Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Jury Service topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pierce County juror‑pay pilot cuts hardship excusals but exposes summons delivery gaps
Summary
An early two‑month analysis presented to the Minority and Justice Commission showed a 45% drop in excusals for financial hardship and a 57% drop for dependent‑care excusals after Pierce County raised juror pay, but researchers flagged that those most likely to learn about the change received summonses unevenly across ZIP codes.
Dr. Patty Kirko, the Washington State Center for Court Research’s jury and community researcher, told the Minority and Justice Commission that two months of data from Pierce County’s juror‑pay pilot show large early drops in excusal requests: “a 45% drop in excusals for financial hardship, a 57% drop in excusals for issues related to dependent care, and a 15% drop in excusals for health‑related conditions.” The pilot, which started Oct. 14, is paying jurors $100 per day during the pilot period and remains in its early, small‑sample stage.
Frank, who leads the commission’s symposium and research coordination work, said the reduction in financial‑hardship excusals is “nearly 50%” and called the early signs “encouraging,” while cautioning that response rates overall have not yet increased materially.
Both Frank and Dr. Kirko highlighted a separate but related problem: deliverability and distribution of summons cards. Dr. Kirko said some ZIP codes — predominantly more affluent and whiter neighborhoods — received summonses containing information about the higher pay at roughly three times the rate of lower‑income ZIP codes, and that “about 90% of jurors still get their information about the increased juror pay via their summons cards.” Frank described this pattern as a “pretty significant outlier observation” that could confound the pilot’s equitable reach.
Commission members raised questions about whether the court’s selection and notification software could be reproducing historical patterns. Justice Veronica Galvan asked whether the sampling or randomization could be “self‑fulfilling,” selecting the same responsive addresses and thereby perpetuating disparities. Frank said algorithmic bias and administrative practices — such as how the master jury list is maintained and how undeliverable addresses are processed — are both plausible contributors and that the team will investigate further as more data accrue.
Kirko emphasized the preliminary nature of the results and seasonal influences (including a December data‑collection month) that may affect response behavior. She also noted survey evidence that a $10 per day compensation is viewed as insufficient and that many potential jurors say appropriate compensation would be $100–$125 per day, with nonwhite and lower‑income respondents more likely to report barriers such as financial stress and childcare.
The commission directed staff and the pilot team to continue fact‑finding: to examine summons deliverability by ZIP code, to work with Pierce County’s IT and jury administrators to troubleshoot anomalies, and to return with more robust, longitudinal data before drawing firm policy conclusions.
The commission’s next meeting is scheduled for March 28, when members expect additional pilot findings.
