For decades, one of the most common assumptions in courthouse planning has been that every judge requires a dedicated courtroom. While this approach offers operational simplicity, it also drives some of the highest costs in courthouse construction and long-term facility operations.
Today, courts have access to far more operational data than ever before. Electronic recording systems, digital calendars, occupancy sensors, and statistical forecasting now make it possible to objectively measure how courtrooms are actually used.
Courtroom utilization is not about eliminating courtrooms. It is about ensuring that future courthouse investments are based on measurable demand rather than historical assumptions.
Courtrooms are among the most expensive spaces in any courthouse.
Each trial courtroom requires:
Because of these supporting spaces, every additional courtroom significantly increases the size and cost of a courthouse. In round terms, each additional trial courtroom represents approximately $5 million in design and construction costs, along with decades of maintenance, technology, operations, and lifecycle replacement expenses.
Before investing hundreds of millions of dollars into a new courthouse, it is reasonable to ask:
These questions can now be answered with defensible data.
One of the biggest misconceptions about courtroom utilization is that it is simply the percentage of time a courtroom is occupied. In reality, a meaningful utilization study combines multiple independent datasets to create a comprehensive picture of courtroom demand.
A complete methodology typically includes:
No single metric tells the entire story. Instead, each dataset answers a different planning question.
1. Courtroom Time
The foundation of utilization analysis is determining how long courtrooms are actually in session. Electronic recording systems such as For The Record (FTR) provide precise timestamps showing when proceedings begin and end. These records allow analysts to calculate:
Rather than relying on anecdotal observations, FTR data provides objective measurements collected over multiple months or years.
For courts without electronic recording systems, courtroom use can be estimated using courtroom deputy time records, judicial and courtroom calendars, docket entries, clerk minutes, and standard duration assumptions for different proceeding types. These records may be supplemented by on-site observations or periodic staff verification. Using multiple sources allows the analysis to cross-check scheduled activity against actual proceedings and develop a reasonable estimate of when each courtroom was actually in use.
2. Courtroom Occupancy
Time alone does not explain how effectively a courtroom is being used. A courtroom could be used six hours per day but contain only three people. Conversely, another courtroom might operate only three hours but consistently accommodate fifty participants. To measure this difference, occupancy sensors can be installed at courtroom entrances. These sensors record the number of people entering and exiting throughout the day without disrupting the flow of the court proceedings.
Over a typical 90-day collection period, planners can determine:
Average courtroom occupancy often turns out to be far lower than expected, suggesting opportunities to better match courtroom size with actual demand.
When considering occupancy sensors, two primary sensor approaches can measure courtroom occupancy. Ceiling-mounted thermal infrared or imaging sensors provide accurate real-time counts but are typically designed for lower office and conference-room ceilings. In courtrooms, they may require permanent wiring and visible drop poles to achieve the proper field of view. Alternatively, wired or battery-operated sensors can be mounted above each courtroom doorway and connected to an in-room hub that reconciles entries and exits to estimate total occupancy. This approach is less intrusive but may be less accurate when groups enter together or occupants use multiple doors.
When sensors are unavailable or impractical, occupancy can be documented through structured observations by courtroom deputies, security personnel, or planners conducting scheduled courthouse walkthroughs. Existing courtroom cameras may also be reviewed, subject to court policies and privacy requirements, to estimate both occupancy and hours of use. Because precise headcounts from video can be difficult and unnecessary, observations can be classified by the percentage of available seating or courtroom capacity occupied: light occupancy (1–25%), moderate occupancy (26–50%), high occupancy (51–75%), and near-capacity occupancy (76–100%). Observations taken at consistent intervals throughout the day provide a representative picture of how courtroom demand changes by time, proceeding type, and day of the week, particularly when they are cross-checked against courtroom calendars and proceeding records.
3. Types of Proceedings
Not every courtroom performs the same function. Jury trials, arraignments, probation hearings, juvenile proceedings, specialty court sessions, and other proceedings may require different courtroom sizes, security measures, technology, holding capacity, and jury accommodations. A courtroom used primarily for status conferences may not require the same footprint or support spaces as one dedicated to lengthy jury trials. Understanding the frequency, duration, and operational requirements of each proceeding type helps planners recommend the appropriate mix of courtroom types rather than simply counting courtrooms.
Information about proceeding types can often be obtained from online dockets, court calendars, case-management event codes, courtroom scheduling systems, clerk minutes, judicial activity reports, and electronic recording logs. Interviews with judges, courtroom deputies, clerks, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and security personnel can clarify how proceedings are scheduled, how long they typically last, whether they require juries or in-custody defendants, and which courtroom features are essential.
4. Caseload Forecasting
Current utilization represents only today's demand, but courthouses are expected to serve communities for decades. Therefore, utilization studies should include statistical forecasts of future workload. These projections can reveal whether demand is growing, stable, or even declining.
When multiple court types are located within the same courthouse, there are often times when caseload is growing for some but declining for others. Yet another example of why no single metric, or in this case no single court, tells the whole story.
High utilization does not automatically indicate a courtroom shortage, just as low utilization does not necessarily mean the number of courtrooms should be reduced. Utilization should be considered alongside scheduling practices, proceeding types, courtroom-sharing policies, and the use of remote and hybrid proceedings.
Most modern courtrooms include evidence presentation, videoconferencing, audiovisual and recording systems, interpretation and assisted-listening technology, and integrated controls. A comprehensive technology package typically costs approximately $100,000 to $200,000 per courtroom, depending on the room and system complexity.
Although jury trials and complex evidentiary proceedings generally remain in person, videoconferencing, where permitted by law and court policy, can support scheduling conferences, status hearings, motions, arraignments, bond hearings, probation reviews, specialty court sessions, and remote testimony. These practices can reduce the number of people physically present and change the size, type, and number of courtrooms required.
Equipping every courtroom identically provides flexibility and operational consistency but comes at a significant cost. Courts should evaluate how frequently remote technology is used and whether every courtroom requires full hybrid capabilities. This analysis may support a more balanced mix of trial courtrooms, multipurpose courtrooms, and smaller technology-enabled hearing rooms.
The purpose of courtroom utilization analysis is not simply to measure activity. It is to translate evidence into better facility decisions. When the findings are considered together, they can answer critical planning questions:
These factors, together with the growing use of hybrid proceedings and courtroom technology, help determine the appropriate number, size, and type of future courtrooms.
To bring the data together, we developed a composite utilization model that scores each courtroom from 0 to 100. The score combines time in use with occupancy, with 100 representing a courtroom that is both frequently used and operating near capacity. Benchmarks might assume, for example, that a courtroom reaches its target at 70% time utilization and 80% occupancy. These benchmarks are established with each jurisdiction so the model reflects its court types, scheduling practices, operating goals, and local conditions.
Scores can be organized into planning ranges, such as below 40, 40 to 60, 60 to 80, and above 80. The results can then be connected to a courtroom calculator containing design standards for different courtroom and hearing-room sizes with the ability to test scenarios for:
The model is a decision-support tool, not a decision-making formula. Future courtroom needs cannot be calculated from utilization scores alone. The results must be considered alongside judicial assignments, scheduling flexibility, security, operational practices, and court culture. In courthouses with more than ten courtrooms, the scale of operations often creates a mathematical opportunity for sharing, but whether that opportunity is workable depends on how the court functions. The data reveals the possibilities; blending those findings with court operations and culture is the art of courthouse planning.
One point about the future is clear: courtroom technology will continue to evolve with the goal of making court operations more efficient. Electronic filing, digital evidence, virtual hearings, artificial intelligence, and advanced scheduling systems will reshape how justice is delivered. Courthouse planning must be flexible enough to respond to these changes.
Data-driven modeling provides a more reliable way to rightsize courtroom needs. By evaluating courtroom use, occupancy, proceeding types, and future caseload demands together, jurisdictions can determine the combination of courtrooms and hearing spaces that will best serve them. However, no model should dictate the answer on its own. Its findings must be balanced with court culture, judicial practices, scheduling requirements, and local operations.
Courthouses are major public investments that may remain in service for generations. The goal is not simply to provide fewer or more courtrooms. It is to provide the right courtrooms, in the right configurations, with the flexibility to support both current operations and an evolving justice system.