Backlog is related directly to the Court's performance against its case processing time standards. It is the number of pending cases which are taking too long. The backlog measure indicates whether the Court is meeting its time standards.
Overload relates the size of the Court's caseload to its time standards. It is the number of cases on hand in excess of the number the Court can be expected to process within time. The overload measure indicates whether the Court will continue to meet its time standards in the future (assuming existing conditions are maintained).
Clearance Ratio relates the Court's caseload to its capacity. It is the ratio of the Court's new registrations to the number of finalisations over the relevant reporting period. The clearance ratio indicates whether the Court is heading for, keeping out of or getting out of trouble, in terms of its capacity to meet its time standards in the future.
Attendance Index relates to the efficiency and effectiveness of the Court's processes. The attendance index requires the Court to adopt a standard for the maximum number of times it should be necessary for the parties (or their representatives) to attend at the Court before their case is resolved. The measure itself is the number of pending cases in which there has been more than the benchmark number of attendances. The number of 'trips to the Courthouse' is the most easily obtained datum which is highly correlated with the cost of litigation and efficient resource utilisation.
Figures 1 and 2 show two somewhat different mock-ups of a 'monthly report'. Although the Model KPIs are intended to standardise key performance measures and the formats in which they are presented, the performance standards used by the Courts is a matter for them. Figure 1 illustrates the format of a Model KPI report in its most 'generic' form, and shows the extent to which individual Courts can adapt the format to their own circumstances.5
However, the generic format is necessarily 'filled' with blank spaces, and the formulae given later in the text for calculating each of the measures use symbols rather than actual values, which together may make Figure 1 a somewhat enigmatic explanatory aid for readers who prefer their examples a bit more concrete. So we have imagined a Court which deals with about 12,000 civil cases a year, and has adopted the following case processing standards: 90% of its civil cases should be finalised within 12 months of commencement and all cases should be resolved within two years; 90% of cases should be resolved after no more than three attendances at Court, and no case should require more than five attendances to be concluded. Figure 2 shows what the monthly report of this Court might look like. As described, this hypothetical Court resembles the District Court, but only in part, and the concrete values set out in the report are plausible but made up. The liberties taken in the example stop, then, with naming it the 'Intermediate Court'.
After studying the formulae for the KPIs, given later in the text, interested readers may wish to check the calculations in Figure 2. The additional information required to do this is as follows: We imagined that the Intermediate Court had a pending civil caseload at the end of June 1999 of 16,996. The number older than 12 months was 4,052 (including the 1,934 cases older than two years). The number in which there had been 3 or more attendances was 3,425 (including the 1,569 cases in which there had been more than 5). The number of new registrations in June was 1,100 and the number of finalisations was 1,196. The number of finalisations in the preceding 12 months was 14,376. In the preceding 6 months the number of finalisations was 7,192 and in the same 6 month period a year before it was 6,597 cases. The number of new registrations in the preceding 6 months was 6,614 and in the same 6 month period a year before it was 6,589.
It is envisaged, as Figure 1 and Figure 2 imply, that Courts would publish monthly reports. Before turning to a discussion of the particular measures, a few further general observations about the format of the Model KPIs are in order.
Figure 1: Monthly KPI Report — Generic
Key Performance Indicators
[Month Year]
[specify] Court
[specify e.g. Civil or Criminal] Cases
1 Backlog
Backlog (> norm) = [ ] cases (should be 0)
3 Clearance Ratio = [ ]% (should be 100%)
finalisations: [up, down, unchanged]
Pending (> norm) = [ ]% (should be y%)
Key Performance Indicators
June 1999
'Intermediate' Court
Civil Cases
1 Backlog
Pending (>12 months) = 23.8% (should be 10%)
Backlog (> 12 months) = 2352 cases (should be 0)
3 Clearance Ratio = 109% (should be 100%)
finalisations: up
Pending (>3) = 20.2% (should be 10%)
Excess (>3) = 1725 cases (should be 0)
Ch 1. Introduction
Ch 2. Overview and general observations
Print chapter
Order report