Measurement Overview. The two measures for Standard 2.3 are concerned with the promptness with which a trial court implements changes externally mandated. Measure 2.3.1 examines the response to mandates found in legislation while Measure 2.3.2 focuses on responses required by court opinions, procedural rules, or administrative orders or directives from the State supreme court or the State administrative office of the courts.

Identifying the changes to which the courts should be responding involves the collection and review of information from the State administrative office of the courts. If several courts are evaluated within the same State in one year, the information can be shared by the courts and the process need not be repeated for each trial court. If courts in the same State are evaluated during a period extending over more than one year, an update of this background information should be obtained.

This measure evaluates the implementations of two current or upcoming changes in law and is designed to be administered by someone outside the court. Selection of the changes should be based on their significance and measurability. (Note: for a distinction between the legal procedures examined here and administrative procedures, see Measure 2.3.2, Implementation of Changes in Administrative Procedures.)

Planning/Preparation. First, judges or court staff must identify current or very recent changes in the law. Ask the State administrative office of the courts for copies of (1) summaries of State and Federal legislation affecting the courts with effective dates occurring during the 12 months following the request and (2) new Federal regulations (e.g., regarding child support) that affect the trial courts. If letters, memoranda, or directives concerning these changes were distributed by the State administrative office of the courts, copies should be gathered.

Second, select the changes to be examined. Select at least two items from the information provided by the court and the State administrative office of the courts. Changes selected should have clearly measurable requirements/changes specified. For example, if one of the changes requires that all divorce decrees including child support include provision for health insurance coverage by one of the parents, the decrees issued after the effective date of that changed requirement could be reviewed to determine the proportion in which insurance coverage was included.

Data Collection. Data collection on compliance with required changes and the timeliness of that compliance will vary with the nature of the changes. One possible approach is to review records for 3 months immediately following the effective date of the change to ascertain whether new forms or order provisions appear in case files. The percentage of cases in compliance can be calculated: the higher the percentage, the better the court’s performance. Additionally, or if the change is not easily quantifiable, attorneys might be interviewed to determine their perceptions of the courts’ promptness in implementing change in general as well as in specific instances.

Evaluators should focus on three aspects of the change implementation process: (1) whether all relevant staff and judges are informed of the impending change in a timely and uniform manner, (2) whether there is a plan for implementing the change, and (3) whether the change is implemented in a timely and uniform manner. Progress toward full implementation of this plan should be checked periodically until the court is in full compliance over multiple monitoring periods. Though this goes beyond the issue of timeliness, evaluators might also check whether judges or court staff checked with appropriate authorities during their planning for implementing the change to determine whether the court’s interpretation of the new law is consistent with the intent of the law.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Compile the data collected into a report for use by the court. If one or more indicators of compliance (e.g., attorney interviews) indicate a problem with prompt implementation, the court should take whatever actions are necessary to ameliorate the problem.

This measure requires selection and evaluation of changes in two administrative procedures recently mandated by the State supreme appellate court or State administrative office of the courts. As with Measure 2.3.1, Implementation of Changes in Substantive and Procedural Law, the selection should be based on the significance and measurability of the changes. Administrative procedures are those that affect the responsibilities of judges and court staff regarding the internal operation of courts or their relations with other agencies. Administrative procedures are usually distinguishable from legal procedures (examined in Measure 2.3.1), which govern the actions of litigants and the judge in the course of litigation.

Planning/Preparation. This measure will focus on administrative changes that are required to be implemented during the coming 12 months. The first step is to identify the changes in administrative procedure to be evaluated. Begin by asking the State administrative office of the courts for copies of (1) recent supreme appellate court decisions that place specific new or changed performance requirements on the trial courts, (2) copies of any recent changes in court rules that require the trial courts to change the manner in which they operate, and (3) copies of recent directives or orders of the State supreme appellate court or the State administrative office of the courts requiring changes in court recordkeeping or procedures. If letters, memoranda, or directives concerning these changes were forwarded to the courts, compile copies for the evaluator.

After procedural changes have been identified, select for evaluation at least two items from the information provided by the court and the State administrative office of the courts. Changes selected should have clearly measurable requirements/changes. For example, if one of the changes requires that presentence investigation (PSI) reports be filed with the court prior to sentencing for all felony convictions, files of cases in which sentencing occurs after the effective date of the change could be reviewed to determine the proportion of cases in which the PSI reports were filed prior to sentencing.

Evaluators should examine: (1) whether there is a procedure whereby all people who need to know about the impending change in procedure are informed in advance of the change, (2) whether there is a plan for the timely and uniform implementation of the change, and (3) whether the change is implemented in a timely and uniform manner.

Data Collection. Collection of data on compliance with required changes and the timeliness of that compliance will vary with the nature of the changes. One possible approach is to review records of affected cases for 3 months immediately following the effective date of the change to ascertain whether new forms or order provisions appear in the case files. Evaluators can calculate the percentage of cases in compliance with the new procedure. Additionally, or if the change is not easily quantifiable, information from practitioners can be obtained through interviews about the implementation of the new procedures.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Compile the data collected into a report for use by the court. If one or more compliance indicators or measures suggest a problem with prompt implementation, the court should take whatever action is necessary to ameliorate the problem.

Another change should be evaluated to determine whether the lack of prompt implementation reflects the court’s general inability to effectively implement changes or whether there was a problem with the implementation of only that particular change. Court staff should discuss ways to improve low compliance rates and, where appropriate, work with the court or other agency staff to facilitate procedural changes.