The common pleas courts of Pennsylvania's 67 counties are sufficiently staffed with judges, a report released by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has found.

The Pennsylvania Common Pleas Judicial Needs Assessment was commenced in 2015 to examine whether the county benches were correctly sized to their needs. The study was performed by the independent National Center for State Courts and was funded through federal grants. It is the first part of an ongoing year-to-year analysis of the state's judicial system.

A report detailing the results of the study stated that the findings were only a “snapshot” of the overall picture, and that while judicial staffing is on par for each county's individual caseload, “By itself, the measure is limited because it does not account for the influence local practices, customs and other unique circumstances have on a judicial district's ability to meet its judicial workload, such as the relative tenure of judges, where experience affects efficiency.” (Click here to download an infographic from the courts highlighting key takeaways from the report.)

The report showed each county's utilization rate, which “represents the level at which judges in each judicial district are currently working based on expected workload produced in the need model.” The need model is used to determine staffing needs, and by extension, resource allocation. A higher utilization rate means judges need more help in clearing their dockets, whereas a lower rate means judges are less burdened.

But the study was not limited solely to judges, as quasi-judicial officers' work was also taken into account. Quasi-judicial officers include law clerks, hearing officers, masters and other professionals who are noncommissioned judges working toward keeping the dockets moving.

Particularly, the report noted the impact of quasi-judicial officers on boosting efficiency, and suggested court leadership could make use of the data to justify their funding.

“President judges can use the data to demonstrate the value of funding quasi-judicial officials to offset a higher utilization rate, and ease some of the workload burden on the commissioned judges, noting that this cannot fully replace the work of a common pleas judge,” the report said.

The NCCS study had been in the planning stages since 2014. Then-state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille expressed the need to clear case backlogs clogging up several county court systems.

“We want to evaluate the time that it takes on average [for the judges to handle cases], and see if we can create a matrix to assess the need for more or fewer common pleas judges,” Castille said in January 2014. “It'll be answering [the legislature's] questions to us about the number of common pleas court judgeships in the state, and it's up to the legislature if they want to eliminate or add.”

He added that judgeships have historically only been created for political reasons, without regard to meeting the needs of the judiciary. However, after the “right-sizing” efforts resulted in a significant reduction of magisterial district judges in recent years, members of the legislature began asking about whether similar efforts could be undertaken at the common pleas level, Castille said. Those conversations, he had said, spurred the decision to assess the trial courts' statewide caseload and economic needs.

The common pleas courts of Pennsylvania's 67 counties are sufficiently staffed with judges, a report released by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts has found.

The Pennsylvania Common Pleas Judicial Needs Assessment was commenced in 2015 to examine whether the county benches were correctly sized to their needs. The study was performed by the independent National Center for State Courts and was funded through federal grants. It is the first part of an ongoing year-to-year analysis of the state's judicial system.

A report detailing the results of the study stated that the findings were only a “snapshot” of the overall picture, and that while judicial staffing is on par for each county's individual caseload, “By itself, the measure is limited because it does not account for the influence local practices, customs and other unique circumstances have on a judicial district's ability to meet its judicial workload, such as the relative tenure of judges, where experience affects efficiency.” (Click here to download an infographic from the courts highlighting key takeaways from the report.)

The report showed each county's utilization rate, which “represents the level at which judges in each judicial district are currently working based on expected workload produced in the need model.” The need model is used to determine staffing needs, and by extension, resource allocation. A higher utilization rate means judges need more help in clearing their dockets, whereas a lower rate means judges are less burdened.

But the study was not limited solely to judges, as quasi-judicial officers' work was also taken into account. Quasi-judicial officers include law clerks, hearing officers, masters and other professionals who are noncommissioned judges working toward keeping the dockets moving.

Particularly, the report noted the impact of quasi-judicial officers on boosting efficiency, and suggested court leadership could make use of the data to justify their funding.

“President judges can use the data to demonstrate the value of funding quasi-judicial officials to offset a higher utilization rate, and ease some of the workload burden on the commissioned judges, noting that this cannot fully replace the work of a common pleas judge,” the report said.

The NCCS study had been in the planning stages since 2014. Then-state Supreme Court Chief Justice Ronald D. Castille expressed the need to clear case backlogs clogging up several county court systems.

“We want to evaluate the time that it takes on average [for the judges to handle cases], and see if we can create a matrix to assess the need for more or fewer common pleas judges,” Castille said in January 2014. “It'll be answering [the legislature's] questions to us about the number of common pleas court judgeships in the state, and it's up to the legislature if they want to eliminate or add.”

He added that judgeships have historically only been created for political reasons, without regard to meeting the needs of the judiciary. However, after the “right-sizing” efforts resulted in a significant reduction of magisterial district judges in recent years, members of the legislature began asking about whether similar efforts could be undertaken at the common pleas level, Castille said. Those conversations, he had said, spurred the decision to assess the trial courts' statewide caseload and economic needs.