Search or view whole report

Choosing performance standards

The illustrated reports provided in Figure 1 and Figure 2 both use examples of performance standards which are two-tiered or 'split'. This is not intended to be a prescription — there is no particular reason why a Court should not choose simply to set a single standard, for either the time or the number of trips to the Court it should take to complete a case, which relates to all cases (i.e. '100% within 18 months' or 'no case should require more than 3 attendances'). However, two-tiered standards (such as the example of '90% within 12 months and all within 2 years') are commonly adopted by Courts and are an extremely sensible way of acknowledging the existence of 'ordinary' and 'exceptional cases. In technical parlance, the standard set for the 'ordinary' group or 'most' cases is described as the 'norm' and the standard which sets the outside limit for 'exceptions' to the norm is described as the 'boundary'.

When a split standard is adopted, the Court will need to report performance against both the norm and boundary performance standards.

Examples can be given of Courts which have set time standards which do not apply to all of the Court's caseload, as in '98% of cases within 18 months'. The effect of this is to create a class of the Court's business (the extreme 2% in this example) which is not subject to any performance standard and this cannot be regarded as good management practice. The view adopted here is that, whether single or tiered, the performance standards adopted must establish a true boundary (i.e. apply to 100% of a Court's business).

A fair amount of concern about setting appropriate performance standards was expressed over the course of the consultations. Some of this concern may reflect undue or misplaced concern about the criticism a Court may face if it fails to meet its own performance standards. Performance standards are goals. They should be something to aspire to. Setting them will involve an assessment of what the Court's processes require, and it is both appropriate and sensible that these assessments should be informed by the Court's experience. Ultimately, however, the Court must make a value judgement about what is reasonable.