.jpg)
As a court planner, I always pause when beginning a project with a new architectural firm. One of the first questions is whether we’ll be able to conduct stakeholder interviews in our usual way—or whether the firm plans to rely on questionnaires.
Stakeholder interviews are essential in the early stages of courthouse planning. Judges, clerks, prosecutors, public defenders, sheriff’s staff, probation officers, and others bring years of experience with the facility. Their insights are indispensable to understanding workflow, space needs, security concerns, and opportunities for improvement. The key question is how to gather this information most effectively.
The Limitations of Questionnaires
Questionnaires are designed to give stakeholders a preview of what will be discussed during planning sessions and create consistency across departments. While this approach sounds efficient, it often doesn’t produce the depth of insight needed for courthouse planning.
Many stakeholders are department leaders with demanding schedules. Lengthy questionnaires—often five or six pages—are frequently delegated to staff who may lack the historical context or operational insight needed. When leaders complete the questionnaires themselves, the process can feel burdensome and transactional.
Moreover, questionnaires tend to shape interviews into scripted conversations. Participants reference their written responses rather than engaging in a natural exchange. This limits opportunities to explore nuance, uncover the “why” behind needs, and understand how operational challenges actually play out day to day.
In the worst cases, reliance on questionnaires can even lead to interviews being shortened or eliminated altogether because stakeholders are assumed to have “already provided” the information. This not only limits the depth of insight but also removes the opportunity for clarification, collaboration, and shared understanding—precisely the elements that make stakeholder engagement so valuable in courthouse planning.
A Questionnaire Experience
I once worked on a courthouse project where the architectural firm required every department to complete a detailed questionnaire before interviews began. On paper, it seemed like a straightforward way to gather background information. In reality, it turned into a time-consuming exercise. We spent hours chasing down more than a dozen departments to make sure the forms were completed.
When the interviews finally began, it quickly became clear that many stakeholders hadn’t filled out the questionnaires themselves. Several referred to answers without fully understanding the numbers or statements provided—often because a staff member had completed the form on their behalf. The conversation repeatedly stalled as people flipped through pages saying, “Didn’t we already answer that in the questionnaire?”
Each time, I had to gently steer the discussion back to its purpose: “Yes, it’s mentioned here, but could you tell us more about how this actually affects your operations?” The problem wasn’t unwillingness to participate—it was that the questionnaire created a barrier between the stakeholder and the information we needed.
By the end of the process, it was clear that the hours spent creating, distributing, and following up on the questionnaires didn’t improve the interviews or the quality of insight we received. If anything, they made the process less effective.
Our Preferred Approach: Data-Driven, Conversation-Rich Interviews
In place of questionnaires, we gather relevant trend data before the interviews—such as demographics, economics, crime, caseload history, staffing patterns, and, where possible, we generate forecasts. We compile these into a short briefing that is shared during stakeholder meetings.
Presenting data sparks more meaningful discussions. When judges, clerks, or other stakeholders react to trends, they draw on their experience to explain why something looks correct—or why it doesn’t. These reactions often reveal factors hidden beneath the surface, such as operational changes, policy shifts, or anticipated developments.
This data-first approach also produces richer, more accurate information. Stakeholders often identify inconsistencies or reinforce assumptions through real-world examples. Their feedback helps refine the planning model early, reducing misalignment later in the project.
We deepen these conversations with behavioral-based questions. For example, if a judge says a courtroom is too small because 300 people once attended a proceeding, we ask:
- How often does that happen?
- What is typical?
- What is the true maximum observed?
These questions help us distinguish routine operational needs from infrequent edge cases—critical context for courthouse planning.
Similarly, if a clerk’s office reports staffing growth, we explore the reasons behind it. Was the increase due to a temporary situation? A permanent statutory change? Could technology offset future staffing needs? These conversations lead to better, more defensible long-term projections.
The core of this method is simple: present data, observe reactions, ask follow-up questions, and allow the discussion to flow naturally. This approach not only results in more accurate information, it also strengthens stakeholder engagement and builds early buy-in.
Building Shared Vision Through Dialogue
One of the greatest advantages of conversational interviews is their ability to foster shared vision. When stakeholders discuss trends openly, they begin to see how their department fits into the broader courthouse ecosystem.
Group interviews allow stakeholders to explore overarching trends—such as population growth or increasing caseloads—that affect multiple departments. Individual interviews provide space to dive deeper into department-specific operations, workflows, and space needs.
This combination produces a more cohesive understanding of current challenges and future requirements. Stakeholders also feel more connected to the planning process when their insights directly shape the project’s direction.
A Practical Alternative to Questionnaires
Although we avoid full questionnaires, we sometimes provide sample questions in advance to help stakeholders understand the general topics that will be covered. This light-touch approach supports preparation without turning the interview into a written assignment. It preserves the conversational nature of the meeting while giving participants confidence about what to expect.
A Data-Driven Interview Experience
During a recent courthouse planning project, rather than relying on questionnaires, we gathered all key departments—judges, clerks, prosecutors, security personnel, and others—around the table to discuss emerging trends. As we presented historical population data and our long-range forecasts, the stakeholders began debating among themselves.
They discussed whether the county’s population was likely to accelerate or level off over the next 20 years. Judges reflected on how past growth had expanded their dockets, clerks noted how rising populations had driven increases in filings, and probation officers explained how demographic shifts had changed both the volume and complexity of their caseloads. Even stakeholders who rarely interacted day-to-day began building on one another’s observations. The justice system is much like a pond—drop a rock into it, and the ripple touches every department.
This wasn’t just an interesting debate—it gave us deep insight into how demographic trends would shape their future workload, staffing needs, and space requirements. Equally important, it allowed the group to articulate a shared understanding of how their justice system serves the public and what it will need to remain effective.
If those same stakeholders had simply completed questionnaires, none of this would have happened. We would have received isolated data points and written comments, but not the lived experience, institutional memory, or collaborative problem-solving that emerged in real time. The richness of the dialogue helped clarify assumptions, reveal blind spots, and build consensus across departments—outcomes no form could ever deliver.
Final Thoughts
Successful courthouse planning depends on understanding the real-world experiences of the people who keep the justice system running. While questionnaires may seem efficient, they rarely encourage the nuanced, candid dialogue needed for evidence-based planning.
Data-driven, interactive interviews produce richer insights, strengthen stakeholder engagement, and help build a shared vision for the future courthouse. By combining trend analysis, thoughtful questioning, and open conversation, we can design facilities that truly meet the needs of the people they serve.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
-1.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
