Developing a common language for describing, classifying, and measuring the performance of trial courts was the goal of an 8-year effort, the Trial Court Performance Standards Project, initiated in 1987 by the National Center for State Courts and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System is the result of that effort.

Crafted by a commission of leading trial judges, court managers, and scholars and demonstrated in trial courts across the Nation, the measurement system is an invaluable resource for enhancing a court’s ability to provide fair and efficient adjudication and disposition of cases. Because many trial courts lack the means and resources to create a mechanism for self-evaluation, this project is critical to improving the administration of justice on the basis of universally accepted performance standards.

This publication is a detailed guide to implementing the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System. It is intended for judges, court managers, lawyers, policymakers, court staff, and other professionals who will participate in the implementation process.

It is our hope that every trial court in the Nation will use this guide and its companion publications to begin improving access to justice and its administration with equality, integrity, and timeliness.

Nancy E. Gist
Director

Go to top of page

The Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System is the culmination of an 8-year initiative begun in 1987 by the Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards to develop measurable performance standards for the Nation's State trial courts. The Commission first created the Trial Courts Performance Standards, which set forth standards of performance for trial courts in five performance areas:

The Commission's next challenge was to provide trial courts with a systematic and sound means to examine how well they achieve these performance standards. To meet this challenge, the Commission and the Trial Court Performance Standards Project staff developed a set of measures for assessing trial court performance. Twelve trial courts in Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington subsequently tested the measures during a 4-year demonstration. In addition to the Commission and project staff, more than 100 personnel of the demonstration courts, as well as program monitors of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and the State Justice Institute, contributed to the demonstration process. This extensive and collaborative undertaking was necessary to ensure that the measures, many of which are complex and novel, are operable in court settings, do not consume unreasonable amounts of resources, and produce information courts can use readily. The resulting measurement system is intended to be a versatile tool for self-assessment and improvement, and not a means for evaluating the performance of individuals or for drawing comparisons across courts.

The measurement system attempts to balance practicality and economy with precision and scientific rigor. The 68 measures within the system accomplish this balance to varying degrees, but a workable measurement system should be viewed as evolutionary and subject to continuing development. The Commission expects that as trial courts implement the system, their experiences will inspire innovative approaches that improve both the individual measures and the system as a whole.

Although implementing the measurement system requires dedication, perseverance, and flexibility from a trial court's staff, the undertaking is critical to effective court performance. The Commission commends the Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System to the court community as a useful set of tools for conducting self-evaluation and for engaging in the worthy pursuit of improving public service.

Go to top of page

The Bureau of Justice Assistance would like to thank the Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards for its dedication and vision in guiding the Trial Courts Performance Standards to their fruition. Commission members include the following individuals:

Honorable Robert C. Murphy, Chair
Chief Judge (Retired)
Court of Appeals of Maryland
Towson, Maryland

Honorable Rebecca A. Albrecht
Associate Presiding Judge
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Phoenix, Arizona

Robert N. Baldwin
State Court Administrator
Supreme Court of Virginia
Richmond, Virginia

Carl F. Bianchi
Director of Legislative Services
Legislative Services Office
Boise, Idaho

Honorable Robert C. Broomfield
Chief Judge, U.S. District Court
District of Arizona
Phoenix, Arizona

John A. Clarke
Executive Officer/Clerk
Los Angeles Superior Court
Los Angeles, California

Judith A. Cramer
Manager, Weed & Seed Neighborhood
Revitalization Program
Tampa, Florida

Honorable Anne L. Ellington
Assistant Presiding Judge
King County Superior Court
Seattle, Washington

Howard Hanson
County Clerk/Superior Court Administrator
Marin County
San Rafael, California

Robert D. Lipscher
Administrative Director (Retired)
New Jersey Administrative
Office of the Courts
Trenton, New Jersey

Edward B. McConnell (ex-officio)
President Emeritus
National Center for State Courts
Williamsburg, Virginia

Doris Marie Provine
Chair, Department of Political Science
Syracuse University
Syracuse, New York

Honorable Henry Ramsey, Jr.
Dean, Howard University School of Law
Washington, D.C.

Honorable Leo M. Spellacy
Judge, Ohio Court of Appeals
Eighth District
Cleveland, Ohio

Whitfield Smith (1987–1991)
Clerk of Court (Former)
Superior Court for DeKalb County, Georgia
Decatur, Georgia

Honorable Fred B. Ugast
Chief Judge (Retired)
Superior Court of the District of Columbia
Washington, D.C.

Marilyn Nejelski, Program Manager
Charles Hollis, Chief, Adjudication Branch

National Center for State Courts

Sally T. Hillsman, Vice President (1992–1995)
Geoff Gallas, Vice President (1987–1991)

Pamela Casey, Director
Ingo Keilitz,* Director
Hillery Efkeman
Margaret Fonner
John Goerdt
Thomas Hafemeister*
Roger Hanson
William Hewitt
Brenda Jones*
Susan Keilitz
Fred Miller*
Beatrice Monahan*
Pamela Petrakis*
David Rottman*

*denotes former project staff

In addition to those listed above, numerous individuals at the National Center for State Courts and elsewhere gave generously of their time to assist the development and initial testing of the Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System, including Stevalynn Adams, David Aday, Carl Baar, Kent Batty, Richard Berk, Chuck Campbell, Joy Chapper, George Cole, Hank Daley, Michael Dann, Tom Dibble, Chris Duncan, Bill Fishback, Gene Flango, Sandy Garcia, Debbie Gause, George Gish, Gordon Griller, Mary Hogan, Cindy Huffman, Michael Jeans, Lynn Jordaans, Carl Kessler, Kay Knapp, Gerald Kuban, Monica Lee, Chris Lomvardias, Kay Loveland, Jennifer Rae Lovko, Robert Lowe, James Lynch, Barry Mahoney, Mary McCall, Craig McEwen, Jan Michaels, Barbara Meierhoefer, Tom Munsterman, Raymond Nimmer, Jessica Pearson, Mike Planet, Maryann Rondeau, Jane Raynes, Teresa Risi, Dalton Roberson, Ronald Rosenberg, Jeffrey Roth, Fred Rusillo, Hisako Sayers, Bob Tobin, Anne Walker, Patricia Wall, Steven Wasby, Joan White, Matt Williams, and Robert Williams.

We also are indebted to the many individuals in the 4 pilot States and the 12 courts for the countless hours and invaluable insights they contributed during the project’s 4-year demonstration phase: in New Jersey, Robert D. Lipscher and Theodore Fetter, Administrative Office of the Courts—Atlantic County Superior Court, Burlington County Superior Court, Morris County Superior Court, Ocean County Superior Court, and Somerset County Superior Court; in Ohio, Stephan W. Stover and Ruth Ann Elmer, Supreme Court of Ohio—Meigs County Court of Common Pleas, Stark County Court of Common Pleas, and Wayne County Court of Common Pleas; in Virginia, Robert N. Baldwin and Beatrice P. Monahan, Office of the Administrator for the Courts—Fairfax County Circuit Court; and in Washington, Mary Campbell McQueen and Yvonne Pettus, Office of the Administrator for the Courts—Spokane County Superior Court, Thurston County Superior Court, and Whatcom County Superior Court.

We also gratefully acknowledge Richard Van Duizend, Deputy Director of the State Justice Institute (SJI), for his commitment to the project and SJI’s financial support of many demonstration phase activities.

The Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards, the National Center for State Courts, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance thank these individuals and the many individuals not named here who assisted in the Trial Court Performance Standards Project in its 8-year duration.

Go to top of page

Go to top of page

The Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System expresses a new philosophy and framework for defining and understanding the effectiveness of trial courts by focusing attention on performance, self-assessment, and self-improvement. The 22 standards in the system establish goals for effective court performance in five areas: access to justice; expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence and accountability; and public trust and confidence. The measurement component consists of 68 field-tested measures for evaluating how well the court is meeting these performance standards.

The Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System is an approach to self-assessment that courts can adapt to meet their individual needs; it is neither intended nor suited for comparing performance across courts. A hallmark of the system is its emphasis on the systematic assessment of a trial court's performance as a service organization and on the application of those findings to improve performance. This assessment applies to the court as a whole and does not include individual performance evaluations. The court is viewed as a system involving processes and tasks that are linked together and affect one another. The collective work of the court involves not only judges, but all who perform administrative court functions, including clerks of court, administrators, probation officers, and other court staff, as well as private lawyers, public defenders, prosecutors, and social service providers.

The Trial Courts Performance and Standards and Measurement System is the major product of the Trial Court Performance Standards Project. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of Justice, initiated the project in August 1987, to develop measurable performance standards for State trial courts.

The impetus for the enterprise was the recognition of the need for State trial courts to increase their capacity to provide fair and efficient adjudication and disposition of cases.

To carry out the mission of the Trial Court Performance Standards Project, the NCSC established the Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards (Commission). Composed of trial judges, court managers, and scholars, the Commission formulated, deliberated, and generated the measurement system with assistance from the project staff.

The initial work of the Commission progressed over 3 years, culminating in 1990 with the publication of Trial Courts Performance Standards With Commentary, which has been endorsed by the Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of State Court Administrators, and the National Association for Court Management, and adapted by the National College of Probate Judges. During the ensuing 4 years, trial courts in Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington applied the standards and tested the utility and feasibility of the system’s measures. BJA continued funding to NCSC to coordinate and assist the demonstration phase of the Standards Project, while the State Justice Institute supported the demonstrations in the four States.

Go to top of page

The Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System provides the tools for assessing the extent to which a court meets the performance criteria set forth in the 22 performance standards. These tools consist of procedures for systematically gathering and analyzing quantitative and qualitative data and for drawing conclusions from the data to identify areas in need of attention or improvement.

Field Testing.   As the measurement system evolved, 75 measures were developed, tested, and refined by the Standards Commission and Standards Project staff. Trial courts in Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio contributed to this process by serving as test sites for the draft measures. Following the research and development phase, a 4-year demonstration phase commenced in Ohio, New Jersey, Virginia, and Washington.

The demonstration phase of the Standards Project has been crucial to the widespread acceptance and use of the system. Twelve trial courts in 4 States participated in the demonstration, and each of the 75 measures was tested in at least one court.¹  Most measures were tested in two or more of the courts. The 12 trial courts varied on a variety of factors including size, organization, jurisdiction, funding source, demographic and economic context, and, of course, State law and court rules. This variation across the courts provided the opportunity to test the measures under diverse conditions and produced a rich body of information relevant to the application of the measurement system in other trial courts throughout the country.

As the demonstration proceeded, the Standards Commission and Standards Project staff reviewed and revised the measures to reflect the experiences of these trial courts in implementing the measurement system. Along the way, the original 75 measures were refined to a set of 68. The outcome of this comprehensive and cooperative undertaking is the system presented in this manual.

Go to top of page

Purposes of Measurement.  The Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System defines a philosophy that encourages trial courts to conduct regular self-assessments and improvements, treating them as routine court administrative activities. To this end, the system’s measurement component is designed to gather information that the court can use in a variety of ways, including budgeting, case management, implementing court improvement projects, and strategic planning. The initial application of the measures aids the court in identifying areas requiring attention or potentially in need of improvement. The measures also may be used to establish benchmarks with regard to court performance on each standard the court wishes to address. Subsequently, the court can use the measures to determine whether its performance with respect to a particular standard is better, about the same, or worse than when the measures were originally applied. The information gathered through the measures also is helpful in determining whether the court's prior improvement efforts have been successful or need to be altered in some way.

Nature of the Measures.  Some measures and their specific methods build on others and should be conducted in a particular sequence. For example, in Standard 2.1: Case Processing, Measures 2.1.1, Time to Disposition, and 2.1.2, Ratio of Case Dispositions to Case Filings, examine case processing times and case clearance rates. If these measures indicate that average case processing times exceed State or local standards or that clearance rates are not keeping pace with the incoming caseload, the court should proceed to Measure 2.1.3, Age of Pending Caseload, to determine whether a case backlog exists and, if so, to ascertain its nature and extent. Other measures and methods stand alone and can be applied independently. Furthermore, some measures, such as Measure 1.1.3, Audibility of Participants During Open Court Proceedings, are relatively easy to apply while others, such as Measure 3.3.3, Equality and Fairness in Sentencing, are more complex and time consuming.

Measurement Methods.  The measurement system employs numerous data-gathering methods and taps diverse data sources. The data sources and collection methods used include both familiar processes, such as court and case record reviews and tallies of case filings and dispositions, as well as other social science techniques used less commonly by courts, such as systematic observations, structured interviews, surveys of various reference groups, simulations, group techniques, and public opinion polls.

Just as the measurement techniques vary, different types of evaluators are employed depending on the object of the measure. For example, volunteers conduct structured observations of court proceedings and simulations of public access to information, while court staff conduct many of the measures involving record reviews. A few measures are best carried out by consultants or court staff with expertise in areas such as data analysis.

Table 2: Summary of Measures by Primary Data Collection Method provides a different perspective of the measurement system. It displays the various measurement methods and lists the individual measures that employ each method. The reader can determine from Table 2 if two or more measures the court intends to implement use the same methods and sources of data. For example, Measure 1.2.3, Perceptions of Courthouse Security, and Measure 1.2.6, Evaluation of Accessibility and Convenience by Court Users, both survey court employees. Consequently, the court can economize by distributing one questionnaire to court employees to accomplish the data collection for both measures.

The measurement methods most commonly recommended in the system are summarized below. They are described more fully in this guide in the instructions for conducting the individual measures.

Court Record Reviews and Case Data Examination.  Because a primary function of courts has been to make and preserve records of civil and criminal matters as well as court operations, court and case record reviews are the most traditional and familiar of the measurement methods. Thirty-two of the measures entail court case and record reviews. These reviews require staff to consult case files, docket sheets, case summary screens in automated systems, and administrative reports. Many of the record review measures are very time consuming, even for courts with automated systems (e.g., Measure 2.1.1, Time to Disposition), but only a few of the measures require knowledge of advanced analysis techniques (e.g., Measure 3.3.3, Equality and Fairness in Sentencing). Because these reviews provide primarily quantitative information, they are more objective in evaluating the court's performance than are surveys and interviews, which usually report the perceptions of the respondents. The results provide insight into areas such as caseflow and case file management practices, compliance with procedural reporting requirements, and timeliness in implementing changes in laws and procedures.

Observations and Simulations.  The measurement system incorporates several measures that involve observations of court proceedings or simulations of court activities and interactions with court staff. Court personnel can perform a few of these measures, such as rating the audibility of court proceedings (Measure 1.1.3). Many of the measures attempt to simulate the experiences of people who have business in the court only occasionally, however. These measures require volunteer observers who are unfamiliar with the court system, court procedures, or courthouse facilities. Examples of the activities performed by volunteers include gaining entrance to court proceedings that should be open to the public (Measure 1.1.1), obtaining information about the status of scheduled proceedings (Measure 1.1.2), requesting information about the time and location of a court proceeding by telephone (Measure 1.2.5), and checking the accessibility of court facilities and services for persons with disabilities (Measure 1.3.5).

Surveys and Questionnaires.  Eighteen measures incorporate the use of surveys. The surveys seek a variety of information from different court constituencies including employees, attorneys, jurors, and the general public. Some of the information gathered is factual, such as demographic information about jurors (Measure 3.2.3). Most of the surveys, however, are designed to gauge opinions on topics such as the accessibility and convenience of court facilities and services (Measures 1.2.6 and 1.2.7) or the fairness and equality of court proceedings and actions (Measures 3.3.1 and 3.3.2).

Many of the surveys seek basic demographic information from survey respondents, such as gender, age, and relationship to the court. For some measures, this information is critical in comparing the attitudes of different groups of court users responding to the survey.

However, in some instances, requesting demographic data may result in a lower response rate if respondents believe their anonymity is threatened. This is particularly true in small jurisdictions. Consequently, the court needs to weigh the value of obtaining the information against the possibility of losing some respondents.

Several of the surveys developed for the measurement system were adapted from instruments used by other organizations for similar assessment purposes. For instance, Measure 1.2.3 uses a survey for assessing courthouse security adapted from the National Crime Survey—Attitude Questionnaire and from the National Crime Survey—Basic Screening Questionnaire. Another example is Measure 5.1.3's survey for gauging public trust and confidence in the courts, which was drawn from other surveys of the public's perceptions of the justice system.²

Interviews.  In addition to surveys, the measurement system employs interviews to gather information and opinions from court staff and court users. In some measures, the surveys and interviews are offered as alternative approaches while in others the two are used in tandem, such as a survey followed by a focus group. Interviews are used as a primary method of data collection when a measure calls for more detailed responses than a written survey might yield, such as in assessing employees' familiarity with emergency procedures (Measure 1.2.4). More typically, interviews are used to collect background information when preparing to conduct a measure (e.g., interviewing the court records manager about case file storage procedures) or to gather follow-up or clarifying information after collecting data in a different format (e.g., after a records review or survey). Interviews with court employees may be the most efficient way to gather information when court policies are governed less by written documents than by unwritten practices and rules (e.g., Measure 4.4.2).

Group Techniques.   Group techniques are used in five measures. These techniques include review panels composed of knowledgeable practitioners (Measure 3.1.1, Performance in Selected Areas of Law) and more structured interactions that require a facilitator to guide the group through the activity. Examples of techniques in the latter group are Nominal Group Technique (NGT) and Ideawriting. NGT is used to generate and select among ideas and to make decisions. Ideawriting is a method for developing ideas and works well for groups that communicate well in writing. These techniques are used primarily in measures for Performance Area 4, such as Measure 4.2.1, Adequacy of Statistical Reporting Categories for Resource Allocation. Although the techniques are not difficult to implement, readers planning to use them should consult a text on group techniques such as Group Techniques for Idea Building by Carl Moore (volume 9 of the Applied Social Science Research Series from Sage Publications; see Appendix A for more information).

Go to top of page

The organization of this manual follows that of the measurement system. The measurement approaches associated with each standard in the five performance areas are described in separate sections. The titles, text, and commentary of the standards are followed by a brief overview of the measures, methods, and techniques associated with them. The overviews are designed to assist the reader in understanding the general approach and requirements for the measures without studying the detailed prescriptions for applying them. Specific measures and data collection forms follow each standard and measurement overview.

Applying the Measures.  The description of each measure has four parts. First, an introductory section explains the measure's purpose and how it relates to its associated standard. Next, a planning/preparation section details any preparatory work that is necessary to apply the measure. For example, a measure involving a survey identifies the individuals or groups who should be included in the survey sample; a record review measure designates which case files are to be examined. This section also indicates whether certain individuals in the court should be consulted before conducting a measure or if the services of an expert are recommended to assist court staff in applying a measure.

A data collection section then outlines the particular steps necessary for actually gathering the data for the measure. For instance, a survey measure details how the surveys should be distributed, and a record review measure includes a description of the data elements that will be collected from court records.

A final section on data analysis and report preparation describes how the gathered data should be analyzed and often recommends how the results can be presented to court officials, others who work in the court, or other relevant audiences. In some measures, this section indicates the optimum level of performance, while for other measures the level of satisfactory performance is left to the court to determine.

Modifying the Measures.  Although at first it may appear that the more complex measures cannot be implemented without some simplification, these measures should be modified only after careful deliberation. For example, an item of information should not be eliminated simply because it is hard to obtain. Instead, the court should consider how to overcome the perceived difficulties in obtaining the information, as well as the consequences of not including the information in the measurement process. On the other hand, strict adherence to every element of a measure might stifle the development of innovative approaches. Therefore, thoughtfully conceived modifications may be undertaken as long as efforts are made to balance a measure's feasibility and utility with its scientific merit.

Go to top of page

The manual that follows provides both the rationale and detailed instructions for conducting each measure in the measurement system. Before a court undertakes the measurement process, however, those who will conduct the evaluation are likely to have many questions about where and how to begin, how to proceed most efficiently, and where the measurement process might lead. Unlike the explicit directions presented in the measurement system, answers to important questions such as these generally cannot be prescribed for individual courts. Each court must identify its particular needs, set its own performance goals, and determine how it can best apply the Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System to both guide the evaluation process and achieve the improved performance it seeks.

For guidance on these implementation issues, the reader is strongly urged to consult a companion publication, the Planning Guide for Using the Trial Performance Standards and Measurement System. (To order this publication, contact the BJA Clearinghouse at 1–800–688–4252.) The Planning Guide is based on the experiences of the 12 demonstration courts that tested the system and reflects the lessons they learned in the undertaking. Intending to serve as a conceptual bridge from the Trial Courts Performance Standards to the measurement system, the planning guide presents an implementation model to help courts translate the application. The guide provides direction for using the system as a planning, evaluation and monitoring tool and addresses many of the questions and issues courts are likely to encounter when embarking on the process of self-evaluation and self-improvement.

Go to top of page
Go to Table of Contents