Independence, Accountability and Performance Measurement

In various policy statements and resolutions, the Nation’s state court leaders in the Conference of Chief Justices (CCJ) and the Conference of State Court Administrators (COSCA) link independence and accountability with organizational performance measurement. Most recently, with Joint Resolution 14, In Support of Measuring Court Performance, adopted on August 3, 2005, the Conferences first join independence and accountability by recognizing that accountability fosters an environment where legislators, executive agencies, and the public understand the judiciary’s role and are less likely to interfere with the judiciary’s ability to govern itself. The Conferences next make the link with performance measurement by declaring that “judiciaries need performance standards and measures that provide a balanced view of court performance in terms of prompt and efficient case administration, public access and service, equity and fairness, and effective and efficient management.”

This view reflects the policies of earlier resolutions by CCJ and COSCA in support of effective judicial governance and the independence of state judicial systems, as well as the performance standards in the area of Independence and Accountability of the 1995 Court Performance Standards, which are virtually endorsed or adopted in some form in all 50 states. (Of course, performance measurement is an integral part of most models and frameworks for strategic planning and quality management including Total Quality Management [TQM], the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, ISO9000, Six Sigma, Balanced Scorecard, and the Business Excellence Model.)

Among other things in Resolution 14, CCJ and COSCA urge:

State courts to develop and test a balanced set of court performance measures using the models of the CourTools and the Six-Step Process for Building a Court Performance Measurement System (CPMS) developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and its colleagues; and
State courts to collaborate with the NCSC as these measures are developed to learn from the experiences of other court systems and, to the extent possible, encourage the use of consistent methodologies which are necessary for comparability.

In a recent review at the Ninth Court Technology Conference (CTC9) earlier this month in Seattle, my colleagues and I identified courts and court systems in nine states (Arizona, California, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon and Utah) that have taken the innovations represented by the CourTools and the Six-Step Process into design and development, to testing and demonstration, and toward limited implementation and eventually institutionalization.

(Look for more on the Six-Step Process for Building a Court Performance Measurement System in future postings.)

Copyright CourtMetrics. 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

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

A Logic Model of Performance Inputs, Outputs and Outcomes

Increasingly, the courts' stakeholders -- justice system partners, the general public, litigants, jurors, witnesses, and even the courts’ own court employees -- demand clear evidence that the resources courts expend actually produce benefits for people. Looking for this evidence starts early in the development of a court performance measurement system (CPMS) (see Step 2, Identifying and Defining the Performance Measures Needed and Desired to Help Achieve Goals, October 15, 2005 posting, “Six-Step Process for Building an Effective Court Performance Measurement System”). For every strategic initiative, program or specific strategy, court managers should develop a simple logic model that describes how the initiative, program or strategy theoretically works to achieve the desired results from program inputs through end outcomes. Critical thinking and discussion of the logic of how a proposed program or strategy may bring about results that benefit citizens and the community can reap g
Read more