Court Voices Project – LaGratta Consulting

Twelve courts from around the country have completed a six-month pilot as part of LaGratta Consulting’s Court Voices Project, where they asked both court staff and court users for their feedback on courts’ pandemic responses. While most of the pilot courts had little to no experience collecting feedback from court users in the past, all were able to use tablet kiosks, web links, and/or QR codes to solicit insights. All in, over 275 court staff and over 3,000 court users participated. A complete project report is forthcoming in early 2022, but included here are some initial findings.

The range of feedback methods and contexts was vast, from links within Zoom hearings or court chat functions to in-person feedback kiosks as court users left the clerk’s window area or a particular courtroom. Most courts utilized more than one method to compare feedback between remote versus in-person services, as well as by different touchpoints of the court process, for example, at arraignments versus after status hearings.

The most common feedback topic among pilot courts was court users’ preferred mode of service: essentially, would you have rather handled your court business differently and why? Court user perspectives on these questions ranged dramatically from site to site based on court type, jurisdiction type and size, case type, and geography, to name a few factors. About half of court users appearing in-person in most courts said they prefer in-person service over remote alternatives (e.g., virtual court, phone, or email). In one court, the preference for in-person court was as high as 75%. But when the same question was asked of court users after utilizing a remote alternative, the responses show a more complex picture: even in a court where over half of in-person users prefer in-person, up to 100% of court users appearing remotely said they prefer remote. This suggests that there’s no one-size-fits-all approach, and when given a choice, court users might self-select into the service type that is best for them.

Preferences on specific types of remote alternatives varied too. In one court, 29% of court users said they’d prefer a “by phone” remote option; in another court, no one preferred that alternative. Regarding the rationale for these preferences, project findings add nuance to the conventional wisdom that convenience equates to remote services. While pilot feedback confirmed that most court users who prefer remote services identify ‘convenience’ as the main reason for that preference, ‘convenience’ is often cited as the reason court users prefer in-person service, as well. In one court, it was the top reason court users preferred in-person services.

Write-in comments from court users provide dimension to these findings, such as:

It was very helpful coming in person actually talking to someone getting to know the many options,” “don’t trust unless in person,” and “Quiero ver la juez y explicar” [translation: I want to see the judge and explain]).

Perhaps, unsurprisingly, Spanish-speaking court users were most likely to name “ease of understanding” as their reason for preferring in-person services.

Other court user comments alerted court leaders to potential deficiencies in their service delivery:

I called and couldn’t get a live person so emailed which of course was easier.

Email address was on citation, would have liked to have been provided a phone number to contact

Two main take-aways so far: (1) Courts should offer a menu of service options informed by local feedback, and (2) Tailored feedback should be invited in a range of contexts to ensure representative and useful insights. Simply importing the lessons from other courts or national studies may lead court leaders in the wrong direction.

A project toolkit detailing these findings and others will be published in early 2022 at: www.lagratta.com/court-voices-project.

Self-Help Resource Center Social Work Navigator Enhancement Project

The Franklin County (Ohio) Municipal Court has a Self-Help Resource Center (the Center) which works daily to improve the quality of court filings filed by pro se litigants, increase access to the justice system for individuals who cannot afford attorneys, and provide a positive point of contact between the Court and the community. The Center may assist visitors with civil matters but cannot provide legal advice. Most of the Center’s work includes providing assistance with applications for sealing of record/expungements, and landlord/tenant issues- specifically providing critical support and resources to individuals who appear in Eviction Court.

Due to the pandemic, in early 2020 the Court contracted with a social worker to assist court individuals facing eviction and other legal issues to identify and understand the various non-legal resources available throughout the community. The initial pilot project was built around best practices for non-lawyer navigators and held out as an example among participants in the Self Represented Litigants Network. 

With support from SJI, the Court is expanding and enhancing the pilot to build on the momentum clearly demonstrated in the pilot phase of the social worker navigator program. By contracting with a licensed social worker who then supervises a team of social work interns to multiply the impact and reach of the services, the Center will provide a model to share with other courts. The Center also works to build public awareness and confidence in the services offered through media and public service announcements.

Additionally, the project is developing a research-driven screening process that will allow magistrates, financial assistance agencies, and others on site to ensure more consistent and appropriately targeted referrals.  An evaluation plan is also under development, including surveys for visitors and partners, to share with stakeholders, and ultimately build a plan for sustained funding at the conclusion of the project.

In addition to helping people at court, the project has achieved some notable advancements. First, the project became an Access Point for the county’s Homelessness Prevention Network (HPN). As an HPN access point, the project can access expedited services for families facing imminent homelessness within two weeks. Second, the social worker navigator has begun coordinating with the Court’s service bailiffs to flag any risks of violence or self-harm that may place anyone present at the set out in harm’s way.

This has been frustrating – I keep getting told ‘do this’ and then finding out that was only part of it or was not actually what I wanted to do. I feel like now I have a good understanding of what is really going on and I can make my decisions moving forward…

Resource Center Visitor

The project has already garnered a great deal of positive feedback and attention. The project’s work with assisting restored citizens was recently featured in an article in Politico Magazine. The project has also been featured by the Ohio Supreme Court’s news publication Court News Ohio and in an article by Columbus Business First.

The Center looks forward to growing this project and hopes to continue developing a sustainable, replicable service for those facing eviction.