Experiences in Courthouses

Sponsor: Trial Court Office of Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (ODEIE)
Team: Five students and a professor from Bentley University
Year: 2019

Problem Statement

In 2017, the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) found that only fifty-two percent of those surveyed believe that state courts provide good customer service. In conjunction with the Trial Court Office’s (ODEIE) efforts to improve people’s experience, we conducted a qualitative study to gather a broad perspective of people’s experiences as they entered the courthouse and conducted their businesses.

Methodology

Over two months, the Bentley team of six gathered data from at least 45 people and spent at least 120 cumulative hours at eight different courthouses (two counties) in Eastern Massachusetts. Of these eight locations, most of the data were collected at the Edward W. Brooke Court and the Dorchester District Court, where the team followed litigants throughout their visit. During the visits to these courthouses, the court personnel supported and made arrangements to make the visits successful.

Process

• Planning: This included drafting a researchers’ guide for observation and interviews so that we could follow similar processes to gather observations as a team.
• Initial observations: At six courthouses, the team attended a call of the list in the courtroom, several mediation sessions and some afternoon trial hearings.
• Participant recruitment: A table was set up near the courthouse entrance to recruit participants. More often than not, the litigants themselves would first come to the researcher’s table to ask for directions. Sometimes, the litigants would show us their summon letters and ask where they should go.
• Shadowing: Unlike common user-shadowing methods where researchers keep a distance from the participants to avoid disrupting their routines, we stayed close and asked the participants questions from our pre-drafted observation and interview guide. As there was usually plenty of waiting time, we used this time to learn more about the litigant’s situation, thoughts, and feelings.
• Transcription and coding: After collecting data, the team organized the information into themes, allowing them to make recommendations. In this process, handwritten notes were transcribed and ‘coded’. Many of the findings fell into multiple themes.
• Organizing data: The themes were iteratively organized and prioritized before they were presented together with recommendations.
• Presentation

Findings & Recommendations

Detailed findings and recommendations can be found in the downloadable report. Here are some highlights.

Firstly, it is important to note that most of the participants were in the courthouse facing issues like potential eviction, divorce, and child custody issues. Some of them had to take time off work to come to the courthouse without knowing how long they would need to stay there. According to conversations with them, they often already arrived with some degree of anxiety, stress, and other negative feelings. 

Wayfinding

Upon entering the courthouses, court users sought out signs for guidance and support but were often unsuccessful in finding their way. Some litigants were delayed because of wayfinding problems. An example was a woman in her late 40s trying to get child support for her two children. When she walked into the Worcester courthouse, she was confused about where to go and what to do. She asked one of the security guards, and he told her to go to the second floor to the Probate and Family Court. She didn’t know which side to go into when she entered the room on the second floor. She said, “It was a very large room. I went to the wrong side and waited in the wrong line for about 10 minutes.” 

The words “COURTROOM 12” are not visible from a distance due to low contrast with its background.

Edward Brooke Courthouse, Boston: The court users missed the signboard to the right of the screens due to a lack of color contrast and location.

In Edward W. Brooke Court, some specific problems related to signage existed. Some were difficult to see because the colors merged with the background. They did not have enough contrast to be visible. We also observed confusion regarding signs with arrows. For example, a 65-year-old man could not tell if an upward-pointing arrow meant to go straight ahead, slightly left, or slightly right.

Recommendations

• Placement of signs: Signs should be placed in locations where major decisions must be made. For example, signs/maps could be placed directly after the security clearance.
• Provide maps: Paper-based or large-scale poster maps should be placed near the courthouse entrance, enabling litigants to determine where they are going and how to get there.
• Characteristics of useful signs: 
  • • • Numbering: The courtrooms should be numbered based on the floor number. For instance, a courtroom on the 4th floor should be numbered 41, 42, 43. This would help users to find the courtrooms more easily. Following a logical numbering system would help the user to orient themselves.
      • Fonts and icons: The signboards should use large fonts and icons. Icons, graphics, and visuals can make communication easier, especially for non-English speakers. Font sizes should be large enough for visibility even from a distance.
      • Wording: Words should be consistent and use simple, easy-to-understand language.
      • Color: Instead of having one color for every office in the court, the signboards can be colored to differentiate offices or services. This would allow court users to locate the right signs easily. We recommend that the signage be in strong contrast with the background.
      • Large signs and visible room numbers. (Source: Fastsigns.com)

        A hospital signboard uses colors and iconography for non-English Speakers and children.
      • Human assistance: Having court personnel or a volunteer at the court entrance, especially during peak hours, may improve the experience of court users. This will help them save time and give them the confidence to handle their court business.

  Amenities

  Security clearance area: As soon as court users enter the court, they have to pass through security, which is similar to an airline. Court users sometimes struggled to regroup and collect their things after the security check. For example, we noticed there was no space for some court users to place their belongings while putting on their belts or shoes. Some people stopped in the middle of the entryway to re-group, blocking the traffic behind them. Some placed their things on the floor, some walked up to our table, and some even walked further up the stairs to put their belongings back on. 

  Recommendation: Benches or tables after security.

  Edward Brooke Courthouse, Boston: No space for placing court users’ belongings after security check.

  Benches after the security check at Liberty County Courthouse – Houston.

  Food & water: Many litigants spent much of their day in the courthouse and were already in a stressful situation. Knowing this, providing easy access to necessities such as water, restrooms, and a place to eat would be great. The Edward W. Brooke Courthouse has no easy access for the litigants to get water. For instance, an old man who could barely walk asked a student researcher where he could get water. She offered to help but couldn’t find a drinking fountain on the 3rd floor. On asking a clerk in the office, she was told to go to the first floor to buy water. Another court user was observed to be given a cup of water by a volunteer lawyer in the service center. Many court users hesitated to leave the courtroom or mediation waiting room in case they missed their names being called. A participant I followed also asked me to help him stay and look out for his turn while he headed out to quickly buy a sandwich. 

  Benches & areas for children: Also, throughout the court, there are no tables or chairs for litigants to use when eating. The Bentley team observed a family of four with 2 children who used the researcher’s table for lunch. Litigants also sometimes struggled with not having a surface to write on for the paperwork they had to complete. 

  Recommendation: More water accessibility, tables and benches, and waiting areas for children.

  The Pittsburg Court provides open space, like this break area with vending machines and space for children.

  Court Processes

  One of the main themes that emerged was a lack of understanding of the court processes. Some participants struggled with the paperwork, scheduling, waiting, and understanding courtroom protocols. 

  Summons to court: There were several instances where we were told by court users that they had trouble receiving the summons to court. One court user with an eviction case said he could not receive his summons on time. He had been hospitalized and absent from his place of residency. Law students acting as volunteer lawyers in the small claims division at the Dorchester Court said that court users frequently don’t receive their summons and miss their court dates. The mail might be delivered to the wrong address, or the litigants may have moved. 

  Waiting: Many court users had to be present for their case to be called at 9:00 a.m., although their case or mediation session was not heard until much later in the day. We observed court users who were coughing, hungry, or needed to use the restroom while they were waiting. One court user expressed much anxiety about missing his case if he left the area. Some of the negative emotions experienced by court users stemmed from not knowing how long they would have to be at the courthouse. The time spent waiting in court was a hardship for those who had to pay for childcare or take time off work.

  Queues: We found that there was confusion about what queue to stand in when waiting at the counter with multiple queues at the clerk’s office. For example, one litigant stood in the queue to make a payment for some time before realizing he was in the wrong line.

  Recommendations:

  • Label queues: In areas with multiple queues, clear signage should be implemented.
  • Set expectations about waiting times: It would be helpful to litigants if expectations were set regarding the time they would have to wait for mediation or their case to be called. For example, in some Department of Motor Vehicle Divisions, electronic queueing systems give people an estimated time for how long they will have to wait. The small monitors outside courtrooms could display a litigant’s hearing or expected waiting time. A simple low-technology solution would be to have a chart that would approximate waiting times for court users.
  • Stagger appointments: Another suggestion is to stagger appointments so that not all court users have to be present at 9:00 a.m.
  Example of a queuing system at a Department of Motor Vehicles.

  Impact & Reflection

  Future studies by other Bentley student teams: This study was the first partnership between the Boston Trial Court and Bentley University. While this study tries to capture a broader perspective of the overall experiences, future studies could explore more on the individual themes. Quantitative surveys may also perhaps be employed to further understand the extent of the problems.

  Implementation of recommendations: While it was easier to just point out issues, there were other more pressing issues that the courthouses might have to address. For example, one of the courthouses had a ceiling that had to be fixed when we were conducting the study there. Another concern brought up by a staff member was that some of the recommendations might add more work to other already overwhelmed departments. For example, digitizing queue systems might mean someone must constantly update every case’s status in real-time. Moreover, at that time, there were other ongoing digitizing projects where SMS-es would be utilized for other reminders.

  The pandemic: This study was conducted in the fall of 2019, just before COVID-19 moved some of the court proceedings to video calls. A personal guess is that this would remove some of the problems found in the study. For example, single parents do not need to worry as much about bringing their potentially crying babies to the courthouses and waiting there for hours. After the pandemic, perhaps online proceedings should still be considered for people who opt for them.