Maryland Judiciary FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Administrative Office of the Courts April 211
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 21...34
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 21. 2 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
in foreclosure mediation conducted by the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) that went into effect at the beginning of Fiscal Year 211. 3 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 497 433 87% 9% -3% TPR 18 days 547 275 55% 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
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
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 97 67 3 9 288 244 75 279 211 132 625 176 211 173 1,267 176 43 36 196 43 48 24 95 49 42 33 87 4 224 119 37 252 *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
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 76 55 243 73 257 236 671 24 142 112 499 114 142 134 1,94 114 36 35 151 36 28 26 71 29 38 32 84 36 187 126 34 226 *Percentages of cases closed within the Time Standards are weighted averages of jurisdiction-specific statistics. 6
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
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 1 916 3% 26 cases 14% 124 cases 4.1 months Domestic Relations, 73 days Standard 2 172 <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 423 26% 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
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
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 1,558 449 29% 33% 448 > 1 <1% CINA Non- Shelter 497 218 44% 31% 211 7 3% TPR 547 294 54% 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
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 1,789 459 (4%) 462 326 (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 1,558 14 (<1%) 19 2 (11%) 17 (89%) CINA Non- Shelter 497 3 (<1%) 4 1 (25%) 3 (75%) TPR 547 5 (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
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
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 1,75 123 12 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
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, (%)* 426 292 (69%) 134 (31%) 15 14 () 1 (7%) 6 6 () (%) Military Leave 3 2 (67%) 1 (33%) FTA 1 11 11 () (%) FTA 2 1 1 () (%) 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 462 326 (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
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 1 168 165 () 3 (2%) FTA 2 23 22 () 1 (4%) FTA 3 1 (%) 1 () No Service in Child Support after 9 days Collaborative Law Total 1,83 987 () 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
Table 12. Suspension Data for Juvenile Delinquency Cases, Circuit Courts, FY 21 Suspension Event Total Suspensions N Valid Suspensions N, (%)* Invalid Suspensions N, (%)* FTA 1 474 448 () 26 (5%) FTA 2 5 46 (92%) 4 (8%) FTA 3 7 7 () (%) 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 49 47 () 2 (4%) 1 (5%) 1 (5%) (n/a) (n/a) 188 178 () 1 (5%) 7 (7%) 2 (2%) (%) 1 (1%) 239 219 (92%) 2 (8%) 1,3 949 (92%) 81 (8%) 13 119 (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
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
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
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
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 1 -- -- 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
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 57 199 215 779 136 445 136 N/A 29 N/A 26 47 36 N/A 197 291 Anne Arundel 79 24 255 664 183 492 183 N/A 38 19 24 43 9 N/A 117 N/A Baltimore City 116 345 32 784 236 975 236 2,178 5 274 57 117 113 144 243 3 Baltimore 42 76 448 731 88 251 278 756 3 765 3 1,36 43 146 36 54 County Calvert 99 313 338 775 196 572 196 1,175 48 158 46 52 44 N/A 34 34 Caroline 14 251 311 734 24 1,84 24 4,823 14 266 34 49 2 N/A 782 2,375 Carroll 15 269 215 819 166 467 166 1,16 8 864 32 45 48 91 65 N/A Cecil 89 272 218 71 145 443 145 N/A 47 138 29 49 1 N/A 153 226 Charles 126 415 3 754 28 52 28 97 28 93 25 N/A 19 N/A 141 N/A Dorchester 13 29 189 658 133 436 133 N/A 27 97 23 N/A 14 N/A 144 N/A Frederick 72 233 246 634 167 449 167 745 35 115 27 46 38 91 165 436 Garrett 118 386 259 767 147 1,747 147 6,763 44 147 5 69 63 125 281 463 Harford 169 345 268 721 167 616 167 1,42 54 13 3 46 23 N/A 3 381 Howard 9 28 287 715 174 546 174 1,919 4 211 22 N/A 23 N/A 84 N/A Kent 11 193 221 62 127 435 127 N/A 35 113 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montgomery 8 263 239 688 146 481 146 731 46 117 26 47 4 82 15 255 Prince George s 75 356 354 69 328 642 328 1,48 32 97 27 51 4 69 264 326 Queen Anne s 73 229 178 587 124 445 124 N/A 27 N/A 42 45 3 N/A N/A N/A Somerset 118 38 185 644 94 455 94 766 49 317 44 69 27 N/A 188 311 St. Mary s 11 279 287 82 166 628 166 951 57 188 27 46 44 N/A 359 481 Talbot 14 218 25 699 164 491 164 822 45 167 39 54 2 N/A 321 321 Washington 89 258 243 737 122 469 122 84 17 97 28 49 31 72 85 N/A Wicomico 11 188 216 731 115 424 115 N/A 28 118 28 49 5 182 183 324 Worcester 72 237 262 2,276 115 45 115 N/A 2 126 22 N/A 38 79 177 244 Statewide 97 3 288 75 211 625 211 1,267 43 196 48 95 42 87 224 37 TPR 21
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 57 199 215 779 136 445 136 N/A* 29 N/A 26 47 36 N/A 197 291 Calvert 99 313 338 775 196 572 196 1,175 48 158 46 52 44 N/A 34 34 Caroline 14 251 311 734 24 1,84 24 4,823 14 266 34 49 2 N/A 782 2,375 Dorchester 13 29 189 658 133 436 133 N/A 27 97 23 N/A 14 N/A 144 N/A Garrett 118 386 259 767 147 1,747 147 6,763 44 147 5 69 63 125 281 463 Kent 11 193 221 62 127 435 127 N/A 35 113 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Queen Anne s 73 229 178 587 124 445 124 N/A 27 N/A 42 45 3 N/A N/A N/A Somerset 118 38 185 644 94 455 94 766 49 317 44 69 27 N/A 188 311 Talbot 14 218 25 699 164 491 164 822 45 167 39 54 2 N/A 321 321 Small, Overall 94 255 242 78 152 635 152 2,63 44 172 39 55 34 125 321 684 Medium Carroll 15 269 215 819 166 467 166 1,16 8 864 32 45 48 91 65 N/A Cecil 89 272 218 71 145 443 145 N/A 47 138 29 49 1 N/A 153 226 Charles 126 415 3 754 28 52 28 97 28 93 25 N/A 19 N/A 141 N/A Frederick 72 233 246 634 167 449 167 745 35 115 27 46 38 91 165 436 Harford 169 345 268 721 167 616 167 1,42 54 13 3 46 23 N/A 3 381 Howard 9 28 287 715 174 546 174 1,919 4 211 22 N/A 23 N/A 84 N/A St. Mary s 11 279 287 82 166 628 166 951 57 188 27 46 44 N/A 359 481 Washington 89 258 243 737 122 469 122 84 17 97 28 49 31 72 85 N/A Wicomico 11 188 216 731 115 424 115 N/A 28 118 28 49 5 182 183 324 Worcester 72 237 262 2,276 115 45 115 N/A 2 126 22 N/A 38 79 177 244 Medium, Overall 15 279 257 833 157 58 157 1,72 39 193 28 47 32 9 166 37 Large Anne Arundel 79 24 255 664 183 492 183 N/A* 38 19 24 43 9 N/A 117 N/A Baltimore City 116 345 32 784 236 975 236 2,178 5 274 57 117 113 144 243 3 Baltimore County 88 251 278 756 3 765 3 1,36 43 146 36 54 42 76 448 731 Montgomery 8 263 239 688 146 481 146 731 46 117 26 47 4 82 15 255 Prince George s 75 356 354 69 328 642 328 1,48 32 97 27 51 4 69 264 326 Large, Overall 94 313 32 728 245 68 245 1,237 45 198 51 14 49 85 231 342 Statewide 97 3 288 75 211 625 211 1,267 43 196 48 95 42 87 224 37 22
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 5 197 19 696 99 433 99 N/A 28 N/A 25 49 36 N/A 159 35 Anne Arundel 73 218 245 615 168 489 168 N/A 36 126 25 43 3 N/A 115 N/A Baltimore City 7 267 276 749 9 522 9 1,283 4 221 28 83 98 115 222 27 Baltimore County 76 236 234 73 175 697 175 938 36 11 28 47 42 76 211 36 Calvert 87 264 276 77 127 471 127 1,5 36 111 32 37 47 N/A 34 34 Caroline 111 21 278 66 119 465 119 4,69 56 226 28 49 18 N/A 175 2,375 Carroll 9 236 188 664 134 424 134 1,16 35 132 27 43 41 91 62 N/A Cecil 56 259 165 624 124 421 124 N/A 36 15 28 47 1 N/A 148 228 Charles 117 271 271 658 169 459 169 91 26 93 27 N/A 24 N/A 142 N/A Dorchester 17 211 175 658 125 393 125 N/A 22 97 22 N/A 12 N/A 152 N/A Frederick 65 213 249 583 134 48 134 745 29 99 27 48 32 91 138 436 Garrett 83 456 212 756 111 487 111 6,763 3 125 36 84 31 125 22 463 Harford 17 289 241 697 16 57 16 1,54 43 11 28 39 27 N/A 272 334 Howard 84 246 251 639 136 43 136 1,919 36 119 24 N/A 28 N/A 76 N/A Kent 13 193 188 593 9 48 9 N/A 33 113 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Montgomery 66 245 219 63 16 454 16 731 5 117 26 43 38 82 152 29 Prince George s 71 222 331 646 24 529 24 979 28 97 26 36 38 69 216 241 Queen Anne s 7 229 161 591 11 393 11 N/A 22 N/A 4 42 42 N/A N/A N/A Somerset 16 226 147 65 65 435 65 766 28 336 28 68 22 N/A 126 311 St. Mary s 1 252 244 668 114 545 114 916 37 148 28 49 44 N/A 345 422 Talbot 16 211 221 646 128 441 128 822 35 127 3 58 22 N/A 33 33 Washington 79 236 26 719 9 397 9 84 14 97 28 49 29 72 81 N/A Wicomico 98 188 23 645 9 47 9 N/A 25 118 21 49 29 182 146 324 Worcester 63 222 23 672 9 393 9 N/A 13 126 21 N/A 34 77 178 244 Statewide 76 243 257 671 142 499 142 1,94 36 151 28 71 38 84 187 34 23
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 5 197 19 696 99 433 99 N/A 28 N/A 25 49 36 N/A 159 35 Calvert 87 264 276 77 127 471 127 1,5 36 111 32 37 47 N/A 34 34 Caroline 111 21 278 66 119 465 119 4,69 56 226 28 49 18 N/A 175 2,375 Dorchester 17 211 175 658 125 393 125 N/A 22 97 22 N/A 12 N/A 152 N/A Garrett 83 456 212 756 111 487 111 6,763 3 125 36 84 31 125 22 463 Kent 13 193 188 593 9 48 9 N/A 33 113 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Queen Anne s 7 229 161 591 11 393 11 N/A 22 N/A 4 42 42 N/A N/A N/A Somerset 16 226 147 65 65 435 65 766 28 336 28 68 22 N/A 126 311 Talbot 16 211 221 646 128 441 128 822 35 127 3 58 22 N/A 33 33 Small, Overall 9 23 28 676 19 438 19 2,539 32 147 3 56 27 125 2 691 Medium Carroll 9 236 188 664 134 424 134 1,16 35 132 27 43 41 91 62 N/A Cecil 56 259 165 624 124 421 124 N/A 36 15 28 47 1 N/A 148 228 Charles 117 271 271 658 169 459 169 91 26 93 27 N/A 24 N/A 142 N/A Frederick 65 213 249 583 134 48 134 745 29 99 27 48 32 91 138 436 Harford 17 289 241 697 16 57 16 1,54 43 11 28 39 27 N/A 272 334 Howard 84 246 251 639 136 43 136 1,919 36 119 24 N/A 28 N/A 76 N/A St. Mary s 1 252 244 668 114 545 114 916 37 148 28 49 44 N/A 345 422 Washington 79 236 26 719 9 397 9 84 14 97 28 49 29 72 81 N/A Wicomico 98 188 23 645 9 47 9 N/A 25 118 21 49 29 182 146 324 Worcester 63 222 23 672 9 393 9 N/A 13 126 21 N/A 34 77 178 244 Medium, Overall 84 245 228 653 119 441 119 1,71 3 111 27 45 29 9 154 343 Large Anne Arundel 73 218 245 615 168 489 168 N/A 36 126 25 43 3 N/A 115 N/A Baltimore City 7 267 276 749 9 522 9 1,283 4 221 28 83 98 115 222 27 Baltimore 42 76 211 36 76 236 234 73 175 697 175 938 36 11 28 47 County Montgomery 66 245 219 63 16 454 16 731 5 117 26 43 38 82 152 29 Prince George s 71 222 331 646 24 529 24 979 28 97 26 36 38 69 216 241 Large, Overall 71 244 27 677 158 536 158 98 38 161 28 75 45 81 195 264 Statewide 76 243 257 671 142 499 142 1,94 36 151 28 71 38 84 187 34 24
Appendix B FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Statewide Distribution of Over-Standard Cases 25
Figure B-1. Distribution of Over-Standard Criminal Cases (N=75) by the Time beyond the 18-Day Time Standard, FY 21 2 18 185 16 146 Number of cases 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 12 68 42 49 33 18 24 2 1 9 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 >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
Figure B-2. Distribution of Over-Standard Civil Cases (N=677) by the Time beyond the 548-Day Time Standard, FY 21 12 113 1 9 Number of cases 8 6 4 2 73 63 39 38 36 29 28 32 22 2 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2-3 3+ years years 17 7 6 Time over standard (in months) 2 1 6 2 3 5 2 13 12 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
Figure B-3. Distribution of Over-Standard Domestic Relations Cases (N=916) by the Time beyond the 365-Day Time Standard, FY 21 14 12 124 128 127 Number of cases 1 8 6 73 66 55 4 2 34 22 25 37 24 32 24 25 15 13 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2-3 >3 years years 11 8 12 7 11 11 Time over standard (in months) 8 2 9 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
Figure B-4. Distribution of Over-Standard Domestic Relations Cases (N=172) by the Time beyond the 73-Day Time Standard, FY 21 25 21 2 Number of cases 15 1 14 11 11 12 8 13 1 8 1 7 8 12 5 3 3 2 4 2 3 2 1 2 1 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 2-3 3+ 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
Figure B-5. Distribution of Over-Standard Juvenile Delinquency Cases (N=245) by the Time beyond the 9-Day Time Standard, FY 21 6 5 5 Number of cases 4 3 2 31 22 1 1 2 3 15 4 5 15 12 6 7 8 8 5 9 4 1 12 9 6 5 4 2 4 3 2 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Time over standard (in weeks) 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 7-9 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
Figure B-6. Distribution of Over-Standard CINA Shelter Cases (N=423) by the Time beyond the 3-Day Time Standard, FY 21 12 1 11 Number of cases 8 6 53 59 4 3 33 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 16 7 14 8 2 9 5 1 1 11 2 12 13 18 8 7 6 5 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 14 15 16 17 Time over standard (in weeks) 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 7-9 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
Figure B-7. Distribution of Over-Standard CINA Non-Shelter Cases (N=64) by the Time beyond the 6-Day Time Standard, FY 21 16 14 14 12 Number of cases 1 8 6 8 9 6 4 4 2 1 2 3 4 2 5 3 6 7 8 3 9 1 1 11 2 12 2 2 1 1 1 1 13 14 15 16 17 Time over standard (in weeks) 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 1 25 2 26 7-9 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
Figure B-8. Distribution of Over-Standard Termination of Parental Rights Cases (N=272) by the Time beyond the 18-Day Time Standard, FY 21 5 45 45 4 39 4 Number of cases 35 3 25 2 24 29 16 18 23 15 1 5 12 9 9 6 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 > 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
Appendix C FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment Circuit Courts Percent of Cases Terminated Within-Standard, by Jurisdiction Fiscal Years 26 through 21 34
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 21. 35
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 % %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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 %
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Percent of Cases Terminated within Standard by Case Type, Fiscal Years 26-21 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
Maryland Judiciary FY 21 Statewide Caseflow Assessment District Court Administrative Office of the Courts April 211