ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSGrateful acknolwegement is extended to the membersof this project staff Kevin Brosch Matthew McCauley andCredella D Washington who provided dedicated supportof the University of Delawa ID: 870563
Download Pdf The PPT/PDF document "FOREWORDThis document is one of four pro..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
1 FOREWORDThis document is one of four pro
FOREWORDThis document is one of four produced under the National Institute ofan agenda for future performancemany measure
2 s of performance have already been propo
s of performance have already been proposed that agencyperceived measurement needs and to crystallize competing perspecti
3 ves onstill sane way fram mechanical app
ves onstill sane way fram mechanical application of measurement schemes.Acting Director ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSGrateful acknolwe
4 gement is extended to the membersof this
gement is extended to the membersof this project staff, Kevin Brosch, Matthew McCauley andCredella D. Washington, who pro
5 vided dedicated supportof the University
vided dedicated supportof the University of Delaware and Stanley H. Turner at TempleUniversity for their assistance in th
6 e development and refinementof the theor
e development and refinementof the theoretical and conceptual approaches presented here.The fruits of their labor are cle
7 arly visible by the developmentof a prov
arly visible by the developmentof a provisional criminality scale presented in the Appendix.It is to this type of measure
8 that priority attention needs tobe give
that priority attention needs tobe given and they should be proud of their contribution to thediscussions and helped foc
9 us the issues of performance measurement
us the issues of performance measurement I. DEVELOPING A THEORY OF PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FORcriminal justice system has
10 been met with ambivalence by systemThe
been met with ambivalence by systemThe very existence of this research project, initiated by the Nationaldetermine how t
11 he performance of the criminal justice s
he performance of the criminal justice system and itscomponents should be measured and for what purposes. Ultimately, the
12 for evaluating the performance of the sy
for evaluating the performance of the system and comparing the efficacygreater emphasis on "production" and "performance"
13 even though at theconcepts of accountab
even though at theconcepts of accountability and efficiency; but they are wisely wary ofmeaning but naive researchers.h
14 istory of uncertain successes in mixing
istory of uncertain successes in mixing and blending approaches1 criminal statistics (Beattie, 1971; Biderman, 1967; Blum
15 stein andviewing the operations of each
stein andviewing the operations of each of the component agencies or programs inintroduced to a criminal justice system w
16 hich had previously operatedthe need for
hich had previously operatedthe need for introducing management techniques in both prosecutor andseldom finds a single cl
17 early stated purpose or objective for th
early stated purpose or objective for the3 educationists, personnel and management specialists; but it is not the crimina
18 l justice system--police, prosecution, d
l justice system--police, prosecution, defense, courts andextent that it, or any of its parts, needs to be considered as
19 external . responses and. attempting to
external . responses and. attempting to hold constant or control for theis critically important to performancethem from t
20 he measurement system. If, for example,
he measurement system. If, for example, the prosecutor doesdirection of its leadership, exerts control in the broadest co
21 ntext of his duties and the course of ac
ntext of his duties and the course of action he adopts to perform them.problem is, of course, to identify and define poli
22 cy types that areaction, it also require
cy types that areaction, it also requires a plan for maximizing agency resources so thatleast costly in time and resource
23 s. This is not to say that the formerlit
s. This is not to say that the formerlittle or no control 1For a more detailed discussion of this concept and itsPolicy A
24 nalysis for Prosecution, Chapter III.7
nalysis for Prosecution, Chapter III.7 D. Defining and Describing Agency Outputsa means oftwo types based on the way in
25 which they characterize the various par
which they characterize the various partsOutput variables can be classified further into three classes asor the seriousn
26 ess of the crime or criminal and the rea
ess of the crime or criminal and the realities of the operating system. With this ideal measure, itare output variables b
27 ecause they have the ability to change a
ecause they have the ability to change an expecteddistributiveproperties of justice. Using these two assessments, discuss
28 ions ofissues focusing on public policy,
ions ofissues focusing on public policy, public decisionmaking and publiccontrols over discretionary functions can be mor
29 e rational.assessment of the agency rela
e rational.assessment of the agency relative to some other group. Internalthey require entirely different approaches. For
30 internal assessment, course, be interpr
internal assessment, course, be interpretable. The powerful and efficient tools of systemperformance evaluations. This i
31 s because agencies existnoted that those
s because agencies existnoted that those factors which are internally important to any onePolicy variables should be intr
32 oduced to the comparative evaluation onl
oduced to the comparative evaluation onlyoperates on the Arisotelian concept of distributive justice, allocating13 produc
33 tivity.to be used to measure internal ag
tivity.to be used to measure internal agency performance. It must be stratifiedestablished to measure the ability of the
34 public defender or prosecutor defendant
public defender or prosecutor defendant (and/or case). By having standards for excellence set byexcellence in an office c
35 an be measured as the difference between
an be measured as the difference between theThe major difficulty with measuring excellence as expressed by15 trial by jur
36 y. The most one can do to increase effic
y. The most one can do to increase efficiency is to changea hundred arrests, five cases are discharged by the police,thes
37 e systems may be achieved by changing th
e systems may be achieved by changing the boundaries, but a deepa substantialis: when are they may produce misleading res
38 ults. Thus, agency effectiveness should
ults. Thus, agency effectiveness should Wayne County Board of Commissioners acted legally, the court defined a serviceab
39 le level ofThere are a number of methodo
le level ofThere are a number of methodological approaches that can be used for monitoring the extent of violations.D. Ac
40 countabilityhave already been compared w
countabilityhave already been compared with respect to the seriousness of crimes and to determine the extent to which dec
41 isions can be predicted by objectivea st
isions can be predicted by objectivea statistical model (RDR) was developed to predict specific. similarity has always be
42 en difficult in theit is now possible to
en difficult in theit is now possible to group cases that are similar invs. jury trial). public defense decisionmaking sy
43 stems; discuss the more salient issuesfo
stems; discuss the more salient issuesfoundation for measurement and model building. In doing this, the powera functional
44 analysis of the various process steps i
analysis of the various process steps in which prosecutionthe prosecutor or the public defender but the authority to per
45 form it25 their control. The principal r
form it25 their control. The principal result is to impose the prosecutor's andpower and influence, and the adoption of a
46 reactive "catch up" style ofIf power an
reactive "catch up" style ofIf power and control can be regained in the subsequent step, then the and his trial caseload
47 on a monthly basis. Likewise, this is k
on a monthly basis. Likewise, this is known by FIGURE III-1TYPE OF ACCUSATORY PROCESS MOST OFTEN USED. informationPERCEN
48 T DISTRIBUTION OF CASES DISPOSED PRETRIA
T DISTRIBUTION OF CASES DISPOSED PRETRIALBY TYPE OF ACCUSATORY PROCESS MOST OFTEN USED treatment programs.For example, in
49 some jurisdictions, the fact that the c
some jurisdictions, the fact that the case has survivedtrivial cases or those of questionable prosecutorial merit. In an
50 otherresearch clearly show that it is im
otherresearch clearly show that it is important to know the goals of the 2. prosecutorial policy. Both prosecution and de
51 fense are subject to theprosecutors are
fense are subject to theprosecutors are assigned to courtrooms--each of which handles different closely tied to whether t
52 he office falls into the unit model, at
he office falls into the unit model, at onevariation in practices and procedures, it is necessary to make this B. Crimina
53 l Justice Systemprevalent form, prosecut
l Justice Systemprevalent form, prosecutors experience it as well. In Ohio andwith the district attorney for some felony
54 cases or separate controlmay increase ca
cases or separate controlmay increase case processing problems. A unified court system on From this input, about 2,500 ca
55 ses are indicted for felony trials which
ses are indicted for felony trials whichBy specifying the character of the criminal justice environment,its input, output
56 , agency resources and the types of cour
, agency resources and the types of court, prosecutionit is next necessary to examine the adjudication process itself toi
57 solate the important variables and note
solate the important variables and note how singly, and in combination,type where the intake function is not performed by
58 the prosecutor butBY DECLINATION RATEDe
the prosecutor butBY DECLINATION RATEDeclination Raterisdictions -728 percent reported that they had 24 hours or less to
59 file charges afterarrest. Another 26 pe
file charges afterarrest. Another 26 percent had up to 2 days. The remaining 40 percenthad over 30 days to file charges.
60 Clearly, with sufficient time beforesel
Clearly, with sufficient time beforeselect the charge? This latter is important because the location in the.bindover to
61 the grand juryFigure IV-3 shows the dive
the grand juryFigure IV-3 shows the diversity that exists when the to an adversarial mini-trial. As a result different re
62 quirements for41 staffing and discretion
quirements for41 staffing and discretionary controls exist. Obviously in pro procedures, trial experience is not essenti
63 al, nor are discretionary. Theaccusatory
al, nor are discretionary. Theaccusatory process for 79 jurisdictions. Of interest is line one, thevehicle is an adversar
64 ial preliminary hearing. When this occur
ial preliminary hearing. When this occurs, the is counter-productive and a system efficiency policy finds a supportiveocc
65 urs when the policy of the office is one
urs when the policy of the office is one that discourages pleaof the casel8 trial) is made easier. The effect of uncertai
66 nty is to increase thepresent to enhance
nty is to increase thepresent to enhance the sentence should one expect to find activity inpermit flexibility or discreti
67 on in application, they are capable of b
on in application, they are capable of by the court process. If, on the other hand, they are adversarial or if of goals a
68 nd priorities, it is difficult to know w
nd priorities, it is difficult to know what to do with thethe styles of prosecution and public defense which result from
69 clustersof the variables exhibited in Fi
clustersof the variables exhibited in Figure V-5 are the independent variables. d.oto,4`OaimCa)w0C)00U aCOCUd .+C)vttoCO
70 0043toC)C^.rrlCOwbCCrl,-i1-4q^to6Wp.1-IH
0043toC)C^.rrlCOwbCCrl,-i1-4q^to6Wp.1-IH'Ceom'iCI14tdUCw.°aCOtiC1bu+r4aCO44)4Mw14000+�.-,4agoI1i1id 1.yr1c4NC)v1
71 .1b!USto`OUCCUCC.)HQ14'4-4otom+UC0AZw1+
.1b!USto`OUCCUCC.)HQ14'4-4otom+UC0AZw1+iC)NCu14�0CO434du8godG00 O-W1CwCU1'QIC4Y4U.^-la'r`4wC0?+Vd0)dCCOaA51 HCO
72 1'+1.1OU)00Orl-1mdCOHrl1.i0rC0!tou00.Ub0
1'+1.1OU)00Orl-1mdCOHrl1.i0rC0!tou00.Ub0.H-1o0 " 0eoHwoCO0.°Ce0U)gid�a000U+JC)atowC)'4Up'w0aUvar-1CO0toONlaWI140°
73 0 1W+UbC0ULnHWC9H7toV10U)m°}aUCWW00)HaCa
0 1W+UbC0ULnHWC9H7toV10U)m°}aUCWW00)HaCa4)I0COU000UUuU1.4UOC00oCOw0tiO0,-IC0ua0toGlC-'iN.aUUCUCUO1411+ O 1001z U ICO).-1N
74 a53 systems that maintain levels of unce
a53 systems that maintain levels of uncertainty as they seek to meet theirrespective and often conflicting goals. Thus, a
75 dopting of a definitionapproach the meas
dopting of a definitionapproach the measurement task with more confidence knowing that someIf the intake, accusatory, tri
76 al and postconviction functions ofpracti
al and postconviction functions ofpractices and procedures of agencies (usually law enforcement) overassistants who have
77 the time and opportunity to interview no
the time and opportunity to interview not only make operational decisions while at the same time provides measures ofoffi
78 ce, which increases with the experience
ce, which increases with the experience levels of the attorneys.The recent research on prosecutorial decisionmaking (Jaco
79 by, Mellon, It is obvious that all of th
by, Mellon, It is obvious that all of the choices routinely available to thedefined as the level of agreement between the
80 policy leader and theexample, where an
policy leader and theexample, where an office is divided over policy then the aggregategenerally made consistent with po
81 licy leaders and tended to be uniform.re
licy leaders and tended to be uniform.reduced level, and the preferred sanctions'. (Jacoby, Mellon, Ratledgeeach other do
82 es not permit such a condition to be sus
es not permit such a condition to be sustained over any year to year then felony statistics are not standardized. As a re
83 sult,comparisons from one year to the ne
sult,comparisons from one year to the next may be meaningless. Such changesin definitions limit the extent to which the p
84 ast may serve as a guideinformative than
ast may serve as a guideinformative than raw numbers; (3) the easiest way of forming anto allow the separation of the def
85 endants that were rejected and thosehow
endants that were rejected and thosehow the data are collected with reference to time.or cross-sectional data. Cohort sta
86 tistics are those that are based on a ma
tistics are those that are based on a may take up to a year -- obviously too long a time frame to be usefuldifferent case
87 treatment for nearly identical cases at
treatment for nearly identical cases at different pointsinequality depends largely on the changes in backlog over the ti
88 mefeasible with cross sectional statisti
mefeasible with cross sectional statistics since they measure the volume those that are unrealistic, or not viable will p
89 roduce frustration orthe standard has ch
roduce frustration orthe standard has changed over time within an office or in other officesregard to similarity. As a me
90 asure of central tendency, an average is
asure of central tendency, an average is oflittle value unless there is some homogeneity of winning any given case depend
91 s in part on the resources expended toeq
s in part on the resources expended toequality in case processing priorities. There are cases that thefor so that their e
92 ffects can be separated out. Time studie
ffects can be separated out. Time studies are goodeffectiveness relative to case preparation time, it may be that theabil
93 ity to control the time element is outsi
ity to control the time element is outside the influence of the years in the future. Similarly, recent studies of the Nat
94 ional Centerprosecution and defense, a s
ional Centerprosecution and defense, a set of relationships can be formed which, inthey should yield differences in dispo
95 sitional patterns and therefore, can be
sitional patterns and therefore, can be distinguished by whether prosecutorial case 0)t10OHU)iii U)AAAAA z OUW IC N relev
96 ance to the actual operations or perform
ance to the actual operations or performance of an agency, simplythat permit inter jurisdictional comparisons. The abilit
97 y to model these can provide services (w
y to model these can provide services (whether mandated or discretionary). Controversycould be defined as violating the "
98 barely adequate" level of service. highe
barely adequate" level of service. higher than that estimated for the day time courts. Part of this couldthe Wayne County
99 Prosecutor, among other actions, shifte
Prosecutor, among other actions, shifted the attorneyspublic defenders continually adjust their resources to the shiftin
100 gareas of workload or priority. This mak
gareas of workload or priority. This makes identification of maximumamount of difference from the norm that their office
101 displays; or (2) feasible, is because th
displays; or (2) feasible, is because the dynamics of the adjudication system areThey show that there is an almost immuta
102 ble 9 percent of the caseload the cases
ble 9 percent of the caseload the cases that are labelled 3. The rate of dispositions by trial mightlevel to 10 percent.
103 Graphically, this would mean moving some
Graphically, this would mean moving some of the 4 based on their priority ranking, an agency head should be able to track
104 advance beyond these techniques and clea
advance beyond these techniques and clearly, there is need for a longbecoming increasingly urgent. Along with this is the
105 clear need for the Criminal Justice Sys
clear need for the Criminal Justice System." N.J.: Prentice Hall, Bureau of the Budget, The Sociology of Organizations
106 System." Center for Planning and Develo
System." Center for Planning and Development Research,Cole, George F., "The Politics of Prosecution: The Decision to Eco
107 nomitrica 1965): Miller, F.W., Prosecuti
nomitrica 1965): Miller, F.W., Prosecution: The Decision to Charge a Suspect with a Newnan, D.J., "Role and Process in th
108 e Criminal Court." In Handbook of Urbana
e Criminal Court." In Handbook of Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, Science, Vol. 6. Edited by S. Koch. Ne
109 w York: McGraw-Hill, to Economic Theory
w York: McGraw-Hill, to Economic Theory and Research." In possess and act upon the prior record of the defendant. Additi
110 onally,it partial disclosure, by examin
onally,it partial disclosure, by examining whether prosecutors make differentproducing an edited file of prior records c
111 ontaining essentially aand finally, 1 to
ontaining essentially aand finally, 1 to 5. The experimental data showed that the same amountgreater number of alternativ
112 es. In fact, the difficulty involved wit
es. In fact, the difficulty involved with spacing are not addressed in this paper since they are still under7%, 8 equal 6
113 %, 9 equal 5%, 10 equal 3%, 11 equal 3%,
%, 9 equal 5%, 10 equal 3%, 11 equal 3%, 12 equal 2%, 135%, 20% equal 10%, 30% equal 15%, 40% equal 20%, 50% equal 15%, 6
114 0%these distributions were derived from
0%these distributions were derived from the Uniform Crime Report. OnceMa (6) Sale of Marijuana (negative sign), (7) Drunk
115 eness (negative sign),exception of rape
eness (negative sign),exception of rape arrests) the effect is to increase the index. For thescore (.5) which places it i
116 n the same category with robbery, assaul
n the same category with robbery, assault,Arson, (5) Assault, (6) Sale of Heroin, (7) Concealed Deadly Weapon, (8) to inc