Performance Budgeting & Measurement for Judicial Systems

1. Performance Budgeting & Measurement for Judicial Systems World Bank Seminar, Washington D.C. 10-12 January 2005 (c) David Webber - Consultant in Public Financial Management

2. Independence vs Accountability Is the tension really necessary?

3. What is “Performance Budgeting”?

4. “Performance budgeting” is the allocation of resources on the basis of some performance-informed criteria or information (expressed as outputs, results, outcomes, etc.)

5. Are “Performance Budgeting” and “Performance Measurement” the same thing?

6. Not quite. … Performance measurement may be undertaken for reasons other than (or in addition to) the implementation of a performance budgeting system.

7. Sources of Demand for Performance Measurement • Central budgetary authority (MoF) • Justice sector managers • Politicians / public / civil society • (WB) Reform program impact monitoring

8. Implementing a “Performance Budgeting” approach

9. Some REALLY BIG Factors • Judicial Institutions (courts, jud. councils, bureaucracy) • Judicial Map (regional distribution of courts, budget control, reporting) • Courts Management & Administration System • Major procedural features (juries, ADRs, lay judges) • Central budget structure/process • Reform objectives (incl. changes to above)

10. Performance Budget:Typical Component Structure Budget Institution (e.g. Ministry of Justice) • Programs • Sub-programs • Sub, sub-programs (“projects”, cost centres) …………………………… • Budget management categories • Expenditure items (by group)

11. Justice Sector Budgets: Potential Major “Programs” • Justice Policy & Administration • Judicial “Services” (our focus) • Corrections / Imprisonment • Police / Internal Security (?)

12. Program “Goals” • Set big targets for programs • Realistic – i.e. achievable in longer term (by MoJ) • Have strong support from staff • Remain largely unchanged (unless Govt directs otherwise)

13. Typical Program Goal for Judicial Services:“To support and improve the public’s access to justice through a fair and efficient judicial system.”

14. Creating “Sub-Programs” – Some Basic Principles • Based primarily on functional concepts • Describe long-standing functions (3+ years) • Provide good basis for budget (allocation) decisions • Provide good basis for measuring performance • Helpful for improving management

15. Possible Sub-Programs in Judicial Services

16. Possible Problem Areas in Designing Judicial Services “Sub-Programs” • Public Defender / Legal Aid – MoJ sub-program? • Compensation (transfers) – judicial expenditure? • Donor (e.g.WB) Projects – what type of expenditures? • Definitions of “Judicial Support Staff” (JSS) • Where should courts capital expenditures (e.g. on new courtrooms) go?

17. Sub-Program Objectives are usually the key basis for institutional accountability(e.g. of MoJ) under Performance Budgeting

18. Objectives • Are aligned to overall Goal(s) • Specific • Measurable • Achievable! • Most are achievable in short-medium term (1-3 years)

19. Sub-program: Operation of Courts - Possible “Objectives” • To ensure that each (specified) court meets, or exceeds, the relevant annual targets for processing/disposing of cases (civil, criminal, appeals etc.) • To ensure that all commercial registrations are processed within 5 days of application. • To ensure an increasing level of court user satisfaction • To ensure an increasing level of job satisfaction amongst courts staff

20. Refining Objectives May need to change over time: • More / better information • New data • New goals or new policies from Govt.

21. “Cost Centres” Program:Judicial ServicesSub-program: Operation of Courts • Supreme Court • Appeal Courts • Superior/High Courts • District Courts (1st instance) • Family Court • Juvenile Courts • Commercial courts etc.

22. “Budget Management Categories” Program:Judicial ServicesSub-program: Operation of Courts • Criminal cases • Civil cases • Constitutional (or historical persecution) cases • Family Cases • Commercial cases • Special category tort cases • Commercial registrations etc.

23. Performance Measurement Supports our program/sub-program plus goal/objectives framework

24. “Goal” Measurement(High-level Outcomes - e.g “access”) • Public opinion surveys • International comparisons / league tables (Should be regularly & publicly reported )

25. Measuring Performance: Two Main Categories • Basic Output Measures – throughput; work completed • Performance Indicators – show impact or results of the sub-program policies and activities ………..Both types of measure are desirable

26. Output Measures 2-3 for each sub-program Easy to collect Provide useful information Adjustable over time Performance Indicators 2-3 for each sub-program Related to goal(s) Reliable data is possible May need evaluation expertise Basic Principles for Measurement

27. Purpose of Basic Output Measures • Provide MoF, MoJ etc. with useful information on how the budget was actually spent • Support adoption of improved budgeting methods and resource allocation decisions for future years • Support analysis of trends, give indications of improving efficiency – i.e. delivering more services for same/less cost

28. Judicial Sector Sub-Programs: Some Basic Output Measures Examples: • Numbers of judicial staff (staff hours) on payroll • Number of courts operating in country • Number of days courts are operating • Number of cases received / disposed (by type) • Number of companies registered • Number of judicial staff trained • Number of legal aid hours/days billed • Etc.

29. Performance Indicators • Provide MoF, MoJ with useful information on progress towards goals • Provide a means for identifying necessary improvements in policies / sub-programs • Enable comparisons of performance of institutions – eg. courts in different regions • Support analysis of trends and value for money

30. Caseload clearance On-time case processing Case backlog Trial date certainty Case file reliability and accuracy Cost per case (by type) Effective collection (and disbursement) of fines and penalties Jury representation Court workforce job satisfaction Overall court-user satisfaction QA of court perf. measurement system Operation of the Courts:Menu of Possible Performance Indicators

31. Table 1: Slovakia Numbers of Cases Received by Region for some Major Case Types - 2003

32. Table 2: Slovakia - Received vs. Settled Cases Criminal Agenda, by Region 1999 - 2003

33. Table 3: Kosice ExampleRecent Trends in Managing Criminal Cases (T)

34. Table 4: District Courts - Settled Cases (T)1999 – 2003 by Region

35. Table 5: District Courts Caseloads (Weighted) Compared to Budgets by Region 2003

36. Touchy Issue: Measuring the Performance of the Judiciary • Is this MoJ or Judiciary responsibility, or both? • Of interest to MoF? – financial implications? • How to separate performance of judge, from quality of law and/or performance of the court? • Value of the judiciary “assessment/scoring systems”

37. Some Possible “Judiciary Performance” Measures • Work rate (throughput of cases) • Contribution to courts management (hours?) • Number decisions overturned on appeal • Number of formal complaints from lawyers • Number of formal complaints from public

38. Performance Measurement Responsibilities • Performance measurement is a key responsibility of all sub-program managers (judicial or otherwise) • Specialized Monitoring and Evaluation Unit can play valuable role in design and assessment of performance measures (Bank funding?) • Budget Department (MoJ) should ensure work is done well!

39. PM Supports Judicial Independence (via Improved Budgeting Methods) “Historical” (input-based) budgeting method “Output-based” budgeting method “Caseload budgeting” methods “Bulk funding” methods (= increased independence)