Performance Measurement Resource Guide

NCSC > Court Management > Performance Measurement > Resource Guide

Resource Guide

The High Performance Court Framework informs court leaders of actions they can take to integrate performance improvement into ongoing operations. These actions include focusing on key administrative principles that define high performance. In this course, participants will learn to build on those principles and solve business problems.

ICM course - Fundamental Issues of Caseflow Management.

In this course, participants will assess the effectiveness of their court's caseflow management system.

Court performance standards establish goals for effective court performance in five areas: access to justice, expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence and accountability; and public trust and confidence. Through the collective work of all members of the judicial process, from judges to administrators to clerks, courts can better assess and recognize areas within their system that require attention and improvement.

Links to related online resources are listed below. Non-digitized publications may be borrowed from the NCSC Library; call numbers are provided.

Featured Links

Performance Measurement NCSC Area of Expertise.

Case Processing Time Standards This database compiles state-by-state information about Case Processing Time Standards (CPTS) and how states monitor them.

Court Performance Standards: CourTools Court Performance Standards: CourTools is an eLearning course offered by the Institute of Court Management. The course is ongoing.

``Performance Measurement and Management in State Supreme Courts and Intermediate Courts of Appeal`` Article from the Future Trends in State Courts 2009 report by John Doerner and Ingo Keilitz.

``Defining Operational Successes: Measuring the Performance of a Court`s Front-Line Staff`` Article from the Future Trends in State Courts 2009 report by Jake Chatters.

Court Automation Performance Goals Standards presented have been suggested by technology visionaries as the tool needed for the judiciary to create the optimal work environment.

CourTools On-Demand: Web-based Software for Judges, Court Managers, and Court Staff Presentation from the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the National Court Technology Conference on court business intelligence.

Court Technology Conference Presentations

Presentations from the Eighth National Court Technology Conference regarding building an effective court performance measurement system.

CourTools

The ten trial court performance measures known as CourTools offer courts a balanced perspective on how the court is conducting its business. In designing the CourTools, the National Center for State Courts integrated lessons from successful performance measurement systems in both the public and private sectors with its earlier work with the Trial Court Performance Standards.

Justice System Journal Articles

Trends Articles

Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement

NACM Justice Achievement Awards

A compilation of the National Association for Court Management's Justice Achievement Awards from 2000-2011.

General

Van Duizend, Richard, David Steelman, and Lee Suskin. Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts.. (August 2011). National Center for State Courts and State Justice Institute.

This document is the result of a two-year review of the more than 40 years of experience with time-to-disposition standards. The time to disposition standards set forth in this document, based on a review of the experience of state courts, are intended to establish a reasonable set of expectations for the courts, for lawyers, and for the public.

Clark, Thomas, Richard Schauffler, Brian Ostrom, Charles Ostrom, and .Roger Hanson. A Unifying Framework for Court Performance Measurement. (May 2008).

This report proposes a unifying performance measurement framework for courts to simplify their ability to use collected data to improve court operations.

Building a Better Court: Measuring and Improving Court Performance and Judicial Workload in Child Abuse and Neglect Cases. (April 2004). NCSC, American Bar Association, and National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges. The Guide and Companion Toolkit, developed with funding from the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, are designed to help courts handling child abuse and neglect cases make real and sustained advances in improving court performance by successfully measuring court performance and judicial workload needs.

Mahoney, Barry et al. Changing Times in Trial Courts: Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts. (1988). 246 pages. "As this classic report shows, caseflow management in American urban trial courts has become an important and effective approach to reducing court delay. Successful caseflow management appears to require a comprehensive case processing system that identifies and maintains information on all cases from entry into the process of disposition...This research gives us a better grasp of the complexities of controlling case processing and reducing delay."

Court Performance Standards Project: Volunteering for Justice. (2003). Raleigh, NC: Administrative Office of the Courts This two-page brochure explains the court performance standards in North Carolina and includes information on volunteering programs.

Casey, Pamela. Defining Optimal Court Performance: The Trial Court Performance Standards. (November 1998). Court Review, Winter 1998 Eleven years ago twelve individuals from the court community met for the first time in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the fundamental responsibilities of courts. The fruits of their discussion, the Trial Court Performance Standards, articulate the fundamental purposes of courts and offer the court community a way of communicating with each other and their constituents about the work of courts.

Goldkamp, John et al. Developing an Evaluation Plan for Community Courts: Assessing the Hartford Community Court Model. (2001). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Crime and Justice Research Institute This fifty-one page pdf file is organized into several sections -- an introduction with information on the Midtown Community Court Prototype, which was a model for the Hartford Community Court Model; the development of the Hartford court; major components of the court model including target populations, community involvement, and screening participants; implementation and start-up of the court; and an overall evaluation of the Hartford Community Court Model.

Cheesman, Fred, Dawn Rubio, and Richard Van Duizend. Developing Statewide Performance Measures for Drug Courts. (October 2004). Statewide Technical Assistance Bulletin. The Bulletin discusses statewide performance measures for drug courts.

Ostrom, Brian and Roger Hanson. Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine State Criminal Trial Courts. (June 2000). National Institute of Justice - Research in Brief This brief attempts to illustrate that timeliness and judicial quality are not incompatible but, in fact, can be achieved.

John Goerdt with Chris Lomvardias, Geoff Gallas, and Barry Mahoney. Examining Court Delay: The Pace of Litigation in 26 Urban Trial Courts, 1987. (1989). 154 pages. With data from 26 urban trial courts, this report presents the most broadly based empirical evidence ever collected regarding the extent and nature of court delay. This study shows that several courts provide a relatively expeditious pace of litigation and are within 10 percent of meeting the American Bar Association (ABA) disposition time standards.

Schauffler, Richard. Judicial Accountability in the US State Courts: Measuring Court Performance. (June 2007). Utrecht Law Review 3, no. 1

An examination of the current efforts at performance measurement in the state courts, situated in a global and historical context.

Rubio, Dawn, Fred Cheesman, and William Federspiel. Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art. (July 2008). Statewide Technical Assistance Bulletin, Volume 6. This Bulletin updates the volume published in 2004 that described the methodology used by the NCSC to develop Statewide Performance Measurement Systems (SPMSs) for the drug courts of several states.

The Public Image of Courts: Highlights of a National Survey of the General Public, Judges, Lawyers, and Community Leaders. (1978). 307 pages. Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc. for NCSC, United States Justice Department, and National Institute of Law Enforcement. "The report that follows presents preliminary findings from the first comprehensive national survey of public attitudes toward courts and justice."

Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System Program Brief. (1997). Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice This document provides policymakers and court officials with an overview of the development, testing, and implementation of TCPS.

Casey, Pamela et al. Trial Court Performance Standards Desk Reference Manual. (Spring 2003). Research Division. This reference manual provides examples of court programs and initiatives that address each of the Trial Court Performance Standards within five performance areas: access to justice; expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence and accountability; and public trust and confidence.

Casey, Pamela. Trial Court Performance Standards Implementation Profiles. (2003).

Provides implementation profiles on how California, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia are using the Trial Court Performance Standards.

Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary. (1997). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice This summary document covers the 22 performance standards and provides an excellent starting point for individuals and courts contemplating an assessment of court performance.

Performance Measurement Internationally

Albers, P. Evaluating Judicial Systems: A balance between variety and generalization. (May 2003). European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice

How To Assess Quality in the Courts. (March 2006). Quality Benchmarks for Adjudication are a means for the Improvement of the Activity of the Courts. The Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi, Finland.

The Justice Scorecard and 6 Sigma: A Performance Measurement, Management, and Continuous Improvement System to Create a Strategy Focused Subordinate Courts. (2003). Singapore: Subordinate Courts Slides. Available upon request at NCSC. A presentation of the performance architecture of the Justice Scorecard performance measurement system used by the Singapore Subordinate Courts, including key success factors and future directions for use of the Justice Scorecard.

State County Specific

Coleman, Rick, et al. A Performance Audit of the Timeliness of Civil Cases in District Court. (April 2005). This report evaluates the case timelines of civil cases filed in Utah district courts. It was prepared as a result of legislative interest.

Accountability Through Measurement. (2005). Lubbock County (TX) Judicial Branch This report contains the results of this county's first round of court performance measurement, along with management recommendations for action based on the results.

Court Performance Measures. (2004). Minnesota Judicial Branch - Fourth District Performance measures.

Morrow County Court of Common Pleas -- Court Evaluation. (October 2005). NCSC Trial Court Performance Standards - CourTools. Documents the performance standards and evaluates the Morrow Cty court on those standards.

New Hampshire`s Performance Evaluation Questionnaire. This is an online version of New Hampshire's Supreme Court Performance Evaluation Questionnaire.

Performance Measures: Key Results and Measures. (January 2009). This Minnesota report contains the first set of complete results for all eleven Key Results and Measures of Judicial Council. This report is comprehensive, readable and could be used by other court systems to develop similar products for their own court systems.

Superior Court of Arizona in Yuma County Performance Measures. (2007). Yuma County Superior Court This website reports results for CourTools Measures 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10.

Rubio, Dawn and Fred Cheesman. Wyoming Drug Court Performance Measures Project. (2007).

NCSC designed a Web-based data collection instrument to collect demographic and performance measure date for Wyoming drug courts.