Obviously, a trial court cannot assume responsibility for the enforcement of all of its decisions and orders. Court responsibility for enforcement and compliance varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, program to program, case to case, and event to event. It is common and proper in some civil matters for a trial court to remain passive with respect to judgment satisfaction until called on to enforce the judgment. Nevertheless, no court should be unaware of or unresponsive to realities that cause its orders to be ignored. For example, patterns of systematic failures to pay child support and to fulfill interim criminal sentences are contrary to the purpose of the courts, undermine the rule of law, and diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Monitoring and enforcing proper procedures and interim orders while cases are pending are within the scope of this standard.

Standard 3.5 applies also to those circumstances when a court relies upon administrative and quasi-judicial processes to screen and divert cases by using differentiated case management strategies and alternative dispute resolution. Noncompliance remains an issue when the trial court sponsors such programs or is involved in ratifying the decisions that arise out of them.

Measurement Overview. This standard requires the court to "take responsibility" for enforcement of its orders. The extent of a court’s involvement in the administration of systems for monitoring compliance with court orders and initiating enforcement action varies widely from State to State and, in some States, varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For many kinds of orders, the structure of the law removes the court a significant distance from the system of enforcement. In the detailed measures that follow, therefore, court performance is not measured simply by the level of compliance by those to whom orders are directed. The goal is to first establish and evaluate the context for enforcement and then examine indicators of how the court "takes responsibility" within that context. Although some of the measures do call for statistical analysis of compliance rates, this analysis is only valid for performance evaluation when understood against the contextual background.

When measures for this standard employ quantitative measures of compliance, terms of orders involving money judgments are used almost exclusively. Terms of money judgments are relatively unambiguous and monitoring is possible and relatively free of evidentiary issues.

Measures 3.5.1, 3.5.2, 3.5.3, and 3.5.4 focus on the extent to which particular types of court orders and policies are followed. Measure 3.5.1 considers probationary orders; Measure 3.5.2 considers child support orders; Measure 3.5.3 considers civil judgments; and Measure 3.5.4 considers case processing rules and orders. The methodological approach used for all of them is the same. It calls for the collection, analysis, and interpretation of pertinent data from closed case files. Illustrative data elements, data collection forms, and methods of analysis are provided. Generally speaking, the greater the extent that orders are followed, the higher the court’s performance.

This measure uses summary statistics about compliance with monetary penalties to complement the evaluation of court activities related to enforcement. Relevant data include the amount of money ordered, the amount of money paid, and when money is paid. Analysis will indicate the amount of money paid as a percentage of what was ordered.

Planning/Preparation. An illustrative set of data elements is provided on Form 3.5.1, Illustrative Data Elements for Measuring Enforcement of Probationary Orders. These data can be obtained by separate examination of the order and sentence document and the payment bookkeeping records. In many cases, a bookkeeping record may contain all required data.

A sample of cases will be drawn from the source best suited to capture cases with monetary penalties and cases older than the typical term of probation or cases that have been "closed" on the bookkeeping records due to termination of probation or payment in full. The sample should not be taken directly from bookkeeping records alone, unless there is evidence that a bookkeeping record is created for all cases in which an order includes monetary sanctions. It is possible, for example, that the bookkeeping agency only creates a record when a payment is made. Sampling from that source would not be representative of all cases.

Data Collection. Data are collected on coded forms. For an example, refer to Form 3.5.1, Illustrative Data Elements for Measuring Enforcement of Probationary Orders.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Data analysis will include reports showing averages for total penalty amounts imposed and percentages of amounts collected. The data collected will also allow analysis in subgroups related to total amounts ordered and how long it took for payment.

This measure is similar to Measure 3.5.1. However, its focus is on child support orders rather than probationary orders.

Planning/Preparation. Illustrative data elements are provided on Form 3.5.2, Illustrative Data Elements for Measuring Enforcement of Child Support Orders. Data of this type can be obtained by examining the order and the payment bookkeeping records separately. In many cases, a bookkeeping record may contain all required data.

Sampling must be from court case disposition records, unless it is demonstrated that records of the bookkeeping agency include all court cases and do not include cases for which enforcement jurisdiction is not with the court. If court case disposition records are used, the sampling technique must allow for cases in which no child support is ordered. The sample should be taken from cases in which a divorce, dissolution, or paternity establishment was entered at least 18 months prior to the sample date, and no more than 36 months prior to the sample date. This restriction will allow adequate time for a payment pattern to develop and for enforcement action to be taken, and it will exclude cases that are so old that they have little relevance to contemporary policy and practice. The sample should include 300 cases.

Data Collection. Data are collected on coded forms. For an example, please refer to Form 3.5.2, Illustrative Data Elements for Measuring Enforcement of Child Support Orders. The data related to the status of enforcement actions taken may prove problematic to collect. However, an effort should be made to collect it. If problems are encountered, they should be described. Specifically, the reasons why particular data elements are not available should be noted. These reasons may have a bearing on the enforcement capacity of the responsible agency.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Analysis involves computing summary statistics to describe the amounts ordered and paid, regularity of payment, and enforcement responses.

All States are required to collect and report to the Federal Government information on the volume of Title IV–D child support cases, the amounts of money collected, and other related information. This information should be obtained for each jurisdiction in the State and used to assist in the evaluation of the data for the court. The information can be obtained from the State’s official Title IV–D agency, usually a division of the State’s health and welfare organization.

This measure is similar to Measure 3.5.1. In addition to collecting data from case files, it involves collecting interview data.

Planning/Preparation. Samples will be taken from new cases added to the court judgment dockets for a period of at least 6 months prior to the sample date and not more than 12 months after the sample date. (Terminology among courts for "judgment docket" may vary; the source to use is that maintained by law to identify judgment debtors and creditors.) The sample should include all cases with money judgments that were payable before the date of the sample. At least 150 cases should be included. Further work on this measure is needed to consider whether it is appropriate to distinguish certain types of civil money judgments from others. If so, the sample should be taken in a way that ensures sufficient numbers of each type.

Data Collection. The basic data to be collected include the following: judgment amounts, judgment satisfaction, evidence of enforcement actions, type of enforcement action, and type of legal representation. A data collection form, which includes these data elements, should be created.

When the judgment docket shows no evidence of a satisfaction filed, interviews will be required of the judgment creditor or the creditor’s attorney. The purpose of the interviews is to verify whether the judgment is satisfied; if not, what action was taken; if none, why not.

If the judgment docket does not contain the information necessary to locate the creditor or creditor’s attorney, that information should be obtained from the case record cross-referenced by the judgment docket. Because the sampled cases will be very recent, address and telephone information should be current for most cases.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Data analysis should be undertaken to determine (1) the number of judgments for which a record of satisfaction is recorded, (2) the number of judgments for which an interview was required to determine the judgment status and what the status was, and (3) the total number of satisfied and unsatisfied judgments. These figures can then be broken down into subcategories depending on whether the parties had legal representation. It may or may not be possible to use statistical methods to summarize results of two other variables: the number and type of enforcement actions taken and the reasons for not taking enforcement action in cases where judgments were not satisfied. If these variables cannot be analyzed statistically, they should be analyzed qualitatively.

This measure addresses the court’s performance in enforcing its own rules and orders. For this measure, one area of court activity—caseflow management—has been selected because some policy on caseflow are predictably found in most trial courts. More specifically, the measure focuses on rules governing continuance of trial settings.

Planning/Preparation. The authority (e.g., rule, order, or administrative memorandum) and substance of the court’s policies should be documented.

Data Collection. Data collection forms will vary depending on specific court policies. For example, some policies will require that a motion for continuance be made in writing and filed no later than a specified number of days prior to the scheduled trial. A data collection method for this kind of rule should involve an examination of sampled case files to determine: (1) whether such a document is found, and (2) whether it was filed in a timely manner. Other rules may simply state that each party may be granted one continuance upon request and that other continuances will be granted only for "good cause shown." In such cases, data collection would involve sampling summary records or case files and counting the number of continuances associated with each.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. The structure for data analysis will be determined by the type of court policy in effect and the data collection methods used for evaluating whether the policy is followed. For the first example described above, tables could be generated to show the total number of continuances that occurred for the cases sampled and the percentage of cases in which motions were filed as per the policy. For the second example, in which the court policy calls for simple counts of the number of continuances associated with each case, tables could be generated to show the percentage of all cases that had specific numbers of continuances.