Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions
In recent years, court systems in the U.S. and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for court resources. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many ju...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law
2016-10-01
|
| Series: | Oñati Socio-Legal Series |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/824 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850158970436583424 |
|---|---|
| author | Matthew Kleiman Cynthia G. Lee Brian J. Ostrom Richard Y. Schauffler |
| author_facet | Matthew Kleiman Cynthia G. Lee Brian J. Ostrom Richard Y. Schauffler |
| author_sort | Matthew Kleiman |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
In recent years, court systems in the U.S. and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for court resources. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many judges are needed to handle the work in a particular jurisdiction, how judicial resources can be equitably allocated, and how much work any particular judge should handle. This article provides a general introduction to the basic elements and applications of the methodology in both nascent and transitional democracies, assesses the pros and cons of alternative methods (Delphi vs. time study) for developing case weighting systems, and profiles the usage of case weighting systems by three court systems (Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbia, and Kosovo). The article concludes with a set of practical findings regarding the development and implementation of a case weighting system.
En los últimos años, los sistemas judiciales de EEUU y otros países han comenzado a adoptar métodos objetivos y empíricos para determinar la necesidad de recursos judiciales. Esta metodología, llamada evaluación de la carga de trabajo o carga de trabajo ponderada, proporciona una base empírica para medir el trabajo judicial y valorar cuántos jueces hacen falta para desempeñar el trabajo en una jurisdicción concreta, cómo se pueden administrar los recursos judiciales de forma equitativa y cuánto trabajo debería encomendarse a cada juez. Este artículo proporciona una introducción general a los elementos y aplicaciones básicos de la metodología tanto en democracias nacientes como en aquellas transicionales, sopesa los pro y los contra que presentan métodos alternativos (Delphi, estudio del tiempo) para desarrollar sistemas de ponderación del trabajo, y realiza un perfil del uso de sistemas de ponderación del trabajo en tres sistemas judicales (Bosnia y Herzegovina, la República de Serbia y Kosovo). El artículo concluye con un cúmulo de hallazgos prácticos referidos al desarrollo e implementación de un sistema de ponderación del trabajo.
DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3047725
|
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-0d8cacf3eee644e4993b71a28d8e5399 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2079-5971 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2016-10-01 |
| publisher | Oñati International Institute for the Sociology of Law |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Oñati Socio-Legal Series |
| spelling | doaj-art-0d8cacf3eee644e4993b71a28d8e53992025-08-20T02:23:44ZengOñati International Institute for the Sociology of LawOñati Socio-Legal Series2079-59712016-10-0174694Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future DirectionsMatthew Kleiman0Cynthia G. Lee1Brian J. Ostrom2Richard Y. Schauffler3National Center for State CourtsNational Center for State CourtsNational Center for State CourtsNational Center for State Courts In recent years, court systems in the U.S. and abroad have begun to adopt objective, empirically based methods for determining the need for court resources. This methodology, called workload assessment or weighted caseload, provides an empirical basis to measure judicial work and assess how many judges are needed to handle the work in a particular jurisdiction, how judicial resources can be equitably allocated, and how much work any particular judge should handle. This article provides a general introduction to the basic elements and applications of the methodology in both nascent and transitional democracies, assesses the pros and cons of alternative methods (Delphi vs. time study) for developing case weighting systems, and profiles the usage of case weighting systems by three court systems (Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Serbia, and Kosovo). The article concludes with a set of practical findings regarding the development and implementation of a case weighting system. En los últimos años, los sistemas judiciales de EEUU y otros países han comenzado a adoptar métodos objetivos y empíricos para determinar la necesidad de recursos judiciales. Esta metodología, llamada evaluación de la carga de trabajo o carga de trabajo ponderada, proporciona una base empírica para medir el trabajo judicial y valorar cuántos jueces hacen falta para desempeñar el trabajo en una jurisdicción concreta, cómo se pueden administrar los recursos judiciales de forma equitativa y cuánto trabajo debería encomendarse a cada juez. Este artículo proporciona una introducción general a los elementos y aplicaciones básicos de la metodología tanto en democracias nacientes como en aquellas transicionales, sopesa los pro y los contra que presentan métodos alternativos (Delphi, estudio del tiempo) para desarrollar sistemas de ponderación del trabajo, y realiza un perfil del uso de sistemas de ponderación del trabajo en tres sistemas judicales (Bosnia y Herzegovina, la República de Serbia y Kosovo). El artículo concluye con un cúmulo de hallazgos prácticos referidos al desarrollo e implementación de un sistema de ponderación del trabajo. DOWNLOAD THIS PAPER FROM SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3047725 https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/824Workload assessmentcase weighting systemsweighted caseloadcourt management |
| spellingShingle | Matthew Kleiman Cynthia G. Lee Brian J. Ostrom Richard Y. Schauffler Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions Oñati Socio-Legal Series Workload assessment case weighting systems weighted caseload court management |
| title | Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions |
| title_full | Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions |
| title_fullStr | Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions |
| title_full_unstemmed | Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions |
| title_short | Case Weighting as a Common Yardstick: A Comparative Review of Current Uses and Future Directions |
| title_sort | case weighting as a common yardstick a comparative review of current uses and future directions |
| topic | Workload assessment case weighting systems weighted caseload court management |
| url | https://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/824 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT matthewkleiman caseweightingasacommonyardstickacomparativereviewofcurrentusesandfuturedirections AT cynthiaglee caseweightingasacommonyardstickacomparativereviewofcurrentusesandfuturedirections AT brianjostrom caseweightingasacommonyardstickacomparativereviewofcurrentusesandfuturedirections AT richardyschauffler caseweightingasacommonyardstickacomparativereviewofcurrentusesandfuturedirections |