The Waiting Game: How Lengthy Court Case Processing Times Keep Jail Populations High
By Douglas Evans, Senior Research Associate
The timely resolution of court cases is a responsibility of the court system. But many criminal courts struggle to resolve cases in reasonable timeframes, with case processing times increasing even when court filings decrease. Lengthy case processing can have devastating effects on individuals, families, and communities, as well as on efforts to make criminal legal system more effective and efficient—despite decreased jail admissions, high processing times can mitigate efforts to reduce jail populations.
Whether or not a person is ever found guilty, defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. But despite this right, some of those detained pretrial spend months in jail awaiting the resolution of their case, highlighting systemic delays that undermine timely justice.
Lengthy court case processing times can have detrimental effects on anyone charged with a crime. Those detained in jail pretrial before their case is decided can remain incarcerated for months or longer awaiting resolution. Short periods in jail can disrupt employment, housing stability, and family dynamics, while prolonged detentions often instigate even bigger financial difficulties, exacerbate mental health consequences, and increase the likelihood of guilty pleas. Even people on pretrial release still face uncertainty, stress, anxiety, and potential interference to their employment, housing, and relationships.
With a goal to safely reduce jail populations, increase equity, and protect public safety, the MacArthur Foundation’s Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC) has supported dozens of cities, counties, and states across the country develop and operationalize tailored strategies over the last decade. Since its inception, the SJC has collectively reduced jail populations by 18 percent in a combined 26 jurisdictions without compromising community safety. That means more than 14,000 fewer people held in jails without causing an increase in crime—including violent crime.
However, the average daily population (ADP) of jails remains stubbornly high in many SJC jurisdictions despite reductions in the volume of jail bookings. This suggests that these jails’ ADP is driven largely by average length of stay—the duration of time that individuals are detained in jails—and less so by admissions. Court case processing time is one measure that provides deeper insights into ADP fluctuations.
As part of our role as the lead SJC data and analytic partner, CUNY ISLG recently released a report examining court case processing times in criminal courts in 10 SJC jurisdictions. The report takes a close look at these data and what it shows about how case processing times affect lengths of stay in jail and how this might impact jail populations—including as it relates to ADP. The analysis, which includes detailed case-level data collected by CUNY ISLG annually from 2016 to 2024, shows that court case processing times increased for both felony and misdemeanor cases despite overall decreases in case filings. Average time to disposition increased considerably during the pandemic, and, by the end of the analysis period, remained more than 50 percent higher for felony cases and 75 percent higher for misdemeanor cases relative to the initial analysis period.
Factors that Affect Court Case Processing Times
Court case processing times are affected by structural, administrative, and procedural factors, which can collectively make delays difficult to reduce. High case volumes often overwhelm court systems, outpacing the availability of judges, staff, and resources in underfunded jurisdictions. Practical constraints, including judicial dockets, ensuring access to attorneys, and accessibility of witnesses, can also slow case progression. Additionally, procedural inefficiencies—case backlogs, prolonged pretrial hearings, and excessive continuances—frequently extend case processing times. The manner in which cases are resolved affects processing time, with trials lasting longer than plea negotiations and dismissals.
Processing times are not just a bureaucratic reality; they are rooted in complex financial, political, and administrative decisions. For instance, an underfunded court may lack staff, technology, and space, which could increase processing times. Courts may prioritize certain types of cases that align with the priorities of elected officials, in turn delaying other types of cases. The adversarial nature of the legal process may require lengthy negotiations, numerous hearings, and a prolonged discovery process that can result in court delays and extended case processing time. Ensuring due process protections—such as access to counsel, hearings to request bail, and pretrial motions—can contribute to case processing time but are necessary to uphold due process.
These cumulative decisions and protections result in processing delays that disproportionately harms individuals detained in jail pretrial.
SJC Sites Innovate Ways to Tackle Case Processing Times
Through an array of different strategies ranging from diversion/deflection to risk assessments, many SJC jurisdictions implement strategies to reduce jail admissions; despite these successes, lengthy case processing times keep the size of jail populations high. Those detained pretrial comprise the majority of people held in most jails, impacting trends in ADP. And since jail populations are a product of admissions and length of stay, policies aimed only at reducing jail bookings are not sufficient to reduce jail populations if prolonged case processing times are not addressed.
To address this, SJC jurisdictions have enacted a variety of strategies to address case administrative inefficiencies and shorten case processing times. These have ranged from establishing protocols that encourage faster resolution of probation violation cases, reviews of those with long stays in the jail, and strategies intended to expedite case processing.
Looking across sites, these strategies have ranged to reflect the different needs of each locality. Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, temporarily opened a night court to handle the high volume of cases that entered the criminal court system as pandemic restrictions subsided. Pennington County, South Dakota, opened a low-level offense court to handle simpler cases and free up resources for courts to process more severe and complex cases. Charleston, South Carolina, and Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, established initial appearance courts, which expedited the booking process and considerably shortened booking times and by extension, stays in jail.
Timely resolution of court cases is a fundamental responsibility of the legal system that not only has implications for jail populations but also for the administration of justice. Reducing case processing times requires data transparency, collective accountability among court actors, and political will. As CUNY ISLG’s analysis of court case processing times and the work of SJC partners shows, achieving equitable case processing times is essential to upholding justice and fairness, restricting unnecessary incarceration, and sustaining the legitimacy of the legal process.