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.