Goals of Service Coordination: A Court’s Perspective

Interviews with both court and service agency professionals revealed that service coordination issues are integrally linked to other court goals. Thus, examining them apart from other court performance issues (such as court timeliness, fairness, and independence) is artificial. Service coordination performance goals are particularly challenging for courts because they often involve issues that cannot be addressed by courts alone. To accomplish their service coordination goals, courts often must reach out to other community entities.

Trial Court Performance Standards With Commentary articulates court responsibilities in five categories: (1) access to justice; (2) expedition and timeliness; (3) equality, fairness, and integrity; (4) independence and accountability; and (5) public trust and confidence.² These categories provide a framework for identifying service coordination issues that need to be addressed by the court, often in consultation with service agency representatives. For example:

• Access to justice. Are there court policies, procedures, or practices that affect accessibility to services? What accommodations can the court make on its own or in concert with appropriate service agencies to facilitate access to services? What types of services are not available to individuals in court? What can be done to ensure access to needed services?
  
  
• Expedition and timeliness. Are case management procedures in place that ensure the timely identification, acquisition, and provision of services? Does the court order services without knowing whether the services are actually available?
  
  
• Equality, fairness, and integrity. Are existing services available equally to individuals in court who need them? Do recommended service plans address the specific needs of individual clients? Are court orders requiring services clear?
  
  
• Independence and accountability. To what extent are available resources used efficiently and fairly and with what outcomes? Do the court, client, service agencies, and others understand their respective responsibilities? What information about the client do service agencies and the court share? How is the information made available?
  
  
• Public trust and confidence. What do judges, court staff, service providers, attorneys, and, most importantly, clients see as working well or needing improvement with regard to service coordination?

These kinds of issues point out that service coordination is a comprehensive court activity; it does not occur only during certain stages of the court process. This more comprehensive approach to service coordination is characteristic of the emerging problem-solving approach.