest opportunity and build in features within the data

specifications and data handling processes to flag the errors for correction at the source. Some of

the measures will be specific to the case type to which they apply. The Workgroup recommends

the quality control measures be addressed in forthcoming versions of the data specifications and

that previous versions of the specifications be revised to include such measures if necessary.

Recommendation Two: The Office of the State Courts Administrator should monitor Uniform

Case Reporting data for quality control opportunities and implement them as they are identified.

Discussion: The Workgroup recognizes that UCR is in the early stages of implementation, and

much is yet to be discovered about the capabilities and limitations of the system. As such, the

Workgroup recommends that staff of the OSCA, on behalf of the Commission, continue to

monitor the development of UCR for additional data quality improvement opportunities and

system enhancements and bring them to the attention of the Commission for possible

implementation. The Workgroup recommends this work should be ongoing throughout the life

of UCR.

Recommendation Three: The Supreme Court should discontinue the Foreclosure Initiative

data reporting requirement and require the placement of a notification on all existing and

published Foreclosure Initiative reports that informs users the data is sourced from an unaudited

database.


Page 14 of 18

Discussion: The Foreclosure and Economic Recovery Case Tracking System (FERCTS)

developed during the foreclosure crisis of the Great Recession provided valuable information to

the courts for many years and assisted the judicial branch with addressing the backlog of

foreclosure cases associated with the crisis. As the number of foreclosure cases returned to pre-

crisis levels and attention shifted towards developing the UCR system that would serve as the

data collection system for each case type, including foreclosure cases, resources were directed

away from FERCTS. The requirement for the clerks of court to submit foreclosure data on a

monthly basis remains; however, the data is no longer audited by OSCA. Additionally, the data

is still requested, although with much less frequency than at the height of the crisis, by members

of the media and the public and is released with no indication that the database is being

effectively phased out. The Workgroup recommends that the reporting requirement be

discontinued, and that the database be frozen with a notation placed on all published data that

informs users the data is sourced from an unaudited database.

Recommendation Four: The Supreme Court should consider issuing a directive to state

attorneys reminding them that the state is obligated to resolve all counts relative to a case, and

that no counts should be left open and unresolved.

Discussion: The most common reason cases remain open in the circuit and county criminal case

types are due to related charges remaining open. The existing data collection systems are

designed to default a case as Open if all charges associated with a case are not addressed prior to,

or in association with, final disposition. The Workgroup agreed that it is an administrative

responsibility of the state attorney to ensure all associated counts or charges are addressed when

concluding prosecution on any case. The Workgroup recommends the Court issue a letter to the

state attorneys association or an administrative order directing each chief judge in the trial courts

to issue a directive locally to the state attorney in their circuit requesting this change in

procedure.

Recommendation Five: The Supreme Court should consider pursuing a modification to the

judgment and sentence forms found in rule 3.986(d), Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure (and,

if necessary, to the clerk’s case maintenance systems and the CAPS judicial viewers), to include

a statement that creates the presumption for case closure or dismissal on unaddressed counts.

These modifications will ensure all counts are disposed upon or before final disposition.

Discussion: To assist with formally closing all associated counts and charges in the final

disposition of the case, the Workgroup recommends a modification to the judgement and

sentence forms to include an option to indicate that all unaddressed counts are thereby dismissed.

The Workgroup agreed that this measure, coupled with the changes in Recommendation Four,

would prevent fewer cases from inadvertently ending up on the Open case list and improve court

caseload management.

Recommendation Six: The courts and clerks of court should develop an automated mechanism

for flagging case records containing incomplete or inaccurate data. This mechanism should be

designed to identify specific items in the data set and should be accompanied by a business

process for resolving flagged records.

Discussion: Data quality and accuracy is the responsibility of everyone who works with court

data. Throughout the term, the Workgroup acknowledged that significant data quality


Page 15 of 18

improvements cannot be made without the commitment of both the courts and the clerks of

court. Both parties share an important role in the accuracy of court data, and both would benefit

from the implementation of automated mechanisms for identifying data errors. The

Workgroup’s data verification exercise revealed that many case records contain missing data

fields that go undetected for years. This issue frequently occurred in the critical ‘date of case

closure’ field, which leads to the case remaining in an Open status. Another common occurrence

is that data entry errors are made in actions indicating the date a case was opened, date a case

was closed, or other status change. These types of inadvertent human errors cannot easily be

solved through training or process changes. In other words, the Workgroup agreed that relying

on people to catch data errors is unreasonable and that the best solution would be to build

automated error detecting measures into the data systems.

These automated measures range from simplistic features that flag for missing or inaccurate data

and require the user to correct the information prior to submission, to natural language

processing or optical character recognition features that assist with case triage and tracking.

Technology in this area has improved dramatically in recent years. Many courts nationally, and

at least one in Florida5, are using character recognition robots (bots) to docket cases and to detect

and flag data errors. This type of technology is one of the many applications of Artificial

Intelligence that are being closely watched by court leaders6. The Workgroup supports the use of

this technology as a means to improve data quality. Further, the Workgroup agreed that for these

features to be effective and be uniformly applied, an accompanying business process must be

developed around their use.

Recommendation Seven: The courts and clerks of court should conduct a statewide initiative to

identify and flag case records not closed appropriately and develop automated business processes

to escalate flagged cases for review and resolution through the collaboration of both court and

clerk staff.

Discussion: The Workgroup agreed that a concerted effort between the courts and clerks of

court to identify and close all incorrectly open cases would significantly improve court data.

Inaccurate case status has become a major impediment to efficient case management. Working

together to identify and correct these inaccuracies would increase the overall confidence in court

data through this simple action.

Recommendation Eight: The courts and clerks of court should require a review of existing

case status definitions by all users of case management and case maintenance systems and should

provide easily accessible quick reference guides to status definitions within all case management

platforms.

5 The Palm Beach County Clerk of Court uses this technology to automatically docket incoming e-filed documents.

6 The Joint Technology Committee, a committee of the Conference of State Courts Administrators, the National

Center for State Courts, and the National Association for Court Management published the resource bulletin,

Introduction to AI for Courts in March 2020. The bulletin provides an overview of several applications of AI which

support the ideas and recommendations of this Workgroup.

https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0013/20830/2020-04-02-intro-to-ai-for-courts_final.pdf


Page 16 of 18

Discussion: The Workgroup discovered, through both the data verification exercise and through

anecdotal examples provided by colleagues, that case status definitions are not widely

understood or uniformly applied throughout the various court data systems. The accurate use of

case status definitions is critical to the understanding of a case’s progress from filing to

disposition. This issue was identified by the Workgroup as being paramount in the improvement

of court data. The Workgroup agreed that all users, including judges, court staff, clerks of court,

or any others who access the case management and case maintenance systems, must undergo

training to understand the case status definitions and how they should be applied. The

Workgroup also supports modifying data systems to include the case status definitions and other

informational guidance directly on the data entry screens where users enter case status changes.

Recommendation Nine: Each judicial circuit should prioritize data quality as a local

responsibility by assigning the role of Data Quality Manager to an existing or new staff member.

This position would serve as a liaison between the court and clerk of court on matters relating to

data and would act as a singular point of contact on data quality issues throughout the circuit.

The individual would be responsible for analyzing court data, identifying opportunities for

quality improvement, developing automated processes designed to improve confidence in data,

and communicating quality improvement initiatives to judges and court staff.

Discussion: The Workgroup agreed that by improving data quality at the circuit level, courts

would improve the overall confidence in data and that the best way to make improvements

locally would be to create the responsibility for data quality assurance in every circuit. The

Workgroup felt strongly that the responsibility might rest with existing staff members who have

familiarity with the data and perform similar functions at present or may require the addition of a

new staff member(s). The Workgroup acknowledged the fiscal constraints associated with

creating additional positions but felt strongly that the function must be performed and that each

circuit should prioritize this as a mission-critical function.

Recommendation Ten: The Office of the State Courts Administrator (OSCA) should hold a

Trial Court Data Summit, which brings together responsible parties from each judicial circuit and

the OSCA to review existing measures and implement mandatory statewide data standards.

Discussion: Consistent with Recommendations Eight and Nine, the Workgroup supports hosting

a data summit to facilitate discussion on existing data quality measures in the trial courts and to

develop and implement statewide data standards. The Workgroup acknowledges that resources

vary among judicial circuits, and not all circuits have dedicated data or statistics staff at this time.

They agreed that a data summit would bring together persons responsible for court data in each

circuit or county and would facilitate the sharing of ideas and practices for the benefit of all court

data users. The Workgroup discussed the value of the synergy that occurred through the creation

of professional networks such as the network of Court Technology Officers or Court Public

Information Officers and agreed that a comparable network for court data professionals should

be encouraged through the hosting of periodic meetings and the establishment of information

sharing channels.

Recommendation Eleven: A Judicial Time to Disposition measure should be developed in the

2020-2022 term by the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability. The

measure should begin when judicial action commences, deduct inactive time (relying on the use

of Active/Inactive status indicators), measure the time in which the judge has control over the


Page 17 of 18

case and its trajectory, and be used in conjunction with the Time to Disposition measure in

standard reports.

Discussion: The Workgroup members reviewed this component of their charge and

acknowledged the importance of creating a new measure for judicial time to disposition,

however, they agreed that it warranted further study than could be devoted during the 2018-2020

term. The Workgroup developed the recommendation to create the new definition with the

specification that the new measure of judicial time to disposition should begin when judicial

action commences, deduct inactive time (relies on the use of Active/Inactive status indicators),

measure the time in which the judge has control over the case and its trajectory, and be used in

conjunction with the time to disposition measure in standard reports.

CLOSING REMARKS

To improve the overall confidence in court data the Florida trial courts must implement stringent

data quality standards. Doing so will ensure that reliable case data is available to assess and

improve court performance. The Data Quality Workgroup was committed to developing

recommendations that were attainable. This report succinctly outlines those areas most in need

of improvement and offers 11 recommendations that, if implemented, provide concrete steps

designed to improve overall confidence in court data.

The Data Quality Workgroup appreciates the opportunity to present these recommendations to

the Court on behalf of the Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability. Both the

members of the Workgroup and the Commission remain committed to expanding and improving

performance management for the trial courts through effectuating data quality. Together, we

stand ready to implement the above recommendations, thereby obtaining reliable case data and

improving public trust and confidence in Florida’s trial court system.


Page 18 of 18

APPENDICES

Appendix A – Trial Court Case Event Definitional Framework

Appendix B – Status Change Guidelines and Reason Codes

Appendix C – Data Verification Exercise Sample Distribution Table

Appendix D – Data Quality Analyst I (Federal Courts Position Description)

Appendix E – Data Quality Analyst II (Federal Courts Position Description)

Appendix F – Court Statistician (Florida State Courts System Position Description)

Appendix G – Court Statistics Consultant (Florida State Courts System Position Description)

Appendix H – Data Quality Control Specialist (Florida State Courts System Position

Description)

Supreme Court of Florida

No. AOSC14-20

IN RE: TRIAL COURT CASE-EVENT DEFINITIONAL FRAMEWORK

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

The judicial branch is committed to improving the administration of justice

and recognizes the need to establish a consistent and unambiguous environment for

the tracking and recording of trial court case activity as an integral element of this

effort. Accordingly, the Court hereby adopts the attached Case-Event Definitional

Framework (hereinafter “Framework”), which is incorporated herein by reference

and shall be effective upon the signing of this order.

Adoption of the Framework was recommended by the Commission on Trial

Court Performance and Accountability and is consistent with In re: Commission

on Trial Court Performance and Accountability, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC12-

25 (July 2, 2012), and the report entitled Trial Court Integrated Management

Solution (TIMS): Identifying Key Case and Workload Data and Establishing

Uniform Definitions for Improving Automation of Florida’s Trial Courts.

Additionally, the Framework has been deployed in the Fiscal Year 2013-2014

Appendix A

- 2 -

Mortgage Foreclosure Backlog Reduction Initiative and has demonstrated its utility

in trial court activity tracking.

The Office of the State Courts Administrator is hereby charged with

maintaining and updating the Framework in accordance with rule 2.245(a), Florida

Rules of Judicial Administration. The Office of the State Courts Administrator is

also directed to take appropriate action to implement this Framework as an

intrinsic element of new trial court case activity data management projects,

including the Integrated Trial Court Adjudication System, and to retrofit, as

necessary and practical, existing trial court data collection systems such as the

Summary Reporting System and the Criminal Transaction System in a reasonable

time frame commensurate with available resources and the expected benefits of

such actions.

DONE AND ORDERED at Tallahassee, Florida, on March 26, 2014.

____________________________________

Ricky Polston, Chief Justice

ATTEST:

______________________________

John A. Tomasino, Clerk of Court

Appendix A

v1.1.4 2014/03/10

Trial Court Case Event Definitional Framework

This framework provides a clear and unambiguous description of certain key events in

adjudication of a case and provides a foundational structure for recording and tracking case

activity within the trial courts. The framework is not all inclusive of every important event in the

life of a case and is intended to be expanded as the informational needs of the court system

evolve.

Filing event: A filing event occurs when an action is brought before the court as the result of a petition, pleading, complaint or any other recordable1 action sufficient to begin

a case. This definition would include an arrest or summons or other action charging an

individual with a crime, as well as the filing of any other document or action recorded

with the court authorized to initiate a case. The initiation of a case by whatever means is

referred to as a filing event.

Open case: A case that has one or more issues outstanding that require active resolution by the court.

Disposition event: A disposition event has occurred when a case is closed for court activity as a result of judicial decision, order or other recordable action that provides

resolution, by the court, on the issues raised by and subsequent to the filing event.

Closed case: A case that has had all issues raised by and subsequent to the filing event resolved and no further action of the court is required.

Reopen event: A reopen event occurs when a motion, pleading or other recordable action occurs on a case that requires additional court activity after a disposition event has

closed the case for court activity. Note that a reopen event involves at least one action

and that additional post-judgment actions may occur before the case is reclosed.

Reopened case: A case that has one or more post-judgment actions outstanding that require active resolution by the court.

Reclosure event: A reclosure event occurs when the last (or only) post-judgment action has been resolved by judicial decision, order or other recordable action, thereby

completing court proceedings on the issues raised by and since the reopen event occurred.

Reclosed case: A reopened case that has had all post-judgment actions resolved and no further action of the court is required.

1 Recordable, in this guideline, means those happenings relating to court activity that would appear on a court docket

or otherwise require the making of an historical record by the clerk of courts in their official capacity.

Appendix A

v1.1.4 2014/03/10

With the addition of these definitions, there are six statuses in which a case can be placed as the

case moves from initiation to resolution:

Active - A case is considered in an active status when the court is engaged in activity directly related to the resolution of the specific matters and issues associated with the

case. This status applies to open cases in the period between a filing and disposition

event.

Inactive - A case is considered in an inactive status when court activity on that case is suspended pending resolution of an issue external to the court or that does not directly

involve the court in resolving that issue; for example, awaiting the results of an appeal or

the disposition of a related case. A case placed in an inactive status is not closed and

does not need to be reopened when the case returns to active status, regardless of the

length of time involved. This status applies of open cases in the period between a filing

and disposition event.

Closed - A case is considered to be closed, or disposed, (that is, in a closed status) for court activity on the date of the judicial decision, order or other recordable action that

provides resolution to the last (or all) of the matters brought before the court as a

consequence of the filing event that initiated the case. The court, then, has no further

action to take on the case. This status identifies a previously open case that has been

resolved by the courts and applies to the period between the disposition event and the

first reopen event.

Reopened Active - A case will be considered to be in a reopened status (either active or inactive), from the date that the first post-judgment motion/pleading is filed or other

action occurs that reopens a case for court activity (i.e. the reopen event) until the date of

the last judicial decision/order resolving all overlapping court proceedings (i.e. the reopen

closure event). Each period in which a case is reported as in a reopened status may

involve one or more overlapping post-judgment actions. A case is considered to be in a

reopened active status when one or more post-judgment actions are pending and the court

is actively engaged in their resolution. This status identifies a reopened case and applies

to the period between the initiating reopen event and the final reclosure event as

described.

Reopened Inactive - A case is considered to be in a reopened inactive status if the activity on all outstanding post-judgment actions is held in abeyance pending resolution

of some issue external to the court or that does not directly involve the court in resolving

that issue. In this circumstance, the court is not actively working to resolve the matter(s).

This status identifies a reopened case and applies to the period between the initiating

reopen event and the final reclosure event as described.

Appendix A

v1.1.4 2014/03/10

Reclosed - A case that has had one or more post-judgment actions will be considered reclosed, or re-disposed, (that is, in a reclosed status) for court activity on the date of the

judicial decision, order or other recordable action that provides resolution to the last (or

all) of the matters brought before the court since the reopen event occurred. The court,

then, has no further action to take on the case. This status identifies a previously

reopened case with additional matters that has been resolved by the courts and applies to

the period between the reclosure event and the next reopen event.

Additional Guidelines

For consistency in reporting, an event or status change is said to occur as of the date the order is

signed, the clerk document date/time stamp or the electronic date/time stamp associated with the

action as appropriate.

Recordable, in this guideline, means those happenings relating to court activity that would

appear on a court docket or otherwise require the making of an historical record by the clerk of

courts in their official capacity.

The definition of the closure events (disposition and reopen) denote that the court has no further

action to take on a case. This definition of closure does not indicate the clerk of courts has

completed all of their required activity with regards to the case, only that the court has rendered

judgment on the matters of the case and will take no further action on the case (excluding

planned review or scheduled future action).

Note also that a case status cannot be reported as a closure (closed or reclosed) while the case

remains in an inactive status. The act of closing a case for whatever reason is indicative of

significant activity on the case. Therefore, an inactive case that is being closed for any reason

including administratively, should be transitioned to the appropriate active status (active or

reopened active) first, then followed by the corresponding closure status.

Upon initiation, an open case is considered to be in an active status. If, at some point in the

adjudication process, the case can no longer be actively advanced, the case may be moved to

inactive status. Once work can begin again on the case, it is returned to active status. This cycle

may be repeated any number of times throughout the life of the case until the final disposition

event where the case is moved to closed status. At this point, the case is no longer considered

open.

From the date of disposition, subsequent filings or other recordable actions (post-judgment) will

indicate that the case has been reopened. A case reopen event represents a block of time in

which one or more overlapping post-judgment actions, such as motions, petitions, or reviews, are

being actively addressed by the court. When the last post-judgment action in that block is

resolved, the case reopen event is closed and the case is moved to reclosed status.

Appendix A

v1.1.4 2014/03/10

When considered as a block of one or more post-judgment actions, a reopen event moves a

previously closed case into a reopened active status. This starts a case reopen block for tracking

purposes. A subsequent, overlapping post-judgment action for a case already in reopened active

status would not change the case’s status. It simply becomes another matter to be resolved by

the court for this case reopen block. It is possible that activity on the case may stop due to

circumstances out of the court’s control. In this instance, the case remains reopened but the

status would change to reopened inactive. Subsequent activity on the matters by the court would

change the status back to reopened active, where it would remain until returned to reopen

inactive status or reclosed.

Each post-judgment action (from reopen event to reclosure event) should be tracked individually.

This ensures the necessary granularity within the framework. Different data collection systems

may require these actions to be reported in different ways depending on the purpose of that data

collection. For example, reporting for case age statistics may require that each post-judgment

action be reported as they occur. Reporting for judicial workload (e.g., Summary Reporting

System), may consider case reopen blocks (from case reopen event to case reclosed event) and

not the individual post-judgment actions that make up the block. This flexibility in the

framework is necessary to reconcile reporting within existing data collection systems and to

ensure consistent reporting for the future.

Example

A motion to reopen a case previously disposed is filed on June 15. The case is placed in a

reopened active status and a case reopen event block begins. On June 20, a second motion for

modification is filed. This post-judgment action while tracked separately, is part of the existing

case reopen event block. On June 23, the first motion is disposed. The case remains in a

reopened active status because the second motion has not been resolved. On July 3, the second

motion is resolved and the case is placed in a reclosed status. Although there are two post-

judgment actions, there is only one case reopen block. If third motion is filed subsequent to July

3, say on July 15, the case would then be returned to reopened active status, pending resolution

of that reopen event and a second case reopen block would begin.

Appendix A

Codes for Reasons for Status Change, Case Types, Disposition Categories,

Reopen Types, and Case Qualifier Types

Please use the codes contained in the following tables to report via Uniform Case Reporting.

Please note that the UCR event codes in this section are provided for each division required as

per the UCR Implementation Schedule. As reporting encompasses later divisions, tables in this

appendix will be updated accordingly

Table 3. Reasons for Status Change due to Inactivity and Associated Reporting Codes

In accordance with AOSC14-20, the codes in this table should be used when the court cannot

work on a case due to the reasons below. Given this event, report a case as INACTIVE only

when the court stops all work on the case.

Reason

Active to

Inactive

Codes

Inactive to

Active Codes Description

A stay of bankruptcy BKST BKSTLFT

Case is on hold pending appeal. AP APDISP

Abatement issued to stay

proceedings. ABT ABTDISP

A hold is placed on case due to

Department of Justice or Attorney

General review.

DOJAG DOJAGDISP

Statute, local practice, or the presiding judge may also designate a case “Inactive” upon certain

circumstances or in accordance with AOSC14-20. Local practice may dictate whether cases

remain in “Active” status during these events or are placed in “Inactive” status. If the judge

designates the case has changed statuses, the following codes are available to report the reason

for the status change.

Referred to Mediation MED MEDDISP

Resolution of case requires

resolution of a related case. CPRC CPCSDISP

On-going settlement negotiations

or agreement by both parties BWAP BWAPDISP

Appendix B

Summary jury trial SJT SJTDISP

Arbitration ARB ARBDISP

Other alternative dispute

resolution ADR ADRDISP

Time between judicial reviews RVW RVWDISP

May be used for any

interval where a case is

INACTIVE pending a

judicial review such as

in Juvenile,

Guardianship and

Mental Health cases

Substance abuse education &

treatment: Juvenile JUVSUB JUVSUBDISP

Drug Court: Juvenile JUVDC JUVDCDISP

Pre-Petition Diversion: Juvenile JUVPPD JUVPPDDISP

Post-arraignment diversion:

Juvenile JUVPAD JUVPADDISP

Diversion as per Fl. R. Juv. P.

8.075(b) JUVWPD JUVWPDDISP

Pre-Trial Diversion: Juvenile JUVPTD JUVPTDDISP

When directed by the presiding

judge consistent with the

definitions of an inactive case

(AOSC14-20).

OTH OTHDISP

A free text description

of the cause must be

provided when

reporting a status

change for either of

these two reasons.

Appendix B

Data Source Bay1

Brevard Charlotte Flagler1,2

Hillsborough Manatee1

Dade1

Orange1

Palm Beach Pinellas1

Circuit Criminal (OBTS data) 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30

County Criminal (OBTS data) 30 30 30 0 30 30 30 30 30 30

Circuit Civil - Foreclusure (Foreclosure Reporting Data) 30 15 15 90 15 30 30 30 15 30

Circuit Civil - All Other (UCR data) 0 15 15 0 15 0 0 0 15 0

Total Cases Per County 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90

Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability

Data Quality Workgroup

2 Flagler County does not supply OBTS or Uniform Case Reporting data. Sample derived from Foreclosure data only.

1 Bay, Flagler, Manatee, Dade, Orange, Pinellas counties do not supply Uniform Case Reporting Data. Sample was derived from OBTS and/or Foreclosure sources.

Case Sample for Data Verification Exercise

Appendix C

CPSB15 Data Quality Analyst I CL-26

Occupational Group Operational Court Support

Representative Duties

These representative duties are intended to provide generalized examples of major duties and responsibilities that are performed by many positions in this benchmark. These representative duties are NOT intended to include any tasks or duties unique to a particular work location or position, nor are they intended to reflect all duties performed by positions covered by this benchmark.

• Maintain accuracy and completeness of official case records from opening to final disposition. Check the accuracy of daily data entries. Maintain user log errors. Review entries made to the court. Perform automated quality check on creditors. May monitor undeliverable emails and take appropriate action. May verify case openings.

• Prepare and distribute monthly and quarterly statistical reports. Type, format, edit, and

run reports. • Perform edits and corrective actions to ensure the accuracy of data, files, and records.

Test new events. Generate deadlines and deficiency notices for missing documents. Archive records.

Factor 1 – Required Competencies (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities)

Court Operations • Advanced knowledge of case opening, docketing, report development and design.

Knowledge of the Administrative Office reporting requirements and deadlines. Knowledge of the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure. Knowledge of legal terminology. Advanced knowledge of how cases proceed through the court system. Knowledge of internal control policy and procedures.

Judgment and Ethics • Knowledge of and compliance with the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees and

court confidentiality requirements. Ability to consistently demonstrate sound ethics and judgment.

Job Summary

Data quality analysts are responsible for ensuring the veracity and efficiency of a court unit’s case information database. Data Quality Analysts I provide quality assurance of all electronic entries.

Appendix D

Factor 4B – Interactions with External Contacts

The primary external contacts are the public for the purpose of answering inquiries concerning specific data assurance.

Factor 4A – Interactions with Judiciary Contacts

The primary judiciary contacts are judges, court unit executives and chambers staff, peers, clerk’s office staff, and staff of other courts for the purpose of providing quality assurance and answering procedural questions.

Factor 3 – Complexity and Decision Making

The tasks performed are relatively complex, with some duties taking time to learn and can vary daily. Decisions made are based on well-defined policies, standards, and procedures and unusual circumstances may be referred to a more senior-level staff person or supervisor.

Factor 2 – Primary Job Focus and Scope

The primary focus of the job is to ensure the quality of data entered into databases and to monitor the workflow through the court process. The incumbent’s work mainly affects the personnel of the court unit. The automated system(s) regulates the paper flow through the court process. Errors slow the process. The incumbent ensures that erroneous information in the automated system(s) is corrected. The incumbent’s work furthers the goals of the unit, by ensuring the quality of the information maintained in the court’s automated system(s). Failure to identify and correct errors could damage the integrity of the court.

Written and Oral Communication/Interaction • Advanced skill in reviewing procedures, policies, and manuals. Ability to communicate

orally and in writing. Ability to interact effectively and appropriately with the public, providing customer service and resolving difficulties while complying with regulations, rules, and procedures regarding administration. Ability to work independently as well as interact with all workgroups within the office. Ability to follow detail instructions.

Information Technology and Automation • Advanced skill in the use of automated equipment including word processing and

spreadsheet applications, requisite court computer programs, automated case management systems, financial records management systems, law enforcement systems and applications, and related databases and applications. Ability to meet established deadlines and commitments.

Appendix D

Factor 5 – Work Environment and Physical Demands

Work is performed in an office setting. Some lifting may be required.

Appendix D

CPSB31 Data Quality Analyst II CL-27

Occupational Group Operational Court Support

Representative Duties

These representative duties are intended to provide generalized examples of major duties and responsibilities that are performed by many positions in this benchmark. These representative duties are NOT intended to include any tasks or duties unique to a particular work location or position, nor are they intended to reflect all duties performed by positions covered by this benchmark.

• Maintain accuracy and completeness of official case records from opening to final disposition. Check the accuracy of daily data entries. Maintain user log errors. Review entries made to the court. Perform automated quality check on creditors. May monitor undeliverable emails and take appropriate action. May verify case openings.

• Prepare and distribute monthly and quarterly statistical reports. Type, format, edit, and

run reports. • Perform edits and corrective actions to ensure the accuracy of data, files, and records.

Test new events. Generate deadlines and deficiency notices for missing documents. Archive records.

• Generate, analyze, and report quality control information.

• Advise managers regarding trends in input errors and conduct corrective action.

Develop and revise procedures for data entry. Research and propose solutions to various case management issues.

Job Summary

Data quality analysts are responsible for ensuring the veracity and efficiency of a court unit’s case information database. Data quality analysts provide quality assurance of all electronic entries. Data Quality Analysts II are required to possess a higher level of knowledge regarding problem solving techniques and possible alternative courses of action, compared to Data Quality Analyst I positions. Data Quality Analysts II maintains the court dictionary and test new versions of case management systems.

Appendix E

Factor 1 – Required Competencies (Knowledge, Skills, and Abilities)

Court Operations • Extensive knowledge of case opening, docketing, report development and design.

Knowledge of the Administrative Office reporting requirements and deadlines. Knowledge of the applicable Federal Rules of Procedure. Knowledge of legal terminology. Extensive knowledge of how cases proceed through the court system. Knowledge of internal control policy and procedures.

• Knowledge of court policies and procedures. Skill in proofreading, researching, and problem solving. Skill in analytical and qualitative reasoning.

Judgment and Ethics • Knowledge of and compliance with the Code of Conduct for Judicial Employees and

court confidentiality requirements. Ability to consistently demonstrate sound ethics and judgment.

Written and Oral Communication/Interaction • Skill in reviewing procedures, policies, and manuals. Ability to communicate orally and

in writing. Ability to interact effectively and appropriately with the public, providing customer service and resolving difficulties while complying with regulations, rules, and procedures regarding administration. Ability to work independently as well as interact with all workgroups within the office. Ability to follow detailed instructions.

Information Technology and Automation • Skill in the use of automated equipment including word processing and spreadsheet

applications, requisite court computer programs, automated case management systems, financial records management systems, law enforcement systems and applications, and related databases and applications.

• Skill in extracting information from databases. Skill in designing reports.

Factor 2 – Primary Job Focus and Scope

The primary focus of the job is to ensure the quality of data entered into databases and monitor the workflow through the court process. Employees interpret and analyze data, troubleshoot and solve problems, and may communicate analysis to managers. The primary focus of the work is to ensure the quality of data entered into databases and to monitor the workflow through the court process. The incumbent’s work mainly affects the personnel of the

• Maintain party database. Maintain court dictionary.

• Answer questions from Administrative Office staff, court employees, and the public.

• Perform quality control over staff work. Train users on respective case management systems.

Appendix E

Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 12, Appx. 6A Page 90

Factor 5 – Work Environment and Physical Demands

Work is performed in an office setting. Some lifting may be required.

Factor 4B – Interactions with External Contacts

The primary external contacts are the public for the purpose of answering inquiries concerning specific data assurance.

Factor 4A – Interactions with Judiciary Contacts

The primary judiciary contacts are judges, court unit executives and chambers staff, peers, clerk’s office staff, and staff of other courts for the purpose of providing quality assurance and answering procedural questions. Also provides user training and guidance for other employees performing data quality analysis.

Factor 3 – Complexity and Decision Making

The job involves making critical decisions within the context of professional standards, broad policies, or general goals. Data quality analysts at this level function independently, resolve problems, questions, or situations based on advanced and thorough knowledge and experience with court policies, practices, and guidelines. Compared to Data Quality Analyst I positions, analysts at this level have a higher degree of autonomy in decision making; they recommend or decide how and when problems will be addressed and determine the best resolution available.

court unit. The automated system(s) regulates the paper flow through the court process. Errors slow the process. The incumbent ensures that erroneous information in the automated system(s) is corrected. The incumbent’s work furthers the goals of the unit, by ensuring the quality of the information maintained in the court’s automated system(s). Failure to identify and correct errors could have serious impact and damage the integrity of the court.

Appendix E

Florida State Courts System Class Specification

Class Title: Court Statistician

Class Code: 7240

Pay Grade 24

General Description

The essential function of the position within the organization is to manage and maintain statistical data. The position is responsible for creating research data sets of court-related data, preparing comparative reports to analyze data collected, developing computer programs, providing support for research and statistical programs, conducting research into court data systems, preparing statistical reports for supervisors and conducting training. The position works under general supervision independently developing work methods and sequences.

Examples of Work Performed (Note: The examples of work as listed in this class specification are not necessarily descriptive of any one position in the class. The omission of specific statements does not preclude management from assigning specific duties not listed herein if such duties are a logical assignment to the position.) Creates research data sets of court-related data to support Statistics and Evaluation, and presents results of data management analyses. Manages a court facility at multiple sites, including managing inventory control, scheduling courtrooms, visiting sites periodically, and scheduling routine equipment maintenance and repair. Develops computer programs and prepares comparative reports to analyze data collected for due process and mediation issues. Assists in forecasting of court filing data using Box-Jenkins ARIMA modeling. Develops computer programs with validity testing and prepares reports for SRS data verification and the annual Statistical Reference Guide review using SAS software; prepares reports for clearance rate and jury management dashboards. Conducts research into court data systems, SRS and OBTS, to identify inaccurate or erroneous data elements and initiate corrective action; applies statistical procedures and principles to conduct specialized statistical analyses. Assists Statistics and Evaluation team with data analysis and data set creation as required; evaluates statistical requirements for projects and information requests, and makes recommendations to consultants and team leaders.

Appendix F

http://www.flcourts.org/administration-funding/employment/salary-schedule.stml

COURT STATISTICIAN

2

Conducts SAS training within the Statistics and Evaluation team and assists data administration with updating SAS software within the Statistics and Evaluation team. Gathers information/data to support periodic and special reports documenting activities for the area of responsibility. Performs clerical tasks such as performing periodic physical inventories, maintaining records/files, or preparing memoranda, requisitions or work orders. Attends staff meetings to exchange information and update supervisor; attends technical or professional workshops or seminars to improve professional skills.

Competencies

Data Responsibility:

Refers to information, knowledge, and conceptions obtained by observation, investigation, interpretation, visualization, and mental creation. Data are intangible and include numbers, words, symbols, ideas, concepts, and oral verbalizations. Synthesizes or integrates analysis of data or information to discover facts or develop knowledge or interpretations; modifies policies, procedures, or methodologies based on findings. People Responsibility:

Refers to individuals who have contact with or are influenced by the position. Provides assistance to people to achieve task completion; may instruct or assign duties to coworkers. Assets Responsibility:

Refers to the responsibility for achieving economies or preventing loss within the organization. Requires responsibility and opportunity for achieving moderate economies and/or preventing moderate losses through the management or handling of inventory of high value or the providing of statistical data. Mathematical Requirements:

Deals with quantities, magnitudes, and forms and their relationships and attributes by the use of numbers and symbols. Uses advanced calculus working with limits, continuity, real number systems, or mean value theorems; modern algebra, including advanced operational methods; or statistical inference and econometrics.

Appendix F

COURT STATISTICIAN

3

Communications Requirements:

Involves the ability to read, write, and speak. Reads and interprets advanced professional materials; writes complex reports; speaks to high level professionals. Complexity of Work:

Ad

Data Quality Workgroup · The Honorable Elijah Smiley, Circuit Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit...

Documents

Transcript of Data Quality Workgroup · The Honorable Elijah Smiley, Circuit Judge, Fourteenth Judicial Circuit...