Several constituencies are served by trial courts, and all should have trust and confidence in the courts. These constituencies vary by the type and extent of their contact with the courts. At the most general level is the local community, or the "general public"—the vast majority of citizens and taxpayers who seldom experience the courts directly. A second constituency served by trial courts is a community’s opinion leaders (e.g., the local newspaper editor, reporters assigned to cover the court, the police chief, local and State executives and legislators, representatives of government organizations with power or influence over the courts, researchers, and members of court watch committees). A third constituency includes citizens who appear before the court as attorneys, litigants, jurors, or witnesses, or who attend proceedings as a representative, a family friend, or a victim of someone before the court. This group has direct knowledge of the routine activities of a court. The last constituency consists of judicial officers, other employees of the court system, and lawyers—both within and outside the jurisdiction of the trial court—who may have an "inside" perspective on how well the court is performing. The trust and confidence of all these constituencies are essential to trial courts.

Overview of Standards. The central question posed by the three standards in this final area is whether trial court performance—in accordance with standards in the areas of Access to Justice; Expedition and Timeliness; Equality, Fairness, and Integrity; and Independence and Accountability—actually instills public trust and confidence. Standard 5.1 requires that the trial court be perceived by the public as accessible. Standard 5.2 requires that the public believe that the trial court conducts its business in a timely, fair, and equitable manner and that its procedures and decisions have integrity. Finally, Standard 5.3 requires that the trial court be seen as independent and distinct from other branches of government at the State and local levels and that the court be seen as accountable for its public resources.

Ideally, a court that meets or exceeds these performance standards is recognized by the public as doing so. In fulfilling its fundamental goal of resolving disputes justly, expeditiously, and economically, the court will not always be on one side of public opinion. Nevertheless, where performance is good and communications are effective, public trust and confidence are likely to be bolstered. When public perception is distorted and understanding unclear, good performance may need to be buttressed with educational programs and more effective public information. In addition, because in some instances a court may be viewed as better than it actually is, it is important for courts to rely on objective data and public perceptions in assessing court performance.

Overview of Measures. Performance with regard to public trust and confidence is dependent, in large part, on the court’s performance in the other four performance areas. Thus, several of the measures in the other areas that rely on informed opinions (i.e., opinions of individuals who have had contact with the court for various reasons) are appropriate for this performance area as well. Relevant measures are listed under each standard for this area.

This performance area includes three measures that address Standards 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. These measures are presented under Standard 5.1 and are referred to in the overviews of the other two standards. The measures include 5.1.1, Court Employees’ Perceptions of Court Performance, 5.1.2, Justice System Representatives’ Perceptions of Court Performance, and 5.1.3, General Public’s Perceptions of Court Performance. The first measure is conducted through a mailed survey to court employees, the second through a modified focus group with representatives of the various components of the justice system, and the third via a telephone survey of the general public.

Measures 5.1 and 5.2 provide the court with the most useful information for developing an action plan for improving performance in the area. The third measure provides a benchmark of the public’s perception of overall performance. The benchmark will serve as a gauge for comparing the results of future surveys of public perception. However, because the general public has little firsthand information about trial courts, the results of the measure provide only limited help in developing an action plan for improvement.

A court undertaking measures in this area may find it helpful to work with professionals skilled in research design (e.g., a marketing research group or professors of research methodology). This is particularly true for the survey of the general public. The methodologist could also help court officials weigh the benefits and costs of conducting the measures and discuss alternatives that address more specific needs of the court and its community. For example, if the court is particularly concerned with the perceptions of the media, it may prefer to focus its attention and resources on that public. A small town hall meeting with members of the media to obtain their perceptions of court performance may be a better approach for gauging public trust and confidence for this court. Similarly, a court might determine, based on the results of measures in other areas, that a followup study of the perceptions of attorneys or jurors may be warranted. In that case, the court, with the help of the research methodologist, might modify the survey or focus group measures to better address the population of interest. The court also could explore other options (e.g., interviews) for obtaining specific information of interest.