Just another WordPress site

Author: recovery_x970td

  • Using Sober Support Groups in Juvenile Courts

    by Wendy Schiller, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

    What would you do?
    “Fifteen-year-old Luis is in your juvenile court for final disposition after pleading guilty to possession of marijuana and petty theft (committed to support his drug habit). His case manager wants Luis to get treatment, and it’s clear that the family needs support and guidance. You also want to make sure Luis connects to a support system that will help him stay clean. So, in addition to the standard recommended outpatient treatment, you consider mandating him to attend three sober support group meetings a week. But Luis’ case manager tells you that your community has no youth specific AA or NA meetings. You decide to go ahead with the mandate anyway. After all, something is better than nothing, right?”     (Excerpt taken from Using “Sober Support” Groups in Your Juvenile Court, March 2010, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges)

    • Would you mandate Luis to attend AA or NA meetings that were not youth-specific?
    • How many days per week would you mandate Luis to attend these groups?
    • Is something actually better than nothing?

    These are the questions that every case manager or presiding judge might ask before mandating any additional components to a youth’s probation. Focus on the last question – is something actually better than nothing? That questions isn’t always easy to answer. There is a connection between that question and the theory of unintended consequences.

    We have all heard of the law of unintended consequences…an adage or idiom that warns that an intervention in a complex system [AKA – adolescents] invariably creates unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes. It is a basic principle of economics, and governments struggle with unintended consequences to the policies that are set in place on a daily basis. The adolescents we are working with are complex systems and sometimes when we mandate treatment modalities or activities for the youth as a component of their probation, there may be side-effects that we have not considered. Mandating sober support groups might have side effects, such as: exposure to an unsafe environment, increased likelihood of further or more severe drug/alcohol use, and overexposure to a group that may not be developmentally appropriate for youth.

    This article will provide an overview of the technical assistance (TA) bulletin “Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court” published by the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

    Because juvenile courts and juvenile drug courts are utilizing sober support groups as a component of probation, it is important that court professionals have all the information needed to make the best possible decisions as they mandate youth to receive help from these groups, to limit any unintended consequences that may occur in conjunction with the mandate.

    Studies and research have shown that about half of the youth involved in the juvenile justice system have substance use issues (Chan, Y.F., Dennis, M. L., Ives, M. L., & Modisette, K. C., Characteristics of Juvenile Treatment Drug Court Clients, Drug Court Review Volume VII, Issue 1 (2010) 10-57). These issues must be addressed and court professionals often begin by using AA or NA because these options are frequent, accessible, and free.

    Even though it is common to mandate youth to attend sober support groups, like AA or NA, court professionals may want to consider several questions surrounding the use of sober support groups before youth attend local groups:

    • Are sober support groups developmentally appropriate for adolescents?
    • Is there a perceived lack of fit by the youth?
    • Which adolescents are most likely to benefit from attending sober support groups?
    • How frequently should adolescents attend?
    • Is the court violating the youth’s legal rights by mandating youth to attend a sober support group?

    Are sober support groups developmentally appropriate for adolescents?
    The research suggests that the juvenile justice system has not found an AA/NA model that is effective or particularly helpful for its clients. Reasons for this may include:

    • The youths mandated to attend do not view themselves as heavy addicts
    • The addiction severity for youth is not the same as it is for adults
    • There isn’t a long history of substance abuse
    • Studies have found that the most common reason for leaving AA/NA was due to boredom or perceived lack of fit. This perception may stem from the fact that:
    • The presenters and participants are usually much older (the average participant is a 46 year old Caucasian male)
    • The youth were not able to relate to the issues discussed during the meeting (i.e., divorce, financial issues, etc.) (Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court, March 2010. Page 5)

    Which adolescents are most likely to benefit?
    This is a complicated question, given that many youth that are referred or required to attend sober support groups or 12-step programs do not often meet the diagnostic criteria for a substance use disorder. In a study that followed 160 adolescent inpatient participants over an eight-year period, the researchers found that youth with longer periods of substance use, and greater addiction severity were more likely to utilize AA/NA and to gain more from the process. These youth had reached the point of believing that they could not ever use substances again, and that AA/NA was a needed support (Page 6).

    How frequently should adolescents attend?
    It is not uncommon to hear of juvenile drug court teams ordering “90 meetings in 90 days.” This is a treatment recommendation that many adult drug courts utilize, with juvenile drug courts following suit. Youth may have displayed increases in sobriety with just two to three sessions a week (36 meetings in 90 days). Courts are cautioned to not over-expose youth to sober support requirements. Many youth that move through the juvenile court system, do not display severe addiction.

    Some researchers argue that for “…youth with less severe problems, the court might consider approaches that are not based on a 12-step philosophy—such as family therapy, extrication from peer groups, etc” (Page 7).

    Is the court violating the youth’s legal rights by mandating a youth to attend a sober support group?
    In a series of cases dating back to 1994, federal and state courts have repeatedly ruled that probationers, parolees and inmates may not be coerced into attending Alcoholics or Narcotics Anonymous (AA/NA) or other religious based treatment programs. This prohibition limits juvenile courts as well. Participation in self-help programs may be mandated however, providing the participant has a meaningful choice between religious and secular programs. Programs based upon the Alcoholics Anonymous Twelve Steps, especially those making reference to a Higher Power, should be considered religion-based (Page 7 & 10).

    If direct service providers address these questions, courts can greatly improve outcomes for youth with substance abuse issues and who are involved in the juvenile justices system.

    The Technical Assistance Bulletin “Using Sober Support Groups in Your Juvenile Court” is a tool that court professionals should use as they address the issue of substance use/abuse with system involved youth, which may help alleviate any unintended consequences that may occur. The complete bulletin clearly defines “Things to Consider” (page 8), “Sober Support Options” (page 10), and an “Overview of the Case Law” (page 12).

    To download a complete copy of the bulletin or to look up footnotes and references visit: http://www.ncjfcj.org/images/stories/dept/jfl/sobersupport.pdf.

  • The NCJFCJ has a new Executive Director

    The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges announces the appointment of Mari Kay Bickett as its Executive Director.

    Following a four-month nationwide search, NCJFCJ President Judge R. Michael Key, with the advice and consent of the NCJFCJ Board of Trustees, selected Ms. Bickett, who assumed her duties April 1, 2011. In making the announcement Judge Key said, “We had some very highly qualified candidates and we chose Mari Kay from among them for a reason. She has a stellar 23-year record in judicial education at the state and national level. Our goal from the beginning was to select someone that we would be excited to present to our membership and our partner agencies, and we have accomplished that goal.”

    From 1994 until her recent retirement, Ms. Bickett served as CEO/Executive Director of the Texas Center for the Judiciary, the primary provider of specialized judicial education and training for trial and appellate judges in Texas. During her tenure, the organization received the 2006 ABA Judicial Education Award, the Excellence in Education Award from the Governor and Lt. Governor of Texas, as well as the State Bar of Texas President’s Recognition for outstanding contribution to the education of the Texas Judiciary. While in Texas, Ms. Bickett served on various committees of the Supreme Court of Texas Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth, and Families, and as an officer on the Texas CASA Board of Directors.

    Prior to her work in Texas, Ms. Bickett was the academic director for The National Judicial College, based on the University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) campus. She holds a Bachelor of Business Administration degree in finance and accounting from UNR and a law degree from Nevada School of Law at Old College.

    Ms. Bickett is a long-time member of NCJFCJ, currently serving on the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence Advisory Committee, and previously having served on the NCJFCJ Family Violence Advisory Committee, the NCJFCJ Civil Protective Orders (Burgundy Book) Committee, and as a content advisor to the 2006 Firearms Surrender Conference held in Los Angeles, California.

    The NCJFCJ, headquartered on the UNR campus since 1969, provides cutting-edge training, wide-ranging technical assistance, and research to help the nation’s courts, judges and staff in their important work. Each year, the NCJFCJ provides education or technical assistance services to an estimated 30,000 judges, court administrators, social and mental health workers, police, probation officers, and others working in the juvenile and family courts at its headquarters in Reno and throughout the country. In conjunction with UNR and the National Judicial College, the NCJFCJ participates in unique advanced degree programs for judges and other court professionals. The National Center for Juvenile Justice (NCJJ), located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is the research arm of NCJFCJ. NCJJ is the oldest juvenile justice research organization in the United States, having conducted national and sub-national studies on crime and delinquency since 1973. Since its inception, the Center has been a resource for independent and original research on topics related directly and indirectly to the field of juvenile justice.

  • Highlights from NASJE Western Regional Conference

    map of USA with western region highlighted

    The NASJE Western Region hosted its conference in San Francisco, March 3-4, 2011. There were workshops on engaging learners, strategies to improve PowerPoint, evidence-based sentencing, fairness and bias issues. Participants had an opportunity to visit California’s television studio and learn how its judicial education division produces and delivers education programs through satellite television. Additionally, there were opportunities for people to meet in small groups and during planned evening social events.

    Always a highlight of regional meetings and conference was the chance for courts to share curriculum, programs and initiatives with their colleagues. In these tight budget times is was exciting to see how different states were finding innovative ways to deliver programs at little or no cost.

    In addition to having attendees from within the Western Region participating during the conference, there were representatives from British Columbia (Canada) and Washington, DC.

    The conference planning committee would like to thank Dr. Diane Cowdrey, Director, Education Division(California), for her invaluable contribution of resources, time and staff.

  • Transitions – Summer 2011

    Please join us in welcoming the following new NASJE members:

    • Ms. Beth Asselin, Manager, Arizona Supreme Court, Phoenix, AZ
    • Mr. Donald E. Jacobson, Court Administrator, Flagstaff Municipal Court, Flagstaff, AZ
    • Dr. Alan R. Roper, Senior Education Specialist, Administrative Office of the Courts, Education Division, San Francisco, CA
    • Ms. Meghan Sever, Judicial Branch Education Assistant, Administrative Office of the Courts, Arkansas Supreme Court, Little Rock, AR
    • Ms. Jennifer J. Wadsworth, Trainer, Education & Training, State of Iowa Judicial Branch, Des Moines, IA

  • NASJE Members Contribute Internationally

    by Milt Nuzum, Director, Supreme Court of Ohio Judicial College

    Some NASJE members have had significant experience in the international judicial community by practicing their profession of judicial and court personnel education in developing nations. Many others are interested in learning more about opportunities that exist to contribute their skills to judicial systems around the globe. The reasons for NASJE members to have interest in these opportunities might be as diverse as the individuals who belong to our organization. However, NASJE member and former president, Tom Langhorne, summarized it well when he said, “The most life changing rewards I have ever experienced have come through international work. It causes you to critically examine and challenge some of your long held values.” NASJE member and former president William Brunson agreed with Tom and contends that there is very little downside to international work. As he put it, “Consulting in developing nations is an enriching life experience.”

    How can I get started with international judicial education experience?
    William Brunson suggests that a good first step, if one has never had exposure to the international judicial education experience, is to become involved in the International Visitor Leadership Program. This program is run by the U. S. Department of State. It brings international visitors to the United States to promote mutual understanding between the U.S. and other nations around the world. These visitors come to our local communities to interact with leaders in many professions including our own. If interested, one can learn about these opportunities through the National Council for International Visitors.

    Another opportunity exists to network with judicial education experts from around the world through the International Organization of Judicial Training (IOJT). This organization was formed in 2002. It holds biennial conferences for judicial educators. The last conference was held in Sydney, Australia in 2009. The 2011 conference will be held this fall in Bordeaux, France. The conferences have rich agendas with ample opportunity to meet colleagues from countries on every continent. IOJT only accepts organizational memberships. State judicial education organizations qualify for free memberships in IOJT. Staff members of state organizations that belong to IOJT may participate in IOJT conferences and activities.

    Where do international consulting opportunities originate?
    Most opportunities arise through programs initiated by the United States Agency for International Development. It is a federal agency charged with implementing policies of the U.S. State Department. Most USAID money is distributed through very large contracts given to a rather small group of companies and organizations designated prime contractors. These prime contractors engage subject matter experts to deliver the services called upon in the scope of services of the prime contract. The subject matter experts are subcontractors with the prime contractors. The prime contractors often seek exclusive agreements with subcontractors. They often use the credentials of their subcontracted experts to their advantage when bidding on the prime contract. If you are locked into such an agreement, and your prime contractor was unsuccessful in its bid to get the prime contract, your ability to apply to the entity that was actually awarded the contract is precluded. Accordingly, it may be to a judicial educator’s advantage to remain non-exclusive.

    USAID projects are multifaceted focused on many things including among others, disaster relief, poverty relief, and rule of law projects. USAID funds projects in 17 countries in Latin America, 21 out of 50 countries in Europe, 22 out of 53 countries in Asia, an all 47 countries in Africa. Most judicial educators would find themselves engaged in those projects categorized as ‘rule of law’. One prime contractor, Tetra Tech DPKTetra Tech DPK , described ‘rule of law’ projects on its website as “[cembodying] the basic principles of equal treatment of all people before the law, fairness, and effective guarantees of human rights.

    There are many companies and organizations that bid on prime contracts under the auspices of USAID. While the list below is not exhaustive, it illustrates many of the major players who would utilize the services of judicial educators on short term or long term subcontract agreements. These companies have websites that describe their projects and opportunities for employment or expense paid short term volunteer assignments. The websites provide ample information on how to apply and become a consultant.

    What skills do you need to become a subcontractor for a USAID project?
    According to William Brunson, foreign language speaking skills are not always necessary. English is often sufficient as it is becoming an international language. It helps if you have the skill to speak a second language and it is particularly helpful if you speak the native language of the country to which you would potentially be assigned to serve. Of course the contractors vet for subject matter expertise. Those who have experience as judges, court administrators, court security specialists, and judicial educators are sought after for many assignments. Formal education and years of experience also weigh in decision making about who might be qualified for a particular assignment. Paid assignments have pays scales weighted on these factors with Ph.D. and J.D. often attracting higher salary offers than other degreed applicants.

    What should you consider if you wish to apply for a position?
    Tom Langhorne offered this practical advice. He said, “Know yourself and your skill set. Accentuate your skills in your application. Don’t try to be all things to all people. Play to your strengths.” He also suggests that you research the country to which you are asking to be assigned before you apply. The countries being served often have challenging conditions in their culture and environment that can cause a person who is unprepared to have a less than pleasant experience.

    Will I be safe?
    While danger can lurk around the corner even in the U.S., the international assignments are made with safeguards built in to minimize risk. The U.S. State Department offers a great deal of information to prepare you for an assignment and offers practical advice on how to protect yourself from violence if you leave U.S. protected areas.

    Another thing to consider is the endemic diseases that affect many areas of the world. You should assure that your inoculations are up-to-date. Tom Langhorne advised that you make certain your health insurance coverage will be effective in a foreign nation and that you purchase extraction insurance in case you must leave your assignment for some unexpected reason.

    William Brunson offered the observation that the comforts of home are often not available in these assignments. Travel and mail can be problematic. Access to Internet is spotty in some areas. While these are inconveniences, the positive life experience of living and contributing to an emerging society in his opinion far outweigh the inconveniences.

  • Training Program Developed on Dealing with the Mentally Ill in the Courts

    by Matthew Schwarzfeld, Public Affairs Manager, and Hallie Fader-Towe, Senior Policy Analyst, Council of State Governments Justice Center

    The Judges’ Criminal Justice/Mental Health Leadership Initiative (JLI) recently partnered with the newly formed Psychiatric Leadership Group (PLG) to design a training on effectively identifying and managing individuals with mental illnesses in the courts. The two groups collaborated with the Administrative Office of Illinois Courts (AOIC) to train over 60 Illinois judges this May in Springfield.

    Facilitated by the Council of State Governments Justice Center (Justice Center) in collaboration with the National GAINS Center and the National Judicial College, the JLI promotes judicial leadership to improve outcomes for justice-involved people with mental illnesses. The PLG, led by the American Psychiatric Foundation (the philanthropic and educational arm of the American Psychiatric Association), brings together some of the nation’s leading psychiatrists focusing on criminal justice issues.

    Dr Fred Osher
    Dr. Fred Osher

    Judge Steven Leifman
    Judge Steven Leifman

    Judge Steven Leifman, Special Advisor on Criminal Justice and Mental Health with the Florida Supreme Court, and Dr. Fred Osher, the Justice Center’s Director of Health Systems and Services Policy, co-presented a two-and-a-half hour module to kick off the training. Judge Leifman and Dr. Osher provided an overview of the prevalence of mental illness in America’s courts, how an individual’s mental illness may affect his or her interactions with judges, the role a judge can play in facilitating a person’s recovery, and common challenges arising at the intersection of the justice and behavioral health systems. The JLI and PLG designed the module so that a judge/psychiatrist team could adapt it for a training elsewhere.

    The JLI and PLG also developed a handout for the training entitled a “Judges’ Guide to Mental Illnesses in the Courtroom.” The resource enumerates visual cues that can help a judge identify whether a person in his or her court may have a mental illness and provides recommendations for interacting with a person in such circumstances. Both the opening presentation and this document are being reviewed and updated based on the input from the judges who attended the pilot training.

    The training was brought about by Illinois appellate court Judge Kathryn E. Zenoff. Judge Zenoff, who co-chairs the JLI, is also the chair of Illinois’s Special Supreme Court Advisory Committee for Justice and Mental Health Planning. In addition to promoting training opportunities for Illinois judges, the Advisory Committee examines rules, judicial best practices, and how to allocate administrative resources most effectively to improve how judges interact with people with mental illnesses. The Illinois Supreme Court established the Advisory Committee in 2010.

    The AOIC, which provides around a dozen continuing judicial education opportunities a year to Illinois’s 950 supreme, circuit, and appellate court judges, contributed Illinois-specific information to the training module and worked with the Special Supreme Court Advisory Committee for Justice and Mental Health Planning on developing additional presentations. The agency identified judges, legal scholars, and forensic psychiatrists from Illinois who reviewed current state statutes and case law, how the Illinois mental health system operates, and ethical issues and dilemmas arising from working with this population.

    The judicial training was “thought-provoking and inspirational,” said AOIC Director Cynthia Cobbs. It “offere[ed] participants an opportunity to explore and examine with national experts in the field—and indeed with Illinois’ own judicial champions—the intersection of criminal justice and mental health. The Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts was pleased and honored to have been selected by the CSG Justice Center, the APF, and the JLI as the first state judicial branch recipient of technical assistance to pilot a judicial training module.”

    Presenters covered the content using a variety of methods, from lectures to discussions to video presentations. Judges had the opportunity to observe interactive courtroom scenarios in which trained actors from a nearby medical school portrayed the role of people with mental illnesses. A number of judges—some from mental health courts, some from non-specialty courts—demonstrated to their peers what to look for, how to react, and motivational interviewing techniques.

    AOIC staff remarked that the 62 judges in attendance represented a high figure for a voluntary training. Similarly, the fact that all of the state’s 23 circuits were represented demonstrates the popularity of the training topic.

  • NEW WEBSITE IS LAUNCHED

    The new NASJE website is launched! As you can see, if you are a regular visitor, the NASJE website has been integrated into the NASJE News site.

    We’ll still be cleaning things up for the next few weeks. If you have any suggestions, let us know in the comments section for this article, and we’ll see about implementing them. The new website should make it easier for you to find things (once you get used to the idea that things aren’t where they used to be) and we hope to update it much more frequently.

    In addition, we are working on a special section with exclusive features only for our NASJE members.

    Thanks for visiting and we are looking forward to evolving this site in the months ahead!

  • Juvenile Drug Courts – 2.0

    The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) was awarded the 2010 Juvenile Drug Court Training and Technical Assistance grant from the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention this past October. NCJFCJ has been providing training and technical assistance to the juvenile drug court field since 1998 and this funding provides the opportunity to step back and look at the juvenile drug court field as a whole and determine how best to move the field forward. In order to begin envisioning the future of the field, NCJFCJ has formed a Project Advisory Committee (PAC) to serve as the driving force for training and curriculum development. Because, NCJFCJ’s vision for juvenile drug courts consists of a more holistic viewpoint, members from a wide array of systems were invited to participate in the meeting (i.e., researchers/evaluators, mental health, schools, substance abuse/use treatment, mentoring programs, screening/assessment, and juvenile justice).

    NCJFCJ convened the first PAC meeting February 24-25, 2011 in Reno, Nevada (NCJFCJ’s headquarters). The purpose of the PAC meeting was to visualize resources and policies needed for a juvenile drug court “in a perfect world,” identify the gaps between the perfect-world and our current one, and propose training and technical assistance focused solutions. Among the highlights of the meeting were a timeline that was constructed with not only the notable dates in juvenile drug court history, but also with milestones from the substance abuse treatment field, mental health field, and the education field. At the conclusion of the meeting the PAC identified people, publications, and programs that could serve as resources for NCJFCJ and discussed creative ways to market the available training and technical assistance.

    It was clear from the meeting that juvenile justice in general and juvenile drug courts will benefit greatly from current research on adolescent development, mental health and trauma, and substance abuse treatment. As this research continues, courts will have a greater understanding of the underlying reasons that youth use and abuse substances, while also having more tools to appropriately address this behavior. NCJFCJ is planning to create training and technical assistance tools for juvenile drug courts to incorporate research into their day-to-day practices.

    In addition, it is clear from the feedback NCJFCJ has received from the field via an online survey that training and technical assistance is very much needed. Many JDC’s are currently struggling with sustainability issues and resource development. These courts need information and technology transfer training on creating community partnerships and collaborative planning to continue operation. NCJFCJ has several resources that can be downloaded for free from www.ncjfcj.org that may help JDC’s that are dealing with these challenges; please look at Managing and Sustaining your Juvenile Drug Court and Ensuring Fidelity to the Juvenile Drug Courts Strategies in Practice—A Program Component Scale.

    NCJFCJ has begun working with the Nation’s 476 juvenile drug courts to provide comprehensive training and technical assistance and will be conducting multiple webinars, subject-specific conference calls, and face-to-face trainings throughout the project period, which is scheduled to run through March, 2013.

  • Improving Courtroom Communication: A National Experiment

    by Emily Gold

    With funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Center for Court Innovation and The National Judicial College have launched the development and evaluation of a national demonstration project that will attempt to improve procedural justice in an urban criminal court setting. The project was born out of research showing that litigants’ perceptions of procedural justice (the perceived fairness of the procedures they experience in the courthouse) exert more influence on their overall view of the justice system than distributive justice (the perceived fairness of the case outcome). The goal of the project is to translate the key principles of procedural justice into a training curriculum that will be administered in an urban criminal courtroom – aimed at improving staff’s verbal and non-verbal communication practices – then evaluate the impact of those changed practices on defendant perceptions of fairness.

    To begin, project partners convened a working group of experts in January 2011 at the Center for Court Innovation’s headquarters in New York City. The group was comprised of judges, attorneys, court administrators, and communications and linguistics specialists from around the country, including

    • Greg Berman – Director, Center for Court Innovation
    • Kevin Burke – Judge, Hennepin County (MN) Family Justice Center
    • William Dressel – President, National Judicial College
    • Malcolm Feeley – Professor of Legal Theory, University of California-Berkeley
    • Mark Juhas – Judge, Los Angeles County (CA) Superior Court
    • Judy Harris Kluger – Chief of Policy and Planning, New York State Unified Court System
    • Noreen Sharp – Former Special Deputy Court Administrator for the Maricopa County (AZ) Superior Court and former Division Chief Counsel of the Arizona
    • Office of the Attorney General
    • Alfred Siegel – Deputy Director, Center for Court Innovation
    • Larry Solan – Professor of Linguistics and the Law, Brooklyn Law School
    • Robin Steinberg – Executive Director, The Bronx Defenders
    • David Suntag – Judge, Vermont Judiciary
    • Kelly Tait – Communication Consultant and Instructor, University of Nevada
    • Tom Tyler – Professor of Social Psychology, New York University

    Over the course of the two-day meeting, the working group set out to tackle the following objectives: (1) to outline a set of best practices in improved courtroom communication, (2) to inform the development of a training curriculum, and (3) to recommend court sites and/or the size and types of courts that might be appropriate for pilot implementation.

    (1) Outlining Best Practices
    Toward the first objective, the discussion was organized around the key elements of procedural justice, developed in part by participant Tom Tyler – voice, respect, neutrality, understanding, and helpfulness. Participants sought to identify practical strategies by which criminal court judges and other courthouse staff can translate these principles into practice, both inside and outside of the courtroom.

    In the courtroom, suggested strategies included starting court on time and calendaring cases according to case type, both to improve efficiency and to demonstrate respect for defendants’ time. The group also suggested that judges provide a brief introduction for the courtroom audience at the beginning of each court session — explaining the rules, format and purpose of the court proceedings. As part of this introduction, it was recommended that judges acknowledge their appreciation for everyone’s attendance and cooperation in getting through what can be a stressful experience. Simple and clear signs around the courthouse and courtroom can reinforce this message.

    The working group then considered procedural justice strategies to implement during each defendant’s court appearance. It was recommended that cases be called clearly and loudly by name and that each defendant should be greeted by the judge. To ensure the defendant’s understanding, the judge should explain the purpose of the court appearance in plain language. Special consideration was given to defendants who are detained pre-trial.

    The group addressed the role that defense attorneys can play in promoting defendant comprehension, as well as facilitating that each defendant’s voice is heard, without jeopardizing his/her legal rights. At the end of the proceeding, the group recommended that all defendants leave court with easy-to-understand written and oral instructions regarding the next steps in their case, including the date and purpose of their next court appearance, orders of protection, and/or conditions of probation or other court-mandated sanctions.

    The working group stressed that the interactions among all courtroom staff – whether or not court is in session – are important to promoting procedural justice. Judges should be advised that admonishing attorneys or other courtroom staff in front of defendants and audience members may appear to demonstrate a lack of respect and/or neutrality. The group also recommended that the pilot training include as many courthouse staff as possible. In particular, the group stressed the importance of engaging security personnel in advancing procedural justice, as they are often the first staff with whom a defendant or audience member interacts at the courthouse.

    (2) Curriculum Development
    The working group also offered suggestions as to how the above content might be translated into a day-long curriculum, both for implementation at the pilot site and to be added to The National Judicial College’s general offerings. The working group proposed to start the training by grounding participants in the relevant social science research and debunking any myths. The two core recommendations for the training were developing listening skills and communication skills. It was suggested that participants evaluate themselves on these skills through a pre-training self-administered assessment and/or by observing a videotaping of their behavior in court. In addition to skills development, the training should focus on how participants can improve the appearance that they are listening and communicating effectively.

    The working group recommended a range of learning activities to be used during the pilot training, such as role plays and simulations, ideally to take place in a courtroom setting. Pre- and post-course activities were recommended to extend the impact of the training.

    (3) Pilot Site Selection
    Finally, the working group helped to define the criteria for an appropriate pilot site. The starting criteria were that the court must hear criminal cases in an urban area that utilizes short-term sanctions (such as community service) for which compliance may be tracked during the grant period. The working group discussed the important balance of selecting a site where there was interest in reform but where widespread efforts to promote procedural justice had not yet been attempted. The group emphasized the importance of selecting a jurisdiction in which the administrative judge is fully supportive of the project – and can encourage the support of participants and other key players. They also advocated for a jurisdiction that is sufficiently large to have 10-20 criminal court judges.

    In the weeks following the working group meeting, project staff have been working towards two major next steps: completing the curriculum and selecting a pilot site. The curriculum will be based largely on the findings of the working group, using 50-minute modules to address topics such as the role of procedural fairness in the court system, verbal communication, non-verbal communication, special populations, courthouse-wide issues, and implementing and measuring procedural fairness. The modular design of the curriculum will allow it to be presented as a full-day program, as individual modules, or in any combination that meets the educational requirements and time constraints of a particular educational setting. After the curriculum is piloted, the NJC plans to make the curriculum and supporting materials available to state judicial educators and court administrators for broader dissemination.

    As for a pilot site, staff are working from a short list of possible criminal courts that meet the selection criteria. The pilot is scheduled to launch later this year.

    The Center for Court Innovation is a non-profit think tank based in New York City that helps courts and criminal justice agencies aid victims, reduce crime and improve public trust in justice. For more information about this project, please contact Emily Gold, Senior Planner, at (646) 386-4468; golde@courtinnovation.org.

    Emily Gold is the project manager for the Improving Courtroom Communication project. As a senior planner at the Center for Court Innovation, she is also on the planning team for a new community court geared toward young people to be located in Brownsville, Brooklyn. Before joining the Center for Court Innovation, she was a public defender in Manhattan.

  • From the President – Spring 2011

    I am constantly amazed at the dedicated NASJE members who, although their workloads are increasing and their budgets are decreasing, devote time to NASJE and continue to keep it strong.

    Mr. Tom Langhorne (VA) and Ms. Claudia Fernandes (CA) have stepped forward as co-chairs of the Fundraising Committee and are busy working on plans to find a stable funding source for NASJE. The Fundraising Committee has been instrumental in finding sponsors for NASJE conferences and now looks toward future ways to keep NASJE fiscally strong.

    Mr. Milt Nuzum (OH), chair of the NASJE Futures Committee, invited Mr. Stuart Forsyth, a legal futurist, to talk with the committee about the future of judicial branch education. The Futures Committee keeps NASJE strong by finding the leading edge information on judicial branch education, allowing us to anticipate trends impacting the courts and develop leading edge education programs.

    Ms. Crystal Banks (DC) and Ms. Evie Lancaster (NV), co-chairs of the NASJE Education Committee, are finalizing the plans for the annual NASJE conference. We will have a joint conference with the National Association for Court Management (NACM) and both education committees have been busy planning the event. This will be an exciting conference and an opportunity for NASJE members to see and hear about NACM and how our two organizations can work together to provide excellent judicial branch education to all. You will be able to attend not only educational programs sponsored by NASJE but by NACM as well. The agenda looks excellent and strong; do you see a trend here?

    Your NASJE Board held its mid-year meeting in February and is busy with projects. Your Board is dedicated to the continual growth and nurturing of NASJE. I am in the last months as your President but have worked with Joseph Sawyer (NV) your President-Elect and Marty Sullivan (AR) your Vice-President to develop a strong leadership team with one vision: to make NASJE a valued organization for the membership and a thriving organization. The regional directors have been active and have kept members in their regions informed, connected, and involved. Your Board is a dynamic team and I encourage any of you who may be interested in getting involved to join a committee and/or run for an office. Being on the Board as Western Regional Director, Secretary, Vice-President, President-Elect, and President has taught me so much and given me such a rich understanding, on a national level, of how important judicial branch education is and how each one of you are instrumental in keeping our judiciary, dare I say it, strong!

    I know budgets are tight this year, but I encourage you to find a way to attend this year’s annual conference scheduled for July 10-13, 2011 at the Red Rock Resort, outside of Las Vegas. There will be great education, great networking, great rates, and great weather. I hope to see you there!