Sign In

SCAO Customer Satisfaction Survey Results

Trial courts serve the public; SCAO
serves the trial courts. To improve service, SCAO conducted a survey of our customers both in person at a judicial conference and online. Comments provided by respondents are already being used to identify and address concerns raised by judges and staff of the trial courts. Click here to learn more about the survey results.

 

Results of Trial Courts Public Satisfaction Survey

Michigan is leading the nation in transforming its judiciary to increase efficiency, embrace technology and measure performance to improve service to the public. In particular, SCAO's performance measures initiative is helping the judiciary open a window to court operations so that success can be duplicated and concerns can be addressed. Click here to learn more about the survey results.

Bookmark and Share

​Michigan Supreme Court

Judiciary Dashboard

 

Timeliness:  Justice Without Delays 

whyitmatters.gif
​2012 ​2013
​Michigan Supreme Court's Clearance Rates ​104% ​95%
​Court of Appeals' Clearance Rates ​96% ​105%
​Trial Courts' Clearance Rates ​101% ​102%

 

whyitmatters.gif
2012 ​2013
​Court of Appeals' Case Age Rates (18 months) ​92% ​89%
​Trial Courts' Case Age Rates (Final Guidelines) ​96% ​96%

 

Efficiency:  Coordination and Consolidation 

whyitmatters.gif
2011 ​2015
​Overjudged County-Funded Jurisdictions ​29 out of 56 ​20 out of 56
​52% ​36%
Underjudged County-Funded Jurisdictions ​8 out of 56 ​4 out of 56
​14% ​7%
​Overjudged Locally-Funded Jurisdictions ​9 out of 45 ​7 out of 43
​20% ​16%
​Underjudged Locally-Funded Jurisdictions ​3 out of 45 ​2 out of 43
​7% ​5%

  

whyitmatters.gif
​2012 ​2015

​Annual Savings to State Due to Reduced Judgeships

​$852,126 ​$3.5 Million

  

whyitmatters.gif
​2012 ​2013
​Counties Streamlining Courts ​31 ​64
​37% ​77%

  

whyitmatters.gif

​2012 ​2014
​Chief Judges Serving More Than One Court

​36 out of 179

​46 out of 146

​Percentage of Chief Judges Serving More Than One Court

​20% ​32%

 

Technology: Supporting Timeliness, Efficiency, Access 

whyitmatters.gif
​2013 ​2014
​Courts Accepting Electronic Case Filings ​7 8
​Population in Jurisdiction with Electronic Filing ​43%

​43%

 

whyitmatters.gif
2013 ​2014
​Courts with State's Case Management System ​76% ​78%
 
whyitmatters.gif
​2012 ​2013

​Agencies Accessing Judicial Data Warehouse

​15 ​16
​Courts Contributing to Warehouse ​239 out of 254 ​242 out of 254
​94% ​95%

​Counties Where Courts Contribute to Warehouse

​81 out of 83 counties

​81 out of 83 counties

​Inquiries to Warehouse ​333,700 ​388,600
​Court Records in Warehouse ​43.8 Million ​45.0 Million

 

whyitmatters.gif
2013 ​2014

Judges with Video Equipment in at Least One Courtroom

​221 out of 572

​366 out of 572

​39% ​64%
​Video Equipment in All Courtrooms in County

​50

​77

​60% ​93%
​Video Equipment in Some Courtrooms in County

​83

83

​100% ​100%
​2012 ​2013
​State Prisoners Transported to Court by Video ​1,830 ​3,229

​Estimated Savings for Michigan's Department of Corrections

​$1,189,500 ​$2,098,850

 

whyitmatters.gif
​2013 ​2014
Courts Accepting Online Payments
​79
​118
​District Courts With Online Traffic Payments ​78 ​95
Population With Online Traffic Payment System
 
85% 

 

Performance: Court Metrics and Evidence-Based Practices 

whyitmatters.gif
​Trial Court Public Satisfaction

​Click here to see results from 2014 survey of trial court users

​State Court Administrative Office Customer Service

​Click here to see results from 2014 survey of trial courts

 

whyitmatters.gif
​2010 ​2011

​Courts with Adequate, Satisfactory, or Ideal Collections Program

​231 out of 312

​265 out of 312

​74% ​85%

   

whyitmatters.gif
FY 2012 ​FY 2013

​Statewide Total Child Support Paid in Month Due

​66% ​67%
​Average Per County Paid in Month Due ​71% ​72%

 

whyitmatters.gif
2013 ​2014

​Population With One or More Problem-Solving Courts

​Not Available ​97%
Nonparticipants ​Participants
​Sobriety court 2-year, drug/alcohol conviction ​10% ​3%
​Sobriety court 2-year, any new conviction ​12% ​4%
​Sobriety court 4-year, drug/alcohol conviction ​15% ​8%
​Sobriety court 4-year, any new conviction ​18% ​10%
​District drug court 2-year, drug/alcohol conviction ​10% ​5%
​District drug court 2-year, any new conviction ​12% ​6%
​District drug court 4-year, drug/alcohol conviction ​16% ​12%
​District drug court 4-year, any new conviction ​18% ​13%
​Circuit drug court 2-year, drug/alcohol conviction ​11% ​6%
​Circuit drug court 2-year, any new conviction ​17% ​9%
​Circuit drug court 4-year, drug/alcohol conviction ​18% ​15%
​Circuit drug court 4-year, any new conviction ​27% ​22%
​Mental health court 1-year, any new conviction ​22% ​4%
​Mental health court 2-year, any new conviction ​40% ​13%
​Mental health court 3-year, any new conviction ​52% ​27%
​Mental health court 4-year, any new conviction ​59% ​34%

 

Access:  Connecting Courts and the Public 

whyitmatters.gif
​2013
​2014 
(Projected)
​Website Sessions ​2,118,433 ​2,527,668
​Website Page Views ​8,814,183 ​10,480,269
​Website Unique Visitors ​819,177

​Not Available

  

whyitmatters.gif
​2013 ​2014
​Certified Interpreters ​67 ​68
​Languages with a Certified Interpreter ​7 ​7
​Qualified Interpreters ​228 ​295
​Languages with a Qualified Interpreter ​31 ​41

  

whyitmatters.gif
​2012 ​2013

​Cases Disposed by Community Dispute Resolution Centers

​14,715 ​14,412

​Settlement Rate for Community Dispute Resolution Centers

​68% ​69%