Chair, International Consortium for Court Excellence Use, Modification and Impact of the International Framework for Court Excellence Professor Greg Reinhardt, Executive Director, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Chair, International Consortium for Court Excellence 11 July 2017

About the Consortium Executive Committee of Consortium - four founding members (NCSC, FJC, AIJA, State Courts of Singapore) + 3 other member jurisdictions. New members of executive committee are District Courts of New Zealand and Republic of Marshall Islands Judiciary and Dubai International Financial Centre Courts. Secretariat based at the AIJA since 2014. Currently 4 founding members; 33 member courts and tribunals.

Research Paper - Use, Modification and Impact of the IFCE Presentation on research paper by Dr Liz Richardson from the Secretariat of the International Consortium for Court Excellence. Research paper can be found on the ICCE website www.courtexcellence.com First time that the Consortium has sought to collate the different approaches to the IFCE being taken by members of the Consortium. Research paper contains case summaries and discussion will inform future changes to Framework. Stage Two of the Research is likely to involve a survey of all ICCE members.

1. Use of the IFCE Wide range of approaches to the IFCE have been taken. ICCE takes a flexible approach to the modification of the Framework to suit local circumstances for use within that particular jurisdiction. Use of consultants to assist in the process is relatively common. The most successful courts institute a ‘self-assessment team’ to drive the process. Leadership of the chief judicial officer is critical to success but also support of administrative services.

Approaches to self-assessment Getting started: Establish steering group within court to implement IFCE a popular option. Employing external consultant to run all or part of the self-assessment process another option. Desktop assessments by third party (Victoria). What are the implications of having external consultant conduct the self-assessment or third party desk top? Does it mean that the courts are less engaged with the process, findings and outcomes? Or does it provide a kickstart to what can be a daunting exercise?

Approaches to self-assessment Approaches to explaining the IFCE to participants: Pre–self assessment - LECNSW took the approach of ‘workshopping’ the questions with an external facilitator prior to assessment to achieve consensus agreement on the meaning of questions/statements. Post–self assessment - District Courts of New Zealand and the Family Court of Australia opted to hold moderation sessions after self-assessment. Conducting self assessment: Some courts have used online format. Others using excel spreadsheets.

Other Uses of the IFCE Other ways in which the IFCE has been used by courts: One self-assessment to start with and then continuously rolling over the improvement plan. Developing a policy framework and overarching management methodology using the seven areas of court excellence – Supreme Court of Victoria; Strategic Planning – LECNSW and the County Court of Victoria. Indonesia also used to develop a five year plan to reform trial courts, incorporated court performance measurement into strategic planning within the court; Court values and areas for court excellence in the IFCE can be helpful to organise activities in the court.

2. Modification of the IFCE Most courts modify the Framework in some way in the process of implementation. Key modifications include: Changes to the questions or statements by changing language/terminology to enhance relevance to local circumstances; Changing the approach/deployment section and/or not using scoring; Not developing improvement plans; Holding moderation sessions.

Other modifications Other modifications include: Providing option for open comments; Making substantive changes to the questions/statements; Adding additional sections – eg court performance and judicial section on ethics/standards (NZ), operational matters, judicial organisation, judicial welfare, judicial engagement with the community. Additional category of response – “don’t know.”

Questions raised by modifications Questions for the Consortium: What, if any, of these modifications should go in the next version of the IFCE? What are the limits on how far can modification go before the Court could be considered not be applying the IFCE? Or put another way, what are the fundamental aspects of the IFCE that must be present in every implementation of the IFCE? Can these fundamental aspects be articulated?

3. The impact of the IFCE The self-assessment process has led to numerous innovations and improvements in courts, including: Systemization and entrenchment of court-user surveys; Peer review and pastoral care programs for judges; Enhancing and expanding existing court access and inclusion frameworks for vulnerable and disadvantaged court users; Consistent and systematic review of court policies, rules and procedures; Improving physical court facilities; Use of technology to increase access for court users; Improving communication with court users; Monitoring access to and use of Court decisions. (from Richardson, Spencer and Wexler, 2016 Journal of Judicial Administration – this is on the Consortium website under Resources for Courts)

Thank you for your attention. Professor Greg Reinhardt Gregory.reinhardt@monash.edu www.courtexcellence.com www.aija.org.au