Text Only

Family Court of Australia banner

Menu
Papers and reports

Click here for a list of submissions made by the Family Court of Australia

 Updated : Tuesday, 01 June, 2004

Court administration and management

 Papers and reports

Home

 

Top

Previous

Next

 
Strategic Use of Client Feedback by Courts : The Experience of the Family Court of Australia

    By Andrew Phelan, General Manager, Corporate Services, Family Court of Australia, 6 August 1999

     

While the general theme of this Conference is how Courts deal with complaints or concerns of the public, I propose to take a more holistic view of the relevance of "customer" views. There is a risk that, by focusing on complaints, jurisdictions may place too much emphasis on negative information – that is, unless they have in place a strategic framework for embracing client/customer/user/public perceptions.

This paper proceeds on the basis that the views of those whom an organisation serves are critical to planning and process improvement in that organisation.  In an era when Courts are increasingly self-administered and more accountable for their outputs and use of resources, Courts will increasingly need to be managed in a more business-like way - and therefore need to deal meaningfully with client needs and values.  Of course, these may change over time, so the feedback process needs to be ongoing.

The experiences of the Family Court of Australia ("The Court") in developing a new strategic plan, implementing strategies to improve client service and incorporating client feedback (including complaints) into process improvements and performance management are discussed in this paper.  While essentially descriptive, the paper will explain the purpose behind the Court's actions and make some suggestions based on our experience.

Background

The Court plays a central role in dealing with intensely personal issues for Australian families. It attempts to resolve or determine family separation problems for 250,000 new clients each year.  About 40% (and rising) of family clients are unrepresented.

The Court is big by Australian standards.  It deploys over 50 judicial officers, around 200 legal and counselling professionals and 600 other staff through over 50 permanent and circuit locations across Australia (except Western Australia), and has recurrent, annual expenditures of around $110 million.

Around five percent of matters before the Court require judicial determination.  It is a goal of the Court to facilitate the resolution of family disputes through consensual means through the deployment of appropriate professional, Court -annexed mediation and related primary dispute resolution services.

Strategic Planning

Strategic Planning processes in the Court

Planning involves far more than the production of paper or IT-based documents declaring worthy or even useful intentions.  The Court's planning regime therefore recognises the need for:

  • a range of strategic processes to help focus the efforts of those who are working in the Court (including judges);
  • ways to develop and integrate the mechanisms needed to support achievement of the Court's goals (support mechanisms ); and
  • ways to ensure commitment to delivering the required outcomes at the operational level (operational components).

The Family Court's planning regime comprises a wide range of activities, all integrated but operating at and between these different levels.

Strategic elements

At the strategic level, the major activities have been:

  • development and implementation of the Court Strategic Plan and Client Service Charter;
  • development of a "balanced scorecard" to enable the Court's Executive to monitor the Court's performance in terms of the Court's strategic objectives;
  • negotiation of the Court's first Certified Agreement covering all non-senior executive staff and Australian Workplace Agreements covering key staff, incorporating the newly developed strategic themes.

Support elements

Support mechanisms include the range of policies, strategies and plans, together with national initiatives and structural changes, needed to translate the Court's strategic intentions into action.  Recent activities have included:

  • process design and improvement projects, in particular:
  • - trial management initiatives;
  • - mapping and improving the Court's core (case management) processes;
  • - re-engineering information management (including library) services;
  • - assessing support and other functions for contracting-out; and
  • - investing in new technologies; and
  • the development and implementation of a new resource management regime (facilitating the implementation of the whole-of-government accrual budgeting initiative).

Operational elements

The future Court culture will place greater emphasis on teamwork in the delivery of services. The key element for translating the Court's strategic objectives into better service will be Client Service Improvement Plans prepared by each Registry and support unit. These Plans incorporate at least five initiatives for improving services to Court clients and Court productivity and have been developed with close consultation with local clients.

Client input to Strategic Planning in the Court

The Family Court engaged The Value Creation Group Pty Limited to facilitate the development of the new Court Strategic Plan. The intention was not simply to produce a new document or plan but to fundamentally review the Court's approach to those for whom it exists ("families in dispute").

The initial step was to conduct an Operational Environment Assessment, which consisted of:

  • individual interviews with senior judges and senior managers;
  • focus groups of staff and managers to ascertain qualitative and quantitative perceptions of existing service delivery (15 of these focus groups have been held, involving around 200 staff of the Court);
  • focus groups of family clients, judges and staff to solicit client perspectives of existing service needs, wants, expectations, values and service delivery gaps (six of these focus groups have been held – in Brisbane (2), Sydney, Melbourne (2) and Adelaide – involving around 80 clients, 20 judicial officers and 50 staff of the Court);
  • focus groups of solicitors and barristers to solicit their perspectives of existing service needs, wants, expectations, values and service delivery gaps (four of these focus groups have been held – one each for solicitors and barristers in each of Sydney and Melbourne – involving 25 firms of solicitors, 27 barristers and 60 staff of the Court);
  • sessions with judges and staff to analyse the information provided by family and lawyer customers (10 of these have been held); and
  • interviews by the consultant with a range of external organisational representatives who have an interest or association with the Court, including law associations and counselling/mediation bodies.

The objectives which the Court set for this Operational Environment Assessment were to:

  • survey the needs, values, attitudes and satisfaction levels of the Court's external and internal clients;
  • identify any service delivery "gaps" and deficiencies in existing service delivery arrangements;
  • identify specific issues, opportunities and/or barriers to the Court progressing;
  • identify strategic issues that needed to be addressed to ensure a work environment is created that is conducive to providing high quality client service and continuous improvement;
  • identify strategic issues that needed to be addressed to involve all staff and judges in understanding how their actions relate to the overall success of the Court in achieving a vision of high quality client service; and
  • identify strategic issues that needed to be addressed to create an infrastructure where performance improvement at the individual, team and organisational level is self-evolving.

It is worth elaborating on what occurred in the focus groups with family and lawyer clients, as the Family Court's actions here are perhaps unique for courts anywhere.

The objectives of these focus groups (which the consultants have designed and manage under the trademark "Value Creation Workshop") were to:

  • determine the factors required for "best in the world" Family Court services through the eyes of the client;
  • determine the relative importance of these factors;
  • measure the perceived current performance for each factor identified;
  • measure any gaps between client and judge/staff perceptions;
  • identify service "irritants"; and
  • determine the relative importance of these irritants.

Clients were selected randomly and The Value Creation Group conducted the workshops off Court premises.  A range of technologies and mechanisms were used to create a non-threatening environment in which perceptions could be shared freely. While results were available for collation in the overall strategic planning process, other major effects were on the perceptions of clients (who generally valued the opportunity to participate) and on judges/staff, who directly experienced client feedback. Each participant received a written report of the workshop.

A concern was that the perceptions and comments of family clients would be coloured by the results of their contact with the Court. However, the Court's experience confirmed the consultant's predictions that this would not occur.   The process does require high-level facilitation skills which most Courts would probably need to purchase through consultancies.

The results of the Environment Assessment were collated and used in a three -day residential workshop, involving senior judges and managers and facilitated by the consultant.   The result (after fairly intensive discussion and debate) was an agreed draft for the Court's strategic plan, which was launched by the Chief Justice in April 1999.

An important element of the plan is local Client Service Improvement Plans – which are intended to reflect national themes in the context of local circumstances and service needs ("think nationally, act locally"). The certified agreement reinforces the importance of these plans, by linking pay increases for staff to progress in implementing them.  The Court is investing in developing Registry Managers and other team leaders to enable the plans to be implemented from early in 1999.

Perceptions at this point in time are that the strategic planning process has provided the Court with a new sense of energy and focus and renewed commitment to developing innovative and cost-effective ways to improve services for its clients. Again, this is a culture-change exercise.  As such, it will require renewal over time and ongoing dialogue between the Court and its clients.

A parallel and related process has seen the Court develop its Client Service Charter through consultations with around 2,000 people (judges, staff, clients and legal and community groups).

Process improvement

The Court's strategic planning process identified a number of opportunities for improving judicial, dispute resolution and information delivery processes. These appear as the 10 Strategies listed in the Strategic Plan. 

The Court recognised that a key outcome of its planning was to have "everyone involved in understanding the needs of families in dispute and in designing services for them".  The strategies for achieving this place heavy emphasis on consultation with, and feedback from, clients (whether family clients, legal practitioners or others).

The relevant strategies are:

    • Key Result 2 Everyone involved in understanding the needs of families in dispute and in designing services for them
      • Strategy 2.1 Develop and implement systems to enable all judicial officers and staff to understand the needs of families in dispute and other clients. These systems would embrace:

    • ongoing client surveys;
    • obtaining advice from experts, other agencies, and ethnic and other community groups;
    • taking advantage of normal business contacts with families, their representatives, other agencies and community groups;
    • formal procedures for feedback and input from staff and Court users (including the legal profession);
    • developing relationships and maintaining regular liaison with the legal profession and other organisations involved in supporting families in dispute - including legal aid, other agencies, ethnic and other community organisations;
    • encouraging judicial officers, staff and families and their representatives to give and get feedback where it is proper and appropriate to do so;
    • encouraging innovations in feedback mechanisms; and
    • developing within the Court expertise in Australian and overseas research on the needs of families in dispute and services provided.
      • Strategy 2.2 Develop a set of  "client service principles", informed by client feedback, to guide planning, design, delivery and location of Court services.

        Strategy 2.3 Develop and implement services that suit the needs of families, including:

    • reviewing and redesigning case management processes;
    • reviewing and redefining the roles and functions of staff, in terms of redesigned case management processes and the introduction of case management teams;
    • reviewing the information needs of families, representatives and others and developing processes and structures to meet these needs;
    • developing relationships with other agencies and community groups who support families in dispute;
    • improving procedures which protect the privacy and safety of families, staff, judicial officers and other users of the Court's services;
    • improving trial management;
    • devising processes which help minimise costs for families; and
    • designing and implementing services to meet special needs of litigants who are unrepresented, indigenous, disabled or do not speak English .
      • Strategy 2.4: Design and implement procedures for involving staff and judicial officers in the design of services to suit the needs of families, including:

    • practices which encourage suggestions from staff and Judges and ensure careful consideration of them; and
    • consulting staff who provide the service whenever change to a service or introduction of a new service is to be considered.   

The centrality of client input to process design and re-design is readily apparent from this list of strategies.

In late-1998, the Chief Justice established what is described as "The Future Directions Committee" (comprising judicial officers and senior managers) to sponsor and steer process improvement projects. Each project involves client (family and professional) input.

The initial, major process improvement project, the so-called "Early Intervention Project", has commenced, with the assistance of KPMG Management Consulting.  The key aspects of this project are to:

  • focus on the first four months in the life of an application to the Court, and what is required to support the parties reach settlement in the most appropriate manner;
  • specifically, understand the needs of the legal profession and the general public in what they are seeking from the process (accessing client survey material already being gathered and have the consultants consult direct with family, legal and community clients); and
  • consider all aspects to improve the process, including the use of technology, the mix of people involved, the physical environment in which the process operates, and the policy and legislation required to support the process.

The achievement of better outcomes for clients (eg, elimination of delays, better information and understanding of processes) will require an understanding of what clients need, as well as cooperation between the Court, family clients and their representatives in making it all work. Clearly, legal, client and community involvement in process re-design and implementation is seen as essential.

Client Surveys

Survey objectives

In early 1999, the Court conducted a comprehensive survey of clients across all Registries.  This survey was the first in an ongoing program of regular monitoring of the quality of services delivered by the Court. It focused on the perceptions of family clients and links directly to the Court's strategic theme of tailoring services to the needs of families and children.

The objectives of the survey were to:

  • collect quantitative national data on client satisfaction with the services provided by the Court, which could be used to determine areas requiring improvement and as a benchmark indicator of client perceptions for the Balanced Scorecard Report;
  • collect local data that could provide feedback to Registries on their clients' perceptions of services, which would assist them in developing and monitoring Client Service Improvement Plans; and
  • provide sample populations and research areas for future qualitative research.

Each Court Registry was provided with results from the survey based on the responses of those family clients they service. From these, and other consultations, Registries have been developing Client Service Improvement Plans that are specifically directed toward local clients. National issues have also been identified from the survey which are facilitating the development of national improvement strategies.

Methodology

The sample

Clients were selected randomly from each of the waiting areas in registries (counselling, court, filing etc) and asked if they would mind answering a series of questions about service.  Family clients (applicants, respondents and voluntary counselling attendees) were the primary target population of the survey.  Practitioner clients and witnesses were excluded after the screening questions. Friends and relatives were largely excluded although interviewers were allowed some discretion to include these clients.

No specific stratification of the sample was attempted although interviewers were asked to interview both male and female clients from various age groups and various ethnic backgrounds if possible.

Fieldwork and response rate

Interviewers were drawn from each registry and sub-registry and participated in a training session conducted by the Evaluation Analyst, Management Information and Research (MIR).  A pilot test of the questionnaire and interview methodology was conducted in Canberra registry prior to full enumeration of the survey.

Interviews with family clients were conducted in all registries and sub-registries during March 1999. The questions covered:

  • family client perceptions of the services provided by the Family Court;
  • their opinion of information provided;
  • their perception of the Family Court staff and officers;
  • whether the processes of the Family Court have made settling or resolving the dispute easier or harder; and
  • their suggestions on how the Family Court could improve its services.

1141 clients completed interviews/questionnaires in respect of 11 registries and 9 sub-registries, resulting in 996 interviews with clients in our target population. The in scope sample were split almost evenly between Area North (53 per cent) and Area South (47 per cent).

Summary of top line results

Snapshot of client characteristics

  • Around 51 per cent of clients interviewed were women.
  • The majority of clients were born in Australia (76 per cent).
  • Only 52 per cent of clients were in paid employment.
  • The majority of clients interviewed were applicants (65 per cent) and 27 per cent were respondents.
  • About 62 per cent of clients had a legal representative.

Assessment of staff

In general the staff were very highly rated, with 75 per cent or more of clients agreeing that:

  • Court staff go out of their way to help (82 per cent);
  • they treat you as an individual (76 per cent);
  • they treat you with respect (90 per cent);
  • they are polite and courteous (91 per cent);
  • they can give you enough time (82 per cent); and
  • they are friendly (90 per cent).

Perception of Court process

Clients were asked whether bringing their matter to the Family Court made the process of settling or resolving the dispute easier or harder.

  • About 43 per cent of clients felt that the process was made easier, and the main reasons given were:
  • - it helps people focus on the issues/you get a decision (22 per cent);
  • - simple procedures/only place to get a divorce (10 per cent); and
  • - fair/just procedures (10 per cent).
  • About a third (33 per cent) of clients felt that bringing the matter to the Court made the process harder, for the following reasons:
  • - it increased the stress/anger/conflict of the situation (14 per cent);
  • - the system is too complicated/not meant for the lay person (6 per cent);
  • - the system can be misused/has no enforcement capability (7 per cent); and
  • - the process takes too long/you don't get anywhere (7 per cent).

Best things about the Court

The majority of responses to what the Court did best related to the services provided by the Court, with 27 per cent saying that the best thing was that the Court defined the issues and achieved resolution in the dispute. Around 9 per cent felt the best thing was that the Court provided alternatives that actively encouraged people to reach a solution without getting into a courtroom.  Some 8 per cent said just being there and providing a useful service was the best thing and 8 per cent said that fairness and impartiality was the main benefit. Some 14 per cent of responses were that providing helpful supportive and understanding staff was the best thing the Court does.

Worst Things about the Court

Some 16 per cent of responses to this question said that having to wait/having no proper appointment system was the worst thing and a further 10 per cent said it was the length of time the process takes.  Around 7 per cent said that the bias was the worst thing; however for male respondents this was 12 per cent and chiefly bias against men was reported. A further 17 per cent felt that the worst thing about the process was that they had to go through it or that it was a stressful experience and 6 per cent said fear of facing their ex-partner/lack of safety was the worst thing.

Suggestions for change

Some 73 per cent of those who responded offered a range of suggestions for change:

  • 45 per cent of the suggestions made were process related (11 per cent were for reductions in delays or improvements to timeframes and 6 per cent for a new appointment system);
  • 14 per cent of suggestions were for changes to the building (6 per cent related to providing more security or separate waiting areas for applicants and respondents);
  • 17 per cent of suggestions related to changes to facilities (such as refreshments being made available and distractions such as magazines in the waiting rooms); and
  • 10 per cent of suggestions were for information being presented in a simpler and more accessible format.

Messages for the Court from its initial client survey

Overall the survey indicates that the Court's family clients are reasonably satisfied with the quality of services provided and highly satisfied with the staff. The main areas for improvement are in the area of appointments and overall time of the process and in methods of reducing or helping to manage the stressful/emotional experience by enhancements to the environment and information provision. Although only a small proportion noted bias (mainly against males) and safety (mainly females reporting) as issues it is important for these to be addressed as quickly as possible as a perception of both bias or a perceived lack of safety should be unacceptable in the Court.  These may be at least partially overcome through better informing clients of our purpose and procedures.

Complaints

Complaints are a measure of client dissatisfaction, but the inverse does not necessarily apply – low levels of complaints may not equal high levels of satisfaction.  Many organisations make assumptions based on negative data, particularly complaints. It is very difficult to develop a client-focused organisation without good quality information on client satisfaction.  Measures of satisfaction should be both direct and detailed enough to indicate which areas of process, product or service require most urgent attention. As discussed above, the Court has involved clients in its strategic planning processes and has integrated client satisfaction surveying into its performance measurement and process improvement processes.

Client satisfaction data can highlight areas that need improvement before the service receives complaints. It is in this context that expressions of client dissatisfaction (ie complaints) can be viewed constructively as opportunities for process improvement.

The Court defines a complaint as "an expression of dissatisfaction concerning its policy, practices, charges or service delivery". Complaints are not limited to matters of administration; the Court considers complaints about judicial processes as well.

Complaints may be received directly by the Court or referred by another agency or department such as the Attorney-General's Department, the Ombudsman's Office or as a representation through a local Member of Parliament.  Most complaints are dealt with at the Registry or Area Office level.  More complex complaints and representations are forwarded to the Chief Executive Officer who assesses the matter and, if necessary, refers the matter for a report and draft response. 

The Court takes complaints very seriously and, depending on the nature or seriousness of the issues raised, the Chief Justice or the Chief Executive Officer may respond to the complaint.  The Court employs a full-time Complaints Officer , working direct to the Chief Executive Officer, and maintains a central database register of all complaints received.

The Court believes that having a credible and responsive complaints system is essential to the maintenance of community confidence and understanding.  Credibility in dealing with client feedback can also facilitate strong responses to unreasonable complaints. The Court's comprehensive and strategic focus on using client feedback also tends to objectify complaints and produce a constructive approach to improving processes.  The result is a tendency to de-personalise complaints, the nature of the jurisdiction notwithstanding.

Some information on complaints dealt with by the Court

Number of Complaints – 1998-99

During 1998-1999, the Court's Complaints Officer registered 452 complaints, 14 of which were outside the Court's jurisdiction.  The remaining 438 represented 0.7% of the total number of all files opened by the Court during the year.  Examples of the sorts of complaints received by the Court follow.

Complaints by Type

Legal Process

Most of the complaints recorded as "legal process" concerned grievances about Court orders, delays, the law itself and alleged bias:

  • 124 complaints received during 1998-99 concerned the substance of orders, final or interim;
  • 62 concerned delays;
  • several concerned the law itself – family law or child support; and
  • 15 were about bias (against males, against females or against unrepresented parties).

Proceedings

This category includes complaints about what happened during Court proceedings. Of the 125 complaints of this type in 1998-99:

  • 34 complainants said that they were dissatisfied with the way their proceedings were handled;
  • 25 were not sure how to progress their matter further;
  • 22 alleged perjury;
  • nine said they could not follow or understand their proceedings;
  • nine claimed that false allegations of child abuse had been made;
  • nine alleged that the Court relied upon incorrect or inaccurate information; and
  • one claimed that the Court provided incorrect information during proceedings

Behaviour

Complaints recorded in this category report behaviour allegedly exhibited by Court staff or judicial officers. The Court received 89 complaints about behaviour, of which:

  • 42 concerned Judges;
  • 19 concerned Court counsellors;
  • 12 concerned registrars; and
  • 16 concerned other Court staff.

Most complaints about judges alleged bias (18) while most complaints about counsellors alleged unprofessional behaviour (9).  Most complaints about Registrars and other Court staff alleged rudeness.

Use of Complaints in Process Improvement

Examples of complaints which resulted in reviews of current practices include the following:

  • In response to a complaint which revealed that a client did not attend Court-ordered counselling because the correspondence advising of the appointment was incorrectly addressed, processes for maintaining and cross checking addresses were reviewed and improved.
  • After one complaint stating that the other party's non-compliance with directions delayed proceedings, processes were changed to ensure that compliance is properly addressed in advance of hearings.
  • The Newcastle Registry has taken steps to improve the timely processing of decrees after the Registry failed to process a decree nisi within an acceptable period of time after it had become absolute.
  • The expected standard of client service has been addressed with staff at the Brisbane Registry following two complaints concerning the level of client service delivered over the telephone and at the counter.
  • The Brisbane Registry has also addressed the issue of informing self represented litigants of changes in proceeding times after a client was not informed of a change of time for a telephone link-up.
  • The Sydney Registry has improved procedures to ensure that messages left on telephone answering machines for staff who are on leave are checked regularly and responded to.  A client wrote to the Registry stating that he had left messages for a staff member which were not returned as she was on leave.

Conclusion

While many people would object to Courts being described as "businesses", Courts which are self-governing (such as the Family Court of Australia) increasingly must act in a business-like way.  Indeed, many alternatives to Courts are developing and progressing rapidly; and, in many areas or processes traditionally regarded as Court monopolies, clients now do have real alternatives. While business analogies can be overstated, it is the view of the Family Court of Australia that community confidence and understanding is an essential goal and that its achievement requires embracing client views and values across the range of strategic, performance measurement, process improvement and complaints handling processes.

The experience of the Family Court of Australia is that these processes do not in any way diminish or impugn judicial independence. While Courts will receive extreme or unreasonable viewpoints, credibility in dealing with all viewpoints should enhance community confidence and understanding. However, where Courts do not deal meaningfully with client concerns or views, they run the risk that others may establish mechanisms to deal with public comment or establish alternative mechanisms to address client needs.

According to current business theory and research:

  • very high levels of client satisfaction are necessary for service organisations to survive and prosper;
  • 70% of innovative ideas for improvement come from clients – and, of course, organisations have to give clients the opportunity to give their ideas;
  • over 90% of dissatisfied clients walk away without complaining unless given lots of opportunities; and
  • a dissatisfied client will complain to between eight and 10 other people, whereas a satisfied client will tell five others.
     

Disclaimer
The views expressed in the papers and reports provided this section of the site are those of the Author. The Family Court of Australia does not necessarily endorse the  views of a particular author or authenticate the accuracy of the information provided. The use a reader makes of the information provided in these papers is the reader's sole responsibility.


 

General Site Menu
About the Court - Brochures - Contacts - Court forms - Court lists - Judgments - Kits - Legislation - Links - Missing children - New jobs - Papers and reports - Practice directions - Publications - Search - Site instructions - Step by step guide to proceedings - Topic index


 

See disclaimer about this translation feature

Disclaimer

Privacy statement

© 2004 Family Court of Australia

www.familycourt.gov.au