Privacy Concerns Threatens Survey Research

In previous posts I’ve called for courts and justice systems to be good stewards of performance data.  And, as an advocate of radical transparency, I’ve pushed for self-assessment and accountability by means of regular and continuous performance measurement and management instead of reliance on periodic third-party program evaluation and research.

Now comes another good reason for courts and other justice institutions to go that route.  As reported by Carl Bialik, Census Gets Questions on Mandatory Queries, the Wall Street Journal’s “Numbers Guy,” members of Congress are challenging the Census Bureau’s massive data-collection effort known as the American Community Survey.  The survey uses dozens of detailed questions – including the use of carpools, flush toilets, and wood fuel – to help determine the need for and distribution of funds of various government programs. The survey, which reaches 3.5 million households, is mandatory, a fact that gets close to 100% of the people to respond and a necessity for maintaining the survey’s validity, according to the Census Bureau and its supporters, including the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the American Statistical Association.  

The congressional challenge, including presidential candidate Ron Paul, rests on privacy concerns. “The freedom of the American people from unwanted government intrusion into the private lives and affairs is a higher priority than the quality of the government’s data,” the Wall Street Journal quoted a Ron Paul spokesperson as saying.

Good stewardship of performance data, in my view, requires courts and justice institutions not only to collect data on the right measures but, first and foremost, to integrate performance measurement and performance management with good governance.  They need to have the right delivery of the performance data, which means getting it into the hands of the right people in a totally transparent and accountable manner that ensures the right use of the data.   Privacy issues and non-disclosure of protected data are best determined and implemented by judicial branch policymakers as part of the development of an effective performance measurement and management system.  Unpleasant surprises, such as that facing the Census Bureau, might be minimized, if not avoided altogether, by such an approach.  

© Copyright CourtMetrics and the National Center for State Courts 2012. All rights reserved.

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