EL PASO COUNTY JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT. 1 st QUARTER FY 2018 (OCTOBER 1 DECEMBER 31, 2017)

EL PASO COUNTY JUDICIAL MANAGEMENT REPORT 1 st QUARTER FY 2018 (OCTOBER 1 DECEMBER 31, 2017)

Table of Contents Court Table... 3 General Assumptions for All Measures... 4 Measure 1: Access and Fairness... 6 Measure 2: Clearance Rates... 8 Incoming Cases... 9 Dispositions... 11 Clearance Rate... 13 Measure 3: Time to Disposition... 21 Measure 4: Age of Active Cases Pending... 29 Measure 5: Trial Date Certainty... 32 Measure 6: Reliability and Integrity of Case Files... 34 Measure 7(a): Ensuring Fairness in Legal Financial Obligations... 35 Measure 7(b): Management of Legal Financial Obligations... 36 Measure 7(c): Fair Practices for Legal Financial Obligations... 37 Measure 8: Effective Use of Jurors... 38 Measure 9: Court Employee Satisfaction... 41 Measure 10: Cost per Case... 42 Measure 11: Cost per Disposition... 43 Measure 12: Jail Bed Days... 45 Jail Bed Days... 45 Average Length of Stay... 47 Measure 13: Disposition Rates... 49 Active Caseload... 49 Disposition Rate... 51 Appendix A: General Assumptions and Method of Collection for Different Measures... 53 Appendix B: Source Documents for the Different Measures... 56 Judicial Management Report Page 2 of 56 April 10, 2018

Court Table Courts - Cases Breakdown (Based on Odyssey Criminal Cases Disposed Report) 1ST Quarter FY 2018 Court Judge Civil Criminal Family 120th District Court Judge Maria Salas-Mendoza 28.91% 70.75% 0.34% 168th District Court Judge Marcos Lizarraga 27.61% 72.39% 0.0 171st District Court Judge Bonnie Rangel 29.05% 70.95% 0.0 205th District Court Judge Francisco X. Dominguez 32.99% 67.01% 0.0 210th District Court Judge Gonzalo Garcia 30.26% 69.74% 0.0 243rd District Court Judge Luis Aguilar 31.98% 68.02% 0.0 346th District Court Judge Angie Juarez Barill 34.93% 65.07% 0.0 *The 346 th District Court includes a specialty court. 34th District Court Judge William E. Moody 28.49% 71.51% 0.0 383rd District Court* Judge Mike Herrera 0.32% 0.0 99.68% 384th District Court Judge Patrick M. Garcia 26.35% 73.65% 0.0 *The 384 th District Court includes a specialty court. 409th District Court Judge Sam Medrano 16.67% 83.33% 0.0 41st District Court Judge Anna Perez 41.92% 58.08% 0.0 448th District Court* Judge Sergio Enriquez 100.0 0.0 0.0 County Court at Law 1 Judge Ricardo Herrera 21.54% 78.46% 0.0 County Court at Law 2 Judge Julie Gonzalez 19.27% 80.73% 0.0 County Court at Law 4 Judge Alejandro Gonzalez 21.56% 78.44% 0.0 County Court at Law 7 Judge Thomas Spieczny 28.33% 71.67% 0.0 County Criminal Court 1 Judge Alma Trejo 15.72% 84.28% 0.0 County Criminal Court 2 Judge Robert Anchondo 5.54% 94.46% 0.0 *County Criminal Court 2 includes a specialty court. County Criminal Court 3 Judge Carlos Carrasco 10.12% 89.88% 0.0 County Criminal Court 4 Judge Jesus Herrera 16.67% 83.33% 0.0 Criminal District Court 1 Judge Diane Navarrete 20.96% 79.04% 0.0 Judicial Management Report Page 3 of 56 April 10, 2018

General Assumptions for All Measures The following assumptions were used with regards to all measures: 1. The measures will only report on criminal data. 2. A disposition will be counted based on the Statistical Closure field and will include all possible dispositions (including deceased dispositions). 3. In the event there are active warrants for a defendant the number of days the warrant is active will not be attributed to the case s age. The warrants issue date, serve date, and warrants statuses are used to ascertain whether a warrant is active or inactive. 4. In counting Jail Bed Days, Inmates that have cases with multiple courts are placed into a multiple court category until only one court has a case assigned to them. 5. A case with multiple dispositions will count each disposition as a separate event. Except in the situation where a case has multiple dispositions on the same day. In this situation only one disposition will be counted for that case. 6. Measures do not include data from pre-filed cases. 7. The measures will be run on quarterly basis 15 days after the close of the financial quarter. 8. Incoming cases will be attributed to the first court assigned that case during the reporting period regardless of transfers that occur after this. 9. Outgoing cases will be attributed to the court that had the case assigned to them at the time of disposition. 10. Time to Disposition and Age of Active Pending Cases start counting time in a court from the date assigned to the first court. 11. However Time to Disposition will not starting counting from the first court in the event the case is reopened (Motion to Revoke, or Motion to Adjudicate). In the event this occurs the time will start from the start of either the Motion to Revoke or Motion to Adjudicate. 12. Time to Disposition will stop counting time in a court once a case is disposed. 13. Age of Active Cases will count days until the reporting period end. 14. Time in Competency court is removed from the time counted in court for both Time to Disposition and Age of Active Pending Cases. 15. The time a defendant absconds is removed from the time counted in court for both Time to Disposition and Age of Active Pending Cases 16. Age of Active Pending Cases will only return active cases at the end of the reporting period that had active days occur during the case lifetime. 17. Grand jury cases are not included in the report data. 18. Justice of the Peace cases are not included in the measures. Judicial Management Report Page 4 of 56 April 10, 2018

19. Cases under the following security groups are not included in the report data a. Agency Service Fee b. CPS Security Group c. Delete Case Security Group d. Disposed Adoption e. Domestic Relations Adoption Security Group f. Domestic Relations Office g. Ethics Commission h. Expunction i. Expunge Case Security Group j. Family Court Services k. Monitoring Child Support l. Secured - Guardianship m. Secured - Mental Health n. Secured Adoption 20. Test data will not impact the reports. Judicial Management Report Page 5 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 1: Access and Fairness Definition: Ratings of court users on the court's accessibility and its treatment of customers in terms of fairness, equality, and respect. Analysis and Interpretation: The following graphs show the results of a 2017 survey of all court users about their experience in the courthouse and the court s accessibility and its treatment of customers in terms of fairness, equality and respect. The individuals surveyed included litigants, their family and friends, victims and witnesses, attorneys, law enforcement officers, representatives of social service agencies and individuals doing record searches or having other business at the clerk s office, among others. This 21 question survey is designed to capture the views of the court s customers (judges and court staff are excluded). Survey conducted: May 18, 2017, 202 answers were received for all survey questions below. Access and Fairness Percent reporting they strongly agree/ agree with each Access question: Court's hours made it easy to do business Court s website was useful 6 77% 1 Easily found the courtroom/office needed Treated with courtesy and respect Court staff paid attention to my needs Able to get done in a reasonable time Court removes barriers to service 86% 89% 85% 75% 81% Felt safe in the courthouse Forms were clear and easy to understand Finding the courthouse was easy 74% 87% 86% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Judicial Management Report Page 6 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 1: Access and Fairness Treated with courtesy and respect Percent Reporting they strongly agree/ agree with each Access question: Judge listened to my side of the story 69% Judge had information to make good decisions 63% Treated the same as everyone else 48% Know what to do next 43% Judicial Management Report Page 7 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 2: Clearance Rates Definition: The number of disposed cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases. Analysis and Interpretation: The clearance rate is a measure of the incoming cases a court receives in a quarter compared to the total cases disposed of during the same quarter. This measure portrays the court s ability to balance current caseload and incoming cases. A clearance rate of 10 represents a court that is disposing of the same number of cases it is receiving. Above 10 represents a court that is disposing of more cases than it is receiving. Below 10 represents a court that is disposing of fewer cases than it is receiving. This measure may be helpful in addressing case management decisions related to backlog. Several graphs are displayed below. 1. The first set of graphs show the number of incoming cases, which indicates the incoming workload. 2. The second set of graphs show the total dispositions by court. 3. The third set of graphs show the clearance rate by court. Graphs are on the following pages. Judicial Management Report Page 8 of 56 April 10, 2018

Incoming Cases Measure 2: Clearance Rates Cases Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 500 400 300 200 100 0 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 INCOMING CASES MISDEMEANOR CASES 354 368 379 384 413 427 434 462 Misdemeanor Average - 403 Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 INCOMING CASES FELONY CASES Cases 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 93 119 143 156 162 163 165 185 185 190 197 256 Felony Average - 168 Judicial Management Report Page 9 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 2: Clearance Rates INCOMING CASES BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES Cases 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 451 403 403 358 334 357 340 338 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Cases 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 134 168 INCOMING CASES BY QUARTER FELONY CASES 105 138 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 65 159 110 149 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 10 of 56 April 10, 2018

Dispositions Measure 2: Clearance Rates Cases Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 500 400 300 200 100 0 294 311 325 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 DISPOSITIONS MISDEMEANOR CASES 377 378 383 411 420 Misdemeanor Average - 362 Cases Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 78 110 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 DISPOSITIONS FELONY CASES 128 137 139 140 140 147 175 192 248 279 Felony Average - 159 Judicial Management Report Page 11 of 56 April 10, 2018

Cases 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 3,203 DISPOSITIONS BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES 2,899 2,762 3,757 4,234 3,661 Measure 2: Clearance Rates 5,151 3,921 0 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Cases 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 1,831 1,913 DISPOSITIONS BY QUARTER FELONY CASES 1,686 1,986 2,191 2,262 2,125 2,204 0 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 12 of 56 April 10, 2018

Clearance Rate 25 20 15 10 5 10 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Moody 113% 121% 93% 116% 129% 143% 85% 218% Measure 2: Clearance Rates 158% 88% 118% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -111% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -112% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -148% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -121% 25 20 15 10 5 186% 151% 171% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Perez 91% 119% 83% 214% 99% 18 93% 137% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 24% 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -169% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -98% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -164% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -85% Judicial Management Report Page 13 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 2: Clearance Rates 373% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Salas-Mendoza 40 30 20 10 96% 125% 73% 123% 117% 15 10 153% 125% 11 145% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -198% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -104% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -134% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -127% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Lizarraga 20 15 10 5 147% 173% 9 114% 97% 135% 141% 153% 59% 76% 96% 49% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -137% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -115% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -118% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -74% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Rangel 20 15 10 111% 97% 114% 145% 109% 116% 117% 95% 95% 104% 74% 91% 5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -107% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -123% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -102% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -9 Judicial Management Report Page 14 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 2: Clearance Rates 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Dominguez 40 28 333% 30 20 10 109% 61% 123% 157% 116% 83% 111% 138% 61% 47% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -15 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -132% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -176% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -82% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Gonzalo Garcia 40 30 20 10 151% 131% 144% 124% 133% 135% 326% 56% 128% 109% 142% 68% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -142% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -131% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -17 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -107% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Aguilar 20 15 114% 122% 151% 117% 115% 113% 11 104% 111% 96% 10 71% 5 32% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -103% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -128% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -109% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -8 Judicial Management Report Page 15 of 56 April 10, 2018

25 20 15 10 5 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Barill Measure 2: Clearance Rates 236% 13 147% 13 147% 123% 125% 94% 94% 96% 68% 46% Jan Feb Mar Jan Feb Mar Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -123% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -123% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -161% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -7 50 40 30 20 10 40 186% 27 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Patrick Garcia 127% 116% 149% 159% 12 112% 53% 224% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 39% 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -285% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -131% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -13 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -105% 30 25 20 15 10 5 192% 91% 71% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Medrano 145% 115% 138% 261% 89% 201% 159% 102% 71% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -118% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -133% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -184% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -111% Judicial Management Report Page 16 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 2: Clearance Rates 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Navarrete 40 30 20 10 136% 133% 21 72% 27 77% 297% 83% 164% 88% 197% 83% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -16 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -14 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -181% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -123% 40 30 20 10 184% 212% 174% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Ricardo Herrera 112% 154% 104% 286% 186% 14 174% 102% 76% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -19 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -123% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -204% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -117% 20 15 10 5 126% 139% 74% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Julie Gonzalez 85% 113% 119% 155% 157% 104% 102% 108% 87% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -113% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -106% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -139% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -99% Judicial Management Report Page 17 of 56 April 10, 2018

25 20 15 10 5 157% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Alejandro Gonzalez 128% 98% 134% 15 133% 151% 192% Measure 2: Clearance Rates 99% 98% 76% 85% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -127% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -139% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -147% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -86% 20 159% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Spieczny 15 10 13 146% 111% 105% 125% 147% 112% 113% 88% 97% 75% 5 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -145% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -113% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -124% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -87% 40 30 20 10 184% 212% 174% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Trejo 112% 154% 104% 286% 186% 14 174% 102% 76% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -19 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -123% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -204% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -117% Judicial Management Report Page 18 of 56 April 10, 2018

25 20 15 10 5 113% 116% 116% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Anchondo 83% 129% 79% 175% 111% 197% Measure 2: Clearance Rates 113% 72% 108% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -115% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -97% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -161% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -98% 20 15 152% 153% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Carrasco 10 5 11 129% 141% 79% 112% 12 141% 87% 75% 62% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -138% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -116% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -124% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -75% 25 20 15 10 5 203% 181% 12 Month Clearance Rate Judge Jesus Herrera 147% 145% 131% 103% 139% 104% 14 95% 93% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 59% 2017 2ND QTR AVERAGE -177% 2017 3RD QTR AVERAGE -126% 2017 4TH QTR AVERAGE -128% 2018 1ST QTR AVERAGE -82% Judicial Management Report Page 19 of 56 April 10, 2018

Percentage 25 20 15 10 5 74% CLEARANCE RATE BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES 91% 106% 142% 106% 12 Measure 2: Clearance Rates 20 147% Percentage 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 85% 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR CLEARANCE RATE BY QUARTER FELONY CASES 98% 143% 15 143% 135% 186% 142% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 20 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Definition: The percentage of cases disposed or otherwise resolved within established time frames. This is a comparison of data from age of disposed cases and only considers cases that are disposed, not the full docket. The Criminal District Courts have implemented a Felony Case Plan (CASE) that sets the time standards for. The applied time frame for this measure will use the Standard Track time frame, in which a case can be disposed of between 275 days and 285 days. The most similar range in the reported data is between 181 and 365 days, which will be used for this measure. Analysis and Interpretation: For each case, the report calculates the time, in days, from filing of the case in the Court until the date the case was disposed. The case processing time standards published by the American Bar Association (ABA), those published by the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provide a starting point for determining guidelines. The following charts display for each court the time periods required to dispose of their cases. Note: Although the time to disposition is measured only using active cases that have been disposed, the case time that elapsed when the defendant was a fugitive is included in this measure. (NCSC only counts the time the case was active) COSCA Case Processing Standards Criminal District Court and Misdemeanor Courts COSCA Case Processing Standards 1 ST Quarter - Felony 10 within 180 days 34% Misdemeanor 10 within 90 days 2 ABA Case Processing Standards Criminal District Court and Misdemeanor Courts ABA Case Processing Standards 1 ST Quarter - Felony - 9 within 120 days 2 Felony - 98% within 180 days 34% Felony -10 within 365 days 56% Misdemeanor 9 within 30 days 6% Misdemeanor 10 within 90 days 2 Judicial Management Report Page 21 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition National Center for State Courts Model Case Processing Standards Criminal District Court and Misdemeanor Courts NCSC Case Processing Standards 1 ST Quarter - Felony - 75% within 90 days 14% Felony - 9 within 180 days 33% Felony - 98% within 365 days 55% Misdemeanor 75% within 60 days 13% Misdemeanor 9 within 90 days 2 Misdemeanor 98% within 180 days 38% Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Moody FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 5% 75% 18% 9 Disposed Cases -140 61% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Perez FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 12% 75% 27% 9 Disposed Cases -147 44% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 22 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Salas-Mendoza FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 9% 75% 42% 9 Disposed Cases -248 63% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Lizarraga FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 8% 75% 26% 9 Disposed Cases -137 5 Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Rangel FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 6% 75% 26% 9 Disposed Cases -140 61% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 23 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Dominguez FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 12% 75% 38% 9 Disposed Cases -78 55% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Gonzalo Garcia FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 3 75% 42% 9 Disposed Cases -175 7 Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Aguilar FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 42% 75% 58% 9 Disposed Cases -128 68% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 24 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Barill FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 11% 75% 21% 9 Disposed Cases -110 43% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Patrick M. Garcia FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 2% 75% 32% 9 Disposed Cases -139 46% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Medrano FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 21% 75% 44% 9 Disposed Cases -279 61% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 25 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Navarrete FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 8% 75% 19% 9 Disposed Cases -192 39% Felony Felony Felony 98% 0-90 Days 0-180 Days 0-365 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Ricardo Herrera FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition Disposed Cases -378 Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Julie Gonzalez FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 16% 75% 25% 9 Disposed Cases - 383 52% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 26 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Alejandro Gonzalez FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 1 75% 16% 9 Disposed Cases - 325 31% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Spieczny FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 75% 1 15% 9 Disposed Cases -377 33% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Trejo FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 75% 14% 2 9 Disposed Cases -420 33% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 27 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 3: Time to Disposition Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Anchondo FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 16% 75% 27% 9 Disposed Cases -411 52% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Carrasco FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 75% 13% 18% 9 Disposed Cases -311 37% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Percent 12 10 8 6 4 2 Judge Jesus R. Herrera FY 2018 1st Quarter - Time to Disposition 75% 12% 17% 9 Disposed Cases -294 26% 98% Misdemeanor Misdemeanor Misdemeanor 0-60 Days 0-90 Days 0-180 Days ACTUAL NCSC Judicial Management Report Page 28 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 4: Age of Active Cases Pending Definition: The age of active cases pending before the court is measured as the number of days from filing until the time of measurement. Analysis and Interpretation: This measure allows a court to view their progress in achieving a time-to-disposition more in line with the ABA standards. It is a helpful tool in docket management allowing the court to make the necessary adjustments in case administration to achieve a reduction in the time to dispose of a case in line with ABA standards. The first chart displays the percent of active cases that are over a year old for each of the courts. The second chart shows the court-wide average percent of active cases over 365 days for the past quarter. Note: Fugitives are not included in the data. Cases include what district courts consider open felony cases. Graphs are on the following pages. Judicial Management Report Page 29 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 4: Age of Active Cases Pending Active Cases Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 6 5 4 3 2 1 2.1% 4.1% 1st QUARTER -FY 2018 ACTIVE CASES OVER ONE-YEAR OLD MISDEMEANOR CASES 18.4% 22.8% 25.9% 28.9% 34.6% 49. Misdemeanor Average - 23.2% Active Cases Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 6 5 4 3 2 1 1st QUARTER -FY 2018 ACTIVE CASES OVER ONE-YEAR OLD FELONY CASES 11.2% 13.5% 18.5% 23. 23.3% 24.4% 27.3% 29.1% 35.4% 37.4% 46.6% 51.6% Felony Average - 28.4% Judicial Management Report Page 30 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 4: Age of Active Cases Pending PERCENT OF CASES OVER ONE-YEAR OLD MISDEMEANOR CASES Percentage 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 32% 35% 32% 28% 28% 28% 28% 23% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR PERCENT OF CASES OVER ONE-YEAR OLD FELONY CASES Percentage 45% 4 35% 3 25% 2 15% 1 5% 38% 41% 38% 34% 31% 28% 21% 23% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 31 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 5: Trial Date Certainty Definition: The number of times cases disposed by trial are scheduled for trial. Analysis and Interpretation: A court s ability to hold trials on the first date they are scheduled to be heard (trial date certainty) is closely associated with time case disposition. For this measure, trials includes jury trials, jury trials with Special Settings, and bench trials. The court seeks to have most of its cases go to trial in no more than two trial settings. Excellent performance would be measured by cases disposed by trial actually going to trial on the first or second scheduled trial date. The following two graphs are displayed below. 1. The first is a summary report of trial settings which shows the number of cases of each type with one date set for the trial to begin, those with two trial-start dates, and so on, up to the maximum numbers of dates on which the trail was set to begin, by case type and type of trial. 2. The second is a graph showing the trial date certainty by case type. Graphs are on the following pages. Judicial Management Report Page 32 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 5: Trial Date Certainty FY2018 1st Quarter Summary Report of Trial Settings Case Type Number of Settings Total One Two Three Four Five Six Seven Eight Nine Ten Ten+ Cases Civil Bench Trial 0 Jury Trial 2 2 1 2 7 Felony Bench Trial 3 3 Jury Trial 8 4 1 5 3 1 1 2 1 27 Misdemeanor Bench Trial 1 1 Jury Trial 9 12 5 2 1 1 2 1 33 Probate or Mental Health Jury Trial 1 1 Grand Total 23 16 9 5 2 2 3 1 4 4 2 72 FY2018 1st Quarter Trial Date Certainty by Case Type Percentage within Goal - with 2 or fewer case settings Misdemeanor - Jury Trial Misdemeanor - Bench Trial N/A 64% Felony - Jury Trial Felony - Bench Trial 44% 10 Civil - Jury Trial Civil - Bench Trial N/A 29% 2 4 6 8 10 12 Judicial Management Report Page 33 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 6: Reliability and Integrity of Case Files Definition: The percentage of files that can be retrieved within established time standards, and that meet established standards for completeness and accuracy of contents. Analysis and Interpretation: A reliable and accurate case file system is fundamental to the effectiveness of day-to-day court operations and fairness of judicial decisions. The maintenance of case records directly affects the timeliness and integrity of case processing. This measure provides information regarding (a) how long it takes to locate a file, (b) whether the file s contents and case summary information match up, and (c) the organization and completeness of the file. The County of El Paso is currently working on completing this measure. Judicial Management Report Page 34 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 7(a): Ensuring Fairness in Legal Financial Obligations Definition: Ratings by defendants/ respondents of their treatment by the court in cases in which the court has imposed a legal financial obligation (LFO). Analysis and Interpretation: This measure evaluates the extent to which the court is seen by its customers to demonstrate fairness, respect, equal treatment, and concern in the imposition of legal financial obligations (LFOs). The County of El Paso is currently working on completing this measure. Judicial Management Report Page 35 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 7(b): Management of Legal Financial Obligations Definition: The percentage of cases in which legal financial obligations are fully met. Analysis and Interpretation: Integrity and public trust in the administration of justice depend in part on how and how well court orders are observed and enforced. In the context of legal financial obligations, courts seek to manage compliance to maximize a defendant s ability to successfully meet those obligations. The focus of this measure is on the extent to which a court successfully manages the enforcement of court orders requiring payment of legal financial obligations. They include child support, civil damage awards, traffic fines, and LFOs in criminal cases. The focus is also on the percentage of cases in which defendants fully meet their legal financial obligations, and how well the court is managing enforcement of judicial orders and ensuring successful compliance with legal financial obligations imposed by those orders. The County of El Paso is currently working on completing this measure. Judicial Management Report Page 36 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 7(c): Fair Practices for Legal Financial Obligations Definition: Ratings by judicial officers, court administrators, and court staff on the importance of practices used by the court to determine, monitor, and enforce compliance by defendants with legal financial obligations (LFOs). Analysis and Interpretation: Using a short survey, this measure provides a method of selfassessment for court personnel to evaluate the utility of their current processes and gauge the importance of incorporating additional recognized good practices to enhance the defendant compliance with LFOs. The County of El Paso is currently working on completing this measure. Judicial Management Report Page 37 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 8: Effective Use of Jurors Definition: Juror Yield is the number of citizens selected for jury service who are qualified and available to serve, expressed as a percentage of the total number of prospective jurors summoned. Juror Utilization is the rate at which qualified and available jurors are used at least once in trial or voir dire, expressed as a percentage of the total number of qualified and available jurors (yield). Analysis and Interpretation: The objective of this measure is to minimize the amount of effort expended to summon and qualify prospective jurors and to maximize the rate at which they are used to select juries. The following graphs are displayed below. 1. A graph chart showing the Juror Yield over Time, in percentage. A commonly used goal for yield is 5 percent or higher, a value demonstrated to be realistic in many well-managed courts. 2. Juror Percentage Postponed 3. Jury Utilization helps maximize the rate at which the qualified and available jurors are used to select juries. By implication, this measure minimizes the number of unused jurors (jurors who are qualified and available, but told not to report for jury service, not sent to a courtroom for jury selection, or not worn, challenged or excused during jury selection.) FY2018 1st Quarter Juror Yield Over Time 37% 37% 37% 36% 36% 36% 35% 35% 34% 34% 34% 33% Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Judicial Management Report Page 38 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 8: Effective Use Of Jurors FY2018 1st Quarter Juror Percentage Postponed 6% 5% 4% 4.03% 4.87% 5.45% 3% 2% 1% Oct-17 Nov-17 Dec-17 Judicial Management Report Page 39 of 56 April 10, 2018

1% 1% Jury Utilization October 2017 Measure 8: Effective Use Of Jurors Reporting for service 14% Never Told to Report 4 Sent to a courtroom for voir dire 44% Utilized in Incomplete Jury Selection Selected in Completed Jury Selection Challenged or Removed in Completed Jury Selection Jury Utilization November 2017 1% Reporting for service 13% Never Told to Report Sent to a courtroom for voir dire 25% 61% Utilized in Incomplete Jury Selection Selected in Completed Jury Selection Challenged or Removed in Completed Jury Selection 1% Jury Utilization December 2017 2% Reporting for service 16% Never Told to Report 1 71% Sent to a courtroom for voir dire Utilized in Incomplete Jury Selection Selected in Completed Jury Selection Challenged or Removed in Completed Jury Selection Judicial Management Report Page 40 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 9: Court Employee Satisfaction Definition: Ratings of court employees assessing the quality of work environment and relations between staff and management. Analysis and Interpretation: Committed and loyal employees have a direct impact on a court s performance. This measure is a powerful tool for surveying employee opinion on whether staff have the materials, motivation, direction, sense of mission, and commitment to do quality work. The County of El Paso is currently working on completing this measure. The results of the survey will be provided to Court Management. Judicial Management Report Page 41 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 10: Cost per Case Definition: The average cost of processing a single case, by case type. Analysis and Interpretation: A primary responsibility of courts is efficient processing of cases. Monitoring cost per case, from year to year, provides a practical means to evaluate existing case processing practices and to improve court operations. Cost per case forges a direct connection between how much is spent and what is accomplished. This measure provides important insight into the management of a court s limited resources. Taken into account are total court expenditures, case dispositions by major case type and a complete inventory of all judicial officers and court staff. The County of El Paso is currently working on completing this measure. Judicial Management Report Page 42 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 11: Cost per Disposition Definition: The net cost of disposing of a single case. Analysis and Interpretation: The following graph and table show a court by court comparison of Cost per Disposition for Indigent Defense. The graphs show a court by court comparison of Cost per Disposition as well as Net Cost per Disposition by quarter. Differences in the net cost per disposition are mostly explained by the differences in the revenue collection and in the number of dispositions of the type that generate fees. For example, the defendant in case dismissal is not assessed fees. Net Cost per Disposition Net Cost Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only $500 $400 $300 $200 $100 $0 1ST QUARTER - FY 2018 NET COST PER DISPOSITION MISDEMEANOR $313 $327 $339 $350 $381 $388 $391 $444 Court Misdemeanor Average - $367 Judicial Management Report Page 43 of 56 April 10, 2018

Net Cost $0 Measure 11: Cost Per Disposition Civil and Criminal Court 1ST QUARTER - FY 2018 Criminal Court Only NET COST PER DISPOSITION FELONY $430 $477 $543 $653 $664 $671 $750 $829 $898 $1,037 $1,338 $1,348 $1,500 $1,000 $500 Court Felony Average - $803 $600 AVERAGE NET COST PER DISPOSITION MISDEMEANOR CASES $554 Net Cost $500 $400 $300 $200 $261 $367 $404 $358 $332 $394 $399 $100 $0 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Net Cost $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 AVERAGE NET COST PER DISPOSITION FELONY CASES $782 $803 $1,229 $1,334 $1,066 $736 $1,513 $1,043 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 44 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 12: Jail Bed Days Definition: The number of jail bed days consumed. Several graphs are displayed below: 1. The first set of charts below show a court by court comparison of Jail Bed Days from the least to the greatest number of jail bed days as well as the number of jail bed days consumed court wide for each of the last two quarters. 2. The second set of charts below shows the average length of stay for from the least to greatest as well as the average length of stay for the last two quarters. Jail Bed Days Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 2,000 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 JAIL BED DAYS MISDEMEANOR CASES 1,701 1,895 Jail Bed Days 1,500 1,000 500 0 912 927 992 1,028 1,068 1,186 Misdemeanor Average - 1,214 Judicial Management Report Page 45 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 12: Jail Bed Days Jail Bed Days Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 1,381 1,502 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 JAIL BED DAYS FELONY CASES 2,556 2,807 2,809 3,442 3,608 3,851 3,984 4,049 4,413 4,614 Felony Average - 3,251 TOTAL JAIL BED DAYS BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES Jail Bed Days 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 8,842 9,709 9,561 8,943 9,349 10,060 8,337 10,497 2,000 Jail Bed Days 0 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 35,965 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR TOTAL JAIL BED DAYS BY QUARTER FELONY CASES 39,016 40,251 37,576 33,305 40,121 35,310 41,163 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 46 of 56 April 10, 2018

Average Length of Stay Measure 12: Jail Bed Days Number of Days 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 19 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY MISDEMEANOR CASES 23 24 24 24 27 28 30 Misdemeanor Average - 25 Number of Days 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 32 34 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY FELONY CASE 39 41 42 42 44 45 47 49 52 54 Felony Average - 43 Judicial Management Report Page 47 of 56 April 10, 2018

Days 30 25 20 15 10 5 22 AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES 25 22 20 Measure 12: Jail Bed Days 22 22 23 23 Days 0 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 47 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR AVERAGE LENGTH OF STAY BY QUARTER FELONY CASES 43 43 43 43 42 45 46 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 48 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 13: Disposition Rates Definition: The number of disposed cases as a percentage of the Active Caseload. Analysis and Interpretation: The disposition rate is a measure of the cases a court disposed in the quarter compared to the average active case load during the same quarter. This is a measure of the judicial workload and represents the actual day to day workings for the Court. This calculation takes into consideration the disposition of cases on the active docket in addition to the other matters addressed by the Court on an average day. The disposition rate portrays the flow of the variety of judicial proceedings routinely before the Court. Several graphs are displayed below. 1. The first set of graphs show the number of active cases by court from least to greatest as well as total active cases by quarter. 2. The second set of graphs show the disposition rate by court, from highest to lowest as well as the average disposition rate by quarter. Active Caseload Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 ACTIVE CASELOAD MISDEMEANOR CASES Cases 2000 1500 1000 500 468 556 790 956 989 995 1,241 1,643 0 Misdemeanor Average - 955 Judicial Management Report Page 49 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 13: Disposition Rates Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 ACTIVE CASELOAD FELONY CASES Cases 1000 800 600 400 200 0 116 189 229 308 366 402 417 462 505 530 640 861 Felony Average - 419 TOTAL DOCKET BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES Cases 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 12,810 13,513 8,881 9,378 7,638 8,155 7,943 7,604 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR TOTAL DOCKET BY QUARTER FELONY CASES Cases 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 5,746 5,820 5,166 5,025 5,158 5,224 5,461 5,030 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 50 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 13: Disposition Rates Disposition Rate Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 DISPOSITION RATE MISDEMEANOR CASES Disposition Rate 10 8 6 4 2 18% 3 31% 34% 38% 53% 74% 82% Misdemeanor Average: 49% Percent Civil and Criminal Court Criminal Court Only 12 10 8 6 4 2 1ST QUARTER -FY 2018 DISPOSITION RATE FELONY CASES 17% 22% 27% 32% 34% 35% 41% 45% 53% 68% 76% 11 Felony Average: 34% Judicial Management Report Page 51 of 56 April 10, 2018

Percentage Percentage 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 45.5% 45.1% DISPOSITION RATE BY QUARTER MISDEMEANOR CASES 23.2% 53.5% 32.8% 59.5% Measure 13: Disposition Rates 89.4% 71.5% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR 47.9% 46.7% DISPOSITION RATE BY QUARTER FELONY CASES 30.9% 45.8% 40.7% 77.6% 69.1% 75.1% FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2016 FY 2017 1ST QTR 2ND QTR 3RD QTR 4TH QTR Judicial Management Report Page 52 of 56 April 10, 2018

Appendix A: General Assumptions and Method of Collection for Different Measures General Assumptions for All Measures The following assumptions were used with regards to all measures: The measures will only report on criminal data. A disposition will be counted based on the Statistical Closure field and will include all possible dispositions (will not exclude deceased dispositions). In the event there are active warrants for a defendant the number of days the warrant is active will not be attributed to the case s age. The warrants issue date, serve date, and warrants statuses are used to ascertain whether a warrant is active or inactive. In counting Jail Bed Days, Inmates that have cases with multiple courts are placed into a multiple court category until only one court has a case assigned to them. A case with multiple dispositions will count each disposition as a separate event. Except in the situation where a case has multiple dispositions on the same day. In this situation only one disposition will be counted for that case. Measures do not include data from pre-filed cases. The measures will be run on quarterly basis 15 days after the close of the financial quarter. Incoming cases will be attributed to the first court assigned that case during the reporting period regardless of transfers that occur after this. Outgoing cases will be attributed to the court that had the case assigned to them at the time of disposition. Time to Disposition and Age of Active Pending Cases start counting time in a court from the date assigned to the first court. However Time to Disposition will not starting counting from the first court in the event the case is reopened (Motion to Revoke, or Motion to Adjudicate). In the event this occurs the time will start from the start of either the Motion to Revoke or Motion to Adjudicate. Time to Disposition will stop counting time in a court once a case is disposed. Age of Active Cases will count days until the reporting period end. Time in Competency court is removed from the time counted in court for both Time to Disposition and Age of Active Pending Cases. The time a defendant absconds is removed from the time counted in court for both Time to Disposition and Age of Active Pending Cases Age of Active Pending Cases will only return active cases at the end of the reporting period that had active days occur during the case lifetime. Grand jury cases are not included in the report data. Justice of the Peace cases are not included in the measures. Cases under the following security groups are not included in the report data a. Agency Service Fee b. CPS Security Group Judicial Management Report Page 53 of 56 April 10, 2018

c. Delete Case Security Group d. Disposed Adoption e. Domestic Relations Adoption Security Group f. Domestic Relations Office g. Ethics Commission h. Expunction i. Expunge Case Security Group j. Family Court Services k. Monitoring Child Support l. Secured - Guardianship m. Secured - Mental Health n. Secured Adoption Test data will not impact the reports. General Assumptions Measure 1: Access and Fairness Method: Everyone in the court on a typical day is asked to fill out a brief self-administered survey as he or she exits the courthouse. People are asked to rate their level of agreement with each item, using a 1-5 scale. The survey is conducted annually. The individuals surveyed would include litigants and their families and friends, victims and witnesses, attorneys, law enforcement officers, representatives of social service agencies, and individuals doing record searches or having other business at the clerk's office, among others. Because the survey is designed to assess the views of the court's customers, judges and court staff are excluded. Measure 2: Clearance Rates Method: Clearance rates are measured using two variables, incoming cases and the number of cases disposed monthly. Incoming cases includes any cases filed within the reporting period. Disposed cases are any cases that have a statistical closure during the reporting period and would be reported to OCA. Cases with multiple dispositions will count toward the court as multiple dispositions. This report will include all possible dispositions (will not excluded deceased dispositions). Disposed cases that appear in a quarter can originate from a prior reporting period. Data for clearance rates does not include anything from pre-filed cases. Measure 3: Time to Disposition Method: This data is retrieved from Odyssey and includes the percentage of cases disposed or otherwise resolved within the established timeframe. For each case the time is calculated, in days, from first court assignment for the case to the date the case was disposed. The case processing time standards published by the American Bar Association (ABA) and those published by the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) and the National Center for State Courts provide a starting point for determining guidelines. Measure 4: Age of Active Pending Caseload Method: For each case type, a report from Odyssey calculates the time, in days, from filing of the case until the date established for the reporting period. Judicial Management Report Page 54 of 56 April 10, 2018

Measure 5: Trial Date Certainty General Assumptions Method: For each case type, a report from Odyssey identifies all cases disposed by trial during the given time period. After the cases are identified, additional information must be collected to determine whether those cases were tried on the first date they were set for trial or were continued one or more times before the trial actually began. Measure 8: Effective Use of Jurors Method: Juror data is provided through I-Juror system. Data includes information on questionnaires, summons, prospective jurors and jury application. Measure 11: Cost per Disposition Method: Cost per disposition is the net cost of the court divided by the number of dispositions. Net cost per disposition includes revenue collected and costs for each reporting period from each court. Measure 12: Jail Bed Days Method: This information is retrieved from Odyssey. Analysis of jail bed days is helpful when making case management decisions regarding disposition. The ultimate goal is expedited case disposition where appropriate, and the benefit is a reduction in jail bed days consumed. Jail bed days are considered as days individuals spend past midnight in jail. The days count will only be applicable to the quarter or date range s reported against. This means that in the case of a quarter one inmate can only count for a maximum of 90 days. Inmates that have cases with multiple courts are placed into a multiple court category until only one court has a case assigned to them. A jail bed day is counted and associated to a specific court only when a case has been filed and does not have an active disposition or statistical closure on or before the day of counting or when a case has an active case status prior to the day of counting. The average length of stay for inmates is calculated by totaling the number of jail bed days consumed from indictment to release and dividing by the number of inmates incarcerated. Measure 13: Disposition Rates Method: Disposition rates are measured using two variables, active caseload and the number of cases disposed. The active caseload includes any cases which have been assigned to the Court and the defendant is not a fugitive with an active warrant for arrest. Disposed cases are counted based on the statistical closure field. Active statuses are statuses that are indicated as active inside the Case Management System that utilizes. Pre-file cases are not included in these counts. When warrants are issued with a length of time greater than the length of the court the number of active days will be set to 0. Judicial Management Report Page 55 of 56 April 10, 2018