RAND » Reports and Bookstore » Monograph Reports » MR-800 » 6. Effects of the CJRA Pilot Program as a Package

6. Effects of the CJRA Pilot Program as a Package

What was the effect of requiring pilot districts to adopt the package of broadly defined case management principles?

We conclude that the CJRA pilot program, as the package was implemented, had little effect on time to disposition, costs, or attorneys' satisfaction or views of fairness.

We based this assessment on statistical analysis of cases in pilot and comparison districts, on the results of judicial time studies, and on our survey of judges about how they managed cases before and after CJRA.

Statistical Analysis of Cases in Pilot and Comparison Districts

In 1991, before the pilot program was implemented, we detected no significant difference between pilot and comparison district cases in time to disposition, lawyer work hours, satisfaction, or views of fairness.

In 1992-93, after the pilot program was implemented but before eight of the comparison districts had implemented their CJRA plans, we still found no significant difference between pilot and comparison district cases in time to disposition, lawyer work hours, satisfaction, or views of fairness.

Figures 3 and 4 illustrate these findings.

Figure 3--Pilot Program Had No Significant Effects: Time and Cost

Figure 4--Pilot Program Had No Significant Effects: Satisfaction and Views of Fairness

Figure 3 shows median months to disposition and median lawyer work hours. In neither case was there a statistically significant difference between the pilot and comparison districts. Figure 4 shows a similar pattern of results for participants' satisfaction and views of fairness.

We believe there are at least four reasons why we did not see a significant difference between pilot and comparison districts after the pilot program was implemented.

Some pilot districts' plans, as implemented, did not result in any major change in case management.
Some pilot districts' plans that resulted in major change in management at the case level did not apply that change to a large percentage of cases within the district.
Some changes that were more widely implemented (such as early mandatory disclosure of information) did not significantly affect time, cost, satisfaction, or views of fairness.
Some case management practices identified as significant predictors of effects are implemented not at the district level, but at the case level, and there is much variation in case management among judges in both the pilot and comparison districts.

Results of Judicial Time Study

One concern raised about implementing new case management policies is that benefits such as faster time to disposition may come at the cost of increased time spent by judicial officers. To determine if the judicial case management principles and techniques of the Civil Justice Reform Act increased the amount of judicial time spent on civil cases, we conducted a "judicial time study" of time spent on the cases in our samples of 1992-93 civil filings and compared the results with data from the judicial time study conducted by the Federal Judicial Center in the late 1980s.

We found almost no difference in the time spent by judicial officers per civil case in 1992-93 when compared to 1989. The difference in the median time reported per civil case was only one minute; the difference in the mean was six minutes.

Survey of Judges About Case Management Approach

In the 1992-93 sample of cases, we surveyed the judge after case closure and received over 3,000 responses. One question concerned the difference in case management before and after CJRA: "Was there a difference in how you and any other judicial officer managed this case, compared to how you would have managed it if it had been disposed of prior to January 1, 1992?"

The vast majority of the judges (85 percent in pilot districts, 92 percent in comparison districts) answered "no difference."

Of the 15 percent of the pilot judges who did report a difference, about half said the new case management policies and procedures were better than those before CJRA and about half said they were about the same. None said the new policies were worse than before CJRA.

Effect of Public Reporting?

Although the pilot program has had no significant effects on time, cost, satisfaction, or views of fairness, there is some evidence that another part of the CJRA may have affected the number of cases pending more than three years in both pilot and comparison districts. The CJRA requires that "The Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts shall prepare a semiannual report, available to the public, that discloses for each judicial officer . . . the number and names of cases that have not been terminated within three years after filing." Since public reports on each judge were required, the total number of all civil cases pending has increased, but the number of cases pending more than three years has dropped by about 25 percent from its pre-CJRA level. Nationwide, about 6 percent of all terminations (excluding asbestos cases) are more than three years old. In the pilot and comparison districts, the percentage of terminated cases more than three years old has drifted downward since the passage of the CJRA from 6.8 percent in 1990 to 5.2 percent in 1995 (see Figure 5).