CourTools Measure 6 - Reliability And Integrity Of Case Files
Definition: The percentage of files that can be retrieved within established time standards, and that meet established standards for completeness and accuracy of contents. Purpose: A reliable and accurate case file system is fundamental to the effectiveness of day-to-day court operations and fairness of judicial decisions. The maintenance of case records directly affects the timeliness and integrity of case processing. This measure provides information regarding (a) how long it takes to locate a file, (b) whether the file’s contents and case summary information match up, and (c) the organization and completeness of the file. Retrieving Files Randomly identify equal numbers (but at least 50) of pending case files, closed--on-site case files, and closed--off-site case files in each case type being evaluated. Record how long it takes to find each case file. Closed, On-site Criminal–Felony cases are shown as an example. File Location Data Collection Form Case Type: Criminal-Felony x SC-F-468 x SC-F-771 x 31-60 minutes 61 minutes Not found Copyright 2005 copies and updates at www.courtools.org SC-F-136 16-30 minutes File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site 0-15 minutes Sample size: 50 Time required to locate Random case #’s National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 800-466-3063 Method: x SC-F-863 SC-F-979 x Total files 40 6 2 2 0 Add the number of files in each column. To compute the percentages, divide each column total by the grand total number of files in the sample. In this example, a total of 40 files were located in 0-15 minutes out of the grand total of 50 files retrieved. The percentage is 40 divided by 50, or 80 percent. 2005 National Center for State Courts
Retrieving Files – Interpretation Purpose: In this example, the court determines that 100 percent of the Closed, On-site Criminal-Felony case files were located, and 80 percent were located within the court’s time standard of 15 minutes. Court staff and management need to evaluate why the remaining files could not be located within this time frame, and determine if this result suggests changes that should be made in the court’s records management practices. The percentage of files that can be retrieved within established time standards, and that meet established standards for completeness and accuracy of contents. A reliable and accurate case file system is fundamental to the effectiveness of day-to-day court operations and fairness of judicial decisions. The maintenance of case records directly affects the timeliness and integrity of case processing. This measure provides information regarding (a) how long it takes to locate a file, (b) whether the file’s contents and case summary information match up, and (c) the organization and completeness of the file. Courts should establish a high standard for being able to locate their case files, e.g., 98 percent or more. A similar high standard should be defined for locating the files within the 15-minute time frame, e.g., 90 percent or more of pending and closed on-site files. The court should define a standard for locating off-site files as well, e.g., 90 percent of the off-site files within one working day. Retrieving Files Method: Percentage of Files Retrieved Randomly identify equal numbers (but at least 50) of pending case files, closed--on-site case files, and closed--off-site case files in each case type being evaluated. Record how long it takes to find each case file. Closed, On-site Criminal–Felony cases are shown as an example. 100% 90% goal for locating files within 15 min. Case Type: Criminal-Felony x SC-F-979 x Total files 40 6 61 not found Not found x SC-F-863 31-60 Minutes File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site 2 2 0 A second element of this measure examines the extent of correspondence between the case file summary and the file contents. The content and format of the case file summary (variously referred to as the case docket, case file register, register of actions, etc.) vary across jurisdictions, but this summary document generally includes at least a complete record of the documents filed with the court for each case. The question this element answers is whether the summary of documents accurately reflects all the documents filed with the court that are supposed to be in the file and, conversely, whether the documents in the file are accurately recorded on the summary of documents. SC-F-136 x x x SC-F-468 x x x SC-F-771 x SC-F-979 x Total files 38 YES/YES x x SC-F-863 NO x x 12 44 x 6 35 In this example, of the grand total of 50 files examined, a total of 38 files have an entry for each document in the file and a total of 44 files have a document for each entry. Thus, not all entries have documents and not all documents have entries. Only 35 of the 50 files examined meet the Yes/Yes condition. To compute the percentage, divide the total Yes/Yes (35) by the grand total of files examined (50). The result is 70 percent. Add the number of files in each column. To compute the percentages, divide each column total by the grand total number of files in the sample. In this example, a total of 40 files were located in 0-15 minutes out of the grand total of 50 files retrieved. The percentage is 40 divided by 50, or 80 percent. 2005 National Center for State Courts YES NO Content Reliability National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 800-466-3063 SC-F-771 Copyright 2005 copies and updates at www.courtools.org x 61 minutes 16-30 YES Sample size: 50 Random case #’s Total 25% Each document has an entry? SC-F-468 31-60 minutes Content Reliability Data Collection Form Each entry has a document? x 16-30 minutes File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site SC-F-136 Sample size: 50 0-15 minutes Add the number of Xs in each column. Calculate the percentage of cases for which "Yes" was answered to both questions. Case Type: Criminal-Felony Random case #’s Is every document in the case file listed as an entry on the case file summary system? 50% 0-15 File Location Data Collection Form Does every document-related entry on the case file summary have a corresponding document in the case file? 75% 0% Time required to locate For each case file in the Pending, Closed-On-site, and Closed-Off-site samples examined in the first element of Measure 6, review the case file summary and the case file contents. For each case file, record the answers to the following questions on a data collection form: Percentage of Files Definition: Method: 2005 National Center for State Courts 2005 National Center for State Courts
Retrieving Files – Interpretation Purpose: In this example, the court determines that 100 percent of the Closed, On-site Criminal-Felony case files were located, and 80 percent were located within the court’s time standard of 15 minutes. Court staff and management need to evaluate why the remaining files could not be located within this time frame, and determine if this result suggests changes that should be made in the court’s records management practices. The percentage of files that can be retrieved within established time standards, and that meet established standards for completeness and accuracy of contents. A reliable and accurate case file system is fundamental to the effectiveness of day-to-day court operations and fairness of judicial decisions. The maintenance of case records directly affects the timeliness and integrity of case processing. This measure provides information regarding (a) how long it takes to locate a file, (b) whether the file’s contents and case summary information match up, and (c) the organization and completeness of the file. Courts should establish a high standard for being able to locate their case files, e.g., 98 percent or more. A similar high standard should be defined for locating the files within the 15-minute time frame, e.g., 90 percent or more of pending and closed on-site files. The court should define a standard for locating off-site files as well, e.g., 90 percent of the off-site files within one working day. Retrieving Files Method: Percentage of Files Retrieved Randomly identify equal numbers (but at least 50) of pending case files, closed--on-site case files, and closed--off-site case files in each case type being evaluated. Record how long it takes to find each case file. Closed, On-site Criminal–Felony cases are shown as an example. 100% 90% goal for locating files within 15 min. Case Type: Criminal-Felony x SC-F-979 x Total files 40 6 61 not found Not found x SC-F-863 31-60 Minutes File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site 2 2 0 A second element of this measure examines the extent of correspondence between the case file summary and the file contents. The content and format of the case file summary (variously referred to as the case docket, case file register, register of actions, etc.) vary across jurisdictions, but this summary document generally includes at least a complete record of the documents filed with the court for each case. The question this element answers is whether the summary of documents accurately reflects all the documents filed with the court that are supposed to be in the file and, conversely, whether the documents in the file are accurately recorded on the summary of documents. SC-F-136 x x x SC-F-468 x x x SC-F-771 x SC-F-979 x Total files 38 YES/YES x x SC-F-863 NO x x 12 44 x 6 35 In this example, of the grand total of 50 files examined, a total of 38 files have an entry for each document in the file and a total of 44 files have a document for each entry. Thus, not all entries have documents and not all documents have entries. Only 35 of the 50 files examined meet the Yes/Yes condition. To compute the percentage, divide the total Yes/Yes (35) by the grand total of files examined (50). The result is 70 percent. Add the number of files in each column. To compute the percentages, divide each column total by the grand total number of files in the sample. In this example, a total of 40 files were located in 0-15 minutes out of the grand total of 50 files retrieved. The percentage is 40 divided by 50, or 80 percent. 2005 National Center for State Courts YES NO Content Reliability National Center for State Courts 300 Newport Avenue Williamsburg, Virginia 23185 800-466-3063 SC-F-771 Copyright 2005 copies and updates at www.courtools.org x 61 minutes 16-30 YES Sample size: 50 Random case #’s Total 25% Each document has an entry? SC-F-468 31-60 minutes Content Reliability Data Collection Form Each entry has a document? x 16-30 minutes File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site SC-F-136 Sample size: 50 0-15 minutes Add the number of Xs in each column. Calculate the percentage of cases for which "Yes" was answered to both questions. Case Type: Criminal-Felony Random case #’s Is every document in the case file listed as an entry on the case file summary system? 50% 0-15 File Location Data Collection Form Does every document-related entry on the case file summary have a corresponding document in the case file? 75% 0% Time required to locate For each case file in the Pending, Closed-On-site, and Closed-Off-site samples examined in the first element of Measure 6, review the case file summary and the case file contents. For each case file, record the answers to the following questions on a data collection form: Percentage of Files Definition: Method: 2005 National Center for State Courts 2005 National Center for State Courts
File Organization and Completeness Content Reliability – Analysis and Interpretation A third element of Measure 6 considers whether the file contents are organized and formatted according to established practice in the jurisdiction. It also explores the completeness of the file—whether key documents filed with the court are contained in the case file. The Content Reliability element outlined above examines correspondence between the file contents and case file summary. It does not, however, explicitly investigate whether key documents are missing from both the file and summary. In this example, the court has set a content reliability standard of 95 percent correspondence between the summary list of documents and the documents themselves in all case types, regardless of their status (pending, closed) or the file location (on-site, off-site). In this court, pending files are kept on site, and closed files are kept on site for 12 months, and then moved off site. Felony-Pending case files are currently meeting the court’s standard. The Closed, On-site files are not quite meeting the standard. The same is true for the Closed, Off-site files. This could indicate that closed files, which have been checked out to court customers for review and copying of documents since being closed, are becoming incomplete due to loss of documents somewhere in the file review and document copying process. Method: The specific criteria for judging the organization and completeness of case files may vary across courts. The first step is to identify 5 to 7 criteria that are appropriate for the specific court and case type. For example, have specific documents (e.g., complaint, answer, motion, judgment) been found missing in the past? If so, the presence of such previously missing documents should be included as criteria for the measure. Other criteria might include whether the documents filed with the court have been submitted and processed correctly (e.g., correctly captioned) and ordered according to the jurisdiction’s specifications for case files (e.g., confidential documents properly identified and sealed). Shown here are the hypothetical results of one court’s examination of files for six court-specific criteria for Closed, Civil-Contract case files. Interpreting the results of this measure depends on the nature of the specific criteria and the importance of each criterion to the court’s records management system. The nature of the criteria will suggest corrective actions (e.g., clarification/ communication regarding filing requirements to parties or attorneys, or new staff procedures to address the specific deficiency). The initial measurement also serves as a baseline for setting intermediate and long-term targets of performance. Conformance to Criteria 100% 95% goal conformance to criteria 95% goal for correspondence 100% Once the criteria are defined by the court for each case type, examine each of the files in the sample of cases selected, record whether the files meet the criteria, and summarize the findings on a data collection form. 75% 75% 50% 0% Pending Closed On-site Closed Off-site Felony Pending Closed On-site Closed Off-site Pending Closed On-site Domestic Relations Probate x x x SC-F-468 x x x x x SC-F-771 x x x x Order/ Judgment 2000 2001 2002 2003 Completeness SC-F-863 x x SC-F-979 x x x x x x Total files 50 50 47 50 40 44 x x Closed cases: Cases that have been disposed of by the court, regardless of the manner of disposition. Off-site case files: Case files that are stored in a building or facility other than the site of the court division responsible for those files. On-site case files: Case files that are stored in the same building as the court division responsible for those files. Pending cases: Cases that are awaiting disposition by the court. 50% 1999 Order or Judgment Terms You Need to Know x 95% goal for correspondence 1998 Organization Complaint Answer x 100% 75% 2005 National Center for State Courts Proof of Service x Sample size: 50 File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site Correct Complaint Caption SC-F-136 Correspondence between case file summary and contents Criminal-Felony: Closed, On-site Case Type: Criminal-Felony Random case #’s Confidential Date/Time Documents Stamp Data can also be analyzed over time (e.g., annually) to see if performance is consistent, improving, or declining. In the example below, the court met its standard in 1998, experienced a sharp decline, then recovered and maintained its standard. The precise reasons for variation in performance (e.g., changes in personnel, technology, procedures, facilities, workflow) need to be determined by court staff and management to determine if corrective action is necessary. Closed Off-site File Organization and Completeness Data Collection Form Confidential Date/Time Correct Stamp Documents Caption Completeness Organization 2004 In this example, of the grand total of 50 files examined, a total of 50 files contain correctly identified and sealed Confidential Documents. A total of 50 files have documents with a correct Date/Time Stamp; a total of 47 files have documents with a Correct Caption, and so on. To compute the percentages, divide the total files in each column by the grand total of files examined (50). For Confidential Documents, the percentage is 50 divided by 50, or 100 percent. For Correct Caption files, 47 divided by 50 is 94 percent. 2005 National Center for State Courts Random Sample: A sample chosen that minimizes bias in the selection process. A random sample of case files could be generated by a computer, or by picking one file on a random basis, and choosing additional files at evenly spaced intervals (choosing every tenth file on the shelves, in ascending order) until the desired total number of files is obtained. Systematic random samples require the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases in a court was 3,000 and the sample size was to be 300 cases, select every tenth case (3,000 300 10). 2005 National Center for State Courts Developed by the NCSC Court Performance Community of Practice. 50% 25% Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler Senior Contributors: William E. Hewitt and Ingo Kellitz Information Design: Neal B. Kauder Design and Layout: Graphics 3 Correspondence between case file summary and contents Analysis and Interpretation
File Organization and Completeness Content Reliability – Analysis and Interpretation A third element of Measure 6 considers whether the file contents are organized and formatted according to established practice in the jurisdiction. It also explores the completeness of the file—whether key documents filed with the court are contained in the case file. The Content Reliability element outlined above examines correspondence between the file contents and case file summary. It does not, however, explicitly investigate whether key documents are missing from both the file and summary. In this example, the court has set a content reliability standard of 95 percent correspondence between the summary list of documents and the documents themselves in all case types, regardless of their status (pending, closed) or the file location (on-site, off-site). In this court, pending files are kept on site, and closed files are kept on site for 12 months, and then moved off site. Felony-Pending case files are currently meeting the court’s standard. The Closed, On-site files are not quite meeting the standard. The same is true for the Closed, Off-site files. This could indicate that closed files, which have been checked out to court customers for review and copying of documents since being closed, are becoming incomplete due to loss of documents somewhere in the file review and document copying process. Method: The specific criteria for judging the organization and completeness of case files may vary across courts. The first step is to identify 5 to 7 criteria that are appropriate for the specific court and case type. For example, have specific documents (e.g., complaint, answer, motion, judgment) been found missing in the past? If so, the presence of such previously missing documents should be included as criteria for the measure. Other criteria might include whether the documents filed with the court have been submitted and processed correctly (e.g., correctly captioned) and ordered according to the jurisdiction’s specifications for case files (e.g., confidential documents properly identified and sealed). Shown here are the hypothetical results of one court’s examination of files for six court-specific criteria for Closed, Civil-Contract case files. Interpreting the results of this measure depends on the nature of the specific criteria and the importance of each criterion to the court’s records management system. The nature of the criteria will suggest corrective actions (e.g., clarification/ communication regarding filing requirements to parties or attorneys, or new staff procedures to address the specific deficiency). The initial measurement also serves as a baseline for setting intermediate and long-term targets of performance. Conformance to Criteria 100% 95% goal conformance to criteria 95% goal for correspondence 100% Once the criteria are defined by the court for each case type, examine each of the files in the sample of cases selected, record whether the files meet the criteria, and summarize the findings on a data collection form. 75% 75% 50% 0% Pending Closed On-site Closed Off-site Felony Pending Closed On-site Closed Off-site Pending Closed On-site Domestic Relations Probate x x x SC-F-468 x x x x x SC-F-771 x x x x Order/ Judgment 2000 2001 2002 2003 Completeness SC-F-863 x x SC-F-979 x x x x x x Total files 50 50 47 50 40 44 x x Closed cases: Cases that have been disposed of by the court, regardless of the manner of disposition. Off-site case files: Case files that are stored in a building or facility other than the site of the court division responsible for those files. On-site case files: Case files that are stored in the same building as the court division responsible for those files. Pending cases: Cases that are awaiting disposition by the court. 50% 1999 Order or Judgment Terms You Need to Know x 95% goal for correspondence 1998 Organization Complaint Answer x 100% 75% 2005 National Center for State Courts Proof of Service x Sample size: 50 File Type (check one) Pending x Closed, On-site Closed, Off-site Correct Complaint Caption SC-F-136 Correspondence between case file summary and contents Criminal-Felony: Closed, On-site Case Type: Criminal-Felony Random case #’s Confidential Date/Time Documents Stamp Data can also be analyzed over time (e.g., annually) to see if performance is consistent, improving, or declining. In the example below, the court met its standard in 1998, experienced a sharp decline, then recovered and maintained its standard. The precise reasons for variation in performance (e.g., changes in personnel, technology, procedures, facilities, workflow) need to be determined by court staff and management to determine if corrective action is necessary. Closed Off-site File Organization and Completeness Data Collection Form Confidential Date/Time Correct Stamp Documents Caption Completeness Organization 2004 In this example, of the grand total of 50 files examined, a total of 50 files contain correctly identified and sealed Confidential Documents. A total of 50 files have documents with a correct Date/Time Stamp; a total of 47 files have documents with a Correct Caption, and so on. To compute the percentages, divide the total files in each column by the grand total of files examined (50). For Confidential Documents, the percentage is 50 divided by 50, or 100 percent. For Correct Caption files, 47 divided by 50 is 94 percent. 2005 National Center for State Courts Random Sample: A sample chosen that minimizes bias in the selection process. A random sample of case files could be generated by a computer, or by picking one file on a random basis, and choosing additional files at evenly spaced intervals (choosing every tenth file on the shelves, in ascending order) until the desired total number of files is obtained. Systematic random samples require the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases in a court was 3,000 and the sample size was to be 300 cases, select every tenth case (3,000 300 10). 2005 National Center for State Courts Developed by the NCSC Court Performance Community of Practice. 50% 25% Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler Senior Contributors: William E. Hewitt and Ingo Kellitz Information Design: Neal B. Kauder Design and Layout: Graphics 3 Correspondence between case file summary and contents Analysis and Interpretation
Analysis and Interpretation Shown here are the hypothetical results of one court’s examination of files for six court-specific criteria for Closed, Civil-Contract case files. Interpreting the results of this measure depends on the nature of the specific criteria and the importance of each criterion to the court’s records management system. The nature of the criteria will suggest corrective actions (e.g., clarification/ communication regarding filing requirements to parties or attorneys, or new staff procedures to address the specific deficiency). The initial measurement also serves as a baseline for setting intermediate and long-term targets of performance. Conformance to Criteria 100% 95% goal conformance to criteria 75% Organization Complaint Answer Order or Judgment Completeness Terms You Need to Know Closed cases: Cases that have been disposed of by the court, regardless of the manner of disposition. Off-site case files: Case files that are stored in a building or facility other than the site of the court division responsible for those files. On-site case files: Case files that are stored in the same building as the court division responsible for those files. Pending cases: Cases that are awaiting disposition by the court. Random Sample: A sample chosen that minimizes bias in the selection process. A random sample of case files could be generated by a computer, or by picking one file on a random basis, and choosing additional files at evenly spaced intervals (choosing every tenth file on the shelves, in ascending order) until the desired total number of files is obtained. Systematic random samples require the taking of every nth case, i.e., if the total number of civil cases in a court was 3,000 and the sample size was to be 300 cases, select every tenth case (3,000 300 10). 2005 National Center for State Courts Project Directors: Brian J. Ostrom and Daniel J. Hall Series Editor: Richard Y. Schauffler Senior Contributors: William E. Hewitt and Ingo Kellitz Information Design: Neal B. Kauder Design and Layout: Graphics 3 Confidential Date/Time Correct Stamp Documents Caption Developed by the NCSC Court Performance Community of Practice. 50%
divide each column total by the grand total number of files in the sample. In this example, a total of 40 files were located in 0-15 minutes out of the grand total of 50 files retrieved. The percentage is 40 divided by 50, or 80 percent. File Location Data Collection Form SC-F-136 SC-F-468 SC-F-771 SC-F-863 SC-F-979 Total files 40 6 2 2 0 x x x .
Test-Retest Reliability Alternate Form Reliability Criterion-Referenced Reliability Inter-rater reliability 4. Reliability of Composite Scores Reliability of Sum of Scores Reliability of Difference Scores Reliability
Reliability Infrastructure: Supply Chain Mgmt. and Assessment Design for reliability: Virtual Qualification Software Design Tools Test & Qualification for reliability: Accelerated Stress Tests Quality Assurance System level Reliability Forecasting: FMEA/FMECA Reliability aggregation Manufacturing for reliability: Process design Process variability
posing system reliability into component reliability in a deterministic manner (i.e., series or parallel systems). Consequentially, any popular reliability analysis tools such as Fault Tree and Reliability Block Diagram are inadequate. In order to overcome the challenge, this dissertation focuses on modeling system reliability structure using
Evidence Brief: Implementation of HRO Principles Evidence Synthesis Program. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . High Reliability Organizations (HROs) are organizations that achieve safety, quality, and efficiency goals by employing 5 central principles: (1) sensitivity to operations (ie, heightenedFile Size: 401KBPage Count: 38Explore furtherVHA's HRO journey officially begins - VHA National Center .www.patientsafety.va.govHigh-Reliability Organizations in Healthcare: Frameworkwww.healthcatalyst.comSupporting the VA’s high reliability organization .gcn.com5 Principles of a High Reliability Organization (HRO)blog.kainexus.com5 Traits of High Reliability Organizations: How to .www.beckershospitalreview.comRecommended to you b
Electronic Parts Reliability Data (2000 pages) Nonelectronic Parts Reliability Data (1000 pages) Nonoperating Reliability Databook (300 pages) Recipe books: Recipe book: MIL-HDBK-217F Military Handbook 338B: Electronic Reliability Design Handbook Automotive Electronics Reliability SP-696 Reliability references:
Electronic Parts Reliability Data (2000 pages) Nonelectronic Parts Reliability Data (1000 pages) Nonoperating Reliability Databook (300 pages) Recipe books: Recipe book: MIL-HDBK-217F Military Handbook 338B: Electr onic Reliability Design Handbook Automotive Electronics Reliability SP-696 Reliability references:
Keywords: Reliability Block Diagrams (RBD); hierarchical reliability model; reliability curve; reliabil-ity evaluation; software libraries 1. Introduction Reliability is defined as "the ability of a system or component to perform its required functions under stated conditions for a specified period of time" [1]. Reliability is often
E. Kreyszig, “Advanced Engineering Mathematics”, 8th edition, John Wiley and Sons (1999). 3. M. R. Spiegel, “Advanced Mathematics for Engineers and Scientists”, Schaum Outline Series, McGraw Hill, (1971). 4. Chandrika Prasad, Reena Garg, "Advanced Engineering Mathematics", Khanna Publishing house. RCH-054: Statistical Design of Experiments (3:1:0) UNIT 1 Introduction: Strategy of .
