The strategic objectives found in such plans will cover a wide range of matters relevant to the committee?s responsibilities. They will, undoubtedly, refer to the need to maintain and improve the:-
efficiency and effectiveness of court services;
quality of court services for all court users;
and will cover such areas as:-
effective and timely case management processes;
enforcement of monetary orders.
Committees must agree a range of primary performance indicators to measure
their performance. They will receive regular reports from their chief executives
which clearly explain current levels of performance. In support of strategic
plans, chief executives, assisted by other senior managers, will draw up operational
plans setting out objectives and secondary performance indicators. These secondary
indicators will help managers to analyse performance, study trends and offer
detailed advice to committees.
Committees are free to develop their own primary indicators of performance across the full range of their responsibilities. There are, however, performance indicators that have been developed at national level (described below). These allow committees to compare their performance with others and draw conclusions which may lead to improved performance.
The National Management Information System (M I S)
The indicators described in this system were first introduced in 1987. They have been extended and amended and are currently under review. The system comprises of 40 indicators (4 key indicators and 36 secondary indicators).
The 4 key indicators are:-
K.I.1 Cost per case
-
the total expenditure for the committee divided by the weighted caseload
K.I.2 Waiting time
-
the proportion of indictable and triable either way cases dealt with within
56 days divided by the expected proportion of cases dealt with within the
same period (the expected figure takes account of national averages performance
and the mix of plea rates for the court concerned)
K.I.3 Fine enforcement
-
expressed as average debtor days taking into account compensation and cost
orders
K.I.4 Quality of service
-
calculated in a different way from the other three indicators in that it is
the sum of a range of secondary indicators the most important of which is
waiting times on the day
The 36 secondary indicators are designed to assist managers in analysing their performance in more depth. Comparison with similar sized courts/committees allows conclusions to be drawn in relation to such things as "good practices" which, when implemented, are likely to result in improved performance.
Magistrates? Courts Service Inspectorate Thematic Review Information for Management (TRIM)
In the report following this review the Inspectors indicate that:-
"Within the Magistrates? Courts Service there is a distrust of nationally published comparative information which, many suggest, is linked to the use of MIS in the allocation of grant. While any consideration of national performance measures lies outside the scope of this review, the Inspectorate hopes that, as the use of local performance measurement improves, and the quality assurance procedures for MIS are strengthened, the potential usefulness of national comparisons will be more widely recognised.
For many MCCs, MIS indicators provide the major source of performance measurement at the local level. They are found valuable in particular for:-
providing comparisons with the performance of other clerkships and MCCs
providing data on trends over time
by comparison, providing targets for performance improvement
However, MCCs report a number of problems in using these national comparative
measures for local management purposes. The most frequent criticism of the
MIS indicators is that the data arrives too late to be of value in assessing
and re-focusing operational activity. In addition, changes in weighting have
made year on year trends difficult to follow through. Many MCCs do not use
the existing MIS clerkship comparators because they are based on size of workload
alone. There are currently between 20 and 28 clerkships in each comparator
group. Clerkships have encountered problems when trying to identify comparators
with sufficiently similar characteristics to make comparison useful. These
problems are exacerbated when the membership of groups changes as workload
fluctuates.
More fundamentally, uncertainty about definitions and variations in computer programs has resulted in MCCs failing to measure the same factors. The mistrust arising from such inconsistencies is fuelled by the suspicions voiced by many Committees that their opposite number in other areas are using devices to distort their figures.
Despite these problems, the majority of MCCs make at least some use of the Management Information System figures, and the Inspectorate endorses their doing so. In a Service where so little management information exists, there can be no justification for what there is, other than the certainty of using something better."
This thematic review recommended a range of measures to help committees assess their performance in key areas. The review recommended that these Core Performance Measures (CPM?s) should be supported by others at a more detailed level of operation to be devised by magistrates? courts committee managers locally. The CPMs were issued in 1998 and revised in 1999.
The Core Performance Measures are:-
CPM1
-
the average length of cases from first listing to completion
CPM2
-
the number of defendants/complainants waiting less that one hour as a proportion
of all those appearing
CPM3
-
the percentage of cases for which specified information is provided to other
agencies within the prescribed timescale
CPM4
-
the amount of arrears as a proportion of outstanding balances
CPM5
-
write offs, due to failure of enforcement as a proportion of impositions
CPM6
-
number of occupied court sitting hours as a proportion of the number of planned
hours of court time
CPM7
-
caseload per sitting hour
CPM8
-
percentage of user satisfaction with court services
CPM9
-
staff cost per weighted case
CPM10
-
weighted caseload per member of staff
CPM11
-
total revenue costs per weighted case
CPM12
-
actual court hours as a proportion of capacity
The Inspectorate will expect MCCs to:-
regularly review their strategic plans;
monitor their performance in the key and functional areas either using the
Core Performance Measures or through equally effective means;
set targets in relation to key areas of performance;
carry out internal comparisons of performance between court sites/administrative
centres;
ensure senior managers analyse performance through complementary supplementary
analysis;
ensure they receive timely reports from senior managers on changing circumstances
and changes in the justice system.
Government Performance Indicators
In July 1998 the government announced over-arching aims for the criminal justice system (of which the magistrates? courts service is an important part). These are:-
to reduce crime and the fear of crime and its social and economic costs;
and
to dispense justice fairly and efficiently and to promote confidence in the
rule of law.
Through joint strategies agreed by the key justices agencies at the highest
levels in government to the homes of these locally delivered services, based
on 42 police authority areas, objectives will be set aimed at achieving government
targets. At the end of 1999 the following key performance measures/targets
had been set for magistrates? courts:-
Key Performance Measure 1 -
Reduce time taken from arrest to sentence or other disposal (including a specific
commitment to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young
offenders from 142 to 71 days).
Interim Performance Targets
Reduce time from first listing to completion in all criminal cases from 31
to 29 days.
50% of persistent young offenders to be dealt with in 71 days (arrest to sentence).
Key Performance Measure 2 -
Increase the proportion of victims and witnesses who regard their experience
in the criminal justice system as acceptable.
Interim Performance Target
Improve quality of service as measured by MIS K I 4.
Key Performance Measure 3 -
An aggregate measure of efficiency in the criminal justice system including
specific efficiency measures for magistrates? courts.
Interim Performance Targets
Achieve 3% per annum efficiency improvement to be reflected in the grant
allowance.
Key Performance Measure 4 -
Reduce court room over-capacity by 10% including better shared use of courts?
accommodation and accommodation strategic planning.
Key Performance Measure 5 -
Improve effectiveness of enforcement of fines and community penalties.
As these performance measures/targets are further refined they will provide an important focus for MCCs whose own strategic aims/objectives/performance indicators will be tailored to achieve high levels of performance.
The CIPFA Administration of Justice Statistics
One other set out nationally-collected statistical information is of relevance to some MCCs. Local authorities have long had the use of the Chartered Institute of Public
Finance and Accountancy?s (CIPFA) statistical information service which comprises a series of annual publications describing in detail the costs and outputs of local authority services. The Administration of Justice figures comprise expenditure and income estimates and actuals per thousand population for both magistrates? and coroners? courts. The CIPFA statistics are a useful addition to the information base from which to investigate the relative spending levels of individual MCC areas. However, caution should be exercised before drawing firm conclusions from the statistics, as they are assembled from a local authority viewpoint. For MCCs the most use information is the total expenditure split over the headings:-
employees
justices? expenses
premises
transport
supplies and services
third party payments
support services
Thus there should be sufficient information for an MCC to compare the percentage
of its budget spend on any one head against the average percentage for MCCs
of its type.
Key Points
It is essential for committees to define a range of primary performance indicators
to measure their performance against objectives contained in their strategic
plans - and to ensure that they receive regular reports from their chief executive
to enable them to monitor performance.
Senior managers must devise a range of secondary indicators to allow detailed
analysis of performance. Such analysis will allow:-
clear explanations of performance to be provided to committees;
conclusion to be drawn leading to improvements of performance where necessary.
A range of national indicators are available for the purpose (ie MIS/TRIM)
which facilitate comparisons with other committee areas.
Further Reading
1. MIS Reports - published annually - available from the Justices? Chief Executive
2. Thematic Review of Information Management - published by the Inspectorate June 1997 - available from the Justices? Chief Executive
3. CIPFA - Administration of Justice Statistics - published by CIPFA annually - available from the Justices? Chief Executive