Measurement Overview. Measurement of performance for Standard 1.2 addresses three components: safety, accessibility, and convenience. The seven measures for Standard 1.2 utilize a variety of methods, including: (1) a formal audit of courthouse security measures carried out by an expert, (2) simulations by law enforcement personnel evaluating courthouse security, (3) facts and opinions collected from observers who role-play the occasional courthouse visitor, and (4) surveys of regular users of the courthouse and court employees.

Courthouse security is defined as "the feeling of safety combined with the measures taken to provide that feeling of safety—against personal injury, property damage, and the loss of records housed in the courthouse."⁷ Four measures examine both of these aspects of courthouse security. Measure 1.2.1 examines the physical security of the courthouse with a formal audit of security measures. Measure 1.2.2 requires that trained law enforcement officers conduct a test of courthouse security by observing and trying to breach the court’s security measures. Measure 1.2.3 uses a survey to assess the general sense of safety perceived by regular users of the court. Measure 1.2.4 examines the training courthouse employees have received in responding to emergency situations.

Accessibility and convenience are addressed together in Measures 1.2.5, 1.2.6, and 1.2.7, reflecting the close connection between the concepts. Measure 1.2.5, relating to access to information by telephone, and Measure 1.2.7, relating to accessibility and convenience of court facilities, rely on observers who simulate business transactions in the court. Measure 1.2.6 uses a survey method to obtain opinions of regular users of the courthouse about accessibility and convenience.

"The general goal of a comprehensive court security policy should be to establish appropriate protection for court staff and facilities, the general public, and the judicial process as a whole."⁸ Measure 1.2.1 considers the court’s performance in taking precautions to reduce or eliminate threats to the public’s safety in the courthouse. This measure addresses "the degree to which design features of the court provide a secure setting," mentioned in the commentary for Standard 1.2.

Planning/Preparation. An expert in court security features should be retained to help conduct the security audit. The National Sheriffs’ Association can help identify available consultants. In some jurisdictions, appropriate expertise may be available from the local sheriff’s department or the U.S. Marshals Service.

The security consultant and security officers from the court should be provided Form 1.2.1, National Sheriffs’ Association Physical Security Checklist, as a resource for drafting an audit to fit the court’s building(s) and grounds. For example, some audit items will vary depending on whether the court is located within a multipurpose government building or has its own facility. While developing the checklist, the consultant and officers also should consider what would constitute a positive response for each question. That is, in some cases, a "no" response on the National Sheriffs’ Association Checklist may be positive (see, for example, question 10 under "Parking Areas.") Data analysis will be simpler if responses are consistent across items, i.e., all "yes" responses are positive. (See the section below on data analysis and report preparation.)

Data Collection. The security consultant conducts an in-person security audit, using the modified security checklist described earlier. The court’s security officers should assist the consultant in obtaining any information he or she needs in order to conduct the audit.

This measure determines the adequacy of the court’s security in protecting both the public and confidential court records. The measure should be conducted as a follow-up to Measure 1.2.1. Data are gathered by law enforcement experts through simulation exercises. The measure requires the cooperation of local law enforcement officials.

Planning/Preparation. Local law enforcement officials should be contacted and asked to help court officials conduct a security audit of the courthouse. Law enforcement officials should be informed that the security audit will involve simulations in which one or two officers, dressed in plain clothes, will attempt to breach the court’s security system. The officers who conduct the simulations should not be well known to court personnel. Court staff, in consultation with the security expert retained for Measure 1.2.1, should develop simulations to target security areas in which potential weaknesses (e.g., safety of parking areas, ease of gaining access to confidential files, or access to courtrooms and chambers during and after normal business hours) were identified during the security audit conducted for Measure 1.2.1. On a cautionary note, simulations should not be developed that place individuals in potentially dangerous situations (e.g., simulations that involve carrying a concealed weapon).

Data Collection. The officers should visit the courthouse in plain clothes. Only the court manager and judge should be aware of the officers’ presence in the courthouse. The officers should "wander" through the courthouse conducting the simulations developed by court staff and note any security problems encountered.

If, after conducting the simulation exercise, the officers have any questions or need additional information on specific aspects of court security, they should conduct follow-up interviews with relevant court personnel. Court officials should ensure that the officers are introduced to the appropriate staff and should encourage staff to answer the officers’ questions as accurately and thoroughly as possible.

The extent to which the courthouse is perceived as a safe environment is measured through the administration of a questionnaire to regular users of the court (e.g., court employees, attorneys, probation officers, and jurors). The measure requires the assistance of someone skilled in survey research methods.

Planning/Preparation. Measure 1.2.6, Evaluation of Accessibility and Convenience by Court Users, and Measure 1.4.1, Court Users’ Assessment of Court Personnel’s Courtesy and Responsiveness, also involve surveying regular users of the court. If these measures are being applied in the court, coordinators for these measures may find it efficient to combine the three measures into a single survey instrument.

The first step in applying the measure is to review Form 1.2.3, Survey on Courthouse Security. The survey form consists of three sections. The first section seeks to gauge the respondents’ sense of threat to their person and property while visiting the courthouse. The second section asks about actual victimizations experienced in the courthouse. The third section seeks general background information such as gender, age, and relationship to the court. The questions are adapted from the National Crime Survey—Attitude Questionnaire and the National Crime Survey—Basic Screening Questionnaire.⁹ The survey form can be used as is or modified to better fit the specific characteristics of the court. For example, smaller jurisdictions conducting this measure may want to eliminate some or all of the background information questions included in the third section of the survey. Small jurisdictions may have fewer respondents and thus responses to demographic questions could essentially reveal the identity of individual respondents. Courts in this situation will have to weigh the benefits of including the demographic information to allow for more detailed analysis against a possible low response rate because anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

Data Collection. The survey form is administered to four groups of individuals who use the court on a regular basis: court employees, attorneys, probation officers,¹⁰ and jurors. To ensure that each group is represented in the sample of survey recipients, stratified sampling should be used. A sample of at least 80 individuals¹¹ should be drawn for a total sample of 320 individuals.¹²

Court employees should be selected from a list of employees maintained by the court’s personnel office. Probation officers should be selected from personnel lists maintained by the probation department. Attorneys should be selected according to the procedure described in Measure 3.3.1. A list of individuals who served as jurors for the court during the previous 18 months should be prepared and used for obtaining the juror sample.

A questionnaire is sent to each person in all four groups. For best results, a stamped envelope with the administrator’s name and address on it should be included with each questionnaire. As a means to track which surveys have been returned while still preserving the confidentiality of the respondents, each questionnaire should be accompanied by an index card with a code number that corresponds to a master list of the survey recipients. The code number should not be included on the questionnaire itself. Recipients should be instructed to return the card with their completed survey or, if they prefer, in a separate envelope. They should also be informed that the code-numbered cards will not be used for identification of the surveys, but only to determine which surveys are still outstanding and thus require a "reminder" note. The card should be destroyed once the return of the survey is recorded on the master list. To increase the response rate, those who have not returned their surveys should be sent a reminder notice after 10 days.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. The responses for each item of the questionnaire are associated with a number code. For example, "male" is coded as 1 and "female" is coded as 2. The responses for each questionnaire are recorded using these number codes. These codes subsequently are entered into a computer file and tabulated using a statistical software program.

In general, court performance depends on two factors: the number of courthouse areas rated safe by a majority of respondents and the number of crime incidents reported by respondents. As perceived safety increases and reported crime decreases, court performance on this measure improves.

Two sets of analyses are conducted. The first set examines the frequency (or percentage) of responses for each category of each item. For example, an analysis of question 1 will indicate the number of survey respondents who thought crime in the courthouse had increased, the number who thought crime had decreased, and the number who thought crime had remained about the same. If the majority of respondents thought that crime had increased in the courthouse, then the court is not performing well on this measure.

The second set of analyses compares the responses on one item with the responses on other items through the use of a cross-tabulation procedure and the gamma coefficient. These analyses will help explain some of the percentages derived from the first set of analyses. For example, of those respondents who thought that crime had increased, how many had actually been victimized in the courthouse? (See Part II of the survey form.) The result of this analysis will clarify whether a response of "increased crime" is based on actual incidents of crime.

When emergencies arise that threaten the safety of courthouse users, court employees must be knowledgeable about and prepared for correct responses. Their actions and decisions will have consequences for their safety, the safety of others, and the integrity of court records. This measure uses interviews to determine the extent to which court employees are familiar with emergency procedures.

Planning/Preparation. The first step in applying the measure is to compile a list of employees. From this list, a sample of employees will be drawn to serve as interviewees. At least 15 supervisors or managers and 15 employees should be randomly selected.¹³

Form 1.2.4, Interview Protocol on Emergency Procedures, should be reviewed and modified (e.g., change terminology, add specific questions, or modify particular questions) as necessary to better address local jurisdictional settings. For instance, questions referring to weather emergencies (see questions 3 and 14) could be specified to include those weather situations likely to occur in the locale (e.g., a flood or a blizzard). In addition, more questions may be added regarding power outages if they are a particular problem in the jurisdiction. Power outages may occur more often than some of the other emergency situations and may be particularly problematic given the widespread use of technology in both facility operations and court communications. Thus, it may be particularly important for employees to be aware of how to respond to them.

Next, court procedures for responding to each emergency situation should be reviewed. If a court does not have written procedures regarding a particular emergency, questions about that emergency should be eliminated from the protocol.

Before the interviews are conducted, each interviewer should be given an orientation to the court’s security procedures. The data collection phase will be shorter if several individuals are available to conduct the interviews. However, care should be taken to ensure that interview responses are scored consistently across interviewers. One method for doing this is to have each interviewer complete an interview protocol for two or three "practice" interviews and then to compare the interviewers’ protocols. If discrepancies exist, the instructions for the interview protocol should be modified to increase consistency among the raters.

Data Collection. The interviews should be conducted in person with approximately 15 minutes allocated for each interview. The date and time of each interview should be recorded as part of the data for the measure. (Results of earlier interviews can be compared with results of later interviews. If employees interviewed at a later date have a higher level of familiarity with security measures than employees interviewed earlier, it is likely that the measurement process has prompted employees to become more informed.)

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. If the court discovers during the planning/preparation stage that no written procedures exist regarding a certain type of emergency situation, the identified area requires immediate attention. For emergency situations that have written procedures, data analysis proceeds with an examination of the interview information.

The interviews gather information on three topics: (1) the training provided to court personnel about security procedures, (2) the effectiveness of the training, and (3) the extent to which employees believe that improved security measures are needed.

Summary statistics are used to analyze the results for each question in Part I and Part II. A benchmark of acceptable court performance is that 75 percent or more of all employees recall being briefed on emergency procedures. Court performance improves as the length of time since employees’ last briefing decreases. In addition, 75 percent of employees should know what emergency procedures are in place.

This measure involves simulating a request by a litigant or other interested person for information about the location and time of a court proceeding. A volunteer observer attempts to obtain information about the specific time and location of a court proceeding as well as the type of proceeding it is and its case number. The observer knows only the formal name of the court, the name of the litigant, and the day on which the proceeding in question is scheduled. He or she is not knowledgeable about routine court operations.

Planning/Preparation. Five proceedings from the court events sampled for Measure 1.1.1, Access to Open Hearings, are selected and the name of the parties, date, time, and location (i.e., courthouse, floor, and courtroom) of the scheduled events are recorded. If Measure 1.1.1 has not been conducted, five scheduled court events will have to be selected from the court’s calendar.

A stopwatch or watch with a second hand will be needed during the data collection phase.

Data Collection. The first step is for the observer to attempt to find the court’s general telephone number from the local telephone directory using the court’s official name (see Form 1.2.5, Access to Information by Telephone—Directions and Recording Sheet). If the number is not readily obtained from the local directory, the observer contacts the local directory information service. The observer notes the availability and difficulty of obtaining the court’s telephone number and records the number(s) obtained on the data collection form.

Using the telephone number obtained from the directory or directory assistance, the observer calls the court to obtain the time and location of each of the five events. To improve the simulation, the telephone contacts with the court should be distributed so that the frequency of the calls will not be noteworthy. Court officials should establish this distribution. For each event, the observer notes the elapsed time before the requested information is provided, using a standard stopwatch, and notes the number of individuals with whom he or she comes into contact. This information is recorded on Form 1.2.5. If the required information cannot be obtained within 1 hour (or if it cannot be obtained at all), the observer records a maximum of 60 minutes and six contacts for each event for purposes of the aggregate summary. He or she also makes notes as appropriate.

The ease and convenience of conducting business with the court is measured through a survey of regular court users (i.e., court employees, attorneys, probation officers, and jurors).

Planning/Preparation. Measure 1.2.3, Perceptions of Courthouse Security, and Measure 1.4.1, Court Users’ Assessment of Court Personnel’s Courtesy and Responsiveness, also involve surveying regular users of the court. If these measures are also being conducted, the coordinators for these measures may find it efficient to combine the three measures into a single survey instrument.

Review Form 1.2.6–1.2.7, Accessibility and Convenience of the Court. The survey form covers three subjects related to ease of conducting business: (1) convenience and cost of access to the building itself, (2) signs and other help for finding the right location or service in the building, and (3) the amenities that are available to those who are in the courthouse on business. The questionnaire should be adapted, as necessary, to local conditions and for each of the four groups. For instance, smaller jurisdictions conducting this measure may want to pay particular attention to the demographic questions included on the survey (Part IV, Background). In small jurisdictions responses to demographic questions might reveal the identity of individual respondents. If this is a potential problem, the court may find it best to eliminate some or all of the demographic questions.

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 number and percentage of each response for each question is calculated. The percentages can then be compared across groups. For example, do jurors report more difficulty in getting to or conducting their business in the courthouse? If so, court officials should investigate methods for improving juror access to the court and its facilities. Specific problem areas may be examined and analyzed on a situation-by-situation basis.

Several measures in this document require information to be collected by volunteers who are unfamiliar with court facilities and procedures. For this measure, volunteers are given a survey questionnaire on the ease of conducting business with the court at the end of their first observation day in the courthouse. The survey questionnaire is basically the same as that used in Measure 1.2.6.

Planning/Preparation. The questionnaire used for Measure 1.2.6 (Form 1.2.6–1.2.7, Accessibility and Convenience of the Court) should be reviewed and modified, as necessary, for the volunteer observers group.

Data Collection. The observers are given a questionnaire at the conclusion of their first day of simulated business in the courthouse. They are asked to return it when they make their next observation for one of the measures. This procedure should apply to all observers who visit the courthouse during the evaluation process (not just those collecting data for measures in the Access to Justice performance area of the survey).