A trial court should meet its responsibilities to everyone affected by its actions and activities in a timely and expeditious manner—one that does not cause delay. Unnecessary delay causes injustice and hardship. It is a primary cause of diminished public trust and confidence in the court.

Defining delay requires distinguishing between the amount of time that is and is not acceptable for case processing. National and statewide authorities have articulated time standards for case disposition. These standards call for case processing time to be measured beginning with arrest or issuance of a summons in a criminal case, or from the date of filing in a civil case.

Overview of Standards. The three standards in this performance area draw attention not only to the prompt resolution of cases, a requirement expressed by Standard 2.1, Case Processing, but also to the expectation that all trial court functions will be expeditiously performed, a requirement of Standard 2.2, Compliance With Schedules. Standard 2.3, Prompt Implementation of Law and Procedure, emphasizes the importance of expedition and timeliness in anticipating, adapting to, and implementing mandated changes in law and procedure.

Overview of Measures. The 10 measures for this area’s three standards assess how promptly the court processes cases, files required reports, and implements new legal and procedural changes. Because of the diversity of activity examined under the three standards, a wide range of measurement techniques are employed. Yet, in many cases, data collection can be coordinated with other measures and many of the measures associated with Standard 2.1 will be familiar to judges and court managers.

Information from individual case files or automated records is required to complete most measures for Standard 2.1. For example, calculating the time to disposition and the age of pending cases requires access to case status and the dates of key events. Information on the number of times a case was set for trial is needed to determine the certainty of trial dates in the progression of cases through the system.

To measure compliance with Standard 2.2, a variety of records maintained by the court are compared with recognized filing requirements. Patterns of completeness must also be evidenced as a condition of meeting these measures. Financial records, records of court-initiated services (e.g., court-appointed counsel, interpreters) and required statistical reports are considered. Recognizing that not all information flows through written channels, an information request simulation provides an opportunity for the court to assess how quickly and accurately it responds to inperson information requests from the public.