|
Top
Schauffler, Richard.
"Judicial Accountability in the US State Courts: Measuring Court Performance."
Utrecht Law Review 3, no. 1 (June 2007).
An examination of the the current efforts at performance measurement in the state courts, situated in a global and historical context.
Court Performance Standards Project: Volunteering for Justice.
Raleigh, NC: Administrative Office of the Courts (2003).
This two-page brochure explains the court performance standards in North Carolina and includes information on volunteering programs.
Goldkamp, John et al.
Developing an Evaluation Plan for Community Courts: Assessing the Hartford Community Court Model.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Crime and Justice Research Institute (2001).
This fifty-one page pdf file is organized into several sections -- an introduction with information on the Midtown Community Court Prototype, which was a model for the Hartford Community Court Model; the development of the Hartford court; major components of the court model including target populations, community involvement, and screening participants; implementation and start-up of the court; and an overall evaluation of the Hartford Community Court Model.
Ostrom, Brian and Roger Hanson.
Efficiency, Timeliness, and Quality: A New Perspective from Nine State Criminal Trial Courts.
National Institute of Justice - Research in Brief (June 2000).
This brief attempts to illustrate that timeliness and judicial quality are not incompatible but, in fact, can be achieved.
Casey, Pamela.
"Defining Optimal Court Performance: The Trial Court Performance Standards."
Court Review, Winter 1998 (November 1998).
Eleven years ago twelve individuals from the court community met for the first time in Arlington, Virginia, to discuss the fundamental responsibilities of courts. The fruits of their discussion, the Trial Court Performance Standards, articulate the fundamental purposes of courts and offer the court community a way of communicating with each other and their constituents about the work of courts.
Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System Implementation Manual.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (1997).
This manual focuses on five specific areas with regards to court performance measurements and standards. The areas are access to justice; expedition and timeliness; equality, fairness, and integrity; independence and accountability; and public trust and confidence.
Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System Program Brief.
Washington, D.C: U.S. Department of Justice (1997).
This document provides policymakers and court officials with an overview of the development, testing, and implementation of TCPS.
Trial Court Performance Standards with Commentary.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice (1997).
This summary document covers the 22 performance standards and provides an excellent starting point for individuals and courts contemplating an assessment of court performance.
Top
How To Assess Quality in the Courts.
(March 2006).
Quality Benchmarks for Adjudication are a means for the Improvement of the Activity of the Courts. The Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi, Finland.
Albers, P.
Evaluating Judicial Systems: A balance between variety and generalisation.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (May 2003).
The Justice Scorecard and 6 Sigma: A Performance Measurement, Management, and Continuous Improvement System to Create a Strategy Focused Subordinate Courts.
Singapore: Subordinate Courts (2003).
Slides. Available upon request at NCSC. A presentation of the performance architecture of the Justice Scorecard performance measurement system used by the Singapore Subordinate Courts, including key success factors and future directions for use of the Justice Scorecard.
Top
New Hampshire`s Performance Evaluation Questionnaire.
This is an online version of New Hampshire's Supreme Court Performance Evaluation Questionnaire.
Performance Measures: Key Results and Measures.
(January 2009).
This Minnesota report contains the first set of complete results for all eleven Key Results and Measures of Judicial Council. This report is comprehensive, readable and could be used by other court systems to develop similar products for their own court systems.
Superior Court of Arizona in Yuma County Performance Measures.
Yuma County Superior Court (2007).
This website reports results for CourTools Measures 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, and 10.
Coleman, Rick, et al.
A Performance Audit of the Timeliness of Civil Cases in District Court.
(April 2005).
This report evaluates the case timelines of civil cases filed in Utah district courts. It was prepared as a result of legislative interest.
Accountability Through Measurement.
Lubbock County (TX) Judicial Branch (2005).
This report contains the results of this county's first round of court performance measurement, along with management recommendations for action based on the results.
Court Performance Measures.
Minnesota Judicial Branch - Fourth District (2004).
Performance measures.
|
