Breakout Measure for Jail Overcrowding

The use of breakouts (disaggregation) of performance measures can reveal useful information that otherwise is hidden. Common breakouts of time to disposition measures, for example, are case type and location. They identify differences in timeliness of case processing across different case types and court locations. Other less common breakouts of on-time case processing measures may identify inequities among groups by income levels and indicate whether a court handles cases more swiftly for affluent litigants.

Another potentially very useful breakout that extends the meaning of on-time case processing measures is one that focuses on the median days that defendants spend in pretrial detention or custody. This breakout may be readily accessible via automated case management systems. It is a measure of jail overcrowding that is relevant to courts and one that may reap court managers considerable political capital in their criminal justice communities.

Many court managers in cities like Seattle and Phoenix face mandates or political pressures to alleviate jail overcrowding. They can be accountable and responsive to such pressures simply (1) by establishing a baseline of the median number of days defendants spend in pretrial custody, and (2) by vowing to examine case processing and important pretrial issues (warrants, initial appearance/arraignment, plea agreements, bail decision making, pretrial services, alternative sentencing) that, if addressed, might reduce the median number of days defendants spend in jail over time. If, in fact, the trend of this measure is downward over time, it can become a powerful demonstration that the court is doing something to alleviate jail overcrowding.


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