Made2Measure

Last week’s blog probed the interplay between organizational (court-wide) and individual performance measurement. Specifically, it reached the conclusion that because (a) court performance measurement and individual performance assessment differ in purpose, methodology, interpretation and use, and because (b) there is today insufficient knowledge and experience about how to link the two, a court performance measurement system (CPMS) should, therefore, not include the capability to “drill down” to the individual judge or employee performance. A California judge and an Arizona court administrator who responded astutely pointed out that linking organizational and individual performance is inevitable for various reasons – people are interested in it, and line of sight metrics and measurement hierarchies require it, for example -- even if it does cause some animosity and contention. We agreed that it if it is to be done, it needs to be done right, however. They suggested a promising ap...

Q: Should court performance measurement “drill down” to the individual judge or employee performance? For example, should our performance measurement system provide clearance rates, on-time case processing, backlogs and other measures at the individual judge level? Made2Measure: Generally, no. The focus of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) is organizational performance and not individual performance. Court performance measurement and individual performance assessment differ in purpose, methodology, interpretation and use. There is today insufficient knowledge and experience to support formal linking of the two. For example, there is today a virtual consensus that a fast court – a court timely and expeditions in its case processing – is a good court. No such consensus exists about a “fast” judge. Many “slow” judges are held in high esteem by their colleagues for their opinion writing, mentoring of junior judges, and community leadership. Reporting breakouts by individu...

Q: I administer a drug court in a jurisdiction developing a court performance measurement system based (more or less) on the 10 performance measures of the CourTools . The problem is that the performance measures most relevant to drug courts -- like participant retention and program completion, participant sobriety, recidivism, and units of service provided to participants – do not seem to fit with the CourTools . How do I reconcile the drug court performance measures with the CourTools ? Choosing one and ignoring the other is not a choice open to me. Made2Measure: Different levels or aspects of a core performance measure are called performance measurement hierarchies. In a comprehensive court performance measurement system (CPMS) that includes core measures and measurement hierarchies , you can accommodate the core (executive level) performance measures such as the CourTools , as well as subordinate measures at different levels of “business” units of a general jurisdiction cour...