1 translating and implementing the common assessment

Translating & implementing the Common Assessment Framework (CAF) into the Judicial SystemCase study: Public Prosecution Office Innsbruck

Prof. Kurt Promberger (Eurac Research Bolzano & University of Innsbruck)Dr. Josef Bernhart (Eurac Research Bolzano)

CAF 2020 – Towards Public Administration Reform and European Integration 17.02.2021

Agenda• Public Prosecution Offices as judicial authorities

• CAF project: Public Prosecution Office Innsbruck

• Project organisation• Enabler criteria and result criteria• Self-assessment• Improvement projects

• Evaluation of the CAF project

• Conclusion and lessons learned

• Benchlearning: Public Prosecution Office Bolzano (Italy)

Scientific support of the CAF project:

• Department of Strategic Management, Marketing & Tourism - University of Innsbruck (Austria)

• Institute for Public Management - Eurac Research Bozen/Bolzano (Italy)

CAF 2020 – Towards Public Administration Reform and European Integration 317/02/2021

Austrian Judicial System

Court SystemProsecution System

20 Courts of Law

115 District Courts

4 Senior Public Prosecution Offices

16 Public Prosecution Offices

(simplified model)

…………….. ……………..

Innsbruck Graz Linz Vienna

Innsbruck Feldkirch ……………………………..

Innsbruck Graz Linz Vienna

4 Higher Regional Courts


Public Prosecution Offices (PPO’s)

• …… are part of the judiciary.

• …… are special bodies (= public authorities) separated from the courts.

• …… main tasks:

• securing the public interests in criminal justice cases.• raising or dismissing charges against persons. • raising and representing indictments in criminal proceedings.

• …… are - in contrast to the courts - not independent.

• …… have a hierarchical structure and are bound by instructions of Senior Public Prosecution Offices and ultimately of the Federal Minister of Justice.

Weberian style bureaucraciesPublic Prosecution Offices (PPO’s)


Federal Ministry of Justice(Vienna)

Public Prosecution Office Innsbruck

Public Prosecution Office Feldkirch

Senior Public Prosecution Office Innsbruck

CAF project:period 1: 2011 – 2014period 2: 2014 - 2017

CAF project:period: 2014 - 2016

CAF project:period: 2014 - 2016

starting point of the CAF experimentin the Austrian Judicial System!

CAF experiment in the Austrian Judicial System


The “Quality Assessment of the Public Prosecution Office Innsbruck according to the CAF (Common Assessment Framework)” project pursued the following objectives:

• Improvement of the PPO’s services by means of an assessment based on sectoral criteria and international experiences;

• Application of improvement measures where the need for action is a priority;

• Integration of different quality improvement initiatives into the organisation’s core business (Public Prosecution Office’s core processes);

• Facilitation of international benchmarking/-learning in the respective sector (justice) and exchange of experience between organisations within that sector.

CAF project PPO Innsbruck


PretrialInvestigations

MainTrail

AppealProceedings

PenalSystem

From the filing of a criminal complaint to an

arraignment or the closingof an investigation.

Representation of theprosecution during court

proceedings.

Processing of appeals orresponding to appeals.

Response to the partiesmotions and conditional

releases.

Map of the core processes


strategic apex

firstprosecutor

• regional prosecutors

• district prosecutors

leadprosecutor

publicprosecutors

clerical staff

self-assessment group

Public Prosecution Office Innsbruck

scientific support

CAF project organisation


Phase 1(2011)

Phase 2(2012)

Phase 3(2013)

Phase 4(2014 – 2017)

Project planStart-up workshop „get to know CAF“

Analysis of the enabler critera• interview – strategic apex• workshop – regional prosecutors• workshop – district prosecutors• workshop – clerical staff

Analysis of the results criteria• interview – strategic apex

1st self-assessment

• workshop – self-assessment group

Defining improvement plan

• workshop – self-assessment group

Implementing improvement projects

2nd self-assessment

Defining improvement plan

Implementing improvement projects

3rd self-assessment

CAF project timeline


enabler criteriasimplified classical PDCA-scoring scale

sub-criteria importance rating

Self-assessment approach


results criteria

strategicapex

results panel – simplified classical scoring

sub-criteria importance rating

self-assessmentgroup

Self-assessment approach


1st self-assessmentenabler criteria


Improvementprojects

Employeesuggestion

systemGuidance

manual forclerk officies

Guidancemanual for

districtprosecutors

Employeesatisfaction

surveyI + II

Stakeholder map

Knowledge management

Mappingof core

processes

Vision/Mission statement

Publicrelations

Customer satisfaction

clericaloffices

Improvementprojects


1st & 2nd self-assessmentenabler criteria


1st & 2nd & 3rd self-assessmentenabler criteria


1st & 2nd & 3rd self-assessmentresults criteria


Questionnaire

CAF project evaluation


The CAF project led to an increase in quality for…

0

2

4

6

8

10

I strongly agree I agree I disagree I do not know

...regional prosecutors

public prosecutors district prosecutors clerical staff

0

2

4

6

8


...district prosecutors


0

2

4

6

8

10


...clerical staff


0

2

4

6

8


...external stakeholders



• CAF framework is applicable to the judiciary but not without translation & external support;

• CAF model captures the essential features of a prosecution office;

• Enabler criteria are easier to analyse & to assess than the results criteria;

• Improvement projects need

• Commitment from the strategic apex;• Clear responsibilities;• Periodical monitoring.

• Benchmarking (national & international).

Conclusion & lessons learned


• Pilot project “re-organisation and optimisation”(ESF project);

• Quality-oriented administrative modernisation

• Service Charters;• QMS according to ISO 9001:2000;• Social report;• Information systems.

Benchlearning: Public Prosecution Office Bolzano (Italy)


• Strengths/weaknesses analysis;

• Holistic mapping/assessment (status quo);

• Integrative summary of the (previous) administrative modernisationand instruments;

• Benchmarking;

• Requirement for participation at the national quality prize for public administrations.

CAF at the Public Prosecution Office Bolzano (Italy)


Example: stakeholder map


Example: partnerships & resources

• Entering into strategic partnerships:

• European Social Fund (ESF);• Free University of Bozen/Bolzano;• Region Trentino-Südtirol;• Ministry of Justice (for specific projects).

• Involvement of (approx. 20 selected) citizens in the creation of the Service Charters, surveys of user satisfaction;

• Website, recycled paper, internal mail traffic; [email protected], corporate design, wiki/blog.

mailto:[email protected]


• Media contributions in German and Italian(local und national);

• Publications for the professional and general public;

• 34 information requests from other Court Offices in Italy;

• Information event in Rome with about 100 participants;

• Lecture in the Senate’s Judicial Commission;

• Distribution of 95,000 Service Charters (via the 116 municipalities and citizen information desks);

Promote best practice (1)


• ESF-funded national modernisation plan (based on the Public Prosecution Office Bolzano);

• Over 100 participating Court Offices across Italy;

• 19 participating regions + provinces of Bozen/Bolzano and Trento;

• Sectoral adaptation of the CAF model (CAF Justice) with pilot testing (8 participating Court Offices);

• Accompaniment and support in the modernisation process (by experts).

Promote best practice (2)


“The most important thing is,

that our project is carried

forward and that other Court

Offices can benefit from our

experience.”


Institute for Public ManagementEurac ResearchProf. Kurt Promberger/Dr. Josef BernhartDrususallee/Viale Druso 139100 Bozen/BolzanoT +39 0471 055 [email protected]

CONTACT US

1 translating and implementing the common assessment

Documents