Although a trial court may control its own fees more readily, it can reduce the overall cost of litigation by, for example, conducting telephone conferences in lieu of in-person conferences and by making it easier for citizens to handle uncontested matters (e.g., name changes, stepparent adoptions, or uncontested divorces) without legal representation. As a general rule, simple disputes should be resolved at low cost and by uncomplicated procedures. Procedural accessibility should be enhanced by clear, concise, and understandable language in instructing the parties, witnesses, and jurors about rights, responsibilities, necessary forms, hearings, and court facilities and resources.

Trial courts possess the record of their own public proceedings as well as important documents generated by others (e.g., police records and laboratory analyses of evidence). These records must be available to individuals who are authorized to receive them. Standard 1.5 requires that the court maintain a reasonable balance between its actual costs in providing documents or information and what it charges users.

Measurement Overview. Three measures are suggested for determining the affordability of court documents and proceedings. The measures use a variety of data collection methods, including observations, simulations, review of documents, interviews, and survey methods.

Measure 1.5.1 relies on a team of experts to document the court’s efforts in assuring affordable access. The experts gather information about the court’s efforts through observations, review of documents, and interviews.

Measure 1.5.2 gathers information on the ease of access to legal services for financially disadvantaged individuals. Data collectors simulate attempts by individuals with low incomes to obtain affordable legal assistance for routine legal problems.

Measure 1.5.3 examines the relationship between the demand for legal services and the actual delivery of legal services. This measure is conducted in conjunction with Measure 5.1.3, General Public’s Perceptions of Court Performance. Information on the reasons individuals do not access the court is gathered through a survey questionnaire.

This measure examines activities the court engages in to facilitate affordable access to the judicial system. A team of practitioners who work for and with the court collect information on these activities. The measure utilizes a variety of data collection methods including observation, review of documents, and interviews.

Planning/Preparation. A team of three individuals should be selected to collect the data. (Although a team is not essential to the measurement approach, a team of individuals has the advantage of ensuring that a variety of perspectives and attitudes are taken into consideration during the evaluation.) An excellent team would include a practicing attorney, preferably with a legal services orientation, a court official, and a member of a community social service agency, all of whom are aware of the routine legal needs of financially disadvantaged individuals.

Review Form 1.5.1, A Checklist of Court Activities To Promote Affordable Access to Justice. It asks for information on court policies, informational brochures, legal services, and activities that help ensure affordable access to the justice system. The form may be modified to increase its relevancy for local jurisdictions.

Data Collection. The data are gathered by observations, document reviews, and interviews. Data collectors should keep a record of where or from whom they obtained information for each item on the data collection form. They should also obtain samples of brochures, forms, instructional packages, and so forth that they used in completing Form 1.5.1.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. The data are analyzed in two steps. First, each member of the data collection team summarizes the results of his or her individual data collection effort by summing the number of "yes" responses for Parts I, II, III, and V. The score for Part IV is obtained by summing the number of points across all five categories for each type of legal proceeding. (The highest possible score is 90 points: 2 points for each of the five categories for each of the nine legal proceedings.)

During the second step, the members of the team meet to discuss their individual findings, consider the court’s performance on the measure, and, if necessary, craft an action plan for improving performance. The team begins its discussion by comparing individual scores on the checklist. What patterns emerge? Does the court perform better in some areas than in others? Is there general agreement among the team members, or are some areas more problematic for one or two team members? Team members should consult their data collection notes (i.e., where and from whom information was obtained) to determine the reasons for different evaluations. Finally, they should consider what can be done to alleviate identified problems.

Following the discussion, the team should prepare a report for court officials that details areas in which the court is performing well and areas in which problems exist. For example, is the court strong in providing basic information on affordable access but weak on engaging in activities that ensure affordability? Does the court have policies and procedures regarding affordable access to justice? If so, are these policies and procedures followed? The report should also outline the team’s suggestions for improving particular areas and for making the court’s assistance in this area more visible to those who might need it.

This measure simulates attempts by indigent and low-income persons with routine legal problems to obtain affordable legal assistance. The data are collected by individuals who have not previously obtained legal assistance. The measure complements Measure 1.5.1, Inventory of Assistance Alternatives for the Financially Disadvantaged, and also provides information related to Standard 1.3, Effective Participation, and Standard 1.2, Safety, Accessibility, and Convenience.

Planning/Preparation. At least six scenarios of circumstances in which individuals with a limited income attempt to obtain legal assistance should be developed. The scenarios should be developed in consultation with professionals (e.g., attorneys) who routinely work with financially disadvantaged individuals. The scenarios should be based on legal problems commonly faced by individuals with a limited income.

Each scenario should include the name of the individual seeking help; his or her address and telephone number; demographic information such as race, gender, and income; personal information such as marital status and number of children; and the hypothetical reason for seeking legal help. As much as possible, each scenario should represent typical cases of low-income individuals in the community. The scenarios should also represent individuals from different geographic areas of the community, including rural areas if appropriate.

Officials of agencies not connected with the court should be notified beforehand of the purpose and nature of the simulations. Notification should take place at least 15 days before the simulations are conducted. If any agency objects to the simulation, court officials should request a meeting to determine if the measure could be modified to alleviate the agency’s objections. If modification is not possible, the agency should be excluded from the simulation exercise.

Data Collection. The simulations should be spaced across several days and conducted at different times of the day to reduce the risk of detection by personnel from the court or other legal/social services agencies. If possible, the simulations should be conducted by different individuals. Those conducting the simulations should memorize the individual scenarios and should dress and behave in a manner consistent with each scenario.

Three simulations are conducted by telephone, and three are conducted in person. For each, the data collector should complete Form 1.5.2, Access to Affordable Civil Legal Assistance. The form is divided into two sections: telephone simulations and inperson simulations.

Data collectors (those conducting the simulations) should not be given specific directions for obtaining information on legal assistance. Each data collector is given a scenario and the name of the court and is asked to obtain information on legal assistance for the person in the scenario. For telephone simulations, the data collector begins by obtaining a phone number for the court. The data collector calls the court and requests information for obtaining legal assistance for the reason stated in the scenario. The data collector records information on each person with whom he or she speaks until the data collector has obtained the relevant information for accessing legal help (e.g., the kind of help available, how much it will cost, and the procedure for accessing the help).

For simulations conducted in person, the data collector begins by trying to obtain public transportation (e.g., bus, subway, taxi) from the neighborhood noted in the scenario to the court. If public transportation is not available, the data collector should note that fact on the data collection form and drive to the court in a private car. The remainder of the simulation is identical to the telephone simulation, except that the data collector actually visits the offices or agencies to which he or she is referred. The simulation ends when the data collector understands the procedures for obtaining legal assistance. The data collector does not need to actually obtain the legal assistance.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. A report with basic statistical information should be prepared covering topics such as the number of referrals necessary for obtaining the information in each scenario and the length of time required to obtain the information for each scenario (sum the number of minutes required to find each phone number or office and the number of minutes spent during each conversation). A content analysis of responses to questions in Parts 1C and 2C should also be performed. For example, what types of problems are mentioned most frequently as obstacles in trying to obtain information on legal assistance?

This measure determines the degree to which access to court services is hindered due to the cost or complexity of procedures. The measure provides information on the latent demand for court services, i.e., the number of people who have a need for court services but, for a variety of reasons, do not access such services. Data are collected in conjunction with the telephone survey in Measure 5.1.3, General Public’s Perceptions of Court Performance.

Planning/Preparation. Review Form 5.1.3 regarding the general public’s perceptions of court performance. Items 19 through 21 were added to the survey to obtain data for Measure 1.5.3. The items ask respondents (1) whether they have ever wanted to go to court but did not, (2) what type of case they had, and (3) what prevented them from going to court. In addition, the first two questions on the survey form inquire about respondents’ previous experience with the court. These items should be reviewed and modified as necessary to incorporate terminology used by the local jurisdiction.

Data Collection. The data are collected as part of the telephone survey for Measure 5.1.3. Review the description of that measure for details on the procedure.

Data Analysis and Report Preparation. The data are analyzed as set forth in the description of Measure 5.1.3. The contractor conducting the telephone survey will provide the percentages of each response for each question. The higher the number of individuals who wanted to access the court but did not, the poorer the court is performing on this measure. What types of cases are most often not pursued and what reasons are most often given for not pursuing a court case? Do the responses vary for those who have had prior experience with courts and those who have not?