User-Centric Approach: Investigating Satisfaction with Portuguese Justice Services

Pedro Miguel Alves Ribeiro Correia, Maria Beatriz Sousa, Sandra Patrícia Marques Pereira, Fabrício Castagna Lunardi

Resumo


In the late 1990s and early 2000s, the civilizational modifications themselves drove to an increase in the flow of legal actions; however, the courts were not adequately prepared to support this increase, which resulted in an overload of cases and consequently in significant delays. This situation led to a latent dissatisfaction among litigants and seriously undermined the protection of rights. Therefore, the main objective of this article is to analyze the levels of satisfaction among the Portuguese population regarding their justice system. In order to achieve the proposed objective, a quantitative methodology was chosen, specifically employing the use of SPSS AMOS software to apply structural equation modeling techniques. The data used for this statistical analysis were gathered from questionnaires administered between the years 2013 and 2022. The research findings allowed us to conclude that many of the problems identified in the justice system in the 1990s seem to persist to this day. Regarding the public perception of the courts, it can be inferred that the population remains unsatisfied with two main aspects: lack of expediency and lack of access to information. As for ADR mechanisms, users seem to be quite satisfied with their functioning.

Palavras-chave


Justice Administration; Quality in Justice; Stakeholders Satisfaction; Performance

Texto completo:

PDF (English)

Referências


Amorim L.D.A.F., Fiaccone R.L., Santos C.A.S.T., Moraes L.T.L.P., Oliveira N.F., Oliveira S.B., & Santos T.N.L. (2012). Modelagem com equações estruturais: princípios básicos e aplicações. Fundação de Amparo á Pesquisa do Estado da Bahia (FAPESB). URL: https://repositorio.ufba.br/bitstream/ri/17684/1/ebook_SEM_2012.pdf

Babin B.J., & Svensson G. (2012). Structural equation modeling in social science research. Issues of validity and reliability in the research process. European Business Review, 24(4), 320-330. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/09555341211242132

Berry L.L., Parasuraman A., Zeithaml V.A. (1994). Improving service quality in America: Lessons learned. Academy of Management Executive, 8(2), pp. 32-52.

Blank J.L.T., & Heezik A.A.S. (2020). Policy reforms and productivity change in the judiciary system: a cost function approach applied to time series of the Dutch judiciary system between 1980 and 2016. International Transactions in Operational Research, 27(4), 2002-2020. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/itor.12716

Campana A.N., Tavares M.C., & Silva D. (2009). Modelagem de equações estruturais: apresentação de uma abordagem estatística multivariada para pesquisas em educação física. Motricidade, 5(4), 59-80. URL: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=273020564006

Catarino J.R., Dias M.T.V.C., & Correia P.M.A.R. (2020). Reforma de la Justicia en Portugal: La satisfacción de los usuarios de lo Medios RAL. Revista del CLAD Refoma y Democracia, 78, 115-138. URL: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/3575/357568455005/html/

Cleghorn L.L. (2023). “Victims navigating justice in Island communities: na exploration of victims’ experiences of the criminal justice system and quality of justice services provided in Trinidad and Tobago”. Island Studies Journal, 18(1), pp. 52-73.

Correia P.M.A.R. (2012). O impacto do sistema integrado de gestão e avaliação do desempenho da administração pública (SIADAP) na satisfação dos colaboradores- o caso dos serviços do ministério da justiça em Portugal. [Tese de Doutoramento não publicada]. Instituto Superior de Ciências Sociais e Políticas da Universidade de Lisboa.

Correia P.M.A.R. (2023). Using Structural Equation Modelling and Clustering to Research users’ and employees’ views of the portuguese Ministry of Justice. In: Sage Research Methods: Business (pp. 1-20). Sage Publications, Ltd. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781529628326

Correia P.M.A.R., Lopes J.R.S., & Mendes I.O.M. (2018). A identificação das dimensões da gestão da qualidade na reforma dos tribunais judiciais. O caso dos tribunais portugueses. Lex Humana, 10(2), pp. 60-86. URL: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=7880943

Correia P.M.A.R., Mendes I.O.M., Lopes L.M.M., & Pereira S.P.M. (2019). Fatores potenciadores da atratividade das Instituições de Ensino Superior: um estudo de caso das universidades públicas portuguesas. Synesis, 11(2), 148-176. URL: https://seer.ucp.br/seer/index.php/synesis/article/view/1853

Decree of April 10,1976, from the Presidency of the Council of Ministers: Constitution of the Portuguese republic. (1976). Diário da República: I Série, nº 86. URL: https://dre.pt/dre/legislacao-consolidada/decreto-aprovacao-constituicao/1976-34520775

European Comission. (2019). The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard. (EC). URL: https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2019-05/justice_scoreboard_2019_en.pdf

Frade C. (2003). A resolução alternativa de litígios e o acesso á justiça: a mediação do sobreendividamento. Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais, 65, 107-128. URL: https://www.ces.uc.pt/publicacoes/rccs/artigos/65/RCCS65-107-128-Catarina%20Frade.pdf

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2013a). 1º Estudo piloto sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2013b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2014). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2015). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2016). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2017a). 2º Estudo piloto sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2017b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2018a). Estudo sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2018b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2019a). Estudo sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2019b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2020a). Estudo sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2020b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2021a). Estudo sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2021b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2022a). Estudo sobre a satisfação dos utentes da justiça. (DGPJ).

General Directorate of Justice Policy. (2022b). Acompanhamento dos meios de resolução alternativa de litígios. (DGPJ).

Harvey L., Green D. (1993). “Defining Quality”. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 18(1), pp. 9-34.

Hernon P., Nitecki D.A., & Altman E. (1999). Service quality and customer satisfaction: na assessment and future directions. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 25(1), 9-17. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-1333(99)80170-0

Hsu J., Kalesnik V., Kose E. (2019). “What is quality?”. Financial Analysts Journal, 75(2), pp. 44-61. https://doi.org/10.1080/0015198X.2019.1567194

Ingrams A., Piotrowski S., & Berliner D. (2020). Learning from our mistakes: public management reform and the hope of open government. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(4), 257-272. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvaa001

International Consortium for Court Excellence. (2016). Global Measures of Court Performance. (ICCE). URL: https://www.courtexcellence.com/__data/assets/pdf_file/0014/8231/global-measures-court-performance-summary-jan-2016.pdf

Lamsal B.P., Gupta A.K. (2021). “Citizen Satisfaction with Public Service: What Factors Drive?”. Policy & Governance Review, 6(1), pp. 79-89.

Langbroek P., & Westenberg M. (2018). Court Administration and Quality Work in Judiciaries in four european countries. Stämpfli Verlag. URL: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324943360_Court_Administration_and_Quality_Work_in_Judiciaries_in_Four_European_Countries_Empirical_Exploration_and_Constitutional_Implications

~

Leclerc C., Niang A., & Duval M.C. (2017). Understanding the relationship between public opinion and experience with the criminal justice system. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(3), 473-492. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edx007

Maayan E., Ronen B., & Coman A. (2012). Assessing the Performance of a Court System: A comprehensive performance measures approach. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 729-738. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.670844

Maayan E., Ronen B., & Coman A. (2012). Assessing the Performance of a Court System: A comprehensive performance measures approach. International Journal of Public Administration, 35, 729-738. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2012.670844

Mangini E.R., Urdan A.T., & Santos A. (2017). Da qualidade dos serviços á lealdade: perspetiva teórica do comportamento do consumidor. Brazillian Journal of Marketing, 16(2), 207- 217. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.5585/remark.v16i2.3463

Mesquita L.V., & Cebola C.M. (2020). Impacto socioeconómico da resolução extrajudicial de conflitos. O caso de estudo português. Revista Direito GV, 16(3), 1-27. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6172201971

Moorhead R., Sefton M., Cardiff L.S. (2007). Just satisfaction? What drives public and participant satisfaction with courts and tribunals: a review of recente evidence. Ministry of justice Research series 5/08.

Pereira S.P.M., Correia P.M.A. (2020). Sustainability of portuguese courts: citizen satisfaction and loyalty as key factors. Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 10163. Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su122310163

Sá P.M., Rosa M.J., Santinha G., & Valente C. (2021). Quality assessment of the services delivered by a court, based on the perceptions of users, magistrates, and court officials. Sustainability, 13(504). Doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/su13020504

Santos B.S., Marques M.M.L., & Pedroso J. (1996). Os tribunais nas sociedades contemporâneas. Centro de Estudos Sociais da Universidade de Coimbra. URL: https://www.ces.uc.pt/publicacoes/oficina/ficheiros/65.pdf

Serrano A.B. (2014). “Determinants of the quality of justice in Latin America: Comparative Analysis of the Ecuadorian Case from a Sub-national perspective”. Justice System Journal, 35(1), pp. 104-120. DOI: 10.1080/0098261 X.2013.868286

Sousa C.V., Xavier L.M.S., Pereira J.R., & Resende L.C.B. (2015). Qualidade dos serviços ambulatoriais no município de ACAIACA/MG. Pretexto, 16(4), 119-137. Doi: https://doi.org/10.21714/pretexto.v16i4.3357

Troisi R., & Alfano G. (2023). Is “justice hurried actually justice buried?” An organizational perspective of the italian criminal justice. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 36(1), 94-109. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2022-0159

Voigt S. (2016). Determinants of Judicial Efficiency: A survey. European Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 183-208. Doi: https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2390704

Yeung T.Y., Ovàdek M., & Lampach N. (2021). Time efficiency as a mesure of Court performance: evidence from the court of justice os the european. Union. European Journal of Law and Economics, 53(2), 209-234. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10657-021-09722-5

Zeithaml V.A., Berry L.L., & Parasuraman A. (1988). Communication and control processes in the delivery of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 52(2), 35-48. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200203




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5102/rbpp.v14i2.9290

ISSN 2179-8338 (impresso) - ISSN 2236-1677 (on-line)

Desenvolvido por:

Logomarca da Lepidus Tecnologia