Q & A: How Many Measures Should Be Used?

Q: How many performance measures should my court be considering? My colleagues have reviewed the ten performance measures of the CourTools developed by the National Center for State Courts, as well as other measures – like treatment court recidivism -- that courts are considering. They all seem compelling but we are concerned that the whole enterprise will just be too much for us. What advice do you have?

A: It is better to do more with less than less with more. First and foremost, how many performance measures your court should develop depends on what matters to you, what you consider important – the court’s key success factors. If these include, for example, access and fairness, citizen satisfaction, expedition and timeliness, community welfare, and employee engagement, you’re likely to need more measures than if you’re only interested in efficient case processing.

Second, there’s no sense in developing measures that will not be used. Generally speaking, it is much better to do more with fewer measures than to do too little with more.

If your court is unlikely to muster the political will and maintain the capacity to fully monitor, analyze and manage ten performance measures on a regular and continuous basis, developing ten performance measures is wasteful effort. You’re much better off with just five, four, three or even just two measures that you can fully exploit.

For example, court user/citizen satisfaction and case backlog – just two measures – can pack a mighty wallop of understanding and insight into your court’s performance that can be translated into effective strategies for improvement. As John M. Greacen noted in an article reprinted in Future Trends in State Courts - 2007, the state of New Jersey has done quite well with a sustained focus on just one measure, backlog. “The focus on backlog,” he writes, “has proved to be wise and effective – in its ability to motivate the courts to improve on that measure, in its positive impact on other performance measures, and in its simplicity and clarity of message to the media and the rest of state government.”

The takeaway message is that of Ockham's razor, the principle attributed to the 14th century English logician William of Ockham. The principle, also known as the “law of parsimony,” is often paraphrased as "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

© Copyright CourtMetrics 2008. 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