Commissioned by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, September 2005.
Part I: Findings and Recommendations
Tr2ust a0nd C0onfi5dence
in the California Courts
A Survey of the Public and Attorneys
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Table of Contents
Introduction: 1
Survey Objectives and Methods
Executive Summary 3
I. Overview of Public and Attorney Opinion: 8
Then and Now
II. Receiving and Seeking Information 11
on the Courts
III. Experience in a Court Case: 15
Incidence and Consequences
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court 19
V. Diversity and the Needs 21
of a Diverse Population
VI. Fairness in Procedures and 24
Outcomes: The Core Concern
VII. Expectations and Performance 31
VIII. Next Steps: Survey 34
Findings as a Guide to Policy
IX. Data Needs: 36
A Proposed Program of Research
David B. Rottman, Ph. D., Author
Principal Research Consultant
National Center for State Courts
300 Newport Avenue, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185
This report, Part I: Findings and Recommendations,
written by Dr. Rottman, outlines the main findings
and offers recommendations for policy and for
further research.
Part II: Executive Summary of Methodology with
Survey Instruments, produced by John Rogers and
Diane Godard, presents an overview of the survey
methodology, as well as the questions included in the
public and attorney surveys.
Parts I and II can be downloaded at:
http:// www. courtinfo. ca. gov/ reference/ 4_ 37pubtrust. htm
This report was produced for the Judicial Council
of California, Administrative Office of the Courts.
For additional information, please contact:
Dianne Bolotte, Manager
Planning and Effective Programs Unit,
Executive Office Programs Division,
Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102
Dianne. bolotte@ jud. ca. gov
415- 865- 7633
The design, implementation, and interpretation of the statistical
analysis presented in this report were undertaken in collaboration
with John Rogers, Ph. D., Associate Director of the Public Research
Institute of San Francisco State University. I gratefully acknowledge
the contribution made by his insights and expertise, while retaining
for myself all responsibility for the accuracy and reasonableness
of the report’s contents. The report’s visual appeal and ease of use
exemplify the data presentation strategies of Neal Kauder,
VisualResearch, Inc. I also gratefully acknowledge the comments,
suggestions, and encouragement offered by staff from the
California Administrative Office of the Courts and by my National
Center colleagues. Bill Vickrey, Administrative Director of the Courts,
provided the initial vision of what a policy- relevant opinion survey
on the courts would look like and supported the effort from
start to finish with perceptive comments and a keen eye to
what is useful rather than merely interesting.
Special thanks are due to the Foundation of the State Bar of
California for a $ 10,000 grant to the Judicial Council of California
in support of the attorney survey, and to the State Bar of
California for participating in the development of both survey
instruments, and for its overall support of the project. The National
Center for State Courts, recognizing the national significance of
California’s innovative effort, donated some of the staff time
devoted to this project.
Copyright © 2005 by Judicial Council of California/ Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
Except as permitted under the Copyright Act of 1976 and as otherwise expressly
provided herein, no part of this publication may be reproduced in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including the use of information storage and
retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the copyright holder.
Permission is hereby granted to nonprofit institutions to reproduce and distribute
this publication for educational purposes if the copies credit the copyright holder.
Acknowledgments
In these and other ways, opinion surveys contribute to
strategic planning efforts and complement the many other
sources of research on the work and accomplishments of the
state courts available to the Judicial Council and the
Administrative Office of the Courts.
The last comprehensive statewide survey of opinion on the
California courts was in 1992 ( Surveying the Future:
Californians’ Attitudes on the Court System). The intervening
years were momentous for the courts: trial courts were unified,
funding shifted to the state, and initiatives like court and
community collaboration made their mark. A new survey was
overdue, one linked to the issues and concerns now before the
Judicial Council and the Administrative Office of the Courts.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 1
What the public thinks about California’s courts matters.
Respect for the law depends upon public confidence in the
integrity of the justice system. Compliance with court orders
is influenced by the sense of fairness people have about how
courts render decisions. Whether disputes are brought to the
courts for resolution or decided elsewhere depends in part
on the perceived fairness and efficiency of the courts. Votes
in referendums designed to improve court resources are
swayed by perceptions of courts.
Perceptions of the courts are forged through a mixture of
information, ranging from personal experience as a juror to
the latest episode of Law and Order. Opinion surveys shed
light on how those perceptions are formed and, to some
degree, on how those opinions might be changed by policies
that address the public’s legitimate expectations of courts
and expressed dissatisfaction with aspects of what courts do.
Opinion surveys describe patterns in how people use the courts
that cannot be derived from court records and establish the
perceived barriers and incentives that underlie such patterns.
The same potential extends to the activities and concerns of
key constituents of the courts, such as practicing attorneys.
Introduction: Survey Objectives and Methods
Why survey?
The second part of this report, Part II: Executive Summary
of Methodology with Survey Instruments, by John Rogers and
Diane Godard presents an overview of the survey methodology,
as well as the questions included in the two surveys.
Between November 2004 and February 2005 over 2,400
California adults were surveyed regarding their:
§ knowledge about the courts and the sources of that
knowledge
§ perceived and experienced barriers to court access
§ experiences as jurors, litigants, or consumers of
court information
§ expectations for what the courts should be doing
§ sense of the accessibility, fairness, and efficiency of the courts
Particular care was taken to ensure that the perceptions and
experiences of all Californians were given equal weight. Extra
efforts were made to interview minority group members and
non- English speakers and to capture the range of opinion
across the state’s geography.
At the same time, over 500 randomly selected practicing
attorneys were interviewed for their views on topics covered
in the public survey and on issues basic to their conduct of
business with the state’s trial and appellate courts.
How was the survey conducted?
This report highlights findings from the public and attorney
surveys and draws out implications for policymakers.
Specific recommendations are offered at the end of each
section of the report. The final section offers thoughts on
how opinion surveys can best fit within the repertoire of
information- gathering methods available to the Judicial Council.
Several questions from the survey relevant to an important
aspect of public opinion, such as the fairness of court procedures,
are combined into multi- item scales. Measurements based on
scales are desirable because they rely less on the wording of a
single question and can reflect the multiple aspects of concepts like
“ approval” or “ fairness” ( see scales in right column).
In addition to reporting standard percentages for individual
questions and averages for scales, this report uses multivariate
statistical techniques to look at the influence of several factors
simultaneously on people’s opinions. Multivariate analysis
allows us to predict, for example, the influence of prior
court experience on approval of the courts after taking into
account ( or “ controlling for”) other factors such as age,
gender, educational credentials, income, or racial or ethnic
group identity that might also influence an individual’s view
of California’s courts. It is possible to measure how well the
factors we selected can predict approval of the courts or any
other criterion of interest ( on a scale of zero to 100 percent).
The list that follows shows the three categories of factors
used in multivariate analysis.
2 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Introduction: Survey Objectives and Methods ( cont’d)
What is in this report?
1. What are we trying to explain?
§ Overall approval of the California courts ( four- item scale)
§ Confidence in the California court system
§ Confidence in the courts in your county
§ Job performance of the California court system
§ Job performance of the courts in your county
2. What are the main non- demographic
influences on approval and confidence?
§ Perceived fairness of court procedures ( four- item scale)
§ Perceived fairness of court outcomes
§ Prior court experience
§ Specific aspects of court performance
( e. g., protects constitutional rights, reports to public)
§ Perceived barriers to court access
§ Sources of information about the courts
§ Unmet expectations of the courts
§ Confidence in other public institutions
3. What demographic factors are taken into
consideration?
§ Race and ethnicity, age, gender, education, income
§ Urban or rural resident
§ Political orientation
§ Recent immigrants, primary language
Variables included in overall approval
and procedural fairness scales
The questions used to measure overall approval and procedural
fairness were derived from previous surveys of opinion about
the state courts. The resulting multi- item scales meet the
conventional standard for reliability, which provides assurance
that the questions all measure aspects of the same phenomenon.
The scales can range from a low of one to a high of four.
Overall approval:
1. In general, how would you rate your confidence
in the California court system?
2. In general, how would you rate your confidence in the
courts in your county? very confident, somewhat
confident, not very confident, not at all confident
3. Now overall, what is your opinion of the California
court system? excellent, very good, good, fair, poor
4. Still thinking of just the courts in your county,
what is your opinion of the overall job they are doing?
very good, good, fair, poor, very poor
Procedural fairness:
Do you agree or disagree that the courts in your county:
1. Are unbiased in their case decisions?
2. Treat people with dignity and respect?
3. Listen carefully to what people have to say?
4. Take the needs of people into account?
strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree,
strongly disagree
Executive Summary
§ Confidence in the California courts is substantially higher
now than when the last comparable statewide survey was
conducted in 1992.
§ The public and attorneys today are moderately positive
about their courts. Attorneys tend to be the most positive.
§ Local courts attract greater public confidence than the
overall state court system.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 3
3. Given that uneasiness about going
to court among the general popu-lation
is linked to one’s access to
resources, immigration status, and
other important indicators of life
circumstance, the courts must
move beyond addressing such
unease simply as a public relations
issue. Rather, community outreach
efforts may have to be paired with
the provision of court services that
both inform and empower all
members of the public to seek the
courts’ assistance when necessary.
4. The Judicial Council should adopt
a schedule of surveying the public
at either five- or ten- year intervals.
5. Surveys of the public gain value if
comparable questions are asked of
groups like attorneys who have a
professional involvement with
the courts.
1. The Judicial Council and the State
Bar should meet to reflect on the
substantial proportion of practic-ing
attorneys who disagree that
judges follow the rules and juries
represent communities.
2. Communications from the Judicial
Council and Administrative Office of
the Courts should speak to the public
about their local courts rather than
the more abstract state court system.
§ Self- rated familiarity with the California courts is low
for the public, unchanged since 1992.
§ Knowledge of the courts increases with exposure
to court information in newspapers, the Internet,
televised trials, and, most importantly, the court itself.
§ Exposure to fictional representations of how the
courts work is associated with lower self- ratings of
familiarity with the courts by members of the public.
§ Members of the public and attorneys accessing
information from the courts via the Internet are
very satisfied with the service.
4. The Judicial Council should identify
and disseminate aggressively the
essential information the public
needs to protect their rights and
use the courts appropriately.
5. Programs that bring judges and
court staff as educators into the
classroom and before civic
organizations should be expanded.
6. Courts need to consider outreach
efforts to make the less affluent,
and less well educated aware of
the kinds of information that
can be obtained from courthouse
personnel.
7. Extra efforts are needed to
understand why Asian- Americans
and Latinos report contacting
the courts for information less
frequently than other groups.
1. Newspapers and the Internet are
the most efficient ways to get the
courts’ message to the public.
2. The courts should make use of
ethnic media, print and electronic,
in disseminating information about
the courts to the public.
3. Large- scale investment in the
Internet’s potential for the courts
is warranted.
Overview of Public and Attorney Opinion: Then and Now
Receiving and Seeking Court Information
Recommendations
Recommendations
4 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences
§ The majority of Californians ( 56 percent) have been
involved in a case that brought them to a courthouse,
mainly through responding to a jury summons or serving
as a juror. The incidence of court experience varies
among racial and ethnic groups and increases markedly
with level of education.
§ Only service as a jury member increases average approval
of the courts. Otherwise, court experience tends to be
associated with a slightly lower level of approval.
§ Defendants in traffic cases and litigants and attorneys in
family or juvenile cases are less approving of the
California courts.
1. The jury is the prime audience for the
state courts, and the best available
mechanism for disseminating positive
information on the courts by word
of mouth. Specific policies and
programs should be directed at
maximizing this potential.
2. A focus on the elements of
procedural fairness, discussed later
in the report, can take the benefits
of staff education on customer
service to a higher level.
3. High- volume, low- stakes court
dockets like traffic and small
claims spread ill will for the courts
and leave litigants dissatisfied with
their day in court. In large and
many medium- sized courts the way
such cases are processed needs
to be redesigned to incorporate
procedural fairness criteria.
4. The effectiveness of procedural-fairness-
driven reforms should be
monitored by “ exit surveys” of court
users to fine- tune the changes
as they are introduced and
periodically thereafter.
5. Joint action by the Judicial Council
and State Bar is needed to address
as a matter of priority the reasons
for the perceived unfairness in
family and juvenile proceedings.
6. The apparent underrepresentation
of Asian- Americans and Latinos
on juries needs to be examined to
see if factors other than eligibility
are active.
§ The cost of hiring an attorney, regardless of the
respondent’s income level, is the most commonly
stated barrier to taking a case to court.
§ Barriers include lack of childcare, distance to be
traveled, time away from work, and unease about what
might happen if one became involved in a court case.
§ Recent immigrants appear to be poorly informed about
formal alternatives to court as a way of resolving disputes.
3. Court interpretation programs
should recognize that many
non- native English speakers who
are comfortable using English in
many settings may still feel the
need for an interpreter in court.
4. Establishing childcare facilities
in courthouses is an important
component of policies seeking
greater access to the courts among
the less affluent and, perhaps,
especially recent immigrants.
5. Providing remote locations at
which basic court business can be
conducted is one way to lower the
barrier of geography for the less
affluent, immigrants generally,
and members of the public living
in rural areas.
1. The State Bar and the Judicial
Council should adopt parallel
strategies to re- think the role of
self- help centers and similar services
in light of the widespread perception
that attorney fees are a barrier to
going to court.
2. Awareness of alternatives to court
adjudication needs to be made more
widely known among immigrants
and people with less than a college
education.
Barriers to Taking a Case to Court Recommendations
Recommendations
Recommendations
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 5
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population § The diversity of the public served by California’s courts is striking: 31 percent of all
respondents were born outside of the United States.
§ Immigrants, especially recent immigrants, tend to hold highly positive views of the
California courts but have low levels of contact with the courts.
§ The positive opinions of immigrants do not appear to fade away, remaining overall
strong after ten, twenty, or more years in the United States.
§ Language difficulties appear to be more formidable in court than in other settings:
immigrants resident in the United States for more than 10 years typically chose to be
interviewed in English but many expressed concern that language would be a barrier
to their taking a case to court.
1. The courts should be
attentive to the distinctive
needs of immigrant groups
in accessing the courts, a
need only partially met by
addressing language issues.
2. Practical aspects of court
operations, such as hours of
operation and difficult- to-reach
courthouses, need to
be addressed to ensure access
for recent immigrants,
as well as others for whom
these are barriers.
3. The availability and
appropriate use of
alternative methods of
dispute resolution need
to be made more
widely known among
immigrant populations.
4. The court- related opinions
and experiences of the U. S.-
born children of immigrants
merit study to determine
if they will continue their
parents’ positive views of
the California courts.
6 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
Expectations and Performance
§ Generally the public perceives a high level of
job performance by the California courts.
§ Protecting constitutional rights, ensuring
public safety, and concluding cases in a timely
manner are among the responsibilities
regarded as most important on which to
spend resources.
§ Reporting regularly to the public on court job per-formance
is viewed as important by a majority of the
survey respondents. That responsibility also emerged
as the greatest unmet expectation of the courts.
§ The greatest concerns were expressed about politics
influencing court decisions, proceedings that cannot
be understood, and uneasiness about becoming
involved with the courts.
1. The public’s greatest unmet expectation
for the courts is that they report on
their job performance. This suggests
that Judicial Council and Administrative
Office of the Courts establish initiatives
to help trial courts measure their
procedural fairness, efficiency, and
effectiveness.
2. Programs to promote timeliness in case
dispositions continue to be relevant.
3. The hours of court operation should be
reconsidered in light of the expectation
that courts should be open at conven-ient
hours and the barrier to the courts
that current hours appear to represent.
4. The courts should give prominence to
their successes in the civil justice arena.
Recommendations
Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern Recommendations
§ Having a sense that court decisions are
made through processes that are fair is the
strongest predictor by far of whether
members of the public approve of or have
confidence in California courts.
§ Californians rate their courts highest on the
“ respect and dignity” element of procedural
fairness and lowest on the “ participation”
(“ listen carefully”) element.
§ For attorneys, outcome fairness is more
important than procedural fairness when
predicting approval of the courts.
§ Litigants in family and juvenile cases and defendants
in traffic cases perceive less procedural fairness
than do litigants in other kinds of cases.
§ Attorneys practicing family law rate procedural
fairness lower than do other attorneys.
§ Californians consider that outcome fairness is least
for people with low incomes and non- English speakers.
§ African- Americans tend to perceive the highest level
of outcome unfairness for Latino/ Hispanic Americans,
African- Americans, and low- income people. They are
only slightly less likely than Latinos and more likely
than Asian- Americans to perceive unfair outcomes
for non- English speakers.
1. Judges and court staff should be
educated in the criteria of procedural
fairness.
2. Education on procedural fairness is not
enough. Initiatives are needed to
ensure that all cases are processed in
a manner consistent with a sense of
fairness in court procedures.
3. There is particular urgency in improving
the processing of traffic and similar
high- volume dockets in ways that meet
the criteria of procedural fairness.
4. There is equal or greater urgency to
improving procedural fairness in family
and juvenile cases, to improve
confidence in the process both for
litigants and their attorneys. Court
resources need to be reallocated to
improve the way family and juvenile
cases are handled.
5. High- volume, low- stakes cases need
to be redesigned so that litigants are
afforded an opportunity to express
their point of view.
6. Programs that promote procedural
fairness are also the ones that will
reduce the gap separating approval
of the California courts by African-
Americans with that by other racial
and ethnic groups.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 7
Executive Summary ( cont’d)
Next Steps: Survey Findings as a Guide to Policy
§ Policies that promote procedural fairness offer the vehicle
with the greatest potential for changing how the public
views the state courts.
§ People who believe that the California court system
protects constitutional rights and makes sure judges
follow the rules are likely to rate procedural fairness high,
as are those who feel that judges are honest and fair and
that courts are in touch with the community.
§ The fairness of procedures used for traffic and other
high- volume, low- stakes court cases should be studied
to understand what, specifically, contributes to the low
sense of fairness they promote.
1. The Judicial Council
should give renewed
emphasis to programs
of court and community
collaboration.
2. Adhering to principles of
procedural fairness is the
best approach to reducing
the reluctance the majority
of people feel about
going to court because
of unease about what
might happen to them.
3. The often negative view
African- Americans have of
the California courts needs
to be addressed in coop-eration
with law schools
and the Bar through
community forums, out-reach,
and a commitment
to diversity on the bench
and among court staff.
4. The Judicial Council should
make a concerted effort to
explain to the public and
opinion leaders the
processes for ensuring that
judges adhere to the rules.
5. The need for reporting
regularly to the public
on the job performance
of the courts is clearly
indicated by the survey
results. Further research
is needed to clarify what
kinds of information in
what formats will meet
this expressed public
expectation.
Recommendations
Data Needs: A Proposed Program of Research
§ Some findings from the 2005 survey point to specific
policy initiatives and actions that the Judicial Council
might wish to pursue. Other findings are suggestive
rather than directive, requiring clarification before the
appropriate policy implications can be drawn.
§ The Judicial Council should adopt a schedule of survey-ing
the public at either five- or ten- year intervals. Such
comprehensive surveys should be supplemented by
placement of specific questions in ongoing surveys car-ried
out by university survey centers and similar institu-tions.
The questions should combine a few “ tracking”
items from the 2005 survey to monitor trends annually
or every 18 months with new questions relevant to
emerging policy issues demanding the attention of the
Judicial Council.
§ The 2005 attorney and public surveys should be
supplemented this year and next by a series of focus
groups, directed at key findings that require further
exploration before policies can be constructed. Focus
groups can help define what the public has in mind in
terms of 1) reporting on court performance and 2) what
underlies the sense of unease the majority of the public
has when contemplating going to court.
§ “ Exit surveys” of litigants and others leaving the courtroom
provide feedback that can enhance procedural fairness in
the actions of judges, court staff, and court procedures.
Such surveys should be institutionalized into the ongoing
operations of courts statewide.
§ A well- rounded research program must solicit the opinions of
insiders— judges, subordinate judicial officers, and court staff.
§ Research techniques like deliberative polling augment
telephone and Internet opinion surveys by providing
participants with information, access to experts, and
opportunities for discussion.
8 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
I. Overview of Public and Attorney Opinion: Then and Now
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
25% 50% 25% 50%
46
42
32
37
1
8
4
5
32
32
10
25
20
17
35
26
1
2
17
7
1992 2005 Attorneys Public
The California public and attorneys are more positive about the courts than they were in 1992
The survey offers encouraging news to the Judicial Council.
The California public and attorneys are moderately positive
about the courts. This positive assessment emerges from the
survey responses in 2005 and from comparison to an identical
question asked in a 1992 survey about one’s “ overall opinion”
of the California court system.
Confidence in the California courts is higher now than when
the last statewide survey was conducted in 1992, among both
the public and practicing attorneys. The change is especially
pronounced among African- Americans: the proportion
expressing a “ poor” opinion declined from 47 to 18 percent.
Still, in both years African- Americans tend to be significantly
less positive about the courts than other racial or ethnic groups.
In 2005, overall approval ( a scale combining answers to four
questions) of the California court system, on average, is close
to 3.0 on a scale of 1 to 4, where 4 indicates the highest level
of approval. Attorneys on the same scale are more positive than
members of the public to a degree that is statistically significant,
and thus very unlikely to be attributable to chance factors.
For overall approval, the average response by the public is
2.95 and for the presumably better informed attorneys 3.1.
We can better explore some of the current differences among
racial and ethnic groups because the 1992 and 2005 surveys
differ in a crucial detail: while 64 African- American and
74 Asian- American respondents participated in the 1992 survey,
the 2005 survey interviewed 367 African- Americans and
313 Asian- Americans.
Overall approval of the courts:
2005 racial and ethnic differences
The African- American and Asian- American averages are lower or higher than
other groups to a statistically significant degree. Scales from 2.0 to 3.0 are used
to draw attention to variation in the data. Actual scales were from 1 to 4.
2.5 3.0
African- American
Asian- American
Latino
White
Greater approval
What is your overall opinion of the California court system? Interviews for both
surveys were conducted
in the shadow of high-profile
court cases.
The 1992 survey was
based on interviews
from mid- September to
mid- October, five months
after the acquittal in
state court of policemen
charged with beating
Rodney King and
immediately after their
federal grand jury
indictments were issued.
Interviews for the current
survey overlapped
with the Scott Peterson
trial and maneuverings
for the jury trials of
Robert Blake and
Michael Jackson.
I. Overview of Public and Attorney Opinion: Then and Now ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 9
Attorneys and the public have similar views on the strengths and weaknesses of the courts
Attorneys and the public were asked the same nine questions
in 2005 regarding aspects of court performance. Differences
between the public and attorneys are statistically significant
for all statements except “ courts take needs of people into
account” and “ court decisions are unbiased.” The most striking
similarity is in public and attorney responses to this statement:
“ Many people in my community are reluctant to go to court
because they’re uneasy about what might happen to them.”
About 70 percent of both groups agree with the statement.
Attorneys tend to perceive higher levels of court performance.
There are three notable exceptions: attorneys are less likely than
members of the public to believe that “ juries are representative,”
“ courts make sure judges follow the rules” or “ courts protect
constitutional rights” ( although the latter difference is small, even
if statistically significant). The specialized training and exposure
to the workings of the courts give a special status to attorney
opinion in these matters. Other research methods, described
later in this report, should be brought to bear on determining
the observations and reasoning underlying their perceptions.
Percent who agree or strongly agree with the following statements on court performance
Differences between the public and attorneys were statistically significant for all categories except “ courts take needs into account”, and “ court decisions are unbiased”.
25% 50% 75% 100%
Courts make sure
judges follow rules
Courts protect
rights
Juries are
representative
Courts decisions
are unbiased
Courts take needs
into account
Uneasy about going
to court
Cases concluded in
a timely manner
Courts listen to
people
Courts treat people
with dignity
Attorneys Public
I. Overview of Public and Attorney Opinion: Then and Now ( cont’d)
10 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Public trust and confidence in government has been volatile in
recent decades, with a sharp decline over the 1970s and 1980s
and more recently a rebound back to higher levels. Opinion
on the courts is more stable than for the legislative and
executive branches of government, but the courts cannot
escape the collateral damage associated with the public’s
general disenchantment with government institutions.
The current survey allows us to compare trust and confidence
in local schools, local police, and the U. S. Supreme Court, to that
in “ the California court system” and “ the courts in your county.”
Trust and confidence in the courts is lower than for the police
but higher than for the schools and similar to the U. S. Supreme
Court. Local courts attract greater public confidence than the
state court system.
The survey provides some reassurance that public confidence in
the courts is less marked than other institutions by racial and
ethnic differences. Notably, the gap between African- American
and white opinion is lowest for local courts when trust and
confidence of racial and ethnic groups are examined. The
proportion of African- Americans confident in their local
courts is 7 percent lower than for whites, while the comparable
“ gap” is 13 percent for local schools and 17 percent for local
police. ( Confidence in the “ state court system” is equal to or
very close to the other institutions.) These findings, however,
should not distract attention from the tendency for African-
Americans to be the group least positive toward the courts.
Approval of the California courts is tied closely to views held on government in general
1. The Judicial Council and the State
Bar should meet to reflect on the
substantial proportions of practicing
attorneys who disagree that judges
follow the rules and that juries
represent communities.
2. Communications from the
Judicial Council and Administrative
Office of the Courts should speak to
the public about their local courts
rather than about the more abstract
state court system.
3. A consumer orientation for the courts
must go beyond practices in business
to address the negative psychological
images that make people uneasy
about what might happen to them in
court. The public ( thinking about their
neighbors) and attorneys ( thinking
about the communities in which they
practice) believe that people are
“ uneasy about what might happen
if they go to court.” This widespread
perception challenges the efficacy of
policies that make the courthouse less
user- friendly by adopting methods
used by business firms.
Recommendations
The public’s trust and confidence
in government institutions
Rows total to 100%.
Very
confident
Somewhat
confident
Not very
confident
Not at all
confident
Public schools 24 42 24 11
Local police
department or
county sheriff
42 44 10 4
U. S. Supreme Court 30 48 16 7
California state
court system
20 59 15 7
Courts in my county 25 58 12 5
% % % %
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 11
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts
Traditional news media remain the most common sources of information about the courts
We all are exposed to information about the courts as we watch television,
read the newspapers, and listen to the radio. The survey tells us that
people most often get information about the California courts from TV
news programs and newspapers or magazines. Still, nearly one- half of
Californians report often or sometimes getting information about the
courts from television dramas or television judges like “ Judge Judy.”
The Internet is a source for about one survey respondent out of four.
The frequency of exposure to each information source is a poor guide to
what shapes actual knowledge of the courts. Multivariate analysis shows
that self- rated knowledge of the courts increases with exposure to court
information from newspapers, the Internet, televised trials, and the courts
themselves. The extent of exposure to information from television or radio
news has no influence on a person’s self- rated familiarity with the courts.
Moreover, the extent of exposure to fictional representations of how the courts
work cannot be blamed for public concerns about the fairness or efficiency of
the California courts. Exposure to TV dramas depicting the courts or to “ TV
judges” is associated with lower perceived levels of familiarity with the courts.
59
52
33
TV news programs
Newspapers/
magazines
Televised trials
TV dramas/
reality shows
Radio
Courts themselves
Internet
25% 50% 75% 100%
23
46
49
69
Knowledge of the courts is low
The 2005 survey of the public finds
self- reported familiarity with the
California courts to be low and
unchanged from the level found
when the identical question was
asked in the 1992 survey. Less than
one person in five believes that
they are “ intimately” or “ broadly”
familiar with the courts.
The lack of familiarity is striking
among those who must rely
primarily or exclusively on indirect
sources of information about
the courts— the news media and
entertainment programs. Nearly
80 percent describe themselves
as either “ somewhat familiar” or
“ not familiar at all” with the
California state court system.
Direct experience with the courts
makes a difference. Self- rated
familiarity is substantially higher
among those with experience—
few claim to be “ not familiar at all”
with the courts.
Intimately familiar 5 8 2
Self- reported familiarity % % %
Broadly familiar 12 17 6
Familiar 19 23 13
Somewhat familiar 43 42 44
Not familiar at all 21 10 35
Without
experience
With
experience
All
How often do you get information about the state courts from...
Percent of respondents answering “ often” or “ sometimes”. Other choices given included “ hardly ever” and “ never”.
How familiar with the courts are people with no prior court
experience compared to those with experience?
12 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
One- third of the public actively sought information about the courts
People do more than passively acquire
information on the courts through the
mass media. The survey asked, “ Have
you ever needed to get information
about the courts in your county
( not including information about the
police, prosecutors, or lawyers)?”
Over one- third of the public reported
having sought such information.
When asked, “ Where did you go for this
information?” the survey respondents
answered in their own words rather
than choosing from preset categories.
Their answers are shown to the right.
The courthouse and court personnel
( mentioned by one- half of those ques-tioned)
and the Internet ( mentioned
by one- third) dominate the responses.
Seeking information from the courts
is commonplace among the college
educated, but rare among those with
a high school education or less. The
survey cannot tell us the extent to
which this is based on differences in
the need for information as opposed
to perceived barriers that discourage
seeking desired information.
34% of the public said they have
needed to get information about
courts in their county.
Public satisfaction is high with information provided by court personnel and Web- sites
Members of the public who sought information from the
courts via the Internet or court staff were asked how useful
the information they had received was. About one- half
report that the information was very useful, with a slight
advantage for Web- based information.
This and other findings from the survey support the efficacy
of the Internet as a way of connecting the public to the
courts. The survey findings also suggest that the California courts
can build on goodwill already earned by court personnel in
launching ambitious programs to enhance the quality of
service they provide the public and attorneys.
How useful was the information provided by the court Web- sites and courthouse personnel?
25% 50% 75% 100%
Not at all useful
Not very useful
Somewhat useful
Very useful
Court Web- site Courthouse personnel
57
37
6
1
45
43
7
5
People with more education are
likely to seek out information
about the courts.
20%
40%
60%
Courthouse/ court personnel 51
Internet and court Web- sites 34
Phone book/ directory assistance 11
Attorney or legal service 10
Family/ friends/ co- workers 5
Library 4
Other 3
Civic/ church group 2
Police/ sheriff 1
School 1
Newspapers or magazines 1
< High
school
Where did you get this information? %
High
school
Some
college
College
degree
Graduate
degree
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 13
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
Attorneys and members of the public who contact the courts for information are satisfied with their experience
Another set of survey questions asked members
of the public and attorneys who had “ done
business with the courts in your county or
where you practice” via the Internet, telephone,
or in- person at the courthouse if they were
satisfied or dissatisfied. For the public, the
question referred to information requested
within the last three years. Even within that
limited timeframe, 29 percent of the public
report conducting business with the courts.
Members of the public and attorneys who
have used the Internet to access court
information and conduct business with the
courts have mostly positive reactions. The
survey asked attorneys, “ In general, would
you prefer to submit court filings, including
briefs and motions, by person, by U. S. mail, or
by the Internet.” The most common response
( 37 percent) is the Internet. Attorneys could
also respond that it depends on the filing
( and 32 percent did so).
This reinforces the message from already
presented survey findings that increased
investment in court Web- sites and Internet
access has the potential to reduce barriers
to court access for many Californians.
In general, were you satisfied or dissatisfied with your court contact?
20% 40% 60%
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Very satisfied
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Very satisfied
Internet
contact
Phone
contact
In- person
contact
Somewhat satisfied
Somewhat dissatisfied
Very dissatisfied
Attorneys Public
14 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
II. Receiving and Seeking Information on the Courts ( cont’d)
Knowledge of the courts is rooted strongest in direct experience
Exposure to media coverage of the courts and
even minor forms of contact with the
courts are conducive to a sense that one
knows about the courts. Media effects,
however, are minor compared to any form
of actual contact with the courts.
Individuals with prior involvement in a court
case— whether as litigant, juror, or witness—
tend to be, in their own assessment, better
informed about the courts. Only 8 percent of
former jurors report being “ not familiar at
all” with the courts, compared to 35 percent
of Californians with no court experience
( see page 11).
Experience provides information that translates
into a sense of knowing about the courts.
It is easier to predict the views on the
courts of individuals with actual experience.
Using a few key influences in a multivariate
model, it is possible to predict 32 percent
of the variability in responses of jurors, 22
percent for those with other court experience,
and 17 percent for those without any court
experience. This reinforces the message that
impressions formed when people are in
contact with the courts, however brief, and
in the overall context of the courts’ business,
however minor, persist and supplant
information gleaned from the media.
Self- reported
familiarity with
the courts
Jury
member
%
Jury
summons
%
Litigant
%
Witness
%
Intimately familiar 5 5 13 37
Broadly familiar 19 13 19 19
Familiar 25 19 26 23
Somewhat familiar 44 50 35 17
Not familiar at all 8 14 8 5
Recommendations
1. Newspapers and the Internet are the
most efficient ways to get the courts’
message to the public.
2. The courts should make use of ethnic
media, both print and electronic, in
disseminating information about the
courts to the public. Further analysis of
the current survey can provide insight
into the best approach for reaching
specific regional and other markets.
3. The Internet is an effective way to
provide information to the public and
to ease the conduct of business with
the courts by attorneys. The level of
satisfaction existing users report and the
large potential market among attorneys
for transacting business with the
courts over the Internet warrant
large- scale investment in the Internet.
4. Public knowledge about the courts is
low and not increasing over time. In
the short– term, the Judicial Council
should identify and disseminate
aggressively the essential information
the public needs to protect its rights
and to use the courts appropriately.
5. Education programs that bring judges
and court staff as educators into the
classroom and before civic organizations
should be expanded.
6. The survey highlights a public expec-tation
that the courts report on their
performance. Court outreach and
educational programs should explore
using performance measurement as a
part of their curricula.
7. The courthouse is the public’s primary
source of information on the courts.
California has been a national
trailblazer in developing self- help
centers and other information services.
Those efforts should be expanded and
carefully tailored to the specific needs
of individual jurisdictions.
8. The well educated are the most frequent
consumers of court information.
Courts need to consider outreach
efforts to make the less affluent, less
well educated aware of the kinds and
location of information that can be
obtained from the courts.
9. Extra efforts are needed to understand
the reasons that Asian- Americans and
Latinos so infrequently contact the
courts for information.
What types of court experience are associated
with familiarity with the courts?
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 15
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences
Direct experience with a court case is common, largely through jury service
More than one- half ( 56 percent) of all
Californians report “ direct experience,
contact, or involvement with a court
case which brought you into a
California courthouse, including being
called in for jury duty.” If multiple
experiences were reported, the
respondent was instructed to answer
subsequent questions about the case
that had the greatest impact on his or
her view of the courts. Consequently,
the percentages presented below are
not true estimates of the prevalence of
jury service or litigation participation.
The extent of court contact varied
considerably among racial and ethnic
groups, and increased markedly with
the level of education obtained.
Jury service ( sworn jury members or
alternates), is reported by 19 percent
of African- Americans, 12 percent of
Asian- Americans, 6 percent of
Latinos, and 24 percent of whites.
These percentages are influenced by
the proportion of recent immigrants
among Asian- Americans and
Latinos. Among college graduates,
22 percent report jury service,
compared to 13 percent of those
with a high school degree.
Have you ever had direct experience with the California courts?
20%
40%
60%
Do more educated persons have 80%
more court experience?
< High
school
High
school
Some
college
College
degree
Graduate
degree
African- American 62
Asian- American 44
Latinos 33
White 71
All Californians = 56% %
Called for jury duty,
but not selected
Selected to sit
on the jury
Person filing the
lawsuit or action
Person being sued
Witness in a case
Defendant
Victim
Other
36
31
7
3
5
11
4
4
What was your
role in the case? %
16 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences ( cont’d)
Involvement in a court case does not necessarily enhance confidence in the courts
Experience with the courts varies in its
influence on confidence in the courts.
Only service as a jury member is associated
with an increase in confidence. There were
relatively few witnesses ( 65) or victims
( 49) among the survey respondents,
making the findings for those groups
less conclusive than for other court roles,
such as jurors ( 415), those summoned
but not called for jury service ( 479),
or litigants ( 264).
Did your court experience make you more confident or less confident in the courts?
Differences in 10%
court roles
20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Much less Somewhat less No effect Somewhat more Much more
Jury member
Jury summons
Litigant
Witness
Victim
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 17
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences ( cont’d)
Experience in a court case other than as a juror is associated with lower approval of the courts
The overall approval scale, which takes on a value from a low
of one to a high of four, offers a more general index of the
enduring influence of court experience and experience in
different kinds of cases and roles.
While the categories within each of the headings in the
adjacent table differ to a statistically significant degree,
the noteworthy differences are for jurors, traffic defendants,
and litigants in family or juvenile cases. Serving on a jury is
associated with distinctly higher approval and involvement
in a family, juvenile or traffic case with distinctly lower
approval ( the same pattern is present for perceptions of
procedural fairness).
Overall approval of the courts, by court experience,
type of case, and role in the case
There were relatively few respondents with experience as a witness or victim, so these averages may be less reflective
of the California population and their potential for statistical significance lower than for other litigant categories.
Scales from 2.5 to 3.0 are used to draw attention to variation in the data. Actual scales ranged from 1 to 4.
Direct experience with 2.6
a California courthouse
Type of case
Role in the case
2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0
None
Yes, I have
Civil
Criminal
Small claims
Family
Traffic
Juror
Summoned
Witness
Litigant
Victim
Greater approval
18 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
III. Experience in a Court Case: Incidence and Consequences ( cont’d)
Attorneys with practices in multiple counties perceive variation in the quality of court performance
As would be expected, attorneys as a group tend to describe
themselves as familiar with the courts. There is no strong relation-ship
based on types of legal practice or frequency of contact
with the courts to their self- rated familiarity with the courts.
Two- thirds of the attorneys practice law in more than one
county. Of attorneys who practice in more than one county,
38 percent think the quality of court performance “ varies
substantially,” half ( 49 percent) that it varies “ somewhat,”
and 13 percent that it varies “ very little.”
Most attorneys ( 73 percent) have contact with the California
courts at least once a year. Few, however, report daily contact.
About one- third of attorneys with court contact do business
with the courts over the Internet at least monthly. Nearly
one- half ( 43 percent) do not currently use the Internet in their
business with the courts. Comparing the telephone to the
Internet as a method of communication for attorneys adds some
perspective on the incidence of Internet use. Thirty- seven
percent of attorneys are in phone contact with the courts once
a month or more, compared to 33 percent in Internet contact,
indicating that the Internet is close to overtaking the telephone
as the preferred method of communicating with the courts.
How familiar
are attorneys
with the
California state
court system?
Attorney contact with the courts, by type of contact
Daily Weekly
to once
a month
Less than
once a
month,
at least
once
a year
Never
About how many times
a week, month, or year
do you do business with
the California trial or
appellate courts? 18 34 21 27
If you do business with the
courts at least once a year,
about how often do you:
... do business with
the California trial
or appellate courts...?
over the Internet 9 24 25 43
by telephone 5 32 37 26
in person 14 40 42 4
… prepare or respond
to documents submitted
to a trial or
appellate court
17 45 31 7
… personally represent
clients before a
state judicial officer
13 33 41 14
% % % %
Self- reported familiarity %
Intimately familiar 27
Broadly familiar 34
Familiar 23
Somewhat familiar 14
Not familiar at all 3
Recommendations
1. The jury pool is the prime audience for the courts.
Jurors have the potential to change the hearts and
minds of the California public concerning the courts
by spreading positive information on the courts
by word of mouth. Specific policies and programs
should be directed at maximizing that potential.
2. California’s court staff is highly regarded by those
who seek information from the courts. Teaching
the elements of procedural fairness in staff training
and emphasizing them as part of performance
reviews will increase that regard.
3. High- volume, low- stakes court dockets like traffic and
small claims spread ill will for the courts and leave
litigants dissatisfied with their day in court. The way
such cases are processed needs to be redesigned.
4. The effectiveness of procedural- fairness- driven
reforms should be monitored by “ exit surveys” of
litigants to fine- tune the changes as they are
introduced and periodically thereafter.
5. Family and juvenile cases are associated with lower
levels of approval of the courts among both attorneys
and the public. Joint action by the Judicial Council
and the State Bar is needed to address as a matter
of priority the reasons for the perceived unfairness
in family and juvenile proceedings.
6. The apparent underrepresentation of Asian-
Americans and Latinos on juries needs to be examined
to see if factors other than eligibility are active.
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 19
The cost of hiring an attorney is the most commonly cited potential barrier to court access
Survey respondents were asked if they “ ever con-sidered
taking a case to court but decided not to.”
Twenty- five percent of Californians have considered
taking a case to court but decided not to ( shown in
dark blue).
All respondents were then read a list of 11 reasons
that might keep someone from “ going to court,”
asking for a “ yes” or “ no” response as to whether
that reason might keep them from going to court.
Generally, practical barriers seem more formidable
to those who have not considered a court case.
The largest difference between the two groups
regards the “ availability of another way to solve a
problem,” which is cited by 60 percent of those
who have not considered taking a case to court
and 46 percent of those who have.
Reasons Californians chose not to take cases to court
Difficulty with
English language
Physical problems make
using court difficult
Travel distance to
court from home
Lack of childcare
facilities at courthouse
The hours or days
court is open
Uneasiness about what
might happen at court
Time it takes to get
a court decision
The court fees that
are required
Availability of another
way to solve problem
Time it takes away
from work/ home
Cost of hiring
an attorney
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100%
Did not consider taking a case Considered taking a case
11
12
12
15
27%
40
43
43
46
69
20
21
25
20
29
35
44
42
60
50
69
49
The question posed was “ Did ( or might) the following factors keep you from taking a case to court?”
20 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
IV. Barriers to Taking a Case to Court ( cont’d)
The barrier posed by attorney fees does not vary greatly by education level
The percent describing attorney fees as
a barrier across respondents’ education
and income levels does not vary
much, with roughly 60 to 70 percent
of the public indicating attorney fees
as a potential barrier regardless of
educational level. ( Educational level
tracks closely with income level.)
Other barriers are more or less
formidable depending on the person’s
level of education. Barriers like distance,
lack of childcare, and uneasiness about
what might happen all diminish as
education level rises. By contrast,
timeliness is more of a barrier in the
eyes of the college educated than for
those with a high school education or
less. Thirty- one percent of those with a
high school degree and 67 percent of
college graduates cite as a reason the
availability of another way to resolve
the dispute. One implication is that
the less well educated lack access to
alternatives to court dispute resolution
and as a result stand more in need
of recourse to the courts than
better- educated and more affluent
Californians. However, as already
shown, the less well educated have
little court experience.
Would the cost of hiring an attorney
keep you from going to court?
Other barriers that keep people
from going to court...
40%
20%
60%
80%
100%
40%
60%
The availability 80%
of another way to
solve your problem
40%
60%
The court 80%
fees
required
20%
40%
The distance 60%
one would
have to travel
20%
40%
Uneasiness 60%
of what
might happen
20%
40%
The lack of 60%
childcare facilities
at the court
20%
40%
The length of time 60%
it takes to
get a decision
Percent at each
education level responding “ yes”
Increasing
education
Some
college
< High
school
High
school
College
degree
Recommendations
1. Even the relatively affluent view attorney fees as a
barrier to going to court. The State Bar and the Judicial
Council should adopt parallel strategies to understand and
respond appropriately to this articulated barrier to justice.
2. One response to the survey findings might be to adopt
a more expansive view of the groups self- help centers
are designed to assist. Doing so could increase the
number of Californians who benefit from the services the
centers provide and at the same time broaden the base of
support among voters for the provision of such services.
3. Formal, court- sanctioned alternatives to court adjudication
should be made widely known among recent immigrants
and other groups identified in the survey as often
unaware of their availability.
4. Court interpretation programs should recognize that
many non- native English speakers who are comfortable
using English in many settings may still feel the need
for an interpreter in a court setting.
5. Establishing childcare facilities in courthouses is an
important component of policies seeking greater access
to the courts among the less affluent, and perhaps
especially recent immigrants.
6. Distance is a barrier to court access for the less affluent
and immigrants especially. Providing remote locations
from which basic court business can be conducted is
one way to lower this barrier.
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 21
California’s courts are unique in the diversity of the population they serve
The diversity of the public served by
California’s trial courts is most striking in
that 31 percent of all survey respondents
were born outside of the United States.
The most common country of origin is
Mexico. This has a practical implication
for interpreting the findings of the survey.
Nearly one- half of all immigrants are
Mexican- Americans.
Among immigrants resident in the United
States for ten years or less, a particular
focus of this section, the interviews were
overwhelmingly conducted in a language
other than English.
The survey provides evidence of how
formidable a barrier to court access
language can be for immigrants, even
those of long residence. Four out of five
survey respondents who had been resident in
the United States for more than 10 years chose
to be interviewed in English. Yet, nearly
one- half ( 43 percent) of that same group
cite difficulty with English as a factor that
might keep them from going to court.
31% of all respondents were born outside of the United States…
Interview with recent immigrant* was conducted in...
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
3
4
5
11
17
47
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
47%
Puerto Rico
Russia
Cuba
Columbia
Canada
Japan
Korea
Taiwan
India
Vietnam
Guatemala
Philippines
El Salvador
China
Other
Mexico
12
20
68
Chinese
English
Spanish
* U. S. resident 10 years or less.
22 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population ( cont’d)
Immigrants, especially recent immigrants,
tend to hold distinctly positive opinions of
the California state courts. Their positive
orientation toward the courts is evident in
their responses to two questions: How much
confidence they have in the courts and the
degree to which they believe that the courts
protect the constitutional rights of everyone.
The comparisons shown below are based on
Latino respondents.
There is only a slight tendency for immigrants’
positive views of the courts to decline with
length of residence in the United States.
Indeed, there is no evident decline in
confidence in local courts and only a minor,
but statistically significant, decline in
confidence in the state court system, regardless
of the number of years of residence.
The same analysis was carried out for Asian-
Americans. Some patterns characterized both
groups: the tendency to agree that the courts
protect the constitutional rights of everyone,
the rarity of court experience, and language
as a barrier. In other respects, there either
was no difference for Asian- Americans or
the gap was between recent immigrants, on
the one hand, and the longer- term residents
and U. S. born, on the other hand.
Immigrants, and especially recent immigrants, tend to have highly positive views of the courts
In general, how would you rate
your confidence in the California state court system?
California courts protect the constitutional rights of everyone…
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
1
6
57
36
6
5
63
26
6
16
54
23
Not at all
confident
Not very
confident
Somewhat
confident
Very
confident
U. S. born Latinos Resident 11 years or more Resident 10 years or less
4
2
34
60
7
17
28
48
15
32
26
27
Strongly
disagree
Somewhat
disagree
Somewhat
agree
Strongly
agree
V. Diversity and the Needs of a Diverse Population ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 23
Focusing again on Latinos,
recent immigrants have very
low levels of contact with the
courts, whether as participants
in a case or as consumers of
information from the courts.
Recent immigrants, including
the Asian- born, report distinctly
low levels of familiarity with
the California courts. The
barriers to taking a case to
court associated with a lack
of childcare, difficulty with
English, and uneasiness about
what might happen to them
are marked for immigrants
regardless of their length of
residence. Asian- Americans
report similar, statistically
significant patterns, except for
the impact of childcare facilities,
on access to the courts.
Immigrants have less court experience…
What perceived barriers keep the public from taking a case to court?
Immigrants, and especially recent immigrants, tend to have low levels of contact with the courts
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
U. S. born Latinos Resident 11 years or more Resident 10 years or less
40
29
32
21
33
45
Availabilty of other way
to solve problem
Difficulty with
English
Lack of childcare
facilities at court
Uneasiness about what
might happen
Percent with
court experience
Percent having
ever needed to
get information
about the courts
57
29
5
7
56
59
37
45
48
38
21
12
Recommendations
1. The courts should be attentive
to the needs of immigrant
groups in accessing the courts,
through policies and special
outreach efforts that go beyond
language issues to address
cultural beliefs and customs.
2. Practical aspects of court
operations, such as hours of
operation and difficult- to- reach
courthouses, need to be
addressed to ensure access for
recent immigrants.
3. The sense of uneasiness recent
immigrants have about going
to court needs to be better
understood.
4. The origins and long- term
retention of immigrants’
positive views on the courts need
to be studied, not neglecting
the significant differences
between and within immigrant
communities. The court- related
opinions and experiences of the
U. S. born children of immigrants
also merit study.
24 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern
Procedural fairness, the sense that decisions have been
made through processes that are fair, is the strongest
predictor by far of whether members of the public
approve of or have confidence in the California courts.
Policies that promote a sense of procedural fairness are
the vehicle with the greatest potential to change how
the public views the state’s courts and how litigants
respond to court decisions.
Demographic factors are not in themselves strong influences
on support for the courts. In combination, race, ethnicity,
age, gender, education, and income can explain only a small
proportion ( about 5 percent) of the variation found in
the evaluations Californians make of their courts. Within
racial and ethnic groups, approval of the courts does not
vary according to a person’s income or education level.
“ The procedural justice argument is that,
on the general level, the key concerns that
people have about the police and the
courts center around whether these
authorities treat people fairly, recognize
citizen rights, treat people with dignity,
and care about people’s concerns.” 1
1 Tyler, T. R. ( 1998). “ Trust and Democratic Governance.”
In Trust and Governance, V. Braithwaite and M. Levi
( eds.). New York: Russell Sage Foundation
Four elements of procedural justice are key:
1. Interpersonal respect: Treated with dignity
and respect, and one’s rights protected.
2. Neutrality: Honest and impartial decision
makers who base decisions on facts.
3. Participation: The opportunity to express one’s
views to decision makers, directly or indirectly.
4. Trustworthiness: Decision makers who are
benevolent: motivated to treat you fairly,
sincerely concerned with your needs, and
consider your side of the story.
Factors associated with overall approval of the
California courts
The above factors taken together predict 52 percent of the variation in overall approval
of the courts.
People’s opinions of the courts are most influenced by perceptions of fairness in court procedures
court procedures
court outcomes
they hold a conservative
political orientation
Age
Gender
Education
Ethnicity/ race
Familiarity with the courts
People are more approving
of the courts:
People are less approving
of the courts:
These factors have no
significant independent
influence on approval:
... if they perceive
fairness in:
... if
( Ranked in order of importance)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 25
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
The perceived fairness of court outcomes is influential in the public’s evaluations
of the California courts but consistently secondary to procedural fairness concerns.
The opposite tends to be true for attorneys, who give more weight to outcomes
than to procedural fairness in their approval ratings. That said, it is noteworthy
that studies in other states suggest that judges give greater weight to outcome
fairness than to procedural fairness.
On average, attorneys tend, by a significant margin, to view procedures in the
California courts as fairer than do members of the public: an average of 3.0 for
attorneys compared to 2.85 for the public.
Asian- Americans rate procedural fairness higher and African- Americans lower
( 19 percent lower, on average) compared to whites.
Perceptions of fairness in court outcomes also matter but are secondary for the public, although primary for attorneys
Relative importance of significant factors on overall court approval
Relative influence is determined after differences due to race/ ethnicity, age, gender, and education have
been taken into consideration.
Average ratings of procedural fairness by race and ethnicity
Scales from 2 to 3.5 are used to draw attention to variation in the data. Actual scales were from 1 to 4.
Fair procedures
Fair outcomes
Fair outcomes
2.5 3.0 3.5
African- American
Asian- American
Latino
White
Higher ratings
Public
Fair procedures
Attorneys
26 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
The four questions used in the survey to measure procedural
fairness each represent one of the four previously identified key
components of fair procedures.
The California courts score highest on the component dignity
and respect: 39 percent of the public strongly agrees and
79 percent agrees ( strongly or otherwise) with that statement.
The least procedural fairness is seen for the component
“ participation” ( able to express one’s views): 19 percent of
the public strongly agree and 65 percent agree ( results not
shown in chart to the right).
African- Americans are the least likely to agree with all
four statements, with between 20 to 30 percent strongly
disagreeing that court procedures are fair in each instance.
The elements of procedural fairness, by race and ethnicity
Procedural fairness is most evident to Californians in terms of being treated with dignity and respect
The courts in my county,,,
African- American 14 34 33 20
Asian- American 27 38 26 9
Latinos 28 41 17 13
White 24 44 20 13
African- American 31 28 19 22
Asian- American 48 41 10 2
Latinos 41 35 13 10
White 38 44 10 9
African- American 15 29 30 26
Asian- American 33 48 15 4
Latinos 26 39 21 14
White 21 46 20 14
African- American
NEUTRALITY
RESPECT
PARTICIPATION
TRUSTWORTHINESS
13 36 21 30
Asian- American 29 50 16 5
Latinos 27 38 22 13
White 20 53 16 11
Strongly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Somewhat
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
% % % %
... are unbiased in their case decisions
... treat people with dignity and respect
... listen carefully to what people have to say
... take the needs of people into account
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 27
Litigants involved in family or traffic cases perceive lower levels of procedural fairness, while jurors perceive higher- than- average levels
Direct experience with the California courts generally is associated
with lower levels of perceived procedural fairness. In particular,
defendants in traffic cases and litigants in family or juvenile cases
see less procedural fairness than litigants or defendants in other
kinds of cases. Jurors are more positive than other categories of
participants in court cases.
High volume unites these two kinds of cases. Otherwise, low- stakes,
uncomplicated traffic cases offer one distinct challenge to meeting
public expectations of fairness, perhaps applicable to small claims
cases as well. A rather different challenge to redesigning court
processes exists for family and juvenile cases that often are high- stakes,
ongoing, and complex. Courts can assess their current practices
against the criteria of procedural fairness and initiate change as
indicated. There are individual courts in California and elsewhere that
offer approaches to such improvement consistent with due process.
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
Rated procedural fairness, by court experience, type of case,
and role in the case
There were relatively few respondents with experience as a witness or victim, so these averages may be less reflective
of the California population and their potential for statistical significance lower than for other litigant categories.
Scales from 2.5 to 3.0 are used to draw attention to variation in the data. Actual scales were from 1 to 4.
Direct experience with 2.6
a California courthouse
Type of case
Role in the case
2.7 2.8 2.9 3.0
None
Yes, I have
Civil
Criminal
Small claims
Family
Traffic
Juror
Summoned
Litigant
Greater approval
Witness
Victim
28 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
Among attorneys, family law practitioners rate procedural fairness lowest
Among attorneys, procedural fairness does not differ according
to frequency of contact with the courts or self- rated familiari-ty
with them. An attorney’s gender, income level, and size of
firm also are unrelated to perceptions of procedural fairness,
with the notable exception of family law practitioners, who
rate procedural fairness lower than other attorneys. This paral-lels
the finding that litigants in family law cases tend to see
less fairness in court procedures than their counterparts in
other types of cases.
Perceptions of procedural fairness among attorneys
in family law practice and non- family law practice
Scales from 2.5 to 3.5 are used to draw attention to variation in the data. Actual scales were from 1 to 4.
Public perceptions of outcome fairness vary across racial and ethnic groups, although not to the degree evident for procedural fairness
Fairness of case outcomes ( often referred to as distributive jus-tice)
is the second strongest influence on the public’s overall
approval of the California courts. The table below summarizes
the outcome fairness perceptions of Californians, looking at
the views of specific racial and ethnic groups.
Few Californians believe that their local courts dispense fair
results “ nearly every time” but most credit the courts with fair
results either “ nearly every time” or “ more than half the time.”
African- Americans and Latinos are less positive about outcome
fairness than Asian- Americans or whites; the differences are
striking. For Latinos, the relatively low ratings for outcome fair-ness
contrast with the relatively high ratings they give for pro-cedural
fairness generally and its specific elements.
How often do you think people receive fair results from courts in your county?
Non- family law
practice
Family law
practice
Overall approval Procedural fairness Greater approval
10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Never Once in a while Less than half the time More than half the time Nearly every time
White
African- American
Asian- American
Latinos
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 29
Unfairness is viewed as greatest for people with low incomes and for non- English speakers
How responses relating to the treatment of various groups vary by the survey respondent’s race or ethnicity
25% 50% 75% 100% 25% 50% 75% 100%
African- American 74
Asian- American 64
Latinos 77
White 56
African- American 85
Asian- American 61
Latinos 66
White 69
African- American 39
Asian- American 34
Latinos 38
White 26
African- American 73
Asian- American 46
Latinos 68
White 48
African- American 87
Asian- American 53
Latinos 50
White 52
28
68
65
African- American 54
Latinos 56
Asian- American
Low- income
Non- English speaking
... perception of worse treatment
by respondents’ race/ ethnicity.
52% of whites
felt African-
Americans
receive
worse results.
Percent of All surveyed who feel
the following groups usually receive worse results…
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
30 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Perceptions of outcome unfairness... ( cont’d)
Overall, outcomes are seen by all respondents
as least fair for persons who are low- income or
who do not speak English. African- Americans tend
to perceive the greatest degree of unfairness,
being more likely than Latinos to perceive
“ worse results” for Latinos as a group and only
slightly less likely than Latinos to perceive
“ worse results” for non- English speakers as a group.
African- Americans are much more likely than
other ethnic groups to perceive “ worse results” for
African- Americans as a group, and for low- income
people as a group. It is notable and cause for
substantial concern that the majority of every
major ethnic group perceive “ worse results” in
outcomes for African- Americans, low- income
people, and non- English speakers.
VI. Fairness in Procedures and Outcomes: The Core Concern ( cont’d)
Recommendations
1. Judges and court staff should be educated in the criteria
of procedural fairness, the primary criteria by which the
public evaluates courts generally and the outcomes of
specific cases in which they are involved.
2. Education on procedural fairness is not enough. Programs
are needed to ensure that all cases are processed in a man-ner
conducive to a sense of fairness in court procedures.
3. There is particular urgency in improving the process of
traffic and similar high- volume dockets in ways that meet
the criteria of procedural fairness. After jurors, litigants
in such cases are the prime group that the court can
impress with fairness and efficiency of court operations.
4. There is equal or greater urgency to improving procedural
fairness in family and juvenile cases, to improve confi-dence
in the process for both litigants and their attorneys.
5. Court resources need to be reallocated to improve the
way family and juvenile cases are handled.
6. Pro- tem judges or other quasi- judicial officers that hear
traffic cases should be required to have special training in
the principles of procedural fairness, and their adherence
to those principles should be monitored by outside
experts. Furthermore, exit surveys should be administered
to traffic defendants as they leave the courtroom.
7. “ Exit” interviews with litigants should be used to monitor,
for example, whether litigants leave the courtroom under-standing
the conditions they have been ordered to meet.
8. Best practices for promoting procedural fairness can be
found in a number of courts around the country and in
existing programs within the California courts. Minnesota’s
Fourth District Court ( Minneapolis) uses experts in
nonverbal communication to help judges self- evaluate
their demeanor and style of interaction from the bench.
9. Fair procedures afford litigants an opportunity to express
their views to the court. California’s courts are rated
poorly on this aspect of procedural fairness. High- volume,
low- stakes cases are processed through court dockets
poorly designed to afford litigants an opportunity to
express their point of view. There is a cost in terms of high
levels of recidivism and the large number of disgruntled
former litigants who tell others about what they perceive
as an unfair process.
10. Programs that promote procedural fairness are also ones
that will reduce the gap separating approval of the
California courts by African- Americans with that by other
racial and ethnic groups ( on average, African- Americans
are 10 percent less approving of the courts and perceive
19 percent less procedural fairness). Californians share a
common set of criteria for evaluating the courts, the
most important being procedural fairness. If some
groups are more approving and others less so, it is
because they differ in how neutral, respectful, attentive,
and trustworthy they believe the courts to be.
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 31
VII. Expectations and Performance
A variety of policy areas have the potential to influence perceptions of procedural fairness
The survey findings provide insight into potential policies and
practices to enhance the perception that court procedures are
fair. One starting point for identifying avenues through which the
courts can gain approval and earn a perception of fairness is
through gauging the public’s sense of the main responsibilities of
the courts. The survey asked a number of questions framed as,
“ In order to do their job well, how important is it for local courts
to spend enough resources to…?” Eight responsibilities were
listed, which are each used to represent an expectation of what
the California courts should give the highest priority. Seven
of the eight responsibilities were viewed as “ very important”
by a majority of respondents.
In order to do their job well, how important is it for courts to spend enough resources to...
Percent saying “ very important” 25% 50% 75% 100%
Assist those who want to 38%
act as their own attorney
Report regularly on their 55%
job performance to the public
Offer other ways to resolve 64%
disputes besides trials
Stay open at times convenient 67%
for working people
Provide leadership in dealing 67%
with community problems
Conclude cases in 71%
a timely manner
Ensure 76%
public safety
Protect constitutional 82%
rights of everyone
32 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
There is a consensus on the job performance of the California courts in most areas but sharp disagreement in other areas
The public survey contained 13 statements referencing the
courts’ performance with regard to specific court responsibil-ities,
ranging from protecting constitutional rights to being
open at convenient hours. Survey respondents were asked if
they agreed with each statement. The public’s ratings on
some aspects of court performance got a preview earlier in
the report when the ratings of the public were compared to
those of attorneys on some of the statements ( see page 9).
For the most part, by a substantial margin the public regards
the courts as doing a good job in the various performance
areas. This is notably true for protecting public safety, having
fair and honest judges, and having juries that represent their
communities. Local courts are rated slightly higher than the
state courts overall.
The public is more divided on some areas of court performance.
About as many agree as disagree that the courts report regularly
to the public ( almost an even split), assist those who want to
act as their own attorney, and are open at convenient times.
Agreement with three of the statements— politics influence
decisions, proceedings cannot be understood, and people are
uneasy going to court— index low court performance. The
courts rate poorly on all three measures.
How does the public rate the performance of the state court system and local courts
* Agreement
with this
question
indicates a low
rating of court
performance
in this area.
Strongly
agree
Somewhat
agree
Somewhat
disagree
Strongly
disagree
% % % %
35 31 17 17
35 43 14 9
22 37 22 19
22 25 27 26
California courts are protecting the
constitutional rights of everyone
California courts are
ensuring public safety
California courts do enough to assist those
who want to act as their own attorney
California courts report regularly to the
public on their job performance
California courts do enough to
make sure judges follow the rules 36 37 15 13
22 40 20 19
28 30 18 24
33 48 12 7
33 40 17 11
33 30 22 16
43 37 11 9
29 43 15 14
36 34 17 13
State courts
Local courts conclude cases
in a timely manner
Local courts are open at times
convenient for working people
Local courts have judges who are
honest and fair in their case decisions
Decisions made by local judges are
influenced by political considerations*
The average citizen cannot understand
what takes place in the courts*
Most local juries are representative
of the community
The local courts are in touch with
what is going on in the community
People are reluctant to go to court because
of uneasiness about what might happen*
Local courts
VII. Expectations and Performance ( cont’d)
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 33
VII. Expectations and Performance ( cont’d)
There is less consensus among Californians on where their expectations are not being met
Unmet expectations are
indicated whenever a survey
respondent agreed that it
is important for the courts
to spend resources on a
responsibility but disagreed
that a good job is being done.
Members of the public were
asked to agree or to disagree
with statements indicating
that the courts are meeting six
of the responsibilities. In this
way, it is possible to identify
specific areas in which the
public has unmet expectations
of the courts. The largest
unmet expectation is for the
courts to report to the public
on their job performance.
The responsibilities seen as the
most important are apparently
also ones that are viewed as
being met to a satisfactory
degree. The exception is the high
rates of unmet expectations
among African- Americans for
protecting constitutional rights
and, less strikingly, ensuring
public safety.
Recommendations
1. The greatest unmet expectation as measured in
the survey is that the courts report on their job
performance. More targeted research is needed to
establish what kinds of information distributed
through what media will accomplish that need
and demonstrate the accountability of the
judicial branch.
2. Programs to promote timeliness in case dispo-sitions
continue to be relevant and potentially
bear on ratings of both court performance and
procedural fairness.
3. The hours of court operation should similarly
be reconsidered in light of the expectation
that courts should be open at convenient hours
and the barriers to the courts that current
hours represent to many Californians.
4. The State Bar and the Judicial Council should take
a broad view when designing programs to assist
people who want to act as their own attorney.
The needs of low- income, non- English speaking
groups might take precedence, but the demand
for self- representation is likely to grow from
middle- and even high- income groups that also
find attorney fees a barrier to going to court.
5. Since the public appears persuaded that the courts
are adequately ensuring public safety, California
courts should draw attention to their successes in
the civil justice arena and especially in family law.
Entire sample 32 21 30 46 37 39
Ethnicity/ race
African- American 47 38 46 51 46 49
Asian- American 19 10 31 38 33 32
Latinos 26 19 32 32 32 33
White 36 22 26 54 40 43
Immigrant status
Resident 10 years or less 12 14 23 17 23 27
Resident 11 years or more 23 16 33 36 28 29
U. S. born 38 23 31 53 41 44
Protect
constitutional
rights
Ensure
public
safety
Assist
those
who
want to
act as
own
attorney
Report
to public
on job
perfor-mance
% % % %
Local
courts
conclude
cases in
timely
manner
Local
courts
open at
conven-ient
times
% %
Percent reporting specific unmet expectations,
by race/ ethnicity and immigrant status
34 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
Efforts to bring courts and communities together are the most practical steps to enhance procedural fairness and overall approval
High ratings for several kinds of performance by the state court
system and by one’s local court are associated with a belief that
procedures are fair. At the same time, unmet expectations and
certain barriers to court access are associated with a lower
sense of fairness.
Influences on procedural fairness that are statistically significant
are included in the charts on this page and the next. The length
of the bar indicates the relative importance of each influence.
The longer the bar, the more likely it is that people who agree
that the courts are performing well are the same ones who
perceive fair procedures. In all instances, statistical significance
and relative importance are measured after controlling for
demographic factors.
VIII. Next Steps: Survey Findings as a Guide to Policy
The strongest relationships to a perception of fairness are
from having honest and fair judges, being in touch with the
community, making sure judges follow the rules, and protecting
constitutional rights. The second named factor is the one
most susceptible to policy intervention, suggesting the con-tinued
relevance of California’s court- community initiatives.
African- Americans perceive less fairness in most of the models
despite taking into consideration all of the other demographic
and evaluative factors.
Relative influence of statistically significant positive predictors of procedural fairness
* Relative influence is determined after differences due to race/ ethnicity, age, gender, and education have been taken into consideration.
Statewide performance
Local performance
Judges honest and fair
Courts in touch with community
Conduct cases in timely manner
Open at convenient times
People uneasy about court
Judges influenced by political considerations
Protect constitutional rights
Make sure judges follow rules
Ensure public safety
Assist those who act as attorney
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 35
VIII. Next Steps: Survey Findings as a Guide to Policy ( cont’d)
Meeting expectations for efficient court operations potentially raises perceived fairness
In the charts to the right, the longer the bar, the more likely
it is that people who agree that there are unmet expectations
or that something is a barrier to taking a case to court are
the same ones who perceive a low level of fairness.
The same factors used to predict procedural fairness were
applied to overall approval of the courts. Both models predict
over one- half of the differences among Californians.
There are some differences, however. A sense of unease about
what might happen and the unmet expectation of courts
that are open at convenient hours diminish the perception
of procedural fairness, but not the overall approval rating.
Agreement that courts report on their job performance
promotes greater approval, but not a greater perception of
procedural fairness.
Relative influence of statistically significant
factors negatively related to procedural fairness
Relative influence is determined after differences due to race/ ethnicity, age, gender, and
education have been taken into consideration.
Unmet expectations
Perceived barriers
Protect constitutional rights
Open at convenient times
Conclude cases in timely manner
Ensure public safety
Assist those who act as own attorney
Report on job performance
Hours court is open
Court fees
Time to get a decision
Uneasiness about what might happen
Recommendations
1. To enhance perceived procedural fairness,
the Judicial Council should renew the
emphasis on programs promoting court
and community collaboration. A sense that
courts are in touch with the communities
they serve is a prime factor influencing the
perception of procedural fairness.
2. Adhering to principles of procedural fairness
is the best approach to reducing the
reluctance the majority of people feel
about going to court because of unease
about what might happen to them.
3. The Judicial Council should make a concerted
effort to explain to the public and opinion
leaders the processes for ensuring that judges
adhere to the rules. As previously noted, the
Judicial Council and State Bar should take
steps to understand the basis for the only
moderately positive ratings attorneys gave
to court performance in this area.
4. The high level of agreement that “ many people
in my community are reluctant to go to court
because they’re uneasy about what might
happen to them” may be linked to concern
over the fairness of the procedures they will
encounter. However, while a few questions
asked in a statewide survey can highlight this
uneasiness as a potential problem, other types
of research are needed to pin down the
nature and sources of that unease.
36 Trust and Confidence in the California Courts
IX. Data Needs: A Proposed Program of Research
The 2005 public and attorney surveys cover a wide range of
topics. Some survey findings point to specific policy initiatives
and actions that the Judicial Council might wish to pursue.
Other findings are suggestive rather than directive, requiring
clarification before the appropriate policy implications can be
drawn. This final section of the report outlines a program of
research to enhance the usefulness of the current surveys and
to set in place ongoing feedback to the Judicial Council and to
individual trial courts for planning and operational purposes.
A Timetable
The Judicial Council should adopt a schedule of surveying
the public at either five- or ten- year intervals. Such
comprehensive surveys should be supplemented by placement
of specific questions in ongoing surveys carried out by
university survey centers and similar institutions. The questions
should include a few “ tracking” items from the 2005 survey
to monitor trends annually or every 18 months, and new
questions relevant to emerging policy issues demanding the
attention of the Judicial Council. While retaining continuity
in question wording and format is important, the AOC
should work to refine the methodological sophistication
and utility of survey items over time.
Focus Groups add Context and Nuance
The 2005 attorney and public surveys should be supplemented
this year and next by a series of focus groups, directed at key
findings that require further exploration before policies can
be constructed. Focus groups bring together 8 to 12 people
to participate in a structured and intense discussion of an issue.
Participants can be selected at random or purposefully chosen
because of their experiences or background. Focus groups reveal
opinions in the round.
Priorities for such research include the views of attorneys on
1) the effectiveness of mechanisms for ensuring judges follow the
rules, 2) promoting consistency in performance across counties,
and 3) the representativeness of jury pools. Focus groups can help
define what the public has in mind in terms of 1) reporting on
court performance, 2) the special circumstances and needs of
recent immigrants, and 3) what underlies the sense of unease the
majority of the public has when contemplating going to court.
Local Surveys
Statewide surveys should be supplemented by surveys for
individual counties or jurisdictions. Models of opinion surveys
are available for large cities from surveys carried out by the
courts in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Administrative
Office of the Courts should provide assistance in refining
those surveys for use elsewhere and developing model surveys
appropriate for counties featuring small cities, towns, and
rural areas.
Informed Opinion
The value of the 2005 surveys can also be enhanced through
research techniques like deliberative polling, which counter-balance
the tendency of telephone surveys to capture emotional
rather than reasoned responses to questions. Deliberative
polling typically brings together a randomly selected group
of participants for a weekend of discussion with the policy
experts relevant to the topic at hand. Participants receive a
factual and policy briefing before they attend the weekend
session, and complete the same survey before and after the
weekend session. Some advocates of deliberative polling hold
regional sessions to capture variation of opinion across a state.
Surveying Court Users
“ Exit surveys” are another research technique and the one
most vital to implementing recommendations that stem
from the survey findings. Such surveys provide feedback
from jurors, litigants, witnesses, and others as they leave the
courtroom. The Administrative Office of the Courts can make
an important contribution by developing exit surveys that
represent the best practices in terms of question wording,
survey response rates, and formats for presenting information
to the courts and to individual judges. Exit surveys tell us
what is working and whether it continues to work over time.
They are essential to any policy initiatives related to procedural
fairness. A relevant example is the Minneapolis Family
Court Fairness Study, which monitors the perceived fairness
of court proceedings through surveys of litigants ( see
http:// www. courts. state. mn. us/
districts/ fourth/ Measurements/ performance. htm).
IX. Data Needs: A Proposed Program of Research ( cont’d) About the Author
Trust and Confidence in the California Courts 37
The Insider Perspective
A well- rounded research program must solicit the opinions
of insiders such as judges, subordinate judicial officers, and
court staff. Like the attorney survey, they provide counterpoints
to the views expressed by others. More important, surveying
only “ outsiders,” which includes attorneys, may distort policy
making by giving too little weight to the experiences and
opinions of insiders who know and work in the system.
Becoming Research Consumers
Finally, the Judicial Council should inform itself about the
advantages and disadvantages associated with various research
methods. The methods described above complement one
another. Telephone surveys, for example, represent the views
of all Californians, while focus groups provide the nuance
and context elusive in telephone surveys. Exit surveys
express the views of court users; the results translate directly
into management information that should be continuously
monitored. A program of research designed to monitor
changing conditions, understand emerging patterns, and
measure the effectiveness of initiatives, old and new, will
greatly strengthen the strategic planning process.
David B. Rottman is a principal court research
consultant at the National Center for State Courts,
where he has worked since 1987. He has directed
national surveys of public opinion on the courts
( the 1999 “ How the Public Views the State Courts”
survey) and of perceptions held by recent court
litigants ( the 2000 “ Public Perceptions of the State
Courts” survey), as well as surveys about specific
courts. His other research interests include judicial
selection, the pros and cons of problem- solving courts,
and the evolution of court structures. He is co- author
of books on community justice, social inequality,
and modern Ireland. Rottman has a doctorate
in sociology from the University of Illinois at
Champaign- Urbana. He previously worked at the
Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin,
Ireland and taught at the National University of
Ireland and the University of Connecticut.
The National Center for State Courts, headquartered
in Williamsburg, Virginia, is a nonprofit court reform
organization dedicated to improving the administration
of justice by providing leadership and service to the
state courts. The National Center, founded in 1971
by the Conference of Chief Justices and Chief Justice
of the United States Warren E. Burger, is governed
by a diverse board of directors elected by state chief
justices and state court administrators. It provides
education, training, and technology, management, and
research services to the nation’s state courts. The
National Center is leading efforts to strengthen court
security, improve judicial selection, build constituencies
that support judicial independence, and increase
citizen participation in jury service.
Part II: Executive Summary of Methodology with Survey Instruments
can be downloaded at: http:// www. courtinfo. ca. gov/ reference/ 4_ 37pubtrust. htm
Part II: Executive Summary of Methodology with Survey Instruments
Tr2ust a0nd C0onfi5dence
in the California Courts
A Survey of the Public and Attorneys
Commissioned by the Administrative Office of the Courts on behalf of the Judicial Council of California, September 2005.