In addition to adhering to case processing time guidelines, an effective trial court establishes and abides by schedules and guidelines for activities not directly related to case management. Moreover, the court meets reasonable time schedules set by those outside the court for filing reports or providing other information stemming from court activities. When disbursement of funds is necessary, payment is made promptly. Standard 2.2 requires that regardless of who determines the schedules, once established, those schedules are met.

Timely disbursement of funds held by the court is particularly important. Fines, fees, restitution, child support payments, and bonds are categories of moneys that pass through the court to their lawful recipients. Depending on the category involved and the laws of a given jurisdiction, the recipients may include funding agencies (e.g., State, county, or city), public agencies (e.g., police academies and corrections boards), and individuals (e.g., litigants or victims). In addition, courts oversee disbursement of funds from their budgets. These funds go to other branches and units of government, vendors, jurors, litigants, or witnesses. For some recipients, delayed receipt of funds may be an accounting inconvenience; for others, it may create personal hardships. Regardless of who the recipient is, when a trial court is responsible for the disbursement of funds, expeditious and timely performance is crucial.

Measurement Overview. Four measures are associated with Standard 2.2. They draw upon State and local sources of information to determine whether the court is performing key functions in a timely manner. Each measure addresses one of the four elements of the standard: (1) distribution of funds, (2) provision of reports, (3) provision of information, and (4) provision of services. The specific application of each measure will vary from court to court because the measures are tied to statute, policy, and procedure. Taken together, however, they should indicate how well a court meets the schedules established internally or externally.

The most complete picture of court performance in this area will be accomplished by undertaking all four measures. However, if all cannot be completed for budgetary or other reasons, the court should begin with Measure 2.2.1 and work from there as time and resources permit.

Measure 2.2.1 examines court financial records to assess whether various types of funds are disbursed in a timely manner. All types of funds for which the court is responsible are included (e.g., those they hold in trust such as bail and bond moneys, those that pass through the system such as child support payments, those from their operating budgets such as payments to vendors and jurors). Based on a review of records indicating when payments are made routinely, the time taken to disburse funds is compared to the payment timeframes set by statutory requirements or court policy.

Measure 2.2.2 evaluates how promptly the court provides various services. This measure requires tracking certain events for specific services (e.g., when the service was requested and when it was provided) and determining whether these events occurred within an acceptable time period.

Measure 2.2.3 assesses how quickly the court responds to requests for information from the public. It allows the court to determine whether it is responding to such requests in an acceptable period of time and requires that data be collected through simulations. Courts should enlist outside assistance to conduct the measure. To produce results that more closely represent treatment of the general public, simulations should be conducted by individuals who are neither familiar with court operations or known by court staff. Although direct observation might appear to be an alternative means of conducting this measure, the observation process itself would likely be so apparent that it would either intrude on the business being conducted or cause court staff behavior to change.

This measure is designed to evaluate whether a court promptly disburses moneys, including those held in trust and those due in payment for services rendered, once a determination has been made that the money should be disbursed. Courts operate in different financial environments. Some courts maintain direct control over all moneys coming into the court, while others work with a local government agency that handles disbursements for the courts. In taking this measure, the lines of authority and degree of control the court has over the actual disbursement of funds must be considered. The measure may have to be adapted to distinguish a court’s responsibility in initiating a payment from another agency’s responsibility for making the payment. Regardless of who is ultimately responsible for disbursement, it is important that this task be performed promptly.

Planning/Preparation. The first step is to review court policies and procedures for disbursements of funds. Interview the court manager or the person directly responsible for the relevant court policies and procedures. Potential areas for investigation include policies governing the following activities:

The needed information covers the timeframes required for these payments, the basis for each (e.g., court rule, policy, statute, or local procedure) and the mechanisms utilized to monitor compliance with the schedules. A determination also should be made whether annual financial audits are performed in the court and whether their results are available. A review of these reports will indicate if any deficiencies in the disbursement system were recorded.

Data Collection. Examine records for each selected payment type for the 6 months prior to the time of the evaluation. If more than 100 of the given payment types were made during the period, take a random or interval (e.g., every third case) sample of 100 or 20 percent, whichever is larger. (See also the planning/preparation section for Measure 2.1.1, Time to Disposition.) Record the date payments were ordered/approved and the date payments were actually made. In addition, consider collecting data on interim events between the date a payment was approved and the date payment was made. This data may help to identify where the greatest delay (if any) occurs in the process.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. The objective is to determine the percentage of disbursements that are made within established timeframes, once disbursement has been ordered. To accomplish this objective, construct a table that displays the amount of time required for disbursement. The table can be constructed with weekly or monthly intervals depending upon the maximum length of time allowed for disbursement. If no timeframe has been specified, the average time for disbursement of each type of payment should be computed. For example, child support disbursements can be compared to the timeframes established under the Family Support Act of 1988. In addition, the child support and other payment data to other jurisdictions or those suggested in the literature can be compared.

This measure seeks information on the time required to provide services to appropriate individuals. For this measure, three types of services have been identified: (1) indigent defense services, (2) interpreter services, and (3) mental health evaluations. Others could be added or substituted to reflect the services of concern to a particular jurisdiction. A similar process could be used to assess functions such as issuing marriage licenses, handling passport applications, or processing name changes.

Planning/Preparation. This measure begins with a review of the procedures used to initiate the following services and the identification of any statutory, case law, or policy requirements that mandate a timeframe within which they must be provided: interpreter services (foreign language and/or hearing impaired), indigent defense services, and mental evaluations. For each service area, first identify the individual with responsibility for coordinating delivery of services. Next, identify the aggregate or individual records that are maintained concerning requests for and the provision of each service. This background information can be gathered through interviews with the court manager.

Data Collection. For each service to be evaluated, draw a sample of cases using that service. The samples for each service should contain no less than 100 cases or 20 percent of the cases (whichever is larger) to allow valid and reliable inferences regarding payment patterns. For each sample, use Form 2.2.2a, Provision of Services Data Collection Form, to gather data to measure the time required to provide the service. Examples of the data elements for three types of services include:

This measure is designed to assess the promptness with which information is provided to members of the public. The measure involves the use of role players who request various types of information from the court. It is recommended that the court use members of the public (not court employees or attorneys), although the measure could be expanded to include role playing by "courthouse regulars." A comparison of reports from role-playing citizens and court employees would be very useful.

Planning/Preparation. First, court staff identify the types of information to be sought in the simulations. Examples of the types of information that might be included are the location where a specific case is being heard, a request to see a specific case file when only the name of one party is known, a request to have certain documents copied from the case file, and a request to know the status of a particular case (the last/next activity scheduled for the case). It should also be determined, through interviews with the court manager, whether the court has a local policy or procedure that addresses the manner or time within which information requests should be handled when made on a walk-in or phone-in basis in any court office. For each type of information requested by a role player, the performance standard evaluators (research directors) should know in advance approximately how many minutes it should take to provide the requested information.

Second, citizens unfamiliar to the judges and court staff are recruited to be role players who request information in several offices in the courthouse. Court staff should keep in mind that this exercise measures the timeliness and accuracy of information provided in response to a request from a member of the general public, not a special response to a courthouse "regular" or to an outside "evaluator." Provide the citizen role players with a set of questions to ask or items to request, together with any background information needed to allow the simulation to be credible (e.g., if requesting information on the next scheduled event in a criminal case, the citizen should know the defendant’s name and the charges involved). The role player should not read the question when doing the simulation but rather "play the part."

An effort should be made to recruit different types of people. Courts that have tested this measure have reported difficulty in recruiting a variety of types of volunteers. Retired people are good candidates. However, it would be best to have volunteers of different ages, racial groups, and gender.

A person’s demeanor might also influence the nature and timeliness of the service provided by court staff. It is unrealistic, however, for most courts to systematically examine the influence of age, race, gender, and demeanor on the provision of services. Including demeanor as a factor could seriously complicate the analysis. The minimum expectation in each court should be that citizens of any age, race or ethnic group, or gender asking politely for information should be treated courteously and have questions answered in a timely manner. It is therefore recommended that this measure focus primarily on role players who act politely when requesting information. After each office to be examined has been checked through a sufficient number of observations by courteous role players, the evaluators might decide to have the role players request similar information from the same offices, but to do so in a rude, impatient manner.

Although not described in the following section, an alternative technique for measuring how promptly (and courteously) court or clerk’s office staff provide information is the use of an exit survey. A brief questionnaire (one page or less) is constructed and given to citizens who ask for information or assistance after they complete their business in the various court or clerk’s offices. This questionnaire is an easy-to-administer and cost-effective alternative which could be conducted periodically to check on staff performance in this area. However, exit surveys do not allow the court to measure the accuracy of the information provided by court or clerk’s office staff. Moreover, people who are unhappy about the information they receive or about the way they are treated may be more likely to fill out a questionnaire (as a means of registering their complaint) than are people who are satisfied with the service and information they receive.

Data Collection. Ideally, each office included in the study should receive at least 30 requests for information from role players. Give the volunteer role player a data collection sheet, such as Form 2.2.3, Information Request Data Collection Form, on which to record the time required for the court staff to provide the information sought. Entries on the data sheet should be made after leaving the office in which the request is made. If the requester is referred from one office to another, the referral process and time involved should be recorded in the special notes section of the data sheet. The simulations should be conducted several times during the day or on several days during the week to account for normal differences in work flow.

On the data collection form, the volunteer role player should record the type of information requested, the office in which the request was made, the number of minutes required to obtain a response, and any notes or comments about the nature of the response or interaction with the information provider. It is recommended that the role player rate the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. In addition, this exercise provides an opportunity to collect information relevant to Standard 1.4, Courtesy, Responsiveness, and Respect, and the role player should also rate the courteousness of the information provider.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Compare the results of the simulated requests to the court’s stated policy or procedure for responding to requests or the predetermined amount of time that it should have taken to provide the information. The lower the proportion of requests that exceed the prescribed time limits, the better the court’s performance. If no policy or procedure prescribing time standards exists, review the results with a committee of court staff members and discuss their views as to the acceptability of the documented level of performance. Evaluators should also examine ratings on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the role players. The court should expect to receive a high percentage of "very good" ratings for completeness and accuracy; no ratings should be received that are "unacceptable." The court should also expect a high percentage of "very good" ratings for courtesy.

The performance of courts on this measure can be compared with the responses to appropriate sections of the questionnaire used in Measure 1.2.6, Evaluation of Accessibility and Convenience by Court Users. Staff discussion should focus on understanding the consistencies and inconsistencies between the responses to the two measures.

This measure reviews and assesses the court’s level of compliance with established reporting schedules for court activity. Reports required by the judicial system (e.g., statistical reports to the State administrative office of the courts) and by other government agencies (e.g., vital statistics or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) reports) are included. The data collection and evaluation methods will provide the court with information about the timeliness of overall reporting as well of specific reports.

Planning/Preparation. First, court staff must gather specific information on reports the court is required to file. This information can be obtained through discussions with the court manager or the person directly responsible for each report. Form 2.2.4a, Generic List of Court Activity Reporting, is a guide to help organize these discussions and includes questions regarding reporting schedules; the statute, order, directive or policy establishing each schedule; the name of the individual responsible for filing each report; the location of court copies of the reports; and an indication of whether requests for additional or corrected information were made after the reports were filed. Additionally, it should be determined whether regular financial or compliance audits are conducted on court records and, if so, what kinds of records are included.

The first time an assessment is conducted in a State, parallel discussions should be held with the State administrative office of the courts. Information sought from the State administrative office of the courts will include the reports required of trial courts and their relevant reporting schedules and authority for reporting. Information from both local and State sources will help ensure complete coverage of reporting requirements. Compile a single list of reporting requirements from the court and State administrative office of the courts lists, including information on required audits. If discrepancies appear, contact the appropriate individuals to resolve discrepancies.

Second, court staff must locate the data to be collected. Select for data collection and evaluation at least two reports from each of the reporting categories found in the guide (Form 2.2.4a). For each report selected that appears on the audit list, examine the most recent audit reports to ascertain whether that report can provide some or all of the data required for this measure (see Form 2.2.4b, Compliance With Reporting Schedules, for required information). For those not included on the audit reports, or those for which insufficient information is provided, contact the individual responsible for filing the reports. The agency that receives the report(s) should also be contacted to determine whether staff at that agency perceive problems in timeliness, completeness, or accuracy of the reports filed by the court. Depending on the type of report, contact the State administrative office of the courts, EEOC, an employees’ labor union, or the State or county comptroller.

The number/period of reports in the evaluation sample will depend on the nature of the reports and the frequency with which they are filed. For monthly reports, review a 1-year period; for weekly reports, review a 3- to 6-month period or, alternatively, the same month over a 5-year period (e.g., all April reports for the past 5 years). For some personnel matters such as performance evaluations, reporting dates may be keyed to employment anniversary dates. In such cases, draw a sample that includes 50 evaluations or 20 percent of all evaluations submitted during the prior calendar year, whichever is larger.

Data Collection. Record the required reporting date and the actual reporting date of each report in the sample. (See Form 2.2.4b.) Was the report filed on time? Was it late? If so, by how many days?

Examine all report forms to see if all requested information was provided. For reports reflecting individual evaluations (e.g., personnel evaluations), were meaningful responses provided? Are forms individualized in a way that provides useful information for the record and to the employee? If there is a pattern of incompleteness or lack of uniform responses for all employees, the pattern should be recorded in the comments section of the data collection form.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. For each type of report reviewed, compute the percentage of reports that are filed on time by dividing the total number of reports filed on time by the total number of reports reviewed. The closer this figure is to 100 percent, the more timely is the court’s performance. The average number of days late for each type of report reviewed can be estimated by dividing the total number of days late by the total number of late reports. Form 2.2.4b illustrates these calculations.

If a pattern of late reporting emerges on any of the data collection forms, contact the individual responsible for filing the report to determine the type of information that needed clarification and/or the reason(s) for late filing. Record both general reasons (e.g., the court’s system does not capture that information; every month the court must wait for xyz information from xxx office to prepare the report) and specific explanations (e.g., "a new staff member was preparing reports at that time" or "in May, I became ill and was not able to prepare the report until the following week") on the comments section of the data collection form.