Implementation: The Simple Lesson of COMPSTAT

Three keys to successful court performance measurement are: (1) finding the right measures, (2) getting them to the right people at the right time, and (3) ensuring that the right people put the measures to good use. The first two depend on an effective design process. The third is the key to implementation and it will not happen by itself.

A previous posting recommended two simple techniques to facilitate implementation of a court performance measurement system (CPMS): (1) making the review of the court's core performance results a permanent agenda item on the court’s executive meetings and (2) assigning ownership of core measures to key managers.

“It’s too simpleminded,” responded a court management consultant. He was skeptical that simply putting performance measures on the agenda and talking about them would contribute to effective implementation. Of course, he’s right. But maybe simple-minded is just what is needed.

COMPSTAT, short for “computer statistics,” is a management tool that has revolutionized many police agencies across the United States. Its simple key elements are weekly “crime control strategy meetings,” real-time performance data, and peer pressure. At least one member of the courts community, Adam Gelb, vice president for programs at the Georgia Council on Substance Abuse in Atlanta, recognizes that such simple management techniques “hold tremendous promise for other public sector organizations” including courts (see his article, “COMPSTAT for Community Corrections,” Perspectives, Volume 30, November 1, Winter 2006). COMPSTAT uses real-time performance data and peer pressure to hold managers accountable. It focuses on weekly meetings in which police executives gather unit commanders together in a single room and use real-time data to address trends and developments in performance. “This practice creates enormous incentive for supervisors to have already identified problems and sought solutions, especially those that involve partners in the room and outside of the agency,” writes Gelb.

Making performance measurement results a standing item on court executive meeting agendas and assigning ownership of performance measures are just two relatively simple techniques for integrating performance measurement into the court’s management practices and processes. As Adam Gelb said about COMPSTAT, weekly meetings, real-time performance data, and peer pressure are hardly the stuff of legend. But that’s probably a good thing.
-----------------
For the latest posts and archives of Made2Measure click here.

Copyright CourtMetrics 2006. All rights reserved.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Top 10 Reasons for Performance Measurement

There is a growing demand of “show me the data” from citizens and taxpayers, legislators, executive agencies, oversight boards and communities – all of whom exchange money and other support (e.g., trust and confidence) for services -- that courts can ill afford to ignore. Courts need to measure their performance to meet the demand for public accountability. But the benefits of court performance extend beyond accountability including improved prediction, better understanding and control, influence, a sharpened focus on what is important, and discovery of better practices. Objective performance data is central to good management practices like strategic planning, performance-based budgeting, Balanced Scorecards, Total Quality Management (TQM), and Six Sigma. Performance measures allow court leaders and managers, policymakers, legislators and the public to evaluate court programs’ inputs (the resources allocated), outputs (direct results of program or service activities) and outcomes (bro
Read more

The “What Ifs” Along the Road in the Quest of a Justice Index

What if we could draw an indicator of the “health” of the justice systems throughout the United States – a Justice Index - from readily available public data that is impartial, reliable, objective and comparable, let’s say the amount of time that criminal defendants spend in custody without a trial, or even without any access to legal or justice services? Or the bail amounts imposed on misdemeanor defendants?   This kind of a measure would not be perfect – no measure is – but it would be something, better than nothing. It would address questions of fairness and efficient use of public resources. That is, a criminal defendant languishing in jail awaiting trial suffers, at the least, a delay in justice. He or she is also occupying a jail bed and spending taxpayers’ money. What if we then join this measure with another meaningful indicator of the health of our justice systems in counties and states, let’s say the degree to which jurisdictions prosecute domestic violence cases.
Read more

Q & A: Outcome vs. Measure vs. Target vs. Standard

Q: Those of who write and speak about court performance measurement rely on their share of jargon -- and it's often confusing. What are the differences among the terms “outcome,” “measure,” “target” and “standard”? A: Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is definition. We’ll see. Outcomes are the benefits or changes for the intended beneficiaries of a court’s programs and services. Outcomes may relate to knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, behavior, condition or status of the program participants or recipients of services. Examples include litigants' satisfaction with a court's courtesy and responsiveness, success of probation, time to case disposition, clarity of orders, integrity of case files, percent of mediation agreements, enforcement of orders, and perceived fairness of proceedings, as well as percent of expected expenditures and percent of revenues received. Outcomes should not be confused with the activities of those who run the court. (See the October 1
Read more