MENU TITLE: Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement System.

Series: BJA Program Brief
Published: July 1997 
43 pages
67,513 bytes

------------------------------

Figures, charts, forms, and tables are not included
in this ASCII plain-text file. To view this
document in its entirety, download the Adobe
Acrobat graphic file available from this Web site
or order a print copy from BJA at 800-688-4252.

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Trial Court 
Performance Standards 
and Measurement System

Program Brief

------------------------------

U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531

Janet Reno
Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice

John C. Dwyer
Acting Associate Attorney General

Laurie Robinson
Assistant Attorney General

Nancy E. Gist
Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

U.S. Department of Justice Response Center
1-800-421-6770

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
1-800-688-4252

Bureau of Justice Assistance
World Wide Web Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

This document was prepared by the National Center
for State Courts, supported by grant number 91-DD-
CX-0013(S-1) awarded by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. The opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
document are those of the authors and do not
necessarily represent the official position or
policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or the
National Center for State Courts.

The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of
the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes
the Bureau of Justice Statistics, the National
Institute of Justice, the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office
for Victims of Crime.

------------------------------

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Trial Court 
Performance Standards 
and Measurement System

Program Brief

July 1997

NCJ 161569

------------------------------

Foreword

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is pleased
to present this brief overview of the Trial Courts
Performance Standards and Measurement System. It is
intended for judges, court managers, lawyers,
policymakers, and others in a community interested
in improving their trial court's responsiveness and
effectiveness.

The Trial Courts Performance Standards and
Measurement System was created to serve as a common
language for describing, classifying, and measuring
the performance of trial courts. Developing such a
framework 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 BJA. Demonstrated successfully in trial
courts across the Nation, the measurement system is
a valuable resource for helping courts provide fair
and efficient adjudication and disposition of
cases.

It is our hope that every community in the United
States will consult this Program Brief and the
companion publications of the Standards Project to
begin the process of improving access to justice
and its administration with equality, integrity,
and timeliness.

Nancy E. Gist
Director

------------------------------

Acknowledgments 

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 Court 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.

Bureau of Justice 
Assistance, 
U.S. Department of Justice

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)

Trial Court Performance 
Standards Project Staff

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.

------------------------------

Contents

Chapter 1 Program Focus:

The Trial Court Performance Standards and 
Measurement System: A Blueprint for Improved 
Judicial Administration 

Overview 

Chapter 2 Defining a Court's Mission: 

Access to Justice 

Expedition and Timeliness 

Equality, Fairness, and Integrity 

Independence and Accountability 

Public Trust and Confidence 

Chapter 3 Measuring Court Performance: 

Demonstration of the Measurement System 

Summary of Measures 

Chapter 4 Implementation Issues: 

Step 1: Create an Impetus for Change 
Step 2: Form a Guiding Coalition 
Step 3: Create and Communicate a Vision and Mission
Step 4: Select Standards Relevant to a Vision
and Mission 
Step 5: Conduct Measures 
Step 6: Make Improvements 
Step 7: Communicate Progress 

Chapter 5 Conclusion  

Appendix A Bibliography 

Appendix B Sources for Further Information 

Appendix C Overview of the Trial Court Performance 
Standards and Measurement System 

Appendix D Court Performance Inventory 

------------------------------

Chapter 1

Program Focus

In 1987, in recognition that State court systems
were being stretched beyond their capacities and
that court personnel were experiencing fatigue and
burnout in attempting to deal with the significant
increase in drug-related cases, the Bureau of
Justice Assistance (BJA), U.S. Department of
Justice, and the National Center for State Courts
(NCSC), a nonprofit organization providing
leadership and service to State courts, initiated
an ambitious program, the Trial Court Performance
Standards Project (Standards Project). The
program's objective was to increase the capacity of
the Nation's trial courts to provide fair and
efficient adjudication and disposition of cases.
The program's goals included the development of a
set of standards and an accompanying measurement
system that would define and measure effective
trial court performance. 

Implicit in the establishment of the Standards
Project was recognition by State court leadership
that existing judicial and support resources could
handle increased caseloads only by pursuing a more
focused application and use of those resources.
Accordingly, through systematic research,
development, and demonstration, the Standards
Project resulted in the creation of the Trial Court
Performance Standards and Measurement System.
Program publications for courts that wish to use
the system include Planning Guide for Using the
Trial Court Performance Standards and Measurement
System; Trial Court Performance Standards With
Commentary; Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System Implementation Manual; and this
document, Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System (Program Brief).

The Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System: A Blueprint for Improved
Judicial Administration

The foundation of the Trial Court Performance
Standards and Measurement System is the theme of
the court as an organization accountable for its
performance. The system defines a philosophy of
optimum trial court performance. Endorsed by the
Conference of Chief Justices, the Conference of
State Court Administrators, and the National
Association for Court Management and incorporated
into the standards of the National College of
Probate Judges, the system's performance standards
are widely viewed as a blueprint for improving the
administration of justice in State trial courts.
The measurement system includes:

o A common language for the description,
classification, and communication of court
activities.

o A conceptual framework for understanding and
improving court performance.

o A means for self-assessment, self-improvement,
and accountability to the public.

A hallmark of the measurement system is its dual
emphasis on the systematic assessment of a trial
court's performance as an organization that serves
those who use the court and on the use of the
assessment findings to improve that performance.
The system is not intended to evaluate the
performance of individuals; instead, it views the
court as a system of closely interlinked processes
and tasks. The collective work of the court
involves all individuals who perform administrative
court functions--including judges, clerks of court,
administrators, probation officers, and other court
staff, as well as private lawyers, public
defenders, prosecutors, and social service
providers.

Overview

This program brief is divided into three main
sections, followed by a conclusion and four
appendixes. The first main section discusses the
goals of the court system in the 5 performance
areas into which the 22 performance standards are
grouped. These areas are: (1) Access to Justice;
(2) Expedition and Timeliness; (3) Equality,
Fairness, and Integrity; (4) Independence and
Accountability; and (5) Public Trust and
Confidence. The second section summarizes the
specific performance measures that are 
associated with the performance standards,
including methods of data collection and
measurement, sources of data, and primary
evaluators. The third main section discusses a
seven-step model that provides guidance 
to courts in implementing the performance standards
and measurement system. A brief conclusion
summarizes the benefits of systematic
implementation of the Trial Court Performance
Standards and Measurement System.

The four appendixes to this program brief provide
additional information for those who wish to
explore trial court performance issues and the
implementation of performance standards in greater
depth. Appendix A is a bibliography applicable to
all four trial court performance documents.
Appendix B lists sources for further information
about the Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System. Appendix C presents a tabular
overview of the performance measurement system.
Appendix D presents the Court Performance
Inventory, a survey instrument that is 
designed to collect individual perceptions about
trial court performance. In addition to the survey
questions, Appendix D presents the Court
Performance Inventory Response Form and the Court
Performance Profile, tools for tabulating survey
responses and presenting those responses
graphically.

------------------------------

Chapter 2

Defining a Court's Mission

The measurement system developed by the 14-member
Commission on Trial Court Performance Standards
(Commission), which consists of State and local
judges, court administrators, scholars in the area
of judicial administration, and an elected clerk of
the court, sets forth the goals of general
jurisdiction trial courts in five areas:

1. Access to Justice
2. Expedition and Timeliness
3. Equality, Fairness, and Integrity
4. Independence and Accountability
5. Public Trust and Confidence

These five performance areas encompass the
fundamental purposes and responsibilities of courts
and may be considered a court's mission. Within
each area several standards articulate specific
goals for court performance. A total of 22
standards extend across all 5 performance areas. A
discussion of these standards follows.

Access to Justice

The standards defining the performance area of
Access to Justice require a trial court to
eliminate any unnecessary geographic, economic,
procedural, language, or psychological barriers to
court services. 

Specifically, the five standards in this area
require a trial court to do the following:

o Conduct its proceedings and other public business
openly.

o Maintain facilities that are safe, accessible,
and convenient to use.

o Provide an opportunity for all who appear before
the court to participate effectively, without undue
hardship or inconvenience.

o Ensure that judges and other trial court
personnel are courteous and responsive to the
public, according respect to all with whom they
come in contact.

o Maintain reasonable, fair, and affordable costs
of access to trial court proceedings and records--
whether the costs are measured in money, time, or
the procedures that must be followed.

These five standards encourage a court to think in
terms of the court user rather than focusing on the
needs of those who work within the system. Taken as
a whole, the standards focus on the ability of
citizens to maneuver through different aspects of
the justice system, despite the public's general
unfamiliarity with court facilities and procedures.

Expedition and Timeliness

During the last 10 years, court reform has focused
considerable attention on reducing delays in case
processing. The standards in the second performance
area of Expedition and Timeliness expand the
concept of timely case processing to encompass all
court activities. The standards recognize that the
manner in which a trial court fulfills its
responsibilities affects not only litigants but all
individuals and organizations involved with the
judicial system--including jurors, attorneys,
witnesses, criminal justice and social service
agencies, and the public. 

This emphasis on the timely handling of all court
services is articulated in three performance
standards, which require a court to do the
following:

o Establish and comply with recognized guidelines
for timely case processing while, at the same time,
remaining current with its incoming caseload.

o Disburse its funds promptly, provide reports and
information according to required schedules, and
respond to requests for information and other
services on an established schedule that ensures
their effective use.

o Promptly implement changes in law and procedure.

Equality, Fairness, and Integrity

The standards in the third area of court
performance--Equality, Fairness, and Integrity--
address the constitutional guarantees of due
process and equal protection under the law. The
standards emphasize fidelity to established laws
and procedures, and they require a court not only
to be explicit in its orders but also to ensure
enforcement of the orders.

Specifically, the six standards in this area direct
a trial court to do the following:

o Faithfully adhere to relevant laws, procedural
rules, and established policies.

o Maintain jury lists that are representative of
the jurisdiction from which they are drawn.

o Give individual attention to cases, deciding them
without undue disparity among like cases and upon
legally relevant factors.

o Render decisions that unambiguously address the
issues presented and clearly indicate how
compliance can be achieved.

o Take appropriate responsibility for the
enforcement of its orders. 

o Monitor records of all relevant court decisions
and actions for accuracy and proper preservation. 

Independence and Accountability

The standards in the fourth performance area--
Independence and Accountability--recognize the
importance of judicial independence and the
separation of powers. At the same time, however,
the standards require trial courts to maintain
effective working relationships with other branches
of government and other components of the justice
system.

This performance area's standards also focus on the
court's status as a public institution. The
standards suggest that, as such, a court take
responsibility for developing action plans,
obtaining resources to implement the plans,
monitoring its operations, and accounting publicly
for its performance. Specifically, the five
standards instruct that a court do the following:

o Maintain its institutional integrity and observe
the principle of comity in its governmental
relations.

o Responsibly seek, use, and account for its public
resources.

o Use fair employment practices.

o Inform the community about its programs. 

o Anticipate new conditions and emergent events and
adjust its operations as necessary.

Public Trust and Confidence

The judicial system derives its power and
legitimacy from those it serves. A court must
attend to several constituencies--the general
public, community opinion leaders, citizens who
have business before the court, and court
employees. These constituencies vary by the type
and extent of contact they have with the justice
system. The standards in this fifth and final
performance area, Public Trust and Confidence, ask
a court to consider its performance in the other
four areas through the eyes of these various
constituencies. The three standards in this area
urge a trial court to instill public trust and
confidence to achieve the following results:

o The public perceives the trial court and the
justice it delivers as accessible. 

o The public has trust and confidence that basic
trial court functions are conducted expeditiously
and fairly and that court decisions have integrity.

o The public perceives the trial court as
independent, accountable, and not unduly influenced
by other components of government.

------------------------------

Chapter 3

Measuring Court Performance

Each performance standard in the measurement system
is linked to a set of measures. The measures
provide court officials with the tools for
assessing how well their respective courts are
performing with regard to their mission and goals
as articulated by the 22 standards. The measures
help courts develop a strategic plan based on
systematic data rather than intuition and
guesswork.

The measures are designed to gather information
that the court can use readily 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 that
require immediate attention and those that
potentially need improvement. The measures also may
be used to establish benchmarks regarding 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
taken originally. The information gathered through
the measures can help to determine whether the
improvement efforts the court has implemented are
succeeding or need to be altered in some way.
The measures use a variety of data collection
methods, including:

o Case and administrative record reviews and
searches.

o Group techniques.

o Interviews.

o Observations and simulations.

o Surveys of various reference groups (e.g., the
general public, court employees, and attorneys).

Of these data collection methods, courts are most
likely to be familiar with case and administrative
record reviews.

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, whereas court staff conduct many of
the measures involving record reviews. A few
measures, such as data analysis, are best carried
out by consultants or court staff with particular
expertise.

Demonstration of the Measurement System

As the measurement system evolved, 75 measures were
developed, tested, and refined by the Commission
and Standards Project staff. Trial courts in
Arizona, Michigan, and Ohio cooperated in and
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 New Jersey, Ohio,
Virginia, and Washington.

A total of 12 trial courts in the 4 States
participated in the demonstration, and each of the
75 measures was tested in at least 2 of the
courts.[1] The 12 trial courts varied on a number
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 Commission and
Standards Project staff reviewed and revised the
measures to reflect the experiences of these trial
courts in implementing the measurement system. As a
result the original 75 measures were refined to a
set of 68. A tabular overview of the entire
performance measurement system is presented in
Appendix C to this program brief. A summary of the
measures by performance area follows.

Summary of Measures 

Access to Justice

The five standards in the first performance area,
Access to Justice, require a trial court to
eliminate all unnecessary or inappropriate barriers
to its services. Twenty-one specific measures are
associated with these five standards. Prescribed
methods of measurement include structured
observations, interviews, surveys, and record
searches and reviews. Many of the measures
associated with this and other performance areas
can be taken simultaneously.

The method most often prescribed for measuring
access to justice is structured observation of
court proceedings, operations, and facilities. 
The information collected includes records of what
people see and hear, structured so that it can be
examined quantitatively and qualitatively by court
personnel. Although observations can be carried out
by almost anyone, the recommended approach is to
use citizen volunteers who are relatively naive
about the court system and who will yield
information and experiences likely to reflect those
of ordinary citizens who have infrequent business
with the court.

Expedition and Timeliness

Ten specific measures are associated with the three
standards in the performance area of Expedition and
Timeliness, which highlights the timely performance
of all trial court functions. Unlike the measures
associated with most of the other standards,
several of the measures associated with this
performance area (e.g., length of time to
disposition, ratio of case dispositions to case
filings, and age of pending caseload) will be
familiar to judges and court managers. Four other
measures draw on State and local sources of
information to determine whether the court also is
performing its noncase-related functions (e.g.,
distribution of funds and provision of reports,
information, and services) in a timely manner.
Satisfactory performance requires not only that
provision of reports and services be timely, but
also that they be completed in such a manner as to
make them useful to the person or agency requesting
the information or report. Finally, two other
measures relate to the promptness with which a
trial court implements externally mandated changes.

Equality, Fairness, and Integrity

A total of 23 measures are associated with the 6
standards in the performance area of Equality,
Fairness, and Integrity. For the most part, the
measures require similar data elements, data
collection procedures, and methods of analysis. For
example, five of the six measures associated with
the standard on production and preservation of
records use some portion of the same pool of cases
to examine the extent to which court records are
adequately stored. A court that measures a given
standard can apply all the measures associated with
that standard in a relatively efficient manner.

The most common method of measurement in this
performance area is the review and analysis of
case-related information. Case files are used as a
basic source of data for many of the measures. Mail
surveys also are used to assess the views of key
reference groups, such as attorneys, jurors, and
witnesses.

Independence and Accountability

In contrast to the measurement approach taken in
the other four performance areas--which is largely
prescriptive, detailing specific measures and
indices--the measurement approach in the
performance area of Independence and Accountability
is largely heuristic. That is, rather than defining
specific measures of performance, it describes
methods by which a court proceeds along empirical
lines to identify the people, events, and
activities needed to develop valid and workable
measures to assess the court's independence and
accountability. Rather than initially taking a
specific measurement, the court engages in a
process that will allow it to make inferences
(including preliminary plans for improvement) about
its independence and accountability, based on
empirical results.

To engage in this process, measures in this area
should be undertaken only after the formation of a
steering committee composed of judges and court
managers. The committee will be involved in
planning data collection, discussing the
significance of the results, and integrating the
findings from all of the measures into an overall
view of court performance in this area. Structured
group techniques for decisionmaking, such as the
Nominal Group Technique and Ideawriting, led by a
skilled facilitator, are recommended to save time
during steering committee meetings and to maximize
objectivity in the committee's work. The use of the
steering committee, in conjunction with research
efforts that may be undertaken by court staff or
consultants, constitutes a process that combines
fact gathering, value clarification,
decisionmaking, and action.

Public Trust and Confidence

Performance in the area of Public Trust and
Confidence is dependent, in large part, on the
court's performance in the other four areas. Thus,
several of the measures in the other areas that
rely on informed opinions (i.e., opinions of
individuals who have had contact with the court for
various reasons) are appropriate to consider for
this performance area as well. Three additional
measures are included to address all three
standards for this area by gauging the perceptions
of different groups about court performance. These
measures involve a mail survey of court employees,
a modified focus group discussion with
representatives of the various components of the
justice system, and a telephone survey of the
general public. The first two measures are likely
to provide the court with the most useful
information for developing an action plan to
improve performance in this area. The third measure
will provide a benchmark of general public
perception of the court's overall performance. This
benchmark then can serve as a gauge for comparing
the results of future surveys of the general
public.

It is important to note that the measures in this
area are intended to examine public perception of
court performance with regard to the court's
overall administration and operation. The measures
do not examine the extent of public agreement with
individual case decisions made by the court.

1. In New Jersey the five demonstration courts
were the Superior Courts of Atlantic, Burlington,
Morris, Ocean, and Somerset Counties. In Ohio the
three demonstration courts were the Common Pleas
Courts of Meigs, Stark, and Wayne Counties. The
demonstration court in Virginia was the Fairfax
County Circuit Court. In Washington the three
demonstration courts were the Superior Courts of
Spokane, Thurston, and Whatcom Counties.

------------------------------

Chapter 4

Implementation Issues

The Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System is crafted for the "generic"
general jurisdiction trial court. How the system is
applied in an actual court depends on both the
needs of the court and the environment in which it
operates. For one court the application of the
system might involve selecting and conducting one
or two measures that address a particular area of
concern for the court. For another court the
application might involve articulating a strategic
plan for the court in which the measurement system
plays a central role. 

An implementation model, consisting of seven steps,
provides guidance to courts that wish to use the
measurement system in their jurisdiction. Based on
the experiences of the courts demonstrating the
measures, the model helps courts translate the
philosophy of the measurement system into practical
application. The model's seven steps are outlined
below.

Step 1: Create an Impetus for Change

This first step involves identifying the reasons
for undertaking a self-improvement effort and
generating the momentum to get the effort started
and sustained. It does not matter whether the court
uses a national or local issue to drive its
self-improvement process. What matters is that the
identified issue has meaning for, and elicits a
reaction from, the individuals who will be involved
in the process.

Step 2: Form a Guiding Coalition

A self-improvement effort that remains effective
over time should be directed by a Guiding Coalition
that can command respect and resources and maintain
the energy to keep the project going when
resistance is encountered.[2] The coalition's core
should consist of senior court officials who are
willing to commit their time and energy to the
project. Although these senior persons need not
always be the officials who occupy the court's
positions of highest authority or power, the
court's top management should at least be in
agreement philosophically with the effort. The
coalition should not necessarily be a task force in
which a representative from every potentially
relevant group is invited to participate. Involving
too many individuals can cause the planning process
to supersede the purpose, which is to embark on a
self-improvement process.[3] Representatives from
various groups needed for or affected by the
self-improvement process are mentioned in specific
performance measures, and their cooperation will be
solicited along the way. However, these
representatives do not all have to be permanent
members of the coalition.

Step 3: Create and Communicate a Vision and Mission

The Guiding Coalition should draft a vision
statement that builds on the shared values of the
individuals who will be involved in the court's
self-improvement efforts and clarifies the
direction of these efforts.

If a court does not already have a vision
statement, the measurement system is a good
resource for developing an initial version. Several
themes are interwoven throughout the standards
component of the system, such as the court as
service provider (customer orientation), problem
solver, institution builder, and even as active
governing agent in the community. The foundation of
the measurement system is the theme of the court as
an organization accountable for its performance. 

Whereas a vision statement describes the court's
desired state or position in the future, a mission
statement describes its fundamental purpose. As
noted earlier the five performance areas--Access to
Justice; Expedition and Timeliness; Equality,
Fairness, and Integrity; Independence and
Accountability; and Public Trust and Confidence--
offer a starting point for developing and refining
the court's mission statement. Any or all of the
fundamental responsibilities articulated in the
measurement system could become the focus of a
court's mission statement.

A clear vision and mission communicated to the
individuals participating in the court's
self-improvement plan will sustain the effort
during the more mundane and less inspiring days of
data collection and analysis.

Step 4: Select Standards Relevant to a Vision and
Mission

The next step for the Guiding Coalition is to
select one or more standards to focus on. In some
instances the selection of certain standards may be
obvious. The selection may have been implied in the
coalition's prior discussions regarding the court's
vision and mission, or a court may be reacting to a
particular accusation, such as excessive case
processing time or unequal treatment of
individuals. In other instances, however, the
coalition may not be prepared to set priorities for
applying measures without further discussion. In
this case the Court Performance Inventory (CPI) may
be helpful in identifying areas on which to focus
first. The CPI (presented in Appendix D) is a
50-question instrument designed to document quickly
the first impressions of sources who are
knowledgeable about court operations. The inventory
asks respondents to make judgments about the court
with regard to the various performance areas. The
CPI can be used as a point of discussion for
coalition members. What patterns emerge from
responses to the questions? Is there general
agreement about the areas in which the court is
performing well and about those needing
improvement? Do the responses vary by position? For
example, do clerical staff rate access to justice
lower than judges do? If so, why? The answers to
these questions will help the coalition pinpoint
the areas to focus on initially.

Step 5: Conduct Measures

The measurement system describes the actual
measures in detail. The measures involve several
different methods for collecting data and range
broadly in difficulty and resources necessary for
their application. Courts participating in the
demonstration of the system reported the importance
of starting off small and focusing on one or two
measures to become familiar with the process before
tackling some of the more complex and lengthy
measures. The demonstration courts also suggested
undertaking both short- and long-term data
collection efforts to maintain interest in the
project during the longer data collection periods
of some measures. The results from the short-term
measures provide court staff with "small wins" that
will help clarify the benefits of the process as
well as motivate continuing long-range efforts. In
addition, regular status reports of the data
collection effort help those involved to stay
focused and remind them of the importance of their
efforts.

Step 6: Make Improvements

Strategic change--getting from here to there--
requires good thinking, planning, and, more
important, doing. Doing means actually making
improvements based on the results of the first five
steps. This sixth step involves performing tasks to
accomplish the court's objectives, goals, mission,
and vision. At best, the tasks necessary for
improvement become self-evident as a result of
performance measurement. (For example, problems
associated with the integrity of the court's
document and file management systems may come to
light as a result of undertaking the measurements
for Standard 3.6, Production and Preservation of
Records.) If so, the problems are likely to be
amenable to relatively mechanical fixes. These
improvements need not be controversial nor take a
long time to implement. More often than not,
however, formulating an improvement strategy is an
exercise in entrepreneurship, requiring the
coordinated effort of the Guiding Coalition. During
its strategy formulation, the coalition should
consider the following questions:[4]

o Is it suitable? Does the strategy make sense in
light of the court's vision, mission, and current
environment?
o Is it valid? Is the strategy based on realistic
assumptions?

o Is it feasible? Does the court have the
authority, resources, and confidence required to
implement the strategy? 

o What are the strategy's vulnerabilities? What are
the risks of implementing the strategy? How likely
is the strategy to work as intended? Will anyone in
the organization be harmed by the strategy? If so,
what compensatory steps will be taken?

o What are the timing requirements? When must the
court see tangible benefits? Are there "windows of
opportunity" to consider in implementing the
strategy?

o How adaptable is the strategy? Does the strategy
significantly limit or enhance the court's
flexibility to fulfill its mission?

o Is the strategy usable? Can the court readily
implement the strategy?

Step 7: Communicate Progress

Making meaningful and sustainable changes in an
organization is not a simple task. Courts engaged
in implementation of the measurement system are
analogous to companies trying to "remake themselves
into significantly better competitors . . . . The
change process goes through a series of phases
that, in total, usually require a considerable
length of time."[5]

When it becomes clear to people that major change
will take a long time, organizational inertia
reasserts itself and urgency levels are likely to
drop. New energy in the form of regular feedback
about the process and preliminary results will help
overcome the inertia. The planning process also
should include some relatively short measures that
confirm hypotheses about positive court
performance, as well as hypotheses or suspicions
about problem areas. The Guiding Coalition must
nurture the conviction that new information itself
is a win, regardless of whether the information
confirms positive hypotheses or reveals areas in
need of improvement. Reviewing and communicating
the results of the measurement process will help
sustain the urgency level and spur analytical
thinking to clarify the court's vision.

Conclusion

"Local level changes in programs, processes, and
recording of data will be made as a result of the
knowledge gained."

"Early on it became evident that the standards
should not be used on a `start and stop' basis, but
rather need to be incorporated into the routine
fabric of all work performed. Through continued
utilization, emerging work trends could be tracked
and impact of change could be measured."

"Participation in this project has provided us with
valuable insight as to how trial courts can more
effectively improve judicial service to the
public."

"The court benefited from the project and
encourages other courts to become involved. The
project is not an easy task, but the results can be
beneficial to the community and county the court
system serves."

These comments, offered by participants in the
demonstration phase of the Standards Project,
underscore the benefits of implementing the
measurement system for both the court and the
community. As a result of their participation in
the program, demonstration courts have already
initiated improvement efforts in a variety of areas
such as court security, court interpretation,
personnel practices and decisions, jury systems,
public education, and court access. These
improvement efforts directly respond to current
demands for increased accountability throughout
government and will help ensure a more responsive
justice system overall.

Until recently, court reform focused on the
structures and machinery of the courts, rather than
on their performance, and on the needs of judges
and court personnel, rather than on the needs of
those served by the courts. The measurement system
shifts the focus of reform from resources (e.g.,
the number of judges and trained staff to
efficiently operate a court) and processes (e.g.,
alternatives to formal dispute resolution and
master versus individual calendaring) to
performance and its measurement. The measurement
system provides a new framework for understanding
the unique and important role and responsibility of
the courts in State and local governance. 

2. T.J. Kiely, "Managing Change: Why Reengineering
Projects Fail," Harvard Business Review
73(2)(1995), p. 15.

3. P. Ellickson and J. Petersilia, Implementing New
Ideas in Criminal Justice, R-2929-NIJ (Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 1983), p. 72.

4. Adapted from B.J. Wagenknecht-Ivey, An Approach
to Long-Range Strategic Planning for the Courts:
Training Guide (Denver, CO: Center for Public
Policy Studies, 1992), p. 10.

5. J.P. Kotter, "Why Transformation Efforts Fail,"
Harvard Business Review, 73(2)(1995), p. 59.

------------------------------

Bibliography  

American Bar Association. Standards Relating to
Juror Use and Management. Chicago, IL: American Bar
Association. 1983.

Belasco, J.A., and R.C. Stayer. Flight of the
Buffalo: Soaring to Excellence, Learning To Let
Employees Lead. New York: Warner Books. 1993. 

Blankenship, M.B., J.B. Spargar, and W.R.
Janikowski. "Accountability v. Independence: Myths
of Judicial Selection." Criminal Justice Policy
Review 6(1)(1992), pp. 69-79.

Bureau of the Census. Statistical Abstract of the
United States, 1988. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Commerce. 1989.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Planning Guide for
Using the Trial Court Performance Standards and
Measurement System. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice. 1997.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Trial Court
Performance Standards With Commentary. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice. 1997. 

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Trial Court
Performance Standards and Measurement System
(Program Brief). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice. 1997.

Bureau of Justice Assistance. Trial Court
Performance Standards and Measurement System
Implementation Manual. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice. 1997.

Chapper, J., and R. Hanson. Three Papers on
Understanding Reversible Error in Criminal Appeals.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
1979.

Citizens' Commission to Improve Michigan Courts.
Final Report and Recommendations to Improve the
Efficiency and Responsiveness of Michigan Courts.
Lansing, MI: Michigan Supreme Court. 1986. 

Clynch, E., and D.W. Neubauer. "Trial Courts as
Organizations: A Critique and Synthesis." In
Administration and Management of Criminal Justice
Organizations: A Book of Readings, Stan Stokjovic
et al. (eds.) 2nd ed. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press, Inc. 1994. 

Cooper, C.S. Expedited Drug Case Management.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Office
of Justice Programs. Bureau of Justice Assistance.
1994.

Covey, S.R. Principle-Centered Leadership. New
York: Summit Books. 1991. 

Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979).

Ellickson, P., and J. Petersilia. Implementing New
Ideas in Criminal Justice (R-2929-NIJ). Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. 1983.

Flemming, R., P. Nardulli, and J. Eisenstein. "The
Timing of Justice in Felony Trial Courts." Law and
Policy 9(2)(April 1987), pp. 179-206.  

Gallas, G., and E.C. Gallas. "Court Management
Past, Present, and Future: A Comment on Lawson and
Howard." Justice System Journal 15(2)(1991), pp.
605-616.

GMA Research Corporation. Washington State Judicial
Survey. Olympia, WA: Office of the Administrator
for the Courts, State of Washington. 1988. 

Goerdt, J.A., et al. Examining Court Delay: The
Pace of Litigation in 26 Urban Trial Courts, 1987.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
1989. 

Goerdt, J.A., C. Lomvardias, and G. Gallas.
Reexamining the Pace of Litigation in 39 Urban
Trial Courts. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Justice. Bureau of Justice Assistance. 1991.

Goldkamp, J., and M. Gottfredson. Guidelines for
the Pretrial Release Decision: Superior Court of
Arizona, Maricopa County; Circuit and County
Courts, Dade County; Boston Municipal Court; and
Suffolk County Superior Court. Bail Guidelines
Project. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University. 1985.

Goodman, M.L. "Effective Case Monitoring and Timely
Dispositions: The Experience of One California
Court." Judicature 76(5)(February-March 1993), pp.
254-257. 

Gray, E.B. "Day in the Life of a Multi-Door
Courthouse." Negotiation Journal 9(3)(July 1993),
pp. 215-221.

Hardenbergh, D. "Planning and Design Considerations
for Trial Courtrooms." State Court Journal
14(4)(Fall 1990), pp. 32-38. 

Headley-Edwards, N., and D.A. Ryan. Comprehensive
Adjudication of Drug Arrestees (CADA) Project,
1988-1990. San Jose, CA: Santa Clara County Office
of the County Executive. 1990.

Herbert, A., and R. Colton. Tables for
Statisticians. New York: Barnes and Noble. 1963.

Hewitt, W. Court Interpretation: Model Guides 
for Policy and Practice in the State Courts.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
1995.

Jacoby, J.E. "Expedited Drug Case Management
Programs: Some Lessons in Case Management Reform."
Justice System Journal 17(1)(1994), pp. 19-40. 

Jacoby, J.E., E.C. Ratledge, and H.P. Gramckow.
Expedited Drug Case Management Programs: Issues for
Program Development, Executive Summary. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice. National Institute
of Justice. 1992.

Johnson, S.S., and P. Yerawadekar. "Courthouse
Security." Court Management Journal 3(1981), pp.
8-12.

Kairys, D., J.B. Kadan, and J.P. Lehoczky. "Jury
Representation, A Mandate for Multiple Source
Lists." California Law Review 65(1977), pp.
776-827.  

Kiely, T.J. "Managing Change: Why Reengineering
Projects Fail." Harvard Business Review
73(2)(1995), p. 15.

King County Department of Public Safety. King
County Department of Public Safety 1989 Annual
Report. Seattle, WA. 1990.

Knuth, D.J. The Art of Computer Programming, Vol.
2, Semi-Numerical Algorithms. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley Publishing Company. 1969. 

Kotter, J.P. "Why Transformation Efforts Fail."
Harvard Business Review 73(2)(1995), pp. 59-67.

Krueger, R.A. Focus Groups: A Practical Guide for
Applied Research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications. 1988.

Luskin, M., and R. Luskin. "Why So Fast, Why So
Slow: Explaining Case Processing Time." Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology 77(1)(Spring 1986),
pp. 190-214.

MacCoun, R.J., and T.R. Tyler. "Basis of Citizens'
Perceptions of the Criminal Jury: Procedural
Fairness, Accuracy, and Efficiency." Law and Human
Behavior 12(3)(September 1988), pp. 333-352.

Maddi, D. Judicial Performance Polls. Chicago:
American Bar Foundation. 1977.

Mahoney, B., et al. Changing Times in Trial Courts:
Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban
Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for
State Courts. 1988. 

Martin, J.A. Approach to Long-Range Strategic
Planning for the Courts. Alexandria, VA: State
Justice Institute. 1992.

Menaster, Spooner, and Greenberg. "Getting a Fair
Cross-Section of the Community." Forum (1989), pp.
14-21. 

Moore, C. Group Techniques for Idea Building. 
Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol. 9.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 1987.

Morgan, D. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 1988.

Munsterman, G.T., and J.T. Munsterman. "The Search
for Jury Representativeness." Justice System
Journal 11(1986), pp. 59-78. 

Nagel, I. "The Legal/Extra-Legal Controversy:
Judicial Decisions in Pretrial Release." Law and
Society Review 17(1983), pp. 481-515. 

National Center for State Courts. The Americans
with Disabilities Act: Title II Self-Evaluation.
Williamsburg, VA. 1992.

National Center for State Courts. Methodology
Manual for Jury Systems. Williamsburg, VA. 1981.

National Center for State Courts. A Supplement to
the Methodology Manual for Jury Systems:
Relationships to the Standards Relating to Juror
Use and Management. Williamsburg, VA. 1987. 

National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal
Justice. Multiple Lists for Juror Selection: A Case
Study for San Diego Superior Court. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice. Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration. 1978.

National Sheriffs' Association. Court Security: 
A Manual of Guidelines and Procedures. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Law Enforcement
Assistance Administration. 1978.  

Osborne, D., and T. Gaebler. Reinventing 
Government: How the Entrepreneurial Spirit Is
Transforming the Public Sector. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company. 1992. 

Philip, C. How Bar Associations Evaluate Sitting
Judges. New York: Institute for Judicial
Administration. 1976.

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of
California, 464 U.S. 501 (1984). 

Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court of
California for Riverside, 478 U.S. 106 (1986).

Schultz, W.L., C. Bezold, and B.P. Monahan. 
Reinventing Courts for the 21st Century: Designing
a Vision Process. Williamsburg, VA: National Center
for State Courts. 1993. 

Sponzo, M.J. "Independence vs. Accountability:
Connecticut's Judicial Evaluation Program." Judge's
Journal 26(2)(Spring 1987), pp. 13-17.  

Task Force on Principles for Assessing the Adequacy
of Judicial Resources. Assessing the Need for
Judicial Resources: Guidelines for a New Process.
Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
1983.

Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 526 (1975).

Tyler, T. "What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria
Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal
Procedures." Law and Society Review 22(1988), pp.
103-139.

U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on the Judiciary.
Juvenile Courts: Access to Justice: Hearing Before
the Subcommittee on Juvenile Justice. 102d Cong.,
2d sess., March 4, 1992.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Final
Report on the Validation and Effectiveness Study of
Legal Representation Through Guardian 
Ad Litem. Washington, DC. 1994.

Wagenknecht-Ivey, B.J. An Approach to Long-Range
Strategic Planning for the Courts: Training Guide.
Denver, CO: Center for Public Policy Studies. 1992.

Williams, R.J. "Envisioning the Courts: Old Myths
or New Realities?" The Court Manager 9(4)(1994), p.
45.

Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc. The Public
Image of Courts: Highlights of a National Survey of
the General Public, Judges, Lawyers, and Community
Leaders. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for
State Courts. 1978.

Yin, R. Case Study Research Design and Methods.
Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. 1984.

------------------------------

Sources for Further Information

For further information about the Trial Court
Performance Standards and Measurement System,
contact:

Bureau of Justice Assistance
Adjudication Branch
810 Seventh Street NW.
Washington, DC 20531
202-514-5943
World Wide Web: http:// www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

Bureau of Justice Assistance Clearinghouse
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000
Tel: 1-800-688-4252
Fax: 301-519-5212
World Wide Web: http:// www.ncjrs.org

Department of Justice Response Center
Tel: 1-800-421-6770

National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue
Williamsburg, VA 23185
Tel: 757-253-2000
Fax: 757-220-0449
World Wide Web: http:// www.ncsc.dni.us

------------------------------

Appendix D

Court Performance Inventory

The Court Performance Inventory is intended to
familiarize individuals with the Trial Court
Performance Standards and Measurement System
developed by the Commission on Trial Court
Performance Standards, the National Center for
State Courts, and the Bureau of Justice
Assistance.* The inventory is designed to collect
individual perceptions (that may be pooled with the
perceptions of others) about specific trial court
performance. Results of the inventory graphed onto
the Court Performance Profile at the end of this
appendix can be used to target further diagnostic
efforts and management strategies. 

DIRECTIONS: Read each of the attached 50
statements. Based on your experiences with your
court or another court of interest to you,
determine whether you believe the statement is
BROADLY TRUE or BROADLY FALSE about the way the
court performs. If you believe the statement is
BROADLY TRUE, place an "X" in the corresponding
numbered box on the Court Performance Inventory
Response Form that follows the last statement. For
example, if you believe the first statement to be
generally true about the court you are rating,
place an "X" in the box with the "1" on the
response form. Once you have completed the response
form, add the number of boxes marked as BROADLY
TRUE for each of the five columns. Each column
refers to one of the performance areas. Use the
five sums to complete the Court Performance
Profile. 

1. An observer sitting in any courtroom's public
seating area will have no difficulty hearing
judges, attorneys, litigants, witnesses, and other
participants in the proceedings.  

2. The total elapsed time it takes the court to
dispose of cases once they are filed complies with
national standards.
 
3. The final juror pools used by the court are
representative of the demographic characteristics
of the jurisdiction's population.
 
4. The allocation of personnel resources among case
types is defensible and based upon logic and
reason.  

5. The general public (a) perceives the trial court
and the justice it delivers as accessible; (b) has
trust and confidence that basic trial functions are
conducted expeditiously and fairly and that the
court's decisions have integrity; and (c) knows
that the trial court is independent, accountable,
and not unduly influenced by other government 
components.
 
6. An undercover law enforcement official, dressed
in plain clothes, will not be able to breach either
the court's security systems that protect the
public or confidential court files and records.  

7. An examination of court financial records will
reveal that the various types of funds for which
the court is responsible are disbursed in a timely
manner.
 
8. An examination of relevant case file documents
and court records will reveal that the court
closely adheres to key legal requirements.
 
9. An analysis of the court as an equal opportunity
employer would reveal that race and gender
distribution for each job category is generally
reflective of the available labor pool for each
category. 

10. Justice system representatives (a) perceive the
trial court and the justice it delivers as
accessible; (b) have trust and confidence that
basic trial functions are conducted expeditiously
and fairly and that court decisions have integrity;
and (c) know that the trial court is independent,
accountable, and not unduly influenced by other
components of government.

11. Interpreter services provided by the court are
performed by individuals with language proficiency,
interpreting skill, and knowledge of professional
conduct.

12. The court promptly implements changes in
substantive and procedural laws that are a result
of Federal and State legislation and new Federal
regulations.

13. A statistical analysis conducted of data
collected from closed files for bail, bond, and
release on recognizance decisions will reveal that
these decisions are not based on extralegal factors
such as the defendant's race or gender, the judge
assigned to the case, or the geographic location of
the court. 

14. The court does a good job in disseminating
information to the public about its programs and
operations. 

15. Court employees (a) perceive the trial court
and the justice it delivers as accessible; (b) have
trust and confidence that basic trial functions are
conducted expeditiously and fairly and that court
decisions have integrity; and (c) know that the
trial court is independent, accountable, and not
unduly influenced by other components of
government.

16. Observers of court proceedings are likely to
find all court personnel courteous and responsive. 

17. The court keeps up with its incoming caseload
by disposing of as many cases as are filed each
year. 

18. Record examinations and statistical analyses
are likely to reveal that sentencing decisions of
the court are based mostly on legally relevant
factors and not on extralegal factors such as the
defendant's race or gender, the judge assigned to
the case, or the geographic location of the court. 

19. A group of knowledgeable persons both within
and outside the court would conclude that the court
has acted responsibly in responding to public
policy issues of concern within the jurisdiction
such as domestic violence, discrimination,
substance abuse, or others that could have affected
the fair and effective administration of justice by
the court. 

20. Individuals who have had contact with the court
such as litigants, jurors, witnesses, victims, or
those conducting other business with the court
consider the court's decisions and treatment of
individuals as fair and equitable. 

21. The court takes measures to reduce costs and
facilitates affordable access to the judicial
system for financially disadvantaged persons.

22. The court responds promptly to requests for
information from the public. 

23. A broad examination of appeal outcomes reflects
that the trial court adheres to substantive laws
and procedural requirements.

24. Selected knowledgeable individuals are likely
to conclude that the trial court maintains its
independence and institutional integrity, but that
it still has good relations with other units of
government. 

25. Regular users of the court (i.e., court
employees, attorneys, probation officers, and
jurors) are likely to say that they are able to
conduct their business with the court with relative
ease and convenience. 

26. A person relatively unfamiliar with the court
will have no difficulty in locating and actually
entering the courtroom in which a particular
hearing is taking place.

27. The court promptly implements changes in
administrative procedures required by the State
supreme court and the administrative office of the
courts. 

28. The court does a good job of communicating
clearly the terms and conditions of criminal
sentences. 

29. The court's responses to requests for
information from the media are accurate and timely.

30. The results of a survey of regular court users,
court employees, attorneys, probation officers, and
jurors are likely to conclude that judges and other
trial court personnel are courteous and responsive
to the public and all others with whom they come
into contact.

31. A person who attempts to determine the specific
time and location of a particular court event will
have no difficulty getting this information from
the court by telephone. 

32. Cases scheduled for trial are heard on the
first scheduled trial date. 

33. The court is well positioned and organized to
enforce or facilitate the enforcement of its orders
and judgments.

34. A group of knowledgeable individuals is likely
to conclude that court personnel practices and
decisions are fair.

35. Citizens are likely to report that access to
court services is generally not hindered because of
costs or complexity of procedures.

36. Persons with physical disabilities are able to
conduct transactions in the court with relative
ease. 

37. The various services available from the court
(such as indigent defense services, interpreter
services, and mental health evaluations) are
provided promptly.

38. A test of the timely retrieval of individual
case files will reveal that the court's file
control system is reliable and efficient.

39. The court has adequate statistical reporting
capacity to make useful assessments of the
relationship between the court's workload and the
distribution of court resources. 

40. Members of the bar who have appeared regularly
in the court in the past year would assess the
court's actions and decisions as fair and
equitable. 

41. Court observers are likely to find that
litigants are treated with a high degree of
courtesy and individual respect by judges of the
court.

42. The number of pending cases exceeding national
or State time standards for case processing is low.

43. The court clearly states the terms and
conditions of obligations imposed as a result of
adjudication of a civil dispute. 

44. Court employees and media representatives are
likely to be satisfied with policies and practices
for responding to media inquiries. 

45. Court staff will rate highly the degree of
independent control that the court exercises over
its fiscal operations, personnel, and services
related to case flow.

46. Indigent persons who have never tried to obtain
legal assistance are likely to obtain affordable
legal assistance with relatively routine legal
problems.

47. The court complies with established schedules
for routine court reports such as statistical
reports required by the State administrative office
of the courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission. 

48. An examination of a sample of case file data
will show that most files are complete and
accurate. 

49. The court conducts periodic internal and
external audits of its financial practices and
responds to auditors' suggestions for improvements.

50. Court employee responses to structured
questions about fairness in personnel practices
related to employee morale and competence are
likely to reflect general satisfaction.

* This instrument was devised initially by Daniel
H. Straub and further developed and revised by Ingo
Keilitz, former director, and staff of the Trial
Court Performance Standards Project.

------------------------------

Bureau of Justice
Assistance
Information

General Information

Callers may contact the U.S. Department 
of Justice Response Center for general information
or specific needs, such as assistance in submitting
grants applications and information on training. To
contact the Response Center, call 1-800-421-6770 or
write to 1100 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20005.

Indepth Information

For more indepth information about BJA, its
programs, and its funding opportunities, requesters
can call the BJA Clearinghouse. The BJA
Clearinghouse, a component of the National Criminal
Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), shares BJA
program information with State and local agencies
and community groups across the country.
Information specialists are available to provide
reference and referral services, publication
distribution, participation and support for
conferences, and other networking and outreach
activities. The Clearinghouse can be reached by:

o Mail
P.O. Box 6000
Rockville, MD 20849-6000

o Visit 
2277 Research Boulevard
Rockville, MD 20850

o Telephone
1-800-688-4252
Monday through Friday
8:30 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
eastern time

o Fax
301-519-5212

o Fax on Demand
1-800-688-4252

o BJA Home Page
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA

o NCJRS World Wide Web
http://www.ncjrs.org

o E-mail
askncjrs@ncjrs.org

o JUSTINFO Newsletter
E-mail to listproc@ncjrs.org
Leave the subject line blank
In the body of the message, 
type: 
subscribe justinfo [your name] 

BJA World Wide Web Address

For a copy of this document online, 
as well as more information on BJA, 
check the BJA Home Page at 
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA