Q & A: Line of Sight Metrics and Measurement Hierarchies

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 court (e.g., drug courts and other problem-solving courts, adult and juvenile probation departments, and justice courts) of general jurisdictional courts. Just as no single core measure can adequately capture all success factors of a court, rarely can a single level of a measure be used throughout the court. Effective CPMSs involve measurement hierarchies (families) that include similar (related) measures of an aspect of performance.

For example, Measure 7, "Collection of Monetary Penalties," of the CourTools, indicates how well court orders are observed and the extent to which a court takes responsibility for enforcement of orders. Compliance with both monetary and non-monetary orders imposed by a drug court, including participation in drug programs -- measured in terms of program retention and completion, sobriety, and recidivism of drug court defendants – could well be part of the hierarchy of measures aligned with Measure 7. In order to accommodate similar measures for the success of its probation departments, some courts have created a core measure, "Compliance with Court Orders," that is a composite of several measures of compliance including Measure 7 as well probation program requirements, recidivism, and other non-monetary compliance.

In order for performance measures to serve as incentives -- for measures to be motivational -- there must be a line of sight between the measure and actions that can be taken by various levels of the court. Line of sight can be created by graphic displays of measurement hierarchies, navigation techniques, definitions, explanations, and references. It conveys to everyone what the drivers of success are and provides them with the concrete knowledge of how they contribute to that success.

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