COURT PERFORMANCECOURT PERFORMANCE Why and what to followWhy and what to follow

Why Measure Performance?Why Measure Performance?

Different Purposes - Different MeasuresDifferent Purposes - Different Measures

Robert D. Behn

Harvard University

Public Administration Review • September/October 2003, Vol. 63, No. 5

Purposes IPurposes I

Evaluate How well is my public agency performing?

Control How can I ensure that my subordinates are doing the right thing?

Budget On what programs, people, or projects should my agency spend the

public's money?

Motivate How can I motivate line staff, middle managers, nonprofit and for-profit

collaborators, stakeholders, and citizens to do the things necessary to improve performance?

Purposes IIPurposes II

Promote How can I convince political superiors, legislators, stakeholders, journalists,

and citizens that my agency is doing a good job?

Celebrate What accomplishments are worthy of the important organizational ritual of

celebrating success?

Learn Why is what working or not working?

Improve What exactly should who do differently to improve performance?

Characteristics of Performance Characteristics of Performance Measures – Needs IMeasures – Needs I

Evaluate Outcomes, combined with inputs and with the effects of exogenous factors

Control Inputs that can be regulated

Budget Efficiency measures (specifically outcomes or outputs divided by inputs)

Motivate Almost-real-time outputs compared with production targets

Characteristics of Performance Characteristics of Performance Measures – Needs IIMeasures – Needs II

Promote Easily understood aspects of performance about which citizens really care

Celebrate Periodic and significant performance targets that, when achieved, provide

people with a real sense of personal and collective accomplishment

Learn Disaggregated data that can reveal deviancies from the expected

Improve Inside-the-black-box relationships that connect changes in operations to

changes in outputs and outcomes

ConclusionConclusion

"What gets measured gets done“

If you measure it, people will do it.

CEPEJCEPEJ

Activities on Court PerformanceActivities on Court Performance

Activities of CEPEJ in the field of…Activities of CEPEJ in the field of…

Evaluation of Judicial Systems Evaluation of Judicial Systems Judicial time managementJudicial time management Quality of justice Quality of justice Enforcement Enforcement Mediation Mediation Targeted co-operationTargeted co-operation

CEPEJ – recommends especiallyCEPEJ – recommends especially

Evaluation of Judicial Systems – ReportEvaluation of Judicial Systems – Report ““Time Management Checklist“Time Management Checklist“ SATURN – European Uniform Guidelines SATURN – European Uniform Guidelines

for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes for Monitoring of Judicial Timeframes (EUGMONT)(EUGMONT)

GOJUST – Guidelines on Judicial GOJUST – Guidelines on Judicial StatisticsStatistics

CEPEJ – recommended indicatorsCEPEJ – recommended indicators

Type of caseCases pending on

1.1.2008New cases initiated

in 2008Resolved cases

in 2008Cases pending on31.12.2008

1 Civil cases

1a Litigious divorces

1b Dismissals

CEPEJ – recommended indicatorsCEPEJ – recommended indicators

resolved casesClearance Rate (%) x100

incoming cases

resolved casesClearance Rate (%) x100

incoming cases

Number of Resolved CasesCaseTurnover Ratio=

Number of Unresolved Cases at the End

erRatioCaseTurnovnTimeDispositio

365

Efficiency rate, Total backlog, Backlog resolution, Case per judge, Standard departure …

CEPEJ indicators – applied to TK ICEPEJ indicators – applied to TK I

resolved casesClearance Rate (%) x100

incoming cases

Totals CC Ç per judge

183,88 513,88 2,25 700,00 390,63 309,38 76% 60% 68% 289,08

Remaining Cases

Cases Filed This

Year

Cases Returned

by the Court of

Cassation

Total Files in Docket

Total Cases

Decided

Remaining Cases From the Previous

Year

Clearance Rate

CaseloadBacklog Change

Average Disposition

Time in days

Criminal Courts

240 265 7 512 329 183 121% 67% -24% 203,02

862 589 18 1.469 519 950 86% 157% 10% 668,11

884 576 7 1.467 637 830 109% 142% -6% 475,59

917 590 5 1.512 643 869 108% 146% -5% 493,29

1.087 2.695 0 3.782 2.043 1.739 76% 65% 60% 310,69

384 1.416 18 1.818 1.082 736 75% 51% 92% 248,28

Totals CC Ç 1.471 4.111 18 5.600 3.125 2.475 76% 60% 68% 289,08

"Ç" Courthouse Statistics

CEPEJ indicators – applied to TK IICEPEJ indicators – applied to TK II

resolved casesClearance Rate (%) x100

incoming cases

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Workload/Efficiency (cases per head)

Workload and efficiency of visited courts

Court 1

Court 2

Court 3

Court 4

Court 5

Court 6

Court 7

Average of courts

Austria

Bosnia i Herzegovina

Comprehensive court quality modelsComprehensive court quality models

The Netherlands: measurement system court The Netherlands: measurement system court quality and RechtspraaQquality and RechtspraaQ

Finland: Quality Benchmarks Rovaniemi CourtsFinland: Quality Benchmarks Rovaniemi Courts Ongoing work of CEPEJ-GT-QUALOngoing work of CEPEJ-GT-QUAL