Research Brief
The Pace of Processing Justice
Exploring Case Processing in SJC Cities and Counties

Case processing delays have profound consequences for individuals awaiting trial, disposition, or sentencing—particularly for those detained in jail pretrial. This brief uses the data collected by CUNY ISLG to explore case processing time in 10 SJC jurisdictions to identify, assess, and scale best practices for timely case resolution, saving time, conserving resources, and—most importantly—maintaining a fair and efficient court system.

Introduction
Court operations—including how long it takes to process cases—directly affect whether individuals receive timely outcomes. Despite longstanding efforts to improve court efficiency, people standing trial in many American courts continue to experience significant case processing delays.

Courts play a central role in local criminal legal systems, shaping the experiences and outcomes of people who face legal charges. Court operations—including how long it takes to process cases—directly affect whether individuals receive timely outcomes. Despite longstanding efforts to improve court efficiency, people standing trial in many American courts continue to experience significant case processing delays driven by multiple factors, chief among them an overburdened judicial system in which case volumes often exceed the capacity of available judges and court resources needed to process them efficiently.

Additionally, continuances1 built into the adversarial process extend case processing times to accommodate attorney preparation time, witness unavailability, and other procedural needs. A 2020 national study of criminal court cases using 2016 court data found that the average case processing time was 256 days for felony cases and 193 days for misdemeanor cases, with wide variation in processing times 2 across courts. The COVID-19 pandemic further exacerbated case processing delays, as restrictions on in-person court proceedings slowed operations and nearly doubled the time required to adjudicate jury trials.3

Case processing delays have profound consequences for individuals awaiting trial, disposition, or sentencing—particularly for those detained in jail pretrial. Even short stays in pretrial detention can negatively affect employment, interfere with housing stability, strain family relationships,4 disrupt child custody,5 and increase the likelihood of pleading guilty.6 For individuals who remain in the community while awaiting trial or sentencing, lengthy legal proceedings can lead to pessimism, anxiety, and deteriorating mental health that worsens as case processing time increases.7 Court-imposed fines and fees, along with attorney costs, can create financial challenges,8 and the uncertainty about legal proceedings and outcomes can generate prolonged anxiety and stress. Even being charged criminally—regardless of the final disposition—can harm employment prospects and reduce future earnings.9 Collectively, these consequences underscore the need to analyze and identify opportunities to reduce court case processing time without jeopardizing due process.

The Safety and Justice Challenge (SJC), launched in 2015 by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation to reduce the overuse of jail, provides a unique opportunity to examine case processing times in jurisdictions nationwide. In addition to supporting the MacArthur Foundation in initiative oversight, monitoring progress, and identifying and disseminating lessons learned for the broader criminal justice field, the Institute for State and Local Governance at the City University of New York (CUNY ISLG) serves as the lead data and analytic partner of the SJC. For nearly a decade, CUNY ISLG10 has collected comprehensive legal system data from participating jurisdictions, comprising thousands of detailed court data files and more than 175 million records across jurisdictions that represent 14 percent of the U.S. population. CUNY ISLG’s data collection and management effort is part of a broader technical assistance and research initiative that both helps jurisdictions identify and implement strategies tailored to local jail population drivers identified through in-depth analysis and supports broader research for the field.

Continuance is a procedural tool to postpone, reschedule, or delay court proceedings until a later date, determined by court rules and granted by a judge.
Ostrom, B.J., Hamblin, L.E., Schauffler, R.Y., & Raaen, N. (2020). Timely Justice in Criminal Cases: What the Data Tells Us. National Center for State Courts. https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/53218/Timely-Justice-in-Criminal-Cases-What-the-Data-Tells-Us.pdf
Germano, R., Lau, T. & Garri, K. (2022). COVID-19 and the U.S. District Courts: An Empirical Investigation. Federal Judicial Center. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/materials/11/22-1109_2-COVID19_and_the_US_District_Courts.pdf
Bergen, T., Ropac, R., Randloph, I., & Joseph, H. (2022). The Initial Collateral Consequences of Pretrial Detention: Employment, Residential Stability, and Family Relationships. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4216882
Pinto, N. (Aug. 13, 2015). The Bail Trap. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/magazine/the-bail-trap.html
Koppel, S., Bergin, T., Ropac, R., Randolph, I., & Joseph, H. (2024). Examining the Causal Effect of Pretrial Detention on Case Outcomes: A Judge Fixed Effect Instrumental Variable Approach. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 20(2), 439-456. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s11292-022-09542-w.pdf
Clemente, M., & Padilla-Racero, D. (2020). The effects of the justice system on mental health. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 27(5), 865-879. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8009114/pdf/TPPL_27_1751327.pdf
Evans, Douglas (2014). The Debt Penalty: Exposing the Financial Barriers to Offender Reintegration. New York, NY: Research & Evaluation Center, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. https://academicworks.cuny.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1473&context=jj_pubs
Geffen, B. D. (2017). The Collateral Consequences of Acquittal: Employment Discrimination on the Basis of Arrests Without Convictions. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Law and Social Change, 20, 81-103. https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1206&context=jlasc
To learn more about the initiative and the central role that data plays, see CUNY ISLG’s Turning Local Data into Meaningful Reforms report.

This brief uses the data collected by CUNY ISLG to explore case processing time in 10 participating SJC jurisdictions for which data is available.11

The jurisdictions in this analysis include: Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Charleston, South Carolina; Cook County, Illinois; Harris County, Texas; Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; Palm Beach County, Florida12

; Pennington County, South Dakota; Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania; San Francisco, California; and Spokane County, Washington. This brief begins by providing context on several key court measures: volume of filings and dispositions, average number of days from initial filing to final case disposition, and the share of cases disposed within given model time standards. Collectively, these measures demonstrate the impact of caseload sizes on court case processing efficiency in each jurisdiction, which has implications for due process, legal system equity, and potential consequences of prolonged case processing including disruptions in housing, employment, and family stability. By examining court data trends such as those in this report, jurisdictions can identify, assess, and scale best practices for timely case resolution, saving time, conserving resources, and—most importantly—maintaining a fair and efficient court system.

In summary, this analysis finds that:

  1. Case volume declined over the past decade.

    2. During the analysis period––2016-2024––case filings and dispositions declined across SJC jurisdictions, reaching all-time lows shortly after the onset of the pandemic. Within a year of the pandemic, filings and dispositions increased from these lows but still remained below pre-pandemic levels. Notably, the ratio of filings to dispositions increased immediately after the onset of the pandemic—meaning more cases were filed than resolved—when court operations were scaled back. It has since declined.

  2. Despite lower case volume, case processing times increased substantially over the past decade for both felony and misdemeanor cases, with sharper and more persistent increases among misdemeanors, which have remained elevated since the pandemic.

    3. Between 2016 and 2020, average case processing times increased for both felony cases (267 to 305 days) and misdemeanor cases (195 to 244 days) across SJC cities and counties. Case processing times were further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, reaching 442 days for felony cases and 399 days for misdemeanor cases, with delays continuing post-pandemic. As of 2024, average case processing time remains 55 percent and 75 percent above pre-pandemic levels for both felony (413 days) and misdemeanor cases (342 days), respectively.

  3. SJC jurisdictions fall short of meeting model case processing time benchmarks—a trend also found across non-SJC counties.

    4. SJC cities and counties performed well below case processing time benchmarks set by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC), with almost no jurisdictions meeting NCSC time standards. The standards specify that 98 percent of misdemeanor cases should be resolved within 180 days and 98 percent of felony cases should be resolved within one year. Pre-pandemic, SJC counties disposed of, at most, an average of 73 percent of misdemeanor cases and 78 percent of felony cases within the time standards; these rates fell to 43 percent and 58 percent, respectively, in the year following the pandemic. As of early 2024, the average percentage of cases resolved within the time standards has improved to 54 percent for misdemeanor cases and 64 percent for felony cases but remains below pre-pandemic levels.
To the extent possible, this report includes case-level data on all cases processed in county courts. The extent of available data varies across jurisdictions included this report but generally includes demographics (age, race, sex) of individuals with open, closed, or pending criminal charges; dates of case filings and dispositions; charge type, severity, and code; and disposition type.
Palm Beach County's participation in the SJC ended on October 7, 2025. However, the data presented in this report covers data through April 2024 during which Palm Beach County was a participating SJC jurisdiction.
Third footnote content

Efforts to understand case processing time across the country are hindered by a lack of comprehensive data, particularly for non-felony cases. This makes it difficult to fully understand the impact on individuals charged with crimes, and relatedly, the impact of lengthy case processing time on local jail populations.

Gaps in the availability of court data are due, in part, to wide variation in the court structure, policy, and procedure that exists across states and local jurisdictions, in both felony and lower-level court contexts. Existing data sources, such as the Bureau of Justice Statistic’s (BJS’s) State Court Processing Statistics, tracked only felony cases in 75 of the most populous counties and ended data collection in 2009. The Federal Criminal Case Processing Statistics, managed by BJS, is limited to federal cases, which excludes most criminal court cases handled at the state and local levels. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) Court Statistics Project provides aggregate data which, although lacking case-level information and detailed charge data, still provides useful insights into court case processing. Some states have made aggregate court data publicly available (e.g., Texas, Michigan, Colorado, California), but their quality and level of detail vary considerably across jurisdictions. The lack of available detailed case-level data and controlled studies of court processes limits criminal legal stakeholders, policy makers, and researchers from being able to examine the efficiency and effectiveness of court operations, explore case processing time and identify specific factors driving court processing delays, evaluate the implementation and impact of new policies or practices designed to improve case processing speed, and limit unnecessary time that individuals spend in jail.

Jail Populations in the SJC

Since the SJC was launched a decade ago, jail populations across two dozen participating jurisdictions have declined by about 18 percent. Much of this decline was driven by reduced bookings into the jail—fewer people were admitted, thus lowering jail populations. Over this period, however, lengths of stay in jail increased— by 2023, average length of stay was up in almost all of the participating jurisdictions. Increased length of stay in jail custody is likely driven by at least two factors. First, as jurisdictions booked fewer individuals charged with lower-level crimes into jail, which tend to be associated with very short stays, the individuals who remained in jail were more likely to be those with serious charges that often take longer to resolve in court. A proportional increase in court cases with higher charge severity could lengthen case processing times, even for similar cases over time. Second, longer case processing time is compounded by court backlogs, procedural delays, and excessive pretrial motions that extend the time needed to dispose of cases.

Court case processing time directly impacts jail populations, as delays in case resolution increase lengths of stay for individuals held in pretrial detention. When cases take longer to move through the courts, people remain incarcerated for extended periods, even if they have not been convicted of a crime, which is the situation for most people in jail.13 Elevated lengths of stay in jail can offset reductions in jail admissions, keeping populations high despite other reform efforts and reductions in jail booking rates. With adequate resources for courts, improving case processing efficiency can help lower jail populations by reducing lengths of stay while maintaining due process and public safety

Factors that Affect Case Processing Time

Case processing time refers to the amount of time it takes for a case to move through the legal system from filing to disposition and sentencing. The adversarial nature of the legal process, in which the prosecution and defense present evidence and arguments in favor of their positions, may require lengthy negotiations, numerous hearings, and a prolonged discovery process that can result in court delays and extended case processing time. A number of other factors affect the amount of time it takes to process a criminal case, including the charge severity and complexity of a case; the availability of attorneys, judges, and witnesses; procedural delays due to case backlogs, prolonged pretrial hearings, inefficient discovery processes, excessive continuances, or other reasons; whether cases are resolved through plea negotiations, trials, or dismissals; the lack or extent of court resources; and how court cases are managed and prioritized. Delays due to any of these factors not only increase jail populations by prolonging the amount of time individuals held pretrial spend in custody awaiting trial or sentencing, but they also increase costs. However, delays may protect due process by affording defense attorneys more time to prepare their cases. The constitutional right to a speedy trial is limited by vague standards and lack of quantification, and without clear timelines or consequences for delays, courts may struggle to protect this right, especially when facing staffing deficits or surges in case filings.

Court closures and reduced in-person operations following the COVID-19 pandemic severely disrupted court case processing, leading to significant delays in case resolutions that quickly began to create case backlogs. Many courts, such as the Multnomah County Circuit Court,14 transitioned to remote case processing, which resulted in technological innovations (e.g., virtual hearings on Zoom, remote depositions, online filings) that allowed courts to continue processing cases during the lockdown and presented new challenges, including privacy concerns, disruptions in internet connections, and limits on the ease and clarity of witness testimony in trials.15 Court closures, limited operations, and delays in jury trials exacerbated case backlogs in many jurisdictions16 and reduced the number of new cases filed in U.S. District Courts.17 In the remainder of this report, we share more detailed findings on case processing trends in SJC courts.

Sawyer, W. & Wagner, P. (2025) Mass Incarceration: The Whole Pie 2025. Prison Policy Initiative. . https://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/pie2025.html
Jenson, S. & Magnuson, S. (2024). Emergency Covid-19 Jail Reduction Strategies in Multnomah County. Safety and Justice Challenge/Justice System Partners. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5fcea962a1b4d771ad256fcc/t/676090da5de7fa441f529956/1734381805575/Emergency+COVID19+Jail+Reduction+Strategies+-+Implementation+x26+Impact+Evaluation+3.pdf
Baldwin, J. M., Eassey, J. M., & Brooke, E. J. (2020). Court operations during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45, 743-758. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s12103-020-09553-1.pdf
Viglione, J., Peck, J. H., & Frazier, J. D. (2023). COVID-19 and courts: An exploration of the impacts of the pandemic on case processing and operations. Victims & Offenders, 18(5), 818-841.. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15564886.2022.2133034
Germano, R., Lau, T. & Garri, K. (2022). COVID-19 and the U.S. District Courts: An Empirical Investigation. Federal Judicial Center. https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/materials/11/22-1109_2-COVID19_and_the_US_District_Courts.pdf
Trends in Court Filings and Dispositions

How court filings and dispositions changed over time, during and after the pandemic, and how fluctuations in the ratio of filings to dispositions may have impacted case processing times.



While total filings and dispositions provide an indication of case volumes in each jurisdiction, the ratio of case filings to dispositions reveals how efficiently courts process cases (i.e., whether courts dispose of more cases than they file). Between 2016 and 2024, SJC jurisdictions experienced a decline in felony and misdemeanor case filings and dispositions; further, following a spike during the onset of the pandemic, the ratio of filings to dispositions declined over this period, indicating that jurisdictions disposed of cases at a faster rate than they filed new cases. When filings outpace dispositions, backlogs grow, leading to potential delays and lengthier case processing times. If courts can process and dispose of cases at a rate comparable to or greater than the rate of new case filings, delays should be reduced and processing should be more efficient. Case backlogs and lengthy processing times were the reality for many courts prior to 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic disrupted court operations, leading to further delays in case processing, shifts in filing patterns, and changes in case resolution timelines.

On average, court filings and dispositions declined over time. Since the start of the analysis period, SJC jurisdictions experienced a decline in filings and dispositions, with the steepest declines occurring shortly after the onset of the pandemic. While the volume of filings and dispositions rebounded for most cities and counties after courts gradually resumed in-person operations post-pandemic, filings and dispositions in most SJC jurisdictions remained at or below pre-pandemic levels as shown in Figures 1 and 4. Misdemeanor filings and dispositions decreased at a rate greater than felony filings and dispositions before, during, and after the pandemic. Figures 2 and 3 show that immediately after the onset of the pandemic in the quarter April-July 2020, felony filings had declined 35 percent since the baseline period while misdemeanor filings declined 52 percent.

In the same period, felony dispositions declined 69 percent and misdemeanor dispositions declined 74 percent as indicated in Figures 5 and 6. However, the sustained decreases in dispositions were greater among misdemeanor cases. By the end of the analysis period, misdemeanor dispositions had declined 41 percent relative to a 22 percent decrease in felony dispositions.

Courts disposed more cases than they filed a year out from the pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, SJC cities and counties disposed of about one case for every case filed. An average ratio of just over one suggests that slightly more cases were filed in court than were disposed. As Figure 7 shows, during the first full quarter of the pandemic (April to June 2020), the ratio of filings to dispositions nearly doubled, likely in part because of court closures and delays. Under these circumstances cases continued to be filed, but far fewer were disposed. Beginning in late 2021, in turn, the filing to disposition ratio began to decline, reaching a low of 0.87 two years after onset of the pandemic (87 cases filed for every 100 cases disposed) and 0.86 by the first quarter of 2024. While some of this is the result of court operations returning, the higher volume of case dispositions relative to case filings suggests that criminal courts in these jurisdictions may have introduced specific strategies to reduce pandemic and pre-pandemic backlogs.

Trends in Case Processing Time

Average case processing times for felony and misdemeanor cases, both across and within jurisdictions.

Despite declining filing to disposition ratios, average case processing times increased for most SJC cities and counties over the study period. As mentioned earlier, examining the amount of time it takes for individuals to have their cases resolved is an essential metric to track over time. Beyond the substantial implications case processing time has for people who are detained pretrial, lengthy case processing time can also greatly impact those who spend that time in the community, disrupting family and professional obligations in the community, causing financial strain, and/or creating distress and uncertainty, among other things. Unpacking these trends is of particular importance now, given the residual impacts of the pandemic on court functions.

In SJC jurisdictions, case processing time, measured by the number of days between case filings and dispositions, increased overall, and doubled for misdemeanor cases between late 2016 and July-September 2021. Pre-pandemic case processing time averaged 292 days for felony cases (July-September 2016 through January-March 2020) as shown in Figure 8.

Misdemeanor cases had an average processing time of 227 days over the same period (see Figure 9). By September 2021, 18 months after the onset of the pandemic, the average case processing time increased 65 percent among felony cases to 442 days and more than doubled for misdemeanor cases to 399 days since the start of the analysis period. By March 2024, case processing time for felony and misdemeanor cases began to come down as backlogs started to clear but remained substantially longer than their respective 2016 levels (146 and 147 days,18 respectively). The lingering effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are evident in these trends, with courts working to recover from closures, triaging the most serious cases, and dealing with staffing shortages well beyond the immediate crisis. The higher relative increases in pandemic and post-pandemic case processing times for misdemeanor cases could indicate that there is less urgency to resolve them since people charged with misdemeanors are more likely to remain in the community while their cases are processed compared to felony cases for which defendants have a higher likelihood of being detained pretrial.19

The data in this report focus on the top charge for each criminal court case. For cases with multiple charges, we ranked them and selected the charge with the highest severity as the top charge. For example, for a case with Felony A and Felony B charges, Felony A would be ranked as the top charge.
For example, in Allegheny County, PA, individuals charged with a felony were much more likely to be detained at first appearance than those with only misdemeanor charges. About 29 percent of all cases were detained at first appearance, and of those, most (62 percent) were for individuals charged with felonies.
Case Processing Time in the Context of National Time Standards

Examining average case processing time provides a broad overview but can overshadow outliers, such as the duration of more complex cases, in each court. Time standards offer a clearer picture of case processing efficiency and provide a more nuanced benchmark by showing the share of cases resolved within recommended timeframes. Model Time Standards, established by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) in 2011, provide benchmarks for the timely resolution of felony cases (i.e., 75 percent of cases resolved within 90 days, 90 percent resolved within 180 days, and 98 percent resolved within 365 days) and misdemeanor cases (e.g., 75 percent of cases resolved within 60 days, 90 percent resolved within 90 days, and 98 percent resolved within 180 days), allowing courts to assess their efficiency in case processing. These standards set expectations for the percentage of cases that should be resolved within specific timeframes. A NCSC study of 21 states found that no courts met the national time standards in 2016.20

Similarly, this analysis shows courts in SJC cities and counties had difficulty meeting NCSC standards for disposing of criminal cases in recommended timeframes. For most cities and counties included in this analysis, the pandemic exacerbated the challenge of meeting case processing time standards, but these jurisdictions fell short of these standards even prior to the pandemic. There are several possible reasons that jurisdictions are not meeting NCSC standards: overburdened courts from case backlogs; shortages of prosecutors and/or public defenders; procedural delays due to excessive motions, lengthy discovery, or extended plea negotiations; defendants who fail to appear in court; and technology limitations or difficulties all affect the ability to swiftly process criminal cases. However, case processing time standards are meaningful even if few jurisdictions meet them because they enhance accountability, offer evidence-informed benchmarks for courts to strive toward, and indicate how courts vary in their ability to meet case processing time standards. Some states have set their own time standards. For instance, New York’s Unified Court System set a standard for resolving all felony cases within 180 days regardless of complexity21 and California Penal Code requires trials for felony cases to begin within 60 days of arraignment.22 Without standards, courts lack a common definition of timely resolution, which lessens motivation to improve case processing speed or identify the sources of delays.

Ostrom, B.J., Hamblin, L.E., Schauffler, R.Y., & Raaen, N. (2020). Timely Justice in Criminal Cases: What the Data Tells Us.National Center for State Courts. https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/53218/Timely-Justice-in-Criminal-Cases-What-the-Data-Tells-Us.pdf
New York City Comptroller (July 16, 2024). Ensuring Timely Trials. https://comptroller.nyc.gov/reports/ensuring-timely-trials/

Virtually no SJC jurisdiction met the NCSC felony time standards. None of the jurisdictions included in this analysis disposed of 98 percent of felony cases within 365 days at any point during the analysis period. Several jurisdictions resolved more than 80 percent of cases within 365 days prior to the pandemic, but after a decline during the pandemic, only two jurisdictions resolved even 80 percent of felony cases within 365 days post-pandemic. As shown in Figure 10, in 2016, jurisdictions on average disposed of 78 percent of felony cases within one year. By 2024, that dropped to 64 percent. However, the percentage of cases meeting NCSC standards dropped dramatically in the aftermath of the pandemic and while it has since increased, it is still notably below pre-pandemic levels. Even before the pandemic, the percentage was trending downward, albeit slowly. As noted above, SJC cities and counties are not alone in their inability to meet felony time standards.

There are a few reasons that jurisdictions overwhelmingly struggle to meet the NCSC model time standards for felony cases. Many serious felony cases are complex, involving multiple defendants, extensive evidence collection, and serious charges that typically require longer case preparation times. Additionally, many jurisdictions consistently operate with limited court resources, including overburdened court dockets, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders, and forensic lab and law enforcement investigation delays—issues that were especially challenging during and following the pandemic. These factors may result in frequent and potentially lengthy continuances, slow discovery, and weak adherence to speedy trial rules, causing significant delays. Jurisdictions also differ in local policies, such as how to prioritize cases based on the custody status of defendants prior to trial (e.g., cases when individuals are detained during their trial may be prioritized over cases where individuals are on pretrial release). Each jurisdiction’s local context influences how long it takes to reach disposition.

No SJC jurisdiction met the NCSC misdemeanor time standards. None of the jurisdictions included in this analysis met the NCSC standards for resolving misdemeanor cases (i.e., 75 percent of cases resolved within 60 days, 90 percent resolved within 90 days, and 98 percent resolved within 180 days). Not only that, across the analysis period, the average percentage of misdemeanor cases that met time standards was notably lower than it was for felonies.

Pre-pandemic, the average resolution rate of misdemeanor cases within 180 days was higher than it was during and after the pandemic across all jurisdictions. As indicated in Figure 11, notably during the pre-pandemic years, a downward trend was already apparent; the case resolution rate was at its highest at the beginning of the pre-pandemic time frame (73 percent in July-September 2016), and lowest in the quarter right before the pandemic began (60 percent).23 Of course, the pandemic exacerbated the challenges of meeting misdemeanor time standards, and case resolution rates dropped dramatically during that time, with most jurisdictions unable to dispose of even 50 percent of misdemeanor cases within 180 days by 2021. Similar to the trend for felonies, since 2021, the percentage of misdemeanor cases resolved within 180 days slowly started to increase for most jurisdictions, reaching 54 percent by the end of the analysis period (January-March 2024). While this represents an increase from the 43 percent rate at the end of the pandemic timeframe, it is still nearly 20 percent lower than pre-pandemic.

While this represents an increase from the 43 percent rate at the end of the pandemic timeframe, it is still nearly 20 percent lower than pre-pandemic.

Misdemeanor case processing was affected by the same court closures and delayed operations as felony case processing during the pandemic, with court actors and resources stretched to their limits in all types of courts. Other factors more specific to misdemeanors may have been at play and might explain why the rate of cases that meet the NCSC standard was consistently and significantly lower for misdemeanors than it was for felony cases throughout the data timeframe. Because individuals charged with misdemeanors are less likely to be detained prior to trial, courts may have prioritized the resolution of more serious felony cases, particularly for individuals detained pretrial, as a strategy to address the backlog created during the pandemic. Second is case volume: jurisdictions typically process a much higher volume of misdemeanor cases, which stretches already limited resources and creates scheduling challenges as repeated postponements occur due to attorney, judge, and courtroom availability—all of which lead to longer case processing times.

Of all jurisdictions, Cook County reached closest to the standard with a 90 percent misdemeanor case resolution within 180 days, which it did for several quarters prior to the pandemic.

 Case processing time standards are meaningful even if few jurisdictions meet them because they enhance accountability, offer evidence-informed benchmarks for courts to strive toward, and indicate how courts vary in their ability to meet case processing time standards.

Conclusion
Delays in case resolution have lasting impacts on individuals’ lives, court efficiency, and jail populations, reinforcing the need for data-driven approaches to assess and inform case processing efficiency.

This analysis explores case processing times over the past decade across a diverse set of jurisdictions working to reduce their jail populations. The findings of this analysis highlight the challenges associated with reducing court case processing time, particularly because of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. While jurisdictions in the SJC have made progress towards reducing overall jail populations, increasing case processing times and an inability to meet national model time standards remain critical issues, especially for misdemeanor cases. Delays in case resolution have lasting impacts on individuals’ lives, court efficiency, and jail populations, reinforcing the need for data-driven approaches to assess and inform case processing efficiency. The inability of nearly all jurisdictions to meet NCSC model time standards indicates the challenges that courts face in reducing backlogs while upholding due process. Continued data transparency on case processing times can support efforts to identify, assess, and scale best practices for timely case resolution and is essential to address case processing delays and ensure fairness and efficiency in court systems.

Future analyses using these data will explore case processing trends for individuals detained pretrial compared to those remaining in the community during their case pendency.

project credits

Writing: Douglas Evans, Senior Research Associate

Editing: Alisa Orlowsky, Communications Associate

Advisement: Stephanie Rosoff, Associate Research Director; Carla Sinclair, Senior Communications Associate

Web Development and Communication Design: Carla Sinclair, Senior Communications Associate

Data Visualization: Douglas Evans, Senior Research Associate

Web Design Template: Design for Progress and Thought Driven Development

Acknowledgements

We’d like to extend special thanks to CUNY ISLG colleague Emily West, Senior Research Associate, for her guidance on the creation of this report. We’re also grateful to the team who processes SJC data: Osama Qureshi, Senior Data Scientist; Bryn Hill, Senior Research Associate; Otgonjargal Okhidoi, Research Associate; and Alexis Peachey, Research Associate.

This work would be impossible without the support of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and without the partnership of staff from SJC sites across to the country. We are greatly appreciative of all your collaboration.

Back to Resources