|
Measure
4.5.1: Responsiveness to Past Issues
This
measure determines how well the court has responded to past changes in its
environment. Issues to consider might include demands for the elimination of
gender bias, the introduction of alternative dispute resolution programs,
and the use of special procedures with respect to individuals who have AIDS.
For each issue, has the court maintained the timely flow of cases, conducted
hearings, and accommodated the needs of all of the participants? Although
the substantive nature of significant past issues may vary across
jurisdictions, this measure provides a step-by-step approach to assessing
the adequacy of the responses.
Planning/Preparation.
The measure relies on a structured approach for
collecting a wide array of opinions from a range of persons inside and
outside the court. The central task of the measure is to organize the ideas
of numerous individuals and to produce a narrative account of how the court
has responded to past issues. This account is then used as a springboard for
group discussion. Because judges and court managers are asked for their
views concerning the nature and effectiveness of the court’s past
responses, the narrative account will be most objective if a person from
outside the court (e.g., private consultant or university professor) is
responsible for preparing it and leading the group discussion. (Hereafter
this person is referred to as the facilitator).
In
addition to the steering committee, a group of individuals should be
identified to serve as knowledgeable informants for survey interviews and to
participate in group discussions at critical points. At least one of the
following three criteria should be used to select these individuals: (1)
experience in managing some aspect of the court system, justice system
agency (e.g., police department, public defender’s office) or other public
(e.g., county executive) or private organization (e.g., bar association,
Mothers Against Drunk Driving, law school) involved in the administration of
justice; (2) experience in coordinating court policies, procedures, and
practices with other public and private organizations (e.g., bench-bar
committees, court-citizen task forces); and (3) demonstrated interest and
involvement in at least one major public policy issue (e.g., the
introduction of guidelines for child support or the development of
alternatives to incarceration).
In
consultation with the steering committee, the facilitator should prepare a
comprehensive list of persons who meet these criteria. The facilitator will
then randomly select a set of individuals from the list. The court has two
options for selecting the names. The first option is a stratified sample.
Individuals are classified according to their institutional affiliation and
samples are drawn from each institutional subgroup. This procedure ensures
that individuals from all types of institutions are represented. The second
option is a nonstratified sample in which the entire sample is drawn from an
alphabetical list of all names. This procedure gives every individual a
chance of being selected regardless of organizational affiliation. For
either option, the selection should be made randomly to avoid criticism that
participants were invited because they are friends of the court. Finally,
the number of individuals selected should be kept within a manageable range,
although the specific number may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Because the individuals will participate in both an opinion survey and a
group discussion, a sample of 15 to 20 individuals is appropriate for most
jurisdictions.
Data
Collection. The
facilitator determines the three most important issues that the court has
responded to in the past decade by soliciting the opinions of individuals
inside and outside the court. Through face-to-face interviews with the 15 to
20 individuals participating in the survey, the facilitator asks the
respondents to list the three most important public policy issues that
affected the fair and effective administration of justice by the court in
the past 10 years. The respondents also are asked to rank each issue
according to five dimensions: (1) the workload demands the issue places on
the court’s resources, (2) the issue’s degree of complexity, (3) the
level of public interest in the issue, (4) the issue’s need for
specialized treatment and procedures, and (5) the issue’s long-term impact
on the court’s caseload.
The
facilitator summarizes the responses of the individuals into group rankings.
The rankings are based on the frequency with which each issue is mentioned.
Additionally, the facilitator can put these overall rankings into
perspective by summarizing the group’s views of each issue associated with
the dimensions described above. Finally, a brief written summary of this
information is provided to the steering committee and used in the next step
of the measure.
After
having identified (either alone or in consultation with the steering
committee) the three most important issues affecting the court in the past
decade, the facilitator prepares the narrative account or case study. The
purpose of the narrative is to address the following basic questions for
each issue: (1) When did the issue begin to emerge? (2) How and when did the
court initially become aware of the issue? (3) How did the court initially
respond? (4) How did the issue further develop? and (5) How did the court
respond to the issue when it fully emerged? To guide the search for answers
to these questions, more specific questions can be posed.
-
What
was the first indication that the issue was emerging? Did its emergence
coincide with national or statewide trends? Which individuals or
organizations were concerned with the issue? What demands did these
individuals or groups make on the courts?
-
When
did the court become cognizant of the issue? How was the issue brought to
the court’s attention? How long after the issue arose did the court
respond? Which individuals in the court responded to the issue?
-
How
did the court initially respond? What was the nature of the court’s
discussion of the issue? Who participated in the discussion? What
alternative courses of action were considered, selected, and implemented?
Did the court choose to monitor the issue’s development?
-
How
did the issue develop? Did public interest in the issue grow over time? What
was the nature of its effects on caseload volume? Did other institutions
inside or outside the justice system become involved? How did the
individuals initially concerned with the issue react to the court’s
response?
-
How
did the court respond to the issue after it had developed more fully? When
did the court’s leadership take action? What procedural and policy
adjustments were made? What additional resources were required or allocated?
How did the court monitor potential problems associated with the issue?
The
answers to these five sets of questions provide the basis for an informative
narrative account of the development of the court’s responsiveness to
significant issues. The facilitator gathers this information by conducting
interviews with past and present presiding judges, court managers, and other
individuals involved in the issue. Additionally, the facilitator should
collect a variety of documents related to each issue, including memoranda,
agendas, administrative documents, and news clippings. For more detailed
information on how case studies are conducted, organized, and written, there
are several basic references to consult.5
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
The analysis of the court’s response to each
issue consists of addressing three interrelated questions: (1) How satisfied
is the court’s leadership with the responses to each issue? (2) What
worked and what did not? and (3) How satisfied are other individuals with
the court’s actions?
The
facilitator should interview key court officials and other individuals who
were highly involved in each issue to determine their views on the adequacy
of the court’s response. The interviews should solicit views on whether
responses were timely, comprehensive, and effective. Their purpose is to
gain some sense of how well the court responded to each issue and to explore
ideas on how reactions to future changes might be improved.
Interview
results should be incorporated into each issue’s narrative account, which
is then circulated back to the steering committee. This material also
provides a basis for assessing how the court can improve its performance.
The
information compiled by the facilitator forms the basis for a thorough
review process and the development of an action plan. A recommended approach
is to convene the 15 to 20 individuals initially involved in identifying the
issues (see the planning/preparation section of this measure) to review each
narrative account and corresponding appraisal. The facilitator should focus
the discussion by posing a few central questions:
-
What
lessons can be learned from past responses?
-
What
accounts for differences in the court’s view of its performance and the
views of key individuals involved in each issue?
-
What
actions are necessary to improve the court’s sensitivity to public policy
issues, its mechanisms for monitoring issues, and its understanding of how
issues affect court operations?
A
court that is performing well will use the information from this measure and
corresponding feedback to design corrective actions that improve how it
responds to issues in the future. Specifically, the court should develop an
action plan for determining what changes in policies, procedures, and
practices should be made to improve the timeliness and effectiveness of its
responses. The facilitator can help write the action plan but substantive
recommendations should be the product of the court’s reactions to the
review process.
__________________________________
5 See,
for example, R. Yin, Case Study Research Design and Methods
(Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1984).
Go
to Standard 4.5
Go
to Table of Contents |
