CONTACT US
SEARCH
Home | Resources & Services | Court Services | TCPA Performance Management Workgroup

TCPA Performance Management Workgroup

Performance Measure Developments

1990 July - Trial Court Performance Standards released - Trial Courts Performance Standards and Measurement System was created to serve as a common language for describing, classifying, and measuring the performance of trial courts. Developed by the NCSC and Bureau of Justice Assistance, the framework included 22 performance standards and a multitude of performance measures to support those standards.

1999 December - Committee on Trial Court Performance and Accountability Report and Recommendations released - reporting on the capacity of the trial courts to measure and report on their performance and articulating the mission of the trial courts. The report identified legitimate expectations common to all trial court divisions, program outcomes, performances measures, and standards for trial court programs. Additionally, the report recommended steps to further implement a performance and accountability program.

2000 July – Legislation adopted that clarified the term “communications services” regarding the integrated computer system - Section 29.008(1)(f)2., F.S., states that the integrated computer system is to support the operations and management of the state court system, including the clerks of court, and to allow the reporting of data to the state needed for transmission of revenue, performance accountability, case management, data collection, budgeting, and auditing.

2000 July Florida’s Long Range Program Plan (LRPP) adopted in statute - The state’s integrated management system uses agency long range plans and performance measures to provide the framework and justification for agency budgets. The framework contained within each agency plan is directly linked to the agency budget and accountability structure.

2002 June – First publication of the Statistical Reference Guide to Florida’s Trial Courts – The Guide is a compilation of Summary Reporting System (SRS) data as reported by the 67 clerks of court and maintained by OSCA. It provides a comprehensive view of cases filed, cases disposed, and other statistics in circuit and county courts during the fiscal year.

2002 AugustTCP&A established - The Commission on Trial Court Performance and Accountability was established in 2002 for the purpose of proposing policies and procedures on matters related to the efficient and effective functioning of Florida’s trial courts, through the development of comprehensive performance measurement, resource management, and accountability programs.

2002 August - Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators adopted Resolution 30 In Support of Effective Judicial Governance and Accountability.

2004 July – Revision 7 to Article V of the FL Constitution implemented - Required the shift of primary funding responsibility for the State Courts System from county government to the state by July 1, 2004. Revision 7 was intended to reverse an ever-increasing burden on local government and to help ensure equity in court funding across all counties.

2005CourTools released - The ten CourTools performance measures were designed by the NCSC as a set of balanced and realistic performance measures that are practical to implement and use. CourTools supports efforts toward improved court performance by helping: clarify performance goals, develop a measurement plan, and document success.

2005 August - Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators adopted Resolution 14 In Support of Measuring Court Performance

2006 JanuaryArticle V Technology Board report issued – Findings stated in part: 1) no one specific “integration model” be ordained as being better than any other and that organizations should design, develop, and implement “integration models” that best solve their own specific business problems while accommodating the requirements of their partners in government 2) Legislature provide staffing and funding to continue the Catalog of Common Data Elements as a central repository of data elements to be used in the electronic exchange of information between state court system entities and other participants.

2009 JanuaryOPPAGA 09-06 Report issued – Findings included in part: Factors such as circuit geography, demographics requiring interpreters, resource availability, some circuit cultures, and concerns about invalid case management data can negatively affect circuit and county courts’ workload management.

2009 July – Adoption of the Long Range Strategic Plan for the Florida Judicial Branch - Strategy 2.1(c) develop the capacity of the State Courts System to timely monitor key caseload and workload information at the circuit, appellate, and statewide levels.

2009 July – E-filing standards approved in AOSC09-30 – The Court established e-filing standards to be used by the clerks of court to implement electronic filing. Statewide standards provide for a single uniform access point, uniform standards and data elements for filing, docketing, calendaring, workflow, document development and case management.

2009 August - Conference of Chief Justices adopted Resolution 4 In Support of Promoting a Culture of Transparency and Accountability through Court System Performance Measures

2010 JanuaryOPPAGA 10-11 Report issued - Findings included in part: The clerks of circuit court and the state courts system currently lack sufficient performance data to assess how efficiently court-related functions are performed throughout the state. While some measures of court and clerk efficiency exist, these metrics are too broad to assess individual court-related functions. Both the clerks and the courts should develop better performance measures and data.

2010 March Legislative Technology Review Workgroup (TRW) releases report #2009-001 - Findings included in part: The state court system does not have a comprehensive plan for developing and implementing the integrated court system. Without such a clear and specific plan of action that has been agreed to by the state court system stakeholders and Legislature, there is no road map for implementing the system in all court divisions over a specific and reasonable time frame.

2010 March - Court Statistics and Workload Committee issued Case Management System Design Framework - This report was developed in response to a charge from the Supreme Court in AOSC08-32 to develop long term plans for technology to support trial court information needs. The report covered: design principles, the use of current data collection systems, security and confidentiality, and the need for other standards for such a system.

2010 AprilHigh Performance Court Framework released by NCSC - The High Performance Court Framework suggests a series of flexible steps courts can take to integrate performance improvement into its ongoing operations. The steps include focusing on key administrative principles that clarify high performance, understanding how a court’s managerial culture can promote common goals and collegial cooperation, developing the capacity to measure performance and learning to use the results for procedural refinements and communication with a variety of stakeholders.

2010 August – Supreme Court releases AOSC10-48 – Then Chief Justice Charles T. Canady directed TCP&A to identify essential information necessary to move cases through the adjudicatory process including key case and work load measures essential for performance monitoring. Additionally, the TCP&A was charged with establishing uniform data definitions and standards for this information.

2011 August - Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators adopted Resolution 13 In Support of the Model Time Standards for State Trial Courts

2011 December - Recommendations on Resolving Civil Disputes report released – Recommended in part: Court management tools used to determine whether court resources are being used efficiently, identify programs and policies that are successful, and focus on areas where improvements can be made. Three nationally recognized performance indicators were recommended, including time to disposition, age of pending cases, and clearance rates.

2012 FebruaryGovernance Opinion SC11-1374 issued - Opinion reconstituted the Judicial Management Council and detailed their charges in rule. One of which states: identifying and evaluating information that would assist in improving the performance and effectiveness of the judicial branch (for example, information including, but not limited to, internal operations for cash flow and budget performance, and statistical information by court and type of cases for (i) number of cases filed, (ii) aged inventory of cases, (iii) time to disposition, and (iv) clearance rates).

2012 July - Conference of Chief Justices/Conference of State Court Administrators adopted Resolution 4 In Support of the Principles for Judicial Administration

2012 DecemberFinal TIMS Report issued - TCP&A and the Court Statistics and Workload Committee recommended: (1) Supreme Court accept the case flow diagrams developed by the TIMS Phase One workgroups, as the information needed to be accessed and tracked by judges, case managers, and other court staff in order to move cases efficiently and effectively through the trial court process (2) Supreme Court accept the performance measure matrix as the key caseload and workload information needed at the circuit and statewide reporting levels (further vetting of these performance measures is necessary to achieve accurate and valid reporting). (3) Supreme Court approve the Court Data Model as the established uniform data definitions, guidelines, and standards for data collection and reporting necessary to produce consistent, automated trial court case management statewide.

2013 June – Supreme Court releases AOSC13-28 – Directs the Clerks of the Circuit Court to implement on an expedited and priority basis the data reporting requirements as detailed in a data collection plan prepared by OSCA. This plan shall include reporting requirements that will provide the requisite information to compute the following performance indicators as recommended by the Foreclosure Initiative Workgroup and hereby approved by the Supreme Court for use in this initiative: 1) time to disposition, 2) age of pending cases, and 3) clearance rate.

2013 September – Legislative budget request for JDMS approved by the Supreme Court– Funds were requested for staff augmentation, software development, licensing, hardware, and equipment for the Judicial Data Management Service (JDMS) project. Funds will provide staff to develop, deploy and monitor software necessary to receive and prepare court activity data for analysis and evaluation. The unit will analyze court activity data and describe court performance, judicial need, and court workload.

2013 October – Supreme Court releases AOSC13-51 - Consistent with AOSC13-28, the Supreme Court required the chief judge of every circuit court to issue an administrative order establishing a mechanism that enables judges and magistrates to provide explicit direction to each clerk of court’s office with regard to designating a change in the status of a mortgage foreclosure case. Likewise, it is also necessary for the clerk of court’s office to notify the judge or magistrate when events occur that change the status of a foreclosure case.

2014 - NACM Core Competency on Accountability and Court Performance developed.

Workgroup Materials

February 12, 2015 Meeting Materials

March 27, 2015 Meeting Materials

April 17, 2015 Meeting Materials

June 19, 2015 Meeting Materials

August 28, 2015 Meeting Materials