Step 2: Estimate the next year’s project caseload

 

The next step in applying the NPDWS standards (case weights) is to use your historical caseloads to estimate a next year's project caseload. To do this, a provider must:

  • Identify Caseload

  • Gather Historic Caseload Data

  • Sort Historic Caseloads into NPDWS Case Types

  • Estimate Next Year's Caseload

Identify Caseload

Before a provider begins to map historic caseloads, the provider must define the scope of the cases to be mapped.  To compare years of caseloads, the scope of the caseload mapped for each year must remain consistent. The caseload often differs based on the provider type.

  • Statewide public defense commission: If the commission oversees both full-time public defender offices and a comprehensive conflict program (contract or assigned counsel), the scope of caseload to be evaluated would likely include all cases assigned to any public defense provider in the state.
  • County public defender office: If the provider is the primary public defender office in the county, the scope of the caseload to be evaluated would likely include only cases assigned to that office.
  • Statewide public defender: If the provider is a statewide public defender office, conflict and overflow cases are assigned by the courts or by a separate program administrator, the scope of the caseload to be evaluated would likely be all cases assigned to the statewide public defender office.

Similarly, the provider must determine the types of cases to be measured. The NPDWS standards only encompass cases in adult criminal courts.  The cases that are excluded from your calculations, e.g., juvenile delinquency, civil commitment, should be excluded consistently. Alternatively, if you use some other standards (case weights) to include these cases, the source(s) of those standards should be clearly identified. For example, at least one jurisdiction (Washington State) has adopted the NPDWS for juvenile delinquency cases.

Gather Historic Caseload Data

The provider must then gather historical caseload data by year. The year can be a calendar year, but it is more common that providers use a fiscal or budget year. The provider must know the number of new cases opened in each year (however defined), and the highest charge faced in each case.

How many years of caseload data do I need?

For purposes of Step 2 (projecting the future caseload), providers generally map at least three years of historic caseloads. Some providers map five or even ten years of historic caseloads. At an absolute minimum, providers need to sort one full year of cases into the NPDWS case types.

Counting Cases

In the NPDWS, “a case is defined as all charges filed against a client arising out of a single event or series of events and being prosecuted together.” NPDWS at x; 59. Failing to follow the NPDWS definition of a case, e.g., by counting charges rather than cases or by counting clients rather than cases, can result in overcounting or undercounting. Below are some examples of how to apply the NPDWS definition of a case.

Example 1: Client A is accused of selling illegal drugs and charged with one count of drug distribution and one count of drug possession. The court assigns each charge a separate case number but handles the charges together. In this instance, the charges are counted as a single case.

Example 2: Clients B and C are charged with breaking and entering. The court assigns the same case number to both clients. Client B is appointed a public defender and Client C is appointed assigned counsel. In this instance, each client’s case is counted as a separate case.

Example 3: Client D is charged with a misdemeanor assault. While on pretrial release, the client is rearrested and charged with an unrelated DUI offense. Because the two cases arose from separate unrelated events, each is counted as a separate case.

 

When is a case counted?

A case is counted in the year in which the public defense provider is assigned the case.  Importantly, a case is only counted once:

  • Cases that do not conclude before the end of one year are not counted again in the next year. 
  • Cases that leave the public defense provider’s office and then return are only counted once. For example, if a case were assigned to the public defense provider, then the client hired private counsel, and then the case returned to the public defense provider, that case would count once, in the year in which it was originally assigned to the provider. 
     

Identifying Highest Charges

Because the NPDWS defines a case as all charges filed against a client arising out of a single event or series of events and being prosecuted together, the provider must label one charge as the highest charge. The highest charge is the charge that maps to the highest NPDWS case type; usually it is also the charge for which the client faces the most potential jail time. 

Example 1: Client A is charged with drug distribution, drug possession, and felon in possession of a handgun. The drug distribution charge carries the greatest punishment, and would map as Felony-Mid case. The other two charges map as Felony-Low. The drug distribution charge is the highest charge, and the case will be mapped as a Felony-Mid case.

Example 2: After a deadly car accident, Client B is charged with negligent homicide and DUI. The negligent homicide maps as a Felony-High-Other and the DUI maps as a DUI-High. The negligent homicide is the highest charge and the case will maps as a Felony-High-Other case.

 

Court Cases v. Public Defense Cases

Courts may assign case numbers or count cases in a manner that does not match this definition of a case. For example, some courts count every charge as a separate case and assign each charge its own case number. In this instance, a single public defense case may correspond to several cases and case numbers in the court’s data system. Other courts count multi-defendant cases as a single case. In this instance, multiple public defense cases, generally handled by the primary and conflict public defense system, may correspond to a single case number in the court’s data system.

Sort Historic Caseloads into NPDWS Case Types

The provider then maps the historical caseload (by year) into the NPDWS case types, using the highest charge for each case.

The table below shows an example of five years’ worth of historical caseload data for a Fictional Jurisdiction (2020-2024). The 2020 and 2021 caseloads show the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Caseloads rebounded in 2022, stabilized there in 2023, and grew in 2024.

Estimate the next years project caseload

To calculate how many attorneys a provider needs, the provider must apply the NPDWS standards (case weights) to the next year’s projected caseload. This projected caseload must be a reliable estimate of new (incoming) cases by case type for the next year (as noted in Step 1, this is commonly a fiscal year). 

To estimate the next year’s caseload, a provider could simply use the previous year’s caseload, but there are several other accepted methods of projecting future caseloads from historical caseload data. Three accepted methods (multi-year average, adjusted average, and statistical modelling) are described below. Ultimately, the provider must determine which method of estimating the projected caseload works best for them.

Multi-year Average

A simple way to project next year’s caseload is to average the past few years of caseload data for each case type. When an average is recalculated, year after year, using the most recent years’ data and dropping the oldest year from the previous calculation, it is called a moving (or rolling) average. Using a moving average, instead of the most recent year’s caseload data, reduces the influence of outlying values or one-time events. Many state court systems use a three-year or five-year moving average to project caseloads and calculate the need for judges and court staff. 

The Impact of COVID-19:

The COVID-19 pandemic was an unprecedented disruption to every aspect of society, including individual behavior, policing, prosecutorial charging practices, and court operations. When an event, such as a pandemic, has such a great disruption on the relevant data it is appropriate to identify and exclude that data from a moving average. For this reason, when an average (e.g., a five-year or ten-year moving average) would typically include the years in which caseloads depart substantially from the norm because of the pandemic (typically 2020 and 2021), a provider should instead exclude these years from any calculations of average caseloads. It could be replaced with the previous year or simply excluded. For example, a jurisdiction that typically uses a five-year average could include 2018 and 2019, instead of 2020 and 2021 in its 2026 projection. Alternatively, the jurisdiction could simply exclude 2020 and 2021 and use only three years of data.

The below shows a 2026 caseload project for our fictional jurisdiction using a three-year average caseload (based on 2022, 2023, and 2024). The 2026 budgeting process is being conducted during 2025, so caseload data for 2025 are not yet available. 

 

Adjusted Average

In some instances, the public defense provider may have reliable information that will likely impact the next year’s caseload. For this reason, another plausible way of predicting next year’s caseload is to begin with a moving average (or the previous year’s caseload) and then include adjustments based on the provider’s expertise. For example, if a newly elected district attorney has announced plans to more aggressively go after DUI cases, it may be appropriate to increase the predicted DUI caseload or increase some DUI-Low cases to DUI-High.

The table below again shows historical (2022, 2023, 2024) and projected (2026) caseloads for the fictional jurisdiction. In this example, the public defense provider began with the three-year average, but then adjusted that average to account for two recent jurisdictional changes:

  • In 2023, the fictional jurisdiction adopted a new sentencing scheme that made some charges formerly classified as misdemeanors into felonies. After a review of charges, the provider believes that the increase in Felony-Low cases and the decrease in Misdemeanor-High cases in 2024 are a result of this change. Rather than using the three-year average, the director uses the 2024 Felony-Low caseload (11,914 cases) and the Misdemeanor-High caseload (4,208 cases) as the projected 2026 caseloads for those case types.
  • The fictional jurisdiction recently announced a second chance program for some low-level misdemeanor cases. People with no prior criminal history who have been charged with certain low-level misdemeanors (e.g., shoplifting under $100, public intoxication, open container) will receive an automatic dismissal if they are not rearrested within six months. The provider estimates, based on a review caseload data for these charges, that this will reduce Misdemeanor-Low cases by 20%. The provider therefore estimates the projected 2026 Misdemeanor-Low caseload at 80% of the three-year average Misdemeanor-Low caseload or 9,598 cases.

  

 

Statistical Modeling

Statistical time series models such as the ARIMA (autoregressive integrated moving average) model can predict future caseloads based on trends and patterns in previous caseloads. These models generally require the input of more years of data than a simple moving average. However, they can also identify and exclude or address anomalies, making them more accurate than a simple moving average. In the future, machine learning or AI technologies will likely be able to incorporate not only caseload data, but also crime rates, demographic changes, and economic changes to predict future caseloads. However, using such a statistical model will require the expertise of a qualified researcher. 

 

FAQ: Defining a Case (Coming Soon)

FAQ: Sorting Cases by Highest Charge (Coming Soon)

Generally, each case is classified according to the most serious charge ever filed, even if that charge is later dismissed or reduced. Typically, the defense attorney works to get a charge dismissed or reduced. This work reflects the severity of the original charge. 

An exception can be made for cases in which the charge is reduced very shortly after arrest as a result of an early exercise of prosecutorial discretion. However, if the defense attorney works on the case prior to the charge reduction or dismissal, the case should be categorized by the highest charge ever faced. 

 

In the NPDWS, mandatory sentencing enhancements connected to the offender, including three-strikes laws, are not considered in determining case type. “For example, if they have had Felony–Low cases with life sentences as potential consequences because of some sort of enhancement, they were instructed to nevertheless include such representations in their estimates for the Felony–Low category proportional to the relative frequency in which such situations were actually encountered.” NPDWS at 60. In this example, this case would be considered a burglary case.  It might be a very complicated burglary case because of the enhancement, but, as noted previous the standard (case weight) takes into account both very simple and very complicated cases. 

Enhancements connected to the offense, as opposed to the offender, should be considered when determining highest charge and mapping cases to NPDWS case types. Because these enhancements would more commonly be separate charges, you would characterize a case by the highest charge with the enhancement. For example, the case of the client facing assault with a gun or deadly weapons enhancement would be treated as an assault with a deadly weapon charge. With the enhancement this charge likely would be mapped as a Felony-High-Other (e.g., aggravated assault; assault with a deadly weapon) rather than as a Felony-Low (e.g., simple assault). 

California is an example of a jurisdiction that has offense-based enhancements. The Office of the State Public Defender in California put out a guide to applying the NPDWS that shows how they chart enhancements. See Office of State Public Defender,  Understanding the National Public Defense Workload Study (Dec 2023).

Continue to Next Step >