This measure is designed to assess the promptness with which information is provided to members of the public. The measure involves the use of role players who request various types of information from the court. It is recommended that the court use members of the public (not court employees or attorneys), although the measure could be expanded to include role playing by "courthouse regulars." A comparison of reports from role-playing citizens and court employees would be very useful.

Planning/Preparation. First, court staff identify the types of information to be sought in the simulations. Examples of the types of information that might be included are the location where a specific case is being heard, a request to see a specific case file when only the name of one party is known, a request to have certain documents copied from the case file, and a request to know the status of a particular case (the last/next activity scheduled for the case). It should also be determined, through interviews with the court manager, whether the court has a local policy or procedure that addresses the manner or time within which information requests should be handled when made on a walk-in or phone-in basis in any court office. For each type of information requested by a role player, the performance standard evaluators (research directors) should know in advance approximately how many minutes it should take to provide the requested information.

Second, citizens unfamiliar to the judges and court staff are recruited to be role players who request information in several offices in the courthouse. Court staff should keep in mind that this exercise measures the timeliness and accuracy of information provided in response to a request from a member of the general public, not a special response to a courthouse "regular" or to an outside "evaluator." Provide the citizen role players with a set of questions to ask or items to request, together with any background information needed to allow the simulation to be credible (e.g., if requesting information on the next scheduled event in a criminal case, the citizen should know the defendant’s name and the charges involved). The role player should not read the question when doing the simulation but rather "play the part."

An effort should be made to recruit different types of people. Courts that have tested this measure have reported difficulty in recruiting a variety of types of volunteers. Retired people are good candidates. However, it would be best to have volunteers of different ages, racial groups, and gender.

A person’s demeanor might also influence the nature and timeliness of the service provided by court staff. It is unrealistic, however, for most courts to systematically examine the influence of age, race, gender, and demeanor on the provision of services. Including demeanor as a factor could seriously complicate the analysis. The minimum expectation in each court should be that citizens of any age, race or ethnic group, or gender asking politely for information should be treated courteously and have questions answered in a timely manner. It is therefore recommended that this measure focus primarily on role players who act politely when requesting information. After each office to be examined has been checked through a sufficient number of observations by courteous role players, the evaluators might decide to have the role players request similar information from the same offices, but to do so in a rude, impatient manner.

Although not described in the following section, an alternative technique for measuring how promptly (and courteously) court or clerk’s office staff provide information is the use of an exit survey. A brief questionnaire (one page or less) is constructed and given to citizens who ask for information or assistance after they complete their business in the various court or clerk’s offices. This questionnaire is an easy-to-administer and cost-effective alternative which could be conducted periodically to check on staff performance in this area. However, exit surveys do not allow the court to measure the accuracy of the information provided by court or clerk’s office staff. Moreover, people who are unhappy about the information they receive or about the way they are treated may be more likely to fill out a questionnaire (as a means of registering their complaint) than are people who are satisfied with the service and information they receive.

Data Collection. Ideally, each office included in the study should receive at least 30 requests for information from role players. Give the volunteer role player a data collection sheet, such as Form 2.2.3, Information Request Data Collection Form, on which to record the time required for the court staff to provide the information sought. Entries on the data sheet should be made after leaving the office in which the request is made. If the requester is referred from one office to another, the referral process and time involved should be recorded in the special notes section of the data sheet. The simulations should be conducted several times during the day or on several days during the week to account for normal differences in work flow.

On the data collection form, the volunteer role player should record the type of information requested, the office in which the request was made, the number of minutes required to obtain a response, and any notes or comments about the nature of the response or interaction with the information provider. It is recommended that the role player rate the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. In addition, this exercise provides an opportunity to collect information relevant to Standard 1.4, Courtesy, Responsiveness, and Respect, and the role player should also rate the courteousness of the information provider.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. Compare the results of the simulated requests to the court’s stated policy or procedure for responding to requests or the predetermined amount of time that it should have taken to provide the information. The lower the proportion of requests that exceed the prescribed time limits, the better the court’s performance. If no policy or procedure prescribing time standards exists, review the results with a committee of court staff members and discuss their views as to the acceptability of the documented level of performance. Evaluators should also examine ratings on the completeness and accuracy of the information provided to the role players. The court should expect to receive a high percentage of "very good" ratings for completeness and accuracy; no ratings should be received that are "unacceptable." The court should also expect a high percentage of "very good" ratings for courtesy.

The performance of courts on this measure can be compared with the responses to appropriate sections of the questionnaire used in Measure 1.2.6, Evaluation of Accessibility and Convenience by Court Users. Staff discussion should focus on understanding the consistencies and inconsistencies between the responses to the two measures.