Needed: An Instructions Manual for Implementing Performance Measurement

We can easily imagine how we might use a hammer or some other practical tool. Not so for conceptually complex management tools like performance measurement. And therein lies a problem.

Promises

Sure, we’re quick to claim that performance measurement improves performance and accountability, that it can change the way courts do business. We point out that performance measures are unambiguous and actionable, that they serve as incentives for change.

We can even pony up of a nifty list of uses for performance measures:
  • translate vision, mission and broad goals into clear performance targets;
  • communicate progress and success succinctly in the language of performance measures and indicators;
  • respond to legislative and executive branch representatives’ and the public’s demand for accountability;
  • formulate and justify budget requests;
  • respond quickly to performance downturns (corrections) and upturns (celebrations) in performance;
  • provide incentives and motivate court staff to make improvements in programs and services;
  • make resource allocation decisions;
  • set future performance expectations based on past and current performance levels;
  • insulate the court from inappropriate performance audits and appraisals imposed by external agencies or groups; and,
  • communicate better with the public to build confidence and trust.

But what, precisely, are we doing when we are doing these things? I can visualize myself clearly swinging a hammer to build shelves in our utility room, but I have no such clarity in imagining what I might be doing when I use performance measurement to justify budget requests, for example.

How precisely do we use court performance measures as part of performance-based budgeting or management-for-results approaches initiated by city, county or state executive branches? How precisely do we respond to performance downturns? I fear that until we’re able to answer such questions, court performance measurement will not fulfill its promise.

No Field of Dreams

Previous posts (Implementing Performance Measurement, November 12, 2005; Implementation: How It Looks When You Get There, December 13, 2005; and Eight Tips for Making Use of Performance Measurement, October 9, 2006), explored what it takes to implement a court performance measurement system (CPMS). In these posts, I suggested that is one thing to build a CPMS and quite another to get it to be used effectively. Even a well-conceived, well-designed CPMS, will not necessarily get used unless it is woven into the very fabric of a court’s management practices and processes. “If you build it, they will come” works in the movies. (In the 1989 film Field of Dreams, an Iowa corn farmer played by Kevin Costner hears voices that tell him, “If you build it, they will come.” He interprets this message as a command to build a baseball field on his farm. He does and they -- Shoeless Joe Jackson and the other seven Chicago White Sox players banned from the game for throwing the 1919 World Series – come.)

For performance measurement to be truly effective in changing the way a court does business, performance measures have to be hard-wired into the very DNA of the court’s leadership, management and organizational culture. Tips for achieving this are a good start but they are not enough. What’s needed is the kind of specific “how to” instruction my home improvement manual gives me for using my hammer to install an electrical box, to put up shelves in the utility room, and to tear down a wall.

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2007. 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