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

2. 2 Independence vs Accountability Is the tension really necessary?

3. 3 What is Performance Budgeting?

4. 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. 5 Are Performance Budgeting and Performance Measurement the same thing?

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

7. 7 Sources of Demand for Performance Measurement 1.Central budgetary authority (MoF) 2.Justice sector managers 3.Politicians / public / civil society 4.(WB) Reform program impact monitoring

8. 8 Implementing a Performance Budgeting approach

9. 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. 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. 11 Justice Sector Budgets: Potential Major Programs Justice Policy & Administration Judicial Services (our focus) Corrections / Imprisonment Police / Internal Security (?)

12. 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. 13 Typical Program Goal for Judicial Services: To support and improve the publics access to justice through a fair and efficient judicial system.

14. 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. 15 Possible Sub-Programs in Judicial Services X01Admin./Remuneration of Judiciary & JSS X02Operation of the Courts X03Enforcement of Court fines / decisions X04Judicial Education & Training X05Legal Aid X06Judicial Reform Projects X07Other? (Law Review Commission, etc.)

16. 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. 17 Sub-Program Objectives are usually the key basis for institutional accountability (e.g. of MoJ) under Performance Budgeting

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

19. 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. 20 Refining Objectives May need to change over time: More / better information New data New goals or new policies from Govt.

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

22. 22 Budget Management Categories Program:Judicial Services Sub-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. 23 Performance Measurement Supports our program/sub-program plus goal/objectives framework

24. 24 Goal Measurement (High-level Outcomes - e.g access) 1.Public opinion surveys 2.International comparisons / league tables (Should be regularly & publicly reported )

25. 25 Measuring Performance: Two Main Categories 1.Basic Output Measures – throughput; work completed 2.Performance Indicators – show impact or results of the sub-program policies and activities ………..Both types of measure are desirable

26. 26 Basic Principles for Measurement 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

27. 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. 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. 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. 30 Operation of the Courts: Menu of Possible Performance Indicators 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

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

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

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

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

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

36. 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. 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. 38 Performance Measurement Responsibilities 1.Performance measurement is a key responsibility of all sub-program managers (judicial or otherwise) 1.Specialized Monitoring and Evaluation Unit can play valuable role in design and assessment of performance measures (Bank funding?) 2.Budget Department (MoJ) should ensure work is done well!

39. 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)