Performance Measurement
For the criminal justice system, much attention is focused on conviction rates, clearance rates, and recidivism rates as measures of good performance. There are, however, numerous other indicators that can, and should, be used to assess the performance of the justice system. Good performance measures are tied to the overall goals and objectives of an entity within the justice system and the system overall. Such measures should provide tangible indicators of the degree to which an agency, and individuals within that agency, are meeting the target goals and objectives.
In order to be useful, performance measure should be:
- Quantifiable and provide specific targets against which performance is evaluated;
- Measurable (i.e., that data exist or the capacity for collecting such data exists);
- Logical in that the policies and practices in place are logically expected to produce the intended outcome; and
- Easy to understand
JMI has worked on performance measurement in many different contexts for the courts, prosecutors, international justice systems, and the military justice system. Our approach is to help clients understand what is important to measure and how best to measure it. Some examples of our work include:
- The development of performance measures in sexual assault cases for the Judge Advocate General Program, U.S. Department of the Navy
- Training and workshops on performance measurement for such clients as the State Court Administrator’s Office in Georgia and the Michigan Bar Association
- Discussion groups on the changing role of the courts and how we think about court performance as part of JMI’s Urban Court Managers Network
