Principles of Effective Court Performance Measurement and Management

The benefits of an effective court performance measurement and management system are the same as those of strategic planning – accountability, consensus building, focus, coordination, control, learning, communication, hope and inspiration. To identify the right performance measures, a court must address the same fundamental questions about guiding ideals, values, mission, goals and broad strategies as it must address in strategic planning.

We count what counts and measure what matters. And what we measure determines what will be considered relevant.

Measurement uses numbers but it is ultimately not about numbers. It is about perception, understanding and insight.[1] It is not the measure itself that is important but rather the questions it compels us to confront.

  • How are we doing?
  • How is the court performing?
  • Where are we now (performance level, baseline)? What is the current performance level compared to established upper and lower “controls” (e.g., performance targets, objectives, benchmarks and tolerance levels)?
  • How are we doing over time (trends)? Is our performance better, worse or flat? How much variability is there?
  • Why is this happening (analysis and problem diagnosis)? What happened to make performance decline, improve or stay the same. What are some credible explanations?
  • What are we doing to improve/maintain (planning)?
  • What actions and strategies should we start, continue or stop as a result of the measure (strategy)? What should be done to improve poor performance, reverse a declining trend, or recognize good performance?
  • What performance targets and goals should we set for future performance (goals)?

The willingness and capacity to address these questions – on a continuous and regular basis – to learn and to act accordingly are the hallmarks of a high-performing court. In addition to these principles, effective court performance measurement systems are designed in accordance the following criteria of effective court performance measures:

  1. Outcome Focus. Effective performance measures emphasize the condition or status of the recipients of services or the participants in court programs (outcomes) over that of internal aspects of processes, programs and activities (inputs and outputs) -- that is, they indicate results rather than resources and level of effort.
  2. A Vital Few instead of a Trivial Many. It is better to have a critical few core measures instead of a trivial many. An aggregation, a combination, an index, or a conjunction of a number of measures, variables or aspects of performance may be identified with associated subordinate measures to keep the number of core measures low. Each core measure may sit at the top of a “hierarchy” of related subordinate measures and indicators.
  3. Actionable. Effective performance measures drive success. They are focused, unambiguous and actionable. They serve both as incentives and practical tools for improvement. The key to collecting data for court performance measurement is identifying those performance measures that will actually help to achieve the desired results (i.e., measures that are drivers of success). At best, the act of measurement itself triggers a change.
  4. A Balanced Scorecard. Effective performance measures together constitute a balanced perspective or “balanced scorecard” of performance. They reinforce each other and do not undermine each other.
  5. Practical and Feasible. Effective performance measures are ones that can be taken without extraordinary efforts by the appellate court, ideally as part of everyday management and operations.
  6. Standardization and Consistency Across Entire Court System. Effective performance measures are based on standard definitions, rules and calculations. They are consistent from the top to the bottom and across the court system.
  7. Symbolic. Effective performance measures are easy to understand and explain to others.

[1] Dean R. Spitzer (2007). Transforming Performance Measurement: Rethinking the Way We Measure and Drive Organizational Success (New York: American Management Asssociation).

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