More on Organizational Versus Individual Performance Measurement

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 approach and a conceptual framework for doing so: systematically comparing organizational court performance measures -- like the CourTools or other performance measures adopted by a court or state court system -- with the individual performance criteria in state judicial performance review (JPR) or judicial performance evaluation (JPE) procedures, codes of judicial conduct, and other authorities.

A simple tabular comparison of court performance measures and individual performance criteria set forth by various authorities might reveal areas of “official” overlap that could become the focus of discussion and the development of linkages. For example, Canon 3b (8) of Arizona’s Code of Judicial Conduct focuses on a judge’s administrative responsibilities within the judicial process and requires that “[a] judge shall dispose of all judicial matters promptly, efficiently and fairly,” a requirement that matches the four measures of the CourTools that focus on case processing. Rule 91 (e), Rules of the Supreme Court of Arizona, goes further by requiring that judges rule on matters 60 days after submission – sixty day rule -- and Arizona statutes establish financial consequences for violating this rule. Arguably, at least for judges, this overlap of criteria for individual judicial and court performance identifies a legitimate place to start thinking about linking organizational and individual performance measurement. (But should this link be made for all judges and judicial officers?) Further, where no overlap exists, no formal linking of individual and organizational performance should be attempted.

While I still have misgivings about linking individual and organizational performance in CPMSs, this conceptual framework is a good beginning. A systematic comparison of court performance measures with the performance criteria set forth in such authorities as canons of judicial conduct and judicial performance review seems worth exploring as a way to get started.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more