Article by Rob Godfrey; Recording by Laurence Stone and Rob Godfrey
Kathy Story, MA JD, has been an important and integral part of judicial branch education for many years. She has been affiliated with NASJE since 2002. For her company, Story Consulting and Coaching, she designs and delivers leadership, mentoring and faculty development training to attorneys, judges, court administrators and other legal professionals. Her workshops include learning styles, effective presentations, personal and organizational change, emotional intelligence, diversity training, generational differences and effective feedback.
Her experience with judicial branch education around the country is extensive, and she has presented at many diverse conferences. She has been an invited speaker for the ABA Judicial Division, National Association of Bar Executives, Association of Legal Administrators, National Association of Appellate Court Clerks, National Association of State Judicial Educators, and the National Advocacy Center for the Department of Justice Office of Legal Education, among others.
Kathy earned her BA and MA degrees from the University of Nebraska and her JD from the University of Memphis. After clerking for a federal appellate judge in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, Kathy litigated in state and federal court with a Memphis law firm before returning to higher education as an associate dean of judicial and ethical programs. For seven years she served as Associate Director of the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education. In that role, she worked with hundreds of judges, court administrators, state judicial educators and attorneys in the United States and Canada.
Her work with bar association leadership programs has been recognized with the E. Smythe Gambrell Professionalism Award from the American Bar Association, presented to the Memphis Bar Association.
Watch this video of Rob Godfrey’s interview with Kathy, where she discusses important aspects of judicial branch education (recorded 2/2016).
In January of 2016 Kathy concluded a two-day training seminar in Utah titled the Leadership Institute in Judicial Education for a group of justice court judges. Kathy used many different techniques to explore content and get the judges to interact while moving them around Kolb’s learning circle. At the end of the second day, each judge was tasked with explaining to the group their plan for a training session. Starting with identifying their target audience, estimating the time needed and creating learning objectives, they described each phase of the training session and which part of the learning circle it fulfilled. Her techniques clearly conveyed the material and enabled the participants to apply the ideas effectively. Once again, Kathy Story demonstrated why she is a leader in judicial branch education.
Rob Godfrey is Conference Coordinator for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts in Salt Lake City.
In 2004, judicial education became mandatory for Nebraska judges, probation and Court staff. In 2005, judicial branch education staff were hired, and in 2006 the program was designed and launched. The funding for the mandatory judicial education program came from “dollar filing fees” meaning a dollar from every filing fee received was directed towards the program. The fund receives approximately $374,000 per year which has not been a tremendous budget for growing a program.
The program started with a director, Carole McMahon-Boies, and one clerical staff. Carole’s biggest challenge was to grow the program on her given budget. Because of Carole’s restricted budget, her main education delivery method for Court staff became distance learning. Carole realized she needed more funding to grow and so she reached out to another part of the judicial branch that was untapped – the probation division. Strategically, she knew the probation division received funding from the general appropriation fund. Probation had just begun an ambitious project to implement evidence based practices, and training initiatives blossomed. Once Carole established a firm partnership with probation, far more funding was available. In addition to partnering with probation Carole undertook a new program in Nebraska – Attorney CLE – which became mandatory in 2009. This provided the opportunity to share some resources between programs.
The new Judicial Branch Education Training Center opened in October of 2015 in Lincoln, Nebraska, less than 10 years since Carole took the helm. In its humble roots, the offices for the program were housed in a historic setting, the Supreme Court law library “because nobody uses a law library any more” Carole said. The trainings were conducted in a hotel training space. But because of her fruitful efforts to grow the program, they soon outgrew the space. Now, all the training is housed in the Judicial Branch Education Training Center, including the training done by the Court Improvement Program which provides education regarding juvenile issues.
While Carole misses her old historic office setting, she’s enthusiastic about her new modern home equipped with state of the art technology. The training center has four training rooms, all equipped with 90” screen video TVs that are networked but can also operate autonomously, there is a retractable curtain to partition the rooms for quick accommodation, and significant acoustics attributed to the top-notch speaker system.
Another highlight Carole identified in the new training center was the kitchen. Having the kitchen is an upgrade that makes it convenient for all of the probation officers that gather regularly from across the state for new officer training. The officers practically live at the facility for a nine week training in Lincoln. There have been several new probation initiatives implemented by the Nebraska legislature. To give you an idea of the size of the undertaking, there are approximately 220 new probation officers hired in the last 18 months, all of which have gone through new probation officer training through judicial branch education. Other highlights of the building include its live two-way video conferencing capabilities offered state-wide. The building also offers many conveniences to the attending judges which include parking right outside of the facilities (which they didn’t have at their old location) and they have partnered with a hotel right behind the facility so it’s an easy walk across the street to class for those that live in more remote regions of the state.
To give you a sense of the driving force that is Carole, there are a total of 1800 judges and court staff in Nebraska, 109 judges in her state. Those are modest numbers compared to other states. But through her campaign she was able to grow from a staff that included just her as director and one clerical staff to her current fully staffed state which includes a probation education director, a court staff director, four trainers (which includes ex-probation officers and attorneys to do the court staff training), a distance learning specialist, and two clerical staff. Not to mention her instrumental role in delivering a state of the art training center for her judges.
Through this entire process, Carole learned that she needs to find partners to accomplish her goals. No [wo]man is an island and she relied on outside resources. She said “it’s amazing what’s out there and that doesn’t cost anything.” Her advice to her colleagues is “get creative, it’s amazing what you can achieve.”
About Carole McMahon-Boies In May of 2014, the Nebraska Supreme Court named Carole McMahon-Boies as Administrator for Judicial Branch Education and the Attorney Services Division of the Nebraska Judicial Branch. As administrator for Attorney Services, Carole provides support to the Counsel for Discipline, Mandatory Continuing Legal Education Commission, Nebraska State Bar Commission, and the Commission on the Unauthorized Practice of Law. Additionally, she retained her position as education director for the Judicial Branch providing educational offerings for all judicial branch employees and judges. She has served as Director of Judicial Branch Education since October 2006. Prior to her position with the Court, Carole practiced law for 25 years mainly in the area of labor litigation. Several of her cases were the subject of published opinions in the Federal Circuit Courts and the Nebraska Supreme Court. She is a member of the bar in both Nebraska and Iowa and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. She is a past president of the Robert Van Pelt American Inns of Court. Her teaching experience includes adjunct faculty for many years with Nebraska Wesleyan, Doane College, Union College, and Hamilton College where she taught Labor Law, Human Resource Management, Criminal Law, Contracts, and Business Law.
The fusion of technology and education is Joseph Sawyer’s passion and charge at The National Judicial College. His position as Director of Distance Learning places him on the edge of change and transformation continuously. As a member of the College staff since 1986, and long-time National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE) member (he has served as past President of NASJE and is the current Western Regional Director), he has seen many changes in judicial education throughout the years.
One of the biggest changes he described is the natural evolution of judicial branch education over the years. More and more states have adopted professional standards for course content, instructional techniques, and delivery, and in chorus, NASJE’s membership has grown significantly to meet these standards. The work on the curriculum designs helped establish NASJE as a professional organization both nationally and internationally, and created a foundation for the work of judicial educators.
Technology also took root in judicial education and became a constant force, stimulating new growth in tactile learning and expanding the educational prospects of both NASJE and the courts. Joseph dedicates his days to building the bridge between the bench and technology, helping judges take advantage of the ability to sign orders, review warrants, or view case files electronically. Many law schools have even instituted online learning programs with the expectation that information is at our fingertips now more than ever. Innovations have made way for us to blend modalities, create new platforms to reach a broader audience, and make significant advancements in accessibility.
However, Joseph notes that technology still tends to scare people. It can be an educational barrier and we must pay close attention to how each generation perceives learning in this way. Now, more than ever, it is important that we embrace our role as judicial branch educators in providing a level of support that makes learners feel like they will succeed and not be embarrassed in the process. Joseph’s advice for the non-techie educator is to be a self-starter, “If you don’t understand the technology, buy a book or take a class—don’t allow the fear to take over. Throw yourself into whatever resources are available. In order to be successful in our roles, we all must be lifelong learners and experience the merge of technology with education and understand how to turn a classroom training into an online model, while tailoring it to the nuances of the judicial branch.”
The judicial educator position itself has also significantly evolved. In the 1980s and 1990s, judicial educators were primarily lawyers. However, like judicial education’s scope, the educator’s competencies have grown in tandem with those of the judicial officer. The role now demands a greater range of knowledge, skill, attitude, and ability. Today’s educator must have a strong grasp on adult and continuing education, judicial administration, and the law. Joseph muses that “no one grows up wanting to be a judicial educator and most prospective candidates come to the table with only part of the package. We are required to pick up the others on the job as we go. Our experiences, and NASJE’s curricula and education, make the development possible.”
As we began to talk about the future, Joseph observed that budgets have impacted judicial education most significantly. Even with revenues picking up, overall legislative support for judicial education is still lacking and the judicial branch is not held in the same regard as the other branches. This absence of respect remains a barrier to many of us in fulfilling our missions and responsibilities to the courts and has affected our membership. Involvement has decreased in some of the hardest hit areas of the country and we need to recover our active status.
Joseph reassured that through our efforts in judicial education, we can encourage judges and help them speak up in their communities about its importance not only to the effective and efficient operations of the judiciary, but to each and every one of our lives. Our role is pivotal in the successful navigation of future change, both helping to gently guide our learners forward into the advancements of our fast-paced world and in helping our stakeholders gather support to nurture the process. Joseph also anticipates this will require NASJE members to focus more attention on the evaluation of judicial education as a means to achieve support. He sees evaluation and data as key to demonstrating the impact of judicial branch education and achieving greater understanding and respect for the field.
As for his own future, Joseph plans to continue helping others adapt to online learning, both nationally and internationally through organizations such as the International Organization for Judicial Training (IOJT) and the Online Learning Consortium, and nurturing other entities, educators, and resources in their passions and missions to help the world. He emboldens us all to take an active voice in judicial education’s future, to promote respect, trust, and confidence in the judicial branch: at home, in schools, and in partnership with our courts and communities.
The NASJE Communications Committee will endeavor to periodically feature a spotlight on a NASJE member who has demonstrated tremendous efforts while “Navigating Judicial Education in Great Change.” The Committee members have voted to highlight NASJE member Diane Cowdrey (CA) who led the restructuring of the Center for Judiciary Education and Research (CJER) during the meltdown of the economy and the fiscal crisis for California’s judicial branch beginning in early 2008. Diane is the Director of CJER, in the Operations and Programs Division, Judicial Council of California.
Keegan: It is my understanding that reductions in personnel over the past several years have necessitated a restructuring of CJER. Examining what took place behind the reductions revealed that the restructuring efforts were calculated very carefully and included tremendous changes. I imagine it was challenging to ensure the budget reductions were structured to minimize the impact of the courts while maintaining access to high quality judicial education. Have the restructuring efforts met your expectations of creating efficiencies while maintaining high quality education? What other fine-tuning does the restructuring need? What advice do you have for other states that are considering restructuring of staff?
Cowdrey: I’ll begin with some background. California has undergone a huge amount of change within the judicial branch over the past five years. California’s judicial branch is the largest state judicial branch in the nation. It is governed by the Judicial Council of California, and includes 58 superior courts (trial courts), six courts of appeals and the Supreme Court. Trial courts are organized by county, with more than 500 courthouses statewide. There are more than 2,000 judicial officers, and approximately 19,000 employees who were responsible for processing the nearly 7.7 million case filings in fiscal year 2012-13.
The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) was created by the Judicial Council in 1961 to provide administrative support to the Council and to the trial and appellate courts. CJER was created in 1973 by the Judicial Council and the California Judges Association to ensure stable funding and an effective structure for judicial education. An advisory committee to the Council, the CJER Governing Committee, is responsible for judicial branch education policy and strategic planning. Paul Li was hired as the first CJER Director, followed by Cathy Lowe and Karen Thorson. I took the Director position in early 2008, just prior to the meltdown of the economy, the resulting impact on state budgets, and beginning of the fiscal crisis for California’s judicial branch.
In January 2011, then-Governor Schwarzenegger appointed Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye as the new Chief Justice. In California, the Chief Justice presides over the Supreme Court as well as serving as the head of the policy making body, the Judicial Council. In March 2011, the new Chief Justice created the Strategic Evaluation Committee (SEC) to conduct an in-depth review of the AOC, with the intention of obtaining a fuller understanding of the organization, and creating transparency, accountability and efficiency. At that time, the AOC was facing severe criticism during the fiscal crisis. The Legislature reduced funding for the branch by 1.2 billion (25%) since fiscal year 2010-2011, necessitating the closure of courthouses and courtrooms, reduced hours, limited days of service, and reductions in staffing. Layoffs, furloughs, and unfilled vacancies occurred in the trial and appellate courts, as well as at the AOC.
The report of the SEC in May 2012 resulted in 124 recommendations for the operation of the AOC, with a particular focus on the reduction of staff and an increased emphasis on the core services provided to the courts. Restructuring within the AOC took on a greater urgency after the SEC report was released. The structure and leadership of the AOC underwent many changes. Between 2011 and 2014, there were five different administrative directors, and a large turnover in executive positions. The organizational structure changed dramatically, including the elimination of the Deputy Director position, and in July 2014, the Judicial Council changed the name of the agency. No longer the AOC, the organization was renamed the Judicial Council, to indicate clearly that we were the staff agency of the Judicial Council of California.
Within CJER, changes occurred, in part, due to the recommendations of the SEC Report. Since July 2011, the total number of employees working in CJER was 100. By January 2015, that number has dropped to 44, a reduction of nearly 60%. About one-half of the reduction is due to restructuring, wherein many employees and job functions were moved to a centralized department. Previously, CJER included staff responsible for printing and mail services, conference planning and registration services, audio-visual services, review of audio-visual infrastructure in new capital projects, and support of conference facilities. Most of these staff and functions are now located in a separate administrative unit. They continue to support CJER, but are not a part of our organization. The other one-half of the reduction in staff is due to layoffs, natural attrition, and the elimination of vacant positions. In addition to staffing reductions, CJER sustained significant budget reductions, including a nearly 60% reduction in funding for programs for the trial courts.
With that as a backdrop of what occurred during this period of tremendous change and reduction, it was important to identify and maintain priorities in order to manage to continue to provide judicial branch education during this period. Judicial educators want to be able to provide a wide range of programs and services to judges and court staff; however, when reducing staff and budgets, it is imperative to identify core functions and services. Before reductions were made, CJER staff and the CJER Governing Committee identified the priorities that needed to be maintained. For example, one priority for CJER is education for new judges. CJER has three separate programs for all new judges appointed or elected to judicial office: New Judge Orientation (one week program), the B.E. Witkin Judicial College (two-week program), and a Primary Assignment Orientation (one week). Judges are required by rule to take these programs within specific timeframes, and they are essential programs to orient new judges to their new role and responsibilities. Because these programs were considered as the highest priority, they were protected during many of the budget cuts, only making minor changes to reduce costs.
Another priority was quality. We never made cuts that would impact the quality of the programming or the services we provided. For instance, we have a planning process that uses staff and nine separate curriculum committees to determine the education to be delivered within a specific two-year period. This two-year education plan is based on available staffing and funding, and CJER conducts a resource analysis of our staff to make sure we have sufficient attorneys, educational specialists, conference coordinators and others to provide the amount of quality programming and resources desired by the curriculum committees. We carefully estimate what our staff can produce, so everyone has sufficient time and resources to maintain the quality of the work. CJER’s reputation is based on years of high quality judicial branch education, and we would rather reduce the number of programs and products than continue to provide that same number of programs and products, but at a lower level of quality.
My advice to other judicial educators considering restructuring is to make sure you have a set of priorities that you use in making decisions, and that set of priorities must be created in collaboration with stakeholders. Quality must be included; if you lose your reputation for providing excellent judicial education, it is difficult to regain. Judges and court staff will seek education from other sources, and/or your organization will become marginalized. Keep the quality and keep the faith that funding will become available in the future. If you continue to maintain quality programming, stakeholders will continue to value it, and, as resources improve in the future, to increase your funding.
Keegan: In response to budget reductions, I understand CJER moved its programs to an AOC facility instead of offering programs in an off-site venue and ramped up their delivery of online education products (broadcasts, videoconferencing, WebEx, short online education products, and filming the live face-to-face sessions) which in comparison to face-to-face trainings is a much lower-cost delivery method of education due to savings in the time and cost of travel. Has this been successful? How has it been received by your participants? What challenges have you faced, particularly in offering more online education products, and how did you overcome them?
Cowdrey: As all judicial educators know, live, face-to-face programs are the most expensive. While they are also some of the most effective types of education and appropriate especially for judges, who value the opportunity to interact with their colleagues, face-to-face programs are often the earliest target in budget reductions. The earliest reductions in programming were aimed at some of the large, face-to-face programs held in off-site venues, where judges from around the state came together to hear from expert faculty, and to share experiences and learn from one another. One of the major efficiencies CJER used was to increase distance education. Instead of bringing judges to a central location to hear from faculty, we brought faculty to our office where we could create a video presentation and post that video online for all judges to view. When it worked educationally, we produced video presentations, short online resources, and webinars instead of having live, face-to-face education. We developed in-house expertise in WebEx and trained staff and faculty on creating effective webinars. When appropriate, we created blended education which shortened the live (i.e., expensive) portion of a course and used WebEx (i.e., less expensive) to convey content that could be provided effectively using that delivery method. CJER expanded different models of delivering live programs, and increased regional programs (smaller, shorter courses held around the state) that did not generally require hotels or travel costs. We developed a course catalog that allowed presiding judges to request a course, with CJER paying travel faculty costs. That gave local courts the ability to hold courses at little or no cost, and was low cost for CJER. Staff time that was freed by reducing the large, face-to-face programs was now utilized with these additional delivery methods.
We also moved as many of our programs to on-site venues to reduce the high cost of holding programs at hotels. Because many courts were also in fiscal crisis, they did not generally complain about this change, since their courts were also implementing austerity measures. Our focus was to find ways to provide education at reduced costs, and we looked for approaches and delivery methods that could fulfill that goal.
Efficiencies were critical in being able to continue to provide education to the branch, and the biggest focus was the most efficient delivery method. However, I continued to emphasize effectiveness and quality, and decisions were made using all of these variables. When planning the two-year education plan, staff and curriculum committees refer to a chart that was developed to indicate which delivery methods are appropriate for achieving certain types of educational goals (attached). One year, when we had to severely reduce the cost of faculty development, we created an online newsletter with information, articles and tips for faculty, and instituted a series of short webinars for experienced judicial faculty. CJER staff was extremely innovative in trying to find ways to effectively deliver education and serve our many audiences at the least cost.
Because of the expanded use of other delivery methods, it was important to obtain feedback about the change. We added a question to our standard evaluation tool: “There are many ways to deliver education (e.g., live, program, webinar, broadcast). Were the methods used for this course effective? Why or why not?” Responses from this one question were collected systematically so we could gauge the feedback. As much as many judges and court staff appreciated the use of distance education, many were disappointed by the reductions in live programs. We also surveyed judges to ascertain their feedback about the various delivery methods used and specifically about distance education and the resources available to them online. Responses from the evaluation and feedback from the 2013 survey indicated that many judges were using the online toolkits and resources, but wanted more live programming. Although the financial situation in California does not yet allow us to provide that, CJER has collected data to demonstrate the continued need and I use it when addressing policy makers.
Input from stakeholders was very important. Decisions around budget reductions were always made in collaboration with the CJER Governing Committee, and by using relevant, available data. When reductions were made, that information was clearly communicated so judges and court executive officers could plan for the next year. Additionally, one of the recommendations arising from the SEC report, was to utilize a cost/benefit analysis for any program that was high cost, justifying why that particular program needed to be delivered using that high cost method. The CJER Governing Committee and the curriculum committees, with staff, complete these forms.
Keegan: What efforts are currently in progress (for example, reorganizing the education webpages)?
Cowdrey: One project that was put into high gear was the redesign of CJER’s web pages. Over the years, it had developed into a less-than-ideal format, organized by delivery method and not by how a user would want to access the information and resources. A redesign effort was languishing and with budget reductions and the increase in distance education, it was imperative to move the project along quickly, with input from users. The newly redesigned webpage, CJER Online, incorporated feedback from users and was organized into “toolkits.” The toolkits were primarily the assignment areas that judges and court staff worked such as criminal law, civil law, family, probate, as well as areas such as ethics, access and fairness, and leadership. All online products were categorized into the toolkits, with accordions that expanded and contracted for ease of use. CJER Online is also integrated with a program calendar and registration, so users can explore current programs and register for them, without having to leave the site. Response to the redesign has been enthusiastic and positive.
We are also exploring new ways to deliver education and resources in our mobile-oriented environment, such as podcasts and short screencasts that judges and court staff can use as needed. CJER continues to examine our business processes to ensure that we are being as efficient as possible while ensuring that our staff has what they need to develop quality programming and resources. Our new Administrative Director, Martin Hoshino, has been aboard for six months, and has brought a positive energy as well as a strongly needed sense of stability to the staff of the Judicial Council. He recognizes the important role that CJER plays in helping to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice for all Californians.
Keegan: As part of your programmatic reductions and operation efficiencies, can you tell me about the effectiveness of reducing the number of evaluations for each program and the use of online evaluations? Did this change effect the value of feedback you received? What challenges did you face and how did you overcome them?
Cowdrey: One efficiency that didn’t work as well as we had hoped was to use online evaluation forms. We implemented this for a couple years, but changed back to the paper forms because the decrease in completion was very compelling. Again, quality was the key factor. Not having the data from evaluations was a problem and if going back to the paper version was going to achieve a higher completion rate, then that was the right direction to take, even if it is the “low tech” and less efficient method.
Keegan: Is there anything else you would like to add that might be helpful to other judicial educators in states that are undergoing a restructuring or that are in a position to consider restructuring?
Cowdrey: My advice:
As the director, I tried to maintain a positive attitude about change with staff, and would talk about how we needed to be “fluid” in the changing environment. If there was a significant issue, I’d call a short staff meeting to update people.
In the restructuring, at times, people would be asked to do something new, or to work in an area that was unfamiliar to them. We looked at these situations as a positive, as a way to allow staff to stretch and try something new. Most were positive about the change, and as much as was possible, we worked with them to go in directions they were interested in.
In the midst of change, it is important to have some kind of practice that grounds you. My meditation practice does that for me. Others have a regular exercise practice. It is critical to have good self-care during periods of change and stress.
Good leaders are always looking at ways to improve their work and their organizations; however, it’s important to know when to stop improving and give people time to rest, recover, and integrate the change. Just like in planning education, timing and pacing are important in the change process.
Supplemental Materials
Education Delivery Options and Instructional Activities Matrix – PDF
Rob Godfrey is Conference Coordinator for the Utah Administrative Office of the Courts in Salt Lake City.
In 2004, judicial education became mandatory for Nebraska judges, probation and Court staff. In 2005, judicial branch education staff were hired, and in 2006 the program was designed and launched. The funding for the mandatory judicial education program came from “dollar filing fees” meaning a dollar from every filing fee received was directed towards the program. The fund receives approximately $374,000 per year which has not been a tremendous budget for growing a program.
While Carole misses her old historic office setting, she’s enthusiastic about her new modern home equipped with state of the art technology. The training center has four training rooms, all equipped with 90” screen video TVs that are networked but can also operate autonomously, there is a retractable curtain to partition the rooms for quick accommodation, and significant acoustics attributed to the top-notch speaker system.
About Carole McMahon-Boies
