Maryland Judiciary FY 2010 Statewide Caseflow Assessment. Circuit Courts. Administrative Office of the Courts

Transcription

1

2 Maryland Judiciary FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Administrative Office of the Courts April 211

3 Table of Contents Main Analysis...2 Within-Standard Percentages...2 Average Case Processing Times...4 Median Case Processing Times...5 Distribution of Over-Standard Cases...7 Postponements...8 Suspensions...1 Appendix A: Within-Standard Percentages & Overall and Over-Standard Average and Median Case Processing Times, by Case Type and Jurisdiction...18 Appendix B: Statewide Distribution of Over-Standard Cases...25 Appendix C: Percent of Cases Terminated Within-Standard, by Jurisdiction, Fiscal Years 26 through

4 Main Analysis The analysis of case processing performance in Maryland s circuit courts in Fiscal Year 21 is based on samples of up to 5 original terminations from each of Maryland s 24 circuit court jurisdictions for each of the following case types: Criminal, Civil, Domestic Relations (one- and two-year standards), Juvenile Delinquency, Child in Need of Assistance (CINA) Shelter, CINA Non-Shelter, and Termination of Parental Rights (TPR). Following exclusion of invalid case terminations, a total of 41,96 valid case terminations were used for the present analysis. 1 This analysis utilizes weighted calculations for instances in which data is displayed in the aggregate (e.g., statewide percentages of cases closed within-standard or average and median case time by jurisdiction size) that reflect each jurisdiction s overall terminations. Within-Standard Percentages While no case type achieved state performance goals for cases closed within-standard, Domestic Relations (two-year standard) and Juvenile Delinquency cases both achieved a statewide within-standard percentage in FY 21. The largest improvement in the percentage of cases closed within-standard occurred in TPR cases, which showed a 12% improvement between Fiscal Years 29 and 21. Juvenile Delinquency and CINA Shelter cases also showed improved case processing performance, with within-standard percentages increasing by 1% and 3%, respectively. Criminal, Domestic Relations (one-year standard), and CINA Non-Shelter case processing performance each decreased by 3% between Fiscal Years 29 and Civil within-standard performance remained at in FY 21 for the fourth consecutive year. During the past several years, foreclosure filings have increased dramatically across many circuit court jurisdictions. In FY 21, foreclosure filings represented 55% of the statewide Civil case sample, a 13% increase from FY 29. Among individual jurisdictions, foreclosure cases reached as high as 71% of their Civil case sample. During this rise, disclosures were made regarding procedural issues and defects in pleadings submitted by plaintiffs counsel which, in turn, prompted greater judicial scrutiny of foreclosure caseloads. Concurrently, legislative reforms and measures modified foreclosure proceedings in a number of ways impacting the residential foreclosure process; principally, instituting an additional filing fee on orders to docket or complaints to foreclose, increasing disclosure requirements accompanying notices of intent to foreclose, and providing an option to participate 1 Cases without case start dates and those with negative case processing times (i.e., case stop dates occur before start dates) were excluded from the current analysis. An analysis of these invalid cases is included in the Methodology and Data/Application Issues section of the statewide report. 2 The Circuit Criminal case time standard was modified in FY 29 to measure case time from the first appearance of a defendant (or entry of appearance by counsel) to verdict date. Prior to FY 29, the case stop date in Circuit Criminal cases was the sentencing date. 2

5 in foreclosure mediation conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that went into effect at the beginning of Fiscal Year In response to this surge in foreclosure filings, many jurisdictions have noted performance challenges and instituted associated strategies to improve case processing efficiency of these cases. These strategies include the increased use of status conferences and closer examination of filings for document deficiencies. 4 Table 1. Valid Terminations and Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard (Weighted) by Case Type, Circuit Courts, Fiscal Years 29 and 21 Case Type Judiciary Goals FY 21 Valid Terminations Time Standard Percent Within- Standard Within-Standard Terminations FY 29-1 FY 21 FY 29 %* Change N %* Criminal 18 days 1,376 9,626 88% -3% Civil** 548 days 1,789 1,112 % Domestic 365 days Relations, 9% 1,199 86% 89% -3% Standard 1 Domestic 73 days 11,115 Relations, 1,943-2% Standard 2 Juvenile 9 days Delinquency 6,214 5,969 +1% CINA 3 days Shelter 1,558 1,135 69% 66% +3% CINA Non- 6 days Shelter % 9% -3% TPR 18 days % 43% +12% *Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics. **The Circuit Court Civil time standard is of cases within 18 months (548 days) from filing. The District Court Civil time standard initiates at service with the associated goal of closing of Civil Large cases in 25 days and of Civil Small cases in 9 days. Table 2 provides within-standard case processing performance by case type and aggregated by jurisdiction size in FY 21. As shown, small- and medium-sized jurisdictions performed above the statewide within-standard goal in both Domestic Relations standard case categories. Moreover, medium-sized jurisdictions performed at or above the statewide average withinstandard percentage for all case types in FY 21. Small-sized jurisdictions performed above the 3 Foreclosure case filings subsequently decreased in Fiscal Year 211 across the State compared to Fiscal Year 21 levels. While preliminary data in the first months of Fiscal Year 212 show a possible increase in civil filings above Fiscal Year 211 levels, the impact on general civil filings remains to be seen. The Administrative Office of the Courts will continue to track and analyze the volume of foreclosure cases filed in the circuit courts. 4 The case stop date for Civil Foreclosure cases was changed in FY 29 from the final ratification of sale to the final order of ratification of the auditor s report. 3

6 statewide average in Criminal, Civil, both Domestic Relations standards, and CINA-Non-Shelter cases. Large-sized jurisdictions performed below the statewide average in all case types except Juvenile Delinquency, in which they met the statewide average. At the same time, large-sized jurisdictions increased their within-standard percentages in FY 21 over FY 29 in Juvenile Delinquency (1% increase), CINA Shelter (4% increase), and TPR (17% increase) cases, and maintained the same within-standard performance in Civil cases (9% within-standard) in FY 21 as in FY 29. Within-standard percentage performance among small-sized jurisdictions matched or varied by 1% in Criminal and both Domestic Relations case standards in FY 21 over FY 29. Performance declined among small-sized jurisdictions in FY 21 over FY 29 by 2% in Civil and Juvenile Delinquency, by 1% in CINA Shelter, and by 7% in CINA Non-Shelter cases and by 8% in TPR cases. Medium-sized jurisdictions increased their within-standard percentages in FY 21 in all case types except Criminal (2% decrease from FY 29) and CINA Non-Shelter (4% decrease from FY 29). Table 2. Percent of Cases Closed within Time Standard (Weighted) as a Function of Jurisdiction Size and Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Case Type Time Standard Judiciary Goals Statewide Within- Standard Percentage* Jurisdiction Size** Small* Medium* Large* Criminal 18 days 88% 89% 87% Civil 548 days 9% Domestic Relations, 365 days Standard 1 9% 86% 81% Domestic Relations, 73 days Standard 2 Juvenile 9 days Delinquency CINA Shelter 3 days 69% 55% 83% 68% CINA Non-Shelter 6 days 87% 84% TPR 18 days 55% 51% 75% 51% *Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics. **Jurisdiction size designations are based on the number of judges presiding within a jurisdiction. Average Case Processing Times Statewide overall average case processing times were within-standard for each case type except CINA Shelter and TPR cases. The overall average case time for TPR cases decreased by 28 days in FY 21 over FY 29. The overall average case time for CINA Shelter cases was reduced by 1 day in Fiscal Year 21 over 29, while Juvenile Delinquency cases closed in an average of 43 days for the second consecutive year. Moreover, both Juvenile Delinquency and CINA Shelter cases recorded the same statewide within-standard average case processing times (36 days and 24 days, respectively) for the second consecutive year. 4

7 Over-standard average case processing times in FY 21 were higher than FY 29 averages in all case types except Civil cases (26 day reduction from FY 29) and CINA Non-Shelter cases (25 day reduction from FY 29). The largest increase in over-standard average case time in FY 21 occurred in Domestic Relations (two-year standard) cases, which increased by 125 days between Fiscal Years 29 and 21. The average processing time of over-standard cases in FY 21 ranged from 2.6 to 7.3 times longer than within-standard average case times, compared to the range of 2.8 to 7.5 times longer for over-standard versus within-standard average case times in FY 29. The greatest differences between over- and within-standard average case times occurred in Domestic Relations (two-year standard) cases, which took 7.3 times as long, followed by Juvenile Delinquency cases (5.4 times as long), Domestic Relations (one-year standard) cases (4.7 times as long), and Criminal cases (4.5 times as long). Table 3. Average Overall, Within- and Over-Standard Case Processing Time (Weighted) by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Case Type Criminal Civil Domestic Relations, Standard 1 Domestic Relations, Standard 2 Juvenile Delinquency CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter TPR Time Standard 18 days 548 days 365 days 73 days 9 days 3 days 6 days 18 days FY 21 Average Case Time (in days)* Overall Within Over Standard Standard FY 29 Overall Average Case Time , *Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics. Median Case Processing Times As shown in Table 4, the overall median case time for all case types in FY 21 is shorter than overall average case times in Table 3. Median case processing times are the middle value in the distribution of case processing times from lowest to greatest case time. The median case time 5

8 differs from the average case time (or arithmetic mean of case times) in that it is not affected by a small number of extremely long cases. The median and average case time difference is the highest in Domestic Relations cases (the median case time is 69 days less than the average case time), followed by TPR cases (37 days less). Domestic Relations cases also showed the greatest difference between both within- and over-standard median and average case times (both with median case times lower than average case times). This suggests that several cases with very long case processing times skewed the distribution of case times, thus increasing the overall average case times for this case type. Between Fiscal Years 29 and 21, the largest difference in overall median case time occurred among TPR cases, which recorded a decrease of 39 days in overall median case time in FY 21. Conversely, the overall median case time for Juvenile Delinquency cases remained at 36 days in FY 21, and the overall median case time for Criminal cases, CINA Shelter cases, and CINA Non-Shelter cases changed by less than 3 days in FY 21 over FY 29. Domestic Relations (two-year standard) cases showed the largest increase in over-standard median case time between Fiscal Years 29 and 21, increasing by 181 days in the two-year period. Table 4. Median Overall, Within- and Over-Standard Case Processing Time (Weighted) by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Case Type Criminal Civil Domestic Relations, Standard 1 Domestic Relations, Standard 2 Juvenile Delinquency CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter TPR Time Standard 18 days 548 days 365 days 73 days 9 days 3 days 6 days 18 days FY 21 Median Case Time (in days)* Overall Within Over Standard Standard FY 29 Overall Median Case Time , *Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics. 6

9 Distribution of Over-Standard Cases Shown in Table 5 are the percent of over-standard cases that closed within a short period after the defined case time standard. Analyzed in conjunction with measures of over-standard average and median case processing times, this statistical depiction provides further information on the distribution of over-standard cases. For a complete distribution of time required to close overstandard cases, see Figures 1 through 17 on pages 33 to 4. The percentage of over-standard cases closing within one week beyond the time standard ranged from less than 1% for Domestic Relations cases (two-year standard) to 26% for CINA Shelter cases. Examining the percentage of over-standard cases closing within one month past the time standard shows similar results only 6% of Domestic Relations cases (two-year standard) closed within that time compared to 62% of over-standard CINA Shelter cases. The same holds for the time to close 5% of over-standard cases (i.e., the median time to close over-standard cases), in which it took 2.9 weeks to close half of the over-standard CINA Shelter cases compared to 7.9 months to close half of the over-standard Domestic Relations cases (two-year standard). It is also useful to compare the results of the over-standard case time analysis to the percentage of cases closed within-standard across case types (Table 1). Upon examination, it can be seen that although over-standard Domestic Relations cases tend to take long amounts of time to close, these cases were tied with Juvenile Delinquency cases in the highest within-standard percentage among the case types in FY 21 at closed within-standard. Conversely, CINA Shelter cases had the second-lowest within-standard percentage (69% within-standard) in FY 21, but took the least amount of time to close half of the over-standard cases (2.9 weeks). This analysis illustrates the impact that cases closing soon after the time standard goal have on overall within-standard percentages, and highlights the importance of identifying procedural improvements that may expedite the processing of these over-standard cases. Please refer to Appendix B on page 26 for graphical depictions of the distribution of overstandard cases in the circuit courts in FY 21. 7

10 Table 5. Percent of Over-Standard Cases Closed shortly beyond the Time Standard and Time Required to Close 5% of Over-Standard Cases by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Case Type Time Standard Number of Over- Standard Cases % of Over-Standard Cases Closing Over Standard* Within 1 week Within 1 month Time to Close 5% of Over- Standard Cases Criminal 18 days 75 6% 44 cases 25% 185 cases 2.4 months Civil 548 days 677 4% 3 cases 17% 113 cases 4. months Domestic Relations, 365 days Standard % 26 cases 14% 124 cases 4.1 months Domestic Relations, 73 days Standard <1% 1 case 6% 11 cases 7.9 months Juvenile 9 days Delinquency 245 2% 5 cases 51% 125 cases 1. month CINA Shelter 3 days % 11 cases 62% 261 cases 2.9 weeks CINA Non-Shelter 6 days 64 13% 8 cases 55% 35 cases 3.4 weeks TPR 18 days 272 4% 12 cases 17% 45 cases 3.3 months *The aggregate percent of cases closing (just) over their respective time standards are not weighted; therefore, caution should be used when generalizing this information to the statewide level. Postponements The Assessment Application provides the number of postponements and up to 1 postponement reason codes for each case. Beginning with the FY 29 Assessment, users were requested to review the accuracy of postponement information included in case records to ensure that, (1) the number of postponements and associated reasons match, and (2) that postponement information reflects only those postponement events that occurred between the case start and case stop dates. This may include both trial and pre-trial postponements, as long as they occurred between the case start and case stop dates. Also, in FY 21 the Assessment Application was modified to include filters that, upon use, display all cases either, (1) containing postponements or (2) containing no postponements in the case search results. While pilot testing was conducted to verify that the Assessment Application was extracting only postponements that occurred between the case start and case stop dates in preparation for the FY 21 assessment cycle, further testing and training of users is needed to ensure that no post-case stop postponements or postponements that occur in a reopened portion of a case are included. Accordingly, the postponement analysis contained in this report focuses on the number of postponements and the extent of invalid postponement data present in the Assessment data. Shown in Table 6 are the number and percentage of cases with identifiable postponement information, by case type. For the purpose of this analysis, a case with valid postponement information is defined as a case with either valid information in the number of postponements data field or postponement reasons provided, except for where both the number and reason fields indicated no postponement. Cases with matching postponement information are those where the number of identified postponements matches the number of postponement reasons. Cases 8

11 with mismatched postponement information are those where, (1) a postponement is identified but no reason is provided, (2) the number of postponements and the number of postponement reasons do not match, or (3) no postponement is identified based on the number of postponements but postponement reasons are provided. The purpose of providing information on the extent of mismatched postponement data is to help guide future efforts on the collection of postponement data for the Assessment Application. As part of a preliminary analysis, the researchers examined whether cases were missing a value in the number of postponements variable but had postponement reasons. No cases that fit this category were identified. Statewide across all circuit court case types in FY 21, nearly all cases contained matching postponement information. These results are consistent with those in FY 29, and continue the marked improvement in matching postponement information compared to prior assessments. In FY 21, postponements occurred most often in TPR cases (54%), which is consistent with FY 29 results. CINA Non-Shelter cases recorded the second-highest proportion of postponed cases at 44%, followed by Juvenile Delinquency and Criminal cases, in which 37% and 35% of sampled cases were postponed, respectively. Feedback provided in jurisdictional reports and from the Caseflow Assessment Application pilot testing phase support the need to further standardize postponement reason codes. Currently, a variety of postponement and reset codes are employed in UCS that may differ in meaning both within and among circuit court jurisdictions. Moreover, some jurisdictions raised the point that postponement reasons ideally should indicate both who requested a postponement and why. As the Judiciary moves toward a new Statewide Case Management System, a further analysis of the description of postponement and reset codes and reasons may yield more useful management information regarding the impact(s) of these events on case processing performance. 9

12 Table 6. Number and Percent of Cases with Postponement Information by the Match between the Number of Postponements and Postponement Reasons by Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 FY 21 Valid Terminations Cases with Valid Postponement Information* N % FY 29 % Matching Postponement Information** Mismatched Postponement Information*** N % N % Criminal 1,376 3,675 35% 32% 3,671 > 4 <1% Civil 1,789 1,19 1% 11% 1,16 > 3 <1% Domestic Relations 11,115 1,36 12% 12% 1,36 % Juvenile Delinquency 6,214 2,273 37% 34% 2,27 > 3 <1% CINA Shelter 1, % 33% 448 > 1 <1% CINA Non- Shelter % 31% % TPR % 53% 293 > 1 <1% *Excludes cases with no postponements and no postponement reasons listed. **Total number of cases in which the number of postponement reasons provided matches the postponement count. ***Total number of cases in which the number of postponement reasons provided does not match the postponement count. Suspensions The Maryland Judiciary s case time standards provide for the suspension of case processing time for those events over which the court has no control. Court events that qualify as suspension start and suspension stop dates are extracted by the Assessment Application from UCS, but Assessment users are requested to review and, where necessary, add to or correct all suspension information contained in the Assessment. As this review is strongly suggested but not mandatory, variation in the completeness and accuracy of suspension information is likely and, as such, suspension data should be interpreted with caution. In FY 21, 11% of sampled original terminations in the circuit courts contained one or more suspensions, a 4% decrease from FY 29. Consistent with FY 29, Juvenile Delinquency cases contained the highest proportion of suspensions (29%), while 1% or less of CINA Shelter, CINA Non-Shelter, and TPR cases each were suspended. Results of this analysis are shown in Table 7. 1

13 Table 7. Suspensions with Valid and Invalid Data as a Function of Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Case Type FY 21 Valid Terminations Cases with One or More Suspensions (N, %)* Total Suspensions Overall Suspensions With Valid Data (N, %)** Without Valid Data (N, %)*** Criminal 1,376 1,251 (12%) 1,433 1,388 () 45 (3%) Civil 1, (4%) (71%) 136 (29%) Domestic Relations 11,115 1,189 (11%) 1,292 1,188 (92%) 14 (8%) Juvenile Delinquency 6,214 1,84 (29%) 2,168 2,14 () 154 (7%) CINA Shelter 1, (<1%) 19 2 (11%) 17 (89%) CINA Non- Shelter (<1%) 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) TPR (1%) 5 5 () (%) Total 41,96 4,725 (11%) 5,383 4,924 () 459 (9%) * Percent of valid terminations. ** Suspensions with no missing start or stop dates and with a positive number for the time from suspension start to suspension stop. Percent of total suspensions. *** Suspensions missing either a suspension start or stop date, or the time from suspension start to suspension stop was a negative number. Percent of total suspensions. It was found that of the 5,383 suspensions in the FY 21 circuit courts analysis contained valid data (i.e., no missing suspension start or stop dates and a positive value for the time from suspension start to suspension stop), whereas 9% of these suspensions were without valid data (i.e., missing either a suspension start or stop date or contained a negative value for the time from suspension start to suspension stop). Overall, the proportion of suspensions with valid data increased by 1% in FY 21 over FY 29 results. Increases in the number of suspensions with valid data is a testament to the dedication of court personnel in reviewing case data during the data quality review phase of the Assessment cycle and, as will be discussed, is partially due to corrections to the Assessment Application programming logic. A marked change occurred in the FY 21 Assessment in the case types containing invalid suspension data. For the past several fiscal years, Domestic Relations cases contained the highest proportion of invalid suspension data among the case types. In FY 21, the proportion of Domestic Relations suspensions with invalid data was 8%; a 35% reduction from FY 29, in which 43% of these cases contained suspensions with invalid data. The sharp reduction in invalid Domestic Relations suspensions was largely due to a programming logic change affecting the suspension event activated if service is not achieved after 9 days in child support cases. Beginning with the FY 21 Assessment, this suspension was activated for child support cases only if, (1) a case continued to be open after 9 days had 11

14 elapsed from the case start date and (2) no service was achieved on an issued child support summons. Previously, the Assessment Application entered a date value in the no service suspension start field after 9 days had elapsed since the case start date in a child support case and no summons service date was present, regardless of whether the case was closed or summons issued. In addition, instances of invalid suspension data were further reduced through user training that advised the use of the signed consent date as the answer date in UCS and the service date for the purpose of ending these suspensions for cases in which a consent order was sent via certified mail as opposed to the issuance of a summons. In FY 21, a new suspension event was authorized by the Judicial Council for CINA Shelter and CINA Non-Shelter cases that suspended case time from the date of issuance of a Body Attachment (writ of attachment) by a court due to the failure to appear (FTA) of a child and/or parent(s)/guardian(s) involved in the case, to the date on which the writ of attachment is disposed (served/recalled). Previously, military leave was the only authorized suspension event for these case types. CINA Shelter cases contained the highest percentage of suspensions with invalid data in FY 21, at 89%, followed by CINA Non-Shelter cases at 75%. In FY 29, no suspension events were recorded in either CINA Shelter or CINA Non-Shelter cases. All of the recorded suspensions for CINA Shelter and CINA Non-Shelter in FY 21 involved FTA/Body Attachment events. Of the 17 invalid suspensions in CINA Shelter cases in FY 21, 15 were due to a missing suspension stop date and two were due to negative suspension time. For CINA Non-Shelter cases, all three of the invalid suspensions had missing suspension stop dates. The presence of these invalid suspension events highlights the need for jurisdictions to run all applicable filters and ensure the accuracy of recorded suspension events during the data quality review phase. Since invalid suspension information cannot be factored into the calculation of case processing time, some case times may be over-estimated as a result. Table 8. Invalid Suspension Data as a Function of Case Type, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Case Type Without Valid Data (N, %)* Suspensions with Invalid Data by Error Type Missing Stop Date (N, %)** Missing Start Date (N, %)** Criminal 45 (3%) 39 (87%) 6 (13%) (%) Negative Suspension Time (N, %)** Civil 136 (29%) 127 () 7 (5%) 2 (2%) Domestic Relations 14 (8%) 1 () (%) 4 (4%) Juvenile Delinquency 154 (7%) 8 (52%) 54 (35%) 2 (13%) CINA Shelter 17 (89%) 15 (88%) (%) 2 (12%) CINA Non-Shelter 3 (75%) 3 () (%) (%) TPR (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Total 459 (9%) 364 (79%) 67 (15%) 28 (6%) *Percent of total suspensions **Percent of invalid suspensions 12

15 Table 9. Number and Percent of Suspensions with Invalid data for Selected Suspension Types, for Criminal Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event FTA 1 FTA 2 FTA 3 Mistrial Total Suspensions N 1, NCR Evaluation 56 Reverse Waiver 45 Petition Competency Evaluation 6 Interlocutory Appeal 4 Military Leave 3 Pre-Trial Treatment 9 Program Pre-Sentence Treatment 4 Program DNA/Forensic Evidence 16 Psychological Evaluation 16 Total 1,433 Valid Suspensions N (%)* 1,71 (>) 123 () 12 () 1 () 38 (68%) 4 (89%) 53 (88%) 1 (25%) 2 (67%) 8 (89%) 4 () 15 () 11 (69%) 1,388 () Invalid Suspensions N (%)* 4 (<1%) (%) (%) (%) 18 (32%) 5 (11%) 7 (12%) 3 (75%) 1 (33%) 1 (11%) (%) 1 (6%) 5 (31%) 45 (3%) Missing Stop N (%)** 4 () (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 18 () 5 () 4 (57%) 2 (67%) 1 () 1 () (n/a) 1 () 3 (6%) 39 (87%) * Percent of total suspensions. ** Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event. Invalid Suspensions Missing Start N (%)** (%) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (%) (%) 3 (43%) 1 (33%) (%) (%) (n/a) (%) 2 (4%) 6 (13%) Negative Suspension Time N (%)** (%) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (n/a) (%) (%) (%) 13

16 Table 1. Suspension Data for Civil Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Bankruptcy Non-Binding Arbitration Interlocutory Appeal Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* (69%) 134 (31%) () 1 (7%) 6 6 () (%) Military Leave 3 2 (67%) 1 (33%) FTA () (%) FTA () (%) Missing Stop Date N, (%)** 125 () 1 () (n/a) 1 () (n/a) (n/a) Missing Start Date N, (%)** 7 (5%) (%) (n/a) (%) (n/a) (n/a) Negative Suspension Time N, (%)** 2 (2%) (%) (n/a) (%) (n/a) (n/a) FTA 3 (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Total (71%) 136 (29%) *Percent of total suspensions, by suspension event. **Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event ***94 valid suspensions occurred after the case stop. 127 () 7 (5%) 2 (2%) 14

17 Table 11. Suspension Data for Domestic Relations Cases (both standards), Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Bankruptcy Interlocutory Appeal Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* 6 4 (67%) 2 (33%) 3 3 () (%) Military Leave 7 6 (86%) 1 (14%) FTA () 3 (2%) FTA () 1 (4%) FTA 3 1 (%) 1 () No Service in Child Support after 9 days Collaborative Law Total 1, () 96 (9%) 1 1 () (%) 1,292 1,188 (92%) 14 (8%) * Percent of total suspensions. ** Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event. Missing Stop Date N, (%)** 2 () (n/a) 1 () 3 () 1 () 1 () 92 () (n/a) 1 () Missing Start Date N, (%)** (%) (n/a) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (n/a) (%) Negative Suspension Time N, (%)** (%) (n/a) (%) (%) (%) (%) 4 (4%) (n/a) 4 (4%) 15

18 Table 12. Suspension Data for Juvenile Delinquency Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* FTA () 26 (5%) FTA (92%) 4 (8%) FTA () (%) Missing Stop Date N, (%)** 19 (73%) (%) (n/a) Missing Start Date N, (%)** (%) (%) Negative Suspension Time N, (%)** 7 (27%) 4 () Military Leave 1 1 () (%) Competency Evaluation Mistrial Waiver to Adult Court Interlocutory Appeal Pre-Disposition Treatment Program PDI Order Psychological Evaluation Total () 2 (4%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) (n/a) (n/a) () 1 (5%) 7 (7%) 2 (2%) (%) 1 (1%) (92%) 2 (8%) 1,3 949 (92%) 81 (8%) (92%) 11 (8%) 2,168 2,14 () 154 (7%) * Percent of total suspensions. ** Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event. 18 (9%) 34 (42%) 1 (9%) 8 (52%) Table 13. Suspension Data for CINA Shelter Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Military Leave FTA/Body Attachment 1 FTA/Body Attachment 2 FTA/Body Attachment 3 Total Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* Missing Stop Date N, (%)** 1 (5%) 41 (51%) 9 (82%) 54 (35%) Missing Start Date N, (%)** 1 (5%) 6 (7%) 1 (9%) 2 (13%) Negative Suspension Time N, (%)** (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 12 2 (17%) 1 (83%) 8 (8% (n/a) 2 (2%) 6 (n/a) 6 () 6 () (n/a) (n/a) 1 (n/a) 1 () 1 () (n/a) (n/a) 19 2 (11%) 17 (89%) 15 (88%) (n/a) 2 (12%) * Percent of total suspensions. ** Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event. 16

19 Table 14. Suspension Data for CINA Non-Shelter Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Military Leave FTA/Body Attachment 1 FTA/Body Attachment 2 FTA/Body Attachment 3 Total Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* Missing Stop Date N, (%)** Missing Start Date N, (%)** Negative Suspension Time N, (%)** (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 3 (n/a) 3 () 3 () (n/a) (n/a) 1 1 () (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) 3 () (n/a) (n/a) * Percent of total suspensions. ** Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event. Table 15. Suspension Data for TPR Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Interlocutory Appeal Military Leave Total Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* 4 4 () 1 1 () 5 5 () Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) * Percent of total suspensions. ** Percent of invalid suspensions, by suspension event. Missing Stop Date N, (%)** (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Missing Start Date N, (%)** (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) Negative Suspension Time N, (%)** (n/a) (n/a) (n/a) 17

20 Appendix A FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Within-Standard Percentages & Overall and Over-Standard Average and Median Case Processing Times, by Case Type and Jurisdiction 18

21 Jurisdiction Table A-1. Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type and Jurisdiction Jurisdiction Size* Criminal Civil Domestic Relations Standard 1 Domestic Relations, Standard 2 Juvenile Delinquency CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Allegany Small 58% Anne Large Arundel Baltimore 77% 87% 83% 65% 31% 32% Large City Baltimore 88% 89% 73% 88% 6% 84% 47% Large County Calvert Small 92% 83% 85% 9% 2% % Caroline Small 85% 73% 53% 71% Carroll Medium 64% 89% Cecil Medium 87% 92% 79% 63% Charles Medium 87% Dorchester Small Frederick Medium 78% 8% 83% Garrett Small 87% 85% 39% 63% 5% Harford Medium 7% 89% 89% 79% 3% Howard Medium 89% Kent Small Montgomery Large 81% 82% Prince 86% 67% 92% 35% Large George s Queen Small 17% -- Anne s Somerset Small 92% 53% 67% St. Mary s Medium 9% 88% 88% 33% Talbot Small 92% 63% % Washington Medium 85% Wicomico Medium 75% 83% 75% Worcester Small 82% 75% Statewide** 88% 86% 69% 87% 55% TPR *Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 1, 21). ** Statewide average is weighted based on the number of terminations reported to the state for each jurisdiction. 19

22 Table A-2. Percent of Cases Terminated Within Standard by Case Type and Jurisdiction Size Jurisdiction Judges Criminal Civil Domestic Relations, Standard 1 Small Domestic Relations, Standard 2 Juvenile Delinquency CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Allegany 2 58% Calvert 2 92% 83% 85% 9% 2% % Caroline 1 85% 73% 53% 71% Dorchester 1 Garrett 1 87% 85% 39% 63% 5% Kent Queen Anne s 1 17% -- Somerset 1 92% 53% 67% Talbot 1 92% 63% % Small Overall* 55% 51% Medium Carroll 3 64% 89% Cecil 3 87% 92% 79% 63% Charles 4 87% Frederick 4 78% 8% 83% Harford 5 7% 89% 89% 79% 3% Howard 5 89% St. Mary s 3 9% 88% 88% 33% Washington 5 85% Wicomico 3 75% 83% 75% Worcester 3 82% 75% Medium Overall* 89% 83% 75% Large Anne Arundel 12 Baltimore City 33 77% 87% 83% 65% 31% 32% Baltimore County 18 88% 89% 73% 88% 6% 84% 47% Montgomery 22 81% 82% Prince George s 23 86% 67% 92% 35% Large Overall* 87% 9% 81% 68% 84% 51% Source: Maryland Judiciary Assessment Application (December 1, 21). * Jurisdiction size-specific averages are weighted based on the number of terminations reported to the state for each jurisdiction. TPR 2

23 Table A-3. Overall (Total) and Over-Standard (OST) Average Case Processing Time in Days by Case Type and Jurisdiction (Weighted), FY 21 Jurisdiction Criminal Civil DR 365 DR 73 Juvenile Delinquency CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Allegany N/A 29 N/A N/A Anne Arundel N/A N/A 117 N/A Baltimore City , Baltimore , County Calvert , N/A Caroline , , N/A 782 2,375 Carroll , N/A Cecil N/A N/A Charles N/A 19 N/A 141 N/A Dorchester N/A N/A 14 N/A 144 N/A Frederick Garrett , , Harford , N/A Howard , N/A 23 N/A 84 N/A Kent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montgomery Prince George s , Queen Anne s N/A 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A Somerset N/A St. Mary s N/A Talbot N/A Washington N/A Wicomico N/A Worcester , N/A N/A Statewide , TPR 21

24 Table A-4. Overall and Over-Standard Average Case Processing Time in Days, by Case Type/Jurisdiction Size (Weighted), FY 21 Jurisdiction Criminal Civil DR 365 DR 73 Juvenile CINA Non- CINA Shelter Delinquency Shelter TPR Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Small Allegany N/A* 29 N/A N/A Calvert , N/A Caroline , , N/A 782 2,375 Dorchester N/A N/A 14 N/A 144 N/A Garrett , , Kent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Queen Anne s N/A 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A Somerset N/A Talbot N/A Small, Overall , Medium Carroll , N/A Cecil N/A N/A Charles N/A 19 N/A 141 N/A Frederick Harford , N/A Howard , N/A 23 N/A 84 N/A St. Mary s N/A Washington N/A Wicomico N/A Worcester , N/A N/A Medium, Overall , Large Anne Arundel N/A* N/A 117 N/A Baltimore City , Baltimore County , Montgomery Prince George s , Large, Overall , Statewide ,

25 Table A-5. Overall and Over-Standard Median Case Processing Time in Days, by Case Type and Jurisdiction (Weighted), FY 21 Jurisdiction Criminal Civil DR 365 DR 73 Juvenile CINA Non- CINA Shelter Delinquency Shelter TPR Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Allegany N/A 28 N/A N/A Anne Arundel N/A N/A 115 N/A Baltimore City , Baltimore County Calvert , N/A Caroline , N/A 175 2,375 Carroll , N/A Cecil N/A N/A Charles N/A 24 N/A 142 N/A Dorchester N/A N/A 12 N/A 152 N/A Frederick Garrett , Harford , N/A Howard , N/A 28 N/A 76 N/A Kent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montgomery Prince George s Queen Anne s N/A 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A Somerset N/A St. Mary s N/A Talbot N/A Washington N/A Wicomico N/A Worcester N/A N/A Statewide ,

26 Table A-6. Overall and Over-Standard Median Case Processing Time in Days, by Case Type/Jurisdiction Size (Weighted), FY 21 Jurisdiction Criminal Civil DR 365 DR 73 Juvenile Delinquency CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter TPR Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Total OST Small Allegany N/A 28 N/A N/A Calvert , N/A Caroline , N/A 175 2,375 Dorchester N/A N/A 12 N/A 152 N/A Garrett , Kent N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Queen Anne s N/A 22 N/A N/A N/A N/A Somerset N/A Talbot N/A Small, Overall , Medium Carroll , N/A Cecil N/A N/A Charles N/A 24 N/A 142 N/A Frederick Harford , N/A Howard , N/A 28 N/A 76 N/A St. Mary s N/A Washington N/A Wicomico N/A Worcester N/A N/A Medium, Overall , Large Anne Arundel N/A N/A 115 N/A Baltimore City , Baltimore County Montgomery Prince George s Large, Overall Statewide ,

27 Appendix B FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Statewide Distribution of Over-Standard Cases 25

28 Figure B-1. Distribution of Over-Standard Criminal Cases (N=75) by the Time beyond the 18-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases >1 year over-standard Time over standard (in months) The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 97 days (FY 29: 9 days) Within-standard cases: 67 days (FY 29: 69 days) Over-standard cases: 3 days (FY 29: 282 days) 6% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 25% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 2.4 months over standard. 26

29 Figure B-2. Distribution of Over-Standard Civil Cases (N=677) by the Time beyond the 548-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases years years Time over standard (in months) The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 288 days (FY 29: 279 days) Within-standard cases: 244 days (FY 29: 23 days) Over-standard cases: 75 days (FY 29: 776 days) 4% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 17% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 4. months over standard. 27

30 Figure B-3. Distribution of Over-Standard Domestic Relations Cases (N=916) by the Time beyond the 365-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases >3 years years Time over standard (in months) The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 211 days (FY 29: 176 days) Within-standard cases: 132 days (FY 29: 12 days) Over-standard cases: 625 days (FY 29: 585 days) 3% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 14% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 4.1 months over standard. 28

31 Figure B-4. Distribution of Over-Standard Domestic Relations Cases (N=172) by the Time beyond the 73-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases years years Time over standard (in months) The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 211 days (FY 29: 176 days) Within-standard cases: 173 days (FY 29: 153 days) Over-standard cases: 1,267 days (FY 29: 1,142 days) <1% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 6% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 7.9 months over standard. 29

32 Figure B-5. Distribution of Over-Standard Juvenile Delinquency Cases (N=245) by the Time beyond the 9-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases Time over standard (in weeks) months 1-12 months 1 1+ years 15 The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 43 days (FY 29: 43 days) Within-standard cases: 36 days (FY 29: 36 days) Over-standard cases: 196 days (FY 29: 166 days) 2% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 51% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 1. month over standard. 3

33 Figure B-6. Distribution of Over-Standard CINA Shelter Cases (N=423) by the Time beyond the 3-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases Time over standard (in weeks) months 9-12 months 6 1+ years 3 The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 48 days (FY 29: 49 days) Within-standard cases: 24 days (FY 29: 24 days) Over-standard cases: 95 days (FY 29: 92 days) 26% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 62% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 2.9 weeks over standard. 31

34 Figure B-7. Distribution of Over-Standard CINA Non-Shelter Cases (N=64) by the Time beyond the 6-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases Time over standard (in weeks) months 9-12 months 1+ years 1 The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 42 days (FY 29: 4 days) Within-standard cases: 33 days (FY 29: 31 days) Over-standard cases: 87 days (FY 29: 112 days) 13% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 55% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 3.4 weeks over standard. 32

35 Figure B-8. Distribution of Over-Standard Termination of Parental Rights Cases (N=272) by the Time beyond the 18-Day Time Standard, FY Number of cases > 1 year Time over standard (in months) The average case processing time (weighted) Overall: 224 days (FY 29: 252 days) Within-standard cases: 119 days (FY 29: 12 days) Over-standard cases: 37 days (FY 29: 331 days) 4% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 week over standard. 17% of the over-standard cases closed within 1 month over standard. 5% of the over-standard cases closed within approximately 3.3 months over standard. 33

36 Appendix C FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Percent of Cases Terminated Within-Standard, by Jurisdiction Fiscal Years 26 through 21 34

37 Percent of Cases Terminated Within-Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 27-21* Statewide (Weighted) FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 87% 88% 88% 84% 87% 89% 86% 88% 86% 9% 87% 8% 7% 6% 61% 69% 66% 69% 55% 5% 4% 41% 41% 43% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 27 87% 84% 61% 88% 41% FY 28 88% 87% 69% 86% 41% FY 29 89% 66% 9% 43% FY 21 88% 86% 69% 87% 55% FY 7-1 Change 1% -- 2% -1% 1% 8% -1% 14% *Weighted within-standard percentages are provided for Statewide figures only for Fiscal Years 27 through 21 due to data limitations found in pre-fy 27 data. Jurisdiction-specific data is presented, unweighted, for Fiscal Years 26 through

38 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Allegany County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 89% 85% 8% 78% 7% 6% 63% 58% 5% 4% 43% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 63% 43% FY 27 78% FY 28 89% FY 29 85% % FY 21 58% FY 6-1 Change -1% -1% % % 2% 28% % 15% 36 %

39 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Anne Arundel County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 92% 87% 8% 7% 7% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 92% 5% FY 27 87% 7% FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 FY 6-1 Change 5% 3% 3% % 1% 7% % 5% 37

40 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Baltimore City (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 8% 8% 82% 87% 77% 9% 87% 87% 88% 87% 73% 81% 83% 83% 83% 92% 92% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 52% 54% 63% 61% 65% 45% 4% 24% 44% 31% 19% 17% 19% 24% 32% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 8% 9% 73% 92% 52% 45% 19% FY 27 8% 87% 81% 54% 4% 17% FY 28 82% 87% 83% 63% 24% 19% FY 29 87% 88% 83% 92% 61% 44% 24% FY 21 77% 87% 83% 65% 31% 32% FY 6-1 Change -3% -3% 1% 3% -1% 13% -14% 13% 38

41 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Baltimore County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 89% 87% 88% 87% 88% 9% 9% 89% 83% 83% 85% 73% 88% 9% 69% 53% 58% 89% 59% 6% 84% 83% 86% 84% 52% 47% 4% 35% 3% 2% 21% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 89% 83% 53% 89% 21% FY 27 87% 9% 83% 58% 84% % FY 28 88% 9% 85% 9% 69% 83% 52% FY 29 87% 59% 86% 35% FY 21 88% 89% 73% 88% 6% 84% 47% FY 6-1 Change -1% -2% -1% -7% -1% 7% -5% 26% 39 %

42 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Calvert County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 81% 85% 78% 82% 92% 9% 9% 87% 83% 92% 89% 88% 87% 85% 9% 7% 65% 6% 53% 5% 4% 3% 2% 4% 29% 2% 33% 4% 17% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 81% 9% 92% 65% N/A 33% FY 27 85% 9% 89% 4% N/A % FY 28 78% 88% 53% 4% FY 29 82% 87% 87% 29% 17% FY 21 92% 83% 85% 9% 2% % FY 6-1 Change 11% -7% -7% -1% -1% -45% N/A -33% 4 % %

43 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Caroline County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 81% 92% 87% 85% 86% 9% 88% 78% 73% 8% 67% 71% 6% 5% 5% 53% 4% 38% 33% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 81% 86% 88% 38% FY 27 92% 9% 8% FY 28 78% 5% FY 29 87% 67% 33% FY 21 85% 73% 53% 71% FY 6-1 Change 2% 4% 7% % -15% 15% % -29% 41

44 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Carroll County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 86% 89% 83% 92% 74% 77% 86% 89% 83% 89% 83% 89% 7% 6% 6% 64% 5% 46% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 83% 74% % FY 27 92% 77% 46% 83% FY 28 86% 86% 83% FY 29 89% 89% 6% 89% FY 21 64% 89% FY 6-1 Change -3% 14% 19% 7% -3% -31% -11% 42 %

45 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Cecil County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 8% 81% 86% 87% 79% 83% 89% 89% 79% 85% 86% 88% 92% 76% 84% 79% 7% 63% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 31% 46% 42% 5% 21% 48% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 8% 79% 89% 79% 31% N/A 42% FY 27 81% 83% 85% 46% N/A 5% FY 28 86% 89% 86% 76% 21% FY 29 88% 84% N/A 48% FY 21 87% 92% 79% 63% FY 6-1 Change 7% 16% 7% 1% 13% 48% N/A 21% 43

46 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Charles County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 75% 84% 86% 88% 89% 92% 92% 79% 79% 83% 84% 87% 89% 83% 7% 6% 65% 62% 62% 5% 4% 3% 29% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 75% 88% 79% 89% 65% N/A 29% FY 27 84% 89% 79% 83% N/A 62% FY 28 86% 92% 83% 62% FY 29 92% 84% FY 21 87% FY 6-1 Change 19% 5% 8% 1% 11% 35% N/A 71% 44

47 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Dorchester County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 83% 83% 7% 6% 5% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 6% N/A FY 27 83% FY 28 5% FY 29 83% FY 21 FY 6-1 Change 3% 2% 2% % -1% 4% N/A % 45

48 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Frederick County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 8% 87% 75% 76% 86% 92% 81% 76% 75% 78% 86% 8% 75% 83% 7% 68% 63% 6% 5% 4% 45% 39% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 8% 75% 81% 45% 39% FY 27 87% 76% 76% 63% FY 28 86% 68% 86% 75% FY 29 92% 75% FY 21 78% 8% 83% FY 6-1 Change 4% 17% 19% 6% 17% 33% -2% 44% 46

49 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Garrett County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 92% 92% 87% 88% 87% 85% 9% 85% 82% 75% 7% 63% 6% 5% 5% 5% 4% 3% 33% 25% 28% 39% 38% 2% 17% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 92% 88% 33% 82% 75% FY 27 92% 87% 17% 5% FY 28 85% 25% 38% FY 29 9% 28% FY 21 87% 85% 39% 63% 5% FY 6-1 Change -5% 6% % % -1% 6% -19% -25% 47

50 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Harford County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 72% 72% 68% 71% 7% 67% 85% 7% 79% 65% 75% 71% 73% 89% 81% 89% 82% 9% 76% 9% 8% 83% 89% 9% 9% 84% 79% 6% 58% 5% 45% 48% 4% 3% 2% 2% 36% 3% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 72% 67% 65% 81% 76% 45% 58% FY 27 72% 85% 75% 89% 9% 9% 2% FY 28 68% 7% 71% 82% 8% 9% 48% FY 29 71% 79% 73% 9% 83% 84% 36% FY 21 7% 89% 89% 79% 3% FY 6-1 Change -2% 24% 24% 17% 13% 34% % -28% 48

51 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Howard County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 88% 87% 86% 87% 86% 9% 89% 71% 78% 83% 87% 88% 89% 6% 58% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 88% 87% 71% 88% 58% % FY 27 87% 86% 78% FY 28 86% 9% 83% 89% FY 29 87% FY 21 89% FY 6-1 Change 5% 2% 23% 7% 11% 42% % 49 %

52 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Kent County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 N/A NA FY 27 8% N/A NA FY 28 NA N/A FY 29 2% N/A FY 21 N/A N/A FY 6-1 Change 2% 2% 2% % -2% % N/A N/A 5

53 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Montgomery County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 6% 9% 89% 86% 92% 9% 92% 7% 61% 8% 69% 81% 77% 88% 9% 81% 56% 61% 82% 5% 4% 42% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 9% 7% 77% 56% FY 27 89% 92% 61% 88% 42% FY 28 86% 9% 8% 9% 61% FY 29 92% 69% 81% FY 21 81% 82% FY 6-1 Change 5% 2% 2% 1% -4% 11% 2% 26% 51

54 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Prince George s County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 88% 84% 86% 78% 76% 82% 86% 92% 76% 7% 67% 6% 56% 5% 48% 4% 35% 3% 2% 1% 13% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 88% 78% 48% FY 27 76% 76% FY 28 82% 56% FY 29 84% 86% 13% FY 21 86% 67% 92% 35% FY 6-1 Change 3% -2% -11% -6% % -8% -1% -13% 52

55 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Queen Anne s County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 92% 8% 67% 6% 5% 4% 43% 3% 25% 2% 17% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 8% FY 27 25% FY 28 92% % FY 29 67% 43% FY 21 17% N/A FY 6-1 Change 2% % 3% % 4% -63% % N/A 53 %

56 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Somerset County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 74% 92% 69% 5% 89% 63% 65% 53% 6% 67% 67% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 69% 6% FY 27 5% 63% 67% FY 28 65% % FY 29 74% 89% FY 21 92% 53% 67% FY 6-1 Change % -1% % % -1% -16% % 7% 54 %

57 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years St. Mary s County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 92% 9% 92% 83% 88% 88% 9% 85% 88% 88% 8% 7% 6% 53% 7% 74% 6% 5% 4% 4% 43% 33% 3% 2% 22% 25% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 92% 92% 83% 53% 6% FY 27 88% 7% NA 22% FY 28 88% 4% NA 43% FY 29 9% 85% 5 74% 25% FY 21 9% 88% 88% 33% FY 6-1 Change -2% 1% 8% 3% -8% 35% % -27% 5 Revised figure based on additional data quality review by St. Mary s County court personnel in July 21 (originally 75% within-standard in FY 29). 55

58 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Talbot County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 92% 8% 7% 63% 63% 6% 5% 5% 4% 3% 2% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 63% FY 27 FY 28 2% FY 29 5% 8% FY 21 92% 63% % FY 6-1 Change -3% -3% % 1% -4% % % - 56 %

59 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Washington County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 8% 87% 75% 85% 75% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 75% FY 27 8% FY 28 87% FY 29 75% FY 21 85% FY 6-1 Change -4% 1% 4% % -1% -11% -3% 25% 57

60 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Wicomico County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 77% 88% 75% 83% 86% 75% 7% 6% 67% 6% 5% 4% 38% 3% 25% 2% 1% 13% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 77% N/A 38% FY 27 N/A 25% FY 28 88% 6% 13% FY 29 67% N/A 86% FY 21 75% 83% 75% FY 6-1 Change 1% 1% % % 1% -2% N/A 37% 58

61 Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years Worcester County (Unweighted) FY 26 FY 27 FY 28 FY 29 FY 21 9% 8% 7% 6% 79% 87% 63% 63% 64% 61% 7% 84% 8% 82% 63% 82% 75% 5% 4% 3% 43% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non-Shelter Term. Parental Rights Criminal Civil DR 365 Days DR 73 Days Juvenile CINA Shelter CINA Non- Shelter Term. Parental Rights FY 26 79% 87% 63% 61% 4% FY 27 63% 7% 63% FY 28 43% 84% 82% FY 29 64% 8% 3% FY 21 82% 75% FY 6-1 Change 4% 18% 12% 3% % 37% 21% 35% 59

62 Maryland Judiciary FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment District Court Administrative Office of the Courts April 211