Enhancing the International Framework for Court Excellence
IFCE 2016 and Beyond1
International Conference on Court Excellence
Singapore January 2016
Current State
The International Framework for Court Excellence (the Framework) was
developed in 2008, released for comment at the Courts Quality Forum in Sydney
in 2008 and formally launched at the Asia Pacific Courts Conference here in
Singapore in October 2010.
From its inception the Framework has been regarded as a living and flexible
document capable of serving courts and tribunals of varying natures. As courts
and tribunals used and modified the Framework to suit their own circumstances it
was clear the Framework could be improved.
Initially a practical short version, entitled “Thinking of Implementing the
International Framework for Court Excellence”, was developed for courts requiring
a simpler more practical guide. This version became known colloquially as the
Checklist version as it incorporated a simplified checklist approach to guide the
self-assessment process. The checklist provided a list of best practices or actions
for each of the seven areas of excellence. This version has been particularly
popular with courts that do not have the level of funding or depth of resources
available to other established courts. However, these courts do have a strong
commitment to improving the way their courts perform.
The opportunity was also taken to build upon the broad feedback and practical
experience of ‘implementing’ courts to revise the original Framework and the
Second Edition was released at the Asia-Pacific Courts Conference in Auckland in
March 2013. At the same time the short version was also revised to align with the
main Framework. Those two versions remain current and are found on the
courtexcellence.com website.
Since its inception the Framework has been promoted as a methodology designed
specifically for courts wishing to implement a continuous improvement process.
As all courts are not the same it has always been made clear that courts should
feel free to adapt the Framework to suit their own circumstances.
In the USA the National Center for State Courts’ quality improvement tool entitled
High Performance Court Framework is the American equivalent of the Framework.
State courts across the USA use the High Performance Court Framework to
identify opportunities for improved processes and services leading to improved
court performance.
1
Mr Laurie Glanfield AM, Deputy President, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration.
1
There are now over 35 member courts/organisations of the International
Consortium for Court Excellence (ICCE). While many courts and tribunals are
using the Framework without variation there are also many courts that have used
aspects of the Framework self-assessment tools and methodology to guide their
own improvement plans. At this stage we are not clear on how many other courts
or court systems have in fact used the Framework to assist in developing their own
continuous improvement processes but we do know it far exceeds our
membership numbers.
From our research all these courts follow a relatively common approach to using
the Framework or a variation of it. That approach is the employment of a
continuous improvement methodology with its cycle of self-assessment, analysis
and improvement planning. Although this cycle has a number of variants it
involves the same logical approach to identifying problems/areas for improvement,
analysis of data and information, and taking corrective action.
The ICCE’s Executive Committee and the Secretariat have focused their recent
energy on improving the resources available to courts particularly through the
website, newsletters and at court conferences. The aim is to encourage sharing of
experiences and case studies amongst courts worldwide. These resources can be
found on the courtexcellence.com website.
The ICCE Executive and Secretariat are committed to expanding these web
resources during 2016 and beyond. We would appreciate receiving any case
studies, experiences, innovations or improvements that may be of value to other
courts facing similar issues. These may be published on the website or included
in our regular newsletters.
Governance/Secretariat
In July 2014 the Secretariat for the International Consortium for Court Excellence
moved from a voluntary part-time role to a funded permanent Secretariat based at
the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA) in Melbourne, Australia.
As membership expanded and requests for information and assistance on
Framework implementation grew, a voluntary secretariat was simply inadequate to
service those needs. The Secretariat is currently jointly funded by the National
Center for State Courts (NCSC) and the AIJA and since 2014 Liz Richardson, the
ICCE Officer, has been a tremendous catalyst for expanded support, member
assistance, research and resource development. Professor Greg Reinhardt
Executive Director of AIJA is the Secretary and currently also chairs the Executive.
At its meeting in December 2015 the Executive of the ICCE adopted new
governance arrangements and these can be found on the courtexcellence.com
website.
In particular the Executive has been keen for some time to expand beyond its
foundation membership reflecting the four founding organisations.2 It resolved in
2
Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, National Center for State Courts, Federal
Judicial Center and the State Courts of Singapore.
2
December 2015 to formalise the manner in which courts and organisations that
were not part of the Executive could contribute to the development and promotion
of the Framework. As a result the new Executive now includes 2 new members
representing the judiciary of the Marshall Islands and New Zealand.
The four permanent members of the Executive will be endeavouring to ensure that
the composition of the Executive reflects a broad range of geographical regions
although initially it is critical to have additional members who have experience of
IFCE implementation and have the capacity to contribute meaningfully to the work
of the Consortium in advancing the development and use of the Framework.
International Framework for Judicial Support Excellence
The IFCE has attracted considerable interest over recent years from organisations
that support courts. We have been approached by a number of such
organisations seeking guidance on how to implement the Framework as they want
to join the journey of continuous improvement with the courts they support. For
example, one organisation that approached us was Court Services Victoria, which
is an independent statutory body corporate recently established to provide
administrative, staff, technology and financial services and facilities to the
Australian State of Victoria's courts.
As the Framework has been specifically designed for courts and tribunals its
language and some of the self-assessment process do not have direct relevance
and meaning to a non-court organisation. The International Framework for Judicial
Support Excellence (IFJSE) has been developed in response to this need. I
acknowledge the considerable support and feedback provided to me by Liz
Richardson and my Executive Committee colleagues (particularly Dan Hall, VicePresident, NCSC and Deputy Presiding Judge Jennifer Marie, State Courts of
Singapore).
The IFJSE follows as closely as possible the Courts Framework but differs in its
focus on customers and stakeholders and the nature of the services provided.
It defines judicial support organisations as organisations providing “broad support
services and specific services such as research, performance management,
records management, education, technology, finance, asset or personnel services
to courts.” In some court systems, judicial support organisations provide court
administrative services, including registry services and clerk’s offices.
Judicial Support Organisations include organisations such as the Court Services
Victoria, AIJA, NCSC, Federal Judicial Center, Singapore Judicial College,
Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute and NSW Judicial Commission.
These are just a few of the many organisations around the world that provide dayto-day support to courts and tribunals or that undertake research and education
directed to improving the performance and capability of courts and tribunals.
The IFJSE is built on the premise that the “primary clients” of judicial support
organisations are the courts, judicial officers and court administrators they support.
They may be funded from the budgets of the courts themselves, through executive
3
governments or from donations or membership fees. Many of them are
contributing to the advancement of best practices in judicial and court
administration.
Whether this Framework will be of interest to commercial organisations providing
services to courts is another question. The IFJSE has been drafted on the basis
of primary service to the courts and judiciary but it may be capable of adaptation
for use in other circumstances.
These differences in roles, clientele and focus have all been reflected in this new
Framework designed specifically for judicial support organisations. The greatest
difference is naturally in the self-assessment process with greater emphasis and
detail in excellence areas 4 (Service Delivery) and 5 (Satisfaction with Services).
The weighting of areas of excellence has also been modified to reflect the different
roles these organisations have compared to courts.
Given the popularity of the checklist approach in the short courts version of the
IFCE, the IFJSE incorporates a significantly modified checklist to guide selfassessment. For example, under Area of Excellence 4: Service Delivery there are
seven detailed lists of checklist actions covering education, research, information
technology, finance, asset management, human resources and labour relations.
Each list incorporates twelve specific actions or practices.
Table 1 represents the checklist applying to Research services:
Table 1
ACTIONS
NO
CONSIDERING
ACTION
(0)
(1)
Yes
Can Improve (2 –
4)
(5)
Score
RESEARCH
1
2
3
4
5
We consult with our stakeholders and customers in all aspects of our research
program development and delivery.
We comply with all applicable ethics policies and procedures in conducting our
research.
We seek feedback on the quality and usefulness of our research.
We have a Research Strategic Plan linked to our corporate objectives and
priorities.
We engage with experts and establish expert project advisory groups where
appropriate.
6
We have a research budget linked to our Research Strategic Plan.
7
We monitor our research expenditure, commitments and income on a continuing
basis.
RESEARCH GRANTS
8
9
10
11
12
We have a Grants Program Policy that details our objectives, processes, funding
as well as acknowledgement and evaluation requirements.
We have a process for dealing with grant applications to ensure expert analysis,
an appropriate funding regime to ensure delivery, regular progress reporting and
budget monitoring.
We have a standard contract clarifying all grant requirements including
intellectual property rights.
We have a communications plan for publication of results of research/grants and
notification of key stakeholders.
We have published an ethics policy and procedures that we require grant
applications and grant recipients to comply with and have established an ethics
committee to oversee compliance of applications and recipients with our ethics
policy.
TOTAL
4
The following Table 2 represents the checklist for Information Technology
services:
Table 2
ACTIONS
NO
CONSIDERING
ACTION
(0)
(1)
Yes
Can Improve (2 –
4)
(5)
Score
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY – CORPORATE SERVICES
1
We consult in all aspects of our IT development and delivery.
2
We seek feedback on our IT services.
3
4
Our IT Strategic Plan is developed in consultation with clients and users and is
driven by their business needs.
Our IT Strategic Plan identifies business goals and incorporates strategies,
targets, measures of performance and standards (both time and quality).
5
We provide an effective helpline.
6
We adopt innovative technology to match business and service needs.
7
Our use of leased and owned IT equipment reflects best practice and value.
8
9
10
11
12
We consider the security, value and effectiveness of a range of service provision
methods including bring-your-own-device, big data analysis, open data, cloud
and flexible access arrangements.
We ensure appropriate security and backup arrangements consistent with the
systems and data we manage.
We maintain auditable data on access to and use of our systems.
We ensure our data storage, transfer and use meet statutory, privacy and
security requirements.
We have agreed service targets and standards and we report on them regularly
to our clients.
TOTAL
It is important to stress that this Framework will need careful thought in its
implementation from the selection of the appropriate Area 4 services to the
relevance and nature of the actions identified in those lists. It is important to stress
that these organisations vary enormously in their role and functions and the
Framework needs to be interpreted, where necessary, to reflect this. The
Framework has been designed to make this relatively simple and the weighting
and scoring aspects have been modified similarly.
We look forward to receiving feedback from judicial support organisations that use
the new IFJSE.
Global Measures of Court Performance 2016
The original version of the International Framework for Court Excellence did not
include any identified measures of performance leaving this to courts to adopt
measures suitable to their own circumstances. Courts using the Framework were
looking for globally accepted measures to “kick start’ their own target setting, data
collection and measurement processes.
5
In November 2012 a draft discussion paper entitled Global Measures of Court
Performance, prepared by Dan Hall and Ingo Keilitz, was released on the
Framework’s website seeking feedback. The paper was an attempt to identify
universally accepted measures of court performance across a number of the key
areas of court excellence and court values identified in the Framework.
The idea of developing a core set of measures generally accepted globally as fair
and reasonable measures of court performance remains more than just a useful
idea. The collection of performance data, the setting of standards or targets and
the assessment of that data are fundamental aspects of the Framework approach.
The current Second edition of the IFCE includes an Appendix with details of a
range of court performance measures, aligned to the seven areas of court
excellence, that have been used by courts around the world. These measures
were identified as possible measures that courts may have regard to in identifying
appropriate performance measures when implementing the Framework.
The concept of measuring court performance has been the subject of considerable
attention, reflection and controversy over the years with a range of views and
concerns expressed. Some courts embrace open measurement and report on
their performance against time standards and recognised user satisfaction
measures. Some courts have been concerned that focus on objective measures
alone can be misleading. Other courts maintain data for internal management
purposes but also publish some key measures. No matter what view a court takes
the simple fact is that performance measurement is good management.
Of course, excellence in court performance requires much more than a set of
positive performance measures and the Framework makes that clear. However,
court performance measures are a significant tool that not only provides guidance
on performance but also facilitates identification of areas for improvement and
measures progress towards excellence.
The draft Global Measures of Court Performance was an initiative that needed to
be completed and I have been fortunate over the past year to work with Ingo
Keilitz3 in reviewing feedback and revising the draft Global Measures approach.
We set ourselves the performance target of finalising a revised version of the
Global Measures in time for this Conference. We met our target and today we are
releasing a new Version in a summary and practical form. It will be uploaded to
the IFCE website (www.courtexcellence.com). We propose to prepare a more
expansive version of the Brief Version that will provide further analysis, supporting
material, practical examples and background content. That expanded version
should be finalised later this year (2016).
The Global Measures of Court Performance, described in the new Brief Version,
can be applied across an entire court system, a specific court or tribunal, divisions
of courts or tribunals or even categories of cases. They represent core
3 Ingo Keilitz, Research Associate at William and Mary University’s Institute for the Theory and Practice
of International Relations and Research Professor at the Thomas Jefferson Program of Public Policy. In
February 2016 he will be Adjunct Professor at the Courts and Tribunals Academy, Sir Zelman Cowan
Centre, Victoria University, Melbourne.
6
performance measures that are strategic not just operational or tactical. They are
aligned with the IFCE’s universally accepted core court values and the seven
areas of excellence and are outcome focused, allowing them to be easily
understood by the courts, court users and the community.
The global measures are built upon a range of data sets but they also require a
court to agree on a number of standards or targets that reflect acceptable
standards to the court. It will be against these standards or targets, set by the
court itself, that performance will be measured over time. These targets may relate
to time spent in pre-trial custody, time for disposal of particular kinds of cases or
the age of backlog cases. Global time standards have not been set as appropriate
standards would vary enormously between different courts, different kinds of
cases and in response to different processes and procedures.
The Kenyan Judiciary has already developed performance measures based on the
early draft Global Measures and has found them to be particularly helpful. Most
courts with performance measurement systems would be using similar measures
to those captured in the eleven Global Measures as they are based on the
identification of best practice measures that have demonstrated their value in
practice.
The Brief Version explains each of the eleven measures and provides a clear
formula or process for each measure.
The eleven measures are:
1. Court User Satisfaction.
The percentage of court users who believe that the court provides procedural justice,
i.e., accessible, fair, accurate, timely, knowledgeable, and courteous service. 2. Access Fees.
A measure of accessibility defined as the average court fees paid per civil case. 3. Case Clearance Rate.
The number of finalized (outgoing) cases expressed as a percentage of registered/filed
(incoming) cases. 4. On-Time Case Processing.
The percentage of cases resolved or otherwise finalized within established timeframes.
5. Pre-Trial Custody.
The average elapsed time criminal defendants are in custody awaiting trial. 6. Court File Integrity.
7
The percentage of case files and records that meet standards of accuracy,
completeness, currency and accessibility. 7. Case Backlog.
The percentage of cases in the court system longer (“older”) than established
timeframes. 8. Trial Date Certainty.
The proportion of important case processing events (trials) that are held when first
scheduled.
9. Court Engagement.
The percentage of judicial officers and court staff who indicate that they are
productively engaged in the mission and work of the court (a proxy for judicial and staff
engagement).
10. Compliance with Court Orders.
Recovery of criminal and civil court fees as a proportion of fees imposed (a measure of
compliance with law and of efficiency).
11. Cost Per Case.
Money expenditures per case (net cost per finalization).
Each measure has a simple formula or process to apply. By way of example of the
simplicity of the formulas adopted for these measures the formula for the measure
“Case backlog” is:
% Backlog cases outside time limits = (A/B) X 100
A = Total number of active pending cases outside the specified time
period/standard
B = Total number of active pending cases
While the Framework captures all aspects of a court’s work if all of those areas
were to be the subject of measurement it would result in an extremely large
number of measures. The idea of Global Measures is to identify some key
measures that, in themselves, may be proxies for many other measures.
The measures are not exhaustive of available and commonly used measures nor
are they the only measures relevant to aspects of the Framework. They reflect an
attempt to identify eleven high level commonly applicable and tested measures of
court performance.
Each measure is, in some respect, a proxy for more detailed underlying measures
and data collections. This more detailed data supporting each global measure will
have been collected and aggregated to produce the particular global measure and
8
it is this disaggregated data that will be instructive in identifying precisely what lies
behind observable trends in the high level global measures. The key to extracting
value from performance measures is to focus on analysing the trends not just
absolute numbers. Inquiring into those trends in performance measures is a critical
component of effective use of these measures.
Without doubt courts will collect more data than is directly relevant to the high-level
Global measures and court management will always require considerably more
detail on court performance to assist in analysing and addressing trends of
concern in particular aspects of the court’s activities. It remains important to
measure what counts and to ensure data collections are reviewed from time to
time for their relevance and usefulness. Maintaining too many data collections can
be distracting and misleading as well as resource intensive.
Courts need to consider what measures and standards are particularly appropriate
for their own courts and use the Global Measures as a resource and guide to that
process. It is not intended that they will cover every aspect of the seven areas of
Court Excellence. They are in fact eleven key measures across all court activity
that reflect a high-level fair representation of a court’s overall performance.
I have attached the Global Measures of Court Performance - Brief Version 2016 to
this paper.
Conclusion
As interest in implementing the Framework, in its various guises, begins to
accelerate the Consortium and its Secretariat are well placed to maintain the
momentum and inspire further innovation. The best resources are often the
documented experiences of those who have commenced the quality improvement
journey to court excellence so we would encourage you to let us know about your
experiences so we can share these with our members and the IFCE community of
practice.
9