Accountability through Measurement

1. Accountability through Measurement A court performance measurement report of the Lubbock County District Courts and County Courts at Law August 1, 2006

2. Why Measure Court Performance? • Perceptions and beliefs of court insiders are not always accurate • Allows the Courts to identify and focus on areas of greatest importance to a broad and diverse audience • Fosters greater creativity among court staff by setting desired outcomes • Helps the Court prepare, justify and present budgetary requests • Reinforces the Court’s desire to have effective judicial governance and accountability

3. One statement sums it up… “What gets measured gets done.” - Peter Drucker

4. Where the Courts started… • Judicial, County and community leaders worked together starting in mid-1998 • “Achieving the Goal” – Senator Duncan • OCA Case Management Review • Reformed case management system in conjunction with the local Bar Associations and Criminal District Attorney • New Local Rules formulated in 2000

5. Where the Courts started… • Number of pending cases • 1999 - 23,963 • 2005 - 12,803 46.6%

6. Where the Courts started… • Average Clearance Rate • 1999 - 93% • 2005 - 105% 12%

7. Where the Courts started… • Age of Disposed Cases • FY 1998 • Felony - 81% over 120 days old • District Civil - 34% over 18 months old • 2005 • Felony - <19% over 120 days old • District Civil - <15% over 18 months old

8. Where the Courts started… • Age of Pending Caseload • 1999 - 40% of pending criminal cases were older than 18 months • 2006 - <9% of pending felonies and <4% of pending misdemeanors are older than 18 months

9. Where the Courts started… • Age of Pending Caseload • 1999 - 65% of pending civil cases were older than 18 months • 2006 - <15% of pending civil cases are older than 18 months

10. What are the CourTools? • Simplification of Trial Court Performance Standards published in mid-90s • TCPS consisted of almost 68 measures that were difficult to gauge and difficult to interpret • CourTools consists of 10 measures that are fairly simple to gauge and easily interpreted • CourTools was developed by the National Center for State Courts • Released in April 2005 • We are among the first in the nation to implement and interpret the results

11. Measure 1: Access & Fairness • Measures individual satisfaction with the ability to make use of the Courts (Access) • Doesn’t measure winning or losing, but perceptions of how the legal process dealt with their issue, interest or case (Fairness) • Conducted using a survey of all court users • Plan to administer survey in August and release in Fall 2006

12. Measure 2: Clearance Rates • Measures court productivity in keeping current with the incoming flow of cases • The number of outgoing cases in relation to the number of incoming cases • Determines if courts are keeping up with incoming cases and/or if the courts are reducing the backlog • Can help pinpoint problems or indicate process improvements needed

13. 2005 Clearance Rates

14. 2005 Clearance Rates

15. 2005 Clearance Rates

16. Measure 3: Time to Disposition • Calculates the length of elapsed time from case filing to case resolution • Compares resolved cases to established time frames in the Local Rules • Time frames were established in 2000 in conjunction with the Local Bar and others

17. Measure 3 (cont.) Civil – Level One: 92.0% were disposed within the standard Level Two: 91.2% were disposed within the standard Level Three: 85% were disposed within the standard Criminal – Felony: If all cases are Level One – 66.5% were disposed within the standard If all cases are Level Two – 73.5% were disposed within the standard If all cases are Level Three – 82.9% were disposed within the standard Misdemeanor: 57.9% are within the standard

18. Measure 3 (cont.) Family Law – Level One: 56.0% were disposed within the standard Level Two: 76.3% were disposed within the standard Level Three: 100% were disposed within the standard

19. Measure 4: Age of Active Pending Caseload • Age of pending cases from filing until time of measurement • Addresses three questions: • Does backlog exist? • Which cases are a problem? • Given past and present performance, what is expected in the future? • Completed using data mostly from May 15

20. Measure 4 (cont.) Civil – Level One: 90.6% are within the standard Level Two: 80.0% are within the standard Level Three: 90.4% are within the standard Criminal – Felony: If all cases are Level One – 78.9% are within the standard If all cases are Level Two – 85.4% are within the standard If all cases are Level Three – 91.3% are within the standard Misdemeanor: 73.3% are within the standard

21. Measure 4 (cont.) Family Law – Level One: 62.0% are within the standard Level Two: 80.5% are within the standard Level Three: 100% are within the standard

22. Measure 5: Trial Date Certainty • The number of times cases disposed by trial are set for trial • Closely associated with timely case disposition • Evaluate calendaring and continuance policies • Trials include jury trials, non-jury bench trials

23. Jury Trial Date Certainty - 2005 County Court at Law Civil District Civil Misdemeanor Felony

24. Bench Trial Date Certainty - 2005 Civil Misdemeanor Felony Family

25. Average Number of Settings

26. Measure 6: Reliability and Integrity of Case Files • Percentage of case files that can be retrieved within established time standards and that meet standards for completeness & accuracy of contents • Specifically review the following: • How long does it take to retrieve file (on-site, off-site)? • Do case contents and docket summary match up? • Is the file organized and complete in its requirements (filemarks, sealed documents sealed, correctly captioned, petition & citation present, etc) • Report anticipated to be released Fall 2006

27. Measure 7: Collection of Monetary Penalties • Payments collected & distributed within established timelines, expressed as a percentage of total monetary penalties ordered in specific cases • Verifies that court orders are observed & enforced • Takes into account working off penalties • Incorporating Collections 5 year report • 112% increase in misdemeanor collections

28. Measure 8: Effective Use of Jurors • Measures Court’s ability to effectively manage jury service • Juror yield • Total number of jurors who are summoned to appear vs. those who appear and are qualified to serve • Factors in those who are no-shows, undeliverable, disqualified, exempt, excused, or postponed

29. Measure 8 (cont.) • Juror Utilization • Rate at which prospective jurors are used in trial or voir dire, expressed as a percentage of those who qualified and available to serve • Study underway – to be completed in Winter 2007

30. Measure 9: Court Employee Satisfaction • Ratings of court employees assessing the quality of the work environment and relations between staff and management • Committed, happy staff positively affect court performance • Surveys opinion on whether staff have the materials, motivation, direction, sense of mission, and commitment to do quality work. • Can use results to make changes to improve employee satisfaction

31. Results of 2005 Court Employee Survey

32. Measure 10: Cost per Case • The average cost of processing a single case, by case type • Used to evaluate existing practices and improve court operation – cost-effectiveness • Takes total court expenditures (personnel, operating costs) and allocates those as a percentage of staff assigned to case types. Then, that amount is divided by the total number of dispositions of that case type. • Adjusted for inflation over time

33. FY 2005 Cost per Case

34. Where do we go from here… • The Courts have developed 17 specific strategies to address issues uncovered in these measures • The Courts are committed to implementing those strategies for improvement • The Courts will report findings of CourTools measures annually

35. Questions?