High Performance Court Framework
Examining the Work of State Courts
Mental Health Courts Performance Measures
Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art
State Court Guide to Statistical Reporting
State Court Organization
ICM course provides steps to improve performance.
The High Performance Court Framework informs court leaders of actions they can take to integrate performance improvement into ongoing operations. Participants in this ICM course, which will take place on December 8-10, 2015, at NCSC headquarters in Williamsburg, Va., will learn to build on those principles and solve business problems.
ICM course reviews CourTools.
Learn how to use the CourTools and the Court Performance Standards as a framework to guide your court into the future by setting target performances, then monitoring, evaluating and learning from results. The course will be held at NCSC headquarters in Williamsburg, Va., from October 13-15, 2015.
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.
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.
NCSC Area of Expertise.
This database compiles state-by-state information about Case Processing Time Standards (CPTS) and how states monitor them.
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.
This report proposes a unifying performance measurement framework for courts to simplify their ability to use collected data to improve court operations.
Court performance measurement systems are vital for management and planning. But "front-line" measurement of day-to-day is equally vital for improving court performance.
An examination of the current efforts at performance measurement in the state courts, situated in a global and historical context.
Report cards inform communities on how well their juvenile justice systems are working. More and more courts will be developing and publishing these accountability measures in the future.
This article serves to outline some of the issues associated with delay in Italian courts and to consider whether American courts' solutions for delay might be helpful for Italian courts and in countries with similar problems.
This article describes performance measurement and performance management in state appellate courts.
From the one-judge/two-magistrate Morrow County Court of Common Pleas in Ohio to the trial courts of Washington, from statewide policy initiatives of the judicial branch in Arizona, California, North Carolina and Utah to locally imposed “audits” by county funding authorities in Lake County, Indiana, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, performance measurement in courts is an important, rapidly emerging trend.
Performance dashboards are becoming the preferred way court systems and individual courts monitor, analyze, and manage their performance. They are the "face" of business intelligence designed to deliver the right information to the right people at the right time.
Provides implementation profiles on how California, Delaware, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, and Virginia are using the Trial Court Performance Standards.
From maintaining open court sessions to publicly releasing judicial opinions, courts have long had an obligation to promote transparency. However, a shift toward increased transparency in the court system is occurring, forcing courts to become more accountable. This shift should not be viewed as a threat to judicial independence, but rather as a means to secure it.
In an era when technological and cultural changes are abound, courts must keep pace or risk the erosion of public trust and confidence. The deployment of modern case management systems that facilitate the objective measurement of institutional court performance over time is a bulwark in the defense of public justice.
The study described in this article was undertaken by the Alaska Court System's Child in Need of Aid Court Improvement Committee in 2005. The study described the Alaska Court System's handling of child protection cases, compared that situation to findings from two earlier assessments, and discussed the court's performance in the context of applicable state and federal case-processing standards, including timeliness, efficiency, fairness, treatment of parties, and quality of proceedings.
This article focuses on all the details regarding New Jersey’s system which reduces backlogged cases. The system, unique to any other court in the country, has significantly and consistently reduced backlogged cases over several years.
NCSC designed a Web-based data collection instrument to collect demographic and performance measure date for Wyoming drug courts.