I have written many posts about courthouse planning in the last year. From space allocation to courthouse design, we’ve explored these issues qualitatively. In today’s entry, I will shift gears and begin a series on courthouse design and planning from a quantitative perspective.
So, let’s begin with the first of two basic questions: Why is it important to quantitatively measure a courthouse’s performance?
Measuring Courthouse Performance
Over more years than I care to acknowledge, I have visited many federal, state, and local courthouses to assess their functional ability to meet courts' current and future operational needs. Inevitably, I am confronted with three concerns of the court following my site visits:
- How acute are the identified deficiencies?
- How do the identified deficiencies in this courthouse compare to deficiencies in other courthouses?
- What projects should we prioritize based on need and available funds?
Therein lies the need for a quantification process, a system of courthouse performance metrics that allows me to address these concerns with an objective, documented response.
This brings me to the second basic question: How can this be accomplished?
Nearly ten years ago, we developed a facility assessment process that covers the five main performance criteria of space functionality, space standards, security, building condition, and court technology. These elements are quantified and standardized using rating factors and courthouse performance measures.
Depending upon the specific type of court (e.g., district, circuit, family, superior, municipal), these rating factors may number from approximately 100 to more than 350. The rating factors are used as a checklist during courthouse site inspections. Each rating factor has between two and six performance measures.
Then, each factor is compared to the other factors (through pairwise comparisons) and weighted using Expert Choice decision support software. Following a courthouse site inspection, the ratings are run through the same software to obtain scores specific to a courthouse.
The higher the resulting rating score, the better the existing facility meets the operational needs of the court. A rating score of 100 represents an ideal courthouse, 80-100 is a well-functioning courthouse, and below 60 is a courthouse with significant challenges. Likewise, a rating score of 100 in any of the five main criteria (space functionality, space standards, security, building condition, and court technology) represents an ideal courthouse for that criterion.
An overview of the five criteria follows:
- Space Functionality – the extent to which space supports the number and operations of judges and staff and functions properly for adjacencies, layout, accessibility, and circulation
- Space Standards – the conformance of space with the jurisdiction’s applicable standards for size, quantity, and proportion
- Security – the security features in the facility, such as secure and restricted circulation patterns, prisoner holding areas, and sallyports
- Building Condition – the condition of general building and judiciary tenant space of the facility, including the condition of the building systems (e.g., plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning), common areas, lobbies, elevators and stairways, and exterior spaces on the site (e.g., plaza, walkways, and parking)
- Technology – the availability of technology systems in the courthouse to support court proceedings, public access, and coordination between court components
By applying a process that uses a standardized set of rating factors and courthouse performance measures – an effective asset management planning tool –, we can compare the scores of the rated courthouse to the scores of other courthouses in our database on an “apples to apples” basis. The scores can determine the magnitude of deficiencies, measure the relative benefits of multiple corrective options, and provide an objective measure for a jurisdiction to prioritize limited funds to correct the deficiencies.
For example, the following quote from a Virginia newspaper article regarding the application of the courthouse performance metrics demonstrates how an objective measurement process based on a standardized system of metrics can be used in planning and decision-making.
The anticipated Mosley report is one of several exploring concerns about a courthouse renovation. One of the first was whether rehabbing the 1901 structure would secure it sufficiently. After rating the courthouse on five criteria to help localities consider whether to renovate historic courts or build new ones, Fentress Inc. concluded that building a new courts complex in Verona might be the best and most cost-effective option. But in May, after Frazier Associates tweaked its renovation plan, the company gave it a security rating of 96 out of 100 points. The functionality of the courthouse overall scored 92 out of 100 points.
Now that I’ve laid out the basics of the rating system, I’ll delve into the specific quantitative performance criteria for courthouses starting with my next post on space functionality.
