skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 83823 Find in a Library
Title: Evaluating Judicial Performance - Problems of Measurement and Politics (From Analysis of Judicial Reform, P 121-134, 1982, Philip L DuBois, ed. - See NCJ-83815)
Author(s): J P Ryan
Date Published: 1982
Page Count: 14
Sponsoring Agency: D C Heath and Co
Lexington, MA 02173
Sale Source: D C Heath and Co
125 Spring Street
Lexington, MA 02173
United States of America
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The role of trial courts and the content of judicial work are discussed as background for analyzing the contrasting ways in which individual judicial performance has been and can be measured.
Abstract: Judicial work in trial courts requires a diverse set of skills, and few judges are likely to be highly proficient in all skill areas. The views of judges parallel recent literature suggesting that the work of trial judges is heterogeneous. If judicial performance is to be measured meaningfully, this fundamental diversity must serve as the underpinning. Measures pertaining to numbers of cases disposed relate only to the administrative-managerial aspects of judicial work. Measures of the number of jury or bench trials heard speak only to a judge's adjudicative skills. Qualitative modes and measures of judicial performance frequently fail to be adequately eclectic in the criteria on which they seek evaluation. Most bar polls, for example, give little attention to the trial judge's administrative tasks and even less attention to the judge as negotiator or mediator. Organizations aiming to improve judicial performance through continuing education, such as State judicial education associations, likewise fail to emphasize tasks other than adjudication. Differences in models of judicial evaluation reflect less upon views of the proper role or functions of judges than upon the political cultures that surround courts in the various States. Which method of evaluation is better may depend upon how one views the import of public participation in the government and life of the polity. Thirty-one references are provided.
Index Term(s): Judges; Personnel evaluation
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.