|
Standard
1.4: Courtesy, Responsiveness, and Respect
Judges
and other trial court personnel are courteous and responsive to the public,
and accord respect to all with whom they come into contact.
Commentary .
The intent of Standard 1.4 is to make the
justice system more accommodating and less intimidating. A responsive court
ensures that judicial officers and other court employees are available to
meet both the routine and exceptional needs of those it serves. Requirements
of the standard are particularly important in the understanding shown and
assistance offered by court personnel to members of minority or
disadvantaged groups and to those unfamiliar with the trial court and its
procedures. In keeping with the public trust embodied in their positions,
judges and other court employees should reflect by their conduct the law’s
respect for the dignity and value of all individuals who come before, or
make inquiries of, the court. No court employee should by words or conduct
demonstrate bias or prejudice based on race, religion, ethnicity, gender,
sexual orientation, color, age, handicap, or political affiliation. These
requirements extend to the manner in which the employees of the court treat
each other.
Measurement
Overview. The
three measures for Standard 1.4 determine whether court personnel are
courteous, responsive and respectful to one another and to various members
of the public. Measure 1.4.1 uses survey data, Measure 1.4.3 relies on
observation data, and Measure 1.4.2 utilizes both methods.
The
survey for Measure 1.4.1 asks regular court users and court personnel about
their treatment by court personnel in general. The survey respondents for
this measure are from the same groups surveyed for Measure 1.2.3 and Measure
1.2.6: attorneys, probation officers, jurors, and court employees.
The
survey for Measure 1.4.2 is similar to that for Measure 1.4.1 but is
directed at observers who are unfamiliar with the court recruited to collect
data for one or more of the other measures. After collecting data for the
other measures, the observers are asked to complete a questionnaire that
summarizes their overall impressions of the courtesy and responsiveness of
court employees.
Measure
1.4.3 relies on observation data to determine the degree of courtesy and
respect shown to litigants during court proceedings. The measure requires
observers to watch several court proceedings and record information on
interactions among the various parties involved in the proceedings.
Because
each measure is directed at different groups of court users, all three
measures should be undertaken to obtain the best assessment of courtesy,
responsiveness and respect. Although Measures 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 use survey
data, they should not be considered interchangeable. Each measure has a
different focus and methodological advantage. Measure 1.4.1 surveys a
greater number of people and thus will yield more reliable quantitative
results. Because the number of respondents surveyed for Measure 1.4.2
depends on the number of observers collecting data for the court, the number
of respondents will be small for most courts. Given the small number of
respondents, Measure 1.4.2 offers court officials the opportunity of
collecting more indepth qualitative information (e.g., for clarifying
problems and obtaining suggestions for improvements) through followup
interviews with respondents.
Go
to Performance Area 1
Measure
1.4.1: Court Users’ Assessment of Court Personnel’s Courtesy and
Responsiveness
The
courtesy and responsiveness of court personnel is measured through a survey
of regular court users, including court employees, attorneys, probation
officers, and jurors.
Planning/Preparation.
Measures 1.2.3, Perceptions of Courthouse Security, and Measure 1.2.6,
Evaluation of Accessibility and Convenience by Court Users, also involve
surveying regular users of the court. If these measures are also being
conducted, the coordinators for the measures may find it efficient to
combine the three measures into a single survey instrument.
Review
Form 1.4.1–1.4.2, Questionnaire for
Courteous and Responsive Treatment. It addresses four aspects of
courteousness and responsiveness: (1) the courtesy of court employees, (2)
the availability of staff to answer questions, (3) the knowledge of court
staff, and (4) the willingness of court staff to explain court policies and
procedures to the public. The questionnaire also asks respondents to rate
the degree of respect with which judges treat the public.
Adapt
the survey form, as necessary, to local conditions and for each of the four
groups receiving the survey. For example, the questionnaire administered to
court employees should be modified to ask for employees’ perceptions of
the public’s treatment by judges and court staff. Also, as noted in
surveys for other measures (e.g., Measures 1.2.3 and 1.2.6), smaller
jurisdictions conducting this measure may want to eliminate some or all of
the demographic questions (the background section) included on the survey.
Responses to demographic questions could reveal the identity of individual
respondents in some categories (e.g., attorneys) if the number of
respondents is small. Thus, small courts need to weigh the benefits of
including this information to allow for more detailed analysis against the
possibility of a lowered response rate.
Data
Collection. The
questionnaire is administered following the same procedures described in the
data collection section of Measure 1.2.3.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
The percentage of each response for each question is calculated. The greater
the percentage of respondents rating the court a "1" or
"2" on questions 1 through 12 (courtesy of staff) and questions 14
and 16 (respectfulness of judges), the better the court is performing on
this measure.
The
percentages can also be compared across groups. For example, do jurors
(compared to other groups) rate court personnel as more courteous? If so,
court officials should talk with staff to determine if any of the other
groups present particular problems that need to be addressed.
Once
a court has conducted this measure, court officials should establish
benchmarks for "poor," "adequate," and "good"
ratings. For example, a "good" rating might mean that at least 98
percent of the respondents agree that they were treated politely, and an
"adequate" rating might mean that at least 75 percent of the
respondents agree that they were treated politely. The benchmarks may differ
for each item and group.
Go
to Form 1.4.1-1.4.2
Go
to top of page
Measure
1.4.2: Observers’ Assessment of Court Personnel’s Courtesy and
Responsiveness
As
noted in Measure 1.2.7, several measures in this document require
information to be collected by observers unfamiliar with the court. For this
measure, the observers are given a questionnaire regarding their treatment
by court personnel. The questionnaire is basically the same as that used
with Measure 1.4.1.
Planning/Preparation.
Review Form 1.4.1–1.4.2,
Questionnaire for Courteous and Responsive Treatment. Adapt the survey form,
as necessary, to local conditions and for individuals unfamiliar with the
court. Because the number of observers is small and because they will likely
return the questionnaire, the survey form may include more questions and ask
for more detailed information.
Data
Collection. The
questionnaire is administered following the same procedures described in the
data collection section of Measure 1.2.7. The observers should be reminded
that it is the behavior they encounter or observe during the simulations
that is to be rated, not that of court officials with whom they work during
the evaluation planning or debriefing process.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
The basic analyses are the same as those discussed for Measure 1.4.1. In
addition, the responses of the observers can be compared with those of the
"regular users" surveyed for Measure 1.4.1. How do the percentages
differ? For example, do regular users tend to rate court personnel as more
courteous than do the observers? If so, court officials may want to
interview several of the observers to determine why the observers rated
court personnel negatively. Based on the information from the observers,
court officials may develop training programs for court staff or plan a
series of meetings to discuss general problems when interacting with the
public.
Go
to Form 1.4.1-1.4.2
Go
to top of page
Measure
1.4.3: Treatment of Litigants in Court
This
measure determines the dignity with which litigants are treated in court
proceedings. Data are collected through observations of court proceedings.
Planning/Preparation.
A list of judges who will be hearing matters during the next week is
obtained. (The list should include court referees, commissioners, and court
ministerial personnel who perform quasi-judicial activities involving
face-to-face interaction with litigants such as child support screenings or
divorce mediation.) From this list, a sample of 20 judges is selected. If a
court has fewer than 20 judges, all of its judges are included in the
sample.
Courts
may choose to inform judicial officers that this observation will be
conducted within a given timeframe. During the observation itself, however,
the observer should avoid drawing attention to the fact that an observation
is being performed. Furthermore, observers should be recruited who will not
be readily identifiable by the judicial officers (e.g., an employee of
another court or of the State administrative office of the courts).
Each
judge is observed while hearing three brief matters likely to be attended by
litigants. Examples are arraignments, pleas, sentencings (criminal and
juvenile), juvenile dependency (abuse/neglect, status offenses), child
custody and support matters, and dissolution of marriage hearings.
Consideration also should be given to "quasi-judicial" proceedings
such as child support screening or divorce mediation. If such proceedings
are conducted privately (that is, not in open court), special arrangements
should be made for interviewing the litigants or arranging for observers to
attend as a "relative" of the party. Closed proceedings should not
be eliminated simply because observation and measurement pose special
problems.
Data
Collection. Using
Form 1.4.3, Recording Form for the
Treatment of Litigants in Court, information is recorded regarding the
degree of courtesy and individual respect shown to the litigants. The
information includes whether the judge looks at and establishes eye contact
with the litigants, whether the litigants are referred to by name, and
whether the judge is attentive to litigants’ and their attorneys’
questions.
The
observer also records general occurrences in the courtroom that undermine
the dignity and respect afforded litigants during proceedings. These
occurrences include the frequency with which the judge is interrupted or
distracted by other activities during the hearing, the frequency with which
the judge and court employees appear confused regarding the nature of the
case they are considering, and the frequency with which the judge,
attorneys, or other courtroom officials exhibit bias against the litigants.
Each
proceeding should be observed for at least 5 minutes and not more than 30
minutes. (During a busy calendar, it may be possible to observe three
litigant-attended hearings within 30 minutes.) Observers should note how
much time they spend observing each proceeding.
Data
Analysis and Report Preparation.
Percentages for each response are calculated for all cases. For example, in
what percentage of cases did judges establish eye contact with the litigants
and refer to the litigants by name? In what percentage of cases did
courtroom activities and conversations often interrupt hearings? The greater
the percentage of cases in which the judge treated the litigant with respect
(questions 7 through 10) and the fewer instances of disruptions and
insensitive activities by individuals in the courtroom (questions 11 through
13), the better the court is performing on this measure.
Court
officials can also review responses to individual questions to learn where
improvement may be needed the most. For example, if the analyses indicate
that judges generally treat litigants respectfully but that activities in
the courtrooms tend to disrupt the proceedings, court officials may decide
to focus on courtroom behavior. The importance of maintaining courtroom
decorum could be reinforced through policy, procedures, and/or training.
Court officials could also ask observers for their suggestions once the data
collection phase is concluded.
Go
to Form 1.4.3
Go
to top of page
Go
to Table of Contents |
