Juvenile DependencyDrug Court

Performance Measures

Presented by Amy C Nuñez,

Sonya Tafoya & Anthony Villanueva

What are Performance Measures?

“concerned with the results of the services governments deliver, and help provide a basis for assessing the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of those services”

- Government Accounting Standards Board

The Balanced Scorecard, the Beginning:

• Robert Kaplan & David Norton & Metric Driven Incentives (MDI’s)

• Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993

Balanced Scorecard – Private Perspectives

 PerspectivesSome examples of traditional metrics &

what it strives to answer

 Financial (Accounting

Statistics)

Return On InvestmentCash Flow

“How do we appear on paper?”

Internal Business Processes

(Manufacturing Statistics)

Duplicate activities across functionsProcess alignment (is the right process in the right department?)

“How do customers see us?”

Learning & Growth (Organizational

Management Statistics)

Is there the correct level of expertise for the job?Employee turnover

“What must we excel at?”

Customer (Sales & Marketing Statistics)

Quality performance for customerCustomer retention rate

“Can we continue to improve and create value?”

Balanced Scorecard – Dependency Drug Court Perspective

 PerspectivesSome examples of metrics used &

what it strives to answer

 Effectiveness Return On InvestmentRecidivism

“How do we appear on paper?”

Efficiency TimelinessCase processing

“How long does it take to get a client into treatment?”

Productivity Number of clients served“How many clients did we serve?”

Customer Satisfaction

Quality performance for public / stakeholdersPublic satisfaction rate

“Is this program effectively addressing your family needs?”

Implementing Dependency Court Performance Measures

• National development • Agreed upon domains• BRC Data Subcommittee• Codified in California Rule

of Court 5.505

Domains of Measurement

• Hearing Timeliness• Due process• Child Safety (shared)• Child Permanency (shared)• Child and Family Well-being

Pilot Court Achievements• Received and fulfilled terms of

State Court Improvement Program-Data Analysis Grant

• Documented system codes and usage conventions

• Created entry and exit cohort data extracts

Pilot Court Achievements• Produced subset of performance

measures• Identified necessary technical

changes to case management systems that will increase the capacity to produce measures

• Entering second grant period

Pilot Progress by Measurement Domain• Timeliness measures coincide

well with court calendaring data.

• Safety, Permanency, Child Well-being data more complete in CWS/CMS

• Due process require more analysis

Focus on Subset of Hearing Types Detentio

n

Jurisdictional

Six Month Review

Dispositional

12 Month Permanency Planning

18 Month Permanency Selection and

Implementation (366.26)Post Permanency Hearing (366.3)

Timeliness: Jurisdictional Hearings (Detained)

Historical Framework• 2006: CFCC defines CCMS

needs (in Family, Juvenile & Collaborative Justice)

• 2008: State Justice Institute awards grant to AOC

SJI Grant• Develop Dependency Drug

Court Performance Measures

• Pilot test them in two courts

• Finalize & Disseminate

Established an Advisory Team

• Representatives from various relevant fields:• Courts• California Drug Court Coordinators’ Work

Group• Alcohol and Drug Programs• Department of Social Services• National Center for State Courts

• Held in-person and conference call meetings

• Reviewed documents & provided guidance and recommendations

AOC Pilot Test• Occurred in two counties• Tested feasibility of data

collection and data relevance

• Used same time frame, varying results

Pilot Test Goals• Test as many variables as

possible, from as many NCSC domains

• Identify data sources• Synchronize data sets• Determine data usefulness • Identify alternative variables

Findings• Collaboration is key to

successful data gathering & data meaningfulness

• Establish data sharing protocols & policy

Findings• Quality control mechanisms need

to be built in:• Regular data check-ins• Protocols addressing data

discrepancy• Ensures data definitions are

clear and consistent

Key Points to Remember about Performance Measures in DDC

• Most helpful data elements (universal)

• Use of cohort data• Starting data collection

Measures attempted by County 1 Measures attempted by County 2

County was unable to capture child welfare data see alternative below

Other useful documents:• Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the

Courts – Judicial Council of California (2010). Development of Dependency Drug Court Performance Measures, Final Report.

• Center for Families, Children & the Courts, Administrative Office of the Courts – Judicial Council of California (2008.) Implementation Guide to Juvenile Dependency Court Performance Measures. Available at: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/pdffiles/Combined-impguide010709.pdf

• Child Welfare Dynamic Report System. (2009). California data. 2007–2009. A collaboration of the California Department of Social Services and the University of California, Berkeley. From: http://cssr.berkeley.edu/ucb_childwelfare/Ccfsr.aspx

• National Center for State Courts (2005). CourTools. Giving Courts the Tools to Measure Success. Trial Court Performance Measures. Available at: www.courtools.org

• Rubio, J.D., D.M., Cheesman, Ph.D., F., and Federspiel J.D., W. (2008). Performance Measurement of Drug Courts: The State of the Art. National Center for State Courts. Statewide Technical Assistance Bulletin, Volume 6.

Contact Information• Amy C Nuñez, 415-865-7564

email: amy.nunez@jud.ca.gov

• Sonya Tafoya, 415-865-8973

email: sonya.tafoya@jud.ca.gov

• Anthony Villanueva, 415-865-8857

email: anthony.villanueva@jud.ca.gov