Court seeks comments on whether to institute performance measures


Source: Michigan Supreme Court order

July 5, 2012
ADM File No. 2012-15
Proposed Administrative Order No. 2012-XX 
Proposed Implementation of Trial Court Performance Measures

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice; Michael F. Cavanagh, Marilyn Kelly, Stephen J. Markman, Diane M. Hathaway, Mary Beth Kelly, Brian K. Zahra, Justices
On order of the Court, this is to advise that the Court is considering adoption of an administrative order regarding implementation of trial court performance measures.
Before the Court determines whether the proposal should be adopted, changed before adoption, or rejected, this notice is given to afford interested persons the opportunity to comment on the form or the merits of the proposal or to suggest alternatives. The Court welcomes the views of all. This matter will be considered at a public hearing by the Court before a final decision is made. Notices and agendas of future public hearings are posted at
Publication of this proposal does not mean that the Court will issue an order on the subject, nor does it imply probable adoption of the proposal in its present form.

Proposed Administrative Order No. 2012-XX

Performance measurement is a critical means to assess the services provided to the public and the processes used to deliver those services. Performance measurement can assist in assessing and recognizing areas within courts that are working well, and those that require attention and improvement.

Trial court performance measures are not a new concept. The National Center for State Courts first issued the 10 CourTools in 2005; in the 1990s, SCAO formed a task force, including judges and court administrators, to study how to measure a court’s performance. In 2009, the state court administrator convened the Trial Court
Performance Measures Committee, which piloted performance measures and offered recommendations. The committee stressed that all trial courts should embrace performance measures as an opportunity to provide high-quality public service in the most efficient way. Further, because transparency and accountability are integral elements of an efficient and effective judiciary, SCAO’s standardized statewide performance measure reports should be readily available to the public.

In an effort to ensure continued improvement in the judiciary, the Court adopts this order.

A. The State Court Administrative Office is directed to: 1. Develop a plan for implementation of performance measures in all trial courts. 2. Assist trial courts in implementing and posting performance measures. 3. In conjunction with the Trial Court Performance Measures Committee, assess and report on the effectiveness of the performance measures and modify the measures as needed.

B. Trial courts are directed to: 1. Comply with the trial court performance measures plan developed by the State Court Administrative Office. 2. Report performance measure information to the State Court Administrative Office.

C. SCAO’s standardized statewide performance measure reports shall be made available to the public on the Internet.

Staff Comment: This administrative order would implement the use of performance measures in trial courts.
The staff comment is not an authoritative construction by the Court.

A copy of this order will be given to the Secretary of the State Bar and to the State Court Administrator so that they can make the notifications specified in MCR 1.201.
Comments on the proposal may be sent to the Supreme Court Clerk in writing or electronically by November 1, 2012, at P.O. Box 30052, Lansing, MI 48909, or When filing a comment, please refer to ADM File No. 2012-15. Your comments and the comments of others will be posted at