Download 1 What can be said on clearance rate and disposition time (and

What can be said on clearance rate and disposition time (and some more
relations)?
by Adis HODZIC (Bosnia and Herzegovina) and Georg STAWA (Austria)
Introduction
Nowadays, the states spend more time, attention and money on the performance
measurement and evaluation in the public sector than ever before. The results-based
management (or the performance management) is the talk of the day at all levels of the
public sector: local, regional, national, and even supranational.
However, evaluation studies show that many attempts at introducing the results-based
management are still unsuccessful1. Nevertheless, the need to measure the output,
outcomes, and evaluation activities remain an important element in statements by politicians
and administrators focused on improving government’s performance.
Key Performance Indicators
Any attempt at launching or improving the performance measurement system within any
judicial system will certainly raise the question as to which performance aspects should be
measured and how. Before the making of the final list of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)
that are build into the foundation of any performance measurement system, the two
indicators that are worth looking into are “Clearance Rate” and “Disposition Time”. Both
indicators are described in the CEPEJ report European Judicial Systems, Chapter 9. Fair trial
and court activity.
Clearance Rate
The first indicator, the calculated Clearance Rate, obtained when the number of resolved
cases is divided by the number of incoming cases, is one of the most commonly used
indicators to monitor the case flow. Essentially, this indicator is used to assess the ability of a
judicial system to handle the inflow of judicial cases. The inability of courts or judiciary to
produce the data needed to calculate the Clearance Rate could clearly indicate that the tools
described in the CEPEJ’s Time Management Checklist, are insufficiently developed. More
specifically, the inability to produce Clearance Rate indicates the inability of a judicial system
(or a court) to assess the overall length of proceedings, there is a lack of a standardized
typology of cases, there is no ability to monitor the course of proceedings and there are no
means to promptly detect delays and mitigate their consequences.
Calculated Disposition Time
The second indicator, the Calculated Disposition Time, provides further insight into the way
the judicial system manages the flow of cases. Generally, case turnover ratio and Disposition
Time compare the number of resolved cases during a reporting period with the number of
unresolved cases at the end of that period. The ratios measure how frequently a judicial
system (or a court) turns over the cases received – that is, how long it takes to resolve a
case type. Indirectly, this indicator gives the answer to one of the questions most raised
within a judicial system – what is the overall length of proceedings.
Hypothesis
The underlying hypothesis is that a judicial systems who is able to handle the inflow of
judicial cases would reach Clearance Rate of 100% or higher and would also be able to
reduce the calculated Disposition Time.
1
(see, for example, Leeuw&Van Gils, 1999, for a review of Dutch studies).
1
Example
The application of the two indicators allows us to come up with instructive questions and
leads to a better understanding of how a judicial system operates and what challenges and
obstacles it faces. When applied for a longer period of time, the indicators can be used to
identify conspicuous trends and compare judicial performance in key areas between various
judicial systems or courts.
In the example, eighteen member states were selected based on available data on
Clearance Rate in 2008 and Disposition Time in civil litigious cases in 2006 and 2008
respectively.
As observed from the chart above, judicial systems achieving the Clearance Rate above
100%, are also reducing the calculated Disposition Time, thus shortening case processing
time and providing faster service to citizens. Georgia, FYROMacedonia, Montenegro,
Slovakia, Slovenia, Norway, Croatia, Czech Republic, Austria and Hungary were able to
reduce calculated Disposition Time in the two year period (2006-2008) achieving the
Clearance Rate above 100%.
On the other hand, Denmark, Finland, Poland, Italy, France, Bosnia and Herzegovina and
Latvia failed to exceed the Clearance Rate of 100%, while the calculated Disposition Time
during the two-year period increased, thus protracting the case processing time and
providing a slower service to citizens.
2
Finally, this example certainly leads to the inevitable conclusion - in the words of an Austrianborn management expert in the US Peter Drucker - “You can't manage what you can't
measure.“
2
Effect of IT-investment on performance?
For the analysis in the CEPEJ Evaluation report on the installation of computer facilities
within the European courts, three areas have been distinguished:
• Computer facilities used for the direct assistance of judges and court clerks
• Systems for the registration and management of cases
• Electronic communication and information exchange between the courts and their
environment
Based on a point system3 the use of different computer facilities for the mentioned three
areas is presented in the following together with the key performance indicators discussed
above:
Disposition Time (days)
500
900
Disposition Time and IT-points in Civil Litigious Cases
450
800
400
700
Litigious DT - 2006
350
600
Litigious DT - 2008
500
300
IT-points * 10
250
400
200
300
150
200
100
50
0
Bo
Ge
sn
or
M
ia
an on gia
t
d
e
He ne
g
rz
eg ro
ov
in
a
Sw
ed
en
La
tv
ia
Cr
oa
tia
It a
ly
Po
lan
Hu d
FY
RO
n
M gar
ac
y
ed
on
ia
Cz Slov
ec
en
h
Re ia
pu
bl
i
No c
rw
ay
Fr
an
Slo ce
va
kia
Au
st
De ria
nm
ar
Fin k
lan
d
0
100
Obviously there is no direct relation between level of IT-infrastructure and disposition time.
Though countries with a high level of IT-infrastructure like Austria, Denmark and Finland
2
Detailed information is described in: Velicogna M. (2007), Use of Information and Communication technology in
European Judicial systems, CEPEJ Study N° 7 (Strasbourg).
3
The total number of points is provided only for information. It was calculated when the data were available for
the totality of the categories, but also when only one category was missing per country.
The questionnaire allows only a very general categorisation (100%, >50%, <50%, >10%), therefore only a general
overview can be applied. From a methodological point of view, no rigorous interpretation should be based on the
analysis of national features.
3
show rather quick procedures. But i.e. Poland, Hungary, Sweden or Georgia achieve the
same performance 2/3 or less the “IT-quality”.
Disposition Time (days)
30,00
900
Disposition Time and IT-budget in Civil Litigious Cases
800
Litigious DT - 2006
700
600
25,00
Litigious DT - 2008
Annual public budget allocated to IT per
100.000 inhabitants per GDP per capita
20,00
500
15,00
400
300
10,00
200
5,00
100
0,00
FY
RO
M
ac
ed
on
i
Cz No a
ec
r
w
h
Re ay
pu
bl
i
Ge c
or
gia
Fr
an
c
Sw e
ed
en
M
It a
on
l
te y
ne
g
Fin ro
lan
d
Po
lan
Sl o d
va
kia
La
t
Bo
De via
sn
n
m
ia
ar
an
d Hun k
He
rz gary
eg
ov
in
a
Au
st
Slo ria
ve
ni
Cr a
oa
tia
0
Therefore we will have a quick look on the annual public budget to IT per 100.000 inhabitants
per GDP per capita: Austria is buying its short disposition time at a relatively high prize.
Poland and Georgia seem to achieve the same results in performance by relatively half or
less than half of the IT-budget.
Effect of salaries on performance?
Further on salaries might be considered as motivating good performance. In the following the
disposition time is set in relation to the annual public budget spent on gross salaries per
100.000 inhabitants per GDP per capita:
4
Disposition Time (days)
900
600,00
Disposition Time and Salaries in Civil Litigious Cases
800
Litigious DT - 2006
700
Litigious DT - 2008
600
Annual public budget allocated to (gross) salaries per
100.000 inhabitants per GDP per capita
500,00
400,00
500
300,00
400
300
200,00
200
100,00
100
0,00
No
rw
De ay
nm
ar
k
Fr
an
c
Fin e
lan
d
Sw
ed
e
Ge n
or
gi
Au a
st
ria
Cz Slo
e c va
k
h
Re ia
pu
bl
ic
It a
ly
La
tv
ia
Po
lan
Hu d
ng
a
Slo r y
ve
ni
a
Bo FY
C
sn RO
ro
a
ia
M
ac tia
an
ed
d
He
o
r z nia
eg
M ovin
on
a
te
ne
gr
o
0
No general trend can be observed. In opposite of the expected some the countries with the
relatively highest amount spent on salaries experience longer disposition times than others.
But a lot of countries with relatively low or moderate salaries perform very quick.
Effect of training on performance?
As training and education is one of the most important issues to ensure proper quality and
standards within the judiciary some may ask, if extensive training also contributes to
performance: According the annual training budget per 100.000 inhabitants per GDP per
capita dos not show a significant trend. Both slow as fast performing systems can be found in
relation to low and high spending yearly amounts on training and education:
5
Disposition Time (days)
900
10,00
Disposition Time and Training-Budget in Civil Litigious Cases
9,00
800
Litigious DT - 2006
8,00
Litigious DT - 2008
7,00
700
600
500
Annual training-budget per 100.000
inhabitants per GDP per capita
6,00
5,00
400
4,00
300
3,00
200
2,00
1,00
0
0,00
Cz
ec
h
It a
Re ly
pu
bl
Hu ic
ng
ar
No y
rw
De ay
nm
ar
k
La
tv
ia
Po
lan
d
Sw
ed
Slo en
va
kia
Fr
an
c
Cr e
oa
t
Sl o i a
ve
ni
Bo FY
Ge a
R
sn
ia OM org
ia
ac
an
e
d
He don
rz
e g ia
ov
in
a
Au
st
ri
Fin a
la
M
on nd
te
ne
gr
o
100
6