|
Suggested
Steering Committee Activities for Standard 4.3
After
one or more of the data collection measures for Standard 4.3 have been
completed, the steering committee members should review the information
presented in the reports and formulate their thoughts about what aspects of
the data they find most striking. This review should be followed by
consideration of what, if any, action is suggested by the data. A
facilitator should assist in this effort using the structured group
techniques described in the measurement overview for Performance Area 4.
The
steering committee’s work has three purposes. The estimated time required
to complete the group activity related to each purpose ranges from 30
minutes to 1 hour. The total time required will depend on the skills of the
facilitator and the preferences of the group. The committee, therefore, has
the option of addressing each purpose at separate meetings or scheduling a
single 2-hour session broken into three parts. The most appropriate option
will depend entirely on local conditions and committee member preferences.
The
purposes of the review and an estimate of the time required for each
activity are as follows:
-
Determine
the most striking aspects (good or bad) of the data produced for Measures
4.3.1 through 4.3.3: 1 hour.
-
Identify
key features of a plan to address perceived deficiencies: 1 hour.
-
(Optional)
Arrive at a consensus rating of the court’s overall performance in
achieving fairness in employment practices: 30 minutes.
The
purposes of the work are accomplished by posing the following questions to
the committee. The committee answers as a group, using the decisionmaking
techniques described in the measurement overview.
1.
What did you find most striking in the data and reports about fairness in
the court’s personnel practices?
Either
NGT or Ideawriting is suitable for addressing this question.
2.
On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is very poor and 5 is very good, how would you
rate the court’s performance for this standard, and why?
On
the pads that the members are provided, each member writes a score and a
brief explanation for the score. The members then report their scores (but
not the reasons) aloud to the facilitator. If there is general agreement, no
further discussion is required. If the range of views is wide, some
discussion may be useful. If there is a clear trend but some outliers, the
reasons for the views of the outliers may be solicited. After discussion,
the process is repeated to determine if the group has reached a more
definitive consensus.
If
there are no significant disparities in the evaluation scores of the
members, a consensus rating is likely to be represented by an average of all
the ratings. If there are wide discrepancies that are not resolved through
discussion, the evaluation rating should reflect the mean of the predominant
viewpoint, with the exception(s) being reported as such. The evaluation(s)
and explanatory notes should be preserved as part of the documentation of
the court’s measurement effort. These reports will be useful when
reevaluations occur in future years.
3.
What action should the court take to improve its performance as a fair
employer?
Either
NGT or Ideawriting is suitable for addressing this question. The choice of
techniques depends on the size of the steering committee and members’
level of comfort with expressing themselves in writing rather than orally.
The outcome of this step is a prioritized list of five to seven items the
group agrees are the most feasible and effective actions the court can take
to improve its performance or its ability to conduct more valid or reliable
assessments in the future.
It
is important that employees be informed of the evaluation’s results and
advised of the steps the court plans to take to remedy any deficiencies it
has identified. Doing so will signal integrity and openness in court
personnel practices and increase confidence among employees that fair
practices are a concern the court takes seriously. The results and plan for
corrective action could be shared with employees at a courtwide staff
meeting or social gathering or in a letter from the chief judge. One of the
more personal approaches is recommended in preference to a letter. It may be
difficult to draft a letter that is not overly guarded or vague if the
results are sensitive.
Go
to Performance Area 4
Go
to Standard 4.3
Go
to Table of Contents |
