Workload Drivers - Supervised Release Violations, Probation Violations, and Rule 35 motions– do Workload Drivers coded to the underlying substantive case “transfer” to those cases?

Question: Do the workload drivers follow the client in dData? Specifically, assume that all of the drivers were previously coded to a client’s substantive case, and there is then a supervised release violation, a probation violation, or a Rule 35 motion. Do those  Workload Drivers’s coded to a client’s original case automatically “follow” the client into the new violation or Rule 35 case?

Answer: No.

Please code the Workload Drivers for every case. In the above example, the dData system doesn’t not automatically associate the Workload Drivers from the old substantive case to the new violation or Rule 35 case. The appropriate drivers should be re-entered for that new case, even though it is the same client.

.

Chapter 18 -- Opening cases, and reporting all charges

Question: My office has traditionally only entered the charge in an indictment that we think carries the highest Weighted Case Open amount, in defenderData – even for cases that have many charges against the client.

I’ve noticed in trainings that you’ve referred to data that will be available by looking at the charge information from when the case is opened in dData. 

Should we be entering all of the charges against the client in the indictment, when we open the case in dData?

Answer: YES! Chapter 18 contemplates that all charges against a client in a complaint, information, or indictment will be entered into dData when the case is opened. Mechanisms within dData will then select the charge that is assigned the case weight.

As a general matter, it is important to enter all charges against the client to allow the dData mechanism to assign the weight. Picking and choosing reported charges undermines the consistency of weighting and case opening, and will then undermine the reliability of the RAND WCO approach.

For the Work Measurement Study, it is critical that all charges against a client be entered. For example, there is no “gun” Workload Driver. If an office only reports a Section 841 (drug) count, but does not enter a Section 922(g) (gun) count, the data will not reflect the presence of a weapon in the charges. We anticipate that the presence of a gun in a case complicates the defense and requires more resources. If all charges are not reported, there will be no data relating to a gun in this example. The office will then lose an opportunity to explain their resource requirements because of a docket with many weapon allegations.

On a related note, it is equally important to update charges in dData when superseding charges are brought. Without those updates, the Work Measurement Study will have no data relating to those (typically more-serious) allegations.

.

.

FAQ: DSO reporting requirements, and new dData Task Codes?

Question:

Our office is required to submit reports to DSO every month, derived from our defenderData timekeeping records. How will these changes  to the dData task codes affect our DSO reporting requirements? 

 

Answer:

Cait and the DSO staff have been deeply involved in the revisions to the task codes in dData, and strongly supports this project. DSO is accommodating these changes and the necessary transition required. 

 

On June 16, 2014, Deputy Director Rebecca Blaskey sent an email to all Defenders, Executive Directors, and AdO's with further guidance on the dData reporting requirements to DSO. If you are involved in office reporting requirements, please review Rebecca's email, titled, "Modified Version of Timekeeper."

.