Measure your court's performance with CourTools

Definition: Ratings of court users on the court's accessibility and its treatment of customers in terms of fairness, equality, and respect. (To measure ratings of attorneys and court staff, see measure 1 supplement)

Purpose: This measure has been revised to provide a tool for surveying court users about their court experiences in both in-person and remote proceedings. Comparison of results by court location and venue, type of customer, and type of case can inform and improve court management practices.

Download measure 1 and measure 1 supplement

Definition: The number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases.

Purpose: Clearance rate is a measure of how efficiently a court is handling its caseload by comparing the number of cases disposed of to the number of cases filed. A clearance rate of 100% or higher indicates that the court is keeping up with its incoming cases, while a lower rate suggests a backlog. Understanding clearance rates by case type can help identify issues and areas for improvement in the court system.

Download measure 2

Definition: The percentage of cases disposed or otherwise resolved within established time frames.

Purpose: This measure is an important tool for assessing court performance in processing cases and comparing it to local, state, or national guidelines for timely case processing. It takes into account periods of inactivity beyond the court's control and provides a framework for meaningful measurement across all case types, aligning with time standards established by the National Center for State Courts and other organizations.

Download measure 3

Definition: The age of active cases that are pending before the court, measured as the number of days from filing until the time of measurement.

Purpose: The court's pending caseload consists of cases that have been filed but remain unresolved. It is crucial to maintain an accurate and comprehensive record of these cases, including their number and duration, to ensure they are processed in accordance with the court's time standards and to identify any that are approaching or exceeding these limits, allowing for appropriate measures to be taken to resolve cases in a timely manner.

Download measure 4

Definition: The number of times cases disposed by trial are scheduled for trial.

Purpose: A court's ability to hold trials on the first date they are scheduled to be heard (trial date certainty) is closely associated with timely case disposition. This measure provides a method to evaluate the effectiveness of calendaring and continuance practices.

Download measure 5

Definition: The percentage of case files that meet established standards for completeness and accuracy. Case files can be in electronic and paper format.

Purpose: A reliable and accurate case file management system is fundamental to the effectiveness of day-to-day court operations and fairness of judicial decisions. This measure provides information regarding (1) how long it takes to retrieve paper records (if applicable), (2) whether the case file's contents and case summary information match up, (3) the organization and completeness of the information in the case file, and (4) the accuracy of the case status in electronic systems.

Download measure 6

7a: Ensuring fairness in legal financial obligations (court user survey)

Definition: Ratings by defendants/respondents of their treatment by the court in cases in which the court has imposed a legal financial obligation (LFO).

Purpose: This measure evaluates the extent to which the court is seen by its customers to demonstrate fairness, respect, equal treatment, and concern in the imposition of legal financial obligations (LFOs).

Download measure 7a

7b: Management of legal financial obligations

Definition: The percentage of cases in which legal financial obligations are fully met.

Purpose: Integrity and public trust in the administration of justice depend in part on how and how well court orders are observed and enforced. In the context of legal financial obligations, courts seek to manage compliance to maximize a defendant's ability to successfully meet those obligations. In particular, restitution for crime victims and accountability for enforcement of sanctions imposed are issues of intense public interest and concern. The focus of this measure is on the extent to which a court successfully manages the enforcement of court orders requiring payment of legal financial obligations.

Download measure 7b

7c: Fair practices for legal financial obligations (court personnel survey)

Definition: Ratings by judicial officers, court administrators, and court staff on the importance and use of certain practices used by the court to determine, monitor, and enforce compliance by defendants with legal financial obligations (LFOs).

Purpose: Using a short survey, this measure provides a method of self-assessment for court personnel to evaluate the utility of their current processes and gauge the importance of incorporating additional recognized good practices to enhance defendant compliance with LFOs.

Download measure 7c

Definition: Juror utilization is the rate at which qualified and available jurors are used at least once in trial or voir dire, expressed as a percentage of the total number of qualified and available jurors (yield).

Purpose: The objective of this measure is to minimize the amount of effort expended to summon and qualify prospective jurors and to maximize the rate at which they are used to select juries.

Download measure 8

Definition: Ratings of court employees assessing the quality of the work environment and relations between staff and management.

Purpose: Committed and loyal employees have a direct impact on a court's performance. This measure is a powerful tool for surveying employee opinion on whether staff have the materials, motivation, direction, sense of mission, and commitment to do quality work. Knowing how employees perceive the workplace is essential to facilitate organizational development and change, assess teamwork and management style, enhance job satisfaction, and thus improve service to the public.

Download measure 9

Definition: The average cost of processing a single case, by case type.

Purpose: Monitoring cost per case, from year to year, provides a practical means to evaluate existing case processing practices and to improve court operations. Cost per case forges a direct connection between how much is spent and what is accomplished. This measure can be used to assess return on investment in new technologies, reengineering of business practices, staff training, or the adoption of "best practices." It also helps determine where court operations may be slack, including inefficient procedures or underutilized staff.

Download measure 10

Definition: Appellate lawyers' and trial court judges' ratings on the quality of the appellate court's judicial and administrative services.

Purpose: Trial court judges and members of the appellate bar are uniquely positioned to assess how well the appellate court is fulfilling its responsibility to consider each case and resolve it in accordance with the law. Surveying how well these groups believe the court is fulfilling its duties indicates the court's overall success in delivering quality justice when resolving appeals.

Download measure 1

Definition: The number of outgoing cases as a percentage of the number of incoming cases.

Purpose: This measure gauges whether a court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. If a court is resolving fewer cases than are filed with the court, a growing inventory of pending cases in inevitable. Knowledge of clearance rates for various case types over a period of time can help the court identifying emerging problems and target improvements.

Download measure 2

Definition: The percentage of cases disposed of within established time guidelines.

Purpose: Timeliness is an essential aspect of resolving cases and providing the finality for which the appellate process is designed. This measure, used in conjunction with measure 2 (clearance rates) and measure 4 (age of active pending caseload), is a fundamental management tool used to compare a court's performance to its own benchmarks and state or national guidelines for timely case processing.

Download measure 3

Definition: The age of active cases pending before the court, measured as the number of days from filing until the time of measurement.

Purpose: Cases filed but not yet disposed make up an appellate court's pending caseload. A complete and accurate inventory of pending cases (e.g. the number, ages, and types of cases) provides the information an appellate court needs to assess its performance processing cases within established time frames. Once the ages of active cases in various case types are determined, the court can focus its attention on what is required to ensure cases are brought to completion within reasonable time frames, and thus minimize court delay.

Download measure 4

Definition: Ratings of court employees assessing the quality of the work environment and relations between staff and management.

Purpose: Committed and loyal employees have a direct impact on a court's performance. This measure is a powerful tool for surveying employee opinion on whether staff have materials, motivation, direction, sense of mission, and commitment to do quality work. Knowing how employees perceive the workplace is essential to facilitate organizational development and change, evaluate teamwork and management style, enhance job satisfaction, and thus, improve service to the court's constituents.

Download measure 5

Definition: The percentage of case files that can be retrieved within established time guidelines and that meet established standards for completeness and accuracy of content.

Purpose: Readily available case files that are complete and accurate are fundamental to the effectiveness and efficiency of daily appellate court operations as well as to the fairness of judicial decisions. The integrity of case files affects not only the decision-making process, but also has a direct impact on the organizational effectiveness of an appellate court.

Download measure 6