Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 1:45 am
Time: 1:45 am
Results for performance measures
2 results foundAuthor: Nugent-Borakove, M. Elaine Title: Exploring the Feasibilitiy and Efficacy of Performance Measures in Prosecution and Their Application to Community Prosecution Summary: How is success measured in prosecution? Is it conviction rates, the outcome of a single high profile case, a low number of plea bargains, or less crime? What information can prosecutors look to justify funding requests, respond to vague criticism of office performance, or to make management decisions? Until recently, prosecutors lacked any empirically-based guidance that adequately addressed the need for a menu of performance measures that can be used to answer these questions. In 2003, with funding from the National Institute of Justice and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the American Prosecutors Research Institute (APRI), the research and development division of the National District Attorneys Association, began to tackle this issue by convening a group of experienced prosecutors, policymakers, economists, and academics to develop a performance measurement framework for prosecutors. The resulting Prosecution for the 21st Century performance measurement framework, shown in Exhibit 1, identifies measurable goals and objectives for prosecutors that are linked to a series of possible performance measures. Unlike previous attempts to define performance measures for prosecutors, the performance measurement framework is built upon a comprehensive set of goals and objectives that take into account the many different roles prosecutors undertake in their day-to-day activities. Both the traditional case processing and sanction setting roles form the foundation for the first goal to promote the fair, impartial, and expeditious pursuit of justice. Newer roles relating to more proactive problem-solving efforts and community-based prosecution are addressed largely in the second goal, to ensure safer communities. Finally, the idea of the prosecutor as a leader in the judicial system is the basis for the final goal to promote integrity in the prosecution profession and coordination in the justice system. The three goals are defined in a manner to capture the intended results of all the various functions of the local prosecutor—case processing, crime prevention and intervention, and the overall administration of justice—respecting the unique role of the prosecutor and accounting for the continual evolution of the prosecutorial function. Related to each of these goals is a series of objectives from which a menu of performance measures was generated. The framework is intended to provide a guide for performance measurement in prosecution that is tailorable to the unique situations of individual prosecutors’ offices but also broad enough to suggest appropriate measures for more large scale research on prosecution. The performance measures shown in the framework are intended to represent a menu of possible measures that an office might use depending on the office’s specific policies and practices. For example, if an office does not place defendants and/or offenders into treatment programs, measures related to placements in treatment programs would not be appropriate. Details: Alexandria, VA: National Prosecutors Research Institute, 2009. 82p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed October 20, 2010 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/227668.pdf Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/227668.pdf Shelf Number: 120028 Keywords: Community ProsecutionCourtsPerformance MeasuresProsecution |
Author: Northern Ireland. Criminal Justice Inspection Title: Avoidable Delay: A Progress Report Summary: In June 2010 Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) published a report into avoidable delay in the Northern Ireland Criminal Justice System. The report highlighted the scale of the problem and made a series of recommendations to support change. It was agreed that CJI would provide an annual progress report to the Minister. This is the first of these reports. As this progress report shows, however, progress has been slow in a number of areas and performance has deteriorated for Crown Court cases and also for Magistrates’ Court cases which commence through report and summons. This is particularly problematic for youth cases as this group requires an immediate and effective response in order to challenge offending behaviours and ensure that they are dealt with effectively by the criminal justice system. The most recent average of 289 days from informed of a prosecution through to disposal by a court is simply too long and it is disappointing that this is 30 days longer on average compared to 2010-11. The key message arising from this first progress report is that continued focus and effort is required to make a difference. Much good work has been done and this needs to continue. At the same time new issues will emerge and it is important that the justice organisations respond flexibly to ensure the system overall does not suffer. This is an on-going challenge and one which requires constant monitoring and corrective action at an operational level. This report highlights the detrimental impact that one particular issue (i.e. summonses) can have on overall performance. Next year it may be another issue. Details: Belfast: Criminal Justice Inspection Northern Ireland, 2012. 27p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed on January 29, 2012 at http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/ac/acb5da11-f045-4242-bd16-d51118549113.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United Kingdom URL: http://www.cjini.org/CJNI/files/ac/acb5da11-f045-4242-bd16-d51118549113.pdf Shelf Number: 123881 Keywords: Courts (Northern Ireland)Criminal Case ProcessingPerformance Measures |