Judicial Performance Evaluation 2.0
Project Status: Final recommendations released; advising states on implementation
Creating modern approaches to assessing judge performance
Most Americans undergo job evaluations, and there is no reason why judges should not do the same. Judicial performance evaluation (JPE) processes were first developed in the 1980s and provide a foundation for states to assess the job performance of judges. Today, JPE programs continue to focus on the right goal of holding judges accountable to high quality job performance while maintaining judicial independence, by focusing on politically neutral qualities like impartiality, case administration, and clarity of communication rather than specific case outcomes. However, updating evaluation methods is essential to keeping JPE relevant and useful. Current JPE processes no longer fully capture the experience of modern court users, the needs of modern judges, or the expectations of modern voters.
IAALS’ multi-year JPE 2.0 project is helping JPE programs update their approaches to reflect modern realities, while remaining accurate, trusted, and relevant.
-
1
national summit on modernizing JPE, with 10 state JPE representatives and 27 expert perspectives
-
4
convenings of JPE commissioners, judges, lawyers, and other stakeholders
-
658
judges surveyed about JPE in 8 states
-
6
detailed and actionable recommendations to modernize JPE
Objectives
- To develop a consensus framework on the purpose and goals of JPE programs in the modern era.
- To identify strengths and weaknesses of existing tools used to measure judicial performance, and identify better mechanisms to capture the experience of court users, the needs of judges, and the expectations of voters.
- To develop new best practices and recommendations.
Our recommendations
IAALS has released Recommendations for Modernizing Judicial Performance Evaluation, our final recommendations and best practices to guide the future of JPE in the United States. These recommendations are the culmination of extensive research, collaboration with JPE administrators and judges across the country, and consideration of evidence-based best practices to modernize JPE. The recommendations also provide a roadmap to support the judiciary’s position as a trusted institution, with lessons even for states without formal JPE programs.
In the report:
- An overview of the JPE 2.0 project, including guiding principles and key considerations.
- A summary of the challenges and opportunities facing JPE programs.
- Six detailed and actionable recommendations to modernize JPE, which can be adapted to fit each state's culture and needs:
- Foster trust and confidence in the JPE process.
- Modernize the evaluation criteria to account for the changing roles and responsibilities of the judiciary.
- Implement measures to improve information and reduce errors in evaluations.
- Build a culture of and embrace judicial performance improvement as a key aspect of JPE.
- Display institutional commitment to JPE.
- Ensure and improve transparency for intended audiences.
- Next steps for states and courts to take action, including implementation strategies for states with and without JPE programs.
These recommendations will help states refine their JPE programs so they are not only credible and constructive, but also trusted by judges and the public alike. This is about strengthening democracy by ensuring our courts remain fair, independent, and accountable.
— Susanne DiPietro
Executive Director, Alaska Judicial Council; Member, JPE 2.0 Task Force
Modern court users, modern judges, and modern society require modern evaluation tools. These recommendations offer a practical, research-based path forward—one that promotes both public accountability and meaningful judicial growth.
— Danielle Kalil
Project lead and Director of Civil Justice and the Judiciary, IAALS
IAALS' recommendations aim to create a future in which:
-
All stakeholders—including judges, court users, and the public—trust that the JPE process is rigorous, credible, and fair.
-
The criteria used to evaluate judges are clear, objective, and reflect the day-to-day jobs of a judge.
-
JPE data is reliable and accurate and reflects a diverse range of sources and perspectives.
-
Judges are equipped with data about their performance as well as resources and support that foster a culture of continuous professional improvement.
A call to action for states
The value of this comprehensive framework for modernizing JPE lies in its application. States and courts must take concrete action to translate these recommendations into tangible improvements. IAALS provides next steps in the report—and consulting on the ground—for embracing this call to action and implementing these recommendations, both for states with existing JPE programs and those without.
Next Steps for States with JPE Programs
- Review and share the recommendations
- Assess your program
- Define challenges and needs
- Identify a core team
- Engage stakeholders
- Create a vision and goals
- Develop tailored recommendations
- Take action
- Share and collaborate
Next Steps for States without JPE Programs
- Embrace the principles in the report
- Define clear performance metrics
- Invest in professional development for judges
- Foster open communication and transparency
- Engage with stakeholders
- Explore resources
Since its founding, IAALS has been at the forefront of efforts to improve and expand programs for evaluating the performance of state and federal court judges. We have earned a reputation as the “go to” group for research, recommendations, and practical assistance in the JPE field.
The Nebraska State Bar Association values its collaboration with IAALS. The evaluation’s purpose is two-fold: to provide each judge with a continuing assessment of their strengths and areas for improvement, thereby enhancing the overall quality of the judiciary; and to help the public better understand Nebraska’s merit system for the selection and retention of judges by providing information useful in making informed decisions about judges standing for retention. Together with IAALS, we modernized our judicial evaluation program to ensure it reflects best practices, strengthens accountability, and promotes transparency in Nebraska’s courts.
— Elizabeth Neeley
Executive Director, Nebraska State Bar Association
More about judicial performance evaluation
JPE programs advance several different important policy goals, including:
- Providing feedback and tools for judicial self-improvement
- Promoting public confidence in the judiciary
- Informing voters about judicial performance before elections
While JPE programs are state-specific, all adhere closely to the criteria that judges should be evaluated on the process of judging rather than specific case outcomes. More specifically, the criteria focus on qualities that anyone would demand of a good judge: excellent legal ability and legal knowledge, integrity and impartiality, strong communication skills, professional temperament, and high administrative capacity. IAALS’ research has highlighted a clear public consensus for this vision.
Despite their critical importance, JPE programs have suffered from waning enthusiasm in the past decade, with some critics expressing concern about the accuracy and validity of surveys and the lack of overall transparency in the process. Some critics outside the judiciary suggest that JPE programs fail to account for judicial discipline or judicial ideology. Additionally, changes in technology and society have altered the public’s perception of—and relationship with—today’s courts, and JPE programs must adapt. Even longstanding and well-regarded JPE programs need to update their approaches to remain accurate, trusted, and relevant.
JPE 2.0 represents an effort to address these issues, by thinking creatively about how to maintain the core goals of JPE while also being responsive to emerging best practices and legitimate concerns about antiquated techniques. With the assistance of a Task Force comprised of leaders of JPE programs around the country, IAALS identified the issues and problems to be addressed by the next generation of JPE, conducted comprehensive research with courts nationwide, and published new recommendations for modern JPE programs—creating an empirically based foundation for JPE 2.0.
Project Team
JPE 2.0 Task Force
The JPE 2.0 Task Force is comprised of knowledgeable, experienced judicial performance evaluation administrators and experts from across the United States. The Task Force meets regularly to discuss research on existing JPE programs, identify topics meriting further study and/or outreach, and plan the next steps for the broader discussion and implementation of ideas related to modernizing and improving JPE programs.
