Judge – First Instance Court of Turin
(Italy)
Member of the “Groupe de pilotage”
of the CEPEJ SATURN Centre of the Council of Europe
Enquiry
into the
“Customer
Satisfaction Survey in Turin Courts”
|
Table of Contents: 1. Introductory Remarks. The
Turin Survey in the Framework of the Initiatives of the European Commission
for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe. – 2. Working Group and Timeframes. – 3.
Methodology, Object and Target of Turin Survey. – 4.
The Overall Impact and the Importance Given by Users to Various Items of
Provided Services. – 5. Outcome of the Survey:
Staff, Judges, Timeframes and Costs of Justice. – 6.
Overall Outcome of the Survey: Satisfaction and Importance. |
1. Introductory Remarks. The Turin Survey in the Framework
of the Initiatives of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe.
The
“Customer Satisfaction Survey in Turin Courts” belongs to the
cooperative activities that the Turin First
Instance Court (Tribunale di Torino)
carries out in its capacity as a member of the di Pilot Courts Network of the CEPEJ (Commission Européenne
pour l’efficacité de la justice/European Commission for the
Efficiency of Justice) of the Council of Europe. The initiative draws its
origin from the activities of the Working Group on the quality
of justice of the CEPEJ (CEPEJ-GT-QUAL). This panel (also on the
basis of previous experiences realized at the Court of Geneva) has recently
edited a Report on “Conducting Satisfaction Surveys of Court Users in
Council of Europe Member States.” This handbook, available on the Council
of Europe’s web site, together with other documents which have been
drafted by the same organ, contains as well a “Model Questionnaire for
Court Users,” which can be used, with the appropriate adjustments, in
each and every Judicial Office willing to test the level of satisfaction of
people who, for any possible reason, contact such bodies.
Setting
up criteria and directives for the realization of surveys of this kind lies
within the fundamental scope of the CEPEJ,
that are the improvement of the efficiency and functioning of justice in member
States, and the development of the implementation of the instruments adopted by
the Council of Europe to this end. In order to carry out these different tasks,
the CEPEJ prepares benchmarks,
collects and analyses data, defines instruments of measure and means of
evaluation, adopts documents (reports, advices, guidelines, action plans,
etc.), develops contacts with qualified personalities, non-governmental
organisations, research institutes and information centres, organises hearings,
promotes networks of legal professionals.
Amongst
the working groups of CEPEJ, besides
the already mentioned panel on the themes of the quality of justice, we can
also mention the Groupe de Pilotage
of the “Centre for judicial time management (SATURN Centre – Study
and Analysis of judicial Time Use Research Network).” The SATURN Centre
is instructed to collect information necessary for the knowledge of judicial
timeframes in the member States and detailed enough to enable member states to
implement policies aiming to prevent violations of the right to a fair trial
within a reasonable time protected by Article 6 of the European Convention on
Human Rights. It should also be added that CEPEJ
set up a Network of Pilot-courts from European States to support its activities
through a better understanding of the day to day functioning of courts and to
highlight best practices which could be presented to policy makers in European
States in order to improve the efficiency of judicial systems.
2. Working Group and Timeframes.
The
idea of running a satisfaction survey in Italy aimed at Court users is founded
upon the above mentioned guidelines prepared by the Quality Working Group of
the CEPEJ. The concrete input came at
the end of 2010 by the Director-General of Statistics of the Italian Department
of Justice, who invited the two Italian members of the Network of Pilot Courts,
which to say the First Instance Court of Turin and the Appeals Court of
Catania, to run a survey on the degree of customer satisfaction; the initiative
has also been extended to the Appeal Court of Turin, whose President, former
President of the local First Instance Court, Dr. Mario Barbuto, is the author
of the “Strasbourg Programme,” which, in the year 2001, constituted
the first concrete experiment of case management in Italy. Actually, it is due
to this programme that in 2006 the Turin First Instance Court was awarded by
the Council of Europe and the European Union a special mention in the framework
of the “The Crystal Scales of Justice Award.”
A
working group was therefore set up, under the coordination of the
Director-General of Statistics of the Italian Ministry of Justice (DGStat), Dr.
Fabio Bartolomeo. The panel comprised also, as
far as the Turinese section was concerned, the President of the Appeals Court
of Turin, Dr. Mario Barbuto, the President of the First Instance Court of
Turin, Dr. Luciano Panzani, as well as Dr. Brunella Rosso, President of a
Section of the Appeals Court of Turin, Dr. Giacomo Oberto, Judge of the First
Instance Court of Turin, Dr. Roberto Calabrese, statistical expert of the
Appeals Court of Turin and Dr. Luigi Cipollini, statistical expert of the DGStat.
The working group was also comprised of the President of the Turin Bar, Avv.
Mario Napoli, as well as by the representatives of the Observatory on Civil
Justice of Turin, Avv. Raffaella Garimanno and Avv. Angelica Scozia, by Prof.
Eugenio Dalmotto, of the Law Faculty of the University of Turin, and by the
person in charge of organisation of decentralised training for judges in the
Turin District of the Appeals Court, Dr. Ombretta Salvetti, Judge of the First
Instance Court of Turin. The group was charged with defining the aims of the
survey, to single out the targets and to draft the questionnaire. Moreover it
has monitored the correct implementation of the survey and is currently
ensuring the distribution of its results.
In
its first meetings the aforementioned working group had proceeded towards the
drafting of the questionnaire, along the lines of CEPEJ guidelines, however introducing some adaptations to the
Italian reality. Therefore it contacted the Law Faculty of the University of
Turin and in particular Prof. Eugenio Dalmotto, Professor of Civil Procedural
Law, who organized and made available a group of approximately 25 students.
These people materially carried out the survey, spreading the questionnaire and
gathering answers to it. In view of developing this activity, the working group
held some preparatory meetings with the students, in order to train them to run
the survey questionnaire and illustrate the scope and modality of surveying. It
has also to be added that the rigorous timeframes set in the first meeting of
the working group, which was held at the Ministry, in Dr. Bartolomeo’s
office, on 12th October 2010, have been fully complied with. So the
questionnaire was finalised by the end of November 2010; after this the
initiative was explained to the aforementioned group of students, who were
appropriately trained between December 2010 and January 2011. Interviews of
customers were conducted with the delivering of 618 questionnaires in the
period between January and March 2011. After each interview, conducted by a
student on the basis of the questionnaire, answers provided were verified and
inserted via the web in the appropriate data bases; final data was analysed and
elaborated in the framework of a conclusive report.
3. Methodology, Object and Target of Turin Survey.
Coming
now to illustrate the object of the Turin survey, it must be said that the
working group decided in the first place to single out the judicial offices in
which customer satisfaction should be measured. For this purpose the panel
decided to choose the First Instance Court and the Appeals Court of Turin,
having regard to both civil and penal sectors. Prosecution offices before said
Courts were excluded, as well as, for logistical reasons, the Juvenile Court,
the Offices of the Justice of the Peace and the four Detached Sections (i.e.:
sections pertaining to other cities situated within the boundaries of Turin
district) of the First Instance Court. This was expressed in question No. 1 of
the questionnaire (Q.1); replies are condensed in Diagram 1.
Diagram 1 – Courts serving interviewees.
Diagram
1 shows that 93% of the interviewed people were served by the Court of First
Instance (Tribunale), whereas the
remaining 7% to the Appeals Court (Corte
d’Appello). This percentage roughly reflects the existing ratio
between the total number of cases lodged with the First Instance Courts of the
District and cases pending before the Appeals Court.
As
far as the target of the survey is concerned, the above mentioned panel
decided, at least for this first experiment, not to involve practitioners.
Therefore the questionnaire was not addressed to judges, lawyers, trainee
lawyers, Court clerks and other employees of the justice administration system.
It was decided instead to focus on parties, witnesses, jurors, relatives of
parties or witnesses, Court’s or party’s experts, interpreters. The
reason of such decision is that practitioners like judges, prosecutors,
magistrates, lawyers and employees of the administration of justice already
dispose of institutions (associations, bar and professional organisations,
trade unions, etc.) which may bring to the outside world impressions, needs and
“moods” of such professionals of justice.
Scope
of the survey, in its various articulations, was to provide a general idea on
following three fundamental aspects: a) expectations, b) importance of services
and c) satisfaction and perception about rendered services. Diagram 2 shows
overall data breakdown by various categories of users.
Diagram 2 – Data breakdown by various categories of
users.
Diagram
2 shows that a high number of people visiting the Turin Palace of justice were
in the category of parties in a lawsuit. In particular, the figure referred to
the relatives of a party and to the spectators, whose two percentages reach a
total figure of 20%, was surprisingly high.
Collected
data shows that interviewed people were predominantly male, of almost all ages;
such people were in their majority married; they had (at least) an advanced
secondary school certificate and a full time job. The majority of full time
employed people are civil servants and private enterprise employees, followed
by freelancers, workers, entrepreneurs and independent workers. The majority of
interviewed people have shown to be able to orient themselves in judicial
offices, without previously collecting information by phone or in another way,
as it is illustrated in Diagram 3.
Diagram 3 – Information gathered by customers prior to visiting
a Court.
Data
gathered from the answers to the survey shows that the overwhelming majority of
customers either did not try to get information by phone, email or on the Web
Site, or they said they did not need to gather information. However, it is
important to point out that, out of the 14% of the customers who tried to get
information, the vast majority (80%) succeeded in their quest.
Other meaningful information is supplied by the
breakdown of categories of procedures, as illustrated by Diagram 4.
Diagram 4 – Breakdown categories of procedures involved.
Percentages
referred to in Diagram 4 show, as expected, a preponderant involvement of
interviewed people in penal procedures, whereas in civil procedures those areas
of law prevailing are (in decreasing order) family law, torts, enforcement
matters and labour cases.
A
further element allowing a better knowledge of users’ needs concerns the
number of times interviewed users have visited Turin judicial offices, as illustrated
in Diagram 5.
Diagram 5 – Number of times interviewed users have been
visiting Turin judicial offices.
Data
shown in Diagram 5 turn out to be rather unexpected. Actually, the total number
of those people who visited such offices more than once exceeds by far the
figure of those people who were visiting Turin judicial offices for their first
time. Quite remarkable are data concerning people who have been visiting the
palace of justice five or more times (27%): this seems to show the existence of
a category of “frequent visitors” of judicial offices.
4. The Overall Impact and the Importance Given by Users
to Various Items of Provided Services.
Diagram 6 records what could be defined as “the
overall impact:” the general impression customers get about services
provided by Turin judicial offices.
Diagram 6 – General impression customers get about
services provided by Turin judicial offices.
General
data can be seen as rather reassuring, as it turns out that the sum of those
who declared themselves very much satisfied and of those who declared
themselves enough satisfied reaches the threshold of 50%, while the total
number of people who declare themselves less than (or not at all) satisfied is
less than one third of the total. It is obvious that a lot still remains to be
done, as is made clear, in particular, by the empirical data portrayed in
Diagram 8d.
Data
summarised in Diagram 7 is of great interest, as it refers to the importance
customers attach to various characteristics of services offered.
Diagram 7 – Importance given to various elements of
services offered.
Amongst
all the elements which appear essential for the customers’ judgment, one
of the most relevant is the competence of judges (35%). Users declared to
prefer such item, although slightly, to the fairness of judgment (31%). We find
rather distanced, notably, data on the duration of procedures (18%); finally,
the weight accorded to kindness/politeness of judges and of the staff was
almost insignificant (12%), as well as the comfort of judicial premises (5%).
Such information allows us to adequately assess and “calibrate”
data emerging from Diagrams 8b, 8c and 8d.
Some
other elements allowing us to assess general impact concern the logistics of
judicial services: particularly premises (location, comfort, cleanness, clarity
of signage within the courthouse) and working hours, as illustrated in Diagram
8a.
Diagram 8a – Assessing the logistics: premises and working
hours.
The
overall judgment on the above mentioned results on evidence concerning
logistical aspects of Turin’s Justice Palace, and to the services
supplied there, appears more than gratifying. The sum of the percentages of
those who declared themselves fully or rather in agreement with the appraisal
in positive terms on feasibility, cleanliness and comfort of the premises,
clarity of signage within the courthouse and convenience of working times,
reaches a total number of people who almost always exceed two thirds of the
total of interviewed people, while the relative “level of dissatisfaction”
(which is comprised of the percentages of those who declared themselves
partially or not at all in agreement) is always between 5% and 18%.
5. Outcome of the Survey: Staff, Judges, Timeframes and
Costs of Justice.
The
most important and interesting part of the questionnaire relates to a series of
elements that, in the process of drawing up the questionnaire, the working
group thought indispensable for an accurate assessment of services offered to
users. Therefore the panel decided to put the focus, in the first place, on
such elements as: easy recognisability, competence, availability and clarity of
the staff, as it is shown in Diagram 8b.
Diagram 8b – Assessing
the staff.
Apart
from the item of staff’s easy recognisability and the availability of
information on the Internet and other sources of information, other questions
related to the clerical staff indicate a high level of satisfaction. Therefore,
the number of those people who declared themselves as rather or fully agreeing
on items such as the competence of the staff, their availability to help
customers and to provide clear information, exceeds half of the interviewed
people, while the degree of dissatisfaction is around 10%.
Coming now to the judges, the idea has been to focus
attention on elements such as their capability to inspire trust and confidence,
their competence, impartiality, politeness and the ability to express
themselves with clarity, as it is shown in Diagram 8c.
Diagram 8c – Assessing
the judges.
Data
relating to the assessment of the judges is decidedly comforting. The overall
level of satisfaction (that is the sum of data of those who
declared themselves rather in agreement and of those who said they fully agreed
with the assertion that judges inspire trust and confidence, that they are
competent, impartial, polite, and that they are able to express themselves with
clarity) is always higher than 50%. Relative percentages of dissatisfaction oscillate
instead between 14 and 22%. Such results seem rather surprising, especially
when we think of the campaign of systematic denigration and delegittimation of
the judiciary, which is currently present in Italy. The data appears all the
more comforting, if we note that the level of importance attributed to the
above mentioned items is the highest which has been registered (see above,
Diagram 7 and relative comments).
Coming,
finally, to the assessment of time and cost, the working group decided to ask
questions concerning: fairness of costs for litigation, reasonableness of
timeframes, punctuality of hearings, overall organization of the judicial
office and the possibility to obtain information easily, as it is shown in
Diagram 8d.
Diagram 8d –
Assessing timeframes and costs of justice.
Diagram
8d is unique in providing alarming evidence on the current situation of the
system. Customers’ assessment about reasonableness of judicial timeframes
is merciless: actually, the level of dissatisfaction reaches 75%, against 13%
of those who declared themselves rather or fully in agreement with the
assertion that the reasonable duration of the procedures is concretely assured.
Such an outcome is astonishing, in the light of the positive results of the
“Strasbourg Programme” (that allowed the Turin First Instance Court
to achieve far better results than those of the other Italian courts). However,
such a shortcoming can be at least in part mitigated by the fact that the level
of importance that customers attach to the reasonable duration of process
appears remarkably inferior to the one attributed to the competence of judges
(see above, Diagram 8c). Data mentioned above can perhaps be explained in the
light of the fact that the survey also comprises criminal trials and that,
whereas the whole civil process is managed by the Court, the criminal trial is
managed by two different offices: the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the
first place and the Court in the second place. Therefore we have also to take
into account possible delays in the Public Prosecution Office. A surprising
weak spot, at least as far as Turin is concerned, is constituted also by data
concerning punctuality of hearings (46% of people declared themselves
unsatisfied, against 39% who declared themselves satisfied); this outcome can
be explained with regard to the fact that the majority of interviewed people
were involved in penal proceedings, and for such hearings (unlike civil
hearings) no system of staggering is in use.
No
surprise comes from data on the assessment of judicial costs, which are deemed
as not fair by 53% and fair by 25% of interviewed people. On the contrary, data
on the overall organisation of judicial office appears comforting (61% of
interviewed people declared themselves satisfied, against 19%, who declared
themselves unsatisfied); the same is true for data concerning availability of
information (61% satisfied, against 21% unsatisfied).
6. Overall Outcome of the Survey: Satisfaction and
Importance.
The
empirical data gathered by the survey can be represented graphically by
cross-referencing the replies of interviewed people on issues pertaining to
satisfaction about services rendered by Turin judicial institutions with
replies on the various characteristics (items) considered as regards their
importance. In this graph (see Figure 1) it is possible to determine four
distinct areas. Such areas are defined by drawing two lines across, on the
points of the two axes (abscissae and ordinates) matching respective average
values. Data concerning “importance” was statistically derived
using the Spearman correlation index between each specific item and the overall
satisfaction. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient is a non-parametric
measure of statistical dependence between two variables. It assesses how well
the relationship between two variables can be described using a monotonic
function, either always increasing or always decreasing.
Items
falling within the square situated in the upper-right part of the map are those
which are considered as important by users and that at the same time received a
high satisfaction score. This explains why we could define this area as an
“Area of Excellence,” (“High Importance-High
Satisfaction”), to be constantly monitored and valued in the interest of
a better service to the citizens. A high importance (above the average),
associated to a low degree of satisfaction (under the average), characterizes
the area situated in the lower-right part of the diagram, that is the area of
the “needs which are not adequately satisfied,” or “Area for
Improvement” (“High Importance-Low Satisfaction”). The items
of this part of the map require a great deal of attention.
A low
degree of importance associated to an elevated degree of satisfaction characterizes
those items which, in spite of a positive assessment by the customers, are not
perceived as essential. Therefore, for these items keeping the same level of
quality can be deemed sufficient (see the upper-left area of the diagram, which
could be called “Area for Maintenance”: “Low Importance-High
Satisfaction”). Finally, relatively negligible are those items which,
although characterised by a low level of satisfaction, are considered by
customers as less important than others (see the lower-left area of the
diagram, which could be called our “Area of Indifference”:
“Low Importance-Low Satisfaction”).
It
must be noted that in the “Area of Excellence” we can find nearly
all the items related to politeness, competence, clarity and impartiality of
the judges, a couple of items pertaining to the staff (competence and
availability), as well as the good organization of the offices and to the
easiness to gather information.
|
|
Figure 1 – Satisfaction vs. Importance
Diagram.