Just another WordPress site

Category: Cutting Edge

Embracing the Future of Online Learning

By Bronson Tucker, Director of Curriculum, Texas Justice Court Training Center

If your educational agency is like mine, you have worked on developing an online presence for several years, but the educational quality likely has been lagging behind your live offerings. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has provided the silver lining of a “jump-start” for enhancing, or in some cases developing, an online educational program that is sufficient to address the needs and desires of clientele. For a successful online educational program, the three keys to success are Interactivity, Accessibility, and Accountability.

As I explore these three keys, it may be useful first to identify and describe the delivery methods and software that we have used for online learning in the past, and that we plan to use as we transition into a blended learning environment.

Pre-Recorded Webinar – This is a recording that has a speaker narrating over a video, most often a PowerPoint presentation.

Live Webinar– This is a live online class that has a speaker taking written questions from students and answering them, sometimes with an accompanying presentation, polls, etc.

Module – This is an asynchronous online class that blends several different elements, such as videos, text, images, quizzes, etc.

“Cohort” Class – This is a blended online class, similar to an online college course, that has some self-paced elements like a module, but also can have synchronous elements like live discussions, or online discussion components. This class has to have a limited number of participants.

We are affiliated with Texas State University, which gives us access to two pieces of software that are assisting us in creating both modules and cohort classes – Articulate and Canvas. Articulate is the software that we are using to create modules. There are two different templates that are used in Articulate that we have access to – Storyline and Rise. We are mainly using Rise, which is designed to present like a website, as opposed to Storyline, which shows more like a traditional PowerPoint. One significant strength of Storyline is the ability to create lots of branches for multiple options for difficult processes.

Canvas is the Learning Management System used by Texas State. It allows students to pause progress in a module and resume later, and also allows us to monitor progress, evaluate quiz results, and track completion for compliance with judicial education requirements.

Interactivity – Engage Your Audience

The delivery method that my organization had most frequently used for online learning was pre-recorded webinars. Pre-recorded webinars quickly and easily delivered nuggets of procedural information, but can result in the “tree falling in an empty forest” effect. Maintaining student engagement can be very difficult when using a recording of someone talking as PowerPoint advances along. Tools that are used in live seminars such as small group discussions or poll questions range from unwieldy and difficult to impossible.

To address this, we are phasing out the use of pre-recorded webinars, in favor of the other three delivery methods. Student engagement is easier to achieve in each of those types of courses.

For live webinars, we are using them for courses that require more Q&A time, and more gray areas to discuss, along with using some guest faculty to allow students to pick the brains of experts in a given field.

Topics that are more step-by-step procedure-based topics are shifting over to modules since we have found that retention is much better by having knowledge checks and interactivity engaging the audience. Also, the structure of modules allows the student to revisit specific steps as the need arises, such as the filing of an unfamiliar type of case.

Accessibility – Something for Everyone

Multiple concerns arise when considering accessibility. The most obvious is ensuring that resources are accessible to those with disabilities. We are currently in the process of creating transcriptions for all of our pre-recorded webinars. Additionally, any images need to have descriptors added for screen-readers for the visually-impaired. Many software applications have these tools built-in, while others require manual addition later. Be sure to carefully consider these requirements while evaluating tools for creating and developing online resources.

Another significant issue is technological accessibility, which comes in many forms as well. One distinct drawback with Canvas is that it is only compatible with Firefox. This means that students who use other browsers won’t be able to access the material. This places the onus on us to share that information and do our best to ensure that students can utilize Firefox to access the resources.

Another concern is compatibility with various devices, to meet the student’s needs in accessing online resources. If a person can only access a course on a computer, one of the most important benefits of online education – flexibility – is greatly diminished.

One of the benefits of Articulate is that it automatically optimizes the course for a computer, tablet, and smartphone. It also allows a course to be built that will allow either portrait or landscape orientation, or lock into one orientation. If the orientation is locked, the student, rather than getting illegible information, instead receives a prompt to rotate their device to the correct orientation.

Accountability – Retention and Reporting

Lastly, accountability is a key component in creating effective online education. Including quizzes, knowledge checks, and interactive games, such as sorting or matching, all help the student retain information at a much higher rate than merely allowing them to listen to a recording, potentially while they are also distracted with outside forces, such as other websites, children, Netflix, or other staples of day-to-day life.

Also, tracking and reporting the completion of online education is essential to determine the reach of the information, especially if a state has required judicial education hours, as Texas does. Canvas will automatically track and report students’ progress to our office, which is a tremendous benefit. For our pre-recorded webinars, students fill out certification forms online and send them in. Ensuring that certain activities are completed before certification occurs is available in our modules, but not our pre-recorded webinars, which is another huge reason that we are moving in that direction.

Hopefully, your group is excited about the challenges and opportunities that online education provides! If you have any questions about the material, feel free to email me at bt16@txstate.edu, and I will do my best to point you in the direction of the resources that you need.

Bronson Tucker is the Director of Curriculum for the Texas Justice Court Training Center, where he has worked since 2004. Bronson attended his first NASJE conference in 2005 in Savannah, GA. Bronson is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma as well as the University of Texas School of Law. Bronson lives in Cedar Park, TX, with his wife Amy and daughters Audrey, 13, and Norah, 10.

August 6, 2020
Opioid Task Force Calls for Judicial Training, Provides Resources

In November, the National Judicial Opioid Task Force released a wide-ranging report examining how courts can best address the ongoing opioid epidemic. The task force was created by the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators.

Among the task force recommendations was more training for judges and court staff on opioids, the impact of addiction on the brain, and evidence-based treatment for all substance use disorders. The recommendation in the report specifically states, “It is critical that judges understand the basics of addiction, treatment, and recovery and how to best understand and address addiction within the justice system, which currently stands as the primary referral source to get individuals to treatment.”

To begin to address the educational need, the NJOTF, in partnership with the American Academy of Addiction Psychiatrists and the National Judicial College, assembled a cadre of expert judicial and medical trainers to provide specialized education for judges in every state and U.S. territory. In November 2019, the NJOTF offered a three-day training that featured top faculty and specialists from the judicial and medical communities. Participants included one state court judge from each state and territory, nominated by that jurisdiction’s chief justice. Participants sat in on expert presentations of the materials, and participated in discussions about the subject matter and effective adult learning techniques. Participants committed to making themselves available to serve as judicial faculty members in their own states and regions during 2020, as a way to deliver training on substance use disorders and reach judges in every state.

NASJE was contracted through the task force to provide follow-up assistance to these judges and to provide a directory to its members of the faculty willing to teach on substance use disorder topics. That directory can be found in the Members Only section of the NASJE website.

In addition to providing the specialized education for judges, other resources were developed by the NJOTF that are beneficial for judges and staff. The primary resource is the Opioid Resource Center for Courts found at https://www.ncsc.org/opioids. This is a comprehensive tool kit for courts and justice professionals to address the addiction crisis. The website provides publications, current best practices, policies, research, statistics and bench cards related to opioids in the courts.

Another resource available for educators is the Opioid Response Network funded through a grant by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMSHA). The network was created to provide education and training at a local level free of charge for specific needs. Requests for assistance can be submitted online.

For more information regarding the NJOTF or its resources, please contact Lee Ann Barnhardt at lbarnhardt@ndcourts.gov.

January 19, 2020
Judicial Forensic Science Education

By Jennifer Wildeman, Education Projects Specialist, Arizona

As technology plays an increasingly significant role in our society, it has become commonplace in the courtroom. New technological practices and discoveries bring forensic science topics such as DNA, latent print examinations, and digital evidence to the forefront of our court system. With technology playing a greater and greater role in resolving cases, it became obvious to Arizona judicial educators that many judges lack the educational background needed for a sufficient understanding of the scientific principles behind the forensic evidence they see in court.

Similarly, the majority of scientists lack an adequate understanding of the legal tenets that guide our criminal justice system and have difficulty presenting scientific information to judges. In short, “lawyers do not understand science, and scientists do not understand the law” (Chezem in Dawson, 2016). As such, the Arizona Judicial Education Services Division identified a need to address judges’ knowledge gap in the area of forensic science. Guided by the strategic agenda set forth by Arizona Chief Justice Scott Bales, judicial educators developed a multi-faceted plan for crafting a judicial forensic science education program.

First, judicial educators organized a workgroup composed of judges, scientists, and attorneys who worked together to identify ways that forensic science education could be delivered to Arizona judges. Working with the Arizona Supreme Court AOC Education Services Division, this workgroup identified three educational approaches: a multi-day conference focused specifically on forensic science topics, the addition of forensic science sessions in the training program for all new Arizona judges, and the creation of a forensic science resource webpage that judges can refer to on an as-needed basis.
The workgroup focused initially on the forensic science conference.

To identify topics of greatest need among our judiciary, the workgroup conducted a statewide needs assessment. The results obtained from the assessment served as a guide in creating an agenda that included topics such as: forensic biology and DNA, latent print examinations, ballistic comparisons, toxicology, and the role of judge as gatekeeper. At the conference, both local and national experts addressed these topics. For example, a law school professor provided the background for the topic of forensic science in general, a scientist from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) spoke to the future of forensic sciences, and local law enforcement and crime lab personnel addressed issues local to the state of Arizona.

Over one-quarter of Arizona judges attended the inaugural judicial forensic science conference. Education Services received overwhelmingly positive feedback. Evaluation comments such as “good legal information…useful and practical” and “interesting and informative” indicate that participants found the topics to be relevant and useful for understanding evidence and testimony in the courtroom. In addition to positive evaluation comments, workgroup members received informal feedback suggesting that judges widely support future forensic science training opportunities.

Next, the workgroup focused on including forensic science sessions during mandatory training programs for new judges. These sessions provide an overview of the forensic science challenges judges can expect to see in their courtrooms. In addition to providing in-class instruction, we partner with local forensic scientists to provide our judges with an on-site tour of our local crime laboratory, in order to give judges the opportunity to see first-hand what a crime lab looks like, learn about the capabilities of the lab itself, and speak with the scientists who work there.

During the crime lab tour, judges hear presentations from several different units of the lab, including: crime scene response, forensic biology/DNA, firearms examination, controlled substances, toxicology, and latent print examinations. The tour offers a unique opportunity for experiential learning, since the judges not only view demonstrations, but actually use some of the laboratory equipment themselves. The judges enjoy having the chance to see the lab and speak with scientists. Following our first crime lab tour, one judge commented “I am so grateful for this tour. I think it is a valuable addition to new judge orientation.” Overall, the tour has proven to be a successful way to provide another opportunity for our judges to learn about forensic science.

Finally, the workgroup tackled the creation of a forensic science reference webpage. The group wanted judges to have access to a single repository of forensic science information including articles, websites, legal opinions, and reports. Given that the field of forensic science is rapidly changing, the group urged the creation of a dynamic webpage that can be updated on a continual basis, instead of a static bench book updated only periodically. The webpage is currently under construction and will be managed by an AOC Education Services staff member, who will work closely with judges to maintain current information and update the webpage as needed.

While challenges to providing effective judicial forensic science education still exist, this multi-faceted approach provides a foundation for future training opportunities. Utilizing a variety of training methods ensures that judges throughout the state have access to information on these important topics in a timely manner. This combination of in-person and online training provides flexibility to adapt as scientific understanding changes over time.

REFERENCES
Dawson, Jim. “Forensic Science: A Time of Transformation.” National Institute of Justice. Issue Number 277. September 2016. https://www.nij.gov/journals/277/pages/forensics.aspx (February 1, 2017).

Jennifer Wildeman has been with the Arizona Supreme Court’s Education Services Division since 2014. She has worked with Arizona courts since 2007, and has been a NASJE member since 2015. As an Education Projects Specialist, Jennifer works closely with subject matter experts throughout Arizona to help develop timely and relevant trainings for judges and court staff throughout the state. In addition, Jennifer trains court staff on topics ranging from communication to legal authorities.

May 9, 2017
Open Space: The All Coffee Break Conference
Empowering Learners to Control their Own Learning

By Stephanie Hemmert

When I began working at the Federal Judicial center ten years ago, I first heard of a learning conference concept called “open space.” You may have heard of it or even used it. It seemed so odd to me! Basically, learners come together with a predetermined, overarching topic for a specific amount of time with no specific agenda topics predefined at all. Some people call this an “unconference” or “open conference.”

Until I first saw the open space concept in practice, I was confused and skeptical. Hundreds of people flying in from around the country for about two and a half days with absolutely NO initial agenda other than start and end times?! What? Then I saw the concept in action. I experienced how scores of agenda topics can be developed in real-time, how hundreds of people (I experienced group sizes from about 25 up to 650!) were enthusiastically engaged throughout the whole program, and how participants walked away with tangible benefits they immediately applied. I began facilitating individual sessions, and then for years I also facilitated participants creating the agenda. I find the process to be a complex, yet simple, educational work of art. It almost seems magical. I would describe it as such if I didn’t know that behind the seeming magic a number of things are actually put into place beforehand and specific concepts are followed during the event to ensure its success.

For this write-up, I would like to share with you open space “ground rules,” some optimal conditions I’ve found to help it run smoothly and effectively, and a brief history behind it.

Ground Rules
I’ll focus on four ground rules or concepts:
1. The “Law of Two Feet”
2. “Whoever Comes is the Right People”
3. “Whatever Happens is the Only Thing That Could Happen,” and
4. “When It’s Over, It’s Over”
Some people use slightly different phrases for the rules as you may find them slightly awkward and/or, let’s be honest, wacky sounding.
1. “Law of Two Feet.” After the learners come together to build the agenda (more on this to follow), everyone receives a copy of it – showing which topics were scheduled where and when – and learners go to the topic session that interests them the most. Folks with something to give as well as something to gain are encouraged to attend a particular topic of interest to them. The idea of the law of two feet is that when a person feels he or she has nothing more to add or gain from the conversation, he or she moves on to another conversation topic. This may happen multiple times during sessions. The learner is in control. Nobody is offended when someone comes into a conversation later and facilitators do a great job of quickly recapping the highlights of the conversation for these latecomers. It is a constant, fluid process.
2. “Whoever Comes is the Right People.” Whoever shows up to the individual session is meant to be there. Sometimes people lament over who is not present, but it doesn’t matter. Whoever did come to the session by definition has a vested interest in the discussion and there is information to be shared and discussed.
3. “Whatever Happens is the Only Thing That Could Happen.” I have been in a session where after about five minutes the participants felt that they answered their questions and that no more needed to be said so everyone moved on to another session. It works! They solved their problems and got a chance to gain even more information from another session. Everyone wins. This concept overall is meant to focus participants on the here and now and not worry about what could’ve and should’ve been.
4. “When It’s Over, It’s Over.” Similar to the previous rule, when the discussion has run its course, it is time to move on! There is no need to belabor anything and waste time. People take responsibility for their own learning.
Optimal Conditions
Participants ‘self-select’ their way into open space discussions, both to the overall learning and to the individual sessions. Once they are there, a critical way to help the learning process is to make people feel welcome and a part of the process and discussions. This applies during the agenda building, by encouraging people to contribute topics they are passionate about, and it also applies during the individual discussions with facilitators making everyone feel welcome and actively involved.

During the agenda building process, when people nominate a topic, I have found it helpful to ask them to write it down on a fairly large piece of paper with a fat marker and hold it up to the group while announcing it. The person then visibly cements their commitment and passion for the topic and the group has the opportunity to meet the person making the suggestion. Having the topic written down also assists the person who is creating the agenda on the side, filling slots with topics. It may go without saying, but I’ve found it is also helpful to remind people that we strongly encourage the topic nominator to go to the discussion and to be there at least at the beginning.

Once the topics are assigned to location and time slots it is very helpful to publish an electronic version of the agenda to which everyone has immediate access. A paper agenda is also possible, but it means there is a little more downtime with printing and copying before the first session can begin.

Though not critical, I’ve found assigning facilitators to each session enhances the learning. Facilitators play a major part in moving the discussion along, focusing on encouraging a variety of participants to speak, making each person feel involved in the discussion, quickly recapping major discussion points as new participants join in, and writing major points or bits of learning information (such as a contact name/number) on a flip chart. I have run “Facilitator Refresh” sessions prior to the open space to review basic facilitation concepts, emphasizing specific points such as not being a subject matter expert and highlighting open space concepts such as implications of the Law of Two Feet. With Facilitator Refresh sessions, I like to use the analogy of an orchestra conductor who is inviting music (discussion) to be played from all of the different instruments (participants) in the orchestra (room), keeping the music going until it’s over.

Having participants sit in a “U” or semi-circle during the individual sessions (and during the agenda creation, if feasible) works best for sharing knowledge and ideas.

It is helpful to have a note taker assigned to each session to write down key points from the discussion. These can be shared with participants later, and even with people who did not attend the open space. Another aspect that facilitators can help out with is asking and reminding participants to say their name/location each time they speak. This helps the note taker as well as helping the people in the room get to know one another.

For a multi-day open space conference, I’ve found that reconvening all the participants to regroup and have additional agenda building sessions works well so that the group builds the agenda in segments. As open space progresses participants’ passions widen, curiosities spark, and people have additional questions and think of additional topics. Keep in mind that open space sessions don’t have to be multi-day events. I’ve led open space sessions that last an afternoon, or even just a few hours.

History
I cannot talk about open space without giving kudos to Harrison Owen, who first discovered the concept. (He rejects having “invented” it.) Before Owen designed open space, he described how he used to organize and run conferences, and people would comment that the most valuable time they had and where they would gain the most, was from the discussions they had with other participants at a break, over coffee. Sound familiar to anyone? So he set out to design a conference that was all coffee break, so to speak. Brilliant!

Here’s a great quote by him.

Open Space runs on two fundamentals: passion and responsibility. Passion engages the people in the room. Responsibility ensures things get done. A focusing theme or question provides the framework for the event. The art of the question lies in saying just enough to evoke attention, while leaving sufficient open space for the imagination to run wild. —Harrison Owen

I also would be remiss if I didn’t give deep hat tips to my former boss, Judy Roberts, and colleague, Bob Fagan, who introduced me to open space and modeled the key aspects that make it work.

Please see below for related additional reading on open space. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at shemmert@fjc.gov.

References
Owen, Harrison. “Opening Space for Emerging Order.” Open Space World. n.p. n.d. Web. 25, May, 2016.

Deutsch, Claudia H. “Round-Table Meetings with No Agendas, No Tables.” The New York Times. The New York Times. 5, June, 1994. Web. 26, May, 2016.

Stephanie Hemmert, a Senior Judicial Education Attorney, works with the Federal Judicial Center, a judicial branch agency whose primary mission is education and research for the federal courts. Prior to law school, Stephanie worked in the insurance industry in underwriting and training capacities. All views expressed are her own.
June 17, 2016
NJC Releases Preliminary Data on Criminal Justice Training Survey

By Katheryn Yetter, NASJE Futures Committee

The NASJE Futures Committee identifies trends and makes forecasts of emerging issues, knowledge, and information that has the potential to significantly impact NAJSE and the practice of judicial branch education. Moreover, we are charged with reporting on these trends and forecasts to the NASJE membership.

The National Judicial College (NJC), with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, is in the process of developing an advanced curriculum on criminal justice topics for judges in 2017. As part of the curriculum development process, NJC surveyed state judicial educators, state court administrators, and other stakeholders to identify specific needs around judicial education in the criminal justice arena and how the developed curriculum might meet those needs. With this in mind, the Futures Committee shares the following information with NASJE in support of its objectives, and as a “thank you” to those NASJE members who participated in the survey.

The survey was completed in January 2016. One of the questions asked was whether adequate judicial education existed on criminal law and criminal justice topics. Even though the majority replied that mandatory education existed on these topics (67%) in their state, respondents were evenly split on whether what existed was adequate. Some of the content mentioned as needing some skill-building for judges were evidence-based sentencing, digital and forensic evidence, expert witnesses, and pretrial justice matters.

Additionally, while most states had at least an introductory or basic course to offer judges on criminal law or criminal justice topics (65%), only about half offered programming with more advanced topics. Those topics that were noted as among the most pressing for judges today were:

Of note, “evidence” most often included forensic, digital, and scientific evidence.

The NJC will also survey a limited number of its judicial alumni to further explore topics of interest to them as part of the curriculum development process. For more information about the curriculum or the needs assessment, please contact Program Attorney Irene Hart at ihart@judges.org.

February 16, 2016
Arizona’s Leadership Model
By Jeff Schrade, Director of Education Services, Arizona Administrative Office of the Courts

NOTE: Jeff Schrade will lead a session on this topic at NASJE’s annual conference in October in Seattle, where he’ll be available to answer your questions and discuss Arizona’s process.

Judicial educators create opportunities for transformative education that strengthens the administration of justice. One of the most important and valuable transformations we can facilitate is that from new hire to supervisor, manager, executive and beyond. It is just this sort of defined career pathway that attracts bright and justice-oriented individuals to a career in the courts. We also know that the courts sit on the edge of a demographic cliff, with Baby Boomers retiring in record numbers for at least the next decade. To face this challenge, we must recruit justice-minded individuals and keep them engaged in their work, while also developing professional competencies that prepare them for increasing responsibility and leadership.

In addition to these immediate demographic challenges, change itself keeps changing, and the pace of change continues to accelerate. We see this most visibly with rapidly-changing computer technology, but also with changing expectations from our communities as new drugs, crime trends, and treatment options emerge. Leaders in the judicial branch must be adaptable and pilot courts through a dynamic environment. In short, we need smart, creative, passionate, capable and well-prepared leaders who are committed to the profession of court management.

So how do we get there? We’re presented with at least two different approaches: (1) we recruit from outside of the courts or (2) we develop leaders from within. While colleges of public administration and law can produce some court employees, there are too few formalized court management programs that teach the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively administer a court. Often even highly-qualified candidates from outside of the courts need significant training and development – for example on managing caseflow. These factors taken together convince me that our state courts will have to be in the business of developing leaders for the foreseeable future.

Leaders of the Arizona Judicial Branch also considered this conclusion over a decade ago along with other environmental challenges specific to Arizona:
- Geography – Arizona is the 6th largest geographic state in the U.S. with over 60,000 miles of highway connecting a diverse mix of urban, rural, tribal and border communities.
- State court structure – A decentralized court system with local hiring authorities creates needs that differ from court to court.
- Competition from other sectors – An expanding job market in Arizona creates intense competition for new employees.
In 2006, Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court Ruth McGregor established the Court Leadership Institute of Arizona to “develop meaningful, comprehensive management and leadership programs for current and future court leaders to use in advancing the administration of justice in Arizona” (AO 2006-69). Soon after, a committee of court administrators, judges, probation leaders and academics appointed by the Chief Justice began developing this leadership training program.

The committee initiated an intensive multi-year curriculum development project. Beginning with a fairly expansive needs assessment, the committee focused on developing a tiered-competency model with the first tier serving new supervisors, the second serving seasoned managers, and higher tiers serving those in executive management positions.

The committee focused a considerable amount of time identifying content areas and developing learning objectives for each tier, influenced by direct local input as well as by national models such as the National Association for Court Management (NACM) core competencies. It was only after the content areas and learning objectives were well-defined that the committee shifted focus to developing curriculum to meet the learning objectives. Fortunately the Institute for Court Management (ICM) had an existing national curriculum that met many of the learning objectives developed by the committee.

Arizona had been offering court management certification training programs locally since 1998 through a partnership with ICM. However, the existing arrangement couldn’t scale to impact the potential audience identified in Arizona courts – there are approximately 10,000 employees and judges in Arizona’s courts including 2,500 probation officers and support personnel. With many other states facing similar challenges, ICM formed a 7-state consortium to revamp its curriculum and create a model that would deliver national certification courses locally (to scale) in participating states.

As curriculum was developed for the ICM consortium, the Arizona Court Leadership Institute committee aligned the six manager-level ICM courses and six executive-level ICM courses to content areas and learning objectives in each tier of the Arizona program. However, the ICM courses did not cover all of the areas identified by the committee. The Education Services Division of the Arizona AOC developed new curriculum to meet these learning objectives:
- Manager – 3 ½ days covering diversity, alternative dispute resolution, specialty courts, governance, inherent powers, civil case process, jury management, records management, probation management, court management functions, political activity and the role of courts in Arizona.
- Executive – 1 day covering judicial independence and interdependencies, facilities management, and security and emergency management.
Additionally, the ICM curriculum did not cover general management and supervision skills necessary for new supervisors entering the first tier of the program. Realizing the crucial need for a first-tier leadership curriculum that prepares promising employees for advancement into management, the committee set out to develop a new stand-alone curriculum for new supervisors.

However, the committee soon realized that the quantity of courses needed for the entry-level supervisor tier was beyond the capacity of the Arizona AOC to produce. Coupled with the practical concern that most first-tier supervisors should not be away from their job assignments for extended amounts of time, this lead the committee to adopt a blended model with self-paced online courses for key content, and live webinars and in-person classes to practice, discuss and further develop supervisory skills.

The committee selected a mix of existing computer-based trainings produced by the AOC and off-the-shelf entry-level supervision courses from SkillSoft, a large private national learning provider. Participants take the self-paced online classes and complete worksheets that are submitted, along with a transcript of class attendance, to certify completion of the Arizona Court Supervisor program. Self-paced online classes cover conflict resolution, problem solving and decision making, coaching and employee relations, effective communications and meetings, team building and employee motivation, setting priorities, change management, purposes and responsibilities of courts, visioning and strategic planning, legal information vs. legal advice, and security/emergency preparedness.

The Supervisor program also uses live webinars and in-person classes to address complex topics, and to develop essential supervisor skills. Live webinars include transition to the role of supervisor and supervisory ethics. Four in-person classes lasting one or two days cover human resources management, supervisor’s role in case management, essential components of probation supervision, leadership, role of courts, records management, public education, media, policy, organization, workflow processes and accountability.

Results

Although the committee discussed sending individuals through the program as a strict cohort, participants can complete courses in any order within a 7-year time span (required by ICM). Nevertheless, most participants complete the program together, forming a connection with one another that contributes to the effectiveness of the program. The Supreme Court hosts graduation celebrations for each tier that are usually well-attended by the families and professional colleagues of program graduates.

Recently many local courts have started to include this program’s certifications as “preferred” in recruitments. We believe this provides great value to graduates of the program while at the same time strengthening the candidate pool for local court recruitment.

The Arizona Court Supervisor (ACS) program courses were offered starting in 2012, and the first class of 42 “Arizona Court Supervisors” graduated in March 2014. Today, the ACS program has 126 active participants.

The Arizona Court Manager (ACM) program courses were offered starting in 2008, and the first class of 48 “Arizona Court Managers” graduated in May 2010. Today, the ACM program has 75 active participants and a total of 169 court leaders have graduated from the program.

The Arizona Court Executive (ACE) program courses were offered starting in 2011, and the first class of 29 “Arizona Court Executives” graduated in November 2013. Today, the ACE program has 34 active participants and a total of 33 graduates.

The leadership program has also produced a remarkable increase in ICM Fellows from Arizona. The 2014 ICM Fellows class had 11 individuals from Arizona out of a total class of 19. This was followed by 3 Arizonans in the 2015 ICM Fellows class and 4 participating in the ICM 2016 Fellows class.

Leadership Pipeline

It is no surprise that the tiered design of the Arizona Court Leadership Institute is producing so many new ICM Fellows. In fact, retention and progression have emerged as tangible benefits of this model. As the figure below illustrates, the model provides a clear path for professional development from hire to achieving the highest professional certification as an ICM Fellow.

High-potential employees complete the Arizona Court Supervisor program in 18-36 months while making the transition from “bud to boss” and assuming supervisory duties. Successful supervisors can then enter into the Arizona Court Manager program – another 18-36 months of study. Experienced managers then continue to 18-48 months of the Arizona Court Executive program, and then on to the 2-year ICM fellows program. This path can take between 6 and 14 years, potentially spanning a significant part of one’s career.

Each program requires an application to be completed by the participant, their direct supervisor and their court’s chief administrative officer. This states an explicit commitment from the participant, their supervisor, and their court leadership to complete the program. Although not all participants in any given tier will advance to the next, the program taken together provides a powerful incentive for individuals to stay in the courts, and to continue developing as a leader within the profession.

Sources/Resources

Cappelli, Peter. Harvard Business Review March 2008. “Talent Management for the Twenty-First Century.” https://hbr.org/2008/03/talent-management-for-the-twenty-first-century

Charan, Drotter and Noel. The Leadership Pipeline: How to Build the Leadership-powered Company. Jossey-Bass, 2001. http://www.amazon.com/dp/0470894563

Colby and Ortman. United States Census Current Population Reports May 2014. “The Baby Boom Cohort in the United States: 2012 to 2060” https://www.census.gov/prod/2014pubs/p25-1141.pdf

Conger and Fulmer. Harvard Business Review December 2003. “Developing Your Leadership Pipeline” https://hbr.org/2003/12/developing-your-leadership-pipeline

Martin and Wagenknecht-Ivey. NCSC Future Trends in State Courts 2011. “It’s a New Day: Future Trends Require Revolutionary Changes in Courts” http://www.ncsc.org/sitecore/content/microsites/future-trends-2011/home/Enhancing-Access/5-2-Its-a-New-Day-Future-Trends-Require-Revolutionary-Changes-in-Courts.aspx
August 25, 2015
Nevada’s Judicial Outreach in Action

By David Gordon

L to R: Nevada Chief Justice Michael Cherry, Justice Kristina Pickering, and Justice Mark Gibbons at Lincoln County High School in Panaca, Nevada

Since 2003, at the urging of Justice Mark Gibbons, the Nevada Supreme Court has been hearing cases at high schools throughout the state. Panels, usually made up of three of the seven Justices, have traveled to a number of rural areas, conducting hearings that usually have a connection to that specific region, in an effort to allow the general population and students to see how the court functions.

“I talked to my colleagues and said, ‘Wouldn’t it be great for high school students to see how courts work and explain how a Supreme Court is different than a Traffic Court?’,” Justice Gibbons said. “We figure it’s an encouragement to continue on with their education.

The court is run in a different fashion than it would be in Carson City. The Justices have allowed each attorney to explain their side of the case to the audience before proceeding with their arguments. The Justices also explain how the court functions, the court’s purpose, how they reach a decision, and what they write in their opinions for each case. Justices may also mold their questions to the local area or students, in order to add relevance to the questioning.

One high school government teacher told a local newspaper that she was excited to see the students actually able to process the curriculum first hand.

L to R: Chief Justice Michael Cherry, Attorney Christopher Arabia, Justice Kristina Pickering, Justice Mark Gibbons, and Attorney John Friel at Tonopah High School in Tonopah, Nevada

After a hearing at the Churchill County High School in Fallon, NV, the local paper ran an editorial stating, “This courtroom on wheels serves the citizens well by giving students and adults a better insight into the workings of the Nevada Supreme Court. We thank the justices for their contributions to the state and for enlightening our students and community on one aspect of the judicial system. Seeing a proceeding like this is definitely worth more than words in a textbook.”

Chief Justice Michael Cherry said, “The Nevada Supreme Court holds arguments at Nevada high schools for several reasons: to bring the court process to high school students helping bring civics and constitutional processes to life to allow students to witness their court system in action, to humanize the judiciary and judges by sharing stories of personal experiences and general information on decision making, to provide an opportunity for interaction between legal professionals and students in an educational manner, and to make tangible studied concepts such as judicial impartiality.”

April 14, 2013
Dispute Resolution Skills Evolve to Fit a 21st Century Court System

By Katheryn Yetter, Esq.

In 1986, several events took place that reflected the culture and technology of the time: the Internet Message Access Protocol was designed, opening the door to the widespread use of email; Voyager completed the first nonstop circumnavigation of the earth by air without refueling; the first ten Rock and Roll Hall of Fame artists were inducted; and, The National Judicial College (NJC) offered a course entitled Dispute Resolution Skills (DRS) for the first time.

(L to R) Hon. Sophia Hall, Chair, NJC Board of Trustees; Hon. Sam DeSimone; Hon. William Dressel, NJC President

By and large, theories and practices relating to dispute resolution in the late 1970s and early 1980s focused on conflict management outside the courtroom. However, in 1986, court-mandated mediation and statutory arbitration were trending on the legislative front, models for appropriate alternatives to trial were emerging, and judges were hungry for information and tools. After a nationwide assessment of judges’ needs, the NJC determined that an ideal course would include information on the various modes of dispute resolution, setting up programs in courts, methods specific to case type, and judicial ethics implications. The resulting DRS course was so popular that in 1986, it was offered three times to a total of 141 judges.

As DRS gained momentum among the judicial community, a New Jersey judge named Samuel DeSimone (or “Big Sam” to his colleagues) adopted it and helped the NJC further refine the core competencies of dispute resolution skills for judges. “Big Sam was instrumental in bringing the judicial perspective to a topic area that on its surface, may appear to appeal to non-judicial practitioners,”said Joy Lyngar, Chief Academic Officer at the NJC. “Since its inception, the NJC has offered continually improved versions of the course thirty-eight times and has tailored the curriculum for state court judges, administrative law judges, and tribal court judges.”

Big Sam joined the distinguished ranks of emeritus faculty for the NJC in 2012 after 25 years of teaching. “DRS is a better course because of his vision and dedication,” said Lyngar.

Where once ADR stood for “alternative” dispute resolution (i.e., that which occurred outside of the courtroom), ADR is now thought commonly to stand for “appropriate” dispute resolution, whether in or out of court. No longer are the skills used for mediators or arbitrators outside of the courtroom setting. The skills that are required in practicing ADR are essential to a judge who finds him or herself needing to negotiate, conduct settlement hearings, refer to mediation, or one who chooses to become a private or state-appointed arbitrator once he or she leaves the bench. As the course continues to evolve, the NJC hopes to honor Big Sam’s legacy by continuing to offer a Dispute Resolution Skills course that appeals to a judiciary invested in holistic problem-solving in a 21st century court system.

Katheryn Yetter, Esq., is the Academic Director for The National Judicial College. She can be contacted at The National Judicial College, Judicial College Building/MS 358, Reno, NV 89557; 775-327-8213; www.judges.org

April 14, 2013
Public Outreach and Judicial Education
By Lee Ann Barnhardt

The conversation regarding the need for judicial outreach in increasing public trust and confidence in the courts is not a new one. In the Summer 1998 issue of the NASJE News, Roger Warren, then president of the National Center for State Courts, said that the court community is well aware of the challenge of public mistrust and that public trust and confidence are the ultimate measures of court performance.

Warren suggested that effective public communication is essential to court performance and said courts should be engaged in informing the public of the structure, functions, and programs of the courts and educating the community about the law and the roles of the courts.

The five justices of the North Dakota Supreme Court hold court in a public high school gymnasium.

With recent surveys indicating a lack of public knowledge about the judicial system and a growing distrust of government in general, the question today is not whether the courts should engage in public education, but rather how should they engage. For judicial branch educators, a further question is what is their role in public education efforts?

The National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) helps answer that question in its Principles and Standard of Judicial Branch Education. Principle Seven, Outreach and Collaboration, states, “Judicial Branch Education should help all judicial branch personnel develop skills in public outreach, community collaboration, community leadership and public service.” Two standards in particular give guidance for educators in this area.

Standard 7.2, Collaboration and Leadership, states that judicial educators should work closely with judicial branch leaders, public information officers, court services organizations, committees, and community partners to develop and institutionalize outreach programs that inform the public, court users, and policy makers about the courts. Examples of such programs include Law Day, the Color of Justice, We the People, teen courts, orientation for new state legislators, and other programs that bring the courts to schools and communities.

Many state court systems sponsor teacher institutes or have developed law-related lesson plans and instructional material for use in classrooms. These programs tie into Standard 7.3, Programs and Materials, which states that judicial branch education organizations should develop education programs and materials that help judicial branch personnel implement outreach programs in their local courts and communities.

According to the National Center for State Courts publication Future Trends for State Courts 2007, recent years have seen a growing recognition of judicial outreach as an appropriate judicial activity. This belief is justified because outreach is needed to promote public understanding of the courts. In 2006, the Iowa Supreme Court took this idea a step further and issued a Bench Order that summoned its judges and court employees into judicial outreach service. Part of the order reads, “For too long, courts have relied on other organizations, such as schools, bar associations, and the media, to shoulder the responsibility of increasing public understanding of the court system. But now more than ever, it is imperative that courts take the lead in enhancing the public’s knowledge about the function of the courts in our democracy, including the constitutional role of the courts, the value of judicial independence, and the fundamental importance of the rule of law, as well as the day-to-day importance the courts have on the lives of all Americans.” The court also said that training should be provided to judges and court staff on public outreach.

North Dakota Chief Justice Gerald VandeWalle swears in secondary teachers prior to mock oral arguments held as part of the North Kakota Justices Teaching Institute.

In his opening plenary at the 2007 NASJE Annual conference, Oregon Chief Justice Paul De Muniz said the power of the judiciary comes from the majority of Americans believing in the impartiality of the courts and having confidence in the courts. “Civic education is often seen as external to the courts, but the responsibility resides with us,” he said. “We know how important an educated electorate is and it is up to us to educate the public about the courts.” De Muniz added that judges also have an obligation to be out in the community educating the public, adding that there are tremendous opportunities to partner with others to educate the public, students, and teachers.

It is clear that judicial educators should support judges and court personnel in their efforts to educate the community about the judiciary and its function in society and should also have a role in planning how judicial branch support for civics education is developed. One way to provide support is through offering training for judges and staff related to public speaking, leadership, customer service, teaching, and planning.

An example of this is California, which has developed a curriculum on outreach for new and experienced judges. The goal of this curriculum is to provide participants with the skills and knowledge needed to find an appropriate role in the court’s outreach efforts. It is based on the idea that while not every judge is suited by personality, temperament, or interest to be active in the community, every judge needs to understand the importance of outreach and how it should be conducted. Educational content of such training could include the following:
- Definition of court/community outreach and the audiences reached
- Outreach and its impact on the court’s strategic planning
- Community focused planning
- Techniques for educating the public about the judicial branch and the courts
- Impact of the media on the public perception of the judicial branch and the courts
- Relationship between the courts and the public
- Judicial philosophy and its impact on community outreach
- Public service
- Communication skills and dealing with diverse groups
- Marshalling appropriate resources for effective community outreach
- Ethical considerations
- Cultural and fairness considerations
Another way that judicial educators can support public outreach is through training judges and staff on the use of media. A 2010 report of the New Media Committee of the Conference of Court Public Information Officers calls for collaboration with national judicial associations, including NASJE, to develop a national response to the use of new media such as Facebook, Twitter, and blogs by judges and court systems. Judges and court staff not only need education about new media and how it works, but also on ethical considerations of using media and how to react when things go wrong.

The court’s relationship with the public continues to evolve, but one thing has not changed since our country was founded: Belief in the justice system is critical to public respect for all government. As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers, “the ordinary administration of criminal and civil justice … contributes, more than any other circumstance, to impressing upon the minds of the people, affection, esteem, and reverence towards the government.” Through judicial outreach and training of judges and court personnel, the courts can continue to play an important role in connecting the people to their government.
March 28, 2013
Cutting Edge: Best Practices for Handling Mental Competency Issues (update)

In November 2011, the NASJE News “Cutting Edge” section highlighted the launch of the Mental Competency – Best Practices Model website (www.mentalcompetency.org) by the National Judicial College (NJC) through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Since November of 2011, the NJC has conducted three two-hour webcasts addressing a variety of mental competency issues. Recordings of these webcasts are available for free at Mental Competency – Best Practices Model website as well as at http://www.judges.org/webcasts/recorded/index.html.

Recently, the Mental Competency Blog on the Mental Competency – Best Practices Model website (http://www.mentalcompetency.org/blog/) has been going strong, providing a valuable and dynamic resource in mental competency issues. Additionally, the NJC has launched a Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/MentalCompetency) and a Twitter account (http://twitter.com/MentalComp) for the Mental Competency – Best Practices Model.

For further information, visit the website at www.mentalcompetency.org, or contact the National Judicial College at (800) 25-JUDGE, or e-mail at competency@judges.org.

December 4, 2012