At the request of the General Assembly, the Supreme Court of Virginia contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) to perform an independent, objective assessment of judicial workload to be conducted for judges in the Circuit, General District, and Juvenile and Domestic Relations (JDR) District Courts.

Workload assessments provide courts with objective information about judicial staffing needs based on the amount of time required to process various types of cases. This information is useful in helping to determine the number of judges needed to cover the courts’ work, based on the number and types of cases filed.

For many years, the Virginia Judicial Branch has relied on workload assessment models to determine judicial staffing needs for judges. Over time, the integrity of workload standards is affected by multiple influences, including changes in legislation, court rules, legal practice, technology, and administrative factors. In order to measure the impact of these influences, supplemental time study data must be gathered and incorporated into the model. Recognizing the utility and need to update the 2017 workload assessment model, the OES contracted with the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in October 2023 to conduct an evidence-based assessment of the workload for judges in the Circuit, General District, and JDR District Courts.

To provide oversight and guidance throughout the project, Chief Justice S. Bernard Goodwyn appointed members to serve on a Judicial Needs Assessment Committee (JNAC) for this project. The NCSC consultants, with guidance from the JNAC, designed and conducted the study to produce workload assessment models for judges in the Virginia trial courts.

The workload assessment included the collection of three types of data: (1) work time data recorded by judges during a onemonth period, (2) a survey of participating Circuit, General District, and JDR District judges requesting their opinions of the extent to which they have adequate time to perform their duties to their satisfaction; and (3) qualitative feedback from focus group discussions and quality adjustment sessions with Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges. From this data, the NCSC developed case weights (or average case processing times) for the case types included in the data collection.

The case weights reflect the average number of case-related minutes that judges spend processing each of the different case types; they are based upon work time recorded by time study participants in the Virginia trial courts during a one-month study period. The case weights and other components of the workload assessment model were reviewed and approved by the JNAC.

This study is comprehensive and reliable because:

• It was designed and conducted by NCSC consultants who are national experts in the development of workload assessment models for courts and other justice system agencies.

• A high percentage (93%) of Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges participated in the study, which substantially enhances the credibility and validity of the data collected.

• It included a survey of Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges to assess whether they feel they have adequate time to achieve reasonable levels of quality in performing their duties. The adequacy of time survey data assisted in determining the reasonableness of the case weights which were based solely on the work time data.

• The NCSC consultants conducted a total of six focus group meetings involving Circuit, General District, and JDR District Courts judges to review and discuss the findings from the adequacy of time survey. Two focus groups were held with each court level. The focus group participants also provided feedback on other factors that might not have been captured during the time study. This qualitative input informed the discussion and decisions made by the JNAC regarding the case weights and workload assessment models.

NCSC consultants organized the project around the following primary tasks:

1. Development of the research design. The JNAC, appointed by the Chief Justice, met with the NCSC consultants in January 2024 to provide guidance for the workload assessment. The JNAC provided advice and feedback on the overall study design, which case types and activities to include in the workload assessment model, the methodology, content, and schedule of the training sessions prior to the time study, the duration of the time study, and the content and composition of the focus groups. The JNAC also provided feedback and recommendations on key issues covered in the final report.

2. Virginia Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judge time study. Ninety-three percent of Virginia judges participated in the one-month time study conducted between April 8 – May 8, 2024 for Circuit Court judges and April 22 – May 22, 2024 for General District and JDR District judges. Before the time study began, an NCSC consultant conducted a total of nine one-hour training webinars (three for each court level) to provide detailed instructions on how all participants should track and record their work time. The NCSC also provided a recording of the training written instructions, and an online help link to participants who had questions about recording time and categorizing information. During the time study, Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges kept records of all time spent on case-related and non-case-specific activities and entered their work time data in the NCSC’s secure online data entry website.

3. Adequacy of Time Survey. After the time study data collection period, 53% of Circuit Court judges, 57% of General District Court judges, and 61% of JDR District Court judges completed an online adequacy of time survey regarding the sufficiency of time available during regular working hours to do their work. The survey results revealed that most judges in the Virginia trial courts believe they “usually" have enough time to effectively handle their daily tasks.

4. Data Analysis and development of preliminary case weights. NCSC staff analyzed the data collected from the time study and adequacy of time survey, and then drafted reports, including tables and preliminary case weights for review by the JNAC.

5. Six focus groups. In July 2024, NCSC staff conducted six focus group discussions virtually with experienced Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges to review the project methodology and discuss the preliminary findings from the time study and adequacy of time survey results.

6. Four Quality-Adjustment Sessions. In July and August 2024, NCSC staff conducted four quality-adjustment sessions (Delphi sessions) with knowledgeable judges in Circuit, General District, and JDR District Courts to provide a structured review of specific case weights selected by the JNAC for review and possible quality adjustment.

7. JNAC review, discussion, and decision-making. The NCSC, OES, and JNAC held two meetings to review the data and make final decisions based on the adequacy of time survey, focus group findings, and Delphi groups’ recommendations.

At the first review meeting on July 10, 2024, the JNAC and OES staff reviewed and discussed findings from the time study, including preliminary case weights, and results from the adequacy of time survey. Additionally, the JNAC worked with the NCSC to plan the focus groups and Delphi sessions.

Following the July meeting, focus groups, and Delphi sessions, the NCSC, JNAC, and OES staff met for the final time on August 14, 2024. The group discussed the recommended case weight adjustments that resulted from the Delphi groups and reviewed the non-case-related time for Circuit, General District, and JDR District judges. After reviewing all the data and recommendations, the committee accepted and approved all the adjustments made to the case weights in the Delphi sessions with the exception of the Protective Order case weight in JDR District Courts. The JNAC accepted one of the two recommendations for Protective Orders. JNAC also approved an increase in non-case-related time for Circuit, General District, and JDR District judges to allow more time for administrative work and for non-case related work, such as search warrants, research or discussions with other judges, and work performed outside of normal hours, especially weekend work, which was not consistently reported by all judges during the time study period and therefore not accurately reflective of the amount of time judges spend on non-case-related work each day.

Findings

The final report explains in detail each step in the research and data analysis process for this workload assessment and the development of the workload assessment models. The workload assessment models are sufficiently flexible and provide OES with the framework to determine the approximate need for Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges. Applying the new models reveals that the Virginia trial courts should have 159.11 full-time equivalent (FTE) Circuit Court judges, 123.53 FTE General District Court judges, and 144.06 FTE JDR District Court judges to effectively handle the current workload.

Recommendations

The NCSC encourages the OES to consider the following recommendations regarding the ongoing use of the workload assessment model.

Recommendation 1

The NCSC recommends updating the Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judge needs assessment models annually, by inserting new case filings from the most recent year of reliable filings, or the average of the most recent three years of reliable filings.

Recommendation 2

The workload assessment models presented in this report should be the starting point for determining the need for judges in the Virginia trial courts. There are qualitative issues that an objective workload assessment model cannot account for such as differences between urban and rural jurisdictions in their abilities to have judges specialize and to effectively provide backup judges when needed; differences in jury trial rates across locations; possible variations in the proportion of cases involving self-represented parties; and the inadequate number of various judicial support staff (e.g., bailiffs, law clerks, court reporters). "While several of these support roles are not within the purview of the Judicial Branch, issues such as these that result in longer or shorter case processing times should be considered.

Recommendation 3

Over time, the integrity of any workload assessment model may be affected by external factors such as changes in legislation, case law, legal practice, court technology, and administrative policies. NCSC recommends that a comprehensive review of the workload assessment models should be conducted every five to seven years. This review should include a time study in which all or most Circuit, General District, and JDR District Court judges participate. Between updates, if a major change in the law appears to have a significant impact on workload, a Delphi panel of experts can be convened to make interim adjustments to the affected case weight(s).