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. That would be something else – maybe not yet a vital sign but better than just something.

What if we then join these two measures, in a transparent and verifiable way, with still other indicators drawn from readily available public data to form a balanced scorecard of measures of justice? Now that would be a long way from nothing, which is where we started. On that note, it is intriguing that on the international scene, compared to the United States, rule of law and justice indices, like the World Justice Project’s WJP Rule of Law Index™ and the American Bar Association’s Judicial Reform Index, constitute a relatively crowded field of inquiry.

What if we then made adjustments to this scorecard (for example, for different unemployment rates or other socioeconomic factors) without which people may hesitate to use the scorecard in assessing the health of the justice system in their communities?  (Warning. This is where the going might get a little rough as the usual suspects among the stakeholders in academia and politics weigh in with the usual arguments: We are unique and incomparable, you cannot reduce our performance to a number, and so forth. Of course, this only happens if their locale does not stack up well in the rankings.)

What if we then compared this scorecard against some other information about health of the justice system in communities throughout the U.S.?  For example, we might know that some jurisdictions in the U.S. simply would not seem to belong in the top ten or the bottom ten among communities in the U.S., just like Afghanistan would seem out of place in the top ten and Norway in the bottom ten countries around the world. We then could make further adjustments of things that were out of whack in the scorecard.

And then, what if we then could mashup this scorecard into a single number –  let’s say a number from 1 to 100 – a number that would be little bit more intuitive than the DOW industrial average, which we seemed to have gotten use to even though the number itself is meaningless. (What does 14,998.92, the DOW as I write this sentence, really mean?)

If we did all this, we would be very far down the road in the quest of a Justice Index that could be used to identify the positive deviants and bright spots among our communities.

This, incidentally, is the road taken and the quest of Measures for Justice, an organization started in 2011 by journalist and law professor Amy Bach, whose 2010 book, Ordinary Injustice: How America Holds Court, explored the everyday workings of local U.S. criminal courts.

©Copyright CourtMetrics 2013. 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

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

Taming “Wild Problems”: Measure Everything That Matters

Every problem is not solvable, but every problem is measurable. This assertion is the key to tackling problems in public services including courts, business, and life in general. Surprising to me is that even astute scholars take exception to this, among them  is Russ Roberts, the John and Jean De Nault Research Fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, the president of Shalem College in Jerusalem, and host of the award-winning podcast EconTalk: Conversation for the Curious. The belief that certain things, dubbed “wild problems” by Professor Roberts, cannot be measured does a disservice to courts and other public and private organizations. There are many benefits to measuring everything that matters. It allows organizations to   focus on and to operationalize the most important problems and issues facing them,   to track progress over time and identify areas of improvement,   to compare their performance to that of other organizations and learn from the d...
Read more