Worcester Probate & Family Court
A research study to improve the Worcester, MA courthouse experience for self-represented litigants (SRLs).
Research Question
What can the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court (PFC) do to improve the user experience of self-represented litigants (SRLs) as they navigate the legal system?
75%
The PFC yields the most SRLs of any of the courts in the state, accounting for approximately 75% of individuals.
~50%
Of public interaction with the Court System is with the Probate and Family Court
Study Goals
Understand SRL’s experiences while navigating the PFC
Identify positive experiences and pain points
Identify aspects that could be measured over time to better evaluate the state of the experience
Provide recommendations to improve the experience
Research Approach
Target Audience & Recruitment
The target audience for this study was SRLs navigating the PFC at the Worcester Courthouse.
Participants were selected via convenience sampling; researchers approached individuals within the PFC wing of the courthouse and asked their interest in a brief interview about their experiences to date.
Gathering Data
Secondary Research
Journal articles, books, & previous research
Courthouse procedures
SRLs’ experiences
Observations
13 Worcester Trial Court visits
Tour of the courthouse
Court sessions
Activity outside of courtrooms
Interviews
37 Litigants
10 Court Staff
Register, Assistant Register, Judge, Public Council, Law Librarian
6 Community Organizers
2 Legal Aid Representatives
Data Analysis
Grounded theory style approach
Exploratory
Bottom-up
Figjam for affinity mapping of qualitative data
Limitations
Sampling
Sample size, diversity
Sampling methodology
Understanding of the Court
Our team is more similar to an SRL than to court staff
Time
Limited number of visits
Limited ethnography
Challenges
Lack of information
Only hearing one side of the story
Taking notes during interviews
Respect and attention with each person, especially given sensitive nature
Brief notes (e.g., good quotes, one-two word phrases)
No transcripts, relied on memory
No observer to assist with notes
Results
Finding 1. Individuals who reported lower satisfaction with their experiences described difficulty navigating the court system at various touch points, including:
Confusion with court proceedings
Frustration with prolonged cases
Misunderstanding of what information can be share at a given proceeding
Preparing for court
Many uncertain of how to present a strong case
Lacking awareness of existing resources
Difficulty completing paperwork
Forms described as “horrible” and “confusing”
A few reported using Google for help
Recommendation: Increase visibility of resources
As many SRLs find the court resources helpful, the PFC should continue to advertise these services
Ensure that information sheets are readily visible and available
Highlight resources on Mass.gov
Consider a large poster or a digital screen in the PFC hallway
Display various resources and direct litigants to more information such as:
Law Library
Court Service Center
Community Legal Aid
Support litigants in completing forms
Simplify paperwork
More accessible language
Create “how to” guides
Digital step by step
Sample of a completed form
Updated PFC Information Sheet I created in collaboration with the project sponsor and court staff to be distributed in the courthouse
Finding 2. Individual's perceptions of poor communication with the court causes frustration and delays in proceedings
Instances of poor communication or receiving incomplete information were mentioned:
In the Courthouse
E.g., Probate Court office staff did not know the Court Service Center was full for the day and were directing people there
“The judge told me I needed certain paperwork, but when I asked the PFC desk for it I was told the judge doesn’t want that” — SRL
With Litigants
An SRL was told she could not have a court appointed lawyer, to later found out that she actually can
“I have a court date, but for what? Where to report to first?” — SRL
Between Different MA Services
An SRL said he was “going around in circles for five years” with the court and the Department of Mental Health
Recommendation: Streamline communication
**These recommendations are based on SRL comments, we do not know the extent to which these suggestions may already be occurring.
Ensure consistent responses to common questions across departments
Provide readily available FAQ packet
Normalize lines of communication within the courthouse
E.g., have CSC call departments they get most referrals from to alert of closing so office can put up a sign by counter for clerks to see
Direct communication system or referral services with outside departments
Allow DMH, DCF, or other organizations to add relevant information about a litigant’s case for the court to access
Finding 3. Inefficient scheduling and uncomfortable conditions lead to missed work and miserable waits
Block scheduling requires people to clear their entire days and anticipate long wait times in uncomfortable conditions.
Several SRLs expressed frustration with having to take multiple days off of work
One reported taking 11 days off work in past five months
One group shared it was their 4th day off work to fill out paperwork
Shortage of food and drink options
“Everyone has the same appointment and sometimes they don’t see you until 3pm. You stay here all day, no food, just waiting” - Two SRLs waiting outside the PFC office
Lack of tables or surfaces to write on
Observed individuals trying to fill out forms on their laps
Many asked to use the folding table we had set up
Uncomfortable seating in main waiting areas
Hard stone benches not ideal for long wait times, especially for those accompanied by small children
Recommendation: Improved Approach to Scheduling & Improved Accommodations
**We did not have a chance to speak to someone from probation, so we do not know the constraints of scheduling.
Introduce shorter scheduling blocks
Allow visitors ranked choice request between set blocks of time
Add vending machines to the courthouse
Add signage for the cafe
Many did not know it exists
Provide additional surfaces and more comfortable seating
High top tables secured in place
Bar ledge along the wall
Cushioned seating secured to the floor
Conclusion
We really appreciated the Massachusetts court's willingness to hear critical feedback and make changes to a longstanding legal system; this speaks volumes about the court employees and their commitment to improve services.
There are many positive aspects of the user experience in the court system, with the kindness of court employees being among the most valued.
Efforts to improve the court system will take a lengthy iterative process. The first suggested set of changes to create a more pleasant court experience include comfortable seating, tables for filling out forms, vending machines, and signage for navigation.
Subsequent iterations should tackle more complex user challenges, such as inconsistent internal and external communication. However, additional research would be needed to determine a system that works well within the confines of court procedures.
Other Projects
Coming Soon
A usability test of alternative menu designs.
